A SYSTEMS STUDY
OF
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
IN THE
FINAL REPORT
ON A SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT DEMONSTRATION
-------
This report has been reproduced as received
from the grantee. No editorial or other changes
«
have been made, although a new title page, fore-
word, and preface have been added.
-------
A SYSTEMS STUDY
OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
IN THE FRESNO AREA
FINAL REPORT
ON A SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DEMONSTRATION
This report (SW-5d) was prepared for
the California Department of Health
by the Aerojet-General Corporation
in cooperation with Engineering-Science, Inc.,
supported in part by a demonstration grant (D01-U1-00021)
from the Bureau of Solid Waste Management
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service
Environmental Control Administration
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
1969
-------
Public Health Service Publication No. 1959
Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 78-602019
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20A02
Price $4.00
-------
FOREWORD
An estimated 900 million pounds of wastes in the solid state are
produced in the United States every day. What to do with these solid
wastes, how to dispose of them without needlessly endangering public
health and welfare, and how to recover and reuse valuable materials
now "thrown away" are among the most challenging and perplexing of
current national problems. Because of lack of suitable planning, in-
terest, and public understanding, these problems have reached such
proportions that nationwide attention is demanded and action for the
development of adequate solutions must be taken.
Intensified action concerning these problems was made possible
by the Solid Waste Disposal Act, Title II of Public Law 89-272, which
was signed by the President on October 20, 1965. This legislation
directs the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare to initiate, encourage, and support a national program aimed at
discovering and evaluating better methods of coping with the solid
waste problem.
The Secretary is authorized (1) to conduct and support research
on the nature and scope of the problem, on methods of more safely
and efficiently collecting and disposing of solid wastes, and on
techniques for recovering from solid wastes potentially valuable
materials and energy; (2) to provide training and financial and tech-
nical assistance to local and State agencies and other organizations
^
in the planning, development, and conduct of solid waste management
-------
programs; (3) to encourage and support projects that may demonstrate
new and improved methods of solid waste collection, handling, and
disposal. The Bureau of Solid Waste Management carries out these
respons ibi1i ties.
Among these responsibilities, the Bureau provides grant support
for demonstrations relating to the development and application of new
and improved methods of solid waste collection, storage, processing,
and ultimate disposal; and grants for studies and investigations that
may lead to a demonstration of improved disposal practices, or may
provide solutions for regional or national solid waste disposal prob-
lems. Associated with this is the responsibility for collecting and
making available by appropriate means the results of, and other
information pertaining to, such federally supported demonstrations,
studies and investigations.
Accordingly, this report has been reproduced to disseminate as
widely as possible the latest available information and findings of a
project that has received grant support from the Bureau of Solid Waste
Management. It is hoped that it will provide those working in this
field with useful information that will be of assistance in developing
approaches to the solutions of their solid waste disposal problems.
RICHARD D. VAUGHAN, Director
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
-------
PREFACE
This report was prepared for the California Department of Public Health
by the Aerojet-General Corporation in cooperation with Engineering-Science,
Inc., and describes a systems study of solid waste management in the
Fresno, California, area. The study was supported in part by demonstration
grant No. D01-U1-00021, Bureau of Solid Waste Management, under provisions
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (PL 8S-2J2).
Objectives of the study were: (l) to determine an optimum solution to
the Fresno solid waste problem; (2) to develop technology for the Fresno
region that might be applied to other areas. To meet these objectives,
a method was developed for measuring the effectiveness of any solid
waste system. This method of measurement was then used to assess
present Fresno conditions and to evaluate alternative systems. The
measurement method was based on the rating of 82 different solid
wastes according to 13 "environmental bad effects." A systems technique
is used that covers the categories quite thoroughly; although the
specific ratings are valid only for the Fresno region, the procedure
may be used to develop ratings for any area.
The report recommends a regional solid waste management system to
be attained by the year 2000, which will consist of composting a mixture
of municipal wastes and manure, composting other agricultural wastes,
and landfilling nearly all noncompostable wastes. Little incineration
is proposed. Storage of refuse is to be in underground conduits
-------
accessible to each home. Collection is proposed by special vehicles
that will remove bagged refuse from the conduits by vacuum. Salvage
can be included in the system if technology makes it feasible.
--ANTON J. MUHICH, Director
Division of Demonstration Operations
-------
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-HEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY RONALD REAGAN,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
2151 BERKELEY WAY
BERKELEY 94704 July l8, 1968
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors
And
The City Councils of Municipalities Concerned
Gentlemen:
Numerous discussions between official agencies under your jurisdiction
and representatives of this Department during the early part of 1966 evidenced
a common understanding of the acute need for a comprehensive analysis of the
growing problem of solid wastes in the greater Fresno area. Based on this
understanding, the State Department of Public Health made application for and
was awarded a grant from the U.S. Public Health Service to undertake a systems-
oriented study of the community, industrial, and agricultural solid wastes
management needs of Central Fresno County. The Fresno area was agreed upon
as the focal point for this project inasmuch as it typifies the growing
urban-rural problems facing many areas in California and the nation.
This undertaking represented the first systematic effort to analyze both
quantitatively and qualitatively all of the solid waste problems of a major
region and of developing' a rationally based system for dealing with these
problems. The results of this study clearly demonstrate the need to direct
such programs toward the coordinated goals of environmental health: clean
air, pure water, and unblighted land favorable to the needs of agriculture,
residence, industry and recreation, acknowledging the practical considerations
of economics and function and "responsibilities of local government.
This two-year study, now completed, was a joint undertaking of government
and private enterprise. Systems analysis and engineering phases were contracted
to Aerojet-General Corporation, which collaborated with Engineering-Science,
Inc. This Department and the Fresno County Health Department were responsible
cooperatively for public information development and coordination of the pro-
ject. Local planning, public works, educational and agricultural specialists
participated actively and contributed importantly. Representatives of the
private sector, especially agri-business, industry and various public service
organizations maintained a vital interest in and actively supported the study.
Although the first phase that of determining the solid waste manage-
ment needs of Central Fresno County is now accomplished, the major challenges
set forth within the recommendations of the accompanying report remain to be
confronted. Implementation of the system suited to your region will require
the development of a unified administrative structure to carry out the program.
This will call for representation from the several political entities sharing
interest in and responsibility for various aspects of solid waste management,
adequate financing, and the further development of the kind of public support
that will ultimately determine the success of the program to be undertaken.
The solutions and decisions regarding these challenges must be developed
largely by the people through their local officials within Fresno County. The
accompanying report provides an analysis of alternatives and offers guidelines
to assist in making these decisions. We believe that the approaches to solid
-------
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors and July 18, 1968
The City Councils of Municipalities Concerned
- 2 -
waste management outlined in this report represent sound and realistic means
of averting an impending solid waste crisis in the Fresno region. The infor-
mation contained in this report also has considerable application to other
similar regions throughout the United States.
It must be recognized that significant improvements in solid waste manage-
ment systems inevitably require a substantial investment, although one which
will pay long-range dividends sufficient to justify the investment. If the
safeguarding and improvement of the environment and enhancement of urban-rural
coexistence are the dividends, the investment is sound. It is vital, however,
in providing a true economic projection to consider the indirect costs of a
continuously degrading environment, brought on by the presently uncontrolled
forces within a rapidly growing and changing area. The challenge before us
is to provide maximum protection for our people and our environmental resources
at a cost that we can afford to pay. We believe that the program plan outlined
in the attached report meets these criteria.
It is with pleasure that we submit the report on "The California Integrated
Solid Waste Management Project - A Systems Study of Solid Waste Management in
the Fresno Area". The problem has been defined and suggested solid waste
management methods have been developed. The policy decisions must now be made
locally, leading to needed implementation. This Department, which is vitally
interested in the solid waste management needs of Fresno County, as well as
elsewhere in California, stands ready to assist in every way possible in the
implementation of this program.
Very^^incerely yours.
Richard? F. Peters, Chief
BUREAU OF VECTOR CONTROL
RFP/tv
-------
THE CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED SOLID WASTES MANAGEMENT PROJECT
ITS SIGNIFICANCE AS VIEWED BY THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Studies in California over more than two decades have shown that
there is a serious and persistent lag in the development and application of
adequate solid wastes management techniques. Although a few communities
have produced excellent detailed plans and operated model systems, rapid
urbanization or other unforeseen developments soon created newer and more
difficult problems to solve. In order to keep costs low, local governments
generally have felt no pressures to investigate or encourage the development
of new and efficient techniques for waste management. This in turn has
tended to discourage private enterprise from developing more efficient ways
of handling solid waste materials.
In the past three years, however, important developments have
focused special attention on the quality of California's natural environment.
Political leaders, in the State as well as nationally, have become personally
involved in the drive to protect the quality of our natural resources parti-
cularly those of land, water, and air. Federal legislation has provided the
necessary funds to start serious programs for improving solid waste
management.
The California Department of Public Health critically reviewed the
impact of solid waste problems in California in 1965 and determined that
there was urgent need to revamp the fragmented and uncoordinated approaches
to solid waste management that were then in effect. As a result of these de-
velopments, the State Department of Public Health assisted by grants from
the Public Health Service initiated two major solid waste projects in July 1966.
One of these, "The California Solid Waste Planning Study", is a departmental
effort concerned with an analysis of solid wastes throughout California and is
designed to inventory present management practices and to develop a com-
prehensive program plan for future management of these wastes within the
State.
-------
The other project, "The California Integrated Solid Wastes Manage-
ment Project" is an intensive and coordinated effort between the State, local
agencies in Fresno County, and private industry to investigate, plan, design
and implement a regional wastes management system that will handle all
urban, industrial and agricultural wastes in a rapidly urbanizing 1200 square
mile area surrounding the City of Fresno. This portion of Fresno County was
selected for the study because it has typical urban-rural solid waste problems
that are representative of many other locations in California and in other
states. The selection was also influenced by the enthusiastic support of city
and county officials.
In general, the basic objectives of the Fresno Project were to de-
termine an optimum solution to the Fresno region solid waste management
problems and to develop a technology for systematic study of the Fresno region
that may be applied to solve solid waste management problems in other similar
regions.
The project involved five interrelated tasks for implementing a total
waste management system. These tasks covered: (1) a public education pro-
gram, including the production of a motion picture film, (2) a rigorous systems
analysis study of solid waste management in the intra-county region, (3) spe-
cial entomological investigations, (4) development of solid waste management
guidelines, and (5) development of a program of implementation. The sys-
tems analysis study, published in the following pages of this report, was
performed through contract by the Aerojet-General Corporation in coopera-
tion with Engineering-Science, Inc. This consortium was selected from a
large number of qualified firms on the basis of detailed project proposals,
technical capabilities, experience, and staff resources . Related project re-
sponsibilities such as general supervision, agency coordination, environ-
mental criteria, vector control recommendations, public eduction, and proj-
ect administration were performed by the State and Fresno County Health
Departments.
The Fresno Study has shown conclusively that the "systems" con-
cept provides a new perspective in analyzing the problems of solid waste
-------
management. It has developed a long-range conceptual management plan for
a rapidly urbanizing area that will meet predetermined health, aesthetic,
legal, socioeconomic, and projected management goals to provide an optimum
environment for the urban, agricultural and industrial communities in the
area. Of particular significance are the following results of the study:
1. Following a comprehensive review and engineering analysis,
a conceptual system has been developed to economically, ef-
ficiently and satisfactorily handle the 5.5 million tons of
municipal, industrial, and agricultural wastes expected to
be produced annually in the study area.
2. The development and documentation of a method of measure-
ment by which the effectiveness of any system of solid wastes
management might be evaluated and compared with alternative
systems in terms of the extent to which they solve the en-
vironmental, socioeconomic, and aesthetic problems engendered
by solid wastes.
3. A detailed identification, classification, and evaluation, of
solid wastes and the problems they create in the environment
as well as the groups or agencies affected by these problems.
The California Department of Public Health has reviewed and ac-
cepted the ensuing report of the-contractor. It is expected that this report will
lead to early implementation in the Fresno region. It is recognized that other
elements of solid waste management technology not detailed in this report may
have potential and are currently being investigated and developed elsewhere.
Such new techniques need to be carefully reviewed as they are developed and
as implementation of the project progresses; they may then be incorporated
into the long-range plans if warranted on a cost/benefit basis.
California is currently faced with numerous problems in developing
long-range solutions to solid waste problems confronting the urban-rural areas
of the state. This report and its implementation will hopefully provide the
basis for planning and developing long-range solutions to similar situations.
It is imperative that the urban-rural centers of the state awaken to the need
for developing new solid waste management policies and programs in order
to preserve our agricultural enterprise, our community growth, and the
quality of our environment. This report has established the basic means by
which this goal can be achieved.
-------
Aerojet-General Corporation. A systems study of solid uaate management
in the Fresno area; final report on a solid waste management demon-
stration. Public Health Service Publication No. 1959- Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969. [AH p.]
ABSTRACT: With a population of 396,000, the Fresno area generates almost KEY WORDS:
2.5 million tons of solid waste each year. By the year 2000, the rate of demonstration
production is expected to increase to over 5.5 million tons per year. The grant
California Department of Public Health, partially supported by a demonstra- BSWM
tion grant (DOI-UI-00021) from the Bureau of Solid Waste Management of the Fresno
U.S. Public Health Service, contracted with Aerojet-General Corporation to California
perform a systems-oriented study of the three major categories of wastes pro- management
duced in this area: organic municipal refuse, organic industrial refuse, and system
animal manures. The objectives of the study were to determine an optimum data
solution to the Fresno refuse problem and to develop a technology for the illustrations
Fresno area that might be applicable to other areas. analysis
reg i ona1
Of particular significance are the results of the study. A long-range con- comparison
ceptual system was developed to economically and efficiently manage the classification
wastes expected to be produced in the study area. A method of measurement refuse
was developed by which the effectiveness of any system of solid waste man-
agement might be evaluated and compared with alternative systems Insofar
as environmental, socioeconomic, and aesthetic problems are concerned. De-
tailed identification, classification, and evaluation of solid wastes were
completed, and the ensuing environmental problems were defined with the
groups or agencies affected by these problems.
Library of Congress no. 78-602019
-------
FOREWORD
This report is submitted in fulfillment of the State of California Standard
Agreement No. 15100. It covers work performed during the period from
15 September 1966 to 31 March 1968.
The study was performed under the cognizance of the California State
Department of Public Health, Bureau of Vector Control; Richard F. Peters,
Chief. Paul P. Maier, State Project Administrator, provided substantial ad-
vice and counsel and enabled the study to be conducted in close cooperation
with area agencies as well as the statewide solid waste study being performed
concurrently by the Bureau of Vector Control. Solid waste activities conducted
by the Bureau are under the direction of Peter A. Rogers. It is particularly
appropriate to recognize the unique contribution of Frank M. Stead, retired
Chief of the Division of Environmental Sanitation, California Department of
Public Health, who originated the concept and provided the initiative to develop
the system study programs for the Fresno area. His advise and counsel have
been of great assistance to those conducting this study.
The study has been directed by Frank R. Bowerman, Program Manager,
of Aerojet-General Corporation,-with the assistance of Robert E. Mitchell,
Assistant Program Manager, in cooperation with Engineering-Science, Inc. ,
headed by Dr- Harvey F. Ludwig, President, and the cooperation of various
State and local agencies. Robert N. Richards, Rodney C. Hanson, and Leonard
L. Rotter of Aerojet; and Donald R. Anderson, Houshang Esmaili, Ed Spira,
Hans Wasmer, and Philip N. Storrs of Engineering-Science were significant
contributors to the effort.
Harold Tokmakian, Fresno County Planning Director; Reinard E.
Bergstrom, Fresno County Director of Environmental Health; Clinton
Berry, Fresno County Director of Public Works; and James L. Martin,
Fresno City Public Works Director, were particularly helpful through-
out the study effort.
The performance scoring procedure developed in the study report
is based on information obtained from experts in the environmental sciences
field. Without the knowledge and willing assistance of these engineers and
scientists (listed in Table III-3) the development of this scoring procedure
would have been doubtful. Their cooperation is gratefully acknowledged.
-------
CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT A-l
I. INTRODUCTION 1-1
II. SUMMARY II-1
A. Study Objectives II-1
B. Operating Conditions II-2
1. Regional Physical Environment II-3
2. Population-Existing and Projected II-7
3. Land Use II-7
4. Waste Loadings II-7
5. Legislative Controls II-8
6. Resulting Practices II-8
7. Economic Capacities and Projections II-9
8. State Department of Health Guidelines 11-10
9. Technical Restrictions II-10
C. Performance and Ancillary Effects Scoring 11-12
1. Problem Identification II-12
2. Performance Scoring 11-15
3. Ancillary Effects 11-18
D. Conceptual Design of Waste Management Systems
for the Fresno Region II-19
E. Cost and Performance Analysis 11-21
1. Performance Scoring 11-21
2. System Costs 11-23
3. Minimum Desirable Performance 11-24
4. System Cost Limitations 11-24
F. Selected System for the Fresno Region 11-26
G. Application to Other Regions 11-31
H. Community Accomplishments 11-32
1. City of Fresno 11-33
11
-------
III.
IV.
CONTENTS (Continued)
_Page
I.
2. County of Fresno
3. City and County
4. Private Operators
5. Industry
Recommendations
1. System Implementation
2. Basic and Applied Research
PROBLEMS OF SOLID WASTES
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Objective
Solid Waste Definition, Identification, and
Conditions
1. Definition
2. Solid Waste Identification
3. Conditions of Solid Wastes
Adverse Effects of Solid Wastes
Customers of Solid Wastes
References
PERFORMANCE-SCORING PROCEDURE
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
General Considerations
Procedure Development
1. Bad Effects
2. Waste Conditions
3. Weighted Bad Effects Scores
4. Candidate System Information and
Performance Scoring
System Effectiveness Comparisons
Sample System
Computer Program
. . . 11-34
. . . H-34
n-34
. . . II-35
. . . n-35
. . . n-35
H-37
. . . III-l
... III-l
. . . III-l
... III-l
III -2
HI-3
HI -9
... HI- 11
HI- 13
... IV- 1
... IV -1
. . . IV-2
. . . IV-2
. . . IV-2
IV-4
. . . IV-10
IV-14
... IV 15
... IV- 16
111
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
V. ANCILLARY EFFECTS SCORING PROCEDURE V-l
A. Introduction V-l
B. Procedure V-l
1. Definitions of Effects V-l
2. Ranking and Rating of Effects V 3
3 . Application of "A" Scores V-4
C. Summary V-ll
VI. OPERATING CONDITIONS VI-1
A. Purpose VI-1
B. Procedures VI-1
C. Environmental Conditions VI-2
1. Geographical VI-2
2. Geophysical VI-2
3. Climatology VI-5
4. Hydrology VI-10
D. Demography VI-17
E. Land Use VI-22
1. Agriculture VI-22
2. Residential, Industrial, and Commercial VI-27
F. Waste Loadings VI-28
1. Existing Wastes VI-28
2. Projected Wastes VI-32
G. Restrictions VI-41
1. Legislative VI-41
2. State Department of Health Guidelines VI-50
3. Economic Capacities and Projections VI-50
4. Technical and Cost VI-61
H. Conclusion VI-69
IV
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
VII. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF SYSTEMS VII-1
A. Objective VII-1
B. Municipal and Industrial Systems VII-2
1. Discussion VII-2
C. Management of Agricultural Wastes VII-47
1. Discussion VII-47
2. Systems Descriptions VII-47
D. Trends in Solid Waste Management VII-52
1. Improvement of Existing Technology VII-52
2. Development of New Processes and
Systems VII-54
VIII. SCORING AND COSTS VIII-1
A. Introduction VIII-1
B. Performance Scoring VIII-1
C. Costing VIII-4
D. Ancillary Effects Scoring VIII-4
E. Cost-Benefit Analysis VIII-4
1. Systems Evaluation VIII-4
2. Major Wastes Evaluation VIII-16
F. System Selection VIII-16
IX. SELECTED SYSTEM CONCEPTS IX-1
A. Objectives IX-1
B. Concept Description IX-1
1. Introduction IX-1
2. Upgrading of Present Waste Management
System IX-1
3. Operation of Proposed Waste Management
System IX-2
v
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
C. Elements of Systems IX-4
1. Storage IX-4
2. Collection IX-7
3. Transport IX-8
4. Processing IX-10
5. Disposal • IX-15
D. Waste Loadings IX-15
1. Required Capacities IX-15
2. Required Equipment IX-19
E. Application of System IX-21
1. Required Disposal Acreages . . . IX-21
2. Required Composting Acreages IX-23
3. Recommended Compost Users IX-26
F. Long Term Plan IX-28
1. System in the Year 2000 IX-28
2. Immediate Actions IX-30
3. System in the Year 1980 IX-35
4. System in the Year 1990 IX-37
G. Organization and Financing IX-39
1. Introduction IX-39
2. The Regional Approach IX-40
3. Financing IX-43
H. Alternatives IX-46
1. Pneumatic Collection System IX-46
2. Transport in Sewer Lines and Combined
Sewage Treatment IX-46
3. Incineration IX-47
VI
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
I. Discussion IX-48
1. Selected System Concept IX-48
2. Liquid Transport IX-52
3. Incineration IX-52
J. List of References IX-53
X. APPLICATION TO OTHER REGIONS X-l
A. Purpose X-l
B. Procedures X-l
1. Regional Description X-l
2. Waste Inventory X-3
3. Application of Bad Effects Scores X-5
4. Waste Handling Systems X-6
5. System Performance X-7
C. Summary & Evaluation X-10
-------
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1-1 Fresno Region Study Area 1-4
II-1 Location Reference Map of Study Region II-4
II-2 Fresno Region Study Area II-5
II-3 Cost-Benefit Analysis Municipal-Industrial
Systems 11-27
II-4 Cost-Benefit Analysis Agricultural Systems 11-28
II-5 Proposed Solid Waste Management System
(Fresno Region) 11-30
IV-1 Waste Management System Concept Data Form IV-12
V-l "A" Scoring V - 9
VI-1 Location Reference Map of Study Region VI-3
VI-2 Fresno Region Study Area VI-4
VI-3 Average Annual Precipitation in Inches VI-7
VI-4 Surface Streams in Fresno County VI-12
VI-5 Lines of Equal Elevation of Ground Water
(Spring 1963) VI-14
VI-6 Concentration of Dissolved Solids (1963) VI-18
VI-7 Concentration of Nitrates as NO, (1963) VI-19
VI-8 Fresno Region Zonal Boundaries VI-20
VI-9 Garbage and Refuse Dispo3al District VI-47
VI-10 Sanitation District VI-48
VI-11 Sanitary District VI-49
VI-12 Projected Per Capita Income for Fresno County VI-59
VI-13 Extrapolated Consumer Price Index (with Base of 100
in the 1957 - 1959 Period) VI-60
Vlll
-------
ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued)
Figure Page
VIII-1 Cost-Benefit Analysis Municipal - Industrial
Systems VIII-11
VHI-2 Cost-Benefit Analysis Agricultural Systems VIII-12
VIII-3 Transient Systems Organic Municipal Refuse VIII-17
VIII-4 Transient Systems Manures VIII-18
VIII-5 Transient Systems Organic Industrial Wastes VIII-19
VIII-6 Cost-Benefit Analysis Organic Municipal Refuse
Subsystem VII-24
VIII-7 Cost-Benefit Analysis Manures Subsystem VIII-25
VIII-8 Cost-Benefit Analysis Organic Industrial Refuse
Subystem VIII-26
VIII-9 Proposed Solid Waste Management System
Fresno Region VHI-28
IX-1 Propssed Solid Waste Management System
(Fresno Region, Year 2000) IX-3
IX-2 Municipal Refuse: Storage in Underground Conduits
and Automated Pickup by Vacuum System (Concept
Represents One of Several Solutions) IX-5
IX-3 Refuse Haul Cost Comparison (transfer versus
Direct Haul) IX-9
IX-4 Waste Loadings to be Disposed of by Sanitary
Landfilling IX-22
IX-5 Sanitary Landfill Acreage - Depth Curves IX-24
IX-6 Management of Municipal Solid Wastes (Immediate
Improvement of Existing System) IX-32
IX-7 Management of Industrial Solid Wastes (Immediate
Improvement of Existing System) IX-33
IX-8 Management of Agricultural Solid Wastes (Immediate
Improvement of Existing System) IX-34
IX-9 Proposed Solid Waste Management System (Fresno
Region, Year 1980) IX-36
IX
-------
ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued)
Figure Page
IX-10 Proposed Solid Waste Management System (Fresno
Region, Year 1990) IX-38
IX-11 A Suggested Administrative Structure IX-38
TABLES
Number Page
II-l Performance Improvement and Costs 11-22
III-l Solid Wastes 111-15
ni-2 "Customers" of Solid Wastes 111-25
ni-3 Personal Interviews 111-32
IV-1 Subregional Categories IV-18
IV-2 Solid Wastes Problem Data IV-19
IV-3 Basic Bad Effects Scores IV-36
IV-4 Bad Effects Ranking IV-37
IV-5 Estimated Contribution of Solid Wastes to Bad Effects
by Sub-Regional Categories IV-41
IV-6 Influence Coefficients, Bad Effects IV-44
IV-7 Total Weighted Bad Effects Scores IV-46
IV-8 Summarized Bad Effects Scores, Water Pollution
Considered Possible IV-47
IV-9 Summarized Bad Effects Scores, Water Pollution
Not Considered Possible IV-55
IV-10 Performance Scores (Hypothetical Example) IV-63
IV-11 Performance Score Input Data IV-64
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
V-l
V-2
V-3
V-4
VI- 1
VI- 2
VI-3
VI-4
VI-5
VI- 6
VI- 7
VI- 8
VI- 9
VI- 10
VI- 11
VI- 12
VI- 13
VI-14
"A" Scores Ranking & Weighting (Municipal Region) . . .
"A" Scores Ranking & Weighting (Industrial Region) . . .
"A" Scores Ranking & Weighting (Agricultural Region) . .
Summary of Ground Water Quality Analysis
Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area
Fresno Region Population Projections and
Distribution
Fresno Region Major Agricultural Crop Acreage (1967) .
Fresno Region Projected Agricultural Crop Acreages
by Zones for 1980
Fresno Region Projected Agricultural Crop Acreages
by Zones for 1990
Fresno Region Projected Agricultural Crop Acreages by
Zones for 2000
Fresno Region Zonal Land Use Projections (in Acres) . .
Approximate 1966 Gross Residential Densities in the
Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area
Projected 1985 Housing Density and Distribution
Projected Housing Requirements Fresno Urbanized
Area
Municipal Solid Wastes - 1967 - Fresno Region
(Tons/Year)
1967 Industrial Solid Waste Loading for Fresno Region
by Zone (Tons Per Year)
Fresno Region 1967 Livestock Solid Waste Loadings by
Zones (Tons/Year)
Fresno Region Zonal Agricultural Crop Wastes -
1967 (Tons/Year)
V-5
V-6
V-7
V-8
VI- 16
VI- 21
VI-23
VI-23
VI- 25
VI-25
VI-26
VI-29
VI-30
VI- 31
VI- 3 3
VI-34
VI-35
VI- 3 6
XI
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
VI-15 Fresno Region Projected Municipal Solid Wastes (Tons/
Year) VI-37
VI-16 1980 Industrial Solid Waste Loading Projections for
VI-37
VI- 17
VI-18
VI- 19
VI-20
VI- 21
VI-22
VI-23
VI- 24
VII- 1
VII- 2
VII-3
VIII- 1
VIII- 2
VIII- 3
VIII-4
vin-5
VIII- 6
VHI-7
1990 Industrial Solid Waste Loading Projected for
Fresno Region by Zone (Tons/Year)
2000 Industrial Solid Waste Loading Projections for
Fresno Region by Zone (Tons/Year)
Fresno Region Projected Livestock Solid Waste
Loading by Zone (Tons /Year)
Fresno -Region Projected Agricultural Solid Waste
Waste Loadings by Zone for 1980 (Tons/Year)
Fresno Region Projected Agricultural Solid Wastes
Loadings by Zones for 1990 (Tons/Year)
Fresno Region Projected Agricultural Solid Waste
Loadings by Zones for 2000 (Tons/Year)
Municipal Wastes
1966-67 Assessed Valuation for Fresno County
Central Area
Relative Waste Load Coefficients
Combination of Concept-Parameters Municipal -Industrial
Combination of Concept Parameters Agricultural
Performance Improvement and Costs Municipal & Indust.
Performance Improvement and Costs Agricultural ....
Unit Costs
Ancillary Effects Scores
Disposal Systems
Subsystem Scores Organic Municipal
Subsystem Scores Manures
VI- 3 8
VI-38
VI-39
VI-39
VI-40
VI-40
VI- 51
VI-62
VII-4
VII- 6
VII-49
VIII -2
VIII -3
VIII -5
VIII- 10
VIII-20
vin-2i
VIII- 2 2
Xll
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
VIII- 8
IX- 1
IX-2
IX- 3
IX-4
Required Storage Facilities for Storage in
Containers
Total Regional Waste Loading Projections
Waste Loads Processed by Composting
German Composting Plants
.... VIII- 23
.... IX-20
.... IX-21
.... IX-25
.... IX-51
Xlll
-------
ABSTRACT
The basic objectives of the Fresno Region Solid Waste Management
Study were to (a) determine an optimum system for the management of solid
wastes in the Fresno Region and (b) to develop a technology for that deter-
mination that would be applicable to other similar regions throughout California
and the Nation. To do so meant the development of a method for evaluating the
integrated adverse environmental effects of solid wastes. This decision-making
machinery encompasses all the adverse effects of solid wastes including hu-
man disease, animal disease, flies, rodents, insects, plant disease and crop
damage, safety hazards, toxicity hazards, and the esthetic factors of odor
and unsightliness. It becomes readily apparent that no one person, experi-
enced though he may be, has at his fingertips sufficient knowledge of all the
environmental fields listed above to properly assess their effects as created
by any combination of solid wastes in any condition. Hence, the use of a
large number of environmental scientists and engineers with expertise in the
above fields to provide value judgments that could then be used in a systems
analysis approach to the development of an integrating device for this purpose.
The study was undertaken on the hypothesis that environmental improve-
ment can be expressed in terms of the degree to which any postulated manage-
ment system decreases the environmental degradation or bad effects of solid
wastes. The performance scoring procedure developed in this program provides
quantitative bad effect scores for unit quantities for each type of waste when
placed in any of the considered conditions. Without the innovation measuring
methodology developed in this study, it is probable that several important
factors would have been overlooked in determining a possible solution to the
region's solid waste management problems. For example, more than 2/3 of
the environmental effects in the Fresno Region are caused by only three cate-
gories of solid wastes; almost 1/3 of the municipal region's environmental
problems are created by on-site storage; contrary to popular belief, sanitary
landfills cause more problems in an agricultural region than in a municipal
region.
A-l
-------
The magnitude of the solid waste problem can more readily be envisioned
when it is recognized that in the Fresno Study Region, with a population of
396, 000, almost 2-1/2 million tons of solid waste is being generated each
year. By the year 2000, when the region's population is expected to exceed
1 million, the rate of solid waste production is expected to increase to over
5-1/2 million tons per year.
Three major categories of wastes, mentioned above, i.e., organic
municipal refuse, organic industrial refuse, and animal manures, constitute
almost two-thirds of the total amount of solid wastes generated within the
Fresno Region, and in addition, because of their highly putrescible nature,
produce an even greater amount of the deleterious environmental effects.
It was, therefore, particularly necessary to devise a possible solution that
would provide major improvements in managing the three categories of gross
environmental pollutants and to develop better storage techniques in the muni-
cipal subregions.
Any reasonable postulated system for the study region would automati-
cally delete open burning and open dumping because of their atmospheric and
land polluting effects. Recommendation of a system that utilized sanitary
landfilling totally, although quite effective, would require increasingly larger
landfill sites to accommodate the increasing projected rate of waste production.
Additionally such a solution would pay insufficient attention to the long-range
aims of conservation of our natural resources. Furthermore, it is highly
desirable that any proposed solution be amenable to salvage operations when
they become economically feasible and that as much as possible of the wastes
be recycled as useful products to the region's economy. Another highly de-
sirable objective was the built-in capability of allowing for an orderly transi-
tion from the existing system to that being proposed. Additional restraints on
solution concepts included the region's projected economic capacity as well as
legal, political, sociological, and practical factors.
Solutions involving long distance hauling of the wastes to points outside
the region were considered to be highly impractical since they transfer the
Fresno problem to another region. Had the study encompassed the entire
A-2
-------
San Joaquin Valley, or even a major portion thereof, such solutions might
have been evaluated in depth.
SELECTED SYSTEM
Figure A-l is a schematic diagram of a proposed solid •waste manage-
ment system that could serve the Fresno Region for the year 2000. The
system permits phased implementation and provides for application of new
technology.
A. MUNICIPAL WASTES
Refuse produced in the residential-commercial areas of major
communities in this study area would be stored in containers amenable to
automated pickups, thus the vehicle which serves these areas would be
equipped with the necessary devices such that it simply stops at a collec-
tion point, evacuates the container and passes to the next collection point
(see Figure A-2). The operation of this equipment would permit a signifi-
cant redistribution of personnel currently required to staff the collection
service and reduce materially the environmental effects of ineffective source-
storage.
The loaded vehicle, as now planned, would take a large fraction
of the refuse to a well-operated landfill for ultimate disposal. The balance
of the refuse, as selected by characterizing loads from particular areas,
•with respect to compatibility •with the composting of manures, would be
transported to a composting plant for processing prior to final disposal as
a soil conditioner and supplier of trace minerals. Those materials which
are noncompostable would be separated and transported from the composting
plant to the landfill for ultimate disposal.
B. INDUSTRIAL WASTES
Since industrial wastes are highly specialized and relatively
small in quantity it is expected that many of these wastes would be stored
in closed containers capable of automated collection at the source with closed
vehicular transport to the landfill for final disposal. In some cases, this is
the current practice but in too many instances controlled source storage is
A-3
-------
ESTIMATED
TONS/YEA*! 2000
MUM C.
WASTES
IK p.I.U_RE5IONj
DHYOLITIQN AN9
CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS
2 OE.AO ANIMALS
3 CPECIflL WASTES
160
90
IN MUNICIPAL 8 INTERFACE REGION
4 H,«.',N FECAL MATTER 23,640
(ScWtGF. T°tATM£N7 RESIDUE)
6 BULKY REFUSE
7 REFUSE (EXCEPT BULKY 1,292,400
REFUSE)
8 STREET REFUSE *
9 FEED LOTS (EXCEPT I.8I9.95O
SHEEP MANURE)
ORGANIC INDUSTRIAL WASTES
10 FRUIT B VEGETABLES
II. POULTRY
12. ASIMAL
13. WINERIES
14 VE5£«BLE OLS
MUNICIPAL WASTES
15. HM\H FiTCSL MATTER
16 GiPS«E
17 REFL'SE.COMB'JSTIBLES I
ie PEF.J^i. ra\COtffi'J>TIE'.ES
267.330
3.200
I0.6CO
154500
920
PAL^ '.'.'f-STES
19 FIELD 6 S! ED CRO"-S 620,555
20 FRUIT A\o NUT CROPS
(1»(MM;-.GSJ
21 FRJ.T »NO NUT CROPS
(CULLSI
SHECP MANURE
JN DySJFjjAL. WASTES
23 TEXTILES 402
24 PLASTICS 175
25 TIRES 3.150
26 METALS lO^M
27 M.-.tCWir |i475
2a V.OC>J PRODUCTS '510
29 Ct'EKICiLS 550
30 TETRC'.EUM 30
31 SEEDS 260
33 COTTOM TRASH . 20400
CLOSED
IMNWORT
nov-to IN
CtOONO
*Leaves (only) to composting; dirt and sand to landfill
Figure A-l.
Proposed Solid Waste Management System
(Fresno Region)
A-4
-------
GROUND LEVEL
OF BUILDING
////A
•UNDERGROUND CONDUIT
DETAIL A
Container in Place
w
Partially Filled
Container Closed Release to Conduit Cycle Complete
Figure A-2. Municipal Refuse: Storage in Underground Conduits
and Automated Pickup by Vacuum System
A-5
-------
lacking and esthetically objectionable conditions often result; particularly
in the case of putrescible materials. Efforts should be made to encourage
maximum salvage at the source.
Organic industrial wastes (cannery wastes) would be processed
by on-site composting. A portion of the compost produced by the municipal
refuse-manure composting operation would be required for use as C/N ratio
control and as a dry absorbent for these wet wastes.
C. AGRICULTURAL WASTES
The future of Fresno appears to include a very large cattle
feeding industry; hence, the rate of production of manures from this indus-
try and dairying places a large burden on the environment. The suggested
system provides for combination of these manures with refuse materials high
in hydrocarbons shifting the balance of the carbon nitrogen ratio such that the
production of high quality compost is feasible. Efficient feedlot cleaning and
closed trucking to the compost plant would eliminate most of the present prob-
lems of odors and flies. After the composting process is complete the prod-
uct would be relatively stable; hence, it would be possible to store the com-
posted materials during the non-growing season. This would also do much
to relieve the often serious fly problem created by the management of these
manures.
D. DISCUSSION
The proposed system meets all the objectives previously described.
The three categories of highly putrescible wastes would be treated effectively;
the system is amenable to salvage and would result in the production of 1,143,000
tons per year of compost useable as soil conditioners for parks, roadways, and
agricultural lands as well as for saline and hardpan land reclamation; the pro-
posed system of underground storage and vacuum collection in the municipal
subregion would almost entirely eliminate a major portion of municipal bad
effects, i.e., source storage. The system summarized above readily lends
itself to future expansion and utilization of envisioned technological advances.
Consideration has also been given to the maximum use of present operations
to effect an orderly and efficient transition.
A-6
-------
If adopted, the proposed system in the year 2000 would reduce the
environmental effects scores of municipal and industrial wastes by about 84
percent and the effects scores of agricultural wastes by about 70 percent. The
system would cost approximately $78, 000, 000 (1967 value dollars) to handle
the waste resulting from the projected increase in the region's population com-
pounded with the projected increases in per capita municipal and industrial
waste production.
Few people recognize the need for and the financial requirements
of solid waste management. As national recognition of this need increases
with time, it is probable that the cost requirement, even when related to
existing spending levels, will appear conservative in the light of what people
will be willing to spend in the future. It does, however, appear that to suc-
cessfully anticipate the availability of funds to implement new or improved
solid waste systems, new entities need to be created to make available a
uniform system of funding.
Any plan that is optimum from the standpoint of solid waste
management should seek to balance conflicts between governmental concern
and private enterprise, the desires for regional uniformity and the demands
for local autonomy, the guaranteed freedoms of individual activity, and the
permissible scope of government regulation and control. The regional solu-
tion may be adequately configured to achieve most of the benefits of total
governmental control while allowing the participation of private industry
where appropriate. Through this approach, the desired levels of uniformity,
the economies of scale, and the augmentation of the operations with the aid
of private entreprenurial skills could be blended.
It must be emphasized, at this point, that the above suggested
solution to the solid waste management problems of the Fresno Region is
applicable strictly to that region. The approach to the solution may be used
for other similar regions but the actual solution is pertinent only to the
Fresno Region.
A-7
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS EVALUATION
A. PERFORMANCE SCORING
The performance scoring procedure, developed by utilizing sys-
tems analysis techniques, provides a technical-economic selection process
far superior to that of individual judgment. While the mathematical routines
used in the scoring procedure are quite simple, the number of wastes, bad
effects, and conditions of wastes resulted in the necessity for handling and
manipulating some 25, 000 bits of numerical data. Hence, a computer pro-
gram was developed and a digital computer used to perform the calculations
and provide printed tabulations of the results. The performance scoring
procedure, as presently constituted, allows for an ordering of solid waste
management systems in terms of relative performance and not in absolute
performance. As more quantitative scientific data relating environmental
effects to solid wastes becomes available and is applied to the procedure,
the relative scores will more nearly approach absolute. Even in the event
of future perfection of the technical-economic process, the legal, political,
and administrative decisions, representing local awareness of public accept-
ance, would still be required. However, the decisions obtained by cognizant
officials will be easier and better because of this improved selection process.
Since the performance scoring procedure is based largely on the
judgment values of environmental scientists and engineers, it is of interest
to note the sensitivity of the scoring procedure to differences in judgment
values. To test this sensitivity, the bad effects score for flies, engendered
by cattle manure in closed storage containers in an industrial zone was hypo-
thetically increased from the 2. 7, determined by the panel of experts, to 3. 7.
The system assumed was the proposed system for the year 2000, wherein the
manure would, after maximum storage of 7 days, be transported by closed
vehicles for composting. The result of this 37 percent change in a major bad
effect score for a major waste component was a 1. 16 percent change in system
regional performance, indicating that the performance scoring procedure is
not adversely affected by minor judgment errors in basic bad effect scores.
A-8
-------
B. ANCILLARY EFFECTS SCORING
Two totally different systems may have exactly the same effect
on maintaining a desirable environment when consideration is given only to
solid wastes. They may differ dramatically, however, in the manner that
the physical objects constituting the management system interact with their
environment. The ancillary effects scoring procedure was developed as a
means of measuring the physical, social, and psychological effects of alter-
nate waste management systems and their components as opposed to the effects
of solid wastes themselves. This procedure becomes important in system
selection when competing wastes management systems exhibit similar cost
and effectiveness characteristics.
CONCLUSIONS
During the performance of this study, the participants maintained
continuous contact with the state project administrator and the local city and
county officials and administrators. This direct contact provided a free
interchange of ideas and thoughts, making possible a much clearer under-
standing by the participants of local administrative problems. The establish-
ment and maintenance of this relationship provided the information needed for
the application of systems analysis to the socio-economic problem under
consideration.
During the course of this study, the city and county governments insti-
tuted many improvements in the existing solid waste management system.
Some of these steps were taken as a direct result of the June 1967 Interim
Report; others developed from direct consultation during the study, or from
independent action. Examples include an ordinance requiring twice-a-week
collection of garbage between May and November; prohibiting open burning at
dump sites; the voluntary merging of nine individual private operators into a
single large collection and disposal company.
A complete section of the report is devoted to describing the parameters
and limitations to be considered in synthesizing management systems for the
Fresno Study Region. It was concluded, however that the principal limitation
to the initiation of virtually any proposed solid waste management system is,
A-9
-------
in reality, a function of the communities desire to reduce the adverse environ-
mental effects of solid wastes. By the judicious use of legislation in combination
with adequate funding almost any desired degree of freedom from deleterious
environmental effects is attainable. As the affluence of our society increases,
discretionary income will be distributed to various markets. Improved waste
management systems should be among those markets. Continued increase of
home garbage grinders demonstrates that people are willing to spend a greater
portion of their income to enhance convenience in handling solid waste and to
improve their environment. Their willingness to pay will be based on their
understanding and knowledge of the extra convenience and environmental im-
provement that can be attained by a properly planned solid waste management
system.
While the procedure developed in this study is still subject to refinement,
it is a significant step in the direction of the development of a methodology
whereby the environmental effectiveness of competing waste management sys-
tems can be measured for use in a systems approach to cost-benefit analysis.
A-10
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
This study was undertaken to develop a plan for the management of solid
wastes in a rapidly urbanizing agricultural region of California on the premise
that solid waste management involves such complexities and interdependencies
that a sophisticated and systematic approach is needed if more than immediate
and partial solutions are to be achieved.
The prime objectives of this study were (a) to determine an optimum
solution to the solid waste management problems of a specific region (the
Fresno area), and (b) to develop a technology for study of the region that could
be applied to solve solid waste management problems in other similar regions.
Accomplishment of these objectives required the performance of three essential
elements of work in such a manner that the methodology and the experience
gained in its application might be readily applied elsewhere. These elements were:
• The development and documentation of a method of measurement by
which the effectiveness of any system or means of managing solid wastes
might be evaluated and compared with alternative systems in terms of
the extent to which they solve the health, air, water, and land pollution,
socio-economic, esthetic, and other problems engendered by solid wastes.
• An assessment of the effectiveness of the region's present solid
waste management system and the concomitant identification of the mag-
nitude of the present problem by means of the method of measurement,
including an estimate of future problems if appropriate action is not taken
now or in the near future.
• An evaluation of alternative systems by means of the method of
measurement to identify the solution that will best provide, at reasonable
cost, a solid waste management system for the study region.
The basic plan covered five major sequential steps. The first step de-
veloped a measure by which alternative proposed systems could be evaluated
against a common criterion, so that superior systems could be recognized.
1-1
-------
I. Introduction (continued)
The second step concentrated 011 the conceptual design of potentially good,
alternative, solid waste management systems. The performance score and
cost of each alternative was identified in the third step. The fourth step
compared the alternatives in terms of performance score and cost and other
important factors to determine which alternative should be chosen for imple-
mentation. The fifth and final step of the study considered the data and
methods developed for the study region to determine how they might be best
applied to help solve solid waste management problems in other similar
regions.
The eighteen-month effort has developed data and methods reported
herein and encompassing:
A. Identification of the solid wastes in the study region and the prob-
lems created, and identification of the groups, agencies, and agency
representatives affected by these problems.
B. A procedure for measuring the effectiveness of any proposed sys-
tem or means for managing solid wastes in the region in terms of the
extent to which it solves solid waste problems.
C. Identification of the conditions under which any solid waste man-
agement system for the region must operate, including waste loads pro-
jected to the year 2000; regional topographical, geological, climatological
hydrological, economic, and demographic data; projected land use, laws,
and policy criteria; technical and cost data; and jurisdictional
relationships.
D. Conceptual designs of alternative systems for the management of
solid wastes in the region.
E. Provision of itemized and charted data relative to estimated per-
formance score ranges and costs of each alternative system concept con-
sidered, plus a list of application scores reflecting any adverse or bene-
ficial effects the various systems would impose on the environment in
which they would operate.
1-2
-------
I. Introduction (continued)
F. Provision of a rationale for the ranking oi the alternative system
concepts, with specific attention to the rationale for the highest ranking
system for the study region.
G. A detailed description of the concept recommended for use in
long-term management of solid wastes in the region, plus recommenda-
tions for immediate action to alleviate current problems (including legal,
quasi-legal, jurisdictional, political, and financial considerations).
H. Generalization of the findings and procedures so they may be ap-
plied to similar regions.
I. Background data pertinent to the main body of the final report not
previously published in the interim report.
J. Recommendations for further study and research needed to develop
future techniques to solve problems for which current techniques are in-
adequate technically or economically.
A map of the Fresno Region study area is presented in Figure 1-1.
1-3
-------
Figure 1-1. Fresno Region Study Area
1-4
-------
II. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. STUDY OBJECTIVES
The problems of waste management that have plagued mankind
from time immemorial have quite recently received new and significant at-
tention at local, State and Federal Government levels. As a result, there
has been a considerable increase in the study and research of waste manage-
ment problems and practices. However, much of the newly available support
has gone into the study and research of air and water pollution, with less effort
being devoted directly to the field of solid waste management. Accordingly, the
technology of solid waste management remains one of the least developed within
the waste management field.
A great need exists for basic improvements in solid waste tech-
nology as well as a wider application of currently available advanced techni-
ques. The application of new methods and techniques should be cost-effective
so that use of community resources will be managed as efficiently as possible.
A major handicap to the orderly development of more effective
management in the solid waste field has been the lack of adequate criteria by
which to measure present and future solid waste problems and evaluate the
effectiveness of proposed solid waste management systems. As a result,
there is much uncertainty regarding the extent of today's solid waste manage-
ment problems, as well as the problems of tomorrow. Society is headed toward
increasing complications in solid waste management, and only by continuing and
persistent efforts in the pioneering of new methods will it be possible for solid
waste management to keep pace with anticipated new developments for community
development.
The State of California, with support of the Solid Wastes Program
of the U.S. Public Health Service, selected Aerojet-General Corporation and
Engineering-Science, Inc., to study the problem on a real-world scale in a
typical urban-agricultural region in and about Fresno, California. This
study had two principal objectives. These were to determine an optimum so-
lution to the Fresno Region solid waste management problems and develop a
II-l
-------
II. Summary and Recommendations, A (Continued)
technology for study of the Fresno region that may be applied to solve solid
waste management problems in other similar regions.
Accomplishment of these objectives required the performance
of three essential elements of work in such a manner that the methodology
and the experience gained in its application might be readily applied elsewhere.
These elements were:
1. The development and documentation of a method of measure-
ment by which the effectiveness of any system or means of managing solid
wastes might be evaluated and compared with alternative systems in terms of
the extent to which they solve the health, air, water, and land pollution, socio-
economic, esthetic, and other problems engendered by solid wastes.
2. An assessment of the effectiveness of the region's present
solid waste management system and the concomitant identification of the mag-
nitude of the present problem by means of the method of measurement, includ-
ing an estimate of future problems if appropriate action is not taken now or in
the near future.
3. An evaluation of alternative systems by means of the method
of measurement to identify the solution that will best provide, at reasonable
cost, a solid waste management system for the study region.
This section summarizes the results and conclusions of
the study and provides recommendations for follow-on efforts.
B. OPERATING CONDITIONS
Prior to synthesizing an effective system for the Fresno region,
it was necessary to establish the conditions under which such a system would
be required to operate. These conditions include:
Regional Physical Environment
Population (Existing and Projected)
Land Use (Existing and Projected)
II-2
-------
II. Summary and Recommendations, B (Continued)
Waste Loading (Existing and Projected)
Legislative Conditions
Existing Management Practices
Economic Capacities and Projections
State Department of Health Guidelines
Technical Restrictions
1. Regional Physical Environment
a. Location and Topography
The Fresno Region study area is the central portion
of Fresno County as shown on the location reference map, Figure II-l . It is
approximately 48 miles east to west and 35 miles north to south and contains
about 770, 000 acres. The area is shown in greater detail on Figure II-2.
The area is located in the flat section of the San
Joaquin Valley and is drained by the San Joaquin and the Kings Rivers. The
region does not exhibit pointed topographical variations from one location to
the other. The general slope of the land follows a slight westerly decline of 4
to 5 feet per mile in the area east of the Fresno Slough, where it changes di-
rection and exhibits a gradual westerly rise toward the coastal mountain ranges.
Elevations in the region vary from a minimum of 110 feet to a maximum of
about 500 feet above sea level.
The region contains the metropolitan area of Fresno
and Clovis, the cities of Sanger, Fowler, Selma, Reedley, Kingsburg, Parlier,
Kerman, and Orange Cove, as well as the unincorporated communities of Caruthers,
Riverdale, Easton, Biola, Del Rey, Laton, Calwa, Herndon, Malaga, Raisin City,
and others.
b. Climate
The area is subject to hot, dry summers and
moderate winters. The coast ranges insulate the valley from the modifying
effect of the Pacific Ocean and, hence, the summer temperatures reach
II-3
-------
A/
*• " • I 0 i i N
Figure II-l. Location Reference Map of Study Region
II-4
-------
Figure II-2. Fresno Region Study Area
II-5
-------
II. Summary and Recommendations, B (Continued)
extremes found in mid-continental locations.
The July daily maximum temperatures average
over 100°F with rnaximums reaching 115° and higher. The January mean
daily minimum temperature is above freezing (33° -34 F) with frost occurring
only a few nights per year.
Rainfall in the valley results from winter storms that
move onshore from Pacific low pressure systems, dropping their moisture in
the San Joaquin Valley. Precipitation in the study region averages less than
15 inches annually with some local regions receiving no more than 6 to 7
inches. The rainfall is concentrated in the winter with nearly 85 percent of
the annual totals falling in the six-month period from October through March.
The meteorological conditions in the area are un-
usually favorable for the development of air pollution. While air pollution is
not yet a major problem throughout the region, local air pollution situations
occur over a considerable area. These are the result of dust, smoke, odors
and specific chemicals. During the fall the burning of agricultural wastes is
a significant factor in the region's air pollution problems.
c. Hydrological
There are two main surface streams in the Fresno
region, the San Joaquin and the Kings Rivers. The San Joaquin, gaged below
Friant, has a 58-year average discharge of 1,669,000 acre-ft/yr. The Kings
River at the Pine Flats Reservoir has a 12-year average discharge of 1,439,000
acre ft/yr. Both of these rivers have water of excellent quality, containing less
than 50 parts per million of dissolved solids.
Groundwater, however, is the main source of water
supply in the Fresno region for municipal, domestic and industrial water-
Agricultural water requirements are also supplemented by the use of ground-
water; with groundwater being the only source of supply in some areas.
Groundwater is found throughout the region, but the
accelerated usage rates of recent years have lowered the depth to groundwater
H-6
-------
II. Summary and Recommendations, B (Continued)
in the Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan area an average of 3 feet per year. In
general, the groundwater quality in the region is good, except for a few local
areas where pollution in the past from a zeolite plant, an ice plant, and a
sewage treatment plant has resulted in a lowering of water quality.
2. Population-Existing and Projected
The population in the region in 1967 was approximately
396, 000. Of this population about 312, 000 resided in the region's communi-
ties and 84, 000 in areas outside the communities. By the year 2000 the
region's population is expected to exceed 1, 000, 000. The entire regional
increase will probably occur in the cities and communities with the population
outside the communities remaining practically static- The distribution of
population in the year 2000 is projected to be 973, 000 in communities and
83, 000 outside.
3. Land Use
Agriculture is by far the largest land use in the region.
Of the 770, 000 acres in the Fresno Study Region, 43 percent (329, 000 acres)
are presently producing high-return crops such as fruits, nuts, field crops,
and vegetables. Another 39 percent (300, 000 acres) is used for irrigated pasture,
alfalfa, hay, or native rangeland, leaving about 52, 000 acres under urban develop-
ment and the balance vacant (89, 000). By the year 2000, 585, 000 acres are ex-
pected to be producing high-yield crops with 111, 000 acres under urban develop-
ment. The remaining 74, 000 acres will be almost totally utilized for alfalfa,
hay, and pasture.
4. Waste Loadings
Solid wastes in the Fresno region are currently being
generated at the rate of 2,477, 000 tons per year- This quantity is made up
of 432, 000 tons of municipal wastes, 256, 000 tons of industrial waste, 1, 012, 000
tons of animal wastes and manures, and 777, 000 tons of crop residues. By the
year 2000 the rate of waste production in the region is expected to reach
II-7
-------
II. Summary and Recommendations, B (Continued)
5, 582, 000 tons per year with 1, 529, 000 tons of municipal, 508, 000 tons of
industrial wastes, 2, 130, 000 tons of manures, and 1, 365, 000 tons of crop
residue wastes.
5. Legislative Controls
In general, laws and ordinances dealing with solid waste
management in the Fresno region fall into three categories: state legislation,
county ordinances and municipal legislation.
State legislation for the most part is enabling in nature. It
provides broad-procedural bases for undertaking solutions to solid waste
problems, and specifies a variety of administrative configurations to manage
and control these activities. Most of the state legislation for solid waste
management is found in the Health and Safety Code.
County ordinances on waste management are implementing
in nature, and develop detailed methods to meet the control objectives. The
majority of county ordinances dealing with solid waste management can be
found in Chapter 3 of the Fresno County Ordinance Code.
Municipal legislation is directed toward detailed definition
of methods, techniques and financing of the collection and disposal of solid
wastes. In the City of Fresno, the group of ordinances in the code pertaining
to solid waste management are contained in Article IV of the Municipal Code.
6. Resulting Practices
The result of existing policies has produced a heterogeneous
system in the Fresno region, with practices varying between county and city,
and between cities. There is no standardization of equipment or routines and,
until recently, a great deal of route duplication resulted. Recently, nine
independent companies combined into a single firm to supply services to the
area encompassed by the zones of the former companies. This is a great step
forward in eliminating duplication of services.
Much of the problem of poor equipment and overlapping service in
the private sector is probably due to the ease with which anyone can get a,per-
mit and set up a rubbish collecting business. The lack of vested property rights
II-8
-------
II.
Summary and Recommendations, B (Continued)
interest, such as would be produced by long-term franchise contracts, militates
against the investing of sufficient capital to buy and maintain the better and
more efficient equipment. In addition, franchise systems, limiting the col-
lector's zone of operation, would help eliminate costly duplication of services.
7. Economic Capacities and Projections
The present economy of the Fresno study region is based
largely on agriculture. However, a number of durable and nondurable goods
industries exist in the region in addition to those agriculturally based. The
City of Fresno is the region's commercial center and a significant part of the
economy is based on retail and wholesale trade. Industry, in the future, is
expected to become wider based, although agriculture will continue to be of
major importance in the year 2000. The commercial trade and service in-
dustries are expected to expand as the population increases.
Regional per capita income of $2800 is expected to increase
to $6100 by the year 2000-. The increase in per capita income, combined with
the expected population increase, will result in a regional income of 6. 5
billion dollars by the year 2000 as compared to the present 1.1 billion. Al-
though per capita income is likely to increase about 118 percent, the cost
of living, as indicated by extrapolations of the consumer price index, is also
expected to rise by approximately 76 percent. The net result will be 42 per-
cent more real disposable income. Increased affluence, combined with a spe-
cific education effort is expected to motivate the residents toward an improved
environment that would require approximately doubling the current one percent
of regional income expended for solid waste management. Another aspect of
economic growth is the region's assessed valuation. At present this valuation
is approximately 608 million dollars, but if the valuation increases in propor-
tion to income, in the year 2000 it will have increased to 4.0 billion dollars.
This would provide a substantial base for short-term bonding to acquire adequate
facilities as expansion becomes necessary.
II-9
-------
II. Summary and Recommendations, B (Continued)
8. State Department of Health Guidelines
At the present time the State Department of Public Health
guidelines on handling and disposal of solid wastes have not been published.
However, the preliminary criteria recommending maximum source storage
periods for various types of municipal, agricultural and industrial wastes were
made available and have been used in this study.
9. Technical Restrictions
A great many systems and techniques are available for
unit processes associated with waste management. The major restrictions
to application of most of the available and many of the advanced techniques is,
simply, cost.
Waste management systems can usually be broken into five
major function or unit processes. These are storage, collection, transportation,
processing and disposal.
Storage is accomplished by three basic systems: manu-
factured portable containers, constructed-in-place containers, and open
storage areas. Costs for the storage function range from $2.00 to $120.00 per
cubic yard of storage capacity per year. The median cost ranges from $8.00
to $22. 00
Collection methods include hand portable equipment,
powered vehicular systems, pneumatic equipment systems, pipelines, con-
veyor belt systems and gravity water transport. While all the above systems
have proven feasibility, many problems still exist in the categories of pneu-
matic equipment, pipelines, and conveyor belt systems. The reported
collection costs for municipal refuse range from $8.00 to $25.00 per ton, with
the median range in the area of $10. 00 to $16. 00 per ton. The extremes in cost
are the result of variations in local labor costs, types of equipment used, and
degree of service supplied.
n-io
-------
II. Summary and Recommendations, B (Continued)
Transportation systems can be motor transport, pneumatic
systems, conveyor belt systems, rail transport, pumped slurry transport,
and gravity waterborne transport.
Transfer stations are also considered part of the trans-
portation function. The limitations of similar systems used for the collection
function, of course, apply equally to transportation. Some typical solid waste
transport costs are 6 to 10£ per ton mile for motor transport. Rail transport
costs, where available, would be about 0. 8£ to 1. 0£ per ton mile, and transfer
station operations cost 35£ to $2. 60 per ton handled.
Processing methods for solid waste include combustion,
chemical oxidation, biological degradation, physical size and volume reduction,
and separation for salvage. The technical problems involved in implementing
any of the above systems present no great difficulty. Major problems involve
air pollution in combustion systems, odors in composting, and the fact that
salvage-oriented systems are presently economically marginal. Cost for
incineration is between 4 and 10 dollars per ton, wet oxidation 4 to 30 dollars
per ton, composting 4 to 15 dollars per ton, and central garbage grinding
0. 90 to 1. 40 dollars per ton. If salvage is combined with pulverization,
costs are increased to 4 to 5 dollars per ton.
Disposal is the ultimate step in a community's solid waste
management system. The major methods practiced are sanitary landfilling,
open dumping, open burning, ocean disposal, atmospheric disposal by incinera-
tion, land spreading and animal feeding. All the above methods have been in
general use for many years; pressure injection of slurries is currently being
researched. The basic technical problems incident to the disposal systems
are those of interface pollution with land, water, and air. The cost of disposal
in the study region is $1. 14 to $1. 27 per ton for sanitary land filling, 50£ per
ton for open dumping, 45£ to $2-90 per ton for land spreading, and 17£ per ton
for animal feeding.
H-ll
-------
II. Summary and Recommendations, B (Continued)
The study developed detailed unit costs of all current pro-
cesses and techniques as well as costs for advanced systems. These unit costs
are the basis for the predicted total cost of postulated systems for the Fresno
region.
C. PERFORMANCE AND ANCILLARY EFFECTS SCORING
To accomplish the major objectives of this study, it was essential
that methodology be developed whereby the effectiveness of the various possible
handling systems could be compared. The performance scoring and ancillary
effect scoring procedures devised in this study are the result of applying systems
analysis to the problem of integrating complex environmental relationships.
1. Problem Identification
The first requirement in devising a methodology for measuring
the effectiveness of waste management systems in controlling environment effects
is to identify the problems and effects to be controlled.
a. Definition of Solid Waste
The American Public Works Association categorizes
solid wastes as refuse, including "• . . semi-liquid or wet wastes with insufficient
moisture and other liquid contents to be free-flowing. " However, the physical
state of various wastes may undergo change during treatment or transport. The
definition problem involves the inclusion of what might at one stage be classified
as liquid waste, whether the solids are in suspension or solution, and at another
stage as the combustion and evaporation products of wastes discharged into the
air.
Consideration must also be given to wastes that po-
tentially have value and may be returned to the useful economic cycle. Examples
include animal manures, junked automobiles, and other wastes such as tin
cans, glass, paper and cardboard which may be salvaged depending on market
conditions.
On the basis of these considerations, the definition
used in this report is as follows: solid waste is that normally solid material
n-12
-------
II. Summary and Recommendations, C (Continued)
arising from animal or human life and activities and discarded permanently, or
temporarily, as waste. It also includes deposited waste particulates temporarily
suspended in air or water.
In the Fresno region, 82 different solid wastes were
originally identified as occurring in sufficient quantities to create a problem.
All these wastes were categorized by origin into three groupings, designated
here as municipal, industrial and agricultural wastes. The list was finally re-
duced to 52 by combining certain similar wastes and eliminating others deter-
mined not to be of sufficient quantity to create serious environmental problems.
b. Conditions of Solid Waste
To further establish a basis for measuring environ-
mental effects of solid waste it was necessary to determine all states and
conditions in which solid wastes presently exist or are likely to exist in the
Fresno region for the duration of the study period- After an extensive litera-
ture search and consultations .with sanitary engineering and environmental
health experts it was determined that the following represent all conditions in
which solid waste is likely to occur in the Fresno region.
The conditions are:
(1) Unmanaged
(2) Spread on Ground
(3) Piled on Ground
(4) Piled on Slab
(5) Container Open
(6) Container Closed
(7) Transport Open
(8) Transport Closed
(9) Grinding
(10) Spray Irrigation
(11) Incineration
11-13
-------
II. Summary and Recommendations, C (Continued)
(12) Open Burning
(13) Composting
(14) Lagooning
(15) Landfill
(16) Buried
(17) Open Dump
(18) Plowed in Ground
(19) Pit Disposal
While it is not intended to imply that the above are
the only possible conditions in wnich solid waste can exist, it is believed that
all major conditions are included, and that the majority of methods and unit
processes for handling solid waste can be accommodated by a broad definition
of the conditions listed.
c. Environmental or Bad Effects of Solid Waste
The last item connected with problem identification
was that of identifying the various environmental bad effects associated witn
solid wastes in the various conditions in which they can be placed. After con-
sideration by environmental health experts, and an extensive review of the
subject literature, it was determined that 13 bad effects need be considered.
Tnese are:
(1) Flies
(2) Water Pollution
(3) Air Pollution
(4) Rodents
(5) Human Disease
(6) Animal Disease
(7) Insects Other Than Flies
(8) Safety Hazards
(9) Odor
11-14
-------
II. Summary and Recommendations, C (Continued)
(10) Plant Disease
(11) Land Pollution
(12) Unsightliness
(13) Toxicity
2. Performance Scoring
In the waste management field in general, and particularly
in solid waste management, there are few performance standards. The stand-
ards that have evolved are the result of emergency pressures and are directed
almost entirely toward the alleviation of a disease potential or the removal of
waste from direct sight and contact at the least possible cost.
The basis of the procedure advanced in this study is the
postulation that effectiveness can be expressed in terms of the degree to which
the system decreases the environmental or bad effects of the waste. If, for
example, a unit quantity of a given waste lying open on the ground is the con-
stant source of one unit of odor, a control system such as a tarpaulin cover
that cuts this odor in half could be said to have a relative effectiveness of 50
percent, a tightly sealed container one of 100 percent. The procedure de-
veloped in this program resulted in a quantitative bad effect score for a unit
quantity of each type of waste when placed in any of the 19 conditions considered
above. The most effective system places the waste in conditions resulting in
the lowest score.
a. Basic Bad Effects Scores
With the establishment of bad effects, waste condi-
tions, and an inventory of different wastes produced in the region, basic bad
effects scores were determined for each waste under each condition. This was
accomplished by having experienced practitioners in the sanitary engineering
and environmental health fields provide value judgements as to the relative
contribution of a given waste under a given condition to possible bad effects.
A rating scale of 0 to 5 was used, with 0 indicating no significant contribution
11-15
-------
H. Summary and Recommendations, C (Continued)
and 5 the highest contribution. Scores or ratings for each bad effect for all
the wastes contributing to that effect under all conditions were provided by
several experts. The rating scale of 0 to 5 was used to obtain a finer re-
lationship than good or bad and yet not exceed the practical limitation of sub-
jective decision making.
Next, a relative condition rating that reflects the
consequence on bad effects of placing a unit quantity of the combined wastes
in each of the conditions was determined in a like manner with the same 0 to
5 rating scale, i. e. , 0 indicates that the condition virtually eliminates the
particular bad effect and 5 indicates the condition is the worst possible way
of handling the'waste. The two ratings were then multiplied and the resulting
scores for a unit quantity of each waste for each bad effect under each condi-
tion were designated as basic bad effects scores.
b. Influence Coefficient
The basic bad.effects scores still lacked two features
necessary for actual application. First, the scores did not reflect the rela-
tive importance of the various bad effects in terms of the type of area or sub-
region where they occurred, i. e. , whether the area was predominantly muni-
cipal, industrial, agricultural, or an interface area between municipal and
agricultural. Secondly, the values did not consider the relative contribution
to the generation of bad effects by solid wastes as compared to other contributors,
The relative importance factor for each subregion was
determined by a two-step procedure. First, an order of importance was estab-
lished by sanitary engineering experts using a method known as forced decision-
making. One bad effect at a time was compared with each of the other bad
effects and a 0-1 decision made as to their comparative importance. The more
important effect was scored 1 and the lesser 0. The decisions were then added,
resulting in a ranking of the 13 bad effect for each subregion. Numerical values
representing the relative importance, on a scale of 0 to 100, were then assigned
11-16
-------
II. Summary and Recommendations, C (Continued)
to each bad effect following the order determined above. The numerical
values assigned were judgments by program and State personnel and are not
necessarily proportional to the order of importance.
The relative contribution factor for each subregion
was then established by sanitary engineers in conjunction with State and
Fresno County officials. This factor represents a judgment as to what per-
cent of each bad effect is caused by solid waste. For example, solid wastes
are virtually the only contributor to fly breeding and therefore this bad effect
received a value of 100, whereas solid waste contributes very little to human
disease and was scored quite low for all subregions.
The influence coefficient for each bad effect in each
subregion is the result of the multiplication of the relative importance factor
by the relative contribution factor and the ratioing of the resulting product of
each bad effect to the sum of products for all bad effects in all subregions.
c. Total Weighted Bad Effects Score
The final values required for the performance scor-
ing procedure, i. e. , the total weighted bad effects scores, were then obtained
by multiplying the basic bad effects scores by the influence coefficient for each
bad effect for each condition in each subregion and the resulting scores added
for all bad effects in each particular condition. The final output of this pro-
cedure is a score representing the total bad effect of a unit quantity of a
particular waste in a given condition in a particular subregion. Total weighted
bad effect scores for each subregion were determined for all 82 wastes in each
of the 19 conditions.
d. System Performance Scores
The performance score of any postulated waste
management system is the sum of the total weighted bad effect scores for
each waste in each condition in each subregion multiplied by the tonnage of
each waste in the particular conditions called for by the system being considered.
H-17
-------
II. Summary and Recommendations, C (Continued)
Several of the conditions are basically transient,
i. e. , the wastes are in such conditions only for a short period of time. Com-
pared with disposal conditions, in which the wastes attain a more or less per-
manent state, these transient scores are relatively low. Combining the two
component scores would result in losing the effect of any improvement for
transient conditions. Because it was judged that transient and disposal com-
ponents are of equal importance to society, separate scores were maintained.
In the final analysis of total system performance these two component scores
are individually evaluated and the results combined.
.3. Ancillary Effects
The ancillary effects scoring procedure was developed as
a means of measuring the physical, social, and psychological effects of al-
ternative waste management systems and their components as opposed to per-
formance scoring of the effects of solid wastes. For example, a system that
employs trucks to collect solid wastes from households creates noise, traffic
interference, exhaust fumes, and is a safety hazard compared to an alternate
method such as underground tubes. The ancillary effect scoring procedure
becomes important when a number of systems under consideration have simi-
lar performance scores and costs. Ancillary effects can then be used to choose
the optimum system from a group of nearly equal cost-effective systems.
a. Ancillary Effects Identification
The first step in developing the ancillary effects
scoring procedure was the identification of effects to be scored. The problem
was considered by environmental health experts and the following list selected:
(1) Noise
(2) Traffic Interference
(3) Land Pollution
(4) Odor
(5) Unsightliness
H-18
-------
II. Summary and Recommendations, C (Continued)
(6) Safety Hazards
(7) Air Pollution
(8) Water Pollution
(9) Legal Problems
(10) Jurisdictional Conflicts
(11) Employment Effects
(12) Social Status
It should be noted that effects (3) through (8) are
the same effects previously considered in the performance scoring of solid
waste. In this section, however, these effects are considered only with
reference to the physical components of waste management systems.
b. Ranking and Rating of Effects
The second step required the determination of
relative importance and subsequent weighting factors for each of the iden-
tified effects.
The forced deci si on-making method previously used
in the performance scoring procedure development was also used here to rank
the effects. However, a larger number of individuals provided ranking for this
procedure than for the performance scoring procedure. A total of 20 indivi-
duals, both technical and nontechnical, provided separate rankings for the
various effects in each subregion.
These rankings of each effect were totaled for each
subregion and ratings determined for the 12 effects by setting the highest
totaled ranking score equal to 1. 0 and rating the other effects in that sub-
region in proportion to their totaled ranking score.
D. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
FOR THE FRESNO REGION
The objective of this portion of the study was to investigate basic
approaches to solid waste control in the Fresno study region and to delineate
11-19
-------
II. Summary and Recommendations, D (Continued)
a number of systems in sufficient detail to permit their evaluation in terms
of cost, performance, and ancillary effects. Since it would be possible to
enumerate several thousand combinations of potential candidate systems, it
was necessary to use sanitary engineering judgment to restrict the analysis
to a manageable number of systems representative of significantly different
alternatives.
Eighteen systems were postulated for managing municipal and
industrial wastes and four methods devised for agricultural wastes. In addi-
tion, the methods presently used for handling both categories were delineated.
The 18 systems analyzed for municipal and industrial waste were
as follows:
1. Containers - Vehicular Collection - Landfilling
2. Containers - Vehicular Collection - Incineration - Landfill
3. Containers - Vehicular Collection - Processing (product) -
Landfill
4. Special Containers - Automated Pickup - Vehicular
Collection - Landfilling
5. Special Containers - Automated Pickup - Vehicular
Collection - Incineration - Landfill
6. Special Containers - Automated Pickup - Vehicular
Collection - Processing (product) - Landfill
7. Source Grinders - Sewers - Process - Landfilling
8. Source Grinders - Sewers - Process - Incineration -
Landfill
9. Source Grinders - Sewers - Process - Processing
(Product) - Landfill
10. Optimal Grinding (Pneumatics) - Sewers - Process -
Landfilling
11. Optimal Grinding (Pneumatics) - Sewers - Process -
Incineration - Landfill
12. Optimal Grinding (Pneumatics) - Sewers - Process -
Processing (Product) - Landfill
II-20
-------
II Summary and Recommendations., D (Continued)
13. Special Containers - Portable Grinder - Sewer - Process -
Landfilling
14. Special Containers - Portable Grinder - Sewer - Process -
Incineration - Landfill
15. Special Containers - Portable Grinder - Sewer - Process -
Processing (product) - Landfill
16. Optimal Pneumatic Aggregation - Vehicle Transport -
Landfilling
17. Optimal Pneumatic Aggregation - Vehicle Transport -
Incineration - Landfill
18. Optimal Pneumatic Aggregation - Vehicle Transport -
Processing (product) - Landfill
The four agricultural systems considered were:
1. Spread on Ground - Plowed in ground
2. Closed Containers - Vehicular Collection - Sanitary
Landfill
3. Closed Container - Vehicular Collection - Incineration -
Landfill '
4. Closed Containers - Vehicular Collection - Processing
(product) - Landfill
The above systems and the existing systems were analyzed in
sufficient detail to determine their capacities and effects in handling the pro-
jected amounts of various wastes expected to be produced in the year 2000.
E. COST AND PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
1. Performance Scoring
The scoring methodology and procedures described were
applied to the above systems maintaining separate scores for the transient
and disposal components of each system. As previously explained, the scores
for transient and disposal components of any given system cannot be totalled,
since transient scores would tend to be overpowered by the greater magnitude
of accumulative disposal scores. Using the existing system scores for both
11-21
-------
II. Summary and Recommendations, D (Continued)
transient and disposal components as separate references, it is possible,
however, to determine the percent improvement in the reduction of bad ef-
fects for each component (transient and disposal) that could be expected by
incorporation of the conceptualized systems. The percent improvement for
each component for each proposed system was then calculated, with the over-
all system improvement represented by the average of the improvement of
two system components. The basis for averaging the transient and disposal
component improvement percentages is the assumption that the transient and
disposal activities are equal with regard to their effect on the environment
and society. Table II-l delineates the performance scoring results for
each of the systems postulated.
Table II- 1
PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT AND COSTS
Municipal-Industrial Systems
System Performance Score % Perf. Imp. N t ^ Co t
isposal Perf. Imp. (Millions)
0 0 26. 9
28 42 36.2
69 69 54.7
74 73 49.8
19 47 45.6
69 78 64. 1
72 82 58.8
27 58 50.9
49 70 67.8
63 78 63.6
51 73 122.0
11-22
Existing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Transient
36, 488
15, 989
11,401
10, 185
9,248
4, 607
3,435
4, 214
3, 831
2, 277
1, 605
Disposal
3, 114,529
2, 247, 393
966, 242
801, 684
2, 536, 745
968, 077
874,818
2,269,967
1, 585, 284
1, 153, 194
1,529,790
Transient
0
56
69
72
75
88
91
88
90
94
95
-------
II. Summary and Recommendations, D (Continued)
Table II-1 (Continued)
PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT AND COSTS
Municipal-Industrial Systems
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Selected
System
Existing
1
2
3
4
Selected
System
Transient
2, 672
527
5,589
5, 371
3, 303
6, 721
2, 086
902
2, 020
152, 953
39,319
55, 662
45, 560
44, 908
36,759
11 C(, Id
Disposal Transient Disposal Perf. Imp.
1,586, 103
885, 799
1,529, 331
1,589, 985
1,343,395
2, 247, 382
966, 242
874, 23.1
93
98
85
85
91
81
94
97
821,033 94
Agricultural
4, 640, 474
3,891, 988
3, 308, 178
1, 211, 728
609, 026
1, 647, 006
0
74
64
70
71
76
49
74
51
49
57
28
69
72
74
Systems
0
16
29
74
87
65
71
86
68
67
74
60
82
84
84
0
45
46
72
79
70
\J\JO U
(Millions)
141. 2
138.4
42. 3
61.4
58. 9
121. 1
139- 1
136. 0
48. 6
6.7
6.9
16.9
76.3
49.9
30. 0
2. System Costs
Using the cost data for the various unit processes developed
in the study, the cost of handling the projected waste quantities for the year
2000 in the manner prescribed by each system was calculated. The estimated
costs for each of the scored systems is also shown in Table II-l. All costs
indicated are for the year 2000 expressed in 1967 value dollars.
11-23
-------
II. Summary and Recommendations, D (Continued)
3. Minimum Desirable Performance
Consultation with State and local Fresno administrative
officials resulted in the establishment of minimum improvement goals for
any proposed system. It was determined that municipal-industrial systems
provide at least a 60 percent improvement over the conditions that would exist
if the present system could be continued to the year 2000, and that the agri-
cultural control methods result in a minimum of 50 percent environmental
effects improvement.
4. System Cost Limitations
The existing system of management, extrapolated to the
year 2000, would cost the region about 33. 5 million dollars per year. Of this
sum, 25. 2 million would be required for municipal waste, 1. 6 million for
industrial, 5. 7 million for manures and 1. 0 million for crop residue manage-
ment. All costs indicated above are in terms of 1967 value dollars.
Based on conservative economic projections, the real
disposable income of the region's population is expected to increase about
42 percent with attendant increased standard of living. Considering pro-
jected higher education levels and increased affluence, the population can be
expected to demand, and be willing to pay for, an improved environment.
Continuing the existing system to the year 2000 will not only result in no im-
provement but, as shown, the result will be a gradual but steady degradation
of the environment.
In 1967 the estimated regional expenditure for solid waste
management was 10. 2 million dollars. This sum amounted to 0. 93 percent
of the regional income. With the projected increase in per capita real dis-
posable income in the year 2000, 42 percent more will be available from each
individual without any increase in the percentage of income being expended for
this purpose. Unfortunately, the per capita waste generation, especially the
municipal portion, is predicted also to increase. This increase almost matches
11-24
-------
II. Summary and Recommendations, E (Continued)
the increase in disposable income in the region and, thus, the 33. 5 million
dollars projected for existing system cost in the year 2000 is still 0. 90 per-
cent of the increased regional income.
Based on the assumption that 60 percent improvement
should be worth doubling the income percentage allocated to solid waste man-
agement, a proposed maximum system cost for municipal waste management
in the year 2000 was set at twice the projected present system costs, or 50. 4
million dollars.
The industrial wastes in the year 2000 are estimated to
be approximately 9- 1 percent of the projected total regional wastes. Project-
ing the present system requires an expenditure of 1. 6 million dollars, or only
4. 8 percent of the regional cost to handle 9. 1 percent of the projected total
regional wastes. To eliminate this inequity requires the application of a 90
percent increase in costs allocated to industrial solid waste management.
In addition, the 60 percent environmental effects reduction, similar to the
municipal situation, would require an additional 100 percent cost increase.
The proposed limit for system costs of industrial solid waste management
in the year 2000 was, therefore, set at 1.9x2. Ox 1.6 million, or 6. 1 million
dollars.
Similarly the projected present system costs for handling
manures, which make up 39 percent of the region's solid waste load, is 5. 7
million dollars, or only 17 percent of the total system costs. To equalize
this situation requires an additional 130 percent management cost allocation,
while the attainment of a 50 percent environmental improvement will necessi-
tate an additional 100 percent expenditure over and above the equalizing increase.
The system cost limit for manures in the year 2000 was, thus, set at 2. 3 x 2. 0 x
5. 7, or 26. 2 million dollars.
The limit for management system expenditure for crop
residues for the year 2000 was arbitrarily set at 4. 0 million dollars. This
11-25
-------
II. Summary and Recommendations, E (Continued)
amount is four times the projected present system costs. The crop residues
in the year 2000 will make up 24. 4 percent of the regional solid waste; how-
ever, the management of these wastes to the same extent as municipal and
industrial wastes would require a considerably greater proportional cost.
Since the competitive position of this important regional activity must be con-
sidered, a lesser environmental effects improvement has been accepted for
these wastes, together with a relatively lower cost.
The total solid waste management system limit cost for
the year 2000 was determined as follows:
Municipal 50. 4 million dollars
Industrial 6. 1 million dollars
Manures 26. 2 million dollars
Crop Residues 4. 0 million dollars
Total 86. 7 million dollars
The cost limit for the municipal-industrial system is
56. 5 million dollars and that for the agricultural system, including manures,
is 30. 2 million dollars.
F. SELECTED SYSTEM FOR THE FRESNO REGION
The cost-benefit analysis, shown on Figure II-3, indicated that
only municipal-industrial systems No. 2, 3, and 13 satisfied the imposed
technical-economical limitations. Considering the assumptions made in
arriving at the limits it would be unreasonable not to also consider systems
6, 7, and 15. Figure II-4 showed that none of the postulated agricultural
systems met the minimum requirements. Since the individual postulated
systems were developed on the basis of handling essentially all wastes by
the methods shown with minimal consideration given to legal, political, socio-
logical, and practical constraints, it became apparent that additional analysis
was required.
11-26
-------
Year 2000
lOOi—
Selected System — .
Maximum Cost Limitation
(56.5 million)
O
20 -
10 _
0
0
10
50 bO TO ^50 90
SYSTEM COSTS
(Millions of Dollars)
Note: 1. Pt. "E" represents existing- system.
2. Slope from "E" to system designation
represents % improvement per million
dollars expended.
Figure II-3. Cost-Benefit Analysis Municipal-Industrial Systems
-------
Year 2000
g
o
uu
90
80
TO
60
30
20
10
0
—
_
Selected — y
System ^^^
y
/
/
-*f//
~ I// /
- y /
«M( , ,
^ — Maximum Cost Limitation
* (30.2 million)
^
/ /
/ /
* ^-Minimum Performance
/ Limitation
/ (50$ Improvement)
II 1 1 l 1 1
0 10 20 30 UO 50 60 TO 80 90 100
SYSTEM COSTS
(Millions of Dollars)
Note: 1. Pt. "E" represents existing system.
2. Slope from "E" to system designation
represents $ improvement per million
dollars expended.
Figure II-4. Cost-Benefit Analysis Agricultural Systems
11-28
-------
II. Summary and Recommendations, F (Continued)
Consideration of the individual quantities of wastes indicated
that three categories of solid wastes in the Fresno region constituted almost
two-thirds of the total amount generated. These are organic municipal refuse,
organic industrial wastes and animal manures. Cost-benefit ratios for all
technically feasible methods of handling, both transient and disposal, were
therefore determined for each of these three categories to facilitate applica-
tion of nontechnical constraints. The results of this analysis, with considera-
tion given to all parameters, indicated a much greater variation in methods
of handling different categories of wastes would be required than originally
postulated.
Sanitary engineering judgment, along with legal, political, and
administrative decisions, are required to make any final system selection.
Systems analysis furnishes an additional tool with which to assist decision
makers; it does not make decisions. Even in the event that sophistication of
computer applications provides perfection of the technical-economic selection
process, the legal, political) and administrative decisions will still be required.
The proposed solid waste management system for the Fresno
region, as- shown in Figure II-5, is a combination of the various transient
and disposal systems. The system handles the different waste categories
in a variety of ways, with the most intensive and advanced treatment reserved
for the three above mentioned types of waste. The proposed system allows
for an orderly transition over a period of time from the existing system to that
being proposed for the major affected waste types. At the same time, the
methods of handling waste categories of relatively little consequence, or those
subsystems that are presently efficient, are little changed in the proposed system.
The costs of the proposed system in the year 2000 are estimated
to be:
Municipal 42. 7 million dollars
Industrial 5. 9 million dollars
11-29
-------
POSITION
MUNC.FAL WASTES
IK ILL RESIGNS
I. DEMOLITION ANB
CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS
2 DEAD AMUiALS
3 CPEC1AL WASTES
ESTIMATED
TONS/YEAS ;oco
160
90
IN MUNICIPAL 8 INTERFACE REGION
4 HJUiN FFCAL MATTER 23.640
IStw~GE TREATMENT RESIDUE)
5 .GARBAGE
6 BULKY REFUSE
176,000
13,000
7 REFUSE (EXCEPT BULKY I.292.4OO
REFUSE)
8. STREET REFUSE
MANURES
13.400
9 FEED LOTSIFXCE>T 1,619,950
SHEEP MANURE)
ORGANIC INDUSTRIAL WASTES
10 FRUIT 8 VEGETABLES
II. POULTRY
12. ANIMAL
II WINERIES
14 VESETABLE C-LS
267.330
3200
10.600
154500
920
MUNICIPAL WASTES
IN JCSCULTURAL REG:SN
II HUMN FCCiL MATTER
17 REFC5E.COT3')STiaLES
583
4.330
IJ.7S9
iTISL ES I.^OO
AGR|CtJLT>.iPAL_ WASTES
19 FiELO b i> EO CRC^S 520.555
20 FRUIT AN& NUT CRCPS 457,951
21 FT1U.T ANO 'JUT CRCPS 293.276
(CULL5I
SHEEP MANURE 360.OX30
INDUSTRIAL WASTES
23 TEXTILES
24. PLASTICS
25 TIRES
26. METALS
27 MAECKHY
2a v.o
29 CfEf/ICALS
30 rETHO'.EUM
31 SEEDS
32. COTTON TRASH .
402
175
3.150
I053O
I.47S
550
30
260
20,500
[COLLEC'iCI
| BY £w£EP£R
SKCIH. 1
STORAGE[
i | COVMCTOR 1 ' 'f
1 TRUCK |
1 CLOSED 1
| TRANSPORT j
20
%
StPTIC
TANK
CIOSCD
TKANVOIT
SCW*GI TIUT-
aoias 1
TUNSKMtT |
*Leaves (only) to composting; dirt and sand to landfill
Figure II-5.
Proposed Solid Waste Management System
(Fresno Region)
11-30
-------
II. Summary and Recommendations, F (Continued)
Manures 26. 5 million dollars
Crop Residues 3. 5 million dollars
Total 78. 6 million dollars (1967 value dollars)
These system costs all fall within the pre-set expenditure limits.
The effectiveness of the proposed system is indicated by the
calculated 84 percent improvement of environmental effects for the municipal-
industrial portion and an improvement of 70 percent for the agricultural por-
tion. In addition, the proposed system ancillary effect score of 17. 24 is
considerably lower than that of any of the previously postulated systems
falling within the cost benefit limits. These improvements, well above the
program goals and within reasonable expenditures, are the result of a suc-
cessful application of the postulated procedures.
G. APPLICATION TO OTHER REGIONS
The applicatipn of the study methodologies to an area similar
to the Fresno region in geological and meteorological conditions, population
distribution and growth pattern, and agricultural, industrial and commercial
mix, would essentially entail the procedures previously outlined. However,
most practical applications would require adjustments to the methodology be-
cause of the peculiarities of each region to be evaluated.
The following procedures, in general, will be necessary for the
successful application of the study procedures for the analysis of solid waste
problems in other regions.
It will, first, be necessary to establish the conditions under
which any system proposed will be required to operate in the proposed region
during the evaluation period. This will entail the gathering of data on regional
geology, climate, population, economy and governmental operation, in addition
to the determination of the existing and projected kinds and quantities of solid
waste to be managed.
H-31
-------
II. Summary and Recommendations, G (Continued)
Next, the scoring procedure developed in the Fresno study will
need revision to account for the different scale in which certain bad effects
may be viewed in the region in question. The basic bad effects scores with-
out the application of the influence coefficient, can be used for all wastes
common to those in Fresno. For different wastes basic bad effects scores
must be developed. The procedures developed in this study could then be
used to determine influence coefficients for the region in question which
would very likely be different from those developed for Fresno. With the
basic bad effects and the new influence coefficients, the weighted bad effects
scores could be calculated and proposed systems scored.
In-deter mining proposed system costs for a region other than
the Fresno region, consideration must be given to the local physical and
economic conditions. The costs of local labor, material, construction and
land must be evaluated, as well as the local topography and availability of
suitable sites for proposed system processes.
The ancillary effects scores of another region will require the
application of the same techniques used to arrive at the scores in the Fresno
region. However, more, less, or even different effects may be important
in other regions.
With performance scores, costs, and ancillary effects deter-
mined, system effectiveness can be compared and the optimum system
selected.
H. COMMUNITY ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Establishment of the Council of Fresno Governments, although
not directly related to the performance of this study, can be partially attri-
buted to the ongoing effort. The formation of this Council, although political
and not administrative in nature, provides a forum to review the need for
co-operative community and regional endeavors, and makes for a better
understanding of the interrelationships of local action on the total community.
11-32
-------
II. Summary and Recommendations, H (Continued)
From this understanding, programs and activities that are beneficial to the
majority while protecting the minority are most likely to be attained.
During the performance of this study, the participants main-
tained continuous contact with local city and county officials and administra-
tors whose cooperation is highly commended. This direct contact provided
a free interchange of ideas and thoughts, making possible a much clearer
understanding by the participants of local administrative problems. The
establishment of this relationship provided the information needed for the
application of systems analysis to the socio-economic problem under
consideration.
The city and county governments, during the eighteen months
of this study, have instituted many improvements in the existing solid waste
management system. Several of these steps were taken as a direct result
of the June 1967 Interim Report; others developed from direct consultation
during the study, or from independent action. Additional important accom-
plishments are summarized in the following paragraphs.
1. City of Fresno
a. An ordinance was passed making twice-a-week
collection of garbage mandatory, with a few exceptions. This procedure will
effectively interrupt the normal fly-breeding cycle.
b. Partially as a result of the above ordinance and
also as part of a replacement program, the city has purchased additional
vehicular equipment.
c. Schedules and routing have been revised to meet
the requirements imposed by twice-a-week collection and to improve the
operating efficiency.
d. Collection fees have been increased to meet the
higher costs of labor and equipment.
11-33
-------
II. Summary and Recommendations, H (Continued)
2. County of Fresno
a. The County has prohibited open burning at dump
sites and has also stopped open burning by certain specified industries.
b. Mandatory once-a-week collection has been imposed
on suburban residents with lot sizes of 36, 000 square feet or less, where such
service is available.
c. The County has acquired two additional landfill sites
and is actively seeking others.
d. Conditional use permits have been made a require-
ment for solid waste disposal operations.
3. City and County
A cooperative program has been developed to delineate
specific off-street sewer access for unloading septic tank pumpers into the
sewerage system. Wash-down facilities are being provided at each location
The operation will be based on a fee system for the private operators of
septic tank pumpers.
4. Private Operators
a. Nine separate scavenging operators have merged
to create a single large collection and disposal company. Operations by this
one large firm will provide greater efficiency in routing and service to that
portion of the community not served by municipal agencies.
b. A transfer station has been built on the site of a
former landfill to serve the private operation described above.
II-34
-------
II. Summary and Recommendations, H (Continued)
5. Industry
The automobile dismantlers are forming an association to
seek ways of satisfying the county ban on open burning of junk vehicles. Vari-
ous incineration devices and other means of scrapping automobiles are being
investigated by this newly formed organization.
I. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. System Implementation
The first action required to develop the proposed system
concept is the assignment of some form of regional control. Such an agency
(County or special district) could have powers for supplementing and compli-
menting the activities of pertinent local agencies in all aspects of solid waste
handling from collection to final disposal, with the extent of local participation
determined by local option. The regional agency would, therefore, have re-
sponsibility for overall conduct of the regional system, including direct respon-
sibility for performing all necessary functions not performed by local agencies
and for necessary coordination of all participants. The composition of boards
of direction of such an agency would include appropriate representation from
all cognizant local agencies. If Fresno County assumed the responsibility,
the Board of Supervisors would represent such leadership.
One important function of the regional approach would be
management of final disposal of the compost to be produced by the recommended
plan. As noted in the detailed report, composting as recommended in this re-
port, differs from composting schemes elsewhere in that the composting pro-
gram is based not solely on the value of the compost for agricultural purpose
(as is usually the case) but also on long-term environmental values, considered
to be of equal magnitude of importance. It is believed that, on this basis, a
positive program for planned disposal of compost, with the responsibility for
initiative and management on the regional agency rather than on the agricultural
interests, can be successfully achieved in a unique manner not previously ac-
complished in this country. In other words, the use of the land for compost
11-35
-------
II. Summary and Recommendations, H (Continued)
disposal should be managed by the regional agency, including agricultural
interests but with the agricultural interests subordinated to the primary func-
tion of disposal —an example of this method of operating is the disposal/
farming activity successfully carried on for the past two decades in Ontario,
California by the Sunkist Orange Products for disposal of citrus by-products
wastes.
a. Immediate Action
(1) Recommend to local authorities the passage
of ordinances to restrict the storage of most municipal and industrial solid
wastes to closed containers. Excluded from this restriction would be demo-
lition and construction wastes, bulky refuse, textile wastes, plastics, and
tires.
(2) Recommend to local authorities the passage
of ordinances to eliminate open transport of all municipal-industrial solid
wastes. This does not mean that open body trucks could not be used; only
that tarpaulins or similar covers would be required.
(3) Phase out all open dumping operations in favor
of properly operated sanitary land fills.
(4) Recommend that local authorities, acting via
the Air Pollution Control District, prohibit open burning of all municipal,
industrial, and agricultural wastes.
b. Medium to Long-Range Action
(1) Adopt and enforce state standards for sanitary
landfilling site operations.
(2) Determine precise requirements of landfill area
for the thirty year period and acquire necessary sites. This program must be
coordinated with cognizant land use planning agencies.
(3) Establish through the Air Pollution Control
District operational (air pollution) requirements for on-site industrial
incinerator s.
n-36
-------
H. Summary and Recommendations, I (Continued)
(4) Construct a pilot-scale operation and perform
a test program for the recommended collection system.
(5) Obtain a demonstration grant to construct,
test, and improve the National Canners Association's proven composting
process for cannery wastes (full-scale).
(6) Obtain a demonstration grant to build and test
a pilot-scale composting operation for the processing of manures and muni-
cipal refuse.
(7) Perform studies on manure storage and
collection at dairies, cattle feed lots, and poultry farms.
(8) Establish a program for the development of a
compost market in the study region. The use of compost in parks, munici-
pal golf courses, and certain areas of highway rights-of-way would provide
a convincing demonstration of its benefits.
(9) Determine the technical and economic feasibility
of providing collection of certain crop residues during the harvesting process.
The possibility of utilizing this material, either as potential animal feed, or
in the composting process, should be thoroughly explored to prevent temporary
land degradation from internment or air pollution from burning. The mechani-
cal harvesting of certain crops, with resulting concentrations of residues in
windrows or piles, will lead to possible solutions that are currently too ex-
pensive because of added costs for picking up and concentrating the residues.
The harvesting of tomatoes by mechanical means is an example of this change
in technology.
2. Basic and Applied Research
The Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, resulting in the
formation of what is now known as the Solid Waste Program, has funded
many research programs encompassing virtually all facets of solid waste
activities. Summaries of research, training, and demonstration grants
are available from the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Public Health Service.
H-37
-------
II. Summary and Recommendations, I (Continued)
There is no need to repeat here what work has been done
or what is currently being done but, rather, to point out those specific areas
of research requiring additional effort. In general, the Federal Government's
purpose, in this respect, is to assist local communities in the prevention of
pollution by solid wastes, with particular emphasis on conservation.
The results of this study have brought into focus certain
fields of endeavor in solid waste research that appear to be worthy of further
development. These programs are recommended in addition to those men-
tioned as part of the system implementation.
a. Computer Program
The Fresno study has devised a method of measuring
the environmental effects caused by handling solid wastes in a variety of ways.
The ancillary effects of these "systems" have also been determined. The
synthesized systems can be scored, using these techniques, by the minimal
computer program developed for this purpose. This program does not, how-
ever, provide the overall sophistication required to select the optimum from
a large array of candidate concepts. The development of such a computer
program, utilizing available mathematical techniques would be of great value
in perfecting the technical-economic optimizing technique.
b. Disposal to Sewerage Systems
The cost-benefit analysis of various systems indi-
cated that sewer collection and sewage treatement of certain wastes would
probably provide one of the better total methods. Some other technical and
nontechnical constraints prevent this method from being a part of the recom-
mended system, except for garbage. Some work has been done in the past
with regard to grinding of solid wastes and their disposal to the sewerage
system but the results have been inconclusive. It is recommended that basic
research be conducted toward determining design and cost factors involved in
grinding (central and source) solid wastes, the effects on sewage flow, and the
ultimate effects on sewage treatment plant facilities.
H-38
-------
II. Summary and Recommendations, I (Continued)
c. Pneumatic Collection Systems
Pneumatic collection systems for high-rise buildings
and hospitals are currently in existence. They can also be utilized for com-
mercial or institutional operations. These systems are relatively high in initial
cost but can be amortized over several years on the basis of labor savings.
The development and utilization of pneumatic collection systems for single
family, low density areas would be basically contingent on the demand by
society for ultimate environmental improvement, convenience, and the will-
ingness to pay.
It is recommended that applied research be conducted
to modify existing pneumatic systems for low density areas with improved
sanitation, esthetics, and lowered costs as the prime objectives.
11-39
-------
HI. PROBLEMS OF SOLID WASTES
A. OBJECTIVE
The principal objective of this discussion is to identify environ-
mental pollution problems that can be attributed to solid wastes in any condi-
tion. This is done with the aim of establishing the relationship between solid
wastes and direct or indirect bad effects to allow measurement of the effec-
tiveness of postulated systems for reducing such problems.
The secondary objective is to determine and identify the
"customers" for solid waste management, i. e. , all governmental groups and
agencies acting as representatives of society in such matters.
B. SOLID WASTE DEFINITION, IDENTIFICATION, AND
CONDITIONS
1. Definition
There is no precise definition of solid wastes, either in the
literature or among people working in the field. Wastes can be defined as the
useless, unwanted, or discarded materials resulting from normal activities.
This definition, however, includes solids, liquids, and gases.
The American IPublic Works Association (APWA) (1) cate-
gorizes solid wastes as refuse, including ". . . semi-liquid or wet wastes with
insufficient moisture and other liquid contents to be free-flowing. "
The physical state of various wastes may undergo change
during treatment or transport. The definition problem involves the inclusion
of what might at one stage be classified as liquid waste, whether the solids are
in suspension or solution, and at another stage as the combustion and evapora-
tion products of wastes discharged into the air.
Consideration must also be given to by-products of normal
activities that potentially have value and may be returned to the useful economic
cycle. Examples include animal manures, which are or could be used as
fertilizers; junked, automobiles, from which parts are or may be cannibalized
III-l
-------
III. Problems of Solid Wastes (continued)
and hulls possibly returned to the smelters; and automobile tires, of which
small portions currently return as doormats or shoe soles. These are but a
few of the possibilities. Other wastes (tin cans , glass, paper, cardboard, etc.)
are salvaged depending on market conditions. The important question is: When
are these by-products solid waste and when are they still a part of the industrial
cycle?
Because these products can produce what are later referred
to as the "bad effects" of solid wastes - during their storage, collection, trans-
port, processing and disposal - they influence, to a considerable degree,
consideration of any "waste" management system. They must, therefore,
be included with waste materials for which there is little, if any, potential
economic value. Such materials will, therefore, be considered, even if
only temporarily, within a normal definition of solid wastes.
On the basis of these considerations, the following definition
is offered: Solid waste is that normally solid material arising from animal or
human life and activities and discarded permanently, or temporarily, as waste.
It also includes deposited waste particulates temporarily suspended in air or water.
2. Solid Waste Identification
Table III-l provides a comprehensive list of all the solid wastes
identified as existing in the study region. It does not include all solid wastes,
but only those occurring in the region and in sufficient quantities to create a
problem. The sources are indicated below.
a. Municipal
The basic information on the composition and source of
municipal solid wastes was derived from Municipal Refuse Disposal, 1966 edition,
an APWA publication. The Fresno City ordinance requires separation of the
categories of "residential rubbish" and "mixed garbage" but it appears there
is limited enforcement of their separation.
III-2
-------
III. Problems of Solid Wastes (continued)
b. Agricultural
Information on agricultural solid wastes was obtained
from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) "Agricultural Crop Reports"
of the last several years for Fresno County. References 2, 3, and 4 provided
information on the composition of agricultural waste.
c. Industrial
Types of industrial solid wastes were identified on the
basis of the Fresno County Chamber of Commerce report and listing of industries
for 1965. References 5 to 10 were used to establish the composition of wastes
for the various industries.
The waste compositions were further verified by per-
sonal interviews with managers and operators of various industries for all cate-
gories of waste.
3. Conditions of Solid Wastes
The conditions of solid wastes, defined below, were established
to represent all known states and conditions in which solid wastes exist. As an
example, a system utilizing pneumatic tubes for transport is conceivable and obvi-
ously falls within the condition of "closed" transport, even though it might be con-
sidered an advanced concept. Several known methods of solid-waste "processing"
do not appear as such in the list of conditions, but it is believed that all will fit
into one or more of the universal conditions identified.
The conditions.which required additional specification to be
meaningful and to avoid different interpretations,are discussed briefly below.
a. Unmanaged
In this condition, a solid waste would be allowed to re-
main uncollected at the point of generation. It is postulated to provide a base for
performance scoring procedures developed later. The problems created by al-
lowing such accumulations are obvious. The literature is replete with evidence
III-3
-------
III. Problems of Solid Wastes (continued)
of rampaging epidemics directly or indirectly connected with failure to manage
solid wastes.
b. Spread on Ground
This condition is defined as sufficiently thin spread-
ing to permit rapid drying. The method has been used for manures and other
organic wastes. S.A. Hart (11) indicated its usefulness in drying manures for
later use and also pointed out the possibility of fly production with thick spread-
ing and the possibilities of offensive odors without proper control. Because the
present study is not limited to flies and odor, attempts were made to determine
how such a condition for any waste would contribute to all bad effects, as has
been done for all conditions.
c. Piled on Ground
This condition of storage, both temporary and long-term,
is being used to a large extent for many wastes. It requires no special definition,
and the possible effects of organic wastes in giving rise to odors and providing
harborage for flies and insects can easily be recognized. Other substances can
cause water, land, and air pollution, as well as possible toxicity and safety haz-
ards; most solid wastes handled this way can be esthetically offensive.
d. Piled on Slabs
Identical to "piled on ground" with the possible exception
that it may minimize the possibility of water pollution.
e. Containers, Open and Closed
Containers of every size, type, and description are being
used to store solid wastes. To obtain ratings for solid wastes in this condition,
it was considered that closed containers are subject to less moisture loss by
evaporation than open containers and are also subject to possible heat of fermenta-
tion from organic wastes. Closed containers were also defined as being rodent-
tight but not insect-tight. Containers, open and closed, were defined to include
pick-up once a week with normal cleaning.
III-4
-------
III. Problems of Solid Wastes (continued)
f. Transport, Open and Closed
This condition has the same specification as "con-
tainers, open and closed," with the exception of the pick-up criterion.
g. Grinding
Pulverization is generally considered a stage in the
overall handling of solid wastes. A. G. Davies (12) states, ". . .there are ad-
vantages to be gained in the crushing of refuse to a reduced bulk of about fifty
percent..." - i.e., less space is required for both transport and ultimate dis-
posal. He also said such processing provides an ". . .innocuous material unlikely
to create nuisance." The last statement is open to question; less of a problem,
perhaps, but not universally innocuous. Research has revealed that the cellulose
portion of refuse might present little problem, and added potential for the produc-
tion of methane gas, if shredded and introduced into existing sewer systems (13).
For the performance interviews,_ grinding was defined as pulverizing to 1/4 to
1/2-inch size, except for abandoned vehicles which are ground to approximately
1-1/2 by 6-inch strips or sometimes battered into balls approximately 3 to 6
inches in diameter.
h. Spray Irrigation
The processes of evaporation, transpiration, and filtra-
tion into the ground are involved in this condition. A small amount of mineral
matter is used by vegetation, and only water is evaporated and transpired. This,
in turn, leaves a higher concentration of solids in the soil than in the original
waste water (14). The process may be a follow-on to grinding and can be con-
sidered as a disposal method. Spray irrigation or disposal has been used for
food processing, slaughterhouse, and chemical wastes, but adverse effects have
been reported.
i. Incineration
This category is defined as normal municipal, apartment
house, industrial, and commercial incineration. Golueke and Gotaas (15) stated:
in-s
-------
III. Problems of Solid Wastes (continued)
"Incineration has often been considered the most modern method of refuse dis-
posal. At best, this method, in addition to being expensive, increases atmos-
pheric pollution since large tonnages of material are converted to gases and
particulate matter and emitted to the atmosphere. At worst, it results in smoke,
unpleasant odors, and disagreeable air pollution. In addition, the organic humus
and plant nutrients in refuse are destroyed by incineration."
A report on solid wastes prepared for the National Com-
mission on Technology, Automation and Economic Progress in February 1966
(13) added that insufficient work has been done to permit the determination and
control of organic gaseous products from the incineration of solid wastes. In-
cluded in these effluents are organic compounds of aldehydes, oxides of nitrogen,
organic acids and esters, phenols, and polynuclear hydrocarbons. Abnormal
physiological responses can result from exposure to these compounds, and some
have proved to be carcinogenic. There can be no doubt that municipal incineration,
as well as backyard burning, contributes a significant burden to the atmosphere.
The report further stated, "No current municipal incinerators are considered ac-
ceptable where climatological conditions create severe smog concentrations."
With regard to backyard burning, the report indicated that the general inadequacy
of present incinerators results in further contribution to air pollution.
j. Open burning
Incineration provides at least some measure of control and
usually eliminates problems of rodent, fly, or insect harborage. Open burning,
because of its generally uncontrolled and inefficient burning capabilities, not only
fails to match incineration with regard to total burning, emission to the atmosphere
of pollutants, and reduction of quantity, but also does not necessarily eliminate
animal and insect disease vectors and can be considered a definite safety hazard.
Backyard open burning, teepee burners, industrial-waste
open burning, agricultural-crop-residue burning, and even burning at dumps have
been permitted in the study region. Under certain adverse climatological condi-
tions, the smoke problem becomes obvious. The burning of agricultural wastes
III-6
-------
III. Problems of Solid Wastes (continued)
from grain fields and orchards has long been considered a practical method for
their disposal. E. F. Darley, et. al. (16) have reported that the emissions
from such agricultural burning are much less, in pounds of effluent per ton of
material burned, than those from the automobile exhaust. The results of this
study indicate there are more practical methods for disposal of these wastes.
k. Composting
Composting is defined here as limited to properly op-
erated, mechanical methods of solid waste reduction. A comprehensive review
of the literature and laboratory and field-scale investigations of composting
was conducted by the University of California (17). One conclusion reached was
as follows: "Intensive farming exhausts the organic constituents of the soil un-
less humus is added. Humus such as might be obtained from the composting of
municipal refuse benefits the soil by: (a) improving soil structure, (b) increasing
moisture-holding capacity, (c) preventing leaching of soluble inorganic nitrogen,
(d) making phosphorus more readily available to growing plants, (e) increasing
buffer capacity of the soil, (f) adding nutrients, especially nitrogen, phosphorus,
and potassium, as well as essential trace elements."
According to Golueke and Gotaas (15), the composting of
garbage, refuse, sewage sludge, and other organic wastes not only reclaims some
materials for use as soil conditioners, but reduces fly, rodent, odor, and other
sanitary problems. The operation must be carefully controlled or, as Gotaas
(18) notes: "If adequate control measures are not practiced, particularly when
composting manure and faeces, the compost depot will be infested with extremely
large numbers of flies, and a health hazard almost as serious as that caused by
open, uncontrolled garbage dumps will be created."
1. Lagooning
Lagooning is limited here to properly designed and
operated units. Lagoons, or "stabilization ponds, " may be designed on a volumetric
basis or on a surface-area basis using population equivalents. They are particu-
]arly adaptable for farm use and many industrial wastes. Lagoon operations should
III-7
-------
III. Problems of Solid Wastes (continued)
avoid floating material, overloading, and intermittent loading, and weeds should
be kept mowed at the edge of the lagoon to avoid mosquito and rodent populations
(19). The use of lagoons is limited where (1) land is not available, (2) land is
too porous, (3) underground water might be contaminated, (4) excessive influent
might cause overflow to contaminate surface water, or (5) land is too costly.
m. Landfill
This is defined as the properly engineered burial of
solid wastes, i.e., burial of all refuse within 24 hours, and with a compacted
earth cover sufficiently thick to prevent insect, rodent, and other vector prob-
lems. Sanitary landfills .can become a desirable asset to a community if, when
completed, the site can be used for parks, recreational purposes, or light con-
struction. Underground fires and dust nuisances usually result from careless op-
erations and can be minimized. The potential groundwater contamination from
leachate and decomposition gases must be. considered as well as differential settleme
Investigations (13) have shown that little or no impairment of groundwater occurs
from leaching if the fill is located away from intercepting groundwater. Should
the groundwater intercept the refuse, gross pollution can occur. Gas movements
can also produce pollution as well as create safety hazards. As McLemore (20)
stated, ". ..sanitary fills depress the surrounding real estate, causing slum areas
and undesirable development thereby causing a loss in tax revenue." A review of
assessed values of property in the vicinity of landfills in the study region tends to
substantiate McLemore's claim, except that these generally are "dumps" and not
sanitary landfills. Landfills in abandoned rock quarries, ravines, and other areas
requiring reclamation can restore rather than reduce land values. The record in
Los Angeles County proves that sanitary landfills, operated in accordance with
sound engineering principles, can handle solid wastes while enhancing adjacent
real-property values.
Where the water table is close to the surface and the
groundwater is potable, such practice would definitely appear undesirable.
III-8
-------
III. Problems of Solid Wastes (continued)
n. Buried
This category is defined as having only a loose, limited
depth of cover. Such a process has all the problem features of the sanitary land-
fill with none of the benefits.
o. Open Dump
The open dump is still common in this country and
widely used in the study region. It contributes to all the bad effects of solid
wastes. The use of open dumps permits water, land, and air pollution and the
various effects of disease-vector production, odors, and unsightliness . Open
dumps can be eliminated with minimal pressure on the part of the proper author-
ities, preferably before pressure is applied by irate citizens.
p. Plowed into Ground
This category is defined as spread thinly and plowed
within a reasonable period, with only partial burial. The method is widely prac-
ticed in the agricultural region, with divergent results. The first result with
most crop residues is nitrogen depletion of the soil, in some instances so severe
that commercial fertilizers must be applied to restore the balance. Should the
crop be infected with harmful pathogens, this practice has a tendency to build up
soil reservoirs of pathogens, resulting in increased damage to subsequent crops.
Crop sequencing can sometimes resolve the infection problem if the follow-on
crop is not susceptible to t he pathogens harmful to the preceding crop.
q. Pit Disposal
This is defined as deposition in a hole in the ground and
covering with a loose-fitting lid. It is included as a method of final disposal be-
cause it is used by poultry growers in the study region.
C. ADVERSE EFFECTS OF SOLID WASTES
The problem areas related to solid wastes actually include economic,
engineering, legal-jurisdictional, and social-psychological aspects, in addition to
environmental health, the concern in this discussion.
111-9
-------
III. Problems of Solid Wastes (continued)
The search to identify the bad effects of solid wastes was related
to the three major categories of land, water, and air pollution but, to properly
assess the total effects, attention was also devoted to the direct and indirect
effects of human disease, animal disease, flies, rodents, insects, plant disease
and crop damage, safety hazards, toxicity, and the esthetic factors of odor and
unsightliness. The difficulty lies not in identification of these factors as pos-
sible bad effects resulting from solid waste mishandling but rather in separating
the effects. It can be readily seen, for example, that all the bad effects listed
can, if allowed, result in some form of human disease. It is impossible to think
completely in terms of solid wastes to the exclusion of liquid and gaseous wastes,
because the method of handling can produce liquid and gaseous wastes, with re-
sultant bad effects. Flies, rodents, insects, and toxicity can create plant disease
and crop damage which, in turn, can result in animal disease.
Rogus (21) states: "The adverse effects on health caused by im-
proper handling (of solid wastes) have been well established. Extensive research
and many cases on record show that diseases, rodent and insect propagation, fire
hazards, and air and water pollution, can be traced in many instances to improper
management of solid wastes."
Anderson (22) reminds us, "... disposal of solid wastes is funda-
mentally a health problem." The World Health Organization (WHO) defines health
as ". . .a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being, not merely
the absence of disease or infirmity." Environmental health, WHO continues,
can be defined as "the control of all those factors in man's physical environment
which exercise or may exercise a deleterious effect on his physical, mental, or
social well-being. "
Assessment of the total environmental health problem as related to
the handling of solid wastes is, therefore, the problem at hand. This task is dif-
ficult because there are few, if any, directions, guides, data, or facts.
As Dunsmore (23) quotes Burney, the bad effects are ". . .so inter-
woven and mutually reinforcing, that they can be dealt with most effectively if
III-10
-------
III. Problems of Solid Wastes (continued)
they are considered as parts of an interrelated whole, the total environment
of modern man." Stead (24) writes, ". . .we must invent decision-making
machinery that will take into account all the factors which affect the system
that it is attempting to manage."
The decision-making machinery developed in this report (per-
formance scoring procedure) provides a method for evaluating the integrated
environmental effects based on an initial determination of the individual and
separate effects of solid wastes. An explanation of the performing-scoring pro-
cedure is presented in Section IV. This procedure was developed, using the
limited data available, with considerable reliance on value judgments of various
experts as well as expertise in systems analysis.
Investigations of the study region, discussions with experts from
the California Bureau of Vector Control, Department of Public Health, and a
review of the literature all led to the same conclusion. Domestic flies breed
exclusively in organic, readily putrescible solid wastes. They often breed
throughout the year and are only somewhat inhibited by cold weather.. They
have a strong tendency to follow windborne odors and will disperse as far as
20 miles due to population pressures. Flies have been proven to be vectors
for as many as 30 diseases and are, in addition, a nuisance to society. They
provide, then, a near perfect index of the control of organic solid wastes: no
flies, no organic solid waste problem.
A comprehensive survey of the existing literature was conducted to
ascertain the relationship between solid wastes and the various environmental ef-
fects. The survey was published as a part of the Interim Report for this study
in June 1967. The survey appears in this final report as Appendix A, Volume II.
D. CUSTOMERS OF SOLID WASTES
"Customers" is used here to mean all groups, agencies, and agency
representatives who, acting in the interests of society, are adversely affected by
inadequate waste management practices. They are extremely important in this
III-11
-------
III. Problems of Solid Wastes (continued)
assessment and identification of solid waste problems, and are listed in Table
III-2, which provides names, addresses, and telephone numbers as of the date
of this report. Table III-3 lists all "customers" selected for interviews on
the effects of solid wastes and their rating.
Following determination of the solid wastes in the study region,
development of a universal list of conditions for them, and a description or de-
lineation of their bad effects, it became evident that a rational performance-
scoring procedure required a numerical value for each Fresno region waste
product to represent its relative contribution to each bad effect under each waste
condition. The literature provides only sparse data of this type; consequently,
experienced practitioners in the sanitary engineering and environmental sciences
fields (the "customers") were interviewed to establish the ratings described in
detail in Section IV. This value-judgment approach, used in an ordered manner,
does not provide measured and quantified data, but appears the best that can be
taken in view of the many years of research required before such information can
be experimentally generated.
Selected State and local Fresno experts in public health, waste man-
agement, vector control, water resources, and agriculture were interviewed.
They were asked to list all wastes that would contribute to any of the bad effects
under any of the listed conditions. They were then asked to score the relative
contribution of unit quantities of each of these wastes to the bad effect for each
condition.
These experts were requested to score on a scale of 0 to 5 for each
condition, with 5 representing the most serious contributor under each condition
and so on down to 0 for those contributing negligibly or not at all. The difference
in the degree to which the wastes generate bad effects, depending on the condition
of the waste, was recognized, and the experts were asked to judge these relative
degrees. Their averaged answers and the resultant scores are shown in Section IV
The information obtained provides the foundation for the performance-
scoring procedure. The investigators in this study are indebted to the listed engi-
neers and scientists for their extensive knowledge and their willing cooperation
and assistance.
in-12
-------
III. Problems of Solid Wastes (continued)
E. REFERENCES
1. Committee on Solid Wastes, American Public Works Associ-
ation, Refuse Collection Practice^ Danville, Illinois, Interstate Printers and
Publishers, 1966.
2. I. M. Roberts, "Agricultural Solid Wastes" (unpublished).
3. "Consuming Problem - Feed Pollution Problem to Cattle,
Meat Packers Told," Engineering News-Record, pp. 149-150, 7 April 1966.
4. Samuel A. Hart and Marvin E. Turner, "Lagoons for Live-
stock Manure," J. Water Poll. Con. Fed., Vol. 37, No. 11, p. 1578 (1965).
5. National Canners Association and National Tech. Task Com-
mittee on Industrial Wastes, Fruit Processing Industry, U.S. Public Health
Service, No. 952, 1962.
6. Subcommittee on Dairy Waste of the Dairy Industry Committee
in Cooperation with National Task Committee on Industrial Wastes, Milk_ Process-
ing Industry, U.S. Public Health Service No. 298, revised 1959-
7. Charles H. Lipsett, Industrial Wastes and Salvage; Conserva-
tion and Utilization, Atlas Publishing Co., 1951, 1963.
8. Edmund B. Besselievre, Industrial Waste Treatment, New
York, McGraw-Hill, 1952.
9. Nelson Leonard Nemerow, Theories and Practices of Industrial
Waste Treatment, Addis on-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc., 1963.
10. Report of the U.S. Public Health Service, Ohio River Pollu-
tion Control, Part 2 Supplements - An Industrial Waste Guide to the Canning In-
dustry, 78th Congress, 1st Session, House Document No. 266, 27 August 1943.
11. Samuel A. Hart, "Thin Spreading of Slurried Manures,"
Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Engrs., Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 22-5, 28 (1964).
12. A. G. Davies, "Waste Disposal - Task and Problem of Our
Time, " Compost Science, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 5-7 (1962).
13. "Report on the Solid Waste Problem," in Applying Technology
to Unmet Needs, National Commission on Technology, Automation, and Economic
Progress, February 1966.
14. F. H. Schraufnagel, "Disposal of Industrial Wastes by Irriga-
tion, " Pu^li^JHealthReports, Vol. 74, No. 2, pp. 133-140 (1959).
Ill-13
-------
III. Problems of Solid Wastes (continued)
15. Clarence G. Golueke and Harold B. Gotaas , "Public Health
Aspects of Waste Disposal by Composting," Am. J. Pub. Health, Vol. 44(3),
pp. 339-48 (1954).
16. E. F. Darley, F. R. Burleson, E. H. Mateer, J. T.
Middleton, and V. P. Osterli, "Contribution of Burning of Agricultural Wastes
to Photochemical Air Pollution," APCA Journal, Vol. 16, No. 12, pp. 685-
690 (1966).
17. Reclamation of Municipal Refuse by Composting, Sanitary En-
gineering Research Project, University of California, Berkeley, Technical
Bulletin No. 9, Series 37, June 1953.
18. H. B. Gotaas, Composting: Sanitary Disposal and Reclama-
tion of Organic Wastes, World Health Organization Monograph No. 31, pp. 19-
22, 83-91? 195-99 (1956).
19. Harry J. Eby, "Manure Lagoons Design Criteria and Man-
agement, " Agricultural Engineering, pp. 698-714, December 1962.
20. Lee McLemore, "Houston Sets up Research Program for
Wastes," Compost Science, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 9-10 (1965).
21. Casimir A. Rogus, "Refuse Quantities and Characteristic,"
Proceedings, National Conference on Solid Waste Research American Public
Works Association Special Report, Vol. 29, pp. 17-27 (1964).
22. Robert J. Anderson, "The Public Health Aspects of Solid
Waste Disposal. " Public Health Reports, Vol. 79, No. 2, pp. 93-96 (1964).
23. Herbert J. Dunsmore, "Criteria for Evaluation of Environ-
mental Health Progress, " Am. J. Pub. Health, p. 7, January 1964.
24. Frank M. Stead, "Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Sys-
tems Ecolopv, Administration, Research, " Compost Science, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.
5-6(1964).
III-14
-------
III.
Problems of Solid Wastes (continued)
Table III- 1
SOLID WASTES
Type
Composition
Source
1. Garbage
2. Residential rubbish
(as used in the
Fresno area)
3. Mixed garbage (as
used in the Fresno
area)
4. Street refuse
5. Dead animals
6. Abandoned vehicles
7. Demolition wastes
8. Construction wastes
Municipal
Food wastes from prepara-
tion, handling, storage,
and sale of food, and dead
animals (10 Ib)
Paper, cardboard, yard
trimmings
Garbage and residential
rubbish, metals, dirt,
glass, crockery, ashes,
metal furniture, minerals,
wood, rags, etc.
Sweepings, leaves, litter,
animal droppings
Cats, dogs, horses, cows,
etc. (over 10 Ib)
Unwanted cars, trucks,
tractors, bicycles, and
motorcycles left on public
property
Lumber, roofing paper,
wallpaper, pipe, brick,
masonry, asphalt, and
other construction mate-
rials from razed buildings
and other structures
Scrap lumber, roofing
paper, wallpaper, wrapping
paper, pipe, metal, brick,
masonry, and other con-
struction materials
Households, hotels,
restaurants, insti-
tutions, stores,
markets
Households, hotels,
restaurants, insti-
tutions, stores,
markets, factories,
offices, theaters,
industries, parks,
playgrounds, parking
lots, etc.
Streets, sidewalks,
alleys , highways,
roads, vacant lots
Demolition sites to
be used for new
buildings, renewal
projects, express-
ways
New construction,
remodeling
III-15
-------
III. Problems of Solid Wastes (continued)
Table III- 1 (Continued)
SOLID WASTES
Type
Composition
Source
9. Special wastes
10. Sewage-treatment
residue
11. Water-treatment
residue
12. Human Fecal
Matter
13. Ashes
14. Open*
15. Open
Hazardous solids and
liquids, explosives, patho-
logical wastes , radioactive
materials
Solids from coarse screens
and grit chambers, sludge
Solids from coarse screens
and grit chambers, sludge
Households, hotels,
hospitals, institu-
tions, stores,
industry
Sewage treatment
plants, septic tanks,
lagoons
Water treatment
plants
Agricultural - Field and Seed Crops
Stalks, vines, green drop,
culls, stubble, hulls, lint,
seed
Farms and ranches
16. Barley
17. Beans, dry
18. Corn
19. Cotton lint
20. Cotton seed
21. Hay
22. Oats
*Through table, "Open" represents slots left for the possible future addition of
other identified wastes.
I
III-16
-------
III.
Problems of Solid Wastes (continued)
Table III- 1 (Continued)
SOLID WASTES
Type Composition Source
23. Alfalfa Stalks, vines, green drop, Farms and ranches
culls, stubble, hulls, lint,
24. Rice seed
25. Safflower
26. Sorghum
27 . Sugar beets
28. Wheat
29. Open
30. Open
3 1 . Open
32. Open
33. Open
34. Open
35 . Open '
,
Agricultural - Vegetable Crops
36. Beans Vines, stalks,
drop, culls, st
37 . Cabbage
38. Chinese vegetables
39. Sweet corn
40. Cucumbers
i
41. Melons
roots, green Farms anc
a Iks
[ ranches
.,
I
III-17
-------
III.
Problems of Solid Waste (Continued)
Type
Table III-1 (Continued)
SOLID WASTES
Composition
Source
Vines, stalks, roots, green
drop, culls, stalks
42. Onions
43. Peppers
44. Radishes
45. Roma in e
46. Squash
47. Sweet potatoes
48. Tomatoes
49. Turnips
50. Vegetables*
51. Open
52. Open
53. Open
54. Open
55. Open
56. Almonds
57. Apricots
58. Bushberries
59. Figs
60. Grapefruit
*When considered as a category rather than individual crops.
Farms and ranches
Agricultural - Fruit and Nut Crops
Prunings, trimmings,
culls, green drop
Orchards, farms,
and ranches
III-18
-------
III.
Problems of Solid Wastes (continued)
Table III-I (Continued)
SOLID WASTES
Type
Composition
Source
61. Grapes
62. Lemons
63. Nectarines
64. Olives
65. Oranges
66. Peaches
67. Persimmons
68. Plums
69. Pomegranates
70. Strawberries
71. Walnuts
72. Open
73. Open
74. Open
75. Open
76. Cattle
77- Sheep
78. Hog
79. Horse and mule
80. Chicken-
Prunings, trimmings,
culls, green drop
Agricultural - Manures
Lignaceous and fibrous
organic matter, nitrogen
phosphorous, potassium,
volatile acids
Orchards, farms,
and ranches
Farms, ranches,
feed lots, slaughter
houses, packers,
growers, dairies
III-19
-------
III. Problems of Solid Wastes (continued)
Table III-1 (continued)
SOLID WASTES
Type
Composition
Source
81. Turkey
82. Pigeon
83. Rabbit
84. Open
85. Open
86. Cotton trash
87. Fruit and vegetable
Lignaceous and fibrous
organic matter, nitrogen
phosphorous, potassium,
volatile acids
Industrial*
Stalks, leaves, lint, seed
Hulls, rinds, cores, seeds,
vines, leaves, tops, roots,
trimmings, pulps, peel-
ings, cobs, shells, stalks,
straws, culls
Farms, ranches,
feed lots, slaughter
houses, packers,
growers, dairies
Cotton ginning and
compressing (0712)*
Fruit and vegetable
packing (0715)
Canneries (2033)
Dried fruit and
vegetable process-
ing (2034)
Frozen-food plants
(2037)
Pr e pared- animal -
feed plants (2042)
Bakeries (2051)
Potato-chip plants
(2099)
Fresh fruits and
vegetables (5048)
* Not including normal municipal-type refuse
-"-Throughout table, Standard Industrial Classification Code, as developed by
U.S. Bureau of Budget.
Ill-20
-------
III. Problems of Solid Wastes (continued)
Table III- 1 (Continued)
SOLID WASTES
Type
Composition
Source
88. Poultry
89. Animal
90. Milk solids
91. Wines and spirits
92. Vegetable oils
93. Tallow
94. Cotton, wool, silk
Manure, litter, dead
poultry, eggs
Flesh, fat particles, offal,
manure, feathers, bone,
grease
Flesh, fat particles, hair,
bone, grease, paunch
manure
Butterfat, whey, milk pro-
tein, sugar (lactose), ash,
acid
Pomace, spent grain,
alkalis, activated carbon,
diatomaceous
earth
"Still pitch" (tarry residue)
fatty acids, sodium
hydroxide, soapstock
Paunch manure, flesh, fat
particles, hair, bone,
grease
Rags, cloth, detergents,
textile fibers
Poultry hatcheries
(0723)
Poultry dressing and
packing (2015)
Prepared meat (2013)
Meat packing (2011)
Dairy products
Wineries and dis-
tilleries (2084
Cottonseed-oil mills
(2091)
Shortening, table
oils, and margarine
(2096)
Tallow production
(2094)
Carpeting and rugs
(2272)
Work-clothes manufac-
ture (2328)
Women's clothing
(2339)
in-21
-------
III. Problems of Solid Wastes (continued)
Table III- 1 (Continued)
SOLID WASTES
Type
Composition
Source
94. Cotton, wool, silk
(continued)
95. Lumber and wood
products
96. Chemicals
97. Petroleum
98. Plastics
Rags, cloth, detergents,
textile, fibers
Sawdust shavings, wood
chips
Toxic chemicals
Insoluble organic and
inorganic salts, sulfur
compounds, sulfanic
and naphthenic acids,
insoluble mercaptides,
soaps, waxy emulsions,
oxides of metal, phenolic
compounds
Scraps from molding, ex-
trusion, rejects, trimming
and finishing
Curtains and drap-
eries (2391)
Canvas products
(2394)
Sawmills and plan-
ing mills (2421)
Excelsior (2429)
Millwork plants
(2431)
Wooden containers
(2441)
Cooperage (2445)
Wood household
furniture (2511)
Lumber, rough-
dressed (5098)
Agricultural
chemicals (2872)
Petroleum refining
(2911)
Plastics, extruded
and molded (3079)
IH-22
-------
III. Problems of Solid Wastes (continued)
Table III-l (Continued)
SOLID WASTES
Type
Composition
Source
99. Masonry
100. Metals
Sand, cement, ceramics,
masonry, brick, etc.
Various scrap metals,
toxic chemicals, rejects,
cuttings, moldings,
trimmings
Brick plants (3251)
Pottery products
(3269)
Concrete blocks
(3271)
Concrete pipe (3272)
Ready-mixed concrete
(3273)
Metal office furni-
ture (2522)
Showcases and fix-
tures (2541)
Gray iron foundries
(3321)
Insulated wire cable
(3357)
Fabricated structural
steel (3441)
Fabricated steel
(3443)
Sheet-metal work
(3444)
Farm machinery
(3522)
Food products
machinery (3551)
Vending machines (3581)
111-23
-------
III. Problems of Solid Wastes (continued)
Table III-l (Continued)
SOLID WASTES
Type Composition Source
101. Seeds Rejects, toxic chemicals Seeds and fertil-
izers (5099)
102. Tires
III-24
-------
III. Problems of Solid Wastes (continued)
Table III-2
Agency
"CUSTOMERS" OF SOLID WASTES
(June 1967)
Responsible Individual
Address
Telephone
0
i
City Planning
Department
Department of Public
Works
Fire Department
Human Relations
Coordinator
Redevelopment Agency
City Parks and
Recreation
Fresno City
John Behrens
James Martin
Edwin Wrought
Chief
James Aldrich
G. Allan Kingston
Howard Homan
\ City Hall
' 2326 Fresno St.
Fresno, Calif.
Security Bank Bldg.
Fulton Mall
Fresno, Calif.
3030 E. Harvey Ave.
Fresno, Calif.
266-8031
233-8651
266-8031
County Planning
Department
County Natural
Resources Committee
Department of Public
Works
Fresno County
Harold Tokmakian
Clifford Boyer
Clinton Beery
4499 E. Kings Canyon Rd.
Fresno, Calif.
255-9711
-------
III.
Problems of Solid Wastes (continued)
Table III-2 (Continued)
"CUSTOMERS" OF SOLID WASTES
Agency
Responsible Individual
Address
Telephone
County Health
Department
Local Agencies
Formation Commission
Parks and Recreation
Department
County Agricultural
Commission
County Agricultural
Extension Service
Fresno County (Continued)
Dr. William DeFries
Health Officer
R. E. Bergstrom
Director, Environmental
Health
Ron McLaughlin
Dairy Inspection
Joseph Reich
Chairman
Rod Maserve
Edward Corn
Ray Crouch
\ 515 S. Cedar Ave.
Fresno, Calif.
County Courthouse
Fresno, Calif.
Kearney Park
Kearney Blvd.
Fresno, Calif.
1730 S. Maple Ave.
Fresno, Calif.
1720 S. Maple Ave.
Fresno, Calif.
Agricultural Organizations and Special County Districts
Mid-Valley Fire
District
Fresno Irrigation
District
Consolidated
Mosquito Abatement
District
William Pennington
Paul H. Willison
Ted Raley
210 S. Academy
Fresno, Calif.
1168 N. Millbrook Ave.
Fresno, Calif.
2425 Floral Ave.
Selma, Calif.
485-8000
268-6011
233-7358
233-3791
233-2284
233-5838
233-7161
896-1085
-------
III. Problems of Solid Wastes (continued)
Table III-2 (Continued)
"CUSTOMERS" OF SOLID WASTES
Agency
Responsible Individual
Address
Telephone
Agricultural Organizations and Special County Districts (Continued)
Fresno Mosquito
Abatement District
Fresno Metropolitan
Flood Control District
Fresno County Farm
Bureau
California Fig Institute
Wine Institute
Clovis
Fowler
Fresno
Kerman
Kingsburg
Ed Davis
Larry Willoughby
Oren (Jim) King
Ron Klamm
Evins Nam an
2338 E. McKinley Ave.
Fresno, Calif.
Rowell Bldg. , Tulare
and Van Ness Aves.
Fresno, Calif.
2851 S. Orange Ave.
Fresno, Calif.
1205 E. Olive Ave.
Fresno, Calif.
Suite 16, Del Webb
Town House
Fresno, Calif.
Incorporated Cities in Study Area
Earl Nevens
City Superintendent
Ted Emens
City Superintendent
John Taylor
City Manager
Arn Kelton
City Superintendent
Dick Staley
City Superintendent
531 Pollasky Ave.
Clovis, Calif.
221 S. Fifth St.
Fowler, Calif.
2326 Fresno St.
Fresno, Calif.
720 S. Eighth St.
Kerman, Calif.
1401 Draper
Kingsburg, Calif.
268-6565
264-2926
237-0263
264-5011
237-1134
299-4311
834-3110
266-8031
846-9387
897-3303
-------
III. Problems of Solid Wastes (continued)
Table III-2 (Continued)
"CUSTOMERS" OF SOLID WASTES
tJ
hH
I
NJ
oo
Agency
Orange Cove
Parlier
Reedley
Sanger
Selma
Responsible Individual
Incorporated Cities in Study
Andy Weber
City Superintendent
D. J. Herring
City Superintendent
George Emery
City Superintendent
Perry Powers
City Manager
George Burnham
City Engineer
Address
Area (Continued)
555 Sixth St.
Orange Cove, Calif.
580 Tulare St.
Parlier, Calif.
853 "G" St.
Reedley, Calif.
1300 Jensen
Sanger, Calif.
1814 Tucker
Selma, Calif.
Telephone
626-4488
646-2767
638-2535
875-4535
896-1064
State Department of Agriculture
Bureau of Animal Health
Chemistry Spray
Residue Laboratory
Bureau of Dairy Services
Field Crops and Agricul-
tural Chemicals
Bureau of Nursery
Services
Dr. John Nehay
District Veterinarian
Dr. G. N. Lucas
Laboratory Pathologist
William Lewis
George Hasler
James Kalstrom
Douglas Brown
2789 S. Orange Ave.
and Highway 99
Fresno, Calif.
Same
State Bldg.
2550 Mariposa St.
Fresno, Calif.
264-1941
266-9418
268-7151
-------
III. Problems of Solid Wastes (continued)
Table III-2 (Continued)
"CUSTOMERS" OF SOLID WASTES
Agency
Responsible Individual
Address
Telephone
i
ro
NO
Bureau of Vector
Control
Bureau of Sanitary
Engineering
Bureau of Food and Drug
Inspections
Bureau of Licensing
and Certification
Bureau of Air
Sanitation
Department of Highways
Water Quality Control
Board
Department of Water
Resources
Division of Soil
Conservation
State Department of Public Health
Richard Peters
Chief
Earl W. Mortenson
Paul P. Maier
Project Administrator
Fresno Solid Waste
Management Study
Edmund S. Gary
Richard D. Penrose
Arthur D. Graham
John Maga
Chief
Other State Agencies
Richard E. Deffeback
District Engineer
Charles Carnahan
Executive Officer
Carl Stetson
District Engineer
Glen E, Rosander
2151 Berkeley Way
Berkeley, Calif.
5545 E. Shields Ave.
) Fresno, Calif.
2151 Berkeley Way
Berkeley, Calif.
Olive Ave.
Calif.
1352 W.
Fresno,
2424 16th St.
Sacramento, Calif
1720 Fulton St.
State Bldg.
2550 Mariposa St.
Fresno, Calif.
843-7900
291-6676
843-7900
268-2575
445-2575
268-7151
268-7151
-------
III. Problems of Solid Wastes (continued)
Agency
Table III-2 (Continued)
"CUSTOMERS" OF SOLID WASTES
Responsible Individual
Address
Telephone
Department of Fish
and Game
Division of Forestry
Fresno State College
Agriculture Research
Service
Processed Products
Standardization and
Inspection Branch
Crops Research
Division
Market Quality
Research Division
Other State Agencies (Continued-)
L. H. Cloyd
R. C. Lewis
Fisheries
D. M. Sellick
Game Management
Donald Knowlton
R. T. Ford
Fire Prevention Officer
Lloyd Dowler
Dean of Agriculture
School
Thomas Evans
Dean of Engineering
School
1234 E. Shaw Ave.
Fresno, Calif.
1234 E. Shaw Ave.
Fresno, Calif.
North Maple and Shaw
Avenue s
Fresno, Calif.
U. S. Department of Agriculture
John Hagen
3525 E. Tulare St.
Fresno, Calif.
Daniel R. Russell
John Weinberger
Dr. John Harvey
2021 S. Peach Ave.
Fresno, Calif.
Same
222-3761
222-3717
222-5161
266-8071
251-8890
251-6084
-------
III. Problems of Solid Wastes (continued)
Agency
Table III-2 (Continued)
"CUSTOMERS" OF SOLID WASTES
Responsible Individual Address
Telephone
Stored-Product Insects
Branch
Soil Conservation
Service ,
U.S.
Food and Drug
Administration
Bureau of
Reclamation
Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife
U. S. Department of Agriculture (Continued)
Howard D. Nelson ' "\ ,-c-jo A • ^ . -. -^
1 5578 Air Terminal Dr.
Al Yearington j Fresno, Calif.
Clarence Finch 324 E. Shields Ave.
Fresno, Calif.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Robert Thebus 2135 Fresno St.
Fresno, Calif.
U. S. Department of the Interior
William F. Crabtree T. W. Patterson Bldg.
Fulton Mall and
Tulare St.
Fresno, Calif.
Lawrence G. Wills
2309 Tulare St.
(Post Office Bldg. )
Fresno, Calif.
Environmental
Science Service
(Weather Bureau)
U. S. Department of Commerce
Tom Crossan
Fresno Air Terminal
Fresno, Calif.
291-6671
229-7017
266-8071
266-8071
255-5593
-------
III. Problems of Solid Wastes (continued)
Table III-3
PERSONAL INTERVIEWS
Name
E. Mortenson
D. Linsdale
J. Walsh
E. Gary
L. Trundell and
E. Crawford
(representing
C. Carnahan)
C. Boyer
J. Maga
R. L. Chass
Dr. A. J. Haagen-Smit
E. Mortenson
E. E. Hogan
Dr. W. DeFries
Dr. T. G. Hanks
Dr. L. Saylor
Dr. J. Nehay
Bad Effects
Flies
Water pollution
Water pollution
Water pollution
Air pollution
Air pollution
Air pollution
Rodents
Rodents
Human disease
Human disease
Human disease
Animal di.sease
Agency
Ciilifornia State Department
of Public Health
Bureau of Vector Control
California State Department
of Public Health
Bureau of Sanitary Engineering
California Water Quality
Control Board
County Natural Resources
Committee
California State Department
of Public Health
Bureau of Air Sanitation
Los Angeles County Air
Pollution Control District
California Institute of
Technology
California State Department
of Public Health
Bureau of Air Sanitation
Fresno County Agricultural
Commissioner's Office
Fresno County Health
Department
Aerojet-General Corporation
Life Systems Division
California State Department
of Public Health
California State Department
of Agriculture
Bureau of Animal Health
III-3 2
-------
III. Problems of Solid Wastes (continued)
Table III-3 (Continued)
PERSONAL INTERVIEWS
Name
L. Dowler
R. Glim
E. Mortenson
H. Magy
C. Diener
E. Wrought
C. Beery
P. P. Maier
C. Jones
W. Slipe
J. Kalstrom
Dr. J. Harvey
M. Covey
Dr. L. Leach
R. E. Bergstrom
Bad Effects
Animal disease
Insects other
than flies
Insects other
than flies
Safety Hazards
Safety hazards
Safety hazards
Odor
Odor
Odor
Crop damage and
plant disease
Crop damage and
plant disease
Crop damage and
plant disease
Land pollution
Agency
Fresno State College
California State Department
of Public Health
Bureau of Vector Control
California State Department
of Public Health
Bureau of Vector Control
Fresno City, Department
of Public Works
Division of Waste Disposal
Chief, Fresno City Fire
Department
Fresno County Department
of Public Works
California State Department
of Public Health
Bureau of Vector Control
Fresno County Health
Department
Fresno City, Community
Development
California State Department
of Agriculture Field Crops
and Agricultural Chemicals
U. S. Department of Agricul-
ture
Agriculture Research Service
Crops Research Division
University of California
at Davis
Department of Plant Pathology
Fresno County Health
Department
IU-33
-------
III. Problems of Solid Wastes (continued)
Table III-3 (Continued)
PERSONAL INTERVIEWS
Name
W. Norman
C. Finch
P. P. Maier
H. Tokmakian
H. DuPertuis
D. Mengle
W. Lewis
Dr. C. Einert
Bad Effects
Land pollution
Land pollution
Un sightliness
Unsightliness
Unsightline s s
Toxicity
Toxicity
Toxicity
Agency
Merced County Health
Department
U. S. Department of
Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
California State Department
of Public Health
Bureau of Vector Control
Fresno County Planning
Department
DuPertuis and Hesse,
Architects
Merced, California
California State Department
of Public Health
California State Department
of Agriculture
Chemistry Spray Residue
Laboratory
California State Department
of Public Health
III-34
-------
IV. PERFORMANCE-SCORING PROCEDURE
A. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
The traditional method of determining the suitability of a system or
of selecting between several alternative systems is to gage theoretical or mea-
sured performance against a set of performance specifications or standards. The
customer specifies what is required of a system or device in terms of measurable
output standards, and the designer uses this as the basis for evaluating alternative
designs and for measuring the ultimate suitability of the final operating system.
In the waste management field, in general, and particularly in solid
waste management, there are essentially no output standards. The standards which
have evolved are the result of emergency pressures and are directed almost entirely
toward the alleviation of a disease potential or the removal of waste from direct
sight and contact at the least possible cost.
The basis of the procedure advanced in this study is the postulation
that effectiveness can be expressed or measured in terms of the degree to -which
the system decreases the environmental or bad effects of solid wastes. If, for ex-
ample, a unit quantity of a given waste lying open on the ground is the constant
source of 1 unit of odor, a control system such as a tarpaulin cover that cuts this
odor in half could be said to have a relative effectiveness of 50%, a tightly sealed
container one of 100%.
The performance-scoring procedure developed in this program ident-
ifies a series of bad effects (B. E. ) and quantifies these bad effects for various
wastes in various conditions to produce a table of solid waste B.E. scores. Using
these scores, any waste management system's performance effectiveness can be
gaged by the degree of reduction of these environmental or bad effects.
While the procedure developed herein is still subject to refinement,
it is a significant step in the direction of the development of performance standards
by which the effectiveness of competing waste management systems can be mea-
sured for use in a systems approach to cost effectiveness studies.
IV-1
-------
IV. Performance-Scoring Procedure, B
B. 'PROCEDURE DEVELOPMENT
s
1. Bad Effects
To arrive at a method of scoring waste management system
effectiveness in reducing bad effects of solid waste, it was necessary to first
establish what those bad effects were. Environmental health experts from
Aerojet-General Corporation, Engineering-Science, Inc. , and the State of Cal-
ifornia considered the problem, reviewed the subject literature, and arrived at
the conclusion that 13 bad effects need be considered. These are:
1 - Flies
2 - Water Pollution
3 - Air Pollution
4 - Rodents
5 - Human Disease
6 - Animal Disease
7 - Insects Other Than Flies
8 - Safety Hazards
9 - Odor
10 - Plant Disease
11 - Land Pollution
12 - Unsightliness
13 - Toxicity
A comprehensive discussion of the relationship of these effects to solid wastes is
included in Appendix A, Volume II, of this report.
2. Waste Conditions
In addition to establishing the bad effects, the studies reported
in Section III also delineated the major conditions or states in which solid waste
IV-2
-------
IV. Performance-Scoring Procedure, B (Continued)
exists or are likely to exist in the Fresno Region for the duration of the study
period. These conditions are:
1 - Unmanaged
2 - Spread on Ground
3 - Piled on Ground
4 - Piled on Slab
5 - Containers Open
6 - Containers Closed
7 - Transport Open
8 - Transport Closed
9 - Grinding
10 - Spray Irrigation
11 - Incineration
12 - Open Burning
13 - Composting
14 - Lagooning
15 - Landfill
16 - Buried
17 Open Dump
18 - Plowed in Ground
19 - Pit Disposal
A definition and description of each of these conditions can be found in Section III.
While it is not intended to imply that these conditions are the
only possible conditions in which solid wastes can exist, it is believed that all
major conditions are covered, and that the majority of methods and unit processes
IV-3
-------
IV. Performance-Scoring Procedure, B (Continued)
for handling solid waste can be accommodated by a broad definition of the condi-
tions listed.
For any waste system postulated, the resulting unit processes
will place the waste in a variety of these conditions. Through the procedures de-
veloped in this study the bad effects of the various wastes with respect to the waste
conditions resulting from any proposed management system can be rated.
3. Weighted Bad Effect Scores
The bad effects scores devised in this study have two basic
components; Basic Bad Effects Scores, a function of the waste and the condition in
which the waste is plac.ed and Influence Coefficients, a function of the subregion
where the effects occur. The subregion break down used in this study is Industrial,
Municipal, Interface, and Agricultural. The designations indicate differences in
land usage and population densities as shown in Table IV-1.
a. Basic Bad Effects Scores
(1) Relative Contribution Ratings
With the establishment of the lists of bad effects,
waste conditions and an inventory of.different wastes which are produced in the re-
gion, the next requirement was to obtain a numerical value for each pertinent waste
that represents its relative contribution to each bad effect under each condition. Be-
cause such data are only sparsely available in the literature, Aerojet-General ap-
proached experienced practitioners in the &anitary-engineering and environmental-
science fields for value judgments to use in the scoring system. Although ideally,
only measured and quantified data should be used for this purpose; the use of value
judgments was considered as the best available alternate.
To ascertain the relative contribution of a given waste
under a given condition to possible bad effects, score sheets for each effect were
completed by selected State and local Fresno experts in various fields and agencies
(Bureau of Vector Control, Water Quality Control Board, Bureau of Air Pollution
IV-4
-------
IV. Performance Scoring Procedure, B (Continued)
Control, etc. ). These initial score sheets (Table IV-2) were filled in on a C to 5
rating scale in which 0 indicates no significant contribution and 5 indicates the
highest relative contribution to a bad effect.
The rating scale was arrived at by the following
reasoning: To obtain some relative relationship between conditions or types of
waste, a finer scale than good or bad was needed. In this type of subjective deci-
sion, however, too fine a scale would be impractical. Rating from 0 to 5 was se-
lected as a reasonable compromise.
The experts were given the following guidelines:
(a) List across the top of a score sheet all the
wastes considered as contributing to the particular bad effect being scored under
any of the stated conditions.
(b) Consider one condition at a time and score
the relative contribution (from 0 to 5) that unit quantities of each waste make to the
bad effect when placed in.that condition.
Scores for each bad effect were provided by
more than one expert and the results averaged as shown in Table IV-2.
(2) Relative. Condition Rating
The scores obtained above reflect only the relative
contributions of wastes in a given condition. To arrive at a score that reflects the
relative contributions of wastes in different conditions, as well as wastes in the
same condition, it was necessary to obtain a relative-condition rating that represents
the effects of different conditions in changing the magnitude of the waste contribution
to a bad effect. This was done by asking the experts (a) to consider unit quantities
of the combined wastes that contribute to the bad effect as being in each of the stated
conditions, and (b) to rate them from 0 to 5, where 0 indicates that the condition
virtually eliminates the particular bad effect and 5 indicates that the condition is the
worst possible way of handling the wastes. This rating is shown in the right-hand
column of Table IV-2.
IV-5
-------
IV. Performance Scoring Procedure, B (Continued)
Using a digital computer to multiply the condition
rating, just described, by the earlier waste contribution rating for each bad effect,
scores were obtained that represent the relative contribution to a bad effect of unit
quantities of each waste under each condition. These are designated as Basic Bad
Effect Scores. Sample results are shown on a computer printout sheet presented
as Table IV-3.
b. Influence Coefficients
As it stands, Table IV-3 lacks two features necessary
for actual applications. The scores were developed for the Fresno Region in gen-
eral, and to be useful must be weighted to reflect the relative importance of the
various bad effects in-terms of the types of subregions within the region. As an
example, it would be a mistake to consider a bad effect such as crop damage to be
as important in the city as on the farm. In addition, the values presented do not
consider the many other contributors to the generation of bad effects being weighed,
other than solid wastes. Consequently, a weighting factor is needed to reflect what
portion of the bad effects are caused by solid wastes. Without such weighting, con-
siderable time and money might be devoted, for example, to the design of a system
that will emphasize the reduction of wastes that contribute to human disease in the
city, even though solid wastes contribute very little to human disease in the city.
As previously indicated, four subregions were established for the Fresno Region on
the basis of differences in population density and land use. These are Industrial,
Municipal, Agricultural-Municipal Interface, and Agricultural.
The interface subregion combines all problems of the agri-
cultural and municipal subregions. The solid waste problems created in a purely
agricultural area though massive are not generally serious, due to the low popula-
tion density. However, when the municipal area grows rapidly and with little control
into the agricultural region, the increasing population suffers the gross problems
N
created in the agricultural area. For this reason, the interface subregion appears
to be very important in the management of solid wastes and the environmental prob-
lems they create. The population density of each of these types of subregions is
shown in Table IV-1.
IV-6
-------
IV. Performance Scoring Procedure, B (Continued)
(1) Relative Importance
The relative-importance weighting factors for each
subregion were determined by a two step procedure; first, an order of importance
was established and then numerical values were assigned relative to the established
order of importance.
The order of importance was determined by experts
in the sanitary-engineering field using a method known as forced decision making:
One bad effect at a time was compared with each of the other bad effects, and a
decision -was made as to the more important; in each decision the more important
one was scored 1, and the less important one was scored 0. These decisions were
then added up, row by row, to obtain the order of importance. The number of de-
cisions that must be made can be calculated by the theory of combinations:
D^ N(N-l)
Li
where
D = total decisions
N , number of bad effects considered
Numerical values representing relative importance
were then judged by program and State personnel and were assigned to each bad
effect following the order determined above. The numerical values assigned on a
scale of 0 to 100 are based on the judgment of experts and are not proportional to
the order of importance. Table IV-4 illustrates the method of determining the or-
der of importance and relative-importance factors for the four subregions.
(2) Relative Contribution
The next requirement for the establishment of the
Influence Coefficients was the determination of the relative-contribution of solid
wastes to each bad effect in each subregion as compared to all factors contributing
to the bad effects. The relative-contribution weighting factors were established by
sanitary engineers in conjunction with the State and Fresno County officials for each
IV-7
-------
IV. Performance Scoring Procedure, B (Continued)
subregion, by estimating the percentage contribution of solid waste to the various
bad effects.
For example, in the municipal subregion solid
wastes are virtually the only contributor to fly breeding and therefore receive a
value of 100, whereas, they contribute very little to human disease and thus re-
ceive a value of only 2. These data indicate that careful attention should be given
to controlling fly-breeding wastes. Table IV-5 delineates the relative contribution
factors established for the various wastes in the four subregions.
(3) Weighted Relative Importance & Influence Coefficient
The relative importance factor was multiplied by the
relative contribution factor resulting in a numerical weighted relative importance
factor for each bad effect in each subregion. The numerical values for all the bad
effects in each subregion were then added together. The influence coefficient for
each bad effect in each subregion was then established as the ratio of the weighted
relative importance factor for an individual bad effect to the sum of all the weighted
relative importance factors for the total region. Table IV-6 lists the
weighted relative importance factors and influence coefficients for each bad effect
in each subregion.
c. Total Weighted' Bad Effects Scores
To obtain the total weighted bad effects scores, the influ-
ence coefficient for each bad effect from Table IV-6 was then multiplied by the
Basic bad effect scores for each waste under each condition as listed in Table IV-3.
Table IV-7 presents sample results of this multiplication. The complete results
consist of one sheet for each waste for each type of subregion; the example given is
for waste residential rubbish in a municipal subregion. As seen in Table IV-7, the
tabulated results are added horizontally to provide a total weighted bad effect score
for a unit quantity of the given waste under a given condition in a particular type of
subregion. To account for the fact that in certain geographic locations water pollu-
tion is not a problem, two separate additions are made in Table IV-7. One addition
includes all the bad effects (Column 1 in Table IV-7) and the other assumes that the
score for water pollution in zero (Column 2 in Table IV-7).
IV-8
-------
IV. Performance-Scoring Procedure, B (Continued)
Mathematically, the overall equation used to arrive at
the score in Column 1 of Table IV-7 is as follows:
Total weighted
bad effect
score
where
,N
'B=l
unit waste contri-
bution to a
bad effect
-
[Par. 3a(l)l
B
condition contribu-
tion to a bad
effect
B
influence
coefficient
B
[Par. 3a(2)j [par. 3b(3)l
B = bad effect
N = number of bad effects being considered
This equation is repeated for each waste under each condition. Column 2 is gener-
ated by subtracting the bad effect score for water pollution from Column 1.
The scores in the two right-hand columns of Table IV-7
will be used as the basis for scoring the relative effectiveness of alternative waste
management concepts or systems. A more convenient format to work with when
applying these scores is shown in Tables IV-8 and IV-9. Here all the weighted bad
effect scores are listed on a single table along with the related wastes and conditions.
Table IV-8 is based on Column 1 of Table IV-7 (water pollution considered possible)
and Table IV-9 on Column 2 of Table IV-7 (water pollution considered not possible).
Working from these tables, a system designer has a basis
for selecting the better performing conditions under which he might wish to place the
wastes for any particular subregion, with the lower score indicating a more effec-
tive method. The designer would not dispose of garbage in open dumps in the city, in
preference to landfills, but this might be a perfectly valid method of disposal for
some wastes in an agricultural district, depending on relative scores and final costs.
The "open" listings in the wastes column represent slots left for the possible future
addition of other wastes.
The bad effect scores obtained in this step are for a unit
quantity of waste. The possibility of nonlinear relationships between increasing quan-
tities of various wastes and their subsequent scores was considered. Insufficient
IV-9
-------
IV. Performance-Scoring Procedure, B (Continued)
evidence or empirical relationships were found that would substantiate a nonlinear
relationship. Consequently, based on the best available information, bad effect
scores that have been generated for a unit quantity of waste can be used to obtain
a score for any number of units of waste by multiplying the per-unit score by the
quantity being considered.
4. Candidate System Information and Performance Scoring
Some 82 different solid wastes are presently being generated in
the Fresno Region. Although theoretically, handling systems can be evolved to re-
duce and minimize the bad effects from each type of waste; practical application re-
quires the lumping together for treatment of as many as possible of the individual
wastes. In addition, to be effective, any system postulated must consider the cur-
rent practices habits, and budgetary limitations existing in the region. Concerted
effort should thus be directed at those wastes and those methods that can be altered
at minimum cost with maximum reduction in regional bad effects.
The waste management procedures proposed for any candidate
system will result in wastes being handled in several of the 19 conditions previously
described in this section. These conditions, with the exception of unmanaged, are
categorized into four functions for the purpose of this study. These are storage,
transportation, processing, and disposal. The conditions pertaining to each function
are as follows:
Storage T ransportation Processing Disposal
Spread on Ground Transport Open Grinding Landfill
Piled on Ground Transport Closed Spray Irrigation Buried
Piled on Slab Incineration Open Dump
Container Open Open Burning Plowed in Ground
Container Closed Composting Pit Disposal
Spread on Ground
Lagooning
In order to account for the differences in accumulation effect
from those conditions that are temporary (transient) and those that place the waste
IV-10
-------
IV.
Performance-Scoring Procedure, B (Continued)
in its final condition (disposal), separate scores are maintained. The transient
procedures include all of the conditions pertaining to storage and transportation,
with the exception of spread on ground which may be either transient or disposal.
Processing and disposal conditions are all scored with the disposal procedures
with the exception of grinding which is scored as transient.
To facilitate concept evaluation a standardized data form has
been developed. This form has places for entering the system total bad effects
scores separately for the transient and disposal procedures for all wastes being
managed in a particular subregion. Figure IV-1 is a sample System Concept
Data Form.
a. Transient System Information and Scoring
The information needed to score the transient portion of
a concept includes (1) the types of wastes to be managed, (2) description of all the
transient conditions being used, and (3) the average amount of each type of waste
that will exist, at all times, in each transient condition.
In determining the average amount of waste in the various
transient conditions, consideration must be given to changes in waste load that may
occur over the period for which the concept is being evaluated. The waste load to
be used is the load that exists at the end of the evaluation period. This information
is then used in the following equation to yield the performance score for the transi-
ent system:
Transient "^
performance > =
score J
M
C=l
bad effect score for given
waste in given
transient condition
(from Table IV-8 or IV-9)
C
average amount of
given waste in given
transient condition
(from Figure IV-1)
where
C = transient condition
M - number of transient conditions in system
IV-11
-------
EVALUATION VEAS
II:;TEM IIECPJHATION Truest *, rn
-"WECION T'l-E 'tonlclpal
(NJ
rti£ii-u^.:::;s
Fill in cystcrc doal^natlcn •-ith an
appropriate name ti. ']"i:i;r He the
system If Ing considered.
Fill In the eubr^^ion type i^ing
considered (Agrlcu t irnl, Muni--1'.pal,
Industrial, ..r Interface).
For -ach transient ".ndltlon i-crin^
considered, f1': In the column
under the types of wastes lelng
handled Kith the average amount
(tons) of this type of waste that
will exist, at ell times, In the
particular condition.
For each final condition being
considered, fill In the column
under the types of wastes being
handled, with the amount of this
type of waste (in tons/year) being
disposed of In this manner.
Some of the conditions listed may
te either transient or final; thuc,
the convention of tran-lenl amount/
final disposal amount Is used.
Figure IV-1. Waste Management System Concept Data Form
-------
IV. Performance-Scoring Procedure, B (Continued)
b. Final Disposal-System Information and Scoring
The information needed to score the final disposal portion
of a system concept includes (1) the types of wastes to be managed, (2) the waste
load in tons/year for each waste, and (3) identification of each of the final disposal
methods being used. The waste load to be used in scoring each waste is the pro-
jected quantity for the year for which the system concept is designed. If more than
one final disposal method is used, Items (1) and (2) will have to be stipulated for
each method. This information is then used in the following equation to yield the
disposal performance score:
Final disposal
performance
score
'C=l
bad effect score
for given waste
in given final
conditions (from
_Table IV-8 or IV-9)_
"waste loading for
given waste in
given final con-
dition (from
Figure IV-1)
where
C = final disposal condition
P = number of final disposal conditions in system
c. Total System Score
Solution of the equations above yields performance scores
for one particular type of waste in a given subregion. To obtain scores for the
management of several types of waste (in the given subregion) the equations are
solved for each type and the results are added (see Table IV-10 for a hypothetical
example). The total score thus obtained for the transient portion represents a value
based on an average fixed quantity of waste in the given conditions at all times (7
days a week, 24 hours a day). The score for the disposal portion is based on the
projected yearly quantities of the various wastes in the various conditions in the
year being evaluated.
The preliminary performance scoring procedure described
in the Interim Report contained an accumulation factor in the equation for the Final
Disposal Performance Score. This factor was included in an attempt to account for
the rate at which bad effects decrease with time in the postulated disposal conditions.
IV-13
-------
IV. Performance-Scoring Procedure, B (Continued)
The factor depends on the rate of degradation of solid wastes in those conditions.
Further consideration indicated that no sound information regarding the degrada-
tion rates was available. The accumulation factor was, therefore, removed from
the final procedure. It is felt, however, that this is an area where additional
studies may produce valuable data for increasing the precision of the Performance
Scoring Procedure.
C. SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISONS
The subjective nature of the scoring data used in this procedure makes
it impossible to interpret the performance scores of any proposed group of systems
concepts in terms of absolute effect on the environment. To obtain meaningful re-
sults for system comparisons, the score of the existing system of management or
lack of management is also determined and the scale used in comparing the effec-
tiveness of competing systems is the percentage improvement in total bad effects
score of the proposed system over that of the existing.
As previously indicated, separate scores are maintained in the pro-
cedure for the transient and disposal components. On the assumption that each of
these components is of equal importance to society, the final total system improve-
ment is the average of the improvements of the transient and disposal components.
For example, if the score of two competing systems and the existing system were
as follows:
Score Score % Improvement
Transient % Impr. Disposal % Impr. Tot. System
Existing System 3 -- 3, 000
New System A 2 33 750 75 54
New System B 1 67 1,500 50 58
The comparison indicates that System A results in an overall improvement of 54%
while System B, being more effective, results in 58% reduction in regional bad ef-
fects when compared to the existing system.
IV-14
-------
IV. Performance-Scoring Procedure, C (Continued)
Whether either of these systems would be selected for implementa-
tion would be determined primarily on the cost per percentage-point reduction
and on what the community would choose to pay. The absolute value of the
performance score in terms of score vs effect will be determined through the
experience of living with systems of various scores.
D. SAMPLE SYSTEM
The information needed to score a sample system is derived below
to demonstrate the use of the data forms (Figure IV-1).
Sample problem: Dispose of 1. 5 tons/day of garbage generated in
a municipal subregion.
The proposed management concept to be scored is that of placing the
garbage in closed cans, which are picked up once a week and transported in an
open truck to a landfill. It is assumed that the trucks operate oh a 6-day week (8-
hour workday, with a 1-hour lunch break). It is also assumed that collection re-
quires 7 hours and that 1 hour is needed for a round trip to the landfill at the end
of the day. On the average, therefore, the trucks are half full for 8 hours (collec-
tion time plus 1-hour lunch break) and completely full for 1/2 hour (half of round
trip to the landfill site). It is also assumed that the garbage is piled on the ground
at the landfill site before being covered in such a manner that a 1-day accumulation
is exposed on the average at all times. In block-diagram form,
Closed cans, Open truck Piled on ground, Landfill,
weekly daily daily daily
pickup operation operation operation
The average amount of garbage in closed cans at all times (24-hour/day, 7-day/
week) is
(1.5 tons/day) (7 days/week) _ - 7J-
—__ ... -.- — — u% £3 tons
IV-15
-------
IV. Performance-Scoring Procedure, D (Continued)
The average amount of garbage in open trucks at all times (24-hour/day, 7 -day/
week) is
I- 5 tons/day (8/24 day) + 1<
No adjustment is necessary for the 6-day workweek because 1. 5 tons/day is the
average daily amount - i. e. , if the waste load was first adjusted by -r- to show the
6
increase caused by the 6-day pick up period, a further adjustment of -=• would be
necessary to account for the 1 day a week that there is no garbage in trucks; thus,
there is no net effect.
The average amount of garbage piled on the ground is
(1.5 tons/ day) (1 day) = 1.5 tons
The waste loading in the landfill is
(1. 5 tons /day) (365 day/ year) = 547 tons/year
These data are entered in the sample data form as shown in Figure
IV- 1 and would be used in the appropriate equations of Section IV, B if this system
were being scored. In the scoring for an actual system, many more wastes would
be considered and many more columns in the data form would be filled in.
This example assumes that waste conditions occur in the same subre-
gion, which obviously is not always the case. If a system is proposed in which some
conditions are outside the subregion being considered, those conditions are scored
as part of the system for the subregion where they do occur. In the example, land-
fill could have been considered to occur in an agricultural subregion. In that case,
landfill with its attendant waste load would not be scored for the municipal subregion
but would be scored for the agricultural subregion. Because of this requirement,
it is mandatory that entire interacting regions, such as the Fresno Region, be con-
sidered in evaluating waste management systems and not just specific local areas.
E. COMPUTER PROGRAM
In determining the weighted bad effects scores described in Section IV,
B3 of this report, more than 25, 000 bits of numerical data are utilized. The
IV-16
-------
IV. Performance-Scoring Procedure, E (Continued)
mathematical routine used to manipulate these data into the desired results is
simple; however, the number of calculations is large and the presentation of the
results is a significant clerical task. Because of this, it is advantageous to use
a digital computer since the computer can perform the calculations rapidly and
feed the results to a printer to provide tabulated presentation.
The program developed to generate performance scores for waste
management systems maintains as stored data the weighted bad effect scores thus
calculated. If a system requires the management of a small number of wastes in
only a few conditions, it is feasible to utilize the program print out of the summa-
rized bad effects table, pick off the scores for the wastes being managed in the
particular conditions, and perform the required mathematics manually. If, how-
ever, a large number of wastes in many different conditions for several systems
are being evaluated, it becomes almost mandatory to use the performance scoring
computer program.
It should be noted that the weighted bad effects developed as part of the
performance scoring computer program are unique to the Fresno Region. To use
the program for a region other than Fresno will probably require changes to adapt
the program to different wastes and particularly different influence coefficients.
The procedure necessary for inputting data to the performance scoring
program is delineated in Table IV-11.
IV-17
-------
Table IV-1
SUBREGIONAL, CATEGORIES
Subregion
Municipal
(residential and commercial)
Population Density
persons/acre
5 and over
Population Density
persons/Sq. Mile
3200 and over
Interface
(residential, commercial,
and agricultural)
From less than 5
Between 3199 and 64
Agricultural
Industrial
Under 0. 1
Under 64
High population density - short intervals
IV-.18
-------
Table IV-2
SOLID WASTES PROBLEM DATA
Ratings identical for all wastes
in category shown
FLIES
Scored by: D. Linsdale, J. Walsh, S. Kortenson
CONDITIONS ]|o
MMWSSD:
STORAGE
Spread
Piled on ground
Piled on slabs
Container - open
Container - closed
TRANSPORT
Open
Closed
PROCESSING
Grinding
Spray irrigation
— Incineration
— Open burning
— Composting
Lagooning
DISPOSAL
Landfill
Buried
Open dump
Plowed into ground
Fit disposal
3
H
i
•7
*f
0
0
0
u
0
V
v
Q
T
V
3
^2 RESIDENTIAL RUBBISH I
1
Pi'
P.?
?i3
0
0
4V
Ufi
0
i-V
v
o
i:
?ta'
S
9
X
M
T
1
to
Cj
4,1?
0
0
o»c
0
u
i1;
0
0
0
T
2.;
to
10
•N^
Pi?
^
^
0
0
0
o
0
J.V
0
0
~
1.7
•"I? DEAD ANIMALS 1
c;
^
c;
c;
"j
0
0
2
1
0
It
()
0
H
1.7
4.3
"|9 SPECIAL WASTES 1
It
5
•i
s
e^
0
0
2
uv
0
J
0
0
"o"
2.3
2.7
EH
H
to
3
o
4.7
4,7
3i7
i
0
0
0
0
0
J
U
0
u
L.7
4.7
0,7
1
s:
I
rr
tr
•",
•j
•i
4.7
3.7
0
0
J..V
o
%^
0
Q
"o"
5
H
8
on
~1~
0
f
f
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
IT
o
0
•"-
£
a
?
T,
f
f
0
0
0
u
0
1
o
0
"o"
0
2
0
[0
1
1
1
n
TJ
^
n
0
0
0
i
1
Q
^
0
0
0
0
Wl37 CABBAGli
1
to
i»,
^
0
n
0
n
0
\*i
-2-1
0
u
I
to
i
I,
4p-3
4.
3-7
3i7
0
0
0
0
0
it
0
0
1
J5_
1
1
3
(i
S
t;
<5
S
0
0
0
0
0
^
0
0
—
•5-
i
4
1
I,7
^.7
4i7
4i^
to
0
0
0
0
0
4.'
0
0
0
4.7
^57 APRICOTS
A
3.7
3.7
•^
0
0
ay
0
V
0
3
u
l."7
^
I.1!
1.
0
0
0
u
0
2
0
0 0
7T
i
1
1
0
0
0
c
(.;
1
0
o
c
0
1
r.l
a
g
J
1
*V
^
c
T
3,
0
0
o
u
0
It,
0
n
n
i.
c
1.
1,
•z
X
Til
O
V
U
J)
^
J.
2.7
0
0
0
n
0
^
0
o
(1
S
1
1,
^80 CHICK2N MANURE
U
^
c
3
0
0
o
0
0
V7
0
n
o
T n
S
1
7=
HSl TURICY MANURE i
O
}
3
2
2
0
0
0
n
n
?
n
o
o
2
0
1
a
§
c
M
a,
cc
u
i«>
3.
>
2.
0
0
0
0
0
^
0
n
—
0
1 ,7
i5
1
ay
p
1
S
ft
CO
u
S'
Y
2.
2
0
0
n
n
n
i
0
Pi
0
3.
1
1.
•f
8
cc
U
2.3
2.
I.
1
0
0
n
n
n
o
o
n
0
2.
0
0
(l
5
S
oB
H
5
IN
CO
1
k
i
n
0
n
n
n
i.
n
n
0
l
IT 7
! 1 '
t
g
2.
It.
it,7
it.
it.
0
0
1
111
n
V
0
n
0
•>
4.7
1
M
CO
3.3
"t.7
it.7
4.-
it-i
0
0
0.7
0.3
o
It
0
0
1 "
0 1
2.7 1
^L—\-
I+.7 '
1.3
ll.T
.L
-------
Table IV-2 (Continued)
SOLID WASTES PROBLEM DATA
FLIES
(continued)
CONDITIONS 3^
HANnGSD:
STORAGE
Spread
Filed on ground
Piled on slabs
Container - open
Container - closed
TRANSPORT
Open
Closed
PROCESSING
Grinding
Spray irrigation
Incineration
Open burning
Coi?po?r.:'ng
Lpjjoop.ing
DISPOSAL
Landfill
Buried
Open dump
Plowed into ground
Pit disposal
o
01
8
-*-
0
^
^
•5
If
0
0
0
0
JL
-JL
J2.
-y.
0
u
i
•0
S
B
0
7-7
5J
0
0
0
0
JL
JL
-j-
V
•V
->t^
1
8!
0
^
•?
If
z
0
0
0
o
0
JoT
0
0
(j
EH
P<
•j
•?
s?
V-f
0
o
0,J)
0
0
fll
0
0
o
•^v1
IDOL SEEDS I
0
TU
^e
p
1
;
0
0
0
0
0
z
~p
0
1 s
0
0
] CONDITIONS |
1
V?
^
0
0
ay
u.v
0
?i7
0
0
u
V!
^.1
_
rh
i
—
—
—
_
— '
T
i
1
1
—
--
r
I
to
o
-------
Table IV-2 (Continued)
SOLID WASTES PROBLEM DATA
Ratings identical for all wastes
in category shown
WATER POLLUTION
Scored by: C. Boyer, E. Cary,
E. Crawford, L. Trumbull
\ I • 1
CONDITIONS 5^j
MAN/.GjiD:
STORAGE
Spread
Piled on ground
Piled on slabs
Container - open
Container - closed
TRANSPORT
Open
Closed
PROCESSING
Grinding
Spray irrigation
Incineration
Open burning
Composting
Lagooning
DISPOSAL
Landfill
Buried
Open dump
Plowed into ground
Fit disposal
U
o
3 c
->
1 ^
0
0.5
0
0
it, 5
2
Zii
?.
4
M
&
<*.
't
\
"U RESIDENTIAL RUBBISH 1
2
i
i
n
(^
n
0
2.
?
2.
^,
2
2
i
2.;
i
—
M
'i
-c
i
H
z
2 r
2 "
^
1
0
o,
n
°r
•5,7
1.1
^
1.1
't. j
i>r}
JlJ
*t
1 >
"t
w
to
i
E-
2
i
0.5
0
o.s
0
0
1,5
?
2
5
2
2
2*>
M
i
o
.,
1
n «;
p
0.5
0
0
It
p
p."j
p
p
i,1?
4
V
>t,
<=,
ole ABA;:DONED VEHICLSS |
0 "7
n i
0
0
0.1
0
0
0."
a
0.
0
0
i
^.
;>
i.
J.
1 p^xrv/1. MouiTo'.Ha iU
Oil
n
o
0
f^<;
0
0
0
T,"i
If1?
0
0
1
1
r^
1."?
p
-•|8 CONSTRUCTION W«oTES |
n i
n
o
0
0^5
o
0
0
i =,
li"i
0
0
1
t
^
1.5
1.5
I
*=:
a
&,
to
cr
2
1
0
0,7
0
Ii7
lil
P-7
"t.7
•i
*».'
"f.V
V
5
S.
-n
1
re
O
1
0.7
o 7
o
°i1
0
0,
2
T.I
1<7
L,?
2,'
S
r",
?
^,
r.'
r\
a
fT
1,
0
f|
0.
0
0
2
o,
1
1
i,
i,
a
B
=1
w
••&
o
2
.
1
0
1
0
0
2.
2
2
1.
1)
p •
^
H
1,
O
n~
1:
0
0
1
0
0
2,
p
p
1,
1
?
p.
?
(^
w|87 7HUIT & VEGETABLE |
p^
;>,
1|
<;
o.
0.
5
1,
1.
2t
It
2,
1
L,
V
a
c-
CO
CO
2 1
1.7
1
0.
0
0,
\
-1
7,
p
s
^,
-^
1,
1
(1 -,
1
h-1
OO
•£-
1.
1
0
0.
0
n.
^,
->
p§
2
c;
^
1
T;.
1,(
s
i
to
a
o
^
^
p
()
1
0
0
T
->
p
T
1,
1
t
2
2
It
CO
1
g
A
Ql
0
a^
0
0
^
->
p
1,
->
7
3
pt
*
^\9Z VEGETABLE OILS |
1
(^
U
o.
0
0
1
1,
1,
1
pt
2
3
3
2,
E-*
ON
A
2
p
1
c'
E
T
0
0
0
0
0
0
^
1
1
1
4
•^
^
^
T;
•,
s
0
(^
$
V
o.
0
0
9
1,
2
0
o
n,
i
T
1 ,
-!
i
I
c
2
1
0.2
0
o.
o
0,
J.
1,
2,
2,
>t.
^
2,
T
2
1
-------
Table IV-2 (Continued)
SOLID WASTES PROBLEM DATA
identical for all wastes
in category shown
AIH POLLUTION
Scored by; J. Maga, R. L* Chass,
Dr. A. J. Haagen-Smit
>^ u y>
N. Bj u. JH
>J2 •
CONDITIONS 5>^
MANAGED:
STORAG
Spre
Pile
Pile
Cont
Cont
E
ad
d on ground
d on slabs
ainer - open
ainer - closed
TRANSPORT
Open
Clos
ed
PROCESSING
Grin
Spra
Inci
Open
Comp
Lago
ding
y irrigation
neration
burning
3s ting
oning
DISPOSAL
Landfill
Buried
Open dump
Plowed into ground
Pit disposal
Hi GARBAGE 1
1 1
2«3
? 1
7 '
y
1.7
1.'
i-7
1,7
V
I
1
°>
l
0
jla RESIDENTIAL RUBBISH 1
1 '
p_2
1
n r
O.I
?
i
a
\O
n
n
0
p
n
0
n
Q
0.
0.
"t
1.7
u
1.
I,'
1. 7
II? DEMOLITION WASTES I
V
1
1
1
0
1,7
0
1*7
0,7
2
V
u,}
J,/
°-i
0
^J8 CONST3UCTION WASTES 1
!,•
1
1
1
0
Ii7
0
1.7
a.7
?.
Q
Y.:
1.V
o.i
n
3
d
H
g
(0
cr
•>(
•>'
? 7
•>1
fl.7
V
0.1
2.7
't.l
1.7
?„'
W
-W
S
s
s
s
•;
2
•j
1
•?
•5
•?
a.^
u/
*T
JL
?•?
v I CHOP RESIDUES 1
^
P.1?
2^i
2
ft"i
I,1!
Q
1
k
?
1.7
fl.l
1,1
p
1
1
t,
1
u./
*-V
0,7JO.7
0.710.^
1
C4
U
a
j-
_£VJ
FM
y
1.'
1,7
I.1
n.i
i
0
>
i
?i7
f|
A
u,t
\-
u./
p 7
H
rf
!S
CO
1,1
'4
1.7
L.1
0.1
1
o
1
^
3.7
f.
1
>V
<,•
ay
0.7
^IWVEGSTnaLE CHOPS * |
1
}
1
1
0
1
n
•j
•i
1
n
u
s
u
Lz.
•
g
g
C
&
5
08
H
*-
1
ite
o
(1
1!
y
0
0
1
o
1
P.-1
1
n
>-*-t
o
1
u
1
°\70 STRAWBERRIES ..(
1)
O
II
0
0
?
o
•?
f
1
0
I)
^
U
p
»
(•'
rr
i
-1
fe
Vi
V
1.'
1.1
1.
Pll
1
4
1(
2-7
^
V
14.7
u./
1.7
5:
•n
a
&-
c:
«
^
!.•»
1.
1
O
111
0
?,7
?
1.
2
u,'
\j,
u,
O.7
Elfi? FRUIT & VK1KTAHLE .J
?
M
I,'
1,
0.7
1.7
o,7
?,7
?.7
\7
2.
3, '
1«
a
1.1
1
£
c
£
ao
CO
^,
4>
^
2,7
1
1
0.7
V
1.7
't.?
%*L
1,1
J»j
W
**i J
1
1,1
KI89 ANIMAL 1
>, i
i.
^,
?.
1
1
0 7
oil
s
s
rt*
1
L
i
1
1
0."
o,7
0 ^
i
1,7
2r?
1.^
ij
O '
p^
0.7
"1 \
2
t^
0
^
1
>
rvj
O>
l,c
?
i-1;
i.^
JO
i
T
Q
1.S
1.5
^
1.5
n
1
0
fl ^
q
-<
H
K>
(7\
1
^.7
o^
1-7
l
•4V
47
0,7
0
1,
0
?i?
1,7
47
-ti
i.'
i.
n •
T. '
a^
n 7
rft
CJ
H
5
n
o
\O
o>
,x
>.
%
^
\
£
^
fi
it
s
1
1
l»2
2
i,
i^.
tfb? PETROLEUM
V
1.'
V
1.7
J.'
1
0
1(
If,
2 7
^1
1-7
ii
1.7
1
B
u<
5.
fl
0
0
o
0
0
y
0
0
1
V
i»
Q_
c
0
1
n
&
<
i
f
85
0,7
*
A'
"A1
0.7
P
Q.7
0
?
r\y
n
n
0
f\ 7
0
n
-h
— r
—
—
i
ro
tSJ
-------
Table IV-2 (Continued)
SOLID WASTES PROBLEM. DATA
c-Jlt i.'lU'-'d )
<
I
OJ
-------
Table IV-2 (Continued)
SOLID WASTES PROBLEM DATA
Ratings identical for all wastes
in category shown
iiUD^NTS
ocored by:
o. t'ortenson
E. &. llogan
NB-
CONDITIONS ^°
" - MANAGED:
STORAGE
Spread
Filed on ground
Filed on slabs
Container - open
Container - closed
TRANSPORT
Open
Closed
PROCESSING
Urinding
Spray irrigation
Incineration
Open burning
Composting
Lagooning
DISPOSAL
Landfill
Buried
Open dump
Plowed into ground
Pit disposal
" ll GARBAGE 1
jT
_il
_5_
o =(
0.5
O
%t
0
T,
2
o,e
li1-
UiL
^2 SiilDiOTIAL SU3BISH I
') 5
*iS
5
O "3
°r'
0
1
0
?
,p
3. •?
I.1-
Ui
II
o
Q
X
n
^t~5
•i
s
o =•-.
°lc
o
pf"i
•^
0
2
Jt*>
1.'
%1
n\5 D2AD ANIlttLS |
2 c
S
5
2t
0
1,
0
T,
1.5
^
ll1!
J,1
2
"\6 AEUDONED VEHICLES |
h2-
o
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
o
0
^1? DiXCLITION WASTES |
-2-
s
0
n
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
y
u
0
H8 CONSTRUCTION' WAoTSS |
0
5
S
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
p
0
V
V
0
I
o
"3
08
HTVJ
J.
i.
^
0
o
0
2
2
0
J
o
V
u
V
0
s
rt
i3
it.^
V]
0
Ri
d
it
0
0
0
•z c
7 C
0
2
2
J.
'J|L
y^z
sxs
If
0
Q
V
0
it
2
1
•- c
r^-
0
.2.
it
i\r>
0
0
•a C
^ c
0
2
i-i>
1
i^1;
0
0
tj
0
M
K
(\J
ll
d
It
'.'
0
0
5.5
^.J
0
2
l.^J
JL
'J.L
0
0
1
"3
S
CO
IT
-4-
6
^.c
^
o.'
o
2 t
T C
0
1.5
2
2."j
H1?
o
2
».5
"t
lfq
0
^.'
^5
2
1
1 .l
^2
u.
O
r;
••I
in
•o
nn
•'•.3
'*•';
it
^1.^
o
0
}";
^t<:
2.5
It
2
2,L
a1-
r^
2
"i
o
IJ
^
i.',
L
'
1.5
j>.-
2.t
It
2
2.'
u.1?
O.1.
2
0
3
lA
r)
^_
U
0
\
5
0
5
2
2.
a'
u.1
2
03
O
(K
t-H
S
1
2
T"
i,
_i_
3
0
0
2
2
}
U
1)
JL
u
0
e
it
.-..s
It
0
J
',
7
0
\5
2
2.
O>
(X1-
".5
I?
a'
o
IT
k
Tp»5
s
V
S
u
5
-f
J^
n
u
5
T
',
5
2
it
1
U]
EH
1— i
U,
O-
CO
2
**
U
0
0
u
?.
0
5
0
U
(1
,'1
1
£|o8 POULTRY |
5
_5_
0
L)
0
to
JO
2.i,
It
1
1
3
p
•z.
GO
It
"7
~0~
0
0
>
2
U
5
0
0
,1
(1
a
s
to
00
g
M
FS
5
_L
5
5
JL
1
0
0
s
s
It
It
It
't
1
1
2
M
to
of
O
-^-
5
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
?
0
n
•i
o
1
a
00
til
lA
-i-
5
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
u
f
0
o
J^J99 MASONRY PASTES
0
5
0
0
j
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
."[lOO METALS |
0
It
It
~b~
0
j
0
0
0
0
0
u
r
r
*T-
jiJLOl SEEDS
«
2 1
5 IT
5 5
.,5 1.5
0.5l 0
0
0
''..5
• c
0
?
2
1
05
1 S
1 .S
0
0
o
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
o
*] CONDITIONS
2.5
5
5
4
0.'
ar
0
l.c
1.5
1
o.c
0.5
CIS
0,5
i's
i
"
—
1.
_
— 1-
-4-
. _
1
-J
_J
—
i
)
-------
Table IV-2 (Continued)
SOLID WASTES PROBLEM DATA.
Ratings identical for all wastes
in category shown
Scored by: Dr. T. J. lianks, Dr. W. DeJ'ries,
Dr. L. Jaylor
X^ (H ''
CONDITIONS 1kg
STORAGE
Spread
Piled on ground
Piled on slabs
Container - open
Container - closed
TRANSPORT
Open
Closed
PRCCESSIMJ
Grinding
Spray irrig.-it-jon
Incineration
Open burning
Composting
Lagoonina
DISPOSAL
Landfill
Buried
Open dump
Plowed into ground
Pit dlEi-osal
o
j:'
0
rH
3.-'
£
!•• 2
o,^
,
^
i
^1^
It
L"
rc
•J)
5
ca
£3
w
r\J
1
1 '
1,7
i "~>
J
'J.
-1
O
£
.•f.
'<
M
Ai
M
1
y
-
3.312.7
% \y.
it
-^
1
-^
— L
2-7
n
o
! .7
•
^
A-',
•
j _, ,'
t/
ir
1
M
a
r
r
••0
o
FH
1— (
O
TTlM
ii2
*•
i. ,
. '
- *'
M
, '
u
^
0
,-,
. i •
]
1 ' '
?
3 '
p
1.
\
i.
u
o
o
M
CC
1
to
-•o
c
-c
•7
o-
~
I
•T
0
rH
113^3
*
\.'
n ^
•i
u
1.'
u
0
i 1
' •;
7
1 7
'.
^
J.-V
t^
1*2
^ T(
3,3
?.'
•>
0.3
5 -
1.3
o.y
0.5
i-V
JL
H
El
-.1
-,
~
1
I.1
1
0'
1
vV
1,
•"^l
'0
1
o
ufl
n
3H
rJS-
'^ ^
2.3! 2.3) 2.J
3 J ^31 3.3
3
i
0.7
o
2
1
1.7
°'?
0.,
J
¥
G3
V
i-7
i
0.
2
1
L.'
0,'
o,
l.V
LV
:x3
3.7
-V
l
U.J
2
1
L"
0.3
O.3
1.'
r^
^ {
3.7
<»
?
i
2.'
3
1.7
L J
1
o
1.
-7
H
O
1 "5
c
;>
2
1
0 ^
0
L1
L5
o. i
0
0.
i-i
.0.
O
M
rt
CO
^7
iV
\'f
>-t
•\
0.}
2.3
a
i.
0.
0.
1.'
1.
|uu
g
CO
CO
V7
3.7
3,7
pj
•f
1
2
2.'
1.,
tt;
O
1.
2
X'
-ti
—
3.?
3-7
?i7
?
I.'-
•>
2.7
2
1.'
1
1)
1.'
V7
1.7
(-*
3
M
O
ON
? ^
-.7
2
2.?
2
1
0.'
1-7
1.-
i.i
i
•f
W
1.'
n
M
a.
M
LO
HH
H
1 '
i2
2
2
1
(V
1
a
L
0.
a
"
i
A3
s
'-J
sj
b
'
-
i
i
2
0
0
0
^
0
o
2
T
0.
'•c
>/l
•»:
3|~0~
3.7'
>'/
2.7
.J. '
;»
i..
1
u
I.'.
J;. ^
1^.
0
0
O.'-
1.1
•J
1.
o
5
)
)
,1
~
LT
''i
a.
§
ft
IA
0
U
0
1.
0
';
It
U
_1
CJ
o
v£>
ON
f
3
1
?
•'•
•x ,
1.
2
1 .'
"^
1.
V
|
to
o
J
CO
Ul
• 1
5
re
O.7
1^31 o la;
L.3|
At/
0.7
i.
0
. .7
-/
0.
1.
1.
->
a
i .
Mjo.3
0
1
U
u
'(
0
0
a
0
2
0..
0
0
l
l.1
j
1 ! i '
cr
u
E
5
1
3.5
H
>
i>
^
5
•7
^
0
s
5
i>
5
s
s
s
^
-2-
J.
j.j
v e
3
2.5
1.!,
1
3
2.i
2.
7
21-
2,
fi
f-
It
-
*"*_
i
1
'
1
0
0
T
0
0
1
•>
o
0
1
'•"I CONDITIONS
-
^
4.3
-t n
1.3
.'.
u.V
?1T
1-7
0.3
a?
i,'
•i.
i
±i
n
_|~J
t
__j_..
-I-
jiLtzr
l . .V. ^
I
1
1
— i — i —
-------
Table IV-2 (Continued)
SOLID WASTES PROBLEM DATA
Ratings Identical for all wastes
in category shown
Scored by: Dr. J. Nehay, H. Glim, L. Cowler
CONDITIONS Tt STRSET REFUSE 1
r-2-
^
^
p
0
n
i
0
7
0
0
n
i
i
0
^
i.
(>
|5 DiAD ANIMALS |
IfiS,
1, c
jj C
/,
0
1
0
^t1?
it5
0
?,^
P.-i
'».':
>
't. l
i»
I,1
J ssirvf Tvioads 6|
,-i-
^
s
s
0
?l'>
0
^
^
^
5
>p
>J
'tt!;
%'
^
"?
i^,1
M
-5-
c;
•i
•i
n
3
0
^
^
0
•,
it
'P
1
'j
4
^i
'i
-£-
f\^
i
oi
n
3.";
0
2
1.5
0
I.1)
0,5
"t1?
0
0
1
J"5
"I.1!
1
&
4
^1°
"t c
^ ^
0
1
0
3
^
i
2
''ti'
i. \
IS
i
o>
_sa
4
^ c
1| C
14 ^
n
l
0
?t5
j
1
^
^
>
^
''O
^^
iih
1 STVOIHSHO 96J
t
It
J
It
2.1
rv
y
^.c
,v
| SQ22S T01J
~l
*,tc
^
u
ij
n
2,1-!
0
?••>
5
?.s
j
li1?
i.1
d
it
i
I.1
| CONDITIONS |
J2-
1
}
\\
V-.
2
0
1
0
45
I.1?
>
i.^7
i.1;
**•>
i.i
t1
—
"
--
_
— '
.
— i
I
.
— •
_..
..
i J
...U
L...
rL,
-j
i
__
-------
Table IV-2 (Continued)
SOLID WASTES PROBLEM DATA
Ratings identical for all wastes
in category shown
OTHSB INJECTS
ocored by: &. Mortenson, H. Magy
CONDITIONS gsg
UNKANAGED
HAN..GSD;
STORAGE
Spread
Piled on ground
Piled on slabs
Container - closed
TRANSPORT
Open
Closed
PRCCESSING
Urinding
Spray irrigation
Incineration
Open burning
Composting
Lagooning
DISPOSAL
Landfill
Buried
Open dump
Plowed into ground
Pit dispocal
-"ll GARBAGE 1
r,
•5
5
5.
^
2,5
^5
J-5
2.5
V?
P c
2,5
1.,
5
6
H2 RESIDENTIAL RUBBISH 1
^ c
Ij
If
V
2 c
p_E
2.5
5?
i5
j
u-'
2,1
It'
it1
T\
V,
2,5
CO
o
3
9
M
'£.
t.e
1,
4 c
It S
5
2.5
M
^
i
V.1;
i,'
•LV
^
M
^K oTHZil R£FUSS 1
1
3
J
^
2
y
i
1
A
}
2
f-
y
X
[-
C
ir\
+ S
S
if.
*u
3.
2-5
y
2.
It.
2,
2/
if
fr
^
£
it
•u
7;
^
3
p^-
)
Qi
l.
1,
Q.
3
O,
Of
u
It
2.
•*\7 DEMOLITION A^STSS I
2
H
3
_i-
^
p
—
n
1
1
0
0
0
0
-f
*J8 CONSTRUCTION rfASTSS |
p
1
3
^
p
0
0
1
1
o
V
u
u
-^
^|9 SPECIAL .VA3TES |
2.5
3.5
?••?
J^c
1
2
1
1
2|"?
0
I.1?
L.b
T
2
2
|
M
"7
S
n.'
i
7
1
1-5
1
!•?
0
2
J.1;
I.1?
U'
0.'
3
^
n
^
g
2
Ic
~
It
S
5
It
5
M
P
It
't.';
2,1)
2,5
2.5
5
5
f±
F
rtl
1
to
•i
i
2
P
5
2
2
-^-
^
1
^
^
5
2
-Hs? APRICOTS |
1
it
"*
0
2
0
1
0
J
u
o
0
It
1
.0.
•s
1
3
0
^
Q
1
0
2
0
U
u
u
0
I
o
o
}
i
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
u
o
0
(T
0
0
z:
M
O
jj
T
i
it
it
0
2
0
0
}
0
u
o
u
T
0
0
.i
MD
1
5
5
0
It
0
0
h
u
0
1)
y
1
0
ll
CO
L
5
>
0
2
0
1
0
1)
o
t"
1)
n
l
n
i
p
2
?
3
2
2
T
O
1
1
1
f
••i
1
1
1
?
^
p
2
1
1
n
i
1
l
l
1
g
"c
2:
S
i
*,,
}•
1,
2
1.
2
2
^
1
2
1
1
1.
l.r
ft
5
i
j
d
1
2
^
2
^
^
2
1
i
.;
1
1
1
1?
1 ..
(.1
( 1
O
1
i
3
2
3
2
1
i
1
1
S
h
I...
R
.5
i <
rH
CO
U
d
*
2
2
2
2
1
2
C
^
T
1
1
1
1
i
ru
CO
i
2
d
2
2
2
1
?
C
^
1
1
1
(T
CO
1
2
2
2
}
2
2
<>
1
^
1
1
|
IT
-C
E •
I-',
CO
t.5
J.
**.5
It.
1
3.
1
It.
It.
1.
'i
o.
1.
1
1
2,
X
0
oa
'>
5
5
y
^
5
5
5
5
5
5
•j
2
5
CO
J
5
•5
',
5
C
s
s
4
1
JL
4
o
3
J
>
u
0
0
—
4
?
,1
o
n
•l
u
2
^
ON
1
2
J
J
—
—
2
1
1
1
S
3
i
g
1-1
CTv
It
'l
It
"IT
2,
^,
It
3.
it
p
p
1
1
2^
ft
C
. t
1
•>
-i-
1
2
i
0
0
1
1
c;
c
c
c
H
u
I
J
1
J
•>
J
5
2
0
0
1
1
0
c
0
o
i
1
t/;
E-
fM
c
I.1}
It
It
1
1.
0.
o
0
(1
1.
n
0
0
it
1.
it
SNOI1I1NOO j-
3
^
it. 5
2.5
3.5
1.5
2
O.c
j5
d5
1
O.r
H —
2
i
-------
Table IV-2 (Continued)
SOLID WASTES PROBLEM DATA
Ratings identical for all wastes
in category shown
ocored by: ~,. -7ron/*htt C. Denier,
•'. Berry
CONDITIONS ?^
UNKANAGED
HANnGZD:
STORAGE
Spread
Piled on ground
Piled on slabs
Container - open
Container - closed
TRANSPORT
Open
Closed
PROCESSING
Grinding
Spray irrigation
Incineration
Open burning
expecting
Lagooning
DISPOSAL
Landfill
Buried
Open dump
Plowed into ground
Pit disposal
M
3
r-t
2 c
p C
^
I.?
p 1^
0
It1?
I.1?
ll1?
It?
H
^
-*•
12 RESIDENTIAL 3U3BISH 1
JL
l|
*
T!
1
?«1
Q
?.
•t?
nJ
1
1
&
~
^
u
c
L'
O
• 1
>
H
N-
~^
s
4
p
n
I.1?
9
\..c,
1
7,
}
..•?
l.s
"v
^
a
Q
n
e-
v
iki
It
? "i
V
o
7,
0
i.<-
i
?
it
i.1?
i.«
L.1;
v. ,
J.1;
L-fc-
t-
-i
c
c
S
•j
•i
0
If
0
f
2
7,
=|
tl
3,
T
Tj
, j
K
1
6
1
a
-i-J
c
1
0
n
i
0
n
i
p
>i
it
4
ip
,— L
"t
1
g
H
1
JL2
1, 7
^ r
^
1.7
1, ••
Q
fi i
f
1.1
If, •
1
1
g7~"
SJ
Jb
13 CONSTRUCTION WAoTSS 1
If ^
"Vf
1.7
1.^
0
2,"
2
J,.;
i
l
77
Vd
•i.'
g
^
H
a
tf)
u
, r
^ 1
S1
1
Pll
0
1.1
I
1.'
'f.V
1
1
L',
1 n
•^
—
c*
E;
CI
'l
•0
O
i
-z
-^
1)
1
n
',
n
p
,5
P
•7
3.
1
T
"^
^
£-
t,
n:
ft
E-
-i-
1
p
1
n
f
g
P
2
P
f
i
i
v
v
.&..
1
—
it
it
0
l^Cj
0
i,1
1
i
2t^
O.-j
o,c
1
A
1
j
a
1
-X
f'.
Z
;c
"7
"j
•i
0
Cj
p
It
It
^
s
it
'(
T
^
-*-
<•>
l-
t*.
OcO
1,7
1.7
1.7
1
?.^
0
1
1
1
A 1
j
jTi
rJ
^
'l
f.i
2
?.l
?(7
1."
1
1.1
0
0,
0.7
1.
2.-'
0.7
1
Li
i
*
1
a
a
r:
Ut
te
iz
2iJ3
1.7
^7
P
1.1
1.
9
V
1,
1.5
^.T1
o.?
o.7
T?
T
p
g
£
1.7
2
1.7
1
p
0
->,-
".V
i. ;
2.V
9.7
~T
i
j./
1
I
H
O
P C
P,e
2,[
^
0
l •-
,. '-
1 L
it
-^
H
O
It
It
If
?ICI
I."?
1.
9
1
r
i
it
1
O
a,
oo
OO
1+
/I
^
'^c
l.r
1
0
Jf
0 r
1
•^
-1
T~
it
i(
it
-i,1?
i
0
f'.^l
u~.
1
It
o.s
1
"^
"if1
3
M
'0
a
1C
T c;
1)
It
S1!
I.1'
1
0
r-
^.5
1
't
U.1
i
—
4
M
a.
ou
g
't
rH
rr,
p c
^
7,
^l1?
I.1?
1
0
;v
2.
i
it
o,s
0,1
k
3
o
i
f\j
^
it
it
?.^
l-?
1
9
3
1
k
0,^i
1
—
f
It
"Tr
1.S
S1?
i.1-
}
i.1"
i
0
P "-
?i^
i
it
i
i
"f
:3
O
it
7,
1
2
lis
0
7,
1
1
'.^
^"^
"it
a
i
,j
Jfiij
It
It
7,
1.7
7,
0
;,*!
1
't.7
n. '
1
-) --7
| PTvsi/pra 961
_2_
S
•7
5
5
0
^
0
T,
t,
•-,
r
c,
g
"•1
a,
J,
t
(4
i,
0
1,
0
?
,->
<
r
T
r,
—
r
'^>
O
M
H
1
.-1
OH
CO
^
,^
,'
^
0
f>
:)
>,
•-,
i+
R
r
|3
0
o
i'
p.'
1.7
1-7
i
0
1 ,'
1
I.7
,'••
1
l'),',
1.'
1 '
3
o
ri
J+
*t
•,7
w
u
1 "
,'
1.
1 ,'
"
^
r-o
f-1
3
l?
'I
(
It
0
-,
0
It
^
s
4
s
It
c
It
It
F-
c\
c
S
0
0
0
0
o
o
-1
7,
J
(,
^
7
2
1
lf/
''•3
^
1.7
0
_
1.1
1,1
!*1
O"J
1
—
1.7
I
M
oo
-------
Table IV-2 (Continued)
SOLID WASTES PROBLEM DATA
Ratings identical for all wastes
in category shown
ODOR
ocored by:
Jones,
V. rq
CONDITIONS ^s|
MANnGZD:
STORAGE
Piled on ground
Piled on slabs
Container - open
Container - closed
TRANSPORT
Open
Closed
PROCESSING
Urinding
Spray irrigation
Incineration
Open burning
Composting
Lagooning
DISPOSAL
Landfill
Buried
Open dump
Pit disposal
|5]l GARBAGE |
H?
•t n
r,
3.3
-• 'l
?•*'
4
yt
<~f
^
it
>
M
Zijd
3.7
.-
|^J2 R^JIDiOTIAL SUB3ISH |
T
T,
T
r
l
2
1
1
Pi1?
p
lt,"j
i
>•
X
1.
1
w
to
O
C
•-c
i
~
3 '
It
3 •?
1 "1
2.7
.3
l.J
2
2.7
It.
3,
2,'
X.
A
It
1
2
M
•o
i
n'.
E-i
'O
2 e
2 c
2
15
0,5
O.'i
L,r
J
J,S
2
a1?
X.
-s-
X
I
Cj
i:
c
c,
c>
r>
f,
tp
J
•5
3.,
*t,
';
J-
a
M
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
3
it
o
0
i
L
i
1
1
o
,-j
p
'o
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0,
5
1.
0
i
i
J
1
1 —
H
O
ni
1
1
1
•:
1
1
1
0
't
0
0
i
1
1
1
1
'0
_
7, n
1 1
7, r,
, r
3
2.7
It.
<^.J
i.'
,'
i^
>,
-i
EH
; i
•1
-c
• 1
-1)
0
It
! •;
( 7,
7
5-7
3
3.
3,
3
£.7
3.
it
t
it.
T 7
L_
j
i
C <
~
7
7,
J
^
2
2
3
2
2
^
7,
3
3
L
2
4 i
k
L_
a
•c
-n
• i
X
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
i
X
1
.1
]_
;-T
C
c:
h
^
•i
c,
1( 7
it.y
It
i<,3
y
't.
'*.
i,
<*.
o
o
']
&.
.a
VI-
1
^
•j
7
3
2
1
^
2
1
^
0
1
1
-i.
1
i
M
• r
C
0
C-
1 c
It
It
7^1
2 t;
^
1^
-«!j
2.J)
"»
7
1.
1.
,'
^
J.
c
It
"f
p c
7,
C
I.1?
'-•5
y-f
',
l,r
1,^
,-'
^
i
G
'X5
If
It
7,
!,«;
,'
•5
"5.
',
\.
2.
^
2
^
1
S
1
^
S
\
1
2
1
),
,=
1
1
1
0
]
J
1
1
1
*,
4
^
p
^
1,
]
1,
3
1,
2.
1
1
a
—
^.'i
",',
2
1
1.
2
5
i.
l.
X
•o
S
"n
1
'.
',
•i
?
p
1
1
. r
^
',
1.
'i.
)
L
^
1
t-
t-
—
f
It
it
7
It
->,
1|
^.
^
5
2
j
p
It
It
\
t.i
";
2
It
^
H
i
2
i
3.
}.
^
2
2.
?,
\
i.
f
P
—
'I-
It
It
-•f,
It
It
\
c
1.
?
4
it.
T
it,
t
g
p
—
it
'i
J,t
^.
2
^
3.
}.
c
1.
',
^.
3.
1^
~^-
3
5
.J
n
c
u
It
—
^5
lt,L
1.
',
7
2
3.
\
3-
c
2
7,
2
1,
1
•7
_£
It
-J-
4.:?
lt.L
lt
'.
7,
^
\
3.
3.
<-
1,
?
1
it
•^
J ,
c
a
—
4
4
\
£jj
?.5
2
7
7
3.
C
X.
3
•^~
,Xi
CO
L.
~z
k
It
'l
2.1;
2
^k
3.
J.
c
1.
^
"7^
ie
H
c
It
—
It
It
•,
2
't
2
4
L
1
r
1
2
1
~
EH
t-
r-!
~
**•',
't.'
~
2.'?
2,*p
'•?
3
3
3
•5
?
^ =
2
2
7
1.
1
i
CO
CO
T
j
';
'u
i.
U
2,c
It
It
)
c
2.
It.
•i
',
s
->
i .
cr
T"
s
't,
it
3
it
It
3
u
2
It.
T
7,
3
r
"'
1
^
1.
^
It
1
1
1
-'t
1
1
A
i
i
L
t
t
-i
^.
3
2
5
7
3.
r
2
7
1
^
J_
]
f;
1
A,
-»
•,
1
p.
't.
1
2.
1
n
;i
^
•.
2.
it
2
3.5
"t.5
tBr'
i.
i .
't. *:
it
I !
_i_
a_
— 1 —
i
ro
vO
-------
Table IV-2 (Continued)
SOLID WASTES PROBLEM DATA
OLOH
(continued)
^^ la W
>v P 6 1
>^U •
CONDITIONS |4=
UWANAGED
MAN..G2D:
STORAQE
Spread
Piled on ground
Filed on slabs
Container - op«a
Container - closed
TRANSPORT
Open
Closed
PROCESSING
Grinding
Spray irrigation
Incineration
Open burning
Composting
Lagooning
DISPOSAL
Landfill
Buried
Open dump
Plowed into ground
Pit disposal
a
M
t-0
••S
§
•x.
o
J-
—
1
1
1
1
1
1
]
1
1
1
')
1
1
0
0
1
q
3
'->
M
%
X
o
*
s
<
rn
o
3
0-
1
1
1
1
1
p
1
1
1
1
»
O
1
y
u
0
u
V
V
F;
X
^
i
:>
^
1
(1
1
1
4
z
0
^
1
u
u
u
0
u
il
rt
n
?
2
1
1
i
i
A
S
1
^
1
rf
^
J
u
u
1
M
t<
(\1
O
n •
0.'
n ^
W
0,^
a^
0,'
*
i,'1
V
">
A/
y
^.
i
0.
u.,;
to
o
E-
n
0
•,
k
If
\-"
f>
'j
1
5.V
}•:
i
•?
,i
w
<;
V
V
-------
Table IV-2 (Continued)
SOLID WASTES PROBLEM DATA
Ratings identical for all wastes
in category shown
PLANT
& CROP DAMAGE
Scored by:
Dr. J. Harvey, J. Kalstron,
Dr. L. Leach, Dr. Hewitt , M. covey
NJ •
CONDITIONS |8^
UNKANAGED
MAN»G£D:
STORAGE
Piled on ground
Piled on slabs
Container - open
Container - closed
TRANSPORT
Open
Closed
PROCESSING
Grinding
Spray irrigation
Open 'aiming
Coopcor.ing
Lago&ning
DISPOSAL
Landfill
Buried
Open dump
Plowed into ground
Pit disposal
$
H
•i
^J.
.5.
n
0
^
•5
0
0
0
5
T
'i
tr
W]
s
,
0
It
It
0
0
0
J
\
^
—
g
i
a
-1-
ir
JL
n
l
0
j
J
0
0
0
4
rf
1
it
«t
*f 1 ^|? DEMOLITION WASTES |
p
J-
1
n
^
5
0
o
0
i
1
1
i
1
1
•"{T ^|8 CONSTRUCTION WASTES |
2
n
l
0
•j
J
0
0
0
5
i,
',
•f
\
1
•e
o
H
•i
•i
.0.
T
0
"J
5
9
0
0
>i
if
-7
4
«
C
u
08
Q
t
JL.
1
0
c.
0
0
c
"7
J.
c
1
g
55
CJ
.1.
£L_
n,
n
2.
2,
0
0
0
jj.
;),
i
£u
1
g
c.
o
r\j
2.'
0^5
nic
0
i"!
2.c
y
0
0
0
'ft
ilb1!
^
i.1;
0.-5
i
'l
i
g
AT
•i
1
0
c
0
c
0
•j
1
1
Ki
-t
S
N
2_»5
•^
0
it.
_tt!
2,
0
0,
^,
i
c
•i,
•),
1
1
o
g
Ml
E-i
5
T
n
-7
0
It
4
V
0
0
O
It
1
t
It
1
:
" \ \*\56 ALMONDS |
^ 5
1
pf
o
2
2
0
0
0
2
^>n
f>,
J>
-)
^[~1 1^|57 APRICOTS |
2,
0
2
2
0
0
0
2
0.
^.
d
1
,
M
u.
1 5
1
%b
0
J
?
1
p
ov
^
1
t
n *i
u!
Ts
1
3t
0
T
J
1
(
0.
2
1
?
Pi
"i
'•x.
n.
H
c:
^S ^
•^.
C
2
2
L.
C
o.
1,
V
In
(V
13
C
4
*
4.
0
%
?•
2
C
0.
2
1
ft
HE
c
a
vc
w
It
5.5
0
p
2
U
1-7
0
0,1
1,'
O '
V
it?
Pil
1
^_
i
pt
0
p
?
1
n
n.
1,
n,
?!
L,
fii'
j
^
^
0
3,
?•
2
C
0.
1
It
p
Pi
g
•j
f
p
•p
s
0
n
n
<=,
l
^
•i
1
X
(0
a
z
It
1
1,
T
C
2.
2-
0
0
0
p
1
p
5
"l
p:
C-
c;
oit
El
i-
"
L,
C
2
2
0,
0
n,
1
n
•>
1,
n
^
fY
aS
0,
0.
0
pi
2.
n
n
0
^
n
i|
2.
n,
I
a
c
':
a
a
0
u
i
c
•}
1
0
0
0
^
1
^
1
c:
rr
5,7
1
J,
J,
0,
0
Ij
c
t~
1,
^
e;
•^
T,
c
1,
1
0.
1
0
It.
It.
2
2.
C
p
p
O
3
It
0
to
CJ
C
a,
1
1
2
c
1
1
y
0
n
n
n
1
l
n
fe
c
• 1
2,
1
0.
U.
i
u
3
1
1
0
0
1
1 ,
2
1,
1
E
5
U.
2
O
^
?•
1
C
a
l.
n
->
i
n.
T-J-1
•^j 1 |£1 CONDITIONS |
It
T
L,
1,
0
\
?
1.
0.
1.
2.
^
^
•^
•|
T r
1
' 1
'
'
I
OJ
-------
Table IV-Z (Continued)
SOLID WASTES PROBLEM DATA
Ratings identical for all wastes
in category shown
LAND POLLUTION
Scored by: C. Finch, W. Norman, R. Bergstrom
CONDITIONS ^i|!
UNKANAGED
STORAGE
Spread
Piled on ground
Piled on slabs
Container - open
TRANSPORT
Open
Closed
PROCESSING
Grinding
Spray irrigation
Incineration
Open burning
Composting
Lagooning
DISPOSAL
Landfill
Buried
Open dump
Plowed into ground
Pit disposal
1 TOVH3VD Tlu-
t-7
JL.
c
f 1
XL
0
n
V
0
•1
0
0
If
!t.'
It,'/
*•'/
!ui
^12 RESIDENTIAL RUBBISH 1
t.3
If
3..7
Jf_
0
f)
V
0
0
0
JtV
it
it.V
If,'/
A.
—
(Z
c
f=
a:
!».•;
-•?-
M
i/
0
0
S7
W
0
'tn
0
u
If
4,'
l^
It
1
nj
ft}
2
Uj
o
0
5
2
0
V
V
y
J
1
$•
>i
v
o:
1
Z
EE
H
s
J
If.
t
0
0
it.j
It.3
0
1,
0
u
M
J,'
it
it,
jj
"i
v:
H
J^
L;
-£-
i;
0
0
i.
2
0
'•
0
0
2
2
2.'
i.y
;»
^|2q"VEUETABLl CROPS * |
\.
*
0
0
2t
2,7
0
p
0
3
>
VI
2,
^
o
SH
^
.2.
p
i
0
0
1.
2
U
0
0
2
2
i'
1.7
2
£
V
3^
J.
0
0
3.3
}
U
0
u
It
If
lt.7
4
E-c
.<.
2.
0
0
2
2,4
0
0
0
2.
3
2.
a,
•x\&7 FRUIT & VEGETABLE |
I,'
£l
2^5
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
2,
3
2.
2^
£l88 POULTRY |
If,
V
V
1 '"
0
0
>7
0
0
0
It
It.
">
**«y
if i
:
E
OO
it,7
id
4
1.7
1
0
0
^•>
4,
0
0
0
V
It
t.V
V
A
a
o
a
M
ac
-------
Table IV-2 (Continued)
SOLID WASTES PROBLEM DATA
Ratings identical for all wastes
in category shown
UNSIGHTLIN&io
Scored by: H. Toknakian, P. Maier, H. DuPertuis
CONDITIONS li|!
UNKANAGED ~
MANAGED:
STORAGE
Spread
Piled on ground
Piled on slabs
Container - open
Container - closed
TRANSPORT
Open
Closed
PROCESSING
Grinding
Spray irrigation
Incineration
Open burning
Composting
Lagooi'.ing
DISPOSAL
Landfill
Buried
Open dunp
Plowed into ground
Pit disposal
Mil GARBAGE |
It
If
0
If
0
If
? '
1.3
If, 3
1.3
2 3
1
Lj
*t. '
V
1.,
UJ2 RESIDENTIAL RUBBISH |
4
n
if
0
W
3i7
3,7
L3
2.7
1
!•}
^•/
If
L.'
S
M
X
V;
i»-
' 3
If 3
0
If i
0
If
3|3
1,7
if,3
L.
oj7
U,'
1,
If,-
\
1.
H
•^•",
pn
f)
V
0
3.3
2.3
2
3.7
-i.
U,/
JL,'
^
\
i,'
05 DEAD ANIMALS |
•i
1*^
0
'•|3
0
5
3,3
1-7
5
2
i
1
2
">
c
2
M
1
3.'
v
iZ
3,3
3,3
0
If,
1,7
?:*
lf.7
3
1,
d
i
"I
If,
i
^J|7 DEMOLITION WASTES |
It
2*3_
0
t,
0
2,7
1,3
2,7
,'
1.'
uv
nj
P-
33
1,3
n
3.7
0
1-7
i
0
1*7
2
J*Y
>•/
3
o a
8
2
lt.7
It
n
!(,
0
If
2.7
a
If
to
u
c»
1
1
1
n
i.
0
2
0
JL
l
ill
2,710
TS|l9 COTTON LINT |
^
1
n
i
0
2.
0
2:5
2_
L,
2
^
3
* ^
1
l
i
l
1
1
i
2
I.1-
1
f^|^" VEGETABLE CROPS " |
s
k
0
It
0
3
1
2
0
2~
Mj? CABBAGE |
It
?"*
O
as
0
2.
2.5
1
3
0.
1 1
1
n
n
3
5
n
V
i
V
1
1
-3-
V
^
n
?
0
2.3
1>7
1
3.
M
1
If
•s.
?T
n
?.
0
2.
2.5
L,
3
llQ.5
2.31 1
0.7
LJ
3.'
)
i •
0.
1
•i.
1
a
1.7
3.
2,
0
2/
0
2,7
1.7
1
'l
f-
S
s
s
n
1,
CC
E-
CC
y.
¥
t
2
0
2,
2
0.
2.
1
-
a
•
2
3
1
•r
<
g
•X
(X
oO
2y
33
^
u
-t
0
3
2
i
3,
i
2,
1
1.
\
\
1,
i
L
>.
H.
U
If.
0
If.
3
2
If.
2
3
i
1
s
it
l,
£
£
h,
"t,;
f. •
it
0
it
0
id
H.
i.
it.
15
S
•Jl
00
g
H
CT\
T
2,
U
2.;
0
L
1
1
3.7
211.3
1
1.'
t;
It.
1.'
2
0"
nr
2^T
?'•
0.7
E
r-:
5
o,
2
2
U
2
0
2.
2.
1.5
(5T
]
^
n
•
i
i
^J|g3 TALLOW |
T
3.
>
U
2,
0
T
2
1
k.
2
•;
0
•
-^
^
I
H
^]
Z
t:
-:
2
0
1.
0
3
1.
a
5
2
?.'
nr
l
•^
-^
l
-* —
S
c
Is
a
2
L,-
u
2
O
2.
a
a
2.
i
3-
i
i
^fc ag CHEMICALS
^ ~-,
^--
0
3
0
2
2
3
3i
0.5, !
L-5
l
l! 5
3
1-5
1
_ — .
I
U)
00
-------
Table IV-2 (Continued)
SOLID WASTES PROBLEM DATA
UNSIGHTLINESS
(continued)
^V g & §
^v^ s
CONDITIONS 5kg
MAN^G^C:
STORAGE
Piled on ground
TRANSPORT
Open
Closed
PROCESSING
Grinding
Spray irrigation
Incineration
Open burning
Composting
Lagooning
DISPOSAL
Landfill
Buried
Open dump
Plowed into ground
Pit disposal
._ _j
^(97 PETBOLEDM I
—
T>
, fj
Tj 1
0
V
0
v
M
\
•f.71
2.'
V
i.
?
V
^
^
0(98 PLASTICS I
?
?
?
1,^
0
V
0
Vi
0,7
1
^7
M
?^
x
i.)
i
i',
^99 MA30NRT WASTES |
1
!•'
Til
1
0
1-7
0
?.'
i
i
W
1
L!f
Uy
V
^
v
?.?
ollCO METALS 1
?.f
•> •
•>•>
Ii7
0
1.7
0
2u
1.1
2
V
V
i.;
u
u
C^'f
M
?»'
W
1
i
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
?
1
«
0.7
2
kv
u.y
i
i
IV
fill02TIRES |
V
Vi
\i
1
o
7.1
0
2,7
U7
7
^.7
V
%7
^•i
«d
~T
V/
?,7
. _
Jl CONDITIONS |
4
If
4
?
0
V
0
?«7
1.7
1
V
i
4*
iu.v
i
<•.:
i!
]
J
_,.
__
_.
'
—
—
-
~
"-
_
L
-
1
—
1
i
_
I
00
-------
Table IV-2 (Continued)
SOLID WASTES PROBLEM DATA
Ratings identical for all wastes
in category shown
TOXICITY
Scored by: 0. Mengle, Dr. C. Einert, W. Lewis
N. J8 h B
CONDITIONS $«°
UNKANAGED
MAN/.GSD:
STORAGE
Spread
Piled on ground
Piled on slabs
Container - open
Container - closed
TRANSPORT
Closed
PROCESSING
Grinding
Spray irrigation
Incineration
Open burning
Composting
Lagooning
DISPOSAL
Landfill
Buried
Plowed into ground
J|l GARBAGE 1
1
1
1
1
9
1
J,
0
0
y
i
0
0
1
0
o
a
t/i
o
M
Q
M
(M
?
f
f
p
1
o
2
1
0
1
1
0
J,
1
•>
2
T? MIXED GARBAGE 1
1
1
1
1
o
1
1
0
i
A
0
0
1
K STREET REFUSE 1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
o
J.
V
1
0
0
1
0
'\5 DEAD AHIMALS |
0
p
1
?
1
0
2
1
1
1
1
}
0.
0
2«5
i^
1
U?
1
u
0
0
— — ~
i\9 SPECIAL WASTES |
1)
*•">
't.'t
'*>'?
i1}
^
J.1?
}.•?
2,1;
___
1 "S3H 'XVSHI 39W3S Oil11
i
i.
i.
Oi
a"
i.
0.
u.
1
u.
1
u
0
0.1
i
i
EH
1
H
n
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
u
u
~o~
Er
L
1
1
rj
H
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
o
1
X
H
0
0
0
n
p
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
o
o
-U
1
O
08
e
i.
.
i ^
Oil
1
1.1
0.")
1.1
}
1
\1
ll1?
L>'
1
•U£
'l
n,
1
1
1
o
9
1
a
0
i
Q,1?
i,
<^i
A.
•>»
1,
'i
u
EH
EH
B
jL
J,1!
1
1
1
o
0
1
0.
0
1
Jf1?
0
I),S
!V2
•».i>
1
's
-1-
0
n
1
0
9
0
i
i
i
i
i
i
o
1
0
1
cc
z;
oO
-^
l
i
i
i
o
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
o
i
1
J|S7 FRUIT & VEGETABLE |
_1_
1
1
1
0
o
9
0
0
0
0
n
n
o
D
0
1
I
S.
i
i
0
1
0
n
i
0
i
0
i
i
i
i
u
1
1
£
2
1
9
0
1
1
1
n
1
1
1
J,
0
1.
g
(0
e
i
0
Q
9
9
0
0
0
0
n
n
o
D
u
V
&
a
a
g
ON
^
2
2
1
9
9
1
2
1
1
2
n
n
LO
°|92 VSGETABLE OILS |
/.
2
2
?
9
0
l
l
l
l
p
f
n
1
1
^
-193 TALLOW 1
1
1
1
1
9
0
1
1
n
n
l
l
n
l
l
g
M
oil
2
J-
CTv
U
U
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1)
(1
0
I
PC
It
It
•},
1
1
\
^.
?
?.
?.
\
?
J.
2,
JL
^98 PLASTICS |
1
1
1
1
1
0
?
0
1
1
n
l
n
A
i
0
J.
-•199 MASONRY WASTES j
1,
1.
I.
0
a
0
2
1.
1.
L,
1
o
0
n
1
0.
u
"BDOMETALS .
2
2
2.
2
0.
0
2.
1
?.
^
?.
?
1 i;
I.1
2
—
E
2
2
i
2.
0.
0
pm
?
1
1 .
1
,
1.
2
i.
—
0 Lo2TIRES
u
1
1
0
0
0
1
n
1
2
n
0
n
0
1
0
1
til CONDITIONS
V
It
It
2,
1
0.
4.
^.
?,
•^
?.
p,
1
2
2
^*^
~|
lH~
t-H-
i
!
U
I
Oo
Ui
-------
I
uo
Table IV-3
BASIC BAD EFFECTS SCORES
Flies
GAKbAbt;
RtS RUi:»lirl
MIXtO GA.OAoL
STRfctT rt.ri.SL
DEAD A^MMLo
AdANUUN V.IH1L
DcMJLITIuN
CQNSTKUi.rl.iN
SPECIAL
SEHAGE Trt SLbo
WATER T.< j^Co
ASHcS •
HUMAN rnC.L i 4
CPc.N
UPEN
BARLEY
BEANS DKY
CORN
COTTON Ll.vT
COTTON SE-U
HAY.
OATS
ALF.A.LFA
RICE
SArFLUrfliR
SORGHUM
SUGAR d-EcTS
WHEAT
CPEN
OPEN
UHtN
OPEN
CPEN
OPEN
UPEN
BEANS
CABEAub
CHINESE VLGi
SHEET CJ.j.l
U.U
o.u
11.1
O.J
O.u
J.J
0.0
0.0
u.U
U.J
J.O
U.O
6. U
U.U
O.J
U.O
U.O
0.0
U.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.U
J.J
o.o
0.0
9.0
o.u
U.J
U.O
11.1
15.0
0.0
J.O
0.0
0.0
u.u
12.9
0.0
U.J
O.J
O.J
SPKAY J!>-1.
UPEN CLOSE GRIND IRKlG INCIN
O.J
O.U
J.O
U.J
0.0
J.U
u.u
u.O
u.O
O.U
O.J
U.O
0.0
U.O
U.O
O.J
U.O
J.J •
O.J
U.O
U.J
0.0
U.J
J.O
J.J
J.U
0.0
U.J
0.0
0.0
J.O
U.O
u.O
J.U
O.J
O.o
0.0
J.O
J.U
J.U
o.U
o.o
u.O
o.u
O.J
J.J
0.0
u.U
J.O
J.J
J.U
J.J
0.0
0.0
o.u
0.0
0.0
0.0
U.O
0.0
U.O
0.0
o.u
0.0
0.0
U.J
0.0
0.0
J.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.u
0.0
o.u
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
U.O
U.O
0.0
U.O
0.0
0.0
U.O
o.u
U.O
U.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
J.O
0,0
0.0
u.u
o.u
U.O
0.0
U.O
o.u
0.0
0.0
O.U
0.5
U.3
0.0
1.4
0.0
J.U
0.0
1.4
U.O
U.O
U.O
1.2
J.I)
0.0
u.u
u.u
0.0
'J.O
0.0
0.0
J.O
0.0
J.O
o.u
0.0
0,7
0.0
0.0
0.0
U.O
U.O
0.0
J.O
J.O
0.0
0.0
J.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
J.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.J
u.u
6.2
u.u
0.0
0.7
O.J
0.0
U.O
1.2
o.u
o.u
o.u
2.1
O.u
u.O
J.J
U.O
0. J
J.J
J.J
U.J
0.0
.0.0
o.u
o.u
O.J
U. 7
O.J
0.0
O.U
0.0
O.J
J.J
O.J
J.O
O.J
0,0
0.0
J.J
0.0
o.u
U.J
U.u
o.u
U.J
O.J
U.O
0.0
o.o
0.0
O.J
O.J
J.U
U.u
O.J
J. )
0.0
U.J
J.U
J.U
U.J
0.0
U.J
O.u
u. J
J. J
J.J
J. J
J..I
•1 . J
'J.O
J.J
J.U
J.O
o.y
U.J
O.i.'
O.J
J.J
U.U
o.e
J . J
J.O
u.u
J.U
O.J
o.u
U.M
0, J
J. 't
J.U
J.O
0. J
.) . 0
J.J
J.J
o.u
U.J
J.J
.).;)
J.O
J..1
O.J
U.J
UU'-!\
12.2
f>. .1
9. i.
i.'l
14. cl
u.O
U.D
J.J
11.1
11.1
J.U
.1.0
12./
J.J
' • 0
U. '
'.' • U
!. 1
U.o
J.I.
U.O
I.'J
1. 1
J.U
U.u
•). J
U.I
„'.')
.1 . U
O.J
.' .1.
0.0
<>.o
0..;
O.u
.J.J
12.1.
U.J
O.J
J.U
IV .0
U.I
• J . 0
J.J
J.J
o.u
J.J
Ll.'J
U.U
': . u
.1.1.
J.O
i.JMST LAGu'N
U.J
- J . J
o . ' j
I,1 . 0
J.J
O.J
U..I
J.U
J.J
U.ll
n .O
J . 1 1
U. 0
J . 1
O.J
•J.'J
U.J
IP.']
i. J
o.U
u.O
'.<. J
U.J
J.J
0. 1
J.J
0. J
U.J
J.J
J.J
J.O
'J.J
O.J
O.J
J.O
O.J
.0.0.
•J.O
O.J
u.u
J.J
J.J
0.0
0.0
o.o
J.J
J.J
J.J
U.O.
0.0
J.'J
u. J
U.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.J
o.u
0.0
U.O
o.u
0.0
U.J
0.;)
O.J
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.J
o.u
0.0
U.O
o.u
O.J
J, J
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.J
0.0
. 0,0
u.u
o.u
0.0
O.J
0.0
0,0
0.0
J.U .
J.J
11. J
J.O
O.J
O.J
o.u
U.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
U.J
o.u
O.J
LAND
FILL
0.0
o.o
J.O
o.o
o.u
0.0
o.u
0.0
O.J
O.J
J.J
0.0
o.u
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.u
U.I)
O.J
J.J
0.0
0.0
O.J
0.0
O.J
0.0
0.0
O.J
O.J
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.J
O.u
J.O
o.u
0,0
0.0
0,0
J.J
J.U
J.U
O.J .
J.U
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
J.U
0.0
O.I)
BURY
9.9
6.2
9.2
3.9
9.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.9
3.9
U.O
0.0
6.2
0.0
0.0
O.U
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
U.O
0.0
0.0
0,0
J.O
0.0
0.0
o.u
0.0
0,0
0.0
o.u
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
0.0
0.0
U.O
2.3
6.9
0.0.
O.J
0.0
0.0
U.O
5.3
0.0
O.J
0.0
U.J
UPEN
DUMP
25.0
lo.5
22.5
13.5
25.0
6.0
0.0
0.0
25.0
23.5
0.0
O.J
25.0
U.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
15.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
U.O
0.0
22.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.5
25.0
0.0
o.u
0.0
0.0
0.0
23.5
J.O
0.0
0.0
o.u
PLUW
INTO
GRO
3.9
1.7
3.2
1.7
2.2
6.0
o.o
o.o
3.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
4.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.Q
0.0
o.o
0.0
U.O
0.0
1.9
0.0
J.O
J.O
2.6
1.3
o.u
0.0
o.o
0.0
o.o
2.2
0.0
U.O
0.0
0.0
PIT
OISP
11. 5
6.9
10.3
3.9
9.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.2
6.9
0.0
0.0
9.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-------
I
u>
BAD EFFECTS
RANKING
INDUSTRIAL
SUB-REGION
FLIES
OTHER INSECTS
RODENTS
PLANT DISEASE
ANIMAL DISEASE
HUMAN DISEASE
WATER POLLUTION
AIR POLLUTION
LAND POLLUTION
TOXICITY HAZARDS
SAFETY HAZARDS
ODOR
UNSIGHTLINESS
Table IV-4
BAD EFFECTS RANKING
0 /
/
i
12
10
11
35
10
15
100
45
40
50
60
30
20
-------
OJ
00
BAD EFFECTS
RANKING
MUNICIPAL
SUB-REGION
FLIES
OTHER INSECTS
RODENTS
PLANT DISEASE
ANIMAL DISEASE
HUMAN DISEASE
WATER POLLUTION
AIR POLLUTION
LAND POLLUTION
TOXICITY HAZARDS
SAFETY HAZARDS
ODOR
UNSIGHTLINESS
Table IV-4 (Continued)
BAD EFFECTS RANKING
12
10
11
30
10
25
100
60
50
40
70
20
15
-------
I
OJ
BAD EFFECTS
RANKING
INTERFACE
SUB-REGION
FLIES
OTHER INSECTS
RODENTS
PLANT DISEASE
ANIMAL DISEASE
HUMAN DISEASE
WATER POLLUTION
AIR POLLUTION
LAND POLLUTION
TOXICITY HAZARDS
SAFETY HAZARDS
ODOR
UNSIGHTLINESS
Table IV-4 (Continued)
BAD EFFECTS RANKING
0 /
12
10
11
30
12
30
30
35
100
60
35
25
35
70
15
10
-------
-------
Table IV-5
ESTIMATED CONTRIBUTION OF SOLID WASTES TO
BAD EFFECTS BY SUB-REGIONAL CATEGORIES
BAD KFFECTS
(# OF TOTAL CONTRIBUTION)
CONTRIBUTORS INDUSTRIAL MUNICIPAL INTERFACE
AGRICULTURAL
HUMAN DISEASE
Ingestion )bacteria,
Inhalation)virus,
Contact )fungi, etc.
Food, water, air,
social intercourse,
cuts, wounds, toxic
materials, infected
animals, solid'wastes
ANIMAL DISEASE
Similar to human
disease
1%
2%
5%
20%
PLANT DISEASE
(Crop Damage)
Infected plants (liv-
ing), air pollution,
toxic materials, i.e.,
herbicides, pesti-
cides, noxious weeds,
wild animals, rodents,
solid wastes, insects
1%
2%
5%
Solid wastes
10056
OTHER INSECTS
Liquid wastes, stag-
nant water, edible
foods, solid wastes
30*
20$
-------
Table IV-5 (Continued)
ESTIMATED CONTRIBUTION OF SOLID WASTES TO
BAD EFFECTS BY SUB-REGIONAL CATEGORIES
BAD EFFECTS
CONTRIBUTORS
INDUSTRIAL
MUNICIPAL
INTERFACE
AGRICULTURAL
RODENTS
Edible food, growing
plants, solid wastes
50*
1*0*
30*
20*
WATER POLLUTION
Agricultural chemi-
cals, sewage (liquid),
industrial processes
(liquid), solid wastes
20*
30*
50*
80*
AIR POLLUTION
Auto emissions, indus-
trial processes,
natural dusts, solid
wastes (incineration,
open burning)
20*
30*
ifO*
60*
LAND POLLUTION
Poor drainage, sewage
(liquid), agricultural
chemicals and fertil-
izers, industrial
processes, solid wastes
50*
10*
10*
10*
TOXICITT HAZARDS
Stored chemicals,
industrial processes,
liquid wastes, agri-
cultural chemicals,
solid wastes
1*
5*
7*
10*
-------
Table IV-5 (Continued)
ESTIMATED CONTRIBUTION OF SOLID WASTES TO
BAD EFFECTS BY SUB-REGIONAL CATEGORIES
BAD EFFECTS
CONTRIBUTORS
INDU3TRI i
MUNICIPAL
INTERFACE
AGRICULTURAL
SAFETY HAZARDS
Industrial processes,
traffic hazards, home
accidents,vrecre-
ational activities,
solid wastes
Industrial processes,
water pollution (X),*
air pollution (X),
solid wastes, commer-
cial endeavors
UNSIGHTLIN3SS
Neglected structures,
power and telephone
lines, water (X) pol-
lution, air pollu-
tion (X), land pol-
lution (X), weeds,
solid wastes, bulk
material, storage
(X) Contributors are also bad effects.
-------
Table IV-6
' INFLUENCE COEFFICIENTS, BAD EFFECTS
Relative
Bad Effects Importance
Flies
Other insects
Rodents
Air pollution
Water pollution
Human disease
Animal disease
Crop damage and
plant disease
Odor
Unsightliness
Safety hazards
Toxicity
Land pollution
Flies
Other insects
Rodents
Air pollution
Water pollution
Human disease
Animal disease
Crop damage and
plant disease
Odor
Unsightliness
Safety hazards
Toxicity
Land pollution
35
10
15
40
45
100
5
2
30
20
60
50
3
30
10
25
50
60
100
5
3
20
15
70
40
8
Relative Con- Weighted
tribution of Relative
Solid Waste Importance*
Industrial Subregion
100
50
50
20
20
1
1
1
5
10
5
1
50
Municipal Subregion
100
40
40
30
30
2
2
2
10
20
10
5
10
3500
500
750
800
900
100
5
2
150
200
300
50
150
3000
400
1000
1500
1800
200
10
6
200
300
700
200
80
Influence
Coefficient**
0.082
0.012
0. 017
0. 019
0.021
0. 0.02
0
0
0.003
0.005
0.007
0.001
0.003
0.070
0. 009
0.023
0.035
0. 042
0.005
0
0
0.005
0.007
0.016
0.005
0.002
* Throughout Table, weighted relative importance = relative importance times
relative contribution of solid wastes.
**Throughout Table, influence coefficient = weighted relative importance normalized.
IV-44
-------
Table IV-6
INFLUENCE COEFFICIENTS, BAD EFFECTS (Continued)
Relative Con- Weighted
Relative tribution of Relative
Bad Effects Importance Solid Waste Importance*
Flies
Other insects
Rodents
Air pollution
Water pollution
Human disease
Animal disease
Crop damage and
plant disease
Odor
Unsightline s s
Safety hazards
Toxicity
Land pollution
Flies
Other insects
Rodents
Air pollution
Water pollution
Human disease
Animal disease
Crop damage and
plant disease
Odor
Unsightline ss
Safety hazards
Toxicity
Land pollution
30
12
30
35
60
100
35
30
15
10
70
35
25
30
15
45
10
60
100
80
75
5
3
70
25
50
Interface Subregion
100
30
30
40
50
5
5
5
40
30
5
7
10
Agricultural Subregion
100
20
20
60
80
10
20
15
80
40
1
10
10
3000
360
900
1400
3000
500
175
150
600
30.0
350
245
250
3000
300
900
600
4800
1000
1600
1125
400
120
70
250
500
Influence
Coefficient**
0.070
0.008
0. 021
0.033
0.070
0.012
0.004
0.003
0.014
0.007
0.008
0. 00.6
0.006
0.070
0.007
0. 021
0.014
0. 112
0.023
0.037
0.026
0.009
0.003
0.002
0.006
0.'012
* Throughout Table, weighted relative importance = relative importance times
relative contribution of solid wastes.
''"'Throughout Table, influence coefficient = weighted relative importance normalized.
IV-45
-------
Table IV-7
TOTAL WEIGHTED BAD EFFECTS SCORES
HASTE RES RUBBISH
SUB REGION MUNICIPAL
UNMANAGEO
SPREAD
PILEC ON GRD
FILED ON SLB
CCNT OPEN
CuNT CLOSED
TRANS OPEN
TRANS CLOSED
GRINDING
SPRAY 1RRG
INCINERATE
CPEN dURN
COMPOSTING
LAGOCNING
LANDFILL
BURIED
LPeN DUMP
PL4. IN tRC
PIT DISPOSAL
FLIES
0.60
0.07
0.94
0.69
0.78
0.48
0.0
0.0
0.03
0.01
0.0
0.44
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.43
i.i&
0.1*:
0.48
nATER
POLL
0.26
0.19
0.17
0.06
0.01
0.0
O.G1
0.0
0.0
0.35
0.14
0.2B
0.19
0.69
0.19
0.23
0.47
0.28
0.50
AIR
POLL
O.C7
0.14
0.27
0.12
0.07
0.01
0.14
0.00
0.19
0.26
0.26
0.75
O.C5
0.09
O.C
0.01
0.43
0.03
C.C2
RODENT
0.41
0.11
0.52
0.52
0.18
0.01
0.01
0.0
0.03
0.07
0.0
0.14
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.57
0.02
0.05
HUMAN 1
DISEASE (
0.05
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.0
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.02
0.07
0.01
0.0
XMMA
3ISEA
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
l.v
IThER
iS£CTS
0.14
0.09
0.16
0.16
0.13
0.06
0.08
0.03
0.06
0.06
0.01
0.09
0.00
0.02
0.31
0.02
0.16
0.06
0.07
SAFETY
HAZARDS
0.21
0.14
0.19
0.19
0.06
0.03
0.10
0.02
0.06
0.13
0.06
0.36
O.C6
0.21
O.C3
0.07
C.17
0.07
0.05
ODOR
0.09
0.09
0.07
0.05
0.03
0.00
0.02
0.0
0.01
C.01
0.01
C.09
0.00
c.oo
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.02
0.03
PLANT
DISEASE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
LAND
POLL
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
3.02
0.03
0.0
0.0
0.02
0.02
0.0
0.03
0.0
0.0
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.03
UN
SIGHTLY
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.10
0.06
0.0
0.10
0.0
0.07
0.03
0.01
0.12
0.02
0.04
0.00
0.01
0.11
0.06
0.01
WEIGHTED
TOXIC
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.0
0.04
0.02
0.0
0.01
0.01
0.0
0.00
0.01
0.04
0.02
O.U1
3AO
1
2.09
1.06
2.56
2.20
1.41
0.64
0.47
0.05
0.55
0.97
0.53
2.35
0.36
1.07
0.29
0.85
3.33
0.74
1.24
EFFECT
2
1.81
0.67
2.39
2.14
1.40
0.64
0.46
0.05
0.55
0.63
0.38
2.06
0.17
0.37
0.09
0.62
2.37
0.46
0.74
NOTE O.NDER «EIGnTED SAD EFFECT CCLUMN 1 CONSIDERS WATER POLLUTION IS POSSIBLE COLUMN 2 CONSIDERS WATER POLLUTION NCT POSSIBLE
-------
Table IV-8
SUMMARIZED BAD EFFECTS SCORES, WATER
POLLUTION CONSIDERED POSSIBLE
VJJ KKGtUN INDUSTRIAL
v.A.:oMti ';
i'Lj ivULulSn
I'lA.L iHlKuriut
:>IiU.:l Ktfi-SE
CtAL, rtnlNAL'j
/lr.,li*l,..i>i VI: HiL
bL.'.I.LITIuN
LLKj IKUU 1 1C.\
ii>'-UlAL
Jl lAut IK aLUO
/.Alt A IK iLC./
•I JhC -J
lU.nAn htut5
L^LN
l.Pfc*
ilAXLlY
otANi OKY
Lu.--H
LP ...
wp .,»
\.r i t
ut/.ih
iVitCl fLlAl'jLj
ICMA'fUcj
'ILgXftlC.!
VtuLUiiL^i
uH.-H
Li1'. ,
UNMAN
3.06
I. U
2. GO
1. o 3
i.i7
u.7'.
u.Jl
O.o2
2.1)1
2. '.9
O.ul
U.'tO
l.Vi
0.0
u.o
J.ol
U.'JB
0.93
0.33
U.bJ
U.JO
u. uy
V,.'.. .'
U.'.l
j . .»•»
XJ..I 1
1..1V
J.ol
U.U
O. U
J. U
o.u
o.U
'. . J
O.U
w • 3'J
1.61
U. J /
u..;'/
J. > 1
t.t'l
l.j.)
u . J •'
J. 0 7
o.j V
J. ) 1
U.'. >
..->/
0 . o'J
U. u
u. J
...o
SPRIJ
0.93
0.74
U.S3
o.".S
1.12
o.:i<*
0.41
L.i",
1.11
u.l'i
L.3u
u.^3
I. IV
0.0
0.0
O.^tb
u.-iS
«.«
L.llj
C.43
C.^a
L< • *J^
O.'l'>
L.'iU
u.'l'j
L.^I-J
U. *t3
L.tU
l/.li
iJ. U
U.O
t.o
I,. I)
I/.U
L.U
1^. O J
J . Cj t
G.oO
L.uO
L.tlJ
o.r;
I,.OU
t.oo
t.liJ
i-.oO
(,.1-J
U.oO
c.VJ
u.cu
(-. J
V..J
O.'.I
PILEW
ON
OKU
3. .It)
1...-J
3 . '* •,
l.HJ
0. JO
0.^0
2.*-)
2.62
C.41
0.35
3.22
0.0
u.O
0.63
O.u'i
I.t6
U.o.'
0 .c4
U.uf
'J.ob
L.aO
u;6 J
U.o4
u.o1
3.^2
0.37
0.8S
0.43
2.6o
Z.45
0..15
0.32
2.95
0.0
U.O
J.39
J.OO
l.ll
u. ljd
O.bO
J.6J
O.u'i
Uao
0.5V
U.60
O.oO
uao
J. JV
0.0
0.0
O.o
J.O
O.u
o.o
J.u
O.S4
i. 70
U.Vt
0.-J4
U. St
2.61
2.,,7
u.94
U.'M
0.94
J.9J
o.
U. 36
0.43
u.39
0.0
0.0
U.O
0.0
U.O
u.O
u.O
0.31
1.49
0.1)1
0.31
O.tU
l.l'i
2.3^
o.at
O.'Jl
O.til
0.79
O.dl
2.1)
U. Jl
U. J
o.O
0.0
f' ~" T
-
j
1
4
3
I.b3
0.1 1
0.12
0.11
1.42
U.dl
0.10
0.05
1.19
0.0
0.0
0.05
0.03
0.03
O.Jj
o.OJ
U. ^/J
U.O3
O.'J j
U.u)
u.03
0.03
0.0't
u.ui
U.O
0.0
O.u
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.12
o.a?
0.12
0.12
u.12
1.0>
1.33
0.12
O.ld
0.12
U.12
u.12
1.19
0.12
U. J
o.o
0.0
TKANS
UPEN
O.S2
0.32
0.49
0.3i
0.34
0.1)
0.20
0.27
0.24
0.31
0.17
0.27
0.63
o.o
o.o
0.07
0.09
0.09
0.04
0.09
0.09
o.ov
0.09
.1.07
0.0V
0.09
o.ov
U.O7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.O
0.0
0.0
0.47
0.44
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.44
0.47
0.47
U.4/
0.47
0.44
0.47
0.44
0.47
U.U
o.o
O.U
TKANS
CLOSK
0.06
0.05
O.Oo
0.04
O.Od
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.10
0.0
0.0
O.OJ
U.O'J
o.ou
0.00
U.wU
o.uo
0.00
0.00
J.OO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
c.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
O.U>
0.05
0. 05
0.0'j
0.05
0. J3
0.05
0.03
0.05
0.0
O.'J
0.0
JKlNL)
0.54
0.39
0.47
0.31
0.74
0. Ib
0.22
0.20
0.49
0.36
0.25
U.27
0.64
0.0
0.0
0.2H
0.25
C1.25
0.25
0.25
0.2i>
0. 2S
U.2U
0.2d
0.25
0.25
0.34
0.28
C.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.46
0.47
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.47
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.48
0.46
0.0
0.0
0.0
iPRAV
IKKIG
O.d3
0.59
0.72
0.41
0.96
0.1*
a. 12
0.11
C.7U
0.42
0.34
0.27
0.97
0.0
0.0
0.3d
0.39
0. 3'J
0.34
0.3J
0 . 3'J
0.43
0.43
0.3.1
0.39
0.39
0.49
0.3S
O.U
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
U.65
0.63
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.63
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.6b
0.64
0.65
0.64
0.65
0.0
O.J
0.0
INCIN
0.34
0.28
0.29
0.27
0.3d
0.32
0.2.)
0.24
0.39
0.33
0.27
0.16
0.48
0.0
0.0
0.28
0.29
U.2M
0.2 i
0.29
U.2S
0.2')
0.19
U.2d
o.2'y
U.29
0. 29
0.28
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.J
0.30
0.33
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.33
0.3J
0,30
0.30
0.3U
0.31
0.3U
0.33
0.3u
0.0
0.0
O.U
UPEN
BURN
2.29
1.65
1.96
1.07
2.62
0.99
0.72
0.74
2.11
1.75
0.75
0.36
2.22
0.0
o.o
0.70
C.dO
l.lo
O.hi)
J. .10
u. -Ju
O.LCJ
1.113
0.70
U.'Ul
o.uo
1.0^
o. ru
0.0
O.U
o.o
o.o
O.o
O.u
o.o
O.J8
2.14
0.98
0.9B
0.9B
•2.31
l.'JV
O.l6
u.>>8
C.iS
1.J1
0.98
2.40
0.99
0.0
0.0
0.0
COMST
0.20
0.19
0.1?
0.14
0.33
0.08
0. Oo
0.04
0.36
0.17
0.19
0.07
0.29
0.0
0.0
O.U
0. 12
0.12
U. Lt
1.12
0.1^
0.14
0.14
u.12
0. 12
'J. 12
0.14
U. 13
U.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0. 11
r. 12
u. 11
u.ll
o. U
0.13
0.11
0.11
u.ll
0.11
0.12
j. 11
u.n
0.11
0.0
u.o
0.0
LAUuN
0.65
0.55
O.oi
0.47
0.50
0.0ft
0.07
O.C7
0.63
0.46
0.39
0.12
0.64
0.0
0.0
0.25
0.27
0.27
0.^7
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.2b
0.27
0.27
0.29
0.25
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.45
0.31
0.43
0.45
0.45
0.52
0.43
0.45
O.V>
0.45
0.44
0.4s
0.52
0.45
0.0
0.0
0.0
LANO J
FILL
0.27
0.17
0.23
0.15
0.32
o.n
.0.11
0.11
0.31
0.1 3
0.13
0.13
U. 30
0.0
0. J
0. 10
0. 10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
o.o
O.J
L.O
0.17
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
J. 11
0.17
0.0
U.O
0.0
't
' BUKY
1.18
0.76
1.10
0.56
1.26
0.25
0.15
0.15
1.24
O.S9
0.19
0.15
0.91
0.0
0.0
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
O.U
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.22
0.43
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.43
0.78
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.68
0.22
0.0
0.0
0.0
OPEN
DUMP
3.81
2.78
3.52
1.97
3.82
1.18
1.23
1.22
3.22
2.89
0.75
0.51
3.44
0.0
0.0
0.88
0.96
1.78
0.89
0.96
0.96
1.00
1.82
0.88
0,96
0.96
2.23
0.88
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.46
3.32
1.46
1.46
1.46
3.24
3.51
1.46
1.46
1.46
1.46
1.40
3.40
1.46
0.0
0.0
0.0
PLOW
INTU
G*U
0.92
0.55
0.72
0.45
0.80
0.34
0.31
0.31
0.79
0.39
0.19
0.27
0.89
0.0
0.0
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.18
0.18
0.22
0.18
0.0
0.0
u.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.36
0.52
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.57
0.46
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.34
0.36
0.56
0.36
0.0
0.0
U.O
PIT
OISP
1.56
1.04
1.47
0.72
1.62
0.50
0.37
0.33
1.14
1.05
0.30
0.34
1.48
0.0
0.0
0.26
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.22
0.22
0.64
0.26
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
1.16
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.47
0.41
0.0
0.0
0.0
-------
Table IV-8 (Continued)
SUMMARIZED BAD EFFECTS SCORES, WATER
POLLUTION CONSIDERED POSSIBLE
KcvlUN INOUilRlAL
00
LPtN
UPcN
UPuN
ALNUNoa
APKIoU 1 S
ELSHBLrWUi
FIGS
UKAPthKOI 1
GKApLi
LEMONS
NECTARlNci
LLlVtS
LRANttS
I'bACh L j
PbKSl^irilj.'o
PLLHj
PCMbbRANAlLJ
STRAhotKH 1 C j
WALNUT b
IJPbn
UPLN
OPEN
CPEN
CATTLE rtANUKt
ShfctP MANOi»c
HUG fANUiic
HCRSc MANUKi
ChlLK MAiSuKc
TUKKcY MA.NOKE
PIutLiN MANURE
RABBIT MANURE
L'PiEN
UPcN
CCITLN TRASH
FKUIT ANL Vtt
PLLLIKY
ANIMAL
KILK SCLlLS
iPlRITi
VLOtT OILS
TALLUn
TEXTILLi
nUUU PKUOoCTS
LHcMlCALS
CbTRCLtUM
PLASIICi
KAiONAKY
ME1ALS
^biiUS
I Mb S
U.NrtA 1
o.O
O.O
j.O
0.30
1.67
0.33
1.45
1.23
1. id
!.<.
o. . •»
J..J-,
O.O
0.0
O.U
U.U
2.d4
I. 11
2.37
1.57
<:.b2
1.20
1.77
1.J7
O.U
U.O
1.0')
2.62
3.04
3.05
1. 72
2.2d
1.51
2.67
O.o4
0.57
0.*7
O.dO
U.4U
0.7o
U. 7d
I.o4
O.Jo
iPKO
L'.O
U.O
o.U
L.33
C. 46
0.35
o.S7
0.41
0.43
U.40
0.59
C. J5
u.t7
L. 3S
0. 3J
L.fJ
L. J3
L . 3 J
0.43
u.O
0.0
O.U
0.0
o.dO
L.56
O.t'l
C.56
C.54
0.54
U.57
0.56
0.0
0.0
0.15
O.o8
1.13
1.15
0.50
0.62
0.35
C.91
0.22
0.31
0.7b
0'. 70
0.29
C.31
0.33
0.42
o. J5
ULEO
UN
GRO
0.0
O.U
0.0
2. 39
0.64
2.0V
1.86
2.17
1.00
2.35
C.t4
1.90
t .94
C.o4
2 .ol
O.o4
o.c4
1.3V
U.O
0.0
0.0
O.J
j.25
1.93
<.9l
i .ft 1
2.o7
2.02
2.12
2.28
U.O
U.U
1.27
3.16
3.27
3.33
1.85
2.48
i.47
*.90
0.00
C.65
C. 79
0.09
0.^3
O.d5
0.84
2.22
C.S5
PILEt
UN
JLAitS
0.0
0.0
O.U
0.51
2.24
U.oO
1.9o
1.74
2.UJ
1.74
2. 38
0.60
1.79
^. 75
O.ou
2.44
u. Ou
.J.bU
1. )J
J.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0^
1.76
2.08
2.58
2.66
1.84
1.94
2.08
U.O
0.0
1.20
2.92
3.0d
3.1U
1.66
2.24
2.32
2.b7
0.53
0.56
0.6U
J.59
0.15
0.78
J. 75
2.00
O.b2
CUNT
OPEN
U.O
0.0
0.0
0.40
1 . 44
0.33
1.00
O.o2
1.4d
0.62
1.4d
U. 33
U. 50
1. 79
0.33
1.44
'J.3j
0. j3
0.40
0.0
U.O
U.O
U.O
1.76
0.82
1.4a
1.46
1.64
1.08
1.37
1.2J
0.0
U.O
0.58
1.94
2.2o
2.26
l.bd
1.62
1.47
1.91
U.09
0.10
0.35
U.35
U.O'J
U.2U
0.2V
1.08
0.61
CONT
CLOSi
O.U
U.O
0.0
O.O3
0. 7u
0.04
0.41
0.29
0.65
U.2V
0.7-5
0.04
O.4.,
0.47
0.04
U. 72
O.O t
J . u 4
o.U3
0.0
0.0
O.U
0.0
O.o4
0.42
0.04
O.H4
0. ?2
0.67
0.71
O.o7
0.0
0.0
0.30
0.85
1.32
1.32
1.06
O.V3
U.5d
1.2B
0.04
0.02
0.11
0.10
0.03
0.06
0.11
U.29
U.Oo
TXANS
uPbN
O.U
U.O
O.o
O.OS
0.27
o. Ib
0.23
U.15
U.27
0.13
0.27
U. Id
0.15
0.33
O.ld
0.27
j.ltf
0.22
0.03
0.0
O.I)
0.0
0.0
0.38
0.37
0.3J
0.33
0.37
0.33
0.32
0.35
o.o
O.U
0.19
0.31
0.51
0.50
0.23
U.27
U.14
0.31
0.07
0.10
0.31
0.28
0.07
O.ld
0.22
O.lo
0.11
TRANS
CLOSE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
U • 01
0.01
0.01
O.J1
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.U1
u.ul
O.U1
0.01
o.ou
J.O
0.0
O.U
0.0
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.0
0.0
0.01
0.03
0.11
0.12
0.02
0.07
0.01
O.Ob
0.01
0.0
0.02
0.01
o.ol
0.02
0.05
o.Ol
u.ol
OR1NU
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.26
0. 36
0.30
0.35
O.i9
0.30
0.21
0.35
0.30
0.31
0.39
O.JO
0.36
0.30
0.39
0.27
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.U
U.52
0.3B
0.40
0.3d
0.39
0.39
0.38
0.38
U.O
0.0
0.30
J.46
0.66
0.63
0.43
0.39
0.22
0.37
0.23
0.23
0.43
0.38
U. 2d
0.21
0.15
0.31
0. JO
jPRAY
IRKIo
0.0
0.0
0.0
U.4c>
U.4o
0.52
0.45
0.4o
0.4p
0.50
0.46
0.4V
0. j'j
0.46
0.51
0.4U
0.59
0. 4o
0.0
0.0
0.0
U.U
u.od
0.55
0.57
0.55
0.61
U.35
0.54
0.58
0.0
0.0
0.42
0.64
0.84
O.d4
o.oo
0.67
0.52
O.o4
0.20
0.22
0. 7o
0.66
0.47
O.lo
0.24
0.55
0.09
1 ML 1 ,
o.o
0.0
o.o
0.27
0.2J
0.25
0.2:.
0.2 5
0.25
0.2d
0. ?*!
0.25
o. 2J
U.25
U.2.)
0.2"
L. 2 J
0.2')
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.34
0.2U
0.2V
0.2b
0.30
0.2)
U.2C
U.2)
U.U
0.0
0.2b
u.3<;
U.43
U.43
0.38
0. 32
U.20
U.29
U. Id
U.2U
0.3V
0.2d
O.J7
0.03
0.05
0.13
U.42
I.PhM
•)|J'',N
'...)
U. J
0.0
0.00
0. -.V
1.41
1. ;±
\ . 71:
1. 3/
I.c4
U . v^>
!.•>!
.'.l.i
•j.j'y
1.V3
O.oV
U. )•/
O.'.V
0.0
O.J
U.O
o..:
.'•.37
1.21
2.<*f>
l.'il
2. 3>>
1 .56
1 . .«.
1 . >!/
0.0
O.J
1.02
2.17
i. 55
2. 5o
1.71
2.01
1.22
^.01
o. 70
t.'>5
0. I't
0.95
1.05
0. 14
'J. 3^
1.19
l.')4
LJ-.ST
I..C
0.0
U.O
O.OV
0. J I
0. 11
>.U 1
1,. ')•)
u.Oi
O.lO
o. C'J
0.11
J. 1.'
•J.O/
0. 10
0. J'l
o.OV
.1. -J-i
J. J
y.O
'). 1)
J.O
o.2 J:
J.21
-.20
'.20
0.19
0.2U
0. 20
'.i.2U
u. 0
U.O
0. 15
0.23
0.23
0.2'j
0.26
0.20
o. 12
1. . >1
0.11
u. 13
0.37
0.22
0.21
0. L'o
(. . n>)
•„• . 1 • j
•j. i'i
LAo ;N
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.33
0.30
0. V
0. ., >
0. ..'
O.fO
0. ) <
0.3t
0.^1
0. -» 3
0.40
0. )*
0 • 4 J
0.3 1
0.0
0.0
0.0
U.O
O..il>
0. TJ
0. 35
O. 5-j
0.59
0.36
0.56
0.5o
0.0
0.0
0.43
0.61
0. Jl
0.7'/
O.o)
0.52
0.3d
0.64
0. In
0.23
0. 73
0. 72
0.45
0.09
0.* *
0.51
0.09
l^1J
r ILL
O.ii
<:.'•>
O.J
J. U
J. 14
o. 14
.. It
•i. It
•J. 14
. 1 .
'..I'.
... 14
u. r;
• :. !••«
U. 14
0.14
.). 14
o.U
u. J
0. J
(J. )
0.0
I/ . X J
0. >. 1
0.2-
0. i )
0.21
0. 14
•J. 1 -I
0. 19
0.0
U.O
0. 11
u. Ib
n. ^5
0.22
U. }.'.
O.I/
0.13
u. 17
O.Ot
0. 06
0. 3o
O. jl
0. 13
o. J7
u. 14
0.22
o. jg
.',U'. ~> 1
o. 17
u. n
j. 17
l . 1 1
•1.17
0. i i
0.51
J.I 7
0. i 7
0.1 7
j.17
0. 11
0.0
0.0
0.0
-.0
1.15
0.6d
l.o»:
0.--.7
1.03
0. 7o
0.02
U.66
U.U
O.U
0.24
0.75
O.'i'/
U.o5
J.50
O.r.)
0.77
0.84
(1.05
O.OS
0.4h
0.43
0.22
0. 12
0.21
U.55
0.13
OPEN
DUMP
0.0
).0
0.0
U.7')
.1.B7
2.3J
2.11
2.3b
.!.!!
2.74
0.87
2.13
3.15
J.>J7
2.79
0.87
0.94
1.61
0.0
J.O
O.O
0.0
3.64
2.?5
3.16
3.07
3.24
2.24
2.55
2.52
0.0
0.0
1.67
3.44
3.64
3.61
2.13
2.85
2.62
3.21
0.83
0.97
0.94
0.9'J
O.HO
0.93
0.95
2.49
1.13
PLUn
u, ro
oRO
o.c
o. 0
J. J
0.23
I). <2
0.24
J.29
0.24
0. 4^
0.25
0.2H
u.45
0.25
0.32
0.25
0.25
0.27
0.0
O.U
O.o
O.J
0.55
0.35
0. 'J2
0.4R
0.54
0.36
0.46
0.51
0.0
0.0
0.29
0.43
0.67
C.72
0.25
0.44
0.27
0.46
0.15
0.14
O.'i 4
O.-.^)
O.J 5
0.22
U. 32
0.29
0.22
PIT
OISP
0.0
0.0
U.O
U.34
0.32
0.32
0.45
0.32
0.32
C.32
0.32
0.32
0.36
0.36
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.33
0.34
0.0
0.0
O.U
0.0
1.14
0.66
0.83
0.75
1.19
0.66
0.60
0.79
0.0
0.0
0.32
0.71
1.03
0.96
0.50
0.59
0.29
0.80
0.15
0.15
0.58
0.58
0.29
0.33
0.43
0.42
0.35
-------
Table IV-8 (Continued)
SUMMARIZED BAD EFFECTS SCORES, WATER
POLLUTION CONSIDERED POSSIBLE
Ml* to ljAn!/.l
bTXt t I i'1-1 L
LtAL A.sMul.
UtHULl I il.'v
UC.N:; IKoo r 11.
I.',
M
tAiiLiY
[. t AN o l.l> 1
ULr.N
LLl It ., Llisl
ULITLU -cio
r.;.Y
ALrAU >
il'.rl- li./ii. <
•-P...V
Ll'Lrt
UftH
ChlNLjL. Vtoj
ok,ltl UOHN
LUOUMlJCKj
MtLUNi
ivOA^n
ihctl (':.
HIMA TJ..J
PlLLD PILiio
SPKO uKO SLAtij
SUM KcoIUN MUNICIPAL
oUNf Ouuf TRANS TKANS SPRAY
li,-u I CLu^k OPcN CLOSE ORINU IRKlG 1NCIN
OPEN
BUKN CONST LAGQ.N
LANO
I-ILL
BUKY
PLOW
OPEN "INTO PIT
DUMP GRD DISP
VLGLIAdLdi
UPLN
.i.35
...J9
J.I*
I.j7
J. 7;'
1.0-)
1. lo
1.1 >
i. .J
.. . j J
0.91
U. v -t
.) . i i)
o • o
o . 0
O.'i )
1.. t 1
J... J
O • J
>. . V 1
w.'yj
L. *i.
O. VL»
O.ll
... J
J. J
U.u
0. J
0.0
J. \i
1.40
.?.U4
1.10
1 . -1 0
1.10
2.00
l.tu
1.1J
l.'iJ
1 .M'J
1 .U
.;. 'io
1.10
j. J
O.O
0. >
1.4O
1.06
1.37
C. 79
1.94
1..51
u. a 1
o. )J
l.CJ)
U.Jo
U. oie
0.33
1.7d
O.O
O.U'
0. /4
o . 7o
u. to
„' . li 7
U . /o
u. 70
I. . dl
o • /o
u • )5
u. 7o
L. 7u
0. 7 .
t. . .»!>
o.O
O.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.O
o.O
0.^5
1.C1
O.S5
o.95
u. 96
0.95
(-.95
O.^5
u .S j
U.Vt
0.9 J
l.Oo
... >j
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.05
2.56
j.46
1.77
3.i;5
0.53
I .s.l
O.fa3
3.£j
i . 73
U. 73
0.5t
3.38
0.0
0.0
u. JI-.
l.ol
1. 71
0.97
l.ol
l.ul
1.L7
1.17
0.9U
l.Jl
1.01
i. U
U.sM
O.-J
o...
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.u
0.0
1.47
3.09
1.47
1.47
.'1 1
.',7
.'» 7
.15
.'t 7
J.ls
I.i7
O.O
O.o
U.O
3.33
2.20
3.22
1.5<<
3 • 'Jri
-..46
1.12
O.SB
2.bu
2. 3 J
O.o2
0.33
3..:i
0.0
0.0
0.90
0.94
1.60
O* J i
t. 9't
O.Vi
U. VJ
1.96
U . 'i J
^.•>1
0. 14
l.SJ
J. 90
0. J
J.O
0.0
O. J
J.O
0.0
0.0
1.42
2.93
1.42
I.i2
3.07
1.42
1.42
1 . 1 1
l.'ll
l.i 2
l.Jl
1.4.'.
J. J
0. J
0.0
,.57
1. tl
2 . 46
1.20
£. • J'*
u.2/
0. 1'J
U. Jo
2.11
1.130
0.40
0.32
*.3H
0.0
0.0
0.5')
0. 5o
0. 50
J . 5 t
0. 'jo
u. 50
0. UO
I. LI
u. i»9
j.Uo
,;.56
o. o(3
J.59
o.O
J.O
J.O
0. J
0.0
•J.O
0.0
1.09
2.0o
L.U9
1.09
1.09
2. JH
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.07
1.09
2.2(i
l.o J
0. J
';. 0
0. J
U Jo
O.u4
1.2.0
0.75
1 . jj
u. 1.2
.J.ll
0.11
1.2J
0. Io
O.lo
0.09
1.16
O.O
U.O
O.oi
O. O3
O.UJ
0. 04
0. J5
0. J3
o. J2
o.i7
0. 01
O.J3
0.03
0.0.3
O.O4
J.O
O.O
0.0
u.O
u. J
0.0
0.0
0.14
0. H
0. 14
0.14
0. 14
1.19
0. It
0. 14
0.14
0. l-i
J.I >
l.ob
0.14
0.0
o.U
O.O
0.73
0.47
u.o 7
0.45
•0.1)3
O.lu
0.3J
O.lo
0.43
0. 5 j
0.32
0.47
0.96
0.0
0.0
0.13
O.lo
O.lo
J.16
J. lO
0.16
J. Io
0. 16
0.1:.
0.16
0.16
J.lo
J.13
0.0
J.O
O.U
0.0
o.O
0.0
0.0
u. i.4
O.iiO
O.u4
0.04
0.64
U.ol
o.6't
O.o4
u.64
0. uO
0.»4
0.59
0. J1
0.0
u.O
0.0
0.07
0.05
0.07
0.03
0.11
0.02
0.04
O.Ol
o. Ob
0.07
O.05
0.02
0.13
0.0
O.U
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.JO
o.oo
J.JO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
J.O
0.0
J..)
U.J
0.')
0.0
o. Ot
0. J'J
•J . UO
o.Jo
0.06
0. 00
0. J6
.1. JO
U.06
J.Ou
O.O6
0. J5
0.00
.J.O
O.U
0.0
0.85
0.55
0.69
0.40
1.14
0.26
0.37
0.35
0.7o
0.63
0.45
0.47
O.97
0.0
O.o
0.47
0 . 4 i
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.42
0.42
0.52
0.47
0.0
U.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.). 74
0.7u
0.74
J. 74
0. 74
J. 74
0. 74
0. 74
0.74
0.7J
0. 74
0. -JO
0. 74
0.0
0.0
u.O
1.40
0.97
1.23
0.66
1.62
0.21
0.19
0.17
1.22
0. 79
0.03
0.4S
1. 34
J. J
0.0
o.o 7
u. 71
o. 71
0. J\
o. 71
0.71
0. 7ci
0.7o
u.67
0.71
0.71
O.B1
O.o7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0. J
0.0
0.0
1.09
I.UJ
1 . J'J
1.09
1.0 J
l.'JJ
1.09
l.ul
I. OS
. Ori
.09
..17
.J'J
.0
0.0
o.O
0.64
0.53
0.54
0.32
0.73
0.62
0.43
0.4 7
0.77
0.63
0.5l
0.^5
0.91
0.0
U.J
0. 32
0.51:
0.1 i
0. 3 f.
0. V»
0.5 J
0.5')
0.35
0.52
0.5J
0.5S
0.55
0.52
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.O
0.0
0.0
O.J
0.55
U . L> j
0.>3
0.5V
0 . ', -i
U.5 J
0.5 >
0. 'j'j
0.13
0 . '. -i
O . 'j J
O.o..
(J. J 3
U.'J
0.0
0. J
2.99
2.35
2.63
1.70
3.33
1.66
1.2H
1.30
2. 'JO
2.30
1.34
0.58
2.d9
0.0
0.0
1.23
1. :>£
1.64
1.36
1 . i J
1. 18
1.'.')
1. >7
1.23
1. 53
1.38
2.06
1.2i
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.o
0.0
J.O
1,. ^ t
2'. ir>
1. >'.
1. .1.
1. 35
,, . ,J
. 35
. 1'j
. 3*»
.')U
. >'J
. J.n
1.5'.
0.0
O.'l
i). .1
0.38
6.36
0.34
0.27
0.61
0.14
0.11
0.06
0.73
0.34
0.37
0.12
0.54
0.0
1,. 0
0.24
...24
•1.24
I..23
o. 2V
0.24
0.26
o.26
0.24
0.24
o.^'«
o. 2u
0.
0.29
0.29
0. )(J
0.29
0.31
0.29
U.O
0.0
0.0
1.36
0.85
1.25
0.66
1.52
0.44
0.23
6.23
1.49
0.76
0.33
0.26
1.15
0.6
0.0
0.24
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.24
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.36
0.67
0.36
0.36
0.36
Ou 7
. 3 /
0. HI
0.36
0.36
0.16
0.36
0. 3.)
0.71
0.3o
0.0
0. J
•J.O
4.53
3". 3 3
4.20
2.35
4.59
1.79
1.84
1.83
3.72
1.27
1.37
0.89
4.06
0.0
0.0
1.44
1.60
2.30
1.46
1.60
1.60
1.66
2.36
1.44
1.60
1.60
2.71
1.44
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.21
3.U2
2.21
2.21
2.21
J-JL
• I O
3.96
2.21
2.21
2.21
2.21
2.21
3.90
2.21
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.24
6.74
0.93
0.56
1.20
0.49
0.42
"0.41
1.15
0.58
0.32
0.45
1.15
0.0
0.0
0.33
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.31
0.32
0.32
0.37
0.33
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.56
0.72
0.56
0.66
0.66
07t
. 1 0
0.65
0.56
0.36
0.56
0.64
0.56
0.7B
0. 3b
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.80
1.24
1.74
0.89
2.09
6.81
0.54
0.46
1.56
1.28
0.55
0.63
1.75
0.0
0.0
0.47
0.42
0.42
0.41
0.42
0.42
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.42
0.42
0.80
0.47
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.66
0.67
0.66
0.66
0.66
OA 7
• Of
1.31
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.67
0.66
0.72
0.66
0.0
O.O
0.0
-------
Table IV-8 (Continued)
SUMMARIZED BAD EFFECTS SCORES, WATER
POLLUTION CONSIDERED POSSIBLE
SUd KtblUN MUNICIPAL
Ul
O
LPeN
UPtVi
Lft.N
ALMONCS
APRICOTS
tiLShHtKRItS
FIGS
GRAPEFRUIT
GRAPHS
LEMONS
NECTARINES
OLIVES
URANGcS
PEACHES
PERSIMMONS
HLUMS'
PCHEGRANATtS
STRAhttckKlbS
WALNUTS
OPEN
OPe.N
LPfcN
OPEN
CATTLE MANURE
bHtEP MANURE .
hLG MANUrtc
t-LrtSi MANURE
OHlLK rtANUKt.
TUrSKLY MANUI-L
PlGtLN MANG(>.-
kABBIT MA.^JRt
CPclv
GPtN
CL.TTI..N TK«SH
FRU1I ANO Vcli
PCULTRY
AMMAL
MILK JUL1CS
iPIRIIi
VfcGEl ulLS
TALLOW
TEXTILE^
nCUU PRJJUols
ChcMlLALS
Pt IRCLcuM
PLrtSTICo
f'AiLIWHV
ft TAL5
iEi-Ub
1 Kt j
UN.1AN
U.O
O.J
0.0
0.77
1.82
0.87
1.67
1.47
I. 38
1.45
l.bU
0.67
1.H7
2.11
0.87
1.77
0.07
0.87
1.07
0.0
O.U
0.0
0.0
3.32
1-64.
^•92
2.37
2.'.U
1 . 7j
2.19
2.2o
0.0
0.1J
1. Jl
2.08
3.57
3.61
t.Ul
2.J/
1. 70
2.9 =
0.96
U.92
1.37
1. tij
U.uJ
I.x4
L. 1 3
i.oi
1.19
SPKu
0.0
O.U
0.0
0.53
0.64
0.53
u.76
0.49
0.02
0.57
0.75
0.55
0.67
O.dO
0=55.
0.66
0.55
0.55
0.60
0.0
0.0
O.U
0.0
1.31
U.98
1.08
o.sa
0.92
O.'J'j
0.99
0.9d
O.o
0.0
0.02
O.So
L.5b
1.49
O.d<:
(..•id
0.59
1.2-J
0.32
u.53
1.45
1.27
0.47
0.4o
D. J4
•.,.72
u.td
PILED
UN
GRU
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.'>4
2.40
u.99
ic • 2 3
2 . o .1
2.2B
2.03
2.C3
C.9v
2.08
3.00
C.99
2.68
C.99
C.99
1.54
U.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.64
4.29
3.14
3.04
3.07
2.39
£ .HO
C.3II
O.O
O.d
1.44
3.3d
i.SO
3.70
2.04
2.74
2.49
3. OS
O.d2
0.97
1.52
1 .^8
C.37
I. 09
I.i7
2.49
1.04
PILED
UN
SLA8S
O.U
0.0
o.O
O. Ib
2.29
0.91
2.08
1.88
2.1Z
1.88
2.45
0.91
1.94
2.80
U.91
2.49
0.91
0.91
1.42
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.34
2.04
2.83
2.74
2.83
2.13
2.2o
2. jl
0.0
O.J
1. 10
3.07
3.3!
3.4<:
1.7d
2.JU
2. 3o
2.77
0. OO
U.dl
1.17
1.10
U.24
1.00
1.J3
2.17
1. J2
CUNT
OPEN
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.So
1.42
U.50
1.09
0. 73
1.46
0.7J
1.53
U.50
1.00
1.81
0.50
1.48
0.50
0.50
O.So
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.04
1.06
1. 49
1.49
1.77
1.29
1.52
1.4u
O.O
U.O
J. 7J
2.01
i.43
J.46
1.02
I. Id
1.42
1.96
J. 14
O.lo
J.o7
0. 60
U.I 4
0.24
'...37
1.24
0. /4
CUiMT
OLUSd
0.0
O.U
U.O
0.03
O.u9
0.06
0.3d
U.27
0.75
0.27
0.72
0.06
0.42
0.88
0.06
O.oo
0.06
O.U6
0.03
0.0
U.O
O.U
0.0
0.81
0.44^
0.84
0.8U
O.dd
0.37
0.09
O.O3
O.U
0.0
o.jo
O.ou
1.22
\.ii
o. n
0.03
0.33
1 . 1 'j
O.U-J
O. u2
0.20
0.1 1
0. Jj
O. J3
0. 11
0.2J
0.03
TRANS
OPEN
U.O
0.0
0.0
O.U9
0.38
J.32
U.35
d.2Y
0.38
0.27
0.38
U.3>.
().3o
0. 5 o
O.S'j
U.58
0.55
0.55
0.50
0.0
O.U
U.54
0.60
0.82
0.79
0.71
0.59
0.40
0.55
0.35
0.40
0.78
0.56
0.72
U.Oo
0.11
0 . 2 -,
O.ol
I'lPLf'
"JUO
O.'J
O.u
O.'J
1.13
.'..13
l.ld
1 . 7V
1. 71
2.10
1. 7i
i ..)(.
1.1.,
1. JB
<'.53
l.ld
2.12
l.lo
l.le
l.lc
0.0
O.o
0.0
u. J
2. -*9
1.09
2.77
2.48
2. Ml
2. IB
2.43
2.51
0.0
O.J
1.71
1.11
3.2;.o
ll.U
'1.0
.. l.i
u.l 1
0. 1.J
..21
J. 19
.11
). 1 1
u.2D
0. Id
). 21
0.23
0. 11
0.20
0. 1 1
t
.'. l-l
1 •. 0
.'. -i
l.O
'j.O
o.4>
0.41
0.40
0.39
0.36
0.40
0.40
0.40
C.O
>J. 0
J.4.4
•1.43
,.41
0.41
0.51
0.37
o. 24
0.43
0.2j. 1
0. J
O.J
0. lu
U. 35
0. 13
0.35
0.3-J
0.34
0. 34
0.34
0.0
U.O
0.1'J
U.34
O.'l3
U.41
0.21
0. 33
0.26
0.3u
0. J4
0.09
C.'i9
0.39
0.2(^
0. I 1
U.23
0.41
0.12
BURY
U.U
0.0
0.0
0.28
0.48
0.32
0.41
0.33
U.53
0.33
0.37
U. 32
0. 3fl
0.61
o.3/:
0.41
0.32
0. )2
0.2.-1
O.d
U • ij
O.'J
O.u
1. It
'J . :'. -1
1.25
l.O,
1.22
0.91
0.81
0. 38
0.0
U.U
J.39
0.87
1.10
1.06
0.43
0.7o
0.84
0.98
0.05
0. 12
0. -ii
U.S j
0. 37
.). U
0.3d
0.75
0.20
OPEN
pJUMP
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.26
2.90
1.45
2.68
2.51
2.72
2.51
3.04
1.45
2.57
3.44
1.45
3.U8
1.45
1 . 5 •:
1.9o
0.0
J.O
U.O
J.O
i.19
2.77
1.5d
3.47
3.66
2. 79
1.01
2.98
U.O
U.U
2.18
3.92
4.31
4.26
2.58
1.27
2.81
3. 70
.27
.53
.83
.86
.40
1.27
1.42
3.02
1.67
PLOW
INTC1
GRO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.40
O.'jO
0.45
0.42
0.43
0.48
0.43
0.52
0.45
0.48
0.69
0.45
0.32
1.45
0.45
C.46
•J.O
O.u
U.O
O.U
0.8?
0.61
0.79
0.72
0.80
0.64
J.71
0.74
0.0
0.0
0.42
0.49
0.94
0.99
C.45
U.65
0.46
O.fll
U.22
Q.2O
1.02
0.89
0.39
0.25
0.46
0.31
0.29
PIT
OISP
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.64
0.61
0.61
0.75
0.62
0.61
0.62
U.61
0.61
0.68
0.68
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.64
0.64
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.48
1.02
1.19
1.09
1.49
1.02
0.97
1.12
0.0
0.0
0.61
0.99
1.48
1.37
0.86
0.88
0.52
1.13
0.24
0.25
1.14
1.11
0.52
0.45
0.67
0.79
0.47
-------
Table IV-8 (Continued)
SUMMARIZED BAD EFFECTS SCORES, WATER
POLLUTION CONSIDERED POSSIBLE
SUB REGION INTERFACE
PILtU K1LCU PLOW
UN Oil (.UNIT CONT TRANS TRANS SPRAY OPEN LAND OPEN INTO PIT
UNMAN iP.-U) u^l) iLAJS UPtN CLUic UP EN CLOSE GRIND IKRIt. INCIN BURN COHST LAGON FILL BURY DUMP uRD DISP
GAKBAL.C
RES RUMUISH
MIXuU UAKuMbt
STREtT *;HUSt
LEAD ANIMALS
ABANDON VtHIL
DEiHULlTlLN
CONSTRUCTION
SPEC IAL
SfcnAGE IR SLUu
HATEK IK SLOU
^SHt j
UHAN t-tCliS
OPtN
UPLN
BARLEY
BEANS JKY
CCRN
CUITLN LINT
CuTTUN SEtl.
HAY
OATS
ALHALHA
RICE
SAFFLUrtEK
SORGHUM
SUGAR uLcTS
WHEAT
UPLN
uPEN
u'PLN
UPb.N
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
bEANS
(.ABBAJjti
CHINESE VE'GS
SWEET CORN
CLCUHBERS
MELONS
CN10NS
PEPPERS
RADISHES
ROMAJNE
SQUASH
SMEET PUTATUtS
TOMATOES
TURNIPS .
VEGETABLES
OPtN
UPEN
4.03
2.52
3.cb
Z.td
4.23
1.45
l.J/
1.31
4.14
3.26
l.<2l
U. 9 J
\. c.1
O.J
u.O
L.JJ
1.29
1.59
1.22
1.27
1.29
1.J7
I.j7
I.JO
1.29
1.2'J
1.97
I.JO
u.O
O.J
o.u
u.O
U.O
O.J
.0.0
1.70
2.32.
1.70
1.70
1.70
2.d3
2.30
1.7J
1.70
1.70
1.70
U.70_
3.14
1.7U...
o.o
0.0
0.0
1.7*
1 .42
I.d2
1.29
2.35
0.6o
c.95
C.9C
z.kl
1.14
C.73
0.74
z.JO
c.o
0.0
1.00
1.02
1.02
0.91
1.00
1.02
1.10
1.02,
0.92
1.02
1.02
1.U2
0.92
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.U
U.O
U.O
U.U
1.20
itiy
1.20
1.20
1.20
I.JO
1.2U
1.20
1.20
.1.20
1.17
1..ZO
1.29
l.ZU
0.0
0.0
o.u
4.UO
2.d2
j.86
2.1u
4.15
0.75
1.4o
C. 92
3.71
2. So
0.91
0.79
4.C7
0.0
U.O
1.24
1.27
1.97
l.zl
1.25
1.27
1.J3
2.03
1.24
1.27
1.27
2.38
1.24
o.o
J.O
u.O
O.o
U.O
0.0
0,0
1.67
-1..26
1.67
1.67
1.67
3.18
3.42
1.67
1.67
1.67
1.65
. 1.67
3.J2
1.67
0.0
0,0
o.u
J.6J
2.36
3.48
1.77
3.71
U.61
1.29
0.77
3.09
2.75
U.71
0.68
3.55
o.o
o.o
1.09
• 1.12
1.78
1.07
1.11
1.12
1.18
2.16
1.09
1.12
1.12
2. Ib
1.09
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.U
0.0
O.O
.y.o
1.53
3j.U3..
1.53
1-53
1.53
2.96
3. Id
1.53.
1.53
1.53
1.52
. 1.53
3.10
2.b9
1.53
2.53
1.30
2.94
0.31
0.51
0.47
2.23
1.71
0.40
0.35
2.5J
0.0
U.U
U.67
0.65
0.65
0.62
U.63
0.63
0.73
1.25
0.67
0.65
0.65
0.73
0.67
0.0
0.0
0,0
U.O
0.0
o.u
0,0
1.12
2,04-
" 1.12
.1,12
1.12
2.09
2.41
.1.12
1.12
1.12
1.10
1.12
2.26
1.53...J..1Z
0.0
0.0
0.0
U.O
0.0.
0.0
1.40
U.69
1.'23
0.78
1.51
U.lb
O.lb
o.is
1.32
0.79
0.16
O.U8
1.17
0.0
0.0
0.07
0,03
0.08
O.Od
0.09
O.Od
O.U8
0.51
O.Od
0,08
O.Od
0.09
0.08
0.0
0.0
0,4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
O.lb
-0...80.
0.16
0.16
U.16
0,95
1.21
Q.-16
Q.16
0..16
0.16
U.16
1.U8
.0.16.
O.U
0.0
0.0
0.70
0.46
0.66
"U.47
0.78
0.17
0.37
0.35
0.45
0.51
0.31
U.50
O..9d
0.0
0.0
0.17
0.21
0.21
0.19
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.17
0.2.L
0.21
0.21
6.17
0.0
0.0
0,0..
0.0
0,0 .
u.o
0,0 _.
0.58
0«54_
0.58
0.5d.
0.58
Oj.52
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.34
. 0.58.
0.54
.U..5.B...
O.U
0.0
0.0
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.07
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.05
U.04
0.03
o'.oi
0.11
U.O
0.0
0.00
0.00
o.oo
o.uo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.60
.P..OO...
0.00
0.00
0.00
0..0
o.o
0,0
6.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.04 "
-0.04 _
0.04
0..04
0.04
0.04
0.04
O...Q4
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
-0.0.4
0.0
0.0
U.O
0.94
0.67
0.79
0.58
1.13
0.31
0.47
0.43
0.92
0.68
0.46
0.47
1.03
0.0
0.0
0.57
0.52
0.52
0.51
0.50
0.52
0.57
0.57
6.57
1.87
1.24
1.59
6.83
1.91
0.34
0.30
0.29
1.62
1.00
o.ai
0.54
1.92
o.u
o.o
0.88
0.92
6.92
o.ai
0.90
O.V2
0.97
0.97
o.da
U.52 0.92
0.52
0.62
6.57
0.0
6.0
oto
o.o"
0.0
0.0
0,0..-
0.81
-0-.JLL
0.81
O.ai
o.ai
0.8.1
0.81
0.8.1
U.81
0.81
O.BO
0.91
0.83
0.81.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.92
1.02
O.B8
0.0
0.0
U.U
"6 To
o.o
0.0
O.u
1.21
.~1.».19.
1.21
.-1,21
1.21
1.18
1.21
1.21
1.21
1.21
1.2U
1.21
1.19
. .1.21
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.69
0.60
0.59
6.58
0.77
0.61
0.49
0.50
0.89
0.65
0.33
0.29
U.9-J
U.O
U.O
0.59
0.62
0.62
0.59
O.oi
0.61
0.62
U.62
0.59
O.b-d
0.62
0.62
0.5'J
0.0
0.0
O.J
0.0
o.u
0.0
0.0
0.59
0-.&2
0.39
0.59
0.59
0.62
0.59
U.59
0.59
uT59
0.68
0.39
0.62
0.3'J
0.0
0,0
U.O
3.13
2.54
2.84
1.94
3.55
1.78
1.48
1.50
3.31
2.50
1.42
0.72
3.19
O.o
0.0
1.52
l.hfc
1.92
1.05
1.6b
1.66
1.73
1.86
1.32
1.60
1.66
2.35
1.52
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.U
U.Q
1.76
2.78
1.76
1,76
1.76
2.93
2.53
1..J6.
1.76
1.76
1.79
^.76
3.02
i.76
O.U
0.0
0.0
0.48
'0.46
0.3d
0.39
.0.73
0.16
0.09
0.07
1.07
0.39
0.39
0. 15
0.73
0.0
u. 0
0.34
U.34
0.34
0. \i
0.34
0.34
0.36
0.35
0. 33
0.34
0. 3
-------
Table IV-8 (Continued)
SUMMARIZED BAD EFFECTS SCORES, WATER
POLLUTION CONSIDERED POSSIBLE
SOU REGION INTERFACE
Ul
GPeN
OPEN
OPEN
ALMONDS
APRICOTS
BUSHBERKIES
FIGS
GRAPEFRUIT
GRAPES
LEMONS
NECTARINES
OLIVES
ORANGES
PEACHES
PERSIMMONS
PLUMS
PCMEGRANATtS
STRAWBERRltS
WALNUTS
GPEN
OPEN
CPEN
OPEN.
CATTLE MANURE
SHEEP BANUEE.
HOG MANURE
HORSE MANURE
CHICK MANURE
TURKEY MANURE
PIGEON MANURE
RAtJBJT MANURE
OPEN
OPEN
COTTON TRASH
FRLJJ.ANC VEIJ.
POULTRY
ANIMAL.
MILK SOLIDS
SPIRITS
VEGET OILS
TALLCh
TEXTILES
WOOD PRODUCTS
CHEMICALS
PETROLEUM
PLASUUS
HAS.DNARY
METALS
ittDS
TIRES
PILED PILED
ON ON
UNMAN SPRD GRO SLABS
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6.0 0.0 0.0 O.O
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1.19 0.84 1.14 0.99
2.17 0.94 2.70 2.45
1.24 U.S6 1.25 l.ll
2.01 1.06 2.46 2.24
1.85 C.90 2.29 2.08
1.93 0.92 2.52 2.29
1.83 0.68 2.29 2.08
2.14 1.05 2.64 2.59
1.24 U.86 ' 1.25 1.11
1.84 0.97 2.34 2.13
2.42 1.06 3.18 2.91
1.24 C.86 1.25 1.11
2.10 0.96 2.87 2.62
1.24 0.86 1.25 1.11
1.24 U. 85 ""1.25 1.11
1.50 0.92 1.85 1.66
0.0 0.0 6.6 0.6
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3.78 1.66 3.94 3.45
2jJ.8_U3.8 2.65 Z*ll
3.40 1.45 3.47 2.98
2.90 1.38 3.39 2.91
3.36 1.27 3.37 2.98
2.26 1.36 2.73 2.29
2.74 1.39 i.82 2.37
2.81 1.38 2.94 2.A8
6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
o.o 0,0 p. o y.o
1.53 0.83 1. 56 "l. 42
.. -3.«a_l,.39.. 3.64 3.19
4.10 1.95 3.87 3.52
-. 4.JL8. i.,98 .4.0.0 3.58
2.45 1.26 2.36 1.96
2.85 l.?7 2-93 2.55
1.99 0.89 2.68 2.48
3.46 1.68 3.33 2.94
1.23 0.50 0.90 0.86
1.33 0.91 1.22 0.95
2.74 2.11 2.11 1.45
2.05 1.72 1.64 1.30
1.24 0.87 0.63 0.42
. -lu3_7._.Q,.74...J.26 .1,08
1.09 0.98 1.52 1.26
2.67_ 1.33 2.V5 2.4.3
1.66 0.67 1.21 1.16
CUNT CUNT
OPhN CLOSt
0.0 0.0
0. 0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.70 6.08
1.53 0.73
0.64 0.09
1.19 0.41
0.87 0.30
1.57 0.79
6.87 0.30
1.59 0.75
0.64 0.09
i.13 0.47
1.86 0.90
0.64 0.09
1.53 0.69
0.64 0.09
0.63 0.11
0.71 0.08
0.0 0.0
0.0 O.O
0.0 O.O
0.0 0.0
2.06 0.84
_JUli..0.43
1.66 0.85
. 1,68 0,83
1.84 0.90
1.36 0.69
1.61 0.73
X-5_3 0.69
0.0 0.0
_J>.0 0.0
0.75 "6.32
<:.06 . Q.8.2
2.50 1.22
2,51 . U22
1.85 0.98
1.75 0.86
1.54 0.59
2.03 1.2.0
0.19 0.08
0,26. 0,07
6.88 0.23
0.76 0.17
0.25 0.07
. 0,_29_ 0,09
0.60 0.2O
_. 1.41 0.32
0.84 0.08
TKANi
OPuN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.13
0.37
0.32
0.34
0.27
0.37
0.27
0.37
0.32
0.27
0.39
0.32
0.37
0.32
0.39
0.14
0.0
o.g
0.0
0.0
0.54
0.52
0.50
0.51
0.54
0.51
0.50
0.51
0.0
0.0
0.33"
P. 39
0.64
0.64
0.41
0.33
0.26
0.43
0.12
0.22
0.65
0.55
0.16
0.24
0.37
0.31
0.12
PLfJH
TRANS SPKAY OPEN LANO OPEN INTO PIT
CLUSE GRIND IRRIG 1NCIN BURN CCMST LAGUN FILL BURY DUMP GRO OISP
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.i) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 O.O 0.0 0.0 0.0 C.O 0.0 O.J 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.00 0.51 1.07 0.63 1.49 0.27 0.97 O.41 0.50 1.72 0.69 .04
0.01 0.62 1.12 0.54 2.35 0.27 0.97 0.42 O.o8 3.34 0.76 .00
6.01 0.58 .09 0.54 1.41 t/.27 0.97 0.43 0.53 1.92 0.74 .00
0.01 0.62 .15 0.54 2. Ill u.29 1.00 0.42 0.61 3.12 0.78 .14
0.01 0.57 .08 0.54 1.96 U.2B 0.90 0.43 0.53 2.98 0.72 .01
0.01 0.57- .03 0.54 2.33 0.27 0.93 0.42 U.73 3.17 0.75 .00
0.01 0.56 .00 0.54 1.9<> 0.2d 0.96 0.43 0.53 2.98 0.72 .01
0.01 0.61 .10 0.57 2.2:> J.28 1.05 0.41 0.55 3.47 0.77 .00
0.01 0.58 .09 0.54 1.41 0.27 0.97 0.43 0.53 1.92 0.74 .00
0.01 0.59 .12 0.54 2.12 0.30 0.99 0.42 0.59 3.04 0.75 .06
0.01 0.64- .16 0.57 2.o8 0.31 1.06 0.43 0.82 3.84 0.90 .06
0.01 . 0.58 .09 0.54 1.41 0.27 0.97 0.'»3 0.53 1.92 0.74 .00
0.01 0.62 .11 0.57 2.46 0.28 1.O5 0.41 0.70 3.50 0.77 .00
0.01 0.58 .09 0.54 1.41 0.27 0.97 0.43 0.53 1.92 0.74 .00
O.Ol 6.73 1.31 0.54 1.42 0.27 1.01 0.43 0.53 2.04 0.72 .03
0.00 0.54 1.09 0.66 1.52 0.27 0.97 0.42 0.51 2.43 0.75 .04
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.J 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 U.O 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.06 0.91 .41 0.65 1.06 0.56- 1.54 0.55- 1.49 4.58 1.10 1.91
0,06 0,74 .25 0.59 1.99 0.53 l.4d Q.54 1.09 3.25 0.92 1.47
0.07 0.75 .27 0.59 2.87 0.53 1.49 0.34- 1.43 4.02 1.07 1.62
0.06 0.74 .25 0.59 2.58 0.53 1.50 0.54 1.25 3.95 1.03 1.55
0.06 0.75 .36 0.63 3.03 0.45- 1.60 0.60' 1.43 4.14 1.12 1.98
0.06 0.75 .25 0.59 2.27 0.53 1.50 0.53 1.10 3.26 0.94 1.48
0.06 6.74 .24 0.59 2.53 U. 53 1.50 0.53 1.03 3.50 1.02 1.43
0.06 0.74 .27 0.59 2.61 0.53 1.50 0.53 I.p9 3.47 1.04 1.57
0.0 0.0 .6 0.0 0.0 U.O 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
.. 0.0 0.0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.02 0.56 .01 0.62 1.34 0.36 1.20 0.35 0.59 2.56 O.d5 1.02
0.03 0.69. .30 0.6..' 3.20 0.59 1.62 0.5} 1.09 4.34 0.78 1.43
0.10 0.99 .74 0.86 3.47 0.52 2.08 0.70 1.39 4.67 1.26 2.08
0.11 0.97 .77 g.83 3.41 0.54 2,07 0.64_ 1.32 4.76 1.27 1.94
0.03 0.66 .34 0.78 2.43 0.68 1.67 0.30 0.67 2.86 0.77 1.38
0.06 0.59 .36 0.63 2.69 O.43 1.30 0.50 0.95 3.60 0.91 1.27
0.01 0.38 .24 0.44 1.83 0.29 1.04 0.43 1.09 3.30 0.81 0.91
0.06 0.55 .31 0.60 2.80 0.53 1.75 0.45 1.22 4.23 1.09 1.65
0.01 0.45 .35 0.34 1.32 0.27 0.42 0.09 0.14 1.43 0.40 0.44
0.0 0.52 .54 0.46 1.30 0.36 0.65 0.18 0.25 1,98 0.40 0.46
6.03 0.96 .05 1.02 2.30 1.16 2.14 1.14 1.39 2.64 1.60 1.81
0.01 0.86 .72 0.65 1.99 0.57 2.09 0.96 1.23 2.55 1.35 1.82
0.01 0.67 .18 0.84 2.28 0.53 1.38 0.45 0.69 2.05 0.73 0.90
0,02 0,47 0.42 0.09 0.42 0.20 0.27 0.21 0.36 1.55 0.42 0.76
0.06 0.29 0.75 0.18 0.69 "o.l« 0.78 0.44 0.70 1.90 0.80 1.12
0.02 0.67 1.42. 0.30 1.75 0.31 1.57 0.74 1.15 3.67 0.94 1.33
0.01 0.54 0.16 0.34 2.07 0.13 0.17 0.22 0.3« 1.99 0.48 0.71
-------
Table IV-8 (Continued^
SUMMARIZED BAD EFFECTS SCORES, WATER
POLLUTION CONSIDERED POSSIBLE
SUU REGION AGRICULTURAL
I
Ul
OO
UAKbAo.
i-!c j rtU. .11 Jh
C.IXcL ..ArtuAul
SlrtLkT Ki-fLSi:
bcAu AHlCALS
AcANLLN VtHL
OeMULI fluN
CLNSTRUCI1UN
SPECIAL
SEnAGt TK oLOo
hATfcH IR bi.Uk
AiHcS
HUMAN hcui-j
uPt'-i
LPtil
tAULtY
UEANS UKY
LLKN
CLfTLN LINT
UjllCN SCLU
hAY
L'ATS
ALt-ALHA
Mot
oAFt LL.»I«
sLKuhUM
SlibAK jccTj
nhLAT
LPt-N
UFol
LPciM
U*' C .'<
LlHL.<
LPl.«
l.PtN
CLANS
LAubAi L
LhlNLSt. VLi.S
Ski-.: 1 uUKi\
CLUUl'HLiO
PLLLIVS
CML.hj
f'LPPtKjj
HAL'lShL 3
ROHAINc
SQUASH
SVlCt 1 KulAlLi-j
ItMATUui
TtMNIHi
VtGtIA.-iL.:.)
LPtN
CI'i.N
UNMA*
,.?5
j..:!
4. 4'i
J./4
3. Jo
l.uV
1.97
1 ... 7
3.0!
j.97
1.40
O.J7
5. ..7
U.J
J.O
2.00
1.93
2.<13
1. 74
1.7<>
1.95
2.03
2.0i
2.00
1.^3
1.S5
t.OJ
2.00
u.O
O.J
U.O
0.0
0.0
0...
0.0
t.ti
t.J4
2.4 J
<:.<: i
<-.29
J.4U
2. Si
t.2'<
d.2J
2.29
2.2v
2.2 y
.1.71
-. t -
J.O
U.U
o.O
SPKU
^.3V
i . •; j
2.35
2.H
d. 73
O.S5
1 .^4
1.15
J.02
1.59
1.72
(1.60
t .d7
u.O
0.0
1.45
1 .45
1.21
1.23
1.43
1.53
1.45
1.11
1.45
1.43
1.43
1.41
0.0
U.O
U.O
0.0
0.0
U.O
J.C
i.61
1.67
1.61
l.tl
1.61
1. 72
1.01
l.bl
1.61
l.ol
1. lil
1.61
1.C6
l.ol
•>
l.ol
1. S>
2. bo
1.39
J.O
3.0
O.U
U.70
0.60
C.43
0.65
0.98
0.03
u.05
0.04
1.91
0.41
J.35
O.lb
1.38
0.0
0.0
0.45
0.44
U.44
U.44
0.44
0.44
0.46
0.45
0.45
U.44
0.44
0.46
0.45
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.43
U.43
0.43
0.4;)
;!.4A
•J.43
u.43
0.43
G.43
o.'i3
•J.43
-. 43
J.44
1.41
J.O
;.o
J.O
LAGUN
2.42
1.96
2.40
1.97
1.53
0.11
0.06
0.06
3.29
1.54
'1.31
0.32
2.52
0.0
0.0
1.12
1.11
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.14
1.14
1.12
1.13
1.13
1.15
1.12
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.49
1.50
.49
.49
.44
.51
.49
.49
.49
.49
.4(1
1.4S
1.52
1.49
0.0
0.0
0.0
LAND
FILL
1.47
0.97
1.30
0".~99
1.60
0.76
0.59
0.59
1.90
0. 93"
0.55
0.49
1.59
0.0
0.0
0.77
0.76
0."?6
0.61
0.61
0.76
0.71
0. 77
0.77
0.76
0^76"
0.77
0.77
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.94
0.94
0. J4
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0. 94
0.94
U.94
0.94
0.94
0.79
U.14
U.O
o.o
O.J
BURY
2.34
1.53
2. 10
1.23
2.56
1.05
0.61
0.65"
2.84
1.46
0.71
0.60
1.90
0.0
0.0
0.65
0.65
5V65"
0.63
0.63
0.65
0". 65"
0.65
OPEN
DUMP
6.49
4.35
5.28
3.54
6.18
2.48
2.60
2.51
5.74
4.17
1.65
1.31
5.92
0.0
0.0
2.37"
2.40
3.10
2.19
2.25
2.40
2746"
3.16
PLOW
INTO PIT
GRD DISP
Z.57 3.10
1.76 2.26
2.07 3.03
1.57 1.73
2.49 3.52
0.93 1.84
1.09 1.25
1.09 " 1766
2.76 3.24
1741 2.39
0.65 1.27
i".02 1.56
2.27 3.16
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
1.20" 1.12
1.18 U07
1.18 1.07
0.99 1.05
0.99 1.06
1.18 1.07
~I7IB~T7T2
1.18 1.12
0"."65 273T~"m8 1.12
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.89
1.06
~0.89
0.89
0.89
1.06
1.37
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
1.27
0.89
O.U •
o.o
0.0
2.40
2.40
3.51
2.37
0.0
0.0 "
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.97
4.55
2". 9 7"
2.97
2.97"
4.46
4.72
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
4.62
2.97
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.18 1.07
1.18 1.07
1.23 1.44
1.20 ' 1.12
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 " 6.0
0.0 0.0
1.50 1.43
1.64 1.43
1.50 1.43
1.50 1.43
1.50 1.43
1.68 1.44
1.59 2.08
1.50 1.43
1.50 1.43
1.50 1.43
1.49 1.43
1.50 1.43
1.46 1.47
1.50 1.43
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
-------
Table IV-8 (Continued)
SUMMARIZED BAD EFFECTS SCORES, WATER
POLLUTION CONSIDERED POSSIBLE
SUB KtlilUN AI.KICULTUKAL
I
Ul
LCIN
LPtN
LPtN
ALHbNOS
ACKlCUIj
BLSHotKiU,-;>
FItS
GRAPfchRL-1 F
tiKAPtS
LEMUNS
NhCTAklrttb
LUVti
CKoNCLi
PEALhtS
PLXSIMhuNS
PLLMS
PCMtUkANAl tb
STlUhUcivKI tS
tiALNUTi
CPLN
CftH
LHtN
LPEN
LAlTLc nANLI L
ShLtP rtANu.u
h(JC KwNUKr
hCKit MANUPL
ChlCK nANUkL
lUKKtY MA.Nl.KI:
PICtCN KANu.'t
RAtttH i1ANJ,sL
LPtN
LPtiN
GUI TON TKASH
FRO IT AiSJ Vcu
PLULTKY
ANIMAL
MILK SOLIDS
SPIRITS
VEtET OILS
TALLCk
TEXTILES
hCUC PRODUCTS
ChLMICALS
PETROLEUM
PLASTICS
MASONARY
METALS
SEEDS
TIKES
.ViMrtiN
U. 0
0.0
•J.o
I.d2
t.t,7
I.o7
•!.52
2.47
2.43
2. .,7
2.7u
1.J7
2.47
2.w
I.o7
2.39
1.S7
I.u7
2.^4
u.U
0.0
i).0
o.u
•'1.04
3.27
4.46
a.^y
4.33
J..32
J.U2
3. SO
0.0
U.U
1.90
3.80
4.47
5.09
2.dl
3.^9
2.02
3. 79
1.3J
1.69
4.34
3.00
1.69
1.74
2.14
3.91
1.94
il'Ml
L.O
0.0
0.0
1.30
I.JO
1.31
1.4o
I.j7
1.33
1.36
1.43
1.31
1.3*
1.45
1.31
1.32
1.31
I. 10
1.47
0.0
t.O
0.0
O.U
2.35
2.C8
2.13
2.CB
1.90
2.C6
2.08
.c.Gd
C.u
U. U
1.02
1.69
2.39
2.43
1.62
1.65
O.d9
1.64
0.44
1.26
3.16
2.52
1.13
0.95
1.30
2.35
1.04
CILtU
UN
GRO
O.u
0.0
0.0
1.69
3.U9
1.77
2.t>7
2. til
2.92
2.dl
3.29
1.77
2.87
3.62
1.77
3.24
1.77
1.77
2.50
C.O"
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.70
3.43
4.22
4.17
4.06
3.48
3.58
3.71
0.0
0.0
1.7o
4.09
4.53
4.62
2.63
3.30
2.64
3.42
C.U6
1.55
3.17
/.36
1.03
1.55
1.85
4.17
1.48
PILtU
UN
SLAdS
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.44
^.76
1.52
<;.53
2.50
2.60
2.50
2.94
1.52
2.55
3.25
1.52
2.90
1.52
1.52
2.21
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.7T
2.49
J.24
3.18
3.23
2.54
2.63
2.76
0.0
0.0
1.44
3.45
3.91
3.9o
2. Ji
2.57
2.J?
2.90
O.ttl
1.14
l.dv
1.62
O.o*
1.14
1.44
3.25
1.41
CUNT
OPKN
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.08
1.84
1.06
1.50
1.31
1.39
1.31
1.89
1.06
1.54
2.17
1.06
1.78
1.06
1.03
1.20
0.0
0.0
O.U
0.0
2.14
1.20
"1.74
1.77
1.91
1.44
1.69
1.62
0.0
0.0
0.76
2.24
2.o3
J..Tt
Ud2
1.74
1.47
1.97
C.19
0.26
1. 10
0.82
0. J9
O.28
0.77
1.67
1.06
CUNT
CLOSE
0.0
0.0
0.0
U.U
0.82
0.14
0.50
U.35
O.d3
0.35
O.da
0.14
0.59
1.03
0.14
0.79
0.14
0.23
0.14
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.Jd
0.52
O.JB
0.8U
0.94
0.73
U.7.J
0.73
0.0
0.0
0.35
O.'U
1.24
1.2*
1.01
0. 30
0.03
l.ly
0.11
0.11
0.25
O.lo
0.13
0.15
0.1 )
0.40
0.13
TRANS
UPLN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.19
0.30
0.34
0.31
0.32
0.34
0.32
0.33
0.34
0.30
0.36
0.34
0.31
0.34
O.35
0.27
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.45
U.4J
0.42
0.44
O.H5
0.43
0.43
0.44
0.0
0.0
0.27
0.31
O.*to
0.46
O.l7
0.25
0.21
0.32
0.06
0.15
0.3'J
J. 4~J
0.19
0.19
0.42
0.42
0.03
TkANS
CLUSt
0.0
0.0
o.n
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.Ol"
0.01
o.oi
0.01
o.oi
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.0
0.0
0.00
0. 02
U.Otl
0.09
0.02
0.04
0.00
0.05
0.00
O.I)
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.07
0.03
0.01
£K1NL>
0.0
O.O
0.0
0.61-
0.65-
0.7d
0.74-
0.77
0.69-
0.76
0.64-
0.78-
Oi76-
0. 63-
0.76
0. 65-
0.78
0.80
0.80*
0.6" "
0.0
b. o
0.0
1.35
1.19
1.19
1.19
1.20
1.20
1.19
1.19
0.0
0.0
0.5d
0.72
1.14
1. 12
0.41
0.73
0.31
0.4J
U.37
0.73
1.69
1.44
0.77
0.69
0.28
1.23
0.33
PRAY
KKIO
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4d
1.47
1.60
1.57
1.59
1.51
1.39
1.46
1.60
1.59
1 . 51
1.60
1.47
1.60
1.65
1.66
o.'o ~
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.07
1.91
1.92
1.91
2.07
1.91
1.91
1.93
0.0
0.0
1. Jrt
l.ob
2.40
2.42
1.54
l.do
1.48
1.44
0.25
0.85
3.25
2.7ti
1.54
0.75
0.99
2.40
0.17
1NCIN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.63
0.46
0.40
0.4 1
0.47
G.4o
0.47
0.47
~ 0.46
0.47
0.47
0.46
0.47
0.46
0.46
0.67
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0. i I'.
0.52
0.3^
0.52
O.ai:
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.0
0.0
O.3..
0.4>.
0 . 7 .,
0.67
0.64
O.oO
0.44
O.i'i
0.19
0.39
l.j:,
O.O.'i
C.77
0.10
0.24
0.51
0.63
UPtN
U Ji0
2.17
1.24
1.-1H
1.77
2.19
1.77
2.06
1.24
2.01
2.48
1.24
2.26
1.24
1.33"
1.54
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2. J.J
1.74
2.6<
2.J3
2.81
2.02
2.2b
2.Jb
n . ;)
O.u
L • 'jli
?.ut
3.3V
5.2b
2.1t>
2.44
1.74
2. 50
0.4;
l.K
/.. "4
l.(J9
2.13
0.54
0.7B
1.81
1.60
,u«sr
0.0
O.U
o;o
0.4^
J.40
L.40
C.42
b.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
G.40
0.43
0.4'3
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40"
0.42
0.0
0.0
0.0
'J.U
L.75
0.73
0.73
0.72
0.58
0.73
0.75
U. 73
'j.a
0.0
0.4'.
L.76
O.b4
0. 04
0.86
0.51
0.34
<:.7l
0. 31
J.4o
^.0')
0.91
U.61
C.22
J.18
0.6
-------
i
(jn
l/i
Table IV-9
SUMMARIZED BAD EFFECTS SCORES, WATER POLLUTION
NOT CONSIDERED POSSIBLE
Sub Region Industrial
OAR&AUL
KES RUodl:>n
M1XEL GArltAui
SlKfcET *Ll-UiL
UEAU ANIMALS
ABANCU* VLhlC
DEMOLITION
CONST ROOT I UiV
SPcClAL
J E H A u L. IK o L L- vi
BAT LA IK :,Ll.-
AShtS
HUMAN f i:U ->
UP..,.
UH[_H
tAKLlY
bEANi uK.Y
COKN
Lol TL.\ Ll.\l
OLI fLN o .^U
HAY
OAlo
«LI ALI A
KILc
SAFFLdhck
SOKGhUH
SUGAR dt.c.1 s
MHLAT
LPtN
GPLI-i
LPfcN
LPtN
OPEN
UPEN
OPEN
bEANS
f j. ah A n v-
CHlNESc VcGS
SUiET CURN
CUCUMbEKS
M£LONS
CN10NS
PEPPERS
RACISM tS
RCMAINE
SOUASH
SWEtl POTATOiS
TOMATOES
TURNIPS
VEGETABLES
OPfcW
OPEN
UN**
1 .30
i.4«
1 .*o
3.00
0. o5
J.7C
0. 7L>
2.47
<:.33
o. J9
0. Jo
2. 03
o.o
O.o
0.34
o.jl
J . Ou
0 • •"( o
J . :i 1
U.3i
J.30
0.3U
O.34
0.51.
0.31
i.2d
0.34
u.O
O.U
u. o
u.o
o.u
U.O
0.0
O.d2
.1.3.3
O.U2
O..B2
0.82
2.14
1.53
U.d2
U.82
O.U 2
O.B2
U-a2
2.50
O.tt2
0.0
O.o
0.0
SPiiO
c.oi
0.64
C.fij
0.3/
1.3o
0.34
'..39
C.37
C.91
0.44
.31
.30
.OJ
.0
..0
.41
0.40
0.40
b. j3
C.40
C.4 J
0.47
0.40
0.33
U.40
0.40
0.40
0.35
0.0
O.O
O. 0
O.U
U.O
o.u
0.5o
ij.uj
U.56
0.56
U.56
C. 72
C.56
0.3U
0.56
0.56
0.54
JJ.So
C.6d
0.56
O.U
u.O
0.0
UN
3.27
£ • 15
3.04
1.5
-------
Table IV-9 (Continued)
SUMMARIZED BAD EFFECTS SCORES, WATER POLLUTION
NOT CONSIDERED POSSIBLE
Sub Region Industrial
PILED
OPEN
OPEN
UPiN
ALMONDS
APRICOTS
BUSHBbRRIES
FIGS
GRAPEFRUIT
GRAP tS
LEMONS
MECIAKINES
OLIVES
ORANGE: S .
PEACHES
PERSIMMONS
PLUMS
PGMtbRANATtS
STRAViBEKiUtS
WALNUTS
OPtN
UPtN
LPcN
OPEN
CATTLE MANURE
SHtfcP NATURE
HOG MANURE
HORSE MANuRt
CHICK MANURt
TURKEY MAMUit
PIGECN MANUKE
KAbBiT MANURE
CPtN
OPEN
CU1TCN TKASh
FRUIT ANt Vtt
POULTRY
ANIMAL
MILK SJL1US
SPIKIJ:>
veot r LIILS
TALLUw
lEXTlLti
MCuO PROl>v>i.lS
ChlMlLALj
PLlhGLcUH
PLASIll...
MASUNAXY
MttALS
iUJS
Tlisti
UNMAN .
__ jU.lL-
0.0
U.U.. .-
0.43
l -An
0.46
!-•<»
1.16
.1.31
1.15
. 1.55
0.46
1.1-i
1.85
0.46
1.52
0.46
u.4o
o.7a
u.o
u.o
0. J
o.u
2.68
O.9o
2.41
I. 81
2.50
1.0".
1.61
l./l
U.O
U.O
I.Ob
2.4'y
2.o2
i.Ud
1.51
I
n. £o
U.'W
0.67
1.4/
U.dl
. iPRD..
0.0 ._
0.0
11-11 ..
0.30
-IL..42-.
0.30
O-5.>
0.36
.0.38
0.35
0.54 -
0.30
UV42 -
0.54
B.30
0.44
0.30
0.30
0.34 -
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.67
0.43
0.51
0.43
0.44
O.40
0.44
0.43
u.u
0.0
0. JO
0.62
1.C3
1 .Co
0.31
0.52
0.30
u. 7u
C.^^
k.22
0.62
O.b2
1..2U
0.2d
0.27
0.*7
0._>2
UN
GRJ
U..U--
0.0
-Q.O--
0.52
2.35
0.60
.2.O5
I.d2
.2.13
1.82
2.50
0.60
1.&6-
2.90
0.60
2.56
0.60
0.60
1.34
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.12
l.ou
2.79
2.6B
2.77
1.89
2.00
2.15
0.0
u.O
1.25
3.07
2.17
3.24
1.69
2.39
^.42
2.79
0.60
L.59
u. 'id
U.5d
0.16
0.02
U.Y9
i.O9
U.H5
PILED
ON
.SLABS
-U.O
0.0
_o»o_.
0.52
-?.2J
0.59
1.95
1.73
2.02
1.73
2.J7
0.59
-J..7.8
2.74
0. S9
2.43
0.59
0.59
1.29
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.9B
1.72
2.64
2.54
2.63
i.ao
1.90
2.34
0.0
0.0
1.19
2.91
3. '05
3.07
1.60
2.27
2.30
2.b3
U.3d
U. i>o
0.5^
0. J'j
0.1'j
0. 7J
0. 75
2.00
0.1J2
CONT
OPEN
0.0
0.0
U.O .
0.40
1.44
0.33
J..QO
0.62
1.48
0.62
1.411
0.33
o.yj
1.79
0.33
1.44
U.33
0.33
0.40
0.0
o.u
0.0
0.0
1.76
0.41
1.44
1.45
1.64
1.07
1.37
1.211
O.O
0.0
0.50
1.94
2.25
<.2!>
1.87
1.62
1.47
1.90
lj.09
u. lu
0.33
0.33
u. U9
0.2U
0.29
l.ud
U. bi
CUNT
CLOSE
-0.0
0.0
_ 0.0
O.OJ
_ 0.7d
0.04
O.41
0.29
C.US
0.29
0.79
0.04
0.46
0.97
0.04
0.72
0.04
0.04
0.03
O.U
0.0
0.0
0.0
U.84
0.42
O.tjH
O.U4
0.92
0.67
0.71
0.67
0.0
0.0
0.30
0.85
1.J2
1.32
l.Oo
0.93
u.it)
1.2<>
L.04
O.u^:
0.11
u.lo
0.03
O.Oo
O.U
0.29
U.Oo
TRANS
OPEN
0.0
O.u
U.O
o.u>
0.27
U.ld
0.23
0.15
0.27
0.15
0.27
0.18
0.15
0.33
o.lu
0.27
U.18
0.22
0.05
0.0
J.O
0.0
0.0
0.37
U.3o
0.32
0.3H
0.36
0.32
0.31
0.34
O.O
U.O
O.ld
U.31
0.50
0.5O
U.22
0.27
0.13
U.30
0.07
U.1O
u. ju
O.27
O.U7
0.17
0.22
0.10
0.11
TRANS
CLUSc
0.0
O.U
0.0
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.06
O.U6
O.Ub
0.06
0.06
U.06
0.06
0.06
0.0
0.0
O.Jl
0.03
0.11
0.12
0.02
U.07
0.01
0.06
O.O1
O.O
O.U2
U.01
0.01
0.02
0.05
u.Ol
0.01
GK1NU
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.26
0.36
0.30
0.35
0.29
0.30
0.28
0.35
0.30
0.31
0.34
0.30
0.36
0.30
0.39
0.27
O.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.52
0.33
0.4U
0.3U
0.39
0.39
0.38
U.38
0.0
0.0
0.30
0.45
0.66
0.63
0.43
0.39
0.22
0.37
0.23
0.23
0.43
0.38
0. 28
0.21
0.15
0.31
0.30
SPRAY
1IUUG
O.O
0.0
O.Q
0.28
0.35
0.29
0.3J
0.28
0.29
0.28
0.33
0.29
0.32
0.38
0.29
0.34
0.29
0.42
O.28
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.52
0.39
0.41
0.39
0.42
0.39
0.3d
0.42
0.0
0.0
0.24
0.43
0.59
O.t>9
0.39
0.46
O.Jl
0.46
0.20
0.15
0.47
0.40
0.26
0.11
0.19
0.34
0.09
INCIN
0.0
0.0
U.O
0. Id
0.2U
U.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.23
U.2u
0.20
0.2J
0.20
0.23
U.2U
0.20
0.2J
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2U
0.22
0.23
0.22
0.23
0.22
0.22
U.2J
0.0
0.0
u.21
0.27
0. JU
0.36
0.31
0.25
0.15
0.22
0.18
U.I 7
0.24
O.22
0.28
0.02
0.04
O.lu
0.36
OPEN
BURN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.52
1.73
0.61
1.32
1.24
1.69
1.24
1.5u
O.ol
1.42
2.10
O.ol
l.OH
0.61
0.61
0.53
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.U
2.28
1.12
2.1o
1.81
2.28
1.46
1.77
I.o6
0.0
0.0
0.91
2.47
2. 38
2.41
1.60
1.89
1.14
1.86
0.70
0.49
O.hU
0.83
0.38
0.17
0.30
1.14
0.93
CUHST
0.0
0.0
.0.0
U.02
U.02
0.02
u.03
U.02
0.02
U.02
u. 02
0.02
0.04
u.Oi
0.02
0.02
O.U2
U.02
0. U2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.11
0.09
U.C9
0.09
[>. U
0.09
0.09
0.09
U.O
U.O
0.07
0.10
C.13
0.13
0. 11
0.13
U.07
U. 10
0.06
0.06
U. 13
0.14
0.12
0.05
0.06
O.O1)
0. 1U
LAG UN
O.Q
0.0
0.0
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.11
O.US
0.09
0.08
0.15
0.09
0.10
0. 16
0.09
0.15
0.09
0.15
0.09
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.23
0.19
0. 19
0.20
0.2U
0.20
0.20
0.2O
0.0
0.0
0.14
0.21
0.32
0.30
0.23
0.23
0.13
0.19
0.06
0.09
0.23
0.22
0.11
0. 02
0.04
0.12
0.09
LAND
FILL
U.O.
0. J
0.0 .
0.03
0.04
0.04
0. 04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0. J'i
0.05
0.05
0. O4
U.04
0.04
0.04
0. U3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.09
0.08
0.08
O.Ob
U. JU
O.08
O.OB
0. 08
0.0
0.0
0.04
0.07
0.10
0.09
0.07
O.09
0.05
0.07
U.04
0.03
0. 11
0.11
O.Oo
0.04
0.05
O.u'i
O.Ob
BURY
.0.0 -
0.0
fl.0 ..
0.04
0.24
0.06
0. 1.5.
0.06
0.30
0.06
0.08
0.06
0.12
0.40
0.06
0.25
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.99
0.53
0.93
0.72
0.86
0.54
0.46
0.53
0.0
0.0
0.13
0.62
0.70
0.63
0.44
0.52
0.66
0.70
0.05
0.05
0.18
U.18
0.07
0.07
O.Od
0.35
0.07
OPEN
DUMP
..O.O
0.0
0.0
0.59
2.37
0.63
2.Q7
1.87
2.15
1.87
2.50
0.63
1.92
2.91
0.63
2.56
0.63
0.70
1.41
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.4U
2.02
2.92
2.84
2.98
2.00
2.31
2.29
0.0
0.0
1.46
3.21
3.33
3.32
1.97
2.66
2.43
2.90
0.63
0.89
0.56
0.64
0.61
0.83
0.77
2.22
1.10
PLOW
INTO
GRD
Q^D-
0.0
Q.O.
0.09
0.17
0.11
0.18
0.10
0.14
0.10
0.18
0.11
0.13
0.31
0.11
0.18
0.11
0.11
0.13
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.U
0.38
u.18
0.35
C.31
0.35
0.19
0.29
0.34
0.0
0.0
0.12
0.33
0.50
0.57
0.08
0.30
0.13
0.26
0.09
O.08
0.26
0.26
0.11
0.18
0.21
0.12
0.17
PIT
O1SP
0.0
0.0
0.0 .
0.09
0.06
0.06
Q.20
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.06
. 0.11
0.11
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.08
0.09
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.83
0.35
0.52
0.44
0.86
0.35
0.29
0.48
0.0
0.0
0.07
0.43
0.61
0.56
0.16
0.34
0.08
0.47
0.06
0.07
0.16
0.16
o.oa
0.19
0.20
O.13
0.22
-------
i
U1
-j
Table IV-9 (Continued)
SUMMARIZED BAD EFFECTS SCORES, WATER POLLUTION
NOT CONSIDERED POSSIBLE
Sub Region Municipal
UAKBAbt
KtS RUt-Bijrl
MIXbD buKolbt
iTKEtr HUHiL
UEAli AMMALi
A6ANCON VLhlC
tbC.ULITll,N
LCNS.1KULI1UN
SPiCJAL
bfc,i«ljL fl< >l_L'u
hAltK IK iLOo
ASHti.
HUMAN l-tui. i
CPLN
UPLN
cAHLLY
cbANS u.^Y
CLi*N
LLI 1 LN L IN f
I.LTTLN iiti,
HAY
LAfi
,>Lt-riLF>'«
Klcc
5Aht Li-ril-h
jliKOhUil
SLuAK i.i-^Tb
oHLAI
uPLN
LPtN
UPLM
Uf'LN
LPLrt
UPtN
UH LN
bEANS
CAjUAOc
CHINES': Vhoi
Shiltl CLiHN
LUCUMJtAS
MELUro
UNIONS
PEPPfcKS
KALI ihtS
KCMAlNt
SULASH
SWdtl HUlMUtS
TLMAIUuS
TUKN1PS
VtOt (AoLcb
UPtN
CPLN
U\MMN
3.20
1.81
^. 74
1.32
3.16
o.61
l.Oi
l.oU
<..ul
2. 3j
J. o.i
U.J7
<..•'.-
U.U
'J. U
L.ol
0.7',
1.1,4
J.7<.
0.79
J. 7-j
U. G<*
o . .*1
u.Ul
0. 7V
1,. 1-1
1 . 4 ,-J
O.tfl
0.0
U. U
0. J
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2J
1.90
1.26
1.2u
1..10
2.41
I.d6
1.26
1.20
1.26
1.26
1.2o
0.0
0.0
o.oi
0 • CO
t.6o
(J.37
O.oc
O. 00
0.73
0.66
0.3u
C.t6
t>. Ob
u .0(3
0.30
C. J
O.O
0.0
0.0
O.O
0.0
o.o
0. c?
c.«
L.B5
0. CD
U.£b
C.S6
0.6!)
t.ts
0.33
CJ.B3
L.U^
U.i3
t.'ib
i,.bb
0.0
0.0
0.0
PILcL)
ON
bKU
J.'t'f
^.JV
J.^3
1.60
J.oS
O.t7
1.16
O.ol
^.«7
; .65
0.31/
0.34
3.^4
\> . 0
0. J
0..-'^
0.'; j
I.u3
0. nti
U.43
O.V3
C. tj
i.oa
C.d'j
o.'J3
C.-.3
<. . J3
0..i>J
0.0
u . O
o.o
0.0
u.o
0.0
0.0
1.3d
j.Ul
1. 38
1.3d
1. Jd
^.3
0.13
0.51
0.0
0.0
0. 11
0. 13
0.13
0.14
0.1 1
0.13
0.14
0.14
0. 11
0. 13
0. 13
0. 16
0. 11
O.U
O.U
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.U
0.0
0. J3
0.46
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.4,1
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.31
0. )3
0.48
O.T3
0.0
0.0
0.0
LMi^O
rlLL
U. 13
0.09
0. 10
0. Oo
0.23
0.10
0.07
0.07
0. 12
0.07
0. ilo
0.0!
0.24
0.0
0.0
0. J4
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.04
0. 04
0. J4
0.04
0.04
U. J4
0.04
0.04
0. J
O.O
0.0
U.J
0.0
0.0
0.0
0. 10
0. 12
a. 10
l>. 10
J. 10
0.12
0. 10
0.10
0. 10
0. 10
0. 10
0. 10
U. 13
0. U
0.0
u.o
O.J
BURY
0.97
0.62
o.aa
0.44
1.07
0.13
0.12
0. 12
0.96
0.50
0.14
0.09
0.77
0.0
0.0
0.07
O.Oo
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
O.U6
0.06
0.07
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.13
0.35
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.35
0.61
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.14
0. 13
0.56
0.13
0.0
0.0
0.0
OPEN
DUMP
3.83
2.87
3.58
1.96
3.90
1.32
1.53
1.51
2.99
2.85
1.06
0.57
J.33
0.0
0.0
1.13
1.29
1.99
1.15
1.29
1.29
1.35
2.05
1.13
1.29
1.29
2.40
1.13
0.0
O.U
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.82
3.43
1.82
1.82
1.82
3.37
3.57
1.82
1.82
1.82
1.82
1.82
3.51
1.92
0.0
0.0
0.0
PLOW
INTO
GRO
0.79
0.46
0.59
0.33
0.69
0.30
0.25
0.24
0.58
0.35
0.17
0.17
0.78
0.0
0.0
0.10
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.15
0.10
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.28
0.44
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.48
0.37
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.25
0.28
0.50
0.28
0.0
0.0
0.0
PIT
DISP
1.13
0.74
1.06
0.47
1.25
0.25
0.20
0.21
0.72
0.73
0.17
0.13
1.13
0.0
0.0
0.13
0.08
o.oa
0.07
o.oa
0.08
0.14
0.14
0.13
o.oa
O.OB
0.46
0.13
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.24
O.Z5
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.25
0.89
O.Z4
0.24
0.24
0.25
0.24
0.30
0.24
0.0
0.0
0.0
-------
Table IV-9 (Continued)
SUMMARIZED BAD EFFECTS SCORES, WATER POLLUTION
NOT CONSIDERED POSSIBLE
Sub Region Municipal
Ul
00
CPtN
UPtN
iPbN
ALMONDS
APKICUTS
BUSHBtKRIcb
F16S
tKAPbFftUIT
CRAPES
LEMONS
NECTARINES
ULIVtfS
LRANC-tS
PEACHES
PErtSlMMUNS
PLUMS
POMEGRANATES
STRAhSbRRICS
WALNUT b
JPtN
CPbN
OPEN
OPtN
CAITLt MANUAL
SHt£P MANURt
HUG MAMUKc
HbftSE MANUKL
CHICK MAtNuKc
TURKEY MANUht
PltfcL.v MANOKt
RA8DIT MANURE
CPLN
CPtN
CL1TCN 1RASH
FRUI1 Af.u; Vtt
PCbLlHY
ANIMAL
HlLK iuLIJS
SPIRITS
VEGtl LI Li
lALLCVi
lEXTlLtS.
ttOUO PROOUUi
thtMllALi
PLTRULcUM
PLASUt,:,
MASLNAitY
METALS
ittlii
TlKfcS
UNMAN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.03
1.0,1
U.7J
1.53
1.33
1.44
1.J1
1.66
0.73
1..SJ
1.S7
0.73
1.6.J
0.73
0.73
0.^3
0.0
0.0
0.0
U.O
3.00
1.32
2.00
2.05
2.07
1.13
1.87
1.96
C.G
u.O
l.^H
2.60
3.11
3.10
1.00
2.36
1.5o
2. la
o.d2
o. /I
1.1J
l.ud
J.4«:
U.oo
O.S3
l.ot;
L.Ob
SPRO
v..O
0.0
0.0
G.43
0.55
0.45
O.o7
0.49
0.52
0.4d
C.65
0.45
C.5i
0. 70
0.45
0.57
0.15
0.45
0.50
0.0
0.0
o.o
U.O
1.05
0.72
O.«l
0.72
0.73
0.70
0.73
0.72
0.0
0.0
C.52
0.63
1.39
1.40
0.44
0.79
C.50
C.S.-*
0.3,;
0.34
O.So
0.91
o.^a
0.39
0.42
0.43
0.43
PILeD
ON
GRJ
0.0
0.0
U.O
0.75
2.38
C.91
2.15
1.S4
2.20
1.94
2. 55
0.91
i.OO
2.91
0.91
^.5V
0.91
0.91
1.45
0.0
0.0
o.o
c.o
3.39
2.04
2. Alt
<:.78
2.d8
1.13
2.21
2.J3
0.0
U.O
1.39
3. IB
3.J8
J.3l
1.70
2.57
2.41
£.i)4
0.62
0.84
1.10
1.05
C.24
1.03
1.06
2.24
1.05
PILtD
ON"
SLABS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.74
2.27
O.U9
2.06
1.66
2.1U
1. 86
2.43
0.89
1.92
2.73
0.89
2.47
0.89
0.69
1.40
0.0
O.O
0.0
0.0
3.27
1.97
2.76
2.6o
2.76
2.06
Z.12
2.24
0.0
0.0
1.33
3.04
3.30
3.35
1.66
2.45
2.32
2.69
O.BO
0.81
1.06
1.03
0.24
1.00
1.03
2.17
1.02
CQNT
OPEN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.56
1.42
0.50
1.09
"0.73
1.46
0.73
1.53
0.50
1.00
l.dl
0.5'J
1.48
0.50
0.50
0.5o
0.0
0.0
0.0
OkU
2.02
1.04
1.5d
. 3d
.75
.28
.51
.4i
0.0
o.c
0.70
1.03
2.44
2.45
1.79
1.77
1.51
1.9
0.55
0.39
0.39
0.85
0.72
0.51
0.37
0.27
0.54
0.54
SPRAY
1RR1G
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.45
0.55
0.50
0.57
0.4«
0.50
0.48
0.51
0.50
0.54
0.59
0.50
0.52
0.50
0.73
0.45
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0. J6
0.69
0.71
0.69
0.71
0.69
O.tib
0.71
0.0
0.0
0.4b
0.64
0.66
o.-n
O.OJ
0.67
0.55
0.73
0.33
0.23
0.92
0.76
0.43
o.lv
0.45
0.59
0.12
INC1N
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.33
0.37
0.37
0.3/
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.43
'0.37
0.37
0.44
0.37
0.43
0.37
0.37
0.36
0.0
0.0
O.O
0.0
0.5o
0.43
0.44
0.43
0.44
0.43
0.43
0.44
0.0
0.0
0.40
0.51
O.bb
0.6")
0.57
0.45
0.2'J
0.41
0. i-j
0.33
0.49
0.44
0.34
C.04
0.09
0.19
0.70
UP6N
blMN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.36
1.96
1.J1
1.62
1.56
1.93
1.56
1.91
I. 01
l./l
2.3b
1.01
2.15
1.01
1.01
0.90
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
2.bu
1.69
2.58
2.29
2. bit
1.4H
?.24
2.3^
0.0
0.0
1.48
Z.it
2.90
2.90
1.92
2.34
1.16
2.31
1. JU
O.Bo
.28
.'H
.01
.20
.48
.44
.63
COMST
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.03
0.04
0.04
J.06
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.04
O.C7
6.09
0.04
0.06
0.04
0. 04
0.03
0.0
o.O
0.0
0.0
0.21
0. 19
0.13
0.17
U.20
C. 18
0.18
O. 16
C.O
0.0
0.14
0. 19
0.22
0.22
U.2t
0.22
0. 14
0. 19
0.12
o. 12
0.^9
0.26
0.21
0.09
0. 13
0.10
0.17
LAGON
0.0
0.0
0.0
'0.15
0.15
0.15
0. 1U
0.13
0.15
0.13
0.30
0.15
0. lb
0.31
0. 15
0.30
0.15
0.26
0.15
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.41
0.33
0.35
0. 36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.3u
0.0
0.0
0.2t>
0.40
0.55
0.53
0.47
0.40
0.28
0. 35
0. 11
0.15
0.52
0.46
0.19
0.03
0. O8
0.24
0.15
LAND
FILL
O.G
U.O
0.0
0.04
0. 06
0.06
0.07
0. J7
0.06
0. 07
0.06
O.U6
U.C7
0. J9
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.04
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.14
0.13
0.13
0.13
C.ll
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.0
0.0
U.05
0.12
0.16
0.15
0. 11
0.14
0.07
0.11
0.04
0.04
0.21
0.18
0.07
0.04
0.05
0.07
o.Od
8URY
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.05
0.26
0.09
0.18
0.10
0.30
0.10
0.14
0.09
0.16
0.41
0.09
0.28
0.09
0.09
0.05
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
i.oi
0.58
0.95
0.74
0.86
0.60
0.51
0.58
0.0
0.0
0.16
0.61
0.73
0.72
0.42
0.53
0.62
0.70
0.05
0.06
0.35
0.34
0.09
0.07
0.12
0.35
0.09
OPEN
DUMP
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.87"
2.44
0.98
2.21
2.05
2.26
2.05
2.58
6.96
2.10
2.97
0.98
2.62
0.98
1.11
1.57
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.73
2.30
3.11
3.00
3.15
2.33
2.54
2,51
0.0
0.0
1.79
3.45
3.69
3.69
2.27
2.89
2.42
3.08
1.27
.39
.05
.19
.07
.07
.07
2.47
1.51
PLOW
INTO
GRO
0.0
o."6
0.0
0.12
0.22
0.17
0.23
0.15
0.20
0.15
0.24
6.17
0.20
0.41
0.17
0.24
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.48
0.27
0.45
0.38
0.43
0.30
O. 37
0.40
0.0
0.0
0.18
0.40
0.60
0.69
0.11
0.37
0.18
0.41
0.11
0.09
0.45
0.44
0.11
0.17
0.24
0.17
0.17
l
PIT
01 SP
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.13
0.11
0.11
0.24
o.ii
0.11
0.11
0.11
o.ii
0.17
0.17
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.13
0.13
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.BS
P.40
0.57
0.47
0.82
0.40
0.35
0.50
0.0
0.0
0.11
0.43
0.64
0.58
0.19
0.37
0.10
0.46
0.07
0.09
0.30
0.27
0.10
0.17
0.21
0.20
0.21
-------
iAut [rf ;>LLO
hAItK IH SLOG
ASHES
HUMAN 1-cOdS
OPtN
LPEN
tAKLEY
BEANS UKY
CORN
COTTON UjNT
COTTON SttU
HAJf,
UATS
ALFALhA
RICE
SAFFLuwtK
SORGHUM
SUGAR bttlj .
HhcAT
LPtN
L.PLN
UP UN
OPLN
LPilH
LHl:"l
LHLiI
BEANS
ClBbAob
CHlNtoc Vi oj
SHEET LurtK
CUCUMBEh:,
MELONS
UNIONS
P E i1 V t K j
RAU1 ih^J
RLMAlHt
ilvLA JN
jh^t f PolAULo
1 OMA 1 u L j
10-N1PS
VLoL TAoLn j
jHt.s
L.PLN
UhMAN
3.*J
2. uo
J.U:;
1. <1
J.63
l.Ub
1.3*
1.2.)
2.90
2.oJ
U.d2
O.dl
3.Z9.
o.O
0.0
l.o 7
l.Ub
1 . 3u
C.99
1.U3
l.Ub
1.1*
1.1*
1.07
l.Oo
l.Oo
1.7*
1.07
O.U
0.0
0.0
U.U
U.O
0.0
0.0
1.47
2.U J
l.i 7
l.i?
I.i?
2 . o'J
2.0?
I.i?
1 . ', 7
1 ,i7
1." 7
1.1?
*.' • 'i 1
l.*7
o.O
U.U
U.U
bl'KJ
1.10
1.30
0.89
l.S*
0.70
o.U/
O.U2
1.32
0.9d
0.57
0.6c
1.77
0.0
0.0
i..b*
o. to
u.e6
U.7b
U.U3
O.«b
0.94
U.tb
0.7b
0.66
0.86
O.oo
O.Yb
U.O
U.U
0.0
o.u
U.O
u. o
U.O
l.u*
l.CV
l.C-i
l.u*
l.Oi
1.1*
l.o*
l.Oi
Lot
l.o't
l.ol
l.o't
1. 1^
I. O't
C.J
U.O
L.O
PILtU
ON
GRU
J.oS
3.*d
I -Cj«
3.b7
0.05
l.-)9
0.&5
3. 15
2. d2
L.O?
L .72
3.51
0.0
O.U
1.10
1.13
1.83
1.C7
1.11
l.U
1.19
I.d9
1.10
1.13
1.13
2.2*
1.10
0.0
0.0
O.J
O.u
0.0
0.0
o.u
l.U 3
j.12
1 . 5 J
1.3.1
1 .53
3.o*
J.2o
1. J3
I.') 3
I. '-3
1. .1
l.i .!
3.11'
1. j3
o.O
o.O
0. 1
PILi—
UN
SLAdi
J.4u
3.27
1. 70
3.b*
0. 30
1. 29
0.77
2.93
2.70
0.6*
0.6b
3.32
0.0
0.0
1.03
1.C9
1.75
1.03
1.07
1.09
1.1*
2.13
1.05
1.09
1.09
2.1J
I. 'li
J.O
J.O
0.0
o.o
J.O
0.0
u.O
1.3U
3.UJ
1.5o
i.bJ
1.50
2.S2
j.l*
1.30
1 . 3U
1.30
l.*U
1.50
J.Ob
1.50
J.O
U.J
K. J
Cuiii
1.JU
2.51
1.29
2.93
u.31
0. 3l
u.*7
2.21
I.o9
U.3/
U.35
2.50
0.0
0.0
0.6Y
0.63
0,b5
O.o2
0.63
J. 03
0. I,
1.2 5
U.o7
U. b3
O.U5
0. 7J
0 . vl 7
0.0
J. 0
o.O
0.0
U.O
o.u
0.0
1. 1'.
L. J*
1. 12
1.12
1. U
2.U9
2.* I
1.12
1.12
1. U
l.lo
I. U
2 . 2o
1.12
U.O
O.U
0.0
CoM
LLUit
l.iJ
1.23
o.7t
1.31
u.lr-
U.lo
0. 1 J
1 • -»2
u. ?y
U.lo
0. Jo
1.17
O.u
O.U
U. o7
O.UJ
U.ud
U. J>>
0. JV
o. o'3
O.Ut)
o.5l
U.Ud
o.ua
U.O.I
o . o-y
U. Uo
J.U
J . U
O.J
O.J
U.U
U.U
O.J
U. Ib
o.UO
U.lo
O.lo
U.I,,
U.93
1.21
O.lo
O.lo
0.1
0.35
0.3?
0. o2
0.02
0.33
0.57
J. j?
O.o7
U.5J
0.0
0.0
U.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0. ia
a.'i'i '
o.do
O.oo
O.UO
0.03
O.UO
J.bo
O.Ho
U. do
O.b5
O.SO
0.8*
O.dO
U.O
J.O
0.0
INC IN
0.*3
0.36
0 . i ^
0. 35
0.53
u. j2
0.31
0.33
0.5.7
0. 3 J
o.*5
0.2'>
O.Ob
U.U
U.O
U.41
U.**
0.**
o.*l
0.**
U.1*
O.'i*
u.**
O.*l
0.4*
U.**
U.**
J.*l
0.0
O.J
o.u
U.U
0.0
0.0
U.O
U.'.l
0.1 't
0 . * I
o.'tl
0 . * 1
0 . 'i *
U.I 1
U.* 1
U.41
0.41
0.*2
O.'tl
0.**
0.41
U.O
u.o
0.0
LT ::<
BoliiS,
2. ob
2.07
2.*b
1 . 3t
3. Ob
l.'jj
I. IV
1.21
i.'-'i
2. 1 j
1.23
U. 72
2.o3
L.U
J.O
1.1*
1 .2v
I • ''j
1.27
1. '.^
1 . ."i
I. .3
1.10
1.1',
1.29
l.2y
1.97
1. It
O.U
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.J
0.0
0.0
1 . !,:
2.iC
l. u;
1..IC
l. H-.
2 . >'.•
2. lo
1.38
1.3d
1. j'J
l.ll
1. Ill
2.oi
1.J8
0.0
U.O
r.o
U. lo
O. ll
0.17
L .C7
o.*l
L.lo
0.09
l .07
o. 31
.. I .
o. 23
U.O?
0.31
0. 0
O.J
u. 10
..10
o. 10
i. .(J'J
. . I')
j. U
'. 12
j.ll
i.. C'<
'... 1J
,.. 1 )
0.12
u. 10
0.0
U.O
0.0
U. .j
'- . 'J
.0
U. 0
".03
u . 07
<) . 0
•J . 1. J
. (Jl
.-.01
o.O-,
0. U3
0 . 1', •)
'J.U:>
0. J.,
vi. 05
1'. OcJ
0.05
J.O
l.'.O
,1. 0
0.3->
0.27
0.30
0.2?
0.3l
0.19
0.12
J.12
O.J7
0.27
0.23
0.12
0.*5
0. 0
0.0
U.U
0.1 't
0. 1*
0.1*
0. 14
0.14
O.lb
0.15
0.11
0.1*
0. 1*
0.17
0. 11
U. J
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.32
0.3?
0. i2
U.32
u. i<
O.'tJ
0. J2
0.32
0.3^
U. 32
0. 10
0.32
O.'tO
• 0.32
O.u
0.0
0. J
Lvl,,
f 1 LL
•1 . \ '>
u. lo
,. il
G. Jt
0. Lo
0.1*
0. 1*
0.21
o. n
o. Jd
u. u
j.21*
U.o
U.U
J. l->
o. lo
o. lo
0.08
U • U*J
'J. 10
U. 11
0.11
U. 10
a. 10
0. 10
L. 11
0. I.)
0. J
vj. 0
O.J
•J. ,1
U. 0
U.O
O.J
0. 15
0. Ib
t . 15
0.13
U. 1')
O.lo
J. !•>
U.ll)
I.. 1 )
U . \.j
(i.i;
V. lj
M. 1 3
J. Ib
o.O
J.U
O.U
UURY
1. J3
j. 71
J.'jj
I'.5J
I. 10
U.21
U.20
0.70
1.05
0.5
-.. 1 J
0. 1')
O.ld
O.b9
0.13
U.U
o.O
Vi.'J
OPEN
JUMP
3.97
3.U2
3.71
2.19
4.05
1.50
1.7*
1. 70
3.23
3.0*
1.12
U.70
J.37
>j. 0
0.0
1. H
1.*?
2.17
1.32
l.*5
l.*7
1.52
2.22
1.31
1.47
l.*7
2.57
1.31
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.u
0.0
o.u
l.Hsl
3.49
1.H9
1.39
l.B'l
3.43
3.(>*
l.dv
l.dV
1.M9
1.89
1.89
3.57
1.0 )
0.0
'J.O
0.0
PLLH
INFO
GHL
0.88
0.60
0.73
0.47
0.81
0.41
0.38
0.38
0.7*
0.4*
0.20
0.23
U.91
O.J
O.U
0.21
1..2C
u. 'u
0.1 7
O.ld
0.2C
0.20
0.20
0.19
0.20
0.20
U.25
0.21
0.0
0.0
U.U
O.U
U.U
J.O
U.O
0. J7
0.51
U.37
0.37
U.37
0.55
'J . '1 6
U.37
u.37
U.37
0.35
u.37
0.52
0.37
0.0
0.0
O.U
PIT
DISP
I. 18
0.81
1.18
0.54
1.31
0.37
0.31
0.32
O.B1
0.81
0.23
0.22
1.21
0.0
0.0
0.19
0.14
0. 14
U.13
0.14
0.14
0.19
0.19
0. 19
0.14
0.14
0.52
0.19
0.0
J.O
U.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.93
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.34
0.29
0.0
0.0
U.O
-------
Table IV-9 (Continued)
SUMMARIZED BAD EFFECTS SCORES, WATER POLLUTION
NOT CONSIDERED POSSIBLE
SUB REGION INIkKhAlt
<
o
PILED
UPtN
UP EN
CPfcN
ALMUNOS
APK1COTS
BLSHBtKKU o
FIGS
IjRAPtFrtLlT
GKAPES
LtrtUNi
NkCTAKlNLS
CLiVtS
LRJ>Nuc5
PtAChe:.
PLK Si MAINS
PLUMS
fCMbtRANATcS
STKAhotKKIt^
hALNUTj
CPLN
UPtN
CPcN
1-PtN
CATTLt MANUht
ShEtP MA.NLKt
HLG MANUKfc
HORSt MANU*t
CHICK MANURL
TUPKfcY MANUKt
PIGLCft MArtLHE
RAoUIT dANJHc
Cl'L.N
uftN
COTTON TiAsH
FROIT ANC VLt
POOL IKY
ANIMAL
MILK SOLIUS
SPIRITS
VEGET OIL'S
TALLOW
TEXTILES
MOOD PRODUCTS
CHEMICALS
PETROLEUM
PLASTICS
MASONARY
METALS
SEEDS
TIRES
U,M,1A«
U.O
...0
U.U
0. 4->
1.S4
l.ul
1. 7J
l.li
1. (u
l.U.)
1.41
l.ul
l.ul
> . 1 9
1..U
l.U/
1.01
l.ul
1.27
u.u
0.0
u. J
O.u
3.25
I.o5
2.d7
2.37
2.4o
1.73
2.«iU
2.2d
O.u
O.O
1.41
2.d3
3.34
3.32
1.75
2.50
1.76
2.77
1.00
bPRO
0.0
U.O"
U.O
0.68
0.78
0.69
0.90
0./4
0.16
c.72
0.89
0.69
u.dl
i,. 9U
u.69
0.80
u.69
0.69
U.76
o.c
o.c
O.u
U.-'J
1 . t i
u.44
1.01
0.94
u.95
u.93
0.95
u.94
U.O
0.0
0.67
1.C9
1.63
1.66
0.61
0.95
0.73
1.20
0.50
0.98 0.59
1.58
1.35
0.78
1.07
1.30
2.09
1.43
1.30
1.13
0.55
0.63_
0.77
0.8*
0.79
ON
GRD_
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.00
2.56
i^ii
2.32
2.15
2.38
2.15
2.70
1.11
2. iti
3.04
1.11
2.73
1.11
1.11
1.71
6.0
o.o
O.U
U.O
3.52
2.23
3.0a
2.S7
3.05
2.31
i.40
2.52
0.6
u,0_
1.49
3,3.?
3.55
3.69
1.80
PILL.
UN CUNT
SLASi iVt.J
0.0 0.0
O.u U.O
0.0 0.0
0.96 0.70
2.4J 1.53
l.U/ u.64
2.^1 1.19
i.O-'t U.d7
t.il'.l 1.57
2.U't v.o7
2.po 1.54
l.U; 0.04
i. 10 1. 1 >
L'.dd 1.86
1.07 0.64
2.34 i.53
1.07 0.64
1.0) 0.63
l.t>3 U.U
O.U J.O
o.o o.n
o.o o.o
o.o u.u
3.33 2.04
2.10 l.U
2.86 1.64
2.79 1.66
2.U6 1.81
2.17 1.34
2.23 1.59
2.37 1.51
o.o o.o
..P.,5 o.._g.
1.39 0.75
3.14 2.05
3.40 2.47
3.46 2.49
1.75 1.81
2.65 2.48 1.74
2.54
2.98
0.90
1.P1
1.41
1.26
0.42
1.16
1.34
?.53
1.21
2.41 1.53
2.80 2.00
0.86 0.19
0.95 0.26
1.27 0.82
1.1S_ 0.74
0.42 0.25
CUNT TRANS
CLOSE OPEN
0.0 0.0
u.O 0.0
U.O U.O
U.06 0.13
0.73 0.37
0.09 0.32
0.41 0.34
0.30 0.27
0.79 0.37
J.jO 0.^7
ti. Jj 0.37
,/.04 0.32
u.W 0.27
0.40 u.39
0.09 0.32
O.oS 0.37
0.09 0.32
U.U 6.39
^0.08 .J0..14
O.U 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
O.U O.U
0.84 0.52
0.48 U.5U
0.85 0.48
0.83 U.49
0.9U 0.52
0.64 0.49
0.73 0.48
0.69 0^.49
0.0 0.6
u.o o.o
0.32 0.31
0.82 0.38
1.22 0.63
1.21 0.62
0.98 0.39
fl.86 0.32
0.59 0.25
1.20 0.41
0.08 0.12
O.Q7 0.21
0.23 0.60
0.17 0.54
0.07 0.15
1.08 Q.M 0.09 0.23
1.26 0.60
2.4.1 1.41
1.16 0.84
0.20 0.37
O.32 0.31
0.08 0.11
TRANS
CLOSE
U.O
'o.o
0.0
O.UU
U.01
0.01
0.01
O.U1
0.01
0.01
U.U1
O.lll
0.01
O.U1
0.01
U.01
0.01
0. 01
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0..0
0.06
0..06
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
{U.06
0.0
0_.Q
"6."02
0.03
0.10
0.11
U.03
0.06
6.01
0.06
0.01
0.0
0.03"
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.06
. 0.02
0.01
SPRAY
GRIND IRRIG INC IN
0.0 O.U 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 U.O 0.0
O.51 0.49 0.34
0.62 U.55 0.36
0.58 0.52 0.36
0.62 0.57 0.3b
0.57 0.5U 0.36
U.57 0.31 0.36
0.36 O.50 0.36
0.61 0.52 0.34
0.58 0.52 0.36
U.59 0.55 U.36
0.64 0.58 0.39
0.58 0.52 0.3b
0.62 0.53 0.39
0.58 0.52 0.36
0. 73 0.73 0.36
0.54 0.51 0. )o
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 U.O 0.0
0.0 0.0 O.U
0.91 0.88 0.43
0.74 0.72 0.34
0.75 6.73' 0.3S
0.74 0.72 0.39
0.75 0.74 0.39
0.75 0.72 0.39
6.74 6.71 0.39
0.74 0.74 0.39
0.0 0.0 0.0
0..0 0.0 0.0
0.56 0.43 0.38
0.68 0.61 0.46
0.98 0.89 0.62
0.97 0,92 ' 0.59
0.66 0.65 U.54
0.59 0.67 0.39
0.38 0.55 0.26
0.55 0.74 0.37
0.45 0.35 O.J4
0.52 0.31 0.34
0.96 1.01 0.54
0.86 Q.87 0.44
0.67 0.48 0.54
0,47 0.26 0.06
0.29 0.45 0.15
0.67 0.7? 0.24
0.54 0.16 0.66
O'PEN
LAND
BURN CUMST LAGON FILL
0.0 U.O
0.0 0.0
0.0 U.O
1.02 U.03
2.07 U.03
1.13 0.03
1.74 0.05
1.68 0.03
2.04 0.03
1.68 6.03
1.95 0.04
1.13 U.03
1.84 U.06
2 . 39 6. Ob
1.13 0.03
2.18 0.04
1.13 0.03
1.14 0.03
1.05 0.03
6.0 o.o
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
2.73 0.19
1.66 0.16
2.55 0.16
2.26 0,16,
2.65 0.17
1.95 0.16
2.21 C.16
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 U.O
0.15 0.08
0.15 0.09
0.15 0.11
0.18 0.10
0.14 0. ll
0.15 0.09
6.14 O.U
0.23 0.09
0.15 0.11
0.16 0.10
0.24 0.10
0.15 O.U
0.23" 0.09
0.15 O.U
0.26 0.10
0.15 0.10
0.6 0.6
0.0 O.U
o.o o.o
O.U U.O
0.32 0.18
0^27 .0.17
0.27 0.17
0.28 0.17
0.28 0.16
0. 2d 0.16
0.28 0.16
.2.29...0_.16__0.28_._Q._16,
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0.
1.46 0.12
2.88 C.15
2.90 6.20
2.90 0.21
2.05 0.20
2.32 0.19
i:54 0.13
2.33 0.13
1.32 O.U
J.ll 0.12_
1.45 0.36
1.61 0.30
1.72 6.21
0,36 0.03
0.63 0.14
l.iS.6. li. 15.
1.69 0.18
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0.
0.22 0.11
0.30 0.14
0.44 0.22
0.42 0.21
0.36 0.14
0.31 Q.J..8
0.21 O.U
0.27 0.13
0.09 0.09
0,16 0,10
0.49 0.34
0.44 0.26
0.23 0.13
0.04 0.10
0.12 0.12
TJ.25 a. La
0.17 0.14
OPEN
BUKY DUMP
U.U 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.13 1.07
0.31 2.57
0.15 1.14
0.23 2.34
0.15 2.21
U.36 2.40
0.15 2.21
0.17 2.70
0.15 1.14
0.21 2.26
U.44 3.06
U.15 1.14
0.32 2.73
0.15 1.14
0.15 1.26
0.13 1.79
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
O.U O.U
U.O 0.0
0.98 3.80
0.58 2,47
0.92 3.24
0.74 3.17
0.87 3.29
0.59 2.48
0.52 2.73
0.58 2,70
0.0 0.0
U.O 0.0
0.21 1.91
0.65 3.56
0.77 3.83
0.75 3,82
0.43 2.34
0.57 2.95
0.71 2.o6
0.74 3.20
0.14 .43
J3.16 ,72
0.45 .35
0.42 .43
0.22 .41
0.17 .22
0.26 .31
0.49 2.77
0.20 1.74
PLOW
INTO PIT
GRO DISP
0.0 0.0
O.O 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.22 6.20
0.29 0.16
0.27 0.16
0.31 0.30
"6.24 0.17
0.27 0.16
0.24 0.17
0.30 0.16
0.27 0.16
0.27 0.22
0.43 0.22
0.27 0.16
0.30 0.16
0.27 0.16
0.25 0.19
0.28 0.20
0.0 6.6
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.53 0.87
Q,35 0.4^
0.50 0.59
0.46 0.51
0.49 0.86
0.37 0.44
0.45 0.39
0.48 0,54
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.28 0.18
0.46 0.50
0.69 0.68
U.76 0.63
U.20 0.26
0.44 0.43
0.33 0.21
0.43 O.S3
0.21 0.16
0.21 0.18
0.65 0.41
0.59 0.42
0.26 0.20
0.29 0.£9
0.42 0.37
0.38 0.35
0.29 0.29
-------
Table IV-9 (Continued)
SUMMARIZED BAD EFFECTS SCORES, WATER POLLUTION
NOT CONSIDERED POSSIBLE
SUb KtuKIN AGRICULTURAL
<
I
GARBAGE
RES RUBBISH
HlXti; GARBAGl
STREET ReFUSL
OiAD ANIMALS
ABANDON VtKK
DEMOLITION
CONSTRUCTION
SPtClAL
SEliAGE Tr. uLUo
i\Altk Tf, oLo^
AShLS
HCMAN 1-i.Li-i
LlPtl*
UI'Li'i
c A \< L L Y
utAKo i;,,Y
LuiLu..li\
SCKGhUf.
SUUAK _>t cl ;
hHt«I
LPcN
OPtii
LPLN
t-PtiV
L.PL.,
LPtN
LPtN
OfANS
CAtbAut
LhlNtjc. VLuS
InLtT COKN
CUCUMuE^S
MELONS
LNIONS
PEPPERb
KAul SHi_;>
BCHA1NL
StUASH
Sfcl-tT POTATOES
TCMATUtS
TURNIPS
VECtTASLto
cPc.AI
UPcN
UNMAN
4.u2
2.33
3 .4 .)
t..Al
4. If
1.00
1.01
1.1)0
j. 7u
3.2J
0.77
0.6V
3.J 1
O.O
U.O
I.o3
1.38
I.Jo
1.37
i.jy
1 . jH
1.60
l.oo
1.03
i.3.1
i . :> u
i . 2 j
1. J-i
u.u
U.O
•J.U
u.u
O.U
J.u
11,0
1. <-
i . j2
1.92
1. ;2
1.92
0.0
U.O
U.u
if kJ
1.94
1.43
1.K4
1.54
t. 11
C.69
1.11
1.G3
l.'ll
1.33
0.4o
0.48
2.02
u.'J
0.0
1.23
1.20
1.20
C.S5
0.99
1.20
1.28
1 . <:0
1.13
1.20
1.20
1 .20
1.15
u .0
U.O
U.I,
U.U
L. u
J.U
U.u
1. jb
1.41
1.35
1.33
1 . jt)
1.47
1. 35
1.33
1.33
1.35
1 . 34
1.35
1.40
1.33
u.C
U.U
u.O
t>lLtU
UN
GKO
4.5/
2. t 7
3.-.1
i.u-i
4.21
0.09
1. 71
1.13
3.7b
3.21
0.39
0.58
3. ,2
O.U
O.U
l.ub
1.1.4
2. 34
l.HO
1.41
1 . 04
1. vy
2. .39
I.o5
l.jl
1.1)4
2.74
1.03
O.U
O.U
0. J
u. .J
u.O
u.u
0.0
1. <0
3. it
1 . 9 0
1.90
1 . 90
3.41
3.65
1.90
1.90
1.90
1.90
1.90
3. )3
1.90
U. 0
U.u
O.O
PILED
ON
SLA6S
4.21
^.03
3.05
2.32
3.d8
0.60
1.48
0.93
J.42
3.02
0.54
0.51
i.bl
u.U
u.U
1.4 7
1 . tb
2.11
1.2,1
Lit
1.43
1.30
2.49
1.47
1.4b
1.43
£ . •'• 9
1.47
;).o
o.o
o.o
o.o
J.U
u.O
u.u
1.72
3.20
1. It
I. 72
i. 72
3.13
3.37
1.72
1.72
1.72
1.71
1.72
3.32
1. 72
u.O
0.0
U.O
CUNT
uPEH
3.01
1. 71
2.72
1.41
.2. 95
0.37
0.60
0.3i
2.40
1.87
0.34
u.22
t.OO
0.0
0.0
C. 78
u.7^
u. 72
0. 71
0.7^
u.72
O.dO
1. 32
u. 78
0.7/
0.72
0.80
0.73
o. o
0.0
0. 0
o. 0
u.O
O.U
0.0
1. J.
1.99
1.08
l.Od
l.OH
2.lKt
2.3M
i.oa
l.Ut.
l.Od
l.Oo
l.Oo
i.3b
l.Od
0.0
0.0
0.0
CUNT TKANS
CLUiL
1.42
u.7o
1.28
u. uo
1. 46
0.22
0.23
0.21
1.38
0.32
0.17
0.07
1.21
U.O
u.O
0.11
0.12
0.12
0.13
0 . 1 i
0.12
0.12
0.54
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
u. 12
0.0
0.0
O.U
C.O
o.O
0.0
U.O
U.JO
0. 3 J
0.20
u.20
0.20
0.99
1.2b
0.20
0.20
O.^u
u.20
0.20
1.21
U.2J
0.0
O.U
0.0
OPEN
0.5b
0.33
0.49
J.J4
0.49
0.08
0.24
0.23
J.Ja
0.4i
0. 17
0.23
0. 73
U.O
O.U
0. I'j
0.16
O.lo
U. 14
O.lb
0. 16
0. lo
U.16
u.15
o.lo
0.16
O.lo
u.lb
O.o
O.U
0.0
0.0
0.0
U.O
o.o
0. Jrt
0.'36
0.3d
0. JU
U. 3d
0. 3b
U. 3.J
u.3H
0. id
0.3U
0.36
0.38
0.12
0.3d
0.0
0.0
0.0
TRANS
CLOSE
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.04
0.01
0.02
0.02
l).04
0.02
u.Ol
0.00
0.09
O.U
J.O
0.00
u.oo
u.oo
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
U.O.I
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0. J3
0.0)
0.03
0.03
U.03
0.0
0.0
0.0
JR1NO
1.53
0.99
1.00
1.06
1.36
0.28
0.66
O.oO
1.44
U.92
0.36
0.30
1. 33
0.0
0.0
O.Ud
0.1)4
U. d4
0.62
0.62
0.84
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.84
O.B4
0.93
0.88
O.U
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.01
1.01
l.ol
1.01
1.U1
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.U1
1.01
1.01
1.01
u. 97
1.01
0.0
0.0
0.0
SPKrtY
IRKlu
1.11
0.90
0.89
0.39
U.d2
0.23
0.57
0.5b
1.19
0.75
0.24
0.24
1.30
o.o
0.0
O.dl
o.so
0. 10
U.bi
0.3(1
0.80
0.34
0.64
0.81
0.40
G. dO
0.89
0.81
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
U.O
0.0
0.90
0.93
0.96
0.96
U.9o
0.95
0.9j
0.9u
0.96
0.9r,
U.96
0.96
0.91
0.9o
0.0
0.0
0.0
INC IN
U.21
0.1 j
0.2<-
0.17
0.26
U.24
O.lo
U.17
0. )U
0.24
Cl . i J
O.lJ
0.33
O.o
O.U
0.21
0.22
U.22
U.21
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
U.21
0.22
U.22
0.22
0.21
U.U
U.O
0.0
U.U
0.0
u.o
0.0
0.22
U.22
U.22
C/.22
0.22
0.2,
u.22
0.22
(1.22
U.22
0.22
U.22
0.22
0.22
U.O
U.U
0.0
uPl-N
(JUKi'l
2 . ?0
1. Jl
1.1)3
I.Ob
2.»6
1.01
0 . d£
O.dl
2.24
l.o 7
u. 7'.
u. ')U
2. JO
0.0
U.O
0.7)
u . do
l.U
0.-5
0.3o
0. do
0.92
1.06
0. 7o
0. •* •
J.U
L.. 0
u.Ol)
u. Oj
u. 05
i .Ob
u.05
O.Ob
0.07
C.07
U.Ob
u. O'J
u.o-i
u.07
U.O.)
U. 0
U.O
u.O
U.O
0.0
u.O
C.O
u. 04
i: . O't
u.04
O.C4
u.O'*
•J.Ob
u.04
0.04
0.04
C.U4
0. O'i
u.04
U.03
u.04
0.0
u.O
0.0
LA(iL,K
0.31
0. 11
0.14
0. 39
0.47
0.11
0.06
0.06
0.66
0. 12
0. lu
O..I3
0. 57
0.0
0.0
O.u7
0.07
O.U 7
0. ()«
0.07
0.()7
0. 08
O.Od
0. 07
0.07
0.07
0. lu
0.07
0.0
O.'J
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.17
0. If)
0.1 7
0.17
0.17
0.19
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.16
0.17
0.21
0.17
0.0
0.0
0.0
LA NO
HLL
O.b7
U.45
0.45
0.48
o. 70
0. 17
0. (3
0. ,i
U.;>'.>
0.41
U. 11
0. 11
0. 74
0.0
0.0
u. 3D
U. Jrt
0. )U
0.2)
u. 23
0. IB
0. JB
0.38
0. )1
0. !»
0. 10
0. 38
0. 13
U.u
0.0
0. J
>>. i)
u.u
0.0
0.0
0.42
D.43
0.42
0.42
u.42
U.43
0.42
J.42
0.42
0.-*2
0.42
0.42
0.23
0.42,
0.0
0.0
U.'J
BURY
1.2U
0.93
1.11
U.63
1.35
0.24
0.31
0.35
1.42
0. 76
0.19
0. 14
U. 90
O.U
0.0
0.20
0.20
U.20
0.17
0.17
0.20
0.20
0.20
0. 19
0.20
0.20
U.20
0.20
0.0
u.o
0.0
U.O
0.0
o.o
u.u
0.28
0.45
0.23
0.28
0.2d
0.46
0.77
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.29
0.23
U.66
0.23
0.0
U.O
G.O
OPEN
OUMP
4.62
3.11
3.62
2.50
4.32
1.24
1.77
1.68
3.79
3.0b
0.82
0.46
3.97
U.O
0.0
1.54
1.57
2.27
1. )o
1.42
1.57
1.63
2.3)
1.54
1.57
1.57
2.68
1.54
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.91
3.51
1.91
1.93
1.V3
3.44
3.6,'i
1.93
1.93
1.93
1.93
1.93
.). 51)
1.93
0.0
0.0
0.0
PLJK
INTO
1,1! 0
1.36
1.00
1. 16
0.97
1.13
0.42
0.64
0.64
1.25
0.81
0.26
U.26
1.27
u.O
0.0
0.59
0.58
D.5H
0.38
0.38
O.bb
0.58
0.58
0.57
0.58
0.58
0.63
0.59
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.75
0.88
0.75
0.75
C.75
0.92
O.B4
0.75
0. 75
0.75
0.74
U.75
0.71
0.75
0.0
0.0
0.0
PIT
OISP
1.31
0.92
1.24
0.61
1.28
0.37
0.36
0.39
1.00
0.91
0.24
0.21
1.50
0.0
0.0
0.22
0.17
0.17
0. 16
0. 16
0.17
0.23
0.23
0.22
0.17
0. 17
0.55
0.22
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.32
0.96
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.35
0.31
0.0
0.0
0.0
-------
Table IV-9 (Continued)
SUMMARIZED BAD EFFECTS SCORES, WATER POLLUTION
NOT CONSIDERED POSSIBLE
Sub Region Agricultural
i
o
tSJ
LPhN
O'PLN
OPuH
ALMbNuS
APK1CU1 j
BbSHdEKRHi
FIGS
OKAPthROll
GKAPliS
LtMCKS
NELIAKI.NL..
ULlVcS
URANGES
PEAChbS
PEKS IMrtu.NS
PLLMS
HonLG.0
1..J7
O.U
U.'J
U. J
w. J
3.4 <
£.42
J.il
j. 14
J.70
2.47
i.,1
J.U3
O.U
u.U
i. a
1. Ob
3. 73
3.72
1.70
2. 'J
l.OJ
<:.o J
O.V4
1.14
i. 50
1.U4
0.93
l.2b
1.32
*.-/.)
l.-jl
iPKL.'
O.U
0.0
0.0
1.04
1.04
1.U5
1.20
1.11
1.07
1.10
1.17
1.03
1.14
1.19
1.U5
1.00
1.05
l.uU
1.21
U.O
U.O
O.O
U.U
1.03
1.33
1 .44
1.3d
1.31
1.37
1.34
1.38
U.O
O.U
0.77
1.35
1.37
1.91
U. 39
1.13
O.o3
1.07
C . •'« i
0. /4
1.B7
1.57
0.62
0.77
0 • So
1.30
0.91
PlLfcU
GKO
O.U
U.U
O.U
1.4O
2.87
1.35
2.o4
2. 3V
2.69
2.39
2.06
1.33
2.64
3. 39
1.35
3.02
1.33
1.33
8
1.46
2.50
3.19
1.46
£.84
1.46
1.40
2.13
J.U
o.'u
0.0
u.o
3.32
.2.30
3.04
2.49
3.04
2.35
2.44
2.57
0.0
0.0
I. .19
3.37
3.72
3.77
I.o9
2.4b
2.25
2.b7
U.al
1.14
1.61
1.43
U.69
1.14
1.44
3.25
1.41
CUNT
UPEN
0.0
0.0
0.0
i.oa
1.84
1.06
1.50
1.31
1.84
1.31
1.84
I.Ob
1.54
£. 17
I.Ob
1. 16
l.Oo
1.03
1.20
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.11
1.17
1.70
1.73
I.d7
1.41
1.66
1.58
0.0
O.U
U.76
2.23
2.60
2.68
1. 76
1.72
1.43
1.92
0.19
0.26
1.01
0.78
0.39
0.23
U. 11
1.87
1.U6
CUNT
CLOSb
U.O
U.O
U.O
u.ld
0.32
0.14
0.50
0.3i
O.dd
0.35
O.dd
0.14
0.39
1 .O i
U. 14
U. 79
0.14
0.23
0.14
0.0
U.O
0.0
0.0
U.B8
0.32
o.att
U.ou
0.94
0.73
0.7d
U.73
0.0
U.O
0.33
0.41
1.24
1.2*t
1.01
i).»d
0.63
1.23
0.11
0.11
0.25
U.ld
O.lJ
0.13
0.3->
0.4U
0.13
TRANS
UPEN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.19
0.30
0.34
0.31
0.32
0.34
0.32
U.33
0.34
0.30
0.36
0.34
0.31
0.34
U.35
0.27
0.0
O.U
U.O
0.0
O.42
0.4,:
0.39
0.41
0.42
U.39
0.34
0.41
O.O
0.0
0.24
O.JO
0.44
J.43
0.24
0.23
0.1 i
U.29
O.Ou
0.15
0.4')
0.42
U. Id
O.ltt
0.41
0.42
U.Uo
TRANS
CLOSE
0.0
0.0
0.0
u.oo
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
o.oi
0.01
0.01
0.01
U.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.OL
0.01
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
U.Ob
0.05
U.04
0.05
0.03
O.U5
U.03
0.03
u.o
0.0
0.00
0.02
O.Od
U.04
U.02
0.04
O.OO
J.05
0.00
0.0
O.O2
O.UO
U. OU
0.01
0.07
0.03
U.01
UK1NO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.61
0.63
0.78
0.74
0.77
0.69
0.76
0.64
0.78
0.7b
0.68
0.78
0.05
U. 76
0.80
O.dO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.35
1.19
1.19
1.19
1.20
1.20
1.19
1.19
0.0
0.0
0.5B
0.7U
1. 13
1.11
0.41
U.73
0.31
0.46
0.37
U.73
1.69
1.44
0.77
0.64
O.kU
1.23
0.33
SPRAY
IRKIG
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.56
0.55
0.67
0.65
0.67
0.59
0.67
0.53
O.o7
0.67
0.59
0.67
L.34
0.67
0.72
0. 73
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.22
1.06
1.U7
1.06
l.Od
1.06
1.06
1. Ob
0.0
0.0
0.4b
0.37
1.03
1.05
0.4 J
0.75
0.37
0.3l
0.23
0.4li
1.39
1.41
0.43
0.49
U. 3l
1.29
0.17
1NL1N
O.U
0.0
0.0
0.17
0.18
U. 18
0.11
0.18
0.18
0.1B
0.19
0.18
0.13
0.19
0.18
0.19
U.lb
0.11!
0.20
0.0
0.0
O.U
U.O
0.23
0.19
0.2U
0.1S
0.20
0. 14
U.lb
U.iO
0.0
0.0
O.ltt
0.72
U.32
0.29
U.2c
0.22
U.13
O.lr:
U.I',
U.20'
O.o2
0.34
0.30
U.04
0. 1 n
0.3i
0.3-.
OPfcN
BURN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0. 75
1.72
0.79
1.43
1.32
1.73
1.32
1.60
0.79
1..56
2.02
0.79
1.40
0.79
o.iia
0. /d
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2V
1.2i
2.10
l.HZ
2.21
1.31
1. 77
1.-.4
J. J
0. J
0.90
2./9
2.48
2 . 'to
1.30
I.f4
1.21
1. /<•
o.w
0. oO
1.47
1.2rt
1 . it.
C.4^
0. u9
1.31
1.07
CLJMST
O.C
0.0
0.0
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.04
U.02
C.02
0.02
U.02
0.03
0.0
O.O
U.U
0.0
0. 13
u. 13
0.14
0. 13
L. 14
ft. 13
0.13
0.1'.
•l.il
:.o
O.O1)
O.C-'j
0.3?
•J* 3^
u.o9
0. I/
il. 07
O.U7
j. 06
0.07
.-.71
J.47
0.04
U.C4
v,. 11
0.42
•J . u j
- - - -
LAGUN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.08
0.07
0.07
0-11
0.06
0.09
0.06
0.10
0.07
0.11
0.12
0,07
0.10
0.07
0.13
O.Od
O.U
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.22
0.13
0.13
0.1S
O.lH
O.ltt
0. Id
0. 1U
0.0
0.0
0.09
0.14
O.jttf
0.3;
0. 15
0.17
0. 1U
0.13
O.U4
O.Od
0. II
0.65
0.12
0.02
0.14
0.31
O.Od
LAND
FI LL
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.20
0.20
0.32
0.21
0.32
0.20
0.32
0.16
0.32
0.21
0.17
0.32
0.16
0.32
0.21
0.32
U.o
0.0
0.0
U.O
0.45
0.44
U.44
0.44
0.44
U . '<<<
0.44
U.44
0.0
0.0
0. 23
'J.19
0.31
O.3U
0.12
0. 31
0.15
•J.I 3
0. 1,'
0.27
1.03
U. ol
0.17
0.23
0. 13
u.52
O.lo
-
BURY
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.20
0.37
6.23
0.31
0.23
0.44
0.23
0.22
0.23
0.28
0.50
0.23
0.38
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.03
0.64
0.97
O.BO
0.92
0.64
U.54
0.64
U.O
0.0
0.24
0.09
G.'J')
U.'12
0.51
0.61
0.7'>
0.7d
U. 19
0.27
O.'i7
0.64
U.37
0.34
U.4)
0.74
U.2.3
"OPEN
DUMP
-0.0_
0.0
0.0
1.33"
2.70
1.40
2.52
2.46
2.57
2.46
2.88
1.40
.2,51
3.22
1.40
2.86
1.40
1.45
2.15
0.0
0.0
O.U
0.0
4.04
2.75
3.49
3.45
3.53
2.73
3.00
2.99
0.0
0.0
1.81
3.45
4.19
4.17
1.99
2.96
2.70
2.92
1.29
I.ti4
2.0i
1.33
1.31
1.39
1.49
3.45
1.53
PLOW
INTO
GRD
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.43
0.44
0.55
0.46
0.55
0.43
0.55
0.42
0.55
0,44
0.53
0.55
0.42
0.55
0.40
0.63
0.0
O.U
0.0
0.0
0.96
0.80
0.93
0.90
0.92
O.UO
0.89
0.92
0.0
0.0
0.48
0.58
0.92
0.97
0.27
0.63
0.49
0.42
0.24
0.46
1.38
1.11
0.42
U.53
0.60
0.91
0.34
PIT
. 51 SP
..fi.0.
0.0
0.0
0.22
0.17
0.18
0.30
0.19
0.17
0.19
0.16
0.18
0.22
0.22
0.18
0.16
0.18
0.18
0,23
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.94
0.52
0.65
0.59
0.93
0.52
0.47
0.61
0.0
0.0
0.18
0.48
0.71
0.65
0.25
0.46
0.25
0.54
0.18
0.21
0.58
0.58
0.26
0.36
0.46
0.47
0.30
-------
Table IV-10
PERFORMANCE SCORES (HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE)
Proposed
Systems *
A
B
C
D
Cow
Manure
2
0.5
0.8
3
Grapes
1
0.4
1
2
Cotton
Trash
Transient
0.5
OA
0.3
1
Dead
Animals
Elements
2
1
OA
3
Pigeon
Manure
1
0-5
0-7
2
Seeds
0.5
0.3
0.1
1
Walnuts
0.5
0.3
0.2
1
Sub-
total
7-5
3-3
3-5
13
Final Disposal Elements
A
B
C
D
100
150
75
1*0
50
100
IK>
10
20
30
10
5
100
200
80
50
50
75
35
10
30
35
20
15
25
Uo
10
5
375
630
270
135
One of these systems vill be the "existing system" used as a comparison
reference in the actual scoring.
IV-63
-------
Table IV-11
PERFORMANCE SCORE INPUT DATA
Card
No. Variable
1 NID
Description
Type of subregion
2 NSREG Name of region
3 NSYST System title
NPOL Water pollution
possibility
LST First waste used
Identification No.
LEND Last waste used
Identification No.
Comments
Put a 1 in appropriate Col.
Municipal
Agricultural
Industrial
Interface
Write name of region being
scored e. g. Fresno
Write title of system being
scored e. g. Fresno Storage
System
0 indicates Water Pollution
not possible
1 indicates Water Pollution
is possible
First waste is lowest numeri-
cal waste identification
number being evaluated. Right
hand justify
Last waste highest numerical
waste identification number
being evaluated. Right hand
justify
Col. Location
Col. -- Thru.
1
2
3
4
1 -- 12
1 -- 36
2 --
5 --
IV-64
-------
Table IV-11
PERFORMANCE SCORE INPUT DATA (Continued)
Card No.
Waste Ld.
1st Card
Description
Waste load in tons for
amount of waste in par-
ticular condition.
Waste Conditions
Unmanaged 1
Spread on Ground 2
Piled on Ground 3
Piled on Slab 4
Open Container 5
Closed Container 6
Open Transport 7
Closed Transport 8
Grinding 9
Spray Irrigation 10
Comments
Wastes are entered in
numerical order with
two cards used for each
waste. Tonage entered
as fixed point real num-
ber. Two cards must be
inserted for each num-
ber between "LST" &
"LEND". If intermedi-
ate numbered waste is
not present enter two
blank cards.
If a particular waste
has quantities in several
condition. Enter the
several quantities in the
appropriate condition
locations. If all locations
are on one card leave
other card blank.
Col. Location
Col. -- Thru.
Waste quantities in con-
ditions 1 through 10 are
entered on 1st card for
particular waste. Waste
quantities in Condition
11 through 19 are entered
on 2nd card for particular
waste.
1 -
9
17
25
33
41
49
57
65
73
- 8
- 16
- 24
- 32
- 40
- 48
- 56
- 64
- 72
- 80
IV-65
-------
Table IV-11
PERFORMANCE SCORE INPUT DATA (Continued)
Col. Location
Card No. Description Comments Col. -- Thru.
2nd Card Incinerate 11 1 -- 8
Open Burning 12 9 -- 16
Compost 13 17 -- 24
Lagoon 14 25 -- 32
Landfill 15 33 -- 40
Buried 16 41 -- 48
Open Dump 17 49 -- 56
Plowed in Ground 18 57 -- 64
Pit Disposal 19 65 -- 72
IV-66
-------
V. ANCILLARY EFFECTS SCORING PROCEDURE
A. INTRODUCTION
Section IV derives a method for determining the degree to which
various alternative solid waste management system:; solve the environmental
effects of solid wastes. In this section, a means for comparing the environ-
mental effects of the physical objects that make up a waste management sys-
tem is developed. Two totally different systems may have exactly the same
effect on maintaining a desirable environment when consideration is given only
to solid wastes. They may differ dramatically, however, in the manner that
the physical oojects constituting the management system interact with their
environment. For example, a system that employs trucks to collect solid
wastes from households creates noise, traffic interference, exhaust fumes,
and is a safety hazard, compared to an alternate method of collection, say,
underground tubes, that does not interact with the environment in any of these
ways. If both systems are equally effective, as reflected by their Performance
Scores, and if both cost the same, the underground tube approach would appear
to be more desirable because of its better "A" score. It is to be noted, however,
that only four ancillary effects were mentioned in tho above comparison. There
may be other system effects that override the four considered and, in the final
analysis, prove the truck collection system superior -
B. PROCEDURE
1 . Definitions of Effects
The first step in deriving a methodology for scoring ancil-
lary effects ("A" scores) of solid waste management systems was the identi
fication and definition of the possible system environmental effects. Physical,
social, and psychological aspects of the problem were all considered. From
the original list of probable and possible effects, duplications and overlapping
was eliminated (to the extent possible) resulting in the following ancillary
effects:
V-l
-------
V. Ancillary Effects Scoring Procedure, B (Continued)
a. Noise - Refers to the generation of sound that is
noticeably loud, harsh, discordant, and/or disagreeable.
b. Traffic Interference - Refers to any equipment or
component that impedes or in any way affects the normal flow of traffic.
c. Land Pollution - Refers to the operation of any equip-
ment that affects land use, reuse, or reclamation in a detrimental manner.
d. Odor - Refers to disagreeable and/or objectional
smells that are associated primarily with the operation of the system. This
would include noxious and/or toxic machinery exhaust products as well as odors
generated by a process that is primarily a function of that process and not of
the waste itself.
e. Unsightliness - Refers to any aspects of the system
that are visually ugly, distasteful, annoying, and distracting.
f. Safety Hazards - Refers to any system or system
component that poses a threat to life, limb, or health of the operators and/or
general public.
g. Air Pollution - Refers to anything that adds to air
pollution as a function of the system and not of the waste itself. For example,
increased emissions from internal combustion engines used as the power source
for operating the system.
h. Water Pollution - Refers to pollution of surface or
groundwater which results from operation of the system, such as thermal
pollution of streams or lakes due to a system that requires excessive amounts
of cooling water.
i. Legal Problems - Refers to those problems which arise
from the existence of legislation which prevents the implementation of a new
system or subsystem, or the need to pass new laws to force or encourage
the implementation of a new system or subsystem.
V-2
-------
y. Ancillary Effects Scoring Procedure, B (Continued)
j. Jurisdictional Conflicts - Refers to those effects that
are incurred by the operation of a system which requires crossing boundaries
such as municipal, county, etc.
k. Employment Effects - Refers to reduced employment
which may be experienced as the result of the use of any system or system
component.
i. Social Status - Refers to the fact that there is a
certain social stigma associated with being a "garbage man. " Any system
which upgrades the classification of the workers (i. e. , to "technician, "
"mechanic, " etc. ) is to be considered more desirable than one that does not,
since it is connected to the mental well-being or pride of the workers.
Effects c to h above will be recognized as environmental
effects considered in the performance scoring. Again, it must be emphasized
that the ancillary effects berng evaluated in this section are only those associated
with the physical systems without any reference to the solid wastes. The defin-
itions provide justification for including land pollution, odor, unsightliness,
safety hazards, air and water pollution as environmental effects of systems
as well as of solid wastes. All other effects of solid wastes were determined
not to be noticeable effects of solid waste systems.
2. Ranking and Rating of Effects
The second step required a determination of the relative
importance and subsequent weighting factors for each of the identified ancil-
lary effects. The forced decision-making method previously used in the
ranking of environmental effects for the Performance Scoring Procedure
(page IV-7) was applied. A total of twenty individuals provided separate
rankings in this case, whereas, for the Performance Scoring Procedure,
only one compromise ranking was obtained. The one ranking represented
the judgment of several environmental experts. The several, used for ancil-
lary effects, ranged from technical to nontechnical personnel, including two
V-3
-------
V. Ancillary Effects Scoring Procedure, B (Continued)
secretaries and one housewife. The relative importance of ancillary effects
tends to vary with the subregion, (i.e., municipal, industrial, agriculture,
and interface); consequently, rankings were provided for each subregion. The
rankings were then totaled for each subregion, as shown in Table V-l through
V-4. A second variation in the methodology developed for "A" scores, as
compared to performance scores, is provided by the approach to weighting of
the effects. Since a wider range of value judgments was used in this case, it
was determined that ratios of total ranking scores (the sum of 20 rankings)
to the highest score would be used as weights. These weights are also shown
in Tables V-l through V-4.
3. Application of "A" Scores
The third and final step is the application of the weights to
ancillary effects for various candidate systems. This will actually be done in
Section VIII of this report. The procedure will be explained in this section and
a sample provided.
The derivation of "A" scores for conceptual solid waste
management systems requires a comparison of "A" scores for functional can-
didate systems. Candidate systems have been postulated on the basis of five
separate functions: storage, collection, transportation, processing, and dis-
posal. This "building-block" approach is used for developing performance
scores and is readily adaptable to "A" score determination.
Figure V-l provides a sample of "A" score determination
for the comparison of two hypothetical, albeit possible, conceptual systems.
The systems discussed in the sample case will be for municipal wastes from
a municipal region. System 1 consists of makeshift containers for storage,
truck collection at curbside, truck transportation, grinding for bulk reduction,
and ultimate disposal in a sanitary landfill. System 2 consists of built-in
containers for storage, truck collection from back yards, train transportation,
baling for bulk reduction, and ultimate disposal in a sanitary landfill.
V-4
-------
v.
Ancillary Effects Scoring Procedure, B (Continued)
Table V-l
"A" Scores Ranking & Weighting
Municipal Region
Safety Hazards
Water Pollution
Air Pollution
Odor
Employment Effects
Unsightliness
Land Pollution
Traffic Interference
Noise
Social Status
Jurisdictional Conflicts
Legal Problems
Ranking
Score
Z19
196
17
. ->.Z
.22
V-5
-------
V-
Ancillary Effects Scoring Procedure, B (Continued)
Table V-2
"A" Scores Ranking & Weighting
Industrial Region
Safety Hazards
Water Pollution
Air Pollution
Employment Effects
Odor
Traffic Interference
Unsightliness
Jurisdictional Conflicts
Legal Problems
Land Pollution
Social Status
Noise
Ranking
Score
220
190
162
135
117
94
89
74
72
62
58
47
Weight
1.00
.86
.74
.61
. 53
.43
.40
.34
.33
.28
.26
.21
V-6
-------
V-
Ancillary Effects Scoring Procedure, B (Continued)
Table V-3
"A" Scores Ranking & Weighting
Agricultural Region
Safety Hazards
Water Pollution
Land Pollution
Air Pollution
Employment Effects
Odor
Legal Problems
Traffic Interference
Jurisdictional Conflicts
Unsightliness
Social Status
Noise
Ranking
Score
220
200
174
148
105
100
70
70
62
62
61
48
Weight
1.00
• 91
.79
.67
.48
.45
.32
.32
.28
.28
. 28
.22
V-7
-------
V. Ancillary Effects Scoring Procedure, B (Continued)
Table V-4
"A" Scores Ranking & Weighting
Interface Region
Safety Hazards
Water Pollution
Air Pollution
Land Pollution
Odor
Employment Effects
Unsightliness
Traffic Interference
Social Status
Legal Problems
Jurisdictional Conflicts
Noise
Ranking
Score
220
196
172
143
116
111
85
66
56
53
50
48
Weight
1. 00
.89
.78
.65
.53
.51
.39
.30
.25
.24
.23
.22
V-8
-------
FUNCTION
Storage
Collection
xO
Transportation
Processing
Disposal
TOTAL
SCORE
SYSTEMS
COMPARISON
Make-shift Containers
Built-in Containers
Truck Collection
at Curbside
Truck Collection -
Backyard
Truck
Train
Grinding
Baling
Sanitary Landfill
Sanitary Landfill
1.
2.
2
.66
1
.33
3
.99
1
.33
3
.99
2
.66
3
1.05
1
.35
1
.35
2
1.28
1
0.64
0,$
1
0.49
3
3.00
1
1.00
3
3.00
2
2.00
3
1.00
1
1.00
3
3.00
2
2.00
2
1.56
1
0.78
1
.22
1
.22
1
.49
1
.26
0
7.74
1
.49
3.98
3-53
1
.49
3.99
19.24
4.30
2.00
2.39
2.66
13.35
P
n
M
i-s
n
n-
en
n
o
1-1
M'
0
OQ
O
n
o>
O
o
Figure V-l. "A" Scoring
-------
V. Ancillary Effects Scoring Procedure, B (Continued)
In comparing one system to another it is recognized that
a range of seriousness of ancillary effects is possible. One system can be
very noisy, i.e. , produce a serious effect with respect to noise, while the
other system may produce moderate, minor, or even no noise. To allow
for this variation in degree of effect, the following scale is used:
Serious effect 3
Moderate effect .... 2
Minor effect 1
No effect 0
Using this scale, the analyst can compare candidate systems, by function, as
to their contribution to each ancillary effect.
Figure V-l shows a sample comparison of the two hypo-
thetical systems. System 1, with respect to the storage function, was con-
sidered to produce moderate noise and was, therefore, ranked "2". System
2 was considered to produce minor noise and was ranked "1". This analysis
was made for the candidate systems for each ancillary effect within each
function. It is possible that not all ancillary effects have a relationship to the
function or candidate systems. In addition, in the analyst's judgment, the
candidate systems could be equally good or bad within the rather broad scale
provided. Should either of the above be the case, the particular effect, or
effects, should be left blank.
Upon completion of the ranking, weights from Tables V-l
through V-4 (according to the region involved) are multiplied by the rankings
and inserted for each effect. The scores for each function are then totaled
in the last two columns and summed for total scores of Systems 1 and 2. For
the example shown in Figure V-l, System 2 scored 13.35, compared to 19-24
for System 1. In this case, System 2 would be selected if performance scores
and costs for the two systems had failed to provide a decision.
V-10
-------
y. Ancillary Effects Scoring Procedure, B (Continued)
"A" scores for systems concepts can be used in two ways.
They can provide an additional determinant in the final selection of the sys-
tem to be synthesized or they can be applied only when performance score
and cost comparisons fail to indicate a clear-cut superiority of one system over
another. For this study, "A" scores have been developed for those postulated
systems, falling within cost and performance limitations as shown in Section VIII.
C. SUMMARY
As with the Performance Scoring Procedure, the subjective
nature of the "A" scores prevents any interpretation in terms of absolute
effect on the environment caused by the physical aspects of solid waste man-
agement systems- The procedure does, however, provide a meaningful com-
parison of various postulated systems. Quantification of these environmental
effects, based on subjective analysis, may not provide the preciseness usually
associated with engineering evaluations; however, the use of these procedures
presents the alternative that would normally be determined in a. subjective
fashion in a far more ordered manner-
V-ll
-------
VI. OPERATING CONDITIONS
A. PURPOSE
The purpose of this section of the report is to delineate the
existing and projected conditions under which a solid waste management
system will be required to operate, and to define how the developed data
establishes the operational boundaries for conceptual waste management
systems in the Fresno Region.
B. PROCEDURES
The objective of several task assignments in the study program
was to collect and collate pertinent data to establish and define the require-
ments for solid waste management in the Fresno Region. In establishing the
"Operating Conditions" for the Fresno Region Waste Management System,
the data and conclusions developed in the following listed work assignments
were used.
1. Regional Physical Environment
2. Demographic Projections
3. Economic Projections
4. Land Use Projections
5. Laws and Ordinances Related to Solid Waste Systems
6. Governmental Relationships to Solid Waste Systems
7. Existing Solid Waste Loadings
8. Projected Solid Waste Loadings
9. Existing Solid Waste Management Systems
10. Technical State of Art and Advanced Concepts
11. Financial Resources
12. Resultant Practices, State Developed Standards and
• " Criteria (Preliminary)
VI-1
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
These assignments resulted in special reports, most of which
appear either in the Appendix of the Interim Report or the appendix of the
final report. This section provides a summary of the data developed in all
of the above listed assignments.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
1. Geographical
The Fresno Region Study Area is the central portion of
Fresno County as shown in the location reference map, Figure VI-1. It is
approximately 48 miles east to west and about 35 miles north to south and
contains about 770, 000 acres.
The area is located in the flat section of the San Joaquin
Valley and is drained by the San Joaquin and the Kings Rivers. Forty-three
percent of the 770, 000 acres is presently under irrigated cultivation of high
return crops with another 39 percent used for irrigated pasture or native
rangeland. The balance, except for about 52, 000 acres under urban devel-
opment, is vacant land.
The urban area mentioned above consists of the major
metropolitan area of Fresno and Clovis, the cities of Sanger, Fowler, Selma,
Reedley, Kingsburg, Parlier, Kerman, and Orange Cove, as well as the un-
incorporated communities of Biola, Del Rey, Laton, Easton, Calwa, Herndon,
Malaga, Raisin City and others. (See Figure VI-2 for a detail map of the study region).
2. Geophysical
Fresno County is approximately 135 miles wide from
southwest to northeast and varies from 30 to 60 miles deep in a northwest-
southeast direction. It extends from the Coast Ranges on the southwest to
the crest of the Sierra Nevada on the northeast (Figure VI-1). The eleva-
tion ranges from about 110 feet above sea level, where the San Joaquin River
flows into Merced County, to over 4, 000 feet in the Coast Ranges and up to
VI-2
-------
/v
Figure VI-1. Location Reference Map of Study Region
VI-3
-------
Figure VI-2. Fresno Region Study Area
VI-4
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
over 14, 000 feet at the crest of the Sierra Nevada. Between the two moun-
tain systems lies the broad, flat San Joaquin Valley which is drained in part by
the San Joaquin River. Within Fresno County, the valley is 50 to 60 miles
in width. Deep soils of alluvial origin, abundant water for irrigation, and a
long hot growing season make the valley one of the world's most productive
agricultural regions and Fresno County the nation's leader in the value of its
agricultural production.
From time to time, water has flowed the length of the
San Joaquin Valley but now the huge alluvial delta of the Kings River effec-
tively blocks northward flow of water under normal conditions Most of the
Kings River water has, for some years, drained into Tulare Lake which has
no outlet. Tulare Lake is now gradually drying up as most of the water of the
Kings River (as well as the San Joaquin River) is impounded during the winter
months and spring to be used for irrigation during the dry summer months.
There is still a water connection between the Kings and San Joaquin Rivers
which is known as the Fresno Slough. This watercourse lies at the low point
of the Valley in Fresno County and flows northward to the San Joaquin River.
The Fresno Region Study Area is located in the flat section
of the valley and'does not exhibit pointed topographical variations from one
location to the other. The general slope of the land in this area is represented
by a slight westerly decline of four to five feet per mile. This slope prevails
to the east of Fresno Slough where it changes direction and becomes a westerly
rise gradually reaching the coast range.
3. Climatology
While a wide variety of climatic conditions exist in the
various parts of Fresno County, the study region in the flat section of the
San Joaquin Valley is subject to hot, dry summers and moderate winters.
Rainfall in the valley results from winter storms that move on-shore from
Pacific low pressure systems, dropping their moisture in the San Joaquin
Valley. The coast ranges insulate the valley from the modifying effect of
the Pacific Ocean and, hence, the summer temperatures reach extremes
found in mid-continental locations.
VI-5
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
'a. The precipitation pattern found within the County
is profoundly influenced by topography. Moist air moving in from the Pacific
rises as it passes over the coast ranges then flows downslope as it comes in-
to the San Joaquin Valley. This forms a "rain shadow" east of the coast range
where precipitation is very light. Moving eastward across the San Joaquin
Valley, rainfall continues light until the lifting effect of the Sierra Nevada
causes the warm air to cool and the moisture to condense and precipitate.
In common with other areas of California, precipitation is concentrated in
the winter —nearly 85 percent of the annual total is received in the six-month
period from October through March.
The patterns of annual precipitation throughout the
County are illustrated in Figure VI-3. Below the 500-foot elevation the valley
receives less than 15 inches annual precipitation. The driest areas are west
of the Fresno Slough where annual totals average only 6 to 7 inches. The
greatest precipitation in the valley occurs along the foothills on the east side,
and there is a steady increase in precipitation as elevation increases. Grant
Grove at 6, 580 averages nearly 45 inches.
b. Temperature
Wide ranges of temperature exist within Fresno
County. At low elevations, summers are hot while winter temperatures re-
main moderate.
Temperature, as well as precipitation, is related
to topography; in general, average temperature decreases as altitude in-
creases. There are some significant departures from this rule; since cold
air drains to low spots, the low area of the valley along the Fresno Slough
has minimum readings that are somewhat lower than slightly higher areas
in the valley near the foothills where air drainage is better.
The July daily maximum temperature averages over
100°F in the west half of the valley and in the belt near the Sierra Foothills
VI-6
-------
k
i
-J
•»
10 ''0
Figure VI-3. Average Annual Precipitation in Inches
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
extending for a distance up the river canyons. Extreme highs of 100 or
more have been recorded up to 2, 500 feet, with readings of 115° or higher
reported from most stations below about 500 feet elevation. On the average,
the Fresno Air Terminal observes 101 days per year with temperatures of
90 or higher.
The January mean daily minimum temperature is
above freezing at most observation stations below 2, 500 feet elevation.
Readings average about 33 or 34 near the low point of the San Joaquin
Valley, with bands of warmer temperatures extending along either side of
the valley to an elevation of a few hundred feet. Certain areas within these
warm zones are protected against frost on all but the coldest nights.
c. Wind
In open areas of the County the prevailing wind
direction is from the northwest during most of the year, although southeast-
erly winds are more common during November, December and January.
Wind direction in mountainous terrain is determined primarily by orographic
characteristics and may come from almost any point of the compass. In gen-
eral, there is a tendency for the air to move upslope during the day and to
drain downslope at night. Occasionally, the area is visited by strong north
winds that dry the soil and dessicate vegetation. These winds are usually of
higher velocity and more gusty on the west side of the valley than on the east
and some crop damage may be anticipated. The strongest winds appear to
blow from the same directions as the prevailing winds: from the southeast
during the winter and from the northwest during the rest of the year. Wind
speed averages at Fresno are lowest in November, increasing to a maximum
in June. Extreme wind speeds, on the other hand, are likely to be higher
during winter storms than during the remainder of the year. Winds of 30 to
50 miles per hour may be expected about once every two years at low eleva-
tions while speeds up to 80 miles per hour maybe experienced once in 50 years.
Average year-round wind speed recorded at the Fresno Air Terminal varies
between 4 and 8 miles per hour.
VI-8
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
d. Relative Humidity
Relative humidity is fairly high during the winter
months, but low readings are the rule during the rest of the year. Late
summer and fall are particularly dry in this part of California. Relative
humidity during January ranges from about 50 to 70 percent during the day
to 90 percent at night at low elevations and averages from 85 to 95 percent
in the mountains. Summer and early fall are likely to be very dry, after-
noon readings frequently dropping below 15 percent in the valley and 25'to
35 percent in the mountains.
e. Sunshine
The County receives abundant sunshine during the
summer of the year and moderate amounts at other times. In the months
from June to September, the area experiences over 95 percent of possible
sunshine based on the readings at the Fresno Air Terminal. This drops to
half that amount during December and January. Considerably more sunshine
is experienced just above the fog or low clouds that frequently envelop the
valley during winter. Cumulus clouds reduce the summer figure in the moun-
tains, though sunshine is likely for a good part of the day even when such clouds
are present.
At Fresno, the average year contains 196 clear days,
74 partly-cloudy days, and 95 cloudy days. This is probably representative
of conditions throughout the valley.
f. Smog
A study of the meteorology of all areas of the State
by the Bureau of Air Sanitation indicated that the meteorology and climate of
the San Joaquin Valley are unusually favorable for the development of air
pollution. Light winds and atmospheric stability provide a frequent oppor-
tunity for pollutants to accumulate in the atmosphere. The general circula-
tion, characterized by daily up-valley and down-valley winds that shift back
VI-9
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
and forth over the valley floor, permits the transport of pollution over long
distances along the axis of the valley. Although meteorological conditions
can produce a high air pollution potential at any time of the year, air pollu-
tion is most likely to occur in the fall and winter. The possibility of photo-
chemical smog formation in the summer and fall is enhanced by the almost
unbroken succession of warm, clear days during these seasons. Air pollu-
tion problems which may be local in nature or cover considerable areas re-
sult from dust, smoke, odors, and specific chemicals.
Photochemical smog is caused by the reaction of
hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen under the influence of sunlight. While
motor vehicles are the principal source of both the hydrocarbons and oxides
of nitrogen in the San Joaquin Valley and Fresno County, agricultural, com-
mercial, and industrial operations and refuse burning also contribute a large
share of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen to the atmosphere. During the
fall, the burning of agriculture crop wastes becomes a highly significant
factor in the region's pollution problem.
The oxidant index is the most widely accepted mea-
sure of the occurrence and intensity of photochemical air pollution. The
State Department of Public Health in 1959 set a standard for the oxidant
index at 0. 15 parts per million (ppm) for one hour as the level at which eye
irritation, haze and plant damage might be expected to occur. Fresno ex-
ceeded this standard a number of times in recent years: 9 times in 1963, 5
times in 1964, and 34 times in 1965.
4. Hydrology
The distribution and migration of the area surface and
groundwater supplies is an extremely important aspect of the area operating
conditions with respect to a waste management system.
Information on the state of groundwater is essential in
the selection and design of sanitary landfills and other solid waste disposal
sites. Landfills, if not properly located, may contribute to the degradation
VI-10
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
of groundwater either by direct percolation of leachates to the groundwater
or by interaction of CO? generated in the landfill from the decomposition of
solid wastes with the groundwater. Likewise, surface runoff and high water
table drainage from solid waste residues, if not controlled, can appreciably
degrade the area's runoff streams.
a. Surface Waters
There are two main surface streams in the Fresno
Region: the San Joaquin and Kings Rivers.
The San Joaquin River originates in the Sierra
Nevada mountains and flows along the boundary line between Fresno and
Madera Counties. The flow of this river is gaged below Friant, California,
and has a 58-year average discharge of 2, 306 cfs or 1, 669, 000 ac-ft/yr.
The flow of this river is regulated by Millerton Lake.
The Kings River also originates in the Sierra Nevada
mountains and, at a station below Pine Flat Reservoir, has a 12-year average
discharge of 1987 cfs or 1, 439, 000 ac-ft/yr. The flow of this river is regu-
lated by Pine Flat Reservoir. This river passes through the southeast part
of Fresno County and flows into Tulare and Kings Counties toward the Tulare
Lake Bed (Figure VI-4).
These two rivers constitute the only natural sources
of surface water supply in the Fresno Region. Both of these rivers have water
of excellent quality.
b. Groundwater
Groundwater is the main source of water supply in
the Fresno Region. The municipal, domestic and industrial water supply for
the Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area is obtained entirely from the ground-
water. Agricultural water requirements in the county are also supplemented
by the use of groundwater and, in some areas, groundwater is the only source
of such supply.
VI-11
-------
Figure VI-4. Surface Streams in Fresno County
VI-12
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
Historically, groundwater has been found through-
out the region. The depth to the groundwater in Fresno County in 1952 was
between 10 and 50 feet but during the past 15 years the use of groundwater
has increased on an accelerated basis until the present depth to groundwater
is about 70 feet in the Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area.
During the last ten years, the decline of water levels
has averaged three feet per year. Figure VI-5 illustrates groundwater ele-
vations in and around the metropolitan area (spring 1963).
In 1915, the water table beneath the Fresno-Clovis
area had a fairly even southwesterly gradient averaging about eight feet per
mile (0. 0015). Although the regional water table still maintains its general
southwesterly gradient, heavy pumping in the Fresno area, together with insuf-
ficient recharge, has modified the historical configuration. The gradient now
dips south from Pinedale toward the heart of Fresno and nearly due west from
the City of Calwa. Between Fresno and Clovis the gradient remains south-
westerly but has increased from 8 feet per mile to about 20 feet per mile.
Southwest of Fresno the gradient has become very flat with a minimum of
about one-half foot per mile (Spring 1963). Should this trend continue, it is
possible that a "pumping depression" may eventually develop beneath Fresno,
resulting in a reversal of the gradient in the area southwest of the city.
In the vicinity of Fresno, average permeabilities
vary from 135 to 820 gallons per day per square foot. The average for the
Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area is approximately 620 gallons per day per
square foot. The highest local permeabilities were found in the channels and
fans of the small, active drainages such as Dry Creek, Dog Creek, Fancher
Creek, and Redbank Slough; the highest average permeability was in Township
14 South, Range 21 East, and reflects the high permeability of the young allu-
vium of Fancher Creek and Redbank Slough.
VI-13
-------
SOURCE: Reference 4
STATE Of- CALIFORNIA
THE RESOURCES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY BRANCH
FRESNO-CLOVIS METROPOLITAN AREA
WATER QUALITY INVESTIGATION
FRESNO COUNTY
Figure VI-5. Lines of Equal Elevation of Ground Water (Spring 1963)
VI-14
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
Groundwater recharge in the area is affected by
the complex interconnected nature of the permeable units in the underlying
deposits and the existence of less permeable layers.
A layer of hardpan at a depth of five to ten feet is
frequently encountered in the old alluvium found throughout most of the
Fresno area. Although downward movement of water is impeded by the
hardpan, percolation does occur at an estimated rate of one to three gal-
lons per day per square foot. In certain suburban areas, percolation is
enhanced by septic tank leach wells which penetrate the hardpan to reach
underlying, more permeable sands.
Most recharge occurs in the Fresno-Clovis area
through the young alluvium deposits of intermittent streams entering the
area from the east, through percolation and infiltration from ponds associated
with sewage treatment facilities, and through the canal systems and ponding
sites. The Fresno Irrigation District estimates that approximately 50 per-
cent of the water conveyed by its canals is lost by seepage before delivery.
At the end of the irrigation season, the canal system and ponding sites .f the
Fresno Irrigation District are sometimes used as recharge facilities. Nu-
merous other small recharge facilities are located throughout the area and
are operated by other agencies.
In general, the groundwater quality in the metro-
politan area is very good. Table VI-1 presents the maximum, minimum,
mean, and median concentration values of the constituents in the area's
groundwater samples. Generally, the higher values were obtained from the
area surrounding the Fresno Sewage Treatment Plant and from three wells
located in the vicinity of the Pacific Fruit Express ice plant and the abandoned
Southern Pacific zeolite water softening plant.
Extremely high mineral concentrations in the vicinity
of the ice plant and water softening plant prompted an investigation in 1953 by
the Division of Water Resources of the State Department of Public Works.
VI-15
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
Table VI-1
SUMMARY OF GROUND WATER QUALITY ANALYSES
FRESNO-CLOVIS METROPOLITAN AREA
Mineral Constituents in
Parts Per Million (ppm)
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Sulfate
Chloride
Fluoride
Nitrate
Boron
Silica
Alkalinity
Dissolved Solids
Total Hardness as CaCO
Alkyl Benzene
Sulfonate
(ppm)
(Ca)
(Mg)
(Na)
(K)
(so4)
(Cl)
(F)
(N03)
(B)
(Si02)
(HC03)
CaCO,
(ABS)
Maximum
9.2
108
53
112
13
22
94
0.4
58. 5
0. 34
102
585-
708
384
0. 3
Mean
7.8
27
13
21
4. 7
9.4
20. 6
0. 13
15. 1
0. 1
64
144
268
127
< 0. 1
Median
7. 8
20
11
16
4. 3
7. 2
12. 0
0. 1
13.0
0. 07
67
110
220
100
0. 0
Minimum
7. 3
2.4
0. 0
5. 6
1. 5
0. 0
1.9
0. 0
0.8
0. 00
23
39
86
44
0. 0
VI-16
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
Corrective measures taken at the conclusion of that investigation have im-
proved the groundwater quality; however, the water is still of a lower quality
than that of the surrounding area.
Figure VI-6 is a plot of three ranges of dissolved-
solids concentration in water from wells in the Fresno-Clovis area. The
pattern for total hardness follows closely that of the concentration of dis-
solved solids.
Nitrate concentrations in groundwater in the central
portion of the San Joaquin Valley average approximately 11 ppm, whereas the
average in the area of investigation is 15 ppm. Figure VI-7 shows three ranges
of nitrate concentrations exist in the area southwest of the Fresno Air Terminal
and in the vicinity of the Fresno Sewage Treatment Plant. The area southwest
of the air terminal lies outside the Fresno City limits and is an unsewered
region. Many wells located in these areas have nitrate concentrations near
or above the drinking water standards of 45 ppm. Most of the higher concen-
trations were found in shallower wells.
D. DEMOGRAPHY
To facilitate presentation, the study region was divided into 15
zones in the demographic study conforming to the existing systems of census
tracts and enumeration districts. For the purposes of this report these zones
will be named after the major city or town in the zone and are as follows:
Biola, Caruthers, Del Rey, Fowler, Kerman, Kingsburg, Laton, Orange
Cove, Parlier, Reedley, Riverdale, Sanger, Selma, Foothill, andF.C.M.A.
(Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area). Figure VI-8 delineates the geographic
areas alloted to each of the above zones. It should be noted that the zone
called Foothill is named for its geographic position rathar than for a community
The present and projected population for the study region and
for each of the above zones is presented in Table VI-2. The population is
VI-17
-------
00
k^g-t ,
~i
s
Lrki;: n F i i; ? ,' u
i
IC'LC IH IIII.C9
SOURCE- Rtferance 4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE RESOURCES AGENCY
LEGEND
0 - 250 Portl p«r Million O
2SI-900 Porli pir Million A
SOI -<: Porl» pti Million Q
FRESNO-CLOVIS METROPOLITAN AREA
WATER QUALITY INVESTIGATION
FRESNO COUNTY
r
Figure VT-6. Concentration of Dissolved Solids (1963)
-------
r
_J J
• CALC IN MILES
SOURCE' R ptr Million O
16 - 29 Parti pir Million A
26-39 ParU p«r Million Q
FRESNO-CLOVIS METROPOLITAN AREA
WATER QUALITY INVESTIGATION
FRESNO COUNTY
Figure VI-7. Concentration of Nitrates as NO- (1963)
-------
SCALE
FRESNO-CLOV IS
METROPOLITAN AREA
Figure VI-8. Fresno Region Zonal Boundaries
-------
Table VI-2
FRESNO REGION POPULATION PROJECTIONS
AND DISTRIBUTION
Biola
Community
Area
Total
1967
704
1,814
2, 518
1980
812
1, 964
2, 776
1990
907
2,088
2,995
2000
1, 013
2,220
3, 233
1967
947
6,834
7, 781
Fowler
Community
Area
Total
1967
2, 346
3, 183
5,529
1980
3,472
3,500
6, 972
1990
4, 703
3, 765
8,468
2000
6,369
4,059
10, 420
1967
3,021
5, 687
8, 708
Laton
Community
Area
Total
1967
1, 139
1,486
2,625
1980
1, 317
1, 696
3, 013
1990
1,474
1,877
3, 351
2000
1, 649
2, 078
3,727
1967
3, 589
1, 033
4, 622
Reedley
Community
Area
Total
1967
8, 004
5, 217
13,221
1980
11,772
5, 670
17,442
1990
15,872
6, 029
21, 901
2000
21, 400
6, 411
27,811
1967
1,590
2, 540
4, 130
Selma
Community
Area
Total
1967
7, 752
8, 786
16,538
1980
11, 008
10,622
21,630
1990
14, 442
12, 298
26,740
2000
18, 947
14, 237
33, 184
Community
Area
Total
1967
694
694
1967
311,751
84,425
396, 176
Caruthers
1980
1, 067
8, 253
9, 320
1990
1, 170
9,546
10, 716
2000
1, 283
11,042
12, 325
Kerman
1980
6,480
6,481
12, 961
Orange
1980
5, 339
1, 056
6, 395
1990
11, 753
7, 16-1
18, 917
Cove
1990
7, 263
1, 074
8, 337
2000
21, 317
7,919
29, 236
2000
9, 880
1, 093
10, 973
Riverdale
1980
3, 550
3, 600
7, 150
1990
6, 648
4, 710
11, 358
2000
12, 451
6, 160
18,611
Foothill
1980
821
821
Study
1980
1990
947
947
Area
1990
490,543 692,847
87, 657
85, 882
578,200 778,729
2000
1, 099
1, 099
2000
973, 294
83, 113
1, 056, 407
1967
1, 019
1, 628
2, 647
1967
3, 253
1, 561
4, 814
1967
1,822
4, 864
6, 686
1967
9, 942
5, 245
15, 187
1967
266, 623
34, 704
301, 237
Del Rey
1980 1990
1, 190 1, 342
1,772 1,892
2, 962 3, 234
Kinsburg
1980 1990
5,038 6,429
1,735 1,840
6,773 8,269
Parlier
1980 1990
3, 067 4, 595
5,375 5,805
8,442 10,400
Sanger
1980 1990
14,877 20,330
5,908 6,476
20,785 26,806
F. C. M.A.
1980 1990
421,554 595,919
30, 175 21, 485
451,729 617,404
2000
1,513
2, 020
3, 533
2000
8, 203
1, 951
10, 154
2000
6, 884
6, 269
13, 153
2000
27, 784
7, 098
34, K82
2000
834,601
10, 564
845, 165
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
delineated for each zone and is divided into numbers of persons residing or
projected to be residing in communities and numbers in the area outside the
communities. Data is presented for the years 1967, 1980, 1990, and 2000.
E. LAND USE
1. Agriculture
Agriculture is by far the biggest industry at present in
Fresno County and Fresno County tops all other counties in the U.S. in the
value of agricultural crops produced. The study region currently produces
about 70 percent of the income from agriculture in Fresno County.
The study region has an area of 770, 000 acres of which
43 percent is already producing high return crops such as fruit and nuts,
field crops, vegetables, etc. , and another 39 percent is presently used for
irrigated pasture, alfalfa hay, or native rangeland. The balance of this area,
except for 52, 000 acres under urban development, is vacant land which is
either unsuitable for farming due to salinity problems or is idle due to the
lack of an economical source of irrgiation water.
Approximately 450, 000 acres of irrigated land is farmed
in this region. Grapes occupy the largest acreage for a single crop, 157, 000
acres, with cotton second at 39, 000 acres. Other crops such as barley,
cantaloupe, sugar beets, figs, peaches, oranges, and seed alfalfa are raised
in the area with acreages varying from 21, 000 to 10, 000 acres, respectively.
A number of other crops such as tomatoes, sorghum, plums, corn, nectar-
ines, almonds, and walnuts are produced with acreages in the range of 4, 500
to 2, 000 acres. In addition, some minor crops such as olives, apricots,
lemons, bushberries, pomegranates, prunes, persimmons, oats, onions,
wheat, peppers, squash, sweet corn, beans, etc. , are produced on plots
i
not exceeding several hundred acres.
The approximate present acreage of different agricultural
crops in the study area by crop and zone is shown in Table VI-3. This table
does not include the acreage of pasture, rangelands, and hay alfalfa which
comprise an approximate area of 70, 000, 90, 000, and 140, 000 acres, respectively.
VI-22
-------
Table VI-3
FRESNO REGION MAJOR AGRICULTURAL
CROP ACREAGE (1967)
..
Barley, Oats
Cantaloupes
Sugar Beets
Cotton
Tomatoes
Seed Alfalfa
Sor'hum
Com
Wheat
Other Vegetables
Sub Total
Grapes
Peaches
Citrus
Flams
Nectarines
ALuonds
rfalnuts
Olives
Other r'ruit Trees
Sub Total
Grand Total
96
—
50
lilt
500
10
153
__
-_
5
860
It WO
__
531
90
159
39
227
5,565
6,1,25
—
—
560
—
5oo
—
—
__
1,060
10,060
17
16
—
96
__
—
10,211
11,271
1,001
7,91l8
11,328
9,850
507
2,000
617
103
11,9
33,503
17,560
239
1,6
7ii
162
37
16,118
51,621
10
IS
—
71.
52
5oo
lUi
llO
__
7
71*2
6,!i90
__
1,086
Ii09
210
31,6
126
U31
21
9,121
9,863
163
389
36
1O1
71.
500
12
37
1.
1,626
12,770
__
1,112
63
168
167
Ii7
173
1
U.,521
16.H7
306
1,651.
8,753
70
1,000
536
61
__
3
12,822
13,520
•t
12
2li
„
—
—
13,559
26,381
187
2,610
328
3,336
1,70
500
26
973
162
6,826
1,210
686
30
lil
16
59
20
281
2.3U3
11,169
llOO
—
295
92
500
75
69
__
125
1,556
It, 120
__
682
3 Iil5
273
319
95
19
68
__
9,001
In, 557
-
17
25
—
105
131,
500
13
95
11
930
7,610
__
I,li30
666
350
lilS
75
Ui
2
—
10,S92
11,522
292
225
—
1.52
313
1,000
66
70
„_
_..
16
125
2,563
9,900
„_
1,571.
2,179
31.1
373
72
223
99
lli, 761
17,3Ui
532
1,950
I,lili9
2,313
1,213
—
177
1,06
6
161
6,209
58
__
17
—
-.
50
55
180
6,369
3,li55
115
—
1,239
312
2,000
195
16
__
12
111
111
7,li26
10,000
1,390
1,389
1,757
161
2li2
201
312
62
—
15,531.
22,960
376
li.jtt
J~<
£,752
56C
—
182
7liO
__
—
13
167
9,552
23,900
1,1.30
100
296
Iil3
16U
336
1
— 55
26,697
36,21.9
~, ",
i,6ol
17li
—
173
206
—
171.
21i
__
15
26
—
2,593
1,506
559
262
1,663
12
6
25
23
Ii8
—
..,126
6,721
12,325
677
316
" i ' f- 3
377
5^-
1,51,9
212
_—
108
17
6
2ti,790
33,650
13,120
5,51iO
1,861
1,022
U6
1,290
359
96
11
57,607
6;, 357
.
.' ,?^
15 , 1,93
- ' , " -
i,,l,21i
L , ,-.
I,"'*
J, .19
136
115
903
117,078
157,036
15,069
16,028
12,273
3,201
2,613
2,1,05
2,026
665
1,02
211,938
329,016
Table VI-4
FRESNO REGION PROJECTED AGRICULTURAL
CROP ACREAGES BY ZONES FOR 1980
Z 0 «
Crop
Barley, Oats
"an- lioj-. •-
Su.;ar rnf*'~s
Cot*, an
TornVo-LL
S
Caches
i-itrus
Plants
liectarines
Alwonds
Walnuts
Oil ves
Other fruit Trees
Sub Total
Grand Total
Kinw'jure
125
85
225
15
350
—
—
—
ItO
1,520
5 I"'
—
820
130
295
—
165
65
225
100
6,920
*,UO
Biola
—
._
1,020
—
6&0
—
—
—
—
—
—
1,700
11,500
15
5
—
18S
—
—
—
__
100
11,805
13,505
Can, there
1,100
10,000
18,000
17,600
280
2,900
900
230
200
350
51,560
20,100
„
390
—
' 65
130
650
60
__
100
21,515
73,075
Del Ray
110
UiS
—
1,000
290
680
100
1,000
—
—
50
20
3,395
6,865
—
1,1.00
500
300
1.50
260
70
20
130
9,965
13,300
Fowler
160
370
50
730
1,20
680
25
85
— 1
—
—
10
2,530
111, 500
—
1,620
120
310
265
200
290
100
17,525
20,155
he roan
Ii8o
370
2,600
15,700
395
2,900
800
190
—
S
—
23,635
15,500
5
20
—
liS
—
—
—
__
100
15,670
39,305
La ton
2,000
2,600
500
5,000
2,200
660
llO
2,000
60
—
So
200
15,530
13,500
—
1,150
ko
75
25
235
35
__
100
15,160
'30,690
Oranse Cove
Ii80
530
5ZO
6-c
55
1^*0
200
—
2,625
li,700
—
1,100
1,,650
510
535
360
35
60
100
12,090
Ib,7l5
Parlier
200
30
190
760
663
80
220
—
„
200
30
2,390
8,300
—
2,000
935
650
715
200
75
__
100
12,975
15,365
heodley
31iO
270
810
1,760
l,llOO
130
160
335
35
5,21.0
11,500
2,600
3,100
635
61,0
300
375
90
100
19.3W
21,, 580
Riverdale
610
2,300
2,li20
1. 130
6,600
—
270
950
150
—
Ii5
17,675
5
30
—
200
__
1OO
335
ib.no
Sanser
3,930
135
2,230
1,780
2,900
290
35
—
15
380
115
11,810
2,900
1,300
2,300
2,500
300
Ii25
650
520
75
100
11,270
23,060
SeLoa
lllO
5,100
610
U.610
3,120
—
270
1,750
75
225
350
16.U60
27,000
—
2,350
150
555
720
650
560
100
32,065
Ii6,565
foothill
2,070
210
—
310
1,1OO
—
260
55
75
20
ISO
ll,2SO
1,700
550
1,65
2,350
200
15
1OO
llO
35
100
5,555
9,=C5
FCHi
U»,100
800
530
15,100
2,100
—
2,300
595
175
130
135
150
36,115
39,000
13,000
9,050
2,650
1,900
755
5,150
600
65
100
72,290
106,105
• !(£„,„,
25,21iO
23,135
2li,9liO
69,21,5
21,71,5
lli, 660
5,535
7,780
535
1,Q25
1,31,5
196,1,55
182,17:
lil, £7
25,500
17,125
6,0^5
li,695
9.3UO
2,7.0
01;
1,500
26ii,6CO
Ii61,055
VI-23
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
Because of the extreme dependence of agriculture on
external market variations and changes in Federal agricultural control poli-
cies, only approximations are possible on projections of the various crop
acreages in the years 1980, 1990 and 2000. In general, however, new agri-
cultural lands in the study region will be brought under cultivation when water
becomes available from the San Luis and Eastside Aqueduct projects. These
developments will occur mainly in the east and west sides with minor develop-
ments taking place in the central part of the county.
During the project period it is expected that the entire
reserve of agricultural land will be brought under production, that acreages
of pasture and alfalfa hay will decrease, and the lands engaged by these crops
will be used for other more profitable crops. At the same time, some agri-
cultural lands of the highest quality will be lost to urban development.
In general, only small increases in acreage are expected
for grapes, cantaloupes, barley, and olives, reduced acreage for figs, and
substantial increases for all other major crops. Tables VI-4, 5, and 6 indi-
cate the expected major crop acreages in the various zones in the years 1980,
1990, and 2000, respectively; Table VI-7 delineates the present and projected
total agricultural acreage devoted to major crops in each zone.
Livestock, dairy and poultry operations have shown sub-
stantial increases in the county and may continue to grow in the future.
Sixteen full-time feedlots exist in the county with a capacity to finish in
excess of 300, 000 cattle each year. The 1966 beef cattle production of the
county amounted to 240, 000-head. The majority of these feedlots are located
in the study region and use approximately 1, 200 acres. The trend of these
feedlots is an increasing one, although hampered somewhat by the local
(California) high cost of grain.
Sheep and hogs are also raised in the study region and
number about 20, 000 ewes and some 7, 000 to 8, 000 hogs. Sheep are being
VI-24
-------
Table VI-5
FRESNO REGION PROJECTED AGRICULTURAL CROP
ACREAGES BY ZONES FOR 1990
Barley, Oata
Cantaloupes
Sugar Beets
Cotton
Tomatoes
Seed Alfalfa
Sorghum
Corn
Onions
Wheat
Lettuce
Other Vegetables
Sub Total
Grapes
Figs
reaches
Citrus
Finns
Nectarines
Almonds
Walnuts
Olives
Other Fruit Trees
Sub Total
Grand Total
125
«
K
225
680
15
350
_
...
llO
1,520
5,100
—
820
130
295
165
85
225
100
6,920
8,140
Biol.
«
..
1,200
—
7U5
_
_
_.
—
_
i,9US
12,500
IS
5
__
250
—
—
—
135
12,905
Hi, 850
1,000
11,000
22,000
23,000
320
3,150
1,050
300
300
600
62,720
22,000
__
Wo
—
105
175
825
80
—
135
23,780
86,500
110
Ui5
__
1,000
290
680
100
1,000
50
20
3,395
6,865
1,1.00
500
300
liSo
260
70
20
100
9,965
13,360
Fowl»r
160
370
50
730
1,20
680
25
85
„
—
10
2,530
u.,500
__
820
120
310
285
200
290
100
16,625
19,155
U35
500
3,300
16,500
MiO
3,150
935
250
5
_„
27,515
19,000
1,000
_„
500
500
500
~5oo
22,000
W.51S
La ton
2,000
2,800
500
5,000
2,200
660
to
2,000
60
~SO
200
15,530
13,500
1,150
llO
75
25
235
35
100
15,160
30,690
"525
„
620
580
7li5
130
210
300
3,110
5,150
—
1,280
5,800
625
715
105
to
75
135
Ui,225
17,335
Parlier
200
30
„_
190
760
680
So
220
200
30
2,390
6,300
._
2,000
935
650
715
200
75
100
12,975
15,365
Reedley
300
295
__
950
1,950
1,500
155
200
„
1.50
55
5,855
12,600
—
3,000
3,960
765
850
380
Ii6o
65
135
22,255
26,110
Rivordale
550
2,550
2,900
ii.eso
7,600
310
1,190
200
—
70
20,220
5,000
—
2,000
500
500
200
Soo
250
500
9,li50
29,670
3,560
500
500
2,610
2,000
3,150
3to
50
200
10
750
200
13,870
5,000
1,260
2.6UO
3,050
370
565
1,100
6UO
70
150
111, 81.5
28,715
Seloa
130
5,500
700
5,000
3,200
—
300
2,000
100
250
«x>
17,580
25,71.5
—
2,500
160
600
800
700
600
—
135
31,21.0
1.6,620
Foothill
i,9CO
230
500
365
1,290
2,000
305
70
120
15
225
500
7,520
I., 000
1,95
2,000
U,000
250
20
1,000
200
30
500
12,1,95
20,015
FC«A
12,800
890
635
18,300
2,360
—
2,710
625
200
110
200
250
39,080
1,2,200
11,500
10,550
3,300
2,320
1,000
6,350
735
80
135
78,170
117,250
rte,:ion
23,1^5
25,1,60
31,065
82,1,00
23,635
17,61,0
6,1,95
6,550
860
mo
2,775
2.375
22li,760
201,1,60
IJ.,270
30,625
22,995
7.U35
6,3C«
12,320
1..060
565
2,560
303,011
527,790
Table VI-6
FRESNO REGION PROJECTED AGRICULTURAL
CROP ACREAGES BY ZONES FOR 2000
ZONE
Crop
Barley, Oats
Cantaloupes
Sug«.r Feets
Cotton
Tomatoes
Seed Alfalfa
Sorghur
Com
Onions
Wheat
Lettuce
Other Vegetables
Sub Total
U rapes
tigs
Peaches
Citrus
Plums
Nectarines
Almonds
Walnuts
Olives
Other Fruit Trees
Sub Total
Grand Total
KinRSbure
125
~85
225
660
15
350
—
„
—
uO
1,520
M90
_
820
130
295
165
85
225
100
6,710
6,230
Biolfl
._
—
1,200
__
7W
_
_
—
_-
—
1,91*5
12,500
15
5
—
250
I
__
us
12,905
IJi.SSO
Caruthers
730
12,010
25,600
21,, 000
3hQ
3,1,00
1,200
350
„
1.00
650
68,860
23,200
»
520
—
125
195
990
1OO
_ _
165
25,295
9li,175
Del Hey
110
11.5
—
1,000
290
660
1OO
1,000
—
—
50
20
3,395
6,665
__
i.too
500
300
1,50
260
70
20
1OO
9,965
U,36o
Fovler
160
370
50
730
(.20
660
25
85
__
—
10
2,530
lJ.,5oo
__
620
120
310
265
200
290
„
100
16,625
19,155
Kerraan
3'5
1,50
3,£50
21,300
1,000
5,000
2,000
1,000
250
5
500
500
36,230
21,000
_
1,000
—
650
200
200
200
^
500
23,750
59,960
La ton
2,000
2,600
500
5,000
2,200
680
to
2,000
60
So
200
15,530
13,500
__
1,150
to
75
25
235
35
——
1OO
15,160
30,690
Orange Cove
525
620
580
71,5
130
210
300
3,110
5,150
__
1,280
5,800
625
715
1,05
to
75
135
lll,225
17,335
Parlier
200
30
190
760
680
SO
2JC
—
2CC
30
2,390
6,11,5
__
2,000
935
650
715
200
75
r.
100
12,620
15,210
Reedley
250
500
500
1,500
2,500
2,000
200
300
50
750
250
6,600
iS,ooo
.. _
5,000
5,000
1,000
1,000
750
800
75
500
29,125
37,925
Rive re ale
ISO
3,000
l,,000
6,000
9,000
1,000
500
2,000
250
500
500
27,230
1..660
__
2,750
1,000
1,000
500
1,000
500
1,000
12,1,30
39,660
Sander
3,000
500
500
1,,000
3,000
l.,000
600
500
50
10
1,000
1,250
18.61C
6,370
1,100
3,000
ll.OOO
500
1,000
2,000
1,000
200
500
19,670
36,280
Selna
130
5,500
700
5,000
3,200
300
2,000
100
250
1.00
17,580
25,11,5
2,500
160
600
600
700
600
us
30,61K>
1,6,220
Foothill
1,600
SCO
1,000
500
1,500
3,000
500
500
500
1,000
750
11,350
ll,500
U35
2,500
I..500
300
50
1,200
300
loo
500
U.,365
25,735
.-CKA
12, too
:90
635
1E.300
2,360
2,710
625
200
110
200
250
39,060
1.2,200
11,500
10,550
3,300
2,320
1,000
6,350
735
80
US
78.170
117,250
Hegion
27J3U;
':9,-?5
:7,375
11,29'
11,11,0
l^ljOO
'125
5,200
2'7,250
207,61.5
13,050
35,295
25,1.65
9,000
6,935
li,,655
I..630
775
1..205
321,675
579,125
VI -25
-------
Table VI-7
FRESNO REGION ZONAL LAND USE PROJECTIONS
(IN ACRES)
Biola (16,600 Acres)
Residential
Industrial
Commercial
Agricultural
1967
180
16
11
11, 270
1980
180
19
14
13, 500
Herman (81
Residential
Industrial
Commercial
Agricultural
1967
830
23
23
26, 380
1980
1,440
52
54
39, 300
ParlicrJU
Residential
Industrial
Commercial
Agricultural
Residential
Industrial
Commercial
Agricultural
1967
372
14
14
11,520
0261-
1,360
160
50
36,250
1960
560
25
26
15,360
Selma
1980
1. 840
240
75
48, 560
1990
190
21
16
14, 850
2000
200
23
18
14,850
, 500 Acres)
1990
2,000
90
98
49,520
,400 Acre
1990
780
35
38
15,360
51, 500
1990
2,260
315
98
48,820
2000
3,000
145
176
59,980
s\
zooo
1, 080
47
57
15, 210
2000
2,640
415
130
48,220
Caruthers (102. 500 Acres)
Del Rcy (14,000 Acres)
Fowler (21, 400 Acres)
1967
455
16
11
51,620
1980
455
19
14
73, 070
1990
455
21
16
86, 500
2000
455
23
18
94, 180
1967
59-1
16
11
9,860
Kingsburg (9, 700 Acres)
1967
625
34
45
6,425
1980
920
49
65
8,440
Reedley (44
1 967
1.280
60
40
17, 340
1980
1, HOO
94
62
24,580
Foothill (66,
1967
6,720
1980
9.800
1990
1,080
62
83
8, .140
2000
1,280
80
106
8,230
, 700 Acres)
1990
2, 340
127
84
28, 110
2000
3, 000
147
114
37,920
700 Acres)
1990
20,010
2000
25, 740
1967
520
Id
11
11, 170
1980
594
19
14
13, 360
1990
594
21
16
13, 360
2000
S94
23
IS
13, 360
Laton (31,800 Acres)
1980
540
19
1 1
30, 690
Riverdale (42
1967
647
41
16
8, 390
F.
1967
34,000
4,000
3,380
82,400
1980
900
105
42
18,010
1990
550
21
14
30, 690
2000
566
23
16
30, 690
1967
S6K
5
40
16, 150
1980
585
7
63
20, 155
Orange Cove
1967
632
29
18
10, 560
, 100 Acres)
J.990.
1, 320
200
79
29,670
2000
1, 920
370
148
39,660
C.M.A. (209, 300 Acres)
1980
40,000
5,500
4,550
108, 400
1990
54,500
7,000
5,500
117,250
2000
72, 500
8,500
6,500
121,800
1967
1,820
80
80
22,990
19SO
900
13
29
14,715
Sanfier (42
1980
2,480
120
124
23, OHO
1990
650
10
85
19, 155
2000
H20
13
115
19, IS5
(19, 600 Acres)
1990
1, ISO
56
44
17, 330
, 400 Acre!
1990
2,900
155
169
28, 720
2000
1. 520
68
82
17, 340
•1
2000
3,700
190
230
38,280
Study Area (770. 200 Acres)
1967
43, 883
4, 510
3,761
329,045
1980
53, 19-1
6, 311
5, 161
461,020
1990
70, 799
8, 134
6, 358
527,785
2000
93, 275
10,067
7,730
584, 615
Note: Agricultural Acreage Shown is for Major Crops Only.
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
fed mainly on grain stubble and alfalfa pastures. Due to the abundance of
this source of feed, it is expected that sheep raising will continue to grow
in the county. However, the hog raising industry may decline in Fresno un-
less some modifications are introduced to offset the increasing grain costs.
Hog raising presently uses 25 to 30 acres in the region while no definite
acreage can be alloted to sheep due to the migratory nature of that operation.
Dairying is a widespread operation in California and the
population explosion in the metropolitan areas of the state is forcing the
dairies in those areas to relocate, many of them in the San Joaquin Valley.
It is projected that Fresno County may gain 10, 000 to 15, 000 cows in addi-
tion to the present 24, 000 head of dairy cows within the next 10 years.
The poultry industry is a large-scale operation in the
county with a 1966 production of 2, 772, 000 turkeys, 24, 725, 000 chicks, and
6, 267, 000 broilers and fryers. Due to a favorable land and climate situation
and availability of adequate water, Fresno County is in a preferred position
for attracting additional poultry industry. At present, about 200 acres in the
study region are used for the poultry operation.
2. Residential, Industrial, and Commercial
The growth of population in each of the study region zones
is accompanied by spreading of the population centers and the conversion of
adjacent property from previous uses (mostly agricultural) to that of housing,
industrial, and commercial uses. Table VI-7 indicates the present and pro-
jected acreage subject to residential, industrial, and commercial development
for the years 1967, 1980, 1990, and 2000 in each zone of the study region.
a. Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area (F. C.M.A.)
The Fresno-Clovis metropolitan complex is the
largest urbanized area in the county and consists of the cities and communities
of Fresno, Clovis, Pinedale, Herndon, Highway City, Malaga, Calwa, Friant,
and Easton. The present F. C.M.A. population of 301, 000 is expected to increase
to 845, 000 by the year 2000.
VI-27
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
The Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area has experi-
enced a rapid increase in residential land use during the period since World
War II. This growth is manifested by the 357 percent increase in the number
of housing units during the period 1937-1962. This represents an increase
of 61, 515 housing units by the year 1962 over the 17, 235 units for the year
1937. The estimated number of housing units for the Fresno-Clovis Metro-
politan Area amounted to 94, 121 units in 1966. The bulk of this urban growth
has occurred in and around the cities of Fresno and Clovis with minor growth
occurring in other outlying communities in the metropolitan area.
The 1966 and 1985 distribution of housing and density
of development for various parts of the F. C.M. A. is delineated in Tables VI-8
and VI-9; the total projected housing requirements for the urbanized area is
shown in Table VI-10.
b. Balance of Study Region
The major residential, industrial, and commercial
land usage in the other zones (i. e. , other than the F. C.M. A. ) are all presently
clustered around the communities from which the zone names have been de-
rived. No change is expected in this pattern during the study period to the
year 2000. The growth of the zone communities will be accomplished by the
conversion of surrounding vacant or agricultural land to urban usages. It
should be noted that Table VI-7, indicating the present and projected urban
land usage area, shows no figures for the foothill zone because urban develop-
ment in that area is expected to be of a minor nature during the study period.
F. WASTE LOADINGS
1. Existing Wastes
At present, the solid wastes in the Fresno Region consists
of 432, 000 tons per year of municipal wastes (residential and commercial),
256, 000 tons per year of industrial wastes, 1, 012, 000 tons per year of animal
wastes and manures, and 777, 000 tons of crop residue wastes; a total of
VI-28
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
Table VI-8
APPROXIMATE 1966 GROSS RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES IN THE
FRESNO-CLOVIS METROPOLITAN AREA
.eve =>i lacuna.!.
Statistical
Area
Bullard
College
Clovis
C.B.D.
Eastern
Fairgrounds
Forkner
Ft. Washington
Highway City
Malaga
McKinley
North Fresno
Roeding
Sunny side
Southwest
Temperance
Total
Remainder
Metro Total
Housing
Units
5, 800
11, 200
4, 000
1, 300
320
15, 600
75
400
240
11, 310
18, 000
1, 060
2, 100
5, 000
76,405
17, 716
94, 121
Acres
Occupied
3, 800
4, 800
2, 000
500
320
5, 000
50
330
90
3, 600
5, 180
860
2, 400
2, 400
31, 330
2, 670
34, 000
Housing Density
Housing Units/Acre
1. 53
2. 33
2. 00
2. 60
1. 00
3. 3
1. 50
1. 20
2. 67
3. 08
3. 47
1. 23
.89
2. 1
VI-29
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
Table VI-9
PROJECTED 1985 HOUSING DENSITY AND DISTRIBUTION
r\ esiu.cn Lid JL
Statistical
Area
Bullard
College
Clovis
C.B. D.
Easton
Fairgrounds
Forkner
Ft. Washington
Highway City
Malaga
McKinley
North Fresno
Roeding
Southwest
Sunny side
Temperance
Total
Housing
Units
15, 900
17, 600
' 15, 400
1, 500
2, 200
19, 800
10, 100
12, 100
1, 800
400
12, 600
19, 000
4, 300
19, 300
12, 900
5,900
170, 800
Acres
Occupied
7, 950
7, 050
7, 335
1, 440
6, 175
4, 815
5, 250
930
155
3, 600
5, 280
3, 625
6,895
9,920
3,480
73, 900
Housing Density
Housing Units /Acre
2. 00
2. 50
2. 10
1.50
3. 20
2. 10
2. 30
1. 90
2. 60
3. 50
3. 60
1. 20
2.80
1. 30
1. 70
2. 30
VI-30
-------
Table VI-10
PROJECTED HOUSING REQUIREMENTS
FRESNO URBANIZED AREA
Total Households
Primary Families
Primary Individuals
Single Family Units
Occupied
Vacant
Multiple Family Units
Occupied
Vacant
Mobile Homes (Occupied)
Total Occupied
Total Vacant
Total Housing Units
1970
95, 000
78, 000
17, 000
81, 500
78, 800
2, 700
16, 900
15, 200
1, 700
1, 000
95, 000
4, 400
99, 400
1975
115,
94,
21,
97,
94,
3,
21,
19,
2,
1,
115,
5,
120,
000
000
000
400
300
100
700
500
200
200
000
300
300
1980
138,
113,
25,
115,
111,
3,
27,
24,
2,
1,
138,
6,
144,
000
000
000
500
800
700
600
800
800
400
000
500
500
1985
163,
133,
30,
134,
130,
4,
34,
•H,
3,
1,
163,
7,
170,
000
000
000
800
400
400
400
000
400
600
000
800
KOO
1990
190,
155,
35,
153,
147,
5,
43,
38,
4,
1,
188,
9,
197,
000
000
000
000
800
200
000
700
300
HOO
300
500
800
2000
245,
200,
45,
194,
186,
7,
66,
59,
6,
2,
248,
13,
262,
000
000
000
000
800
200
000
400
600
200
400
800
200
Operati
3
TO
O
o
3
a-
»
!-••
O
3
en
"a
o
t~4
3-
H-
g
CD
CL
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Contxiiued)
2, 477, 000 tons per year. Table VI-11 provides a breakdown of the existing
municipal solid waste loadings in each zone and regional totals. Table VI-12
lists the quantities of the various industrial wastes presently being produced
in each zone. The wastes in Table VI-12 are identified not only by name but
by Standard Industrial Code numbers referring to the industry producing the
waste, as well as the waste type number used to identify the waste in the com-
puter program developed for this study. Tables VI-13 and VI-14 delineate the
wastes in each zone associated with livestock and major crop residues, re-
spectively, as well as regional totals for each waste.
The dimensions of the solid waste problem can more easily
be envisioned when it is realized that in the Fresno Study Region, with a popu-
lation of 396, 000, almost 2-1/2 million tons of solid waste is being generated
each year, or 6-1/4 tons per capita per year. The annual per capita generation
for each type of waste is 1.10 tons of municipal waste, 0. 65 tons of industrial
waste, 2. 55 tons of animal wastes and manures, and 1. 95 tons of crop residues.
2. Projected Wastes
As the Fresno Region population increases with the accom-
panying commercial, industrial, and agricultural growth, the solid wastes
produced in the region will increase correspondingly. Thus, by the year 2000,
when the region's population is expected to exceed one million, the rate of solid
waste production is expected to increase from its present estimated 2, 477, 000
tons per year to approximately 5, 582, 000 tons per year.
Table VI-15 indicates the expected municipal solid wastes
generation rates in each zone for the years 1980, 1990, and 2000. The pro-
jections for ashes are not shown in the table since this item would be a function
of the future 'waste management system. Tables VI-16, 17, and 18 are pro-
jections of industrial solid waste production in the various zones as well as
regional totals for the years 1980, 1990, and 2000, respectively. Table VI-19
shows the expected animal and manure wastes, and Tables VI-20, 21, and 22
delineate the expected agricultural major crop wastes by crop and zone for the
years 1980, 1990, and 2000, respectively, as well as zonal and regional totals.
VI-32
-------
Table VI-11
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTES 1967 - FRESNO REGION
(TONS/YEAR)
Kings- Cam- Del
Wastes burg Biola there Rey Fowler Kerman Laton
Garbage
Residential Rubbish
Mixed Garbage
Street Refuse
Dead Animal a
Demolition
Construction
Special Wastes
Sewage Residue
Human Fecal Matter
Ashes
Total
416
1,060
1,720
209
3
261
26
1
104
53
155
4,008
210
5^9
588
44
10
54
5
~
~
89
12
1,561
653
1,680
1,4?0
58
4
70
7
~
~
240
24
4,206
223
574
695
62
1
78
8
—
19
61
18
1,739
560
1,190
1,530
146
3
182
18
—
54
89
37
3,809
731
1,880
2,250
199
5
248
25
—
68
171
133
5,710
223
568
731
68
1
87
9
—
32
80
59
1,858
Orange
Cove
392
1,002
1,740
219
3
280
28
—
97
32
117
3,910
River- Foot-
Wastes Parlier Reedley dale Sanger Selma hill FCMA Region
Garbage
Residential Rubbish
Mixed Garbage
Street Refuse
Dead Animals
Demolition
Construction
Special Wastes
Sewage Residue
Human Fecal Matter
Ashes
Total
570
1,440
1,5.30
118
3
147
15
—
41
136
—
4,000
1,130
3,220
5,440
495
7
617
61
1
172
174
598
11,915
360
928
1,120
102
. 2
129
13
~
39
77
76
2,846
1,302
3,730
6,520
606
7
760
75
1
194
143
204
13,542
1,410
3,920
5,820
495
8
594
61
2
210
247
236
13,003
57
142
104
—
—
—
—
—
—
23
3
329
24,400
94,800
211,000
1,810
16
2,260
228
29
4,430
1,947
18,368
359,288
32,637
116,683
242,258
4,631
73
5,767
579
34
5,460
3,562
20,040
431,724
VI-33
-------
Table VI-12
1967 INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE LOADING FOR
FRESNO REGION BY ZONE
(TONS PER YEAR)
2 ONE
Std. Nature Laton 4
Industrial of Type Foot- Orange Biver-
Code Wastes No KinKSburg Biola Caruthers Del Key Fowler Kerman hill Cove Parlier Reedley dale Sanger Selma r'CMA Region
0712
0715, 209?
203u, 50l»8
2033, 20l»2
2037 Raisin
2051 Packing
0723, 2015
2011, 2003
2020
208U
2096, 2091
209lt
2272, 2391
2328, 2512
2339, 239U
2ii21, 2liU
2U29, 2Ult5
2k31, 2511
5098
2872
2911
3097
3251, 3269
3271, 3272
3273
2522, 3Wi3
25U1, 31M
3321, 3522
3351, 3551
3Uil, 3581
2086, 5083
5099
Totals
Cotton Trash
Fruit and
Vegetables
Poultry
Animal
Milk Solids
Wins & Spirits
Vegetable Oils
Tallow
Cotton
Wool and
Silk
Lumber and
Wood
Products
Chemicals
Petroleum
Plastics
Masonry
Metals
Seeds
do
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
9>i
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
300
3,090
60
U.ooo
llOO
W
7,913
130
130
1,000
100
1,200
3,670
UjO
3,810
1,500
lt,5oo
6,000
l.ljOO
2,000
5oo
100
20
U.020
0
300
3,000
27
3,327
li,700
2,000
6,700
15,915
U),000
200
50
200
30,365
300
50
1?0
25
U95
300
28,980
6,500
50
1*20
36,250
900
17, U5
900
150
238
19,633
2,350
37,320
1,100
3,!i65
231
u3,000
2,200
95
210
200
10
100
335
2,U3li
110
93,163
6,950
117,800
l.UlO
14,865
231.
71i,100
2,800
None
1J)5
210
325
10
100
535
3,362
130
213,006
I
OJ
-------
Table VI-13
FRESNO REGION 1967 LIVESTOCK SOLID
WASTE LOADINGS BY ZONES
(TONS/YEAR)
Item
Feedlots
Dairy Farms
Poultry Farms
Sheep Farms
Hog Farms
Total
Item
Feedlots
Dairy Farms
Poultry Farms
Sheep Farms
Hog Farms
Total
Kings-
burg
1,406
4,500
5,906
Parlier
560
1,400
14,000
15,960
Biola
250
5,100
5,350
Reedley
15,809
8,614
6,391
14,?40
6,680
52,234
Caru-
thers
1,725
44,732
52,573
21,450
120,480
River-
dale
24,397
4,888
9,320
38,605
Del
Rey
2,300
876
M50
7,826
Sanger
4,254
2,589
15,340
22,183
Fowler
1,219
9,030
10,249
Selma
22,995
22,061
17,269
27,600
89,925
Kerman
231,100
17,012
27,555
16,800
292,467
Foot-
hill
8,466
2,130
10,599
La ton
59,950
2,632
4,400
10,890
77,872
FCMA
53,400
76,157
41,785
78,250
1,540
251,132
Orange
Cove
1,501
7,068
2,745
11,314
Region
327,329
259,238
176,367
230,055
19,110
1,012,099
VI-35
-------
Table VI-14
FRESNO REGION ZONAL AGRICULTURAL
CROP WASTES - 1967
(TONS/YEAR)
Crop
Sub Total
Biola Caruthere Del Bey Fowler Kerman Laton Orange Cove Parlier Readley Riverdale Sanger Selma Foothill
FCKA
13,560 27,276 U5.00U 21,2tO 35,765 33,874 5,550
16,993
25,123 32,912
hegiop
Barley, Oats
Cantaloupes
Sugar Beets
Cotton
Tcoatoes
Seed Alfalfa
Sorghum
Corn
Onions
Wheat
<^ lettuce
n Other Vegetables
OJ Sub Total
0s
Crapes
Figs
Beaches
Citrus
Plums
Nectarines
Alroonds
Walnuts
Olives
Other Fruit Trees
293
100
131
375
30
690
....
_.
--
13
1,632
11,157
-_
1,328
90
316
567
51
49
__
—
1,120
„
375
..
„..
_
—
1,495
27,000
39
44
„
193
__
__
„
—
1,752
23,843
33,983
19,699
1,522
1,500
1,850
463
_,.
_
—
297
84,909
43,901
—
598
..
92
166
210
37
_
—
17
44
__
148
157
375
132
180
__
»_
-_
24
1,077
16,206
—
2,716
409
419
869
164
431
26
—
286
1,165
107
822
221
375
37
166
...
—
—
12
3,191
31,913
—
2,781
83
336
417
61
173
1
—
729
924
4,963
17,506
211
750
1,608
365
-«.
4
—
—
27,060
33,790
6
31
-_
47
.«
—
-_
—
327
8,430
984
6,672
1,410
375
60
4,380
68
—
—
324
23,050
3,025
*_
1,714
30
62
40
77
20
_
562
1,200
590
275
375
225
310
__
—
--
250
3,225
10,280
w.
1,704
3,415
797
123
19
110
—
30
75
.*_
210
402
375
128
428
*.
—
37
1,685
19,010
.,_
3,566
666
700
1,036
98
44
3
~
511
676
903
939
750
263
313
__
__
65
250
4,670
24,744
_
3,934
2,179
682
932
94
223
124
~
9,312
5,850
4,'626
3,638
530
1,826
17
—
323
30,470
145
__
43
»..
_.
65
110
6,055
344
2,478
937
1,500
567
72
„
16
165
162
12,316
24,961
3)l22
3 471
1,757
32?
606
261
312
111
—
659
13,136
1,147
5,504
1,661
_
545
3,329
50
384
26,435
59,665
— ,
3,579
100
595
1,031
213
336
1
110
3,150
521
"346
617
"521
107
„_
20
103
..
5,365
3,766
1,257
705
1,663
23
19
32
23
60
—
21,576
2,031
948
17,407
1,132
375
*956
140
69
23
49,304
84,565
29,490
13,847
1,881
2,044
1,094
1,678
359
120
22
58,532
46,480
78,131
13,273
7,500
13I585
85
180
452
2,099
275,904
394,126
33,914
40,061
12,273
6,398
7,574
3,127
2,026
556
804
363 31.,923 65,630 7.5U8 135,100 500,861
Grand Total
15,192 28,771 129,913 22,317 38,956 6o,931t 28,600
20,218
26,608 37,582 30,833 1.7,239 92,065 12,933 ISU.UOl. 776,765
-------
Table VI-15
FRESNO REGION PROJECTED MUNICIPAL
SOLID WASTES (TONS/YEAR)
Garbage
Residential Rubbish
Hixed Garbage
Stroct Refuse
Dead AnlealB
Denolition
Construction
Special Wastes
Sewage Residue
Hunan Fecal Hatter
Totals
WASTES
Garbage
Residential Rubbish
Kixed Garbage
Street Refuse
Dead Animals
DoBOlition
Construction
Special Wastes
Sewage Residue
Human Feoal Hatter
Totals
660
1,710
2,820
320
3
376
36
1
160
IB
6.108
935
2,380
4,020
365
4
485
46
1
211
8
8.477
270
705
760
50
10
60
6
—
-
65
1.926
340
860
945
55
11
68
7
-
41
26
2.353
910
2,350
2,025
64
5
80
8
—
41
171
5.654
1,210
3,075
2,615
70
5
88
9
1
57
151
7.281
289
745
915
71
2
90
9
—
23
49
2.193
DEL REY
360
925
1.148
80
2
100
10
-
32
36
2.693
678
1,755
2,360
208
3
260
26
—
76
98
5.464
955
2,430
3,445
262
4
350
35
1
105
60
7.667
KE3XA.'' —
1,260
3.2.-0
4,410
390
6
485
48
1
108
210
10.178
KERKAii
2,090
5,910
9,420
705
10
880
as
2
173
219
19.497
295
755
970
80
2
100
10
—
40
35
2.287
LATOH
375
965
1,220
9-
2
110
11
-
49
27
2.849
1980
625
1,620
2,660
320
3
400
40
1
146
23
6.036
1990
920
2,710
5,120
435
4
545
55
1
197
18
10.005
825
2,125
2,510
185
4
230
23
1
54
151
6.106
PARLIER
1,175
2,990
3,790
275
5
345
35
1
81
129
8.626
1,705
4,660
6,575
705
9
665
66
1
243
196
17.289
RaEDLEY
2,410
6,930
11,965
950
1
1,190
120
2
392
129
24.109
720
1.860
2,455
215
4
265
27
1
74
103
5.724
RIYERDALE
1,315
3.345
4,795
400
6
500
50
1
134
112
10.658
2. -30
5,b65
10. JX)
-^
10
1,115
110
2
351
182
21.145
2,955
6,530
15,075
1,220
13
1,525
150
2
527
128
30.125
.i.UO
^,V1-J
^,^65
e60
11
625
85
2
295
251
19.114
2,970
6,255
12,320
865
13
1,060
110
2
410
201
26.226
1'.
1---0
13"
4
-
4
-
-
19
407
80
205
150
4
-
4
-
-
17
460
1-jt ,'--•-
jL;7, -•-'•
£,710
23
3,3*
340
40
7,290
3,600
570.693
63,600
d.. ,00;
54.,o;o
31
4.630
460
5*
11,650
^,C7~
657.37.:
54, J4 7
1 -•> , J20
6 ,=7;
rj
6. ^67
056
50
6,7-1
>.3">
•Jc:0.3^C
81.6SC
27";. ^10
6\:- . 346
'(,'.16
111
11,00
1.1'^
67
K.059
•'• . ) '1
l.C!T.6^0
2000
PASTES
Garbage
Residential Rubbish
Hixed Garbage
Street Refuse
Dead Aninals
Demolition
Construction
5|ccii*l Wastes
Sewoffe Residue
Hunan Fecal Ratter
Totals
KIKCStURG
1,230
3,575
6,900
495
5
615
61
1
263
5
13.150
BIOLA
410
1,035
1,155
60
12
76
8
-
49
17
2.822
CAHUTHERS
1,540
3.V50
3.355
77
•6
96
10
1
74
113
9.222
DEL REY
440
1,1;0
1.425
91
2
113
11
-
41
24
3.277
FOWLER
1,305
3,335
4,980
362
5
480
48
1
146
58
10.742
3,550
10.200
10,620
1,270
14
1,6OO
160
3
310
207
35.934
LATOK
465
1,195
1,530
100
2
125
It
-
54
20
3.503
CRA.VGE COVE
1,320
' ,yj-
6,050
600
6
745
75
1
275
9
14.9ol
PARLIER
1,720
4,4',0
5.955
415
7
^15
5^
1
121
101
13.267
REEDLEY
3,375
9,760
16,335
1,265
13
1,600
160
2
540
93
35.163
RIVERDALE
?,370
6,100
9,410
750
10
935
95
2
267
102
cO.Gil
SAHGEH
4,220
It, 70
23,535
1.665
17
2,080
210
3
730
93
44.823
SELKA
11 ! 375
18,170
1,135
17
1,420
140
3
568
14.;
37.020
FOOTHILL
96
240
170
5
-
5
-
-
-
13
529 1
PCKA
95.000
V.'. , - •'-
bl 2 . 0'OO
'•>,-! -
&}
6.340
635
7^
20,200
l.loO
,lt4.4r}0
121,'""
•- ,<:' ,
'^?7, V-:
'•'••'•--
159
16.745
1 , •- 77
~fj
23,640
^.117
1.52b.^74
> Projection of aahea ia not shown ainca thin item is a function of the proposed ayate=. If Incineration is included in the pro oaed system 15;* of the total load burned will
Table VI-16
1980 INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE LOADING PROJECTIONS
FOR FRESNO REGION BY ZONE (TONS/YEAR)
Std. Industrial
Code
0712
0715, «W
203U, 50u6
20XJ, 20u2
2037, Raisin
20^1, Packing
072J, 2015
2011, 2013
2020
200i
2096, 2091
209U
i-'n, ?39i
2328, 2*12
2J39, 2J9li
2121, 21^1
iu!9, 2UI.5
*i31, 5096
2511
2o72
2911
30J7
J2jl, 3269
3271, 3272
3273
««, 31w3
iiltl, JuuL
M!l, J522
3J51, 35S1
JUU, 3»61
M06, 50C3
5099
Totals
Nature of
Wastes
Cotton Trash
Fruit and
7egetables
Poultry
Animal
Hilk Solids
Wine 4 Spirits
Vegetable Oils
Tallow
Cotton
'.tool and
Silk
Lumber and
Wood
Products
Chemicals
Petroliuia
Plastics
Kasonry
totals
Seeds
Type
No
86
87
68
8?
90
?1
»2
93
9U
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
365
3,630
95
li,390
US
65
8,980
Biola
820
820
Caruthors
i,rUi
100
l,211l
3,600
1J.5
3,?as
1,875
i.,770
6,6li5
K
I,li81i
2,700
Suo
605
20
S,31l9
Laton &
0
Orange
369
3,525
70
3,961i
5,030
2,290
7,320
17,180
Ui,920
235
55
300
32,690
3u6
US
130
25
936
U93
30,550
7,660
55
SM>
39,i55
Seloa
l.OUl
16,610
970
1'jC
330
il.lli
rCMA.
7,850
82,200
2,310
6,090
370
75.C60
3,UO
165
325
310
20
125
V0
5,915
200
165, 77C
Rcrxon
13,065
170,355
2,66c
7,=CO
370
Il",u95
U,OoO
-
!K
325
US
20
125
t!5
7,;.o
220
3U,:«
VI-37
-------
Table VI-17
1990 INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE LOADING PROJECTIONS
FOR-FRESNO REGION BY ZONE (TONS/YEAR)
Code
VI;, 2099
O.-. 2Cu2
x37, Haisln
-ii, packing
J7U, 2015
2011, 2013
202..
2061,
2096, 2091
2091,
2272, 2391
2328, 2512
2335, 2391,
2ii21, 2UA
21,29, 2U.5
2U31, 2511
5096
2S72
2911
3097
3251, 3269
3271, 3272
3273
2522, 3uU3
25U, 3ludi
3321, 3522
3351, 3551
31*1, 3561
5083, 2086
5099
Totals
Vales
fruit and
Vegetables
Poultry
Anlul
Kill Solids
Wine & Spirits
Vegetable oils
Tallcv
Wool and
Silk
Wood
Products
Chemcala
Petroleun
Plastics
Masonry
Be tils
Seeds
iype
So
-&-
67
66
89
90
91
92
93
9u
95
96
97
96
99
100
101
37:
i,,2:.'5
105
U.SOO
U30
120
9,795
92C
920
i,i;o
100
1,220
3,930
ISO
lj,060
2,335
li,930
7,265
1,550
3,660
620
1,000
25
7,055
^ 0 N
Uton L
0
E
Orange
as
1|,2I|0
100
i.,755
5,1,60
2,150
7,930
16,750
15,li50
270
60
370
31,900
3fe
1,100
Ii5
25
1,655
620
32,620
8,330
65
610
Il2,275
1,13:
20,050
i,C7C
165
llOO
22,620
11,5'--.'
11,1,200
3.27C
1'. ,ilC,
5;0
9- ,7«j
U.670
nu
51iO
360
25
15C
860
8,700
225
276,200
17.11X;
23t,75C
3.67C
11.5CC
iLO
132,u2C
5,370
-
290
5liO
li6S
25
150
1,090
10,330
250
u2J,870
Table VI-18
2000 INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE LOADING PROJECTIONS
FOR FRESNO REGION BY ZONE (TONS/YEAH)
Stc. Industrial
Code
0712
0715, 2099
2031,, 501,6
2033, 201,2
2037, Balsln
2051, Packing
0723, 201S
2011, 2013
2020
208b
2096, 2091
2091i
2272, 2391
2326, 2512
2339, 2391,
lilt', 2IJ.5
iUl, 2511
5096
2672
2V11
3077
3251, 3269
3271, 3272
3273
2522, 3uu3
25U1, 3LU,
3321, 3522
3351, 3551
3UU, 3581
2066, 5083
5099
Totals
Wastes
Cotton Trash
Fruit and
Vegetables
Poultry
Aninal
Milk Solids
Wine & Spirits
Vegetable Oils
Tallow
Cotton
Wool and
Silk
LupDer and
Wood
Products
Chesocals
Petroleun
Plastics
Masonry
Matals
Seeds
So
86
87
66
69
90
91
92
93
91,
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
1,05
l,,730
110
U.700
uuS
160
10,550
Biola
980
980
1,125
105
1,230
Del Hey
U.01C
150
M*
2,700
5,o8o
7,780
1,630
5,070
780
1,500
25
9,005
Foothill
0
Cove
USD
1>,600
150
,**
5,670
2,610
8,1,80
19,970
15,960
305
65
1,70
36,770
U30
1,800
160
30
2,1,20
725
3I|,200
9,000
80
770
U,,775
Selna
1,200
21,130
1,220
170
1,90
21,, 210
FCMt
111, 620
178,600
3,910
16,630
700
115,560
6,170
31,0
655
US
30
175
1,230
12,670
255
352,130
KeRlon
20,565
26I>,060
u,330
16,600
700
ISU.ulO
6,920
—
las
655
550
30
175
1,1,80
U.»
280
507,890
VI-38
-------
Table VI-19
FRESNO REGION PROJECTED LIVESTOCK SOLID WASTE
LOADING BY ZONE (TONS/YEAR)
CUUTHEXS OV, 1ST
KXLffl CggUt
con pu.ua
Poultry ?«
Sbees F«»
Hot P«r««
Peedlota
3«lnr run
Poultry PU
Sfat*p far^a
Sag f*rmi
ttrto.
Poultrv Paraa
Sheep P-r~
Ho- P*B»
10.250
8,200
t,*5C
5,2nO
^72
5=.i3-'
li,950
V,'-JO
0,350
-..660
Jb.OlS
15,225
15.300
n.20o
8,150
232
11,625
9(JOO
7,700
5,9110
no
34.915
14,775
11,000
9,7'..
7,61)0
^go
43,«5
r»,«-'5
17, WC
12,9)0
9,470
265
'9.000
39,200
^3.oOO
a ,200
ll405
144,605
D7.000
50,000 •
44,400
J4.>*>
1.712
197, a.
«6, X
37,100
«:,aoo
47,100
1.310
10,600
6,490
6.100
5,460
285
31.295
13.300
9,900
f ~> ^
'-,«%
M
3'i,13C
i,,->5c
16,000
11,700
8,600
240
20,725
16,600
12,600
10,600
550
61,075
26,500
19,700
17,*/>
13,600
5
77,820
31,750
32,000
23,600
17.400
475
38,500
30,700
23,400
19,700
1.025
113,325
50,500
37,500
:3,300
26,000
507
148,287
61,500
62,590
46,000
33,900
560
10,025
8,030
6,110
5,160
267
29,592
13UOOO
9,700
6,600
6,700
255
38,255
16,150
16,400
12,000
0,850
247
6,250
5,000
3,810
3,220
167
18,447
1990
7,475
5,550
4,930
3,840
147
21,942
2X0
8,500
8,620
6,340
4,670
nn
31,750
25,400
19,400
16,400
850
93,*0
40,750
30,400
27,000
21,000
BOO
119.950
43,750
49,500
36,400
27,200
T5
33.500
26.800
20,400
17.300
895
58,895
42,250
31,400
27,900
21,700
827
124.C77
50,000
50,600
37,200
27,400
75;
21,350
17,100
13,000
10,950
567
62,967
33,250
24,600
21,900
17,100
650
97,500
«,000
sfl.600
35,700
M.300
730
35.000
27,900
21.300
16,000
9-J
1J3.1J2
45,500
33,900
30,100
.;3.«x>
695
133,795
55,250
56,100
41,100
30,400
842
S3.000
50,400
38,400
32,400
1.680
1_,5,BUO
86,500
64,200
57,000
44,500
1.694
253.895
108, "X
112,000
82,500
6C.560
1.S7J.
4,875
3.W
•I.MS
2,500
130
14,405
6.050
4.950
4,400
3,420
130
19,550
8.550
s.700
6.580
4,700
130
178,550
uz.-jtet
108,270
SU850
4.»65
526,315
152,100
112.600
100,170
78,130
- „ ?.9T7
445,977
84,750
83.980
61,880
45,100
It2?=
525,000
£2c Urines
tvlaonrta
Palates
Ollres
OUwr .-rait Tnw*
Subtotal
urend Total
Bawtare
375
170
675
510
15
1,575
»
»-.
™
—
«.
60
3,UO
12,750
_
2,050
130
590
215
65
260
250
16,350
19,780
Efiols
™
2,010
510
__
_
_
__
__
„
—
2,550
28,750
, 35
10
_
370
«
_
250
29.U5
31,965
Cither,
1,925
30,000
51,000
35,200
2,175
2,700
1,035
__
' '
__
800
700
129,375
50,250
__
975
170
325
815
69
250
52,875
182,250
Dal Bey
190
US
2,000
870
510
300
1,500
~T
—
200
tiO
9,01.5
1T.500
—
3,5oo
500
600
1,125
70
25
250
23,910
32,955
fouler
280
1,110
ISO
1,1,60
1,260
510
75
380
__
__
20
5,21*5
36,250
.
lt,S50
120
620
710
260
290
250
U,o50
1.8,295
Kenun
BUI
1,110
6,la}0
31,100
1,170
2,175
2,U»
855
__
* __
5
— .
18,355
38,750
10
5o
—
90
__
—
—
Iso
39,150
87,505
Li too
3,500
1,500
10,000
6,600
530
120
•9,000
_
120
_
200
IjOO
10,350
33,750
— •*
2,875
UO
150
65
305
35
JSo
37,li70
77,8»
Oi«age Core
1,UO
—
1,060
1,560
510
165
720
__
—
800
—
6,255
11,750
— «
2,750
1,650
1,020
1,335
195
35
100
250
22,385
2o,6fcO
Pu-ller
350
90
—
380
2,260
510
210
990
__
_
__
600
60
5,700
20,750
.^
S,ooo
935
1,300
1,765
260
75
250
30,355
36,055
Reedier
595
810
—
1,620
5,280
1,050
390
720
—
*-
.
1,31*0
70
11,875
28,750
—.
6,500
3,100
1,270
l|600
390
375
110
250
W^kS
51,220
gtwrfal.
1,065
6,900
7,2«0
8,260
20,100
__
610
li,275
«
300
_
__
90
*••*"
10
__
75
...
_
260
^
"250
595
U9,9SS
Seager
6,875
UK
1^160
2,175
870
160
„.
„_
^
20
1,520
230
22,055
7,250
2,925
5,750
2,500
600
1,065
1,105
520
95
250
22,060
U.,115
Sel»
21S
15,300
1,920
9,620
9,300
610
7,675
__
150
—
900
700
Ii6,660
67,500
—
5,875
150
1,110
1,600
81i5
560
78,090
121,970
Foothill
3,620
630
„
620
3,300
~80
2W
_-
150
25
600
9,970
1,250
1,235
2JSO
ua
35
130
15
250
9,900
19,870
rau
21i,675
2,^)0
1,590
30,200
6,300
_
6,900
2,675
«.
_
350
170
300
76,100
97,500
29,250
22,625
2,650
3,800
1,665
6,695
600
105
250
165,360
2U.WC
SertoB
11,160
69,105
71,820
136,190
65,235
16^605
35,010
__
1,070
220
7,700
2.690
U66.550
155,760
33,liS5
63,750
17,125
12,090
11,730
12,115
2,7iS
760
3,750
613,310
1,079,860
VI-39
-------
Table VI-21
FRESNO REGION PROJECTED AGRICULTURAL SOLID
WASTE LOADINGS BY ZONES FOR 1990 (TONS/YEAR)
Crop
Barley, Oats
Cantaloupes
Sugar Beeta
Cotton
Tomatoes
Seed Alfalfa
Sorghum
Corn
Onions
Wheat
Lettuce
Other Vegetables
Sub Total
Grapes
ftgs
feacbes
Citrus
Pluns
Nectarines
•Uwnda
Walnuts
Olive a
Other Fruit Treea
Sub Total
Grand Total
Kingsburg
375
—
170
675
510
US
1,575
_ —
«
—
80
3.IOO
12,750
_
2,050
130
590
_
215
65
260
250
16,350
19,,760
Biola
—
—
2,100
560
_
—
__
—
—
2,960
31,250
35
10
__
500
—
—
—
310
32,135
35,095
Caruthera
1,750
33,000
66,000
1,6,000
960
2,360
3,150
1,350
__
—
1,200
1,200
156,970
55,000
_
1,150
210
Uo
1,070
60
__
310
58,290
215,260
195
105
-_
2,000
870
510
300
li.SOO
__
—
200
10
9,050
17,500
3,500
500
600
1,125 •
310
70
25
250
23,910
32,960
280
1,110
ISO
1,1,60
1,260
510
75
380
__
_
20
5,21,5
36,250
2,050
120
620
710
260
290
„
250
10,550
U5.79S
760
1,500
9,900
37,000
1,320
2,360
2,805
1,125
__
5
_.
56,775
1,7,500
2,250
loo
1,250
500
1,250
53,250
110,025
3,500
6,100
1,500
10,000
6,600
510
120
9,000
120
200
100
10,350
33,750
2,875
10
150
60
305
35
250
37,1.65
77,815
1,575
__
1,210
1,710
560
390
9L5
__
1,200
7,650
12,675
3,200
5,800
1,250
1,790
525
10
95
31.0
25,915
33,565
350
90
—
360
2,280
510
210
990
_
800
60
5,700
20,750
„
5,000
935
1,300
1,790
260
75
250
30,360
36,060
525
685
—
1,900
5,650
1,125
b6S
900
__
_
1,800
uo
13,560
31,500
7,500
3,960
1,570
2,125
1,95
WO
105
310
1,6,055
61,611,
960
7,650
6,700
9,700
22,600
930
5,355
loo
110
56,635
12,500
5,000
500
1,000
500
650
250
1.250
21,650
78,265
6,230
1,500
i,5oo
5,220
6,000
2,360
1,020
200
loo
10
3,000
loo
27,610
12,500
2,635
6,600
3,050
710
1,140
1,100
6UO
90
375
29,670
57,510
Sel*m
225
16,500
2,100
10,000
9,600
—
900
9,000
200
1,000
600
50,325
67,500
6,250
160
1,200
2,000
900
600
3IO
78,950
129,275
Foothill
3,325
690
l.Soo
730
3,870
1,500
915
315
210
20
900
1.000
15,005
10,000
1,115
5,ooo
u.ooo
500
So
1,300
200
1,0
1.250
23,1,55
36,1,60
FCIU
22.IOO
2,670
1,905
36,600
7,060
—
8,130
2,810
100
11,5
600
500
83,UIO
105,500
25,675
26,375
3,300
li,6IO
2,500
8,255
735
100
310
177,620
261,060
1,0,500
76,360
93,255
16u,800
70,905
13,375
19,1.85
38,U,5
1,760
160
11,100
U.750
53I..935
507,125
32,110
76,560
22,995
1U, 870
15,750
16,010
!>,06o
730
7. laS
697,625
1,232,560
Table VI-22
FRESNO REGION PROJECTED AGRICULTURAL SOLID
WASTE LOADINGS BY ZONES FOR 2000 (TONS/YEAR)
Crop
Barley, Oats
Cantaloupes
Sugar Beet*
Cotton
Tonatoes
Seed alfalfa
Sorghua
Com
Wa tension
Oats
Oniona
Wheat
Lettuce
Other Vegetables
Sub Total
Grapea
Figs
Itoachea
Citrus
PlUBS
Nectarines
aloonda
Walnuts
Olires
Other Fruit Treea
Sub Total
Grand Total
KingaburK
375
—
170
675
510
u5
1,575
_
__
_
_„
__
So
3,U30
12,750
_
2,050
130
590
__
215
85
260
250
16,350
19,780
_
—
2, bDO
_
560
—
__
_
—
__
__
2,960
31,250
35
10
_
500
_
_
_
335
32,130
35,090
1,275
36,030
76,800
1,8,000
1,020
2,550
3,600
1,575
—
_
—
__
1,600
1,700
17U.150
58,000
_
1,300
250
1.85
1,285
100
140
61,830
235,980
190
U5
__
2,000
870
510
300
li.Soo
—
—
—
__
200
llO
9.0U5
17,500
__
3,500
500
600
1,125
310
70
25
250
23,910
32,955
280
1,110
150
1,1,60
1,260
510
75
360
.-
_
—
__
_„
20
S,2u5
36,250
__
2,050
120
620
710
260
290
250
lio.SSo
1.5,795
655
1,350
n.sso
L2.600
3,000
3,750
6,000
l>,5oo
-_
_
500
5
2,000
1,000
76,910
52,500
_
2,500
1,300
500
260
200
__
1.250
58,510
135,1*20
3,500
e.ioo
1,500
10,000
6,600
510
120
9,000
_
—
120
__
200
loo
10,350
33,750
...
2,675
10
150
60
305
35
250
37,1.65
77,615
1,575
1,210
1,71O
560
390
91.5
_*
—
—
__
1,200
--
7,650
12,875
._
3,200
5,800
1,250
1,785
525
bo
95
335
25,905
33,555
350
90
—
380
2,280
510
210
990
—
_
_
_
600
60
5,700
20,750
__
5,000
935
1,300
1,785
260
75
250
30,355
36,055
U35
1,500
1,500
3,000
7,500
1,500
600
1,350
_
—
100
«_
3,000
500
20,985
37,500
«
12,500
5,000
2,000
2,500
975
600
95
1.250
62,620
63,605
610
9,000
12,000
12,000
27,000
750
1,500
9,000
_
—
500
__
2,000
1.000
75,590
15,000
_
6,875
1,000
2,000
1,250
1,300
500
2.500
30,W5
106,015
5,250
iSoo
1,500
8,000
9,000
3,000
2,100
2,250
-~
—
100
10
ll,000
2.500
39,510
16,750
2,1.75
7,500
I,, 000
1,000
2,500
2,600
1,000
250
1.250
U1.325
60,635
225
16,500
2,100
10,000
9,600
—
900
9,000
—
—
200
__
1,000
800
50,325
67,500
»
6,250
160
1,200
2,000
91D
600
335
78,955
129,280
2,800
i.Soo
3,000
1,000
l.,5oo
2,250
1,500
2,250
—
—
1,000
_
ll,000
1,500
25,300
11,250
980
6,250
li.soo
600
125
1,560
300
125
1.250
26,910
52,210
FCHa
22,IOO
2,670
1,905
36,600
7,060
__
6,130
2,610
—
«
100
110
800
500
63, U5
105,500
25,875
26,375
3,300
li,610
2,500
8,255
735
100
335
177,615
261,050
BeRion
38,200
82,035
112,005
178,850
62,125
17,1.70
25,600
50,125
__
__
2,920
155
20,600
10,100
620,585
531,125
29,365
88,235
25,U65
18,000
17,330
W.050
li,630
970
10.500
7IA,690
1,365,1.75
VI-40
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
G. RESTRICTIONS
1. Legislative
The political system of the U. S. , based as it is on the
constitutional provisions of governmental responsibilities and guarantees of
individual liberties, has recognized certain functions as being definitely
within the sphere of governmental activities, others which should be just as
definitely in the province of private enterprise, and a middle ground or gray
area between the constitutionally guaranteed individual liberties and activities
that are the duty and responsibility of democratic government. Activities or
functions falling in this gray area may take on aspects of both extremes, i. e. ,
they may touch on or concern the health, safety, or welfare of the people,
thus suggesting governmental control or operation, while at the same time
they are intimately intertwined with guaranteed individual liberties or are par-
ticularly suited to operation by the private sector of society. Power production,
water supply, and sanitation fall into this gray area.
This area has no clear guidelines as to optimal administra-
tion or control. In the field of solid waste management, dealing with many as-
pects of public health, it is easy to reach a conclusion that this function is
entirely within the scope of governmental responsibility and the recognized
police powers of the state. Waste management, however, deals as well with
control of the uses to which private property may be put, with the activities of
individuals on their own land, and with operations that are perhaps best per-
formed by private enterprise.
Thus, any scheme that is optimal from the standpoint of
solid waste management must seek to balance the conflicts between legitimate
government concern and private enterprise, the desires for regional uniformity
and the demands for local autonomy, the guaranteed freedoms of individual ac-
tivity, and the permissible scope of governmental regulation and control.
a. State Legislation
State legislation, for the most part, is enabling in
nature. Rather than providing for detailed substantive methods of solid waste
VI-41
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
system operation, it provides broad procedural bases for undertaking solu-
tions to solid waste and related problems. It confers on governmental sub-
divisions - counties and municipalities authority to enact legislation related
to solid waste management. It further specifies a variety of administrative
configurations to manage and control these activities. The choice of appropri-
ate administrative methods and optimal operating procedures is left to the
local government acting within the scope of these delegated powers. Charter
cities are allowed even greater powers than those incorporated under general
law.
In the area of solid waste management, most of the
State legislation is found in the Health and Safety Code. Other legislation -
such as the Zoning Enabling Act and the Subdivision Map Act - is also pertinent.
Sections 850, 4100, 4200 through 4204, 4250, 4260, 4700, and 6400 of the State
Health and Safety Code are the basis for the control of solid waste in California.
b. County Ordinances
County ordinances for the most part are implementing
in nature. Acting on the authority of enabling legislation by the State, county
ordinances develop detailed methods by which waste management objectives are
to be met.
Chapter 3 of the Fresno County Ordinance Code is con-
cerned with garbage and rubbish disposal. In addition, the County Zoning
Ordinance, through its control of condition-use permits, in a sense regulates
the location and operation of disposal sites as well as the transport of solid
waste. The following sections of the Fresno County Ordinance Code are appli-
cable to solid waste management: Sections 450, 451, 452, 454, 455, 456, and
Section 800 et. seq.
c. Municipal Legislation
Municipal legislation is for the most part directed toward
detailed definition of methods and techniques for, and means of financing the col-
lection and disposal of solid wastes. It is primarily implementing in nature,
rather than enabling. The Municipal Code of the City of Fresno exemplifies this
type of legislation. The group of ordinances in that code pertaining to solid
VI-42
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
waste disposal are contained in Article IV, entitled "Garbage, Rubbish, and
Refuse" (Sections 9-401 through 9-414 of the code).
d. Resulting Practices in the Study Region
In general, the result of existing policies has produced
a heterogeneous system of waste management in the Fresno region. The
municipal areas, having their own individual sets of waste management ordi-
nances, are each slightly different from the other and from the County. Prac-
tices of ultimate disposal vary with each individual dump site. The number of
collection routines is virtually as large as the number of individual collectors.
The current area legislation is general and nonrestric-
tive in nature. The practices that have developed have done so largely because
of a lack of detailed legislative commands rather than because of adherence to
specific laws or ordinances. Some of the apparent difficulties are as follows:
(l) Nonstandardization
This characteristic applies both to equipment and
to practices in the Fresno area. The free market orientation of the current sys-
tem does not lend itself to achieving the economies of scale which could be gained
through uniformity of both equipment and technique.
Insofar as equipment is concerned, uniformity
of collecting, trucks, containers, etc. , would obviously lead to uniformity of
maintenance schedules, collection practices and schedules, personnel training,
rates, and replacement costs. Operating conditions, i. e. , equipment required
for alleys and other problems will obviously prevent total standardization.
Standardization is, of course, not an end in
itself, but only a means to the achievement of these economies.
(2) Duplication of Routes and Collection Responsibilities
The irregular boundaries of municipal and county
areas give rise to situations where a city collection truck and a private collector's
truck are passing each other on the same street. The duplication of routes
VI-43
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
combined with the nonstandard service given results in a further distortion of
ideal free market conditions. Recently, a great step forward was taken in the
direction of eliminating duplication of services in the Fresno Metropolitan
zone by the combining of nine private companies into a single firm which will
supply uniform services to all the area within the operating zone of the nine
former companies.
(3) Noncompetition with Government
The laws and ordinances which regulate the col-
lection and removal of solid wastes impose only the most general of restrictions
as to rates upon collectors and disposers. While competition to a certain extent
exists among these collectors, no government agency, apart from the municipal-
ities which presently conduct their own collection operations, currently has the
capability to undertake the operation of a collection and disposal system. The
presence of such a capability would, without further legislation, operate as a
control both upon rates to be charged and on collection and disposal practices.
(4) Exclusion of Alternate Methods of Disposal
Current legislation restricts ultimate disposal
in the county to the sanitary landfill method. While the reasons for this re-
striction have a logical basis, that of preventing open burning and its contamin-
ant air pollution problems, it none the less legally precludes the use of advanced
incineration techniques, composting, etc. All these should be available for con-
sideration, at least in the period of synthesis of any new system. It is worth
noting that no attempt has been made to enforce this legislation until quite re-
cently, since both open burning and open dumping have been practiced for many
years. This exclusion does not apply to the incorporated cities.
(5) Lack of Property Right Interest Vesting in
Operators
The currently used system of allowing private
collectors to operate in the Fresno area (outside city limits) is based on the
issuance of nonproprietary permits. Upon application for a permit and provision
VI-44
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
of the necessary information, a potential operator is issued a permit to which
no property rights attach. It is revocable with reasonable notice and, barring
some reason which is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable on the part of the
county, permits must be issued when a properly executed application is filed.
The effect of this is two-fold. First, the
operator, having no vested property right is encouraged to make as much as
he can as fast as he can. He desires as low a capital investment as possible and
is not as concerned with long-term steady gain as he is with rapid initial return
on that investment. Second, without the vesting of property rights of some kind
in the operator, the government is somewhat limited in what it may demand of
the operator in terms of service to newly developed areas, types of service,
equipment to be used, and the like.
(6) Lack of Firm Financial Base for Operations
With the exception of those municipalities conduct-
ing their own scavenging operations, the financial base of solid waste manage-
ment operations is dependent upon the financial conditions of the individual
operators.
As previously enacted, legislative authority exists
for issuance of bonds, levy of taxes, etc. Under the current organizational
arrangement these methods of funding are of little help to the system and to
the consumer.
e. Governmental Relationships
Most of the problems pointed out in the preceding
sections find their source in some aspect of organization or the lack of it. The
definition of how much governmental activity and what kind of governmental ac-
tivity is desirable is a prerequisite to the proposal of any organizational scheme.
The correct mixture of entrepreneurial and ministerial skills must be attained
if an organization is to function satisfactorily and provide adequate service
within the framework of the desires of the community.
VI-45
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
The necessary first step in this definition is the
determination of the scope of governmental activity. How far can govern-
ment go into the private sphere without running afoul of constitutional limita-
tions or lack of enabling legislation? It seems clear from the great weight
of authority that municipalities which are independent governmental bodies
and county governments which are agencies of the State, have a duty to pro-
tect the health, safety, comfort, and general welfare of their residents. Thus,
in the proper exercise of the police power, they may regulate the removal of
garbage and rubbish by either taking such services upon themselves as govern-
mental function, which may be exercised by excluding private operators from
the field, or by contracting with private removal and disposal enterprises.
The only major restrictions placed upon this police power are that the mea-
sures taken by the municipality or county to secure the removal of garbage
and rubbish must bear reasonable relationships to the established duty of
protecting public health and must not discriminate arbitrarily and capriciously
in favor of one private group to the detriment of another.
This same conclusion may be reached under statutes
authorizing governmental agencies to make all regulations necessary or expedi-
ent for the promotion of health and the suppression of disease.
To eliminate and reduce the present system's organi-
zational shortcomings, a regional approach via the county could be superimposed
within the existing framework of enabling legislation. There are also three
types of districts that can be established under the existing laws: the Refuse
Disposal District, the Sanitation District, and the Sanitary District. The
organizational structure of these entities is illustrated in Figures VI-9, 10,
and 11, respectively.
The use of an organizational vehicle other than the
county approach and the three illustrated, or modifications to these, would
require changes and/or additions to the existing legislation.
The superposition of a regional district or manage-
ment authority for waste management would probably result in considerable
political concern from those smaller communities which contract all waste
VI-46
-------
County
Board of
Supervisors
Board of Supervisors
Sitting as
District Governing
Board
Unincorporated
Areas
Incorporated
Areas
Figure VI-9. Garbage and Refuse Disposal District
-------
Incorporated
Areas
County Board
of
Supervisors
Represen-
tation
Sanitation
District
Board
Unincorporated
Areas
Incorporated
Areas
Figure VI-10. Sanitation District
VI-48
-------
Electorate
of
Proposed
District
Election
District
Governing
Board
County
Board
of
Supervisors
Unincorporated
Areas
Incorporated
Areas
Figure VT-11. Sanitary District
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
management service with private collectors and disposal companies. The
City of Fresno, with an elaborate structure for municipal operation of a
collection system could also be expected to object to the elimination of that
system in favor of an overall regional scheme, but not to a regional disposal
operation. The same objections may be forthcoming from the smaller cities
operating municipal waste management systems. Because Fresno is a major
metropolitan center and the largest municipality in the region, its position
must be particularly scrutinized and whatever plan is evolved must consider
the desire for autonomy on the part of municipalities.
2. State Department of Health Guidelines
At the time this report is being prepared, no definitive
California State Department of Health guidelines on the handling or disposal of
solid wastes have been published. A criterion of this type, however, is cur-
rently being prepared. Table VI-23 is an excerpt from the preliminary State
guidelines recommending maximum source storage periods for various types
of municipal, agricultural, and industrial wastes. The controlling environ-
mental effect that determines the maximum storage times is also shown.
3. Economic Capacities and Projections
The financing of solid waste management systems in the
Fresno Region has historically been on a service charge basis; that is, the
revenues charged for collection of the wastes and the use of disposal sites
or dumps have been the sole source of financing the service. Since World War
II there has been an ever increasing trend to consider solid waste disposal as
a utility service, the same as sanitary sewers and water, and the financing of
such utilities have often been accomplished by the issuance of bonds and by appro-
priation from direct tax revenues as well as by the service charge method.
VI-50
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
Table VI-23
MUNICIPAL WASTES
Waste
Garbage
Residential Rubbish
Mixed Garbage
Street Refuse
Dead Animals
Abondoned Vehicles
Demolition Wastes
Construction Wastes
Special Wastes
Sewage Treatment Residue
Water Treatment Residue
Ashes
Human Fecal Matter
Maximum Period of
Source Storage
Controlling Environmental
Effect
4 days
7 days
4 days
7 days
1 day
7 days
7 days
7 days
1 day
7 days
J4 days
14 days
1 day
Flies
Land Pollution
Flies
Flies
Unsightliness
Flies
Animal Disease
Land Pollution
Unsightliness
Land Pollution
Land Pollution
Land Pollution
Human Disease
Flies
Water Quality
Air Pollution
Air Pollution
Unsightliness
Flies
Human Disease
VI-51
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
Table VI-23 (Continued)
AGRICULTURAL WASTES
Waste
Maximum Period of
Source Storage
Controlling Environmental
Effect
Barley
Beans, dry
Corn
Cotton Lint
Cotton Seed
Hay
Oats
Alfalfa
Rice
Safflower
Sorghum
Sugar Beets
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 daysq
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
Plant Disease
Rodents
Plant Disease
Rodents
Plant Diseases
Rodents
Plant Disease
Rodents
Plant Disease
Rodents
Plant Disease
Rodents
Plant Disease
Rodents
Plant Disease
Rodents
Plant Disease
Rodents
Plant Disease
Rodents
Plant Disease
Rodents
Plant Disease
Rodents
VI-52
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
Table VI-23 (Continued)
AGRICULTURAL WASTES
Waste
Maximum Period of Controlling Environmental
Source Storage Effect
Wheat
Beans
Cabbage
Chinese Vegetables
Sweet Corn
Cucumbers
Melons
Onions
Peppers
Radishes
Romaine
Squash.
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
Plant Disease
Rodents
Plant Disease
Flies
Plant Disease
Flies
Plant Disease
Flies
Plant Disease
Flies
Plant Disease
Flies
Plant Disease
Flies
Plant Disease
Flies
Plant Disease
Flies
Plant Disease
Flies
Plant Disease
Flies
Plant Disease
Flies
VI-53
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
Table VI-23 (Continued)
AGRICULTURAL WASTES
Waste
Maximum Period of Controlling Environmental
Source Storage Effect
Tomatoes
Turnips
Almonds
Apricots
Bushberries
Figs
Grapefruit
Grapes
Lemons
Nectarines
Olives
toes 7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
:s 7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
Plant Disease
Flies
Plant Disease
Flies
Plant Disease
Flies
Land Pollution
Flies
Land Pollution
Flies
Land Pollution
Flies
Land Pollution
Flies
Land Pollution
Flies
Land Pollution
Flies
Land Pollution
Flies
Land Pollution
Flies
Land Pollution
Flies
VI-54
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
Table VI-23 (Continued)
AGRICULTURAL WASTES
Waste
Oranges
Peaches
Persimmons
Plums
Pomegranates
Strawberries
Walnuts
Beef Cattle
Dairy Cattle
Sheep
Hogs
Horses and Mules
Chickens
Turkeys
Pigeons
Maximum Period of
Source Storage
Controlling Environmental
Effect
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
Land Pollution
Flies
Land Pollution
Flies
Land Pollution
Flies
Land Pollution
Flies
Land Pollution
Flies
Land Pollution
Flies
Land Pollution
Flies
Flies
Flies
Animal Disease
Flies
Flies
Flies
Flies
Human Disease
VI-55
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
Table VI-23 (Continued)
AGRICULTURAL WASTES
Waste
Rabbits
Livestock Feed
Maximum Period of Controlling Environmental
Source Storage Effect
7 days
7 days
Flies
Rodents
Flies
INDUSTRIAL WASTES
Cotton Trash
Fruit and Vegetables
Poultry
Animal
Milk Solids
Wine and Spirits
Vegetable Oils
Tallow
Cotton, Wool, Silk
Lumber and Wood Products
7 days
1 day
1 day
1 day
1 day
1 day
1 day
1 day
7 days
14 days
Land Pollution
Land Pollution
Rodents
Flies
Animal Disease
Flies
Animal Disease
Land Pollution
Land Pollution
Rodents
Flies
Land Pollution
Animal Disease
Land Pollution
Un sightliness
Rodents
Unsightliness
VI-56
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
Table VI-23 (Continued)
INDUSTRIAL WASTES
Waste
Chemicals
Petroleum
Plastics
Masonry Wastes
Metals
Seeds
Tires
Maximum Period of Controlling Environmental
Source Storage Effect
7 days
7 days
14 days
7 days
14 days
7 days
14 days
Safety Hazards
Toxicity
Safety Hazards
Toxicity
Unsightliness
Rodents
Land Pollution
Land Pollution
Rodents
Rodents
Safety Hazards
Rodents
Other Insects
VI-5 7
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
a. Per-Capita Income
The per-capita income at present in Fresno County
is approximately $2, 800. This is expected to increase 118 percent to $6, 100
by the year 2000. Figure VI-12 is a graph of the projected per-capita income
in Fresno County to the year 2000. On the basis of per-capita income, the
Fresno Region at present has a total income of 1.11 billion dollars. The
projected increase in population from the present 396, 000 to 1, 056, 000, com-
bined with the expected increase in per-capita income in the year 2000, could
result in a 6. 5 billion dollar income for the region. It should be pointed out,
however, that the costs of all goods and service as measured by the consumer
price index is also expected to rise during this period. Figure VI-13 shows
an extrapolation of the consumer price index to the year 2000. This graph
indicates that goods and services in the year 2000 are likely to cost some 76
percent more than the same items do today. Thus, even when the increased
costs of goods and services are accounted for, the average individual would
still be in possession of some 42 percent additional real disposable income than
at present. This projected increase of 42 percent in real disposable income
appears conservative in the light of recent history. According to L. A. Mayer,
reporting in the December 1967 issue of Fortune, real disposable income rose
about 43 percent between 1959 and 1967. This rapid increase was brought
about by a cyclical upturn and effects of the Vietnam war. The extrapolation to
the year 2000 is based on the assumption of no major wars or recessions.
As the affluence of our society increases, discretion-
ary income will be distributed to various markets. Among these will be im-
proved waste management systems. People will hopefully be willing to spend
a greater portion of their income to enhance convenience in handling solid
wastes and to improve their environment. The amount society will be willing
to spend for waste management is also a function of education which can point
to extra conveniences and the reduction in damaging environmental effects
in any proposed advanced system.
VI-58
-------
rq o
ui M
vO \ ~]
<
O
K
&
PH
6,100
6,ooo
5,000
^,000
3,ooo
2,800
2,000
1,000
"71
O
Q Data from Dept. of Commerce U.S.
Data from B of A Report Focus on Fresno
O S.R.I. Extrapolation Calif. Economy 19^7-
ExtraDolated by AGC 1980
a
,
1950 1960 1967 1970 1980 1990
Years
Figure Vl-12. Projected Per Capita Income for Fresno County
2000
-------
200 ._
180 -
209
19^0
Q Data from Calif. Statistical
Abstract 1966
— — -_ Extrapolated by AGC based on
the compound average rate of
change in the 1955 - 1965
period (l.75f° per year)
2000
Figure VI-13. Extrapolated Consumer Price Index (with Base of 100
in the 1957 - 1959 Period)
VI-60
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
Expenditures for handling solid wastes in the study
region currently exceed 10 million dollars annually. This represents almost
one percent of the existing income. Due to the factors discussed above, it
can be hopefully anticipated that society would be willing to spend twice that
amount (2 percent) by the year 2000. The annual allocation of 130 million dol-
lars by the year 2000 to manage solid wastes should provide sufficient oppor-
tunity for gross environmental improvements by virtue of superior solid waste
handling methods. Accounting for the expected inflation still leaves over 70
million present day value dollars per year to improve the existing solid waste
management system. The cost of the existing system, extrapolated to the year
2000, would exceed 33 million dollars per year with no improvement in the
environmental pollution situation caused by solid wastes.
b. Assessed Valuation
The total present assessed valuation for the Fresno
Region is approximately $608 million. If assessed valuation climbs in propor-
tion to total region income, the valuation in the year 2000 could be expected
to be almost 4 billion dollars. This provides a base for short-term bond
issues for the financing of waste management capital cost facilities. Table
VI-24 is a breakdown of the assessed valuation for the central area of Fresno
County for the year 1966-67.
4. Technical and Cost
The current processes and techniques, available equipment,
and promising advanced concepts of solid waste management and their associated
costs were described in considerable detail in Appendix B, Volume II, of the
Interim report. For purposes of analysis, solid waste management systems
were divided into five major functions: storage, collection, transportation,
processing, and disposal.
a. Storage
The storage function includes all facilities and appur-
tenances used to accumulate and hold the solid wastes at either (l) their
VI-61
-------
Table VI-24
1966-67 ASSESSED VALUATION FOR FRESNO
COUNTRY CENTRAL AREA.
High School
District
Clovis Unified
Friant Elem.
Fresno Unified
Sanger Unified
Fowler Unified
Laton Unified
(Except Kings Co. )
Parlier Unified
Selma Unified
Caruthers H. S.
Central Union
Kerman H. S.
Kingsburg H. S.
(Except Kings Co. )
Riverdale H. S.
(Except West Side)
Washington H. S.
County Assessed Value
Unsecured Secured
$1, 584,960
171, 360
29, 555,450
2,925,920
1, 062, 680
200, 200
96,970
1,428, 150
2, 344, 470
2, 235, 330
684, 370
1, 355, 510
712, 730
914, 560
$36,083, 730
904, 840
276,696,640
34,458, 780
14, 910, 560
4, 832,000
5, 137, 010
19,645,980
12, 376, 420
21, 736, 060
16, 462, 050
14,863,220
12, 360,400
19, 197, 120
State
Value
$3, 800, 370
125,400
41, 339, 690
4, 360,750
2, 358, 160
823, 350
708, 650
4, 292, 160
1, 971,010
4, 595, 790
2,040, 570
1, 332, 320
2, 107, 010
3,097,730
Total
Secured
$39, 884, 100
1, 030, 240
318, 036, 330
38, 819, 530
17, 268, 720
5, 655, 350
5,845,660
23, 938, 140
14, 347, 430
26, 331, 850
18, 502, 620
16, 195, 540
14, 467,410
22, 294,850
Total
Value
$41, 469, 060
1, 201, 600
347, 591, 780
41, 745, 450
18, 331,400
5, 855, 550
5, 942, 630
25, 366, 290
16, 691, 900
28, 567, 180
19, 186,990
17, 551,050
15, 180, 140
23, 209, 410
Totals
$45, 272,660
$489,664, 810
$72,952,960 $562,617,770 $607,890,430
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
respective places of generation or production (i. e. , source storage), (I.)
any transfer point within the solid wastes removal and disposition system, or
(3) any transfer point between the major operations of removal, collection,
transportation, predisposal processing, or disposal. The storage function
does not include in-transit or in-process storage.
Storage is accomplished by three major systems:
manufactured portable containers, constructed-in-place containers, and open
storage areas. In general, the only technical restraints to storage systems are
cost, effectiveness in reducing nuisances, and associated handling cost for
collection.
In terms of total cost per cubic yard of container
capacity per year, storage costs range from $2 to $120. The median costs
are those incurred for the galvanized metal garbage can. This cost approxi-
mates $8 to $22 per cubic yard of storage capacity per year.
b. Collection
The collection function has been defined to include
pick-up collection and collection transportation or local haul. The function in-
cludes all facilities and equipment necessary to (l) pick up accumulated and/or
stored solid waste materials from places of generation or production, and (2)
transfer of these materials to a principal point or points of disposal, predis-
posal processing, or a transfer station. These collection facilities include
sewers to which refuse materials may have been diverted.
Collection has two components: (1) the pick-up and
loading process and (2) local transportation. Local transportation can be
further subdivided into sub-unit operations, namely, hauling and unloading.
The principal systems utilized in the collection func-
tion are organized into the following categories.
(a) Hand portable equipment
(b) Powered vehicular systems
(c) Pneumatic equipment systems
VI-63
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
(d) Liquid transport systems (including sewer
and other waste water pipelines)
(e) Conveyor belt systems
(f) Water transport systems
While all of the above systems have been developed
sufficiently to demonstrate feasibility, many minor and some major problems
exist in the categories of pneumatic equipment systems, liquid transport, and
conveyor belt systems. These include the problems of bulky wastes, heavy
metal components, etc. , as well as very substantial initial investment in pneu-
matic and conveyor systems. Liquid systems, incorporating sewers, would use
an existing sanitary system but would require changes in household equipment
and procedures to make possible the grinding of the majority of rubbish for
sewer transport; an auxiliary collection system to handle nongrindable rubbish
components would still be required. In addition, the effect on sewage treatment
plant capacity could require substantial additional capital investment.
For general collection of municipal refuse, the re-
ported total costs range from about $8 to $Z5 per ton of refuse collected. The
median range is about $10 to $16 per ton. It should be noted that the cost
ranges include large variations in local labor costs, type of equipment used,
and degree of service supplied.
Street sweeping costs have been reported as ranging
from $1 to $4 per curb mile swept.
c. Transportation
Transportation in this study is considered as that
part of a community's solid waste management system that is composed of
facilities and equipment necessary to transport or transfer accumulated and/or
collected solid waste materials between any two other major functions in the
total solid waste management system. Transportation could be between (l) col-
lection and disposal or predisposal processing. (2) between processing and
VI-64
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
disposal, or (3) between any two sites within any major functional operation.
Since the collection function involves a significant amount of transportation
some of the major unit operations of collection also apply to the transportation
function. The major methods of transportation have been organized into the
following categories:
(a) Motor Transport Systems
(b) Pneumatic Systems
(c) Conveyor Belt Systems
(d) Rail Transport Systems
(e) Liquid Transport Systems
(f) Waterborne Transport Systems
(g) Transfer Stations
Almost every present day solid waste management
system uses motor transport to some extent, and systems exist using rail
transport, waterborne transport and transfer stations. The use of sewers
to carry ground garbage and sludge pumping through ocean outfalls are ex-
amples of present use of liquid transport systems; however, the extension
of the use of liquid transport to a larger portion of the waste generated is
definitely an advanced concept, as are pneumatic systems and conveyor belt
systems. The present technical problems limiting the use of these systems
have been delineated in the discussion under the collection heading.
Motor transport costs have been reported in the range
of about $0. 06 to $0. 10 per ton mile. They average about $0. 08 per ton mile.
Rail transport costs for solid waste in an area where
rail transportation is available would range from $0. 008 to $0. 01 per ton mile.
Wide variations from these values are possible since rates are controlled and,
in most regions, railroads have had little or no experience with refuse
handling.
VI-65
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
The cost for operation of transfer stations can be
expected to range from $0. 35 to $2. 60 per ton depending on the sophistication
of the system employed.
d. Processing
The processing function in this study is considered to
be composed of all those facilities, operations, and equipment necessary to
change the physical and/or the chemical state or condition of the solid wastes
in order to facilitate their subsequent collection, transportation, or disposal.
In almost all the literature dealing with refuse management, processing con-
cepts are included under the general heading of disposal. In this study, the
subtle difference between processing (or treatment) and disposal proper is con-
sidered important enough to warrant the distinction being made. The processing
function includes waste water treatment facilities insofar as solid waste mate-
rials have been diverted to the waste water. Processing operations are con-
sidered between storage and collection, between collection and transportation,
before storage, and between collection or transportation and disposal. The last
position is the usual one considered when processing is discussed as part of
disposal. Larger, more centralized processing operations more nearly qualify
as disposal while the decentralized processing operations tend to be associated
with the transient operation.
Refuse processing or treatment concepts have, for
purposes of this study, been organized into the following major methods, unit
operations, or unit processes:
(a) Chemical Oxidation-Combustion: Central
Municipal Incineration
(b) Chemical Oxidation-Combustion: Decentralized
(on-site, at-source) Incineration
(c) Chemical Oxidation-Combustion: Open Burning
(d) Chemical Oxidation: Wet Air Oxidation
(e) Pyrolysis, Destructive Distillation, Miscellaneous
Oxidation Processes
VI-66
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
(f) Biochemical Oxidation: Composting
(g) Biochemical Oxidation: Anaerobic Processes
(h) Garbage Cooking
(i) Physical Size Reduction: Grinding, Crushing,
Shredding, Chipping, and Pulverization
(j) Physical Size Reduction: Pulping
(k) Physical Volume Reduction: Baling and
Compaction
(.1) Physical Volume Reduction: Dewatering
(m) Salvaging-Reclamation-Reuse-Physical
Separation Processing
All the above unit processes are presently in use to
some degree in various waste management systems. Many are still in purely
developmental categories. The technical problems involved in the implementa-
tion of any of the above processes are fairly well known and present no great
barrier to their adaptation to overall system implementation. The major tech-
nical problem inherent to the combustion systems is in the incident production
of air pollution, while the systems oriented toward salvage, reuse, or useful
product production are economically marginal in the current affluent society.
Representative costs for some of the above processes
are as outlined below.
Central incineration has been reported to cost from
$4 to $10 per ton of refuse burned. The lower ranges of cost are exhibited by
the newer, continuous-type innovations. Portable and field-erected incinerators
for decentralized, at-source use, cost about $12 per pound of refuse burning
capacity per hour to install, and about $0. 50 per hour to operate. Unit values
reported for industrial and sludge incinerators range from $9 to $38 per ton of
material burned; with the sludge incinerator operating in the higher ranges.
Wet oxidation unit values have been estimated to range
from about $4 to $30 per ton. The median reported values are about $6 to $20
per ton of material oxidized.
VI-67
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
Composting -unit operating values have been variously
reported at $4 to $15 per ton of material processed. More specific reported
values indicate an average range of about $5 to $7 per ton.
Central garbage grinding installations have been esti-
mated to operate in the area of $0. 90 to $1.40 per ton of material processed.
These values would be lower if such grinding installations were integrated with
sewage treatment plants. Central pulverization plants, on the other hand, operate
in the range of $2. 00 to $3. 50 per ton of material processed. If salvage opera-
tions are integrated with the pulverization plant, the costs are increased to $4
to $5 per ton of material processed.
e. Disposal
The major refuse management function of disposal is
the final and ultimate step in a community's solid wastes management system.
The disposal function includes all those facilities, operations, and equipment
necessary to incorporate the collected solid wastes or the end products of pre-
disposal processing into the geophysical and ecological patterns of nature and/or
the socioeconomic operations of the economy.
The following major disposal methods are generally
practiced:
(a) Sanitary Landfilling
(b) Open Dumping
(c) Sub surface Disposal
(d) Ocean Disposal
(e) Atmospheric Disposal
(f) Land Spreading
(g) Animal Feeding
The above methods of disposal, except subsurface dis-
posal, have been in general use for many years. The feasibility of subsurface
disposal (pressure injection of slurried wastes) is currently under investigation
VI-68
-------
VI. Operating Conditions (Continued)
at the University of Wyoming. The technical problems incident to the operation
of the above systems are, in general, interface problems with land, water and
air. L/eachates from open dumps and sanitary landfills can pollute surface and
groundwater when these sites are improperly located. Smoke and combustion
products of burning add to air pollution, as does odor from open dumping and
animal feeding operations. Land spreading and discing into the soil can tem-
porarily deplete nitrogen and can also magnify plant diseases. Offshore ocean
dumping often results in polluted shores and beaches.
The costs of ultimate disposal practices commonly used
in the study region are as follows:
Sanitary Landfilling $1. 14 to $1. 27 per ton
Ocean Dumping $0. 50 per ton
Land Spreading $0. 45 to $2. 90 per ton
Animal Feeding $0. 17 per ton
Ocean disposal is not practiced in the study region be-
cause of distance and consequent transportation costs. Disposal to air by incinera-
tion and open burning is discussed in the preceding section.
In the Fresno Region, sanitary landfilling, open dumping,
and open burning are currently utilized for municipal wastes. These three methods,
as well as land spreading and animal feeding, are used for industrial washes. Open
burning, land spreading, and animal feeding provide the means for disposing of
agricultural -wastes. Postulated systems will not utilize open dumping, or open
burning.
H. CONCLUSION
The "Operating Conditions" section of this report has described in
summary form the parameters and limitations to be considered in synthesizing
management systems for the Fresno Study Region. The restrictions to the opera-
tion of virtually any proposed solid waste management system are, in reality, a
function of the community's desire to reduce the environmental effects of solid
wastes. By the judicious use of legislation in combination with adequate funding
almost any desired degree of freedom from deleterious environmental effects is
attainable.
VI-69
-------
VII. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF SYSTEMS
A. OBJECTIVE
The objective of this section is to present basic systems that
appear most applicable to solid waste management in the Fresno region and
to delineate these various systems in sufficient detail to permit their evalua-
tion in terms of cost, performance, and "A" scores. The conceptual design
of each system was synthesized from the most acceptable methods and pro-
cedures developed in "Candidate Waste Management Concepts, " Appendix D,
Volume III. The number of design concepts to be considered was dictated by
the necessity of presenting systems significantly different in design and oper-
ation as to be representative of all the alternatives compatible with existing
and future operating conditions and technology. Existing waste management
systems in the Fresno region have been included for comparitive purposes.
The "performance scoring procedure" developed in Section IV
includes four major functions which must be scored: storage, transport,
processing, and disposal. In this procedure, storage has 5 scorable vari-
ations, transport 2, processing 6, and disposal 5. These functions can be
scored for municipal, industrial, agricultural and interface regions. There
are 52 types of wastes which must be accounted for in any management sys-
tem postulated for the Fresno region. If all of these variables remain, it
would be possible to delineate (52 x4x5x2x6x5) = 62,400 separate
scorable systems. Time and budget limitations necessitated making engineer-
ing judgments to recast the potential systems into a workable number for
analysis.
Systems for agricultural waste management have been discussed
separately from systems for municipal and industrial waste management because
agricultural wastes are not normally handled by systems integrated with muni-
cipal and industrial operations. This does not preclude integration of systems,
VII-1
-------
VII. Conceptual Design of Systems, A (Continued)
it merely permits separate presentation and the simplification required for
logical consideration of overall waste management systems.
B. MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS
1. Discussion
a. Storage
The storage function includes all facilities and ap-
purtenances used to accumulate and hold solid wastes at the place of generation
(source storage), and those facilities and appurtenances employed at any trans-
fer point between operations. The storage function does not include in-transit
or in-process storage. Presently, the principal types of storage equipment in-
clude makeshift receptables, fabricated containers, bags and liner-bags, bin-
type containers, and drop-body containers.
Open storage areas are unsuitable for storage of do-
mestic and commercial solid wastes. Hence, it is assumed that all storage
will be in closed containers with the exception of a few wastes such as metal-
lic debris and demolition materials which do not pose any serious environmental
problems.
Certain types of systems, such as comminution at
the source, pneumatic systems, and direct discharge to the sewerage system,
are capable of excluding the storage function completely.
The most appropriate parameters for the storage oper-
ation have been selected as follows:
(1) Conventional closed storage
(2) Storage in specialized containers
(3) No storage
The parameter "storage in special containers" includes
storage functions where an automated pick-up operation requires specialized
containers.
VII-2
-------
VII- Conceptual Design of Systems, B (Continued)
b. Collection and Transportation
Most of the costs in solid waste management are in-
curred in collection and transportation. The figures presented in Appendix D,
Volume III, indicate that collection costs (residential) vary between $14.00
and $25. 00/ton which may be compared to $1. 00 to $2. 50/ton for disposal by
sanitary landfilling. A waste management system that materially reduces the
collection and transportation costs would, therefore, be most advantageous.
The collection function has been defined to include
pick-up collection and transportation between collection stops. Transportation
has been considered as that part of a waste management system where ac-
cumulated and/or collected solid wastes are transported between major func-
tions in the total waste management system.
Collection-transportation systems would include motor
transport, rail transport, pipeline transport, and transportation by air. The
"scoring procedure" accounts only for the distinction between "transportation
open" and "transportation closed"; consequently, most transportation «ystems
will be equally scored.
The most appropriate variables for the transportation
operation have therefore been determined to be vehicular and pipelines.
(1) Vehicular Transportation: This category includes
any vehicular collection as a transport operation. It assumes cost optimization
of collection-transportation functions such that transfer stations may or may not
be constructed as the least cost solution to the selected system design.
(2) Transport in Pipelines: Separate pneumatic
pipeline systems for the transportation of solid wastes have been proposed arid
in a few cases constructed. The costs of such systems appear to be approxi-
mately thirty times the cost of standard vehicular systems, hence, further con-
sideration of large scale pneumatic transportation systems seems precluded;
however, use of such systems in total concepts integrated with other systems
does have merit and should be considered in final designs.
VII-3
-------
VII. Conceptual Design of Systems, B (Continued)
The sewage system represents an existing
transportation system with only a small portion of its capacity in use at
any given time. The average sewage solids contribution per capita per
day in sewage is about 0.4 to 0. 6 pounds. Assuming a typical per capita
sewage flow of 100 gallons per day, it is apparent that more than 1, 600
pounds of water are used to transport only one pound of solids.
Thus, a solid waste management system that
can make use of this already paid for and existing transportation system may
be very economical. To accomplish this, modifications such as special flush-
ings of flat sewers may be necessary. These preliminary assumptions require
further investigation, to determine the actual possibility of utilizing existing
sewers to carry solid wastes.
Table VII-1 indicates the relative waste load
coefficients for solids, BOD, total nitrogen, and total phosphorous in several
combinations of sanitary sewage and solid waste transport in sewers.
Table VII-1
RELATIVE WASTE LOAD COEFFICIENTS
Solids-Coeff. BOD-Coeff. N-Coeff. P-Coeff.
Typical Sanitary Sewage 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Home Garbage Grinders 3 to 4 1.4 1.2 1.2
and Sanitary Sewage
Home Refuse Grinders 6 to 10 2.0 1.5 1.4
and Sanitary Sewage
It is evident that the processing operation in
the sewage treatment plant would require modification to manage the increased
loadings if refuse solids are included.
•
c. Processing
When a particular transportation or disposal concept
is selected, the applicability of various processing operations are dictated.
VII-4
-------
VII. Conceptual Design of Systems, B (Continued)
For example, processes which apply to sewage sludge are the proces^s cf
choice if refuse is transported in sewage; where landfilling is to be employed,
it may be desirable to grind the refuse to achieve economy of space. Thus,
if specific transportation and disposal alternatives are selected, an economic
optimization process must be carried out to arrive at the final overall design
including applicable processing. Processing techniques selected for applica-
tion to various systems include incineration, composting, and no processing.
(1) Incineration: Incineration reduces the wet
weight of municipal wastes by approximately 80 percent and the volume by
approximately 90 percent; it is, however, an expensive operation (presently
about 4 to 8 times more expensive than sanitary landfill). Costs can be ex-
pected to increase still more as increasing standards of air quality are estab-
lished and enforced.
The overall costs of incineration can be reduced
if the fuel value of solid wastes produces a financial return; incineration is
more competitive when the heat energy can be productively used.
(2) Composting: Although many composting oper-
ations have not been successful, the potential benefits of composting cannot be
overlooked. Most failures are caused by high initial operations cost and lack
of market for the product. In an agricultural region such as Fresno, the need
for soil trace mineral conservation and humus should result in a potentially
favorable market for compost. Future values for humus to increase the pro-
ductivity of soil for crops may show composting in an even more favorable
light.
(3) No Processing: "No processing" assumes only
incidental processing that is not basic to the concept.
d. Disposal
Ultimate disposal sites for any solid waste are the land,
atmosphere, or the ocean. It is impractical, at this time, to consider the ocean
as a disposal site for the Fresno region. Disposal to the atmosphere could
VII-5
-------
VII. Conceptual Design of Systems, B (Continued)
handle a large fraction of the waste with resultant air pollution, but there
are always solid residues requiring disposal to the land; therefore, land dis-
posal must always be considered. It is assumed that only well-organized and
carefully maintained operations are included in the sanitary landfill category.
e. Summary
The elements of management concepts that have been
developed into possible combinations and overall plans are shown in Table VTI-2.
A total of eighteen combinations are scored and evaluated in Section VIII.
Table VII-2
COMBINATION OF CONCEPT-PARAMETERS
MUNICIPAL-INDUSTRIAL
Storage
Conventional
Storage
Special Storage
No Storage
Collection
Vehicular Collection
and Transportation
Transport in Sewer
Lines
Processing
Incineration
Composting
No Processing
Disposal
On land
2. Systems Descriptions
To simplify the presentation, each system is presented on a
flow chart. The chart indicates the in-flow disposition of each type of solid waste
The types of wastes are indicated by numbers at the left and the detailed list
or key to all wastes is presented in Section III. The following summary of the
list of wastes should prove helpful for reading the flow charts.
VII-6
-------
VII- Conceptual Design of Systems, B (Continued)
Waste No. 1 - garbage (food wastes)
Waste No. 2 &3 - rubbish (residential & commercial)
Waste No. 4 - street sweepings
Waste No. 5 - dead animals (over 10 pounds)
Waste No. 7 - construction and demolition debris
Waste No. 9 - special wastes (pathological)
Waste No. 10 - sewage treatment residue
Waste No. 12 - ashes
Wastes No. 13 - human fecal wastes (toilets not connected to
sewers, such as in recreation areas)
Wastes No. 16 to 80 - agricultural wastes
Wastes No. 86 to 102 - industrial wastes.
It should be noted that the 18 systems developed for muni-
cipal and industrial waste management can be combined with any one of the
several alternative systems for the management of agricultural wastes.
The 18 postulated municipal and industrial systems along
with the existing regional system are described in the following pages. In
addition to a brief description, a statement of the basic characteristics and a
flow chart for each system is presented.
VII-7
-------
VII. Conceptual Design of Systems, B (Continued)
a. System No. 1
This system is similar in many respects to the pre-
sent operation. Wastes would be stored in closed containers and collected by
compacter vehicles. There would be no processing and the wastes disposed
of by sanitary landfilling. The basic improvements over the existing system, (s- )
are presented by elimination of open storage, open transportation, open burning,
and open dumps.
(1) Characteristics
(a) Wastes stored in closed containers.
(b) Collection and closed transportation by
motor vehicles.
(c) Processing limited to such operations as
optimizing storage and disposal capacities.
(d) Disposal of most wastes by sanitary landfilling.
(e) Dead animals (5) and special wastes (9) buried.
(f) Sewage treatment residues (10) managed by
plowing into the ground.
VII-8
-------
I
NO
TYPE OF WASTE
1. 2. 3. 7
86-102
5. 9
10
13
MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTES
SYSTEM NO. I
SPREAD ON
STREETS
OPEN STORAGE
AREAS
STORAGE IN
CONTAINERS
STORAGE IN
CONTAINERS
STORAGE IN
CONTAINERS
COLLECTION
BY SWEEPERS
VEHICULAR
TRANSPORT
VEHICULAR
COLLECTION &
TRANSPORT
VEHICULAR
COLLECTION &
TRANSPORT
SPREAD AT
DISPOSAL SITE
SANITARY
LANDFILL
BURIAL
STORAGE IN
CONTAINERS
VEHICULAR
TRANSPORT
SPREAD AT
DISPOSAL SITE
PLOWED
INTO GROUND
PIT
DISPOSAL
-------
b. System No. 2
This system is identical to System No. 1, with regard
to storage, collection, and transportation, Incineration would be provided in
this system as a waste process to primarily reduce the volume requirements
for sanitary landfilling. Wastes would be stored in closed containers and col-
lected by compacter vehicles. Combustible wastes would be incinerated. The
incineration plant 's) would be optimized with regard to performance and the
location of the plant(s) would be determined by optimizing the use of collection
and transportation facilities.
(1) Characteristics
(a) Wastes stored in closed containers.
(b) Collection and closed transportation by
motor vehicles.
(c) Incineration of all combustible wastes.
(d) Disposal of noncombustible wastes and
incineration residues by sanitary
landfilling.
VII-10
-------
MANAGEMENT Or MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTES
SYSTEM NO. 2
TYPE OF WAST
1, 2. 3, 5, 9, 10
86-98. 101, 102'
STREETS
STORAGE IN
CONTAINERS
BY SWEEPERS
VEHICULAR
COLLECTION &
TRANSPORT
m
TRANSPORT
ASH
1
PROCESSING
INCINERATION
1.
VEHICULAR
TRANSPORT
SPREAD
DISPOSAL SITE
SANITARY
LANDFILL
7,99
100
13
H
VEHICULAR
COLLECTION 8.
TRANSPORT
PIT
DISPOSAL
-------
VII. Conceptual Design of Systems, B (Continued)
c. System No. 3
This system is similar to System No. 2, except that
composting would be included as the process. Wastes would be stored in closed
containers and collected by compacter vehicles. Amenable materials would
be composted. The composting plant(s) would be optimized with regard to
performance and the location of the plant(s) would be determined by optimizing
the use of collection and transportation facilities.
(1) Characteristics
(a) Wastes stored in closed containers.
(b) Collection and closed transportation by
motor vehicles.
(c) Composting of bio-degradable materials.
Compost leaves the waste stream at this
point.
(d) Disposal of composting residues and ma-
terials not degradable by sanitary
landilling.
(e) Dead animals (5) and special wastes (9)
buried.
VII-12
-------
<
J—I
H-i
1
MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTES
SYSTEM NO. 3
TYPE OF WASTE
1. 2, 3. 10
86-92. 101
SPREAD ON
STREETS
c-ri-\QA r*t: m
COLLECTION
BY SWEEPERS
VEHICULAR
VEHICULAR
TRANSPORT
PRODUCT
CONTAINERS
COLLECTION 8.
TRANSPORT
PROCESSING
COMPOSTING
94-100, 102
5.9
13
VEHICULAR
TRANSPORT
SPREAD AT
DISPOSAL SITE
SANITARY
LANDFILL
-------
VII. Conceptual Design of Systems, B (Continued)
d. System No. 4
This system is characterized by the simplification
of the collection operation. Wastes would be stored in special underground
containers. Pick-up would be accomplished by vacuum-equipped collection
vehicles eliminating handling of waste containers. The collected wastes
would be transported by the collection vehicles and disposed of by sanitary
landfilling.
(1) Characteristics
(a) Wastes stored in special containers.
(b) Automated pick up of wastes stored in
special containers.
(c) Processing limited to such operations as
optimizing storage and disposal capacities.
(d) Disposal of most wastes by sanitary landfilling
(e) Dead animals (5) and special wastes (9)
buried.
(f) Sewage treatment residues (10) managed by
plowing into the ground.
VII-14
-------
i
t—•
ui
MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTES
SYSTEM NO. 4
TYPE OF WASTE
SPREAD ON
STREETS
1. 2. 3. 86-94
96, 97. 98, 101
STORAGE IN
SPECIAL
CONTAINERS
7,95.99,100,102
5,9
10
OPEN STORAGE
AREAS
STORAGE IN
CONTAINERS
COLLECTION
BY SWEEPERS
STORAGE IN
CONTAINERS
VEHICULAR
rni i FmoM n.
TRANSPORT
BURIAL
STORAGE IN
CONTAINERS
VEHICULAR
TRANSPORT
SPREAD AT
DISPOSAL SITE
PLOWED INTO
GROUND
13
STORAGE IN
CONTAINERS
PIT
DISPOSAL
-------
VII. Conceptual Design of Systems, B (Continued)
e. System No. 5
This system is identical to System No. 4 with re-
gard to storage, collection, and transportation. Instead of disposal of all wastes
by sanitary landfilling, all combustible wastes would be transported to a central
incineration plant. The incineration plant(s) location would be determined by op-
timizing the use of collection and transportation facilities. Nonincinerable wastes,
noncombustible wastes, and ash residue would be disposed of by sanitary land-
f illing.
(1) Characteristics
(a) Wastes stored in special containers.
(b) Automated pick up of wastes stored in
special containers.
(c) Conventional storage and collection of
wastes that cannot be stored in special
containers.
(d) Incineration of all combustible wastes.
(e) Disposal of noncombustible wastes and in ~
cineration residues by sanitary landfilling.
VII-16
-------
MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTES
SYSTEM NO. 5
TYPE OF WASTE
1, 2, 3. 86-94
96, 97. 10 J
5, 9, 10
95, 98. 102
7, 99, 100
SPREAD ON
STREETS
STORAGE IN
SPEUnL
CONTAINERS
STORAGE IN
CONTAINERS
OPEN STORAGE
AREAS
STORAGE IN
CONTAINERS
COLLECTION
BY SWEEPERS
AUTOMATIC
PICKUP
Vtri!CULAR
TRANSPORT
VEHICULAR
COLLECTION &
TRANSPORT
VEHICULAR
COLLECTION &
TRANSPORT
1
VEHICULAR
TRANSPORT
PROCESSING
INCINERATION
ASH
1
1
fto
VEHICULAR
TRANSPORT
— * SPREAD AT SANITARY
__». DISPOSAL SITE LANDFILL
13
STORAGE IN
CONTAINERS
PIT
DISPOSAL
-------
VII. Conceptual Design of Systems, B (Continued)
f. System No. 6
This system is also identical to System No. 4 as to
storage, collection, and transportation. The collected wastes would be trans -
ported to a composting plant, where bio-degradable materials would be converted
to compost. The plant(s) would be optimized in regard to performance and
the location of the plant(s) would be determined by optimizing the use of col-
lection and transportation facilities.
(1) Characteristics
(a) Wastes stored in special containers.
(b) Automated pick up of wastes stored in
special containers.
(c) Conventional storage and collection of
wastes that cannot be stored in special
containers.
(d) Composting of bio-degradable materials.
Compost leaves the waste stream at this
point.
(e) Disposal of composting residues and ma-
terials that cannot be composted by sanitary
landfilling.
(f) Dead animals (5) and special wastes (9)
buried.
VII-18
-------
i
vO
MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTES
SYSTEM NO. 6
TYPE OF WASTE
SPREAD ON
STREETS
COLLECTION
BY SWEEPERS
VEHICULAR
TRANSPORT
I 2, 3,
86-92, 101
10
94. 96, 97. 98
AUTOMATIC
PICKUP
VEHICULAR
TRANSPORT
7,95,99,100,102
5, 9
13
PROCESSING
COMPOSTING
-PRODUCT
VEHICULAR
TRANSPORT
SPREAD AT
DISPOSAL SITE
SANITARY
LANDFILL
BURIAL
PIT
DISPOSAL
-------
VII. Conceptual Design of Systems, B (Continued)
g. System No. 7
This system is characterized by the partial elimination
of storage and manual collection. Domestic and some industrial wastes would
be ground at their source, and the ground materials discharged into the sewers.
The grinders would be "home-units, " comparable in size with a washing ma-
chine. It has been assumed that these grinders would handle about 80 percent
of the wastes generated in a household. The sewage treatment plant(s) would
require modification to handle the increased amount of solids. Sewage treat-
ment plant residue would be disposed of in sanitary landfills.
(1) Characteristics
(a) Partial elimination of storage; wastes dis-
charged into the sewerage system.
(b) Conventional storage and collection of
solid wastes that cannot be ground in home
units.
(c) Sewage treatment processes for wastes that
are transported in sewer lines-
(d) Processing limited to such operations as
grinding at the source and optimizing
disposal capacities.
(e) Disposal of conventionally collected wastes
by sanitary landfilling.
(f) Dead animals (5) and special wastes (9) buried.
VII-20
-------
MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTES
SYSTEM NO. 7
TYPE OF WASTE
13
-------
h. System No. 8
This system is identical to System No. 7, except that
sewage treatment plant residue would be incinerated. Nonincinerable wastes,
noncombustible wastes, and ash residue would be disposed of in sanitary landfills,
(1) Characteristics
(a) Partial elimination of storage; wastes dis-
charged into the sewerage system.
(b) Conventional storage and collection of solid
wastes that cannot be ground in home units.
(c) Sewage treatment processes for wastes that
are transported in sewer lines.
(d) Incineration of the increased amount of
sludge (10), combined with incineration of
combustible wastes that cannot be ground
by home units.
(e) Disposal of noncombustible wastes and in-
cineration residues by sanitrary landfilling.
VII-22
-------
I
IS)
U)
TYPE OF WASTE
MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTES
SYSTEM NO. 8
1,2,3
89-92,101
PROCESSING
INCINERATION
5. 9, 94-98
102
7, 99, 100
13
-------
VII. Conceptual Design of Systems, B (Continued)
i. System No. 9
This system is identical to System No. 8, except that
sewage treatment plant sludge would be composted. The composting plant and
the sewage treatment plant would be integrated into a single unit. Non-
biodegradable material and compost residue would be disposed of in sanitary
landfills.
(1) Characteristics
(a) Partial elimination of storage; wastes
discharged into the sewerage system.
(b) Conventional storage and collection of
solid wastes that cannot be ground in
home units.
(c) Sewage treatment processes for wastes
that are transported in sewer lines.
(d) Composting of the increased amount of
sludge (10), combined with composting of
other amenable materials that cannot be
ground in local units.
(e) Disposal of composting residues and other
materials that cannot be composed by
sanitary landfilling.
(f) Dead animals (5) and special wastes (9)
buried.
VII-24
-------
TYPE OF WASTE
MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTES
SYSTEM NO. 9
SPREAD ON
STREETS
COLLECTION
BY SWEEPERS
VEHICULAR
TRANSPORT
1, 2. 3~1_
86-92,101J
20%
STORAGE IN
CONTAINERS
GRINDING
AT SOURCE
STORAGE IN
CONTAINERS
TRANSPORT
(IN PLANT)
TRANSPORT IN
SEWER LINES
VEHICULAR
TRANSPORT
_ PROCESSING
COMPOSTING
1
SEWAGE 1
*" TRtAIMbNI
PLANT
-^•rKuuut. i
VEHICULAR
TRANSPORT
fc SPREAD AT b SANITARY
^ DISPOSAL SITE LANDFILL
7, 94-100. 102
5.9
OPEN STORAGE
AREAS
STORAGE IN
CONTAINERS
VEHICULAR
TRANSPORT
STORAGE IN
CONTAINERS
VEHICULAR
TRANSPORT
BURIAL
13
STORAGE IN
CONTAINERS
PIT
DISPOSAL
-------
VII. Conceptual Design of Systems, B (Continued)
j. System No. 10
This system is characterized by the elimination of
storage and manual collection. Domestic and some industrial wastes would be
aggregated by a pneumatic system. The aggregated wastes would then be
ground at decentralized grinding stations. The stations would be optimized
with respect to the number of waste producers and relative costs. Ground
wastes would be discharged into the sewers. Sewage treatment plant(s) would
require modification to process the increased load of solids. Sewage treatment
plant sludge would be disposed of by sanitary landfilling.
(1) Characteristics
(a) Elimination of storage and manual collection.
(b) Wastes collected by a pneumatic system
and ground at centralized grinding stations.
(c) Conventional storage and collection of wastes
that cannot be collected pneumatically.
(d) Ground wastes discharged into the sewerage
system.
(e) Sewage treatment processes for wastes that
are transported in sewer lines.
(f) Processing limited to such operations as
grinding at the source and optimizing dis-
posal capacities.
(g) Disposal of conventionally collected wastes
by sanitary landfilling.
(h) Dead animals (5) and special wastes (9) buried.
VII-26
-------
MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTES
SYSTEM NO. 10
TYPE OF WASTE
SPREAD ON
STREETS
COLLECTION
BY SWEEPERS
VEHICULAR
TRANSPORT
10
STORAGE IN
VEHICULAR
1,2.3
86-92, 101
1
CONTAINERS
PNEUMATIC
COLLECTION
TRANSPORT
CENTRAL
GRINDING
TRANSPORT IN
SEWER LINES
SEWAGE
TREATMENT
PLANT
7, 94-100
102
5.9
13
STORAGE IN
CONTAINERS
SPREAD AT
DISPOSAL SITE
SANITARY
LANDFILL
-------
VII. Conceptual Design of Systems, B (Continued)
k. System No. 11
This system is identical to System No. 10, except that
sewage treatment plant sludge would be incinerated; the incineration plant and
sewage treatment plant would be integrated into a single operation.
(1) Characteristics
(a) Elimination of storage and manual collection.
(b) Wastes collected by a pneumatic system and
ground at centralized grinding stations.
(c) Conventional storage and collection of wastes
that cannot be collected pneumatically.
(d) Ground wastes discharged into the sewerage
system.
(e) Sewage treatment processes for wastes that
are transported in sewer lines.
(f) Incineration of the increased amount of sludge
(10), combined with incineration of other
combustible materials.
(g) Disposal of noncombustible wastes and
incineration residues by sanitary landfilling.
VII-28
-------
MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTES
SYSTEM NO. II
TYPE OF WASTE
ASH
10
STORAGE IN
CONTAINERS
TRANSPORT
(IN PLANT)
PROCESSING
INCINERATION
i
VEHICULAR
TRANSPORT
-*•
SPREAD AT
DISPOSAL SITE
SANITARY
LANDFILL
1.2.3
86-92, 101
5,9
94-98, 102
PNEUMATIC
COLLECTION
CENTRAL
GRINDING
TRANSPORT IN
SEWER LINES
SEWAGE
TREATMENT
PLANT
7
99, 100
13
PIT
Dl SPOSAL
-------
VII. Conceptual Design of Systems, B (Continued)
1. System No. 12
This system is identical to System No. 11, except that sewage
treatment plant sludge would be composted; the composting plant and sewage treat-
ment plant would be integrated into a single operation.
(1) Characteristics
(a) Elimination of storage and manual collection.
(b) Wastes collected by a pneumatic system and
ground at centralized grinding stations.
(c) Conventional storage and collection of wastes
that cannot be collected pneumatically.
(d) Ground wastes discharge into the sewerage
system.
(e) Sewage treatment processes for wastes
that are transported in sewer lines.
(f) Composting of the increased amount of sludge
(10), combined with composting of other bio-
degradable materials.
(g) Disposal of composting residues and materials
that cannot be composted by sanitary landfilling
(h) Dead animals (5) and special wastes (9) buried.
VII-30
-------
MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTES
SYSTEM NO. 12
TYPE OF WASTE
SPREAD ON
STREETS
STflRARP IN
COLLECTION
BY SWEEPERS
TBANSPriPT
VEHICULAR
TRANSPORT
PRODUCT
10
PROCESSING
1.2,3
86-92, 101
7, 94-100
102
5,9
13
1
CONTAINERS
(IN PLANT)
COMPOSTING
PNEUMATIC
COLLECTION
CENTRAL
GRINDING
TRANSPORT IN
SEWER LINES
SEWAGE
TREATMENT
PLANT
VEHICULAR
TRANSPORT
SPREAD AT
DISPOSAL SITE
SANITARY
LANDFILL
-------
VII. Conceptual Design of Systems, B (Continued)
m. System No. 13
This system is characterized by the simplification of
storage-collection and by the elimination of vehicular transportation. The wastes
would be stored in special underground vaults at the source. The service trucks
would collect the wastes by vacuum and be equipped with grinders. The ground
wastes would be discharged into the sewerage system at the most convenient
manhole. It would be necessary to modify the sewage treatment plant(s) for
the increased solids load. Sewage treatment sludge would be disposed of by
sanitary landfilling.
(1) Characteristics
(a) Wastes stored in special underground vaults.
(b) Automated pick up and grinding of wastes
stored in special containers.
(c) Conventional storage and collection of
bulky wastes that cannot be vacuum col-
lected and ground.
(d) Sewage treatment processes for wastes that
are transported in sewer lines.
(e) Processing limited to such operations as
grinding by trucks and optimizing disposal
capacities.
(f) Disposal of conventionally collected wastes
by sanitary landfilling.
(g) Dead animals (5) and special wastes (9) buried.
VII-3 2
-------
<
HH
1—I
I
MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTES
SYSTEM NO. 13
TYPE OF WASTE
10
COLLECTION
BY SWEEPERS
1,2,3
86-92, 101
1
STORAGE IN
SPECIAL
CONTAINERS
GRINDING
PORTABLE GR.
TRANSPORT IN
SEWER LINES
SEWAGE
TREATMENT
PLANT
7, 94-100, 102
5,9
13
SPREAD AT
DISPOSAL SITE
SANITARY
LANDFILL
-------
VII. Conceptual Design of Systems, B (Continued)
n. System No. 14
This system is identical to System No. 13, with regard
to storage, collection, transportation, and processing through the sewage treat-
ment plant. Rather than disposing of all residue by sanitary landfilling, the
sewage treatment plant sludge would be incinerated; the incineration plant and the
sewage treatment plant will be integrated into a single operation. Incineration
residue (ashes) would be disposed of by sanitary landfilling.
(1) Characteristics
(a) Wastes stored in special underground
vaults.
(b) Automated pick up and grinding of wastes
stored in special containers.
(c) Conventional storage and collection of wastes
that cannot be vacuum collected and ground.
(d) Sewage treatment processes for wastes that
are transported in sewer lines.
(e) Incineration of the increased amount of
sludge (10), combined with incineration
of other combustible wastes.
(f) Disposal of noncombustible wastes and in-
cineration residues by sanitary landfilling.
VII-34
-------
I
(JO
MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTES
SYSTEM NO. 14
TYPE OF WASTE
SPREAD ON
STREETS
COLLECTION
BY SWEEPERS
VEHICULAR
TRANSPORT
ASH
10
STORAGE IN
CONTAINERS
TRANSPORT
(IN PLANT)
PROCESSING
INCINERATION
.
VEHICULAR
TRANSPORT
r*
SPREAD AT
DISPOSAL SITE
SANITARY
LANDFILL
1,2,3
86-92-101
5, 9. 102
94-98
STORAGE IN
SPECIAL
CONTAINERS
GRINDING
PORTABLE GR.
TRANSPORT IN
SEWER LINES
SEWAGE
TREATMENT
PLANT
7, 99, 100
13
PIT
DISPOSAL
-------
VII- Conceptual Design of Systems, B (Continued)
' o. System No. 1 5
This system is identical to System No. 14, except that
sewage treatment plant sludge would be composted; the composting plant and the
sewage treatment plant would be integrated into a single unit.
(1) Characteristics
(a) Wastes stored in special underground vaults.
(b) Automated pick up and grinding of wastes
stored in special containers.
(c) Conventional storage and collection of wastes
that cannot be vacuum collected and ground.
(d) Sewage treatment processes for wastes that
are transported in sewer lines.
(e) Composting of the increased amount of sludge
(10), combined with composting of other bio-
degradable materials.
(f) Disposal of composting residues and wastes
that cannot be composted by sanitary landfilling.
(g) Dead animals (5) and special wastes (9) buried.
VII-3 6
-------
I
to
-J
MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTES
SYSTEM NO. 15
TYPE OF WASTE
4
10 p*
L
1.2,3
86-92, 101
7
94-100
102
5.9
IJ
SPREAD ON
STREETS
STORAGE IN
STORAGE IN
SPECIAL
CONTAINERS
AREAS
STORAGE IN
CONTAINERS
STORAGE IN
CONTAINERS
STORAGE IN
CONTAINERS
COLLECTION
BY SWEEPERS
TRANSPORT
GRINDING
PORTABLE GR.
VEHICULAR
TRANSPORT
VEHICULAR
TRANSPORT
VEHICULAR
TRANSPORT
TRANSPORT IN
SEWER LINES
t
1
PROCESSING
SEWAGE
TREATMENT
PLANT
^
VEHICULAR
SPREAD AT
SANITARY
i ANinnt i
PIT
DISPOSAL
-------
VII- Conceptual Design of Systems, B (Continued)
p. System No. 16
This system is also characterized by the elimination of
storage and manual collection. Domestic and some industrial wastes would be
aggregated by pneumatic systems. The aggregated wastes would then be ground
at centralized grinding stations. The station would serve a. maximum number of
waste producers. Ground wastes would be discharged into drop-body containers
and transported to sanitary landfills.
(1) Characteristics
(a) Elimination of storage and manual collection.
(b) Wastes collected by a pneumatic system and
ground at centralized grinding stations.
(c) Conventional storage and collection of wastes
that cannot be collected pneumatically.
(d) Vehicular transport of ground wastes.
(e) Disposal of most wastes by sanitary landfilling.
(f) Dead animals (5) and special wastes (9) buried.
(g) Sewage treatment residues (10) managed by
plowing into the ground-
VII-38
-------
OJ
vO
MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTES
SYSTEM NO. 16
TYPE OF WASYE
1. 2. 3.
86-92, 98, 101
7, 94-97
99, 100, 102
10
5,9
13
SPREAD ON
STREETS
PNEUMATIC
COLLECTION
OPEN STORAGE
AREAS
STORAGE IN
CONTAINERS
COLLECTION
BY SWEEPERS
STORAGE IN
CONTAINERS
SPREAD AT
DISPOSAL SITE
SANITARY
LANDFILL
STORAGE IN
CONTAINERS
^
VEHICULAR
TRANSPORT
SPREAD AT
DISPOSAL SITE
PLOWED INTO
GROUND
STORAGE IN
CONTAINERS
^-
VEHICULAR
TRANSPORT
BURIAL
PIT
DISPOSAL
-------
VII. Conceptual Design of Systems, B (Continued)
q. System No. 17
This system is identical to System-No. 16 as to storage,
collection, and transportation. Instead of disposal for all wastes by sanitary land-
filling, combustible wastes would be incinerated. The incineration plant(s) would
be optimized with regard to performance and the location of the plant(s) would be
determined optimizing use of transportation facilities . Non-incinerable wastes,
noncombustible wastes, and incineration residue would be disposed of by sanitary
landfilling.
(1) Characteristics
(a) Elimination of storage and manual collection.
(b) Wastes collected by a pneumatic system and
ground at centralized grinding stations.
(c) Conventional storage and collection of wastes
that cannot be collected pneumatically.
(d) Vehicular transport of ground wastes.
(e) Incineration of all combustible wastes.
(f) Disposal of noncombustible wastes and incin-
eration residues by sanitary landfilling.
VH-40
-------
MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTES
SYSTEM NO. 17
TYPE OF WASTE
1,2,3
86-92, 98, 101
5. 9, 10
94-97, 102
SPREAD ON
STREETS
PNEUMATIC
COLLECTION
STORAGE IN
CONTAINERS
COLLECTION
BY SWEEPERS
CENTRAL
GRINDING
VEHICULAR
TRANSPORT
VEHICULAR
TRANSPORT
VEHICULAR
TRANSPORT
ASH
~*
„ PROCESSING f^.
INCINERATION
VEHICULAR
TRANSPORT
^
~* SPREAD AT ^ SANITARY
r-» DISPOSAL SITE LANDFILL
7, 99, 100
13
PIT
DISPOSAL
-------
VII. Conceptual Design of Systems, B (Continued)
r- System No. 18
This system is identical to System No. 17, except
that bio-degradable wastes would be composted. The composting plant(s) would
be optimized with regard to performance and the location of the plant(s) would
be determined by optimized use of transportation facilities. Non-biodegradable
materials, separated at the composting facility, would be disposed of by sanitary
landfilling.
(1) Characteristics
(a) Elimination of storage and manual
collection.
(b) Wastes collected by a pneumatic system
and ground at centralized grinding stations.
(c) Conventional storage and collection of wastes
that cannot be collected pneumatically.
(d) Vehicular transport of ground wastes.
(e) Composting of bio-degradable materials.
Compost leaves the waste stream at this
point.
(f) Disposal of composting residues and ma-
terials that cannot be composted by sanitary
landfilling.
(g) Dead animals (5) and special wastes (9)
buried.
VII-42
-------
OJ
MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTES
SYSTEM NO. 18
TYPE OF WASTE
SPREAD ON
STREETS
COLLECTION
BY SWEEPERS
VEHICULAR
TRANSPORT
1 9 T
i( i, o,
86-92, 101
10
PKIPt lUATIC*
COLLECTION
PFMTDAl
GRINDING
VFH1PI 11 AD
TRANSPORT
u.
PDDPF
-------
VII. Conceptual Design of Systems, B (Continued)
s. Existing System
The existing system is characterized by large
amounts of both municipal and industrial wastes stored in open containers,
transported in open vehicles, and disposed of by open burning and open dump-
ing. These "open" methods constitute the major share of environmental
pollution due to solid wastes handling in the study region. The approximate
percentage for each functional method of handling are shown graphically by
Figures VII-1 and VII-2.
The existing system performance score and cost
are used as the base for comparing all postulated systems. Section VIII
provides this comparison.
VII-44
-------
i
^
ui
MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTES
EXISTING SYSTEM
TYPE OF WASTE
1,2,3,5-12
SPREAD ON
STREETS
PILED ON
GROUND
(7 %)
OPEN
CONTAINERS
(44 %}
CLOSED
CONTAINERS
(49 %)
COLLECTION
BY
SWEEPERS
(70%)
OPEN
TRANSPORT
OPEN
TRANSPORT
(5 %)
CLOSED
TRANSPORT
(65 %)
SEWAGE
TREATMENT
(HFM, GARB.)
SPREAD AT
DISPOSAL
SITE
ASHES
INCINERATION
(PATHOLOGI-
CAL WASTE)
LANDFILL
(48 %)
OPEN
DUMP
(16%)
PLOWED
IN GROUND
(5 %)
ANIMAL
FEEDING
U %)
OPEN
BURNING
(30 %)
-------
MANAGEMENT OF INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE
EXISTING SYSTEM
TYPE OF WASTE
86-102
PILED ON
GROUND
(55 %)
OPEN
CONTAINERS |—»
(44%)
CLOSED
CONTAINERS
(1%)
(80 % )
OPEN
TRANSPORT
(76 %)
CLOSED
TRANSPORT
(4 %)
(20$)
SPREAD AT
DISPOSAL
SITE
LANDFILL
(10%)
OPEN
DUMP
(15%)
PLOWED IN
GROUND
(56 %)
ANIMAL
FEEDING
(9 %)
OPEN
BURNING
(20%)
TO
-------
VII- Conceptual Design of Systems, B (Continued)
C. MANAGEMENT OF AGRICULTURAL WASTES
1. Discussion
With agricultural wastes representing a significant fraction
of the total wastes, it is justified to consider these wastes as a separate group.
These wastes are characterized by their uniformity, seasonal generation, and
by their dispersed generation. The major functions (storage, collection and
transportation, processing, and disposal) are also applicable for management
of agricultural wastes.
a. Storage
Most of the crop residues are stored by spreading in
open areas, which provides an elementary, inexpensive method of refuse storage.
The storage area frequently becomes the disposal site when wastes are not re-
moved or when they are plowed into the ground.
Storage in containers may be necessary for wastes that
are particularly putrescible or when subsequent transportation dictates a type
of storage facility. The appropriate variables have been selected as follows:
(1) Storage in open areas .
(2) Storage in closed containers.
b. Collection and Transportation
Although different alternatives (such as transportation
in the air or pneumatic systems) could be mentioned, it is unrealistic to assume
transportation systems (if any) other than motor vehicles for the next 30 years.
The parameters for this operation are, therefore:
•
(1) Closed vehicular transport
(2) No transportation
VH-47
-------
VII. Conceptual Design of Systems, C (Continued)
c. Processing
Incineration and conversion are the two processes that
seem meaningful for an agricultural waste management system. Conversion
could include composting or processing to produce animal feeds or other by-
products. Incineration plants and not open burning are recommended. Open
burning is strictly excluded in all waste management concepts because of its
air pollution effects. It seems relevant to quote some of the statements made in
Appendix A, Volume II, of this study:
"A University of California report on county burning surveys for 1959
through 1961 indicates that agricultural fires are often visible to Cal-
ifornia resi'dents and contribute to lack of visibility. It states, Agri-
culture may be blamed at times as the main contributor to general con-
ditions causing air pollution. According to the report, more than
696, 000 tons of grain stubble were burned in I960 in Fresno County
as well as more than 70, 000 tons of orchard brush. The band of
pollution creating plant damage in Fresno County is roughly cigar -
shaped, at its maximum about 15 miles wide, extending from Visalia
in the south to Chowchilla in Madera County to the north, and roughly
parallels U.S. Highway 99- It virtually covers the entire northeasterly
half of the Fresno study region. "
The most appropriate parameters for processing of agricultural wastes have
been selected as follows:
(1) No processing
(2) Incineration
(3) Composting
d. Disposal
As with municipal and industrial wastes, disposal
on land seems to be the most reasonable method for agricultural wastes.
e • Summary
The elements of concepts tha.t have been developed
and the possible combinations are shown in Table VII-3. Although 12 concepts
VII-48
-------
VII. Conceptual Design of Systems, C (Continued)
are possible, only four can be evaluated as practical, namely: (1) storage in
open areas - plowed into the ground, (2) storage in containers - transport to
sanitary landfill, (3) storage in containers - transport to incineration plant
ash disposal, and (4) storage in containers - transport to composting plants -
disposal of composting residues.
Table VII-3
COMBINATION OF CONCEPT PARAMETERS
AGRICULTURAL
Storage Collection Processing Disposal
Open Storage None
Storage in Vehicular None
Containers
On land
Incineration
Composting
2. Systems Descriptions
Agricultural waste management systems are presented in
the same general format as the municipal and industrial waste management
systems. Four alternative systems are delineated.
In normal agricultural practice residual materials such as
stalks and husks are dropped in the field or remain in place during and after
the harvest. The common practice is to plow these materials into the ground
where they decompose and return trace elements to the soil. The greatest
drawback to this procedure is caused by the demand for nitrogen exerted
during the initial stages of decomposition by this high carbon content material
being broken down. Under such conditions, biological denitrification occurs
and, hence, the fertilizer (nitrogen) demand is significantly increased; this
VII-49
-------
VII. Conceptual Design of Systems, C (Continued)
is the principal reason that fields are burned before re seeding. Unfortunately,
the performance scoring procedure provides sufficient evidence that open burning
of these wastes is more detrimental to the overall environment. Should the
choice be between only these two, then plowing into the ground must be recommended,
If the wastes are gathered and transported to a centralized
site for processing and disposal, the processes which will most likely be em-
ployed are central incineration (to control air pollution) or conversion to pro-
duce a good soil conditioner or animal feed. If the materials are collected
and processed, production of animal feeds has an excellent potential.
As in other solid waste management systems, final disposal
will be to the soil either by plowing into the ground or by sanitary landfilling.
The agricultural waste management systems may be integrated into the municipal-
industrial waste management schemes or remain as independent systems, de-
pending to a large extent on factors of quality control and'engineer ing technical
limitations .
a.. System No. 1
This system is characterized by its simplicity; it
involves the least control. Agricultural wastes simply remain where they are
generated. These wastes would be plowed into the ground for natural bio-
logical decomposition.
b. System No. 2
This system is characterized by wastes being removed
from the fields. The collected wastes would then be transported by vehicles to
a disposal site. Final disposal would be by sanitary landfilling.
c. System No. 3
This system is characterized by wastes being removed
from their point of generation to an incinerator. Incineration of some agricultural
wastes could be combined with municipal incineration. The ashes would be dis-
posed of by sanitary landfilling.
VII-50
-------
MANAGEMENT OF AGRICULTURAL SOLID WASTES
SPREAD AT
SOURCE
SYSTEM NO. I
PLOWED
INTO GROUND
SYSTEM NO. 2
STORAGE IN
CONTAINERS
VEHICULAR
COLLECTION &
TRANSPORT
SPREAD AT
DISPOSAL SITE
SANITARY
LANDFILL
SYSTEM N0.3
STORAGE IN
CONTAINERS
VEHICULAR
LULLtL 1 IUN &
TRANSPORT
PROCESSING
INCINERATION
ASH _
VEHICULAR
TRANSPORT
SPREAD AT
DISPOSAL SITE
SANITARY
LANDFILL
SYSTEM NO. 4
STORAGE IN
CONTAINERS
VEHICULAR
COLLECTION &
TRANSPORT
PROCESSING
COMPOSTlriG
VEHICULAR
TRANSPORT
SPREAD AT
DISPOSAL SITE
SANITARY
LANDFILL
PRODUCT
-------
VII. Conceptual Design of Systems, C (Continued)
d. System No . 4
This system is characterized by wastes being removed
from their point of generation and hauled away for organized composting. Res-
idues from the process would be disposed of by sanitary landfilling.
e. Existing System
The existing system, in general, is shown by Figure
VII-3. Both crop residues and manures produce gross environmental effects
due particularly to the long periods of storage. The open transport of manures
(50%) also produces a large effect for the transient portion of the existing sys-
tem. The final disposal by open burning of 30% of the region's crop residues
also contributes significantly to environmental effects (air pollution). Animal
feeding of crop residues, while economically acceptable, provides ample op-
portunity for fly breeding and can also contribute to animal disease from
pesticide residuals.
The current practice of range feeding for the sheep
population leaves little possibility for improvement with respect to environmental
effects since this practice is not expected to change.
D. TRENDS IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Research and development projects for solid waste management
are currently involved in improvement of existing technology and the development
of new processes and systems. These areas were discussed in detail in Ap-
pendix B and C, Volume II, of the Interim Report, with the more pertinent trends
summarized herein.
1. Improvement of Existing Technology
Limitations of existing management systems occur in storage,
collection and transportation, and final disposition of solid wastes.
Storage of solid wastes at the point of generation, regardless
of method, represents a nuisance that most householders would be willing to pay
VII-5 2
-------
MANAGEMENT OF AGRICULTURAL SOLID WASTE
EXISTING SYSTEM
TYPE OF WASTE
16-75
PILED ON
GROUND
(33 %)
(CROP RESIDUES)
SPREAD ON
GROUND
(67%)
PILED ON
76,78-85
(MANURES)
unvunu
(65 %)
PILED ON
Ql ADC
(35 %)
— v
77
(SHEEP
MANURE)
SPREAD ON
GROUND
OPEN
TRANSPORT
(50 %)
CLOSED
TRANSPORT
(50%)
OPEN
BURNING
(30 %)
PLOWED IN
GROUND
(57 %)
ANIMAL
FEEDING
(13%)
PLOWED IN
GROUND
(100
SPREAD ON
GROUND
OQ
C
i
OJ
-------
VII. Conceptual Design of Systems, D (Continued)
for to eliminate. This has been clearly demonstrated by the rapid upsurge
in the use of household garbage disposal units.
Noise, traffic interference, and esthetic problems associ-
ated with cleanliness of equipment are still present in current collection and
transportation technology.
Processing of solid wastes creates little apparent problem
outside of incineration where stack emissions require expensive equipment for
prevention of air pollution problems or when the particular process involved
is inadequately operated.
• Solid waste disposal is accomplished primarily by sanitary
landfilling. Competent methodology for landfill operations is rarely practiced,
resulting in operations being little better than open dumps . However, with proper
planning, design, and operation, landfilling can be improved to a satisfactory
and esthetically acceptable level.
2. Development of New Processes and Systems
New concepts for source storage of solid wastes include
containers designed for automated pick up of the wastes. Automated collection
can be reasonably expected to advance to a degree where individual storage of
wastes will be eliminated by immediate collection at the source. It can also be
expected that research and development efforts will proceed along lines that
will perfect the technologies of grinding and separation to permit inclusion of
ordinary solid wastes into the existing sewer systems.
Already practiced in Europe, incineration in the U.S. will
probably be considered as much a power generation process as a waste disposal
process. The heat can be recovered for use by industry or otfter community uses.
Perfection of processes such as wet oxidation, pyrolysis, and
composting will not only provide for disposal of wastes but also convert them
into new marketable products such as organic acids, alcohols, tars, and soil con-
ditioners. These, or similar methods, are more acceptable to the conservation
aims of our society. This report has chosen a very conservative approach to
the potentials for salvage; new technologies for the recovery of food wastes for
animal feed or for the production of by-products, such as alcohols, will require
re-evaluation and recognition of such changes.
VH-54
-------
VIII. SCORING AND COSTS
A. INTRODUCTION
In the preceding section of this report, 18 postulated systems
for handling municipal and industrial solid wastes were described, as well
as 4 agricultural systems. The scoring procedures developed in this study
were applied to all the above systems including the existing system and the
results are presented in this section. In addition, the rationale for select-
ing an optimum system for the Fresno region was developed, using the re-
sulting data on system performance and cost in combination with the predicted
regional economic capacity.
B. PERFORMANCE SCORING
The scoring methodology and procedures were described in
detail in Section IV. Application of the described technique resulted in
transient and disposal (see Section IV) bad effect scores for the existing and
eighteen postulated municipal-industrial solid waste management systems as
well as scores for the existing and four postulated agricultural systems defined
in Section VII.
As previously explained in Section IV, the scores for transient
and disposal components of any given system cannot be totaled, since transient
scores would tend to be overpowered by the greater magnitude of disposal
scores. Using the existing system scores for both transient and disposal com-
ponents as separate references; it is possible, however, to determine the per-
cent improvement in the reduction of bad effects to each component (transient
and disposal) that could be expected by incorporation of each of the conceptualized
systems. The percent improvement for each component for each postulated
system was then calculated and the results averaged to arrive at overall system
improvement percentages. The basis for averaging the transient and disposal
component improvement percentages is as stated in Section IV. Table VIII-1
and 2 delineate the performance scoring results for each of the systems
postulated.
VIII-1
-------
Table VIII-1
PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT AND COSTS
Municipal-Industrial Systems
(Year 2000)
n
o
Oq
System
Existing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Selected
System
Performance Score % Performance Improvement Average %
Transient
36,488
15,989
1 1 , 40 1
10, 185
9, 248
4,607
3,435
4, 214
3, 831
2, 277
1,605
. 2,672
527
5, 589
5, 371
3, 303
6, 721
2, 086
902
2, 020
t Disposal
3, 114, 529
2, 247, 393
966, 242
801,684
2, 536,745
968,077
874,818
2, 269, 967
1, 585, 284
1, 153, 194
1,529,790
1,586, 103
885, 799
1,529, 331
1,589,985
1, 343, 395
2, 247, 382
966, 242
874, 231
821, 033
Transient
0
56
69
72
75
88
91
88
90
94
95
93
98
85
85
91
81
94
97
94
Disposal
0
28
69
74
19
69
72
27
49
63
51
49
74
51
49
57
28
69
72
74
' Perf. Imp.
0
42
69
73
47
78
82
58
70
78
73
71
86
68
67
74
60
82
84
84
Cost
(Millions)
26.9
36.2
54.7
49.8
45.6
64. 1
58.8
50.9
67.8
63.6
122.0
141.2
138.4
42. 3
61.4
58.9
121. 1
139. 1
136.0
48. 6
I
O
o
CO
rt-
CD
"o
O
rt-
H-
a>
&
-------
I
u>
Table VIII-2
PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT AND COSTS
-------
VIII. Scoring and Costs (Continued)
C. COSTING
In costing the conceptualized and existing solid waste management
system, the basic unit costs used were taken from the data contained in Ap-
pendix D, Volume III, of this report. Cost data for advanced concepts incorpo-
rating hardware not presently available are based on engineering estimates.
Table VIII-3 summarizes the unit costs used.
Total costs for the solid waste management systems (shown in Tables
VIII-1 and 2) are based on the above unit costs per ton of the various handling
concepts. They represent a summation of the products of unit costs times total
tons for each operation included in the system. The total costs shown are for
systems postulated for the year 2000 expressed in 1967 value dollars.
D. ANCILLARY EFFECTS SCORING
In addition to calculating the costs and percent reduction in bad
effects for each system under consideration the scoring procedures for deter-
mining the ancillary effects were also applied. This procedure, described in
detail in Section V, relates and scores the environmental effects of the various
physical objects and procedures which make up the different solid'waste manage-
ment systems being considered.
These scores can then be used to finalize system selection when
a number of competing systems are very close in cost and bad effect reduction
effectiveness. The ancillary effects or "A" scores for the systems within the
established cost and performance limitations are shown in Table VIII-4.
E. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
1. Systems Evaluation
With the data from the performance scoring and costing,
the net percent performance improvement for each conceptualized system was
plotted versus its associated total cost. The results are shown on Figure
VIII-1 for municipal-industrial solid waste management systems and on Figure
VIII-2 for agricultural systems. These plots are referred to as cost-benefit
VIII-4
-------
VIII. Scoring and Costs (Continued)
Table VIII-3
UNIT COSTS
Storage
Candidate Concept
Heavy Duty Galvanized
Steel Cans
Pre-cast Underground Vaults S-22
Large Constructed-in-
Place Vaults
Open Storage
Drop Body Containers
Drop Body Compactor
Containers
Concept
No. *
S-3
S-22
S-23
S-24
S-16
S-18-
Collections
Per Week
6
2
1
6
2
1
.5
6
2
1
. 5
1
. 5
6
1
. 5
6
1
. 5
Cost/Ton
1967
$ 0. 55
1. 60
3.20
0. 34
1. 00
2.00
4.00
0. 17
0. 50
1. 00
2.00
0.005
0.010
0. 34
2. 00
4.00
0. 54
3.20
6.40
^Appendix D, Volume III
VIII-5
-------
VIII. Scoring and Costs (Continued)
Table VIII-3 (Continued)
UNIT COSTS
Collection
Candidate Concept
Rear Loading Compactor
Truck; Daily Route
Method; Private Property
Service; Direct Con-
Tainer Transfer; Z man
crew, 2 loads/day'
Lift and Carry Hoist Truck;
Lift Fork Tilt Hoist Type;
Daily Route Method
Private Property Service;
1 man crew; 4 loads/day
(9 ton)
Side Loading Vacuum
Compactor Truck; Daily
Route Method; 1 man
crew, Z loads/day
100-Unit Vacuum Tube
Collection System,
Evacuated by Mobile
Compressor Unit
Side Loading Vacuum Grinder
Truck; Daily Route Method;
1 man crew; Z loads/day
(Dispose to sewers)
Open Body Truck; Daily
Route Method; Private
Property Service; Direct
Container Transfer; Z
man crew; Z loads/day
Street Sweeping,
(8.6 c.y.)
Side Loading Vacuum Com-
pactor Truck; Daily Route
Method; Z man crew;
Zloads/day
Concept
No. *
C-ZOO
C-8
C-118
C-1ZO
C-1ZZ
C-Z01
C-1Z1
(C-17)
C-118
+ S-ZZ
+ Conduit
Collections
Per Week
6
Z
1
All
6
Z
1
6
Z
1
6
Z
1
6
Z
1
Cost/Ton
1967
$ 19.00
14. 50
1Z.85
1.75
19.00
14.30
1Z.70
54. 00
19.00
14. 30
1Z.70
18.00
13. 10
11.40
Z1.80
35.80
Z7.00
24. 00
^Appendix D, Volume III
VIII-6
-------
VIII. Scoring and Costs (Continued)
Table VIII-3 (Continued)
UNIT COSTS
Transportation
(Average 20 Mile Haul)
Candidate Concept
Rear Loading Compactor
Truck; 2 man crew
Lift and Carry Hoist Truck;
1 man crew
Side Loading Vacuum Compactor
Truck; 2 man crew
Underground Vacuum Tubes
(No Collection or Storage)
Liquid Transport (Separate
System) (No Collection or
Storage)
Open Body Truck; 2 man crew
Concept
No. *
C-200
C-8
(Similar to T-7,
combined with
S-18)
C-118
C-18
C-20
C-201
Cost/Ton
1967
$ 5.80
1.75
5.80
46.00
15.00
(Existing
Sewer s-
negligible cost)
4.55
^Appendix D, Volume III
VIII-7
-------
VIII. Scoring and Costs (Continued)
Table VIII-3 (Continued)
UNIT COSTS
Processing
Candidate Concept
Central Municipal Incineration
(Standard)
Central Municipal Incineration
(With Air Pollution Control)
Sludge Incineration
Industrial Incineration
Open Burning
Composting (Mechanical)
Composting (Windrow)
Sewage Treatment
Single Residence Refuse Grinders
Central Refuse Grinders
Central Compression and Baling
Concept
No. *
P-l
P-1A
P-3
P-4
P-6
P-9
P-9
P-10
P-12
P-13
P-17
Cost/Ton
1967
$ 7.00
9.00
24.00
10.00
(Negligible)
10.00
5.00
3.00
28.00
3.00
4. 50
^Appendix D, Volume III
VIII-8
-------
VIII. Scoring and Costs (Continued)
Table VIII-3 (Continued)
UNIT COSTS
Disposal
Concept Cost/Ton
Candidate Concept No. * 1967
Sanitary Landfilling D-l $1.20
Open Dumping D-2 0. 50
Land Spreading D-3 l.OQ
Animal Feeding D-4 0. 17
^Appendix D, Volume III
VIII-9
-------
VIII. Scoring and Costs (Continued)
Table VIII-4
ANCILLARY EFFECTS SCORES
System "A" Score
2 25.39
3 25.59
6 22. 12
7 18.42
13 20.81
15 21.42
Selected 17.24
System
NOTE: Only those systems within established cost and performance
limitations were scored.
VIII-10
-------
Year 2000
H
lOOi-
Selected System —.
Maximum Cost Limitation
(56.5 million)
0
0 10
12
T^IT
Minimum Performance
Limitation
(60$ Improvement)
TO
SYSTEM COSTS
(Millions of Dollars)
Note: 1. Ft. "E" represents existing system.
2. Slope from "E" to system designation
represents "jo improvement per million
dollars expended.
Figure VIII-1. Cost-Benefit Analysis Municipal - Industrial Systems
-------
Year 2000
w
g
LOO
90
*80
I TO
&
1
60
50
Uo
30
20
10
0
^™
Selected — s.
System ^*
>
*\
"E"
/
/
/
n /
? 9 /
1 / / y
// /
// /
!/ / /
/// /
///
'/ / y'
ff 1 1
.x — Maximum Cost Limitation
* (30.2 million)
/P c^
/ /
/ /
1 /
/ / I
/ /
/^-Minimum Performance
Limitation
/ (50^ Improvement)
ll 1 l l I l
0 10 20 30 kO 50 60 TO
SYSTEM COSTS
(Millions of Dollars)
80 90
Note: 1.
2.
Pt. "E" represents existing system.
Slope from "E" to system designation
represents % improvement per million
dollars expended.
100
Figure VIII-2. Cost-Benefit Analysis Agricultural Systems
vni-iz
-------
VIII. Scoring and Costs (Continued)
analysis since the slope of each connecting line represents the average percent
improvement per million dollars expended in excess of existing system costs.
The lines do not represent a plot of various expenditures and their associated
performance score improvements. The maximum slope (highest cost-benefit
ratio) for the postulated municipal-industrial systems is attained by Systems No.
1 and 13. The maximum benefit (reduction of bad effects) is achieved by System
No. 12 although at an extremely high cost.
Consultation with state and local Fresno administrative
officials resulted in the establishment of performance limitations. The apparent
increased expenditures required to provide any significant quantifiable and ob-
servable environmental improvements were judged to warrant on the order of a
minimum 60 percent increase for the municipal-industrial system in the Fresno
region. Anything less (for example 10 to 20 percent increments) could conceivably
go unnoticed by the proposed beneficiaries. The limit for agricultural systems,
with due consideration given to competitive effects, was lowered to 50 percent,
with recognition of the relatively small number of persons affected by adverse
effects in the agricultural sector as opposed to the far greater number of per-
sons living in the municipal region.
The existing system of management extrapolated to the year
2000 would cost the region some 33. 5 million dollars per year. Of this sum
25. 2 million would be required for municipal waste, 1. 6 million for industrial,
5. 7 million for manures and 1. 0 million for crop residue management. All
costs indicated above are in terms of 1967 value dollars.
Based on conservative economic projections the real dispos-
able income of the region's population is expected to increase some 42 percent
with attendant increases in standards of living. With the resulting higher educa-
tion levels and increased affluence, the population is expected to demand and
be willing to pay for an improvecbenvironment. Continuing the existing system
to the year 2000 will not only result in no improvement but, rather, a gradual
and steady degradation of the environment.
In 1967 the estimated regional expenditure for solid waste
management was 10. 2 million dollars. This sum amounted to 0. 93 percent of
the regional income. With the projected increase in per-capita real disposable
VIII-13
-------
VIII. Scoring and Costs (Continued)
income in the year 2000, 42 percent more will be available from each individual
without any increase in the percentage of income being expended for this purpose.
Unfortunately, the per-capita waste generation, especially the municipal portion,
is also predicted to increase. This increase almost matches the increase in'
disposable income in the region and, thus, the 33. 5 million dollars projected
existing system cost in the year 2000 is still 0. 90 percent of the increased re-
gional income.
As previously indicated, the more affluent, better-educated
populace of the year 2000 will probably demand an improved environment. A mini-
mum 60 percent improvement should be well worth doubling the income percentage
allocated to solid waste management, especially when the per-capita real dispos-
able income will have increased 42 percent. The proposed maximum system
cost for municipal waste management in the year 2000 will, thus, be set at twice
the projected present system costs, or 50.4 million dollars.
The industrial wastes in the year 2000 are estimated to be ap-
proximately 9. 1 percent of the projected total regional wastes. Projecting the
present system requires an expenditure of only 1. 6 million dollars, or only 4. 8
percent of the regional cost to handle 9. 1 percent of the projected total regional
wastes. To eliminate this inequity requires the application of a 90 percent in-
crease in costs allocated to industrial solid waste management. In addition, the
60 percent environmental effects reduction, similar to the municipal situation,
should be worth an additional 100 percent cost increase. The proposed limit
for system costs for industrial solid waste management in the year 2000 is,
therefore, set at 1. 9 x 2. 0 x 1.6 million, or 6. 1 million dollars.
Similarly, the projected present system costs for handling
manures which make up 39 percent of the region's solid waste load is 5. 7 million
dollars, or only 17 percent of the total system costs. To equalize this situation
requires an additional 130 percent allocation, while the attainment of a minimum
50 percent environmental improvement will necessitate an additional 100 percent
expenditure over and above the equalizing increase. The system cost limit for
manures in the year 2000 is, thus, set at 2. 3 x 2. 0 x 5. 7, or 26. 2 million dollars.
VIII-14
-------
VIII. Scoring and Costs (Continued)
The limit for management system expenditure for crop
residue for the year 2000 will be arbitrarily set here at 4. 0 million dollars.
This amount is 4 times the projected present system costs. Although the
crop residues in the year 2000 will make up 24.4 percent of the regional solid
waste, the competitive position of this important regional industry must be
also considered as well as the smaller number of persons directly affected
by the bad effects. The management of these vast amounts to the same extent
as municipal and industrial wastes would require a considerably greater cost.
Thus, a lesser environmental effects improvement has been accepted for these
wastes, together with a relatively lesser allowable management system cost.
The total solid waste management system limit cost for
the year 2000 is thus:
Municipal 50. 4 million dollars
Industrial 6. 1 million dollars
Manures 26. 2 million dollars
Crop Residues 4. 0 million dollars
Total 86. 7 million dollars
The cost limit for the municipal-industrial system is 56. 5
million dollars and that for the agricultural system, including manures, is
30. 2 million dollars. These are the cost limits indicated on Figures VIII-1 and 2
Although the constraints within which these cost limits are
developed appear generous by today's standards, it is important to note that few
people currently recognize the need for and financial requirements of solid waste
management. As national recognition of this need increases with time, it is
probable that the established cost limits, even when related to existing spending
levels, will appear conservative in the light of what people will be willing to
spend in the future.
With little consideration given to legal, political, socio-
logical, and practical constraints, i. e. , on a purely technical-economical basis,
municipal-industrial systems No. 2, 3, and 13 are the only postulated systems
that satisfy the established limitations although systems 6, 7, and 15 also should
VIII-15
-------
VIII. Scoring and Costs (Continued)
be considered. Similarily, no agricultural system falls within the established
cost-benefit limits. The cost-benefit analysis results, especially the fact that
none of the postulated agricultural systems fell within the pre-set cost and per-
formance limits, indicated that additional system analysis was required. This
was accomplished by synthesizing a system from the various subsystems pre-
viously analyzed that is most applicable to the region's requirements.
2. Major Wastes Evaluation
The individual postulated systems were developed on the
basis of handling, essentially, all wastes by the particular methods shown and
detailed in Section VII.
Further consideration indicates that three categories of solid
waste in the Fresno region constitute almost two-thirds of the total amount gen-
erated. These are organic municipal refuse, organic industrial wastes and
animal manures. To better enable application of nontechnical constraints, these
three categories were specifically analyzed. Cost-benefit ratios for all tech-
nically feasible methods of handling, both transient and disposal, were deter-
mined for each of these three categories. Figures VIII-3, 4, and 5 display the
transient components and Table VIII-5 the disposal components considered while
Tables VIII-6, 7, and 8 provide performance scoring and cost data for the various
combined subsystems developed for the three categories. Figures VIII-6, 7, and
8 furnish the results of the cost-benefit analysis for these additionally postulated
subsystems.
F. SYSTEM SELECTION
The final steps can now be taken to determine a rational solid
waste management system for the study region. What has been accomplished to
this point is the restriction of final choice to those systems or subsystems that
produce the greatest environmental improvement for minimum increased expendi-
tures. Until such time that additional sophistication can be incorporated into the
computerization of system selection, it. will be necessary to make the final choi'ce
on the further basis of sanitary engineering judgment accompanied by legal,
VIII-16
-------
SYSTEM
STORAGE
COLLECTION
TRANSPORTATION
PROCESSING
f~
1
1
1
ORT-1
(Existing
.
L
ORT-2
.*
ORT 3
ORT 'l — — . —
ORT- 5
rvDm (^
Piled on
Ground (7$)
Open (hk%)
Containers
Closed (U<#)
Containers
Portable
Manufactured
Containers
Portable
Manufactured
Containers
Underground
Vaults
I
Drop Body
Containers
I
i
\
Open (5*)
Trucks
Closed (65?6)
Trucks
Compactor
Trucks
Grinder
Trucks
Vacuum
Collection
^,'
^
I.
.
Open (5$)
Trucks
Closed (65$)
Trucks
Compactor
Trucks
s
s
Vacuum
Trucks
1 T^'
i— ^^ Disposal
• M • ii i
Drop Body
Trucks
1
1
1
•
••
w
»»•
Oen
Burning
70^,
— ORT-U
Source
Grinding
,
Central
Grinding
1
* •
Sevage Treat-
ment
_
^
\
»
Disposal
Disposal
Disposal
ORT - Organic Refuse Transient
Figure VIII-3. Transient Systems Organic Municipal Refuse
-------
SYSTEM
STORAGE
COLLECTION
TRANSPORTATION
PROCESSING
r
I
I
MT-l
(Existing
System)
I
L _ _ -
Spread on
Ground
Piled on
Ground
Piled on
Slabs
Open
Trucks
Closed
Trucks
Disposal
Spread on
Slabs
Severs
Sewage
Treatment
MT-3 ---
Drop Body
Containers
Drop Body
Trucks
Incineration
MT-U
Drop Body
Containers
Drop Body
Trucks
Composting
MT-5-— — —
Drop Body
Containers
Drop Body
Trucks
Disposal
MT - Manures Transient
Figure VIII-4. Transient Systems Manures
-------
SYSTEM
STORAGE
COLLECTION
TRANSPORTATION
PROCESSING
B
r
OIT-2
OIT-3
OIT-
Piled on
Ground
OIT-1
(Existing k
System)
Open
Containers
Closed
Containers
Source
Grinding
Holding
Tanks
Drop Body
Containers
Open
Transport
Closed
Transport
Severs
Drop Body
Trucks
Sevage
Treatment
Composting
(on-site)
Disposal
Drop Body
Containers
Drop Body
Trucks
Incineration
or
Composting
Disposal
Disposal
OIT - Organic Industrial Waste Transient
Figure VIII-5. Transient Systems Organic Industrial Wastes
-------
VIII. Scoring and Costs (Continued)
Table VIII-5
DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
System
D-l
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
D-7
D-8
Method
Existing System (See Section VII)
Plowed in the Ground
Incineration (Without Air Pollution
Controls) Ashes to Sanitary Landfill
Incineration (With Air Pollution Controls)
Ashes to Sanitary Landfill
Composting - Plowed in the Ground
Composting (On-Site) - Plowed in the
Ground
Sanitary Landfilling
Sewage Treatment - Residue Plowed in
the Ground
NOTE: D - Disposal
VIII-20
-------
VIII. Scoring and Costs (Continued)
System
(A) ORT 1: D-l
(B) ORT-2: D-3
(C) ORT-2: D-4
(D) ORT-5: D-3
(E) ORT-5: D-4
(F) ORT-2: 13-5
(G) ORT-5: D-5
(H) ORT-2: D-7
(I) ORT-5: D-7
(J) ORT-3: D-8
(K) ORT-4: D-8
(L) ORT-6: D-8
Table VIII-6
SUBSYSTEM SCORES
Organic Municipal Refuse
Per Cent Improvement
Cost/Ton
Transient
0
45
45
97
97
15
68
31
83
15
68
68
Disposal
0
78
84
78
84
74
74
70
70
56
56
56
Average
0
61
64
87
90
44
71
50
76
35
62
62
$ 16.30
28.40
30.00
36.40
38.00
30. 30
38.20
23.00
30.70
19.40
31.40
30.50
NOTE: ORT - Organic Refuse Transient Subsystem
VIII-21
-------
VIII. Scoring and Costs (Continued)
Table VIII-7
SUBSYSTEM SCORES
Manures
Systern Per Cent Improvement Coat/Ton
(A) MT 1: D-l
(B) MT-5: D-2
(C) MT-3: D-3
(D) MT-3: D-4
(E) MT-5: D-7
(F) MT-4: D-5
(G) MT-2: D-8
Transient
0
72
71
71
69
59
85
Disposal
0
0
73
84
59
85
39
Average
0
36
72
77
64
72
62
$ 2.57
1.80
28.50
30.50
4.95
14.60
3.90
NOTE: MT - Manure Transient Subsystem
VIII-22
-------
VIII. Scoring and Costs (Continued)
Table VIII-8
SUBSYSTEM SCORES
Organic Industrial Refuse
System Per Cent Improvement Cost/Ton
(A) OIT-1: D-l
(B) OIT-2: D-2
(C) OIT-2: D-3
(D) OIT-2: D-4
(E) OIT-2: D-7
(F) OIT 3: D-8
(G) OIT-2: D-5
(H) OIT-4: D-6
Transient
0
20
60
60
20
75
48
80
Disposal
0
19
71
87
57
65
82
82
Average
0
19
65
73
38
70
65
81
$ 6.70
3.30
26.80
28.80
3. 30
5.00
11.00
9.00
NOTE: OIT - Organic Industrial Transient Subsystem
VIII-2 3
-------
Year 2000
100
90
80 J-
70
o
H 60
i 50
g
K
g ho
30
20
10
0
H
o
0
H
?/
<£
E
> .//
/
/'
20 30
SUB-SYSTEM COSTS
(Dollars/Ton)
40
50
Note: 1. Pt. A represents existing system.
2. Slope from A to system designation
represents % improvement per dollars
expended.
Figure VIII-6. Cost-Benefit Analysis Organic Municipal Refuse Subsystem
VIII-24
-------
Year 2000
100 i-
90
80
TO
60
8 50
3°
20
10
E
I ,
0
If/
*
/
! /
10
/
X
20
SUB-SYSTEM COSTS
(Dollars/Ton)
30
Note: 1. Pt. A represents existing system.
2. Slope from A to system designation
represents % improvement per dollars
expended.
Figure .VIII-7. Cost-Benefit Analysis Manures Subsystem
VHI-25
-------
Year 2000
100-
90
80
TO
K
§£
M
H 60
S en
p P*-*
g
g uo
8 30
20
10
H.C
1 I
1 I
I /
\ I
\l
B0\l|/
\\H/
\\!!/
0 10 20
SUB-SYSTEM SCORES
(Dollars/Ton)
Note: 1. Pt. A represents existing system.
2. Slope from A to system designation
represents % improvement per dollars
expended.
30
Figure VIII-8. Cost-Benefit Analysis Organic Industrial Refuse Subsystem
VIII-26
-------
VIII. Scoring and Costs (Continued)
political and administrative decisions. Even in the event of future perfection
of the technical-economic selection process, the legal, political, and adminis-
trative decisions, representing local awareness of public acceptance, could
still remain overpowering. However; the decisions obtained by cognizant
officials will be easier and better because of this improved selection process.
The cost-benefit analysis provided by Figure VIII-1 indicates
certain management systems that fall within the determined performance and
cost limitations. Table VIII-4 further provides a quantitative analysis of ancil-
lary effects produced by those particular systems.
It is conceivable that engineering and administrative entities,
using only the data presented, could now make better decisions regarding solid
waste management selections. To further augment the procedure, however, a
rationale for the selection of the postulated year 2000 Fresno solid waste man-
agement system is presented.
Approximately 5, 557, 000 tons of solid wastes (as defined by
this study) will be generated within the study region in the year 2000. Of this
total about 36 percent (1, 987, 000 tons) are relatively low contributors to ad-
verse environmental effects, or are low in tonnage, ranging from 30 tons for
petroleum wastes to 20, 500 tons for cotton trash. This category includes 75
percent of the individual wastes considered in this study.
The remaining 64 percent of the total tonnage of generated
wastes - consisting of some 25 percent of the individual wastes considered -
fall into categories specifically analyzed in Subsection E, 2 of this section.
These wastes, due to their organic nature, are particularly detrimental to the
environment when improperly managed. It is thus readily apparent that devoting
attention to these three putrescible categories will provide the greatest gains
in environmental improvement.
The proposed solid waste management system for the Fresno
region (as shown in Figure VIII-9) is a combination of the various transient and
disposal systems heretofore described. The system handles the different waste
VIII-27
-------
POSITION
MUNjC.FAL WASTES
IN AH. REGIONS
I. DEMOLITION AND
CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS
2 OE.HO AMMALS
1 CPEC1AL WASTES
ESTIMATED
TONS'TEAR 2000
160
90
IN MUNICIPAL a INTERFACE REGION
4 HUMAN FFCAL MATTER 23,640
IStWuGE TREATMENT fiCStOUC)
5 .GARSAGE
6. BULKY REFUSE
178,000
15,000
7 REFUSE (EXCEPT BULKY 1,292.400
REFUSE)
8 STREET REFUSE * 13,400
MANURES
9 FEED LOTS (EXCEPT I.8I9.95O
SHEEP MANURE)
ORC-AMC INDUSTRIAL WASTES
10 FRUIT a VEGETABLES
II POULTRY
12. ANIMAL
II WINERIES
14. VEGETABLE OILS
267,330
3200
10,600
154500
920
MUNICIPAL WASTES
IN AGRICULTURAL REGION
II HUH: IN FCCAL MATTER 583
IS. GARSAJE 4,330
17 REFUSE. COMBUSTIBLES 12.759
IB «EPJS£, lOH COM5U5TIELES 1 ,400
RAL WASTES
19. FIELD 6 S! ED CHP'-S ' 620,585
20 FRUIT AKO NUT CRCPS 437,964
21 PRUT AND HUT CRCPS 293^76
(CULLS)
SHEEP MANURE XOfOO
INDUSTRIAL WASTES
Z3. TEXTILES 402
24. PLASTICS 175
25. TIRES 3.ISO
26. WETALS 10^30
27 MASCMir 1,475
2& KOCO PRODUCTS 6iO
» CMEI/IC1LS 55O
30 rETRC-_EUM 30
31 SEEDS 260
32. COTTON TRASH _ ZOJ5OO
*Leaves (only) to composting; dirt and sand to landfill
Figure VIII-9. Proposed Solid Waste Management System
(Fresno Region)
VIII-2 8
-------
VIII. Scoring and Costs (Continued)
categories in a variety of manners with the most intensive and advanced
treatment reserved for three types of waste. These are the organic municipal
refuse (part of category 7), feed lot manures (category 9) and organic industrial
wastes (category 10 through 14). The categories referred to by number above
are similarly numbered on Figure VIII-9.
The proposed system allows for an orderly transition over
a period of time from the existing system to that being proposed for the major
affected waste types. At the same time the system handling waste categories
of little consequence or those that are presently efficient are little changed in
the proposed system. The only departure from this concept is the treatment
of agricultural \vastes (categories 19 through 21). These wastes, though
highly putrescible, are not given a great deal of special treatment in this system.
To handle these wastes more intensively would, it was felt, require considerably
more expenditure than the farmers could afford and still maintain their com-
petitive position in the State and Country.
The costs of the proposed system in the year ZOOO is esti-
mated to be:
Municipal 42. 7 million dollars
Industrial 5. 9 million dollars
Manures 26. 5 million dollars
Crop Residues 3. 5 million dollars
Total 78. 6 million dollars (1967 value dollars)
These system costs fall within the expenditure limits previ-
ously set in Subsection E-l of this section.
The effectiveness of the proposed system is indicated by the
calculated 84 per cent improvement of damaging environmental effects for the municipal-
industrial portion and an improvement of 70 percent for the agricultural portion.
VIII-29
-------
VIII. Scoring and Costs (Continued)
In addition, the proposed system ancillary effect score of 17. 24 is considerably
lower than that of any of the previously postulated systems falling within the
cost benefit limits. These improvements, well above the program goals and
within reasonable expenditures, are the result of a successful application of
the postulated procedures.
VIII-30
-------
IX. SELECTED SYSTEM CONCEPTS
A. OBJECTIVES
The objective of this task is to define a long-range solid waste
management system that would fit the basic needs of the Fresno Region Study
Area. Details of incremental immediate and medium-range changes neces-
sary to attain the proposed system in an efficient, orderly and economic man-
ner are presented to provide a basis for initiating development. Technical,
economic, legal, jurisdictional, political and financial considerations affect-
ing the proposed system are included within this operational framework.
Primary consideration has been given to retention of a high degree
of flexibility within the proposed system in order that incorporation of technolog-
ical advancements could be achieved at minimal cost, and also to permit appli-
cation of the data and methodology to regions outside the Fresno area.
B. CONCEPT DESCRIPTION
1. Introduction
The solid waste management system concept suggested for
implementation within the study area differs from present system operations in
source storage, collection, and processing of selected municipal and industrial
wastes. The system, as suggested will readily lend itself to future expansion
and utilization of envisioned technological advancements. Consideration is given
to the maximum use of present operations to effect an efficient transition.
2. Upgrading of Present Waste Management System
Approximately 36 percent (1, 987, 000 tons per year) of the
estimated total solid waste load in the year 2000 can be managed effectively by
upgrading the present system. It is expected that all surface transportation of
wastes will take place in closed transportation and that landfill operations will
be effectively managed. Figure IX-1 is a schematic representation of systems
operations for the various wastes produced in the year 2000. Those operations
which can continue substantially unchanged, if this system is adopted, are as fol-
lows with position as indicated in Figure IX-1.
-------
IX. Selected System Concepts, B (Continued)
a. Demolition and Construction Debris (1), bulky refuse
(6), and industrial wastes other than organic (23-32) will be collected into
closed transportation units for disposal at sanitary landfills after feasible sal-
vage operations.
b. Dead Animals (2) are to be disposed of at a central
incineration unit with disposal of accumulated ash at sanitary landfills.
c. Special Wastes (3) will be disposed of by on-site
incineration.
d. Garbage (5) will continue to be processed through the
expanded use of'source grinding (i.e. household disposals) with sewer transpor-
tation to the sewage treatment plant and ultimate disposal of the digested
sludge by plowing in the ground.
e. Fruit and Nut Crop Trimmings (20) will be processed
through a grinding operation and plowed into the ground rather than being disposed
of through open burning.
f. Industrial Wastes produced from chemical, petroleum,
seed and cotton gin operations (29-32) will be incinerated with disposal of ash in
sanitary landfills.
3. Operation of Proposed Waste Management System
That portion of the proposed waste management system which
provides for partial automation of municipal refuse, collection, and composting
or sanitary landfill disposal of municipal refuse, organic industrial wastes and
manures (items 7 through 14 in Figure IX-1), accounts for 64 percent (3, 570, 000
tons per year) of the estimated total waste load. Of this quantity, about 849* 000
tons per year would be disposed of in sanitary landfills with the remainder used
in the production of approximately 1, 143, 000 tons of compost per year.
a. Municipal Refuse
The proposed system provides for sealed storage and
semi-automated collection of municipal refuse (Item 7 in Figure IX-1). Wastes
IX-2
-------
ESTIMATED
TOMS/TtAR 2000
MUI-! C.i-VU. WASTE
IK -.I.L HESIQMS
D^OLIT'ON AND
CCVST»>U:TION DEBRIS
.! Oc.AO ANIfeALS
3 '. PEC'AL WASTES
ie.428
160
90
IN MUNICIPAL S INTERFACE REGION
4 H.::::V FFCAL MATTER 23,640
lH:«.-.GF IBCAUCNT RESOUE)
'j .GACBAGE 178.000
7 IJEFU3E (EXCEPT BULKT I.292.4OO
REFUSE!
8 STCEET REFUSE * 13.400
MANURES
9 ?F^H LOTS (EXCEPT 1.819.950
SHfrp MANURE)
ORGAWC 'NJUSTRIAL WASTES
10 FHUIT a VEGETABLES
I! POULTSV
12 ANIMAL
13 WINERIES
14 VCCE1A8L£ C-LS
267.330
3,200
10,600
154 5OO
920
VUNICPAL WASTES
IN AC CULTURAL H£6:ON
15 HU\\ti FTCAL MATTER 583
16 CiPBJjL 4.330
17 REFl"ir.CO«U'reTI3LES 17.759
T itfnc I ^f
I '"" I 1
1 CLOUD
TtANSPOCT
UWACE ItlAt-
aoiio
.8
-.. TON COMSU.iTie'. ES 1.400
6f,niCI,-(.T-L't>AL WASTES
.9 F.ELO i -J EO CRP«-S 620.585
iO FHUII .Wu NL'T CRCPS
21 fl?J.T AND NUT CROPS
(CULLS)
SME:P MANURE
LN'OUSTRIAL WASTES
23 TEXTILES
24 PLASTICS
25 TIRES
26 METALS
27 MASONRY
28 »OOi! PRODUCTS
19 CHEMICALS
30 refROLEUM
31 SEEDS
32 COTTON TRASH
40?
ITS
3.150
I033O
1.475
6iO
550
30
260
20^00
*Leaves (only) to composting; dirt and sand to landfill
Figure IX-1.
Proposed Solid Waste Management System
(Fresno Region, Year 2000)
IX-3
-------
IX. Selected System Concepts, B (Continued)
would be bagged and placed in an underground conduit leading to a streetside
pickup receptacle (Figure IX-2). This system has the advantage of eliminating
outside storage and permitting convenient collection with a vehicle operated
vacuum system. It should be understood that this system is conceptual and
that a number of similar systems can be hypothesized. Approximately 50
percent of the refuse (7) would be hauled directly to sanitary landfills with
the remainder passing through a separation process (removal of metal objects,
etc. ) before delivery to a composting plant.
b. Street Refuse
Collection of street refuse (8) would continue to be
operated in the present manner but disposal of the collected material would
direct leaves to be processed with municipal refuse at the composting plant,
with the dirt and sand disposed of in sanitary landfills.
c. Manures
Feedlot-generated manures (9) in the proposed system
are to be processed at the composting plant with refuse. A C/N ratio of 30 to
40 is required for rapid composting which necessitates maintaining a proper
balance between refuse (high C/N ratio) and manures (low C/N ratio). The
generated compost would then be prepared for storage and delivery to the user.
d. Organic Industrial wastes (10 through 14) will be pro-
cessed by on-site composting. A portion of the compost produced by the muni-
cipal refuse-manure composting operation will be required for use as C/N ratio
control and as a dry absorbent for the wet cannery (10) and winery (13) wastes.
C. ELEMENTS OF SYSTEMS
1. Storage
a. Storage in Containers
Closed containers should be designed for convienent
handling as well as for control of flies and rodents. The containers should be
esthetically pleasing and provided with a tightly fitting lid.
IX-4
-------
GROUND LEVEL
OF BUILDING
-VENTILATION
Yard
Rubbish
COLLECTION
VEHICLE
(VACUUM SYSTEM)
•UNDERGROUND CONDUIT
DETAIL A
Container in Place
IT
w
Partially Filled
Container Closed Release to Conduit Cycle Complete
Figure IX-2. Municipal Refuse: Storage in Underground Conduits and
Automated Pickup by Vacuum System (Concept
', •• Represents One of Several Solutions)
IX-5
-------
IX. Selected System Concepts, C (Continued)
Larger volume containers, like "lift-and-carry" con-
tainers, will be required for the storage of commerciaLand industrial wastes.
The organization providing the collection service must be authorized to specify
the required containers.
b. Underground Conduits
It is proposed that municipal refuse (except bulky
refuse) be stored in underground conduits that connect directly to the collection
vehicle at time of pick-up. This new storage-collection concept is shown sche-
matically in Figure IX-2.
Refuse would be packaged in heavy duty paper bags
supported in an upright open position until filled. The bags would then be
closed by means of an adhesive tape and the closed bag discharged into the un-
derground conduit. The collection vehicle would be equipped with a vacuum sys-
tem. Air circulation in the underground conduit would be provided by a vent
and the conduit would be constructed to exclude storm water drainage.
This system would provide for the sanitary storage of
wastes in readily accessible locations and for orderly handling and collection
with a maximum convenience to collection agency as well as the householder.
Furthermore, the system can be considered as a first step in the development
of advanced methods of collection and transportation. Future systems could in-
corporate a sewer line as the transportation facility by initially providing the
collection vehicle with a grinder that would discharge ground wastes into the
sewers. Ultimately, home refuse grinders could discharge the material directly
to the sewers.
c. Special Storage for Manures
The proposed system, if adopted, by providing for
composting of manures makes transportation of the manures mandatory.
The problem of storage and transportation of manures
is mainly one of getting the manures into containers. This might be accomplished
IX-6
-------
IX. Selected System Concepts, C (Continued)
by having wastes scraped off by means of an automated shovel and stored in
closed lift-and-carry containers. This system of storage could be modified
in such a way that manures would be washed into special settling containers
providing mechanical separation of solids and reclamation and reuse of treated
waters. Drainage could be lagooned or discharged to the sewers if available.
2. Collection
It is beyond the scope of this study to specify all vehicles
that could be used for collection and transportation. The following paragraphs
will, therefore, consist of general recommendations.
Only "closed transport" is recommended. This does not
necessarily mean that open body trucks are excluded but wastes being trans-
ported in an open body truck should be covered with a tarpaulin.
a. Special Collection
Bulky refuse, dead animals and demolition debris are not
collected on a regular schedule. Fast and efficient collection depends on the
service provided. It is recommended that the same organization be respon-
sible for the collection and processing of dead animals. The vehicles for the
collection of dead animals should be sufficiently equipped to assure a safe and
hygienically inoffensive operation.
b. Vacuum Collector Trucks
These trucks would be used for the collection of municipal
wastes stored in underground conduits. The trucks would be equipped with a
vacuum system powered by the truck engine. Since the wastes are to be
packed in heavy duty paper bags there will be no air pollution caused by the
carrier air. The truck should be of the "compactor type" in order to optimize
its capacity.
Vacuum collector trucks of this character are not presently
on the market; therefore, it is recommended that development of this under-
ground storage and vacuum collection system be carried out by the pertinent
industry.
IX-7
-------
IX. Selected System Concepts, C (Continued)
3. Transport
Transportation is considered as that part of solid waste
management where collected wastes are transported between any major
functions in the total waste management system.
The selection of the best combination of methods and
ecuipment to meet the recuirements of a particular situation is largely
a matter of cost analysis and economics. A detailed cost analysis of
collection and transportation for the study region is beyond the scope of
this study. It is, therefore, only indicated on which basis an analysis
should be carried, out by the following example. Three different systems
are assumed:
(1) Transportation by 1-ton collection truck, costing
9
1 x 60
Q
$9. 00/hour, equivalent to ——^-7-^— = $0. 15/ton/
minute
(2) Transportation by 8-ton collection truck, costing
14 4
$14.40/hour, equivalent to -5 — '-r^ — = $0. 03/ton/
O JC O \J
minute
(3) Transfer station, costing $ 1 . 50/ton and transpor-
tation by ZO-ton trailer-truck, costing $18. OO/
8
7^-
O \J
1 8
hour, equivalent to -^-* - 7^- = $0. 015 ton/minute
Figure IX-3 indicates that a transfer station is more
economical if the time for a round trip of a 1-ton truck is longer than 12
minutes. However, 8-ton trucks are still more economical when the time
is less than 100 minutes.
This type of analysis (discussed in detail in Reference 2)
would be required on a region-wide basis considering the location of future
processing and disposal sites.
IX-8
-------
10
20 JO 40 90 60 70 80
ROUND TRIP TIME IN MINUTES
90
BASED UPON
APWA DOCUMENT
(REFERENCE 2)
Figure IX-3. Refuse Haul Cost Comparison (Transfer
Versus Direct Haul)
IX-9
-------
IX. Selected System Concepts, C (Continued)
4. Processing
a. Garbage Grinding
Installation of household garbage disposal units in all
new homes, as well as installation in existing homes not already equipped,
has become a reality of modern living. Clark et. al. , (7) have reported
that the installation of garbage grinders increased the per capita domestic
BOD and TSS loads an average 35 percent in several observations. However,
they also reported that increases in per capita sewage volume due to garbage
grinders were insignificant. The relative C:TN composition (carbon:total
nitrogen) of macerated garbage (a mixture rich in organic matter) entering
the sewers was estimated to be about 100:7. 5, which is compared to the
C:TN ratio in sewage of about 100:20. Thus, the installation of garbage
grinders would be expected to increase the domestic waste load coefficients
for BOD, TN, and by about one third total suspended and dissolved solids.
These factors must be considered in designing new or expanded sewerage
facilities.
b. Central Incineration of Dead Animals
It is proposed that dead animals be burned in a central
incineration plant, especially designed for incineration of dead animals.
The incinerator for this purpose should be equipped with auxiliary oil
burners. The temperature of the flue gases leaving the combustion chamber
should be higher than 1800°F to accomplish odor-free operation. Exhaust
cleaning facilities would be required to meet air pollution control regulations.
Such a plant would operate on a "call service" basis.
c. On-Site Incineration of Special Wastes
Special wastes, as defined in this study, refer to pathological
wastes generated in hospitals, including operating room wastes, experimental
animals, etc. These wastes would be disposed of in incinerators specifically
designed for this purpose. Auxiliary fuel, after-burner, gas-cleaning and ade-
quate safety devices are some of the necessary components of such equipment.
IX-10
-------
IX. Selected System Concepts, C (Continued)
Most importantly, regardless of hospital size, the wastes require thorough
burning and preferably no storage. Wastes generated in hospitals, other than
pathological, amount to about nine pounds/bed/day. These wastes should be
handled by standard collection methods since incinerators designed for specific
purposes are uneconomical when used to burn refuse.
d. Composting of Municipal Refuse and Manures
In the proposed system, part of the municipal refuse would
be composted in combination with manures. Municipal wastes having a high
C/N (carbon-nitrogen) ratio would be used to adjust the low C/N ratio of
manures to maintain a compostable mixture.
The composting process includes three major phases:
preparation of raw materials, composting, and preparation of final product.
(1) Preparation of Raw Material
Scales are an essential requirement for the
operation of a composting plant to determine inputs and outputs of the operation.
The raw materials reach the composting in batches; therefore, in-process
storage facilities would also be required. It is recommended that wastes
should not be stored longer than one day. Storage facilities should be designed
to facilitate daily cleaning, i. e. , the bunkers should be empty after one day's
operation. Closed buildings are necessary to prevent scattering at materials
and to assure odor-and-rodent-free operation.
Separation is a prerequisite for efficient composting.
A first separation is possible by selecting collection routes which would yield
the best raw material for composting. (This is possible in the Fresno study
area, because the proposed system requires that only about half of the municipal
refuse should go to the composting plant. ) In the plant, compostable materials
would be segregated automatically by means of ballistic and magnetic separa-
tion. Parallel to separation, there will be a reduction of size to optimum
particle size distribution. Separated materials such as ferrous constituents
may be of marketable value; however, their value will be influenced by quality
requirements. ^
IX-11
-------
IX. Selected System Concepts, C (Continued)
Because the selected system includes composting of
manures combined with municipal refuse, the plant would include mixing of
manures and pre-treated refuse as an additional unit operation.
(Z) Composting
The factors fundamental to composting are those
fundamental to any aerobic biological process: initial population of micro-
organisms; available nutrients, temperature, hydrogen ion concentration,
moisture, and aeration. The course of this process and the time required
are determined by moisture content, aeration and the C/N ratio. For best
results the moistu.re content should be between 45 and 65 percent and the
C/N ratio 30:1 to 40:1.
(3) Preparation of Final Product
Compost is usually stored at the plant for "ripening. "
Aerobic conditions are essential during this period. Frequent turning or
forced aeration may be necessary. Final preparation could include sieving,
drying and eventually briquetting or bagging with applicable quality control
tests. Economics will probably dictate that most of the finished products be
delivered in bulk form.
e. Composting of Organic Industrial Wastes
Industrial wastes in the study area consist mainly of
cannery and winery wastes. These wastes are characterized by their high
moisture content and the relatively high C/N ratio of the solids. The composting
process, developed by the "National Canners Association" (1) is recommended
for managing these wastes. This process is briefly discussed in the following
paragraph.
Dry compost can be used as an absorbent for wet cannery-
wastes. Wet cannery wastes (85 percent moisture) are mixed with dry
compost. The recommended moisture content of the mixture should be
between 60 and 70 percent. This allows mixing of 2 units of wet wastes
with one unit of dry compost (moisture content between 20 and 40 percent).
IX-12
-------
IX. Selected System Concepts, C (Continued)
Evaporation of water and thermophilic microbial action will reduce the
initial amount of cannery wastes to such a degree that the weight and
volume of the finished compost is only slightly increased when recycled
several times. It is recommended that the compost be contained between
permanent walls and aerated by injecting air through the compost mass.
Waste can be added at 12-hour intervals. Automated means of turning
the composting mass, and waste distribution systems are already developed
for the addition of waste to the windrow as it is being turned.
This system is simple but nevertheless effective. It
does not require expensive investment for equipment that will be used
only during a short period during the year (canning season).
f. Incineration of Industrial Wastes
The selected waste management system includes on-site
incineration of industrial wastes like chemicals, petroleum, seeds and
cotton trash. The incinerators would be small units, operated by the
industries themselves. It is essential that these plants are built for the
disposal of a specific type of waste. Petroleum and chemical wastes are
probably best managed by burning in a rotary kiln, whereas cotton trash
should be burned in a furnace where special attention is given to the low
density of the fuel. All incineration plants must be approved by air pollution
control agencies to receive an operation permit.
g. Salvage
Salvage techniques have not been adequately developed,
technologically and economically; much research and development is needed.
The term "salvage" is presently not exactly defined because it may include
recycling of materials that essentially are not a part of the waste stream as
well as segregation of materials from mixed wastes.
Direct recycling or reduction of wastes at their source
is only applicable where wastes are homogeneous and the storage-collection
function will not be complicated. These conditions prevail most frequently
in commercial and industrial operations.
Under present conditions the most promising materials
for salvage operations are:
IX-13
-------
IX. Selected System Concepts, C (Continued)
(1) Metals
The scrap metal industry is presently one of the ten
leading industries in the country, if the dollar volume is used as an index.
The industry is interested in research and ways to upgrade scrap in order to
widen its application in steel and other manufacturing industries. "Tin" cans
have a special outlet through established channels at premium prices.
(2) Paper
Paper is probably the component with the greatest
salvage potential. It provides about 25 percent of the raw material for the
paper and paperboard industries. This percentage is relatively low compared
to figures from other countries. Since paper is the largest component in
municipal wastes (45 percent by weight) any salvage operation would reduce
the waste load to be disposed of significantly. Significant are the de-inking
plants built at Garden City, New Jersey, and Pomona, California, for the
direct re-cycling of newspaper back into the re-use cycle.
(3) Glass
Salvage of glass appears to be the least promising salvage
operation, because the range of processing and contaminant removal costs is
limited by the low cost of basic raw material used in glass manufacturing.
Some recent recovery of broken glass for decorative "land cover" in gardens
and residential areas may prove to be a practical outlet.
(4) Rubber
Discarded automobile tires constitute the major
source of scrap rubber. The availability and suitability of reclaimed rubber
reduces the amount of crude rubber needed. However, shipment costs are a
limiting factor in the economics of any rubber salvage operation.
(5) Plastics
In general, plastics fall into two main groups --
thermoplasts and thermosets. These two types cannot be used as a mixture
IX-14
-------
IX. Selected System Concepts, C (Continued)
because of their different properties. Salvage of plastics is for all practical
purposes, limited to "in-house" recycling by industries.
(6) Rags
Rags salvaged from municipal refuse are of little
use to the paper industry because only natural fibers can be used. Removal
of the synthetic fiber and decontamination of the cotton and wool portion are
economically unfeasible. Rags used in the paper industry are obtained di-
rectly from textile factories in an uncontaminated state; however, other
outlets may exist and should be explored.
(7) Food Processing Wastes and Crop Residues
The potential value for animal feed and the production
of chemical by-products such as alcohols suggests a serious study and possible
exploitation of these potentially valuable solid wastes.
5. Disposal
a. Sanitary Landfilling
The operation of a landfill should be carried out by trained
personnel and appropriate equipment should be made available.
Any new disposal site (sanitary landfill) should be prepared
considering the following aspects: Engineering survey of the area, access
road, esthetics (fencing), facilities for storage of equipment, scales for weight-
ing incoming refuse and adequate utilities. Particular attention should be given
to the ultimate use of the site when completed.
Deposited wastes must be covered daily. The material
should be of sufficient depth and compaction to prevent fly emergence. Perco-
lation of groundwater through the fill must be avoided. Attention must also be
given to gas production and gas dispersion. Carbon dioxide should not reach
the groundwater because this would result in mineralization of the ground water.
Local buildup of methane should be prevented by ventilation.
IX-15
-------
IX Selected System Concepts, C (Continued)
b. Plowing in Ground
This method of disposal, applicable only when
agricultural land is available, requires prompt plowing immediately after
spreading the wastes on the ground.
D. WASTE LOADINGS
1. Required Capacities
a. Plant Sizes
The following paragraphs describe the physical size
of processing facilities for the proposed system.
(1) Central incineration of Dead Animals
The projected load of dead animals for the year 2000
amounts to 160 tons/year. It is recommended that the plant consist of two units
designed to handle unit charges of 1, 200 pounds (large animals) and 200 pounds
(small animals), respectively. This type of plant must include additional
facilities for the cleaning and disinfection of collection vehicles.
For cases of emergency, when storage of dead
animals will be necessary, it is recommended that closed storage rooms be
ventilated and the odor-laden, vented air be used for air supply in the auxiliary
oil burners or that refrigerated storage be used where practical.
(2) On-Site Incineration of Special Wastes
The capacities of hospital incinerators cannot be
specified at this point, because the future waste loads were developed on the
basis of overall population forecasts and not individual hospital sizes. There-
fore, the distribution of the wastes has not been determined and plant capacities
cannot be calculated. As in the design of incineration for dead animals, hospital
incinerators should be operated with minimum storage periods. Any odor-laden
air from storage rooms should be used for air supply in gas or oil burners.
IX-16
-------
IX. Selected System Concepts, D (Continued)
(3) Composting Plants
As previously discussed, a proper carbon-nitrogen
ratio (C/N) is an important factor in any composting operation. The reported
C/N ratios are about 85:1 for refuse (2) and about 8:1 to 12:1 for manures (3).
Composting studies conducted by the University of
California (4) indicated a C/N ratio of 30:1 to 40:1 for good composting; how-
ever, German researchers (5) recommended an initial C/N ratio of about 15:1
to reduce the initial lag time of the biological action.
Assuming that an initial C/N ratio of 25:1 can be used
for composting a mixture of refuse plus manures, the amount of refuse required
for composting is determined by the following equation:
Manures: 1, 819, 950 tons, C/N ratio 10:1
Refuse: X C/N ratio 85:1
Mixture: (1, 819, 950 + X), C/N ratio 25:1
1, 819, 950 • 10 + X ' 85 = (1, 819, 950 + X) • 25
X = 456, 800 tons
This amount would consist, according to the flow chart, of separated refuse
and street refuse. The fraction of non-compostable and easy to segregate
materials in refuse is assumed to be 27 percent (2). The amount of refuse
required for the "composting-stream" is, therefore:
X = (456, 800 - 13,400) —yj = 608, 400 tons,
or 47 percent of the collected refuse. The remaining 53 percent would go
directly to the landfill after collection.
The weight of the incoming mixture (2, 276, 750
tons/year) would be reduced by approximately 50 percent through composting.
Considering the almost insignificant weight increase of that portion of compost
being used for processing of organic industrial wastes, the amount of compost
produced will be approximately 1, 143, 000 tons/year.
The required plant capacities are based on the total
annual amount -of 2, 276, 750 tons of refuse plus manure that will have to be
IX-17
-------
IX. Selected System Concepts, D (Continued)
processed if the selected system is adopted. Assuming five days/week and
six days/week operation, the required capacities are 8, 750 tons/day and
7, 350 tons/day, respectively.
(4) Composting of Organic Industrial Wastes
The proposed plants were described functionally
in Paragraph C. 4 of this section. All these processes would be carried out
at the particular industrial plant sites. Specific capacities cannot be deter-
mined because the waste loadings are not broken down into single plants. The
organic industrial wastes that would be processed by the NCA-process (National
Canners Association) amounts to 444, 550 tons/year. Almost 95 percent of
these composting plants would be operated on a seasonal basis at canneries
or wineries.
(5) On-Site Incineration of Industrial Wastes
An exact determination of on-site incineration
capacities cannot be made because a breakdown by plant of the estimated
overall waste load (21, 340 tons/year) is not available. Furthermore,
these incinerators will not be operated continuously and any specification
of unit capacities here would be meaningless.
b. Land Required for Landfill
There would be approximately 900, 000 tons of wastes/
year disposed of by sanitary landfilling. The average density of mixed refuse
is reported as 300 pounds/cubic yard (2). Volume reduction by compaction
varies from 1:1 to 3:1. The quantity of cover material is usually expressed as
the ratio of the volume of cover material to the volume of compacted refuse.
The average of this ratio is about 1:4. One ton of refuse requires, therefore,
about 2 to 3 cubic yards of space for disposal. Applying these factors to the
study region, indicates that 1, 800, 000 to 2, 700, 000 cubic yards, or 1, 110 to
1, 650 acre-feet/year, would be required by the year 2000 for waste disposal
by sanitary landfilling.
IX-18
-------
IX. Selected System Concepts, D (Continued)
c. Land Required for Compost Application
The production of compost in the year 2000 would be
1, 143, 000 tons. Assuming an application rate of 75 tons/acre/year, the re-
quired acreage is:
1, 143, 000 .- Ann
— =^ = 15, 400 acres
or 24 square miles.
The distribution of the required acreage is discussed in Paragraphs of this section.
2. Required Equipment
a. Storage Facilities
Maximum periods of source storage were developed in
Chapter VI (Chapter VI-23). Based on the figures presented in Table VI-23,
and the estimated waste loadings, the required storage facilities can be
determined. They are presented in Table IX-1. Only those wa'stes are
considered that should be stored in containers, i. e. , open storage is not
included in the table.
Continuous generation and accumulation is assumed for
all wastes with the exception of cannery and winery wastes where a three
month canning season is assumed.
b. Collection and Transportation Facilities
Only the most important transportation capacities that
are essential for the operation of the proposed waste management system
will be determined. Any transportation capacity is determined by the tonnage
to be transported within a given time period.
(1) Refuse Collection - Transportation System
It is assumed that refuse is collected during 6 days
in a week. The capacity of the refuse collection-transportation system is,
therefore:
1, 292, 400 x 7 _ n__ ^ , ,
——^2'x ^ '= 2, 900 tons/day
(2) Transportation of Manures
Because composting is a continuous process and
refuse is collected regularly, it is desirable that manures be transported to
IX-19
-------
IX. Selected System Concepts, D (Continued)
Table IX-1
REQUIRED STORAGE FACILITIES FOR STORAGE IN CONTAINERS
Waste
Municipal Wastes
Garbage
(Agr. region)
Refuse
(Mun. and interface region)
Bulky Refuse
(Mun. and interface region)
Refuse
(Agr. region)
Dead Animals
Demolition and Construction
Debris
Special Wastes
Ash
Agricultural Wastes
Manures
Industrial Wastes
Fruit and Vegetables
Poultry
Animal
Wineries
Vegetable Oils
Textiles
Plastics
Tires
Metals
Masonry
Wood Products
Chemicals
Petroleum
Seeds
Cotton Trash
Max. Period of
Source Storage
(days)
4
4
4
7
4
1
7
1
14
7
1
1
1
1
1
7
14
14
14
7
14
7
7
7
7
Waste Load
in Year 2000
(tons/year)
4, 330
1, 292, 400
13, 000
14, 159
160
18, 428
90
2, 270
1,819,950
267, 330
3, 200
18, 600
154, 500
920
402
175
3, 150
10, 930
1,475
610
550
30
260
20, 500
Overall Total
Required
Storage
(tons to be stored)
48
14, 200
250
153
1
355
1
87
35, 000
2, 930
9
51
1, 700
3
8
7
121
418
28
23
11
1
5
394
55, 804
IX-20
-------
IX. Selected System Concepts, D (Continued)
the composting plant regularly to prevent stockpiling and its resultant effects.
The transportation system and collection service should be designed to meet
the following requirements:
1>81529x°6X7 = 4, 100 tons/day
E. APPLICATION OF SYSTEM
The proposed system will require considerable land acquisition for
efficient management. The figures developed in the following paragraphs should
be helpful for the planning of disposal sites and composting operations.
i
1. Required Disposal Acreages
A brief review of the projected waste loadings provides
approximate figures for the magnitude of the required acreage. Table IX-2
is a summary of the total waste loading projections for the three major waste
categories for the Fresno region.
Table IX-2
TOTAL REGIONAL WASTE LOADING PROJECTIONS
Source
Municipal
Agricultural
Industrial
Waste Loading (Tons per Year)
1970
450, 000
2, 020, 000
260, 000
2, 730, 000
1980
680, 000
2, 630, 000
320, 000
3, 630, 000
1990
1, 020, 000
3, 030, 000
420, 000
4, 470, 000
2000
1, 530, 000
3, 530, 000
510, 000
5, 570, 000
It has been estimated that by the year 2000 approximately
900, 000 tons of waste/year will be disposed of in sanitary landfills. The
total 1970 waste production (municipal and industrial wastes) is anticipated
to be disposed of by sanitary landfilling since at this time no composting
operation will be operated on a large scale. It is assumed that composting
will develop gradually through the thirty year period from 1970 to 2000 with
full operation in 2000 as described previously. The amount of wastes going
to sanitary landfills in 1970 is, therefore, about 700, 000 tons, increasing
to an annual rate of about 900, 000 tons in 2000. These figures are shown in
Figure IX-4. A straight line increase has been assumed. The area under
IX-21
-------
10
o
z
<
en
t-
O 6
LL)
OC
UJ
p
I
1970
1980 1990
YEAR
2000
2010
Figure IX-4. Waste Loadings to be Disposed of by Sanitary Landfilling
IX-22
-------
IX. Selected System Concepts, E (Continued)
the waste loading curve in Figure IX-4 represents the total amount of wastes
that will be disposed of by sanitary landfilling for the thirty year period: a
total of 24, 000, 000 tons.
It is not feasible to fix with any degree of reliability the re-
quired area which will be needed because of the many parameters involved
(density of wastes, volume reduction, cover material, geological conditions,
and dimensions of fill). However, it is possible to estimate the required acreage
if the total volume of the waste load to be disposed of by landfilling is known,
(volume = area x depth). Waste volumes are determined by assuming three dif-
ferent waste densities: 0. 5 tons/cubic yard (compacted refuse), 0. 33 tons/cubic
yard, and 0. 25 tons/cubic yard (refuse as is). Thus, the estimated volumes are:
(1 ac-ft = 1, 613 cubic yards)
V, = 24 ' 1Q r * 30. 000 ac-ft
1 0.5 • 1.613 • 10J
24 ' 10 45. 000 ac-ft
V2 ~ 0. 33 ' 1.613 • 103
V, = - Z4 ' 1Q - ,-R* 60. 000 ac-ft
0. 25 • 1. 613 • 10
Figure IX-5 shows graphically the acreage required for various depths of fills.
The presently available acreage was determined earlier (interim report, Volume
II) and amounts to 420 acres. The figure merely indicates the order of magnitude
of the land required for landfilling operations if different densities and fill depths
are assumed.
2. Required Composting Acreages
a. Total Waste Loads Processed by Composting
Earlier paragraphs of this section have discussed com-
posting, dealing with carbon-nitrogen ratios and the amount of refuse required
for composting. It was reported that by the year 2000, approximately 2, 276, 500
tons per year of mixed material will be processed by this method if the selected
system is implemented. The mixed material consists of 1, 819, 950 tons per year
IX-23
-------
o
X
0.
Ul
o
120
110
100
90
BO
TO
60
50
40
30
20
10
420
1000
Presently available
acreage
2000
3000
ACRES
4000
sooo
6000
a : Space Requirement 2 cu yd/ton
b : Space Requirement 3 cu yd/ton
c : Space Requirement 4 cu yd/ton
Figure IX-5. Sanitary Landfall Acreage - Depth Curves
IX-24
-------
IX. Selected System Concepts, E (Continued)
of manure and 456, 800 tons per year of municipal refuse.. Throughout the thirty
year period, from 1970 to 2000, the amount of municipal refuse diverted to com-
posting operations to maintain the proper C/N ratios will depend upon the 4uanti-
ties of manure available for composting. As mentioned previously, it is not
anticipated that any municipal waste will be used for composting in 1970, but by
the year 2000, 456, 800 tons per year would need be utilized.
The amount of municipal refuse required to satisfy the
planned composting of manures and the total waste diverted to compost would
be as shown in Table IX-3.
Table IX-3
WASTE LOADS PROCESSED BY COMPOSTING
Quantities (tons/year)
Municipal
Year
1970
1980
1990
2000
Manure
0
605,
1, 200,
1,819,
000
000
950
Wastes Total Waste
0
152,
305,
456,
0
000
000
800
757,
1, 505,
2, 276,
000
000
750
b. Compost Plant Site Area
It was reported earlier that by the year 2000 the waste
amount of 2, 276, 750 tons per year would amount to approximately 1, 143, 000
tons per year of usable compost and that the maximum plant process capacity
would be 8, 750 tons per day to satisfy the total projected annual amount. A
search of literature on compost operations indicates that mechanical composting
plants of 400-ton/day capacity require about five acres. There is no definitive
information on maximum useful plant size for compost production. From Table
IX-3 it is apparent that by 1980 almost 2,400 tons/day (6-day week) should be
processed. Whether 6-400 ton, 4-600 ton, 3-800 ton, 2-1, 200 ton, or 1-2, 400
ton/day plant is used will depend on economic optimization including plant oper-
ations, collection,methods, and haul distances.
IX-25
-------
IX. Selected System Concepts, E (Continued)
3. Recommended Compost Users
It must be realized that large scale composting is relatively
new in this country. Potential compost users will have to be educated and it
has to be shown to the public that widespread use of compost is beneficial.
Early production should be used for governmental needs and it is recommended
that this compost application would be carried out on the basis of a demonstra-
tion program.
It was enumerated earlier that approximately 15, 400 acres
will be needed by the year 2000 to satisfy the disposal requirements of the pro-
jected compost production. The following section will discuss some aspects of
the benefit of using compost and list some potential users.
a. Governmental Use
Parks, municipal golf courses and areas of some rights-
of-way represent the major places where compost can be initially applied.
It has been reported in the interim report that about
3, 000 acres will be available for recreational purposes in 1985 and approximately
4, 000 acres in 1990. Rights-of-way on the freeways and highways provide an
acreage of approximately 1 acre/mile if the unpaved area is assumed to be about
8 feet.
Governmental use of compost could absorb a very sig-
nificant amount of the total compost production and it is, therefore, stressed
again that the introduction of the compost use program should start with govern-
mental use.
b. Land Reclamation
Humus layers can be developed on presently unproduc-
tive land when compost is applied repeatedly to such land. Practice in Holland
and Israel has shown that unproductive land can be converted to highly productive
land in a time period of five to ten years. Such use has great potential in the
study area, particularly since vast areas of presently unuseable, saline land
exists to the west, within reasonable haul distance.
IX-26
-------
IX. Selected System Concepts, E (Continued)
c. Forestry
Compost is quite useful for the restoration of topsoils
which have been eroded or otherwise damaged by brush or forest fires. This
use could also be classified as soil conservation which has the same purpose,
that of restoring and conserving topsoils. Application rates could be from 80
to 120 tons per acre.
d. Orchards
Because orchards are a single crop, long-term agri-
cultural activity, the tops oil of the orchards is repeatedly being compacted by
heavy vehicles and other traffic during their lifespan. Application of 50 to 100
tons per acre of compost will not only improve the porosity of the soil but will
also restore a nutrient equilibirum in the soil. 5uch use of compost would have
a great potential in this area.
e. Vineyards
Like orchards, the soil of vineyards needs the addition
of a material to improve its porosity. In addition, vineyards are subject to soil
erosion from winds and rain and application of compost of 20 to 60 tons per acre
would help to combat erosion by improving the porosity and moisture holding
capacity of the soil. Nutrient benefit would likewise result from such application.
f. General Agricultural Use
As top soil replacement and humus material for general
agricultural use, compost would be beneficial and have many applications in the
Study Area.
g. Miscellaneous Uses
There are numerous miscellaneous uses for compost
which generally would require only small amounts of material for individual sit-
uations but when consideration is given to the multitudes of such individual situ-
ations, the magnitude of the potential requirement for compost is amplified.
Some of these uses are:
IX-27
-------
IX. Selected System Concepts, E (Continued)
(1) Sale to private homeowners in bags or bulk for
use as humus in home gardens
(2) Nurseries
(3) Low-grade fuel
The overall quantities of compost that could ultimately
be utilized by all of the enumerated users is difficult to estimate at the present
time because of the unknown quantity of acceptance, but it is considered that
compost has a great potential in the area.
F. LONG TERM PLAN
The objective of this section is to describe future conditions in the
Fresno region as the proposed master plan is implemented. Other sections deal
with organizational and financial goals which must be realized in order that the
ultimate system will become a reality. This presentation assumes such programs
are brought to completion on schedule and no undue delays occur.
1. System in the Year 2000
A previous section of this report presents the details of the
system for the study area for the year 2000, if the selected system is adopted.
This section contains a brief overview of all systems for comparative purposes.
All parts of the study area will not be in automated service by the year 2000 but
this fact is overlooked in this discussion. Fiscal constraints will prohibit the
complete automation of extensive areas of low density. The discussion which fol-
lows presents the general concepts for each category of waste as it will be pre-
sented in the year 2000.
a. Municipal Wastes
Refuse produced in the residential-commercial areas of
major communities in this study area would be stored in containers amenable to
automated pickups, thus the vehicle which services these areas would be equipped
with the necessary devices such that it simply stops at a collection point,
IX-28
-------
IX. Selected System Concepts, F (Continued)
evacuates the container and passes to the next collection point. The operation
of this equipment will permit a significant reduction in the number of personnel
required to staff the collection service and will add materially to the sanitation
condition of source storage.
The loaded vehicle, as now planned, would take a
large fraction of the refuse to a well-operated landfill where disposal would be
accomplished quietly with little or no dust or noise nuisances. This will be ac-
complished with further development of methodology and equipment used at
landfill sites. The balance of the refuse, as selected by characterizing loads
from particular areas with respect to compatibility with the composting of ma-
nures would be transported to a composting plant for processing prior to final
disposal as a soil conditioner and supplier of trace minerals. Those materials
which are non-compostable •would be transported from the composting plant to
the landfill for ultimate disposal.
Automated collection may not turn out to be exactly as
described above, since additional waste processing methods may be involved;
however, in the light of today's technology this appears to be the most likely
ultimate program. A later section of this report deals with modifications which
may come about with changes in technology and public attitudes.
b. Industrial Waste
Since industrial wastes are highly specialized and rel-
atively small in quantity it is planned that these wastes will be stored in closed
containers capable of automated collection at the source for vehicular transport
to the landfill for final disposal. In some cases this is the current practice, but
in many instances good controlled source storage is lacking and esthetically ob-
jectionable conditions often result; particularly in the case of putrescibles.
Organic industrial wastes (cannery •wastes) would be
processed by on-site composting. A portion of the compost produced by the mu-
nicipal refuse-manure composting operation will be required for use as C/N ratio
control and as a dry absorbent for wet wastes.
IX-29
-------
IX. Selected System Concepts, F (Continued)
c. Agricultural Wastes
The future of Fresno appears to include a very large
cattle feeding industry; hence, the rate of production of manures from this in-
dustry and dairying places a large burden on the environment. In the year 2000
these manures would be combined with refuse materials high in carbohydrates
shifting the balance of the carbon nitrogen ratio such that the production of high
quality compost is feasible. Efficient feedlot cleaning and closed trucking to
the compost plant will eliminate many present problems of odors and flies. After
the composting process is complete the product will be relatively stable; hence,
it will be possible to store the composted manures during the non-growing sea-
son. This will also'do much to relieve the often serious fly problem created by
the management of these manures.
2. Immediate Actions
A single region-wide authority, such as the County, or a
combination of County and Cities through joint exercise of power agreements,
should be responsible for the waste management in the study area. The author-
ity should have sufficient power to adopt and enforce regulations concerning
waste management. Legal organizational aspects of such an authority are dis-
cussed in part G of this chapter. Among the first technical activities of the
recommended authority should be the following:
a. Municipal Wastes
Develop detailed plans for phasing out old and opening
new landfills. This effort should be coordinated with other land use planning
agencies.
Adapt and enfore stringent standards for the operation
of present and future landfills.
Perform a test program for the recommended collec-
tion system and build a pilot scale operation in a suitable area. (The financial
needs for this program might be obtainable through the solid wastes program,
U. S.P.H.S., Department of H. E. W. on a demonstration basis. ) The prelimi-
nary design studies would serve as the basis for an application to the Federal
Solid Wastes Program.
IX-30
-------
IX. Selected System Concepts, F (Continued)
b. Industrial Wastes
Set up operation requirements for industrial incinera-
tors. Continue the studies carried out by the National Canners Association with
the objective of improvement of the NCA composting process for cannery wastes.
c. Agricultural Wastes
Perform pilot-scale composting operations for the com-
bined processing of manures and refuse. Perform studies on storage and collec-
tion of manures at their source.
d. Compost Use
Set up a program for the development of a compost
market in the study region. This program should include orientation and educa-
tion of the public about the beneficial uses of compost. Use of compost in parks
and on green belts of highways would demonstrate the benefits in a convincing
way. The potential for reclaiming presently unuseable land should be explored.
e. Immediate Improvement of Existing Waste Management
System
The improvements of the existing system are shown in
Figures IX-6, IX-7, and IX-8. The figures show the existing system; however,
those parts of the system that should be abandoned immediately are presented in
dashed lines. A brief summary of all immediate improvements includes the
following:
- No storage of wastes in open containers
- Closed transport of all wastes in the entire system
- Disposal of wastes by method of sanitary landfilling
instead of dumping
- Abandonment of open burning of agricultural and
industrial wastes
IX-31
-------
STREET
REFUSE
MUNICIPAL I
WASTES
OJ
CV
r-
i ANIMAL
I FEEDING I
OPEN
I BURNING I
I 1
(DASHED LINES REPRESENT ACTIVITIES TO BE DISCONTINUED)
Figure IX-6.
Management of Municipal Solid Wastes (Immediate
Improvement of Existing System)
-------
X
I
OO
INDUSTRIAL !
WASTES
r ~\
PILED ON
GROUND
U____._
OPEN
CONTAINERS
CLOSED
CONTAINERS
i--—
|
1 ^
, •*•
r~
OPEN
TRANSPORT
_____ _!
CLOSED
TRANSPORT
--,
1
SPREAD AT
niep^cA i
SITE
» LANDFILL
! OPEN j
I DUMP J
! PLOWED IN j
1 GROUND 1
' ANIMAL 1
J FEEDING j
I OPEN
(DASHED LINES REPRESENT ACTIVITIES TO BE DISCONTINUED)
Figure IX-7 Management of Industrial Solid Wastes (Immediate
Improvement of Existing System)
-------
X
I
CROP RESIDUES
MANURES
SHEEP MANURE
i 1
J PILED ON |
{ GROUND f
i
OPEN
1
i TRANSPORT
J OPEN I
I BURNING *
PILED ON
GROUND
SPREAD ON
GROUND
1
1
ll >
M *
i
•
PLOWED IN
GROUND
I
I ANIMAL I
I FEEDING :
PILED ON
SLABS
I
CLOSED
TRANSPORT
r
PLOWED IN
GROUND
SPREAD ON
GROUND
SPREAD ON
GROUND
(DASHED LINES REPRESENT ACTIVITIES TO BE DISCONTINUED)
Figure IX-8.
Management of Agricultural Solid Wastes (Immediate
Improvement of Existing System)
-------
IX. Selected System Concepts, F (Continued)
3. System in the Year 1980
The anticipated system for the year 1980 is shown in Figure
IX-9. The 1980 system is an intermediate step in the implementation of the
selected system. The major waste categories are discussed in the following
paragraphs
a. Municipal Wastes
By this time about one-fourth of the municipal refuse
would be stored in underground conduits and be collected by trucks equipped
with storage evacuators. This storage and collection system would be used to-
gether with conventional waste handling. High-density areas would be equipped
•with the tube storage system and some new subdivisions would have this feature
too. About one-fourth of the collected municipal refuse would be composted in
combination with about half of the total load of manures. The required compost-
ing capacities will be around 2, 400 tons/day (6-day week). The production of
compost will amount to approximately 380, 000 tons/year.
Landfilling practices would be optimized. There would
be fewer sites than at present and they will be nuisance free. This can be ac-
complished by stringent control and the use of adequate equipment designed for
optimized community landfilling.
b. Industrial Wastes
Approximately half of the total amount of organic in-
dustrial wastes would be processed by the NCA or similar composting process.
This requires about 20 percent (76, 000 tons) of the total annual compost produc-
tion to be used as an absorbent in the NCA process. The remaining 50 percent
of the organic industrial wastes would be disposed of by sanitary landfilling.
Combustible industrial wastes would be processed in
on-site incinerators which will meet air pollution control regulations.
IX-35
-------
POSITION
MUNICIPAL WASTES
IN ALL RESIGNS
I DEMOLITION AND
CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS
2 DEAD ANIMALS
3 SPECIAL WASTES
ESTIMATBJ
TONS/YEAR 1980
9.425
95
50
IN MUNICIPAL B INTERFACE REGION
4 HUMAN FECAL MATTER 14,140
ISEVMGC •mCATMCUT RESIDUE)
5 GARBAGE
6 BULKY REFUSE
7 REFUSE
[EXCEPT BULKY REFUSE)
B STREET REFUSE
MANURES
9 FEED LOTS(EXCEPT
SHEEP MANURE)
54,000
6.000
450,000
132,000
6,672
1,278,900
ORGANIC INDUSTRIAL WASTES
10 FRUIT a VEGETABLES 170.355
II POULTRY 2,680
12. ANIMAL 7,600
13 WINERIES 110,495
14 VEGETABLE OILS 4.O80
MUNICIPAL WASTES
IN AGRICULTURAL REGION
IS HUMAN FECAL MATTER IM
16 GARBAGE 1,000
17 REFUSE, COMBUSTIBLES 5,865
6 REFUSE.NON COMBUSTIBLES BOO
AGRICULTURAL WASTES
19 FIELD 8 SEED CROPS 466.55O
20 FRUIT AND NUT CROPS 368.310
[TRIMMINGS:
21 FRUIT AND NUT CROPS 245,195
(CULLS)
22 SHEEP MANURE 270,000
INDUSTRIAL WASTES
23 TEXTILES
24 PLASTICS
25 TIRES
26 METALS
27 MASONRY
28. WOOD PRODUCTS
23 CHEMICALS
30 PETROLEUM
31 SEEDS
32. COTTON TRASH
220
125
2,000
7,240
815
325
435
20
220
13.065
Figure IX-9. Proposed Solid Waste Management System
(Fresno Region, Year 1980)
IX-36
-------
IX. Selected System Concepts, F (Continued)
c. Agricultural Wastes
It is anticipated that the completion of construction of
a full-size compost plant(s) would occur about this time and that the market
for compost will be developed, based on the experience with the pilot plant. The
market of compost should fully develop between 1980 and 1990. Production of
compost will amount to about 380, 000 tons per year. Assuming an application
rate of 75 tons/acre, the required area is
380,000
75
= 5,200 acres
or 8. 1 square miles
This acreage will be available through governmental
use of compost.
4. System in the Year 1990
The anticipated system for the year 1990 is shown in Figure
IX-10. The 1990 system is also an intermediate step in the implementation of
the selected system. The major waste categories are discussed in the following
paragraphs.
a. Municipal Wastes
By this time most of the high-density areas would be
equipped with the tube storage system and many residences would also be so
equipped, particularly in new subdivisions. The recommended collection system
will be considered as a special modern convenience and an inducement to pur-
chase; hence, builders will tend to install the system with the new homes. Ap-
proximately two-thirds of the municipal refuse would be stored and collected by
the recommended system. Of the collected refuse about 45 percent would be
processed by composting. The balance of the refuse, as selected by characteri-
zing loads from particular areas with respect to compatibility with the composting
of manures, would be transported to well operated landfills.
IX-37
-------
ESI IMAI tl)
POSITION TONS/YEAR 1990
MUNICIPAL WASTES
IN ALL REGIONS
I DEMOLITION AND 13,088
CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS
2 DEAD ANIMALS 111
3 SPECIAL WASTES 67
IN MUNICIPAL 8 INTERFACE REGION
4 HUMAN FECAL MATTER 18,200
I SEWAGE TREATMENT RESCUE I
= GARBAGE T9.5OO
6 BULKY REFUSE
REFUSE
(EXCEPT BULKT REFUSE)
8 STREET REFUSE '
MANURES
9 FEED LOTS (EXCEPT
SHEEP MANURE)
8,500
278.0OO
600,500
9.516
1,483300
ORGANIC INDUSTRIAL WASTES
10 FRUIT a VEGETABLES 238,750
II POULTRY 3,670
12 ANIMAL H.900
13. WINERIES 132,420
14 VEGETABLE OILS 3,370
MUNICIPAL WASTES
IN AGRICULTURAL REGION
15 HUMAN FECAL MATTER 390
16 GARBAGE 2.190
17 REFUSE.COMBUSTIBLES 7.600
IB REFUSE. NON COMBUSTIBLES 958
AGRICULTURAL WASTES
19 FIELD 8 SEED CROPS- 534,935
20 FRUIT AND NUT CROPS 420,120
(TRIMMINGS)
21 FRUIT AND NUT CROPS 277,505
(CULLS)
22 SHEEP MANURE
INDUSTRIAL WASTES
23. TEXTILES
24 PLASTICS
25 TIRES
26 METALS
27 MASONRY
28 WOOD PRODUCTS
29 CHEMICALS
30 PETROLEUM
31 SEEDS
32 COTTON TRASH
290
150
2,500
10,330
1,090
540
4B5
25
250
I7.IOO
CLOSED
CONTAINERS
CLOSED
TRANSPORT
SANnWV
LANDFILL
,
GRINDING
(CWRNGI
PLOWED *
GROUND
CLOSED
CONTAINERS
ON SITE
INONERATION
tan
CLOSED
TRIKSPORI
Leaves (only) to be composted, dirt and sand to landfill.
Figure IX-10. Proposed Solid Waste Management System
(Fresno Region, Year 1990)
IX-38
-------
IX. Selected System Concepts, F (Continued)
The required composting capacities would be around
4, 500 tons/day and the production of compost would amount to approximately
800,000 tons/year.
b. Industrial Wastes
Approximately 75 percent of the total amount of organic
industrial wastes would be processed by the NCA or similar composting process.
This requires about 20 percent (160, 000 tons) of the total annual compost pro-
duction (800, 000 tons) to be used as an absorbent in the NCA process. The re-
maining 25 percent of the organic industrial wastes would be disposed of by
sanitary landfilling. Alternative salvage through the production of animal feed
or chemical by-products such as alcohols may remove substantial quantities
from the disposal cycle.
All combustible industrial wastes would be processed
in on-site incinerators which will meet air pollution control regulations.
c. Agricultural Wastes
By 1990 it is anticipated that the market for compost
will be fully developed and a good balance of production and uses will be func-
tional. Storage and collection of manures would be optimized and the odor and
fly problem will be reduced to a minimum. Crop residues would continue to be
plowed into the ground or collected and composted or processed for salvage;
trimmings would be processed by grinding (clipping).
G. ORGANIZATION AND FINANCING
1. ^ Introduction
The selected system, as described in this section, could be
established in the region by the local jurisdictions within the existing organiza-
tional structure. The necessity for cooperation between existing overlapping
governmental agencies could, however, result in piecemeal arrangements and
actually prevent any meaningful realization of the stated goals. The pressures
exerted on local officials to obtain the best for their particular community,
occasionally makes such cooperative endeavors difficult to attain.
IX-39
-------
IX. Selected System Concepts, G (Continued)
Appendix F, Volume III, of this report describes in detail
the various organizational alternatives, within existing enabling legislation,
available to any area in California. With such a wide scope of permissible
governmental activity allowed by the enabling legislation, it is possible to de-
scribe an optimum organizational structure that includes majority desires
while protecting minority rights. The organizational entity described below
provides one possible method of meeting these objectives.
2. The Regional Approach
The objectives for any organization vary considerably when
viewed by different segments of our society. The formation of a. solid waste
management entity, such as the one proposed, is no exception.
For example, from the standpoint of government the ideal
administrative solution is one which approaches the structure of the public utility,
with uniform administration and uniform rates and practices. From the stand-
point of the private operator, the ideal situation is one in which he is endowed
with vested rights in his enterprise, allowed a fair rate of return for his efforts,
and in which he is protected from the unfair competition of others. From the
standpoint of the citizen who receives the service, the ideal structure is one
which guarantees to him equitable rate structures, uniformly acceptable service,
and adequate recourse in case complaints arise.
To accomplish these objectives, the County-wide or regional
system could be established by utilizing existing agencies, such as the County,
by providing multi-agency cooperation through use of the Joint Exercise of
Power Act, or by forming a special district. A brief description of one form
of special distinct will serve to illustrate the types of regional systems that
are needed to provide for integrated waste management systems.
This "district" solution may be adequately configured to
achieve most of the benefits of total governmental control while allowing some
participation by private enterprise and the involvement of private industry.
Through this solution, the desired levels of uniformity, the economies of scale,
and the elements of private entrepreneurial skills may be blended.
IX-40
-------
IX. Selected System Concepts, G (Continued)
The desirability of representation on the district board by
'individual incorporated municipalities and unincorporated areas is great.
Therefore, as a basic example, the sanitation district (Figure IX-11) is
described. Such a district as that called for in this case does not presently
exist in the form of enabling legislation. Only minor changes to existing legis-
lation, however, would achieve the desired result. The powers and duties of
the sanitation district require slight modification to provide for the following.
a. Reservation to municipal corporations, even though
within the district, of the right to provide their own collection service.
b. Reservation to the district of the right to conduct
collection and/or disposal operations in competition with private operators
at reasonable rates.
c. Enfranchisement of private operators, if desired
with concurrent vesting of some property rights and the imposition of rigid
controls as to equipment, practices, etc.
d. Regional operation, either directly or by contract, of
disposal sites in accordance with a detailed land development plan for providing
parks, open areas, playgrounds, etc. Private operators would be required to
utilize these disposal sites under the terms of and in the manner prescribed by
their franchise agreements. In fact, operation of disposal sites might be the
only function of such an organization, particularly in its formative stages. Under
this approach, the conduct of solid waste collection and disposal activities would
become essentially a private utility, operated by the district in and for the resi-
dents of the region and its included municipal corporations. While a great de-
gree of flexibility would be accorded the district, its responsibilities are also
proportionately greater.
The creation of such a district would undoubtedly require
lengthly negotiations between cooperating local governments. If however, all
concerned recognize from the start that the governing body will be composed of
local elected representatives and not State-appointed officials, the task should
be less difficult..
IX-41
-------
Incorporated
Areas
®0
Sanitation
District
Board
(Regional)
County Board
of
Supervisors
\
/a5i strict^
Unincorporated
Areas
Incorporated
Areas
Public or
Private
Operations
Figure IX-11. A Suggested Alternative Administrative Structure
IK- 42
-------
IX. Selected System Concepts, G (Continued)
The first task facing the district board, following its
formation, would be a long-term planning activity. In conjunction with other
agencies, the optimum long-range solid waste management system would need
to be determined, rate structures and taxing base estimated, and operations
implemented. In the case of the Fresno region, for which this organizational
approach is specifically suggested, the approval by the district board of the
system described in this section would accomplish the first step. It would be
expected that the district, through its engineering staff, would maintain con-
stant surveillance of operations to insure compliance with any franchise require-
ments, direct ultimate disposal activities, and recommend corrective actions
to the board where necessary. The County Health Department should serve as
the regulatory agency for district operations to insure operational conformance
to county health requirements.
3. Financing
It is probable that any plan for improving the environment
will be moie costly. The money required, as indicated in Section VIII, will be
approximately 78 million dollars, annually, by the year 2000. Each year,
starting with the first increment of improvements will undoubtedly require
additional expenditures in botn capital and operating costs.
The sole source of revenue for financing solid waste collec-
tion and disposal services in the Fresno region has historically been the service
charge. This method is barely self-sustaining in maintenance, operation, and
replacement of equipment or sanitary landfilling sites. It is not likely that these
revenues would service additional system implementation costs unless existing
operational expenses could be drastically reduced. None of the existing public
agencies within the study region have used, or even proposed to use, their exist-
ing legislative authority to produce revenues by property taxes, bonds, or any
other form of indebtedness.
It would therefore appear that to successfully anticipate the
availability of funds to implement new or imposed solid waste systems, new
IX-43
-------
IX. Selected System Concepts, G (Continued)
entities need to be created to make available a uniform system of funding,
either as bond redemption or dept service funds. The bonding power of the
proposed sanitation district could be utilized to obtain uniform and up-to-
date equipment, capital improvements, and the conduct of operations under
reasonable rate structures.
One of the most aggravating problems facing existing resi-
dents of any community is the continued need for the expansion of capital facili-
ties during periods of population growth. With each new resident, the area is
required to provide capital funds for additional police and fire protection, schools,
recreational facilities, and now most urgently, pollution controls. The required
facilities and personnel are needed immediately whereas the additional tax reve-
nue contributed by the new residents does not nearly approach the immediate
costs. The traditional solution to this dilemma is through bonded indebtedness
and, where this fails, through increased taxes. A possible solution to
this problem would be the creation of a "subdivision assessment" requiring that
when each parcel of land is rezoned from agricultural to residential or from
single family to multifamily residential use, a one-time tax be placed upon that
land. The amount of tax would cover the pro rata cost of capital improvements
needed for increased population, including solid waste management systems. New
residents coming to the area would be placed on a "pay-as-you-go" basis. This
approach is particularly effective in view of the projected increase in population
for the region from 396, 000 in 1967 to 1, 056, 000 by the year 2000.
Section VIII describes the increase in costs for the various
categories of waste producers. From that description it is clear that dairies,
feed lots, poultry raisers, and most industries will be affected to a greater ex-
tent than the municipal and purely agricultural categories. Since the manures
and organic industrial wastes contribute such a large percentage of solid wastes
of a highly putrescible nature, it seems only logical that the cost of improving
the environment, caused by those wastes, be borne by the producers thereof.
The realignment of costs, in accordance with the amounts produced and the asso-
ciated environmental effects caused by those wastes, seems eminently equitable.
IX-44
-------
IX. Selected System Concepts, G (Continued)
Federal financial assistance is available for certain portions
of the proposed system; however, to retain maximum local authority it should
be used commensurate with availability of local revenues for needed improve-
ments. The following federal programs appear to be applicable:
a. Open Space L/and Program
Fifty percent Federal grants are available from the
Department of Housing and Urban Development for acquiring undeveloped and de-
veloped land suitable for permanent open space use. This is land for use as parks,
recreation, conservation, scenic or historic purposes. For land acquired with
open space grant assistance, fifty percent grants are also available for
improvement
b. Urban Beautification and Improvement Program
This type of Federal grant, also financed by HUD, can
be made to beautify publicly-owned or controlled land such as streets, parks,
sidewalks, squares, and plazas. In this type of aid program, as in others, an
overall beautification program consistent with local comprehensive planning must
have been prepared and officially adopted by the requesting agency. A Federal
grant for urban beautification may not exceed 50 percent of the amount the appli-
cant increases expenditures for beautification activities above the preceding two
years' average expenditure.
c. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
The Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 provides money
to communities to build pilot waste systems. Money, to this date, has not been
provided for construction of complete operating systems. Congressional amend-
ments were offered in April 1967, however, which would grant a community two-
thirds of the cost of construction of solid waste disposal facilities and up to 75
percent of the construction cost of an implementation system to serve an area of
more than one municipality. The amendments are still under consideration. Al-
though it may be assumed that Federal funds will eventually be available, neither
the amount nor the timing can be projected. Governmental agencies supplying sub-
•*
sidies such as described above, uniformly desire a single agency to supply the
IX-45
-------
IX. Selected System Concept, G (Continued)
the service and act as the recipient of such grants. This factor adds to the de-
sirability of establishing the recommended organizational structure.
H. ALTERNATIVES
The following paragraphs describe possible alternatives to the
proposed system should technological advances, economic upturns, or other
reasons, justify further environmental improvements.
1. Pneumatic Collection System
The concept of a collection system of individual conduits
served by a vacuum collection vehicle could readily be expanded to a central
pneumatic collection system. Such systems would probably be developed ini-
tially for high density dwelling areas and business districts. Pneumatic col-
lection systems for high-rise buildings and hospitals are currently in existence
and can be considered as state-of-the-art.
The utilization of these systems for single family, low den-
sity areas would be contingent on the demand by society for ultimate environ-
mental improvement, convenience, and the willingness to pay the higher costs
for these types of systems (see Section VIII). Their use for high-rise apart-
ments, hospitals and other commercial or institutional operations is appropri-
ate with the proposed system concept.
2. Transport in Sewer Lines and Combined Sewage Treatment
The benefits of transportation of solid wastes via sewer
lines have been discussed in detail in Chapter VII. If a liquid transportation
system should be developed, the selected system could easily be adjusted to
such a system with only minor changes. Wastes could be collected as planned,
but the collected wastes could either be ground in the collector truck and dis-
charged to the sewers immediately; or the collected wastes could be transported
to centralized grinding stations (Systems 10-15, Section VIII). Ultimately,
this material could be discharged directly to the sewers from home refuse
grinders (Systems 7-9. Section VIII). Features of a combined collection and
treatment system for solid and sanitary wastes would include: Steeper invert
slopes of sewers in order to guarantee minimum velocities; increased use of
IX-46
-------
IX. Selected System Concept, H (Continued)
pumping stations required by increased flow and by steeper slopes; recycling
of transport liquid following minimal treatment; use of short retention time
sedimentation at frequent intervals to remove inorganic settleables; increased
sewage treatment facilities for screening, grit removal and comminution and
increased capacities to handle significantly higher sludge loads. Future sys-
tems could also include transportation of manures and certain industrial wastes
to sewage treatment plants via sewer systems. This method, although very
convenient, would require additional sewage treatment facilities because the
nutrient load (Nitrogen and Phosphorus) in the water would increase signifi-
cantly. Again, the adoption of such a system implies society's demand for an
optimum environment, added convenience, and acceptance of greater costs.
Additionally, jurisdictional problems arise for this concept in that administrative
entities responsible for liquid waste collection and treatment would become
involved.
3. Incineration
Controlled incineration offers promise for additional im-
provement of the recommended system if the financial limits could be further
expanded.
Combustible wastes that are disposed of by sanitary land-
filling in the recommended system could be incinerated. A combination of com-
posting and incineration is especially promising for the Study Region where
manures are a dominating factor in the waste management system. This is
common practice in Europe where almost every composting plant recently
built includes an incinerator in the overall operation. Collected manures
could be mixed with municipal wastes but could then go through the composting
process or the incineration process. This would result in a highly flexible
waste management system and seasonal changes in waste loadings and product
market would have little effect.
IX-47
-------
IX. Selected System Concept, (Continued)
i
I. DISCUSSION
1. Selected System Concept
Previous sections described how the presented system has
been selected. It is fully recognized that composting as a waste disposal meth-
od has not been successful everywhere in this country. The following para-
graphs indicate some distinctive differences between existing operations and
the selected system.
Only about 50 percent of the municipal solid wastes will be
composted, thus preliminary segregation is possible by selection of collection
routes which may deliver their wastes to the composting plants.
The compost produced will be of high quality because manures
represent almost two-thirds of the raw product entering the composting operation.
The system has been selected on the basis of long-term envi-
ronmental engineering aspects and was not based on a momentary, profit-making
waste disposal method.
Composting as a waste disposal method was recently discussed
by Hart (Reference 7). He pointed out and noted that there is presently an important
". . . contrast in the attitudes of farmers in
West Germany and the United States in relation
to the use of compost and other organic refuse
on agricultural soil. West Germany has today
56 million people living on 94, 500 square miles.
With about 25 percent of the U.S. population and
3. 2 percent of the land area of the U. S. , West
Germany produces 78 percent of its food supply.
The average size of farm is but 24 acres, hence,
productivity must be high. One factor in this
productivity is intense use of barnyard manure,
compost, and other organics, and German agri-
cultural science has found that maintaining a high
and constantly replenished soil organic content is
one of the keys to continued high productivity. Thus
the incentive exists for the farmer to route his
agricultural residues back to the land and hence to
prevent their becoming a part of the overall wastes
management problems of the community.
IX-48
-------
IX. Selected System Concept, I (Continued)
The situation in the United States today is, of
course, vastly different. We have plenty of
prime agricultural land and are easily able to
produce an abundance of food. Organic content
of the soil does not have to be husbanded, al-
though it seems desirable to do so in the west-
ern U.S. Thus the economic pressure for com-
post production from solid wastes does not arise
in the U.S. from agriculture. In fact, the eco-
nomics of U. S. agriculture tends to increase the
volume of solid wastes which agriculture does
not want in any form.
Nevertheless a significant lesson may be drawn
from the German experience i. e. , it is possible
to use the land and its ability to assimilate organic
matter as a way of disposing of some of our solid
wastes. While this is a relatively new approach to
refuse management it does imply that if compost
can be produced at an acceptable cost, agricultural
land might be used instead of a landfill for its dis-
posal. In this case the economics of refuse disposal
rather than the economics of agricultural fertiliza-
tion would become the controlling factor. Possibly
the farmer might be paid for accepting compost
rather than asked to purchase it.
Concerning the technology of composting several
things can be learned from the West German experi-
ence. Eight plants erected since World War II con-
tinue in operation to the present. None have been shut
down. The general characteristics of each are indica-
ted in Table IX-4. It is notable that all are in or near
the wine-growing areas of Germany. Further, seven
of the eight include sewage sludge in their input.
Extensive research on the survival of pathogens in the
composting process has been conducted. The results
show that there is a minimum time-temperature condi-
tion required for pathogen kill. In windrow composting
this was observed to be 18 to 21 days at temperatures
consistently above 55°C. At lower temperatures some
pathogens lived 251 days. In the Dano drum 5 days were
required - or 3 days, plus 4 additional days in windrow
storage. At Heidelberg, where the refuse is ground be-
fore putting it in the Multi-Bakter Turns, pathogens
were killed within 24 hours. These results seem to be
directly usable under^U.S. conditions.
IX-49
-------
IX. Selected System Concept, I (Continued)
From observations in West Germany, Dr.
Hart draws several conclusions which have
pertinence to project work planned for the
future at the University of California:
1. Sewage sludge disposal is an important
factor in the reasoning behind composting. Sew-
age sludge disposal has generally been a difficult
part of the water treatment process of Germany,
and part of the burden for the management of the
sludge seems to have been turned over to workers
in the solid waste field. Composting is an effi-
cient and effective method of sludge disposal.
2. Health and sanitation problems should not be
a serious obstacle to compost use. Careful scien-
tific studies on pathogen inactivation have been con-
ducted in Germany, and both the results and the
techniques of study are appropriate to the U. S.
Safe compost can be produced.
3. The various composting processes produce
equivalent quality compost at apparently equivalent
cost. The quality of the compost and the cost of
producing it is more a function of the amount of
"cleaning up" of the material than of the nature of
the raw material or the method of composting. The
grinding, sieving, and separation can be done either
before or after composting, but the higher quality
compost is produced with some final sieving and
separation. It also appears that there will be no
great new economies due to new processes, although
mechanical processes do save space over windrow
composting. A high quality compost contains less
inert or objectionable material (glass shards, plastic,
and ash) than poor quality compost, and can more eco-
nomically be transported greater distances. The eco-
nomics of quality improvement and transport logistics
has not been worked out but certainly should be done.
4. Compost has its greatest market on luxury crops.
The discussion and the data in Table IX-4 indicate that
most of the compost is produced in the wine-growing
region of Germany and is used on the vineyards. It is
significant that compost presently seems to have value
only on the luxury crops, and not basic agricultural
soils and crops. There are exceptions of course, such
IX-50
-------
Table IX-4
GERMAN COMPOSTING PLANTS
Ui
City and
Plant Owner
Baden-Baden
City
Bad
Kreuznach
Private,
Farmers
Organization
Blaitbeurin
Private,
Cement
Manufacturer
Duisberg -
Huckingen
c-
City
Heidelberg
City
Schweinfurt
City
St. Ceorgen
(near Freiburg)
City
Stuttgart-
Mohrigen
City
Pop
Served
56,000
45, 000
20, 000
1ZO.OOO
30, 000
85,000
14, 000
75, 000
Oper-
ation
Begun
1953
1958
1954
1956
1955,
1962,
see
disc •
1963
1963
1959
Sludge
Accepted
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
not
now
Process
Windrow
composting of
unground
refuse
Dano drum
without
pre-grinding
Windrow
composting of
ground refuse
Dano drum
without
prc -grinding
Miilti-Bakter
Turn, with
pre -ground
refuse
Caspari-Brik-
kolare, with
pre -ground
rcfu sc
Windrow
composting
pre -ground
refuse
Windrow
composting
prc -g r ou nd
refuse
Net Cost to City
per metric ton of
raw waste accepted
Compost Selling Price
13. 10 DM
10-12 DM/met ton
10 DM
10 DM/met ton to
Assoc. members
Estimate at 2 DM,
seems low
Set at 1-1. 50 DM/
cubic meter for
quarry reclamation
5. 20 DM, presently
good salvage income
9-20 DM/met ton
Estimated at 5-7 DM
1 3 DM/cu meter to
wholesaler who
distributes
9.10 DM
17-20 DM/met ton
33. 50 DM, high due
to small size and
complete disposal
by composting
13. 50 DM/met ton
7. 20 DM
,
' D M / m e t I u n * with
only a portion
sold
Description of Operation
Magnetic iron removal plus hand separation, refuse
mixed with sludge, and piled for 5-5 months without
turning. An air -duct system for aerating the pile*.
has not been effective. Finished compost is ground
and sieved. Noncompostable residues burned if
possible, and buried.
Magnetic iron removal, then unground refuse and
sludge put in Dano drum for 3 -4 days. Partially
rotted compost is sieved, and piled in windrows
without further turning. Oct-Dec disposal on grape
land. Noncomposted sieve residvie is buried on the
site, thus raising the elevation of the storage area
Successful operation, mostly due to the demand for
the compost.
Plant was erected to produce compost to reclaim sand
and gravel quarries. Hand separation of refuse
possible but not always done, Dorr-Oliver rasp, then
ground in hammer -mill, sludge added and windrow ed.
Three turning. Finished compost used "as-is, "
mostly for quarry reclamation. Small incinerator
for bulky noncompostables-
Refuse from only part of Duisberg is processed.
Magnetic and hand separation, then img round refuse
and sewage sludge into Dano drum for 3 -day deten-
tion. Discharge sieved. Sieve residues to landfill.
City is planning an incinerator. Compost plant does
not run continuously due to odors from Dano drum.
Refuse and sewage from 30,000 (personal estimate,
city estimates 60, 000) of area's 160, 000 residents
composted. Magnetic and hand separation, Dorr-
Oliver rasp, sewage sludge added, and mix goes to
Multi-Bakter Turn. 3-day detention (mechanism
runs only 8 hours per day)- Discharge sieved and
ballistically separated, ready for immediate sale.
Residues are landfilled.
85, 000 of the 120, 000 residents of the area served.
Magnetic separation, Dorr-Oliver rasp, ballistic
separation, then the ground refuse plus sewage
sludge is pressed into briquettes. Stored three
weeks on pallets in a warehouse where composting
occurs. Removed and stored outside until grovind
and sold- Incinerator then landfilling for residues
not composted.
" Smallest plant, but accepts total solid Bastes from
2 co ni mu niti e s and makes e ve r ythi ng into compo st
Magnetic and hand sal vage , none urn postabl e s bur ned
and the ash returned to refuse which is ground and
mixed with sewage sludge. Piled for ^ months, with
3 turnings. Not in continuous operation although
equipment is large enough.
Only a part of the Stuttgart solid waste is made
into compost, rest goes to landfill (with some
then rasp-sieved and bal 1 1 st ic.illy separated.
Placed in windrows, 2 turnings in 3 months' time
Reference (7)
-------
IX. Selected System Concept, I (Continued)
as Blaubeurin, where reclamation of quarry-
land is the prime use. But finding an appropriate
and expanded market for compost will be a most
significant factor for future success of any com-
posting plant.
5. Research is needed on compost utilization.
Most people - laymen and professionals together -
wish that the composting situation were more fa-
vorable. It is not, but this does not mean that
composting or composting research should be
abandoned. In addition to using compost for luxury
crops and land reclamation, composting is appro-
priate for sludge acceptance, for reduction of the
volume of waste going into a landfill, and perhaps
other reasons. (Organic material as a container
for poisonous material such as pesticides is a pos-
sibility and should be investigated. )"
It could be added to these statements that the problem of
sewage sludge disposal in the study region is less significant than the problem
of manure disposal-
2. Liquid Transport
Transportation of solids via sewer lines provides significant
benefits for the management of solid wastes. However, long-term water quality
aspects should not be overlooked. Water reclamation will be one of the key
factors in future water management plans for the Central Valley. Increased
mineralization of water may become a dominating factor in resource manage-
ment for a region which is predominantly dependent on agriculture and
abundant water supply.
3. Incineration
Incineration is most promising in those situations where not
only weight reduction but also volume reduction is a dominating factor in solid
waste management. This does not apply for the study region presently but
increasing costs for long distance haul or limited land availability may make
incineration competitive with other waste management systems.
One of the major constraints in incineration is air pollution
control. Removal of particulate matter is technically feasible today; however
IX-52
-------
IX. Selected System Concept, I (Continued)
emission of incompletely burned hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides may cause
severe smog problems. There is little information available about gaseous
pollutants from municipal incinerators.
The study region is located in an area where smog condi-
tions (inversions) are very frequent, especially during the winter months.
J. LIST OF REFERENCES
1. Composting Fruit and Vegetable Refuse, National Canners Progress
Report, Compost Science, Summer 1965.
2. Refuse Collection Practice, Committee on Solid Wastes, American
Public Works Association, Public Administration Service, Chicago,
111., 1966.
3. Proceedings, National Conference on Solid Wastes, University of
Chicago, December 1963, Published by APWA-
4. Reclamation of Municipal Refuse by Composting Sanitary Engineering
Research Projects, University of California, Berkeley, Technical
Bulletin No. 9, June 1953.
5. F. Poepel, Die Beseitigung von Abfallstoffen durch Kompostierung;
Muell und Abfallbeseitigung, Kennzahl 5300, Lieferung 5, 1965.
Erich Schmidt Verlag Berlin.
6. Home Disposers versus Surface Collection; C- M. Clark, L. H. Stroud,
and K. S. Watson. Water and Wastes Engineering, Sept. 1966.
7. Comprehensive Studies of Solid Waste Management, First Annual
Report. University of California, Berkeley Sanitary Engineering
Research Laboratory. SERL Report No. 67-7.
IX-53
-------
X. APPLICATION TO OTHER REGIONS
A. PURPOSE
This study has developed methodologies for evaluating environ-
mental and sociological effects produced by solid waste management systems.
The purpose of this section is to delineate how the system and data, developed
in this study for the Fresno Region, can be applied to other similar regions
in California and the Nation.
The application of the study methodologies to an area similar to
the Fresno Region in geological and climatological conditions, population dis-
tribution and growth pattern, and agricultural, industrial, and commercial
mix, would simply entail the use of the procedures previously outlined in
this report. However, regions with the exact parameters outlined above are
extremely rare and most practical applications would require adjustments to
the procedures for evaluating effects and system costs due to the peculiarities
of the region being evaluated. The following procedures, in general, will be
necessary for the successful application of the study methodologies in the anal-
ysis of solid waste problems in other regions.
B. PROCEDURES
1. Regional Description
Application of procedures to evaluate the environmental ef-
fects of solid waste in a particular region requires data on regional geology,
climate, population, economy and government as a necessary antecedent to
system evaluation.
a. Physical and Environmental
The establishment of geographical limits for a par-
ticular study region or waste management area can have profound effects on
both application methodology and the study results. The area proposed should
ideally be large enough that waste handling systems are not limited by
X-l
-------
X. Application to other Regions, B (Continued)
boundaries of small political subdivisions, yet not so large that the effects
of management or mismanagement in one locality has little or no effect on
other localities in the area.
The application program should consider the geo-
physical condition of the region in question, i.e., the extent of surface and
subsurface water availability, usage, and replenishment systems; climate,
including growing season for various crops; precipitation; wind patterns; and
seasonal temperature expectations. Any special limitations on waste handling
systems peculiar to the region in question, due to its location or due to ex-
isting physical or environmental conditions, should be delineated and the ef-
fect established.
b. Population Distribution and Projections
An important aspect in the application procedure for
evaluating solid waste system effects is the current population, its distribution
throughout the region, and the projection of population densities and land use
patterns.
The amounts and character of solid wastes that must
be handled by any proposed system is a direct result of the region's population
pursuits. The seriousness of various environmental and sociological effects is
also greatly influenced by the population densities and business interests.
Population data is, thus, of crucial importance in the establishment of the
evaluation procedure.
c. Economic Capacity and Projections
The strength of the regional economy is an important
factor in the capability of the region to pay for and maintain systems of waste
management with the least environmental effects. Furthermore, higher in-
come areas desire and demand better management systems, both from the
standpoint of environmental or bad effects and sociological or ancillary effects.
X-2
-------
X. Application to other Regions, B (Continued)
The economic endeavors of the region are important
to the quantity and character of the wastes produced- Projections of the di-
rection and extent of economic growth in the region help determine future
waste loading characteristics.
d. Legal and Governmental Organizational Limitations
The existing laws and governmental relationships
within a specific region have a decided effect on the extent to which solid waste
has been properly managed or been allowed to become a nuisance.
The regional governmental organization, if sufficiently
fragmented, can make the application of methodologies and controls to decrease
bad effects difficult, while a responsible cooperating central authority or govern-
mental council representing the various communities can almost insure success.
Laws and controls must be established and maintained that will insure compli-
ance with the requirements of the finally selected regional system of waste
management.
An extremely important aspect in securing popular sup-
port is education. The community must be educated and informed as to how the
various functions of any proposed waste management system will improve the
general environment, so that the maximum voluntary cooperation of the gen-
eral public can be obtained. It should be pointed cut that the understanding
and cooperation of persons in governmental administrative authority is even
more important.
2. Waste Inventory
After the regional characteristics have been established,
the next step in a regional solid waste management effort is the compilation of
data for existing and projected waste loading.
a. Agricultural
The existing acreage for the various crops grown in
the region should be established and, from the expected agricultural trends,
X-3
-------
X. Application to other Regions, B (Continued)
crop acreage extensions or decreases determined. Crop residues, i.e., tons
of waste per acre of crop harvested, have been established for the majority
of crops grown in the Fresno region. Using the factors developed in the
Fresno study on waste per acre of crop for similar crops in the proposed
region, the total waste load from each crop can be calculated. Waste load
factors for those crops not established in the Fresno study would nded to be
determined.
b. Industrial
The effort on economic capacity and projections will
have established the existing industrial pattern as well as the expected future
changes. From the existing and projected industrial capacity, the rate of
production, quantities, and types of existing and future industrial solid wastes
can be established. Those factors established by the Fresno study can be
utilized, but they represent only a small fraction of the various industrial
wastes found in other areas.
c. Municipal
The existing municipal solid waste loadings are cal-
culated from the quantities and types of waste presently being generated while
projections of these loadings must consider trends in population expansion,
standard of living changes, and changes in food, food preparation, wrapping,
clothing, housing, and recreation.
The population density has a decided effect on the
degree to which the various bad effects of solid waste can be tolerated and,
thus, is of extreme importance as a factor influencing the type of solid waste
management system that will provide the necessary alleviation from solid
waste environmental and sociological effects.
X-4
-------
X. Application to other Regions, B (Continued)
3. Application of Bad Effects Scores
a. Waste Conditions and Bad Effects
In this study, 82 different wastes were scored in
19 conditions for 13 environmental effects (bad effects). The basic bad ef-
fect scores, i.e., the scores without consideration of influence coefficients,
for each unit quantity of waste in each condition can be used directly. If
additional wastes and conditions in which the waste can appear are to be
evaluated, the procedure described in Section IV, using experts to rate the
wastes and conditions, should be followed.
b. Influence Coefficients
Regions large enough to make effective use of the
methodologies developed in this study will be composed of subregions that
are primarily municipal, others that are industrial, others that are agri-
cultural, and still other subregions that, due to the proximity of municipal
to agricultural areas, must be considered interface. This method of regional
subdivision is used in the Fresno study.
Development of the influence coefficients for each
subregion requires three discrete steps. First, the bad effects should be
ranked by experts using the methodology suggested in this study of paired
comparisoiis. Second, a statistical sampling of the general public should
be conducted to rate the relative importance to society of the ranked bad
effects. The third step involves the application, again by experts, of a
relative contribution factor that relates the approximate contribution of .solid
wastes to each particular bad effect. The influence coefficients are, then,
the normalized product of multiplying the bad effect rating times the contri-
bution factor- The influence coefficients established for the subregions of
the Fresno region are peculiar to that region and new influence coefficients
should be established when the scoring system devised in this study is applied
to any other region. *
X-5
-------
X. Application to other Regions, B (Continued)
c. Total Weighted Bad Effects Scoring
The influence coefficient developed for each bad ef-
fect in each subregion is applied to the basic bad effects score for each solid
waste in each possible condition. The resulting score for each waste in each
condition is added for all bad effects, resulting in a listing of the total bad
effects for a unit of each waste in any condition being considered for each sub-
region. This listing is the total weighted bad effects score that, when applied
to the quantities of wastes in the different conditions for various proposed
waste management systems, results in the system bad effects score by which
different systems can be compared as to their efficacy in reducing environ-
mental or bad effects.'
4. Waste Handling Systems
A large number of different solid wastes are generated
in any region large enough to include municipal, industrial, and agricultural
subregions. Although systems can be evolved to reduce and minimize the
bad effects from each individual waste, practical application requires the
categorization of as many as possible of the individual wastes. In addition,
for the study recommendations to be effective in a particular region, the prac-
tical aspects of current methods, habits, and cost must be thoroughly
considered.
For example, to postulate a system in an agricultural
zone requiring the collection and removal for processing of all field crop
residues is patently impractical, since the costs involved would reduce the
competitive position of the farmers in the region. On the other hand, a
system such as home garbage grinding, while relatively expensive on a unit
cost basis, is so convenient that any system eliminating the home grinders
in a region where it has become the practice is likely to be met with strong
resistance from the general populace.
Postulating and analyzing systems for any region requires
that effort and concentration be directed at large quantity wastes and methods
X-6
-------
X. Application to other Regions, B (Continued)
of alteration that result in maximum reduction in regional bad effects within
practical bugetary limits. In the Fresno region study, emphasis in depth
has been placed on synthesizing and analyzing systems for managing muni-
cipal refuse, industrial organic refuse, and manures from cattle feed lots,
dairies and poultry farms. At present, these wastes make up approximately
two thirds of the total solid wastes generated in the region and, due to their
putrescibility, account for an even larger percentage of the total regional bad
effects from solid wastes. While systems have been proposed for handling
all wastes, it was determined that improved controls on manures, municipal
refuse, and industrial organic wastes would be most productive in reduction
of environmental effects and a variety of methods for handling these wastes
were analyzed. No procedures for handling field crop residues were con-
^~>
sidered, other than plowing in the ground, and no additional processing of
orchard trimmings was postulated, other than reduction by chippers or
grinders in areas where burning should be restricted.
The procedures and methodologies evolved in the Fresno
region study are applicable to other similar regions, but the system devised
for a particular region other than Fresno should reflect the waste quantity
mix and special waste problems peculiar to that region as well as the finan-
cial capacity, desires, and habits of the region's population.
5. System Performance
a. Performance Scoring
After a number .of .systems have been evolved, the
bad effects score of each system is calculated using the previously determined
quantities of wastes to be handled and the total bad effects score for each unit
quantity of waste in the handling condition and for the durations postulated by
the proposed system. Waste management procedures scored include storage,
transportation, processing and disposal. Scoring the systems requires separate
scores for those procedures which are considered transient, such as storage
,/
and transportation, and those which are considered final disposal. Waste
X-7
-------
X. Application to other Regions, B (Continued)
processing can be considered either transient or disposal, depending on the
process or the system in which the process is used. To use the procedure
developed in this study, a determination as to category, either transient or
disposal, must be made for each waste processing procedure and its bad
effects combined with the transient or the disposal scores, whichever is
appropriate to the system.
For the purpose of comparison and to determine the
percent improvement of the proposed systems, the existing system of solid
wastes management must also be scored in the same manner as described
above. The transient and disposal component scores for the proposed system
are then compared with the existing system scores to determine the percent
improvement of each component. On the assumption that each of the two
components, transient and disposal, is of equal importance to society, the
final total system improvement is the average of the improvements of the
transient and disposal components when compared to the total existing sys-
tem score.
b. System Cost Estimating
The costs per ton of waste handled for each system
scored, including the existing, must be determined so that the systems can
be compared as to cost effectiveness. A vast amount of cost data is avail-
able from the Solid Waste Program, American Public Works Association
and various state, local, and private agencies.
All waste management systems considered were
separated into unit functions of storage, collection, transportation, process-
ing, and final disposal. From available data and extrapolations (advanced
concept functions were, for the most part, developed by extrapolating
existing industrial process costs) all function costs were determined on a
per ton handled basis. The total cost per ton of waste handled for the vari-
ous systems considered was then determined by combining the unit function
costs of each system.
X-8
-------
X. Application to other Regions, B (Continued)
To determine waste management system final costs
in regions other than Fresno, consideration must be given to local physical
and economic conditions. The costs of local labor, material, construction,
and land must be considered, as well as the local topography and availability
of suitable sites for proposed system processes. Comparison of systems
costs can be made, however, utilizing the costs developed in this study.
c. Cost Effectiveness
With the data on percent improvement and cost per
ton handled for each system considered, those systems whose costs are within
the local budgetary limitations are compared and a final system is determined
that will provide the greatest possible improvement of environmental effects
of solid waste for the least expenditure.
d. Ancillary Effects
The performance scoring technique described in
Section IV of this report is based primarily on the value judgments of individual
environmental scientists and engineers, and is, consequently, empirical in
nature. Minor differences in total scores (j^lO percent) cannot be considered
totally definitive. In the event that several promising system evaluations re-
sult in similar performance capabilities and costs, the application of the
ancillary effect scoring procedures developed in Section V of this study can
be used to further refine the selection process.
The ancillary effects are defined as the environmental
effects of the physical components of a waste management system, rather than
effects of the wastes. Twelve ancillary effects were scored for the Fresno
study, including social effects, such as employment and legal problems; physi-
cal effects, such as noise and traffic interference; as well as those environ-
mental effects previously scored for the solid wastes, such as odors and un-
sightliness, where applicable to systems components. The relative importance
of the ancillary effects were established for each of the subregions of the study
X-9
-------
X. Application to other Regions, B (Continued)
region by the scoring of a cross section of the general public in addition to
scoring by environmental health experts. For each subregion, the effect with
the highest total score was rated as 1 . 00 in importance and the other effects
were given fractional ratings in proportion to their total scores.
Application of the ancillary effect scoring procedure
to waste management systems in regions other than the Fresno region could
require that additional effects not scored in the Fresno study be considered
for the region in question and some of the effects previously scored considered
inapplicable. To arrive at a list of ancillary environmental effects in a parti-
cular region will require the canvassing of local lay population as well as
local government authorities and environmental health experts. To arrive
at a relative importance rating schedule for the effects decided upon, a sta-
tistical sampling of the local population should be made, including the ex-
perts, to achieve a relative importance rating schedule which is truly rep-
resentative of the region in question.
C. SUMMARY & EVALUATION
The scoring procedures and methodologies developed in the
Fresno region study can be applied with very little alteration directly to regions
which have similar environmental parameters. Application of procedures to
regions with vastly different characteristics will require attention and study
of the special regional problems in waste characteristics and production,
economic capacity, political organization and the social behavior, habits,
prejudices and desires of the local population.
The procedures developed, while a significant step forward in
waste management system evaluation, are still in need of refinement to achieve
the ultimate potential of the systems analysis approach to the solution of waste
management problems. Additional studies are needed to develop a more uni-
form and more flexible costing methodology, to refine and expand the environ-
mental effects scoring procedure and to develop more meaningful ancillary
effects data-
X-10
-------
X. Application to Other Regions, C (Continued)
Finally, it should be recognized that the basic hypothesis for
the growth characteristics of the Fresno Region is that the useage of land
will occur with relatively little influence by government to protect agricul-
tural lands (through "greenbelt" legislation) and that urban growth will occur
without consideration of long-range programs. The value of the fertile agri-
cultural "breadbasket" that comprises portions of the great Central Valley of
California —both to the economy of the State, as well as entire Nation — may
hopefully bring forth a bold, new approach to regional planning that will help
to locate people on land that has less utility for agriculture, while preserving
the most fertile soils for our continued use, and for use by our posterity.
Such long-range programs for land use would minimize the conflict between
solid wastes and the environment and could result in substantial improve-
ments in system performance at reduced cost.
X- 1 1
^ * U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1969 O—356-482
------- |