MANAGEMENT
                   PLAN

-------
        OREGON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

                Status Report 1969
 This report (SW-ltsg), which has been reproduced
   exactly as received from the grantee with the
    exception of a new title page and foreword,
 was prepared by the Oregon State Board of Health
under State Solid Waste Planning Grant GOB-VI-00014
       U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
           Solid Waste Management Office
                       1971

-------
         This  is  a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
         publication and  is  also in the  Public Health Service
         serial publication  series as Public Health  Service
         Publication No.  2115.
         Library of Congress Catalog  Card No. 76-608478

           Public Health  Service Publication No.  2115
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.26

-------
                   OREGON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN


TO ENCOURAGE SYSTEMATIC PLANNING for better management of the Nation's

solid wastes, Congress in the 1965 Solid Waste Disposal Act provided

grant monies for the States for solid waste planning.1  By June 1966,

fourteen States had met the stipulations of the Act and were embarked

upon the planning process with the help of the Federal funds.  Today,

almost every State has applied for and received a solid waste planning

grant.2  From each of the grants the Federal government expects two

practical results:  first, a plan (and report) for the State's manage-

ment of its solid wastes; second, development of an agency for the

managing function.^

     The present document publishes the Oregon plan, which was developed

by the State under a Federal solid waste management planning grant that

went into effect September 1, 1966.  The plan reported on here is neces-

sarily based upon existing data, technology, problems, and objectives.

But, the planning process is dynamic; future revision is an important

part of the process to take account of changing conditions and better
     rThe Solid Waste Disposal Act; Title II of Public Law 89-272, 89th
Congress, S.306, October 20, 1965.  Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1966.  5 p.
     2Toftner, R. 0., D. D. Swavely, W. T. Dehn, and B. L. Sweeney.  State
solid waste planning grants, agencies, and progress—1970.  Public Health
Service Publication No. 2109.  Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office,
(In press.)
     3Toftner, R. 0.  Developing a State solid waste management plan.
Public Health Service Publication No. 2031.  Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1970.  50 p.
                                iii

-------
data.  Moreover,  a plan  is not an end  in  itself.  Its formulation is

the key  to action:   to legislation, standards,  technical assistance,

public relations, and enforcement.

     Besides providing the State solid waste management agency with a

guide for action, the State plan will help to guide local and regional

solid waste planning and subsequent implementation.  The plan can also

provide  support for  improved State legislation  related to solid waste

management.

     Oregon's plan is designed, therefore, to:   (1) begin the planning

process; (2) establish policies and procedures  to guide the State solid

waste agency; (3) guide regional planning; (4)  provide a documented base

for improved solid waste legislation and  operating regulations.  With

these objectives  in mind, this plan report presents and analyzes pertinent

solid waste data, identifies problems indicated by the data, sets objec-

tives that if achieved would solve identified problems, and finally,

proposes immediate, intermediate, and long-range measures for achieving

objectives.   This plan should thus provide Oregon's solid waste agency

with an  invaluable management tool with which to begin solving the solid

waste problems in the State of Oregon.
                                     —RICHARD D. VAUGHAN
                                       Assistant Surgeon General
                                       Acting Commissioner
                                       Solid Waste Management Office
                                 iv

-------
                                      INDEX
  I.  INTRODUCTION                                                      Page 1


 II.  SUMMARY OF DATA


      A.  General Information                                           Page 5

      B.  Storage                                                       Page 6


      C.  Collection                                                    Page 6

      D.  Transportation                                                Page 7

      E.  Disposal                                                      Page 7

      F.  Summary of Recommendations and Solutions                      Page 10


III.  SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN OREGON

      A.  History                                                       Page 12


      B.  Survey Procedures                                             Page 17

      C.  Storage Practices                                             Page 17

      D.  Collection                                                    Page 20


      E.  Long-Distance Hauling Methods                                 Page 22

      F.  Disposal Facilities                                           Page 25

 IV.  PROBLEMS AND NEEDS


      A.  General Information                                           Page k6

      B.  Storage                                                       Page k6


      C.  Collection                                                    Page 48


      D.  Long-Distance Hauling                                         Page 49


      £.  Disposal                                                      Page 30

      F.  Financing and Manpower                                        Page 52


  V.  RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOLUTIONS


      A*  General Recommendations                                       Page 54

      B.  Recommended 'Solutions for Storage                             Page 56

      C.  Recommended Solutions for Collection and
               Transportation                                           Page 57


      D.  Recommended Solutions for Disposal                            Page 57

-------
VI.  IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN




     A.  Immediate Objectives                                         Page 62




     B.  Intermediate Objectives                                      Page 63



     C.  Long-Range Goals                                             Page 64








                                   ADDENDUM




 A.  SUGGESTED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT REGIONS                          Page 65




     Western Oregon




          (1)  Clatsop, Tillaraook                                      Page 66




          (2)  Columbia,  Washington,  Multnomah, Clackamas              Page 68




          (3)  Yamhill, Polk, Marion                                   Page 70



          (4)  Lincoln, Benton,  Linn                                   Page 7d




          (5)  Lane                                                   Page 74




          (6)  Douglas                                                 Page ?6




          (7)  Coos, Curry                                             Page 78



          (8)   Josephine, Jackson                                      Page 80




    Eastern  Oregon




          (9)   Hood River, Wasco, Sherman                              Page 82




        (10)  Jefferson, Crook, Deschutes                             Page 84




        (11)  Klamath, Lake                                           Page 86




        (12)  Umatilla, Morrow, Gilliam, Wheeler, Grant               Page 88




        (13)  Baker, Union, Wallowa                                   Page 91




        (14)  Harney, Malheur                                         Page 93




B.  Proposed County Solid Waste Committees                            Page 95




C.  Proposed Inspection Forms                                     Pages 96-98




D.  Rules and Regulations                                             Page 99




E.  Background Information Necessary for Planning




                                  vi

-------
    A.  Political Structure of State                                 Page 104



    B.  Environmental Resources                                      Page 107




    C.  Human Resource Planning                                      Page 117








References Cited                                                     Page 125
                                   vii

-------
                          OREGON SOLID WASTE STUDY

I.  INTRODUCTION
      This "Status Report 1969 -- Solid Waste Practices in Oregon" brings
    together for the first time, information on solid waste handling in every
    area of the state of Oregon.  The information was compiled from a three-
    year study beginning September 1, 1966,  and ending January,  1969-  The
    study was funded by a federal grant, applied for by the Sanitation Section
    of the Oregon State Board of Health and  awarded by the Solid Wastes Program,
    National Center for Urban and Industrial Health, United States Public
    Health Service.
      The survey information is from a total of 231 solid waste disposal sites
    in Oregon and 120 communities.  Information was gathered by personal inter-
    views, field visits and record checks.
    A.  Rationale of the Study
          Solid waste is produced by every activity of mankind.  Because man
        can neither create nor destroy matter, solid waste will not disappear.
        It must be managed, stored or re-used.
          The storage, collection, transportation and disposal of garbage, or
        "solid waste" as it is now termed, has been a continuing concern for
        the past 5,000 years as evidenced by records of the Valley of the
        Indus River in  India and the following historical records:

            "In some of the two-storied houses, bathrooms and drains were
          found in the upper story.  There were rubbish chutes or flues in
          the hollows of the walls leading down from the upper stories into
          bins.  At convenient places by the roadside were public bins."
            "In 1610, the first hygiene law was passed in Virginia;  in 18?1*,
          Fryer built a furnace incinerator for refuse at Nottingham,
          England; and in 1886, the  first American garbage reduction plant
          was built in Buffalo, New York."2

-------
       In Oregon,  the  first  mention of garbage and refuse was made in the


     reports  of the Board of Health when the 1904 Heppner Flood was reported


     in "Twenty-Five Years of Public Health in Oregon — The Woods Hutchin-


     son Regime."1^


       The first rules and regulations passed by the Board of Health that


     incorporated  controls of garbage were those for Tourist Camp regulations


     which were  adopted March 25» 1925•   Since that time, control of gar-


     bage or  solid waste has been part of the work of the Sanitation Section


     of the state  and  county health departments.


       Emphasis  of the early sanitation rules and regulations on garbage


     was  only on storage and removal from the premises, and little mention


     was  made of disposal until 19^1 at which time garbage disposal was


     made  part of  the program of the Environmental Sanitation Section.  No


     laws  were passed to control solid waste disposal, but the need was


    noted.


      For more  than 20 years, the program operated without supportive


    state laws.  A county-wide vector control demonstration project in


    Umatilla County was funded by the United States Public Health Service


    in 19^7*  The need for data for program planning and legislative ac-


    tion to control solid waste on a state-wide basis was evident from


    this study.


      To meet this need,  the Environmental Sanitation Section of the State


    Board of Health applied for a planning grant from the United States

                                                                     4
    Public Health Service under the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965.


B.  Scope and Objectives


      The increasing population,  urbanization and industrialization of


    western Oregon and the increasing intensive agricultural practices

-------
in eastern Oregon and the increased solid wastes from these activi-




ties pointed up the need for a definitive state-wide plan for solid




waste management.




  The following objectives were proposed for the grant application:




1.  To strengthen and enlarge current solid waste activities which




    existed within the Vector Control Program of the Division of Sani-




    tation and Engineering, Oregon State Board of Health.




2.  To evaluate, in detail, the current disposal practices and prob-




    lems in each community or area in Oregon, including promiscuous




    dumping problems where prevalent.




3.  To forecast future needs of sanitary waste disposal considering




    the total ecology (demography, geology, meterology, transporta-




    tion systems, etc.) of each distinctive area in Oregon.  Ecologi-




    cally distinct regions will be precisely delineated during the




    evaluation study.




k.  To develop long-range plans for sanitary handling of solid waste




    for each region.




5«  To gain acceptance to the plans by the governmental jurisdictions




    involved in each region.




6.  To strengthen and enlarge upon chains of communications between




    the planning agency (Oregon State Board of Health) and local polit-




    ical entities so that the master plan developed may be implemented.




7.  To implement the plans through consultation and technical assis-




    tance by the Oregon State Board of Health.




  The first phase was to survey the problem.  The second phase was to




develop a preliminary plan for regional approaches, rules and regula-




tions, enabling legislation for county and regional participation, and

-------
    to classify the wastes noted on the survey.  The third phase is to  be




    the development and implementation of a state-wide plan.




C.  Extent of Report




      Because of lack of time and personnel,  the following report and plan




    is for commercial-residential solid waste only.   The report wall be




    expanded when more data is available on industrial and agricultural




    waste.

-------
II.  SUMMARY OF DATA



       The survey data collected is summarized briefly.   Only  5$ of  the  disposal



     sites kept records of volumes received,  so information is estimated by  the



     operators and program personnel.   From the data,  the following  can  be de-



     ducted :



     A.  General Information



         1.  Yearly cost of operation  of solid waste disposal  sites  for  each



             person in Oregon at the time of the survey  is equivalent to the



             cost of 3 Sunday editions of the metropolitan newspaper (less



             than $1 per year).  This  cost is paid through licenses  or permits



             of the collector or, in a few counties, through tax funds.



               The disposal methods are inadequate and improvements  will raise



             the operational cost.



         2.  The yearly cost of collection for the majority of households re-



             ceiving regularly-scheduled collections is  $21 for one  can  per



             week.  Some pay as much as $24 for one can  per week.



         3-  The volume of waste generated in Oregon,  if estimated at 4.5



             pounds per person per day, would result in  1,647,221 tons per



             year, but only 1,161,238  tons per year were estimated to be de-



             posited at authorized disposal sites during the survey.  These



             figures relate to commercial-residential waste primarily and indi-



             cate that one-fourth of this waste does not get to a disposal  site,



             but is left on site, deposited illegally or burned.



               Waste disposal sites cover 8.1 square miles in  Oregon, or about



             113 square feet per person (enough space to make  one 10 x 10 foot



             room for each person).



         4.  The increase in volume of waste is dependent on changes in pack-

-------
        aging, marketing and population.



          For 1985, Bell Telephone Company estimates the population for



        Oregon to be 2,898,500 people.



          The increase in commercial-domestic waste may increase to six



        pounds per person per day to give a total of 3»173f7^8 tons, or a



        yearly increase in production rates of 1,526,52? tons, or nearly



        double that now produced.



    5.  Volumes of industrial wastes are not estimated, but more will be



        going to public disposal sites as industries become less able to



        handle solid wastes on their own sites.



B.  Storage



      Visits were made to 120 communities and storage was evaluated.



      About 27, or 2596, of the 120 communities indicated they had control



    of storage practices.  Average-size containers of 25-30 gallon capacity



    were used in 89 communities (?4£) and 32-50 gallon units were used in



    30 communities (2O#).



      Ordinances banning backyard burning or garbage have been adopted by



    only 1 community in Oregon.  One-hundred nineteen communities allow



    backyard burning with fire protection controls, and 75# of the cities



    surveyed indicated that backyard burning was a general practice.



      Garbage was wrapped in 57 communities (57#) and stayed on-premise



    one week or leas in all the communities in areas receiving collection



    services.  Refuse and rubbish were noted on many premises in all com-



    munities, but no counts of premises or estimates of volume were made.



      Storage of derelict vehicles on streets wae controllable or ordinance



    in 32 communities



G.  Collection

-------
                                                                       7





      By estimate and records of collectors,  only 85$> of the urban popu-



    lation was served by collection services  and no estimate was made of



    rural areas.  Collection services are not provided in 106 communities



    and rural areas.



      Special wastes such as car bodies,  demolition wastes and dead ani-



    mals were not collected routinely in  nearly all cities (99$)*  These



    wastes would be collected on request, but only 8$ would collect car



    bodies if requested.  Vehicles used by regular collectors were of good



    design in 83$ of the cases.  Wastes collected routinely do not repre-



    sent total waste produced.



D.  Transportation



      Long-distance transportation of refuse  (over 25 miles,) is not prac-



    ticed in Oregon except for some specific  industrial wastes transported



    by barge or truck.



      Rail haul and transfer stations are being contemplated in some areas.



E.  Disposal



      Land disposal is the principal method of solid waste disposal within



    the state of Oregon.  Over one-half of the land disposal sites are



    classified as open-burning sites, while 70$ rely on burning in some



    manner to reduce waste volumes.  Unauthorized disposal sites out-number



    the authorized sites three to one.



      The majority of the authorized disposal sites are owned and operated



    by governmental agencies; 63$ and 59# respectively.  Sixty-four per



    cent of the sites operated by governmental agencies were operated by



    county level agencies, while *t2# of the governmentally-operated  sites



    were operated by municipal level agencies.



      Operation costs for authorized disposal sites are extremely varied.

-------
It is estimated that 65$ of the authorized sites in Oregon operated on




12,000 or less annually.  Twenty sites (9#) operated at an annual cost



in excess of $10,000.  The total cost of 155 authorized sites for




which data was obtained was $1,584,000 annually (196?).




  The majority of the authorized sites in Oregon do not keep accurate



records of waste amounts received.  However, data was obtained for




155 of the 2^1 authorized sites and calculations indicate that these




sites received at least l,123f2*K> tons during 1967 (7,285,000 cubic



yards).  The smallest amount received by an authorized site was 2




tons and the largest amount was 302,000 tons per year, thus indicating



the considerable range in waste amounts received.  Seventy-six per



cent of the 231 sites receive 2,000 tons or less of solid wastes




annually.



  Solid wastes reach the authorized disposal sites by three methods -



1. Publicly-owned collection vehicles; 2. Privately-owned collection




vehicles; and 3. Miscellaneous vehicles (cars, pickups, trailers,




etc.).  The number of loads transported by the third method is 6 times



greater than private and public collection vehicles, but the volume of



these loads represent only 25$ of the total amount of wastes received



at authorized disposal sites.  Thus, the majority of waste volumes




(75$.) are being transported to the sites by public and private collec-



tion vehicles.



  The majority (9356) of authorized disposal sites in Oregon are lo-



cated in agricultural, undeveloped or forest areas.  Only 9$ of the



sites surveyed had definite plans for future use of the site upon




completion.  Seventy per cent of the authorized sites are located




either in gullies or caryons or upon hillsides.  The least number of

-------
                                                                   9





sites (5$) are located in marsh, tidal or flood plain areas.




  Equipment used for compacting wastes at authorized sites in Oregon




is primarily the crawler tractor.  This particular piece of equipment



is used at 95# of those sites providing compaction.  Specially designed




equipment for waste compaction, e.g., steel wheel compactors, is being



used at some of the larger disposal sites.




  Survey results revealed that 40# of the authorized disposal sites in



Oregon have either potential or existing drainage problems.  Twenty-




two sites (10^6) were experiencing leaching problems at the time of



the survey.




  Approximately *fO# of the authorized disposal sites in Oregon need



rodent control measures.  Only 1596 of the sites are providing control




measures.  Problems concerning flies were observed at 69$ of the




authorized sites, and only 2% of the sites were providing fly control



measures.




  The survey revealed that 103 (45#) of the 231 authorized sites in




Oregon have no fire protection equipment or safeguards on site.  Water




under pressure at site was observed at ^9 Ul#) of the sites in Oregon.




  Caretakers or site operators were observed at 95 (4l#) of the author-




ized disposal sites in Oregon.  All but 1 sanitary landfill (91#) had



operators in attendance.




  Salvaging is conducted at 91 (3990 of the total authorized disposal




sites.  Salvaging is permitted at 157 (68#) of the authorized sites.




  Special wastes create a problem because of volume, type of waste




and methods of handling.  Wastes such as chemical-oil wastes, tires,



septic tank sludge and demolition wastes are not taken in large




volumes at most of the public sites in Oregon.

-------
10
       F.   Summary of Recommendations and Solutions



             The management of solid waste includes storage collection and dis-



            posal of  solid wastes, and best management of these is necessary for



            the well-being of man.  Therefore, solid waste management should be



            considered as a package and as a service utility similar to water and



            sewage services.



            1.  Financing and Management



               (a)  The greatest need is for people to recognize that waste



                    management has a cost and method of financing this cost must



                    be developed.  Financing can be done through:



                     (1)  Governmental subsidy from county or city taxes.



                     (2)  Establishment of a separate service or tax district for



                         financing purposes.



                    (3)  User's fees collected at disposal sites.



                    (Jf)  Increased fees for collection of waste to include dis-



                         posal costs.



               (b)  Because nearly all the disposal sites are located in county



                    areas outside of cities and are not well controlled by the



                    city, the county government must assume the responsibility of



                    solid waste disposal management, even to operation of sites



                    if necessary.




           2.  Storage



                 Very few cities and only one county have ordinances controlling



               solid waste storage and removal.  Ordinances fitting the local



               situation should be developed from state rules and regulations,



               to control all phases of storage and these should be enforced on



               the local level.

-------
                                                                  11





3«  Collection and Transportation



    (a)  Residential-commercial waste is collected and transported by



         private corporations in most of Oregon.   A large  portion of



         the general public haul their own garbage for various reasons.



    (b)  Mandatory collection of waste with controls,  such as fran-



         chise agreements, may be necessary in heavily populated



         areas.



    (c)  Transfer stations or drop box services offered by govern-



         mental agencies may reduce the need for  mandatory collection.



k.  Disposal



    (a)  The sanitary landfill is and will continue to be  the most



         practical method of disposal for Oregon, for communities



         over 5,000 population (56).



    (b)  The landfill, in which refuse is covered at regular intervals



         but not daily, will, of necessity, be the method  of disposal



         acceptable for communities of less than  5,000 population (190).



    (c)  Control and abandonment of unauthorized  sites (640 or more)



         must be accomplished by county government and county funds.



    (d)  Wastes of special nature such as automobiles, tires, chemical



         wastes and large volumes of demolition and industrial waste



         will need special handling for which new technologies and



         recycling will provide answers other than burying.



    (e)  land acquisition for disposal facilities must be  planned for,



         included in all planning and zoning ordinances, and purchased



         many years in advance of actual need.

-------
12
 III.  SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN OREGON


       A.  History

           1.  Municipalities

                 The community or municipality was the first governmental agency


               in Oregon to face the solid waste problem.

                 At the turn of the century, solid waste consisted primarily of


               food wastes and ashes.  Foods were sold in bulk from the store and


               carried home in a waxed paper container or sack.  The used container


               made a good starter for the fire in the cookstove or furnace and


               the food waste went to the chickens or pigs for food.

                 After the first World War, the use of the open-top sanitary can

               for food became universal.   The rag man who collected most of


               the salvageable materials from clothes to metals was part of the

               American scene.  Refuse collection was either part of the "rag

               man's" service or part of the animal feeder's service.

                 Controls for garbage on private premises were instituted in


               some cities in the early 1900s and were basically related to


               nuisance control and refuse removal.  There was seldom any mention


               of disposal.

                 The first mention of garbage and offal in the annals of the

               Oregon State Board of Health referred to the accumulation of such


               debris in the town of Heppner during the Heppner Flood in Morrow

                              n
               County in 190^.


           2.  Counties

                 The first county health department in Oregon was established in
                                   g
               1922 in Coos County.   Early involvement of the c>. <.r..t3 health de-


               partment with garbage was because of odors, nuis-'i-.ot,  flies

-------
    rodents.



      It was  not until 19^5i  when the restaurant program was  estab-



    lished in the state,  that counties were delegated  direct  control



    of garbage handling and storage on any premise by  state law.



      It was  soon evident that on-premise storage was  only a  part  of



    the garbage problem and it was necessary to have a suitable place



    to which  garbage could be removed and disposed. The open-burning



    dumps in  use only transferred the problems from the city  lot  to a



    larger problem area in the county.



      Early in 1952, the  Lane County Health Department embarked on a



    county-wide garbage disposal program.



      In 195*+» the Umatilla County Health Department sponsored the



    first field demonstration of a sanitary landfill operation at



    Milton-Freewater.  The demonstration site was in a pea field



    owned by  the city.



      In 1958, Umatilla County and the Oregon State Board of  Health



    were recipients of a  grant for "Vector Control".  This three-year



    project used community survey techniques and sanitary landfill



    promotion as the basis for vector control.  One of the first



    multi-city landfills  in the country was developed to serve the



    four towns of Western, Adams, Athena and Helix in Umatilla County



    as a result of this project.



3.  State



      As stated before, the first mention or garbage in the Annual Re-



    ports of the Oregon State Board of Health was in connection with



    the 1904  Heppner Flood.




      In 1925• the first  rules and regulations dealing with general

-------
 sanitation were adopted to up-grade "Tourist  Camps".  These rules



 made reference to garbage storage  and removal.  The Biennial Be-



 port of July 1, 1924 to June 30, 1926 mentioned visits to two



 garbage disposal sites.  The emphasis in  these early years on



 water supplies, sewage  disposal and swimming  pools kept the one



 engineer on the staff busy.



   In 1939i  the State Sanitary Authority was formed and federal



 funding for this program allowed the expansion of the Sanitation



 and  Engineering staff of the Board of Health.  In the outline of



 staff duties for years  19*K>-19^2,  "Garbage Disposal" was listed



 and  about 30 disposal site investigations were made during that



 biennium.



  In I960, as a result  of the demonstration project conducted in



 Umatilla County,  a staff position  on the State Board of Health



 was  given responsibility for solid waste supervision*  In 1962,



 the  State Air Pollution Authority  took a vital interest in solid



 waste because of  obvious relationships.



  Because of a  lack of  state laws, a first need seemed to be legis-



 lative action.  To support such action, an evaluation of the total



 problem was needed.  The Federal Law,  Public Law 89-272,  title II,



 was passed in October,  19&5» as an amendment to the Clean Air Act.



This Act established  funds for state planning.  Oregon applied and



was awarded grant funds  to evaluate  this problem and plan for



solid waste management.  The survey was for a three-year period



beginning September, 1966.



  In 1967, the Oregon Legislature passed a law establishing the



Solid Waste Section of the Oregon State Board of Health.   This law

-------
   required establishment  of  state-wide rules and regulations for



   storage, collection,  transportation and  disposal of solid waste



   from all sources,  and enforcement of the regulations.



.  Future Trends



     In examining the past history of solid waste disposal through-



   out Oregon,  it is  also  necessary to recognize a pattern or reoc-



   currence of  events which emerges and is  somewhat responsible  for



   present conditions and  problems. A study of this  pattern gives



   better understanding of the  complexity and scope of the existing



   and future problems of  solid waste management in Oregon.



     For many years,  open  burning was the means and method of solid



   waste reduction and disposal.  Some of the solid waste generated



   was burned at the  point of origin and  some was collected, trans-



   ported and burned  at specific locations. These specific locations



   were termed  "dumps" or  "garbage dumps".   Some were privately  owned



   and operated while others  were located on public land and main-



   tained by governmental  agencies. These  "dumps" were, for the most



   part, economically efficient.  The operational cost of these  sites



   could be measured  in matches and gasoline.   Fees collected  for



   use of these sites were, therefore, nearly 100$ profit.  Income



   from fees could also be supplemented  through the sale of certain



   salvageable  materials.   The  open-burning dump could,  therefore,  be



   considered as * private enterprise or, if governmentally operated,



   self-sustaining.  Although economical in operation,  the  open-burning



   dump had some drawbacks.  Certain effects to the immediate environ-



   ment, e.g.,  odors, insects,  smoke and vermin,  required that a dump



   be located a "tolerable" distance from any community or residence.

-------
16
       In  most  instances,  this tolerable distance was a minimum of one



       mile.



         As populations increased and rural areas underwent residential



       development  (the urban sprawl), the "tolerable distance" of even



       many miles did not remove the "dumps" as a source of irritation



       to  the public.  State and local health officials were called upon



       to  abate and eliminate the public health problems which accompany



       open-burning dump operations.



         Accompanying the increase in population was an increase in waste



       generation per capita and a significant change in the composition



       of  solid waste.  Garbage or putrescible wastes were becoming a



       smaller portion of the total volume of solid waste, while cellu-



       lose, plastic and glass materials were steadily increasing.  This



       can be attributed to the multitude of disposable items and pack-



       aging changes which were making their appearance.



         The enactment of air quality control legislation and the subse-



       quent enforcement had an immense impact upon solid waste disposal



       in areas of the state by curtailing much of the on-premise burning



       6f solid wastes*   These wastes,  when not burned,  increased the



       volumes of solid wastes hauled to disposal sites or just stored



       on premises.   The same air pollution rules and regulations in



       many instances also required the elimination of open burning at



       the disposal  sites.   Thus,  this  chain of circumstances:   an in-



       crease  in population, an increase  in waste production and an



       increase  in environmental  quality  control standards, brought the



       unsatisfactory methods of  solid  waste disposal sharply into focus.



         This  survey report, authorized by  Federal Grant #Q05-UI-OOOlA,

-------
                                                                             17
        attempts to evaluate the problems and offers some approaches to



        correction of the problem.



B.  Survey Procedures



      The following data was obtained from a state-wide survey of Oregon



    authorized to start September 1, 1966 by a Federal Grant from the Solid



    Wastes Program, United States Public Health Service (Grant #5-S02-UI-



    00014-03; now Grant #005-01-00014) and matching state funds.  Staffing



    for the survey was personnel from the Environmental Sanitation Section



    of the State Board of Health.



      Information was gathered by personal visit of survey personnel and



    cooperating county health department sanitarians to the area and was



    obtained by personal observation and interviews with people working



    for the county, the city and private enterprise dealing with solid



    waste.  Private collection firms and representatives were interviewed.



    Visits were completed to all 36 counties in Oregon by December, 1968,



    and to 120 incorporated communities in the state.



      Information was compiled on survey forms developed by the state and



    transferred to forms supplied by the Solid Wastes Program of the



    United States Public Health Service.  Data from the state forms was



    coded to be filed in the Data Processing Center of the Oregon State



    Board of Health and data from the federal forms was coded for the



    data processing and retrieval system of the Federal Government.  Both



    retrieval systems were used for compilation of data in this report.



      Because of lack of time, industrial and agricultural waste manage-



    ment practices are not fully reported, but will be included in an



    addendum.




C.  Storage Practices - Commercial and Residential Solid Vaste

-------
18
    1.  Statutory Control

         Of the 120 communities visited, 70 (58#)  (Table I) municipali-

       ties indicated that they exercised no regulatory control over

       solid waste storage (response to question - 10056).  Of the communi

       ties having ordinances, only 19$ controlled putrescible waste

       storage.  Demolition and construction waste storage was controlled

       in less than 10$.

         Backyard burning was allowed in 119 communities and only 1 did

       not allow burning at all (less than 1$).  Only 52 communities

       required some type of screened device for fire protection.

         Thirty-two communities (26$) had statutory-regulatory control

       governing storage of derelict vehicles on public property.

                                     TABLE I

         STORAGE OF WASTE, BY TYPES, CONTROLLED BY COMMUNITY ORDINANCES

       (Some communities control more than one type of waste; response -

        10030

                                         Number
                                           of
                  Type of Waste          Cities     Percentile
                  Garbage                  23
                  Refuse                   23           19*
                  Demolition Wastes         8            6$
                  Construction Wastes       7            5#
                  Industrial Wastes        10            S$
                  No Control               70

-------
                                                                      19
                                TABLE II
GOVERNMENTAL LEVEL CONTROLLING STORAGE (response - 3S£)

Governmental
Level
Municipality
County
State
Federal
Other
Number
of
Cities
43
1
0
0
0


Percentile
9856
2*
036
0*
0*
2.  Tables III, IV and V show the practices of storage  such as  length

    of time before removal, sizes of containers used and wrapping of

    garbage.

                                 TABLE III

      LENGTH OF TIME GARBAGE REMAINS IN STORAGE - Residential

    (response - 93#)
                  Time Period

                  2k hours
                  48 hours
                  72 hours
                   4 days
                   5 days
                   1 week
                  Over 2 weeks

    Commercial (response - 92.
Time Period

24 hours
48 hours
72 hours
 4 days
 5 days
 1 week
 2 weeks
Over 2 weeks
Number
  of
Cities

   3
   0
   3
   0
   0
 108
   0
                            Percentile

                                 3*
                                 0*
                                 3*
                                 0*
                                 0*
                                94*
                                 0*
                                     22
                                      4
                                     67
                                      1
                                      0
                                     17
                                      0
                                      0
           Percentile

               2034
                4*
               60*
                1*
                0*
                0*
                0*

-------
20
                                          TABLE IV




                AVERAGE SIZE STORAGE  CONTAINERS IN MUNICIPALITIES - Residential



              Storage  (response  -  99

Size- Volume
20-25 gallons

-------
                                                                       21
able in the 106 communities not surveyed and few collection services

were available to suburban and rural areas close to urban centers*

  The total urban population in the 226 communities is 1,133*670.

The total urban population (196? estimate) in the 120 communities sur-

veyed is 1 ,019$ ?40 « or 9056 of the total urban population in the state.

It is estimated that between 80# and 90$ of the urban population has

collection services available.

  Ninety-five per cent of the 120 communities surveyed have weekly

collection; one and one-half per cent have twice-weekly collection;

and less than one per cent have no collection.  At least 856 man-years

are involved per year to give this collection service.

                          TYPES OF VEHICLES USED

                                                  Residential-
                    Type                       Commercial Garbage

         Number of closed (packer vehicles)         443 (83$)
         Number of open-bed design                   86 (l6flO

                 TOTAL                              529



                                 TABLE VT

                   COMMJNITY COLLECTION OF SPECIAL WASTE

                                                            Request
        Type of Waste        None     Weekly     Annual       Only
        Demolition waste      20*       l£         1#
        Car bodies            90*       0#         1#           8£
        Dead animals          62$       0$         0%          37*

-------
22
                                         TABLE VII

                             COLLECTION AGREEMENT OR CONTRACT

                                              Number of
                   Type of Agreement         Communities     Percentile
                   Private contract               15
                   Private franchise              86             7236
                   Municipal operation             5              W>
                   Licensing                       2              1%
                   No agreement                    9              8%
                   Franchise & contract            1              1%
                   Municipal & franchise           I              1%
                   No collection                   1              1#

                         TOTAL                   120            10056

          In the 52 communities in Oregon surveyed, about 98$ indicated that

        they exercised control over collection of solid waste by ordinance,

        but only 20$ supervised the collection performance and this was through

        the public works department.

          In these 52 communities, the following table indicates the agency

        performing the collection work, by type of solid waste.

                                        TABLE VIII
COLLECTION PERFORMED BY AGENCY

Type of Solid Waste
Household wastes
Commercial wastes
Industrial wastes
Institutional wastes
Dead animals
Abandoned vehicles
Public
Agency
3 %
2 %
1.6%
2.5%
k2 %
^5 %
Private
Collector
76 %
81 %
37 %
86 %
35 %
2.1#
Individual
Citizen
20 %
15 %
60 %
10.7*
22.5%
51.9%
          There  are  36 communities in Oregon over 5.000 population and all of

        these  were included in the above  figures.

   E.   Long-Di stance  Hauling Methods

          The  practice of long-distance hauling of solid wastes in Oregon which

        would  involve  methods of transportation other  than the  regular collection

-------
                                                                           23
vehicle and its trip to a nearby disposal site are very  limited.  This




is because disposal sites may still be located near areas being served.



However, special wastes and methods of disposal of these wastes now re-




quire longer hauls in special types of transportation.




  One method of long-distance hauling is the barge system with wastes




hauled primarily from Portland.  Two types of wastes are barged. One




type is the sulfite wastes from the pulp and paper industries.  The



other type is demolition waste from buildings or from ship dismantling.




Barge disposal takes place in the Columbia River area,  either in the




stream or on shore, or at sea.




  Another method of long-distance hauling practiced in Oregon is




special trucking.  Wastes hauled in this manner are petro-chemical




wastes.  Oil wastes have been hauled to the state of Washington and




to forest areas for disposal*  Chemical wastes have been trucked to




Richland, Washington, for disposal or to eastern Oregon for storage.



  An experimental method of combined storage-transportation has been




tried in Benton County and this method included the placement of a




drop-box in a rural area which was picked up, hauled 30 miles and




emptied at a community disposal site*  This is the only example in




Oregon that might be related to a "transfer station11 type of operation.




  There have been proposals made in various studies for using  the above




methods of transportation and  transfer stations and one additional




proposal is being considered for rail hauling in  the Portland  area.




  Another method of long-distance hauling mentioned for Oregon is  the



closed pipeline method.




  Some wastes are being  transported across  county and state  lines  in




Curry, Umatilla, Malheur and Multnomah Counties.

-------
STATE OF OREGON

-------
F.  Disposal Facilities



      There is a total of 231 authorized solid waste disposal sites within



    the state.  The use of the word "authorized" denotes that the site



    operates with the sanction of some governmental agency; i.e., munici-



    pal, county, state or federal.  By contrast, a total of 6^8 unauthor-



    j.zed sites were observed and/or recorded during the survey.  An



    accurate estimate of unauthorized facilities would be 650 to 700



    since it was virtually impossible to locate and observe all such



    sites.  It would, thus, appear that there are 3 unauthorized disposal



    sites for every 1 authorized  site within the state.



      For the purposes of classification during the survey, the various



    methods of operation are defined as follows:



      A Sanitary Landfill is the  disposal of solid wastes  by compacting



    and covering each operating day  (2k hours or less).



      A landfill is the disposal  of  solid wastes by compacting and cover-



    ing at  specific intervals, but not each operating day  (exceeding  2k



    hours).



      A*  Open Dump is a disposal  site at which wastes are  deposited without



     compaction or  cover.



      An  Incinerator  is a device  which  is  specifically engineered and de-



     signed to incinerate  solid wastes (tee-pee and wigwam burners not



     included).



       A Transfer Station is a unit or structure at which solid waste is



     moved from one storage unit or collection vehicle to another, or which



     is used aa temporary storage for solid waste.




       Composting is the process of bio-chemical degradation of organic



     waste under controlled conditions.

-------
26
          Limited Burning is the burning of brush and other combustible  material

        in an area separated from the putrescible material.

                                         TABLE IX
DISPOSAL FACILITIES

Type of Facility
Sanitary landfill
Landfill
Open dump
Incinerator
Transfer station
Composting
Number of
Facilities
11
73
146
1
0
0

Percentile
4*
32*
64*
0*
0*
0*
                               LAND DISPOSAL SITES THAT BURN
Method of
Operation
Sanitary landfill
Landfill
Open dump
Total
Sites
11
73
146
Sites
That Burn
1*
31*
130

Percentile
9*
42*
89*
                  * Limited burning
                 **One incinerator not included
         As seen in TABLE IX, 6**# of the 'total authorized disposal sites in

       Oregon are being operated as open dumps and only 36* of the sites are

       being operated as landfills or sanitary landfills.  Seventy per cent,

       or 162, of the disposal sites still rely on open burning as a disposal

       or reduction method.  It should be noted that the only incinerator sur-

       veyed was approximately 36 years old and receives very limited use and

       is incapable of meeting current air pollution emission standards.  The

       state of Oregon, at the present time, is relying on land disposal facil-

       ities entirely for solid waste disposal.  There are no solid waste

       transfer systems nor composting systems operating within the state.

-------
                                                 TABLE X
                                          OWNERSHIP OF  SITES
                                                                                     27
                           Site Owner

                           Municipal
                           County
                           State
                           Federal
                           Private
                           Data not  obtained
       Number of
       Facilities

            58
            ^3
             6
            39
            78
             7
  Percentile
      25*
       3*
                               Site Operator

                               Municipal
                               County
                               State
                               Federal
                               Private
                               Data not obtained
     TABLE XI

OPERATORS OF SITES

        Number of
        Facilities
            88
             4
             3
            86
             8
Percentile
    38*
     2*
     1*
    37*
                                                  GRAPH A
                                     OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION OF SITES
        Data Not Obtained
                                                             Data Not Obtained
Privately
  Owned
                                         Privately
                                         Operated
                      OWNERSHIP  Publicly Owned
                                                                                 Publicly
                                                                                 Operated
               OPERATION

-------
23
                TABLES X and XI and the circle graphs  show the 231 authorized sites

              categorized according to site owner and  operator.   As can be noted,

              78 sites, or 3^» of the total authorized  sites  are under private

              ownership, while 126 sites, or 63$, are  owned by various governmental

              agencies.  In TABLE XI, 86, or 37#i of the total authorized sites are

              privately operated, and 137. or 59#f are operated  by various levels

              of government.  Of the 137 sites operated  by government, 88, or 6k%

              are operated by counties and k2 sites, or  3C$i were under municipal

              operation.
   Privately
   Operated
                                                 GRAPH B
                             OWNERSHIP - OPERATION RELATIONSHIP BY TYPE OF SITE
                                                              Data Not Obtained
                      Privately
                      Operated
                                                                           Publicly
                                                                           Operated
                                   SANITARY LANDFILLS

-------
STATi; OF  OREGON
   owe OR MORE

-------
30
           The  circle graph, Plate A, comparing the ownership of the disposal




         site and  type of operation shows that public agencies own and operate




         most of the sites in Oregon.  Plate B relates public and private opera-




         tion to the type of operation, and shows that the private interests



         operate comparatively more sanitary landfills and less landfills and



         dumps  than do government or public interests.




                                         TABLE XII
ANNUAL OPERATIONAL COST

Range -
* 14
501
1,001
2,001
4,001
8,001
10,001
20,001

Dollars Per Year
- $ 500
1,000
2,000
4,000
- 8,000
- 10,000
- 20,000
-
Data not obtained
Number of
Facilities
3^
29
Ik
21
35
5
11
9
73

Percentile
15*
13*
6*
9*
15*
2*
5*
4*
31*
          TABLE XII shows a breakdown of the number of disposal  sites and the



        annual operational costs.   Data was not obtained on 73,  or 3l£,  of the



        authorized sites, but it is estimated that  most of these sites,  if not



        all,  would have an operational cost of $2,000 or less  per year.   Thus,



        150,  or 65$,  of the total  sites operate on  $2,000 per  year or less.



        One hundred seventy-one sites, or 7***i  operation on $4,000 or less per



        year.  The least amount recorded during the survey was $14 per year,



        while the  largest was $247,000 per  year.  This graphically illustrates



        the vast cost differential of solid waste disposal sites within  the



        state.   Total cost of operation for the 155 authorized disposal  sites



        for which  data was obtained amounted to $1,584,000 per year.   Twenty



        sites,  or  9*,  operated at  an annual  cost in excess of  $10,000.

-------
                                TABLE XIII
ESTIMATED VOLUME OF

Range -
2
501
1,001
2,001
5,001
10,001
20,001

Tons Per Year
500
- 1,000
- 2,000
- 5,000
- 10,000
- 20,000
-
Data not obtained
WASTE DEPOSITED - 196?
Number of
Facilities
53
24
23
30
11
7
7
76

Percentile
23*
10#
1096
13*
5*
3*
396
33*
  TABLE XIII indicates the amounts of solid waste received by authorized




sites during 1967.  Data was obtained for 155 of the 231 disposal sites,




or 67#-  Total estimated tonnage for the 155 sites was 1,123,2^0 tons



per year (7,285,000 cubic yards).  The smallest amount received by an



authorized facility was 2 tons per year, while the largest amount was



302,000 tons per year.




                                  GRAPH C



           TONS OF WASTE DEPOSITED - (1967) at authorized sites
       80--
                 76*;
60-

kO -
20 -
0




X
X
X
s





PI
fl ft



ft ft

-------
   GKAPH C shows the percentage of authorised disposal sites according




 to amounts (tons) of waste deposited annually (196?).  The hash marks




 in the 0 - J. ,000 column represent the number of site^ (j>J>%) for which




 data on disposal was not obtainable » and was estimated by survey per-




 sonnel.  This factual and estimated information shows that 1?6  sites




 or ?6&, accept 2,000 tons or less per year.   Two hundred  six, or 69$,




 accept 5,000 tons or less per year.   Only 1^4 sites,  or 6%,  accept




 waste amounts in excess of 10,000 tons per year.




                                   PLATE D




                                   RECORDS MAINTAINED
                Records  Maintained
                                                    No Records
  PLATE D gives the percentage of sites which are presently keeping




records of waste amounts received.  All sites surveyed which kept




records did so on a volumetric basis.  None of the sites in Oregon




use weight scales for measurement of deposited wastes.  Consequently




data on amounts received, costs of operation, number of loads or ve-




hicles and other data is arrived at by estimation.

-------
                                                                           33
1.  Site Operation




    (a)  Public Access - The survey revealed that  224  authorized dis-




         posal sites, or 97$, are open for use by  the  general  public,




         while 7, or 3#» did not permit public access.  A  total of  162



         sites, or ?0# of all sites surveyed, were open to the public




         7 days a week.  A total of 2k sites, or 1096,  were open 3 days




         a week or less with the remaining sites varying in between.




         Some sites were open only a few hours a day.   The survey did




         not record the number of sites that charged for dumping.




           A relationship between the amount of unauthorized dumping




         and the availability of an authorized site was noted during




         the survey.  In areas where a site was open only  a few hours




         each day or each week for use by the general public,  the




         amount of unauthorized dumping was more prevalent.  These




         unauthorized dumps were often located close to the authorized




         sites*  The least amount of unauthorized dumping  seemed  to




         occur in areas where authorized sites are open for use  the



         majority of the time and no direct fee is required for use of




         the facility.




    (b)  Loads Received by Types of Vehicles - Individual  loads  of




         solid waste are brought to the disposal sites in various types




         of vehicles*  These vehicles are defined as  follows:  public




         collection vehicles refer to a variety of vehicles owned by




         public agencies which are used to transport  solid waste;  pri-




         vate collection vehicles refer to standard garbage vehicles




         such as packer trucks and open-bed trucks which are owned by




         private garbage collectors; and cars, pickups and trailers

-------
     refer to vehicles owned by individuals and used to transport

     solid waste occasionally.

                             TABLE XIV

                   LOADS OF SOLID WASTE PER WEEK

          Transporting Vehicle              Loads     Percentile

   Publicly-owned collection vehicles         57^          2%
   Privately-owned collection vehicles      5»355         15#
   Cars, pickups, trailers, etc.           30,835         83$

       As can be seen by the above table, a total of 36,764 vehi-

     cle loads of solid waste are being transported each week to

     the authorized sites in the state.  No figure is available

     on the total number of loads being transported which end up

     at unauthorized dumps.

       The weekly number of loads being transported by the general

     public in cars, pickups and trailers is almost 6 times greater

     than the number of loads transported by both publicly-owned

     and privately-owned collection vehicles.  However, these loads

     from vehicles operated by the general public bring only 25#

     of the total volume of solid waste to the disposal sites,

     thus increasing the traffic problem at the site.

(c)  Type of Surrounding Land Use - The land development of the

     area surrounding the sites surveyed is as follows:

                             TABLE XV

                       SURROUNDING LAND USE

                  Land Development     Percentile

                  Residential               &
                  Commercial                1*
                  Industrial                3*
                  Agricultural
                  Undeveloped
                  Forest

-------
       Since  the majority of the authorized sites in Oregon prac-



     tice  open  burning  to some  degree, it is understandable that



     only  6%  of the  total number of  sites are located in residen-



     tial* commercial or industrial  areas.  In  comparison, it was



     found that 1  of the 11 sanitary landfill operations was lo-



     cated in either residential,  commercial or industrial areas*



(d)  Future Planning -  Very few sites visited had a use planned



     for the  completed  site.  In fact, 9196 of all the total sites



     visited  reported no planned use for the completed site*



       Seven  of the  11  sanitary landfills did report a planned  use



     such as  recreation, light  construction or  agriculture.  Only



     156 of the  open-dump operations indicated any ultimate use  of



     the completed site*



(e)  Cover Material  - Cover material in  varying amounts  is avail-



     able at  75# or  173 sites surveyed,  but only 35# or  82  sites



     were using cover material  on  a regularly-scheduled  basis  (at



     least annually).   No  provision for  cover material is made  at



     148 sites.



(f)  Compaction Equipment  - The most widely used type of equipment



     for compaction and covering of solid waste is the crawler-



     type tractor.  Although the use of specially designed steel



     wheel compactors is increasing at the large sanitary land-



     fills, 955* of the sites that provide compaction still use



     crawler-type tractors.   At many of the sites, the equipment



     used is quite outdated and in poor repair*



(g)  Physical Characteristics - The physical characteristics of



     disposal sites varied as follows:

-------
36


                                    TABLE XVI

                                  SITE LOCATIONS

                      Physical Feature            Percentile

                      Quarry or  barrow pit             9i&
                      Gully-ravine-canyon             33$
                      Level area                     16/&
                      Hillside                        37#
                      Marsh-tidal-flood                5#

              As  can  be  seen in the above table, 70# of the disposal

            sites in  Oregon are located in gully-canyon and hillside

            areas.

        (h)  General Character of Operation - The table "General Charac-

            ter of Operation" (TABLE XVII) reflects the over-all condi-

            tion  of each site actually observed at the time of the survey,

        (i)  Water Problems - The visible effects of solid waste on the

            waters of the state were tabulated (TABLE XVIII).  Water can

            percolate through deposited wastes to create an effluent or

            leachate.  In most cases, the occurrence of this leachate is

            detectable by accompanying odors and coloration of the efflu-

            ent.  Leachate may also be detectable by a chemical analysis

            if odors and coloration are not present.  Since chemical

            analyses were not within the scope of the survey, visual

            observation constituted the basis for recording such condi-

            tions.  Accordingly, where odor and coloration were observed,

            the term "leaching" was applied.  Where surface water was ob-

            served to contact waste and did not give discoloration and

            odor, or where surface water was being diverted around the

            waste, the term "surface drainage problems" was applied.  Of

            the total number of authorized sites in Oregon, ^O# have

-------
               either potential or existing  drainage  problems.

                                     TABLE  XVII

                            GENERAL CHARACTER OF  OPERATION
                                                                             37

















4>
>> o
r-H Cj
4> (3
•as
•H 0)
CO ft
C PH








bO
O
•H t<
3 0)
O ft
H cd
PQ «

o>

frt
1
Q
U)
4) B
O 0)
(0 iH

H o
3 t|
CO fi
0)
60
fK
3
'd

bO (0
a B

o .?*
(0 O

M a?



rH
B
c
o


•p *^
C 0)
4) tJ
*a a>
o a>
« 2




H
O
t-.
^J
£5
O T3
O 4)
'O
>j 4)
H 0)



w
•H T)
*4 0)
^J T3
4) 4>
Q 0>
•z.

C H
a o
-p -P
W C
ao
0




H
a
•^
c
0 _
O TJ
01
tn t3
O 4>
73 0)
O Z







bO
•H T)
S4)
-P
3 O
PQ Z
Sanitary Landfill 2796 27* 9196 9* 0* 18* 5596 C# 9*
Landfill (no burning) 48* 38* 5596 2696 2996 « 4596 556 1796
Landfill (burning) 8796 6396 1396 1396 2696 6196 55* 7% 9^96
Open Dump (no burning) 9^96 8896 2596 1296 2596 7^96 88* 696 1996
Open Dump (burning) 10096 67* 3296 2% 5596 8496 6996 19* 98*
Total For All Sites
8596   6096   3096   1096
        6996   6396   1096   7396
                                      TABLE XVIII

                                   DRAINAGE PROBLEMS

                   Type of  Drainage  Problem      Sites
                   Surface  drainage
                   Leaching
                   No  problems
 70
 22
139
                               Percentile

                                   3096
                                   1096
                                   6096
           (j)   Vector Problems - The survey showed that 5996 of the authorized

                facilities did not need rodent control, but it must be realized

                that domestic rodents (Rattus Norvegicus and Rattus Rattus)

                are not common to many parts of central and eastern Oregon.

                Disposal facilities in those areas were recorded as not needing

                rat control regardless of the disposal method used*

-------
       Fly problems were observed at 69$ of the sites even though

     many of the sites could not be observed during periods condu-

     cive to fly production.  Hornets and yellow jackets plagued

     some of the disposal sites during the summer months.

 (k)  Accidental Fire Protection - Since burning is practiced in

     some degree at ?0# of the disposal sites, it is important to

     note the methods used for fire protection.  No attempt was

     made to assess the adequacy of the method being used.  Of

     importance is the fact that 103 sites, or kjfr of the authorized

     disposal sites in the state, do not have a method of fire pro-

     tection available on site.  This is especially significant

     since 65$ of the authorized sites are located in undeveloped

     or forested areas.  The following table indicates the on- site

     method of fire protection used:

                             TABLE XIX

                          FIRE PROTECTION

                                   Number
         Method Used              of Sites     Percentile

         Water under pressure         *f9
         Firebreak                    79
         No protection
(l)  Caretaker - The presence of an operator or caretaker at a

     site varies with the type of operation as follows:

-------
                                                                       39


                            TABLE XX

                     PERSON ON DUTY AT SITE

                                            Per Cent
             Type of Site                   Attended
             Sanitary landfill
             landfill                          5056
             Landfill (limited burning)        39*
             Open  dump  (burning)               38*
             Open  dump  (no burning)
             All sites
       Certain disposal  sites in rural areas are maintained by

     transporting equipment  from one  site  to another  and  these

     sites are attended  only when  the equipment operator  is at

     the site.

(m)  Salvaging - Salvaging is conducted  in varying degrees at 91

     sites, or 39* of the authorized  disposal  sites,  but  salvaging

     is permitted at 68* of  the sites.   The materials salvaged  are

     generally stockpiled on site  in  a very disorderly manner.

       The following table indicates  that the  practice of salvaging

     is quite consistent regardless of  the method of operation.

                             TABLE XXI

                        SALVAGING PRACTICED

                 Type of Operation     Percentile

                 Sanitary landfill         36*
                 Landfill                  3d*
                 Open dump                 1*9*
                 All Sites                 39*


 (n)  Equipment Washing - Truck-washing  facilities are available

     at only  11* of the 2Mf authorized  disposal sites.   Some of

     these facilities were inadequately-constructed  and  others

     were well-constructed with concrete  aprons, proper  waste

-------
         water disposal systems and water under pressure.




           In some instances, mobile washing facilities are utilized.




           Counties that transport equipment to maintain landfills on




         a routine basis often mount a 500 to 1,000 gallon tank on a




         truck or trailer hauling the equipment.  This tank is pres-




         surized by a small gasoline pump or a hydraulic pump and con-




         tains water.  This water may be used for washing equipment,




         for fire control or for a "carrier" of insecticide to control




         hornets or flies at disposal sites.




2.  Special Waste Disposal




      Transportation facilities,  labor market and raw product availabil-



    ity dictate  the location of industries.   Though the survey is not




    complete on  industrial wastes, information on certain problem




    wastes is available  from various sources.




    (a)  Tires -  Portland  is a tire distribution center for a large




         section  of the  state, and the tire  distributors return worn




         tires to Portland.   Tires are not acceptable in volume at




         the  Portland  disposal sites and are stockpiled in about 3




         locations in  the  Portland metropolitan area*  It is estimated




         that at  least 1 million  tires are stockpiled at the present




         time.  A major distributor in central  Oregon is still  able



         to burn  discarded  tires.




    (b)   Oil  - Another special waste  is oil.  Waste oil  accumulates



         from the following:




         (1)   Railroad car  cleaning




         (2)   Tank truck cleaning




         (3)   Ship bunkers

-------
     (1+)  Fuel oil tank cleaning (homes, apartments, etc.)



     (5)  Automobile crank case oil



      The volume of oil waste collected in the metropolitan area



     of Salem, Eugene and Portland ranges from 6-1/2 to 13 million



     gallons annually.



      About 3 million gallons of oil are re-refined or cleaned



     for  re-use and resale.  Other waste oil is used for  settling



     road dust, and a considerable amount is stored in tanks or



     pits*  Between 3 to 6 million gallons of waste oil per year



     are  not accounted  for.



(c)  Chemical Wastes - The increase  in  industrial  plants  in major



     population  centers in Oregon has resulted in  an increase  in



     chemically-oriented manufacturing  processes.



       The  chemical wastes  from  these processes  are barrelled  or



     stored in  tank cars or  in tank  trucks.   Some  wastes  are



     liquid,  some are  tarry  compounds and some are clurrys mixed



     with lime  or other sludges.



       Volumes of production are not known specifically,  but  could



     vary from 2,500  gallons to  more than 10,000 gallons  per  week



     per manufacturer.



(d)  Cannery Wastes - Major food processing plants for fruits and



     vegetables are located in the Willamette Valley and eastern



     Oregon.  Seafood processing plants are clustered along the



     coastal areas of Oregon.  All food processing plants produce



     solid wastes in volume.



       Oregon State University,  Department of Food Science and



     Technology, has embarked on a survey of procedures  in wastes

-------
handling for fruit and vegetable processors.
  Data is not complete, but some estimates oi volumes are
available.  Each processor of corn may produce from 25,000
to 50,000 tons of waste per year depending on season and
method of processing.  This corn waste is sold as cattle
feed.
  Bean waste varies from 15,000 to 32,000 tons per year for
each processor and only a portion of this waste is fed to
animals.  Approximately 20 to 30 truckloads of bean waste
are received daily at the Salem landfill during the canning
season.  Pear, apple and other fruit wastes present a similar
problem and are not fed to cattle for various reasons.  Med-
ford and Hood River, as well as Salem, have fruit wastes.
  Brussels sprout, broccoli, cabbage and onion wastes are
eaten only by sheep and pigs and limited flocks or herds of
these animals limits the volume that can be disposed of in
this manner.
  With the exception of corn, therefore, most cannery wastes,
including the sludge from waste-water filter plants at the
cannery, are handled by land disposal methods.
  The seafood industry produces shell and fish wastes that
are presently returned to the coastal waters for disposal or
are processed for mink food, fish meal, fish food oil or pro-
tein concentrate.

-------
                   Pounds of Solid Fish Waste
                 Produced on Oregon Coast - 1968

                 Coho Salmon           1,650,000
                 Tuna                 23,000,000
                 Shrimp                8,^00,000
                 Crab                  7,500,000
                 Miscellaneous Fish    6,300,000

      Total fish waste - 46,850,000 pounds, or 23,000 tons

     (based on total catch for 1968).


      There ie 1 fish waste rendering plant  (at Warrenton).  The

     rendering industry and the use of waste  for mink food accounts

     for about 6o#  to 7096 of the total waste.  The remaining 30#

     to  i*C$ is discharged to the coastal  waters.  land disposal

     of  fish waste  has been tried, but it creates odor and  fly

     problems.  The demand for  fish waste as  a fertilizer or cat-

     tle feed is  minimal.

(e)  Demolition and Construction Waste -  Demolition  and  construc-

     tion waste is  the waste  (building material and  rubble) from

     the construction, remodeling,  repair and demolition of build-

     ings or  other  structures.  Direct  factors affecting the

     volume  of demolition waste are the  size of the  community  and

     the amount of  urban renewal  being conducted.

       At present,  demolition waste is not burned on site in the

     Portland metropolitan area nor in Salem or Eugene.   Special

     disposal sites are  maintained for this rubble,  but an estimate

     of total volume or tonnage deposited was not possible because

     of lack of records and varying sizes of transporting vehicles.

     However, one demolition site in Portland area indicated that

     they accepted about 15,600 loads in 196?.

-------
(f)  Automobile Bodies - Automobile bodies are accepted at




     sites, or 6296 of the total sites.  They are then handled in




     a variety of ways.  At a few of the sites, car bodies  are




     compacted and buried with other solid waste.  At other sites,




     the car bodies are burned and then compacted and stockpiled




     for transport to a scrap dealer.  At other sites, a separate




     storage area for car bodies is provided.  A contractor with




     a portable compactor will remove these stored bodies periodi-




     cally for salvage rights; two operate in Oregon.  At still




     other sites, car bodies accumulate without a plan for  disposal




     or salvage.



       Data from a 1965 report of the Bureau of Mines for a five-




     county area (Polk, Yamhill, Marion, Clackamas and Washington)




     reported 16,700 abandoned vehicles in a 5*224 square mile




     area, or 3.1 vehicles abandoned per square mile.  There were




     1,311,626 motor vehicles registered in Oregon in 196?, and in




     that same year, 51,056 motor vehicle registrations were voided.




     On this basis, one vehicle for every 40 persons in Oregon be-




     came obsolete during that year.




(g)  Dead Animals - The method of disposal of dead animals  varies




     throughout the state.  In certain areas, dead animals  are




     collected by rendering plants for processing.  Where this




     service is not available, individuals have to either dispose




     of dead animals on their own property or haul them to  a dis-




     posal site.




       When conditions do not permit an individual to dispose of




     a dead animal on his own property and the authorized sites in

-------
the area do not accept them,  illegal dumping occurs.  The

following table indicates the percentage of authorized sites

that handle dead animals:

                       TABLE XXII

       PERCENTAGE OF SITES ACCEPTING DEAD ANIMALS

                       Sanitary                     Open
                       Landfills     Landfills     Dumps

Large animals only         0#            1%          0#
Small animals only        18%           11%          k%
All animals               27%           kl%         58%
No animals                55*           ^7%         J>8%
  As indicated, k2% of the total sites do not accept dead

animals.  The sanitary landfill method of operation can ade-

quately handle dead animals, but only 3 of the sanitary land-

fills in the state will accept them.

-------
IV.  PROBLEMS AND NEEDS



     A.  General Information



           From evaluation of the  data  collected,  several problems in solid



         waste management (storage,  collection  transportation and collection)



         became evident.   Also,  deductions  from the data showed that "Financing



         and Manpower" for operation and  surveillance were evident needs not



         recorded directly in the  survey  data.



           From these  evaluations, the  State Plan and Program will be developed



     B.  Storage




           Problems of storage of  solid waste reflect the social and economic



         status of the individual  or the  industry, the physical location of the



         premise,  the  technicalities of handling solid waste and the efforts of



         the political-legal  jurisdiction to contend with the issues.



           It appears  from the survey that  there was a lack of "rules and regu-



         lations"  or "ordinances" and a lack of priority for enforcement of



         rules and regulations by local,  county or city agencies.



           Prior to the adoption of  the State Rules and Regulations in February



         1969,  the few standards for storage of solid waste were in city ordi-



         nances, and there were none for  rural areas.



           Some specific needs appear as  follows:



         1.   Rules and regulations were not specific for solid waste.  Only igg



             of those  ordinances checked  specified control of garbage, rubbish



             and demolition wastes, and none specified car bodies.  Some ordi-



             nances could  be  used to control rubbish, garbage and car bodies



             but were  written in contexts other than "Solid Waste Control".



             Only one  county  had a county ordinance and this was adopted



             recently.

-------
2.  Enforcement of ordinances was inadequate because  of  lack of  en-



    forcement personnel or because work load priorities  placed en-



    forcement of solid waste storage problems low in  the order of



    priority.



3.  Penalties assessed by ordinances were primarily fines.  Sugges-



    tions or guides for "corrective" action to be used by the courts



    were lacking.



4.  Public apathy is evidenced by the number of premises with derelict



    cars, weeds and brush, old lumber, appliances and garbage  found



    throughout the state.




      This public apathy is related to the economics of  the individual



    or neighborhood (welfare or low income), social outlook (lack of



    pride in premise or neighborhood), physical surroundings (indus-



    trial areas, or areas plagued with other environmental problems,



    such as air or water pollution) and the lack of a collection ser-



    vice that picked up all types of solid waste.  This refusal of



    service was caused by lack of preparation of the waste by the indi-



    vidual or by restrictions imposed at the disposal site.



5.  Use of burning barrels or other devices was prevalent throughout



    the state.  The only controls on burning (in 52, or ^3#, of the



    communities) were related to fire control.



      Use of these burning barrels create odors, fly problems, rodent



    attraction and fire problems on site or in collection trucks.



      Evident reasons for burning on the private premise were:



    (a)  Reduction of size of waste or volume (high percentage of



         combustibles)•




    (b)  Large lots provided space and opportunity for  burning.

-------
        (c)  Economic savings resulting from fewer cans of waste to be



             removed.



        (d)  Personal habits or practices including the "right to burn".



    6.  Wrapping of garbage is not enforced in Oregon.  This requirement



        appeared in some city ordinances, but is not enforced.  Wrapping



        would extend the life and condition of the garbage can and reduce



        insect and animal attractants.



    7.  Commercial establishments using "containers" or "drop boxes"  of



        one or more cubic yards were found in <±&% of the  towns.  This



        service is on the increase because it results in  fewer containers



        to maintain, less storage space used for containers and a reduction



        in manpower needed by collectors.



          However, these large containers were hard to clean, tops of the




        containers were not tight or easily handled and the responsibility



        for cleaning and maintaining the containers is usually not spelled



        out by ordinance or contract.



      The need for improvement in storage appears to be through more  effec-



    tive and better enforced ordinances.  These ordinances could be based



    on the recent "littering" laws of the state.



C.  Collection



      As in storage, the socio-economic status of the individual or business



    dictates the method of collection (or removal from the premise) of  solid



    waste.




      The survey indicated that 85# of  the urban population had collection



    service, that 106 small communities do not have collection services



    and that unauthorized dumps exceed  authorized dumps in a ratio of at



    least 3 to 1.  The causes of inadequate collection could be low income

-------
  low social status, physical location of properties and the lack of ef-




  fective political-legal controls.



    The majority of the trucks used in collecting solid waste were well




  constructed.  Those open trucks in service were used primarily for




  hauling solid waste such as brush and large debris.  Frequency of col-




  lection was weekly or more often.



    Of special note was the fact that some wastes, such as dead animals,




  large brush and other debris, were not hauled regularly, and in some



  cases, not at all.  It was also evident that wastes hauled by regular




  collectors did not represent the total volume of waste produced in the




  area served.  It  is estimated that at least eL^>% of the waste produced




  was hauled by the private citizen or by services other than the regu-




  lar collector.



    Franchises  for  collectors were not written to protect  the community




  by malting provision  for  services when  the  collector  failed to  perform




  such service.  There  were no  franchised services  in  county areas.




    A need in collection is  to  increase  the  service area,  to provide




  better service in collecting  special wastes,  to improve  construction




  of some trucks and to provide better franchise wording for collection




  control.  Such wording is being developed under the 1969 state law pro-




  viding county franchise rights.




. Long-Distance Hauling




     Although this part of solid waste management has not been developed




   in Oregon, studies and efforts to improve disposal, collection and




   storage point to the eventual need of transfer stations and long-




   distance hauls for solid waste disposal.




     A need is to evaluate the economics of long-distance hauls and com-

-------
    pare costs to land acquisition and disposal  costs  in areas closer to



    the community served.



E.  Disposal



      The large number of  "open-burning dumps" and  the large number of



    unauthorized disposal  sites compared to  the  relatively  few "sanitary



    landfills" or other acceptable methods of disposal emphasized the



    problem of solid waste disposal during the survey.



      Poor record keeping  by disposal  site operators made it impossible to



    record the amounts or  types of waste being received, and data was esti-



    mated from verbal comment.   Information  gathered,  but not documented



    in the survey,  pointed out  that industrial waste is finding its way to



    public disposal sites  in greater amounts.  These increasing amounts of



    industrial waste being disposed of on land result  from improved con-



    trols of air pollution and  water pollution.



      Oregon depends on land disposal  for almost all of its solid waste.



    "Open-burning"  occurs  in every  county in the state (162 of 231 sites).



    Because  of the  past availability of  land, solid waste disposal sites



    have  been  located in undeveloped areas where little use was made of



    the land (land-use around 93# of the  sites was forest land, agricul-



    tural  land or undeveloped land).   Because of the undeveloped character



    of the lands, the  disposal  sites were considered "out of sight — out



    of mind" and  little concern was  given to methods of operation of the



    sites.   Burning created  rodent and insect problems, was a safety



    hazard and detracted esthetically  from the use of surrounding land.



      The  open dumps have  operated on a  "salvage rights" basis to partially



    cover  the  cost  of  operating the  sites.  Salvage fees and "gate fees"



    paid  the salary of the dump caretaker who was just a traffic director

-------
in a large number of sites.  Storage of salvage or failure to  remove



salvage created a safety hazard and rodent and insect problem.



  Rodent and insect problems were noted in a number of counties.   How-



ever, domestic rodents are not found in Baker, Grant, Wallowa, lake,



Crook and Deschutes Counties.  However, because of the operation  of



disposal sites, rats can move into these areas as they have done  in



Union and Malheur Counties within the past 15 years.  Skunks have



been a problem in Wallowa County disposal sites.



  Unauthorized dumps were less frequent in areas where a "gate charge"



was not made for use of the dump.  The large number of unauthorized



dumps (640) may be attributed to the reluctance of people to pay for



disposal of a waste, the lack of a collection service to pick up cer-



tain wastes (or special pickup at high cost), a lack of an authorized



method of disposal within a reasonable distance especially in sparsely-



settled areas, or, just a  feeling of the "personal right to throw a



waste away".



  Within the past 10 years, public interest has been increasingly



aroused about "pollution" problems and a concern about open-burning



dumps.  The sanitary landfill has been recommended in Oregon  because



it appears to be feasible  because there is still land to use  and is



more economical than incineration or composting, the only other prac-



ticed methods of waste reduction.  This has led to the development of



11 sanitary landfills in the state.  However,  the high rainfall,  soil



characteristics and terrain of  the western slopes of the Cascades and



coastal areas have led to  a  "leachate problem".  Preliminary  planning



end  better site  selection  could perhaps have  reduced the  leachate



problem.

-------
      Needs for disposal are:  development of more sanitary landfills and




    the elimination of open dumps; reduction of the number of disposal




    sites through regional approaches; provision of disposal methods or




    disposal sites that are convenient in hours of operation and location




    for public use; exploration of better methods of reduction and handling



    of solid waste (such as re-use, recycling or special techniques of




    handling specific industrial wastes); better operation of disposal




    sites for vector control, safety control and control of public health




    problems; and the development of methods of controlling leachate




    through better disposal site operation and planning»




F.  Financing and Manpower




      Throughout the survey, financing and economic conditions were noted




    to affect solid waste management though this could not be easily docu-




    mented.



      It was determined that there is some cost to every portion of solid




    waste management.   Proportionately more is paid for collection ($21 to




    $2*f per  can per year) than for disposal (less than tl per person per




    year), and collection services, where available,  were proportionately




    the better operated part of solid waste management.




      Financing of solid waste disposal is now paid by private enterprise,




    by tax funds or by a combination of both.   Private enterprise finances




    disposal out of collection receipts.  The  most commonly used are reve-




    nues from property taxes.   These sources of finance do not prorate




    costs equally to user's needs and are not  sufficient to support food




    operations.



      Improvement of solid waste  management is dependent on manpower for




    education and enforcement. The county sanitarians (120 persons) have

-------
carried the program for the past 20 years with inadequate laws.  They




work with the private citizen, the small business, local industry and




all governmental levels to improve storage, transportation, collection




and disposal.




  Needs in financing are to develop a more equitable means of distri-




buting costs of solid waste management.  Needs in manpower are to




retain the county sanitarian or a similar work force in enforcement




and education to augment the relatively inadequate manpower allocation




by the state.

-------
                                 STATE  PLAN




V.  HECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOLUTIONS




    A.   General Recommendations




          From the  analysis of the  survey data, problems and needs, certain



        general statements  and recommendations are evident.




          Because the  Willamette  Valley has  the heaviest population concentra-



        tion,  the greatest  industrial development, the heaviest agricultural




        production  and the  heaviest traffic  conditions, the problems of solid




        waste  management are greatest in this area.  Future development of all




        the  factors mentioned above has the  greatest potential for the Willam-



        ette Valley.   Solid waste management problems will increase in this




        part of Oregon at a faster  ratio than the socio-economic developments.




          The  following recommendations are  general and will apply to solid




        waste  management throughout the state:



        1.  Solid waste management  must include storage, collection, transpor-




            tation  and disposal as  a tightly inter-related package.




        2.  Solid waste management  must be considered as a public service




            utility and as  necessary for the welfare of man as is water and




            sewage  management.



        3.  Financing  of solid waste management is crucial and must be provided




            on an equitable basis:




              Financing plans should include:




            (a) Income from one  or more of  the following:




                 (1)   Fees  for collection services




                 (2)   User's fees collected  at disposal sites




                 (3)   Governmental  subsidy - by county, state or federal units




                      Financing through a sanitary district or by contractual

-------
                                                                            55
              agreement with a private  franchise  operator  in a desig-



              nated area.



    (b)  Costs of all the  following:



         (l)  Initial land acquisition  and future land acquisitions



         (2)  Facility construction and maintenance



         (3)  Equipment acquisition,  maintenance  and replacement



         (k)  Manpower for operation



         (5)  Exploration  of new and  improved methods of handling and



              disposing waste.



k.  Planning and agreements between cities, between cities and counties



    and, perhaps, between  states are  necessary.  Solid waste  moves



    across city, county and state lines for disposal purposes.



5.  County governments must become more actively engaged in solid



    waste management.  Most disposal  sites are located outside of



    cities, bringing disposal of urban waste as well as rural and



    suburban waste into county responsibility.



      County government activity is most effective through county-wide



    planning for solid waste management and use of county planning



    resources (see Addendum A and Addendum B).



6.  More accurate information as to type and volume of waste is needed.



    This can be readily obtained by disposal site operators through



    better records.



7.  Manpower for enforcement of rules and regulations should remain



    at the county level because state laws, county ordinances and city



    ordinances may be better correlated to the needs of the people at



    the local level.



8.  Correlation of enforcement must continue through the  county  health

-------
        department, the State Board of Health,  the Environmental Quality




        Commission and the State Department of  Agriculture  until such




        time that state laws centralize these responsibilities.



    9.  Planning and zoning commissions must recognize  the  necessity  of




        providing sites for disposal facilities for established and new




        population centers and industrial developments,  and aid in proper




        zoning for disposal sites.




B.  Recommended Solutions for Storage




      The observed practices of piling refuse on private lots and hauling




    refuse in private  vehicles gives evidence that better storage and col-




    lection must be provided.



    1.  Rules and Regulations promulgated in February,  1969, by the State




        Board of Health,  Section 38-020,  and referring  to storage units




        and collection frequency are to be enforced by  city and county




        authorities alike.   Necessary educational material  is to be dis-



        tributed by the counties to individuals and industries.




    2.  Under SB 302,  1969  Legislature, counties may now franchise collec-




        tors to serve  the county and these franchises should correlate




        with the city  franchise systems current in ?2#  of the cities.




    5.  New methods of volume reduction to improve storage  of solid waste




        shall incorporate air pollution and water protection controls.




    4.  Local laws or  ordinances should be developed through which costs




        of waste removal  could be assessed directly to  the  property on




        which good practices of storage or removal of solid waste are per-



        sistently ignored.




    5.  Drop box service  for storage-collection of waste may have to  be a




        county function to  give service to recreational  and rural areas.

-------
                                                                              57
    6.  Methods of pre-preparation of industrial  wastes (such as  grinding,



        pressing or catalyzing) may be required as part of cm-site  storage




        or collection responsibilities of the producing industry  when



        these wastes are to be moved to public disposal sites or  to dis-



        posal sites operated by private enterprise.




    7.  On-site storage of industrial-agricultural wastes must be placed




        at a distance from streams and residences adequate to reduce air




        and water pollution, or other suppressive methods should  be prac-




        ticed.



C.  Recommended Solutions for Collection and Transportation




      Collection of solid waste is now provided primarily by private col-




    lectors.



    1.  Section 28-025 of the State Rules adopted in February, 1969, apply



        and are to be enforced (see Addendum D).




    2.  Exploration of the use of transfer stations in metropolitan areas




        is highly recommended and should be explored on a city-county




        basis.  Drop-box service in rural areas will provide a similar




        service.  These services will reduce traffic problems and operation



        costs at disposal sites.




    3.  Industrial waste transportation may present specific problems for




        a particular waste.  Consideration and control  shall be  cleared




        with the Public Utilities Commission,  the Department of  Agriculture




        and the State Highway  Department.  At  least one  company  now pro-




        vides  disposal  service for nuclear wastes and  hazardous  chemicals



        to industries in Oregon.




 p.  Recommended Solutions  for  Disposal




       Disposal practices  for solid waste are  very dependent on population

-------
 served,  industrial  development of  the area, economics of the area and



 physiographic  nature  of the  particular area.



 1.   The  basic  method  of disposal for all solid wastes recommended in



     Oregon  at  this  time is burial  by landfill or sanitary landfill.



     Other methods may be developed and necessary at a later date.



     (a)   For incorporated communities of less than 5,000 population



          the disposal site may be  operated as a landfill with periodic



          cover if the location, geological conditions and types of



          waste are  such that a public health hazard will not be cre-



          ated.  In  some cases, efforts of smaller communities to main-



          tain  landfills may have to be augmented by consolidation of &



          number of  small communities or by aid from county government.



          Every effort should be made to operate sanitary landfills.



     (b)   For communities larger than 5|000 population, the sanitary



          landfill with  daily cover is to be the practice unless other



          approved methods of waste disposal are developed.  Thirty-six



          cities, or 14$ of the incorporated communities and 75# of the



          urban population, will be served by a sanitary landfill or



          other approved method.



     (c)   Preliminary planning of operation, equipment needs and site



         acquisition is mandatory because of changing land values and



         land use*



2.  Special recommendations for landfill operations are necessary in



    the Willamette Valley-coastal area because the heavy rainfall and



    tight soil  create  some seasonal operation problems.  In site selec-



    tion in this area, therefore, these special considerations should




    be evaluated:

-------
    (a)  Soil conditions, giving priority to gravelly sands;



    (b)  Documentation of ground water table elevation and fluctuation;



    (c)  Diversion or special drainage for surface run-off away from



         the operational site;



    (d)  Holding ponds, storage areas or waste water treatment devices



         for possible use to handle water that cannot be diverted.



*.  The number of unauthorized disposal sites shall be reduced*  Be-



    cause unauthorized sites are located in the counties, counties can



    alleviate the problem by:  cleaning up such areas by burying or



    removing the debris; posting "No Dumping" signs at various sites;



    and providing and maintaining convenient disposal sites, drop-box



    service or other methods of collection and disposal*   (This may



    be done as provided  by ORS **59.080 and ORS *+33«720 and ORS 451.570).



4   Cooperative agreements for operation of disposal  sites must be



    aade between cities  and  counties in which counties would take an



    active and  financial part.  Possible cooperative  agreements for



    disposal  site use  between cities and counties are suggested in




    the addendum.



5.  Wastes of special  nature and volume  need separate consideration:



     (a)  Automobile hulks



          (l)   Compress and store for shipment to metal salvage units



               or



          (2)   Include in landfill operation



               or



          (3)  Bury as fill-in land reclamation.



     (b)  Demolition waste




               Bury in landfills where burning is prohibited.

-------
60
            (c)  Tire wastes




                      Prepare for salvage  or disposal  in landfill by grinding.




            (d)  Sewage sludge




                 (l)  Dispose on land by plowing or  disking




                 (2)  Store in a lagoon




                      or



                 (3)  Dispose in a landfill  if dried waste.




                        Septic tank sludge should  be introduced into a munici-




                      pal sewage treatment device  where possible.




                        All the above are  to be with the permission of the




                      local health officer.




            (e)  Oil or chemical waste



                   The Department of Agriculture through KB 1335  (Oregon




                 Legislature,  1969) controls disposal  of pesticides.




                   Oils and other chemical waste disposal demand special hand-




                 ling and plans should be  correlated with the Department of




                 Environmental Quality.




            (f)  Industrial waste (when not  handled  as raw material for other




                 processing or not disposed  of on  the  industrial plant site)




                 is to be processed in a manner that would make it acceptable




                 at the public site for disposal.  This can include grinding,




                 pressing,  baling, mixing  with other less troublesome materials



                 or chemical detoxification.




        6.   Land acquisition for disposal  is a major problem because land




            zoning, increased demand for land for  other purposes and the general



            disfavor shown waste disposal  operators.




              At present, as shown by the  survey,  63$  of the sites are owned by

-------
a governmental body and 59# are operated by government.




  Long-range planning for site location and site acquisition may




have to become more of a government function than presently.

-------
62





VI.  IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN




       Implementation of the state-wide plan will  be  discussed as  "Immediate



     Objectives", "Intermediate Objectives"  and  "Long-Range Goals".




     A.  Immediate Objectives




           During the survey, continuous field work and  support was given  in




         cooperation with county health departments.   This will continue in




         the following ways:




         1.  Give consultation to operators  of solid  waste systems, individual




             collectors and city and county  governments  in waste management,




             collection, transportation and  disposal.




         2.  Evaluate site operation and site selection.  (See attached inspec-




             tion forms proposed.)




         3.  Conduct state-wide training programs




             (a)   Continue to give,  on a quarterly basis, one or two day dis-



                  posal site operators'  conferences in various regions in  the




                  state;



             (b)   Continue public meetings for orientation and instruction;




             (c)   Continue training  of state and county  enforcement personnel



                  and industrial waste management  consultants.




         4.  Coordinate with related agencies and  activities such  as regional




             and  state air pollution control, Environmental Quality Control




             Commission, State Engineer, State Department of Agriculture,  the



             State Geologist and various federal agencies.




         5.  Continue to encourage new and improved technology by  "grant re-




             quest" or technical support of  new  approaches.




         6.  Develop educational material for public  distribution.




         7.  Continue to up-date the state plan.

-------
Intermediate Objectives - 5 to 10 years



  Some objectives are dependent on research, legislation and manpower



capabilities.  These are the Intermediate Objectives:



1.  Promote the concept that solid waste management is a "Materials



    Handling" problem,



2.  Promote the concept that solid waste management is a necessity to



    the welfare of man and may be better solved if organized as a



    "Service Utility" either publicly or privately financed.



3.  Explore other methods of solid waste reduction, salvage or disposal



    by interested industry, educational institutions and government



    in new approaches.



k.  Increase the number of sanitary landfills in the state  from 11 to



    50.



5.  Reduce the number of unauthorized dumps (to less than 200).



6.  Suggest  state legislation  improvements  as follows:



    (a)   Because of  necessary  involvement of county  sanitation person-



          nel and liaison necessary, the  Solid Waste  Section on state



          level  shall be placed in one agency.



     (b)   State  laws  should have injunctive  powers  or clauses directing



          the clean-up  or correction of  the  problem to  give  guidance to



          the judiciary.



     (c)   A number  of agencies are involved  in waste disposal, including



          the State Department of Agriculture.   Laws covering "waste



          disposal" should  all be placed in  one  controlling agency.



     (d)  Planning and zoning laws should be modified to include solid



          waste disposal areas in a category other than in "Special



          Use" permits.

-------
C.  Long-Range Goals - 20 Years




      The development of better incinerators for volume  reduction  of com-




    bustible materials and the re-use,  refabrication or  recycling  of




    materials should progress to the  point  that  the  discardable  volume to




    be placed in sanitary landfills will  remain  equal to the  present volume



    or reduced by about 2056.




      Such progress will not  materially affect the disposal and  handling




    problems of smaller communities or  the  rural areas.




      Long-distance hauling of the residue  by pipeline or other  method of




    transportation to centralized state-controlled disposal facilities




    may be a necessity to give best use of  land.




      Ocean disposal should not be considered unless improved technology



    would make the waste more adaptable to  deep  ocean disposal.

-------
                                                                          65


                                 ADDENDUM A

SUGGESTED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT REGIONS

  Because Solid Waste Management in Oregon involves residents of rural,  sub-

urban and urban areas, a rational approach to solutions should not be limited

by city* county or even state boundaries or jurisdictions.

  As a result of the survey, the following suggested groupings appear, at the

present, to be logical geographical, economic and jurisdictional groupings to

improve solid waste handling.  County government should be involved in the

operation and management of every site located outside a city boundary.

  These are suggestions only and local groups or governments will necessarily

have to study further development and implementation of planned management.

  County participation  should include one or more of the  following:

    A.  Financial help

    B.  Site preparation and maintenance

    C.  County-wide  planning through a  coordinating committee to  keep the

        number  of  disposal sites at a minimum and  to help plan  industrial

        and farm waste  disposal.

     p.  Eliminate  the known unauthorized dumps  which the  survey found in the

         following  numbers:

                   Baker County      -   9     Jefferson County  - 13
                   Benton County     -  11     Josephine County  - 11
                   Clackamas County  -  43     Klamath County    - 10
                   Clatsop County    -  21     Lake County       -  2
                   Columbia County   -  41     Lane County       -  4
                   Coos County       -  46     Lincoln County    - kk
                   Crook County      -  11     Linn County       - 25
                   Curry County      -  4?     Malheur County    -  8
                   Deschutes County  -  28     Marion County     - 15
                   Douglas County    - 52     Morrow County     -  7
                   Gilliam County    -  4     Multnomah County  - 4y
                   Grant County      -  0     Polk County       -  4
                   Barney County     -  5     Sherman County    -  2
                   Hood River County -  4     Tillamook County  - 1?
                   Jackson County    - 15     Umatilla County   -  6

-------
66
                  Union County      -  1
                  Wallowa County    -  5
                  Wasco County      -  0
                               Washington County - 52
                               Wheeler County    -  6
                               Yamhill County    - 12
  The  following groupings are arranged by counties as they are located in the

 state.  The sites are numbered on the maps by "Site Code Number" which can be

 related back to the name of the site in that county.
 County &
County Code
  Name of Site
Site   Owned   Operated
Code    By	By      Operation
Clatsop
  (29)
Tillamook
  (Ok)
Astoria
Warrenton
Elsie
Seaside
Cannon Beach
Koski
Bill Mays

Manzanita
Pacific City
Tillamook
Bay City
01
02
71
51
61
31
62
Public
Public
Public
Private
Private
Private
Private
Public
Public
Public
Private
Private
Private
Private
landfill
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Population
  Served

 11,500
  2,OOO
    500
  5,000
  1,500
    150
     25
11
51
31
21
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Private
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
1,200
2,OOO
10,000
3,200
Suggested Disposal Site Usage:

     A.  Tillamook County - Tillamook City,  Bay City
     B.  Tillamook County - Cascade Head,  etc.
     C.  Tillamook County - Nehalem, Manzanita, etc.

-------
 COUNTY SEATS
LOCATION IN STATE
                 02  OAstoH*
                      .31
                   * CLATSOP
                     TlllAMOOK
                    ©TiltamoeK
                                                 6?

-------
68
County &
County Code
Nar.e of Site
Site
Code
Owned
By
Operated
By
Operation
Population
Served
Columbia
  (05)
Washington
  (3
-------
                                          69
     31
  COLUMBIA
       . Helens
             52
             •51 1
             •sr
              J-3
WASHINGTON I ^ *fJt3trNOMAH
                     CLACKAMAS
 COUNTY SEATS
            LOCATION IN STATE

-------
 70
County &
County Code
Yamhill
(36)

Iblk
(27)


Marion








Narr.e of Site
Newburg
McMinnville
Sheridan
Valsetz
Falls City
Monmouth
Dallas
Brown's Island

McClay

Woodburn
Airport
Fern Ridge
Mill City
Idanha
Site
Code
01
0^
03
01
02
03
04
01

02

03
04
05
06
07
Owned
2,7
Private
Private
Private
Private
Public
Private
Private
Private

Public

Public
Public
Private
Public
Private
Operated
By
Private
Private
Private
Private
Public
Private
Private
Private

Private

Private
Public
Private
Private
Private
Operation
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Open Dump
Open Dump
landfill
Landfill
Sanitary
Landfill
Sanitary
landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
landfill
Open Dump
Population
Served
7,OOO
12,000
3,500
2OO
1,000
10,OOO
10,000

70,000

21,000
13,300
Demolition
"•"^^•«
9,OOO
1,6OO
W ^"^r^J
6OO
Suggested Disposal Site Usage:

     A.  Marion County-Polk County - Dallas, Monmouth, Falls City, Salem
     B.  Marion County - Mill City, Idanha, Fern Ridge, Stayton
     C.  Marion County-Clackamas County - Woodburn, Canby
     D.  Yamhill County - Newberg, McMinnville, Sheridan

  It may be possible to combine most of the Marion-Yamhill-Polk County service
into one or two large site operations.

-------
                                                   71
iMcMinnvilit
   02 • c>.
YAMHILL
        • 03
 •01
                                       COUNTY SEATS
                            MARION
                                     • 0?
           LOCATION IN STATE

-------
 72
County &
Ccur.ty Coco
Lincoln
(21)
Ben ton
(02)
Linn
(22)
Name of Site
Waldport
Toledo
Newport
North Lincoln
Logsden
Corvallis
Monroe
Albany
Lebanon
Sweet Home
Site
Code
71
51
kl
11
31
21
61
01
02
03
Owned
3y
Private
Private
Public
Private
Private
Private
Public
Public
Public
Private
Operated
By
Private
Private
Private
Private
Public
Public
Private
Private
Private
Operation
Open Dump
Open Dump
Landfill
Open Dump
Open Dump
Landfill
Open Dump
Landfill
Landfill
Open Dump
Population
Served
3,500
6,500
6,000
6,OOO
1,000
35,000
1,500
27,000
10,000
8,000
Suggested Disposal Site Usage:

     A.  Benton County - Corvallis
     B.  Benton County - Monroe (close or combine with Lane County sites)
     C.  Linn County - Albany
         Linn County - Sweet Home, Lebanon
           (It may be possible to combine Benton-Linn disposal sites into one
            operation.)
     D.  Lincoln County - Toledo, Newport, Siletz
         Lincoln County - North Lincoln communities
         Lincoln County - Waldport

-------
                          COUNTY SEATS
  Newport

UHCOLM
 71
           Drop Box
           [not coded)
BENTON
               61
          LOCATION IN STATE

-------
County &
Courtv Code Xarr.e of Site
Lane Creswell
(20) Franklin
Veneta
Horton
Erbs
Cottage Grove
London
Disston
Oakridge
Vida
Rattlesnake
McKenzie River
Mohawk
Florence
Maple ton
Swisshome
Walton
Five River
Day Island

Site
Code
19
51
10
53
52
22
23
18
16
21
15
12
2k
71
61
63
91
62
13

Owned
By
Public
Public



Private

Private

Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public

Operated
By
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public

Operation
Open Dump
Landfill
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Sanitary
Landfill
Population
Served
2,000
9,000
2,500
300
300
9,000
**00
*KX)
^,000
2,000
2,OOO
3,500
1,000
7,500
1,500
500
500
1*OO

135.000
Suggested Disposal Site Usage:

  All sites in Lane County are  under direction of a county plan.
continue as a regional approach.
This should

-------
                                     75
                 uojene
                  •LAME
COUNTY SEAT
     } LOCATION IN STATE

-------
 76
County Sc
Co.;r.ty Co^u.
Douglas
(10)








.";-.. rr.e of Site
Oakland
Cany onvi lie
Roseburg
Glide
Camas Valley
Yoncalla
Tiller
Reedsport
Glendale
Ffyrtle Creek
Site
Code
41
Ok
01
51
05
31
07
21
06
03
Owned
By
Public
Private
Private
Public
Public
Private
Public
Public
Public
Public
Operated
By
Private
Private
Private
Public
Public
Private
Public
Public
Public
Public
Coe ration
Open Dump
Open Dump
Landfill
landfill
Landfill
Open Dump
Landfill
Landfill
landfill
landfill
Population
Served
6,000
4,000
20,000
5,000
1,500
2,500
500
6,000
2,500
5,000
Suggested Disposal Site Usage:

  Sites in Douglas County are being developed under a county  plan.  This should
continue.

  Efforts to include Roseburg,  Yoncalla and Canyonville under the county plan.

-------
                                77
31
         51
   DOUGLAS
 Roseburg
  03
          07
                  COUNTY SEAT
 LOCATION IN STATE

-------
 78
County &
County Ccco
Coos
(06)







Curry
(03)






Narr.e of Si to
Bandon - County
Coquille
Fairview
Remote
Powers
Bandon - City
htyrtle Point
Shingle House
Nickles Road
Langlois
Geisel
Port Orford
Airport Road
Brookings
Che t co
Pistol River
Gold Beach
Site
Code
62
61
63
52
91
71
51
31
21
11
21
13
12
k2
51
k\
22
Cv;ned
By
Public
Public
Public
Private
Private
Public
Public
Private
Private
Private
Private
Public
Private
Private
Private
Private
Public
Operated
By
Public
Private
Public
Public
Private
Private
Private
Private
Public
Public
Public
Private
Public
Private
Private
Private
Private
Operation
Landfill
Open Dump
Landfill
Landfill
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Population
Served
1,500
5,000
2,000
500
1,500
3,500
3,500
20,000
6,000
1,000
1,000
1,500
500
3,500
1,200
50
2,500
Suggested Disposal Site Usage:

     Coos County is developing  and operating county disposal  sites under a  county
plan.  This should continue.

     A.  Coos County - Coquille and Coos Bay,  combine
     B.  Coos County - htyrtle Point, Powers and Remote
     C.  Coos County - Bandon
     D.  Curry County - Port  Orford
     E.  Curry County - Gold  Beach
     F.  Curry County - Langlois

-------
LOCATION IN STATE
                              CURRY
                                                   79
       COUNTY SEATS

-------
 80
County &
Cour.ty Coco
Josephine
(17)

Jackson
(15)




Nar.e of Site
Kerby
Grants Pass

Jacksonville
Ashland
Lincoln
White City
Butte Falls
Prospect
Si^e
Code
81
**1

01
02
03
04
05
06
Cvr.ed
Public
Public

Private
Private

Public
Private
Private
Operated
By
Public
Private

Private
Private

Private
Private
Private
One ration
Landfill
Sanitary
Landfill
Landfill
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Population
Served
2,OOO

35,000
15,000
6,000
200
15,000
1,200
1,200
Suggested Disposal Site Usage:

     A.  Josephine County - Grants Pass
     B.  Josephine County - Kerby
     C.  Jackson County - Medford, Ashland,  Jacksonville
     D.  Jackson County - Prospect
     E.  Jackson County - Lincoln

-------
                                           81
                                       • 06
   Grants Pass
JOSEPHINE
       .81
                                  05
                      JACKSON
                          01
                                       02
                                        03
;
                            COUNTY SEATS
           LOCATION IN STATE

-------
 82
County &
County Coco
Hood River
(14)
Wasco
(33)

'•••»



Sherman
(28)







Na.'.ie of Site
Hood River

Antelope
Wamic
Maupin
^Tygh Valley
Shaniko
The Dalles
Nosier
Biggs
Kent
Rufus
Dinty ' s
Subota
Grass Valley
Moro
Wasco
Davis
Site
Code
01

01
02
03
04
05
06
0?
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
Cv.'r.ed
By
Public

Public
Public
Public
Private
Public
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Public
Public
Public
Public
Operated
By
Public

Public
Public
Public
Private
Public
Private
Public
Private

Private
Private
Private
Public
Public
Public
Public
Operation
Open Dump

Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Population
Served
11,OOO

25
100
450
150
75
12,300
1,000
50
50
350
10
10
225
325
325
625
Suggested Disposal Site Usage:

     A.  Hood River City and Hood River County;  or combine with Hosier or with
         Multnomah County.
     B.  Wasco County - The Dalles,  Hosier
     C.  Wasco County - Tygh Valley, Maupin (1 site)
     D.  Wasco County - Shaniko or combine with Grass Valley
     E.  Sherman County - Biggs, Rufus, Dinty's, Moro, Wasco
     F.  Sherman County - Grass Valley, Shaniko, Kent

-------
HOOD
RIVER.
                        SHERMAN
          WASCO
                         COUNTY SEATS
             LOCATION IN STATE

-------
County &
Cour.ty Code
Jefferson
(16)


Crook
(0?)
Deschutes
(09)













Mar.c of Cite
Culver
Willow Creek
Warm Springs
Madras
Prineville
Powell Butte
Bend - City
Arnold

Turaalo
Elder
McGrath
Alfalfa
Spring River
Fry rear
Negus
Lapine
Cline Falls
Lower Bridge
Sisters
Redmond
Site
Code
12
21
31
11
11
21
35
41

23
43
42
31
32
22
11
33
21
1^
34
13
Cwr.ed
3y
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public

Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Operated
By
Public
Public
Public
Private
Public
Public
Private
Public

Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Private
One ration
Landfill
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Landfill
Sanitary
Landfill
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Population
Served
1,000
3,000
1,500
1,500
7,500
600
8,000

5,000
600
1,000
300
300
600
100
3,000
1,000
600
600
800
3,500
Suggested Disposal Site Usage:

  Deschutes -

  Deschutes County has proposed and developed possible county sites.  These
should be continued.

     A.  Deschutes County - Redmond, Terrebonne; Powell Butte might be
         developed.

-------
       •31
                todroft
JEFFERSON
  9*
           •12
   *22
        421
            13*
                     Prin«viil*
                 21
                         CROOK
   2" *»  ^H        CRO
  ».nd©     31J
   35»  • 4i     I

SCHUTES       I	
     •32
         33
                        COUNTY SEATS
      LOCATION IN STATE

-------
 86
County Sc
Ccur.tv Cou .• I'or.ti of oito
Klamath Klamath Falls
(18) Ely
Beatty
Sprague River
Bonanza
Langell Valley
Mai in
Merrill
Keno
Chiloquin
Cresent
Cherault
Fort Klamath
Rocky Point
lake Lakeview
(19) Adel
Plush
Paisley
Summer lake
Christmas Valley
Silver lake
Site
Code
14
13
\d
11
10
09
08
0?
06
05
04
03
02
01
07
06
05
04
03
02
01
Cv.-r.ed
bv
Private
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Private
Private

Public
Private
Public
Operated
By
Private
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Private
Private


Public
Private
Public
Operation
landfill
landfill
landfill
landfill
landfill
landfill
landfill
landfill
landfill
landfill
landfill
landfill
landfill
landfill
landfill
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Population
Served
35,000
500
200
200
500
300
600
1,000
600
1,200
300
200
<&0
200
3,500
50
50
25
50
50
dOO
Suggested Disposal Site Usage:

Klamath County -

  The Klamath County Road Department is developing a site maintenance program.
This should continue and better correlation with Klamath Falls disposal site
be developed.

lake County -

  Lake County is so wide spread-that county-maintained disposal sites are
mandatory.  Cooperation between the city of Lakeview and lake County should
be developed.

  County sites might be reduced to about 3 in number;

-------
   KLAMATH
r^—-—\
COUNTY SEATS
   tfc    IIOCATION IN STATr

-------
 38
County k
Cour.^y Cccio
Gilliam
(11)
Morrow
(25)

Umatilla
(30)










Wheeler
(35)

Grant
(12)










Narr.e of Site
Arlington
Condon
lone
Lexington
Heppner
Pendleton

Hermiston
Milton-Freewater

Pilot Rock
Three Towns
Weston
Ukiah
Cayuse
Meachara
Mission
Mitchell
Fossil
Kinzua
John Day
Retherford
Woods
Canyon City
Mt. Vernon
Prairie City
Long Creek
Monument
Bates
Seneca
Dayville
Granite
Site
Coco
11
21
21
22
31
01

02
03

04
05
06
07
08
09
10
01
02
03
01
02
03
Ok
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
Cwr.ed
AY
Private
Public
Public
Public
Public
Private

Private
Public

Private
Public
Private
Public
Private
Public
Private
Private
Public
Public
Public
Private
Private
Public
Public
Private
Public
Public
Private
Private
Private
Public
Operated
3y
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Private

Private
Public

Private
Private
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Private
Private
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Private
Private
Public
Public
Operation
Landfill
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Sanitary
Landfill
Landfill
Sani tary
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Landfill
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Population
Served
l.OOO
^,300
650
700
2,200

18.0OO
8,000

4,200
1,700
1,500
775
* • ^
120
50
^ ^*
225
^
200
500
^•+r-*0
875
9 ^
375
l,6oo
1,100
1,100
625
450
900
300
150
25
500
225
50
Suggested Disposal Site Usage:

Gilliam County, -

  Develop county cooperation with the two communities of Arlington and Condon.

Morrow Bounty -

  Develop county cooperation with communities with possible consolidation of
Lexington-Heppner disposal.

-------
                                                                           89
       County  (cont.) -
     A.  Morrow County - Heppner- Lexington
     B.  Morrow County - lone

        County -

  V/heeler County  is  so wide-spread that disposal sites cannot be consolidated.

  City-county coordination in disposal site operation should be developed and
county operation  is  suggested.

      County -

  Consolidation of disposal  sites is most important for better operation.

  Suggested consolidation -

     A.  Grant County - John Day, Canyon City, Prairie City, Mt. Vernon
          (develop 1  site; close  2 private sites - Woods and Retherford)
     B.  Grant County - Day vi lie
     C.  Grant County - Spray
     D.  Grant County - Monument

  fltilla County -

  Umatilla  County should be  involved in the operation of  the following site -

     A.  Umatilla County - Ukiah

  Cooperative agreement with city and  county  should be as follows -

     B.  Umatilla County - Pendleton,  Mission, Reith, Pilot Rock  (1  site)
     C.  Umatilla County - Milton-Freewater,  Umapine  (1  site)
     D.  Umatilla County - Indian Reservation-Cayuse  site
     E.  Umatilla County - Adams, Athena, Helix  (include  Weston if possible)
     F.  Umatilla County - Hermiston,  Boardman, Umatilla  City,  Stanfield, Echo

-------
90
            •03

  WHEELER.
                         ner
                                        06
                                  oi t io £008
                                    Q P«ndl*ton

                              UMATILLA
                                •0?
08
      fO?
                    .11
                         GRANT
                            05*
                             03
t
LOCATION IN STATE
                                 10
                                         COUNTY SIATS

-------
County &
County Cocie
Wallowa
(32)

Union
(3D



Baker
(01)






r;e.r.e of Site
Enterprise
Joseph
Wallowa
Union
North Powder
La Grande
Elgin
Conklin
Baker

Richland
Halfway
Sumpter
Unity
Haines
Huntington
oite
Code
51
41
31
01
02
03
04
05
01

02
03
04
05
06
07
Owned
3y
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Private
Public
Private
Public

Public
Public
Public
Private
Public
Public
Operated
By
Private
Public
Public
Private
Public
Private
Public
Private
Private

Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Operation
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Landfill
Open Dump
Open Dump
Sanitary
Landfill
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
91
Population
Served
2,600
1,500
1,500
1,500
400
10,000
1,300
800

10,000
225
500
100
200
325
700
Suggested Disposal Site Usage:
     A.  Baker County
     B.  Baker County
     C.  Baker County
     D.  Baker County
     £.  Baker County
Baker City and Haines
Sumpter
Richland, Halfway
Huntington
Hereford, Unity, Ironside (Malheur County)

-------
92
                             WA LLOWA
                                       A
                                     EntfirprUe
         UNION
                 BAKER.
   r
   /
COUNTY SEATS
              LOCATION IN STATE

-------
                                                                             93
->- 	 4-v C.
wO *-..* wjr ^^
Cour.ty GOCJ
Harney
(13)


Malheur
(23)














:'^r::o of Sice
Drewsey
Crane
French Glen
Burns-Hines
Ontario
Vale
Harper
Little Valley
Antelope
Beulah
Juntura
Willow Creek
Brogan
Ironside
Lytle Boulevard
Mitchell Butte
Adrian
Nyssa
Jordan Valley
McDermitt
Site
Code
01
02
03
04
14
15
11
13
16
12
10
09
08
07
06
05
Ok
03
02
01
Cv.v.ed
3y
Public
Private
Public
Public
Private
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Private
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Operated
By
Public

Public
Private
Private
Public
Public
Public

Public
Public
Public


Public
Public
Public
Private
Public
Public
Grerazion
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Landfill
Landfill
Open Dump
Landfill
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Landfill
Landfill
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Open Dump
Population.
150
150
100
5,500
10,000
3,000
25
50
50
25
200
200
50
100
1,000
150
800
4,000
500
600
Suggested Disposal Site Usage:

Harney County -

  County maintain rural sites and cooperate with Burns-Hines in operation.

Malheur J3ounty -

     A.  Malheur County - Nyssa-Vale-Ontario, 1 disposal site
     B.  Establish county sites and operate -

         Jordan Valley        - 1 site
         McDermitt            - 1 site
         Juntura              - 1 site
         Brogan-Ironside area - 1 site

     C.  Continue to operate county sites at Harper, Lytle Boulevard, etc.

-------
         o4 •d/ Burn*
    HAR.NEY
              ,03
MVALHEUR
LOCATION IN STATE
                                © COUNTY SEATS

-------
                                                                            95





                                 ADDENDUM B




     Proposed organization of a county solid waste management committee should




include as a minimum:



          One member of the county court



          The county road master or engineer



          A representative of the county health department




          One representative from the major city councils in the county




          A representative of the garbage collection services in the county




          A member of the staff of the county planning commission

-------
                                      GENERAL IN-'OKMATIC.'v
                            PROPOSED SOLID WAoTi LAND DISPOSAL SITE
  .'JAM:';  GF  CITE
                                    DATE
                                                                  ?heck Appropriate Box or Kill
                                                                   in Requested InformatTon
      PKCPOSLD SITa OWIIED BY - Public
                                       Private
        Addreu'j
     o-Th WILL BE OPERATED B¥ - Public
                                         Private
       name
       A Id re.:
     .":?:] DESCRIPTION - T
                            R
       Distance  from Nearest Community
       Distance  from Nearest Residence
                                     S 	  Tax Lot 	  Total Acreage
                                                 Name of Community 	_
                                                 Name of Nearest Public Highway
       Distance to Nearest Well or Spring
       Yes /__/  No /  /
                                              Distance from Highway
                                                feet  Map of Proposed Site Attached
ACCESS ROAD - Existing /  /  Will be Constructed /	/
  Maintained By 	  Type of Road Surface
  Width	Length 	

WILL SITE BE OPEN TO PUBLIC - Yes /  J  No /  7  Fee Charged - Yes
  Planned Number of Days Per Week 	  Hours of Operation 	AM
                                                                               PM
                                                                             rj
                                                                              2?
hours /_	/
 7.

 8.

 9.
10.
11.
WILL CARETAKER BE ON DUTY DURING OPERATION HOURS - Yes /~~J  No /  /
  Planned Facilities for Caretaker - Suitable Shelter //  Toilet /  /  Handwashing /
  None /	/

POPULATION DATA - Estimated Population Served by Site 	

ESTIMATED LIFE EXPECTANCY OF SITE - Number of Years
ZONING
  Is Proponed Site in Zoned Area - Yes /  /  No /  /  Enforcement Agency
                                     Present Land Use
       Hestrictions
HAS RJBUC HEARING ON PROPOSED SITE BEEN HELD - Yes /  7  No /	/  Is a Public Hearing
  Planned Before the Site is Operated - Yes /  /  No /  /

GENERAL CHARACTER OF SITE (Operational Area) - Quarry or Barrow Pit /~7  Level /~~J
  Gully-Canyon /  /Hillside /  /Marsh, Tideland or Flood Plain /  /

PLANNED USE OF COMPLETED SITE - Not determined /~7  Park or Recreational Area /~7
  Agriculture /  /Light Construction /  /  Other 	
     MARK ITl!X3 WHICH WOULD BE EXCLUDED - None
       buritible Material /  /  Dead Animals
       Automobiles /  /  Large Appliances
       Materials /	/  Other 	
                                                All Putrescible Wastes /	/  Bulky Com-
                                          f   Waste Oil /7  Sewage Solids /  /  Junk
                                          Demolition Wastes /  /  Tires /  /  Hazardous

-------
                                                                                   97

     BURNING OF BULKY COMBUSTIBLES PLANNED - Yes /7  No /7 (Burning Area Must be Located
       in Separate Area 500 feet Minimum Distance from Operation Area)
!5.  PLANNED FIRE PROTECTION - None /__/  Firebreak /	/  Water Under Pressure /	/
       Other 	

_!_£,.  PLANNED SOURCE OF WATER UNDER PRESSURE DURING EQUIPMENT OPERATION - Surface /^
       Well /_  /  500 Gallon or Larger Storage Tank /  7  Other   ^~	
17.  PLANNED FREQUENCY OF COVER - Daily /"~7  Twice-Weekly /  /  Weekly /	/   Monthly /	/
       Other 	,		

l8.  COVER MATERIAL - Planned Source of Cover Material - On Site /  /  Imported /  /
       Both /  /Other 	
       Characteristics of Soil - Loam /  /Sand / "7Clay / "7Sandy Clay /  /Gravel /

!9.  SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE PLANNED - Yes f~J  No /~~J  Undetermined /~7
       Proposed Method of Control	
20.  ESTIMATED GROUND WATER LEVEL - Have Test Holes Been Dug - Yes /7  No /7  Date 	
       Number of Test Holes 	  Average Depth	  Ground Water Encountered
       Yes /  7  No /  7  Average Depth 	  Sketch of Test Holes Attached - Yes [_
       No /  /
21.  EQUIPMENT  PLANNED FOR MAINTENANCE OF SITE - Rubber-Tired Front-End Loader /7  Crawler-
       Type Front-End Loader /  /  Tractor  (bulldozer) /  /  Steel-Wheel Compactor /  /
       Dragline  or  Shovel /  /Scraper - Pull /  /  Scraper, Self-Propelled /  /
       Other 	

22.   HAVE OTHER  AGENCIES HAVING JURISDICTION BEEN CONTACTED  (Air. Water, etc.) - Yes f~~J
       No /  /                                                                  	
23-
        Reports  Attached - Yes /	/  No /	(  Number of Reports

      PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR  OPERATION OF SITE
        Name 	
        Title _
        Address
        Phone
      REMARKS:
SIGNATURE OF PERSON COMPLETING FORM
                                                              Date

-------
         98
    DISPOSAL SITE
                               SOLID WASTE LAND DISPOSAL
                                    SITE EVALUATION
    METHOD OF OPERATION

    LOCATION
                                                COUNTY

                                                DATE
                                                                    WEATHER
                                                POPULATION SERVED

                                                SOIL CONDITIONS
 7.
                           X  -  INDICATES  VIOLATION  OF  OAR.  CHAPTER  333
 1.  ACCESS ROAD
         _Clearly Marked
         _We11 Maintained, All  Weather
         ~No Accumulation of Litter
 2.  CONTROLLED USE OF FACILITY
     	Necessary Signs
     	Limited Unloading Area
     	Satisfactory Fire Protection

 3.  BLOWING LITTER
          Control led
          No Accumulation
     DUST CONTROL
          Provided,  If Needed
BURNING. Yes £7  No £7
	Separated, Not Less Than 500'
	No Putrescible-Hazardous Material
	Accidental Fire Protection
	Required Burning Permits

WATER SUPPLY. Well l~7  Surface £7  Tank £7
	300-gallon Minimum - Under Pressure
	Available During Equipment Operation

SALVAGE. Yes £7  No CJ
	Removed Dally
11.   SIZE OF WORKING  FACE
     	Confined  for  Easy  Maintenance
12.   SPREADING AND  COMPACTION
          Necessary Equipment
     	Spread in Shallow  Layers
     	Compacted Thoroughly

13.   COVER MATERIAL
     	Aval 1 able-Imported if Necessary
     	Suitable  Type

li».   APPLICATION OF COVER  MATERIAL
       (Indicate/ / Dally
        Present  77 	 Times per Week
        Schedule) 77 Monthly
     	Covering  Schedule  Satisfactory
     	Compliance -   1A  Mile Requirement
     	No Waste  Exposed After Covering
     	Prohibited I terns  not  Salvaged

 8.   HAZARDOUS WASTES ACCEPTED.  Yes £7 No £7
     	Spec ia 1  Hand 1i ng
 9.   DRAINAGE CONTROL
         _Dtversion of Surface Water
         "No Dumping in Ground Water
         "No Visible Leachate
10.   VECTOR CONTROL
          Satisfactor
     Satisfactory
     Insects /~7 Rodents /~7 Birds /~7
                                                    15.  FINAL COVER - GRADING
                                                                                  Feet
     	Compacted Depth of 2
     	Uniform Layer
     	No Erosion of Fill
     	Stabilization of Completed Areas
16.  CARETAKER ON DUTY*. Yes £7  No /~7
     	Suitable Shelter           —
     	Toilet Facilities

17.  EQUIPMENT WASHING AREA*. Yes £7  No
     	Properly Maintained and Cleaned
     	Approved Waste Water Disposal
18.  STAND-BY EQUIPMENT
     	Available in Case of Breakdown
19.  OPERATIONAL PLAN
     	Satisfactory
                                                    ^Recommended
Days Per Week Open to Public_
Dumping Fee - Yes /~7  No / /
                                     Hours  Open  to  Public
                                                         AM
                  PM
£7 2k Hours
 REMARKS:
 PERSON  INTERVIEWED
 PERSON  COMPLETING  FORM
                                                 TITLE

                                                 TITLE

-------
                                                                                99
                                BOARD  OF HEALTH
                                                                        CH.  333
             Subdivision 8
         STORAGE, COLLECTION
    TRANSPORTATION AND DISPOSAL
            OF  SOLID WASTE
   [ED. NOTE:  Unless otherwise specified
 sections 38-005  through  38-025 of this
 chapter  of the  Oregon  Administrative
 Rules  Compilation  were  adopted by the
 Board  of Health. January 30, 1969. and
 filed with the Secretary of State. February
 4,  1969, as Administrative Order HB 211.]


   38-005 GENERAL INFORMATION AND
 DEFINITIONS.  As  used  in  these Regu-
 lations, unless  the context requires other-
 wise:
   (1) "Board"  means the State Board of
 Health^
   (2) "Cell" is that portion of solid waste
 in  a disposal site that is compacted and
 covered  on all sides  with  soil,  gravel,
 cinders or  similar inert materials.
   (3) "Collection Vehicle" is any vehicle
 used to transport solid waste.
   (4) "Composting" is the process of bio-
 chemical  degradation  of  organic  waste
 under controlled conditions.
   (5) "Disposal Site "means any land used
 for the  disposal of solid wastes including,
 but  not limited to,  dumps,  landfills and
 composting plants,  but does  not include a
 landfill site which is not used by the public
 either directly  or through a service and
 which is used by the owner or tenant there-
 of to dispose of sawdust, bark, soil, rock,
 building demolition  material  or  nonpu-
 trescible industrial waste products re-
 sulting  from the process of manufacturing.
  (6)   Hazardous  Solid Waste" is solid
 waste that may, by itself or in combination
 with other  solid waste, be infectious, ex-
 plosive, poisonous,  caustic  or toxic or
 otherwise  dangerous   or  injurious   to
 human, plant or animal life.
  (7) "Incinerator"  means a combustion
 device  specifically designed for the re-
 duction, by  burning, of solid,  semi solid or
 liquid combustible waste.
  (8) "Landfill" is  the disposal of solid
 waste by compacting and  covering  solid

5-15-69
waste at specific designated intervals but
not each operating day.
   (9) "Leachate*  is  liquid that has per-
colated through solid  waste.
   (10) "Operational Area" is the cell or
area in which solid waste is actively being
deposited.
   (11) "Person" means the state, any in-
dividual,  public or  private  corporation,
political  subdivision,  governmental agen-
cy, municipality, industry,  copartnership,
association, firm,  trust,  estate  or  any
other le^gal entity whatsoever.
   (12) "Putrescible Material" is organic
material that  can  decompose,  and may
give   rise  to  foul   smelling,  offensive
products.
   (13) "Sanitary Landfill"  is the disposal
of solid waste by compacting  and covering
at least once each operating day.
   (14) "Service Area"  is the geographic
area in  which solid waste  is collected or
which a disposal site  serves.
   (15) "Solid  Waste" means  all putres-
cible and nonputrescible wastes, whether
in  solid  or liquid form,  except liquid-
carried  industrial wastes or sewage or
sewage hauled as  an  incidental part of a
septic tank or cesspool cleaning service,
but  including  garbage,  rubbish, ashes,
sewage  sludge, street refuse, industrial
waste, swill,  demolition and  construction
waste, abondoned  vehicles or parts there-
of, discarded home and  industrial appli-
ances, manure, vegetable or  animal solid
and  semisolid  waste, dead  animals  and
other discarded solid  materials.
   (16) "Transfer  Station" is a unit  or
structure at which solid waste  is moved
from one storage unit or collection vehicle
to another, or which is used as temporary
storage for solid waste.
   (17) "Water" or "waters of the state"
include lakes, bays,  ponds,   impounding
reservoirs, springs, wells,  rivers,
streams,  creeks,  estuaries,  marshes,
inlets, canals, the Pacific Ocean within the
territorial limits of the State of  Oregon
and  all other bodies of surface or under-
ground waters, naturalor artificial, inland
or coastal, fresh or salt, public or private
(except those  private  waters whichdo not
combine  or effect a junction with natural
surface or underground waters), which are
wholly or partially within or bordering the

-------
    100
CH. 333
                        ORF.GQN ADMINISTRATIVE RULES	
state or within its jurisdiction.

   38-010 GENERAL  RULES FOR  ALL
DISPOSAL SITES.
   (1) General  Information.  Any  person
proposing to develop,  operate  or main-
tain A disposal site for solid waste  shall
furnish evidence to the  Board that the dis-
posal  site is planned  for  orderly devel-
opment  and operation  including the fol-
lowing:
   (a) Topographical information using 10-
foot  gradients showing  existing roads,
streams, ponds and lakes; existing build-
ings and well locations.
   (b) Geological  characteristics  of the
disposal  site,  including soil depths and
characteristics.
   (c) Information as to the ultimate use
and  life  expectancy of the  disposal site
including  estimated  population  to  be
served,  type of disposal  operation  and
source and availability  of  material to be
used as cover.
   (d) Disposal  site for ash and residue
from incinerator or composting operation.
   (e) Special wastes to be disposed.
   (2) Distances. All disposal site opera-
tions, except  sanitary  landfills, incin-
erators  or  mechanical  composting,  shall
be located  a  minimum distance  of 1/4
mile from  the nearest existing general
residential or commercial area other than
that used by the landfill operator.
   (3) Drainage.
   (a) The disposal site shall be so located
or so sloped that surface drainage will be
diverted around  or away from the oper-
ational area of the  site.
   (b) Truck washing  facilities,  if  pro-
vided, shall have a catch basin and drain-
age  system to carry the waste  water to a
waste water disposal system.
   (4) Access Roads. All  weather roads
shall be  provided from the public high-way
and county roads to the disposal site. Ac-
cess  roads shall be designed to minimize
traffic congestion and hazards.

   38-015  SOLID  WASTE DISPOSAL  OP-
ERATION.
   (1) General.
   (a) Salvage.
   (A) Salvage  operations  shall be under
the supervision of the  person  owning  or
operating the disposal site.
  (B) Salvage shall be removed from the
disposal site  at the end of each operating
day.
  (C) Food  products,  hazardous  mate-
rials, containers used for hazardous ma-
terials, or furniture and bedding with con-
cealed filling  shall not  be salvaged from
a disposal site.
  (D) Waste metal not salvaged at the end
of each  operating day, such as, but not
limited   to,   car  bodies,  refrigerators
washing  machines  or other  metallic  ob-
jects, shall  not be placed on any bank of
or in any waters of the state, but shall be
disposed  only  in  a  landfill  or sanitarv
landfill.                   ;..,.•         '
  (b) Vector Control.  Rodent and insect
control measures shall be provided.
  (c) Signs and Caretakers. Informational
and directional signs relating to the dump-
ing of solid waste shall be  posted at all
disposal sites.
  (d) Water  Under Pressure.  Except in
extreme freezing conditions, water under
pressure from  a water supply  or pres-
surized tank shall be available whenland-
fil equipment is being operated at the site.
Pressure tanks shall have a capacity of
not less  than 300 gallons.
  (e) Burning On Any  Premise. Putres-
cible material shall not be burned on the
premise except in an incinerator that is
capable  of reducing  the material to non-
putrescible waste.
  (Z) Sanitary  Landfill And  Landfill Op-
erations.
  (a) Frequency of Cover. When putres-
cible material is deposited  at a disposal
site,  cover material shall be applied at
intervals necessary to prevent the hazards
cited in this subsection. The Board, person
duly  authorized  by the Board  or county
sanitarian may  approve   less frequent
coverage where he finds that weather con-
ditions  or other conditions  make it  im-
possible to meet the normal required cover
schedule. In granting permission for less
frequent  cover,  the Board, person duly
authorized by the Board  or county  san-
itarian may attach any conditions he  finds
necessary to limit the operation under or
for the duration of the exemption to prevent
or  inhibit creation of  any hazards  cited
in this subsection.  Cover mate rial shall be
                                                                            5-15-69

-------
                                                                              101
                              BOARD OF HEALTH
                              CH. 333
 applied  at  intervals  necessary  to  pre-
 vent:
   (A)  vector  production and sustenance;
   (B)  conditions for transmission of dis-
 ease to man and animals;
   (C)  air pollution;
   (D)  pollution  of  surface  and  ground
 water;
   (£)  hazards  to  service  or  disposal
 workers or to the public.
   (b) Diversion.
   (A)  Drainage ditches shall drain surface
 water away from the filled area.
   (B)  Drainage ditches shall be construct-
 ed to allow free flow of water.
   (c)  Blowing Debris. Wind-carried ma-
 terial shall be controlled by a fence or
 other  methods.
   (d)  Compaction and Cover.
   (A)  Except  as provided in  paragraph
(f)  of  this  section, there shall  be no open
 burning of solid waste at the disposal site.
   (B)  Except  as provided in  paragraph
 (f) (A) of this section, solid waste depos-
 ited at a disposal site shall be  compacted
 and covered.
   (C)  Provision shall be made for winter
 cover material.
   (D)  Final cover over the completed  fill
 shall be not less than two  (2) feet of com-
 pacted earth.
   (E)  Finished slope of final cover shall
 conform to ultimate site use.
   (F)  A maintenace program for control
 of erosion and stabilization of the fill shall
 be provided after completion of the filling
 operation.
   (e)  Auxiliary  Equipment.  Provisions
 shall  be made for  auxiliary or  stand-by
 equipment  for operation of  the  disposal
 site.
   (f) Bulky Combustibles.
   (A)  Bulky  combustible materials such
 as trees, brush and similar material may
 be burned, but such  burning shall not be
 less than  500 feet  from  the present  op-
 erational area of the disposal site.
   (B)  Burning permits, as provided under
 state  statute or county ordinance, shall be
 obtained for special burning areas.
   (C)  Hazardous or putrescible materials
 shall  not be  allowed  in the burning area.
   (D)  Provisions  against  accidental fire
 shall  oe provided.
   (i)  Incinerator  Operation. If  ash  and
 residue  from an incinerator contains  pu-
 5-15-69
trescible material, ouch material shall be
deposited in a sanitary landfill.
  (4) Composting Plant Operation.
  (a) The  composting plant shall  be  op-
erated at all  times to conform to manu-
facturers' operating  instructions  or to
patent process.
  (b) All  portions  of  the  compostable
waste  shall  be  subjected  to  treatment.
  (c) Temperature  control  and  meas-
surement  devices  shall be  an  integral
part of the system.
  (d) Compost shall be removed from the
site not  later than  one  year after treat-
ment is completed.
  (e) Solid waste that is nonreducible by
composting shall be disposed of in a san-
itary landfill.
  (5) Special  Waste Disposal.
  (a) Industrial  Waste.  Operation of  dis-
posal sites for industrial solid waste shall
meet the minimum criteria for solid waste
disposal sites such as a sanitary landfill,
landfill,  incinerator or  composting oper-
ation.
  (b) Agriculture Solid Waste.
  (A)  Residues   from agricultural prac-
tices which are  not used for fertilizer or
for other  productive  purpose  and are not
salvageable shall be disposed of in a land-
fill, sanitary landfill,  incinerator or com-
posting operation.
  (B)  Land surfaces  upon which residues
from agricultural practices are deposited
as  fertilizer o  r  for disposal shall be
worked as soon as practicable.
  (c) Hazardous  Waste.
  (A)  Whenever  any hazardous materials
or  materials  that cannot be properly  dis-
posed of are  refused by the operator  of
the  site, notification of such refusal shall
be  referred  to the Board  by the site op-
erator.
  (B)  Information as to  the type and quan-
tity of such hazardous waste shall be  pro-
vided to the disposal  site operator and to
the  State Board  of Health by the person
discarding the materials.
  (d) Demolition Waste. Building demo-
lition,  construction  wastes  or  similar
wastes free  of putrescible or hazardous
material may be deposited in a disposal
site at which the  Board determines a health
hazard may not be created.

   38-020  STORAGE AND COLLECTION.

-------
     102
      i_J3_	     OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
   i I/  Nuisance Control. Storage of solid
        shall net create vector production
 .tnd sustenance, conditions for transmis-
 sion of diseases to man and animals  and
 nizaras to service or disposal workers or
 to the public.
   (£)  Solid Waste - Storage Removal  and
 Collection.
   (a)  Solid wastes containing putrescible
 materials shall be stored in  closed con-
 tainers.
   (b)  Containers  shall  comply with  the
 following:
   (A) Individual  containers for  manual
 pickup shall have a  tightfitting  closing
 dev^e,  hand holds or  bales,  be in good
 condition and have a maximum capacity of
 thirty-two  (32)  gallons. Collectors may
 refuse to  pick  up containers  of  a  gross
 weight of  more  than  seventy-five  (75)
 pounds.
   (B)  Storage bins  or  storage  vehicles
 shall  be  leak-proof, have tight  lids or
 covers that may be easily opened manually
 and  shall have suitable fittings to facilitate
 removal   or   emptying  by  mechanical
 means.
  (C)  Containers,  storage bins or storage
 vehicles shall be washable or  have liners
 of paper,  plastic or similar materials, or
 both.
  (D)  Storage houses  or rooms, if pro-
 vided, shall be of cleanable. rodent-proof
 construction with proper drainage. If not
 refrigerated,  such rooms shall  be ade-
 quately vented and all openings shall be
 screened.
  (£)  Unless  special service or special
 equipment is provided by the collector for
 handling.unconfined waste, materials such
 as rubbish and refuse, brush, leaves, tree
 cuttings and other debris for manual pick-
 up and collection  shall be in  securely-
tied  bundles or in boxes, sacks, or other
 receptacles,  and  solid waste  so  bundled
 shall not  exceed 60 pounds in weight and
 shall not  be more than 4 feet  in length.
  (F) During  mechanical transportation,
containers used for solid waste shall be
fitted with tight covers.
  (c) Removal  Frequency. Putrescible
 solid waste  shall  be removed from the
premises  at regular intervals not to exceed
7 days. Other solid waste shall be removed
at regular intervals to prevent rodent, in-
sect, fire  odor  and nuisance problems.
   (d) Cleaning  of  Storage Area.  Areas
 around storage  containers shall be cleaned
 regularly  to  maintain the area free from
 rodent  and insect attractants,  litter,  fire
 hazards and  other  nuisance    problems
   (3) Special Wastes.
   (a) Agricultural Wastes. Residues from
 agricultural practices that become wastes
 shall be  disposed  of in a disposal site
 which is in  conformity with the  require-
 ments  of  ORS  Chapter 459 and the ad-
 ministrative  rules and standards promul-
 gated pursuant thereto. Suchdisposal shall
 be  at   periods  when  weather  permits
 handling and disposal,  but not  less  than
 once each year.
   (b) Hazardous Solid Wastes. Containers
 for  hazardous wastes shall be marked to
 designate  the content as toxic,  explosive
 or otherwise hazardous and shall be de-
 signed  to  give protection to the collector
 and disposal site operator.
   38-025 TRANSPORTATION.
   (1) Collection  Vehicle Construction and
 Maintenance.
   (a) Solid waste collection vehicles shall
 be constructed, loaded and operated so as
 to prevent dropping,  leaking, sifting or
 escaping  of solid waste from the vehicle
 on the public highway.
   (b) When hauling solid waste which may
 be blown  or sift from the vehicle,  col-
 lection vehicles  shall have a cover which
 is either .\n integral part of the  vehicle
 or which is a separate cover of suitable
 materials  with   fasteners designed to
 secure all sides of the cover to the vehicle
 and  shall be used while in  transit.
   (2) Transfer Stations.   Transfer  sta-
 tions,  drop boxes or other intermediate
 means  of holding or  transferring solid
 waste  between the point of origin and the
 transporting vehicle  shall be  considered
 as part of the  collection and transport
 system. Such auxiliary units shall be con-
 structed to  prevent odors, leaking, sifting
 or blowing  of  solid waste and to prevent
 rodent and insect infestation. Areas around
 such equipment shall be cleaned at regular
 intervals, but  not less than once weekly
  (3J Cleaning.  Vehicles, transfer  sta-
tions,  drop boxes or other intermediate
devices used  in  transporting solid waste
 shall be cleanable and shall be cleaned at

                                5-15-69

-------
                                                                            103

                                BOARD OF HEALTH                  CH. 333
 weekly intervals to reduce odors, insects,    be disposed of in a sewer system, or at
 rodents  or  other nuisance  conditions.    the solid  waste disposal site, or by other
 Waste water from the cleaning process of    methods approved by  the  state or county
 containers of non-hazardous  waste  shall    health department.
5-15-69

-------
1C4





                                 ADDENDUM E




BACKGROUND INFORMATION NECESSARY  FOR PLANNING




     A.  Political Structure




           To understand the  problem of waste  disposal, general information




         about the state is helpful  and political  structure is one part of



         the information.



         1.  State Government




               Oregon  state government  is divided  into executive, legislative



             and  judicial  branches.




             (a)   Executive - The chief executive  is the governor.  He, the




                  secretary of  state  and the state treasurer are the major



                  elected  officials  of  the  executive branch.  There is no




                  lieutenant  governor.   In  1969, the Oregon Blue Book listed




                  over 100 departments,  boards, commissions and committees



                  functioning as permanent  agencies within the executive



                  branch.




             (b)   Legislative - The Oregon  State Legislature, known officially




                  as the Legislative Assembly, convenes every odd-numbered




                  year.  There are two houses, a Senate and a House of Repre-




                  sentatives.  Thirty senators are elected from 16 senatorial




                  districts every four years, and 60 state representatives are




                 elected  from 26 representative districts every two years.




                 Representation in both houses is apportioned according to




                 population.




            (c)  Judicial - The judicial branch consists of a supreme court




                 a special tax court created in 1958,  circuit courts and dis-




                 trict courts.   Oregon's $6 counties are  divided into 19

-------
                                                                        10!
         courts by non-partisan ballots.   District  courts are  esta-




         blished in 19 counties with population exceeding 13,000.




           Prosecuting attorneys,  who are the law enforcement  officers




         of the laws of the state, may be elected by district  or by




         county and serve under the direction of the state attorney




         general who is also an elected officer.  There are 36 dis-




         trict attorneys, 1 for each county in the state.



2.  Local Government




    (a)  County Government - There are J>6 county governments in Oregon.




         The governing body of each county operates under the general




         rules of the state and consists of 3 elective positions.  This




         body may be referred to as the "county court" or "board of



         county commissioners", depending on county charter or state




         law.



           The main functions of county government are to construct




         county roads and to administer, as required or permitted by




         state law, programs in the fields of law enforcement, taxa-




         tion, elections, records, social welfare, health and sanita-




         tion, land-use planning and other related services.




           Four counties have adopted home-rule charters  (Lane, Hood




         River, Washington and Multnomah Counties) as authorized by




         the State Constitution.  Under home-rule, counties are em-




         powered  to enact local legislation on  matters of county con-




         cern, even to establishing special county service districts.




         This  local legislation must be at least equal to state  law.




           Some state agencies such as welfare  and health and sanita-




         tion  depend greatly on county personnel,  supported by county

-------
106
             funds,  to  administer  the  programs.



               Plans for  remodeling state  government will materially af-



             fect  basic programs now being supported by county government.



        (b)   City  Government - City home-rule has been allowed as a matter



             of constitutional principle since the early settling of



             Oregon.  Municipalities draw  up their own charters and vary



             their systems of government to suit their own needs.  There



             are 229  incorporated  cities in Oregon.  The ordinances passed



             by cities  cannot conflict with state law.



    3.   Regional or District Governments



         There have  been established numerous districts for special ser-



        vices within  cities and counties.  Some of these districts overlap



        geographically and in types  of services allowed within counties.



        The main purpose for establishing  these special districts has been



        for a tax  base to support  the specialized services.



         A recent development has been the formation of regional councils



        of government which may include a number of county and city govern-



        ments.  Three areas in Oregon have had these administrative agree-



        ments in operation for some time.  One is the Council of Governments



        in Marion-Polk Counties.  Another is the Columbia Region of Associ-



       ated Governments which includes Clackamas,  Multnomah, Washington



       and Clark County in Washington.  Columbia County is a cooperating



        county, but not a member of the latter association.  The third is



        the Central lane Planning Council.



         Another special regional grouping overlapping county lines are



       the air pollution control regions of which there are 3.  The lane



       County Air Quality Control Region is a single county region.

-------
                                                                      10V
    Mid-Willamette Valley Air Pollution Authority includes  Polk,



    Marion, Yamhill, Linn and Benton Counties.   Columbia Region Air



    Pollution Authority includes Multnoman,  Clackamas and Columbia



    Counties.



4.  Governmental Reorganization



      Under the direction of the Office of the  Governor, a  committee



    developed a plan for reorganization of state government to be ac-



    complished in the 1970s.



      The state legislature in 1969 moved to adopt some of  the re-



    organization plan to reduce the number of boards and commissions.



    Some examples of changes were in the Executive Department, the



    Department of Transportation and the Environmental Quality Control



    Commission.



      The latter commission is directly involved with planning air  and



    water quality and solid waste.



      Also established by the 1969 legislature is a Constitution Re-



    visions Study Committee.



Environmental Resources




  The natural environment of the state has many resources that are



important to man and influence the uses he makes of them and his



adaption to them.




1.  Geography - Oregon covers a total of 62,06?,84o acres, or 96,981



    square miles of which 733 square miles is water surface.



      The outstanding geographical feature of the state is the Cascade



    Range running north and south down its entire length, about 100



    miles inland  from the Pacific Ocean.  Over 85# of Oregon's popula-



    tion lives within the western one-third of the state.  This area

-------
L08
       is generally moderate  in  climate  and  well  supplied with water.




       The remaining two-thirds  of  the state is located east of the




       Cascades and experiences  greater  extremes  in  climate.  This area



       has many portions  which are  arid.




         Oregon is  divided  into  ten physiographic regions.  Their major




       characteristics  are:



       (a)  Coastal Plain - Scattered plains, alternating sand dunes




            and marine  terraces  generally extending  only a mile or two




            in  from the Pacific  Ocean.




       (b)  Coast Range - Broad, gentle  folds or marine sediments, rarely




            exceeding 1,700 feet in the north and 3,500 feet in the south,



            Heavy precipitation, many short  east-west rivers providing




            valleys through which the coast  has access to the Willamette



            Valley.




       (c)  Klamath Mountains - Sharp ridges and deep, narrow valleys




            arranged haphazardly, and summit levels  generally between



            ^,000 and 6,000 feet.   Extreme isolation of parts of the




            region.  Population is  concentrated in the Rogue River




            Valley  which  provides for irrigated farming.




       (d)   Willamette Valley - Only large lowland west of the Cascades,




            containing two-thirds of the state's population, its largest




            urban centers, much of  its industry and most valuable agri-




            cultural land.  Willamette River flows north to meet the




            Columbia at Portland.  Serious flood hazard and poor drainage




            conditions in part of the region.




       (e)  The Cascades - Form a continuous barrier between eastern and




            western portions of the state with limited through routes.

-------
                                                                        109
     Heavier precipitation on the western slope  causing  distinct




     differences in climate,  vegetation and soils and resulting




     in very different basic  economies between the western  and




     eastern portions of the  state.   The highest point in the




     state is Mt. Hood at 11,2^5 feet.




(f)  Deschutes-Umatilla Plateau - Sloping gently from 3,000 feet




     in the south to a few hundred feet overlooking the  Columbia




     River, the region is cut by several streams which have formed




     deep canyons.  Interstream areas are mainly level and  have




     been little affected by  erosion which makes them suitable




     for dryland farming wherever the soil is sufficiently  deep.



     Vegetables and fruits are produced in a few irrigated  valleys




     of the plateau.




(g)  High Lava Plains - Consist largely of layers of lava covered




     with volcanic debris.  Extensive interior drainage, lack of




     precipitation, high elevation and poor soil restrict agri-




     culture to limited grazing in much of the area.  Some irri-




     gation near Bend, its major urban center.




(h)  Basin and Range - Long,  narrow, north-south lava ranges




     interspersed with broad, shallow basins filled with volcanic




     debris.  Shallow and usually temporary lakes, generally sparse




     vegetation.  Exception is Klamath Lake, which receives a more




     regular flow from the Cascades.  Major population center is




     Klamath Falls around which irrigation has been developed.




(i)  Owyhee Uplands - Covered largely by volcanic matter,  but




     lower elevations and better drainage than Basin and Range.




     Scattered peaks rise to over 6,000  feet, but irrigated

-------
LO
           valleys lie as low as ^,700 feet.  Population sparse, con-




           centrated in small areas where level terrain, good soil and



           availability of water permit intensive cultivation of sugar




           beets, alfalfa and truck crops.  Elsewhere grazing of cattle




           and sheep on low unit-capacity lands.




      (j)  Blue Mountains - The term "Blue Mountains" applies to the




           hilly and mountainous land of northeastern Oregon which in-




           cludes a variety of uplands and intervening valleys, complex




           in topography and rock type.  Gold, chromite and mercury can




           be found in the Wallowa, Greenhorn and Elkhorn Mountains




           although, at present, mining is of secondary economic import-



           ance to timber.  Agriculture is also found in the valleys




           which, although relatively small, has developed fertile soil




           where vegetables, fruits and irrigated hay are grown.  Unirri-




           gated slopes are generally suitable for dry farming.  Streams



           flowing east and north to the Snake River provide an important



           source of hydroelectric power.




      Geology and Soils




        The soils of western Oregon are generally acid and moderately




      to highly leached,  are derived principally from basaltic rocks




      and are of a somewhat heavy texture.  On the coast and along the




      coastal streams,  the alluvial soils are characterized by a high




      percentage of organic matter, severe acidity,  low nitrogen and




      poor drainage,  and  are used primarily for the  production of for-




      age crops.



        The lowland soils of the Willamette Valley are derived from




      alluvial material,  are only moderately acid, contain less organic

-------
                                                                         Ill
    materials and  are  frequently deficient in nitrogen.  Inadequate



    drainage  restricts the  full use of  the Valley for crop production.



    The  uplands of the Willamette  Valley and the foothills of the



    coast range are generally  well drained.  A high percentage of



    these uplands  is covered by forests and grass.



      The soils of eastern  Oregon  are more varied.  The most extensive



    are  those of the serai-arid plateaus, but there are also large areas



    of mountain and high plateau which  support forests on well-drained,



    acid soils where precipitation approximates  that of the Willamette



    Valley.   Productive irrigated  pastures may graze several cows per



    acre, while desert shrub areas may  require 75 acres or more  per



    cow, with great variations sometimes occurring within  short  dis-



    tances.



      Only 10# of  Oregon's land is suitable  for  cultivation, and this



    land lies primarily within the Willamette  Valley in western  Oregon



    and  in the brown soil  region  south of  the  Columbia River in



    eastern Oregon.  The remaining portion of  the  state is nearly all



    capable of supporting grazing and forestry with  the better suited



    lands lying at lower elevations and those  less well suited located



    primarily in the high regions of southern Coast  Range,  the Cascade



    Range and the Klamath, Blue and Wallowa Mountains.



3.  Climatology



      Oregon's geographical division by the Cascade  Range provides



    for two distinct climatic regions.  West of the  Cascades,  it is



    generally a temperate, moist, marine climate and east of the Cas-



    cades, it is a drier continental climate with a greater annual



    temperature range.

-------
112
         In western Oregon, average annual rainfall is generally over




       30 inches.  Along the coast, annual precipitation is nearly 75




       inches, rising to as much as 130 inches in the higher elevations




       of the northern section of the Coast Range.  In the valleys, it




       varies from less than 20 inches in the Medford area to more than




       50 inches all along the center of the Willamette Valley where the




       state's principal cities, Portland, Eugene and Salem, are located.




         On the eastern side of the Cascades, precipitation rate falls




       off rapidly and the interior generally has only 10 to 20 inches




       per year.  About 8056 of eastern Oregon experiences less than 15




       annual inches.  Precipitation becomes heavier again in the moun-




       tains of the northeastern section of the state to as much as 40




       inches annually in part of the Wallowa Mountains.




         Two-thirds of the annual rainfall in western Oregon occurs be-




       tween September and April.  In eastern Oregon, only half of the



       annual rainfall occurs during this period.




         Along the coast, snowfall generally averages 1 inch per year;




       in the Willamette Valley, between 6 and 13 inches; and in the




       Rogue Valley, 20 inches.  These snows usually stay on the ground




       a short time and do not ordinarily exceed 6 inches in depth.




         In the Cascades, annual snowfall averages over 5CO inches in




       many places, while most areas of eastern Oregon experience between




       10 and 5O inches, depending on elevation.  Snows remain on the




       ground longer than in western Oregon.




         Temperature along the coast never fall below zero and rarely




       exceed 100 degrees.  In the Willamette Valley, below-zero readings




       are rare and those over 90 degrees are usually limited to six or

-------
                                                              113






eight days per year.  From November through March,  cloudy weather




persists much of the time, but from late spring through early fall,




the region is frequently clear.




  In eastern Oregon, extremes in temperature of $k degrees below




zero and 119 degrees above have been experienced.  Generally,




January temperatures range between 15 and 30 degrees and those in




July range between 65 and 80 degrees.  The cloudy weather experi-




enced by the western portion of the state frequently extends over




into eastern Oregon during the winter months.  In general, however,




sunshine is most prevalent in the southeastern corner of the state




and decreases steadily toward the northwest corner.

-------
                PLATE II
     AVERAGE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION
ovin 10


M TO ID


10 TO H


10 TO


tf TO 10


  Hi
                                       - B
                                      CkMATI »"« •*•
                                       • m«
                                       =s=?
Scarcer   Oregon Water Resources Board
                 PLATE III
       AVERAGE ANNUAL SNOWFALL
                                         minis

                                      ovu  no
     n
                                      II TO 100


                                      10 TO »


                                      i/NOt. 10
                                      I,   1 —3
                                       M* »f ••• L»«I
 Source:   Oregon Water Resources Board'

-------
                                                              115






Water and Drainage Basins




  Oregon's water resources are one of the state's major assets




and contribute significantly to its economic development.  It is




estimated that approximately 50 million acre-feet of annual run-




off occurs from Oregon's rivers and streams, in addition to the




more than ISO million acre-feet annual average run-off of the




Columbia River.




  The state's principal problem in water supply at the present




time is the unequal distribution not only between areas, but be-




tween times of the year within the same areas.  Some areas have




high flood danger and saturated ground during one seasons with in-




sufficient supply during the opposite season.  Western Oregon,




where heavy rains fall during the winter months, has high water




at that period and low water during the summer months.  These




heavy rains affect the ground water tables and there is generally




a "lag effect" between the rainfall periods and  the ground water




change.  For instance, ground water tables may remain low until




December, raise and remain high until June or later and  then recede.




  In eastern Oregon where the rainfall is considerably less, high




waters generally  come in the  spring when winter  snows melt and




winter is frequently the low-water period.  Spring run-off will




affect ground  water tables until  late June and irrigation waters




will affect  the ground water  tables in late summer and  fall  in




eastern Oregon.

-------
                      PLATE IV
              OREGON DRAINAGE BASINS

so
                                  STATE WATER RESOURCES BOARD
                                         1962

-------
                                                                     117





C.  Human Resource Planning




    1.  Land-Use




          Oregon has a total of 62,067,840 acres of land.  Less than one-




        half of 1$ of this total is occupied by urban development;  less




        than 10$ is in agricultural use; 85% of the total is in forests




        and grazing; parks and recreation occupy about 2-1/296 of the total




        and a small area of 300,000 acres are of high elevations, in snow




        pack or severely eroded (Table I).




          Intensive agricultural use is heaviest in the Willamette Valley




        and consists of fruit and vegetable production.  Dry-land farming




        of grains and cattle production are located in the eastern part




        of the state.




    2.  Land Ownership




          Fifty-six per cent of the land in Oregon is in public ownership




        and over 50# is under control of the federal government.  State




        government controls about J>% of the land and local government con-




        trols 1% of the total (Tables II & III).




    3.  Land-Use Planning




          During the past 10 years, an effort has been made through the




        Bureau of Municipal Research at the University of Oregon to promote




        counties into establishing planning and zoning commissions.  The




        purpose of  these planning commissions is to  develop better land-use




        and development throughout the  county.




          The 1969  Legislature  took action to require all counties to  esta-




        blish planning and  zoning by 1971, or the state  would  assume the




        planning activity.  There is also an established Legislative Interim




        Committee of  the Oregon Legislature  to  study the future  use  of




        public  lands.

-------
                                                                                                                                                                             OO
      County

 Baker
 Ben ton
 Clackamas
 Clatsop
 Columbia
 Coos
 Crook
 Curry
 Dcschutes
 Douglas
 Gllllara
 Grant
 Harney
 Hood River
 Jackson
 Jefferson
 Josephine
 Klamath
 Lake
 Lane
 Lincoln
 Linn
 Malheur
 Marion
 Morrow
 Multnomah
 Polk
 Sherman
 TUlamook
 Umatilla
 Union
 Wallowa
•Wasco
 Washington
Whcclcr
Yamhill

Stale
 Urban

  .23
  .57
 1.76
  .77
 1.17
  .82
  .05
  .14
  .10
  .27
  .02
 1.20
  .29
  .13
  .18
  .35
  .01
 1.78

  .33
  .07
 4.13

2S.60

  .19
  .48
  .28
  .53
  .07
  .32
 9.19

 1.70

 .49
                                  Industrial
              .29
              .12
              .08
7.16
 .48
             4.02
              .20
              .23
              .08

TABLE
XXIII

LAND USE IN OREGON COUNTIES
Percentage of
Intensive
Agriculture
9.70
34.82
19.50
2.12
12.73
4.67
3.46

3.70
4.38

1.99
1.24
8.83
7.86
6.30
3.00
7.34
2.52
8.85
1.13
25.02
4.95
47.46
.99
20.51
41.68

4.91
2.65
2.15
2.22
3.96
46.28
.40
45.16
ToUl I.<'-ncI Area iii Ten Use-
Dryland
Farming










38.02

.06


1.17






.12

30.88


60.76

32.84
9.70
1.90
10.17




Forests
38.61
57.65
72.22
90.85
77.10
87.23
26.37
81.19
52.74
86.35

66.09
6.55
80.09
87.85
33.33
82.38
70.39
23.47
81.29
91.37
65.86
.65
42.71
17.87
50.08
51.58

85.95
34.24
65.67
52.56
31.58
50.53
30.51
52.71
Categoric:

Parks



1.54

.29

1.29

.02

.07

.15

.60

3.66





1.2S




1.02
.02






                                     .16
                                                  .10
                                                                6.52
                                                                               9.33
                                                                                          44.84
                                                                                                        .32
Conservation

     .66
    2.74
     .20

    4.67
                                                                                 5.41
                                                                                 3.48
    1.26
    2.39
    1.80
     .13
    3.24
     .05
    2.12
    7.74
    5.08

    5.62

    1.32

    3.02
     .33
    4.11
    7.60
     .92
                                                                                                                      2.25
49.38
 4.22
 5.79
 3.18
 3.04
 6.99
TO. 12
 3.37
38.56
 8.71
61.98
30.27
8S. 97
 5.39
 3.79
54.83
 6.18
15.43
66. 2C
 2.58
 7.50
 2.71
94.21
 2.25
39.08

 6.74
39.05
 7.44
29.11
17.56
35.65
53.05

69.09
                                                                                                                                   41.50
Non-Productive
Land
1.42

.53
1.25
1.17


8.60
.50


.32

2.54

.35
8.21
.04

.16

.46

.88

.31









.43
.49
Total I.-:nd
Are?
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100. 00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100. 00
100. 00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100. CO
100. CO
100. 00
100. 00
100.00
100. 00
100. 00
100.00
100.00
100. 00
•100. 00
100. 00
100. 00
100.00
100.00
100. 00
100. 00
100.00
100.00

-------
                                                                                TABLE XXIV
                                                                    PUBLIC LAND OWNERSHIP IN OREGON
                                                             Public Land Ownership in Acres
                                                              Public Land Ownership As Percent Of Total
                                                                            Land Area
County
Baker
Benton
Clackamas
Clatsop
Columbia
Coos
Crook
Curry
Deschutes
Douglas
Cilliam
Grant
Harney
Hood River
Jackson
Jefferson
Josephine
Klamath
Lake
T.ane
Llncolp
Linn
f'alhejr
Marioii
».lo. rc--v
Multnomah
Poik
Sherman
Tilltn.-jok
Ur.atilla
Union
••Vallowa
Wasco

Wheeler
Yamhill
Unallocated by county
Total Land Area
In Acres
1,973,760
427,520
1,209.600
524, 800
413.440
1,031,040
1.907.200
1.038.080
1.937.280
3.239.680
775,040
2,900,480
6,484,480
338. 560
1, 802, 880
1,148.160
1, 040. 000
3,822.720
5, 292, 800
2,926,720
630.400
1,468,160
6.316.800
750.720
1,317,760
271.360
472.960
531,200
713,600
2, 067, 840
1.300.480
2,033,920
1,527.680
458.240
1,092,480
453, 760

Total
981.440
104,247
653.551
168,245
38.436
342. 359
983.795
686.798
1.602.855
1.733.376
53,973
1,746,085
5,019,921
249, 124
952,842
309,113
725.511
2,114,585
3,951,308
1,782,487
227,490
600. 184
4.981,659
283.508
324, 349
100.612
55,941
54,908
474, 388
510,659
646,213
1,185,439
281,255
79,127
269,817
86,003
8,840
Federal
948,426
74,081
613,480
5,610
11.936
248.446
944, 042
671.442
1.435,735
1.646.906
41,715
1.729,750
4.713,874
211,365
915,056
296,645
706, 840
2,053,747
3.810,720
1,725,403
195,239
557,018
4.683,722
231. 308
291,777
74. 856
42, 390
47,086
145,351
455,719
628, 904
1,158,126
251,601
12, 385
258,239
68,581
8, 8-16
State
19,865
18,841
10.942
156. 868
16.170
63. 904
28,274
11.144
35, 155
57. 469
6.989
12.037
229, 883
5,776
10.715
6,453
12.278
47,486
125, 333
37. 194
23,979
28,154
276,237
37.216
23,935
12.977
8.708
3,857
316.082
27.320
11.032
13.163
17.325
53.438
6,587
1.840

Local
13. 149
11,325
29, 129
5,767
10. 330
30, 009
11,479
4,212
131.965
29,001
5.269
4,298
76,158
31,983
27,071
6,015
6,393
13. 352
15,255
19, 890
8,272
15,012
21,700
14, 984
8,637
12,779
4,843
3,965
12, 955
27,620
6.277
14,150
12,329
15, 304
4,991
15,632

Total
49.7
24.4
54.0
32.1
S.-9
33.2
51.6
66.2
82.7
53.5
7.0
60.2
77.4
73.6
52.9
26.9
69.8
55.3
74.7
60.9
36.1
40.9
78.9
37.8
24.6
37.1
11.8
10.3
6G.5
24.7
49.7
58.3
18.4
17.3
24.7
19.0

Federal
48.1
17.3
50.7
1.1
2.9
24.1
49.5
64.7
74.1
50.8
5.4
59. G
72.7
62.4
50.8
25.8
68.0
53.7
72.0
59.0
31.0
37.9
74. 1
30.8
22.1
27.6
9.0
8.9
20.4
22.0
48.4
56.9
16.5
2.7
23.6
15. 1

Stale
1.0
4.4
09
29.9
3.9
6.2
1.5
1.1
1.8
1. 8
0.9
O.-l
35
1.7
0.6
0.6
1.2
1.2
2.4
1.3
3.8
1.9
4.4
5.0
1.8
4.8
1.8
0.7
44.3
1.3
0.8
0.6
1. 1
11.7
0.6
0.4

Local
0.7
2.6
2.4
1. 1
2,5
2.9
0.6
0.4
6.6
0.9
0.7
0.)
1.2
9.4
1.5
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.7
1.3
1.0
0.3
2.0
0.7
4.7
1.0
0.7
1.8
1.3
0.5
0.7
0. S
2.9
0.5
3. •)

Total
                                61. 641. COO
34.370,409
31, 916, MR
1,774,636
                                                                                                      679, 500
                                                                                                                      55.8
                                                                                                                                   51. S
                                                                                                                                                2.9
                                                                                                                                                           1. 1
Note: Some totals do not add due to roimdinj;.
                                                                                                                                                               \D

-------
120

                                     TABLE XXV

                72D2RAL LAND OWi\2^3HI? IN C^ITGGN BY AGENCY

                        IN RANK CrO^ii O7 SJZ12 Of HOLDINGS

                                                                 Acres


       2urc:,u of Land Management                               15, 9S7, 354
       jorcs. Service                                          15,CGI, 833
       l?ish .ir.d Wildlife Service                                   444, 024
       bureau c-f Reclamation                                      173,447
       Naticiic.1 Park Service                                      160, 877
       N2.vy                                                        98,646
       Corps of Engineers                                           59, 473
       -ray                                                       i&,ss2
       Agricultural Research Service                                 14, 594
       Boaneviile Power Administration                               1, 511
       Bureau of Indian Affairs                                       1, 218
       I7ede.-ai Aviation Agency                                         971
       l/Iari:i;-i3 Administration                                         917
       Air 7o.-ce                                                      802
       Coast Guard                                                    683
       Veterans Administration                                         474
       i7ederal Communications Commission                             109
       Bureau o* Mines                                                  47
       Post Office Department                                           15
       General Services Administration                                   7
       i^ublic Health Service                                    	1

                Total of 21 Agencies                            31, 916, 368 (s.)


      (a)  Does not add to total due to  rounding.

-------
                                                                     121
Public Transportation




(a)  Highway



       As of July, 1962, Oregon's highway and road network totaled




     7^,968 miles.  Of this, 7,577 miles were with the State  High-




     way System, 3^>^l8 miles were county roads,  4,398 miles  of




     city streets and the remaining 28,075 miles  were roads ad-




     ministered by federal agencies such as forest roads, national




     park roads and Indian reservation roads.




       Oregon has two Interstate Highways:  Route 5, the Pacific




     Highway, runs from Washington to California through the




     Willamette Valley in western Oregon; and Route SON, extend-




     ing from Portland east along the Columbia River and south




     along  the eastern edge of the state to Ontario and Boise,




     Idaho.  Two  other highways  carry traffic north and  south




     through Oregon,  the coast route and Highway 97 through Bend




     in  central Oregon.  Two east and west highways, besides SON,




     run through  the  central part of the state through Bend.




       In  1963» 530  companies engaged in public  transportation




      services.  Ninety-four (9*0 carried passengers and  four-




      hundred and  thirty-six (^36)  carried  freight.




 (b)   Rail  Transportation




        Principal  railway companies  in the  state  are  the  Southern




      Pacific and  the Union Pacific.  The  Southern Pacific operates




      1,800 miles  of track primarily in  the Willamette Valley and




      western Oregon and parallels Highway  5-   The Union Pacific




      operates  1,600 miles of track carrying  traffic east from




      Portland  along the Columbia River  and south to Ontario  and

-------
          PLATE V
  TRAFFIC FLOW  -  1962
    v  ^f**^>f's~~»—*.  - --r  :vv >; ' • • • r



                                   '
SOURCE:  OREGON OUTDOOR RECREATION

-------
                                                                    123
        Boise, Idaho, paralleling Highway &ON for the most part.




          A jointly-used line operated by Great Northern connects




        the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific lines in central




        Oregon and runs through Bend, paralleling Highway 97 •




    (c)  Water Transportation




          Waterways offering transportation to serve Oregon are the




        Columbia River, its tributary, the Willamette River, and the




        Pacific Ocean.  The Port of Portland is easily reached  by




        ocean-going vessels and some  can go to The Dalles.  Barge




        traffic can go regularly as far east as Pasco, Washington




        and  seasonally as  far as Lewiston, Idaho.  Barge  traffic can




        also  go up the Willamette as  far as Corvallis.




          Oregon's principal port is  Portland.  There are 25 port




        authorities in  the  state with two  major ports on  the Pacific




        Ocean - Coos  Bay and Astoria.




    (c)  Air  Transportation




          There are 188 airports, landing  fields  and airstrips  in




        Oregon.   The  state is  served  by  8  scheduled  airlines and one




        non-scheduled freight  carrier with connections  to Hawaii,




        Alaska, Canada,  Mexico, England  and the Far  East.




5-  Population Trends




      According to forecasts by  the  Oregon  State Board  of Census,




    Oregon's population will reach  2,V/7,000 by 19&5, an increase  of




    706,000 people,  or 2o.6'/i growth over  a  ^5-year period.  Nearly




    half of this growth,  or 2^2,000 people, is expected to occur in




    the 3 counties which make up the Portland metropolitan area.




      Lane County, especially in the Eugene-Springfield area, may ex-

-------
pect 107,000 people and the 5 counties between Portland and Eugene




are expected to add 109,000 people.




  In I960, approximately two-thirds of Oregon's population was




concentrated in the Willamette Valley area and by 1985, this con-




centration is forecasted to reach nearly ?C$»




  The eastern counties are expected to continue to lose population




to the western part of the state and show an over-all slower




growth rate.




  These growth rates will not affect each age group uniformly.




The largest proportionate increases will be generally in the older




and younger age groups.  The group between 35-5^ years will show




the smaller increases or losses.  This forecast included natural




increase by excess of births over deaths, and migration both in




and out of the state due to employment opportunities.

-------
                                                                        125
                              REFERENCES CITED
1 "SANITARIAN'S HANDBOOK - Theory & Administrative Practice",  Ben Freedman,
  M.D., MPH, Peerless Publishing Company, 1957, page 2.

^Ibid., pp. 13-14.
^Oregon State Board of Health, Annual Reports,

^Public Law 89-272, 89th Congress.

^Oregon Blue Book, 1969-1970.

 "The Canned Food Reference Manual", American Can Company,

  Resources fo
  March, 1964.
Q
 "Population and Household Trends in Washington, Oregon and Northern Idaho,
  1960-1985", Business Research Division, Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone
  Company, March, 196? •
n
 "Resources for Development", Oregon Department of Planning and Development,
  Members of the Solid Waste Section, Oregon State Board of Health, who

  served as Project Staff:

                         William B. Culham, Project Director
                            Supervising Sanitarian

                         Guy F. Beachler
                            Sanitarian

                         Bruce B. Bailey
                            Sanitarian

                         Kay Sorensen
                            Secretary
   Special  assistance by:
                         Data Processing Section
                             Oregon  State Board of Health

                         Sanitation Personnel
                             County  Health Departments

                         Oregon  Sanitary Services Institute

                                                                   ya396

-------