DESIGN OF A SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
FOR THE EASTERN APPALACHIA HEALTH
REGION OF NORTH CAROLINA
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1972
-------
This Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
report is printed as prepared by the Processing
and Disposal Division, which is responsible for
its editorial style and technical content.
-------
DESIGN OF A SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
FOR THE EASTERN APPALACHIA HEALTH
REGION OF NORTH CAROLINA
This solid waste management
Open-File Report (SW-80.o£) was written
by JOHN M. SWEETEN
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1972
-------
CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1
Summary 1
Recommendations 3
INTRODUCTION 5
THE EASTERN APPALACHIA HEALTH REGION 7
General Description 7
Population Magnitude and Distribution 7
EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 15
Present Di sposal Si tes 15
Present Solid Waste Collection Systems 15
Soli d Waste Col1ecti on Rates 16
Recreational Solid Waste Generation 16
Summary of Existing Conditions 18
ANALYSIS OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 18
Analysis of Sanitary Landfill Operating Costs 20
Project fixed costs 20
Size-related costs of sanitary landfills 24
One-landfill alternative 24
Three-landfill alternative 28
Four-landfill alternative 33
Five-landfill alternative 39
Solid Waste Transportation Costs 39
Optimum location of sanitary landfills 47
Cost of self-transport of solid waste 47
Transportation costs for present collection systems 49
Transportation costs with rural collection systems 55
Summary of transportation costs analysis 59
SELECTION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE 61
REFERENCES 64
11
-------
Page
APPENDICES
A Populations of Counties and Townships within the Eastern
Appalachia Health Region, North Carolina 65
B Populations of Municipalities within the Eastern
Appalachia Health Region, North Carolina 69
C Location and Ownership of Existing Land Disposal Sites
in Eastern Appalachia Health Region 71
D Municipalities Operating Public Solid Waste Collection
Systems 74
E Calculation of Recreational Solid Waste Quantity 75
F Nomographs for Calculating Sanitary Landfill Area and
Volume Requirements 80
G Equipment Requirements and Costs of Rural Solid Waste
Col 1ecti on System 84
m
-------
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The solid waste management conditions in Alexander, Burke, Caldwell,
and McDowell Counties, North Carolina, were analyzed for the purpose
of developing practicable solutions to the problem of improper solid
waste disposal in the region. This study was conducted by personnel of
the Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, Environmental Protection
Agency, at the request of the Regional Health Council of Eastern Appalachia,
Morganton, North Carolina.
The 1679 square mile study region embraces a population of 167,000
persons who generate an estimated 154,000 tons of solid waste annually.
In 1968, public and private solid waste collection agencies collected
over 124,000 tons/year of refuse produced by municipal sources (industrial,
commercial, and institutional establishments and residences) representing
a population of about 97,000 residents. The remaining 38 percent of the
population, comprised mostly of rural families, produced an estimated
22,500 tons/year of refuse that was not collected. Many thousands of
recreational users of publicly-and privately - owned parklands in the
four-county region contribute approximately 800 tons/year of solid waste.
The four-county region of Eastern Appalachia contains 24 general use
land disposal sites, 23 of which are open burning dumps. In addition,
at least 325 promiscuous dump sites are located along roads and highways
in the region. This epidemic of open dumping of solid waste threatens
water and air quality, public health, and scenic beauty of the region.
The two major factors contributing to the improper disposal of
solid waste apparently are (a) fragmented authority over solid waste
collection and disposal and (b) the lack of solid waste collection service
1
-------
to rural residents and recreational visitors. Any logical attempt
to effectuate an adequate solid waste disposal system for the Eastern
Appalachia region must eliminate these two deterrents.
Several alternative regionalization schemes and land disposal
systems were considered and subjected to economic analysis. The
purpose of this analysis was to determine the optimum number and
location of regional sanitary landfills which would minimize the com-
bined regional cost of sanitary landfill operation and solid waste
transportation. Equipment, personnel, and monetary requirements for
a bulk container solid waste collection system serving rural
residents and recreational areas currently without collection service
were also determined.
Based on the economic analysis along with political and other
considerations, a regional solid waste management system consisting
of four sanitary landfills and a rural bulk container solid waste
collection system was recommended for implementation. Total capital
cost for equipment and land recommended for the project would be $678,060.
The annual operating costs (including depreciation) of the complete
system would be $264,849/year which amounts to $1.62/ton of solid
waste or $1.49/person/year.
-------
Recommendations
The county commissioners of Burke, Caldwell, McDowell, and
Alexander Counties, North Carolina, should form a regional solid
waste management commission. This commission, properly const.tuted
by law, should regulate solid waste management practices in the
region under uniform regional solid waste ordinances and regulations.
The regional solid waste management commission should establish
four sanitary landfills, one each in McDowell, Burke, Caldwell, and
Alexander Counties. Simultaneously, it should close all open dumps
in the four-county region using recommended procedures. Standard
design and operating procedures for the four sanitary landfills
should be adopted. These four sanitary landfills should be located
as near as possible to the population centers of each county (i.e.,
Marion, Morganton, Lenoir, and Taylorsville) in order to minimize
the cost to the region for transporting solid waste. Actual selection
of the sanitary landfill sites should be performed by the regional
solid waste management commission working in conjunction with State
sanitary engineers and local health officials. The recommended land,
equipment and personnel requirements along with the estimated cost
to the project for installing and operating the sanitary landfills are
given in Tables 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13.
Finally, the regional commission should effectuate a rural bulk-
container solid waste collection system to provide collection service
to those permanent residents and recreational visitors to the region who
are not presently served by either public or private collection. Require-
ments for equipment and personnel to fully implement the proposed
collection system are listed in Appendix G. Unless an adequately-sized
3
-------
rural collection system is implemented, regulations prohibiting solid
waste burning and the dumping of solid waste in unauthorized areas
will not be obeyed and cannot be effectively enforced since solid
waste transportation costs without such a system will be prohibitive.
The recommended solid waste management system could be installed in
several phases as funds are aval-Table. Initial and operating costs
of the system can be derived from uniform taxation of all residents
and business establishments within the four-county region. Other
sources of revenue could include the Appalachia Regional Commission's
grant programs, loans, and the sale of revenue bonds.
-------
INTRODUCTION
At the time of this study, the prevailing solid waste management
practices in the Eastern Appalachia Health Region of North Carolina
comprised of Alexander, Burke, Caldwell, and McDowell counties, were
unacceptable. The 167,177 residents and many thousands of recreational
visitors (1.8 million visitor- and camper-days/yr) disposed of their
solid wastes in 23 dumps, in approximately 325 illegal roadside dumps,
and in lakes, streams, and forests. Only one land disposal site in
the entire region could be classified as acceptable according to State
standards. The existing solid waste disposal practices threatened the
region's air and water quality, scenic beauty, and public health.
Probably the major factor causing the proliferation of open dumps has
been the unavailability of refuse collection service to many residents.
Within the next few years, the existing dumps in the Eastern
Appalachia Health Region will be closed by action of the North Carolina
State Health Department. At that time, the municipalities and counties
involved will be forced to provide acceptable solid waste disposal
systems. To prevent the haphazard and uneconomical development of
sanitary landfills in the future, a regional solid waste management
system encompassing all residents of McDowell, Caldwell, Burke, and Alex-
ander Counties was needed.
In June 1970, the Regional Health Council of Eastern Appalachia
requested technical assistance from the Bureau of Solid Waste Management
(BSWM), U. S. Public Health Service, in devising a practicable solid
waste management system. Accordingly, a study team from BSWM collected
and analyzed pertinent data, formulated and evaluated solid waste
-------
management system alternatives, and recommended a regional solid waste
collection and disposal system to serve the four-county Eastern
Appalachia Region.
A final report of the study was submitted to the Regional Health
Council of Eastern Appalachia in September, 1970. Data collected
during the study are presented herein, with special attention given
to the data analysis procedures utilized. Conclusions made are based
on these data and their analysis. It is hoped that this report will
provide a basis for future design of similar solid waste management
systems.
-------
THE EASTERN APPALACHIA HEALTH REGION
General Description
The Eastern Appalachia Health Region of North Carolina, is comprised
of four contiguous counties located in west central North Carolina as
shown in Figure 1. The total land area of 1679 sq mi is divided among
the four counties as follows: Alexander - 255 sq mi, Burke - 506 sq mi,
Caldwell - 476. sq mi, and McDowell - 441 sq mi.
Physical features of these counties typify two of North Carolina's
major phsiographic provinces, the Blue Ridge Mountains and the Inner
Piedmont Plateau. The Blue Ridge Mountains form the northern and
western boundaries of the region. Along the Blue Ridge front, altitutes
range from 1300 ft near Lake James to 6684 ft on the summit of Mt. Mitchell,
which lies four miles west of the McDowell County line in Yancey County.
The greatest topographic relief occurs along the eastern slope of the Blue
Ridge province, where high gradient streams flow into the Catawba and Yadkin
Rivers. The base of the mountains, where the altitude is approximately
1300 to 1500 ft, marks the boundary between the two physiographic provinces.
The topography of the Inner Piedmont, having a gentle to moderate relief,
contrasts sharply with the steep gradients and ridges of the Blue Ridge
Mountains.
Descriptions of the climate, topography, principal drainage features,
basic economy and water supply source for each of the four counties con-
? 3 4
sidered have been compiled in othev" ?,t:,:d'€s ' ?* '
op_Magjr> ltiL% ._a nd_ Dyjt
Population data for the region was compiled for the years 1940, 1950,
1960, and 1970 from Bureau of Census, U. S. Department of Commerce records. '
-------
VIRGINIA
NORTH CAROLINA
Alexander
County unty\
Burke Lenoir JToylorsville \
County X JL-^\/ \
Marion \ Morganton J \
\
t
Health Regie
NORTH CAROLINA
• Charlotte
SOUTH CAROLINA
0 10 20 30 40 50 miles
Figure 1. Geographic location of Eastern Appalachia
ll.-ulth Region, North Carolina
-------
Population projections for 1980 and 1990 were then computed by the
incremental increase method and are presented in Table 1.
The 1940, 1950, 1960, and 1970 populations of each township and
principal municipality within the four-county region are presented in
Appendices A and B. The locations of the townships and municipalities
are shown on county maps in Figures 2-5.
-------
TABLE 1
POPULATION OF COUNTIES IN EASTERN APPALACHIA REGION
Population in Census Years Projected Populations
T1W T95S I960 T970~ 1980 1990
County Est. Est.
Alexander Co. 13,454 14,554 15,625 19,466 22,841 27,587
Burke Co. 38,615 45,518 52,701 60,364 67,994 76,004
Caldwell Co. 35,795 43,352 49,552 56,699 63,462 70,020
McDowell Co. 22,996 25,720 26,742 30,648 33,790 37,523
Total 110,869 129,144 144,620 167,177 188,087 211,134
10
-------
TOWNSHIPS
1. North Cove 6. Glenwood
2: Nebo 7. Montford Cove AVERY COUNTY
3. Higgins B. Crooked Creek \
4. DysaitsviIle 9. Old Fort
5. Bracket! 10. Marion
YANCEY COUNTY
RUTHERFORD
COUMTY
MCDOWELL COUNTY, N.C
Figure 2» Map of McDowell County
-------
AVERY COUKTY
Jonas/ I.
/Ridqe 9
/\ 1^
s *\ .
1 V--
£ s
o •
1 /
-t i
y.
— «» • .
~
i ',
v-l
\
\
2 \
\^
)
1 •
--., ,,t
* * . • . ^^
A^ **' •'
v^ Oak Hi!
JAMESL :
/
JAMES
J
A
»
TOWNSHIPS
1. Jonas Ridge 8. Lower Fork
2. Upper Creek 9. Upper Fork
3. Lower Creek 10. Si Iver Creek
4. Smoky Creek IK Morganton
5. Drexel
6. Lovelady
7 . Icard
12. Quaker Meadows
13. Linville
^
-•
12
5fA
.-,
ty*
.Alpine
10
*A
R>
%
-.
.
rChesterficl
-------
WATAUGA / COUNTY
\
\
~y 10 )-
TOWNSHIPS
1. Globe 8. Lenoir
2. Mulberry 9. Johns River
3. Patterson 10. WiIson Creek
4. Yadkin Valley II. North Catawba
5. Kings Creek 12. Hudson
6. Little River 13. Lovelady
7 . Lower Creek CATAWBA RIVER
HICKORY LAKE
CALDWELL COUNTY, N.C.
Figure 4. Map of Caldwell County
-------
*'LKES COUNTY
\
Stony Point
TOWNSHIPS
I. Li (Me River 5. Taylorsvi I le
2. Sugar Loaf 6. Ellendale
3. Gwaltneys 7. Wittenburg
4. Sharpes B. Millers
ALEXANDER COUNTY, N.C.
Figure 5. Map of Alexander County
-------
EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Present Disposal Sites
The four-county region under investigation contains 23 open
burning dumps and one sanitary landfill. The quantity of solid
waste received at each site and the type of site ownership are listed
in Table C-l* while Figure C-l depicts the locations of each land
disposal site.
In addition to the general-use land disposal sites,a 1969 survey
performed by county sanitarians revealed that at least 325 promiscuous
dumps are located along roads and highways in the region. The annual
quantity of solid waste deposited at these dump sites was not readily
determinable.
Present Solid Waste Collection Systems
Those municipalities operating public solid waste collection systems
within the region are identified in Appendix D. Detailed information
concerning the crew sizes, type of collection service performed, collection
frequencies, and collection costs could not be determined in the brief
study period available. The capacities of the vehicles listed in Table
D-l are known to range from 14-18 cu yd each (except for a single 25 cu yd
compactor truck), so that an average capacity of 16 cu yd per vehicle was
assumed in the transportation cost analysis which follows.
Detailed information concerning private solid waste collection agencies
in the region could not be obtained. From the State suntey, however, it
is known that approximately 60,000 residents and most industries are
served by private collection. Accordingly, approximately 63,000 residents,
living mostly in rural areas, do not receive any form of collection service.
15
-------
Solid Waste Collection Rates
Results obtained from the 1968 State survey of solid waste management
practices revealed that 124,000 tons/year of solid waste was collected
by municipal and private collection agencies serving McDowell, Burke,
Caldwell, and Alexander counties. This quantity of solid waste, produced
mainly by municipal sources (such as residences, industrial establishments,
institutions, and commercial enterprises), represented a population of
97,700 persons and a solid waste collection rate of 6.96 Ibs/capita/day
(or 1.27 tons/capita/year). In 1968, approximately 38 percent of the
region's population did not receive organized collection service but gener-
ated an estimated 22,500 tons/year of solid waste, primarily from rural
families. Therefore, in 1968, the average solid waste generation rate
for rural residents was 2.0 Ibs/capita/day (or 0.37 tons/capita/year).
The composite solid waste generation rate was 5.05 Ibs/capita/day (or
0.92 tons/capita/year).
Recreational Solid Waste Generation
The amount of solid waste generated by visitors and campers within
public recreational areas in the Eastern Appalachia region was estimated.
These recreational areas include the Pisgah National Forest and three
lakes along the Catawba River.
The Pisgah National Forest and its associated wildlife refuges occupy
66,358 acres in McDowell County; 13,160 acres in Burke County; and 49,411
acres in Caldwell County. In these counties, solid waste from the national
forest and adjacent wildlife refuges is collected by Forest Service personnel
and is disposed of in four land disposal sites on Government property.
An exception occurs during annual clean-up projects when private contractors
16
-------
haul the excess solid waste to public or private land disposal sites.
According to Forest Service records, in 1969 the Pisgah National
Forest received the following degree of usage: 65,300 visitor-days in
McDowell County; 106,200 visitor-days in Burke County; and 112,600 visitor-
days in Caldwell County. By assuming that one-third of these visits were
overnight stays while the remaining two-thirds were merely day-use visits,
the recreational solid waste quantities were estimated by applying waste
collection rates of 0.96 Ibs/visitor-day and 1.26 Ibs/camper-day for day-use
and overnight visits, respectively. Of the resulting solid waste collec-
tion rate of 151 tons/year, the quantity of solid waste entering land
disposal sites in neighboring counties can be expected to be negligible
as compared to quantities generated by the area's residents; therefore,
was not considered in the design.
Three major lakes, used as power pools for hydroelectric energy
generation, lie within or border the Eastern Appalachia region. These
reservoirs along the Catawba River are Lake James, Lake Rhodhiss, and
Lake Hickory. The Duke Power Company of Charlotte, North Carolina owns
the lakes and 7,375 acres of adjacent shoreline property and it invites
public use of these recreational areas. Unfortunately, this use is
often accompanied by indiscriminant littering and dumping of solid waste.
Moreover, Duke Power Company estimated that 500 to 1000 permanent residents
living near the recreational areas persistently dump household solid waste on
the power company's property. Legal action has not been initiated against
these violators,however, because of possible adverse public relations.
The annual number of day-use and overnight-visits to Lakes James,
Rhodhiss, and Hickory were estimated by Duke Power Company in 1968 and are
presented in Appendix E, Table E-l. The following numbers of private
17
-------
cottages are situated on shoreline property: Lake Rhodhiss—15 cottages,
Lake Hickory—500 cottages, Lake James—62 cottages.
The quantity of solid waste generated at each recreational area was
computed using solid waste generation rates of 0.96 pounds/visitor-day
for day-use visits, 1.26 pounds/camper-day for overnight visits, and
2.13 pounds/occupant-day for private cottages for which 40 occupant-days/
year was assumed. The resulting solid waste quantities are listed in
Table E-2 according to recreational areas and in Table E-3 according to
townships and counties bordering the lakes.
The total recreational solid waste quantity of 663 tons/year being
generated on Duke Power Company property within the study area is
equivalent to that produced by 1,811 permanent rural residents. From
the standpoint of solid waste disposal operations at regional sanitary
landfills, this waste quantity is negligible for practical purposes.
However, it does represent a significant amount when considering the
capacity requirements of the proposed rural bulk container solid waste
collection system, as will be shown later.
Summary of Existing Conditions
The solid waste disposal practices prevailing in Burke, Caldwell,
Alexander, and McDowell Counties are clearly unacceptable. However, the
factors contributing to the proliferation of open dumps in the region
could be virtually eliminated by centralizing authority over solid waste
management, establishing regional sanitary landfills, and extending solid
waste collection service to rural and recreational areas.
ANALYSIS OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
Several alternative regionalization schemes, disposal system confi-
gurations, and transportation modes were considered and subjected to
18
-------
economic analysis. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the
number and location of sanitary landfills which would minimize the
combined cost of operating a regional sanitary landfill system and
transporting solid waste from source to disposal site. Based on the
economic analysis along with political and other considerations, a
regional solid waste management plan was finally selected for implementation.
Volume reduction by incineration was not considered a viable system
alternative because of the small population magnitude and solid waste
quantity, dispersion of population centers, and relative abundance of
land suitable for sanitary landfilling.
In performing the economic analysis, the number of sanitary landfills
assumed for the four-county region was varied through the following
levels: one, three, four, and five landfills. For each landfill
configuration analysis, the townships (the smallest available census
tracts) were grouped into collection and disposal zones or subregions,
each of which would contain a sanitary landfill. These subregions were
formed on the basis of township population, population distribution,
and accessibility via all-weather roads. Based on the subregion populations
and the solid waste generation rates reported earlier, the size, personnel
and equipment requirements, and operating cost of a sanitary landfill in
each subregion were determined, The total cost, T ,to the regional project
of administering and operating the sanitary landfill system was then
ascertained by summing the costs for the subregional landfills.
Within each subregion, the optimum location for a land disposal site
was determined by the trial-and-error process of minimizing the number
of person-miles (i.e. the product of population and travel distance)
between township population centroids and assumed landfill locations.
After the optimum sanitary landfill locations had been pinpointed in this
19
-------
manner, the cost of transporting solid waste from each township to the
disposal site was computed for varies methods of transportation,
including a rural bulk collection system. The transportation costs for
townships were summed to yield the total transportation costs, T., for
the entire region.
Finally, the total regional cost of each alternative, T , was
c
computed as follows:
Tc • Ts * Tt (D
The alternative yielding the least value of T was the most economical
v*
solution.
Analysis of Sanitary Landfill Operating Costs
The total cost, Tg, to the four-county Eastern Appalachia region
of operating a system of sanitary landfills was computed in the
following manner:
Ts • Cfp + N Cfs + E"=1 Cvi <2>
in which: Cf = sum of annual project fixed costs that are not related
to the number of sanitary landfills, $/year.
Cfs = sum of annual fixed costs at each sanitary landfill that
are independent of landfill size and number, $/year/landfill.
Cyi = sum of annual size-related costs (land and equipment costs)
at each sanitary landfills, $/year.
N = number of sanitary landfills in the region
i = 1, 2, ..., N
The three cost components on the right hand side of equation (2) are
examined in the following analyses.
Project Fixed Costs. Fixed costs to the regional project that are
independent of the number and size of sanitary landfills include salaries
20
-------
of the project director and office staff, office supplies, engineering
consultant services, and travel of the project director. These costs
were specified by the Regional Health Council of Eastern Appalachla
based on their knowledge of local labor conditions and project needs.
The cost of closing and rehabilitating the 24 existing land disposal sites
was also included. A summary of the project fixed costs is presented
in Table 2, from which Cf = $20,990/year.
The fixed cost at each sanitary landfill site includes personnel-
related costs, utilit-res, access roads, fences, signs, and mechanical
supplies. Each of these costs, listed in Table 3, was assumed to be
unrelated to the number of size of sanitary landfills selected. To the
extent that this assumption was violated in actuality, such as for site
fencing, it is hoped that a sufficient allowance was made. The sum of
the costs in Table 3 (Cfs = $14,973/year) should be multiplied by the
number of sites to be installed in the four-county region to yield the
total annual costs for non-size related expenditures.
All capital costs were depreciated by the straight line method using
a maximum life of 10 years since the sanitary landfills were sized for
a 10-year capacity. Longer periods of depreciation would be justified
if the sanitary landfill sites actually purchased have sufficient capacities,
21
-------
TABLE 2
ANNUAL PROJECT FIXED COSTS THAT ARE INDEPENDENT
OF NUMBER OF SANITARY LANDFILLS
Number Initial
or Unit Cost
Cost Item Quantity Price $
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Program Director 1 $12,000/yr
Fringe Benefits of
Director @ 15% 1 1,800/yr —
Administrative
Services
(Secretarial) 1 2,000/yr —
Office Supplies — — —
Audiovisual Equipment — — 300
Travel of Program
Director — — —
Pick-up Truck 1 2,800 2,800
Consultant Services — — 5,000
Closing or Rehabili-
tation of Existing
Dumps 24 750 18,000
TOTAL $26,100
Estimated Annual
Life Cost
Years $/Year
$12,000
1 ,800
2,000
500
10 30
1,800
5 560
10 500
10 1,800
$20,990/yr
22
-------
TABLE 3
NON-SIZE-RELATED COSTS*
AT EACH SANITARY LANDFILL
Item
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
8.
10.
11.
12.
of Cost
Salary of Landfill
Operator
Salary of Asst.
Operator
Fringe Benefits of
Landfill Employees
at 15%
Sanitary Facilities
Utilities & Telephone
Office Shelter or
Trailer
Fencing and Signs
Personnel Training,
including travel
Uniform Rental
Tools and Mechanical
Supplies
Access Roads
Total
Number
or
Quantity
1
1
2
—
—
1
—
2
2
—
1/4 mi
Initial
Unit Cost
Price $
$6,000
4,800
1,620
$1 ,250
— —
4,000 4,000
2,250
300 600
120
500
35,000/mi 7,875
$16,745
Estimated Annual
Life Cost
Years $/Year
$6,000
4,800
1,620
10 125
500
10 400
10 225
4 150
240
4 125
10 788
$14,973
* Personnel and ancillary facility costs were specified by the Regional Health
Council of Eastern Appalachia based on their knowledge of local labor conditions
and project needs.
23
-------
Size-Related Costs of Sanitary Landfills. Costs of owning and operating
a sanitary landfill that are directly related to the quantity of solid
wastes received (i.e. landfill size) include initial site costs, site
preparation costs, and equipment owning and operating expenses. These
size-related costs were determined for a solid waste disposal system in
Eastern Appalachia involving one, three, four, and five sanitary landfills
(i.e. N = 1, 3, 4, 5).
One-Landfill Alternative. The procedure for determining size-related
sanitary landfill operating costs, C • is herein illustrated for the one-
landfill alternative. This procedure was also followed for alternatives
involving a greater number of sanitary landfills.
Regardless of its location, a single sanitary landfill for Eastern
Appalachia would have to handle the total waste tonnage from the design
population (average of 1970 and 1980-populations) of 177,632 residents
producing a total of 163,400 tons/year of solid waste. Assuming a
compacted solid waste density of 850 Ibs/cu yd (0.425 tons/cu yd) in the
completed landfill and a compacted cover material to refuse ratio of 1:4
(volume basis), the design rate of utilization of landfill volume, vf,
can be computed as follows:
./Annual weight of solid waste \
f "^Compacted solid waste density'
X Volume of refuse and cover material (3)
Volume of refuse
= (163,400 tons/year) (1.25)
(0.425 tons/cu yd)
v- = 480,000 cubic yards/year, or 297 acre-ft/year
The landfill surface area to be actually utilized, Af, can be computed
from the following relationship:
Af = vf Y/D (4)
24
-------
where Y = design life of the landfill site, years
D = design or average depth* of the sanitary landfill (solid waste
plus cover material), feet.
However, a larger site area than that given by equation (4) must be
purchased to allow space for roads, fences, and facilities. Knowing
the site utilization efficiency, E , the actual site area to be
d
purchased, Ag, Becomes:
As = Af/Es = vf Y/ESD (5)
Assuming a design life of Y = 10 years, design of D = 15 feet, and
a site utilization efficiency of Eg = 0.85, along with the design
utilization rate of 297 acre-feet/year,equation (5) yields a site area
of 233 acres which the Eastern Appalachia region should purchase to
accommodate the region's solid waste. The same result can be obtained
using the nomographs in Appendix F which were constructed to graphically
solve equations (3), (4), and (5). Based on the land requirement of
233 acres, the initial site purchase cost and site preparation expenses,
assumed to be $500/acre and $175/acre, respectively, are summarized in
Table 4.
Now, the average solid waste generation rate of 5.05 pounds/capita/
day amounts to 420 tons/day to be received at the sanitary landfill.
Assuming the landfill is operated five days per week, the average landfill
operating rate becomes:
R = (7/5) (420 tons/day) =588 tons/day.
Landfill equipment capabilities must be adequate to handle peak loads
exceeding 588 tons/day.
* In using an average depth, D, it is assumed that the planes of the upper
and lower surfaces of the completed sanitary landfill are parallel.
25
-------
TABLE 4
SIZE-RELATED LANDFILL COSTS FOR REGIONAL SYSTEM
INVOLVING ONE SANITARY LANDFILL
1.
2. .
3.
l\3
O*
4.
5.
Items
Land
Site Preparation
Landfill Equipment
Owning Cost
(a) Dozer w/accessories
(1) Depreciation
(2) Interest,
Taxes, Insurance
(b) Crawler. Loader
w/accessory equipment
(1) Depreciation
(2) Interest, Taxes,
Insurance
Equipment Operating Cost
(a) Dozer
(b) Crawler Loader
Salary of Additional Landfill
Equipment Operator
No. or
Quantity
233 acres
233 acres
1
2080 hrs.yr
2080
1
2080
2080
2080
2080
1
Unit
Price
$500/ac
175/ac
67,000
8.37/hr.
2.21/hr
60,000
7.50/hr
1.98/hr
11.31/hr
12.00/hr
6000/yr
Initial Estimated Annual
Cost Life Cost
$ $/Year
$116^500 10 years $11,650
40,800 10 years 4,080
67,000 8000 hours
17,410
4,597
60,000 8000 hours
15,600
4,118
23,525
24,960
6,000
6. Total
$284,300
$111,940
-------
The sanitary landfill equipment assumed for estimating costs for
the one-landfill alternative was as follows: one Allis Chalmers 21G
crawler loader and one Allis-Chalmers HD 21 dozer.* Machinery with
equivalent capabilities is available from other manufacturers. From
the manufacturer's commmercial literature, a combined maximum solid
waste handling rate of 100 tons/hour was deduced. Assuming this
equipment is operated at 75' percent of its maximum capability, average
daily equipment operating time will be as follows:
588 tons/day =7.84 hours/day or 8.0 hours/day
75 tons/hr
Accordingly, the approximate annual equipment operating time for each
machine will be:
(8 hours/day) (5 days/week) (52 weeks/year) = 2080 hours/year.
According to two landfill equipment manufacturers, the hourly owning
and operating costs for earthmoving and landfill machinery can be accurately
estimated as a percentage of the total list price. For crawler loaders
utilized under severe working conditions, the hourly costs expressed
as a percent of the list price of the machine and attachments are approx-
imately as follows: depreciation--0.0125 percent; interest, taxes, and
insurance~0.0033 percent; operating expenses—0.0200 percent; and tote!
wiring and operating costs--0.0360 percent. For dozers, the owning and
operating cost factor for severe working conditions averages 0.325 oercejit
of which the operating cost factor is 0.0169 percent.
Using the above cost information, the owning and operating costs for
the one-landfill alternative were computed in Table 4. Combining the size-
related sanitary landfill operating cost of Cyl =$111,940 from Tables
2 and 3 yields, from equation (2):
*M.snt1on of commercial products does not imply endorsement by the II <;
Government. 27
-------
Ts = $20,990/yr + (1) ($14,973/yr) + $111 ,940 /yr
T = $147.903/yr
or a unit cost of $0.96/ton based on the design solid waste quantity
of 163,400 tons/year.
Sanitary landfill operating costs typically decrease with increasing
8
landfill size. Therefore, a solid waste management system involving
only one landfill in the four-county region would be expected to reflect
the least possible landfill operating cost, although transportation costs
would be greatest for this alternative.
Three-landfill Alternative. For a regional solid waste disposal
system involving three sanitary landfills, the four-county region was
divided into the three subregions defined as follows. Subregion I included
all of McDowell County and townships No. 1, 10, and 13 of Burke County
(see Figures 2 and 3). Subregion III encompassed all of Alexander County
and townships No. 6 and 13 of Cal dwell County (Figures 4 and 5). Sub-
region II included the remainder of Burke and Cal dwell Counties.
Following the same procedure given in the previous section, the land
and equipment requirements for the three-landfill alternative were
determined and are summarized in Table 5. The size-related sanitary
landfill costs C -j , C 2> and C ~ are computed in Tables 6, 7, and 8.
Combining these size-related costs with the fixed costs C- and C^ from
Tables 2 and 3 yields a total sanitary landfill operating cost of:
T. = $20,990/yr + (3 landfills) ($14,973/yr/landfill) +
5 ($24,429 + 62,076 + 22,975)/yr.
Ts = $175,389/yr
or a unit solid waste disposal cost of $1.14/ton.
28
-------
TOTAL
TABLE 5
LAND AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR THREE-SANITARY LANDFILL SYSTEM
Subregion Design Site Surface Approx.Site
& Sanitary Utilization Area of Area to be
Landfill Rate, Vf Solid Waste Acquired, As
Ident. ac-ft/yr Fill, Af Acres
acres
I 61.4 40.9 49
II 178.5 119.0 140
III 57.0 37.9 45
Design Type of Sani- Design
Landfill tary Landfill Capability
Operating Equipment of Landfill
Rate, R Selected Equipment
(5-day wk) (75% of max.)
tons/da tons/hr.
122 7G Crawler 15.0
Loader
354 21 G Crawler 37.5
Loader
113 7 G Crawler 15.0
Loader
Equipment
Operating Time
Daily Annually
hrs/da hrs/yr
8.25 2140
9.5 2450
7.75 2020
296.9
197.8
234
589
-------
TABLE 6
SIZE-RELATED LANDFILL COSTS FOR REGIONAL SYSTEM
INVOLVING THREE SANITARY LANDFILLS-
MC DOWELL AND WESTERN BURKE COUNTY LANDFILL
1.
2.
3.
U>
o
4.
Item
Land
Site Preparation
Landfill Equipment
Owning Cost
(a) Depreciation
(b) Interest, Taxes
Insurance
Equipment Operating
Cost
No. or
Quantity
49 acres
49 acres
1
2140 hrs/yr
2140 hrs/yr
2140 hrs/yr
Unit
Price
$500/ac
175/ac
27,565
3.45/hr
0.91/hr
5.51/hr
Total
Initial
Cost
$24,500
8,575
27,565
—
Estimated
Life
10 years
10 years
8000 hrs
—
Annual
Cost
$/Year
$2450
858
7,383
1,947
11,791
5. Total
$60,640
$24,429
-------
TABLE 7
SIZE-RELATED LANDFILL COSTS FOR REGIONAL SYSTEM
INVOLVING THREE SANITARY LANDFILLS--
BURKE AND CALDWELL COUNTY LANDFILL
1.
2.
3.
CO
<«t
4.
5.
Item
Land
Site Preparation
Landfill Equipment
Owning Cost
(a) Depreciation
(b) Interest, Taxes,
Insurance
Equipment Operating
Cost
Total
No. or
Quantity
140 acres
140 acres
1
2,450 hrs/yr
2,450 hrs/yr
2,450 hrs/yr
Unit
Price
$500/ac
175/ac
60,000
7.50/hr
1.98/hr
12.00/hr
Total
Initial
Cbst
$70,000
24,500
60,000
--
$154,500
Estimated Annual
Life • Cost
$/Year
10 yrs $7,000
10 yrs 2,450
8000 hrs
18,375
4,851
29,400
$62,076
-------
TABLE 8
SIZE-RELATED LANDFILL COSTS FOR REGIONAL SYSTEM
INVOLVING THREE SANITARY LANDFILLS--
ALEXANDER AND EASTERN CALDWELL COUNTY LANDFILL
1.
2.
3.
to
ro
4.
Item
Land
Site Preparation
Landfill Equipment
Owning Cost
(a) Depreciation
(b) Interest, Taxes,
Insurance
Equipment Operating
Cost
No. or
Quantity
45 acres
45 acres
1
2020 hrs/yr
2020 hrs/yr
2020 hrs/yr
Unit
Price
$500/ac
175/ac
27,565
3.45/hr
0.91/hr
5.51/hr
Total
Initial
Cost
$22,500
7,875
27,565
--
—
—
Estimated
Life
10 years
10 years
8000 hours
—
—
—
Annual
Cost
$/Year
$2,250
788
6,969
1,838
11,130
5. Total
$57,940
$22,975
-------
Four-Landfill Alternative. The subregion boundaries for the four-
landfill alternative were defined as being identical to the county borders
for the following reasons. First, the county population and solid waste
generation centers fall near the county seats of each county, as will be
shown in a later analysis. The sanitary landfill should be located as
closely as possible to the population centers. Secondly, the county
seats appear to form the highway transportation hubs of their respective
counties. Furthermore, political and public support for the project can
be expected to be greater if known legal boundaries also serve as the
solid waste subregion boundaries. Finally, if the proposed regional
solid waste management authority should dissolve, each county would
be left with a sanitary landfill already in operation.
The land and equipment requirements for the four-landfill alter-
native, determined in the previously described manner, are summarized
in Table 9.
The size-related landfill costs, C^, are summarized in Tables 10,
11, 12, and 13. Using these values along with C^ and C^ from Tables
2 and 3 respectively in equation (2) yields a total sanitary landfill
system operating cost of T = $190,459/year which is equivalent to unit
costs of $1.24/ton.
33
-------
TABLE 9
LAND AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR FOUR-SANITARY LANDFILL SYSTEM
County &
Sanitary
Landfill
Ident.
McDowell Co.
Burke Co.
Cal dwell Co.
Alexander Co.
Total
Design Site
Utilization
Rate, Vf
ac-ft/yr
49.8
106.6
104.6
35.7
296.7
Surface
Area of
Solid Waste
Fill, Af
acres
33.3
71.0
69.7
23.8
197.8
Approx. Site Design
Area to be Landfill
Acquired, As Operating
Acres
40
84
82
28
234
Rate, R
(5-day week)
tons/day
99
212
208
70
588
Type of Sani-
tary Landfill
Equipment se-
lected
7G Crawler
Loader
21 G Crawler
Loader
21 G Crawler
Loader
76 Crawler
Loader
__
Design
Capability
of Landfill
Equipment
(75% of max.)
tons/hr.
15.0
37.5
37.5
15.0
__
Equipment
Operating Tine
Daily Annual lv
hrs/da.
6.75
5.75
5.75
4.75
.*•
hrs/yr.
1755
1495
1495
1235
•i M
-------
TABLE 10
SIZE-RELATED LANDFILL COSTS FOR REGIONAL
SYSTEM INVOLVING FOUR SANITARY LANDFILLS—
MCDOWELL COUNTY LANDFILL
1.
2.
3.
LO
in
4.
5.
•Item
Land
Site Preparation
Landfill Equipment
Owning Cost
(a) Depreciation
(b) Interest, Taxes,
Insurance
Equipment Operating
Cost
Total
No. or
Quantity
40 ac.
40 ac.
1
1755 hrs/yr
1755 hrs/yr
1755 hrs/yr
Unit
Cost
$500/ac
175/ac
27,565
3.45/hr
0.91/hr
5.51/hr
Initial
Cost
$20,000
7,000
27,565
.
—
$54,565
Estimated Annual
Life Cost
$/Year
10 years $2,000
10 years 700
8000 hours
6,055
1,597
9,670
$20,022
-------
TABLE 11
SIZE-RELATED LANDFILL COSTS FOR REGIONAL
SYSTEM INVOLVING FOUR SANITARY LANDFILLS-
BURKE COUNTY LANDFILL
1.
2.
3.
w
en
4.
Item
Land
Site Preparation
Landfill Equipment
Owning Cost
(a) Depreciation
(b) Interest, Taxes,
Insurance
Equipment Operating
Cost
No. or
Quantity
84 ac.
84 ac.
1
1495 hrs/yr
1495 hrs/yr
1495 hrs/yr
Unit
Cost
$500/ac.
175/ac.
60,000
7.50/hr
1.98/hr
12.00/hr
Initial
Cost
$42,000
14,700
60,000
—
—
Estimated
Life
10 years
10 years
8000 hours
—
—
Annual
Cost
$/Year
$4,200
1,470
11,213
2,960
17,940
5. Total
$116,700
$37,783
-------
TABLE 12
SIZE-RELATED LANDFILL COSTS FOR REGIONAL
SYSTEM INVOLVING FOUR SANITARY LANOFILLS-
CALDWELL COUNTY LANDFILL
1.
2.
3.
o
si
4.
Item
Land
Site Preparation
Landfill Equipment
Owning Cost
(a) Depreciation
(b) Interest, Taxes,
Insurance
Equipment Operating
Cost
No. or
Quantity
82 ac,
82 ac.
1
1495 hrs/yr
1495 hrs/yr
1495 hrs/yr
Unit
Price
$500/ac.
175/ac.
60,000
7.50/hr
1.98/hr
12.00/hr
Total
Initial
Cost
$41 ,000
14,350
60,000
—
—
—
Estimated
Life
10 years
10 years
8000 hours
--
--
—
Annual
Cost
$/Year
$4,100
1,435
11,213
2,960
17,940
5. Total
$115,350
$37,648
-------
TABLE 13
SIZE RELATED LANDFILL COSTS FOR REGIONAL
SYSTEM INVOLVING FOUR SANITARY LANDFILLS-
ALEXANDER COUNTY LANDFILL
1.
2.
3.
co
00
4.
Item
Land
Site Preparation
Landfill Equipment
Owning Cost
(a) Depreciation
(b) Interest, Taxes
Insurance
Equipment Operating
Cost
No. or
Quantity
28 ac.
28 ac.
. 1
1235 hrs/yr
'1235 hrs/yr
1235 hrs/yr
Unit
Price
$500/ac
175/ac.
27,665
3.45/hr
0.91/hr
5.51/hr
Total
Initial
Cost
$14,000
4,900
27,565
—
—
Estimated Annual
Life Cost
$/Year
10 years $1 ,400
10 years 490
8000 hours
4,261
1,124
6,849
5. Total
$46,465
$14,124
-------
Five-Landfill Alternative. Annual costs to the four-county
region for operating a system of five sanitary landfills were computed
in the previously described manner. The five subregions were defined
as follows:
,dent. of subregion
I. McDowell County All of McDowell County &
Twp. 13 of Burke County
II. Central Burke County Twps. 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12 of Burke County
III. Northern Caldwell County Twps. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7,
8, 9, 10 of Cal dwell County
IV. Lake Rhodhiss Area Twps. 4, 5,6, 7 of Burke
County. Twps. 11, 12, 13 of Cal dwell County
V. Alexander County All of Alexander County and
Twp. 6 of Cal dwell County
* Township numbers correspond to those contained in Figures 2, 3, 4, & 5.
The land and equipment requirements developed for these subregions
are shown in Table 14. The annual costs related to the size of the sanitary
landfill are summarized in Tables 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19.
The total annual system operating cost for the five-sanitary
landfill alternative, obtained by summing the total costs from Tables
2, 3, and 15 through 19, is TS = $220,438/year or $1.44/ton. An even
higher disposal system operating cost would result if more sanitary
landfills were added.
Solid Waste Transportation Costs
In addition to the sanitary landfill system capital and operating
costs just presented, selection of the optimum number and locations of
sanitary landfills for the four-county Eastern Appalachia region was
based on the cost of transporting solid waste from origin to disposal.
39
-------
TABLE 14
LAND AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR FIVE-SANITARY LANDFILL SYSTEM
Subregion
& Sanitary
Landfill
Ident.
McDowell Co.
Central Burke
Co.
Northern Cald-
well Co.
Lake Rhodhiss
Area
Alexander Co.
Total
Design Site
Utilization
Rate, Vf
ac-ft/yr
52.4
66.3
68.3
70.6
40.0
297.6
Surface
Area of
Solid Waste
Fill, Af
acres
34.7
44.3
A5.5
47.2
26.7
198.4
Approx. Site
Area to be
Acquired A,^
Acres
41
53
54
56
32
236
Design
Landfill
Operating
Rate, R
(5-day week)
tons/day
104
132
136
140
79
591
Type of Sanitary Design
Landfill Equip- Capability
ment Selected of Landfill
Equipment
(75% of max.)
tons/hr
7 G Crawler Loader 15.0
12 G Crawler Loader 22.5
12 G Crawler Loader 22.5
12 G Crawler Loader 22.5
7 G Crawler Loader 15.0
—
Equipment
Operating Time
Daily
hrs/day
7.0
6.0
6.25
6.25
5.5
--
Annually
hrs/yr
1820
1560
1625
1625
1430
—
-------
TABLE 15
SIZE-RELATED LANDFILL COSTS FOR REGIONAL SYSTEM
INVOLVING FIVE SANITARY LANDFILLS--
McDOWELL COUNTY LANDFILL
1.
2.
3.
-*
4.
Item
Land
Site Preparation
Landfill Equipment
Owning Cost
(a) Depreciation
(u) interest, Taxi
Insurance
No. or
Quantity
41 ac.
41 ac.
1
1820 hrs/yr
25 '1820 hrs/yr
Equipment Operating 182Q hrs/yr
Unit
Price
$500/ac.
175/ac.
27,565
3.45/hr
0.91/hr
5.51/hr
Total
Initial
Cost
$20,500
7,175
27,565
--
—
Estimated
Life
10 yrs
10 yrs
8000 hours
—
--
Annual
Cost
$/Yr.
$2,050
718
6,279
1,656
10,028
5. Total
$55,240
$20,731
-------
TABLE 16
SIZE-RELATED LANDFILL COSTS FOR REGIONAL SYSTEM
INVOLVING FIVE SANITARY LANDFILLS--
CENTRAL BURKE COUNTY LANDFILL
1.
2.
3.
•e*
ro
4.
Item
Land
Site Preparation
Landfill Equipment
Owning Cost
(a) Depreciation
(b) Interest, Taxes
Insurance
Equipment Operating
No. or
Quantity
53 acres
53 acres
1
1560 hrs/yr
• 1560 hrs/yr
Cost 1560 hrs/yr
Unit
Price
$500/ac.
175/ac.
44,430
5.56/hr
1.52/hr
8.84/hr
Total
Initial
Cost
$26,500
9,275
44,430
--
—
Estimated Annual
Life Cost
$/Year
10 years $2,650
10 years 928
8000 hours
8,674
2,371
13,790
5. Total
$80,205
$28,413
-------
TABLE 17
SIZE-RELATED LANDFILL COSTS FOR REGIONAL
SYSTEM INVOLVING FIVE SANITARY LANDFILLS--
NORTHERN CALDWELL COUNTY LANDFILL
No. or
Item Quant1ty
1.
2.
3.
^
u>
4.
Land
Site Preparation
Landfill Equipment
Owning Cost
(a) Depreciation
(b) Interest, Taxes,
Insurance
Equipment Operating
Cost
54 acres
54 acres
1
1625 hrs/yr
1625 hrs/yr
1625 hrs/yr
Unit Total
Price Initial
Cost
$500/acre $27,000
175/acre 9,450
44,430 44,430
5.56/hr
1.52/hr
8.84/yr
Estimated Annual
Life Cost
$/Year
10 yrs $2,700
10 yrs 945
8000 hours
9,035
2,470
14,365
5. Total
$80,880
$29,515
-------
TABLE 18
SIZE-RELATED LANDFILL COSTS FOR REGIONAL
SYSTEM INVOLVING FIVE SANITARY LANDFILLS -
LAKE RHOOHISS AREA LANDFILL
No. or
IT£M Quantity
1.
2.
3.
*
4.
Land
Site Preparation
Landfill Equipment
Owning Cost
(a) Depreciation
(b) Interest, Taxes,
Insurance
Equipment Operating
Cost
56 acres
56 acres
1
.1625
1625
1625
hrs/yr
hrs/yr
hrs/yr
Unit Total
Price Initial
Cost
$500/ac. $28,000
175/ac. 9,800
44,430 44,430
5.56/hr
1.52/hr
8.84/hr
Estimated Annual
Life Cost
$/Year
10 years $2,800
10 years 980
8000 hours
9,035
2,470
14,365
5. Total
$82,230
$29,650
-------
TABLE 19
SIZE-RELATED LANDFILL COSTS FOR REGIONAL
SYSTEM INVOLVING FIVE SANITARY LANDFILLS--
ALEXANDER COUNTY LANDFILL
1.
2.
3.
:»
n
4.
Item
Land
Site Preparation
Landfill Equipment
Operating Cost
(a) Depreciation
(b) Interest, Taxe«
Insurance
Equipment Operating
Cost
No. or
Quanti ty
32 ac.
32 ac.
1
1430 hrs/yr
M430 hrs/yr
1430 hrs/yr
Unit
Price
$500/ac.
175/ac.
27,565
3.45/hr
0.91/hr
5.51/hr
Total
Initial
Cost
$16,000
5,60C
27,565
—
—
Estimated
Life
10 Years
10 Years
8000 Hours
~
—
Annual
Cost
$/Year
$1600
560 .
4,934
1,301
7,879
5. Total
$49,165
$16,274
-------
The procedure for determing the optimal locations of centralized
sanitary landfills and for calculating the regional solid waste
transportation cost* for a given population distribution and
sanitary landfill system alternative consisted of these steps:
1. Designation of a disposal site location within each subregion.
2. Summation of the annual distance of solid waste transportation
from source centroid (i.e., township population centroid)
to the assumed disposal site location.
3. Repetition of steps 1 and 2 until a minimum value of the
total annual waste transport distance within the region
was approached.
4. Computation of the total annual transportation costs from the
minimized travel distance and unit haul costs for selected
vehicle types.
Using this procedure the solid waste transportation costs to the
Eastern Appalachia region residents were computed for these situations:
1. Theoretical situation in which all householders haul their
own waste.
2. Present situation in which organized collection is provided
to 62 percent of the residents (1968 estimate), while the
remaininq 38 percent transport their own waste.
3. Proposed system utilizing present municipal and private col-
lection services but providing rural bulk-container
collection service to 60-65,000 rural residents.
*The term "transportation costs" as used in this analysis excludes the
costs of house-to-house collection and crew relief time which are
essentially independent of sanitary landfill location.
46
-------
Optimum Location of Sanitary Landfills. For each number of
regional sanitary landfills assumed (N = 1, 3, 4, 5) the boundaries
of the subregions or "solid waste shed areas" defined previously
were retained. Within each subregion containing "j" townships, the
optimum location of the sanitary landfill was approximately determined
by the trial and error process of minimizing the following function:
I p,x.
£ J J
Pt
Where P. = total population in the subregion
p. = population of the j township in the subregion
x. = actual one-way travel distance from the township
J population centroid to the assumed landfill location, miles
In effect, the landfill location which produced the smallest total of
township centroid-to-disposal site distances, weighted according to
township population, was taken as the optimum landfill location.
The optimum sanitary landfill site location determined by this
procedure usually lay within or near the city limits of the major city
within each subregion, as shown in Figure 6. The actual landfill sites
selected should be located as near as possible to these optimum locations.
Actual site selection and sanitary landfill design would require a
separate, detailed study beyond the scope of the present analysis.
Cost of Self-Transport of Solid Waste. The overall regional
transportation cost was determined for the theoretical situation in which
5
each family, consisting of 3.6 persons , was assumed to haul its own
solid waste to the nearest optimally located sanitary landfill once
per week. For each township, the accumulated annual travel distance
47
-------
NORTH CAROLINA
•
MC DOWELL COUNTY
BURKE COUNTY
L E Q E N 0
- ONE-LANDFILL ALTERNATIVE
- THREE-LANDFILL ALTERNATIVE
f- FOUR LANDFIIL ALTERNATIVE
- FIVE-LANDFILL ALTERNATIVE
Figure 6. Optimal locations of sanitary landfills for alternative nimbers of landfills.
-------
was calculated as the product of (a) the roundtrip distance from
the township population centroid to the disposal site, (b) the
number of families in the township (i.e. population/3.6), and (c)
the annual number of trips to the landfill per household (i.e.,
52 trips/year). For each alternative number of sanitary landfills,
the total annual travel distance involved for the four-county region
was determined by summing the accumulated distance for the 44
townships. Finally, the regional transportation cost was computed
by applying a unit cost factor of $0.10/mile to the total annual
mileage. Thus, the total cost to the four-county region for self-
transport of solid waste, TV, was:
Tt = fCy 44
1 —* Z 2 x.p. (6)
j=l J J
In which = collection frequency, collection events/year
pd = average family size, persons/household
C = unit transportation cost, $/m11e
A
p. = population of j township in the subregion
j
x. = one-way travel-distance from township population
J centroid to assumed landfill location, miles
The resulting costs calculated from equation (6) are summarized
in Table 20. Note the drastic decrease in unit transportation cost
with increases in the number of disposal sites.
Transportation Costs For Present Collection Systems. This solid
waste transportation alternative, involving organized collection in
"urban" areas and self-transport of waste in "rural" areas, represents
the present collection situation. The unit costs of transporting
solid waste between the township centroids and the disposal sites were
estimated using the 1970 township population statistics reported in
Table 1 and Appendix A.
49
-------
TABLE 20
COST OF SELF-TRANSPORT OF SOLID WASTES
Number of
Regional
Sam' tary
Landfills
Total Annual
Cost to
Residents
$/Year
Average
Unit Solid Waste
Transportation Cost
$/Ton$/Person/Year
1
3
4
5
$8,970,000
4,720,000
2,560,000
2,310,000
$58.34
30.67
16.62
15.02
$53.67
28.22
15.29
13.82
50
-------
Transportation costs for essentially Urban townships, or fractions
thereof, which were known or assumed to have organized solid waste
collection (see Appendix D, Table D-l) were computed in the following
manner. First, the fraction of township populations served by organized
collection were estimated as shown in Table 21. Then, using the urban
solid waste generation rate of 6.96 Ibs/capita/day, the number of truck-
loads of solid waste to be collected was computed. Next, the distance
from the urban township centroids to the nearest optimally located
sanitary landfill was multiplied by the applicable annual number of
truckloads. These township distances were summed over the entire region
to yield the total annual mileage driven.
Finally, the cost of transportation was evaluated at $0.52/vehicle-
mile. This value includes fuel, repairs, vehicle maintenance and
depreciation, and labor* for the transportation phase only. It excludes
the time-related costs of house-to-house collection and crew relief
time which typically account for the majority of the total municipal
collection and transportation cost but which are virtually independent
of sanitary landfill location.
This procedure for computing costs of transporting urban solid wastes
can be summarized mathematically as follows:
Ttu • 365 "cducx
*Labor costs were estimated for a two-man crew, paid a $3/hour wage,
riding in the collection vehicle traveling at 20 miles/hour (average)
Thus, labor costs amounted to $0.30/mile.
51
-------
TABLE 21
ALLOCATION OF ORGANIZED COLLECTION SERVICES TO TOWNSHIPS
County and Township
Alexander County
5. Taylorsville Twp.
Burke County
5. Drexel Twp.
6. Love lady Twp.
7. I card Twp.
10. Silver Creek Twp.
11 . Morganton Twp.
Cal dwell County
7. Lower Creek Twp.
8. Lenoir Twp.
11. North Catawba Twp.
12. Hudson Twp.
13. Lovelady Twp.
McDowell County
2. Nebo Twp.
9. Old Fort Twp.
10. Marion Twp.
1970
Population
7,063
4,563
6,630
11,040
5,555
22,389
10,619
16,979
3,760
8,041
8,536
2,978
4,399
14,624
Assumed Fraction
of Population
Served by Organ-
ized Collection
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.70
0.50
1.00
0.70
0.80
1.00
1.00
0.90
0.60
0.60
0.70
Population
Having
Organized
Collection
7,063
4,563
6,630
7,728
2,778
22,389
7,433
13,583
3,760
8,041
7,682
1,787
.2,639
10,237
Total
106,313
52
-------
in which
Ttu = annual cost of transporting urban solid waste in compactor
collection vehicles, $/year
Pcdu = urban so1id waste generation rate, Ibs/capita/day
Ytc = umt Wel9nt °f moist compacted refuse in collection vehicle,
Ibs/cu yd
3
Y£ = Collection vehicle capacity, yds
^iii = population °f the j township served by organized collection
JU
The variables GX and X. were defined previously in connection with
equation (6). Values of ytc and Vt assumed for this analysis were
500 Ibs/cu yd and 16 cu yd, respectively.
For the rural population not served by organized solid waste
collection, the cost of self-transport of solid waste was evaluated
using equation (6). Into this equation, the rural population of each
township, p. = (p. -p.-u) was substituted for p. and the rural trans-
JI J JU j
portation cost Ttr = (T"t -Ttu) was substituted for T"t. Other values
used in this equation were the same as those assumed in the previous
analysis of self-transport costs.
The rural and urban solid waste transportation costs thus computed
using equations (6) and (7) are given in Table 22. Three important
trends can be seen from this data. First, regional solid waste trans-
portation costs decrease markedly when the number of regional sanitary
landfills is increased from one to four. However, little or no further
reduction in transportation costs can be expected to result from estab-
lishment of more than four landfills. Finally, self-transport of rural
solid waste appears to be about 50 times more costly per ton of waste
53
-------
TABLE 22
REGIONAL SOLID WASTE TRANSPORTATION COSTS
UTILIZING PRESENT COLLECTION SYSTEMS
Number
of
sanitary
landfills
Cost for urban
solid waste
$/yr$/ton
(xlOOO)
Cost for rural
solid waste
Total solid waste
transportation cost
$/yr$/ton : vyr $/ton $/person
(xlOOO) (xlOOO)
1
3
4
5
551
314
142
110
4.08
2.32
1.05
0.81
4,160 184.50 4,710 30.60 28.20
1,970 87.60 2,290 14.90 13.70
1,310 58.40 1,460 9.47 8.71
1,350 59.90 1,460 9.48 8.72
54
-------
handled than solid waste transportation using compaction vehicles. This
high cost of rural solid waste handling is attributable to far lower
vehicular efficiencies and to longer haul distances to sanitary landfills.
With the present collection situation, 89 percent of the total
regional solid waste transportation cost would be contributed by the
38 percent of the population without organized collection service. This
inequity probably accounts in part for the large number of general use and
promiscuous open dumps in the region. Further, it illustrates the fact
that enforcement of backyard burning and open dumping ordinances will
be exceedingly difficult unless regular solid waste collection service
is extended to these rural residents.
Transportation Costs with Rural Collection System. The advantages
of providing bulk container solid waste collection service to rural
residents are obvious. If an adequate number of containers were provided,
no family would have to drive more than 5 miles (one-way) to dispose of
its solid waste, instead of the 20-mile distance encountered with centralized
sanitary landfills but without a bulk collection system. Costs would be
expected to decline sharply because the accumulated annual travel distance
involved would be drastically reduced, although labor and capital costs of
the rural collection system would partially offset this cost advantage.
An analysis was performed to determine representative operating and
capital costs of a rural bulk container solid waste collection system,
adequately sized to serve those residents currently without organized
collection. To provide a basis for comparing the regional transportation
costs of this system with previous analyses, the cost per ton for hauling
refuse from rural township centroids to disposal sites using a bulk collec-
tion system was computed for the three-, four-, and five-sanitary landfill
55
-------
alternatives. The cost of transporting urban solid waste collected by
existing public and private collectors would be unaffected by introducing
the rural collection system. The method of computing urban costs,
summarized in equation (7), was previously described.
The annual transportation cost of operating a bulk collection system
serving rural areas was estimated using the basic form of equation (7) as
n p T1
follows: TV = cdr ^x I 2x. p1,
tr
wherein p'. is the rural township population augmented by the applicable
J '
population equivalent for recreational solid waste generation as reported
in Appendix E. Other values assumed for this analysis were derived
mainly from data compiled from the Chi 1 ton County, Alabama rural solid
waste collection demonstration project. ' These values were as follows:
P dr = 1.00 Ibs/capita/day, GX = $0.78/mile,, ytc - 440 lbs/cu yd, and Vt =
25 cu yds.
Now, equation (8) probably underestimates the total mileage and cost
which dould be incurred in an actual bulk collection system. Reasons for this
are as follows. First, there is no way to include the capital costs of
bulk containers and container site preparation in equation (8). Moreover,
the collection vehicles would sometimes travel to the disposal site only
partially loaded, thereby necessitating more loads. Similarly, only an
integer number of vehicles can be purchased so that some vehicle capacity
made available might not actually be utilized. Also, many more miles
would be driven within townships in collecting from containers than was
reflected in the foregoing procedure. On the contrary, the use of collection
* The Chi 1 ton County project reported average costs for labor, equipment,
operation, and depreciation of $9.33/operating hour over a 29 month period.
Assuming an average vehicular speed of 12 miles/hr including collection stops'
the value of Cx = $0.78/mile was derived.
56
-------
routes which interconnect outlying townships, which would be the case in a
real system application, would tend to shorten the overall distances
traveled. Furthermore, many residents living nearer the sanitary landfills
than the nearest bulk container (5 miles maximum) may choose not to
utilize the bulk containers.
Based on the above reasoning, it was decided to double the round trip
population-centroid-to-landfill distances to more accurately reflect dis-
tances traveled and costs encountered in an actual situation. Because of
the subjectivity involved, however, the resulting transportation cost
estimates, Ttr, are only useful for determining the optimum number of
sanitary landfills, and not for budgetary purposes.
The final results of this transportation cost analysis for the
proposed solid waste collection system, involving the retention of all
present organized collection services and initiation of a rural bulk con-
tainer collection system, are presented in Table 23. The unit costs in
the last column of Table 23 were averaged over the entire population of
the four-county region. The urban collection systems would incur signifi-
cantly lower transportation costs ($0.81-$2.32/ton) than the weighted average
of $1.09-$2.64/ton. The rural collection system on the other hand, would
cost considerably more than the average ($4.28-$6.30/ton).
For a regional solid waste disposal system consisting of four sanitary
landfills, the rural population (38 percent of the total) would account
for roughly 30 percent of the total regional solid waste transportation cost
if the rural collection system were fully implemented, This cost distri-
bution is far more equitable than was the previous situation without,
collection service to rural residents. The equipment and budgetary requirements
for the rural bulk container collection system are developed In Appendix G.
57
-------
TABLE 23
ESTIMATED TRANSPORTATION COSTS FOR URBAN AND RURAL
COLLECTION SYSTEMS WITH VARYING NUMBERS OF SANITARY LANDFILL
Number
of
sanitary
landfills
Unit trans-
portation
cost for
urban solid
waste
$/ton
Unit trans-
portation
cost for
rural solid
waste
$/ton
Total regional
transportation
cost
$/ton
3
4
5
2.32
1.05
0.81
6.30
4.28
4.39 ,
2.64
1.30
1.09
58
-------
Summary of Transportation Cost Analysis. The unit cost of transporting
solid waste by the three modes considered are summarized in Table 24. The
fictitious case involving self-transport of all solid waste was used to
define the maximum limit of transportation costs for each alternative
number of sanitary landfills. When the existing public and private collec-
tion systems were taken into account, the average transportation costs
were approximately halved. Implementation of a rural bulk container
solid waste collection system would reduce regional solid waste trans-
portation costs even more markedly. For instance, in the case of the
four-landfill alternative, urban solid waste transportation costs would
remain the same as they presently are ($1.05/ton) while the rural solid
waste transportation costs would be drastically decreased from $58.35/ton
to $4.28/ton. Hence, the obvious conclusion to be drawn from the trans-
portation cost analysis is that a rural solid waste collection system, sized
as shown in Appendix G, .should be implemented within the four-county study
region.
59
-------
TABLE 24
COMPARISON OF SOLID WASTE TRANSPORTATION COSTS FOR
VARIOUS TRANSPORTATION METHODS
Average Average Trans-
Cost of Transportation Cost portation Cost with
Number of Self-transport With Present Collection Present Collection
Sanitary of Solid Wastes Systems but without Systems and Rural
Landfills $/Ton Rural Bulk Collection Bulk Collection
$/Ton $/Ton
1 58.34
3 30.67
4 16.62
5 15.02
30.60
14.87
9.47
9.48
—
2.64
1.30
1.09
60
-------
SELECTION OF DISPOSAL SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE
The determination of the most economical number of sanitary landfills
to be established in the four-county Eastern Appalachia Health Region was
based on the criterion of minimizing the combined unit costs of sanitary
landfill operation and solid waste transportation. Developed in detail
in the foregoing sections, transportation and disposal costs are summarized
in Table 25 and Figure 7.
For all practical purposes, there appears to be no difference in cost
between the four-and five-landfill alternatives. Advantages to be derived
from establishing four sanitary landfills instead of five include enhanced
local support for the new project (because each county would in effect
contain a landfill) and easier management of personnel by the project
director. It is therefore recommended that the Eastern Appalachia
Health Region install four sanitary landfills located approximately as shown
in Figure 6. Budgetary requirements for the four-sanitary landfill
alternative were developed in Tables 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12,and 13 and Appendix G.
61
-------
TABLE 25
COMBINED REGIONAL COSTS OF SANITARY LANDFILL OPERATION
AND SOLID WASTE TRANSPORTATION
Number of
Sanitary
Landfills
Total Project
Cost for
Sanitary
Landfills
$/Ton
Total Regional Combined Regional
Cost for Solid Cost for Trans-
Waste Transportation portation and
$/Ton Disposal
$/Ton
1
3
4
5
$0.96
1.14
1.24
1.44
$2.64
1.30
1.09
$3.78
2.54
2.53
62
-------
5.00
E
Q)
O)
a
c
o
O
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0
• Combined Cost of Transportation
and Disposal
A Average Cost of Solid Waste
Transportation with Rural Bulk
Collection
• Cost of Sanitary Landfill Operation
234
Number of Sanitary Landfills
Figure 7. Comparision of total regional cost for transportation and disposal
of solid waste for various numbers of sanitary landfills
-------
REFERENCES
1. North Carolina State Stream Sanitation Committee. The Catawba
River basin, 1956-61. Pollution Survey Report No. 11, North
Carolina Department of Water Resources, Raleigh, N. C., 1961.
441 p.
2. Sumison, C.T. and R. L. Laney. Geology and ground water resources
of the Morgantown area, North Carolina. Ground Water Bulletin
No. 12, North Carolina Department of Water Resources. Raleigh,
N. C., March, 1967, p. 54-88.
3. Le Grand, H. E. Geology and ground water in the Statesville area,
North Carolina. Bulletin No. 68, North Carolina Department of
Conservation and Development. Raleigh, N.C., 1954. p. 23-27.
4. Climatic Summary of the United States, supplement for 1951 through
1960: North Carolina. Climatology of the United States No.
86-27, U. S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, Washington,
U. S. Government Printing Office, 1965. 85 p.
5. 1960 Census of population: Number of inhabitants for North
Carolina. U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. Series
PC - 3A & 3C, 1961.
6. 1970 Census of population: North Carolina. U. S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of Census. Publication No. PC(Vl)-35, December,
1970.
7. Spooner, C. S. Solid waste management in recreational forest areas.
Bureau of Solid Waste Management Publication No. 16-ts, U. S.
Public Health Service, Cincinnati, 1969. 52 p.
8. Sorg, T. J. and H. L. Hickman. Sanitary landfill facts. U. S. Public
Health Service Publication No. 1792. Washington, D.C., U. S.
Government Printing Office, 1968, 15-20 p.
9. Stone, R., ed_. A study of solid waste collection systems comparing
one-man with multi-man crews. Public Health Service Publication
No. 1892. Washington, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1969.
95-131 p.
10. Alexander, R. M., ed. Clean and green. Solid Waste Disposal
Demonstration Project 1-D01-UI-00017801. Bureau of Solid Waste
Management, Public Health Service, 1969. 4 p.
11. Smith, G.D., R. M. Alexander, and J. V. Walters. Chilton County
solid waste disposal demonstration project detailed progress report.
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, April 1971.
64
-------
APPENDIX A
POPULATIONS OF COUNTIES AND TOWNSHIPS
WITHIN THE EASTERN APPALACHIA HEALTH REGION
NORTH CAROLINA
65
-------
TABLE A-l
POPULATIONS OF COUNTIES AND TOWNSHIPS WITHIN THE EASTERN APPALACHIA HEALTH REGION,
NORTH CAROLINA
County or Township
A. Alexander County
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Little River Twp.
Sugar Loaf Twp.
Gwaltneys Twp.
Sharpes Twp.
Taylorsville Twp.
Ellendale Twp.
Wittenburg Twp.
Millers Twp.
B. Burke County
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Jonas Ridge Twp.
Upper Creek Twp.
Lower Creek Twp.
Smokey Creek Twp.
Drexel Twp.
Love lady Twp.
I card Twp.
Lower Fork Twp.
Upper Fork Twp.
Silver Creek Twp.
Morgantown Twp.
Quaker Meadow Twp.
Linville Twp.
Population in Census
1940
13,454
704
950
1,441
2,476
3,892
1,539
1,629
823
38,615
625
814
1,054
286
2,448
5,218
5,071
1,276
699
3,406
15,371
1,208
1,139
66
1950
14,534
767
897
1,421
2,640
4,813
1,482
1,821
713
45,518
572
609
1,004
284
2,414
6,414
7,080
1,280
644
3,844
18,088
2,045
1,220
Years
1960
15,625
500
858
1,257
2,764
5,810
1,892
1,906
638
52,701
457
508
1,168
229
2,594
7,010
8,692
1,417
1,349
4,394
21,274
2,277
1,282
1970
19,466
537
796
1,382
3,092
7,063
2,173
3,614
809
60,364
488
753
1,389
442
4,563
6,630
11,040
1,722
815
5,555
22,389
3,500
1,078
-------
TABLE A-l Cont'd.
County or Township
C. Cal dwell County
1 . Globe Twp.
2. Mulberry Twp.
3. Patterson Twp.
4. Yadkin Valley Twp.
5. Kings Creek Twp.
6. Little River Twp.
7. Lower Creek Twp.
8. Lenoir Twp.
9. Johns River Twp.
10. Wilson Creek Twp.
11. North Catawba Twp.
12. Hudson Twp.
13. Lovelady Twp.
D. McDowell County
1 . North Cove Twp.
2. Nebo Twp.
3. Higgins Twp.
4. Dyartsville Twp.
5. Brackett Twp.
6. Glenwood Twp.
7. Montford Cove Twp.
Population in Census Years
1940
35,795
736
705
1,626
1,134
1,202
1,693
6,353
11,776
1,067
45
982
2,492
5,922
22,996
1,661
1,157
574
823
264
659
745
1950
43,352
492
753
1,965
1,060
1,377
2,060
8,437
14,255
956
97
1,781
3,363
6,756
25,720
1,550
1,638
767
832
200
928
954
1960
49,552
305
1,062
2,108
1,008
1,360
1,994
10,007
15,609
932
107
2,405
5,240
7,477
26,742
1,174
1,897
1,236
920
166
942
1,543
1970
56,699
292
730
2,202
1,041
1,055
2,337
10,619
16,979
1,047
60
3,760
8,041
8,536
30,648
1,242
2,978
1,522
993
135
1,059
1,930
67
-------
TABLE A-l, Cont'd
r«,,n+.. ™ Trt,mcMr> Population in Census Years
County or Township lQAn r nicn TO
1940 1950 1960 1970
8. Crooked Creek Twp. 1,221 1,238 1,621 1,766
9. Old Fort Twp. 3,364 3,582 3,956 4,399
10. Marion Twp. 12,534 14,031 13,287 14,624
E. Total 110,860 129,114 144,620 167,177
68
-------
APPENDIX B
POPULATIONS OF MUNICIPALITIES WITHIN
THE EASTERN APPALACHIA HEALTH REGION
NORTH CAROLINA
69
-------
TABLE B-l
POPULATIONS OF MUNICIPALITIES WITHIN
THE EASTERN APPALACHIA HEALTH REGION
NORTH CAROLINA
County or City
A. Alexander County
1. Taylorsville
2. Stoney Point (Uninc.;)
B. Burke County
1 . Drexel
2. Glen Alpine
3. Hildebran
4. Morgan town
5. Rhodhiss (Burke Co.)
6. Valdese
C. Cal dwell County
1. Granite Falls
2. Hudson
3. Lenoir
4. Mortimer
5. Patterson
6. Rhodhis (Caldwell Co.)
D. McDowell County
1. East Marion-Clinchfield (uninc.)
2. Marion
3. Old Fort
4. West Marion (uninc.)
Population in Census Years
1940
1,222
—
881
665
337
7,670
321
2,615
1,873
748
7,598
42
158
609
—
2,889
774
—
1950
1,310
1,020
988
695
529
8,311
336
2,730
2,286
922
7,888
13
195
587
2,901
2,740
771
1,233
1960
1,470
1,015
1,146
734
518
9,186
328
2,941
2,644
1,536
10,257
3
265
509
2,442
3,345
787
2,335
1970
1,231
1,001
1,431
797
481
13,625
312
3,182
2,388
2,820
14,705
27
344
472
3,015
3,335
676
3,034
70
-------
APPENDIX C
LOCATION AND OWNERSHIP OF EXISTING
LAND DISPOSAL SITES IN
EASTERN APPALACHIA HEALTH REGION
71
-------
TABLE C-l
EXISTING GENERAL USE LAND DISPOSAL SITES
IN THE EASTERN APPALACHIA HEALTH REGION
Name of Land Disposal Site
Estimated Quantity* of
Solid Waste Delivered
To Site - Tons/Yr
Type of Site
Ownership
PublicPrivate
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Old Fort
Little Switzerland
Mari on
Linville Falls
Dysartsville Comm.
Glen Alpine
Morganton
Drexel
Valdese
Hilton's Refuse Disp.
Granite Falls
Rhodhiss
Hildebran
Henry River Comm.
Bristal Creek Comm.
Anderson Refuse Disp.
Skew Refuse Disp.
Lenoir
Garner Refuse Disp.
Chester Refuse Disp.
Blowing Rock
Walsh Refuse Disp.
Sanitary Pick-up Service
Taylorsville
679
87
20,043
9
457
130
25,740
651
725
3,536
9,360
1,872
3,015
1,350
407
467
416
38,835
1,092
624
3,239f
3,120
18,720
6,240
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Totals
137,575
17
* Data from the 1968 North Carolina survey of community solid waste management
practices.
t This refuse is collected in Watauga County.
72
-------
DOWELL COUNTY
BURKE COUNTYV
NORTH CAROLINA
- LOCATIONS OF SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL SITES
Figure C-1. Locations of existing general use land disposal sites in the Eastern Appalachia Region.
-------
APPENDIX 0
MUNICIPALITIES OPERATING PUBLIC
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEMS
74
-------
TABLE D-l
MUNICIPALITIES OPERATING PUBLIC SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEMS
Municipality
Taylorsville
Morganton
Valdese
Drexel
Glen Alpine
Hildebran
Lenoir
Granite Falls
Hudson
Mari on
Old Fort
Total
County
Alexander
Burke
Burke
Burke
Burke
Burke
Cal dwell
Cal dwell
Cal dwell
McDowel 1
McDowell
1970
Population
1,231
13,625
3,182
1,431
797
481
14,705
2,388
2,820
3,335
676
44,671
NO. or uoi lecti
Compactor
Trucks
3
3
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
19
on vehicles *
Non-Compactor i
Trucks
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
16
* Unpublished data from North Carolina State Health Department, Sanitary Engineering
Division, 1970.
t Actual vehicle capacities are unavailable.
75
-------
APPENDIX E
CALCULATION OF RECREATIONAL SOLID WASTE QUANTITY
76
-------
TABLE E-l
EXTENT OF RECREATIONAL USE OF DUKE POWER
COMPANY'S PROPERTY IN EASTERN APPALACHIA REGION *
Recreational
Area
Lake Rhodhiss
Lake Hickory ^
Lake James
No. Day-Use
Annual Visits
Visitor-days/
year
257,000
706,000
292,000
Visits
Av. Peak
Weekend Day^
Visitor-days/
year
3,400
9 ,600
4,700
No. Overnight Visits
Annual Visits
Camper-days/
year
8,000
226,000
37,000
Av. Peak
Weekend Day *
Camper-days/
year
100
2,900
500
*Data from Duke Power Company, Environmental Health Section, Charlotte, North Carolina,1968.
* Approximately one-half of these visits occurred in Catawba County.
* These values reflect the average visits/day that occurred during the peak weekend
and/or holiday visitation period.
77
-------
TABLE E-2
SOLID WASTE GENERATED AT
LAKES RHODHISS, HICKORY, AND JAMES BY RECREATIONAL USERS
Recreational
Area
Lake Rhodhiss
Lake Hickory*
Lake James
Totals
Day-Use
Visits
tons/yr
123
169
188
480
Average Amounts "*"
Overnight
Visits
tons/vr
5
71
23
99
of Solid Waste Generated by:
Private
Cottages
tons/yr
4
64
16
84
Total
Tons/yr
132
304
227
663
* The solid waste produced by recreational users in Catawba County, assumed to
be one-half the total amount from the Lake Hickory recreational area, is not
included.
The following solid waste generation rates in recreational areas were deter-
mined by Spooner:'
(a) Day use visits—0.96 Ibs/vi si tor-day
[b) Overnight stays--!.26 Ibs/camper-day
(c) Private cottage 6ccupants--2.13 Ibs/occupand-day
78
-------
TABLE E-3
DISTRIBUTION OF RECREATIONAL SOLID WASTE
ACCORDING TO COUNTIES AND TOWNSHIPS BORDERING
DUKE POWER COMPANY LAKES
County &
Township
Township
Number*
Name of
Recreation Area
Estimated
Percent of
Solid Waste
from Recrea-
tional areas'^
Solid Waste
Quantity
Allocated
Rural
Population
Equivalents*
Tons/yr
Persons/yr
Alexander County
Wittenburg Twp. 7
Burke County
Linville Twp. 13
Smokey Creek Twp. 4
Drexel Twp. 5
Lovelady Twp. 6
Icard Twp. 7
Caldwell County
N. Catawba Twp. 11
Lovelady Twp. 13
Lovelady Twp. 13
McDowell County
Nebo Twp. 2
Lake Hickory
Lake James
Lake Rhodhiss
Lake Rhodhiss
Lake Rhodhiss
Lake Rhodhiss
Lake Rhodhiss
Lake Rhodhiss
Lake Hickory
Lake James
85
80
10
10
10
10
30
30
,15
20
258
182
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
39.5
39.5
46.0
45.0
705
498
36
36
36
36
108
108
125
123
Total
662.8
1811
* Township numbers correspond to those in Figures 2, 3, 4, & 5.
-(- Percentages were estimated on the basis of shoreline length and locations of
access roads, public access areas, and private cottages.
+ Computed using a solid waste generation rate of 2.0 1bs/capita/day for rural
residents.
79
-------
APPENDIX F
NOMOGRAPHS FOR CALCULATING
SANITARY LANDFILL AREA AND VOLUME REQUIREMENTS
80
-------
APPENDIX F
NOMOGRAPHS FOR CALCULATING
SANITARY LANDFILL AREA AND VOLUME REQUIREMENTS
Sanitary Landfill Capacity Requirements
The design rate of utilization of sanitary landfill volume can
be computed from the following relationship:
(365 days/yr) (27 ft33) Pcdr p P^e p
vf = _ yd _ _ _ (1)
(43,560 £M Tft \42Yfc
in which: vf = design rate of utilization of landfill volume, acre-ft/yr
p = design population
P d = solid waste generation rate, Ibs/capita-day
r = ratio of the volume of compacted refuse and cover
material in the completed landfill to the volume of
compacted refuse only
Yf = unit weight of compacted moist refuse in completed
landfill, Ibs/cu yd
The landfill surface area to be actually utilized, Af, can be obtained
from the following expression:
where Y = design life of the landfill site, years
D = design average depth of sanitary landfill (solid
waste plus cover material), feet
To allow space for roads, fences, facilities and equipment storage,
a larger site area than that given by equation (4) must be purchased.
Knowing the site utilization efficiency, ES, the actual site area to
be purchased, AS, becomes:
81
-------
As = Af/Es = vf Y/ES D (3)
Nomographs for Sizing Sanitary Landfills
The average rate of utilization of sanitary landfill volume was
expressed as equation (1) which can be expeditiously solved for vf using
the nomograph in Figure F-l. Equation (3) has been presented graphically
as Figure F-2, which can be used to determine the actual site area re-
quired, A .
As an example of the use of these nomographs, the landfill volumetric
utilization rate, v,, and site area, AS, are determined assuming the
following parameters:
Pcd = 5*°° lb/caPita day Y = 10 years
p = 58,800 persons D = 15 feet
fc - 750 Ibs/cu yd Eg = 0.85
r = 1.20 (i.e., cover: refuse volume =1:5)
•-In Figure F-l, proceeding from left to right, a straight line intersect-
ing the given values of P_H and p produces an annual solid waste tonnage
C*
of 54 tons/yr. A line through this value and the solid waste density of
750 Ibs/cu yd yields an annual compacted solid waste volume of 140 cu yd/yr
or 88 ac-ft/yr. Finally, projecting this value of compacted refuse volume
through r = 1.20 results in a design landfill utilization rate of vf =
110 ac-ft/yr.
Then in Figure F-2, a straight line projected through vf = 110 acre-ft/yr
and Y = 10 years bisects the required landfill- capacity axis at 1100 ac-ft.
In a similar fashion, dividing graphically by D=15 ft gives Af = 73
acres, which then alighed with E = 0.85 projects to A = 86 acres. By
j j
comparison, the site area calculated from equation (1) was AS = 84.4 acres.
82
-------
o
1
1
-s
OC.
g
X
-a
r o.s
-1.0
-2.0
-5.0—
-10.0
I-20.0
v
O
-1000X10J
-500
i-200
-100 XI 0'
-20
,3
'-2.0
-J.OX10
-300
-200
-50
25
-10X10J
- 5
1
IIMIU — '
15 -
20-
•
5000 -j * 1
u . "
— ' *~ "o
o *• 3
2000- * g
' IS 8
"*»=JSi |
500- | . --^.T>
— Q — tj
"" "S "c |
200- S^ t5
" § '" °
ioo= u 1
M "O
50= ^
3
C
C
50-
••
300X103-
"^^^ .
*>
',
200-
*
•
"I
500-
-
1000X1 03I
-10.0
• 12.5
• 15.0
i-20.0
. 25
-30
-40
-50
-
—
• -
-100
.
-200
-300
-400
-500
-600
^1000
- 500
r-30
-2.0
•i
- 200
- 100
- 50
J- 2.0X10*
- 20
L- TO
Figure F-l. Nofnograph for calculating design rate of utilization of sanitary landfill volume.
-------
1000-
800 -j
600-
500-
400-
300-|
•
f
200-
100-
80 -j
«M
60-
50-
4fl-
IV
30 :
20-
10-
o
U
O
J! !»
s S
° ^
>^"
V ~
_s 1
o „_
~ o
^ J
3 c
S 8
1 Q
o
^
S.
(A
V
-! |
"^
-2 >
a
- S
1 5 J
I S
— 0
=10— __ >:_
" a.
-20 . (3
_ ~
- 1
-50 -1
— ID
"" =
tioo J1
-100
-200
" JU
Q
•" _;
* £
*~ 0
1 U
^soo ^ *-
HOOO^ -f
_,.
0.
8)
Q
-2000 I
g
• _i
u
o»
_ 0
V
-
-5000
M
1 10.000
r*
-5
"" tfi
~ « .
.^-*^^"
«-— «r
i-20 =
i£
o
— o
• ft!
r50 • <
r" ^
*
LU
•
-
:2° s
•
:D
-10 . 2
_
-5
l/t
V
U
<"*
t
5
cr
0)
c'OO ^
r^* I
;- 50 ^^^ -
~ ^^ =
I "c
=-20 -3
o
3
-10
-
c
- 5
_
—
-10
•
-20
.
-30
•
-40
•
-50
.
.
^
-100
•
;
-200
•
-400
-500
Figure F-2. Nomograph for computing surface area of solid waste fill and sanitary landfill area requirements.
-------
APPENDIX G
EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS AND COSTS OF RURAL
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM
84
-------
APPENDIX 6
EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS AND COSTS OF RURAL
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM
Design Quantity of Solid Waste
The number of people presently without solid waste collection
services in the four-county Eastern Appalachia Health Region was
estimated at 61,500 by the 1968-69 State survey of community
solid waste practices. These people reportedly generate solid waste
at 2.0 pounds/capita/day of solid waste. In addition, recreational
users of lakes in the region generate an estimated 633 tons of solid
waste annually (see Appendix E), which is equivalent to the contribu-
tion of 1,811 rural dwellers. Thus, the design population for the
rural bulk-container solid waste collection system in McDowell, Burke,
Caldwell, and Alexander Counties is 63,300 persons.
Experience with the rural bulk collection system in Chilton County,
Alabama, has indicated that bulky items as well as most yard and garden
wastes are not usually emptied into the bulk containers by rural residents.
The Chitton County system handles an average of only 0.68 Ibs/capita/
day for rural residents. It therefore appeared advisable to design the
rural bulk collection system for Eastern Appalachia using a maximum of
solid waste generation rate of 1.00 pounds/capita/day. More containers
and vehicles could be added to the system later if needed.
Container Capacity Requirements
Using the above waste generation rate and an uncoropacted solid waste
density of 150 pounds/cubtc yard in the bulk containers, the daily solid
waste volume would be:
Solid Waste Volume = 0-Q pounds/capita/day) (63,300 persons^
(150 pounds/cubic yard)
85
-------
Solid Waste Volume = 442 cubic yards/day
The number of 4-cubic yard bulk containers needed for twice-weekly
collection and 75 percent utilization of container volume would be:
... - . . . 422 cubic yards/day (3.5 days)
Number of Containers = (4 cubic yards/container!((0.75)
= 490 containers
Vehicle Requirements
The number of 25 cubic yard compactor vehicles required can be
computed as follows. Assuming a compacted refuse density of 440
pounds/cubic yard in the trucks, the solid waste tonnage handled
daily by each collection vehicle in completing two loads would be
22,000 pounds/vehicle/day. The average quantity of solid waste to
be handled daily in the four-county region is 63,300 pounds/day.
Therefore, the required number of 25 cu yd compaction vehicles is:
Number of collection vehicles = 63.300 pounds/day
22,000 pounds/day/truck
= 2.88 or 3 trucks
With the 490 containers distributed along roadsides throughout the
region, each compactor truck must collect from an average of 65 containers
per day to provide twice-weekly collection.
Budgetary Requirements
Capital and operating costs for the rural solid waste bulk container
collection system are presented in Table G-l. The total annual cost of
the bulk container system of $74,390/year is equivalent to $6.44/ton.
This unit cost is higher than that listed in Table 23 (which was used
for determining the optimum number of sanitary landfills) primarily
because of inaccuracies in estimating the annual travel distances in-
86
-------
volved in collecting and transporting the solid waste from each town-
ship. The costs presented in Table G-l represent expenditures which
the region must be prepared to meet to own and operate an adequately-
sized rural bulk collection system.
87
-------
TABLE G-l
EQUIPMENT AND OPERATING COSTS FOR THE BULK-CONTAINER
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM
Item
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Collection Vehicle
Operators
Fringe Benefits for
Operators
Compaction Vehicles
(25 cubic yards)
Fuel, Repairs, Etc.
for Compactor Ve-
hicles
Bulk Containers
(4 cubic yards)
Site Preparation for
Bulk Containers
Personnel Training
Uniforms for Drivers
Total
Number or Total cC4.,-mafQj A«n,,ai
Quantity Unit Price Initial Es*]^ted A^]
Cost Years $/Year
3 $6,000/yr
3 900/yr
3 25,500 $79,500 6
5,460 hrs/yr 2.70/hr -
490 250 122,500 8
490 100 49,000 5
3 300 900 4
3 120/yr
$251,900
$18,000
2,700
13,250
14,742
15,313
9,800
225
360
$74,390
yo72404s
88
------- |