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
------- |