U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Technical Information Service
PB-265 39)
Equipment Sharing and Cost
Estimating for kural Solid
Waste Disposal Systems
A. W. Martin Associates, Inc, King of Prussia, Ka
Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D C
1977
-------
EQUIPMENT SHARING AND COST ESTIMATING
FOR RURAL SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
This final report (SW-584) describes work performed
for the Federal solid waste management program
under contract no. 68-01-3206
and is reproduced as received from the contractor
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1977
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA
SHEET
1. Report No.
3. Recipient's Accession No.
4. Title and Subtitle
Equipment Sharing and Cost Estimating
for Rural Solid Waste Disposal Systems
5. Report Date
1977
6.
7. Author(s)
A.W. Martin Associates, Inc.
8. Performing Organization Rept.
No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
A.W. Martin Associates, Inc.
900 West Valley-Forge Road
King of Prussia, Pa. 19406
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract/Grant No.
68-01-3206
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
Washington, D. C. 20460
13. Type of Report 81 Period
Covered
Final
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstracts
Provides case study information on six rural solid waste disposal
systems. The systems studied included multiple land disposal site,
rural transfer stations, and landfill equipment sharing. A methodology
is presented which can be used to develop cost estimates for rural solid
waste disposal systems.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17o. Descriptors
Refuse disposal, Rural areas, Cost estimates, Compaction equipment
17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
Equipment sharing
17e. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
19.. Security Class (This
Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
20. Security Class (This
Page
UNCLASSIFIED
21. No. of Pages
22. Price
FORM NTIS-35 (REV. 3-72)
USCOMM-DC 149B2-P72
-------
This report had been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and approved for publication. Its publication does not signify
that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government.
An environmental protection publication (SW-584) in the solid waste
management series.
ii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A. W. Martin Associates, Inc. wishes to thank all the people who con-
tributed their time and effort to make this report possible.
Grateful acknowledgment is particularly extended to Mr. Robert West
of Safford, Arizona, Sanitarian of Graham County; Mr. Ken Caveney, P.E., of
Silver City, New Mexico, Civil Engineer with the National Forest Service (Gila
National Forest); Mr. Stanley Duckett of Clarkesville, Georgia, Sanitary Land-
fill Supervisor for Habersham County; Mr. Samuel R. Kalafat, R.S., and Mr.
Peter M. Frazier, R.S. of Great Falls, Montana, Directors of Environmental
Health and Solid Waste Programs, respectively, for Cascade County; Mr. James
M. Barineau, Director, Department of Pollution Control, and Mr. Wade McDowell,
Special Assistant in Tallahassee, Florida for the County of Leon; the people in
Tavares of Lake County, Florida, Mr. Michael S. Donahue, Director of Public
Works, Mr. Lawrence J. Morey, Jr., Assistant Director of Public Works and
Mr. Robert Alderman, Landfill Foreman; and Mr. Allen J. Geswein, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency Project Officer.
Thanks are also expressed to the many other persons we met and inter-
viewed in the study areas who volunteered their knowledge and sanitary land-
filling experiences. Additionally, the information we received from equipment
manufacturers was very helpful in this study. The excellent cooperation on
the part of public agencies indicates a growing awareness of solid waste dis-
posal problems and the need for a better understanding of disposal practices.
-iii-
-------
CONTENTS
List of Figures
List of Tables
SECTION 1 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION
SECTION 3 CASE STUDIES
3.1 Graham County, Arizona
3.2 Habersham County, Georgia
3.3 Cascade County, Montana
3.4 Lake County, Florida
3.5 Leon County, Florida
3.6 Catron County, New Mexico
SECTION 4 COMPARISON OF RURAL LANDFILL OPTIONS
SECTION 5 COST-ESTIMATING TOOL FOR RURAL LAND
DISPOSAL OPERATIONS
REFERENCES
GLOSSARY
APPENDIX A Sanitary Landfill Operation Data
APPENDIX B Sanitary Landfill Cost Data
page
v
vi
1
6
13
13
17
21
25
28
32
38
43
50
52
56
62
-iv-
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Progressive Trench-type Landfilling, Central Landfill, 16
Graham County, Arizona.
2 Signs at Landfill Entrance, Graham County, Arizona. r"^
3 Caterpillar D-5 Tractor with Dozer Blade and 18-tonne
(20-ton) Trailer, Graham County, Arizona.
4 Trench-type Landfill, Cornelia Site, Habersham County, 20
Georgia.
5 Operations at Clarkesville Sanitary Landfill, Habersham 20
County, Georgia.
6 Stockett Landfill, Cascade County, Montana. 23
7 Typical Signs at Landfills in Cascade County, Montana. ^3
8 Contractor's Transport Equipment, Cascade County,
Montana.
9 Typical Signs at Landfills in Lake County, Florida. 27
10 Trench-type Landfilling at Lady Lake, in Lake County, 27
Florida.
11 Construction for Bulk Container Sites in Leon County, 31
Florida.
12 Bulk Storage Container Stationed at the Glenwood 34
Landfill, Catron County, New Mexico.
13 The Reserve Landfill Site, Catron County, New Mexico. 34
14 Massey-Ferguson Bulldozer at the Glenwood Landfill, 34
Catron County, New Mexico.
-v-
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1 Population Densities of the Six Study Counties. "L
2 Data Summary of the Six Study Counties.
3 Graham County Landfill Sites With Size and Reported
Volumes of Refuse.
4 Expenditures Report for September 1975 at Lake 29
County, Florida Sanitary Landfill.
5 Estimated Monthly Costs of Sanitary Landfill Operation 37
at Reserve, New Mexico (Catron County) for 1975.
6 Solid Waste Disposal Cost Summary. 48
7 Sanitary Landfill Operation Data Collected from 56
Graham County, Arizona.
8 Sanitary Landfill Operation Data Collected from 57
Habersham County, Georgia.
9 Sanitary Landfill Operation Data Collected from 58
Cascade County, Montana.
10 Sanitary Landfill Operation Data Collected from 59
Lake County, Florida. ga
11 Sanitary Landfill Operation Data Collected from
Leon County, Florida.
12 Sanitary Landfill Operation Data Collected from
Catron County, New Mexico.
13 Yearly Salaries for Employee Classifications in 1975. 62
14 Landfill Equipment Data. 63-65
15 Transport Equipment Data. ^
16 1975 Landfill Equipment Costs—Massey-Ferguson. ^l
17 1975 Landfill Equipment Costs—Fiat-Allis. 69
18 1975 Landfill Equipment Costs—Caterpillar Tractor Co.
19 Yearly Disposal Costs for the Study Counties Developed . ™
on the Basis of Collected Data and Observations.
-vi-
-------
SECTION 1
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The present study is an analysis of six rural county
solid waste disposal systems located in the western and
southern U.S. The landfill sites studied vary considerably
in locale, climate, population, volume of solid waste
generated, systems of disposal, and disposal costs. The
solid waste disposal systems encountered in this study
include one landfill equipment-sharing system, a bulk
container collection/transfer station system, a system of
one main landfill and smaller satellite landfills, and
combination of these practices. Very few of the landfills
maintain daily records of logs identifying quantities of
waste processed, total labor costs, equipment owning costs,
and equipment operating costs. None of the small (satellite)
landfill sites investigated meet EPA sanitary landfill
requirements for daily cover.
The potential of landfill equipment-sharing systems for
rural areas, in which equipment is hauled from site to site
as needed to perform required landfill functions, is signi-
ficant in that equipment and manpower are more fully utilized
and capital is hot tied up in machinery that receives only
occasional use. However, for such a system to be economi-
cally feasible, travel time must be minimized and operations
must be staggered to avoid overextension of the system. In
the Graham County case, the operator's time is divided 20-80
between equipment transport and landfill operations, which
means that 20 percent of the operating time is spent in
loading, traveling, and unloading.
-------
The results of this study indicate that the bulk container transfer
system is also a viable solid waste management alternative for rural areas,
especially when landfill sites are not readily available. The transfer station
system requires that container stations be readily accessible to transport
vehicles and that suitable containers and transport equipment be carefully
selected. Savings on the purchase of containers and hauling equipment are
generally offset by increased operating expenditures. Before a bulk collec-
tion system is implemented, the quantity of solid waste generated in each dis-
trict to be served must be determined so that reasonable pick-up schedules and
routes can be established. Such information must be evaluated in terms of the
economic objective of collection frequency—shortest routes and optimum loads.
In the initial development of any solid waste disposal system for rural
areas, the most important factors to be considered are as follows:
1. Availability of suitable disposal sites.
The landfill site must be carefully selected on the basis of ex-
isting zoning regulations, the geology of the area, the nature and availability
of cover material, the land area available for disposal, the depth available for
filling, and the anticipated life of the landfill. The transfer station site must
be selected on the basis of zoning, accessibility, surrounding highway net-
work, and its compatibility with the land use of adjacent properties.
2. Highway network serving the region.
The selected sites should be easily accessible to all vehicles.
The roads should be adequate in width, and the pavement structure should be
of sufficient design and construction to support loaded transport vehicles.
The access routes to each landfill site should be identified during the site
selection and, ideally, an alternate route should be investigated as a safety
precaution.
3. Location of solid waste generators with respect to disposal
sites.
In order to encourage low-volume generators to use the dis-
posal facilities, travel distances should be reasonable. If residents bring
their waste to the disposal sites rather than dump on the roadside, the
county will be relieved of the responsibility of collecting it. If the distance
to the disposal facilities is too great, rural residents may be inclined to use
unsuitable alternative disposal methods.
-2-
-------
4. Initial costs of equipment.
The type, size, and quantity of equipment to be purchased will
be a function of the method of landfilling selected, the volumes of waste to be
processed, the operating personnel available, and the conditions at the dis-
posal site. Equipment costs are of primary importance and should not be over-
looked during the initial disposal system development. Undersized, oversized,
or otherwise inappropriate equipment for the operations to be performed will
result in additional expense and operating cost. Savings on low initial costs
for equipment are usually lost in high operating costs.
5. Manpower requirements.
Considerations to be made in estimating manpower requirements
are: the number of disposal sites, the volumes of refuse to be handled, the
type of disposal operation to be practiced, the amount and type of equipment to
be operated, the size of the area to be served, the experience of the operators,
and the part- or full-time basis of operation.
6. Schedule of operations.
The development of a schedule of operations is an important
part of disposal system planning. Such a schedule must be both reasonable
in its demands on manpower and equipment and flexible in its execution.
Planning for a schedule of operations should consider seasonal variations in
both solid waste volumes and climatic conditions. Where equipment must be
transported, consideration must be given to equipment utilization; a mini-
mum time should be allotted to transportation and a maximum to the landfilling
operations as much as possible. Experience indicates that the development
of a schedule usually involves as much trial and error as initial planning
and calculation.
7. Effective cost-accounting methods.
The two major costs of operating a solid waste disposal system
are equipment and labor. The total cost of disposal varies depending on the
volumes of waste handled and the methods and efficiency of the operation.
An accounting system should be used to keep an ongoing record of all ex-
penses associated with any solid waste disposal operation. Control can only
be exercised over a system in which operating costs can be identified and
adjusted. Such a system will be useful in the planning and design of the
continuing disposal system. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has
-3-
-------
published two very helpful pamphlets on sanitary landfill accounting sys-
tems which are recommended for use by solid waste disposal operations (see
Zausner 1969, 1970).
Through a strategic approach based on these seven initial consider-
ations , and an informed evaluation of available options, rural municipalities
should be able to develop a solid waste collection and disposal system suited
to their particular needs.
On the basis of these six case studies it is concluded that:
1. There are several viable options for solid waste management
in rural counties:
a. an equipment-sharing system with staggered
hours of operation for the landfill site.
b. an equipment-sharing system with staggered
hours of operation and attendant transfer sta-
tions .
c. a transfer station system with either one or
two landfills, each having its own equipment
and each open for disposal on a scheduled day,
with on-site provisions for disposal during
off-hours (collection boxes).
2. Oversized equipment is more efficient in landfill and trans-
port operations than undersized equipment.
3. A system can be developed in which equipment is shared
between two or more landfill sites; however, it requires staggered hours of
operation, reasonable haul distances, and provisions such as collection boxes
stationed at the landfills for disposal when the gates are locked.
4. There is a need for preventive maintenance programs for
equipment used in rural solid waste disposal systems.
5. There is a widespread need for record-keeping of costs, oper-
ation, and equipment utilization in rural solid waste disposal systems.
-4-
-------
6. The findings of this study suggest that additional
case studies of diversified rural solid waste disposal
systems should be undertaken in the near future for the
purpose of documenting the capabilities of little known but
workable systems and establishing additional cost and
efficiency data for use in upgrading existing operations and
in developing new systems.
-------
SECTION 2
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study was to evaluate rural landfill systems and
to develop a descriptive cost-estimating tool to be used by other communities
in evaluating the applicability of these systems to their particular needs. Six
counties were selected for investigation in concurrence with the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency; they are: Graham County, Arizona; Habersham
County, Georgia; Cascade County, Montana; Lake County, Florida; Leon
County, Florida; and Catron County, New Mexico.
Each landfill site in the study counties was visited, and data was
collected concerning the size, location, and general characteristics of the site;
method of disposal practiced; volume of refuse handled; collection system in
operation; scheduling; kinds of landfill and transport equipment in use; type
of equipment-sharing system practiced if any; and the cost requirement of
the site.
Although the study counties are all rural, their topography, climate,
and geographical settings are varied. The populations served by landfills in
the counties range from about 130,000 to 2,800 (see Table 1). The largest
cities in these counties are: in Graham County, the city of Safford with 6,100
people; in Habersham County, the cities of Cornelia with 3,020 people and
Clarkesville with 1,300 people; in Cascade County, Great Falls with 65,000
people; in Lake County, Leesburg, with 13,550 people; in Leon County,
Tallahassee, with 90,000 people; and in Catron County, the area of Reserve
with 1,800 people.
The range of characteristics found in the study counties is shown in
Table 2 which is a data summary compiled from the results of this investiga-
tion.
6
-------
Table 1. POPULATION DENSITIES OF THE SIX STUDY COUNTIES
County
Graham
Habersham
Cascade
Lake
Leon
Catron
Population
served (1975)
11,900
20,700
20,000
74,450
130,000
2,800
Land area,
in km 2
(miles2)
8,702
(3,360)
730
(282)
6,923
(2,673)
3,012
(1,163)
1,735
(670)
17,862
(6,897)
Density
persons/km2
(persons/miles2)
1.4
(3.5)
28.
(73)
3
(8)
25
(64)
75
(194)
0.2
(0.4)
-------
Table 2. DATA SUMMARY OF THE SIX STUDY COUNTIES.
CHARACTERISTICS
Number of landfills
Population served
Volumes processed
iintonnes/yr ftons/yr)
Roads - type i condition
Fencing
Gates
Storage containers
(when fences and
gates are closed)
at landfills.
Graham County.
ARIZONA
5
11.900
S.300
(5.900)
Good State ft U.S.
numbered high-
ways. Gravel-
surfaced access
roads are good .
No substandard
structures.8
All sites
are fenced.
No gates.
Cattle guard'
at all sites.
NO
Habersham County,
GEORGIA
2
20.700
26,500
(29,100)
Good . No adverse
grades or height,
width, or weight
limitations. Gravel-
surfaced access roads.
Both sites are fenced .
Both sites have
locked gates .
NO
Ciscade County,
MONTANA
6
20,000
14,965
( 16.500)
W« 11-mnintoined
State and U.S.
nu nbered routes.
So ne gravel-sur-
fac ed in good re-
pa r . No adverse
co iditions, no
-substandard struc-
ur >s? One winding
gr ivel-surfaced
forest road .
Uln-fencing must
be continuously
re) 'laced .
Fo:-t Shaw-no fenc-
ing
Re naindcr have
fer ces .
No gates at present .
NO
Lake County.
FLORIDA
7
74.450
114,848
(126.620)
Good but circuit-
ous routes. Some
clay-sand access
roads . No adverse
gradients, no sub-
standard struc-
tures?
All sites are
fenced.
All sites have
locked gates.
NO
Leon County.
FLORIDA
7
l_ 130,000
210,100
(231,400)
Good State and
U.S. numbered
routes . Some
clay-sand roads
which can be
traveled at 40
m.p.h. when
well maintained.
All sites are
fenced.
All sites have
locked gates.
NO
Catron County,
NEW MEXICO
2
2,800
3.200
(3.600)
No substandard
roads or struc-
ures? Maximum
grades of 10-12
percent and cur-
vilinear routes .
Winter travel is
occasionally
hazardous .
Both sites are
fenced .
Both sites have
locked gates .
YES
GO
8 Substandard is defined as Inadequate in any or all of the following: (1) width of pavement; (2) height for clearance (I.e.. bridge);
(3) load-carrying capacity. Structure Is defined as (1) bridge over 20-ft spin or (2) culvert under 20-ft span.
-------
Table 2 (continued). DATA SUMMARY OF THE SIX STUDY COUNTIES.
CHARACTERISTICS
Daily Cover
Refuse collection
Weighing of refuse
Type of landfilling
Annual land costs
Lnnd
Equipment owning costs'
Equipment operating
costs
Labor & fringes
(fringe benefits @
21% of labor)
Contract costs
Total costs"
Cost per tonne (ton)
• processed
Hours of operation/day
Days/week attended
Number of attendants
Annual manhours
(total)
Graham County ,
ARIZONA
YES . at 3 sites .
At 2 sites-weekly .
At 1 site bimonthly .
No County collection.
Cities and public
haul their own.
No - best estimate.
Trench-type
$20.00/year/site
$120.00
Bureau of Land
Management land.
$11,920
$ 9,130
$12,235
—
$33.405
$6.30
($5.66)
24 hrs/7 days
unattended
0
0
2.080
Habersham County,
GEORGIA
YES
No County collection .
Municipal pick-up,
industries , and pub-
lic haul .
No - estimated by
trench width.
Progressive trench.
Free
County owned
$ 5,415
$23.475
$27,370
—
$56,260
$2.12
($1.93)
10 hrs/day/6 days
attended
6
2
8,320
Cas< ade County ,
MONTANA
NO • weekly
No County collection.
Contract haulers
and public haul.
No - estimated by
Solid Waste Director.
Trei ch-type except
Ulm- modified area.
Sam Coulee - side-
hill cut and cover.
Free
National Forest
Priv.ite Innds
Courty lands
$ 650
$ 1,100
$12, 165
$32, >10
S47.125
$ 3.15
($ 2.86)
7 days/24 hrs
unat ended
0
0
Unavailable
Lake County,
FLORIDA
YES
County-issued
franchise col-
lection and pub-
lic haul.
No - estimated
by attendant and
operator .
Progressive
trench-type.
Free
National Forest
County owned
County controlled
City owned
$103,810
$ 23,525
$152.500
—
$279,835
$2.44
($2.21)
10 hrs/ 6 days
attended
6
7
Unavailable
Leon County,
FLORIDA
YES at Spring
Hill and Trash
Dump . Periodic
at others.
No County col-
lection. City of
Tallahassee has
franchise collec-
tion system.
Public haul .
At Trash Dump
only , others
by estimate.
Trench-type
except Trash
Dump which is
area-type .
Free
County owned
County controlled
$65,490
$90.435
$57.600
$42,000
$255,525
$1.22
($1.11)
9 hrs/ 6 days
attended
6
7
Unavailable
Catron County,
NEW MEXICO
NO - weekly
Public haul
No - estimated ty
landfill operator.
Trench-type
Free
National Forest
$ 8,105
$ 5,155
$15,510
—
$28,770
$8.99
($7.99)
9 hrs/ 1 day
attended
1
2
936
^Annual costs.
-------
The number of disposal sites located in the studied counties ranges
from two in Catron County to seven each in Leon and Lake Counties. The
present collection systems employed by municipalities in the counties under
investigation range from contract collections to bring-your-own, with a
predominance of the latter. The six counties under investigation maintain
various schedules for disposal, pick-up, and transportation of refuse.
Schedules for public admittance to the landfills range from 24 hours a day,
7 days a week to only 9 hours, 1 day a week. Data collected concerning
miles between the sites in each county, highway travel time, quantities of
refuse processed at the landfills, hours open to the public, days open to
the public, and the operators' time utilization are included in Appendix A
(Tables 7 - 12).
All landfills investigated are located on or near state and U.S.
numbered routes. Other access and nearby roads are county roads in gen-
erally good repair.
All sites in use in the studied counties are generally acceptable to
the area residents. At a few of the landfills, lack of consideration by users
has necessitated supplemental maintenance and operating efforts by the
county. Vandalism has not been uncommon. Signs at the entrances of the
sites, at the landfills, and at bulk container sites have been used for target
practice. Locked gates have been removed at some sites. Enclosure fences
have been torn down and, at several sites, stolen repeatedly until the coun-
ties could no longer afford to replace them. A few sites have wind-borne
litter scattered over a wide area; however, because the region is sparsely
settled, complaints are few and intermittent. Sites where bulk containers
are in use have received good public acceptance, although vandalism of
bulk containers is common. (Damage is generally caused by bullet holes
in the containers and occasionally by torching of the contents.)
As the site investigations progressed, it became evident that un-
certainties exist everywhere in cost-keeping methods and records. Most
of the data concerning operating costs had to be obtained verbally from the
landfill operators. Daily and weekly log sheets are not maintained specifi-
cally for the sanitary landfill operations. Routine functions are usually
performed by the operators in accordance with the equipment manuals and
the manufacturer's recommendations. Quantities of fuel consumed and
lubricants used are guesstimated by the operators, and supplies and dis-
posable parts are obtained from local stores on an as-needed basis. Con-
sequently , the costs developed in this study are a combination of data
supplied by the landfill operators and equipment manufacturers and the
experience of the Engineers.
10
-------
A tabulation of land costs for the counties under study is shown
on Table 2. The only county paying a yearly fee for landfill sites is Graham
County, Arizona. In Graham County all the landfills are on Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) land; the yearly fee is a nominal $20.00 per site. All
other study counties obtained the landfill sites for free, either because they
were county lands acquired from a previous operator, private lands that
owners wanted filled, or National Forest Lands. Several counties are pre-
sently negotiating purchase of land for additional landfill sites.
Costs incurred in clearing of the landfill sites appear to be negli-
gible . The Habersham County, Georgia sites have the most trees and heavy
underbrush. Clearing costs for these sites are not maintained as such but
are included as part of the normal operation of preparing fill areas and
making trench. Leon County has several sites with underbrush and scat-
tered pine trees. All other study sites are generally located in areas of
sparse or light growth which can be easily pushed out of the way. All
sites were apparently selected with an eye to keeping clearing of woods to
a minimum, although many sites have woods or forests on several sides.
Development costs at all landfills involve expenses for fencing
and preparing access roads into the sites. Fencing types are varied and
range from chainlink fence in Leon County to wood-slat snow fence in Cas-
cade County. Access roads into the sites generally have selected-materials
surfacing in some form. Some sites have used crushed aggregate, some
have used a sand-clay mixture, and others have used native on-site mater-
ials to construct the roads. All sites receive periodic maintenance from the
county highway departments. A supplemental item at the landfills are the
signs, some of which are purchased from private enterprise, but most of
which are produced by the county highway sign department on an as-needed
basis.
Labor costs incurred in landfill operation in the study counties
vary depending on the number of sites and the particular requirements of
each site. A tabulation of labor costs reported by respondents in the six
counties is shown in Table 13 in Appendix B. For the most part, with the
exception of Lake County, Florida, record keeping at the landfills is minimal,
The equipment employed by the six counties serves three basic
functions: (1) handling waste, (2) handling cover material, and (3) per-
forming landfill support functions. A wide variety of equipment was in
use, ranging in age from 28 years old (and in good operating condition) to
brand new with less than 20 engine hours.
11
-------
Track-type landfill equipment is in use at all the sites. The machin-
ery is equipped with either a dozer blade or a general purpose bucket. Some
counties use wheel scrapers pulled by tractors and self-propelled wheel scra-
pers for covering. The transport equipment in general use throughout the
six counties is a trailer and truck tractor.
Several counties incurred the costs of landfill and transport equip-
ment purchased specifically for solid waste disposal. However, in many
instances, the equipment used at the landfills was inherited from the county
highway department. Some counties have highway department equipment on
permanent loan to the landfill operation. Tabulations of landfill and trans-
port equipment costs in the study counties are included in Appendix B (see
Tables 14 and 15). In an effort to estimate equipment owning and operating
costs, brochures of equipment manufacturers were researched and data
was collected concerning purchase price, depreciation, normal hourly fuel
consumption, normal periodic routine maintenance requirements, and antici-
pated repairs occasioned by normal wear and tear. These costs are given
in Appendix B (see Tables 16, 17, and 18).
Utilizing the equipment owning and operating costs and the estima-
ted amounts of solid waste being processed, costs per tonne (ton) landfiUed
were developed (see Table 19, Appendix B) . In the absence of well-docu-
mented figures for volumes of solid waste processed, and operating costs
(except for Lake County), volumes and costs were estimated on the basis of
our observations. Wherever possible in the case studies volumes have been
expressed in tonnes/yr (tons/yr) and costs have been presented in cost/
tonne (cost/ton) . However, cases in which waste volume data were received
from the landfill operator in m^ (yd3) have been presented as received in
an effort to avoid unnecessary distortion of the data. Where no waste vol-
ume data was available, estimates were made by the Engineer on the basis
of physical field measurements and information supplied by the landfill
operators., For comparison purposes all volumes have been converted to
tonnage using an as-delivered density of 600 lbs/yd^.
12
-------
SECTION 3
CASE STUDIES
3.1 GRAHAM COUNTY, ARIZONA
Graham County is located in the southeast corner of Arizona. It has
an area of 8,700 km2 (3,360 miles2) and varies in elevation from approximately
900 m (3,000 ft) on the desert floor to over 3,000 m (10,000 ft) in the mountain
ranges. The Gila River generally bisects the county, flowing from east to west,
and its valley is surrounded by the Pinaleno, Gila, Galiuro, and Peloncillo
mountain ranges. The average annual rainfall in Graham County is between
20 and 36 cm (8 and 14 in), with the greater amounts falling at the higher ele-
vations . Along the Gila River stretch the farming communities of Safford,
Thatcher, Pima, Central, Bryce, and Eden. The county population is about
18,000 and its main industry is agricultural; cotton is the main crop, and
cattle raising and pig farming are also economically important.
Graham County has.five sanitary landfill sites: Artesia,
San Jose, Central, Eden, and Ft. Thomas. All the sites have a
desert topographical' setting;" the"surfbunding desert "is mostly
forage land for range cattle. All five sites are located on
-Bur.eatu-.oT Land Management C-SLM-)- lancls. For the most part, the
routes serving the sites are good federal and "state highways
with county-maintained gravel roads leading into the landfills.
All the roads are well maintained and in good repair.
Graham County does not operate a solid waste collection system.
The communities of Thatcher and Pima operate 8-m3 (10-yd3) packer trucks.
The City of Safford operates its own collection system and its own landfill.
Private users of the county landfills haul their solid waste in pickup trucks
and occasionally passenger vehicles. A minimum-security federal prison
camp in the county uses a packer truck. The Forest Service also
uses a packer truck to haul refuse from campgrounds during
the summer.
13
-------
The refuse disposed of at the sites is generally
residential and agricultural. The size of the landfill
sites and the daily volumes of refuse deposited (as
reported by the operator on a best-estimate basis) are
shown in Table 3.
The Graham County landfills are operated by special
permit from the BLM on a yearly lease basis and are routinely
monitored by the state. A trench-type landfill operation
is practiced at all sites (see Figure 1). Routine opera-
tions common to all the sites are: spreading and compacting
of the refuse, covering, making new trench if necessary,
and general policing of the area. One equipment operator
who also serves as the landfill operator travels from site
to site with his equipment, performing the routine operations.
Three of the sites (Artesia, Central, and San Jose) receive
daily attention. Central and Artesia require the majority
of the operator's time because of the volumes handled.
Two of the sites (Eden and Ft. Thomas) are visited once a
week by the operator. Approximately 8556 of the refuse
handled by the county is received by the three sites that
receive daily cover.
The Graham County landfill operator has a demanding
schedule for visiting and carrying on operations at the
five sites. It is estimated from our observations that
approximately 20 percent of his workday is required for
transportation and about 80 percent is devoted to actual
landfill operations.
The Graham County landfills all have fences and. cattle
guards. The sites are open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
but are unattended.
Graham County owns one piece of landfill machinery
which is used for spreading and compacting refuse at all five
sites. The machine is a Caterpillar D-5 tractor with dozer
blade (see Figure 3), about 3 years old with an expected
life of 6 to 8 years. It is transported between the landfills
on a /county-owned tractor and low-bed trailer. The tractor is
a i9?4 CMC of 11-tonne (12 1/2 ton) capacity, in good repair
with an expected life of 6 to 8 years. The low-bed trailer
has an 18-tonne (20 ton) capacity, is about 1 year old,
and is in good repair. Available to the landfill operation
when needed are other county-owned tractor-trailer combinations
presently being used by the highway department.
-------
Table 3. GRAHAM COUNTY LANDFILL SITES WITH SIZE
AND REPORTED VOLUMES OF REFUSE
Landfill site
Artesia
San Jose
Central
Eden
Ft . Thomas
Totals
Total land
area, in
hectares
(acres)
16
(40)
16
(40)
16
(40)
16
(40)
4
(10)
Approximate
landfilling
area, in
(acres)
1-2
(2 1/2 - 5)
2 1/2
(6 1/4)
3-4
(7 1/2 - 10)
1-2
(2 1/2 - 5)
1
(2 1/2)
Annual
volumes, in m^
(Yd3)
3,710
(4,850)
2,140
(2,800)
7,000
(9,160)
1,240
(1,620)
850
(1,110)
14,940
(19,540)
Annual volumes,3
in
tonnes (tons)
1,320
(1,450)
760
(840)
2,500
(2,750)
440
(490)
300
(330)
5,320
(5,860)
3
As-delivered density estimated to be 600 Ibs/yd .
15
-------
Figure 1. Progressive trench-type landfilling, Central
landfill, Graham County , Arizona.
Figure 2. Signs at landfill entrance, Graham County,
Arizona.
Figure 3. Caterpillar D-5 tractor with dozer blade and
18-tonne (20-ton) trailer, Graham County,
Arizona.
-------
Travel between the sites is generally no problem. Many of the routes
are good state and federal highways; others are gravel-surfaced roads in
good repair. There are no adverse grades or substandard structures along
the equipment routes. One travel restriction is a state law prohibiting travel
of over-sized vehicles on state highways between Friday evening and Monday
morning except during emergencies.
Access to the individual sites is good and ample space has been pro-
vided at the sites for maneuverability; the off-loading areas can usually be
negotiated easily. On rare occasions vehicles become stuck in loose sand at
one or two of the sites; wet- and winter-weather operations are no problem.
The Graham County landfill sites are not equipped with employee
facilities. Telephone communications must be made from nearby private
residences. The Safford, Thatcher, and Pima Fire Departments provide
fire protection for the sites.
Accurate cost records are not maintained for the Graham County
landfills. From the data available it was determined that 5,300 tonnes (5,900
tons) of refuse per year are received by the six sites at a cost of $6.30/tonne
($5.66/ton) (see Appendix B tables). The disposal program costs less than
$3.00 per capita per year for the area served.
3.2 HABERSHAM COUNTY, GEORGIA
Habersham County is situated in the northeastern corner of Georgia
on the eastern rolling foothills of the Appalachian Mountains. The northerly
and easterly portions of the county are occupied by the Chattahoochee
National Forest. The average annual rainfall varies beween 130 and 140 cm
(50 and 55 in). The county has a population of about 20,700 people. The
principal cities, Clarkesville and Cornelia, are textile manufacture-oriented.
Other industries in the county include timber/lumber, agriculture, recrea-
tion, and poultry processing.
17
-------
Habersham County owns and operates two sanitary landfill sites—
Cornelia and Clarkesville. Both landfills are situated in an open rural area
surrounded by fields and woods. At present the county has no other sites or
bulk container stations. A plan for using bulk container stations in remote
areas of the county has been suggested and perhaps will receive due con-
sideration in the future.
The first site inspected was the Cornelia landfill located off County
Rte. 2403 (old Cleveland Road). The landfill access road is gravel-surfaced,
about 5.5m (18 ft) wide, and in good condition. The overall site area is ap-
proximately 22 hectares (54 acres) with about 10 hectares (26 acres) in land-
filling process. Daily volumes of refuse received at Cornelia, as estimated
by the operator, are between 160 and 200 m3 (200 and 260 yd3) (estimates
based on trench widths). The refuse consists of residential, agricultural,
and commercial wastes. Sewage sludge from an adjacent wastewater treat-
ment plant is also deposited in the landfill but not in the same trench as the
solid waste. This site is fairly well maintained, although, at times insuffi-
cient cover is used on the refuse and flies become a minor nuisance. During
prolonged dry spells dust is also a problem.
The second Habersham County site is located in an underdeveloped
corner of the City of Clarkesville near several auto graveyards. It is situ-
ated on a 5.5-m (18-ft) wide asphalt-surfaced county road with a gravel-
surfaced access road. The total site area is about 32 hectares (80 acres)
with about 9 hectares (22 acres) used and in the process of being landfilled.
Daily volumes of refuse received average between 80 and 110 m3 (100 and
140 yd3), as estimated by the operator. The refuse consists of residential,
agricultural, and commercial wastes with some sludges from a textile treat-
ment process. This site is well maintained and has ample supplies of
cover material for all operations.
Habersham County does not operate a collection system. The com-
munities of Cornelia and Clarkesville have municipal pick-up using 5-1/2- to
8-m3 (7- to 10-yd3) packer trucks. The several county-based industries
use van-type and stake-body-type vehicles. Individual users transport
their refuse using pickup trucks, dump trucks, and passenger vehicles.
The operations at the two Habersham County sites are quite similar.
Both sites are open and attended 10 hours a day, 6 days a week. The gates
are locked when an attendant is not on site. No provisions are made for ac-
cepting refuse when the landfill is closed. The landfilling is a progressive
trench-type operation where trench excavation is used to cover the daily
18
-------
solid waste accumulations (see Figure 4). Dead animals are accepted with
normal residential trash. Compaction and covering are performed daily (see
Figure 5). In general, the covering operation is excellent at Clarkesville and
good at Cornelia. Routine inspections are performed by the State Department
of Natural Resources.
Habersham County uses a new Caterpillar D-7 tractor with dozer blade
for operations at the Cornelia and Clarkesville sites. At the time of our investi-
gations the machine had less than 20 hours on the clock and an expected life of
8 years. On loan from the county highway department and also in use at the
landfills are: a Caterpillar D-6 tractor with dozer blade (cable) which was
purchased in 1947; a Caterpillar D-7 tractor with 5-1/2-m^ (7-yd^) wheel scra-
per (approximately 27 years old); a backup Caterpillar D-7; and a self-pro-
pelled (elevating type) wheel scraper International E-200 (approximately 10
years old).
The county presently transports the wheel scrapers between the two
sites with a 1975 GMC truck tractor low-boy trailer combination of 32-tonne
(35-ton) capacity. Both the tractor and trailer are in excellent condition. A
1971 Ford tractor and low-boy trailer (on loan from the highway department),
is also used for transport between the sites. The county landfill and highway
departments appear to have a satisfactory working arrangement for the use
of transport equipment.
Habersham County equipment travels over 13 km (8 miles) of good
highways. There are no adverse grades or structures posted with height,
width, or weight limitations along the traveled route. All equipment when
fully loaded is well within the maximum state highway load limits. Adverse
site operating problems have been minor—such as slash- and brush-carry-
ing trucks getting bogged down in the mud while dumping at the rear of the
landfill. During extremely wet weather, covering must sometimes be de-
layed for several days because of the mud. At the trench areas, maneuver-
ability for vehicles is generally good. Landfill dust disturbed by vehicles
is an occasional problem.
There are no employee facilities at either of the Habersham County
sites. Telephone communication is available within 1/2 km (1/4 mile) of
each site.
Accurate cost records are not maintained at the Habersham County
landfills. On the basis of available information it is estimated that Haber-
sham County handles approximately 26,500 tonnes (29,100 tons) of refuse
per year at a cost of $2.12/tonne ($1.93/ton) (see tables in Appendix B).
19
-------
Figure 4. Trench-type landfill, Cornelia site,
Habersham County, Georgia.
Figure 5. Operations at Clarkesville sanitary landfill,
Habersham County, Georgia: (a) spreading
and compacting; (b) loading cover material.
20
-------
3.3 CASCADE COUNTY, MONTANA
Cascade County is located in the central northwest part of Montana
in the Great Plains region of the northwest United States. The Little Belt
Mountains in the southeast corner of the county contain a portion of the
Lewis and Clark National Forest. The Missouri River generally bisects the
county from southwest to northeast. The average annual rainfall in the region
is about 30 cm (12 in). The city of Great Falls is the major urban center, with
a population of about 65,000 of the county's 85,000 people. Most of the small
communities in the county are stretched out along U.S. traffic routes 89 and
91. Major industries in the county are agricultural—principally, range land
for cattle, grain crops, and to some extent recreation in the National Forest.
Around the city of Great Falls, there are several other industries of which
Anaconda Copper Company and Malmstrom Air Force Base are the largest.
Cascade County has six sanitary landfill sites: Vaughn, Fort Shaw,
Ulm, Monarch, Stockett, and Sand Coulee. Topographically, Vaughn, Fort
Shaw, and Ulm are located on grazing open range land; Monarch is on Lewis
and Clark National Forest Land; Stockett is on top of a low hill in a former
coal mining area; and Sand Coulee is in a coulee adjacent to a former coal
mining area.
The routes serving the sites are all good federal, state, and county
highways. Vaughn, Ulm, and Sand Coulee are located on paved county
highways, Fort Shaw and Monarch are on gravel-surfaced roads off paved
highways, and Stockett is on a selected-materials-surfaced road off a paved
county highway.
Cascade County has no collection system. Several contract haulers
collect refuse in various parts of the county; ranchers and farmers generally
use pickup trucks for carting refuse; and smaller homesteads and residences
occasionally use passenger vehicles. Dump trucks of the 4- to 6-m^
(5- to 8-yd^) size and 1.4-tonne (1-1/2-ton) stake-bodied trucks are also
used.
The refuse deposited at the Cascade County sites is generally resi-
dential-agricultural with some commercial waste. Dead animals are taken
for a fee and under special arrangements, but the county tries to discourage
the practice. The daily volumes for each site, estimated by the Solid Waste
Director on the basis of the population using the landfills are: Vaughn, 11.2
tonnes (12.3 tons); Fort Shaw, 6.2 tonnes (6.8 tons); Ulm, 6.4 tonnes (7 tons);
Monarch (summer), 2.1 tonnes (2.3 tons); Stockett, 7.4 tonnes (8.3 tons);
21
-------
and Sand Coulee, 7.7 tonnes (8.5 tons) . The county keeps its landfills open
7 days a week, 24 hours a day to minimize vandalism which in the past has
resulted in the removal of gates and fences. All sites are unattended.
The Vaughn landfill is the only site operated by Cascade County;
the other five sites are operated by a local contractor under a contract with
the county that includes spreading, compacting, and covering of the refuse.
Trench digging, when necessary, is paid for on a time-and-materials basis.
A landfill operator visits each of the sites once a week to perform the rou-
tine landfill operations including placement of cover.
Operations began at the Vaughn Landfill in August 1975. The Vaughn
site is a modified area-trench operation using a sidehill-trench cut-and-cover
method of landfilling. The objective at Vaughn is to raise the ground eleva-
tion to that of the adjacent occupied land.
The Fort Shaw site is a trench-type landfill. Because the site is
open and treeless, wind scatters refuse and litter and causes cleanup prob-
lems . The off-loading area is easily negotiated. Site conditions in wet
weather are not too adverse. However, covering becomes a problem during
severe and extended sub-zero temperatures because stockpiles freeze.
Disposal practices at the Ulm*landfill site are perhaps the poorest in
the county. Vandalism is prevalent and fencing must be continuously re-
placed . The wind scatters litter across the fields. Indiscriminate dumping,
which at times blocks the entrance adjacent to the highway, encourages
others to dump at the same place thereby compounding the problem. Trench-
ing cannot be performed at Ulm because the area has already been landfilled;
a modified area-type operation is practiced instead. Cover material is obtained
from a borrow area about 300 m (1,000 ft) away.
The Monarch landfill is a trench-type operation. Bears in the
National Forest raid the landfill at night, cart plastic bags into the nearby
woods, and feast on the contents. The practice of weekly cover at the site
is not looked upon favorably by the National Forest.
The Stockett landfill is situated on a hilltop in a former coal mining
area; trench-type landfilling is practiced at the site (see Figure 6). The
access road into Stockett is narrow, winding, and in poor condition, but
maneuverability on the site is good and the off-loading area is easily nego-
tiated. Wind is a constant problem and dust is a nuisance.
*The Ulm landfill was closed and replaced by the county in
February, 1976.
•KThe Monarch site was closed in April, 1976. Bulk containers
were placed at the site.
22
-------
Figure 6. Stockett landfill, Cascade County, Montana.
Figure 7 . Typical signs at landfills in Cascade County,
Montana.
Figure 8. Contractor's transport equipment, Cascade
County, Montana.
23
-------
The Sand Coulee landfill is operated in a long narrow coulee. It
is an old dump, dating back to when the area was a coal mining town, that
has since been converted to a landfill. The lower portion of the coulee is
the present landfill. Sand Coulee is a sidehill-cut-and-cover operation.
Maneuverability in the landfill is somewhat restricted because of a stream
on one side and a hillside on the other. The landfill area is also very close
to the road. Cover is in short supply and debris often ends up in the nearby
stream. Frequently, refuse is indiscriminantly dumped outside of designated
areas and landfill signs (see Figure 7) are torn down. Continuing efforts
by the county are necessary to educate the landfill users on procedures and
policies.
Cascade County has been operating the Vaughn landfill since Aug-
ust 1975. They presently own a Case 1000-D tractor with a l-m3 (1-1/2-yd3)
bucket for use at Vaughn. The machine was purchased in used condition
and is about 7 years old; its remaining expected life is between 2 and 3
months. It was to be traded around October 1975 on a new tractor specified
as a Caterpillar D-6 or equivalent with a 2-m3 (2-1/4-yd3) general-purpose
bucket.
The local contractor who maintains the other five Cascade County
sites uses one piece of equipment, which appears to be about 6 years old and
in good repair. It is equipped with a l-rrr (1-1/2-yd3) general-purpose
bucket.
Cascade County uses a new (approximately 2,000 miles on the odom-
eter) 2-tonne (1-1/2-ton) International tractor which hauls a new tilt-bed
trailer of 23-tonne (25-ton) capacity. The life of the truck-tractor is estima-
ted at 10 years and the life of the tilt-bed trailer, at 15 years. Also avail-
able to the solid waste operation on an emergency basis is a tractor and low-
bed trailer from the highway department. The local landfill contractor uses
an International 2-tonne (2-1/2-ton) truck tractor and a 23-tonne (25-ton)
tilt-bed trailer to haul his equipment for the five sites (see Figure 8), and
has other tractor-trailer rigs at his disposal.
Cascade County's highways and gravel-surfaced roads are in good
repair; during dry weather they are dusty and require palliative treatment.
However, no adverse travel conditions or substandard structures are evi-
dent along the equipment-hauling routes. The loaded vehicles are well
within state allowable maximums.
24
-------
There are no employee facilities at any of the Cascade County sites.
All sites have volunteer fire departments within easy driving distance.
Routine landfill inspection is performed by the state.
It is estimated on the basis of available information that Cascade
County handles a total of 14,965 tonnes (16,500 tons) per year at a cost of
$3.15 per tonne ($2.86 per ton) (see tables in Appendix B) . Cost accoun-
ting records at the sites are minimal.
Cascade County is planning to close the Monarch landfill site in the
near future and replace it with a 31-m^ (40-yd^) bulk container located in
the Belt area. A plan to replace the Stockett and Sand Coulee sites with
bulk containers is also under consideration. The County is presently look-
ing for a new location to replace the Ulm site, which has apparently reached
landfill capacity; this replacement is receiving priority consideration.
3.4 LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Lake County is situated in central Florida. Ocala National Forest
occupies a large portion of the northern area of the county. Citrus fruit pro-
duction together with some cattle ranching and other agricultural crops make
up the area's economy. There are approximately 1,400 named lakes in Lake
County covering 523 km2 (202 miles2) of its total 3 ,012 km2 (1,163 miles2)..
The average rainfall is about 130 cm (50 in) per year. The elevation of the
area ranges from 16 to 89 m (53 to 292 ft) above sea level. There are 14
incorporated areas in the county with a total population of 43,200. The
county has a permanent population of about 88,000. The populations of some
of the large cities are: Leesburg, 13,550; Eustis, 7,200; Mount Dora, 5,150;
Clermont, 4,000; andTavares, 3,910.
Lake County presently operates seven sanitary landfills. Several
other sites were closed in the past because they had reached landfill capacity
and the county did not want to mound above the adjacent terrain. Several
more sites are now almost to the point of capacity. The county is actively
considering phasing out its small landfills (Astor and Paisley) and establish-
ing a central sanitary landfill with strategically located attendant transfer
stations.
The seven sites in operation at present are: Umatilla, Astor, Pais-
ley , Lady Lake, Stuckey, Log House, and Astatula. The Umatilla landfill
is owned by the city of Umatilla and operated by Lake County. Recently,
the city requested that the county vacate the site because it has been accept-
25
-------
ing solid wastes generated outside the city limits. The largest of the seven
landfills is Astatula which received approximately 146,450 m^ (191,560 yd**)
of solid waste in 1974. These figures are estimates based on information re-
ported by the operators and attendants. There is no accurate means of
determining the exact volumes of solid waste buried at these sites. The
smallest landfill appears to be the Astor site in the Ocala National Forest;
Astor is rapidly nearing capacity.
Lake County does not operate a collection system. Most collection
is performed by franchise issued by the county. The county residents that
do not use franchised collectors haul their wastes in passenger vehicles
and pickup trucks.
The Lake County landfills are open for disposal 6 days a week for 10
hours a day. An attendant is on duty during this time to direct unloading and
take care of general cleanup. The sites are fenced and access is controlled by
gates. User fees are charged for disposal by franchise haulers and all trucks;
automobiles using the landfills are not charged for disposal at the present time.
When the county converts to transfer stations, user fees may be extended to
include automobiles. No provisions have been made for accepting refuse when
the gates are closed. Signs at the entrance state operating conditions and hours
of operation (see Figure 9). Shelters have been erected at the sites for the
attendants.
The basic method of landfilling at the Lake County sites is the progres-
sive trench-type (see Figure 10). Cover is applied daily. The trenches are
excavated with a dragline; the spreading, compacting, and covering of the
refuse is performed by track-type bulldozers. All the sites are fairly well
maintained. After an area has been completely landfilled it is contour-graded
and planted with native grasses.
Lake County has eight pieces of landfill equipment in operation. The
landfill equipment used at the Astatula site includes a Koehring 1-m^ (1-1/4-yd^)
dragline and an International TD-25-C crawler tractor. At Lady Lake an older
Northwest dragline excavates the trench and a bulldozer spreads, compacts, and
covers the daily cells. A Caterpillar 933 traxcavator is used at Astor. The Log
House and Stuckey sites share two pieces of equipment—an International TD-15
bulldozer and an International 175B loader. The Paisley and Umatilla sites
share one International TD-15 bulldozer. In an emergency, equipment is avail-
able from the county highway department.
26
-------
Figure 9. Typical signs at landfills in Lake County, Florida,
Figure 10. Trench-type landfilling at Lady Lake, in
Lake County, Florida.
27
-------
For hauling landfill equipment between sites, Lake County uses a
17-year old truck tractor low-boy trailer rig (gasoline-powered) of about
23-tonne (25-ton) capacity. The equipment is in fair to poor condition and
its expected remaining life cannot readily be determined. One to two years
of use may remain. Backup transport equipment is available from the county
highway department. A pickup truck for the operator is assigned to each
landfill.
All the roads leading to the landfills in Lake County are in good con-
dition . Some of the access roads are surfaced with a clay-sand mixture for
short distances. Although many of the routes between landfills are circuitous
because of the many bodies of water throughout the county, travel is fairly
swift. A round trip of all the sites exceeds 380 km (200 miles) . There are
no adverse gradients or substandard structures on any of the landfill routes.
Fire protection at the sites is provided by. stockpiles of soil and local volun-
teer fire departments within easy driving distance of the landfills.
Lake County maintains monthly expenditure logs which tabulate
the equipment hours, fuel, oil, grease, repairs, and other equipment costs,
total salaries paid, total field costs, cubic yards landfilled, and cost per
cubic yard to landfill (see Table 4). This accounting method is the most
sophisticated of any used at the sites studied; however, the capital costs of
the equipment and the fringe benefits for employees are not included in these
calculations. Lake County estimates their disposal costs at $1.65/tonne ($1.50/
ton). Our developed costs for Lake County including fringe benefits and
equipment owning costs are $2.44/tonne ($2.21/ton).
3.5 LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA
Leon County is located in the Florida panhandle. The Apalachicola
National Forest occupies a large area in the western part of the county. Por-
tions of Leon County are also in the Miccosukee Hills, the Tallahassee Hills,
and the Karst coastal plain. The average annual rainfall is 142 cm (56 in).
Tallahassee, a city of 90,000, is the county seat; it is also the State Capital,
and the home of Florida State University, Florida A. & M. University, and
Tallahassee Community College. With a population of about 130,000, Leon
County is not a large industrial or manufacturing area; two of the larger
industries are a crate mill and a mobile home manufacturer.
28
-------
Table 4. EXPENDITURES REPORT FOF: SEPTEMBER 1975
AT LAKE COUNTY. FLORIDA SANIT\RY LANDFILL"
Landfill site
Astatula
Lady Lake
Log House
As tor
Paisley
Stuckey
Umatilla
Monthly totals
Fiscal year cumulative
totals
Hours
Machines
Operated
150
88
40
39
54
113
107
591
6,320
Fuel. Oil.
Grease and
Repairs
$ 327.20
$ 190.75
$ 201.88
$ 367.32
$ 180.35
$ 457.41
$ 235.47
$ 1.960.38
$51.941.67
Other
Costs
$ 228.58
$ 228.57
$ 228.57
$ 228.57
$ 228.57
$ 228.57
$ 228.57
$ 1.600.00
$15,610.00
Total
Salarie<
Paidb
$ 2.609.18
$ 1.515. (7
$ 1, 588.18
$ 874.00
$ 619.10
$ 1.751. !7
$ 1.543. 0
$ 10.502. -.0
$122.160.10
Total
Field
Costc
$ 3.165.46
$ 1.934.79
$ 2.019.03
$ 1,469.89
$ 1,028.52
$ 2,437.95
$ 2,007.14
$ 14.062.78
$189.712.47
Volume of
refuse buried,
in mi Does not include fringe benefits.
°Volumes and costs furnished by Lake County. Costs do not include equipment depreciation
-------
Leon County operates two large and five small landfill sites—all of
which are presently in various phase-out stages. The five small landfills,
scattered in rural areas of the county and generally surrounded by woods,
are nearing capacity and are scheduled to be converted to bulk container
disposal sites within the next two to three months „ These landfills are:
Lakewood, Woodville, Miccosukee, Tram Road, and Fort Braden. Walls and
embankments to create off-loading areas for the bulk containers are presently
under construction at these sites (see Figure 11). The two large landfills,
Spring Hill and Trash Dump , are situated just outside the city limits. Spring
Hill handles putrescibles (generally residential wastes) and Trash Dump is
used only for demolition—trees and stumps, broken pavement, and wasted
earthwork. Spring Hill has an area of 40 hectares (100 acres) of which 36
hectares (90 acres) have been used. Trash Dump has an area of 24 hectares
(60 acres) of which about 22 hectares (54 acres) have been used. A pro-
posed new sanitary landfill of approximately 183 hectares (452 acres) is
presently in the design and acquisition stage. The new landfill should be
operational during the early part of 1976.
Leon County, Florida does not operate a collection system. The
city of Tallahassee has a franchise collection system. County residents
using the smaller landfills use pickup trucks and passenger vehicles to
transport their solid waste for disposal. User fees for disposal at the new
central landfill are presently under consideration by the county.
All the Leon County landfills have fences and locked gates. They
are open 6 days a week 9 9 hours a day. Signs at the entrances indicate the
regulations and hours of operation, but the county has had trouble with van-
dals entering the sites during off-hours. No provisions have been made for
solid waste disposal outside the gates when the landfills are closed.
There is no accurate method of determining the volumes of solid
waste handled at any of the landfills except at Trash Dump, where a scale
is used to establish the tonnage deposited. Trash Dump processes an average
of 10,900 tonnes (12,000 tons) per month. Monthly volumes estimated for the
five small landfills are: Lakewood, 2,675m3 (3,500 yd3); Woodville, 1,900m3
(2,500yd3); Miccosukee, 765m3 (1,000yd3); Tram Road, 1,680m3 (2,200
yd3); and Fort Braden, 1,760 m3 (2,300 yd3) . The Spring Hill site processes
an average of 9,770 m3 (12,780 yd3) monthly.
Trench-type landfilling is practiced at all the sites except Trash
Dump. Cover material for Trash Dump is in limited supply. The Spring Hill
and Trash Dump landfills are maintained daily. The smaller sites receive
periodic attention and sometimes have a problem with gulls being attracted
to the uncovered refuse. When these sites are phased out in the next two
to three months , they will be contour-graded and vegetated with grasses.
30
-------
(a)
(b)
Figure 11. Construction for bulk container sites in
Leon County, Florida: (a) bin wall and
pad at Woodville; (b) typical bin (con-
tainer) at Fort Braden.
31
-------
Leon County owns a Rex Trashmaster Compactor, a Caterpillar D-8
track-type bulldozer, and a Link Belt 98 dragline on crawler tracks of about
l-m^ (l-l/2-yd'J) capacity. This equipment is used for operations at the
Spring Hill landfill. It was purchased in December 1970 and is in good con-
dition . Its expected remaining life ranges from about 3 years for the Trash-
master to 10 years for the dragline. A 32-year old Caterpillar D-7 bulldozer
is also owned and used by the county at its other landfills. An Allis-Chalmers
HD-21 is stationed at the Trash Dump site. A landfill contractor uses a Cater-
pillar D-8 crawler tractor at Trash Dump and services the five satellite land-
fills with a small crawler tractor.
Leon County has no transport equipment assigned to the solid waste
department. Whenever landfill equipment must be moved, transport vehicles
are borrowed from the county highway department. The landfill contractor
operating Trash Dump and the other sites appears to have ample transport
equipment.
The highways in Leon County are, for the most part, good state and
U.S. numbered routes. Several of the county roads serving the landfills
are composed of native hard-packed clay and sand and are maintained peri-
odically with a motor grader. Speeds of 64 km (40 miles) per hour can be
attained when these routes are in good condition. The loaded transport
vehicles are within state maximum-load limits.
Fire protection for the two large landfills is provided by the Talla-
hassee Fire Department. The Forest Service and small volunteer fire depart-
ments serve the small outlying landfills.
As in most of the counties studied, record keeping for solid waste
disposal operations is minimal. On the basis of estimates and available in-
formation, it was determined that Leon County handles approximately 210,100 .
tonnes (231,400 tons) of refuse per year at a cost of $1.22 per tonne ($1.11
per ton) (see Appendix B tables).
3.6 CATRON COUNTY, NEW MEXICO
Catron County is covered in large part by the Gila National Forest
which rises above the desert of southwestern New Mexico and serves as a
huge watershed for the Great Southwest region of the United States. The
mountain ranges in Catron County include the Mogollone, the Tularosa, and
the Black Range. The average annual rainfall in the region is between 20
and 64 cm (8 and 25 in), with the greater amounts falling on the higher ele-
32
-------
vations. The county is sparsely populated, containing approximately 2,800
people; however, from mid-May to mid-September the population swells with
tourists. The industries of the county are timber, forage or range land, and
recreation.
Catron County operates two sanitary landfills, both of which are
located in the Gila National Forest—one in the Glenwood Forest Ranger Dist-
rict and one in the Reserve District. The landfills are situated in mountain
foothills and surrounded by scattered pinon and ponderosa pine trees. They
are operated under National Forest Service special use permits which can
be rescinded for violations of permit requirements.
Catron County does not operate a collection system. Each landfill
is served by several bulk container stations, and users transport their own
refuse to either the landfill sites or the container stations. The most common
vehicle used for hauling is the 0.5- to 0.7-tonne (1/2- to 3/4-ton) pickup
truck. The county periodically transports the 15-m3 (20-yd3) collection
boxes to the landfills for disposal.
Catron County maintains a pick-up schedule for its bulk containers
and a specified date when the landfills will be open. The Glenwood and Re-
serve landfills are open only on Saturdays for a 9-hour period. During this
time, users can approach the trench and off-load directly into it at a location
specified by a posted sign. When the gates are locked, users must deposit
refuse in a 15-m3 (20-yd3) Dm with hinged wire mesh covers, which is
stationed outside of the gates at each site (see Figure 12). In addition to
this bin, the Glenwood landfill is served by 2 other bulk container stations—
Alma and Mogollone—and the Reserve Site is served by 4—Luna, Rancho
Grande, Aragon, and Cruzville. The containers at these sites are available
to the public 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Periodically the bulk containers
are transported to the landfills and emptied as follows: the operator first
empties the container stationed outside of the landfill gate. He transports
that mounted empty container to the first station where he exchanges it for
the full box. The full box is then transported to the landfill and emptied,
and the procedure is repeated until all stations have been serviced. The
last emptied container is repositioned outside of the landfill gate.
The Glenwood landfill is situated on U. S. 180, a bituminous con-
crete highway. The overall site area is approximately 4 hectares (10 acres)
with 2 hectares (5 acres) being actively used for landfilling. Daily volumes
deposited, as estimated by the landfill operator, are between 12 and 19 m3
(15 and 25 yd3). The refuse consists of residential, agricultural, and some
commercial wastes. In the spring when volumes increase, slash is some-
times a problem. Dead animals are landfilled occasionally when arrange-
ments are made with the operator.
33
-------
Figure 12. Bulk storage container stationed at the
Glenwood landfill, Catron County,
New Mexico.
Figure 13. The Reserve landfill site, Catron
County , New Mexico.
Figure 14. Massey-Ferguson bulldozer at the Glen-
wood landfill, Catron County, New
Mexico.
34
-------
Trench-type landfilling is practiced at Glenwood and the refuse
is compacted and covered daily. Site characteristics are good in terms of
making trench, stockpiling cover material, dumping the bulk containers,
disposal by private users, compacting, and covering. Vectors are con-
trolled by cover materials, and the site appears to be well maintained.
Access to the Glenwood landfill is relatively easy because of its
location just off a federal highway. Maneuverability on the site is generally
good in both dry and wet seasons. No winter operating problems have
occurred. Fire protection is provided by the Glenwood Fire Department,
which is approximately 3 km (2 miles) away.
The Reserve landfill is located off state highway 12 on the Hudson
Ranch Road, a 6-m (20-ft) wide gravel-surfaced road in good condition.
The total site area is about 32 hectares (80 acres); the fenced landfill area
is about 3 hectares (8 acres). Daily volumes deposited are estimated to be
between 15 and 23 m^ (20 and 30 yd3), composed mostly of residential ref-
use . In the fall and spring when landowners clear portions of their land,
slash volumes increase and sometimes become a problem. Dead animals
are landfilled when arrangements are made to receive and cover them.
Trench-type landfilling is practiced at the Reserve site (see Fig-
ure 13). The operator reported no major problems in the landfilling process.
A drainage problem existed at the time of our inspection; however, a review
of the site indicated that this problem can be solved with one or two days'
work with equipment. Also during our inspection, a fair amount of debris
was protruding from the cover material on the landfill; this problem could
be solved with additional cover material and compaction. Blowing litter is
often a problem at this site.
Access to the Reserve site and access to and from the off-loading
areas are good. Fire protection is provided by on-site stockpiles of cover
material and by the Reserve Fire Department located 3 km (2 miles) away.
Catron County owns two 60-hp Massey-Ferguson tractors with dozer
blades (see Figure 14). One tractor is stationed at each landfill site and is
used specifically for that site. The machinery is approximately 2 years old;
the piece at Glenwood has an estimated remaining life of 5 years, and the
piece at Reserve has a remaining life of 2 years.
Catron County owns two 0.7-tonne (3/4-ton) pickup trucks and
three trailers for transporting nine bulk containers to the landfills for dis-
posal . The loading/unloading procedure for emptying the bulk containers
35
-------
is time-consuming. The containers, trailers, and container hook-ups were
locally manufactured and are inadequate for these operations. When land-
fill equipment must be moved, a tractor-trailer rig is borrowed from the
highway department for that purpose.
Catron County has no substandard or hazardous roads or structures
to travel in transporting its bulk containers. The loaded transport equip-
ment is within legal weight limits. The roads in the mountainous National
Forest have maximum grades of 10 to 12 percent and are at times curvilinear.
It was reported that winter travel is occasionally hazardous.
A monthly estimate of landfill costs was prepared by the Catron
County Reserve site (see Table 5) but was not available for Glenwood. Ad-
ditional cost accounting data is included in Appendix B. It is estimated
that Catron County handles a total of 3,200 tonnes (3,600 tons) per year at
a cost of $8.99 per tonne ($7.99 per ton).
36
-------
Table 5. ESTIMATED MONTHLY COSTS OF SANITARY LANDFILL OPERATION
AT RESERVE, NEW MEXICO (CATRON COUNTY) FOR 1975a
Item
Fuel for sanitary landfill truck— 1,135 liters (300 gal)
4.7 liters (5 qt) of oil (for oil change)
1 oil filter for oil change
1 set of rear tires for every 12,870 km (8,000 miles)
1 set of six tires for every 25,740 km (16,000 miles)
1 lube job every 6,440 km (4,000 miles)
General maintenance on truck and trailer (tune-ups, etc.)
Depreciation on truck and trailer
Diesel fuel for tractor to cover landfill — 76 liters (20 gal)
Diesel fuel for tractor to dig trench for landfill —
227 liters (60 gal)
General maintenance for tractor
Depreciation on tractor
Landfill operator labor cost
3 days' labor for 3 men using tractor and grader to
excavate trench for landfill
Diesel fuel for grader to dress access roads and dig
trench— 150 liters (40 gal)
TOTAL MONTHLY COST
Cost per
month
$ 165.00
4.25
4.00
20.00
60.00
1.50
100.00
125.00
8.00
24.00
330.00
400.00
418.00
216.00
16.00
$1,891.75
aAs furnished by Catron County, New Mexico.
^Approximate mileage for sanitary landfill truck—3,220 km (2,000 miles)
per month. Gasoline used is 284 liters (75 gal) per week or 1,135
liters (300 gal) per month. Mileage averaged is 3 km/liter (7 miles/gal)
with load.
37
-------
SECTION 4
COMPARISON OF RURAL LANDFILL OPTIONS
Comparisons among the rural landfill systems included in this study
cannot be made easily or systematically because of the diversity found among
the operations being practiced. Only two of the systems can be categorized
in terms of operation; the others combine elements from several kinds of land-
fill operation. The extent of equipment-sharing among landfills in the six
counties ranges from exclusive sharing in Graham County to no sharing in
Catron County, which is a bulk-container transfer station disposal system.
Habersham County transports one and sometimes two pieces of landfill equip-
ment between its two sites. Cascade County operates one landfill using one
piece of equipment; the other five Cascade County landfills are operated by
a contractor who uses one or two pieces of equipment at all the sites. Both
Lake and Leon Counties have permanently stationed landfill equipment at
their large-volume sites and share one piece of equipment between small-
volume sites on a daily basis. At the time of this study, Leon County was
in the process of phasing out the small landfills and converting to bulk con-
tainer transfer stations. Lake County had prepared studies and taken pre-
liminary steps toward replacing two of its smaller landfills, which were ap-
proaching capacity, with transfer stations.
Depending on location, site conditions, population density, and
volumes of waste generated, each of these systems has some advantages
and disadvantages. Graham County , Arizona provides the lowest level of
service at a cost of $3.00 per resident per year. With one operator
using one piece of landfill equipment and one piece of transport equipment
to operate five scattered landfills, the majority of the operator's time
is, of course, devoted to the more active landfills; the low-volume sites
receive only periodic attention. All sites are unattended and are open
24 hours per day 7 days per week. The major disadvantage of this
system is the length of time that the refuse lies uncovered allowing
the refuse to be scattered by the wind. The second disadvantage is
38
-------
the amount of time the operator spends traveling between the sites. For
Graham County it is estimated that 20 percent of his time is spent in transport
and 80 percent in actual landfill operations. Thirdly, the term "sanitary
landfill" cannot be applied to the smaller sites in Graham County because
the refuse is not covered on a daily basis.
Of course an equipment-sharing system offers the advantage that
expensive equipment is utilized to its fullest extent, as opposed to a sys-
tem in which several pieces of equipment are used and must sit idle much
of the time. Efforts to upgrade the Graham County system would mean in-
creasing costs. Disposal costs at the time of the study are estimated at $6.30/
tonne ($5.66/ton). Additional equipment and labor, or overtime for the pre-
sent staff, would be required to improve the conditions in Graham County
and would mean a more expensive operation.
The Habersham County, Georgia solid waste disposal operation main-
tains about five times as many employees and four to five times as many pieces
of landfill equipment as the Graham County system. It is classified as a "sani-
tary landfill" operation because daily cover is performed. Habersham County
practices some equipment-sharing between its two landfills but also has land-
fill equipment permanently assigned to each site. This equipment sits idle
for at least 4 hours a day.
Attendants are on-site at the landfills 10 hours a day, 6 days a
week—a measure that has discouraged scavenging, vandalism, and in-
discriminant dumping at the landfills. One disadvantage of the Habersham
County system is that the remote areas of the county are not adequately
served by the two landfills, which are located 13 km (8 miles) apart. Resi-
dents of the northern sections of the county must travel up to 64 km (40 miles)
round trip to use the landfills. Bulk container stations should be considered
in the future to facilitate waste disposal in the more remote areas of the county.
At present the residents of these areas use other disposal methods such as
burning or filling of hollows. The introduction of bulk container stations in
these areas will encourage more residents to use the disposal facilities.
Habersham County handles approximately five times as much waste
as Graham County at less cost/tonne, as would be expected. It was deter-
mined that the cost of refuse disposal in Habersham County is $2.12/tonne
($1.93/ton).
39
-------
Landfilling operations in Cascade County, Montana at the time of this
study were performed by a contractor at all but one of the sites. The contract
operation could be considered a form of equipment sharing because the con-
tractor shared several pieces of equipment among five landfills. The opera-
tion cannot be considered sanitary landfilling at these sites because routine
operations are performed once a week. The contractor's duties include com-
paction and covering; he receives hourly compensation for digging additional
trench when it is required.
The Cascade County sites are open to the public at all hours, seven
days a week and are not attended. One major disadvantage of the operator's
weekly visits is that litter is carried by the constant winds and scattered in
all directions. Designated off-loading areas are frequently disregarded by
the users, fences are removed, and refuse is often dumped on the entrance
roads to the landfills.
Cascade County is not satisfied with the present conditions at these
sites and has decided to take over operations themselves. They are in the
process of developing bulk container stations at or near four landfills that
will be closed. The conversion to bulk container stations will overcome
some of the existing operational difficulties such as blowing litter, indis-
criminant dumping, and the need for daily cover; however, other opera-
tional problems^may be introduced, such as vandalism of the containers,
freezing of the container contents in winter, inconvenience for weak or
elderly persons unable to manage the heavy container lids, and dumping
outside of the containers when solid waste generation is unusually heavy
and the boxes are full.
The present cost of disposal in the Cascade County system is $3.15/
tonne ($2,86/ton). On the basis of the same waste volumes, it is expected
that these costs will increase after the county assumes operational responsi-
bility because the labor and equipment required to meet the minimum state
requirements (new landfill equipment, new containers, transport equipment
for the containers, a landfill machine, and labor to perform landfill oper-
ation functions) is more extensive than that presently furnished by the con-
tract . However, it is our opinion that the landfill operation will improve
after the county assumes full control, if only because of additional labor
and equipment and more frequent attention to the sites.
The landfill operation in Lake County , Florida is similar to that in
Graham County, Arizona on a smaller scale. Although landfill equipment
is permanently stationed at the larger sites, four of the landfills have a
sharing system—i.e., two sites share one piece of equipment each. Occas-
ionally equipment is shuttled between the other sites for a specific task
such as digging trench when necessary.
*The county reported no operating problems during the first six
months of use.
40
-------
The landfill operation staff in Lake County is about 18 times as large
as the Graham County staff and the stable of equipment includes 8 pieces of
landfill machinery, 1 tractor-trailer, 1 dump truck, and 8 pickup trucks—
a total of 18 pieces as compared with Graham County's 2. All the Lake County
sites are attended 10 hours a day, 6 days a week; an attendant is on duty to
collect disposal fees as well as to ensure that unloading takes place only in
designated areas. The presence of an attendant discourages indiscriminant
dumping, scavenging, and vandalism.
The Lake County sites appear to be well kept. All refuse is com-
pacted and covered at the end of each workday. A small problem was evident
at one of the sites—debris was being dumped outside the fence on Sundays;
strict enforcement of the litter laws may discourage the practice.
At the time of this study, Lake County was in the process of convert-
ing several of the smaller landfills in the sparsely populated areas of the
county to transfer stations because the landfills were approaching capacity
and other acceptable landfill sites were not readily available. Transfer sta-
tions seem to be a viable alternative for these outlying areas and are not
expected to significantly increase disposal costs.
Lake County was one of only two study counties to maintain cost
records. They have developed disposal costs as $1.65/tonne ($1.50/ton);
however this cost does not include capital costs of the equipment or fringe
benefits for employees. Our developed costs for the county including these
costs are $2.44/tonne ($2.21/ton) . We recommend that equipment owning
costs be developed by Lake County so that a more accurate determination
of disposal costs can be made. It is also recommended that all landfill and
transfer station users be charged disposal fees, with a minimum charge for
automobiles, to make this system more equitable and more self-supporting.
In Leon County, Florida the main landfill is operated by county
equipment and the other six are operated by a contractor. The only equip-
ment-sharing that is practiced is the use of a crawler tractor at five of
these sites. Landfill equipment is permanently stationed at the two large-
volume sites, which are maintained daily. The smaller sites receive peri-
odic attention; although an effort is made to service these landfills each
day, the daily deposits are often left uncovered for several days, and gulls
have been a problem at these sites.
At the time of this study, Leon County was in the process of con-
verting the five smaller and nearly completed landfills to bulk container
transfer stations—an alternative that will better serve the residents of
these rural areas of the county. Unloading areas consisting of a concrete
41
-------
pad and retaining wall were already under construction and several of the
small landfills were in the final stages of grading and revegetation as part
of the closure operations. Leon County is negotiating for a new central sani-
tary landfill site of 183 hectares (452 acres) and is considering the initiation
of user fees to be collected by a county attendant. The central landfill would
be operated by county employees, and the bulk container stations would be
operated by a contractor. Also under consideration is a plan for resource
recovery, particularly paper, because of the large volumes generated by
governmental agencies and educational institutions in the county.
The present disposal cost of $1.22/tonne ($l.ll/ton) developed for
this study is expected to increase in the future because the land for the new
site is reported to cost $2,500.00/acre whereas all existing sites were free
of charge.
Catron County, New Mexico practices bulk container transfer station
disposal in conjunction with two sanitary landfill operations. No equipment-
sharing is practiced in this system. Bulk containers are collected weekly
for emptying and the landfills are open one day a week. With no attendants
at these locations during the week, Catron County has had trouble with
vandalism of the containers.
The transport equipment used in this operation is in need of refine-
ment . The loading and unloading of the bulk containers onto the tractor-
trailer hauling rig appears to be cumbersome and time-consuming. Trans-
portation during the winter over narrow winding roads with no guard rails
is sometimes hazardous.
Generally the disposal operation in Catron County serves the needs
of the population. The county is the largest of the study sites and the least
populated, with about 0.2 persons/km2 (0.4 persons /mile2). Because of
the population served and the low volumes of solid waste generated the
costs developed for disposal were the highest in this study—$8.99/tonne
($7.99/ton). However such a sparesely-settled area appears to be well
suited for the container station disposal method.
42
-------
SECTION 5
COST-ESTIMATING TOOL FOR RURAL
LAND DISPOSAL OPERATIONS
Many potentially acceptable alternatives are available for the effective
disposal of solid waste in rural areas. The case studies conducted for this
report have identified three relatively inexpensive ones. The cost-estimating
model presented below shows how the data collected can be used to design
workable systems, and is intended for use by municipalities in the decision-
making process. It must be understood that the data base for these options
consists of costs developed from approximations and estimates.
HYPOTHETICAL MODEL
Assume a rural county currently operates three land disposal sites.
Site A receives approximately 45 tons of solid waste per day (TPD), and
Sites B and C receive 30 and 25 TPD, respectively. The amount of waste
delivered has been estimated by assuming that each urban resident gener-
ates between 3.0 and 3.5 pounds per person per day, and each rural resi-
dent, 1.5 pounds per person per day. The commercial and industrial waste
generation has been determined by personal contact with each source.
The county wishes to provide environmentally sound disposal but
does not wish to establish a formal collection service. The disposal options
being considered are as follows:
OPTION 1; Purchase one piece of landfill equipment and transport it
from site to site each day using a tractor-trailer.
OPTION 2; Purchase one piece of landfill equipment and establish
transfer stations at Sites B and C. Collect roll-off boxes
from Sites B and C each day that Site A is open.
43
-------
OPTION 3; Purchase three pieces of landfill equipment and station
one piece of equipment at each site.
A cost estimate including capital costs, operating costs, and a pro-
jected cost per ton has been developed for each of these disposal options.
The estimates are based on the following assumptions:
1. The land at each site is already owned by the county,
therefore no cost of land is included.
2. Fencing, gates, and developments costs are $500 per acre
for landfills and $2,000 per site for transfer stations.
3. Site A is a 10-acre site. Sites B and C are 6-acre sites.
4. All labor is estimated at $5.00 per hour, fringe benefits
are estimated at 20 percent of total labor cost, and admin-
istrative (overhead) costs are estimated at 15 percent of
total labor cost.
5. The round trip driving distance for all three sites is 50
miles. The distance from Site A to either Site B or C is
15 miles and from Site B to Site C is 20 miles.
6. Capital costs were derived in the following manner:
For development costs, a 10-year life with interest at
8 percent was assumed.
For transport and transfer equipment, a 5-year life
with interest at 8 percent was assumed.
For landfill equipment, hourly owning and operating
costs from Table 18 were used; these costs were de-
veloped using an 8-hour day, a 5-day week, and 52
weeks per year.
7. In this example, costs per ton are based on a total of
26,000 tons per year (100 tons per day, 5 days per week).
44
-------
Capital Costs
OPTION 1: Using assumptions 2 and 3, development and fencing
costs are $11,000. Only one piece of landfill equipment is required for this
option. From Table 18, a Model D-5 is chosen, at a total cost of $65,800.
A tractor-trailer is needed to haul the landfill equipment; the cost for this
equipment (developed from Table 15) is assumed to be $18,000. The total
capital cost is $94,800 or $22,394.16/yr.
Development (3 landfills) $11,000 @ 8% for 10 yrs $ 1,602.48/yr
Owning Model D-5 $65,800 @ $7.89/hr 16,411.72/yr
Owning tractor-trailer $18,000 @ 8% for 5 yrs 4,380.48/yr
TOTAL $94,800 or $22,394.68/yr
$22,394.68 r- 26,000 tons = $0.86/ton
OPTION 2; Using assumptions 2 and 3, development and fencing
costs are $5,000 for Site A and $2,000 each for Sites B and C. The landfill
equipment requirements are the same as for Option 1 (Model D-5 from Table
18). Five roll-off boxes are required for transfer: two each for Sites B and
C and one spare. The cost is assumed to be $1,500 per box. The truck to
collect these boxes is assumed to cost $12,000. The total capital cost for
this option is $94,300 or $22,467.84/yr.
Development (1 landfill, $ 9,000 @ 8% for 10 yrs $ 1,311.12/yr
2 transfer stations)
Owning Model D-5 $65,800 @ $7.89/hr 16,411.20/yr
Owning other equipment $19.500 @ 8% for 5 yrs 4,745.52/yr
(5 roll-off boxes, 1 truck)
TOTAL $94,300 or $22,467.84/yr
$22,467.84 ;- 26,000 tons = $0.86/ton
OPTION 3: Using assumptions 2 and 3, development and fencing
costs are $11,000. Three pieces of landfill equipment are needed for the
three sites. Three Model D-4s are chosen (from Table 18) at a cost of
$45,300 each. The total capital cost for this option is $146,900 or $35,485.68/yr.
Development (3 landfills) $ 11,000 @ 8% for 10 yrs 1,602.48/yr
Owning 3 Model D-4s 135,900 @ $5.43 ea/hr 33.883.20/yr
TOTAL $146,900 or $35,485.68/yr
$35,485.68 f 26,000 tons = $1.36/ton
45
-------
Yearly Operating Costs
OPTION 1: One full-time operator is required for this option. It
is assumed that the operator uses the landfill equipment 60 percent of the time
and drives the tractor-trailer 40 percent of the time. The cost of operating
the landfill equipment (Model D-5) is $7.48/hr (Table 18). The operating
and maintenance cost for the tractor-trailer rig is assumed to be $1.50/mile
loaded. Assuming one round trip per day to the three sites, five days per
week, the operating and maintenance cost for the tractor-trailer rig is $19,500.
1 Operator
fringes
admin.
$5.00/hr x 2080 hrs
20% of total labor
15% of total labor
$10,400
2,080
1,560
Model D-5 (60% of the time) $7.48/hr x 2080 hrs x 60% 9,335
Tractor-trailer $1.50/mile x 13,000 miles/yr 19,500 '
TOTAL $42,875/yr
$42,875 f 26,000 tons = $1.65/ton
OPTION 2; Two full-time operators are required for this system.
It is assumed that the landfill equipment (Model D-5) operates full time. The
tractor-trailer rig will be required to drive a total of 31,200 miles yearly—
half of the hauling will be for loaded boxes, at a cost of $1.50/mile, and
the other half for empty boxes, at a cost of $1.00/mile.
2 Operators x
fringes
admin.
Model D-5
(full-time)
Tractor-trailer
hauling loaded boxes
hauling empty boxes
$5.00 ea/hr x 2080 hrs
20% of total labor
15% of total labor
$7.48/hr x 2080 hrs
31,200 miles/yr
15,600 miles @ $1.50/mile
15,600 miles @ $1.00/mile
Hauling Subtotal
$20,800
4,160
3,120
15,558
$23,400
15.600
$39,000
TOTAL
$82,638
$82,638 s- 26,000 tons
$3.18/ton
46
-------
OPTION 3: Three full-time operators are required for the three
landfills in this system. The cost of operating the landfill equipment (three
Model D-4s) is $5.22/hr. The landfiU equipment operates full time.
3 Operators x $5.00 ea/hr x 2080 hrs $31,200
fringes 20% of total labor 6,240
admin. 15% of total labor 4,680
3 Model D-4s x $5.22/hr x 2080 hrs 32.573
TOTAL $74,693
$74,693 t- 26,000 tons = $2.87/ton
Table 6 summarizes the cost estimates for all three systems and in-
cludes a projected cost per ton.
Because of the assumptions made in the development of this cost-esti-
mating tool, the model is very specific and therefore not a general-purpose
tool. No provisions have been included for a collection system; residents
would be required to deliver their waste or contract to have their wastes
delivered to the landfill or transfer station. Since residents are usually
reluctant to support a decrease in service, these systems could not be used
to replace an existing collection system. Also, with the residents hauling
their own waste, greater volumes would probably be delivered to the sites
on weekends. Therefore, the five-day work week should include Saturday.
The optimum schedule of operations would have to be worked out by experi-
menting during the early stages of implementation. Options such as a five-
day work week from Tuesday through Saturday, or paying five days' wages
for a four-day week as an incentive to work on Saturdays might be con-
sidered .
Because very few operators are employed in any of the proposed
options, the success of these operations depends largely on the individual
operator. Irresponsibility or repeated or prolonged absence from the job
by an operator could easily cause major problems in the disposal system.
Another important requirement in the successful operation of these alter-
natives is that back-up landfill and transport equipment be available for
use when the primary equipment is being repaired. Capital costs can be
reduced by purchasing used equipment.
47
-------
Table 6. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL COST SUMMARY
(Based on 26,000 tons per year)
Item
CAPITAL COST
Landfill Equipment
Transport Equipment
Transfer Equipment
Development Costs
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COST
Labor
Fringes
Landfill Equipment
Transport Equipment
Transfer Equipment
Administration
TOTAL
COST PER TON
Capital Cost
Operating Cost
TOTAL
OPTION 1
3 Landfills
Equip. Sharing
$65,800
18,000
—
11,000
$94,800
$10,400
2,080
9,335
19,500
—
1,560
$42,875
$0.86
1.65
$2.51
OPTION 2
1 Landfill
2 Transfer
$65,800
—
19,500
9,000
$94,300
$20,800
4,160
15,558
—
39,000
3,120
$82,638
$0.86
3.18
$4.04
OPTION 3
3 Landfills
No Sharing
$135,900
—
—
11,000
$146,900
$ 31,200
6,240
32,573
—
—
4,680
$ 74,693
$1.36
2.87
$4.23
48
-------
Municipalities using this cost-estimating tool will have to evaluate
available options in terms of local conditions such as climate, terrain to be
traveled, unemployment, and labor rates. Once a disposal system has
been developed, modifications may have to be made through trial and error
to optimize labor and equipment utilization.
49
-------
REFERENCES
Brunner, D. R., and D. J. Keller. Sanitary Landfill Design and Operation.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D .C. Publication
Number SW-65ts. 1972. 59 p.
Comprehensive Study of Solid Waste Disposal in Cascade County, Montana.
Thomas, Dean and Hoskins, Inc. Public Health Service Publication
Number 2002. 1970. 168 p.
Equipment literature and brochures. Caterpillar Tractor Co. 1975.
Equipment literature and brochures. Fiat-Allis Corporation. 1975.
Equipment literature and brochures. Massey-Ferguson Co. 1975.
Little, H. R. Design Criteria for Solid Waste Management in Recreational
Areas. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D. C.
Publication Number SW-91ts. 1972. 68 p.
Morey, L. J., Jr. Lake County, Florida Solid Waste Management Plan.
M.S. Thesis, Florida Technological University. Orlando, Florida.
1975. 132 p.
Recommended Standards for Sanitary Landfill Design, Construction, and
Evaluation and Model Sanitary Landfill Operation Agreement. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D .C . Publication
Number SW-86ts. 1971. 23 p.
Solid Waste Management Glossary. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, D.C. Publication Number SW-108ts. 1972. 20 p.
Wolfe, J. A. Engineering Report on Solid Waste Collection and Disposal—
Gila National Forest. U.S. Dept. Agriculture Forest Service - Region 3,
Southwestern Region. Phase I. September 1972. 14 p.
50
-------
Zausner, E. R. An Accounting System for Sanitary Landfill Operations,
U.S. Dept. of Health Education and Welfare. Washington, D .C .
Public Health Service Publication Number 2007. 1969 (Reprinted 1973
by U .S. Environmental Protection Agency, Publication Number SW-15ts).
18 p.
Zausner, E. R. An Accounting System for Solid Waste Management in Small
Communities. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington,
D. C. Publication Number SW-28ts. 1971. 18 p.
51
-------
GLOSSARY*
BLADE.
Earth-A heavy, broad plate that is connected to the front of a tractor
and is used to push and spread soil or other material.
Landfill-A U-blade with an extension on top that increases the vol-
ume of solid wastes that can be pushed and spread, and protects
the operator from any debris thrown out of the solid waste.
U-Blade-A dozer blade with an extension on each side; they protrude
forward at an obtuse angle to the blade and enable it to handle a
larger volume of solid waste than a regular blade.
BUCKET. An open container affixed to the movable arms of a wheeled or
tracked vehicle to spread solid waste and cover material, and to exca-
vate soil.
BULLDOZER. A tracked vehicle equipped with an earth blade.
COLLECTION. The act of removing solid waste from the central storage
point of a primary source.
Contract-The collection of solid waste carried out in accordance with
a written agreement in which the rights and duties of the contrac-
tual parties are set forth.
Franchise-Collection made by a private firm that is given exclusive
right to collect for a fee paid by customers in a specific territory
or from specific types of customers.
Municipal-The collection of solid waste by public employees and equip-
ment under the supervision and direction of a municipal department
or official.
Private-The collection of solid waste by individuals or companies from
residential, commercial, or industrial premises; the arrangements
*Adapted from Solid Waste Management Glossary. U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. Washington, D.C. Publication Number SW-108ts. 1972. 20 p.
52
-------
for the service are made directly between the owner or occupier
of the premises and the collector.
i
COMPACTOR.
Sanitary Landfill-A vehicle equipped with a blade and with rubber
tires sheathed in steel or hollow steel cores; both types of wheels
are equipped with load concentrations to provide compaction and
a crushing effect.
CONTAINER.
Lift and Carry-A large container that can be lifted onto a service ve-
hicle and transported to a disposal site for emptying; also called
a detachable container or drop-off box.
Roll-on/Roll-off-A large container [15 to 23 m3 (20 to 40 yd3)] that
can be pulled onto a service vehicle mechanically and carried to
a disposal site for emptying.
COVER MATERIAL. Soil that is used to cover compacted solid waste in
a sanitary landfill.
CUT. Portion of a land surface or an area from which earth or rock has
been or will be excavated. The distance between an original ground
surface and an excavated surface.
DRAGLINE. A revolving shovel that carries a bucket attached only by
cables and digs by pulling the bucket toward itself.
DUMP. A land site where solid waste is disposed of in a manner that
does not protect the environment.
FRONT END LOADER. A collection vehicle with arms that engage a de-
tachable container, move it up over the cab, empty it into the vehi-
cle's body, and return it to the ground.
GRADER. A gas- or diesel-powered, pneumatic-wheeled machine equipped
with a centrally located blade that can be angled to cast to either side.
GRADIENT. The degree of slope or a rate of change.
PUTRESCIBLE. Organic matter capable of being decomposed by micro-
organisms .
REFUSE. See SOLID WASTE.
53
-------
RUBBISH. A general term for solid waste—excluding food waste and
ashes—taken from residences, commercial establishments, and in-
stitutions .
SANITARY LANDFILLING. An engineered method of disposing of solid
waste on land in a manner that protects the environment, by spread-
ing the waste in thin layers, compacting it to the smallest practical
volume, and covering it with soil by the end of each working day.
SANITARY LANDFILLING METHOD.
Area-A method in which the wastes are spread and compacted on the
surface of the ground and cover material is spread and compacted
over them.
Trench-A method in which the waste is spread and compacted in a
trench. The excavated spoil is spread and compacted over the
waste to form the basic cell structure.
SCAVENGER. One who participates in the uncontrolled removal of ma-
terials at any point in the solid waste stream.
SEWAGE SLUDGE. A semiliquid substance consisting of settled sewage
solids combined with varying amounts of water and dissolved materials.
SLASH. Logging and land-clearing debris.
SLUDGE. A semiliquid sediment.
SOLID WASTE. Useless, unwanted, or discarded material with insufficient
liquid content to be free flowing.
Agricultural-The solid waste that results from the rearing and slaught-
ering of animals and the processing of animal products and orchard
and field crops.
Commercial-Solid waste generated by stores, offices and other activi-
ties that do not actually turn out a product.
Demolition-Building materials and rubble resulting from construction,
remodeling, repair, and demolition operations.
Industrial-Solid waste that results from industrial processes and manu-
facturing .
Institutional-Solid wastes originating from education, health care, and
research facilities.
Municipal-Normally, residential and commercial solid waste generated
within a community.
Residential-All solid waste that normally originates in a residential
environment. Sometimes called domestic solid waste.
54
-------
TRANSFER STATION. A site at which solid waste is concentrated and
then taken to a processing facility or sanitary landfill.
TRANSPORT. The movement of solid waste subsequent to collection.
TRASH. See RUBBISH.
VECTOR.
Disease Vector-A carrier, usually an arthropod, that is capable of
transmitting a pathogen from one organism to another.
55
-------
APPENDIX A
SANITARY LANDFILL OPERATION DATA
-------
APPENDIX A
Sanitary Landfill Operation Data
Table 7. SANITARY LANDFILL OPERATION DATA
COLLECTED FROM GRAH/M COUNTY, ARIZONA
Landfill
site
Artesia**
San Jose
Central
Eden
Ft. Thomas
Distance
between
the sites,
km (miles)8
Artesia to
San Jose
24 (15)
San Jose to
Central
25 (16)
Central to
Eden
21 (13)
Central to
Ft. Thomas
24 (15)
Highway
travel
time
40 min.
30 min.
25 min.
30 min.
Daily volumes
of refuse
reported ,
mj (yd3)
11-1/2 - 15
(15 - 20)
6-9
(8 - 12)
24-1/2 - 27
(32 - 35)
3 - 5-1/2
(4 - 7)
2-1/2 - 4
(3-5)
Hrs/d ly
open 10
public
24
24
24
24
24
Days/wk
open to
public
7
7
7
7
7
Operator's time utilization
Site
cleanup
1-1/2 - 2
hrs.
1-2
hrs.
2-3
hrs.
1/2 hr.
1/2 hr.
Site
preparationb
4 hrs.
4 hrs.
4 - 5 hrs.
4 hrs.
4 hrs.
Operation
30 min.
spread/compact
30 min.
cover
1 hr. spread/
compact
30 min. cover
2 hrs. spread/
compact
30-40 min. cover
30-45 min.
30-45 min.
Visits
to the
site
daily
daily
daily
weekly
weekly
01
crt
F
Distances are given on the basis of the operator's travel route with landfill equipment. Operator
starts each day at the county maintenance yard in .Safford a/id returns at the end of the day.
^Trench is excavated when needed; life of trench varies from one week to several months depending
on site.
-------
Table 8. SANITARY LANDFtLL OPERATION DATA
COLLECTED FROM HABERSH.VM COUNTY, GEORGIA
Landfill
site
Cornelia
Clarkesville
Distance
between
sites ,
km (miles)8
13 (18)
Highway
travel
time
between
sites8
20-30 min.
Weekly
volumes
of refuse
reported
m3 (yd3)
1.140
(1,490)
550
( 720)
Hrs/day
open to
public
10
10
Days/wk
open to
public
6
6
Operator's time utilization
Site
cleanup
2-3 hrs.
1-3 hrs.
Site
preparation
3-4 hrs.
2-4 hrs.
Operation
4-5 hrs. spread/
compact
1-2 hrs. cover
2-5 hrs. spread/
compact
1-2 hrs. cover
en
&Operator travels with landfill equipment between the two siteu.
-------
Table 9. SANITARY LANDFILL OPERATION DATA COLLECTED
FROM CASCADE COUNTY, MONTANA
Ul
00
Landfill
site
Vaughna
Ft. Shawb
Ulmb
Sand
Couleeb
Stockettb
Monarch
Daily
volumes of
refuse
reported ,
tonnes (tons)
11 (12)
6 (6.8)
6-1/2 (7)
• 8 (8-1/2)
7-1/2 (8.3)
2 (2.3)
Hrs/day
open to
public
24
24
24
24
24
24
Days/wk
open tc
public
7
7
7
7
7
7
Operator's time utilization
Site
cleanup ,
minutes
30
30
45
30
30
30
Site
preparation ,
minutes
30
30
30
30
30
30
Operation,
minutes
30
30
45-60
30
30
30
aVaughn is the only site operated by the coun:y.
bThese sites are under contract ($25,000/yr) for routine landfill operations which
include spreading, compacting, and covering. Trench excavation is performed
on a time and materials basis when needed. Equipment is hauled to the sites
from the contractor's yard and various other locations in the county; a strict
schedule for making these trips is not maintained by the contractor.
-------
Table 10. SANITARY LANDFILL OPERATION DATA
COLLECTED FROM LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Ul
vo
Landfill
site
Astatula
UmatiUab
Astor
Paisley15
•
Lady Lake
Stuckey0
Log House0
Monthly
volumes of
refuse
reported ,
m' (yd3)
10,660
(13,940)
3,820
( 5,000)
1,640
( 2,150)
2,060
( 2,700)
4,370
( 5,720)
2,190
( 2,860)
3,380
( 4,420)
Hrs/day
open to
public
10
10
10
10
-
10
10
10
Days/wk
open to
public
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Operator's time utilization
Site
cleanup ,
hrs.a
6-8
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
Site
preparation ,
hrs.
8
4
4
4
4
4
4
Operation ,
hrs.
8
4
4
4
4
.
4
4
a
Site cleanup is performed by attendant.
^Landfill equipment is moved once a day between Umatilla and Paisley—a distance of 21 km (13 miles).
°Landfill equipment is moved once a day between Stuckey and Log House—a distance of 26 km (16 miles).
-------
Table 11. SANITARY LANDFILL OPERATION DATA
COLLECTED FROM LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA
Landfill
site
Spring Hill*
Lakewoodc
Woodville0
Miccosukee0
Tram Roadc
Ft. Bradenc
Trash Dumpd
Monthly
volumes
of refuse
reported
8,240m3
(10,780yd3)
2,680m3
( 3,500yd3)
1,910m3
( 2,500yd3)
770m3
( 1,000yd3)
1,680m3
( 2,200yd3)
1,760m3
( 2,300yd3)
9,900
tonnes
(11,000)
tons
Hrs/day
open to
public
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Days/wk
open to
p jblic
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Site
cleanup
hrs.b
6-8
2-3
2-3
1-2
2-3
2-3
9
Operator's time
Site
, preparation
hrs.
8
4
4
4
4
4
9
utilization
, Operation ,
hrs.
9
3-4
3-4
2-3
3-4
3-4
9
en
o
aSpring Hill is the main landfill.
^Cleanup is performed by an attendant.
°Active landfill is to be closed.
"Trash Dump is reserved for demolition, etc. and is operated by contract.
-------
APPENDIX B
Sanitary Landfill Cost Data
Table 13. YEARLY SALARIES FOR EMPLOYEE CLASSIFICATIONS IN 1975*
County
Graham
Habersham
Cascade
en Lake
to
1
P
Leon
Catron
Director/
Supervisor
$12,000
$11,388
$15,000
$18,000
Superintendent/
Admin. Assistant
$ 9,100
$12,000
Adm. As st.
$ 9,000
Supervisor
$ 9,880
plus overtime
Mechanic
$8,808
$7 ,500
Equipment
Operator
$8,910
$8,808
$7,200
(Type I)
$7,000
CPype II)
(7 each)
$8,590
plu J overtime
(1 each)
$5,016
$2,616
Attendant/
Laborer
1 @ $5,200
2 @ $4,160
$8,448
$4,888
$3.52/hr. over-
time . (Avg .
10 hrs. o.t./wk.
(8 each)
$5,075
plus overtime
(2 each)
Remarks
Equipment operator also
serves as landfill operator.
Superintendent also serves
as equipment operator.
Director devotes 50% of
his time to solid waste
disposal .
Director and Administrative
Assistant not on full-time
solid waste disposal.
Director oversees other
environmental departments
in addition to solid waste.
Equipment operators also
serve as landfill operator.
&Most of the employees in these classifications at the study sit ss devote portions of their time to
duties other than solid waste disposal. Therefore the labor costs calculated for the landfill
operators (see Table 18) reflect appropriate percentages of these salaries.
-------
Table 14. LANDFILL EQUIPMENT DATA
County
Graham
Habersham
Cascade
Make
Caterpillar
Caterpillar
Caterpillar
International
Caterpillar
Caterpillar
Case
Caterpillar
Contractor
Equipment
Model
D-5
Bulldozer
D-7
Bulldozer
D-6
Bulldozer
E-200
Self-Propelled
Wheel Scraper
D-7 Tractor
with 5-1/2-m3
(7-yd3)
Wheel
Scraper
D-7 Tractor
Bulldozer
1000-D
Front End
Loader-Track
955-L
Crawler
Tractor
Sice-Capacity
12 tonne
(13-1/2 ton)
105 HP
21 tonne
(23 ton)
200 HP
14-1/2 tonne
(16 ton)
144 HP
ll-l/2mj
(15-yd3)
19 tonne
(21 ton)
200 HP
5-1/2-m3
f7-vd3) Pan
21 tonne
(23 ton)
200 HP
l-mj
(1-1/2-yd3)
G.P. Bucket
2-m1
(2-1/4-yd3)
G.P. Bucket
l-mj
(1-1/2 yd3)
Purchase
Condition
New
New
New
New
New
New
Used
New
Unknown
Cost
$45,000.00
$75.338.48
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
$ 8.000.00
$62.900.00
Unknown
Age or Yr.
purchased
1972
Feb. 1975
29 yrs.
10 yrs.
27 +/- yrs.
20 * yrs.
7 yrs.
Oct. 7. 1975
6 yrs.
(estimate)
Remaining
Ufe
8-8 yrs.
8 yrs.
Mln.
5-8 yrs.
4-6 yrs.
5-8 yrs.
5-8 yrs.
2-3 mos.
8 yrs.
3-4 yrs.
Remarks
For use at both sites.
On loan from Hwy. Dept.
On loan from Hwy. Dept.
On loan from Hwy. Dept.
On loan from Hwy. Dept.
In sad shape.
Replaced in
. December 1975.
Equipment not in use at
time of investigation.
Owned and operated
by Contractor.
a\
-------
Table 14 (continued). LAND*ILL EQUIPMENT DATA
County
Lake
Leon
Make
Koehring
International
Northwest
International
International
International
International
Caterpillar
Rex
Caterpillar
Model
Dragline
Crawler
No. 405
TD-25-C
Bulldozer
Crawler
Dragline
No. 255
TD-15
Bulldozer
TD-15
Bulldozer
TD-15
Bulldozer
175B
Loader
933
Traxca-
vator
Trash
Master
Compactor
D-8
Bulldozer
Size-Capacity
l-m3
(1-1/4 yd3)
32 tonne
(35 ton)
l/2-m3
(3/4 yd3)
125 HP
14-1/2 tonne
(16 ton)
125 HP
14-1/2 tonne
(16 ton)
125 HP
14-1/2 tonne
(16 ton)
2-m3
(2-l/4-yd3)
G. P. Bucket
l-l/2-n>3
(2 yd3)
8 tonne
( 9 ton)
54-1/2 tonne
(60 ton)
32 tonne
(35 ton)
300 HP
Purchase
Condition
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
Cost
$ 50.000.00
$101.000.00
$ 35.000.00
(when new)
$ 55.300.00
$ 55,300.00
$ 55,300.00
$ 39,900.00
$ 16.700.00
$ 80.000.00
$ 84.000.00
Age or Yr.
purchased
1970
1971
12 yrs.
Transferred at
7 yrs. of age
1973
1973
1968
1968
Dec. 1970
Dec. 1970
Remaining
life
8-12 yrs.
6-8 yrs.
3-4 yrs.
3-4 yrs.
6-8 yrs.
6-8 yrs.
4-6 yrs.
6-8 yrs.
2-3 yrs.
8 yrs.
Remarks
Obtained from Mosquito
Control Department.
Obtained from Roads and
Bridges Department.
At Spring Hill landfill.
At Spring Hill landfill.
-------
Table 14 (continued). LANDFILL EQUIPMENT DATA
County
Leon
Catron
Make
Link Belt
Allis-
Chalmers
Caterpillar
Massey
Ferguson
Massey
Ferguson
Model
Model 98
Dragline
HD-21
D-7
MF 3366
Bulldozer
MF 3366
Bulldozer
Size-Capacity
l-m3
(l-l/2-yd3)
Bucket
28 tonne
(31 ton)
270 HP
20 tonne
(22 ton)
180 (IP
60 HP
10-1/2 tonne
(11-1/2 ton)
60 HP
10-1/2 tonne
(11-1/2 ton)
Purchase
Condition
New
Used
11 years old
New
New
New
Cost
( 42.000.00
Unknown
Unknown
: 16.900.00
i 16,570.00
Age or Yr.
purchased
Dec. 1970
Dec. 1970
32 yrs.
Sept. 1973
June 1974
Remaining
life
8-10 yrs.
8-10 yrs.
Unknown
2 yrs.
5 * yrs.
Remarks
At Spring Hill landfill.
Obtained from Hwy. Dept.
Obtained from Hwy. Dept.
Reserve landfill model
discontinued in 1974.
Glenwood landfill model
discontinued in 1974.
Ol
-------
Table 15. TRANSPORT EQUIPMENT DATA
County
Graham
Habersham
Cascade
Lake
Leon"
Catron
Make
CMC
Trailer
CMC
Low Boy
Trailer
International
Trailer
CMC
Trailer
Various
Ford
Chevrolet
Ford
Chevrolet
Trailers
(3 each)
Bins
(containers)
9 each
Model
Unknown
Low Bed
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Tilt Bed
Unknown
Low Boy
Unknown
F 250
Unknown
Local
Manufacture
Local
Manufacture
Size -Capacity
11 tonne
(12-1/2 ton)
18 tonne
(20 ton)
32 tonne
(35 ton)
Combination
2 tonne
( 2-1/2 ton)
23 tonne
(25 ton)
400 HP
Gas Engine
23 tonne
(25 ton)
0.4 tonne
( 1/2 ton)
Pickup Trucks
0.7 tonne
( 3/4 ton)
0.7 tonne
( 3/4 ton)
. 9 tonne .
10 ton)
6 012 m3 (16yd&)
3 615 rr\3 (20yd3)
Purchase
Condition
New
New
Used
4 Yrs. old
Used
4 Yrs. old
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
Cost
$ 8.000.00
$ 7.500.00
$ 7,500.00
$ 7,500.00
$ 7,840.00
$ 9.000.00
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
$ 4.450.00
Unavailable
(Assume
$4.200.00)
$11.925.00
$11.550.00
Total
Year
purchased
1974
1974
1975
1975
1974
1974
1958
1958
Between 1958
and 1975
1975
New 1970
Transferred
1973
July 1973
1973
Remaining
life
6-8 Yrs.
10 Yrs.
5 Yrs.
10 Yrs.
10 Yrs.
15 Yrs.
1-2 Yrs.
1-2 Yrs.
2-4 Yrs.
5 Yrs.
4 Yra.
5 Yrs.
3-5 Yrs.
Remarks
Replaced in early 1976.
Obtained from Roads and
Bridges Department.
Obtained from Roads and
Bridges Department.
For use by equipment and
landfill operators.
Reserve site.
Acquired from Highway
Department in 1973 for
Glenwood .-
Trailers for hauling
bins.
a\
*Mo transport equipment assigned to Solid Waste Department. When needed, it i? requisitioned from Highway Department.
-------
Table 16. 1975 LANDFILL EQUIPMENT COSTS —MASSEY FERGUSON*
Cost Item
Delivered priceb
Model 200
44 HP
3/4 yd3
MP Bucket
$18,000.00
Model 300
03 HP
1-1/4 yd3
MP Bucket
$211,500.00
Model 400
85 HP
1-5/8 yd3
MP Bucket
$36,500.00
Model 500
185 HP
2yd3
MP Bucket
$43,500.00
Model 600
200 HP
2-1/2 yd8
MP Bucket
$50,000.00
HOU1LY COSTS OF OWNING
Depredation0
Interest d insurance , taxes
Total hourly owning cost
$ 1.44
$ 0.29
$ 1.73
$ 2.28
$ 0.85
$ 3.13
$ 2.92
$ 1.08
$ 4.00
$ 3.48
$ 1.29
$ 4.77
$ 4.00
$ 1.40
$ 5.40
HOURLY COSTS OP OPERATING
Fuel6
Grease, lube oils, hydr. oils
Filters and disposable supplies
•
Repairs
Total hourly operating costs
TOTAL HOURLY OWNING
AND OPERATING COSTS
$ Q.32
$ '0.74
$ 0.26
$ 1.62
$ 2.94
$ 4.67
$ 0.44
$ 0.98
$ 0.36
$ 2.57
$ 4.35
$ 7.48
$ 0.60
$ 1.22
$ 0.45
$ 3.29
$ 5.56
$ 9.56
$ 0.92
$ 1.46
$ 0.54
$ 3.92
$ 6.84
$ 11.61
$ 1.20
$ 1.70
$ 0.60
$ 4.50
$ 8.02
$ 13.50
aFrom Massey-Ferguson brochures.
bPrice includes OSHA requirements plus multi-purpose bucket, heating, and air-conditioning.
Estimated life with proper maintenance (according to equipment manual) is 10,000 hrs. (about 5 yrs.)
For salvage or trade-in value use 20 percent of initial cost.
^Interest computed at 7 percent annually.
Diesel fuel assumed cost is $0.1 I/liter ($0.40/gal.); lubricating oils cost is $0.53/liter ($2.00/gal.);
grease cost is $1.10/kg ($0.50/lb.)
^Routine maintenance every 150 hrs.
-------
Table V, 1975 LANDFILL EQUIPMENT COSTS—FIAT-ALLISa
Cost Item
Delivered price**
' Fiat-Allis
Model 12-G
3 yd3
MP Bucket
$80.000.00
Fiat-Allis
Model FL 14-B
2-1/4 yd3
MP Bucket
$60,000.00
Flat-Mils
Model FL 10-B
1-7/8 yd3
MP Bucket
$45.000.00
Flat-Mils
Model FL-9
1-5/8 yd3
HP Bucket
$35.000.00
HOURLY COSTS OF OWNING
Depredation6
Interest, insurance , taxes
Total hourly owning cost
$
"$
$
6.40
2.40
8.80
$
$
$
4.80
1.80
6.60
$
$
$
3.60
1.35 *
4.95
$
$
$
2.80
1.05
3.85
00
HOURLY COSTS Ol? OPERATING
Fuel®
Grease, lube oils. hydr. oils
Filters end disposable supplies
Rapairs
Total hourly operating costs
TOTAL HOURLY OWNING
AND OPERATING COSTS
$
$
$
$
$
$
2.72
0.84
0.33
7.20
11.09 '
19.89
$
$
$
$
$
$
1.60
0.82
0.29
5.40
8.11
14.71
$
$
$
$
$
$
1.36
0.79
0.27
4.05
6.47
11.42
$
$
$
$
i
$
1.12
0.74
0.26
3.15
5.27
9.12
aFrom Fiat-Allis brochures.
bPrice includes OSHA requirements plus multi-purpose bucket, heatir g, and air-conditioning.
cEstimated life with proper maintenance (according to equipment manual) is 10,000 hrs. (about 5 yrs.)
For salvage or trade-in value use 20 percent of initial ccst.
Interest computed at 7 percent annually.
CDiesel fuel assumed cost is $0.11/liter ($0.40/gal.); lubricating oils cost is $0.53/Hter ($2.00/gal.);
grease cost is $1.10/kg ($0.50/lb.)
^Routine maintenance every 150 hrs.
-------
Table 18. 19TS LANDFILL EQUIPMENT COSTS—CATERPILLAR TRACTOR CO.*
Cost Item
Delivered price*
Model 941
$42.200.00
Model D-4
$45.300.00
Model D-5 Model D-6
$65,800.00 $80.000.00
Model D-7
$110.600.00
Model D-8
$147.000.00
Model 977 MP
$95.700.00
Model 9SS
$61.600.00
Model 9S1
$49.800.00
g
Depreciation
Interest, insurance, taxes
Total hourly owning cost
HOURLY COSTS OF OWNING
$ 3.37
$ 1.69
$ S.06
$ 3.62
$ 1.81
$ 5.43
$ S.26 $ 6.40
$ 2.63 $ 3.20
$ 7.89 $ 9.60
$ 8.85
$ 4.42
$ 13.27
$ 11.70
$ 5.88
$ 17.58
$ 7.65
$ 3.83
$ 11.48
$ 4.93
$ 2.46
$ 7.39
$ 3.98
$ 1.99
$ 5.97
HOURLY COST 3 OF OPERATING
Fuel6
Grease . lube oils. hydr. oils
Filters end disposable supplies
Repairs
Total hourly operating costs.
TOTAL HOURLY OWNING
AND OPERATING COSTS
$ 1.36
$ 0.21
$ 3.80
$ 5.37
$ 10.43
$ 1.04
$ 0.11
$ 4.07
$ 5.22
$ 10.65
$ 1.40 $ 1.88
$ 0.16 $ 0.21
$ 5.92 $ 7.20
$ 7.48 $ 9.29
$ 15.37 $ 18.89
$ 3.00
$ 0.26
$ 9.95
$ 13.21
$ 26.48
$ 4.16
$ 0.30
$ 13.23
$ 17.69
$ 35.27
$ 2.96
$ 0.27
$ 8.61
$ 11.84
$ 23.32
$ 2.28
$ 0.24
$ 5.54
$ 8.06
$ 15.45
$ 1.68
$ 0.22
$ 4.48
$ 6.38
$ 12.35
"From Caterpillar Tractor Co. brochures.
Price includes OSHA requirements plus multi-purpose bucket, heating, and tlr-conditioning.
cEstimated life with proper maintenance (according to equipment manual) is II ,000 hrs. (about 5 yrs.)
. For salvage or trade-in value use 20 percent of Initial cost.
Interest computed at 7 percent annually.
eoiesel fuel assumed cost is $0.1 I/liter ($0.40/gal.); lubricating oils cost is $0.5:./liter ($2.00/gal.);
grease cost is $ 1.10/kg ($0.50/lb.).
^Routine maintenance every 150 hrs.
-------
Table 19. YEARLY DISPOSAL COSTS FOR THE STUDY COUNTIES
DEVELOPED ON THE BASIS OF COLLECTED DATA AND OBSERVATIONS
County
uranam
n oO ersn am
Cascade
T «VA
jjaxe
Leon
v/acron
Total volumes ,
in tonnes /yr.
(tons/yr.)
5 on A
,3UU
( 5,900)
9ft Rnn
«O >OUU
( 29,100)
14,965
( 16,500)
mOAQ
,o40
(126,620)
210,100
(231,400)
3f)(\f\
»*UU
( 3,600)
Labor
Costs
$1 n 110
J.U i I1U.
$99 ft9n
it It i \J6\1 .
$ 10,385.
*ioc non
$140 ,UoU.
$ 47,600.
$19 son
1Z ,B4U .
Assigr.ed
overhead
costs1
$9 10H
Z , J.Z 0 .
$A ncfk
f , I uU •
$ 2,180.
*oc >iih
•J»/b ,4i U.
$10,000.
$9 eon
Z ,DaU.
Equipment
owning and
operating costs
$91 n^n
£1 ,UOU.
$00 QOft
zo , oyu.
$ 2,050.
41 V7 QOR
V^IZ* ,OOd.
$155,925.
$1 7 9AA
lO,«DU.
Contract
costs
$32,510.
•
$42,000.
Total
costs per
year
$94 QOR
OO,«00.
$ec OCA
dO,£DU.
$ 47,125.
40*70 QOR
$4l 9,<5oD .
$255,525.
$9Q 97O
Zo,7 f U.
Cost
per tonne
(ton)b
$» on
O.OU
($ 5.66)
$n 19
4, lilt
($ 1.93)
$ 3.15
($ 2.86)
$9 4^1
ft .44
($ 2.21)
$ 1.22
( $1.11)
$fl QQ
0.99
($ 7.99)
•c
Q
tn
o
10
&Assigned overhead costs are
delivered.
assumed as 21 percent of payroll.
-------
PROM NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE
An Inexpensive Economical Solar Heating System lor Homes
N76-27671/PAT 59 p PC$4.50/MF$3.00
Viking I: Early Results
N76-28296/PAT 76 p PC$2.00/MF$3.00
Energy Fact Book 1976, Chapters 1 through 21
AOA-028 284/PAT 432 p PC$11.75/MF$3.00
Security Analysis and Enhancements of Computer Operating
Systems
PB-257 087/PAT 70 p PC$4.50/MF$3.00
Evaluation of the Alr-to-AIr Heat Pump for Residential Space
Conditioning
PB-255652/PAT 293 p PC$9.25/MF$3.00
Monitoring Groundwater Quality: Monitoring Methodology
PB-256 068/PAT 169 p PC$6.75/MF$3.00
An Air Force Guide to Software Documentation Requirements
ADA-027 051/PAT 178 p PC$7.50/MF$3.00
The Production of OH from Intermountaln West Tar Sands
Deposits
PB-256 516/PAT 98 p PC$5.00/MF$3.00
Analysis of Large Scale Non-Coal Underground Mining
Methods
PB-234 555/PAT 581 p PC$13.75/MF$3.00
Who's Who In the Interagency Energy/Environment R and D
Program
PB-256 977/PAT 35 p PC$4.00/MF$3.00
Local Area Personal Income, 1969-1974. Volume 2: Central
and Northeastern States
PB-254 056/PAT 578 p PC$13.75/MF$3.00
Feasibility of Considerably Expanded Use of Western Coal
by Midwestern and Eastern Utilities In the Period 1978
and Beyond
PB-256 048/PAT 61 p PC$4.50/MF$3.00
Availability of Potential Coal Supply Through 1985 by
Quality Characteristics
PB-256 680/PAT 121 p PC$5.50/MF$3.00
Flat-Plate Solar Collector Handbook: A Survey of Principles,
Technical Data and Evaluation Results
UCID-17086/PAT 96 p PC$5.00/MF$3.00
HOW TO ORDER
When you indicate the method of pay-
ment, please note if a purchase order is not
accompanied by payment, you will be billed
an additional $5.00 ship and bill charge. And
please include the card expiration date when
using American Express.
Normal delivery time takes three to five
weeks. It is vital that you order by number
or your order will be manually filled, insur-
ing a delay. You can opt for airmail delivery
for $2.00 North American continent; $3.00
outside North American continent charge per
item. Just check the Airmail Service box. If
you're really pressed for time, call the NTIS
Rush Handling Service (703)557-4700. For a
$10.00 charge per item, your order will be
airmailed within 48 hours. Or, you can pick
up your order in the Washington Informa-
tion Center & Bookstore or at our Springfield
Operations Center within 24 hours for a
$6.00 per item charge.
You may also place your order by tele-
phone or if you have an NTIS Deposit Ac-
count or an American Express card order
through TELEX. The order desk number is
(703) 557-4650 and the TELEX number is
89-9405.
Thank you for your interest in NTIS. We
appreciate your order.
METHOD OF PAYMENT
D Charge my NTIS deposit account no.
n Purchase order no. _________
D Check enclosed for $
NAME
Bill me. Add $5.00 per order and sign below. (Not avail-
able outside North American continent.)
Charge to my American Express Card account number
ADDRESS-
CITY. STATE. ZIP-
Card expiration dale-
Signature
Airmail Services requested
Clip and mail to:
National Technical Information Service
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Springfield. Va. 22161
(703) 557-4650 TELEX 89-9405
Item Number
Quantity
Paper Copy
(PC)
Microfiche
(MF)
Unit Price*
All prices subject to change. The prices Sub Total
above are accurate as of 3/77 . Additional Charge
Enter Grand Total
Total Price1'
-
------- |