IMPROVING
MANAGEMENT
-------
IMPROVING RURAL
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
This publication (SW—107) was written
by
THEODORE L. GOLDBERG
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1973
-------
An environmental protection publication
in the solid waste management series (SW-107)
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.20
-------
FOREWORD
This report surveys what has been done and can be
done to raise the quality of solid waste management in
rural America through existing technology. The aspects
covered include planning for solid waste management;
types of collection, processing, and disposal methods;
means of financing systems; and citizen support. Although
the priority in the report deals with handling wastes from
rural residences, any methods discussed can be incorporated
into handling commercial, industrial, or institutional wastes
in rural counties and communities. Two problem wastes--
agricultural wastes and abandoned vehicles--are not covered.
Sources providing more detailed information on many of the
topics discussed are included in the bibliography.
We hope that this report will guide rural governments
and concerned citizens in exploring and implementing ac-
ceptable, workable solutions to solid waste problems in the
areas where poor practices still persist.
--Arsen J. Darnay
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste Management Programs
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author wishes to thank the many individ-
uals who provided information or ideas affecting
this report. He especially appreciates the use
of material from reports by Spindletop Research,
Inc., and by the Kentucky Department of Health,
Division of Solid Waste: Transfer Stations and
Rural Collection System Requirements.
The line drawings of equipment prepared by
Newell J. Mastin included in this report deserve
particular commendation.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
THE RURAL PROBLEM 1
PLANNING AND ORGANIZING SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 5
Determining Objectives 6
Evaluating Existing Conditions and Practices . . 6
Evaluating Alternatives for Improved Practices . 8
Recommending Preferred Systems 8
Implementing the System 9
ELEMENTS.OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS 12
Storage 12
Collection and Transportation 13
House-to-House Collection 15
Mandatory Collection 17
Voluntary Collection 18
Collection Equipment 19
Small Containerized Systems 19
Types of Containerized Systems .... 21
Locating Container Sites 25
Container Site Requirements 26
Selecting Collection Equipment 28
Collection Routes 32
Problems of Containerized Systems . . 34
Transfer Stations 38
Types of Transfer Stations 39
Equipment 41
Locating Transfer Stations 44
Site Requirements 45
Operating the Transfer Station 51
Collection Routes 54
Processing 54
Incineration 54
Composting 5^
Other Process Methods 55
Disposal 56
Present Practices 56
Sanitary Landfill 60
Equipment Used 61
-------
FINANCING
Financing Methods 65
Sources of Financial or Technical Assistance . . 68
Cost Comparisons 69
CITIZEN SUPPORT 75
REFERENCES 80
BIBLIOGRAPHY 82
FIGURES
1. The percentages (by type of waste) of privately
and publicly operated collection services in
rural areas are compared with the percentage
of individuals handling their own waste 14
2. House-to-house service is the most common
type where collection service is available .... 15
3. Front-loading collection vehicles are popular
for small containerized systems 23
4. Rear-loading packers use an overhead winch
to empty containers 23
5. Side-loading packers use a special attachment
to empty containers 23
6. Description form for a container site is useful
in comparing potential sites 27
7. A worksheet is useful for calculating container
requirements 29
8. A worksheet is useful for estimating route
collection times 33
9. Collection truck discharges waste into stationary
packer for loading into transfer trailer 41
10. Unloading containers requires adequate
maneuvering space at transfer stations 42
vi
-------
11. Pull-trailer attached to a truck allows a
combined load of 61.2m3 (80 yd3) 43
12. Gooseneck trailer lifts a 15.3-m3
(20-yd3) container 43
13. The site construction used at different
transfer stations can vary considerably 48
14. L-shaped retaining walls minimize the
container maneuvering required 48
15. The choice of wall design is influenced by
construction costs and the size and shape
of the land used for the transfer station site ... 49
16. Tepee-shaped lids prevent rain or snow from
accumulating on lids 52
17. Large lid openings facilitate disposal of
bulky wastes 52
18. Lids made of wire mesh screen are light-
weight and easy to open and close 52
19. Incinerator with a 21, 800 kg (24 ton)/day
capacity is used where adequate land for
disposal is scarce 55
20. These types of dump sites are common in
rural America 57
21. Dump survey indicates a number of variables
related to the practices of dump users 59
vii
-------
IMPROVING RURAL
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
THE RURAL PROBLEM. . .
Until recently, residential solid wastes were seldom con-
sidered a problem in most rural areas. Rural residents
burned much of their rubbish, fed garbage to the farm animals,
and dumped or buried other types of solid waste on remote
sections of their land. If the rural resident was reluctant to
deface his own property, an abundance of neighboring ravines,
creekbeds, or roadsides provided convenient disposal sites.
Once an easily accessible dump site emerged, other people in
the area would frequent the location and within a short time a
fair-sized open dump would be in operation. The consequence
of such disposal practices today is a rural America pockmarked
with more than 25,000 active promiscuous dumps.
In addition, more than 10, 000 authorized disposal sites have
been developed to serve both commercial collectors and pri-
vate householders. The vast majority of these are, in actuality,
dumps. Open burning was, and still is, a common method of
volume reduction at these sites.
In small communities the dump often has been a popular
gathering place for the townspeople. Witness one individual's
description of a community dump:
The dump serves not only as a disposal site for the
public's garbage, but also as a social gathering
place for people of all ages. The young kids seem
to enjoy driving back and forth over the narrow
suspension bridge, and the dump makes a conveni-
ent turning-around place. They also like to gather
there to talk, drink beer, and shoot crows and
squirrels--that seems to be good sport in that town.
Some of the older people seem to like these activities
too;. . . quite often it seems that while one person is
dumping, a friend will pass by on the roadway and
stop to talk for a while. The dump's location makes
this social gathering place possible; it's just slightly
-------
out of town and there's a big wide spot in the
road where several cars can pull over at one
time.
This social relationship between a dump and its tributary
population is not necessarily typical of all rural areas.
Where such a relationship does exist, however, citizen
support for improved solid waste practices is more diffi-
cult to achieve. Fortunately, with more stringent National,
State, and local legislation, together with increased land
values and a new environmental awareness, people are
beginning to demand changes in the old practices. User
comments about their dumps such as "this has always been
the dump"; "it's a fine dump"; "good the way it is" are
changing to complaints such as "it's an eyesore"; "remove
off road"; "it's a bad mess--been there too long--County is
way behind the times. "2 Perhaps the changing attitudes of
people can be best exemplified by one dump user who queried,
"who'd complain about a dump?" and then added, "it is an
eyesore though."
Indeed dumping does create an eyespre in the rural areas of
our country. The more than 35,000 active sites also mean ro-
dent infestation; vector generation; health, fire, and safety
hazards; air and water pollution, and decreased land values.
In addition to these sites, numerous, though uncounted, aban-
doned dumps are waiting to be cleaned up.
Even with the new awareness of environmental problems
pervading the Nation, the enthusiasm and the improvements
being initiated in urban areas have not, for the most part,
extended to the pollution problems in rural America. A com-
parison of statistics from the 1968 National survey substan-
tiate this fact all too vividly. ^
Forty-two percent of the individuals in rural areas, versus
3 percent in urban areas, have no household collection by
either public or private sources. Based on population, 48
percent of the rural communities exercise no jurisdiction
over collection; 39 percent exercise no jurisdiction over dis-
posal practices. Comparative figures for urban areas are
5 percent and 22 percent, respectively. According to the
-------
survey, for collection and disposal of wastes, urban com-
munities budget (per resident) four times the funds allocated
by rural communities. The survey further showed that the
overall number of active promiscuous dumps within a rural
community's boundaries is 11 times greater than that for an
equivalent population in an urban area-rural areas average
slightly more than one active promiscuous dump for every
2,000 residents. Some of the wastes dumped in the rural
areas probably are generated in the urban areas.
Why are solid waste management practices in rural areas
a seriously neglected problem? Possible reasons include the
following:
1. Citizens fail to recognize the need for improve-
ments. Their attitudes range from indifference to
outright resistance to change. The user comments
quoted previously illustrate this range of opinions.
2. Adequate or equitable financing for improved
practices is difficult to obtain. Average family
incomes and governmental tax bases often are
low; sparse population results in a correspondingly
higher per capita cost for adequate service; and,
the lack of complete accounting data on solid waste
expenditures precludes the determination of total
existing costs.
3. Legislation and ordinances necessary to authorize
and enforce good practices are either so badly frag-
mented, unenforceable, or nonexistent that opera-
tional standards for most rural solid waste manage-
ment practices are inadequate.
4. Authority for solid waste handling is fragmented
among many governmental entities and agencies.
This fragmentation is compounded by the lack of
cooperation among the municipalities, counties,
and regions, and among different governmental
agencies.
5. Acceptable disposal operations to serve an area do
not exist. Rather, disposal is often at numerous,
scattered sites that cannot be acceptably operated.
-------
6. The number of personnel properly trained to plan,
implement, or operate a satisfactory solid waste
system is not adequate.
7. Solid waste collection systems are not available
to transfer waste to an acceptable disposal site.
8. Information on sources, types, and volumes of
waste being generated in a particular area is not
available.
9. Physical constraints such as terrain and road and
bridge conditions can limit collection equipment
usage and disposal site selection.
-------
PLANNING AND ORGANIZING
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Planning is the initial step in any improved solid waste
system. Planning poses such basic questions as; What do
we have now and how well does it work? What do we need?
What is the best way to achieve our goals ?
For many rural localities an informal planning process-
where one or a few individuals develop a workable plan to
propose to the governing authority—may be sufficient. In
other areas it may be necessary to designate a certain agency
to develop a formal solid waste plan. A county road depart-
ment, health department, public works department, or the
county commissioners themselves may be assigned the task.
Or a special board or ad hoc committee may be set up to
develop a plan. This committee may comprise volunteer
members from the communities to be included in the plan,
as well as public officials and members of private industry.
Whatever the institutional framework, specialized assist-
ance from private consulting firms and professional planners
is sometimes obtained. Members of the planning organization
also sometimes specialize or assign different subgroups with
the responsibility for studying specific tasks such as data
collection, legislation, technical practices, finance mechan-
isms, and public information.
One of the first decisions in developing a rural solid
waste plan is the geographical area to be included. The most
economical systems probably should ignore political boundaries
to regionalize the solid waste system and minimize per capita
costs. Realistically, however, the boundaries of a region often
coincide with the jurisdictional boundaries of the governing
agencies; solid waste planning for a single county is most
common.
When a plan is being designed for a single county, the
county's governing agency should assume responsibility for
implementation. In multijurisdictional regions, special dis-
tricts, authorities, or private nonprofit corporations might
-------
be established as functional organizations, depending upon
the State's enabling legislation. The degree of actual parti-
cipation by the governing bodies can vary considerably. For
instance, many incorporated communities within an area
often will participate in developing a regional plan wherein
the communities maintain autonomous collection systems,
while the entire region is served by a central disposal site.
Another alternative would be a centralized public or private
agency to provide both collection and disposal services for
incorporated and unincorporated areas.
No matter who does the actual planning, whether a single
individual or a formal planning group, these tasks must be
considered:
Determine objectives.
Evaluate existing conditions and practices.
Evaluate alternatives for improved practices.
Recommend preferred systems.
Implement the system.
Determining Objectives
The planner's first responsibility is to decide what is to
be accomplished. Possible objectives include reducing costs
of present systems, providing a better level of services, con-
forming with State or Federal legislation, or simply "closing
dumps." Initially, the actual solid waste management needs
of the planning area, or the potential objectives, may be only
vaguely conceptualized.
Evaluating Existing Conditions and Practices
To determine what is occurring, whether changes are
actually needed, and, if so, specifically what these changes
are!, an inventory of current practices can be valuable. It
answers the question "What do we have now?" and also pro-
vides a data base for comparing solid waste management al-
ternatives. Surveys of public opinions are occasionally used
-------
during this planning stage to ascertain what the citizens
consider their needs to be. The following checklist is a
useful guide to additional information beneficial to planning.
• Determine the amount, character, and sources
of solid wastes, including special solid wastes
such as abandoned motor vehicles, diseased
trees, water and waste treatment sludge, dead
animals, and hazardous industrial and chemical
wastes. Identify the proportions of wastes coming
from residential, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural areas.
• Determine the existing solid wastes management
service areas, seasonal variations, and other
local peculiarities of solid wastes generation.
• Determine the quality of storage practices from
all solid wastes sources and identify practices that
need improvement.
• Identify and determine the capacity, extent of ser-
vice, quality, and other attributes of all collection
systems (public, private, and individual).
• Determine the extent, acceptability, number, and
type of on-site disposal and reduction methods,
including at least residential backyard burning,
other open burning, on-site incineration, and
garbage grinding.
• Identify all disposal, reclamation, reduction, and
transfer sites and facilities. Determine the re-
maining life, cost, and acceptability of these facil-
ities, both public and private.
• Account by weight for all solid wastes generated,
transported, and disposed within the study area
and for the movement of solid wastes into and out
of the area.
• Identify legal rules, regulations, ordinances, ad-
ministrative structures, and other local conditions
that affect solid wastes management systems.
-------
Determine local political, economic, and
social factors affecting solid wastes management.
Describe and assess the existing solid wastes
management systems and summarize the existing
problem areas.
Project future solid wastes management needs for
the study area. For this projection, collect data
on such items as population projections, future
land use, zoning, industrial growth, recreation
development, agricultural needs, and development
of adjacent urban areas.
Evaluating Alternatives for Improved Practices
If, after existing practices in the area have been studied,
improvements are needed, the next task is to decide what al-
ternatives are available. In deciding among alternatives, the
different elements of a system-storage, collection, transpor-
tation, processing, disposal, financing—are all interrelated
and a change in one can affect the others. The location and
number of disposal sites, for example, affect the costs of
different collection methods which in turn affect the possible
methods of financing.^ The economic and technical feasibility,
the political acceptability of the different alternatives, and the
alternative's capacity to accommodate future needs are the
major determining factors in selecting an alternative.
Recommending Preferred Systems
Once the planner decides upon a solid waste program to
meet the needs of the region, both the governmental agencies
involved and the citizens involved must approve the plan. Agency
approval is needed to make the plan a legal reality; citizen
approval, to make the plan a physical reality. Without citizen
acceptance, lasting improvements of solid waste management
practices are impossible to achieve.
8
-------
Implementing the System
Problems to resolve when implementing a new solid
waste management system include:
• Determining whether additional State or local
legislation is needed.
• Deciding who will be responsible for regulating
the new system.
• Deciding whether the different elements of the
system will be publicly or privately operated.
• Choosing appropriate financing mechanisms.
• Informing the general public of the new program.
• Reviewing and updating the system.
If legislative authority does not exist or is inadequate, new
State, regional, or local legislation may be necessary to permit
implementation. A plan for a multicounty solid waste authority,
for example, dictates that counties are legally empowered to
form joint authorities to handle solid waste. Many plans also
recognize a need to pass local ordinances which set minimum
operational standards for solid waste practices where no adequate
standards exist.
Regardless of who operates the solid waste system, some
public authority must be responsible for regulating and maintain-
ing adequate practices. This agency's responsibility can vary
from licensing private contractors to actually operating the entire
solid waste system for an area. The governing officials who
approved the plan may delegate this responsibility to an existing
agency, such as a county health department or road department,
or a special organization may be created specifically to regulate
the solid waste management function.
In the past, private operators have provided the majority of
the available collection services for rural areas. At least one
half of these services have been relatively unsupervised by any
public agency. As a result, system inadequacies exist, such as
competitors with overlapping routes, inadequate equipment,
-------
varying qualities of services, and no service available to the
more sparsely populated regions. A number of local authori-
ties now are trying to extend solid waste service to more res-
idents by franchising or licensing private operators to serve
specific regions. Other local officials are operating the ser-
vices for their jurisdictions as a public agency. A third or-
ganizational alternative is to develop a private nonprofit organ-
ization to provide services. A combination of efforts also
frequently occurs where, for instance, private contractors
collect the waste and dispose of it in a publicly-operated land-
fill. Using a public agency for operating a solid waste system
has certain advantages: (1) efficient public operation should
be less expensive than private operation because there is no
profit factor; (2) levels of service can be more easily adjusted
to community needs; and (3) operating procedures can be more
closely regulated.
Utilizing the private sector for operation of a solid waste
system can be desirable if:
• Well equipped private operators are already
working in the area or will come to the area.
to provide the needed services.
• The public authority responsible for the service
does not have sufficient manpower or equipment
to operate an adequate solid waste system. Some
counties, for instance, do not have road depart-
ments and use State road services.
• Capital financing for a public system is difficult
to achieve.
• Local politics impede public operations.
• Public operation is highly inefficient.
Once the agency responsible for supervision is chosen and
the work effort is assigned to the public and/or private sector,
the next question to be resolved is that of financing the system.
Even assigning the entire work effort to the private sector does
not eliminate this question.
10
-------
Should the private operator charge the governmental
authority or the individual directly? If the public authority
pays the private operator or operates the system itself,
should the funds come from the general tax fund, from special
tax levies, or from a user charge paid by the individuals? If
a user charge is levied by either a publicly or privately oper-
ated system, should it be a flat rate or a varied rate scale ?
Should the capital required to initiate the system come from
private sources, general obligation bonds, or revenue bonds ?
The final task in planning a new solid waste system is that
of assuring citizen support. If a public education program has
been adequately pursued during the planning stage, the public
will have had input into the planning decisions. During actual
implementation, residents must be thoroughly educated to
changes which directly affect them to secure their cooperation.
11
-------
ELEMENTS OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Solid waste management systems have five basic opera-
tional elements: storage, collection, transportation, pro-
cessing, and disposal.
Storage
Storage is concerned with handling solid waste at the source
of generation—the residence, commercial establishment, indus-
try, or institution. Rural storage facilities presently cover the
spectrum from 209-1 (55-gal) burn barrels, old wash tubs, and
wooden boxes to standard galvanized cans, plastic bags, and
mechanically-emptied bulk containers. Studies indicate that
poor facilities predominate.6-8 Enforcement regulations governing
on-site storage are available for approximately 35 percent of the
households and commercial establishments in rural areas. This
is not surprising when one considers that 42 percent of the rural
households and 38 percent of the commercial establishments have
no collection services.
The sparsity of adequate on-site storage facilities is a con-
sequence of both public apathy and lenient regulatory enforce-
ment by governmental agencies. Considering the public health
and safety hazards posed by poor storage practices, and the in-
creased handling required where collection is provided, proper
storage'obviously is a major determinant in an adequate solid
waste management system. It makes little sense to close com-
munity or promiscuous dumps in an area, if households and
businesses are allowed to maintain mini-dumps in their backyards.
The governing agency of an area can help improve storage
practices in two ways: (1) by instituting a good public information
program to generate positive citizen action; and (2) by developing
a solid waste ordinance which incorporates strong enforcement
of adequate storage practices.
12
-------
Collection and Transportation
Active promiscuous dumps are visual evidence that many
unincorporated areas have inadequate or no collection systems.
Prevailing practices include:
• Resident responsibility for hauling and disposing
of his own waste.
• Private collectors using pickup or dump trucks
to collect small routes.
• Private or public collectors using modern com-
paction vehicles.
• Combinations of resident responsibility and
private or public collection mechanisms.
Presently, the first two procedures appear to predominate
in rural areas, and both have proved inadequate. Increasing
citizen awareness and improved legislation have fostered dra-
matic moves toward the latter two collection methods in many
areas across the country. This impetus is expected to increase
at an ever-expanding rate as still more areas recognize the need
for solid waste management improvements and realize that solu-
tions do exist. Figure 1 indicates who presently performs the
rural collection service for various types of waste.
Collection practices which have proved successful in rural
areas include; (1) house-to-house collection; (2) small container-
ized systems; (3) transfer stations; and (4) combinations of the
above systems. Several criteria are used to evaluate different
collection alternatives:
• Ability of the alternative to provide the level of
services needed or desired.
• Initial capital costs of each alternative, including
land acquisition, construction of facilities, equip-
ment purchases, and site improvements.
• Annual operating and maintenance costs, including
a sinking fund for replacement of equipment and
disposal sites.
13
-------
HOUSEHOLD
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
INSTITUTIONAL
DEAD ANIMAL
ABANDONED VEHICLE
£•?•] Individual Firm or Citizen
ill Private Collector
I I Public Agency
Figure 1. The percentages (by type of waste) of privately
and publicly operated collection services in rural areas are
compared with the percentage of individuals handling their own
waste.
14
-------
• Dynamic ability of the alternative to accommo-
date changes in population and waste generation
rates. (This is especially important in areas
with large seasonal fluctuations.)
• Public support which the collection alternative
can generate.
9 Public health, legal, safety, and aesthetic ac-
ceptability of the alternative.
House-to-House Collection. Where collection service is
available in rural areas, house-to-house collection is most
frequently used (Figure 2). Variations of this method often are
Figure 2. House-to-house service is the most common
type where collection service is available.
15
-------
labelled according to the location where the storage container
is serviced, such as alley, backyard, or curb collection, or
according to the procedures used such as set out-set back
service. Since low population densities are a distinguishing
factor of rural areas and costs are a major consideration, the
most prevalent collection variation seems to be the least ex-
pensive form—usually curb service where the containers are
placed alongside the road which the collection vehicle travels.
The average frequency of collection is once weekly. A 121. 6-1,
or 32-gal. can is the maximum size container desirable; some
areas require plastic or paper bags be used to permit faster
collection.
In some areas of the country, roadside service is commonly
referred to as "mailbox" collection. As the name implies, the
residents are required to place their wastes next to their mail-
boxes. This system assumes that: (1) if a mail truck can travel
the road, a collection vehicle can travel the same route; (2) over
the years the post office has probably developed the most effi-
cient routes for traveling the region; and (3) since all mailboxes
on a rural route are required to be accessible to a driver and
on the same side of the road, containers will only have to be
picked up from one side cf the road. For households that do
not have mailboxes on the postal routes, the customer and col-
lection agency must agree on a mutually acceptable collection
site. Any house-to-house routes, such as "mailbox", require
that collection days and times be predesignated so that residents
know when to set out their waste. Because, in northern climates,
scheduled collection can be difficult to maintain during the winter
months, the householders must maintain a larger number of
storage containers than would otherwise be needed.
One of the main arguments against rural house-to-house
service is that a sparse population cannot economically support
such a method. Some estimates of the minimum number of col-
lections required per day to support the service range from 200
to 250. The tendency then is toward collection routes that serve
small communities together with very remotely located house-
holds. For instance, where 300 community services might be
collected on one day, the next day's route might handle under
100 isolated services. The critical population density necessary
16
-------
to support the service will vary considerably for different
areas and is determined by comparing the labor costs, equip-
ment costs, and system's efficiency with the financial capa-
bilities of the area.
Mandatory Collection. Some States empower local author-
ities to require mandatory collection throughout their juris-
diction. The governing agencies must provide adequate ser-
vices and residents must accept and pay for the service. Ex-
ceptions are allowed where the householder can prove that he
is privately disposing of his waste in a satisfactory manner—
usually regularly burying the waste on his property in a location
approved by the governing agency. There are three requisites
for instituting mandatory collection;
• State enabling legislation must exist to allow
local governing agencies to enact ordinances
requiring mandatory collection.
• An economically feasible system must be
available to provide collection service to all
residents.
• The governing agencies must have the capa-
bility, or private collectors must be available,
to operate the system.
A mandatory house-to-house collection system for an entire
area can offer several advantages.
• It collects the largest percentage of generated
household waste of any system.
• It permits a high level of scheduled service to
the rural resident and business establishments.
• It establishes uniform fees for rural areas.
• It provides a system by which user charges can
be collected.
• It allows for development of a reliable budget to
pay operating and capital expenses.
• A centralized sanitary landfill can be used which
incorporates economies of scale.
17
-------
Disadvantages of the system include:
• Costs are usually higher than those for
container systems or transfer stations.
• Homeowners must cooperate in setting
out containers and following scheduled
service.
• Litter problems may occur if bags are
torn or if containers are upset along the
road.
• Travel may be difficult for collection
vehicles when servicing very isolated
areas or when bad weather conditions
exist.
• Only limited types and amounts of bulky
wastes can be collected without a special
collection crew.
Voluntary Collection. Although mandatory collection is
desirable, legal, political, or economic reasons preclude its
use in most rural areas. Usually house-to-house collection
is a voluntary service. The advantages and disadvantages are
similar to those for the mandatory routes with one major dif-
ference. The percentage of generated waste collected will drop
considerably from the theoretical 100 percent collection of
mandatory system and costs per capita served will correspond-
ingly rise. One area, after a year of offering countywide volun-
tary collection to the rural population, has a 30 percent usage
rate. Other areas expect a voluntary house-to-house system
to eventually collect up to 60-85 percent of the generated waste.
A second difference is the fact that voluntary systems do not
have the guaranteed revenue base of mandatory collection. In
voluntary systems, a residential user charge based on the actual
amount and type of waste collected is desirable. Otherwise one
homeowner may join a voluntary service at the fixed rate and
several neighbors may place their waste with the paying customer
for free disposal.
18
-------
Setting the user fee by the amount of waste collected
can have negative effects. People maybe tempted to il-
legally burn or promiscuously dump excess waste not
covered by the basic charge.
Typical charges for either mandatory or voluntary once-
a-week collection service range from $2 to $4 per month.
Collection Equipment. Where adequate house-to-house
systems are operating, side-loading and rear-loading com-
pactors are the most commonly used vehicles. Load capaci-
ties for either vehicle typically range from 7.6 to 22.9 m , or
10 to 30 yd^. Such factors as type of terrain, road and bridge
conditions, limitations of gross vehicle or axle weights, haul
distances, and amounts of waste to be collected determine
vehicle size.
In purchasing a collection vehicle, the following questions
should be considered.9
• What routine maintenance is required ?
• How often do major parts have to be repaired
or replaced and at what cost?
• Where is the nearest facility for having major
repairs made?
• Where can parts be obtained and what kind of
delivery schedule can be expected?
• How complex is normal operation of the vehicle?
• What type of operator training program is needed and
who will provide training and at what cost?
• What are expected operational and maintenance
costs?
• What kind of trade-in value can be expected?
• Will obtaining standby equipment present a problem?
Small Containerized Systems. Where house-to-house col-
lection is not economically or politically feasible, two other
methods successfully being used are small containerized
19
-------
systems and transfer stations. Although both alternatives
are often termed transfer stations, here they are differen-
tiated by size and method of handling. The small containers
(. 8 to 8 m^j or 1 to 10 yd ) are emptied into a collection ve-
hicle; the transfer station containers (11.5 to 38. 2 m^, or
15 to 50 yd^> or trailers (up to 57.3 m3 or 75 yd^) are hauled
directly from the transfer site to the disposal area to be
emptied.
The first nationally publicized rural small containerized
system was a project supported by the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency in Chilton County, Alabama. In the 4 years since
the project's inception, the small container alternative has
been implemented in at least 150 rural counties in 14 other
States. The advantages of a small container system are that:
• A collection system is provided where no other
method has existed.
• Promiscuous dumps are reduced and community
dumps are eliminated.
• Public acceptability is usually relatively high.
• There is considerable operational flexibility to
adjust to population and waste generation changes
by changing the number of containers and the
site locations.
• Costs for developing individual container sites are
relatively low.
• A centralized sanitary landfill can be used which
incorporates economies of scale.
• The system is well adapted to servicing commer-
cial stops.
• It is well adapted to serving recreational areas.
• Multiple container site locations provide close
proximity between containers and users.
20
-------
Disadvantages of small container systems are that:
• Initial capital equipment cost is high.
• Unsanitary conditions are created at sites
unless they are properly maintained.
• Containers are often abused.
• Financing with user charges cannot be utilized
except for commercial services.
• User cooperation is required to carry waste to
container sites.
• A substantial number of small accessible sites
must be available for containers.
• Period of time waste is stored at residence
cannot be controlled.
• Existing private house-to-house collection in
area of container sites could be decreased.
• Residents with no means of transportation have
difficulty utilizing the containers.
• Containers located near municipalities, though
intended to serve only rural areas, may be used
by town residents if inadequate city service exists.
• Only limited types and amounts of bulky wastes
can be collected without a special collection crew.
Not more than 75 percent of the rural residents will prob-
ably use the containers for several reasons-some individuals
have no means for transporting their waste; others prefer
dumping on their own property; and still others continue to
promiscuously dump even after the improved alternative is
implemented. Commercial establishments, small industries,
and institutions desiring service on their premises, are either
provided containers by the operating agency or required to pur-
chase and maintain their own containers.
Types of Containerized Systems. Three basic types of small
containerized systems are being used in rural areas—front-,
21
-------
rear-, and side-loading (Figures 3,4, 5). Each has certain
specific characteristics itemized below:
Front-Loading Containerized System
• Vehicle crew size: one driver
• Typical container servicing time: 1 to 2 min
• Container site development: requires pull-off
area from main road; gravel or paved surface
is common
• Container sizes: . 8 to 8m , or 1 to 10 yd3
q
• Typical packer body sizes: 15. 3 to 27. 5 m ,
or 20 to 36 yd3
• Site maintenance: usually a special crew cleans
sites periodically
• Type of wastes collected: any wastes which will
fit inside container
• Vehicle flexibility: can service only front-loading
containers; rarely used for house-to-house col-
lection
Rear-Loading Containerised System
• Vehicle crew size: 2 or 3 persons
q
• Typical container servicing time (for 4. 6-m , or
6-yd3, container): 2 to 6 min, including some
litter cleanup
• Container site development: requires area for
truck to back up to container; gravel or paved
surface is common
q q
• Container sizes; . 8 to 8m , or 1 to 10 yd0
q
• Typical packer body sizes: 12.2 to 22. 9 m , or
16 to 30 yd3
• Site maintenance: collection crew cleans up as
containers are emptied
22
-------
Figure 3. Front-loading collection vehicles
are popular for small containerized systems.
/>€>'•
m.J f*»r
Figure 4. Rear-loading packers use an
overhead winch to empty containers.
Figure 5. Side-loading packers use a special
attachment to empty containers.
23
-------
• Type of wastes collected: any wastes that
will fit into rear-loading hopper
• Vehicle flexibility: can service combination
of rear-loading containers and house-to-
house collection
Side-Loading Containerized System
• Vehicle crew size: normally 2 persons
• Typical container servicing time: 1 to 3 min
(including some litter cleanup)
• Container site development: if users and
collection vehicle can stop safely along road,
site needs to be only slightly larger than
containers; otherwise pull-off area is common
with gravel or paved surface
• Container sizes; . 8-3. 1 m3, or 1 to 4 yd3
• Typical packer body sizes: 9. 9-24. 5m3, or
13 to 32 yd3
• Site maintenance: collection crews clean up
as containers are emptied
• Types of wastes collected; any wastes that
will fit in containers, plus any bulky wastes
that can be placed in the side or rear doors
of collection vehicle
• Vehicle flexibility: can service combination
of side-loading containers and house-to-house
collection
Because it requires the minimum crew size and has the
fastest servicing time, the front-loading containerized system
is a very popular type for rural areas. The flexibility of com-
bining house-to-house service with containerized collection,
however, affords the other two methods a strong advantage.
The following design criteria are applicable to any of the three
types.
24
-------
Locating Container Sites. User convenience and suit-
able land availability dictate container locations. User con-
venience requires establishing a maximum driving distance^
to a container, ideally 1 or 2 miles. Unfortunately, economics
may require this maximum to be 5 or 6 miles. An alternative
would be to establish a maximum driving time to a container
for any user. This is more difficult because driving times
depend on local terrain, vehicle type, and individual driving
characteristics. A one-way driving time of 8 to 10 minutes is a
reasonable objective.
The procedure for establishing preliminary container
locations is as follows:
1. Identify the collection system area using county
highway maps, topographic maps, air photos,
on-site surveys by automobile or other means.
If possible, break population densities down into
detailed locations of individual residences, schools,
businesses, and any other sources of waste gen-
eration.
2. Select a maximum distance or maximum driving
time criterion to be used for the collection
system.
3. Identify groups of potential users, based on the
criteria selected in item 2, to be served by sepa-
rate container locations (i. e. , all users are within
X miles or X minutes of a container).
Ideally, each container storage unit should be located as close
as practicable to the center of the group of houses it will serve.
This is not always possible because a suitable container site may
not be available at this location. Attempts should be made, how-
ever, to have the individual transfer his waste no further than the
distance he previously had to travel for disposal. Locating con-
tainers close to old dump sites takes advantage of the user's
operational habits; but the container should be located at least a
short distance away for two reasons:
1. Too frequently, users revert to previous practices
and tend to use the dump rather than the containers
when they are located next to each other.
25
-------
2. Dump sites were originally located using the "out
of sight, out of mind" concept and, as a result,
are often situated in remote areas. Container sites,
conversely, should be located to afford maximum
accessibility and convenience to the user.
In addition to areas near old dump sites, other container
locations which should be considered include:
• Schools
• Service stations
• Grocery stores and other commercial estab-
lishments
• Churches
• Community centers
• Parks and recreation sites
• Litter-barrel sites
• Road intersections
Containers are frequently located on the shoulders of roads
and highways, but they must be placed where they do not cause
hazardous conditions for people depositing wastes or for the
driving public. The appropriate State agency (usually the Depart-
ment of Highways) must approve any container location on rights -
of-way under their jurisdiction. Many private property owners
will allow free usage of their land in exchange for the convenience
of a nearby container.
Container Site Requirements. The type of containerized
system used determines container location layouts. Side-loading
systems require that the collection vehicle be driven alongside
the containers; rear-loading systems require maneuvering space
to back up to the containers; front-loading systems require that
the vehicle drive forward to the containers. (See Figures 3, 4,
and 5.) Any container site must have a sufficiently large area to
permit waste unloading, container servicing, and vehicle man-
euverability without causing hazardous traffic conditions. The
26
-------
area required for the sites varies considerably with type of
container used and the roads along which the containers are
placed. In a side-loading system where the users or collec-
tion vehicle do not have to pull off the road, the site needs to
be just large enough for placement of the containers (approx-
imately 9 m2, or 100 ft2 for one side-loading container),
Most sites for all three systems will require a pull-off and
turn-around area. A minimum area of 360 m2 (4000 ft2) with
a 9-m (30-ft) clear distance between the container and the
roadway is usually adequate. (See diagram in Figure 6.)
(SITE NO.)
In County on Highway Headed Toward
km (m i) o f ^^^^_
km(mi) of Container Site No. Route No.
Sight Distance: m(ft) Ahead; m(ft) Back.
SITE REQUIRES: ( ) No work — can be used as is; ( ) Gravel; ( ) Fill;
3 m 21 m t 6 m
7Tbfi7"_J2PJ.';i "'(ZOfiT ( ) Cut; ( ) Grading; ( ) Drainage pipe; ( ) Other.
/o "T T
't \ ,2m No. of Containers Size of Containers
'9m (30ft) \Uofn
/ I \ J REMARKS:
Figure 6. Description form for a container site is useful in comparing
potential sites. (From Parrott, Ely, and Hunt, Consulting Engineers,
Lexington, Kentucky.)
27
-------
The container site must be usable under all weather con-
ditions and should be adequately graded for drainage. To avoid
muddy conditions and erosion, the site may need to be surfaced
with gravel, asphalt, or concrete. Initially, only minimum
container site preparation should be performed. If, after oper-
ations begin, the site is not used effectively, it may be necessary
to move the container. The final preparation cost can range from
zero to more than $200 per site depending upon the amount of de-
velopment needed to allow adequate site usage.
A form (Figure 6) is useful for recording descriptions of
potential locations and needed site preparation. Site prepara-
tion may require special equipment and labor which are not
readily available to the collection agency. Often county road
crews or private contractors are utilized. Furthermore, an
arrangement should be considered whereby the State highway
Department provides equipment, materials, and labor necessary
to prepare and maintain container sites on their rights -of -way
in lieu of operating and maintaining a highway litter-barrel col-
lection system.
Selecting Collection Equipment. The size of a containerized
system vehicle is subject to the same selection factors as those
used for house-to-house collection equipment— type of terrain,
road and bridge conditions, limitations of gross vehicle or axle
weights, haul distances, and amounts of waste to be collected.
Once the sizes of the collection vehicles are decided, the approx-
imate number of containers that these vehicles can collect in a
single trip can be determined using the following formula:
truck capacity
Y 100 AT
compaction X -r-r^ - • = No. containers
container capacity ,. fullness of .. A ,
Q . ,Q. J ratio . collected
m° (yd0) container
q Q
As an example; How many 4. 6-m0 (6 -yd ) containers can be
collected by a 23-m (30-yd^) collection vehicle without returning
to the disposal site? Assume that the containers are normally 70
percent full and that the loader has a compaction ratio of 4. 5 to 1;
28
-------
23 m3 (30 yd3)
4. 6
(6
X 4.5 X
100
70
= 32 containers
Determining the required container capacity at a given lo-
cation is based upon: (1) the number of users of the site; (2) the
quantity of waste generated by the users; and (3) the frequency of
container collection (Figure 7).
WORKSHEET USED FOR SIZING CONTAINER UNITS
(1)
Highway
identification
(2)
Collection
point
(3)
Number
of waste
sources
(4)
Weight
of waste
(Ib or kg)
(5)
Volume of waste
(m3 or yd3)
Uncompacted
Compacted
(6)
Number
& size of
containers
Column
(1) Identify highway name or number
(2) Identify collection point by letter or number
(3) Number of users served by container location
(4) Weight of waste handled at container location per collection
(5) Volume of waste handled at container location per collection
(6) Number and size of containers required to hold uncompacted volume
at each location
Figure 7. A worksheet is useful for calculating container require-
ments. (From G. A. Ross. Rural Collection System Requirements.
Frankfort, Division of Solid Waste Disposal, Kentucky State Department
of Health, 1971. p. 21.)
29
-------
The residential population served by container sites is
estimated by multiplying the number of residences by an
average occupancy rate. The average number of persons
per household in a specific county is available from the U.S.
Bureau of the Census. In addition to residences, businesses
and other waste generators may use the site and have to be
considered.
The most satisfactory method for gathering the data is to
actually survey present amounts of waste being disposed of.
Seasonal fluctuations and estimates of the waste being pro-
miscuously dumped or burned should also be evaluated. Sur-
veys and estimates of rural household waste generation range
from .45 kg (1 lb)/capita/day to over . 9 kg (2 lb)/capita/day.
These surveys do not usually consider bulky wastes, agricul-
tural wastes, or wastes from commercial, industrial, or
institutional sources.
To estimate waste generation, if no other design data are
available, an average of . 15 m3 (. 20 yd 3)/ family /week or . 7 kg
(1. 5 lb)/capita/day for household waste can be used. The waste
generated daily per person is multiplied by the number of
people who will use the site and added to the volumes or weights
of waste from other site-users, such as schools or small busi-
nesses. If weights are used, they must be divided by the ex-
pected waste density to determine the volume generated. Typical
loose densities for residential waste range from 74. 1 to 118. 5
kg/m3 (125 to 200 lb/yd3). Multiplying the daily volume by the
number of days between collection, gives the required container
volume.
Here is a typical example. Calculate the container volume
required at a rural location which is serving 35 residential units
with once-a-week collection. An average occupancy rate of 4.0
has been obtained from the Census; no other waste generators
are expected to use this site. The waste density is expected to
average 89 kg/m3 (150 Ib/yd3).
30
-------
Where:
waste generation rate = . 7 kg (1. 5 lb)/capita/day
(from survey or estimate)
weight of waste = 98 kg (210 lb)/day
[35 units x 4 people x .7 kg (1. 5 lb)/capita/day]
volume of waste =1.1 m3 (1.4 yd0*)/day
[(98 kg/day -r 89 kg/m3) or (210 Ib/day -r 150 lb/yd3)]
average weekly volume = 7. 7 m (9. 8 yd3)
[seven days x 1. 1 m3 (1.4 yd3)]
Then,
required container volume = 8 m3 (10 yd )
Possible container combinations that will satisfy the
required container volume are;
three 3. 1 m3 (4 yd3) side-loading containers
two 4.6 m3 (6 yd3) rear-loading containers
two 4. 6 m3 (6 yd3) front-loading containers
Since some containers are not always filled to their rated
capacity and since users do not adjust their waste disposal to
the collection vehicle schedule, a sufficient excess storage
capacity must be designed into a container system. Increasing
the volume capability of a site to 120 to 125 percent of intended
volume should be sufficient.
Occasionally this excess design capacity will be exceeded
during peak load periods, such as after holiday weekends or
during spring cleanups. If the peak load periods can be antici-
pated, increased collection frequencies or additional containers
should be utilized.
In rural collection systems, the sizes of containers common-
ly used are:
31
-------
• Side-loading: 2. 3 and 3.1 m3 (3 and 4 yd3)
• Rear-loading: 3.1, 4.6, and 6.1 m3 (4,6, and 8yd )
• Front-loading: 3.1,4.6, and 6. 1 m3 (4,6, and 8 yd3)
In addition to the number of users and the waste generation
used in the sample calculation, the frequency of container col-
lection is a third factor affecting the required container storage
capacity of a site. For instance, if collection had been twice^,
rather than once, a week, in the calculation, a single 4. 6-m
(6-yd3) container would have been sufficient. Collection frequency
is governed by: (1) the demands of the users; (2) health and safety
requirements; (3) the ability to provide the service; (4) State laws
and regulations; and (5) local ordinances. Container service
varies from daily to once a week; two or three times a week col-
lection is common.
More frequent collection may be required during the fly
season. Since residents store garbage at their houses for vary-
ing lengths of time before bringing it to a container, this lengthens
the period during which the waste is available for fly propagation.
Even with frequent collection, the containers must be maintained
in a sanitary condition.
Collection Routes. After the containers have been located,
collection routes should be established so that all containers are
collected with a minimum of expenditure by the collection agency.
A collection system may consist of a single route which is collect-
ed in one day or several routes which are collected over a period
of days. Typically a proposed rural collection area is traversed
by a complex system of roads and selection of the best possible
routes from this road network is not always a simple task. It
may be necessary to study numerous trial routes before the best
arrangement is found (Figure 8).
The total collection time is used for comparing alternative
routes and is directly related to the collection cost. Some costs,
however, are not necessarily related to the total collection time.
Travel on congested or hazardous roads increases the probability
of vehicle accidents; use of roads requiring frequent stops or
negotiation of steep grades can cause increased maintenance and
32
-------
WORKSHEET USED TO ESTIMATE ROUTE COLLECTION TIMES
(1)
Route
(2)
Collec-
tion
point
(3)
Distance
(km or
mi)
(4)
Avg
speed
(mi or
km/hr)
(5)
Travel
time
(min)
(6)
No. of
con-
tainers
(7)
Compacted
volume
collected
(m3 oryd3)
(8)
Container
collection
time
(min)
(9)
Total
collection
time
(min)
Column
(1) Identify route by letter or number
(2) Identify collection point by letter or number
(3) Distance between collection points
(4) Average speed traveled between collection points
(5) Column (3) -f- Column (4) X 60
(6) Indicate number of containers at each collection point
(7) Compacted volume of waste collected at container site
(8) Time that collection vehicle is at the container site
(9) Column (5) + Column (8)
Figure 8. A worksheet is useful for estimating route collection
times. (From G.A.Ross. Rural Collection System Requirements.
Frankfort, Division of Solid Waste Disposal, Kentucky State Department
of Health, 1971. p. 23.)
33
-------
operation costs. Consequently, the shortest route may not be
the most economical.
Analysis of the collection routes connecting the container
sites requires the use of detailed highway maps which indicate
distances and road types. If possible, the collection equip-
ment should be road-tested to determine expected average
travel speeds. By adding the total expected travel time to the
on-site collection time, one can determine the total time on the
collection routes. Approximate on-site collection times for the
three systems are:
min
Front-loading container 1-2
Rear-loading container (4. 6 m , 6yd^) 2-6
Side-loading container 1-3
The route length is adjusted depending on the time required
for collection and the quantity of waste collected. Depending on
the size of the collection system, more than one route and/or
collection vehicle may be required. The time-estimating pro-
cedure is repeated using alternative routes until a set of routes
is found with a minimum total collection time for the entire sys-
tem. More than one collection vehicle may be required to ser-
vice the routes with the desired frequency, or working overtime
hours or additional days may have to be considered.
Problems of Containerized Systems. Although small con-
tainer systems are being successfully used in many areas of the
country, planners of new containerized systems should be aware
of certain drawbacks or problems involved with this alternative.
The first and most obvious constraint involves handling bulky
wastes.
Disposal of bulky goods—refrigerators, stoves, furniture-
is a prominent solid waste problem for rural areas. At most
present dump sites, numerous bulky items are thrown out with
the rest of the family waste. It is a type of waste that has to be
disposed of properly if a solid waste system is to provide com-
plete service. The small containerized methods can deal with
bulky wastes only to a limited extent.
34
-------
Front-loading systems are designed to handle only
bulky wastes that fit into the containers. A pickup or
open-bed truck, is sometimes used periodically to clean
the sites and collect bulky items illegally placed alongside
the containers. Rear-loading and side-loading vehicles
can handle limited amounts of bulky wastes, but they too
are primarily intended to handle normal residential wastes.
Overloading bins with bulky or special wastes, such as
brush, yard wastes, fence or baling wire, tires, and demo-
lition debris can be a major problem for small containerized
collection systems. Potential solutions for handling these
wastes include;
• Providing the user access to authorized
disposal sites (sanitary landfills).
• Providing, upon request, and for an addi-
tional charge, a pickup service for bulky
or special amounts of waste.
• Encouraging private haulers to provide a
bulky or special waste pickup service.
• Having biannual, quarterly, or even
monthly cleanup days when wastes can be
set out at a predesignated location and
time for special collection.
• Utilizing transfer stations in combination
with a small containerized system to handle
special or bulky wastes.
This same problem of how to handle bulky wastes also
prevails in the house-to-house collection system, and any of
the suggested solutions could also apply to that collection
alternative as well as to the small container alternatives.
A variety of operational problems also can be encountered
with small containerized systems.
1. Vandalism—Rural containers have been burned,
shot at, turned over, and dynamited. Reasons
35
-------
range from mischievousness to sheer dis-
like of the container system. Strong public
support before system startup and prosecution
of vandals are two means of alleviating the
problem. In some areas portable hidden
cameras have been recommended to identify
and apprehend vandals. Locating sites near
residences, businesses, and well-lighted
areas is also advantageous.
2. Fires-Vandals who set intentional fires
should be prosecuted. Unintentional fires
are caused by placing "hot loads, " such as
hot ashes, into the containers. Publicizing
the need for precaution in dumping burned
waste or other incendiary materials can de-
crease unintentional fires. In addition to
ruining the paint and warping the containers,
there is always the danger that a hot load can
be emptied into the collection vehicle and set
an entire packer truck load on fire. Container
sites should be designed so that, even if fires
occur, danger of the fire spreading to the ad-
jacent area is eliminated.
3. Misuse— Leaving waste beside or on top of
near-empty containers indicates poor public
support and a serious problem. Once waste
is placed on the outside, other users often
assume the container is filled and the site
rapidly degenerates into a dump. Filling the
containers with a few bulky wastes or setting
wastes beside the container with no means of
easy collection also results in improper dumping.
4. Over-utilization—Although this may appear de-
sirable, in an underdesigned system overusage
of the containers has the same practical effect
as misuse. Waste is delivered faster than it is
removed and dumps are started. This problem
can easily occur in totally adequate systems
during the initial startup. When a new collection
36
-------
method begins in an area, especially if it
has been well publicized, a much larger
tonnage of waste is often deposited during
the initial two weeks of the system than the
tonnage which the system will eventually
average for several reasons: (a) when people
learn of the new collection system, they may
save their waste in anticipation of the new
program; (b) people come to see and use the
system out of curiosity although they may not
continue to use it; (c) those who might want to
show the system is a failure will try to over-
load it. To handle this initial influx, collection
may have to be more frequent at system start-
ups.
5. Scavenging—In one incident, a woman stood up
inside a container just as it was about to be
emptied. Fortunately the compactor vehicle
driver saw her and a major tragedy was avoid-
ed. Scavenging, a major problem of container-
ized systems, is both a dangerous practice and
a contributor to litter, and there is no easy solu-
tion. Strictly enforced ordinances against sal-
vaging and adequate citizen education can be of
some value in reducing this problem.
6. Weather—A complaint in many areas is that, in
the spring or fall, there is a mud problem at the
site locations; in the summer there is a dust
problem; and in the winter there is snow to con-
tend with. The weight of snow can warp con-
tainer lids, and sites must be snow plowed to
allow access to both the user and the collection
vehicle. Paving the sites can control the dust
and mud problems.
7. Maintenance and Cleaning—The sites will always
require some minor cleanup around the containers,
picking up spillage and litter. The collectors in
rear-loading and side-loading containerized sys-
tems usually clean up the sites when they empty
the containers. Front-loading systems require
37
-------
someone in a follow-up vehicle, usually
a pickup, to periodically clean the sites.
Most small containers are not regularly
cleaned, but steam cleaning or washing,
when it is periodically done, usually oc-
curs at the container sites. Portable
steam cleaners on a pickup or washwater
tanks on a collection vehicle are often used.
A container's life is largely a function of
the handling and maintenance it has re-
ceived. Burned containers which are not
repaired and painted, can have useful
lives of less than 3 years. Many well-
maintained containers are over 11 years
old and still in usable condition,
Transfer Stations. A third major collection alternative
for rural areas is to locate large roll-on/roll-off containers,
or transfer trailers for waste material, at centrally located
sites. This transfer station concept has become very popular
in urban communities in the last 10 years, and scaled-down
versions are now starting to be used in more sparsely popu-
lated areas. Rural transfer stations differ significantly from
their urban counterparts not only in size but also in purpose.
An urban transfer station's major function is to provide shorter
hauling distances for commercial vehicles; most rural stations
serve as a central collection location for local residents who
bring their wastes to the site. Although commercial collection
vehicles may utilize rural transfer stations (especially those
sites that provide compaction of the waste), the primary users
of the sites are the local families that have no other collection
service. Some advantages of transfer stations are:
• A collection system is provided where no other
method has existed.
• Promiscuous dumps are reduced and community
dumps are eliminated.
• Large fluctuations of generated waste can be
handled.
38
-------
• A collection mechanism is provided for
almost all wastes including bulky wastes.
• Disposal fees and/or tax revenues can be
used to finance the system.
• Compaction units can be used to increase
density of transported waste.
• Limited processing, such as metal salvage,
paper baling, and glass recovery, is
possible.
• A centralized sanitary landfill can be used
which incorporates economies of scale.
The disadvantages of transfer stations include:
• User cooperation is required to carry waste
to transfer sites.
• Residents with no means of transportation
have difficulty utilizing the sites.
• Unsanitary conditions are created at sites
unless properly maintained.
• The average user has to travel longer dis-
tances than those required by small con-
tainerized systems.
• Site relocation is expensive because of high
construction costs or lack of available land.
• Period of time waste is stored at residence
cannot be controlled.
• Existing house-to-house collection in area
near transfer site could be decreased.
Types of Transfer Stations. The two basic types are the
direct dump system and the compaction transfer system. Each
of these systems can be further subdivided into the following
categories: 10
39
-------
Direct dump transfer systems
1. Gravity dumping from one vehicle to
another with no compaction.
2. Gravity dumping from one vehicle to
another followed by load leveling and
compaction with a backhoe.
3. Compaction pit method-waste is unloaded
into a storage pit or onto a floor area and
crushed under crawler tractor treads be-
fore being pushed over a ledge into an open
trailer below. Load leveling is usually
performed with a backhoe.
Compaction transfer systems
1. Internal compactor system-waste is placed
in the trailer through a door located on top
and near the front. Waste may be dumped
directly from the collection vehicle through
the door or it may be pushed over a ledge
and into the trailer by a front-end loader
working from a storage area. The internal
hydraulic compactor pushes the waste toward
the rear of the trailer in cycles.
2. Stationary compactor system-waste is un-
loaded into compactor hopper and then pushed
horizontally into transfer trailer or container.
Unlike most urban or commercial applications, many of
the rural transfer stations use direct dumping into open top
containers or transfer trailers with no type of compaction.
Where a stationary compactor is used at a transfer station, a
hopper is often built on top of the charging box to increase
storage capacity (Figure 9). An option to bypass the compac-
tion unit is desirable during emergencies; otherwise equipment
breakdowns could require closing the transfer station.
40
-------
Figure 9. Collection truck discharges waste into
stationary packer for loading into transfer trailer.
Equipment. Transfer trailers or roll-on/roll-off containers
are the two main types of storage bins used for transferring waste
from the stations. Typical transfer trailer capacities used range
from 38. 2 to 57. 3 m3 (50 to 75 yd3) for both enclosed and open-top
trailers. The back of the enclosed trailers are attached to sta-
tionary packers for loading, and a built-in hydraulic pushing me-
chanism in the trailer unloads the solid waste at the disposal site.
A somewhat similar enclosed unit, a compaction trailer, uses an
auxiliary engine mounted on the front of the trailer to operate a
hydraulic compaction system. All compaction trailers are design-
ed to be used as small independent compactors.
The open-top trailers use either no compaction or a backhoe
for load-leveling and compaction. At the disposal site they can be
emptied using a hydraulic hoist, a tipper platform, or an extrusion
plate and cables which are attached to the landfill equipment. Open-
top tractor-trailer rigs have empty weights ranging from 11, 700
to 14,900 kg (26,000 to 33,000 Ib). The initial purchase price is
usually lower than that of the heavier compaction trailer rigs,
41
-------
which weigh from 17,600 to 18,900 kg (39,000 to 42,000 Ib).
On roads with a maximum gross vehicle weight of 32, 400 kg
(72,000 Ib), the open-top vehicles can carry a maximum legal
payload of about 17, 200 to 20, 900 kg (19 to 23 tons). The en-
closed compactor rigs are limited to about 13, 600 to 15,400 kg
(15 to 17 tons).H For uncompacted loads the maximum
gross vehicle weight will not approach the limits of the best
grade of highways. On many rural roads and bridges, however,
the legal load-carrying capacity is a major factor in choosing
transfer station locations and dictating routes to the disposal
site.
Roll-on/roll-off containers are somewhat similar to the
body unit on transfer trailers (Figure 10). The major charac-
teristics are: (1) the containers are smaller than transfer
trailers; (2) the units are designed to be picked up by a truck
with a roll-off chassis; and (3) solid waste is discharged at the
disposal site by tilting the container. When the truck carrying
a filled container reaches the disposal site, the rear door of
Figure 10. Unloading containers requires adequate
maneuvering space at transfer stations.
42
-------
the container is opened, the container is hydraulically lifted
and the waste slides out. Considering the weight of the truck
and the container, most of these vehicles can legally carry a
maximum of about 9, 000 kg (10 tons) of waste on the best
grade of highways. Typical capacities are 11. 5 to 38.2 m
(15 to 50 yd ) for open-top, roll-off containers and 19. 1 to
34.4 m3 (25 to 45 yd3) for enclosed roll-off containers which
are used in conjunction with stationary packers.
A pull trailer can be attached to a truck carrying a con-
tainer or a single semitrailer can be used to haul two contain
ers simultaneously (Figure 11). For containers up to 15. 3 ni
(20 yd3), a gooseneck trailer hauled by a pickup truck can be
used (Figure 12).
Figure 11. Pull-trailer attached to a truck allows
a combined load of 61. 2m3 (80 yd3).
Figure 12. Gooseneck trailer lifts a 15.3-m3 (20-yd3)
container.
43
-------
Locating Transfer Stations. Site locations are influenced
by the population density of the area, the road system to the
site, the land use of the area, and the public's acceptance of
the site.
A procedure similar to that described for establishing
small container systems can be used for transfer stations.
1. Identify the population densities and other waste
generation sources for the area to be served.
2. Select maximum distance or maximum driving
time criteria for the users of the collection system.
3. Identify groups of potential users, based on the
criteria selected in item 2, to be served by differ-
ent transfer stations (i. e., all users are within a
prescribed distance or time of a station).
As noted in the discussion of equipment, legal load-carrying
capacities of roads and bridges leading to the transfer station
are extremely important. These will determine the kinds of user
vehicles and transfer equipment that can use the station. If the
roads' load-carrying capacity is low, then smaller trucks must
be used or larger trucks will have to operate with partial loads.
In both cases, equipment efficiency is reduced. Equally impor-
tant, roads leading to the transfer station will determine the
average speed of the vehicles which travel to the site, thereby
affecting both efficiency and operating costs.
The third factor affecting transfer site locations is land use
in the collection system area. Land requirements of more than
one acre for a typical site decrease the number of feasible site
locations. It can be much easier to obtain a number of 360 m2
(4,000 ft2) sites for small containers than a few 3,600 m2 (40,000
ft2) or larger, sites required for transfer stations.
The fourth factor, public acceptance of the location, is nec-
essary both to minimize land acquisition problems and to maxi-
mize citizen support of the system.
A critical factor in selection is the high capital cost for
constructing sites. Basic site development costs range from
$4, 000 to more than $20, 000; stationary packers and buildings
44
-------
add to this cost. As a result, it is very expensive to change
transfer locations once the site has been constructed. In
addition, the substantial capital investment restricts the num-
ber of locations that an area can reasonably afford.
Since costs limit the number of sites, user convenience
is decreased in the sense that average travel distances for the
residents and other users is greatly increased over that of the
small container system. Ideally, transfer stations should be
located no further away than the distance an individual previ-
ously had to travel for disposal.
A study of rural dump sites in Humboldt County, California,
indicated that permanent residents utilizing the dumps on a reg-
ular basis were willing to travel up to 8 to 10 miles one-way on
paved rural mountainous roads, approximately 30 min, one-way
travel time. The norm among the rural citizens surveyed at
the sites appear to be in the range of 10- to 15-min travel time.
When transfer stations replaced the dumps, the residents still
were willing to travel up to 10 miles to dispose of their wastes.
Locating transfer stations near old dump sites is desirable
to take advantage of the user's operational habits. The disad-
vantages of locating immediately at the old dump site, however,
are the same as were described for the small containers.
In addition to locations near old dump sites, other transfer
site locations which should be considered include:
• Small towns with a central collection point con-
venient to residents.
• Road intersections or along heavily traveled roads.
• Parks and recreation sites.
• Commercial establishments.
• Population centers of an area.
Sites should be located where a fire would be visible to some resi-
dence or fire tower.
Site Requirements. A number of alternatives are possible
for designing rural transfer stations. The first design considera-
45
-------
tion is site capacity. Rural transfer stations can serve a
similar function as either house-to-house service or small
container systems—they provide a collection function for their
area. There is, therefore, a propensity to design many rural
sites to be used by private residents or small businesses
rather than commercial collectors. As might be expected,
usage varies at different sites from 100 percent private sources
to almost 100 percent commercial collection vehicles.
The type of user is a major factor in site design. For
instance, 500 families each bringing . 2 m (.25 yd3) of waste
to the site weekly are equivalent to approximately two loads of
a 15. 3-m3 (20^d3) packer. Although a 38. 2-m3 (50-yd3)
open-top transfer station would probably be justified as a
collection point for 500 families, it would be completely unac-
ceptable as a transfer site for the 15. 3-m3 (20-yd3) packerloads.
Once the number and type of potential users to be served by
a given site are decided upon, the amounts of waste generated
by the various sources must be determined. The average amounts
of household wastes generated would be the same as the amounts
collected were small containers used. The overall quantity ex-
pected for the transfer station system will be greater, however,
since the bulky waste that house-to-house service or small con-
tainers cannot handle can be delivered to the large containers or
trailers.
Actual surveys of waste volumes being disposed of in an area
provide the most adequate method for determining needed con-
tainer capacity. Where no other data are available, . 2 m3 (. 25 yd3)
per family per week can be used as a rough estimate of residential
waste. In addition to individuals and commercial collectors, near-
by industries, commercial establishments, and institutions may
use the site. The amounts and types of wastes generated by all
these sources have to be considered in any survey and in the de-
sign stage of a transfer station. Just as with the small containers,
the volume capability of the transfer site should be 120 to 125 per-
cent than expected volumes to allow for adequately handling peak
loads.
Although transfer stations can handle much greater fluctua-
tions in waste generation than either of the other two collection
46
-------
methods, transfer sites can also suffer from large over-
loads. For instance, unexpected loads of demolition, indus-
trial, farm or other special waste will overload an otherwise
adequately designed station. It cannot be overemphasized
that early in the design stage of any system the types of waste
to be handled and projected amounts to be generated must be
decided upon.
Sites receiving volumes of less than 38.2 m3 (50 yd3) of
uncompacted waste per day would usually use open-top con-
tainers with no compaction. If commercial packer trucks
unload at a site, usually a stationary packer, backhoe, or
compactor trailer must be provided at the transfer site.
Collection frequency of the transfer trailers or containers
will dictate the required waste storage capacity of the site.
Servicings vary from a number of collections per day to pick-
ups only upon call. For sound sanitation, a minimum of once-
a-week service should be provided.
A second design consideration is available land. For
most small transfer stations, a land area of . 4 or . 8 ha (1 or
2 acres) is usually adequate for site layout and construction.
However, because of the need for central locations with access
to main roads and public skepticism over the aesthetics of a
transfer site, the relative cost of the land may be high. Almost
all sites use a dual elevation incorporating a ramp and a retain-
ing wall (Figures 13-14). The most typical type of site layout utilizes
a straight line retaining wall (Figure 15). The length of the re-
taining wall dictates the number of containers or trailers which
can be accessible for filling at one time. A second type of re-
taining wall layout is the Z-shape (Figure 15) where empty con-
tainers are placed on one side of the Z, and filled containers are
picked up from the other side. A third type of layout being used
is the L-shape design (Figure 15).
Assuming that only one container is to be filled at a time,
design alternatives such as the following are possible: a one-stall
design that requires dragging the filled container out of position
to permit unloading the empty container into the only available
space; a two-stall design where the collection vehicle unloads the
empty container into one stall and collects the full one from the
47
-------
Figure 13. The site construction
used at different transfer stations can
vary considerably.
Figure 14. L-shaped retaining walls
minimize the container maneuvering
required.
48
-------
L-SHAPE DESIGN
Z-SHAPE DESIGN
STRAIGHT-LINE DESIGN
Figure 15. The choice of wall design is influenced
by construction costs and the size and shape of the land
used for the transfer station site.
49
-------
other; and a 1^ stall design which is a compromise between
the other two designs with a shorter maneuvering time than
the one-stall design and a lower construction cost than the
two-stall design. With a stationary packer, only the one-stall
design is used and waste is unloaded at a hopper or charge pit.
For open-top containers or trailers the loading ramp should
allow dumping along the length of the bin.
The retaining walls are commonly built of either wood or
concrete. Wooden walls are less expensive but less durable
than concrete. If fires occur, the wooden walls can be badly
damaged. Also any protrusions on the side of the wall facing
the container can damage the container sides. Wooden walls
do have flexibility in that they can be moved if a transfer sta-
tion site has to be changed. Lane County, Oregon, has built
its retaining walls from 1.2 m by 5. 5 m (4 ft by 18 ft) concrete
slabs secured by H-beams; the slabs can be moved if a site
location is changed.
Retaining walls that are higher, lower, and level with
container heights are used. A retaining wall height level with
or slightly below the height of the containers is preferable so
that pickup trucks can easily dump into the containers. Curbing
is needed to prevent a vehicle from backing over the end of the
retaining wall. Putting tire stops several feet from the end of
the wall should be avoided, however, since it prevents ve-
hicles with large loads from dumping directly into the contain-
ers. A wooden or metal overhang will prevent waste from fall-
ing between the container or trailer and retaining wall (Figure
16).
The site should be large enough that both the user vehicles
and the transfer equipment have adequate access and maneuver-
ing room. Additional space for possible future expansion is
also desirable. A transfer station must be usable under all
weather conditions. The site should be adequately sloped to
provide proper drainage; construction of ditches or installation
of drainage pipe may be desirable. Surfacing the site with
gravel, asphalt, or concrete should be done where necessary
to prevent mud and erosion. Public access ramps and the loca-
tion where the container or trailer is placed are the most impor-
tant areas where adequate surfacing is needed.
50
-------
Unloading ramps, compaction units, and open-top con-
tainers are sometimes housed in a shelter. If the transfer
station has limited operating hours, buildings can be kept
closed to the public during other times to reduce illegal use
or vandalism. In constructing a building, the ceiling must
be high enough to allow the largest vehicles anticipated to
unload, and enough space should be provided for planned
future expansion.
Container lids are used to cover the waste at some rural
transfer stations which have no buildings or shelters. Proper-
ly used, container lids can help reduce wind-blown litter and
animals feeding on the waste and provide protection against
the weather. Easily opened container lids are valuable in
areas with heavy snowfall unless a shelter of some type is used.
One type of container lid (used in heavy snow areas) is a
tepee-shaped lid which opens up 1/3 the length of a 30. 6 m3
(40 yd3) container (Figure 16). Another type uses spring-
loaded hinges (Figure 17) with two lids covering a 30.6 m3
(40 yd3) container. A third type has a wire mesh screen
mounted on a metal frame which extends across the entire
length of the container and protects against blowing litter
(Figure 18). A problem with all lids is that people frequently
fail to close them after using the containers; too, heavy lids
are a potential safety hazard.
Operating the Transfer Station. Where stationary packers,
scales, or disposal fees are used at a transfer station, an
attendant is required whenever the station is open. Some areas
are considering an unattended coin-operated transfer station
using a stationary packer, but so far this method has not become
operational. The attendant also performs necessary cleaning
and general maintenance, prevents scavenging and calls for an
empty container or trailer when required. At some sites the
attendant can double as driver of a transfer vehicle. Where no
compaction equipment is used, the attendant can use a pole to
better distribute the waste load in the containers and increase
storage capacity. A manned station requires gates or some
other means of closing the sites to the public when the attendant
is not on duty.
51
-------
Figure 16. Tepee-shaped lids prevent
rain or snow from accumulating on lids.
Figure 17. Large lid openings
facilitate disposal of bulky wastes.
Figure 18. Lids made of wire mesh screen
are lightweight and easy to open and close.
52
-------
If attendants are not present to maintain the sites, the
driver who picks up the waste cleans up around the site. Oc-
casionally special site visits are made expressly for cleaning
up. Lane County, Oregon, is planning to mount a backhoe on
a pickup to travel to its open-top 30. 6-m3 (40-yd^) container
sites to compact the waste during cleanup visits. Clean, well
maintained sites improve the public image of solid waste ser-
vices and encourage users to keep the sites clean.
Large containers or trailers are washed and serviced at
the disposal site or garage area where the equipment is hauled
in contrast to the small container system where all the washing
and most of the maintenance is done at the container site.
Most rural transfer stations do not use scales. When dis-
posal fees are charged, the rate is based on the number of con-
tainers or estimated cubic meters (cubic yards). Compacted
waste is charged at a higher rate per cubic meter (cubic yard)
than loose waste, and special items, such as tires, engine
blocks, or old auto bodies often have separate charges. The
basic criticisms against charging at rural transfer stations are;
(1) that the residents who have been dumping free for years will
resist paying for disposal at a transfer site and will illegally
dump their wastes; and (2) limiting operating hours provides an
inconvenience to users. Both arguments are valid.
Transfer sites charging disposal fees have encountered prob-
lems with user acceptance. Incidents of illegal dumping have oc-
curred and citizens have been angered. By achieving strong pub-
lic support for improved practices and equally strong enforcement
against violations, however, disposal fees are successfully levied
at rural transfer sites. When the station is only open for limited
periods, the hours of operation should be prominently advertised
and scheduled to provide the greatest convenience to the public.
The same problems described for small containers—vandalism,
fires, misuse, scavenging, weather, maintenance, and cleaning—
also plague transfer systems. Even at sites that won't have per-
manent supervision, having an attendant at each new station during
the first week or two of operation to give instructions and explain
the system is advisable.
53
-------
One problem which can occur at unattended locations is
that large waste loads are sometimes hauled to the station by
people who are unauthorized to use the sites. The illegal
users can be commercial or industrial sources who should be
going to the landfill. Instances have also occurred where solid
wastes from one county have been illegally disposed of at the
unattended sites of another county.
Collection Routes. Routing the transfer vehicle which
picks up the container or trailer is relatively simple for trans-
fer station systems, as compared to house-to-house or small
container methods. For most routes, the vehicle simply leaves
the garage or disposal site where it is stationed, travels to the
transfer site to be serviced, picks up the filled container or
trailer, deposits an empty one, and returns to the disposal
site. The main criterion for route selection is road conditions,
since legal weight restrictions will preclude the use of certain '
roads and the type of road will also affect vehicle speed.
Processing
The third element of good solid waste management, process-
ing, is not a common centralized practice in most rural areas.
Any burning, composting, or salvaging that does take place usual-
ly is done at the residence or business before the waste is taken
to a disposal site.
Incineration. The 1968 National survey indicated that 85 per-
cent of the rural households are situated in communities which
practice backyard burning. More stringent pollution laws are
reducing this percentage in recent years. Central incinerators
serving large rural areas are not common, probably because of
the high plant construction and operating costs and the fact that a
disposal site is still required for the residue. In the 1968 survey,
of 6, 571 rural communities, 140 indicated that they used central
incinerators; some of these were probably nearby municipal in-
cinerators. For the same sample of 6, 571 rural communities, 78
indicated that they used tepee burners. Other methods used to'
varying extents in rural areas, included open burning, open-pit
incineration, and home incineration.
-------
Some incinerator systems are designed for small com-
munities; for instance one incinerator plant in the Grafton,
Wisconsin, area serves approximately 11,000 people. This
plant, built in 1970 at a cost of $350, 000, has a 21, 800 kg
(24 ton)/day capacity. Operating and maintenance costs are
approximately $25,000 annually. Figure 19 shows another
21,800 kg (24 ton)/day incinerator used for 15,000 people in
Plaquemine Parish, Louisiana. The 1968 construction costs
were about $290,000, and the annual operating and maintenance
cost is about $36, 000.
Figure 19. Incinerator with a 21, 800 kg (24 ton)/day
capacity is used where adequate land for disposal is scarce,
Composting. The organic material in solid waste can be de-
corn p^sedTato~a~"soil conditioner. Although Large
scale commercial composting plants are not used for processing
rural residential solid waste, some composting does occur at
rural homes. Organic wastes from the homes are combined with
yard or animal wastes or crop residues in a compost pile. The
number of residents in most areas who can or will compost their
waste is limited, and up to 30 percent of the household waste is
not compostable. Although the process is advantageous in that it
can decrease the amount of organic waste to be collected and a po-
tentially valuable product results, it is at best only a partial solu-
tion for adequate solid waste disposal.
Other Process Methods. Baling and grinding of wastes are
not commonly practiced in rural solid waste systems. Feeding
garbage to animals is a disposal process which does occur to a
55
-------
limited extent commercially and to a larger extent at the
private residences in agricultural areas. State regulations
requiring that the garbage be cooked before being fed to ani-
mals has limited the use of this disposal method in recent
years. The 1968 National survey of 6, 571 rural areas indicated
that 15 publicly operated hog feeding lots and 347 privately oper-
ated lots still use garbage as a food source.
Disposal
Present Practices. There are more than 10, 000 land dis-
posal sites in rural America that are used by commercial col-
lectors and private individuals. Approximately two-thirds are
publicly operated; the other one-third are privately operated.
Responsibility for regulating these disposal sites is distributed
as follows; health authorities, 35 percent of the sites; opera-
tional authorities, 20 percent; the police, 3 percent; other
agencies, 15 percent. Twenty-seven percent of the disposal
sites have no authority responsible for regulation. Rural dis-
posal sites include: sanitary landfills; dumps which are covered
only when filled with wastes; dumps which are maintained periodi-
cally with equipment transported from site to site; and dumps
which never receive any maintenance or cover. Except for sani-
tary landfills, all these sites encourage open burning, uncontrol-
led access, air and water pollution, or vector infestation.
When authorized disposal sites are inconvenient or unavail-
able to the public, illegal dumps occur. The absence of collection
systems makes the prevalence of promiscuous dumping all the
more common. In addition to the 10, 000 sites mentioned above,
rural America houses well over 25,000 active promiscuous
dumps, or slightly more than one promiscuous dump for every
2,000 rural residents (Figure 20). This ratio of promiscuous
dumps to residents is 11 times greater than that for an equivalent
urban population. In the past, a disposal site has been selected
largely because it was convenient to the user and concealed from
the casual observer. As a result, dump sites include ravines,
creekbeds, roadsides, highway litter barrels, and any other loca-
tion that someone decides to use. Once waste is dumped, other
56
-------
Figure 20. These types
of dump sites are common
in rural America.
57
-------
individuals frequent the site and a new dump emerges.
Sometimes communities have selected a certain location
and designated it the "town dump. " The bar charts in Figure
21 summarize the results of several public usage surveys
conducted at rural dump sites. The charts characterize the
users of the dump sites and describe dumping practices.
Most States have solid waste disposal regulations that
specify certain minimum requirements, and provide authority
to close unacceptable sites. Closing these sites is an especial-
ly formidable task in rural areas because of the large number
of sites involved and the attitudes of many rural citizens toward
their disposal practices.
Dumps have the apparent advantages of being inexpensive
to operate and usually convenient to the user. Other often
unconsidered "costs, " however, can be substantial. It is in-
determinable when highway litter becomes a roadside dump;
but a substantial portion of the almost $50 million dollars spent
annually for highway cleanup can probably be attributed to road-
side dumps.12 And how does one calculate the cost of sullied
air, contaminated water sources, or fire hazards that have, in
some instances, spread to nearby forests? What value does
one place on the aesthetic effect of a dump on the surrounding
area or the nuisance of rats and flies nearby residents must
contend with?
\
In many areas the residents like having their own dump. As
illustrated in the following community dump description, the
disposal site often provides a social gathering place in sparsely
populated areas.
The disposal site is considered "a meeting ground, a place
to visit and chat with neighbors, drink beer, and shoot a few
crows and squirrels. It provides amusement for the children,
an excuse to take a late afternoon drive to town, and an oppor-
tunity for the whole family to work together on a common task'.' 13
One New England radio station supposedly plays "Going to
the Dump" music for its listeners on Saturday mornings.
For communities with this concept of "their dump, " improv-
ing solid waste practices can be exceedingly difficult. For this
58
-------
II
re
60
'.'
TJ
so
40
30
O £*3 t£l CJ CM
CO '-• T t^ O
20
10
Ultimate
disposition
Unloading time distribution (min)
JZL
Veliicte arrival timi* distribution
.
L:
:
.1!
sc
10
20
10
55+ yr
36-55 yr
16-35 yr
Age & aex
distribution
vehicle driver
|Q governmental
H commercial
I I public
J unclassified
yard waste
re t'uso
garbage
Vehicle type &
ownership
distribution
Container type ami waste
category distribution
Unloading
procedu res
reported
Figure 21. Dump survey indicates a number of variables related to the
practices of dump users. (From Hurnboldt County, California, and Garretson-
Elmendorf-Zinov-Reibin, Consultants. Rural storage and collection container
systems. U. S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, interim report, 1972. p. 103-104.)
59
-------
reason citizen support of the improved methods must be
developed, early in the planning phase of a solid waste sys-
tem. The public education which occurs during that phase
will undergo one of its must crucial tests when dumps are
closed.
Dump closings actually involve two elements. There is
the physical closing which includes stopping all usage, ex-
tinguishing all fires, eliminating any vectors, and adequate-
ly compacting and covering the old site. The usual method
for closing dumps is to cover them with soil using a loader,
dozer, or other heavy equipment. At some sites cover mater-
ial may have to hauled in while at others it may be more eco-
nomical if the accumulated waste is collected and hauled to an
adequate disposal site. There is also the psychological dump
closing in which an improved alternative is accepted by the
public, and the people are willing to end their previous dump-
ing practices. Unless both elements are accomplished, a
dump site cannot be permanently closed.
No simple guidelines exist for determining costs of dump
closing. Chilton County, Alabama, closed 93 sites of varying
sizes encompassing a total land area of 14. 6 ha (36 acres).
The total cost was $11, 000 or approximately $756/ha ($306/acre).
In another study in Lee County, Mississippi, small rural dump
closing costs ranged from $15 for sites containing less than a
tonne (ton) to $118 for sites containing up to two tonnes (tons) of
waste. The highest cost was $920 for closing a site estimated
to contain 100 tonnes (tons).
Sanitary Landfill. Terms such as dump, modified dump or
landfill, and sanitary landfill are often used interchangeably—and
incorrectly-to define disposal sites. The result is public con-
fusion and distrust of any type of disposal operation including
the only totally acceptable method currently practiced—sanitary
landfilling: an engineered method of disposing of solid waste on
land in a manner that protects the environment, by spreading the
waste in thin layers, compacting it to the smallest practical vol-
ume, and covering it with soil by the end of the working day.
Numerous reports are available on operating a sanitary land-
fill; several are listed in the bibliography. Regardless of the size
60
-------
of the site, the basic procedures for cell construction, ade-
quate compaction and cover, and prevention of air and water
pollution apply to all sanitary landfills.
One of the major purposes of regionalizing an area's solid
waste system using organized collection and centralized sanitary
landfill sites is to minimize the capital and operating costs of
running an adequate operation. The estimates in Table 1 indi-
cate that the larger the population served by a sanitary landfill,
the lower the per capita costs will be. Table 2 shows a break-
down of the various cost items usually associated with a small
sanitary landfill operation. It should be emphasized that while
all operations will probably have a similar list of cost items,
individual costs may vary greatly depending on specific site
conditions.
As with a rural transfer station, a substantial number of the
users of a rural sanitary landfill are also private individuals, and
public access should be provided to the site during convenient,
well advertised operating hours. Since the waste must be com-
pacted and covered each operating day at a sanitary landfill, the
number of days the site is kept open is often minimized to reduce
costs. For example, a site could be kept open only on Monday,
Thursday, and Saturday, and the users have access to the site
only on those days. Containers (either large or small) are
sometimes placed at the site entrance for the days the site is
not open.
Equipment Used. Three types of heavy equipment—either
crawler dozers, crawler loaders, or rubber-tire loaders—
generally are used at rural disposal sites. The three types
have the following characteristics:
Craaler Dozers
• Excellent for grading and economically dozing
waste or earth distances up to 90 m (300 ft)
• Versatile all-weather machine
• Commonly applied on area landfill
• Usually equipped with a straight dozer blade
or U-shaped landfill blade
61
-------
TABLE 1
ANNUAL COST AND COST PER TONNE (TON)
OF SANITARY LANDFILLS
SERVING POPULATIONS TO 25,000*
Population
Minimum
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Annual cost+
$19,800
20,600
21,300
22,000
22,700
23,400
23,900
24,400
24,900
25,400
25,800
33,900
35,600
37,100
Cost/ tonne
(ton)++
_
$34.30
17.20
11.80
9.16
7.49
6.42
5.62
5.02
4.55
4.03
3.67
2.86
2.36
*From Spindletop Research, Inc.
+Does not include haul cost and administra-
tive cost.
++Varies according to the actual tonnage.
62
-------
TABLE 2
TYPICAL SANITARY LANDFILL COSTS
POPULATION OF 5,000*
Sanitary landfill cost
Capital Annual
Engineering services
Land, legal fees
Personnel
Equipment and attachments
Equipment maintenance
and operation
Access roads
Facilities (trailer and shed)
Utilities
Fences
Landscaping
Miscellaneous
Totals
$ 1,500
2,500
-
23,400
-
3,800
6,500
1,000
2,500
500
1,000
$42, 700
$ 300
500
10,000
5,300
3,600
760
1,300
740
500
100
300
$23,400+
*From Spindletop Research, Inc.
+Does not include haul cost and administra-
tive cost*
63
-------
Crawler Loaders
• Excellent for excavating and carrying earth
distances up to 90 m (300 ft)
• Versatile all-weather machine
• Commonly applied on trench landfill
• Usually equipped with a general-purpose
or multi-purpose bucket
Rubber-tire Loaders (wheeled vehicle)
• Faster and more mobile than crawler vehicles
(maximum forward or reverse speed of about
46. 4 km/hr vs. 12. 8 km/hr (29 mph vs. 8 mph)
for crawlers)
• Can economically move earth distances of up to
180 m (600 ft)
• Limited mobility on wet or frozen ground
• Usually equipped with a general-purpose or
multi-purpose bucket
Although moving equipment off the disposal site is not ad-
visable in most situations, dual purpose machines can make
small landfills more economically feasible. A wheeled vehicle
can be used for road maintenance, at a feed lot, for snow re-
moval, for closing dumps or at more than one disposal site.
Crawler equipment also can be used, for example, for road
maintenance but may have to be transferred over highways on a
flat-bed trailer.
Even the rural disposal sites that have daily compaction and
cover often have only one piece of permanent operating equipment.
A scraper or other specialized equipment used to supplement the
regular equipment for short periods of time is a common practice.
Standby equipment should be readily available in case of break-
down or during needed maintenance through rental agreements
with nearby equipment dealers, private operators, or public
agencies.
64
-------
FINANCING
One of the major deterrents to implementation of a desired
solid waste system is inadequate financing. Financing is needed
to meet both capital costs, which include the initial start-up
expenses of land, facilities, equipment, and operating costs,
which can include personnel, equipment, maintenance and other
operating expenses.
Financing Methods
State and local legislation determine what financing methods
are available for public agencies to consider. The most common
methods used by governmental authorities to obtain revenues for
capital expenditures are described below.
Pay-as-you-go assumes that the needed funds are either ac-
cumulated in advance of expenditures or are available at the time
the financial obligations occur. This is a very common means of
financing capital equipment and usually the least expensive because
no interest is accrued.
Leasing or leasing with an option to buy is the rental rather
than the purchase of land, facilities, and/or equipment. The pri-
mary advantage of leasing is that it requires no capital invest-
ment and is a highly flexible means for obtaining needed improve-
ments. A major disadvantage is that generally leasing is the most
expensive method of providing equipment and facilities for the life
of the system, because the rate of return on private capital involved
is much higher than any borrowing rate. Neither do the rental
payments produce any equity in land, facilities, or equipment un-
less a lease with an option to buy is provided.
Still, the use of leasing arrangements may be justified where
the leased land, facilities, or equipment is:
• Used for a limited period and is of no lasting use.
• Of limited investment value, use, and resale so
that capital expenditure is not justified.
• Not purchasable.
• Leased from nonprofit organizations that share
capital costs.
65
-------
Leasing with an option to buy (or lease-purchase) gives com-
munities a chance to purchase equipment at reduced costs or
to include a portion of purchase payments in rental payments A 4
Subsidies, grants, and loans are available to a very limited
extent from some State and Federal agencies. This financial
assistance often must be used for specific purposes, such as
planning, land and equipment acquisition, or construction of
facilities. Although grants can reduce initial costs, eventually
the area will need to use another financing method to maintain
their solid waste system.
Long-term borrowing is the most widely used method of
financing capital outlays and can include bank loans, notes, and
bonds.!° In many instances commercial banks and other finan-
cial institutions can provide for the capital requirements of a
system through loans. The solid waste system's equipment, land
and facilities can serve as collateral against loans. Bonds as a
method of long-term borrowing can include either general obliga-
tion bonds or revenue bonds. The first type is secured by the
general credit and taxes of the issuing authority; the second type
is secured solely by the fees and other funds of a specific reve-
nue source.
If the private sector provides the solid waste services, this
transfers the burden of financing capital costs from the local
governments to private industry. Historically, solid waste
management firms have financed their businesses with one or
more of the three "traditional" corporate financing mechanisms;
internally-generated funds, debt (loans from banks or other in-
stitutions), and equity (common stock and variations.)^
Operating costs are usually defrayed through some form of
taxation or user charges.
TAXES (general property, sales, income, special taxes)
Advantages
1. The amount of revenue to be received can be
accurately estimated.
2. Individual billing procedures are eliminated.
66
-------
3. All citizens are required to support solid
waste system.
4. Costs are distributed more nearly on an
ability-to-pay basis.
Disadvantages
1. Solid waste tax revenues must compete with
tax funds for other public services.
2. An inequitable relationship between cost and
service often exists. The amount people pay
in taxes can be totally unrelated to the amount
of solid waste service they are provided.
3. Some properties are exempt from general
taxation.
USER CHARGES (levied on the generators of solid waste)
Advantages
1. Fees can be directly related to the level and cost of
services. Users would pay according to the amount
and type of waste generated.
2. Taxation may be reduced or tax revenues may be
used for other governmental activities.
3. Periodic review and updating of charges related
to increased costs is generally easier than obtain-
ing increased tax funds.
4. Revenue bonds can be used.
5. System should pay for itself.
Disadvantages
1. Costs for administration and billing procedures
can be high.
2. Some people will refuse to purchase or use the
service.
67
-------
The rate structure of user charges for collection is usually
based on some combination of the following factors: (1) type
of collection; (2) frequency of collection; (3) number and size of
containers; and (4) type of waste. For disposal only, user charges
are usually based on amount and type of waste disposed.
Additional information on financing methods can be obtained
by contacting bankers, bond counsels, and financial consultants
in one's area.
Sources of Financial or Technical Assistance
A number of different sources provide assistance to rural
areas for solid waste management.
Limited financial or technical assistance is available from
some Federal programs. Most of the aid is offered only to
interstate, State, or local authorities or in some instances to
public and private nonprofit organizations. The local, State, or
regional offices of the different agencies should be contacted to
learn what assistance is available for a particular area and what
the eligibility requirements are. Federal programs which can
be contacted include:
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
Department of Agriculture
Farmers Home Administration
Soil Conservation Service
Forest Service
Extension Service
Appalachian Regional Commission
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Geological Survey
Bureau of Land Management
New England Regional Commission
68
-------
Every State also has a designated agency responsible for
solid waste management planning. Many of these agencies
provide technical and financial assistance in addition to their
planning function. This aid ranges from technical reviews of
local plans to financial support for implementing solid waste
systems. One of the first actions an area desiring to improve
practices should take is to contact their State agency to ascer-
tain the types of assistance available.
Cost Comparisons
In deciding upon a solid waste management system, the
level of service to be provided must be weighed against the ex-
pected costs. If cost comparisons are the only consideration
between alternatives, the result can be that an inadequate system
is selected for an area.
Developing cost estimates involves determining the equipment,
facilities, land, personnel, and supplies needed to operate a par-
ticular alternative. - Equipment dealers and others using collection
and disposal equipment can provide a valuable source for this
information. Trade and public works magazines can also be an
information source.
The sample budgets which follow indicate the type of costing
which would occur for the different alternatives previously dis-
cussed. The actual costs for a specific area can vary consider-
ably from these examples, and each area must generate their own
cost estimates in more detail depending upon their own particular
needs. The sample budgets are based on the following assumptions;
1. A rural population of 20, 000 people (6, 000 households)
and 100 small businesses are distributed over a
2,600-km2 (1,000-mi2) service area.
2. The average weekly volume of waste collected is
.2 m (.25 yd3) per household for transfer stations
and . 15 m3 (20-yd3) per household for other types
of collection. An average of . 76 m3 (1. 0 yd3) per
week is collected from each small business. For the
house-to-house service and small container systems,
the waste generators haul most bulky wastes directly
to the landfill.
69
-------
3. House-to-house collection occurs at the
resident's mailbox or along the main
roads traveled by the collection vehicle.
Rear-loading vehicles with a two-man
crew collect once a week.
4. The small containers are emptied on an
average of twice weekly.
5. The transfer stations have no attendants
at the site and each site requires two or
three services a week. A pull-trailer is
utilized on some of the routes to haul two
containers at a time.
6. Any of the three collection systems would
use the same centrally located sanitary
landfill.
70
-------
SAMPLE BUDGET FOR
REGIONAL HOUSE-TO-HOUSE COLLECTION SYSTEM
Capital Costs
Equipment
7 15.3-m3 (20-yd3) rear-loading
compaction units @ $8,000 $ 56,000
7 truck chassis @ 8, 500 59, 500
1 pickup truck 3, 000
TOTAL $118,500
Annual Costs
Labor (14 men @ $9, OOO)1 $126, 000
Manager/supervisor (| time)2 6, 500
Secretary/bookkeeper (| time)2 2, 500
Billing expense (6, 100 @ $2.00)3 12, 200
7 Compaction units deprecia-
tion (5 yr @ 7%) 13, 700
7 Truck chassis depreciation
(5 yr @ 7%) 14, 500
Pickup truck depreciation
(5 yr @ 7%) 700
Fuel, oil, grease, etc. 7, 000
Equipment maintenance 12, 000
Insurance 6,000
Office supplies and miscellaneous 2, 000
TOTAL $203, 100
All labor costs given are total costs including fringe
benefits.
2Also handles other responsibilities.
3Assumes billing cost of $2.00 per year per service.
71
-------
SAMPLE BUDGET FOR
A REGIONAL SMALL CONTAINER SYSTEM
Capital Costs
Site preparation costs:
(assume 65 sites @ $100) $ 6, 500
Equipment
2 22.9-m3 (30-yd3) front-loading
compaction units @ 13, 000 26,000
2 Truck chassis @ $19, 000 38, 000
1 Pickup truck 3, 000
130 4.6-m3 (6-yd3) containers
@ $325 42,250
TOTAL $115,750
Annual Costs
Labor (2 drivers @ $9,000)* $ 18,000
Manager/supervisor (? time)2 3, 300
Secretary/bookkeeper (i time)2 l, 300
Site depreciation (8 yr @ 7%) 1, 100
2 Compaction units depreciation
(5 yr @ 7%) 6, 300
2 Truck chassis depreciation
(5 yr @ 7%) 9, 300
1 Pickup truck depreciation
(5 yr @ 7%) 700
130 4.6-m3 (6-yd3) containers
depreciation (8 yr @ 7%) 7, 100
Fuel, oil, grease, etc. 4, 000
Equipment maintenance 6,000
Insurance 2,700
Office supplies and miscellaneous 2,000
TOTAL $ 61,800
labor costs given are total costs including fringe
benefits.
2Also handles other responsibilities.
72
-------
SAMPLE BUDGET FOR
A REGIONAL TRANSFER STATION SYSTEM
Capital Costs
Land Acquisition (11 sites @ $750)1 $ 8,250
Site Construction
Clearing, drainage, access
road, etc. $ 5,000
Concrete retaining walls and
pad for containers 5,000
10,000
11 sites @ $10,000 110,000
Equipment
14 38. 2-m3 (50-yd3) containers @ $3,000 42,000
2 Truck chassis @ 23,000 46,000
2 Understructures @ 7, 500 15, 000
2 Pull-trailers @ 16,000 32,000
TOTAL $253,000
Annual Costs
Labor2 27,000
(1 driver/mechanic @ $9,000)
(2 drivers @ 9, 000)
Manager/supervisor (i time)3 3, 300
Secretary/bookkeeper (i time)3 1, 300
Site depreciation (15 yr @ 7%) 12, 100
2 Pull-trailers (5 yr @ 7%) 7, 800
2 Truck chassis depreciation (5 yr @ 7%) 11, 200
14 38.2-m3 (50-yd3) container deprecia-
tion (8 yr @ 7%) 7,000
Fuel, oil, grease, etc. 4, 000
Equipment maintenance 9,000
Insurance 2,300
Office supplies and miscellaneous 2,000
TOTAL $ 87, 000
There are actually 12 sites available for the region since
waste is taken to the sanitary landfill by people in the nearby area.
2All labor costs given are total costs including fringe benefits.
3 Also handles other responsibilities.
73
-------
SAMPLE BUDGET FOR
A REGIONAL SANITARY LANDFILL
Capital Costs
Site
Land acquisition (20 ha @ $1, 000,
or 50 acres @ $400) $20, 000
Site preparation, surveys, and
land clearing 9, 000
Access road 10, 000
Site fencing across road 1, 500
Scalehouse 5,000
Scales 8, 500
Equipment
1 Crawler tractor 45, OOP
TOTAL $99,000
Annual Costs
Labor (1 operator @ $10, 000;
1 assistant @ $9, OOO)1 $19, 000
Manager/supervisor (i time)^ 3, 300
Secretary/bookkeeper (k time)2 2, 500
Site preparation, construction and scale
depreciation (10 yr @ 7%)3 4, 800
Equipment depreciation (8 yr @ 7%) 7, 500
Equipment maintenance 5, 000
Fuel, oil, grease, etc. 600
Utilities 800
Insurance 200
Office supplies and miscellaneous 2, 000
TOTAL $45,700
All labor costs given are total costs including fringe benefits,
2Also handles other responsibilities.
3The land is not depreciated.
74
-------
CITIZEN SUPPORT
Throughout this report, different attitudes and needs of
people have been continually referred to: i.e. , the affinity
some residents have for "their dump;" the unenforceability
of laws without citizen support' the citizens' inherent dis-
trust of any project related to solid waste disposal; the equating
of transfer stations, sanitary landfills, and dumps as identical;
the difficulty in obtaining public acceptance for container or
disposal site locations; and the general reluctance people
have to changing past habits. Citizen support then is possibly
the most essential element of any solid waste management
system.
Rural solid waste systems are generally more dependent
upon citizen cooperation than are urban systems. Urban residents'
efforts are usually limited to carrying household wastes to their
garbage cans or at most to carrying the cans or bags to the curb.
The rural resident, in comparison, is often expected to provide
his own collection and transportation service and in many in-
stances must accept responsibility for the disposal of his waste
as well. Even most of the improved solid waste methods that
have been described in this report require that the rural resi-
dent assume a more active role in the waste system than his
urban counterpart.
The purposes in encouraging citizen involvement are twofold.
One major focus of all public education programs should be to
show the need for improved solid waste management practices.
In other words the emphasis here is on communicating the con-
cept of good practices rather than on a specific method. The
second advantage of citizen involvement is to identify the needs
and desires of the residents. Even residents who want to
75
-------
improve solid waste management in their communities are often
concerned about whether the new "container system" will de-
generate into a "neighborhood dump." Affirmative--but
accurate—terms such as "convenience centers" or "green boxes"
or "transfer stations, " rather than "mini-dumps" or "dumping
stations, " should be used just to assuage this distrust of a new
system.
Encouraging citizen involvement should begin during the
earliest part of developing improved practices--the planning
and organization stage. The best way to assure the public's
cooperation in a project is to encourage the public to assist
in developing the project. Citizen participants may include
representatives of the area's housewives, businessmen,
farmers, students, community leaders, and anyone else who
will use the solid waste system. Of course, anyone who will
work in actually implementing or operating the system, such
as public works and health department personnel, private
solid waste companies, and government officials, also should
be involved.
Involvement can take various forms. Some communities
develop large voluntary planning or advisory committees of
50 or more interested persons representing the diverse back-
grounds of their community's residents. Subcommittees of
these citizens investigate such factors as organizational
mechanisms, legislative requirements, technical processes,
financing techniques, and public information or citizen support
activities which would result in the best possible solid waste
system for their areas. Or involvement may take the form of
surveys of the area residents' attitudes to learn what the poten-
tial users of a new system perceive their needs to be. These
76
-------
surveys can be mail, telephone, or personal, house-to-house
samplings of people's attitudes. Perhaps one of the best methods
is to conduct a survey at the different active dumps. This method
assures that those surveyed are the actual users of the solid
waste system. It also provides an excellent opportunity to in-
ventory the user's waste generation rates. As a Humboldt County,
California, study attested, however, it is not unusual for many
residents to feel no need for a change and be totally satisfied
using a dump, especially when increased dollar costs are in-
volved. A third method of eliciting citizen involvement is to en-
courage community leaders to discuss solid waste problems and
issues at various organizational and community meetings. Groups
such as garden clubs, Chambers of Commerce, Granges, Scouting
or 4-H organizations, conservation groups, and social clubs all
can serve as excellent meeting forums. Schools may also be
visited and students informed about what is being done.
The news media should be contacted so it can inform the
public through press releases, tabloids, and radio and television
spots. News media personnel can be especially helpful as
members of the original planning group. Actually the public
support techniques which can be used are limited only by the
ingenuity of the planning group. Successful approaches have in-
cluded:
• Using a slide presentation at a county fair
to present a new solid waste system
• Developing a visual display on a project for
community shopping centers and post offices
• Dividing an area into districts where interested
and respected community leaders were respon-
sible for selling the new methods to their area
77
-------
• Giving school children certificates for students
and parents to sign stating that they will be
environmentally-minded
• Preparing booklets on improved practices for
distribution throughout a community
• Touring solid waste systems in other commu-
nities that have made improvements
• Conducting general clean-up and beautification
campaigns in conjunction with the start-up of a
new solid waste system
The residents not only need to be sold on the new practices;
they need to know what is expected of them—where and when they
should take their wastes, and how different types of wastes should
be stored and disposed of. The users should also be informed of
how the system is paid for.
Unless the community supports the system, even with sub-
stantial legal enforcement, the chance of success of improved
practices is remote. In some cases, where changes have been
made as a result of State legislative requirements and without
local citizen acceptance, overt resistance has ensued. Enforce-
ment of solid waste ordinances should be necessary only to
encourage the few dissenters of a community into proper action
and not to bludgeon a community into acquiescence.
Community education and acceptance continue to be im-
portant even after the new methods are in operation. Adequate
handling of citizen complaints is essential, and mechanisms for
efficiently receiving complaints or recommendations are advan-
tageous . One area keeps suggestion boxes and forms at each of
the unattended transfer stations; another area has a toll-free
phone system to a county office for suggestions or complaints..
78
-------
Whatever solid waste practices are ultimately decided upon,
a massive program to inform the public is a necessity. Whether
it involves a program to solicit voluntary subscribers for a
"mailbox" system or to encourage proper usage of a container
site or transfer station, user acceptance is mandatory. No
matter how adequate the proposed methods and financing, strong
citizen support is crucial to the success of any rural solid waste
management system .
yo877
79
-------
REFERENCES
1. Humboldt County, California, and Garretson-Elmendorf-
Zinov-Reibin, Consultants. Rural storage and collec-
tion container systems. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, interim report, 1972. p. 89. (Distributed by Na-
tional Technical Information Service as PB-212 398.)
2. Humboldt County and Garretson-Elmendorf-Zinov-Reibin.
Rural storage and collection container systems
p.105, 107.
3. Community description report-rural analysis. In National
survey of community solid waste practices. ~~U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste Management Programs, July 9, 1971. Unpub-
lished data.
4. National Association of Counties Research Foundation.
Guidelines for local governments on solid waste man-
agement. Public Health Service Publication No. 2084.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971,
P. 46.
5. Porter, W.K. , J. A. Gams, D.A. Yanggen, T. P. Kunes,
S. Gronbeck, and M. T. Beatty. Planning for coopera-
tive solid waste management in Wisconsin. [Madison]
University of Wisconsin-Extension, Environmental
Resources Unit, Feb. 1972. p. 12. Mimeographed.
6. Idaho Department of Health [Boise]. Idaho solid waste
management status report and State plan. Report to
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in conjunction
with planning grant GO5-EC-00015, 1970. p. 44.
7. Pennsylvania Department of Health, Bureau of Housing and
Environmental Control [Harrisburg]. A plan for solid
waste management in Pennsylvania. Report to U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency in conjunction with
planning grant GO5-UI-00020, 1970. p. 42.
80
-------
8. Mississippi State Board of Health, Solid Waste Planning
Unit [Jackson]. Solid waste management plan; State
of Mississippi. Report to U. S.Environmental Pro-
tection Agency in conjunction with planning grant
GO5-EC-00045, 1971. p. 37-38.
9. Vigh, C. Solid waste collection system requirements.
Frankfort, Division of Solid Waste Disposal, Kentucky
State Department of Health, 1971. p. 78-79.
10. Hegdahl, T.A. Solid waste transfer stations; a state-of-the-
art report on systems incorporating highway transpor-
tation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1972.
p. 38. (Distributed by National Technical Information
Service as PB-213 511.)
11. Hegdahl. Solid waste transfer stations, p. 42.
12. Resource Management Corporation [ Bethesda, Md. ]. A study
of the solid waste litter problem. Report to U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency in conjunction with con-
tract CPE 70-123, 1972. p. 45.
13. Humboldt County and Garretson-Elmendorf-Zinov-Reibin.
Rural storage and collection container systems, p. 107.
14. Winfrey, A. J. Financing solid waste services. Frankfort,
Division of Solid Waste Disposal, Kentucky State Depart-
ment of Health, 1972. p. 21-22.
15. Zausner,E.R. Financing solid waste management in small
communities. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1971. p. 6.
16. Resource Planning Associates,Inc. [Cambridge, Mass. ] .
Assessment of alternative financing methods for solid
waste facilities and equipment. Interim report, v. 1,
pt. 2 -technical discussion. Report to U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency in conjunction with contract
68-03-0195, Jan. 1973. p. 70.
81
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brunner,D.R., S. J. Hubbard, D.J.Keller, and J. L.Newton.
Closing open dumps. Washington, U. S. Government
Printing Office, 1971. 19 p.
Brunner, D. R., and D. J. Keller. Sanitary landfill design and
operation. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office
1972. 59 p.
Hammond, V. L. Evaluation of a multi-functional machine for use
in sanitary landfill operations in sparsely populated areas.
U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, 1972. 209 p.
(Distributed by National Technical Information Service as
PB-212 589.)
Kruth, M. A., D. H. Booth, and D. L. Yates. Creating a county-
wide solid waste management system; the case study of
Humphreys County, Tennessee. Washington, U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1972. 15 p.
Ross, G. A. Rural collection system requirements. Frankfort,
Division of Solid Waste Disposal, Kentucky State Depart-
ment of Health, 1972. 39 p.
Sorg, T. J., and H. L. Hickman. Sanitary landfill facts. 2d ed.
Public Health Service Publication No. 1792. Washington,
U.S.Government Printing Office, 1970. 30 p.
Spindletop Research, Inc. Transfer stations. Frankfort, Division
of Solid Waste Disposal, Kentucky State Department of Health
1971. 49 p.
Strawn, H. B. Factors to consider in developing a solid waste man-
agement system. Cooperative Extension Service, Circular
R-30, Auburn University, 1971. 38 p.
Toftner, R. O., and R. M. Clark. Intergovernmental approaches
to solid waste management. Washington, U. S. Government
Printing Office, 1971. 19 p.
Vigh, C., and T.Kuryla. General planning for solid waste ser-
vices. Frankfort, Division of Solid Waste Disposal, Kentucky
State Department of Health, 1972. 118 p.
82
-------
Zausner, E. R. An accounting system for solid waste man-
agement in small communities. Public Health Service
Publication No. 2035. Washington, U. S. Government
Printing Office, 1971. 18 p.
83 MJ.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING Of FICE: 1973 546-313/180 1-3
------- |