PB-240 365
RURAL STORAGE AND COLLECTION CONTAINER
SYSTEMS
Bartle Wells
Humboldt County Department of Public Works
Prepared for:
Environmental Protection Agency
Bartle Wells Associates
Garretson, Elmendorf, Zinor, and Reibin
1975
DISTRIBUTED BY:
KTOi
Technical Information Service
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA
SHEET
1. Report No.
EPA/530/SW-8ld
2.
PB 240 365
4. Title and Subtitle
Rural Storage and Collection Container SystexrjS
5. Report Date
1975
6.
7. Au,hor(s) Bartle wells Associates^ and
Garretson. Elmendorf, Zlnor, & Raibin, Consulting Engineers
8. Performing Organization Kept.
No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
John Murray
Project Director
Hutnboldt County, California
10. Proiect/Task/Worlc Unit No.
11. Contract/Grant No.
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report it Period
Covered
Final
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstracts
This report describes the development and financing of a county solid waste collec-
tion system for rural areas. The objective of the system was to substitute an
environmentally sound method of solid waste disposal for the unsound practice of
using small, random, burning dumps. The report shows that this can be accomplished.
It presents a detail description of the storage and collection containers used, the
construction of the container sites, and an economic analysis of the advantages/dis-
advantages of die use of small and large containers. The report also presents a com-
prehensive analysis of the development of the County financial plan.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17o. Descuptors
waste disposal, rural areas
17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
Mechanized collection system
Solid Waste Collection
Bulk containers
Rural collection system
County solid waste collection system
17e. COSAT1 Field/Group
18. A\ ,n!,ihiliiv Statement
19. ^ciurity Class (This
Report)
20. Security Clas
Page
UNCLASSIFIED
21 No. of Pages
22. Price
•OHM NTIC-IS
-------
NOTICE
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED FROM THE
BEST COPY FURNISHED US BY THE SPONSORING
AGENCY. ALTHOUGH IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT CER-
TAIN PORTIONS ARE ILLEGIBLE, IT IS BEING RE-
LEASED IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING AVAILABLE
AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE.
-------
030140
RURAL STORAGE AND COLLECTION
CONTAINER SYSTEMS
This filial report (SW-81d)describes work performed
for the Federal solid waste management programs wider grant No. G06-EC-Q0271
to HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
and is reproduced as received from the grantee
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1975
10,
-------
This report as submitted by the grantee or contractor has not been
technically reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Publication does not signify that the contects necessarily reflect the
views and policies of EPA, nor does mention of commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government.
An environmental protection publication (SW-8ld) in the so"Md waste
management series.
-------
HUMBOLDT COUNTY SOLID WASTE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
PIKAL REPORT
TABLE OP CONTENTS
Chapter Page
Table of Contents ill
List of Tables v
List of Figures v
List of Plates vl
Appendices vii
Summary viii
Introduction x
1.0 Conclusions 1
1.1 Container Size 1
1.2 Operating Costs 1
1.2.1 Containers 1
1.2.2 Sanitary Landfill 1
1.2.3 Collection Vehicles 2
1.3 Operating Conclusions 2
1.4 Expansion of System 2
2.0 Collection System Design and Implementation 4
2.1 Demonstation Project Program Design 4
2.2 Container Sites 6
2.3 Collection Equipment 6
- iii -
-------
Chapter
3.0 Disposal Sites
3.1 Closure of Open Dumps
3.2 Central Landfill - Benbow
3.2.1 Property Acquisition 12
3.2.2 Site Development 15
3.2. 3 Regional Water Quality Control Board Requirements 16
3.2.4 Operational Characteristics 18
3.2.5 Closure of Landfill 22
3.2.6 Summary of Disposal Site Difficulties 22
4.0 Collection System Evaluation 25
4.1 Data Collection 25
4.2 Implementation of Test Sequence 25
4.3 Twenty Cubic Yard Container Site 28
4.4 Container Site Rating 28
4.5 Water Pollution 31
4.6 Air Pollution 32
4.7 Fire Hazards 32
4.8 Solid Waste Characteristics 33
4.8.1 Waste Density 33
4.8.2 Waste Generation Rate 34
4.8.3 Waste Types 34
4.9 Maximum Legal Payloads 34
4.10 Collection Vehicle Operating Cost 35
4.11 Container Collection System Operating Data 36
4.12 Site User Field Surveys 38
4.13 Vandalism 40
4.14 Combined Container System 40
4.15 Collection Frequency 41
4.16 Vectors 43
4.17 Effect of Container Lids 46
4.18 Effect of Container Site Wall Height 47
4.19 Alternate Collection Vehicle Uses 48
4.20 Truck Mounted Container Wash System 49
4.21 Solid Waste Seminars 49
5.0 County-Wide Solid Waste Plan and Implementation 51
5.1 General Plan 51
5.2 Container Sites 51
5.3 Disposal Sites 52
5.4 Resource Recovery 52
6.0 County-Wide Solid Waste Financial Plan
54
iv -
-------
LIgT OF TABLES
Table PaRe
1 Summary of Bid Awards 9
2 Dump Site Closure Information 11
3 Container System Test Sequence Characteristics 26
4 Container Site Ratings and Characteristics 30
5 Collection Systems Operational and Cost Data 37
6 Container Site Collection Frequency 42
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Humboldt County, California. Solid Waste 5
Demonstration Project Area
2 Conceptual Drawing of Truck, Containers, and 7
Site for Utilizing the 8- and the 40-Cubic-Yard
Container Systems
3 Benbow Sanitary Landfill Monthly Waste 21
Quantities
— v -
-------
LIST OF PLATE
Typical Demonstration Project Area Terrain -
Shelter Cove (Western Section)
2 Typical Demonstration Project Area Terrain -
Alderpoint (Eastern Section)
3 Typical Container Site Layout - Dual Level,
Restricted Access, Retaining Wall, Paving and
Drainage
4 Petrolia Honeydew Container Site - 40-Cubic-Yard
Container System, Low Wall Concept
5 Blocksburg Container Site - 8-Cubic-Yard Container
System, High Wall Concept
6 Front-Loading 42-Cubic-Yard Detachable Compaction
Body Being Mounted on Multipurpose Collection
Unit (Heavy Duty Truck Chassis Supporting Basic
Understructure - International COF 4070A)
7 FortyCubic-Yard Containers with Counterbalanced Solid
Lids and Detachable Tarp Covers (Alternates)
8 Twenty-Cubic-Yard Drop Box Mounted on Multipurpose
Collection Unit
9 Typical Humboldt County Presystem Rural Area Open
Burning Dump - Thorn
10 Benbow Central Landfill Site Prior to Initiation
of Fill Operations
11 Low Cost 20-Cubic-Yard Container Site (Garberville) -
Earth Excavation, Log Supports, Unlimited Access,
Little Grading and Landscaping
12 Counterbalanced Solid Lids (40-Cubic-Yard Containers)
at Low Wall Site - Dumping Platform 30 Inches below
Container Level
These plates are not included in this text, but are available
for review and copying at EPA Office of Solid Waste Management
Programs, Washington, D.C.
- vi -
-------
APPENDICES
Appendix
A Summary of Collection Equipment Specifications
B California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North
Coast Region, Waste Discharge Requirements for Benbow
Solid Waste Disposal Site
C Benbow Sanitary Landfill - Operational and Cost Data
D Data Collection Forms
D-l Trip Ticket
D-2 Weekly Truck Weight Record
D-3 Weekly Timecard
D-4 Weekly Landfill Equipment Report
D-5 Weekly Collection Equipment Report
D-6 Weekly Repair and Maintenance Record
E Typical Data Summary
E-l Trip Ticket Summary By Site Location
E-2 Trip Ticket Summary By Type of System
E-3 Quarterly Equipment Cumulative Cost Record
F Container Waste Density
G Collection Vehicles' Operating Cost
H 8-Cubic-Yard Container Collection System: Operational
and Cost Data
I 40-Cubic-Yard Container Collection System: Operational
and Cost Data
J Summary of Site Surveys
- vii -
-------
SUMMARY
Humboldt County is located along the scenic Pacific Coast of Northern
California. Typical of many rural areas in the Pacific Northwest, the
County economy depends heavily upon the forest products industry. Of
the approximately 100,000 people in the County, 87 percent reside in an
urban or semi-urban corridor where solid waste collection service is
available to them through franchised private haulers. The other
13,000 people live in remote, relatively isolated areas centering around
small communities. Historically, these communities have delivered their
solid waste material to convenient open dumps that were periodically
burned by the community or under the supervision of the Humboldt County
Department of Public Works. The project described in this report was
prompted by the recognition of the liabilities associated with this
method of solid waste disposal, including such matters as air pollution,
water pollution, aesthetic blight, fire hazard to surrounding forests,
and health and sanitation hazards from vector breeding.
As an alternative to the open burning dumps, it was proposed that
rurally located sites be developed where steel containers could be
placed to receive the solid waste previously delivered to the open
dumps. The containers would then be emptied periodically by a special
collection vehicle, and the solid waste brought to a central sanitary
landfill for proper disposal.
At an early date it became apparent that very little information was
available to assist in the design and implementation of such a system
for rural solid waste management.
The demonstration program was established, with partial funding from
the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, to develop and document the
operational characteristics of a containerized collection system where
numerous design features could be varied to test their effectiveness.
At the heart of the demonstration program was the testing of two
alternate concepts for container collection of solid waste in a portion
of the County. A 40-cubic-yard roll-off container was located at some
sites. At others, five 8-cubic-yard containers were located, which
were serviced by a 42-cubic-yard front-loading compactor vehicle. During
the 17-month operational phase of the project, detailed data was accumu-
lated which related to the collection and disposal activities. Analysis
of this data, firmly supported by field observations and practical
experience, has led to conclusions upon which the design and implementation
of a County-wide container collection system will be based.
Although there appears to be a very modest cost advantage to the 8-cubic-
yard system over the 40-cubic-yard system (based upon equivalent tonnages,
the costs are $39.73 per ton versus $42.92 per ton), the 40-cubic-yard
system is recommended because of its more effective performance with
respect to (1) its ability to handle over-sized, bulky items, (2) better
- viii -
-------
control of environmental and aesthetic considerations, (3) increased
equipment reliability, and (4) site user preference. Comparison of
either container system to the old system of open burning dumps has
shown the virtual elimination of or significant reduction in, items
generally associated with such waste disposal sites as air pollution,
water pollution, land blight, poor sanitation conditions, and fire
hazards.
A central landfill was established in the southern portion of the
County to dispose of waste from the container system, the franchised
collectors, and the State Parks. During the course of the project
the average waste quantity was approximately 11 tons per day and the
actual disposal cost was $14.55 per ton. At such a small landfill,
the refuse-to-cover ratio was approximately 1:1, instead of the
originally anticipated 3:1. As a result, the anticipated 20-year life
of the disposal site was reduced to 7 or 8 years. The landfill opera-
tion was a difficult component of the project due to (1) the long
delayed issuance of waste discharge requirement by the North Coast
Regional Water Quality Control Board, (2) initial shortages of manpower
necessary to properly maintain the site, and (3) less than ideal ground-
water conditions at the site. During the last month of the project,
the landfill access road was a victim of earthslides caused by heavy
winter rains, effectively closing the site due to inaccessibility.
Attempts will not be made to reopen the site with a permanent road;
rather, a transfer station will be developed to deliver waste to a
disposal site in the mid-County area.
Although the container system has proved to be costly, it is an effective
alternative for management of rurally generated solid waste in an environ-
mentally sound m&rner. Based upon information developed during the
demonstration project, the container system will be expanded County-wide.
Fourteen container sites will ultimately be operated, permitting the
closure of approximately 20 open burning dumps. This system of container
sites, in conjunction with larger transfer stations, will permit focusing
all of the waste in the County at a single location where it may be
properly disposed of by sanitary landfill, or at some future time, pro-
cessed for reclamation of the waste's valuable components. The container
system has proved to be so effective that it has served as the basis for
implementation of similar programs in other Northern California and Oregon
counties.
-------
INTRODUCTION
Humboldt County is located in Northern California along,the Pacific
Ocean some 250 miles north of San Francisco. The developed portion
of the County stretches in a north-south corridor centered around
U. S. Highway 101. The balance of the County is predominately rural
with small population centers widely scattered throughout the
4,500 square mile area. These communities are relatively isolated,
with access provided by narrow, winding roads traversing the rugged
terrain.
The County economy has a strong dependence upon the forest products
industry and tourism. The outdoor beauty and magnificent, virgin
redwood stands are a strong attraction for summer vacationers. Within
the County are major National and State Parks and numerous recreational
areas and campgrounds.
Of the 100,000 people in the County, approximately 87 percent live in
the developed corridor, within franchised solid waste collection areas.
The remaining 13 percent, or 13,000 people, live in or around the small
communities in the rural areas. The traditional method of solid waste
management in the rural areas had been individual delivery of materials
to a small dump that was periodically burned off. In 1971 the County
operated and maintained over 27 disposal sites within the area. At that
time the quantity of waste requiring disposal was estimated to be
61,900 tons per year, escalating to 91,800 tons per year in 1985. The
County's ability to adequately service the disposal sites on more than
an intermittent basis was limited by financial, manpower, and equipment
constraints. Consequently, the situation (typical of most rural
counties) resulted in dump sites that present fire hazards, fly and
rodent infestation, smoke and odors, surface water pollution, and
aesthetic blight.
It was from this background that efforts were initiated to seek alternate
methods to upgrade solid waste management in the County. The evolution
of this effort began in 1969 with the preparation of a report, Solid
Waste Disposal for Rural Communities - 1970. by the Humbcldt County
Department of Public Works. Assisting in preparation of the report
were the California State Department of Health and the consulting firm
of Garretson*Elmendorf*Zinov*Reibin, Architects and Engineers. The
study was partially supported by Demonstration Grant Number G06-EC-00138
from the Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency. The major thrust of this effort was to review and
evaluate the three alternate methods to deal with the rurally-generated
solid waste:
(1) Modified Landfill System: The existing dumps serving the
rural communities would be replaced by a disposal site at
a different location which would be covered on a weekly
basis by mobile crews.
- x -
-------
(2) Forty-Cubic-Yard Container System: A container site,
consisting of a concrete retaining wall, a concrete slab
to support the container, and asphalt paving for access
by the collection vehicle and site users, would be
developed at each existing dump site. A collection vehicle,
capable of mounting the container on the truck bed, would
pick up the container and deliver the waste to a centrally-
located sanitary landfill. Area residents would deliver
their waste to the container as they had previously >done to
the dump.
(3) Eight-Cubic-Yard System: The container site would be
developed in a manner similar to the one for the larger
containers. Several of the 8-cubic-yard containers would
be located at the site for use by area residents. A
collection vehicle, fitted with a front-loading compaction
body, would empty each container and return it to its
position at the site. Due to the compaction ability of the
vehicle, numerous containers and several container sites
could be serviced during a single route trip from the
landfill.
The feasibility study recommended the use of a container system over
the modified landfill approach. It was concluded that the modified
landfill concept bad higher operational costs and would not meet minimum
anticipated state and federal solid waste disposal requirements. The -system's
low capitalization requirements and user reeducation advantages were
not sufficient to balance the detrimental environmental effects of
"upgraded dumps". The study also recommended that the County embark
on a comparative evaluation program relating to the operational
and functional characteristics of the 8-cubic-yard and 40-cubic-yard
containerized storage and collection systems utilizing a central
sanitary landfill for final disposal.
The County committed itself to implementing these recommendations with
partial financial support from the Office of Solid Haste Management
Programs, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Demonstration Grant
Number G06-EC-00271. The specific objectives of the demonstration
project were to:
(1) Test the effectiveness of a containerized storage and
collection system in reducing the fire hazards, public
health hazards, air and water pollution, general
unsightllness, and aesthetic objections arising from
existing practices in typical small, rural, isolated
communities.
(2) Develop comparative engineering data relating to the opera-
tional and functional characteristics of the 8-cubic-yard and
40-cubic-yard containerized storage and collection systems.
- xi -
-------
(3) Delineate the advantages and disadvantages of the various
site configurations, and ascertain the influence or effect
of the ancillary variables (public preferences, public
convenience, site maintenance, spillage, etc.) on the
economics or practicability of the total system.
(4) Demonstrate the feasibility of an integrated solid waste
storage, collection, and disposal system as a viable
economic alternative to the existing system of numerous
open dumps.
(5) Investigate alternative and/or unique sources of revenues
and methods of financing the proposed system throughout
the County that are available to rural areas but heretofore
have not been utilized or applied to a project of this
nature.
(6) Select the optimum system based on the above factors for
County-wide implementation and design appropriate systems
and components.
(7) Disseminate all the generated information, data, operational
experience, and conclusions, to all concerned regional solid
waste management personnel, County and public officials, or
other interested parties, through a series of short one-day
practical seminars to be held periodically throughout the
course of the project.
Equipment acquisition, container site construction, and landfill acqui-
sition and design, were all completed by July 1972. These components
of the project are described in detail in an interim project report,
Rural Storage and Collection Container Systems. National Technical
Information Service Publication PB-212-398, U. S. Department of Commerce,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151. On August 1, 1972,
the system became operational, and data relating to the characteristics
of the system has been collected since that date. This report briefly
summarizes the der.ign and implementation information found in the earlier
interim report, and presents the results and conclusions developed during
the 17-month operational period of the demonstration project.
The project was conducted under the overall management of the Humboldt
County Department of Public Works. Technical guidance was provided by
Garretson-Elmendorf-ZinovReibin, Architects and Engineers: Bartle Wells
Associates, Municipal Financing Consultants, provided assistance with
the financial plan for the system. Interdepartmental coordination,
citizen input, and project review were provided by a project advisory
committee; its members consist of representatives from the following
organizations:
- xii -
-------
California State Department of Health
League of Women Voters
• California Division of Forestry
• California State Department of Parks and Recreation
Huroboldt County Air Pollution Control Board
• Humboldt County Department of Environmental Health
• The Times Standard Newspaper
- xiii -
-------
CHAPTER 1: CONCLUSIONS
1.1 CONTAINER SIZE
The 40-cubic-yard container system has proved superior to the
8-cubic-yard container system in the following respects:
• The 40-cubic-yard container can accept virtually all wastes
delivered to the site, including bulky, over-sized items.
The 40-cubic-yard containers achieve slightly higher waste
densities, and consequently, greater capacity.
• As a corollary to the above, the overflow, litter, spillage,
and presence of vectors at the 8-cubic-yard container sites
are greater than at the 40-cubic-yard sites, and hence both
visual and sanitary conditions are generally better at the
latter sites.
• The consistent overload characteristics of the compactor
body and problems inherent in the compaction equipment
have caused greater downtime and maintenance.
• Site users prefer the 40-cubic-yard containers to the
8-cubic-yard containers.
1.2 OPERATING COSTS
1.2.1 CONTAINERS
During the entire project, the unit collection cost for the
40-cubic-yard system was $42.27 per ton (based on 857 tons
collected) and for the 8-cubic-yard system, $44.68 per ton
(based on 683 tons collected) (Table 5). Based on the same
tonnage of waste collected by each system during the first
ten months of operation (approximately 445 tons), the unit
costs were $39.73 per ton for the 8-cubic-yard system and
$42.92 per ton for the 40-cubic-yard system.
1.2.2 SANITARY LANDFILL
The Benbow Landfill receives an average of approximately
11 tons of solid waste per day, with a seasonal increase of
approximately 100 percent between the winter and summer months.
The actual disposal cost during the Demonstration Project
Period was $14.55 per ton (Appendix C). These high costs are
principally due to the inherent inefficiencies of operating a
disposal site receiving less than 11 tons per day.
- 1 -
-------
1.2.3 COLLECTION VEHICLES
The collection vehicle cost (exclusive of the 42-cubic-yard
compaction body) was $0.82 per mile: $0.34 per mile, operation
and maintenance; $0.19 per mile, depreciation; and $0.29 per
mile, vehicle driver (Appendix G and Table 5 respectively).
1.3 OPERATING CONCLUSIONS
Although only a portion of the site users made the effort to
close the container lids, the lids are justified by their
positive effect on fire, leachate, and litter control.
The top of the containers should be approximately 16 inches
above the dumping platform to minimize wall height and still
permit direct dumping from a pick-up truck.
A refuse-to-cover ratio of 1:1 to 2:1 should be expected at
low volume landfills such as Benbow where daily waste quantities
are less than 10 to 15 tons.
The heavy-duty chassis and over-sized equipment on the existing
collection vehicles is necessary to negotiate the rugged terrain
in Humboldt County.
Although vandalism has occurred at some of the container sites,
their functional reliability has not been affected.
Weekly container collection, proper site clean-up, and periodic
container washing reduce the presence of vectors at the site
to a minimal and acceptable level, but do not eliminate them.
1.4 EXPANSION OF SYSTEM
The container collection system, to be expanded County-wide, will
employ the following features:
• Forty-cubic-yard containers, or larger, with lids will be
used exclusively throughout the County.
• A collection vehicle with a trailer will be utilized to
permit servicing two 40-cubic-yard containers in a single
route trip.
The rural container site design will be modified to permit
dropping off an empty container and loading a full container
without having to use the collection vehicle to push the
containers into the proper position.
• A 5- to 6-mile and/or 10- to 15-minute haul radius will be
utilized as the effective design criteria for the container
sites.
- 2 -
-------
The Benbow Sanitary Landfill will be replaced by a
transfer station that will deliver future waste from
the Demonstration Project Area to a single County-wide
disposal site in the mid-County vicinity.
- 3 -
-------
CHAPTER 2; COLLECTION SYSTEM DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
2.1 DEMONSTRATION PROJECT PROGRAM DESIGN
For the purpose of evaluating the relative performance of the
two types of container systems, the southern third of the County
was designated as the Demonstration Project Area (Figure 1). It
contains 16 unincorporated communities, ranging in size from 150
to 1,100 persons. The approximate total population for this area
is 10,000 persons. The area is presently serviced by two fran-
chised collectors, operating principally in the Garberville and
Myers Flat areas along a narrow corridor paralleling the principal
highway transversing the area. The terrain is mountainous with
limited access to the rural communities; highway grades are in
excess of 20 percent at some locations (Plates 1 and 2). The two
collectors provide regular service for approximately 1,300 persons.
The area contained 11 open dumps; of these, one was owned and
maintained by the County; five were owned privately, but maintained
by the County; two were owned and maintained by private individuals;
one was owned and maintained by the State Department of Parks and
Recreation; and two were owned privately and not maintained.
Six container sites were constructed in this portion o.f the County.
A landfill was developed in the Garberville vicinity to serve the
container system and the franchised collection areas. Three con-
tainer sites (Fruitland, Blocksburg, and Alderpoint) were located
east of the highway, and three container sites were located west
of the highway (Thorn, Shelter Cove, and Petrolia) (Figure 1).
At the beginning of the Demonstration Project, 8-cubic-yard con-
tainers were located at the sites to the east, and 40-cubic-yard
containers were located at those sites to the west of Highway 101.
For each type of container system, two additional variables were
introduced to determine their effect on the operational charac-
teristics: (1) The top of the container was at the same height
as the dumping platform, or 30 inches higher, and (2) the containers
at some sites were fitted with lids, and at all others they had
no lids.
The testing program called for in the Demonstration Project
included a 6-month period when data could be collected on the
container systems arranged as described in the preceding paragraph.
A second 6-month period would be devoted to such things as varying
the collection frequency, fire suppression tests, alternate
vehicle uses, vector investigations, site user surveys, evaluation
of liquid effluents, and placement of both container types at a
single site. During a third 6-month period, the 8-cubic-yard and
40-cubic-yard containers were to be interchanged at each site. In
this fashion, the performance of a 40-cubic-yard container at a
specific aite could be compared to the performance of-' an 8-cubic-
yard container at the same site. Although this schedule has not
been strictly adhered to, the basic objectives have been achieved
as will be discussed in later sections.
- 4 -
-------
DEL MORTE CO.
Container sites:
1 Fruitland
2 Blocksburg
3 Alderpoint
4 Thorn
5 Shelter Cove
6 Petrolia
0 Benbow Sanitary
Landfill
\
MCNOOCINO COUNTY
Figure 1. Hunboldt County, California.
stration Project Area.
Solid Waste Demon-
- 5 -
-------
2.2 CONTAINER SITES
Four of the container sites were located at existing dump sites
serving the area. These land parcels were privately owned and
leased to the County, and the owners readily agreed to replacing
the dumps with the container sites. The Alderpoint and Thorn
sites were located on parcels not previously used for solid
waste disposal. Lengthy negotiations with owners were required
In order to acquire the necessary land, delaying the design and
construction of the sites.
Each site is capable of handling one 40-cubic-yard container or
five 8-cubic-yard containers (Figure 2). Considerable design
effort was required to work out the maneuvering procedure for
unloading the empty 40-cubic-yard container, loading the full
one, and then pushing the empty one into position next to the
retaining; wall with the lids opening in the correct direction.
The vehicle maneuvers necessary to service the 8-cubic-yard
containers were superimposed upon those maneuvers required for
the 40-cubic-yard containers to derive the configuration of the
lower level of the container site (Plate 3).
In order to provide different elevations of the containers above
the dumping platform (upper level), the retaining wall height
was not the same for all container sites, but was either 5 ft 6 in.
or 8 ft 0 in. Both the retaining wall and the platform on which
the containers rest are constructed of cast-in-place reinforced
concrete. The other paving at the site is asphaltic concrete
(Plates 4 and 5).
Surveys, final design drawings, and bid documents were completed
for the six sites by the early summer of 1971. An initial bid
opening in mid-summer showed the low bid of $207,295 to be almost
80 percent over the budgeted amount. The project was readvertised
and the contract awarded to the low bidders for the total amount
of $169,201. Although construction began in the fall of the year,
it was anticipated that it could be completed before inclement
weather. Early stonns, however, necessitated a winter shutdown
and construction was not concluded until the early summer of 1972.
2.3 COLLECTION EQUIPMENT
The very nature of the Demonstration Project necessitated acqui-
sition of a collection vehicle capable of servicing a 40-cubic-
yard roll-off container and of mounting a front-loading compaction
body -to service 8-cubic-yard containers. Additionally, the vehicle
must be capable of negotiating the severe topography of the County
on narrow, winding roads with a solid waste payload that makes the
vehicle fall within the legal highway weight limitation in California.
Each component of the collection equipment must be compatible with
- 6 -
-------
r8-cubic-yard container
Figure 2. Conceptual drawing of truck, containers, and site for
utilizing the 8- and the 40-eubic-yard container systems.
-7-
-------
the others and capable of meeting the performance requirements
inherent in the project.
Field demonstration of a medium-sized truck chassis with a simu-
lated waste load showed that it was not adequate for the demanding
task of the project. On several 15- to 20-percent grades on the
route between Garberville and Shelter Cove, the engine rpm dropped
to 1,500 in low gear with an indicated speed of less than 3 miles
per hour. Engine heating and brake fading were prevalent on
several grades; brake fade on a long downgrade into Shelter Cove
terminated the run for safety reasons. This test confirmed
speculation by the project staff and dictated that the truck
chassis be heavy-duty to accommodate an engine in the 300-horsepower
range and a Jacobs engine brake (Appendix A). This type of chassis
is not normally used in combination with a front loading compaction
body due to its large cab, and special attention was required to
effect the proper marriage between the two (Plate 6).
The ability of manufacturers and dealers to bid on the front-loading
compaction body was restricted by the compatibility of their equip-
ment with the heavy-duty chassis. Accurate truck chassis specifi-
cations were necessary to determine such things as compatibility
of front-loading arms with cab and maximum payload based on axle
loading. Both the project team and prospective compaction body
bidders experienced difficulty in securing unqualified reporting
of critical truck specifications.
Container specifications were based upon standard designs to keep
the costs within a reasonable range. Some modifications, however,
were necessary to conform to the project objectives. In order for
the 8-cubic-yard containers to be the same height as the 40-cubic-
yard drop boxes, steel "stilts" were fixed to the bottom. This
modification has not affected the containers' stability at the
site, nor the ability of the collection vehicle to service them.
Three of the 40-cubic-yard drop boxes were fitted with a solid
steel, split lid, with spring counterbalancing to open with an
applied force of five pounds (Plate 7). Although the 8-cubic-
yard containers with lids are similarly spring loaded to facilitate
opening, this feature is already available in many standard designs.
Two 20-cubic-yard drop boxes, without lids, were also acquired to
provide a margin of extra capacity should unforeseen difficulties
develop in the overall program (Plate 8). These containers turned
out to be essential to the program, as will be detailed in a later
section.
To give the truck chassis the capability of mounting the compaction
body or drop boxes, a hydraulic tilting-frame understructure is
mounted on the truck bed. This piece of equipment is1 available with
a cable and winch or with a hydraulic, telescoping piston pull-on
system. The two understructures acquired for the collection vehicles
employ the winch and cable system.
Total acquisition cost for the collection equipment was approximately
$99,000 (Table 1).
- 8 -
-------
TABLE 1
SUMMAStt OF BID AWARDS
Waste collection equipment;
Base Items Cost
Understructure (2) $ 9,445.46
42-cubic-yard detachable compaction 12,319.09
body and front loader (1)
40-cubic-yard drop boxes (5) 12,990.00
20-cubic-yard drop boxes (2) 3,912.00
8-cubic-yard drop boxes (20) 8,500.00
$ 47,166.55
Optional items
Wash water system (1) 300.00
Outside controls (2) 264.00
Double-ended understructures for 875.00
40-cubic-yard drop boxes
Alternate partial-pack compaction body (900.00)
in lieu of standard full pack (1)
$ 539.00
5% sales tax 2,365.28
Total purchase price $ 50,090.83
Truck chassis;
Truck chassis - International Model No. COF $ 45,624.88
4070A (2)
Air conditioner (2) 763.04
5% sales tax 2,319.40
Total purchase price $ 48,707.32
Total waste collection equipment and truck
chassis awards $ 98,798.15
-------
CHAPTER 3; DISPOSAL SITES
3.1 CLOSURE OF DUMPS
Seven open burning dumps were identified for closure in Che proj-
ect area. Six of the sites were maintained as authorized sites
by the County (Plate 9).
Dump sites adjacent to proposed container sites were reviewed
prior to final project design to insure that construction would
not prevent public use of the existing dumps until the program
was implemented. Contract documents also included provisions to
stockpile surplus material for dump site closure.
Each site was reviewed prior to program implementation by project
and maintenance personnel to determine closure procedures. Road
department and dump maintenance personnel were used to perform all
field closure work. Right-of-way personnel arranged for entry per-
mits for those sites maintained by the County that did not have
adequate lease provisions.
Field activities to close the majority of the dump sites were in-
itiated about one week prior to program implementation and were
completed subsequent to program implementation (Table 2). Gen-
eral closure steps included:
• Complete burning of accumulated waste by dump
maintenance personnel.
• Waste compaction and covering with on site material
by road personnel.
• Construction of fences, barricades, and posting
signs to prevent further use.
• Subsequent review to identify and complete addi-
tional work.
The final covering at the Garberville site will be performed when
the Garberville container or transfer site is constructed. Clo-
sure steps for the Harris site were recently determined to be the
property owners responsibility and County action for final cover
of this illegal site has not been initiated. Specific rat eradi-
cation procedures were not deemed necessary after preliminary
review by appropriate vector control agencies.
- 10 -
-------
TABLE 2
DUMP SITE CLOSURE INFORMATION
Site adjacent to container site
Provision made for public use
during construction
Provision made to stockpile
surplus material
Alderpoint Blocksburg Fruitland
X X
...
Garberville Harris
Petrolia-
Honeydew Thorn
1
t-*
I-*
oi.te envry permit irequj-ieu J.UL
closure
Site fencing required
Site closure signs required
Date initial closure completed
Follow-up site inspection made
Added site work required
XXX
X
X
(3) (3) (3)
XXX
(2)
X
X X
(3)
XXX
(4) (5)
X
X
X
(3)
X
(1) No surplus material available.
(2) Site closure has been determined to be the property owner's responsibility.
(3) June 1972.
(4) Final cover requirements to be met with surplus material when the Garberville container site is constructed.
(5) County action for final cover by property owners is still pending.
-------
3.2 CENTRAL LAMDFILL - BENBOW
3.2.1 PROPERTY ACQUISITION
Representatives of the Department of Public Works had hoped to
establish a program to reduce the impact of public opposition in
the final selection of a suitable landfill site. The approach
used by the Department was to locate parcels that were (1) within
the geographical area, (2) suitable for development, and (3) avail-
able to purchase for this purpose. This approach was taken
because the County did not have the right of immediate possession
of property through condemnation for solid waste purposes. Indi-
cations were given that in excess of one year would be required
between court actions and final possession, which would substantially
delay project schedules.
The acquisition of the central landfill was one of the-ma j or
delaying factors in the project. The following paragraphs describe
the selection criteria used, the difficulties in locating a parcel,
and the access restrictions on the selected parcel.
Selection Criteria. The general geographic area of the project
was mountainous. Population was centered in the Garberville-
Redway area. These two factors limited both the general area
where the central landfill could be located and the acreage of
land within the area that would be suited for a landfill.
An 8-mile radius around the Garbervllle-Redway area was
selected as the basic criteria for site selection. The
reasons for this general location limitation were:
(1) A landfill in this area would serve the recreational
needs and franchisee requirements, as well as the proposed
collection system.
(2) Roads to the container sites connect to Highway 101 in
the Garberville-Redway area.
(3) The Garberville area was the center of population and
contained the existing and proposed commercial developments.
An added location criterion placed emphasis on parcels within
a one-half mile distance from access points on state or county
maintained roads. An access road one-half mile long would
require $50,000 to develop; a maximum access cost in relation
to acquisition costs. The development cost for the access
road was based on an 18-foot roadway in moderate terrain;
property acquisition was estimated at $2,000 per acre.
- 12 -
-------
Sites with distances greater than the specified eight-mile
criterion were considered marginal.
Initial site evaluations were limited to parcels greater
than 35 acres which was the minimum acreage required for a
25-year landfill service life. Smaller and adjacent sites under
separate ownership were not initially considered because on-site
surveys and site options would be more difficult to obtain.
• Site Evaluation. Criteria for site evaluation included:
(1) View from existing roads.
(2) Suitable geological conditions and soil character-
istics. Canyon areas would be suitable if stream
and / or surface waters could be diverted, and if the
perimeter fill slope of the landfill were no greater
than 4:1.
(3) Land reclamation benefits.
Procedure for Site Evaluation. Office investigations and field
reviews for the landfill site were initiated prior to project
funding. The following procedures were used for initial site
evaluations:
(1) Aerial photographs and timber appraisal maps were
reviewed for potential sites.
(2) Field reviews were made to visually evaluate site
suitability.
(3) Letters were forwarded to owners indicating the need
for a central landfill, landfill operating concepts,
and the need for a response on the owners' willingness
to discuss further evaluations of the property identi-
fied as a potential site.
Initial contacts with owners of identified parcels and the ma-
jority of realtors in the southern County area had been made by
the fall of 1970. No potential sites meeting owner approval
were found through combined efforts by the County and local
realtors.
After additional field evaluations, the Department of Public
Works initiated action for geological evaluations of a site
adjacent to the existing Garberville dump. The Department also
prepared a site location map to assess all identified potential
parcels within the proposed area. The site location map served
as a visual assessment of all parcels within the geographical
- 13 -
-------
area, and included overlays, a color code, and other informa-
tion for illustrating (1) areas within reasonable access of
existing roads; (2) eliminated parcels (less than 35 acres
of land, community sites, and other developed areas); (3) own-
ership of remaining parcels.
The Department made no attempt to assess the geological condi-
tions of any area unless the owner agreed. All acquisition steps
between January and March were limited to re-evaluation of pos-
sible sites and continued negotiations with the owner of land
adjacent to the existing dump.
The County of Humboldt evaluated and accepted a lease-purchase
option offered by a landowner for a 40-acre parcel in the Benbow
area. This action was taken because (1) negotiations on the
parcel adjacent to the existing dump were terminated due to lack
of agreement and (2) the efforts to locate alternate sites be-
tween January and May were unsuccessful.
Acquisition steps on this property had proceeded sufficiently
by the first of June to allow project continuance. Initial
geological evaluations and a lease on the proposed parcel in-
sured the central landfill development, and enabled the County
to award equipment bids and container site construction con-
tracts.
Access Restrictions. The acquisition steps for the central
landfill parcel were to be completed prior to lease termina-
tion. Acquisition terms were included in an agreement between
the owner and County, subject to final hearings.
The access road to the site was about one mile long. The road
was indicated to be under the same ownership as the parcel to
be acquired. During subsequent public hearings and acquisition
steps it was determined that:
(1) The parcel boundaries were different from those
indicated by existing fences and structures. Re-
solving the discrepancies would require an agree-
ment or legal decision between the owner and adja-
cent property owners.
(2) Ownership and access rights for the access road were
also unclear and subject to agreeements on a legal
decision between the parties.
(3) The owner of a large historical tourist inn objected
to the proposed public traffic that would pass the
inn prior to entering the access road.
- 14 -
-------
The County, after additional meetings and hearings, executed
agreements to acquire the property and access road after the
two owners signed agreements resolving the ownership rights
of the property and access road. The County accepted a con-
dition that only vehicles authorized by the C6unty could
enter the site and that general public access would not be
allowed until after the landfill operation was terminated.
The County accepted the access restriction as a part of the
agreement because of the need to acquire the site within a
limited time frame to continue the project (Plate 10).
3.2.2 SITE DEVELOPMENT
As part of the effort to utilize the disposal site in a rational
manner, a limited soils and geological investigation and topo-
graphic mapping were completed in 1971. Due to concern about
the stability of the bluff overlooking the south fork of the
Eel River, the entire landfill operation was to be "setback"
from the bluff by 200 feet. The site master plan called for
the successive construction of three trenches, each intercepting
bedrock, approximately 10 to 20 feet below ground level. Trenching
provides: (1) material which can be stockpiled for final cover
and other use, (2) the starting point for the progressive exca-
vation of each operational phase, and (3) an interceptor and
collector system for subsurface seepage and potential leachates.
The trenches were to be located so that they would open into a
drainageway through the center of the site. As the landfill
developed, all off-site surface drainage would be diverted
around the working area and down the eastern boundary of the
site. The drainageway through the site would serve as a natural
trunk collector, at the bedrock level, for subsurface seepage
from each trench. Based upon a 3:1 refuse-to-cover ratio and
an annual solid waste quantity of 4,500 tons in 1972, escalating
to 6,000 tons per year in 1980, the site life was estimated to
be 23 years.
An abandoned 60-foot by 80-foot corrugated metal building with
concrete slab floor was located on the site. With minor modifi-
cations, it was adapted for use for equipment storage, minor
equipment maintenance, and to house the truck scale weighing
apparatus. Portable truck scales were installed to weigh all
solid waste deposited at the site.
Access to the site was originally provided by an unimproved,
one-lane road constructed when the site was used as a lumber
mill. The County graded and graveled the approximately
one-mile long road to provide improved access to the site.
- 15 -
-------
3.2.3 REGIONAL HATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD REQUIREMENTS
In compliance with the State of California regulations, the plans
and specifications for the Benbow Landfill were submitted to the
North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for their
approval prior to commencing operation at the site. During the
following months, there was no response from the RWQCB. The
landfill operation finally began in July 1972, without the issu-
ance of waste discharge requirements by the RWQCB. Daring the
fall of 1972, correspondence between the County and the Water
Quality Control Board centered around several concerns:
(1) The County desired prompt issuance of the waste discharge
requirements so that they would have authorized guidance
in terms of which operational procedures to employ in the
site development. Specifically, if the Regional Board pro-
hibited excavation of the trenches all the way to bedrock to
reduce the potential for contact with groundwater, then the
site development plan would have to be altered to provide for
waste disposal at, or near, grade.
(2) The Regional Board was concerned that significant quantities
of leachate would be generated due to the heavy rainfall dur-
ing the winter and the resultant subsurface flow through the
site at the bedrock level.
(3) The available technology to economically treat any potential
leachate generated is developmental and essentially untested
in field conditions. Neither the County nor the Regional
Board had clear concepts for effectively treating potential
leachate.
During this period of time, both the State Water Resources Control
Board and the County consultant entered into the discussions sur-
rounding the problems created by the delay in issuance of the waste
discharge requirements and the problems inherent in the site itself.
On February 28, 1973, the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control
Board finally adopted waste discharge requirements for the Benbow
Landfill. The most important aspects of the waste discharge re-
quirements are summarized below (Appendix B):
(1) "Liquid control barriers shall be provided to retain
leachate from the leachate collection system to pre-
vent any discharge to South Fork Eel River or its
tributaries (sic)." The Regional Board anticipated
that leachate, flowing in the drainageway through the
center of the site, would be collected and stored in
a pond constructed below the landfill area. Under the
requirements' provisions, "discharge of treated leach-
ate will be considered after satisfactory evidence is
submitted by the discharger that pollution or nuisance
conditions would not occur1'.
- 16 -
-------
(2) "Surface drainage from tributary areas, and internal
site drainage from surface and subsurface sources
shall be controlled to minimize percolation through
Group 2 wastes discharged at the site." To the north
and vest of the landfill working area, a trench was
constructed to intercept all surface drainage from
off-site. At the bottom of the trench an 8 inch per-
meable steel pipe in a bed of gravel is to be located
to intercept subsurface flow into the site. Since
this trench will not intercept bedrock for its entire
length (bedrock was 20 feet or more below the surface
level in some areas), it is expected that groundwater
will still seep into the landfill area. This subsur-
face interceptor is to be completed in the spring of
1974. Surface drainage from the high ground to the
northwest flowed through the site in the drainageway.
A corrugated steel pipe was installed in the drain-
ageway to divert surface drainage through the site
without being contaminated by any leachate.
(3) The discharger shall submit a plan which details how
the requirements will be met; specifically indicat-
ing, among other things:
• Method of leachate collection under the landfill.
• Leachate handling and disposal methods.
The central drainageway performs as a leachate col-
lector. The quantity of leachate flow is so small
that the County does not think it constitutes a haz-
ard to the south fork of the Bel River.
(4) "The discharger shall comply with the Monitoring Pro-
gram Ho. 73-14 as specified by the (Regional Board's)
Executive Officer." In compliance with the monitoring
program, three monitoring wells have been installed "to
detect possible southward movement of leachates from
the initial landfill area". A 60° angle V-notch weir
has been installed in the central drainagewa/ to mea-
sure the quantity of leachate flow. An initial mea-
surement in January 1974, indicated a flow of 0.0072
CFS. Extrapolation of the measurement for the month
of January indicates a total flow of 19,284 cubic
feet/month (0.0000036 of the approximate flow of the
Eel River for the same period).
- 17 -
-------
3.2.4 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS *
Since the site is not open to the general public, as specified
in the purchase agreement, a full tine gate attendant ia not pro-
vided. The principle site users are (1) County collection ve-
hicles, (2) franchised collectors, (3) collection vehicles op-
erated by the State Park system, and (4) other special users
(e.g., demolition contractors). There is no charge for use of
the site. The project field personnel can perform both collec-
tion and disposal tasks, although the senior employee (leadman)
generally has responsibility for the disposal operation. Fre-
quently, the site is left unattended while the containers are
beiqg serviced. Authorized site users have a key to the gate
and use the facility at their convenience (recording the weight
of waste delivered for each visit). Others may make arrange-
ments for using the site by calling the Department of Public
Work» and making an appointment. 6n such occasions, field per-
sonnel are in attendance to weigh the waste and supervise dis-
posal.
A Caterpillar D-6 track type tractor with bulldozer blade is leased
by the County and permanently maintained at the site for routine
disposal duty. Other equipment is used occasionally at the site
for special purposes on force account or under contract.
• Initial Difficulties. The site master plan called for a phased
development, initiated by the construction of a trench near the
middle of the site. From this trench, the landfill was to pro-
gress in a northerly direction (uphill) by excavating, cover ma-
terial from the north side of the trench. Without approval of
this plan from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB),
the County was hesitant to proceed with the sizable, initial
trench excavation. Expecting that the RWQCB would issue waste
discharge requirements "any day", the County began an interim
fill area (at grade) just to the south of where the initial
trench should have been excavated. If the site plans were ap-
proved as submitted, the "interim fill" could conveniently be
pushed into trench and the site development would proceed as
planned. If the BHQCB required that the landfill operation be
conducted some distance above the bedrock level (the major con-
cern among the design team), the trench would not be excavated
as deep as originally anticipated. The consequences of the
latter course of action would have diminished the life of the
site but not altered the basic site development concept.
Described as experienced during the project and prior to closure of the
site due to loss of the access road.
- 18 -
-------
During the ensuing months, there was still no response from
the RUQCB, and Che "interim fill" area continued to be used.
Due to the time consuming nature of the GarbetviLLe site (to
be discussed in a later section), the project was understaffed
with respect to field personnel. The manpower shortage, com-
bined with normal start-up difficulties, placed pressure on
the field personnel Just to keep-up with their container col-
lection duties. As the RWQC5 continued to delay and the field
personnel struggled to service the containers, the "interim
fill" area grew larger and looked more and more like a perma-
nent feature of the disposal site.
By tlie time the waste discharge requirements were finally is-
sued on February 28, 1973, plans for final construction of the
"initial" trench were abandoned and the second phase trench was
excavated first. This tranch was oriented parallel to the first
proposed trench and to the south of it along the 200-foot set-
back from the bluff. The northern edge of this Crench will be
progressively excavated for cover material. The landfill will
be developed in a northerly direction, until it reaches the
southern face of the "interim fill" area.
Refuse to Cover Ratio. The present operation is located in the
southern trench excavation. As the trench was being utilized
during, the early spring of 1973, an effort was made to confirm
the refuse-to-cover ratio anticipated in the master plan. The
material excavated from the trench and used as cover was com-
pared to the quantity of solid vaate disposed of in the trench.
The results of this evaluation showed that instead of a 3:1 refuse
to-cover material ratio, the operation was actually realizing
a ratio closer to 1:1. The effects of this finding were far-
reaching. Instead of a 23-year site life with a modest surplus
of cover material, the life of the site was reduced to 7 to 8
years, with cover material being the limiting factor.
Reconsideration of this result, based on the disposal cell geom-
etry, has showed that it is entirely plausible. As will be
shown later, the average daily waste quantity received at the
landfill is approximately 11 tons. In a 40-foot wide by 10-foot
deep trench, with a 2:1 sloping working face and an in-site
density of 1,000 pounds /cubic yard, the depth of compacted
refuse on the working face is 7.9 inches. With a minimum
dally cover requirement of 6 inches, the refuse-to-cover mate-
rial ratio is approximately 1.3:1. Although conservation of
cover material can be achieved by reducing the size of the work-
ing face, maneuverability requirements of the unloading collec-
tion vehicle and the landfill bulldozer impose practical limits
on the minimum size of the working face. Over the long term,
It is doubtful that operational procedures can be altered to
produce a refuse-to-cover ratio much greater than 1.0-1.5 to 1.0.
- 19 -
-------
Disposal Site Data. The monthly waste quantities received at
the landfill demonstrate the typical seasonal variation in
solid waste generation (Figure 3). December appears to be
the low point, with waste quantities increasing by approxi-
mately 100 percent during the tunner months. During the project
operational period, the landfill received an average monthly
waste quantity of 327 tons, or approximately 11 tons per day
(Appendix C).
The cost categories associated with the landfill operation
are: (1) equipment, (2) labor, (3) land, (4) initial site
development, and (5) miscellaneous. The equipment consists
of a Caterpillar D-6 track type tractor, leased at a pate of
$17,325 per hour with a 100-hour per month minimum. The labor
cost is allocated to the landfill operation at a rate of $7.50
per hour, which includes both wage.and overhead. The land
cost is $75,000, amortised for seven years at an Interest rate
of six percent. The initial site development included scale
installation, engineering, fencing, access road, on-site clean
up, etc. This cost of $54,000 is amortized for seven years at
six percent per annum. One major miscellaneous cost: consists
of $1,700 for construction of a surface interceptor trench on
a contract basis. This expense is amortized on the same basis
as the other capital investments. Based on an accounting of
costs in this manner, the unit disposal cost for the 17-month
demonstration period was $14.55 per ton (Appendix C).
Two adjustments may be made to this unit cost with respect to
the labor and equipment categories. To account for necessary
non-productive paid time for such things as administration,
educational activities, and idle time, the labor cost should
be increased by 10.3 percent. Were the landfill equipment
purchased at the beginning of the project, instead of leased,
the cost might approximate $12 per hour in use. Including
these considerations, the adjusted disposal cost is $12.26 per
ton.
One other major capital expenditure should be noted, although
it is not included in the data discussed above. In response
to the RWQCB's waste discharge requirements, the County con-
tracted for additional site work. This work included test
wells for subsurface water quality monitoring, a corrugated
metal culvert to divert off site drainage through the site,
and a permeable material subsurface interceptor along the
northwest boundary of the landfill working area. Although
this work was initiated in the fall of 1973, it will not be
completed until weather permits in the spring of 1974. The
estimated cost of this work is $25,000. Based on a useful
life cf six years, this construction may represent an addi-
tional $1.30 per ton to the future disposal costs.
- 20 -
-------
N) W
500 _
400 -
300 -
200 -
100 -
FIGURE 3 - BENBOW SANITARY LANDFILL
MONTHLY WASTE QUANTITIES
County Collected
Franchised Collectors
State Parks
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
-------
3.2.5 CLOSURE OF LANDFILL
As the project team began to deliberate the concepts to be
employed in an expanded County-wide container program, the
implications of the foreshortened life of the Benbow Landfill
required evaluation. The landfill soon became to be regarded
as an interim site, to be replaced by a transfer station when
it reached capacity and/or when a new County-wide disposal
facility was developed in the Eureka vicinity. The details
of the County-wide solid waste program are discussed in a
later section.
During January 1974, heavy rains caused extensive damage in
Northern California, so that Humboldt County was declared a
disaster area. One of the victims of these storms was the
access read leading to the landfill site. Portions of the
steep hillside holding the access road slipped into the south
fork of the Eel River. An inspection of the hillside showed
signs cf continued instability that could result in further
earthslides. Restoration of the access road would be difficult
from a technical standpoint as well as extremely costly (pre-
liminary estimates of $300,000). Comments by the County's
engineering geologists that "Northern California is on the
move, literally" have proved to be entirely accurate.
At the present time the Benbow Landfill is inaccessible to
vehicular traffic. For a brief period of time the container
collection vehicles delivered waste to a landfill in the
Eureka vicinity. The additional 100- to 130-mile round trip
to the disposal site proved to be too time consuming to
adequately service the container system in the Demonstration
Project Area. Permission was secured from all appropriate
regulatory bodies to reopen the Garberville dump site as an
expedient short term solution to the disposal dilemma created
by the emergency. The operation of the container collection
system was not interrupted by the Benbow Landfill closure,
and it continues to service the container sites, on schedule,
utilizing the Garberville dump site for disposal.
The Garberville dump was being utilized as an interim solution
to permit continuous service and evaluation of the containerized
collection system. The dump site has been scheduled to close
pending the construction of a facility to transfer the wastes
to the proposed central landfill in the mid-County area. The
implementation costs for expansion of the system, including the
Garberville transfer station, has been previously budgeted by
the County, and the County Board of Supervisors has instructed
the Public Works Department to construct the proposed transfer
station as soon as possible, to replace the current disposal
operation.
- 22 -
-------
3.2.6 SUMMARY OF DISPOSAL SITE DIFFICULTIES
The difficulties associated with the acquisition, development
and operation of the Benbow Landfill have been considerable. To
many this may not be a unique situation; it may be instructive,
however, to recap these difficulties so that others may benefit
from the breadth of experience gained during the project.
(1) It took over a year and one-half to secure a land parcel
for the disposal site, and then only after public appeals
for help in the face of termination of federal financial
support for the project. The site was finally judged to
b« the "best available" within the context of time limita-
tions and numerous rejections from other owners of suitable
property. Condemnation proceedings were considered but not
enployed because of lengthy time requirements necessary to
complete the legal action.
(2) Due to the type of land use adjacent to the access road
for the "best available" site, the sale of the land to the
County was contingent upon certain access restrictions.
Site users would be limited to the County, the State Park
System, Franchised Collectors, and certain other authorized
users (e.g., construction and demolition contractors). Res-
idents living in the vicinity of the Benbow Landfill would
not be permitted to use the site. Instead, a crudely
constructed container site, employing two 20-cubic-yard
containers, was located at the old Garberville disposal
site. As will be noted in a later section, servicing
this high-volume and unanticipated container site diverted
a great deal of available manpower from othei project tasks.
(3) Groundwater conditions at the Benbow Landfill site have
caused continuing problems with respect to site development
and leachate control. Subsurface permeable material drains
will be completed in the spring of 1974 to reduce the
gronndwater flow into the landfill working area. Leachate
is being generated by the site due to groundwater flow, as
well as infiltration from the intense winter rains. A
leachate monitoring program has been established to determine
its quantity and quality. The effect of this leachate on
the surrounding water quality has not been established, nor
have practical methods for treating the leachate. The
resolution of these problems may be only academic at this
point, or they may necessitate further control measures.
-------
(4) The lack of responsiveness on the part of the Regional
Water Quality Control Board contributed to substandard
operational procedures during the initial period of the
landfill operation. Had the differences in operational
concepts between the County and RWQCB been resolved at
an early date, site conditions probably could have been
maintained at a much higher level throughout the life of
the site.
(5) Instead of the originally anticipated refuse-to-cover
ratio of 3:1, the actual site operation realized a ratio
of closer to 1:1. The net effect of this lower ratio
mny have been to reduce the life of the landfill to
approximately one-third of the original site life.
(6) Operating costs exceeding $14.00 per ton have generated
the need for a note economical alternative. The inherent
inefficiencies of maintaining a low volume (less than
10 t.o 15 tons per day) disposal site outweigh the anti-
cipated advantages of regional disposal sites. Expansion
of the system will include the development of a single
County-wide disposal site and transfer of all wastes from
the Demonstration Project Area.
(7) As a final blow to the viability of the Benbow Landfill,
the access road washed out, leaving the site inaccessible
to vehicular traffic. Restoration of the access road
would cost approximately $300,000.
- 24 -
-------
CHAPTER 4; COLLECTION SYSTEM EVALUATION
4.1 DATA COLLECTION
A series of six forms are used to collect the necessary primary
data for the project evaluation (Appendix D). A Trip Ticket
(Form D-l) is completed each time that the collection vehicle
services a container site or is used for some non-project activ-
ity. The data on each Trip Ticket is keypunched onto data proc-
essing cards for summarizing by a computer program developed by
the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs. Monthly summaries of this data are prepared
quarterly (Appendix E-l and E-2).
The other data collection forms relate to accounting for the land-
fill waste quantities, labor manhour distribution, landfill and
collection equipment operation, and equipment repairs. From these
forms, data is tabulated for the operation, maintenance, and re-
pairs of each piece of equipment involved in the project. The
County Accounting Division prepares equipment reports on a quar-
terly basis for all County equipment (Appendix E-3). This exist-
ing system has been employed to collect the data that relates to
the Demonstration Project equipment.
From the six primary data collection forms, the Trip Ticket Sum-
maries, and the Quarterly Equipment Reports, all the necessary
data is available to quantify the quantities and coats associated
with the two types of collection systems, as well as the landfill
operation.
4.2 IMPLEMENTATION OF TESTING SEQUENCE
As noted earlier, the project plan called for locating 40-cubic-
yard containers at three sites and 8-cubic-yard containers at the
remaining three sites for an initial 12-month period. For the
next six month period, the type of container at each site would
be interchanged. Comparing the initial six month period opera-
tion with the last would provide the basis for determining the
relative performance of the two types of systems subject to the
same seasonal influences. During the course of the project it
became necessary to alter the testing program (Table 3) in order to
accommodate certain external constraints.
(1) The initial test period was reduced to 11 months (August 1,
1972 to June 30, 1973) so that the change over of container
types would coincide with the beginning of a calendar quar-
ter, the time period employed in the quarterly equipment
reports.
- 25 -
-------
TABLE 3
CONTAINER SYSTEM TEST SEQUENCE CHARACTERISTICS
Container
Site
August 1972
through
June 1973
July 1973
through
December 1973
Alderpoint
Blocksburg
Fruitland
Shelter Cove
Thorn
8 c y containers 40 c y container
containers without lids
containers level with dumping platforms
8 c y containers 8 c y containers
containers with lids
containers level with dumping platform
8 c y containers
(August to April)
40 c y container
(Hay to December)
containers with lids
containers 30 in. above dumping platform
Petrolia 40 c y container 40 c y container
containers with lids
containers 30 in. above dumping platform
40 c y container 8 c y containers
containers with lids
containers level with dumping platform
40 c y container 8 c y containers
containers without lids
containers level with dumping platfom
- 26 -
-------
(2) At the Fruitland site, a 40-cubic-yard container was the
principal type employed during May and June 1973. This
situation represented a change in type of container two
months prior to the anticipated change over date. During
a portion of May, both types of containers were located at
the site to determine the effect on site usage and perfor-
mance. (As will be discussed later, it was thought that
bulky wastes could be placed in the large container and
"loose" waste in the small ones, thereby extending the time
between servicing.) At the heavily used Fruitland site,
the 40-cubic-yard system outperformed the 8-cubic-yard sys-
tem so dramatically that the use of both container types
was abandoned, and the 40-cubic-yard container was used
exclusively.
(3) When the types of containers were interchanged on June 30,
1973, there was no alteration at the Petrolia and Blocksburg
sit«3. At the Petrolia site the 40-cubic-yard container was
to be replaced with 8-cubic-yard containers. To service the
8-cubic-yard containers, the compaction body had to be mounted
on the collection vehicle. As will be discucsed in Section
4.9, the collection vehicle, loaded with the compaction body
and waste from a site, frequently exceeded the highway weight
limitation established by the State of California (48,0001b).
A bridge on the route to service the Petrolia site had a
weight limitation (38,000 Ib) that was less than the general
gross vehicle weight (GVW) restriction. Prudence dictated
that., even during a developmental project, the heavily
weighted vehicle not test the structural integrity of the
bridge. Consequently the 8-cubic-yard containers were not
located at the Petrolia site. Blocksburg was not converted
from an 8-cubic-yard site to a 40-cubic-yard site in response
to the situation at Fetrolia. If Petrolia remained a 40-cubic-
yard site and Blocksburg were converted to one, four sites
would require 40-cubic-yard containers. Since only five 40-
cubic-yard containers were initially acquired, only one could
be in transit at any time on the way to service a 40-cubic-
yard site. Consequently, only one vehicle could service the
40-cubic-yard sites at any one time, in spite of the fact
that there were two collection vehicles. In order to prop-
erly service all of the container sites, both vehicles were
necessary. To maintain the overall adequacy of the container
collection system, the Blocksburg site was not converted to a
40-cubic-yard container, so that there remained three 40-cubic-
yard sites and three 8-cubic-yard sites.
- 27 -
-------
4.3 TWENTY CJBIC YARD CONTAINER SITE
The 20-cubic-yard container site at Garberville was hastily devel-
oped to permit servicing of the Garberville area without violating
the access restrictions placed on the Benbow Landfill; namely,
prohibition of general public use of the site. The container site
itself is simply a shallow excavation, lined with large logs on
either side. The containers are slid into the excavation, and
subsequent site users deposit waste into them from either side of
the excavation. There is no grading, paving, or landscaping,
although some of the access area has been graveled (Plate 11).
Although this container site was an ad hoc response to restrictive
disposal site conditions, it has continued in operation for the
duration of the demonstration project. The 20-cubic-yard containers
were used because they had been acquired for just such unexpected
developments. Were this site formally developed, one, or possibly
two, 40-cubic-yard containers would be located here. The 20-cubic-
yard containers are too small for the quantity of waste delivered to
the site. The site requires two to three serviciugs per day during
the peak summer months. During the entire project period, over
41 percent of the collection time was devoted to this site, and
almost 25 percent of the entire project manpower requirement.
Because of the extra, unanticipated labor necessary to service
the Gaiberville site, the total project was initially understaffed.
During the crucial, early months of the project, the field person-
nel struggled to adequately service all container sites. Ten- to
twelve~hour days for six to seven days per week were the rule
rather than the exception at this time. Priority was placed on
the container collection system to prevent the container sites
from becoming dumps and jeopardizing community support. The man-
power shortage contributed to the sub-standard operation at the
Benbow Landfill.
Adequate manpower was finally secured; at first on a temporary
basis, and finally on a permanent basis. However, some ramifi-
cations of the improper start at the landfill still linger on.
4.4 CONTAINER SITE RATING
On the Trip Ticket (Appendix D-l), the collection vehicle driver
recorded the general conditions at each container site serviced.
A subjective evaluation of three site condition categories is pro-
vided :
Litter: Waste randomly scattered around the site.
- 28 -
-------
Spillage: Resulting from an attempt to place waste into the
container. The spillage may be due to too large a load of
loose waste for the size of the container opening; or it may
be due to the container's being too full to receive additional
waste; or simply poor aim.
Vectors: Presence of rats, flies, yellow jackets, etc.
If the site experienced none of these conditions for to a very
slight degree), the vehicle driver recorded a "1" in the appro-
priate category. If the site experienced any of these conditions
to a severe degree, the driver recorded a "3" in the appropriate
category. Similarly, intermediate conditions arc denoted by a
Although the time required to clean up a site can be reduced to
an economic value, it tends to relate closely to the non-economic
factors. The higher the clean-up time, the greater the probability
that the site has experienced litter, spillage, and vectors during
the intervening time between collections.
The 17-month project period included the 5-month period from
August to December in both 1972 and 1973. So that like seasonal
conditions may be compared, these 5-month periods serve as the
basis for the non-economic evaluation of the site conditions
(Table 4). For each container site, the average site rating and
clean-up time has been calculated for the two separate periods.
The average values for the Blocksburg and Petrolia sites, where
the container types were not interchanged, seem to indicate ctiat
site condicions were generally better in 1972, than in 1973. How-
ever, for the Alderpoint and Fruitland sites, where the 8-cubic-
yard containers were replaced by the 40-cubic-yard containers, the
average site ratings and clean-up time requirement showed decreases,
indicating more attractive site conditions. At Shelter Cove and
Thorn, where the 40-cubic-yard containers were replaced with 8-
cubic-yard containers, the site condition indicators show a de-
terioration in 1973 when the 8-cubic-yard containers were employed.
Acknowledging that the absolute value of the average site ratings
have little significant meaning, the relative magnitudes lead to
the consistent conclusion that the sites employing the 40-cubic-
yard containers required less clean-up time and that visual and
sanitary conditions are better than for the S-'cubic-yar'd contain-
ers. This result is consistent with the observations of the proj-
ect team and is confirmed by interviews with site users, to be
discussed in Section 4.12.
- 29 -
-------
TABLE 4
CONTAINER SITE RATINGS AND CHARACTERISTICS*
u>
o
Container
Site
August to
December
Comparison
Period
Container Average Site Rating* Average clean.up
Size Litter Spillage Vectors Time (minutes)
Height of Container Container
Above Dumping Level Cover
Alder point
Blocks burg
Fruitland
Petrolia
Shelter Cove
Thorn
1972
1973
1972
1973
1972
1973
1972
1973
1972
1973
1972
1973
8 c y
40 c y
8 c y
8 c y
8 c y
40 c y
40 c y
40 c y
40 c y
8 c y
40 c y
8 c y
2.53
1.63
1.04
1.36
1.98
1.68
1.07
1.45
1.00
1.09
1.50
1.88
2.61
1.54
1.04
1.23
1.94
1.65
1.07
1.58
1.00
1.17
1.46
1.48
2.13
1.77
1.26
1.95
1.78
1.65
1.11
1.85
1.00
1.35
1.50
1.71
14.2
12.1
6.3
19.1
12.2
16.9
6.9
18.3
5.4
10.0
9.4
21.0
same height
same height
30 in. higher
30 in. higher
same height
same height
no lids
lids
lids
lids
lids
no lids
* Source: Appendix F.
** Evaluation of site conditions by collection vehicle driver: 1 - good, 2 - fair, 3-poor.
-------
4.5 WATER POLLUTION
Observations by the project field personnel have shown that no
measurable quantities of liquid or semi-solid waste are placed
in the containers. Consequently, the only liquid effluent from
the containers is a result of rainfall entering the container.
During the six- to eight-month "wet season", the average rain-
fall is as much as 60 inches in certain areas of Humboldt County.
For a 40-cubic-yard container, without a lid (22-foot by 8-foot
top opening), approximately 106 gallons of rainfall would enter
the container for each inch of rain.
To determine the quality of liquid effluent from containers under
simulated field conditions, 200 gallons of potable water were
poured into a full 8-cubic-yard container. After one week, a
liquid sample was analyzed by the local Public Health Department.
The results are shown below:
Item Influent Effluent
B.O.D. - 2,061 mg / liter
ColifortD (MPN) - over 24,000/100 ml
Ph 7.4 5.5
Settable Solids 0. 0 ml / liter 0.4 ml / liter
Dissolved Oxygen 8.0 mg / liter 0.0 mg / liter
Large quantities of waste water with a composition similar to the
test sample could pose a considerable threat to water quality.
When the lids on 40-cubic-yard containers are fully open-, they
form an angle from the horizontal of approximately 22 degrees.
The horizontal projection of the open area, available for rain-
fall iapingement, is approximately 11 square feet (versus 176
square feet for containers without lids). For one inch of rain-
fall, 6.6 gallons enter the container when the lid is open.
AsBurning the moisture content of the waste exposed to the rain
increases from 50 percent to 60 percent, it is estimated that
3.2 gallons would be absorbed and 3.4 gallons would flow through
as leachate. If the drain plug were removed from the container,
this leachate would flow out (into the container site paving. Be-
fore the leachate would reach any soil it must flow across at
least 50 feet of asphalt paving. If the leachate emerges while
it is still raining, there would be ample opportunity for dilu-
tion and dispersion as it flows over the paving. The leachate
produced in the container is considered to be an insignificant
cause of water quality degradation due to its small quantity.
The container lids serve the useful purpose of shedding a large
portion of the incident rainfall that would otherwise enter the
container and generate leachate. This is true even if the lids
are not closed after each use.
- 31 -
-------
The potential for water pollution from 40-cubic-yard containers
with lids is essentially nil, under present usage patterns. For
containers without lids (both 8- and 40-cubic-yard), the potential
quantity of leachate flowing from the container during wet weather
is considerably greater than for containers with lids. Even with
this greater leachate flow, it is doubtful that there would be any
measurable degradation of surrounding water quality. Conservative
practices, however, would suggest that container lids reduce the
potential effect of leachate generation well below the level for
concern.
Comparing the container collection sites to the previously
operated open dumps, it is concluded that the container concept
has been effective in virtually eliminating the water pollution
associated with the dumps. Pollution could be entirely eliminated
if the plugs were used in the bottom of the containers and all
liquid was hauled to the landfill.
4.6 AIR POLLUTION
The container collection systems have permitted the closure of
unsupervised dumps in the Demonstration Project Area. The County
has been directly responsible for the closure of six open dumps
where periodic burning was previously practiced. This effort has
eliminated the open burning of 5,562 tons of solid waste, and
resulting air pollution, during the project period. The basic
container collection concept implies the elimination of open
burning at disposal sites.
4.7 FIRE HAZARDS
The containers have experienced fires due to both accidents and
vandalism at the unattended sites. Without continual site
supervision it is virtually impossible to be assured that
container fires can be eliminated. Since the fires have not
structurally damaged the containers and rendered them inoperable,
the most significant implication of these infrequent occurrences
is the fire hazard they pose to the surrounding forests.
The California Division of Forestry requires that a 150-foot wide
zone be cleared of combustible material and vegetation around dump
sites. Since the Demonstration Project is an innovative alterna-
tive to open dumps, the Division of Forestry has been cooperative
in applying the regulation until the full implications of the
container system are known. Where containers are fitted with lids,
the full 150-foot clearance may not be required because of the
tendency of the lid to confine the burning material to the container.
- 32 -
-------
Future experience may show that more positive measures must be
taken to control container fires. A conceptual design of a fire
suppression method centers around a double lid for the 40-cubic-
yard container. The Inner lid is attached to the regular, steel
outer lid by fusible links and gas pre-charged tubing. During
a container fire, the inner lid is released and falls closed, ef-
fectively confining the burning material to the container. In
any fire suppression method, it is important that the technique
be simple, reliable, and not encourage additional vandalism.
During the project period, the level of fire hazard from container
fires was not severe enough to warrant additional developmental
work on fire suppression techniques. The incidence of container
fires has presented such a dramatically reduced forest fire haz-
ard, compared to the open burning at the old dumns, that the proj-
ect team and Division of Forestry feel that no additional fire
control measures are required at this time.
4.8 SOLID WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
4.8.1 WASTE DENSITY
For each service ttip to a container site, the collection vehicle
driver records on the Trip Ticket the volume of waste in the con-
tainers estimated to the nearest quarter container volume. The
weight of waste is recorded when the collection vehicle returns
to the landfill. Using these values, the container waste density
has been calculated on a monthly basis (Appendix F). These densi-
ties show considerable seasonal variation: 100 percent or more
increase from the dry summer months to the wet winter months. Due
to the heavy rainfall (50 to 60 inches during the 6- to 8-month
"rainy" season), these wide variations are not surprising. During
the entire project, the average waste density in the 40-cubic-yard
containers was 184 pounds / cubic yard; compared to 170 pounds /
cubic yard for the 8-cubic-yard containers. For 13 of the 17 months
in the project period, the 40-cubic-yard containers demonstrated a
higher waste density (Appendix F).
The slightly higher waste densities in the larger containers may
be due to their greater ability to -accept elongated items. Such
things as long pieces of lumber tend to fall crosswise in the 8-
cubic-yard container and block out container space below them for
other waste material. In the 22-foot long, 40-cubic-yard container,
the same lumber would lie flat. Consequently, the larger containers
seem to have a greater effective waste capacity, even though they
have the sane nominal capacity as five 8-cubic-yard containers.
- 33 -
-------
4.8.2 WASTE GENERATION RATE
The total population for the Demonstration Project Area is
estimated to be approximately 10,000. Based upon the 3,820
tons of solid waste received at the Benbow Landfill during
1972, the average waste disposal rate is approximately
2.1 pounds/person/day. Although waste quantity estimates
were developed prior to installation of the container sites,
the approximate nature of those estimates does net permit any
meaningful comparison to waste quantity generation rates
experienced after operation of the container sites. Based on
general observations of the project staff, however, it appears
that there has bean no significant changes in the quantity and
type of waste generated within the project area.
4.8.3 WASTE TYPES
It does not appear that the site users are selective in what
types of solid waste they bring to the containers. The sites
have experienced a broad range, including food wastes, gardening
trimmings, white goods, dead animals, light construction debris,
furniture, packaging, and even a Volkswagen automobile body. It
appears there is essentially no difference between the wastes
previously delivered to the open dumps and the wastes currently
brought to the container sites.
Most of these waste items can be accommodated by either the
8-cubic-yard or 40-cubic-yard containers. The most notable
exception has been some bulky, oversized waste items that will
not fit into the 8-cubic-yard containers. On such occasions,
the bulky item remains at the site until a crew from the County
Road Maintenance Division can pick up the item and deliver it
to the landfill. During the early stages of the project, this
type of effort had been necessary on the average of approximately
once per month. During the latter part of the project there has
been very little problem in this regard.
4.9 MAXIMUM LEGAL PAYLOAD
With the compaction body mounted on the collection vehicle, more
than one container site can be serviced in a single trip from the
landfill. In Humboldt County, where the one-way travel times from
the landfill to the container sites vary between 30 minutes and
over two hours, this offers the potential of considerable savings.
However, with the vehicle set up to service Che 8-cubic-yard
containers, the maximum legal payload is only 6.1 tons (based on the
State of California limit for gross vehicle weight of 48,000 pounds).
Consequently, the compactor payload is limited in many cases by
weight restrictions rather than volumetric capacity. The capability
- 34 -
-------
of servicing all three 8-cubic-yard container sites in one
trip is severely restricted. Even servicing two of these
sites in a single trip is limited to some degree by the legal
weight limitation. During the first 12 months of system
operation, there were 178 service trips to the 8-cubic-yard
container sties. For 14 percent of these trips, the loaded
vehicle exceeded the weight limitation.
With the compaction body dismounted, the collection vehicle
can legally carry a payload of nine tons confined in a 40-cubic-
yard container. In this configuration, it can service only one
container site per trip. Even with the increased legal payload
capability, the collection vehicle exceeded the weight limit for
1.6 percent of the 308 trips to the 40-cubic-yard container sites.
These trade-offs between the two systems are reflected in the
collection costs, and will be discussed in Section 4.11.
4.10 COLLECTION VEHICLE OPERATING COST
So that the cost of operating the collection vehicles may be
allocated to the various types of collection activity, it has
been reduced to a unit cost ($/mile). Since the equipment report
is prepared by the County Accounting Division on a quarterly
basis, the unit vehicle costs have been calculated for like
periods. During the project the quarterly vehicle costs varied
from slightly over $0.15 per mile to almost $0.64 per mile, with
a projecc average of $0.335 per mile (excluding driver cost and
equipment: depreciation) (Appendix G).
More than half of the collection vehicle cost was due to necessary
repairs to the equipment. Although heavy duty equipment was spe-
cified for the vehicles in anticipation of the severe driving
conditions in the County, they have been put through a great deal
of punishment in meeting the collection schedules. Front wheel
assemblies, brakes, bearings, transmissions, etc., have required
repairs. The project staff has concluded that excessive waste
loads (Section 4.9) are significant contributors to these high
repair costs.
The second highest cost category is tires, accounting for over
25 percent of the total cost. The major difficulty has been due
to cuts and punctures on rural roads and at the landfill. The
present practice of using cold cap tires, with a harder tread, has
reduced damage from sharp objects; however, this process is more
costly. During the entire operating period, tire life has averaged
16,500 miles.
During the present period of "energy crisis" and fuel allocation,
it is interesting to note that the cost of fuel has accounted for
only 9.6 percent of the vehicle operating cost.
- 35 -
-------
The total vehicle cost, including operation, maintenance, vehicle
depreciation, and driver, was approximately $0.8/1 per mile for
the first 17 months of system operation ($0.335 / mile, operation
and maintenance - Appendix G; $Q.193/mlle, depreciation - Table 5;
and $0.289/nile, vehicle driver).
4.11 CONTAINER COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATING DATA
The unit collection cost for the 40-cubic-yard system was $42.47
per ton, compared to $44.68 per ton for the 3-cubic-yard system,
during the project period (Table 5).
The capital cost amortization for the collection vehicles is re-
duced to a per mile cost by assuming an annual vehicle mileage
of 25,000 and a useful life of 175,000 miles, or seven .years.
The per mile amortization is $0,193 per mile. By using this
method, the more rapid depreciation associated with the much
higher mileage requirement of the 40-cubic-yard system.is cal-
culated to be almost twice as much as for the 8-cubic-yard sys-
tem. This cost distribution is tiot atxictly true because of the
much higher vehicle weights associated with the 8-cublc-yard sys-
tem. The compaction body and excessive waste payload* should
create a higher depreciation rate than for the much lighter ve-
hicli weights associated with the 40-cubic-yard system. Because
of the difficulty In quantifying this difference, the same depre-
ciation rate is applied to the yehlcles serving bota systems.
As noted earlier, more than half of the collection vehicles' op-
erating cost is due co repairs. The project staff feeVs that some
of this repair cost is attributable directly to the exceedingly
high vehicle weights associated with the 8-cubic-yard aystem. The
unit collection coats do not reflect this sentiment because of dif-
ficulties in quantifying it: both vehicles are used interchange-
ably in servicing the two types of container sites. Consequently,
the same operating cost per mile Is applied to both types of sys-
tems.
The majority of the variable cost associated with the compaction
body is due to required repairs. On two occasions, the front load-
ing lifting arms have failed under the stress of a heavily loaded
8-cubic-yard container. The failure was due to insufficient cross
sectional steel in the arms themselves, and there was no damage to
the lifting mechanism. Additional steel, welded to the outside of
the lifting arms, seems to have satisfactorily remedied the prob-
lem.
One further note is necessary with respect to the relative collec-
tion costs of the two container systems. Since 50 to 55 percent
of the total collection cost, for both systems, is capital cost
- 36 -
-------
TABLE 5
COLLECTION SYSTEMS OPERATIONAL AND COST DATA
(AUGUST 1972 TO DECEMBER 1973)
Collection System
8 Cubic Yard 40 Cubic Yard
Weight collected (tons) 682.6 856.6
Vehicle mileage 11,860 22,575
Labor (manhours) 804.4 1,064.1
Capital cost amortization
Container sites<1' $ 10,047 $ 10,865
Collection vehicles<2> 2,289 4,357
Compaction body(3) 2,686 3,145
Containers^) 2,057
Subtotal $ 17,079 $ 18,367
Variable cost
Container site maintenance 200
Collection vehicle . „
Operation and maintenance^-*'
Compaction body maintenance
Container maintenance
Labor <6)
Subtotal
Total cost
Unit collection cost ($ / ton)
Adjusted unit collection cost
($ / ton) (')
$
$
$
$
4,308
2,409
476
6,029
13,423
30,502
44.68
47.24
$
$
$
$
8,884
1,042
8,083
18,009
36,376
42.47
45.19
(1) Amortization of three sites at $28,200 each, for each system (six
percent for twenty years). For two months, forty-cubic-yard con-
tainers were at four sites and eight-cubic-yard containers at two
sites.
(2) Amortization of $29,595, less ten percent salvage value (six per-
cent for saven years). At 25,000 miles per year, unit cost is
$0.193 per mile.
(3) Amortization of $12,935, less ten percent salvage value (six per-
cent for eight years).
(4) Amortization of twenty eight-cubic-yard containers ac $8,925, and
five forty-cubic-yard containers at $13,640 (six percent for eight
years).
(5) $0.335 per mile (Appendix G).
(6) $7.50 per manhour; includes wage and overhead.
(7) Labor cost increased by 28.9 percent to reflect non-productive paid
time.
- 37 -
-------
amortization, the unit collection costs are especially sensitive
to the quantity of waste collected. During the first ten months
of operation, the quantity of waste collected was approximately
the same for both systems: 444.1 tons for the B-cubic-yard sys-
tem (Appendix H) and 448.0 tons for the 40-cubic-yard system
(Appendix I). The corresponding unit costs for the 8- and 40-
cubic-yard systems were $39. 73/ton and $42.92 / ton, respectively.
During each month after this time, the 40-cubic-yard system appears
increasingly attractive from a unit cost viewpoint, as the quantity
of waste collected continues to exceed the waste quantities asso-
ciated with the 8-cubic-yard system. Although the unit cost for
the 40-cubic-yard system was less than for the 8-cubic-yard sys-
tem for the entire project period, it is clear that cost is only
a partial measure of performance.
4.12 SITE USER FIELD SURVEYS
On three occasions during the course of the project, field survey
teams were located at the rural disposal sites / container sites
to interview persons using the facility. The first survey, in
April 1971, was used to gain basic data regarding the use of the
open dumps. The second survey, in April 1973, was conducted eight
months after the container sites were developed so that the results
could be compared to the earlier survey. The third survey, in
October 1973, was conducted three months after the type of con-
tainers at the sites were interchanged. From these three surveys
it has oecome apparent that the general site usage characteris-
tics have not essentially changed over the past several years.
The heaviest site usage is at mid-day, 11:00 am to 1:00 pm. The
average unloading time is five to ten minutes and approximately
two-thirds of the site users arrive in a pick-up truck. The pre-
dominate vehicle driver is a male, aged 16 to 35 years, and he is
accompanied by one passenger. The site user drives five to six
miles and ten to 15 minutes to the site, about four times per
month (Appendix J). Approximately one-third of the side users
dispose of some of their waste in some other manner than at the
container site (animal feeding, burning, composting, franchise
collector, etc.).
During the second survey, after the container system was instituted,
84.4 percent of those responding preferred the container system to
the previously used open dumps. During much of this survey period,
the Fruitland site containers were overflowing due to a failure in
the compaction body, that prevented the proper servicing of the 8-
cubic-yard containers at this site. If the Fruitland site responses
are omitted, 90.8 percent of the respondents preferred the container
system to the dumps. For those who preferred the open dumps, the
major reasons were (1) high cost of the container system; (2) in-
ability to place bulky wastes in containers, and (3) need for more
frequent collection.
- 38 -
-------
During this survey, the site users were asked, "What would you
change about the way the container sites are set up?" Responses
fell into the following categories:
nothing 48.3 7,
larger containers 6.8 %
more containers 2.7 %
more or larger containers 1.4 7.
empty containers more 13.6 %
frequently
go back, to the dump 3.4 If,
recycle more 4.8 %
other 19.0 %
100.0 %
During the third survey, after the type of container had been
interchanged, site users were asked which type of disposal sys-
tem they preferred. The results are shown below:
Fruit- Alder- Shelter
Preferred Disposal Method land Thorn point Cove
Small containers (8 c y) -0- 41% -0- 20%
Large container (40 c y) 67% 10% 96% 40%
Old dump 11% 22% 4% -0-
Other, don't know, no 22% 27% -0- 40%
answer
The results from Petrolia and Blocksburg are not tabulated be-
cause of the very low site usage during the survey period and
because the type of container was not changed at these sites.
At Fruitland and Alderpoint, where the 8-cubic-yard containers
were replaced by a 40-cubic-yard container, the vast majority
of site users preferred the large container, and none preferred
the small containers. Although more site users preferred the
large containers to the small at Shelter Cove, the results are
less conclusive. The site users at Thorn bucked the trend and
preferred the 8-cubic-yard containers. One reason for this dif-
ference may be due to the nature of the site users. In the Thorn
area, numerous young people (many from urban areas) have estab-
lished alternative life styles. These life styles emphasize
frugality, conservation, and minimum consumption of natural re-
sources. During the second site survey, the Thorn site users in-
dicated a strong preference for maximum recycling of solid waste
products. Some site users indicated that recycling could be fa-
cilitated by using 8-cubic-yard containers to collect several re-
cyclable fractions of the waste stream. A container would be used
exclusively for such components as glass, paper, aluminum, steel
cans, etc. With the 40-cubic-yard container, all the valuable
products get "mixed-up" and recycling is more difficult.
- 39 -
-------
Taken on the whole, It appears that the site users prefer the
40-cubic-yard containers to the 8-cubic-yard containers. They
prefer the container concept to the old, open dumps. Many of
the site users feel that operational improvements should be made
to prevent container overflows due to too infrequent collection.
4.13 VANDALISM
The container sites are located in relatively isolated areas;
they are unattended; and access is not restricted in any man-
ner. These characteristics make the container sites prime can-
didates for vandalisA. To a greater or lesser degree, each site
has experienced vandalism. These incidents include breaking
glass on the paved area, painting obscenities on the containers,
setting fires in the containers, etc. The most damaging type of
vandalism has been the setting of fires. Even in the case of
fires, however, die vandalism has been more disruptive than per-
manently damaging. The containers remain functional after the
fire, and usually require only repainting. It is fortunate that
the container site design is basically "vandal-proof", that is,
the container sites have remained functional after incidents of
vandalism. Although each incidents a&ve occurred, the number and
degree nave not been unusual or excessive for such resaote, unat-
tended facilities.
The cost of vandalism to the County is reflected usually in site
clean-up time and container maintenance. The cost of the con-
tainer collection systems discussed in Section 4.11 included costs
associated with vandalism.
4.14 COMBINED CONTAINER SYSTEM
As the project was originally conceived, it was thought that a
combination of 8-cubic-yard and 40-cubic-yard containers at a
site may provide advantages in economically dealing with bulky
wastes. For example, the 40-cubic-yard container could be used
exclusively for bulky wastes and the 8-cubic-yard container for
other "corapactible" wastes. The 8-cubic-yard containers would
be emptied approximately weekly and the 40-cubic-yard container
approximately monthly.
The economic advantage of such a combined system depends heavily
upon the willingness of site users to place their waste in the
appropriate containers. Enforcement of such a requirement to
separate waste types would be virtually impossible without expen-
sive full-time supervision. Additionally, initial observations
did not confirm significant quantities of problem bulky wastes.
In short, the project team had doubts as to the need and poten-
tial for success of a combined container system.
- 40 -
-------
During the initial operational period, the 40-cubic-yard container
system was considered superior to the 8-cubic-yard system. At
that time, the major reason for this tentative evaluation vas a
series of breakdowns in the compaction body. With the costs for
the two systems approximately equivalent, the operational reli-
ability of the 40-cubic-yard system proved to be the determining
consideration. The feasibility of the combined system was further
diminished by these conclusions regarding the superior operational
characteristics of the 40-cubic-yard system.
The project team finally concluded that the extensive efforts
necessary to implement the combined system vere not warranted
in light of the limited potential for success. The 40-cubic-
yard container system proved to be effective, and the combined
system appeared to offer little possibility for improvement in
performance.
4.15 COLLECTION FREQUENCY
Based on health and sanitation considerations, weekly removal of
solid waste from residences is generally recommended. This mini-
mum collection frequency has been applied to the container col-
lection system, especially during the summer when vector problems
are most severe. (See Section 4.16.) Rationalizing an optimum
collection frequency, above the minimum, is an extremely difficult
task. Basically, the containers should be picked up when they are
full, and not before. Predicting when a container will be full
depends upon several things, including, season, holidays, weather,
etc. As a practical matter, the collection schedule evolved during
the course of the project as the field personnel gained experience
with the peculiar characteristics of each container site.
Similar to the waste quantity seasonal variations, the collection
frequency has shown an approximately 100 percent increase from
the slow winter months to the peak summer months (Table 6).
The most difficult problem in establishing an appropriate collec-
tion schedule is to deal with the non-tegular daily peak loads.
For example, a single resident involved in a major clean-up on
his property may cause the container site to reach capacity con-
siderably before its historically appropriate collection time. It
is virtually impossible to anticipate such peak loads. If the con-
tainer sites were monitored on a daily basis, collection schedules
could be adjusted to accommodate peak loads. Consideration has
been given to assigning a roving crew the job of monitoring site
conditions. Their task would be to visit each site for maintenance,
clean-up, and emergencies that may develop. Additionally, they
would notify the collection personnel of any unusual waste loads
- 41 -
-------
to
I
TABLE 6
CONTAINER SITE COLLECTION FREQUENCY
August, 1972
September
October
November
December
January, 1973
February
March
April
May
June
July, 1973
Augua t
September
October
November
December
Petrol ia
8
7
5
5
3
4
3
4
4
5
7
8
7
9
8
4
5
S
Shelter
Cove*
5
4
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
5
4
5
4
4
6
5
4
e r v i c e s
Thorn
12
12
11
8
5
6
4
6
7
7
8
12
13
11
10
8
6
Per M
Blocks burg
9
7
5
4
4
6
4
4
3
2
6
4
5
4
5
4
4
o u t h
Fruitland
13
13
11
8
7
8
5
5
6
9
9
11
8
8
9
8
7
Alderpolnt
9
9
9
8
5
6
4
4
6
7
9
8
7
8
9
6
4
Total
56
52
44
34
25
31
21
25
27
35
43
48
44
44
48
35
30
* Only one or two permanent residents during winter months.
-------
so that collection schedules may be adjusted accordingly. In
this manner the collection system can be made responsive to the
widely varying waste generation rates that have been encountered
in the project.
4.16 VECTORS
As part of the Demonstration Project, the Vector Control Section
of the California Department of Health provided an analysis and
evaluation of vector problems associated with the program. The
following sumnary of their activities has been provided the County
by Earl W. Mortenson, Regional Supervisor of the Vector Control
Section:
"As part of our cooperative effort in the Humboldt
Container Demonstration Study, a series of observa-
tions were conducted by Dr. George Rotramel, Mr.
Earl W. Mortenson and Mr. Jerry Prine on vector
problems associated with the former open land dis-
posal sites prior to the inauguration of the con-
tainer operation. A second phase of this effort
was to evaluate any possible vector problems that
would develop in the container operation and com-
pare the vector potential of the old open disposal
site method with the conversion to the container
operation.
"Open Disposal Site Evaluation. Vector observations '
were made during October 1969 and 1970 of the Petrolia,
Ihorn, Alderpoint, Fruitland and GarbervilJe disposal
sites. Counts were made of domestic adult flies on
the five sites with the aid of the Scudder Fly Grill
during October 1970. The counts on all sites averaged
13.0 flies per grill count, (a count of 10 or above is
indicative of a heavy fly infestation). The predominate
species present was Phaenicia sericata, the common green
blow fly. Evidence of rat Infestations (active burrows
and droppings) were present on Petrolia, Alderpoint,
Fruitland and Garberville sites. Trapping these sites
for trap night Indices was not considered feasible be-
cause of the persistent uncontrolled burnirig and fre-
quent dumping of refuse over most of the site. Sight-
ings of yellowjackets (Vespula spp.) for both 1969 and
1970 were estimated as heavy for Thorn and Fruitland,
with the other three sites having light to moderate
numbers of wasps. Sweep net collections across the
face of the Fruitland site averaged 30 yellowjackets
per sweep. There was evidence of heavy foraging of
raccoons on the Thorn site in October 1969.
-------
"Vector Observations of the Container Operation.
Observations were made in October 1972, March 1973
and May 1973 of the container sites at Petrol la,
Thorn, Alderpoint, Fruitland and Garberville. The
following is a summary of these observations.
"Petrolia Container Site. Less than ten flies were
observed attracted to the 40 yard container. The
fly counting grill cannot be used effectively in
evaluating adult fly population when the counts are
this low. Consequently, visual counts were made on
the entire surface of each container. Less than
five yellowjackets were observed during the October
1972 observation. After the container at Petrolia
was in operation, we did not observe rodent activity
in 1972 or 1973. A potential rat harborage did exist
In sections of the old dump site left uncovered.
"Thorn Container Site. The adult fly count for the
container surface was less than 10 Phaenicia spp.
Fifty fly larvae and pupae were collected at the
base of the loading ramp and were identified as
Phaenicia sericata. The occurrence of these im-
mature forms was the result of the 4th stage lar-
vae migrating from an opening in the lower portion
of the end gate of the container and seeking an
area to pupate at the junction of the ramp wall
and foundation pad. Yellow jacket sightings were
less than 5 per observation period. There was no
evidence of rodent activity at the container area.
Observations made by Mr. William Strickland, of
the Uumboldt County Health Department, in May 1973
indicated that a black widow spider infestation was
occurring in the drain pipes at the base of the
loading ramp wall. The old Thorn site was leveled,
covered and did not present any vector problems.
"Alderpoint Container Site. The October 1972 ob-
servations on this location yielded 15 flies per
container. Organic residue was present in the
bottoms of two 8 yard containers. There was no
rodent or yellow jacket activity observed at this
site.
"Fruitland Container Site. A collection of 300
larvae and pupae of the species Phaenicia sericata
was taken at the base of the loading ramp wall,
apparently these flies migrated as mature larvae
from the containers. Less than 10 adult flies were
observed in all the containers. There was an accumu-
lation of sludge in two of the containers with a few
- 44 -
-------
fly pupae cases in the material. In March
1973 debris on the front edge of the load-
ing pad contained pupae of the black blow
fly, Fhomia spp. Rodent signs were not ob-
served in 1972 or 1973.
"Garberville Container Site. The only prob-
lem at this site was a minor infestation of
fly larvae in an accumulation of organic de-
bris occurring in the space between the two
20 cubic yard containers.
' 'General Conclus ions. In comparing the observa-
tions on the presence of flies, yellowjackets and
rodents on the old style disposal sites to that
of the containers system, it is obvious that major
improvements have been made in reducing vectcr
problems to insignificant levels. The key control
factor in the container system is the frequent re-
moval of refuse (up to three times per week for
some sites in the summer and not less than once a
week for any one site).
"The larger 40 yard containers appear to have less
sludge accumulation, odors, adult fly and yellow-
jacket activity than did the 8 yard units. The
containers with solid lids appeared to be less
attractive to yellowjackets than those with either
wire mesh or no lids. Evidence of rodent infesta-
tions was negative for all container sites regard-
less of number or size.
"Attention to frequent maintenance of each site
will be an important factor in preventing accumu-
lations of spoiled refuse and container residue
that could result in increased vector production
or attraction.
"In the future, consideration should be given to
monitoring the yellowjacket population and the de-
gree of fly larval migration at each container loca-
tion. If the yellowjacket population reaches a
threshold level of human annoyance, a control pro-
gram of toxic area baiting may have to be instituted.
The fly larval migration rate from the containers
should be evaluated periodically during the warm
season. A certain portion of the garbage coming
to the containers is already infested with fly lar-
vae and will complete their life cycle at the site
if the material is allowed to remain for a period of
- 45 -•
-------
time in the container. If the larval migra-
tion rate increases significantly, the con-
tainers will need more frequent cleaning and
removal."
4.17 EFFECT OF CONTAINER LIDS
The effect of the container lids on system performance and
operational characteristics is very much dependent upon
whether Bite users close the lid after use (Plate 12). Con-
clusions drawn with respect to lid use are based on general
observations made by collection vehicle drivers, by students
during the field surveys, and by project staff during miscel-
laneous site visits. Simply stated, the lids are sometimes
closed and sometimes left open after use. There is no available
data with respect to the portion of the time that the lids are
closed by a significant percentage of container users.
If the lids were closed after each site use, they would have
a positive effect with respect to fire, rain, vectors, and
litter. Closed lids would confine any burning material to
the container and virtually eliminate the fire hazard to the
forests surrounding the container sites. Closed lids would
prevent rainfall Infiltration and eliminate the potential for
leachale generation. Closed lids would effectively confine
the waste to the container and reduce the potential for site
litter even during the most windy conditions.
If the lids are not closed, these positive benefits are still
experienced, but to a lesser degree. With the lid open, burning
material may escape from the container and pose a fire hazard
to the surrounding area. However, the lid offers a positive
fire control method when someone is present at the site. A
random site user may be able to close the lid during a container
fire. The California Division of Forestry has shown a. willing-
ness to relax the requirement for a 150-foot vegetation clearance
surrounding the sites where the containers are fitted with lids.
As discussed in Section 4.5, the container lids shed rainfall,
even when open, and may reduce rainfall infiltration by
90 percent.
An evaluation of the litter conditions at the container sites
is shown in Section 4.4. To determine the effect of lids on
litter, the Alderpoint site may be compared to the Blocksburg
site for the August to December 1972 period. The litter
- 46 -
-------
rating at Alderpolnt, where there were no lids, is much higher
than for Blocksburg, with lids (2.53 versus 1.04), indicating
a higher incidence of litter at Alderpoint (Table 2). Compari-
son of the litter ratings for the Shelter Cove and Thorn sites
(1.00 versus 1.50 in 1972 and 1.09 vursus 1.88 in 1973) leads
to the same conclusion that less litter is associated with the
sites where containers are fitted with lids.
The concept of the site ratings was developed so that an evalua-
tion of the container lids (among other things) might be facili-
tated. In retrospect, it is apparent that firm conclusions may
not be based exclusively on this type of data. There are too
many other variables that cannot be accounted for and that may
distort the results,.such as community pride in the site, waste
quantities, wind conditions, etc. It seems reasonable to think,
however, that container lids suppress the amount of litter at
the sites, and the data does not conflict with this conclusion
(Table 2).
Although only a portion of the site users make the effort to
close the container lids, the lids appear justified by having
a positive effect on fire, leachate, and litter control.
4.18 EFFECT OF CONTAINER SITE WALL HEIGHT
As noted earlier, two site configurations were incorporated into
the demonstration project. At Fruitland and Petzolia, the re-
taining wall height was such that the top of the container was
30 inches higher than the level of the dumping platform. At the
other sites the top of the container was level with the dumping
platform.
By making comparisons similar to those in the previous section,
the effect of the wall height on site conditions may be evalu-
ated. By comparing the site evaluative data for Blocksburg and
Fruitland for the August to December 1972 period, it appears
that having the container top level with the dumping platform is
associated with better site conditions (Table 2). Similar com-
parisons between the data for Petrolla and Shelter Cove lead to
the same conclusion. As in Section 4.17, caution must be exer-
cised in using these type comparisons to lead to firm conclusions.
Other conditions should be taken into account.
During the initial operational period, there were numerous com-
plaints from site users who drove pickup trucks Chat, they could
not lower the truck tailgate into the containers and conveniently
push or sweep the waste directly into the container. At Fruitland
and Petrolia, they complained that the top of the container was
- 47 -
-------
too high above the dumping platform level. From this response,
it was concluded that the container top should be approximately
18 inches above the dumping level; low enough to permit direct
unloading from a loaded pickup truck.
One of the major cost categories in building the container site
was the reinforced concrete retaining wall. Although the cost
can be reduced by lowering the wall height, the lower the wall,
the effect is to increase the elevation difference between the
container and the platform. Combining this cost consideration
with the conclusion in the preceding paragraph, it would seem
that the optimum condition would be to have the container
extend approximately 18 inches above the dumping level.
Container elevations less than this would needlessly raise the
container site construction cost, as well as require the site
user to stoop over further to open and close the container lid.
Container heights greater than 18 inches would inhibit the
convenient unloading of pickup trucks.
4.19 ALTERNATE COLLECTION VEHICLE USES
When a 40-cubic-yard container, without lids, is mounted on the
collection vehicle, the unit may effectively function as a dump
truck. On several occasions the vehicle has been used to haul
limited amounts of gravel to maintain the disposal site access
road.
As will be shown in Section 5.0, the 40-cubic-yard containers
will be employed exclusively in the County-wide container system.
At that time the compaction body and 8-cubic-yard containers
will become surplus equipment for the rural collection system.
Consideration is being given to locating the 8-cubic-yard
containers at several of the County parks for use during the
tourist season. The compaction body would be used to service
these containers scattered throughout the County parks.
During the peak solid waste generation periods there is very
little spare time when collection vehicles could be diverted
to alternate County uses. The vehicles are fully utilized for
their normal solid waste function. During the winter months,
construction work is essentially halted because cf wet weather.
It is this general type of activity where the hauling capabilities
of the vehicle and 40-cubic-yard container would seem to be
useful. Equipment availability does not coincide with equipment
need.
- 48 -
-------
It appears that the solid waste collection equipment will be
used almost exclusively for the designated function, with the
infrequent exception of construction material hauling.
4.20 TRUCK MOUNTED CONTAINER WASH SYSTBl
The wash water system, including a 200-gallon tank mounted
on the compaction body, cost $300 (Table 1). A dilute solution
of disinfectant / deodorant is put in the tank for washing out the
8-cubic-yard containers when they are serviced. This mobile wash
system was necessary since the 8-cubic-yard containers are emptied
at the site and are not returned to the landfill after each ser-
vicing, as is the case for the 40-eubic-yard containers.
The collection vehicle operators have found that containers do
not need washing after each service. Generally the solid waste
falls cleanly out of the container, leaving little or no residue.
When a noticeable residue does develop in the container, the
wash tank is used to rinse it out. The wash system has proved
satisfactory in maintaining the containers at an acceptable sani-
tation and aesthetic level.
4.21 SOLID WASTE SEMINARS
As part of the Demonstration Project, several short seminars
were to be held by Humboldt County in order to disseminate in-
formation developed during the program.
A seminar was held in Eureka on November 29 to 30, 1972, to pre-
sent information relating not only to the Humboldt Project, but
to rural solid waste systems in two other Pacific Northwest
Counties as well. Over 130 people from eight western states
attended the lecture series on November 29. The following day
110 people participated in a field trip to two container sites
and the Benbow Landfill. The high attendance and interest ex-
pressed by the seminar participants confirmed the need for cre-
ative dialogue relating to rural solid waste management.
During the past several years, it has become apparent that solid
waste management has "come of age" in California as a topic
worthy of considerable study. Ag the Humboldt Project moved
to its conclusion, the project team began to consider the for-
mat and date for a aecond solid waste seminar. Much to our sur-
prise, it was discovered that four major solid waste conferences
were scheduled for the fall of 1973 and spring of 1974 in Cali-
fornia, as well as several smaller conferences. The proposed
Humboldt County conference would have to compete with these
others for both speakers and attendance. In light of this
- 49 -
-------
situation, the proposed seminar was canceled and the final re-
sults of the Demonstration Project were presented in a paper
given at the Sixth Annual Western Regional Solid Waste Sympo-
sium on March 7, 1974. This "competing" conference was co-
sponsored by the City of Santa Clara and the Governmental Refuse
Collection and Disposal Association and held in San Jose,
California.
- 50 -
-------
CHAPTER 5; COUNTY-WIDE SOLID WASTE PLAN AND IMPLEMENTATION
5.1 GENERAL PLAN
Based upon the information developed during the Demonstration
Project, the container system will be expanded to service rural
areas throughout the County. In addition to the container com-
ponent, the County Solid Waste Management System will include
alteration of the existing ultimate disposal patterns. For the
fiscal year 1973 to 1974, approximately one million dollars has
been appropriated to continue operating the existing system,
build four additional container sites, and build a transfer sta-
tion to replace the Benbow Landfill. The following fiscal year
it is anticipated that the Solid Waste Management System will
be completed with the construction of the final four container
sites, the establishment of a new sanitary landfill to serve the
entire County, and the closure of all other County maintained
"semi-urban" landfills and rural, open dumps.
Each of these facilities will be constructed, owned, and oper-
ated by Humboldt County. Door-to-door collection will continue
to be performed by private companies, under franchisee issued
by County and City governments.
A financial plan has been developed by Bartie Wells Associates,
municipal financial consultants, for the County which includes
a combination of revenue sources for long term system operation:
Federal Revenue Sharing, Ad Valorem tax, and a special land use
fee system available to California counties and cities (Appendix
K).
5.2 CONTAINER SITES
At the time of this writing, the County Department of Public
Works was involved in site selection and acquisition for the
eight container sites to be developed in the rural areas not
included in the Demonstration Project. Prime site locations
are generally near the old open dumps that have historically
served the area. Site acquisition will be via outright pur-
chase, lease, and use permits from other public bodies.
As developed in Chapter 4, 40-cubic-yard containers will be em-
ployed at the sites. The site will use a "zig-zag" retaining
wall, such that the empty container can be unloaded into posi-
tion without having to move the full container that is to be
taken to the landfill. The containers will be fitted with con-
terbalanccd lids. They will extend about 18 inches above the
dumping platform level so that a pickup truck tailgate can be
lowered into the container to facilitate unloading.
- 51 -
-------
During the course of the project, a similar container system
was instituted in a County adjacent to Humboldt County. This
system employed a collection vehicle and trailer such that two
40-cubic-yard containers could be serviced in a single route
trip from the landfill. This technique has proved efficient,
is consistent with the recommended exclusive use of the 40-cubic-
yard containers, and will be employed in the expanded container
system.
5.3 DISPOSAL SITES
At the beginning of the Demonstration Project, the vast majority
of the County solid waste burden was disposed of at three land-
fills in the mid-County area, near the population center. One
landfill is privately owned and operated by the f ranch is ed col-
lector for the City of Eureka. The County operated two major
landfills in this vicinity, Arcata and Table Bluff, one on the
North and the other on the South shores of Humboldt Bay. The
Arcata Landfill is no longer operational and will receive final
cover, seeding, and landscaping by the summer of 1974. The
Table Bluff Landfill will be operated until a new central land-
fill can be acquired and developed in the Eureka area. At that
time, the Table Bluff Landfill will be permanently closed.
Concurrent with the establishment of this new central disposal
facility, the rural open dumps will be closed as container sites
are developed. During the past two years, 17 open dumps have
been closed due to the establishment of container sites and dump
site consolidation. During the next two to three years, most of
the remaining 10 to 11 disposal sites will be closed as the new
facilities are implemented.
5.4 RESOURCE RECOVERY
By focuuing all of the solid waste in the County at a single
disposal facility, the ability to support a resource recovery
process is considerably improved. Most processes that are cur-
rently being tested or proposed are capital intensive and to
make them economically feasible, large quantities of solid waste
(or raw material) are generally necessary. With this in mind,
the County initiated a program in March 1974 to determine the
feasibility of an energy recovery facility capable of processing
both municipal solid waste and wood waste from the local forest
products industry. A companion to this effort may be the mechani-
cal recovery of materials from the solid waste stream for market-
ing. The results of this study should be available by 'the sunnier
of 1974.
- 52 -
-------
Of more short-term benefit may be the results of an approximately
$40,000 contract the County has executed with the Northcoast
Environmental Center. This organization has operated a recycle
center where individuals may deliver certain separated and
cleaned municipal waste material: glass, steel cans, aluminum,
and newspaper. The contract requires that the Center operate
recycle facilities at four locations, maintain accurate records
of their operations, survey the markets for secondary materials,
and conduct a public information program. An additional goal
will be to determine what role such recycling efforts should
play in the total County solid waste management effort. A
portion of the County funding will be used to acquire certain
equipment necessary for the recycling center's operation, such
as a fork lift, baler, glass crusher, etc.
- 53 -
-------
CHAPTER 6: COUNTY-WIDE SOLID WASTE FINANCIAL PLAN
Prepared by: BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES
Municipal Financing Consultants
San Francisco
54
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 56
THE COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 57
The Demonstration Grant Project, The County Plan
PROJECT COSTS 64
The Demonstration Grant Project, Capital Costs, Annual Operating Costs,
Capital Replacement Reserve, Franchised Collection Costs
REVENUE SOURCES 68
Determining Benefit, General Fund Allocation, Gate Fees, Service Charges,
Collection Charges, Federal Revenue Sharing, State and Federal Payments,
Revenue Collection Costs
RECOMMENDED FINANCING PLAN 7 5
Objectives, Institutional Arrangements, Capital Cost Financing,
Operating Revenues, Revenues and Expenses
TABLES
1. Capital Costs of Demonstration Grant Project 59
2. Operating Costs of Demonstration Grant Project 60
3. Operating Cost Allocation of Demonstration Grant Project 61
4. Cash Requirement Projection Components 62
5. Annual Cash Requirements Projection 6 3
6. Capital Replacement Reserve 6 6
7. Franchise Area Customers ?1
8. Joint Powers Agreements Decision Steps ? °
9. Revenue Sources 7 9
10. Annual Revenue and Expense Projection 80
11. Franchised Collectors Revenue and Expense Estimate 83
55
-------
INTRODUCTION
Humboldt County is located on the northern California coast. About
87 percent of its 106,000 inhabitants live in an urban corridor adja-
cent to U.S. Highway 101, the Redwood Highway. The remaining residents
are located in scattered small communities. House-to-house solid waste
collection within the urban areas is provided by eight operators, who
are city and county franchised. In the rural areas, residents have been
delivering their solid waste to open dumps which were periodically
burned. These open dumps fostered air and water pollution and created
fire, health, and sanitation hazards.
In 1969 the county prepared a report on the rural solid waste manage-
ment problem. With the help of a demonstration grant from the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, the county installed containers at seven loca-
tions to replace the open dumps in the south county area. The containers
are collected by the county and transported to a sanitary landfill devel-
oped as part of the south county system.
The south county container system has proved to be an effective solution
to the rural solid waste management problem. The county has decided to
extend the container system to the north county. The county also plans
to develop a new sanitary landfill and construct a transfer station.
This report presents a financing plan to continue operation of the south
county container system and to develop a new north county container sys-
tem, sanitary landfill, and transfer station. The financing plan pro-
poses that all new and existing phases of the solid waste management
system will be coordinated as part of a unified countywide system.
56
-------
THE COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
The existing solid waste management system operated or supervised by
the county includes 1) existing dumps which are burned or covered period-
ically; 2) the south county container system, comprising seven container
sites and the Benbow disposal site; 3) eight county and city franchised
operators collecting house-to-house in the urbanized areas; 4) major
disposal sites at Table Bluff and Arcata; and 5] an incinerator owned and
operated by one of the franchised operators.
Under the 1973/74 county budget, the county began to operate the disposal
site at Table Bluff commencing January 1, 1974. The Arcata disposal site
was closed, and Benbow disposal site (part of the south county container
system) was closed by road failure and will not be reopened. The incin-
erator of the private operator is not included in the disposal process.
The county plans to continue to have all house-to-house collection under-
taken by city and county franchised operators.
THE DEMONSTRATION GRANT PROJECT
With financial assistance from the Environmental Protection Agency, the
county installed containers at seven sites in the south county area.
The container sites are paved areas adjacent to county roads where drop
boxes are located. Under the demonstration grant project, either one
40-cubic-yard drop box or five 8-cubic-yard boxes were located at each
site. The engineers recommended that only 40-cubic-yard boxes be used
permanently.
A sanitary landfill was developed at Benbow in the southern portion of
the county, for disposal of wastes generated in the south county. The
disposal site proved unsatisfactory and the access road became impas-
sable during heavy winter rains. The county has decided not to reopen
the Benbow disposal site. Instead a new central disposal site will be
established, and a transfer station will replace the Benbow site.
THE COUNTY PLAN
In a report to the county presented in July 1973, and in the 1973/74
budget for solid waste management, the countywide solid waste management
plan was presented. It proposes that the county:
o Phase out all open burning dumps by December 31, 197S.
o Continue the south county container system, closing the Benbow
disposal site in 1974/75, and routing all collected south county
waste to the Garberville transfer station for transportation to
the Table Bluff disposal site.
57
-------
o Develop a north county container system with eight container sites,
four to be developed during 1973/74 and four during 1974/75.
o Close the Arcata disposal site, and improve the Table Bluff disposal
site to meet state standards. Use Table Bluff as a central county-
wide disposal site while locating and preparing a new central county
disposal site.
o Acquire and develop a central county disposal site from 1976/77
through 1978/79 when Table Bluff will be phased out.
The financing of steps such as those proposed is the responsibility of
local government. Neither federal nor state programs assist in the
financing of on-going operation and maintenance costs, or initial capi-
tal costs. Contracting with private operators under franchise agree-
ments is an alternative to local government operation, but state public
health agencies and state solid waste management regulatory agencies
look to county government to supervise and enforce solid waste manage-
ment standards.
58
-------
TADLE 1
COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
CAPITAL COSTS OF DEMONSTRATION GRANT PROJECT
Equipment Purchased
2 Trucks and understructures $ 55, 833
1 Compactor body 12,319
5-40 cubic yard containers 12,990
2-20 cubic yard containers 3,912
20 - S cubic yard containers 8, 500
Optional items 539
Subtotal $ 94,093
State tax 4, 704
Total equipment purchase $ 98,797
Equipment Leased
1 Dozer @ $1,732.50/monthly minimum
Container sites (land and improvements) $169,201
Sanitary landfill (land and improvements) $129, 000
Total Project Capital Cost (paid in cash) $396, 998 say $400, 000
Source: GEZR, consulting engineers.
59
-------
TABLE 2
COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT
SOI.fD \VAi,TE MANAGEMENT
OPKRATING COSTS OF DEMONSTRATION GRANT PROJECT
With
Leased
October 1972 through September 1973 Actual Equipment
Container System Collection
Equipment lease $20,336
Container sites maintenance $ 200
Collection vehicle mileage @ 45^/tnile 10,289
Compactors body maintenance 2,307
8 cubic yard container maintenance 351
40 cubic yard container maintenance 753
Labor 9.007
Subtotal Container System Collection $22, 907 $43,243
Garberville Collection
Collection vehicle mileage @ 47^/mile $ 5, 218
Labor 6,843
Subtotal $12,061 $12,061
Disposal Benbow Site
Equipment lease $20, 784
Labor 12,458
Interceptpr trench construction 1,500
Subtotal ' $34,742 $34,742
Source: GEZR, consulting engineers.
Total South County System $69,710 $90,046
60
-------
TABLE 3
COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
OPERATING COST ALLOCATION OF DEMONSTRATION GRANT PROJECT
Container Collection System
8 cubic yard
40 cubic yard
Garberville
Subtotal
Disposal (Benbow Site)
Total
Labor/
Man Hours
518
690
912
2, 120
1,660
4,780
Vehicle
Miles
Recorded
7,836
14, 948
11,088
33, 872
838 1
Weight
Collected
Tons
504
619
1,084
2,207
1.5612
3,768
8 cubic yard
40 cubic yard
Garberville
Disposal
Total
Labor
Cost
$ 3,878
5, 129
6,843
12,458
$25, 308
Equipment
Cost3
$ 6,210
7,690
5.216
22,284*
$41, 402
Total
$10, 088
12,819
12,061
34, 742
$69, 710
Total5
$14, 765
21,767
18, 772
34, 642
$90, 046
Source: GEZR, consulting engineers.
1 - Equipment hours for leased dozer.
2 - Weight received: County collected
Franchised collectors
State parks
Other
3 - All equipment costs except amortization.
4 - Includes $1,500 of interceptor trench construction.
5 - Assuming all leasable equipment was leased, and the $20,336 of additional lease
payment was distributed on the basis of mileage.
61
-------
TABLE 4
COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT
SOUD WASTE MANAGEMENT
CASH REQUIREMENT PROJECTION COMPONENTS
DisposalCosts TableBluff* Arcata Benbow
Ejta tingDumps
Central (Proposed)
Capital Costs: 1973/74 1973/74 1973/74
Site correction $42,000 S4S.400 $25,500
Operating Costs:
Salaries 19
Equipment lease 10
Site rental
Total $30
*M
Other Costs
Capital Costs:
Land & improvements
Vehicle modification
Operating Costs:
Labor
Equipment lease
Miscellaneous
Special expenses
Total
, 300 — 13. 000
, SOO — 24,000
... ...
TToo — $37,000
Garberville
Transfer Station
1973/74 1974/75
$218,000
•""
$ 39, 100
47,800
3,600
$ 90, 500
1974/75
$25,500
—
...
...
~™ —
North
1973/74
$265,000
...
$13,400
2,000
...
$15,400
1973/74
$66,000
13, 200
800
$80, 000
1974/75 1975/76
$57, 700 $33, 000
11,600 6,600
700 400
$70,000 540,000
County System
1974/75
$157,000
• ••
$ 30, 200
40, 500
...
$70,700
1975/76
---
• »*
$60,400
80, 900
...
$141, 300
1976/77
$577,500
9,600
5,400
...
$ 15,000
South County
1973/74
-_-
$ 6,000
$30,000
36,400
10,000
14, 500
$90, 900
1977/78
$34,600
19. 300
10,800
...
$30, 100
System
1974/75
---
**"
$30,000
36, 400
10,000
$76, 400
1978/79
$84,300
19,300
10,800
...
$30,100
'Excludes $25,000 allowance for closing Table Bluff site In 1976/77.
-------
TABLE 5
COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
ANNUAL CASH REQUIREMENTS PROJECTION
1973/74 1974/75 1975/76 1976/77
1977/78
1978/79
1979/80
Capital Requirements:
Disposal sites:
Table Bluff
Arcata
Benbow
Existing dumps
Central (proposed)
Garbcrvillc transfer station.
North County system
South County system
Subtotal
«o Annual inflation factor 7%per year
Total Annual Capital Requirements
Annual Operating Costs;
Disposal sites:
Tab'c Bluff
Arcau
Benbow
Existing clumps
Central (proposed)
Garberville transfer station
North County system
South County system
Subtotal
Annual inflation factor 7 %pcr year
Total Operating Costs
Grand Total Annual Cash Requirements
$ 42,000
48,400
25,500
218,000
265,000
6.000
$604, 900
$604, 900
$ 30, 100
37.000
80, 000
.._
...
15, 400
90, 900
$253, 400
...
$253,400
$858,300
$ 25, 500
157, 000
$182, 500
12, 800
$195, 300
$ 30, 100
70, 000
...
90,500
70, 700
76, 400
$337, 700
23, 600
$361, 300
$556, 600
...
...
$ 30, 100
40,000
...
90,500
141, 300
76,400
$378, 300
53,000
$431,300
$431,300
$ 25,000
577, 500
$602, 500
135, 600
$738, 100
$ 15,000
15,000
90, 500
141, 300
76, 400
$338, 200
71,000
$409,200
$1,147,300
$ 34, 600
$ 34, 600
10, 800
$ 45,400
—
$ 30, 100
90,500
141, 300
76,400
$338, 300
94, 700
$433,000
$478, 400
$ 84, 300
$ 84,300
33, 900
$118,200
...
$ 30, 100
90,500
141,300
76, 400
$338, 300
118,400
$456,700
$574,900
...
...
—
$ 30, 100
90, 500
141,300
76, 400
$338, 300
142,100
$460, 400
$480,400
Source: GEZR, consulting engineers.
-------
PROJECT COSTS
Solid waste management costs comprise capital costs and operating costs.
Capital costs include land, equipment, and improvements. Operating costs
include planning, administration, collection, transportation, disposal
site operation, and equipment maintenance.
THE DEMONSTRATION GRANT PROJECT
From the reports of Garretson, Elmendorf, Zinov, Reibin (GEZR), consult-
ing engineers on the demonstration grant project, an estimated $400,000
of capital goods and facilities were acquired to institute and equip a
rural drop box system in the south county area. Approximately $100,000
of rolling stock was purchased outright at the beginning of the project.
A dozer was leased. Table 1 shows total capital costs for the project.
The operating costs for the 12 months, October 1972 through September 1973,
were $69,710, including $20,784 of dozer lease payments. Assuming all
leasable rolling stock has been under lease, an additional $20,336 would
have been expended for lease payments, bringing the operating costs to
about $90,000 per year. Table 2 shows these costs. Table 3 allocates
operating costs among system components in the 12-month period ending
September 1973. These tabulations indicate an order of magnitude for
both capital investment and operating costs for this type of project.
CAPITAL COSTS
Table 4 illustrates capital costs of each disposal, transfer, and con-
tainer system. There are $1,508,800 of capital costs shown at 1973
price levels. They include only the land and improvement costs. The
equipment capital costs have all been deferred in the form of lease pay-
ments which appear under annual operating costs. No allowance is made
for moneys realizable by the county from closing of a disposal site and
selling the land.
The real cost of disposal site land over time is probably zero. Dis-
posal sites which are selected on the basis of accessibility, along
with all other considerations, would have a resale value when closed
at least equal to original cost. If not sold, the sites may be used
for parks or other public purposes and eliminate equivalent capital
expenditure.
Table 5 projects capital costs over time, and includes a 7 percent per
year inflation factor over the 1973 costs shown in Table 4. The infla-
tion factor increases the capital costs to $1,701,900. The majority
of the costs after 1974/75 are for the proposed central disposal
site which vould replace the Table Bluff site. Earlier purchase of
land or options to purchase land may reduce the inflation component of
that site's costs.
64
-------
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
The labor, maintenance, and materials requirement of a solid waste man-
agement system combine to become the annual operating costs. These are
the direct costs of expended resources related to collection, transpor-
tation, and disposal of waste. There are also the indirect system costs
which include administrative supervision and overhead for services pro-
vided by county government.
Table 4 shows the component costs of system operations at 1973 price
levels. The inflation factor, 7 percent per year, is added in Table 5
to illustrate anticipated costs in the future.
The county's annual cost of operating a countywide disposal system with
13 container sites, a disposal site, and a transfer station will be about
$338,000 in 1973 dollars and increase to $480,000 including inflation by
1979/80. The inflation allowance has been applied annually to all costs,
including equipment leases. In practice equipment payments tend to remain
level for three to seven years, and step up only when the equipment is
replaced. The annual inflation allowance used in the projection is a form
of budgeting in advance for the higher cost of replacement equipment.
CAPITAL REPLACEMENT RESERVE
Good utility management principles dictate that capital components be
maintained in good working order to optimize useful life. The major
capital components of solid waste management systems are land, improve-
ments, and equipment. Land is assumed to maintain sufficient value to
fund its owr replacement. Disposal site improvements and container site
improvements may need replacing over time. Equipment is used up over
its expected service life.
Table 6 lists the capital expenditure schedule for all components of
the system other than leased equipment. In order to fund the eventual
replacement of these components and make other improvements to the sys-
tem as needed, a capital reserve fund is recommended. The capital
reserve fund will serve about the same functions as a depreciation allow-
ance in utility accounting practice. Like the depreciation allowance,
it should reflect the original cost and relative life of the improve-
ments and equipment to be replaced. The allowances proposed in Table 6
assume annual deposits of 5 percent of the cost of disposal and container
site improvements, 5 percent of the cost of the transfer station, and
20 percent of the cost of purchased equipment.
Equipment to be acquired for use in the future is all assumed to be
leased. The lease contract is assumed to cover the useful life of the
equipment. No separate replacement charge is made because it is included
in the equipment lease payment.
65-
-------
TABLE 6
COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
CAPITAL REPLACEMENT RESERVE
1973/74
1974/75
1975/76
1976/77
1977/78
1978/79
1979/80
Disposal
Site
Improvements
$ 54,000
115,900
25, 500
--
102, 000
34, 600
84,300
Transfer
Station
$ -
200, 000
--
--
__
--
™" ™
Container
Site
Improvements
$123, 100
157, 000
157,000
--
--
--
"™ —
Equip-
ment
$100,000
59,200
--
--
--
--
""
Capital
Reserve
Contri -
burton
$28,900
64, 300
73,400
73, 400
78, 500
60,300
64, 500
Total
Net
Investment*
$248, 200
716,000
825, 100
751, 700
775, 200
749, 500
769, 300
*Net investment end of year.
66
-------
FRANCHISED COLLECTION COSTS
The county has franchisee! seven operators to collect solid waste in nine
areas. In addition, the City of Ferndale franchises its local house-to-
house collection to a private operator. The franchised areas are con-
centrated along U.S. Highway 101, the Redwood Highway, and in the urban-
ized areas in and around cities. The Willow Creek-Hoopa area is the only
franchise which is off the U.S. 101 corridor. According to information
provided by the county's Department of Public Works, the franchise col-
lectors' charges per 30-gallon container picked up once a week range
from $1.50 to $3.75 per month. There is an indication of commercial
waste volume collected by these operators in the number of commercial
accounts served as shown in Table 7.
Statistics cited in Table 7 were provided by franchised collectors.
Because there is no mandatory collection ordinance in the county or
any of the cities, any revenue projections made using the Table 7
statistics must be judged conservative. No information has been pro-
vided on actual collection.
To project from the information shown in Table 7, Bartle Wells Assoc-
iates has assumed that 1) each commercial account produces twice as
much revenue as a residential account, 2) the average monthly rate of
$3.00 per 30-gallon container picked up once a week, and 3) each resi-
dential account uses only one 30-gallon can. Collection cost is esti-
mated as follows:
Estimated annual revenue $827,000
Disposal costs ($0.50 per cubic yard) - 88,600
Balance of revenue $738,400
Assioed profit (10 percent of gross) - 82,700
Estimated collection cost $655,700
Collection cost appears to average $28.54 per year per residential
account. Disposal costs of $3;86 per year per residential account bring
total cost of collection and disposal to about $32.40 per year per resi-
dential account. The disposal charge, $0.50 per cubic yard, is currently
collected by the county as gate fee for loose waste.
67
-------
REVENUE SOURCES
The county has a variety of revenue sources to choose from to finance the
project. These sources include general fund allocations, gate fees, serv-
ice charges, collection charge, federal revenue sharing, and state and
federal payments. Each of these methods will be discussed in this section.
DETERMINING BENEFIT
An important feature of an equitable financing plan is distributing costs
according to benefit received. Levels of benefit vary geographically
among: 1) container system areas, 2) franchisee! collection areas, and
3) state, federal and other public park-camping-picnicking areas.
The container system areas benefit by having a convenient, local dis-
posal point from which the county transfers waste to the disposal site.
The container site is maintained by the county, eliminating the fire
and health hazard previously extant from open burning dumps. A gate •
fee or area-wide indirect charge would be an appropriate way to charge
for these benefits .
The franchise collection areas are benefited by having house-to-house
collection service available on a weekly or semi-weekly basis. The
removal of garbage from each dwelling and commercial establishment elim-
inates the nuisance, health, rodent, and vector hazards which are pres-
ent where garbage is stored. The benefit of collection includes dis-
posal service. In franchised collection areas of Humboldt County, the
disposal service is provided by the county at some cost to the franchised
collector. Collection and disposal are ultimately paid by the individual
collection customer as part of the collection charge.
Recreation areas in the county, operated by federal, state, or local
governments, are seasonally benefited by the container system and the
disposal sites of the county. The recreation site operators remove
garbage to the nearest container or disposal site. Some of the govern-
mental agencies providing recreational facilities are able to contract
with county government for their fair share of the costs of operating
solid waste facilities. U.S. Forest Service has advised Bartle Wells
Associates that Six Rivers National Forest will negotiate with the
county as soon as the open burning dumps at Willow Creek and Orleans
are closed. The U.S. Forest Service is able to budget up to the cost
of creating and operating separate facilities.
Direct use of disposal site is also a benefit. The direct disposal
site user would overload the collection system or the container system
were he to place excessive wastes in his standard container. The county
system provides the opportunity to dispose of excess solid wastes directly
at the disposal site. For ihat special privilege or special benefit, a
gate fee is charged.
68
-------
The proposed south county transfer station promises to benefit many
users of the system. By replacing the Benbow disposal site, it will
reduce the cost of hauling for container customers. It will also save
franchised collectors and their customers the cost of hauling to Table
Bluff for disposal. A gate fee at the transfer station would pass the
cost fairly to all customers served.
Certain industrial and commercial solid wastes require special handling
due to their bulk, toxicity, or other dangerous nature. Such wastes
should be charged on a case-by-case basis. It would be reasonable to
charge a direct fee for all handling and disposal costs plus 10 percent
for administration and supervision.
GENERAL FUND ALLOCATION
General fund allocation spreads costs among all property owners in the
county. All property, regardless of use, shares in paying for the gen-
eral benefit services provided from general fund expenditures. Ad val-
orem taxation is the major revenue source for the county general fund.
Ad valorem taxation is a good method of distributing cost where waste
generation is closely related to assessed value. It is a poor method
where wastes from major generators are difficult to process or excep-
tionally valuable for recycling.
Tax rates were effectively frozen by passage of SB 90 and AB 2008 by
the state legislature. The county's general fund tax rate is limited
to that levied in 1971/72; it may be increased in proportion to popula-
tion growth and increases in the state consumer price index, or by pop-
ular vote.
The general fund allocation to solid waste management activities is
equivalent to a rate of 6.6 cents per $100 assessed valuation.
GATE FEES
Gate fees are charges collected at disposal, container, or transfer
sites for the privilege of dumping. Such fees have rarely reflected
the costs of disposal only. Gate fees may pay all solid waste manage-
ment costs. The fee is arrived at by dividing revenue needed by the
tonnage of waste to be disposed. Gate fees should be set at levels
which encourage facilities' use.
When gate fees are collected, the first cost to be considered is the
salary of the gate attendant as an additional cost of disposal. At low
volume sites or container sites, the cost of collection may be prohib-
itive, unless the attendant can perform other functions such as covering
refuse in the landfill or compacting refuse in the container.
69
-------
SERVICE CHARGES
Service charges, collected through a schedule of land classification,
are a new revenue source created by the California Legislature in 1972.
Referred to as AB 64, this legislation added Sections 25210.77 (e)
and (f), 25830, 25831, and 38790 to the Government Code. Basically,
the legislation provides that county governments and county service
areas may engage in the collection as well as the disposal of solid
waste. The costs of providing such services may be collected from
fees and charges levied against land, based on the solid waste gener-
ation classifications applied to the land. Cities may also use the
same land classification method for collecting service charges for
solid waste management. Further, the delinquent fees become liens
against the land on a parity with delinquent taxes. The same tax
sale provisions applied to delinquent property taxes are applied to
delinquent service charges.
The service charge system requires much data collection. There are
approximately 57,000 taxable parcels or property in the county. Each
parcel has an individual sheet on which is recorded all pertinent infor-
mation about land, timber, minerals, and improvements. Only limited
information from this sheet is currently in the county's computer, i.e.,
total values of land and improvements, secured and unsecured values,
and ownerships. By limiting the search through the assessor's roll to
improved parcels, and by creating a land classification form which would
permit the recording of parcel numbers and information pertaining to
solid waste generation, a manual search of the individual parcel sheets
in the county assessor's office would yield complete countywide data.
The gathering of data would require about two months. Updating could
be accomplished through building permit procedures.
Once this classification information has been organized, the county
would be able to mail a bill for the service charge annually with the
tax bills to all unincorporated land in the county.
The county has no power to levy the service charge on incorporated prop-
erty directly. There are two methods of collecting equivalent revenue
inside cities:
1. Under Section 38790.1 of the Government Code, a city may collect
fees on the same basis as the county by agreement between city and
county. The county's service charge and land classifications could
then be applied within the city, and the revenue allocated among
city and county services.
2. A city could, through agreement or contract, agree to pay the county
a set annual fee for services provided by the county, without ref-
erence to city revenue sources.
70
-------
TABLE 7
COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
FRANCHISE AREA CUSTOMERS
Mo. Rate
for 30 Gal.
Container Commercial Resi- Total
Franchise Area Per Week Accounts dential Customers
Humboldt Sanitation
(McKinleyville-Orrick) S3.75 150 1,250 1,400
Blue Lake Garbage
(Samoa Blue Lake Fieldbrook) 3.00 1,150
(Willow Creek Hoopa) 3.00 251
Arcata City Garbage 3.10 6,000
Eureka City Garbage 2.35 800 8,200 9,000
Eel River Garbage
(Fortuna) 1.50 150 2,850 3,000
Ferndale 500
Emery Muoro
(Myers Flat) 2.00 100
Phillip Kochan
(Carbervilie-Redway) 1.75 91 2QQ 381
Total 1.191 12,590 21,782
Source: Department of Public Works, County of Humboldt, 2/1/74. Customer
count provide county by franchise collectors.
71
-------
Attached as Exhibits A, B, and C, are the Glenn County Ordinances 547
and 551 and the joint exercise of powers agreement between the county
and the Cities of Willows and Orland. Glenn County adopted the attached
ordinances and entered into the joint exercise of powers agreement to
take advantage of the AB 64 legislation in 1972. The county's program
has been well received and is operating smoothly.
San Bernardino County adopted a service charge ordinance with land class-
ifications in 1973, attached as Exhibit D. The metropolitan portion of
the county is excluded from the service charge as an area for which
service is provided and service charge levied. Further, some of the
very sparsely populated areas of the desert regions of the county have
also been designated no-service-charge areas. However, the more populous
desert areas have been provided with county-operated disposal sites.
The service areas surrounding these disposal sites have been divided into
six use categories according to the solid waste generation associated
with each use. The service charges have been set according to these cat-
egories. Cities located within service areas where AB 64 type service
charges are levied on unincorporated lands have agreed to pay the county
an annual lump sum for the cities' fair share of disposal costs. The
cities, in turn, are collecting the moneys from the house-to-house collec-
tors.
COLLECTION CHARGES
Collection charges for house-to-house pick-up are usually collected by
private haulers. Monthly charges to customers vary from $1.50 to $3.75.
Franchise fees paid by collectors are usually related to monthly charges,
The city or county franchising the private hauler may charge a set fee
or a percentage of gross revenue for the franchise. The franchise fee
charged by the franchising government is not to be confused with the
gate fee charged for disposing of collected solid waste. The franchise
fee is a charge for the exclusive right to collect garbage in a defined
area.
FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING
Federal revenue sharing is a fifth revenue source. The board of super-
visors decided to use this revenue source to pay for expanding the con-
tainer system countywide. The revenue sharing funds are budgeted to
meet solid waste management costs in the present fiscal year. This
source could also be used to meet capital needs as they arise. Federal
revenue sharing money is not being considered as an operating revenue
source in this report, because it is funded only through 1976.
72
-------
STATE AND FEDERAL PAYMENTS
Payments from state and federal agencies for solid waste collection
and disposal are a sixth revenue source. Contractual arrangements with
state and federal government agencies (parks and recreation facilities)
for use of county solid waste disposal facilities, especially on a
seasonal basis, should offset costs created by such agencies' waste
loads. Federal policy requires all federal agencies to use local facil-
ities where available. The maximum amount a federal agency will pay
for local service is the cost of providing and operating separate facil-
ities at the federal agency's expense.
REVENUE COLLECTION COSTS
The costs of collecting revenues must be considered in determining which
revenue sources to use. Three billing methods are available to the
county: billing in conjunction with the county tax bill, direct monthly
billing, and a combined public service billing system.
The county tax collection system is currently used to collect only
ad valorem taxes. The same system would be the least costly method
of collecting the service charge. The added costs of service charge
billing are: 1) gathering land classification data, 2) computer pro-
graming to convert land classification information into service charge
billings, and 3) collecting the money. The billing would be annual, on
a separate bill, mailed with the property tax bills.
Use of a billing system other than the county tax bill for collecting
service charges is not recommended. Were the billing to be monthly, the
additional postage would be at least $48,000 per year under the new
postal rates, assuming 39,876 parcels of land in unincorporated areas.
This estimate indicates 15,731 of 55,607 taxable parcels of land in the
county are located within cities. In addition, the clerical staff
requirements to process the bills monthly would add at least a five per-
son group costing $50,000 per year. There would also be additional
computer programing required.
The county might investigate the feasibility of a public service billing
system. The utility service billing for sewer, water, solid waste man-
agement and other services would be handled by the county. Special dis-
tricts throughout the county would have a centralized billing system
available. There are four special districts in the county providing
sewer service only, and seven special districts serving water only.
Among these districts there may be duplication of personnel and equip-
ment. Consolidation could provide savings which would reduce service
costs and increase efficiency.
73
-------
Collecting gate fees costs approximately $10,000 per year per attendant.
Where franchised collectors, industrial, and commercial customers are
billed monthly, rather than paying for each load, the cost of collecting
gate fee revenues rises by the cost of that billing system. However,
the volume of moneys handled by the gate attendants are reduced. The
attendant would weigh and note the volume of waste to be billed.
Should there be no billing, but strictly a cash gate fee collection
system, there would be some security and insurance costs. An estimate
of the cash balances held at the site would be required to properly
assess the levels of insurance and security required.
Gate fee collectors can also gather statistical information. By keep-
ing a record of the number and types of loads coming to the disposal
site, by size, class, and frequency, information about the life of the
site and potential income from the site can be asseisfcled. Sorae recycling
information might also be gleaned from such data.
Operating costs in Table 6 and 7 for both Table Bluff and the proposed
central landfill include gate attendant costs.
-------
RECOWENDED FINANCING PLAN
OBJECTIVES
The financing plan recommended in this report is intended to serve as
a guideline for several purposes.
1. Providing an institutional framework within which a countywide
solid waste management plan can function.
2. Financing capital costs for the north county container system, the
central disposal site, and the transfer station.
3. Providing operating revenues to meet operating costs of the con-
tainer systems, disposal sites, and transfer station.
4. Building a capital reserve to maintain the value of the utility.
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
In order to develop a comprehensive countywide solid waste management
plan without restraint by political boundaries within the county, an
institutional arrangement would have to be negotiated. There are a
number of special district forms of government from which to choose.
However, the most expedient relationship would be a county-cities
joint exercise of powers agreement.
The whole land area of the county is included in the solid waste manage-
ment plan under consideration. The financing plan being recommended in
this report is able to fulfill the financial and political needs of the
whole county by creating an agreement between the county government and
the city governments.
The basic statutory authorization for a joint exercise of powers agree-
ment is contained in Chapter 5 of the Government Code (Sec. 6500 f f) .
These broad powers cover many areas of intergovernmental arrangements
including those for solid waste management. Two agencies or more,
with powers to manage solid waste are necessary to create the joint
powers agreement.
Preparation of a joint powers agreement involves choosing among many
alternatives. Decisions should be made on alternative arrangements,
including, but not limited to, those listed in Table 8.
The designation of the agency to carry out the agreement is critical
to the success of the joint powers agreement. This administrator may
be one or more of the parties, or may be a commission or board created
by the agreement. Under a joint powers agreement, therefore, two choices
exist for thr solid waste management function: 1) a contractor agency -
75
-------
TABLE 8
COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
JOINT POWRRS AGREEMENTS DECISION STEPS
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENTS
Two or
more parties
Umbrella agency or commission
Board of Directors
Administrative Form
(Choose one)
Decision-Making Body
Prime contractor
Governing body of
prime contractor
Choose one
Governing boards of each party
Mayors of each party
Cicy managers of each party
Appointed reps, of each party
Elected reps, of each party
Membership of
Decision-Making Body]
As legislated
Choose one
Advisory board
Steering committee
None
Advisory Board
Chonse one
Commission employees
Contract with other agency
Some or all parties
Dept. of some or all parties
Private consultant
Functional Group
Choose one:
_L
One party
Dept. of one patty
Private consultant
Choose one
Choose one
Commission employee
Department head(s)
Consultant
Choose one
Commission employee
Treasurer of one oarty
Manager
"I rea»surer/
Comptroller
Manager of operations of party
Department head
Consultant
(flioose one
Treasurer of prime contractor
Treasurer ot ocher parry
Choose one or more-
I ,
1'i.inrur.g - coordination
Design & construction
Operation & maintenance
Acquire/own property or leaseholds
Contract
Budget
I
levels of Service
Choose one or raore.j
Individual party pro rata contributions
Bonds issued on behalf of all parties
by one party
1941 .Vet revenue bonds
76
I-iiiancing Methods
-------
one or more of the parties administers or carries out ths agreement, or
2) an umbrella agency - the newly formed agency/authority/commission
administers or carries out the agreement.
Once the administrator is chosen, the parties must select among other
alternative functions to complete the agreement.
1. The first step is to designate the decision-making body of the
entity. The decision-making body, or the persons who have the auth-
ority or power to administer the agreement, may be selected in any
manner to which the member parties agree.
2. Other bodies may be formed to assist the decisi on-making body carry
out its tasks. For example, an advisory group which represents
additional points of view may be created to advise the governing
board and to provide liaison between the commission and participating
agencies. Franchised collectors may be represented on the advisory
group.
3. A treasurer or comptroller responsible for fiscal affairs should be
appointed. Usually this will be the treasurer of the managing
entity or, under the umbrella agency approach, one of the partici-
pants .
4. A staff to carry out the daily functions of the agency must be des-
ignated. The administrator agency may choose to provide the speci-
fied services itself, through its own hired employees, may delegate
some or all of the functions to an agency under its jurisdiction,
or may contract with another public or private group.
5. To facilitate performance under the agreement, a manager or coor-
dinator should be provided by the administrative agency or employed
separately by the commission.
6. The levels of service, or specific joint powers which are to be exer-
cised, should be determined in this agreement.
7. The financial powers of the umbrella agency or contractor agency
under joint powers agreements for solid waste management is limited
largely to the resources of the individual parties to the agreement.
Annual operating and maintenance costs are shared by the members in
any manner preferred. Capital costs, simlarly, must also be allo-
cated, and may be met by individual contributions, bonds issued by
one party on behalf of all members of the agreement, or revenue bonds
under the Revenue Bond Law of 1941.
8. Finally, parties to the joint powers agreement must decide upon own-
ership and capacity rights, methods to resolve disagreements in
administration, duration of agreement, method of discussion, and
general rules and regulations regarding use of the joint system.
Reference is made to the copy of the Glenn County JPA attached as
Exhibit C.
77
-------
CAPITAL COST FINANCING
Capital costs can be met from funds on hand or borrowed funds. Capital
costs can be deferred by leasing equipment instead of purchasing it
outright.
Initial capital investment in the existing south county container sys-
tem has come from federal demonstration grant moneys and county general
fund allocations. The 1973/74 budget includes federal revenue sharing
moneys for north county container system capital investment, south county
container system improvements, and disposal site closures and improvements,
Lease payments for equipment and capital for the balance of the project
described by the consulting engineers will be generated by the revenue
structure. The combination of general fund allocations, service charges,
and gate fees can meet all capital costs of the proposed system not
already paid or funded.
OPERATING REVENUES
Operating costs must also be met from current revenues. Revenue sources
for solid waste management at the county level in California are general
fund allocations, gate fees, service charges, and collection charges.
Annual revenues from all sources must meet annual expenditures. Collec-
tion charge revenues, other than gate fees paid by franchised collectors,
are not available in Humboldt County because the county provides no col-
lection service. Franchise fees (about 2 percent of gross revenue) are
the only other revenue realized by the county from house-to-house collec-
tion service.
REVENUES AND EXPENSES
The proposed revenue sources recommended in Table 9 pay costs as they
are incurred and build a fund to complete the system. Table 10 develops
these revenue recommendations into a seven-year projection of revenues
and expenditures.
The general fund allocation is projected at the present level, $205,000,
or a tax rate equivalent of about 6.67 cents per $100 of assessed valua-
tion. This is the current level of tax moneys used for solid waste man-
agement. The proposed plan would maintain the present allocation to the
end of the capital investment period, and then decrease it.
To assure full system use, mandatory collection ordinances applied to
areas where franchised operators currently collect garbage weekly or
semi-weekly, are strongly recommended. Mandatory collection assures
the community of timely waste removal in an efficient, regulated manner
which meets public health standards, and generally reduces illegal dump-
ing. Homeowners benefit because they use a service which is available,
78
-------
TABLE 9
COUOTY OF HUMBOLDT
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
REVENUF. SOURCES
I. Ad Valorem Taxes:
Assessed value - 1973/74, $307, 596, 430 (secured only)
A. 1973/74 general fund solid waste management budget -
6.6£/$lOO A.V. or $201,672.
B. 1974/75 operating costs $361,300 = 11.7£/$100 A.V. tax rate.
C. 1974/75 grand total cash requirement $556,600 =
18.1£/$100 A. V. tax rate.
D. Recommended tax rate 6.6rf/$100 through 1976/77.
II. Service Charge: Dwelling Jnit Equivalent Basis
Dwelling unit count:
County total 35, 985
Inside cities 15,892
Outside cities 20, 093
Franchised area customers 21, 782
Residential 19,822
Commercial 1,960
DUE'S Zone A 23, 742
Rural area customers 17, 763
Residential 16,163
Commercial 1,600
DUE'S Zone B 19,363
A. 1974/75 operating costs 5361, 300 = $0.45/month Zone A and
$1.05/mor.rh Zone B per DUE.
B. 1974/75 grant total cash requirement $556. 600 = $0.65/month Zone A and
Sl.GO/month Zone R per DUE.
C. Recommended service charges are $0. 50/month Zore A and Sl.25/month
/cue B per DUK producing $431, 000 of annual rfverue.
HI. CM to \ i-.e:
106, 000 people @ 0.6 tons per c.ipira per year = 63. 600 tons =
691, UOO cubic yards (y> 184 pounds pier cubic yard.
A. ll'74/75 operating costs $361. 300 - 52C"/cubic yard.
B. 1974/75 grand total v_ash requirement $556,600 = SlcVcubic yard.
C. U.-commended 50^/cubic yard for 177, 242 cubic yards conservatively
tbtimated from franchised collectors = $88,600.
79
-------
TADLE 1C
COUNTY 0? H'JiCOLDT
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
AN.VJAL .irVENLJE AND EXPENSE PROJEC'nON
1973/74 1974/75 197S/76 1976/77 1977/78 1978/79 1979/SO
Revenues
Property :oxes*
Service charge^
Gate fee3
Revenue sharing
Tcial
Expenses
Capital costs5
Operating costs^
a, Capital replacement cost"
0 Total
Net Revenue
Cumulative Net Revenue
Cumulative Capitcl Replacement
$201,672
698. 6564
$900,328
$604, 900
253. 400
28, 900
$887,200
$ 13,100
$ 13,100
$ 23,900
$205, 000
433, 000
88. 600
$726,600
$195,300
361, 300
64,300
$620, 900
$105,700
$113,800
.? 93, 200
$205, 000
433, 000
88,600
$726, 600
$ -
431, 300
73, 400
$504, 700
$221,900
$340, 700
$ !<56,600
$
$
$
$1.
$
5
$
205, 000
433, 000
88, 600
726, 600
738, 100
409, 200
73, 400
220, 700
..7
86,600
$ 100, 000
433. 000
88, 600
$621,600
$ 45,400
433, 000
78,500
$556, 900
S 64.700
$ 64, 700
$165, 100
$100, 000
433. 000
8S, 600
$621,600
$118,200
456, 800
60, 300
$635, 300
$(13,700)
$ 51,000
$225, 400
$ 50,000
433, 000
«3, 600
$571, 600
$ "
480, 400
64, 500
$544, 500
$ 27. 100
$ 78, 100
$289, 900
1 - Properf. ;ox equivalent at 6.67$/$100 assessed value.
2 - Service charge of $0.50 per month Zone A and $1.25 per month Zone 8 per DUE.
3 - Gate fee S 50c/cubic yard escalated at 7 percent per year.
4 - 1973/7^ orAy.
5 - From Table 5.
6 - From Table 6.
7 - Current to venues, $726,600, plus accumulated net revenues, $340,700, plus accumulated capital replacement costs, $166,600 and
$73,400 current capital replacement cost equal $1,307,300, leaving $31, 200 remaining in cumulative capital replacement.
8 - Capital replacement funds available as needed to upgrade and replace capital facilities and equipment.
-------
and are assured that their neighbors are also using the service. Fran-
chised operators benefit by being able to set their collection routes to
pick up from every house on every street within their franchised area.
The coanty benefits where available collection service is used instead
of unattended container stations.
Such mandatory collection ordinances could be required by the county-
cities joint exercise of powers agreement. Further, the joint exercise
of powers agreement should clearly confer the operation and administra-
tion responsibilities for solid waste throughout the county upon the
county government. Cities would retain the income from franchising
house-to-house collection at the cuurent franchise fee rate or 2 percent
of gross franchise collector revenue's within the city limits, whichever
is greater.
The principal new source of revenue proposed is a service on each dwell-
ing unit equivalent (DUE). A DUE is 1.2 tons per year, which is the
amount of domestic waste generated by an average household of 2.9 per-
sons. DUE's can be assigned to commercial and small industrial estab-
lishments according to activity, number of employees, or amount of space
under roof. This will result in equitable assignments of DUE'S to retail
stores, restaurants, service stations, and the like.
Industries generating special wastes as a by-product of manufacturing can
be charged individually according to the characteristics of the waste and
need for special handling.
Service charges based on DUE's can vary from area to area. One charge
can be levied in rural areas where all system costs must be paid from
general fund allocations or service charges. A smaller charge can be
applied in areas of franchised collection where householders contribute
directly toward system costs through] monthly collection charges.
To raise the revenues required for the Humboldt County program, two
levels of land use fees are recommended.
1. $0.50/month/DUE, or $6/year/DUE \n areas with mandatory franchised
collection.
2. $1.25/month/DUE, or $15/year/DUE in rural areas without franchised
collection.
The joint exercise of powers agreements would provide for the county to
collect service charges within each city or for the city to pay an annual
sum equivalent to the service charges. Other provisions in the agreement
would deal with regulation of franchised collectors in and out of the
cities, life of franchises, and procedures for obtaining and renewing
or altering the boundaries of franchises.
8-1
-------
The proposed service charge will produce about $433,000 per year. The
county tax collector can bill the fees, with property taxes to minimize
the cost of collection.
The franchised operators of house-to-house collection systems will pay
a disposal charge in the form of gate fees. The gate fee is proposed
at 50 cents per cubic yard loose or about $5.45 per ton. The revenue
estimated from this source is conservatively projected at $88,600 with
a 7 percent per year escalation. The\revenue estimate is conservative
because 1) only franchised collectors,^ gate fees have been estimated,
and 2) the volume of waste from frandhised collectors was estimated at
only one 30-galIon container per week1 per residential customer and two
per commercial customer. Gate fee would be paid at the point of entry
to the disposal system, either at the/transfer station or at the landfill,
Franchised operators, who formerly used the Benbow disposal site, have
been assumed to be permitted to use the Garberville transfer station,
when constructed. These operators have not been charged a differential
for using Benbow. It is proposed that they be permitted to use the
Garberville transfer station at no extra charge. However, if these
operators have received a rate increase due to the haul to Table Bluff
in the interim, the county should either collect that increased revenue
for hauling to Table Bluff disposal site, or the rate charged by the
operators should be reduced.
The revenue structure is designed to spread costs on the basis of bene-
fits, without disturbing existing revenue structures. Therefore, we
have proposed:
1. General fund allocations continued at $205,000 through 1976/77,
and then declines.
2. Service charges of $.50 and $1.25 per month per DUE.
3. Gate fees of $.50 per cubic yard, or $5.45 per ton.
4. Joint exercise of powers agreement between the cities and the
county under which the county administers and operates all solid
waste management in Humboldt County.
5. Mandatory collection in all franchised areas of the county.
82
-------
TABLE 11
COL'NTY OF HUMBOLDT
SOLID WAST5 MANAGEMENT
FRANCHiSED COLLECTORS REVENUE AND EXPENSE ESTIMATE1
RaK per 30 -gallon car. per mor.tn
Revenues
Disposal cost
Operating cost2
.Vet Revenue Before Taxes
1974/75
S3. 00
S827, 000
$ 83,600
655. 700
$744, 3CO
5 82,700
1973/76
$3.20
$884, 900
$ 94,800
701,600
$7%. 4!JU
$ £8,500
1976/77
$3.45
$946, 800
$101,400
750, 700
$852, 100
$ 94,700
1977/78
$3.70
$1,013.100
$ 108, 500
803.. 100
S 911,800
$ 101, 300
1978/79
$3.95
$1,083,900
5 116,100
859,500
$ 975, 500
$ 108,400
1979 /SO
$4.20
$1,160,000
$ 124, 300
919, 700
$1,044,000
$ 116,000
1 - From Table 9 and discussion under the sid? heading "FrancWsed Collection Costs. "
2 - Includes franchise fee of 2 pcr.c •: of gross revenue city government.
-..31175
-------
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF COLLECTION EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS
Truck Chassis (2):
Type - International COF-4070A.
Maximum Gross Vehicle Weight - 50,000 pounds.
Maximum Gross Combination Weight - 79,000 pounds.
Wheel Base - 218 inches.
Frame - 10-1/2 inches by 1/2-inch web, heavy aluminum frame
with steel cross members.
Engine - 8V71 N290-horsepower Detroit Diesel Engine equipped
with Jacobs Engine Brake
Cab - 50 inches BBC aluminum cab-over.
Front Axle - 18,000 pound minimum with hydraulic power steer-
ing and heavy duty front springs.
Rear Axle - SQHD Timken 38,000 pound with road geared speed
not to exceed 55 miles per hour.
Suspension - 38,000 pound capacity RSA Hendrickson rubber
load cushion rear suspension with heavy duty aluminum
equalizer beams.
Transmission - Five-speed synchromesh with fifth speed
direct drive.
Auxiliary Equipment - Right and left rear-view mirrors with
heaters, heavy-duty front-end tow hoods, electric backup
type horn alarm, air horn mounted on cab roof, and cab
air conditioner.
Guaranteed Performance Under Gross Load Conditions Per
California Legal Load Limits - 10 miles per hour on
15-percent grade, first class highway and on 8-percent
grade packed gravel road.
Understrtirture (2) :
Type - Bowles standard hydraulic tilting frame and cable
winch pull-on system.
Capacity - 30,000 pound maximum gross lifting capacity
including container and payload.
Operation - Capable of servicing drop boxes from 16 to 22
feet long and compatible detachable front loaders; will
mount, secure during transit, and unload units.
Design - The tilting frame consists of a heavy structural
frame hinged at the rear for hoisting, with rollers on
each side to support detachable bodies, automatic roller
locks at front, automatic side locks to hold container
rails to frame, double-acting hoist cylinders capable of
A - 1
-------
raising the frame to approximately 45 degrees and vith
hydraulically-operated winch to pull detachable body on
frame.
Hydraulic System - Power is transmitted from a transmission
mounted power take-off through a high performance vane-type
pump. Relief valve equipment prevents excessive pressure,
and the size, volumetric capacity, and pressure rating of
all components are calculated to assure smooth and effi-
cient operation of the system.
Intersystem Connection - Quick-disconnect hydraulic couplings
are provided at the rear of the frame for pressure and re-
turn lines to the detachable-body hydraulic system.
Controls - Hoist and winch operation is accomplished by en-
gaging the power take-off and operating hydraulic direc-
tional valve levers located at the front of the frame on
the driver's side by the cab.
Retaining Device - A mechanical brake device prevents winch
movements if the power is disengaged during pull-up and
set-down operations.
Body Locking Device - Automatic roller locks at front and
automatic locks at rear securely hold on- and off-units.
Detachable Front Loading Compaction Body (1):
Type - Bowles standard detachable front-loading compaction
body capable of being loaded and operated on a Bowles
tilting roll-off frame.
Capacity - 22 feet partial-pack 42-cubic-yard capacity.
Operation - Capable of hoisting and emptying 1-cubic-yard
to 8-cubic-yard storage bins into hopper, where a com-
paction blade will sweep the waste towards the rear of
the body.
Packer Body - Steel design capable of withstanding normal
compaction pressures; hopper floor, 1/4-inch sheet steel;
body floor and side walls below guide rails, 10 gauge;
body top and side walls above guide rails 12 gauge; ex-
terior body posts to reinforce sides; hold-back teeth
to retain load during transit.
Packer Blade - First stage cylinder exerts 70,000 pounds
or more of horizontal thrust and travels a minimum of
six inches beyond rear of hopper openings.
Hopper Cover - Horizontal type mounted on guides and
operated by hydraulic cylinders.
Front Loader - Capable of hoisting 6,000 pounds (container
and waste) into hopper, with relief valves to prevent
overloading; arms shall be over-door type.
Discharge Door - Barn-type door fitted with heavy-duty
hinges, safety chain, and single safety-type lock and
handle.
A - 2
-------
40-Cubic-Yard Drop Box (5):
Dimensions - 22 feet long, 8 feet wide, 8 feet high.
Weight - 9,240 pounds.
Lid Opening - 65 square feet.
20-Cubic-Yard Drop Box (2):
Dimensions - 22 feet long, 8 feet wide, 4 feet high.
Weight - 5,560 pounds.
8-Cubic-Yard Container (20):
Dimensions - 5.5 feet long, 6 feet wide, 8 feet high.
Weight - 1,480 pounds.
Lid Opening - 18.2 square feet.
A - 3
-------
CHASSIS NO.
MAKE AND MODEL INTE^NATIONAI HARVESTER
A .1
^J_
FSAKS BAIL * ^ /Q|
TOP OF CAB L
f .... Y%=
k y
• ^T,f»" ' j?
s 1 t*"~ B •**
10.00x22 TIRES ' L
* — G _ K>— C/L BO
L' " --»-
r j
ST5^'- *\
.G.30DYI
OiC^
- ^^ 1 -N ^
- p wi. n
\f ••!.« 1J »
r
J
r
^ SPECIFIED AXLE LOADINGS
' FRONT AXLE
** (pounds)
CHASSIS ©
UNDER5TRUCTUHB ®
??.OKT LOADER Q)
CONTROLLED PAYLOAD
LEGAL GRObo VKHICLE'VT.
8.275
1.680
5.310
935 ©
15.2C J
HEAR AXLE
( nounds)
6.716
3.360
9.210
12.514 @
31.800
3IE
E
^
:
TOTAL
(rounds)
14.991
5.040
i3.'^9 (^)
^8.000 C6)l
REFERENCE DESCRIPTION DIMENSION
A. OVERALL 33C 50"
B. EFFECTIVE FRONT
AXLE TO END OF 3811
CA3 -
C. USABLE CA3 TO
TRUNNION HEQ'MT 178"
D. AFTER FRAviE REQ'MT 55"
E. MAX. OVERALL HT. l6l"
P. OVERALL BODY.
LENGTH 2?4"
G. CA3 CLEARANCE
REQUIREMENTS y
H. OVERALL UNIT
LENGTH 348'
(1) Maximum road-ready weight per bid (includes 1,035 Ibs. of fuel and 3% permissible weight variance).
(2) Weight of unit, exclusive of chassis, ready to roll (per bid).
(3) Weight of detachable front loader with packing blade and lifting arms in traveling position (with fluid).
(4) Distribution of gross controlled payload to respective axles on the basis of water level load.
(5) Mathematical difference between legal gross vehicle weight and equipment loadings.
(6) Legal gross vehicle weight, California Vehicle Code, Section 35100, reflects the weight variance for the
partial pack option selected by the County:
22 Ft. full pack
ADJUSTMENT
22 Ft. partial
F.A. R.A. TOTAL
4,180 11,500 15,680
1,130 -2,290 -1,160
5,380 9,210 14,520
INTEGRATED CHASSIS, BODY, PAYLOAD, AND DIMENSIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
-------
APPENDIX B
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
NORTH COAST REGION
Order No. 73-14
WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS
for
BENBOW SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
Garberville, Humboldt County
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region,
finds that:
1. The Humboldt County Department of Public Works,
1106 Second Street, Eureka, California 95501, sub-
mitted a report of waste discharge dated May 10,
1972, and a site evaluation report dated June 7,
1972.
2. The County of Humboldt is discharging about 4,500
tons per year of Group 2 and 3 wastes in a disposal
site located in the S-l/2, SE-1/4, Section 35, T4S,
R3E, HB & M, as shown in Attachment "A" incorporated
herein and made part of this order. The disposal
site is owned by Humboldt County. Expected disposal
rate in 1983 is 6,000 tons per year.
3. Current plans are that this 37-acre disposal site will
be operated as a sanitary landfill and leachate collec-
tion facilities will be provided.
4. The disposal site is situated on a bluff above the
South Fork of the Eel River. The disposal area is
comprised of shallow deposits of silts, sands, and
gravels overlying relatively impervious bedrock.
Groundwater resulting from infiltration and subsur-
face flow occurs above the bedrock. Surface runoff
from adjacent land areas can be diverted from the
disposal areas.
5. This disposal site can be developed to meet the cri-
teria contained in the California Administrative Code,
Title 23, Chapter 3, Subchapter 15, for classification
as a Class II-2 Disposal Site suitable to receive
Group 2 and Group 3 wastes.
B - 1
-------
6. Runoff from the disposal area is tributary to the
Eel River, which is used in this area for:
a) Domestic and municipal water supply
b) Water contact recreation
c) Aesthetic enjoyment
d) Preservation and enhancement of fish and wildlife
7. Land within 1,000 feet of this site is used for water-
oriented recreation and grazing.
8. The Interim Water Quality Control Plan for the North
Coastal Basin was adopted on December 13, 1972, and
this Order implements the water quality objectives
stated in the plan.
9. The Board has notified the discharger and interested
agencies and persons of its intent to prescribe waste
discharge requirements for this discharge.
10. The Board in a public meeting heard and considered all
comments pertaining to the discharge.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, the County of Humboldt shall comply with the follow-
ing:
A. DISCHARGE SPECIFICATIONS
1. The treatment or disposal of waste shall not cause pollution or a
nuisance.
2. There shall be no discharge of leachate to the South Fork Eel River
or its tributaries.
3. Waste materials shall not be discharged or deposited outside of
the designated disposal area shown on Attachment A. No Group 2
or Group 3 wastes shall be placed within 200 feet of the- exist-
ing bluff line.
4. The disposal area shall be protected from any washout or erosion
of wastes or covering material, and from inundation, which could,
occur as a result of floods having a predicted frequency of once
in 100 years.
5. Surface drainage from tributary areas, and internal site drainage
from surface or subsurface sources shall be controlled to mini-
mize percolation through Croup 2 wastes discharged at the site.
6. Group 1 wastes shall not be deposited at this site.
B - 2
-------
7. Water used during disposal site operations shall be limited
to a minimal amount reasonably necessary for dust control
purposes.
8. Liquid control barriers shall be provided to retain leachate
front the leachate collection system to prevent any discharge
to South Fork Eel River or its tributaries.
9. Annually, prior to the anticipated rainfall period, all nec-
essary runoff diversion channels shall be in place to prevent
erosion or flooding of the disposal areas.
10. Hydraulic continuity between leachate storage or disposal fa-
cilities and underlying groundwater shall be restricted by
placement of an artificial barrier on the base and perimeter
of the storage or disposal area capable of reducing infiltra-
tion rates to 0.001 gallons / square feet / day or-less. Such
a barrier must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of this
Board's Executive Officqr prior to the use of the collection,
storage, and disposal facilities.
11. A minimum freeboard of two feet shall be maintained in ponds
used for storage or disposal of leachate.
12. No Group 2 wastes shall be placed in ponded water from any
source whatsoever.
13. The exterior surfaces of the disposal area shall be graded to
promote lateral runoff of precipitation and to prevent ponding,
and exterior surfaces which will be exposed for six months or
more shall be covered with a minimum of two feet of compacted
soil of low permeability.
B. PROVISIONS
1. At this time, Group 2 and 3 solid wastes shall be disposed of
only in the area lying west of the existing intermittent
stream channel. Future use of other portions of the site as •
disposal areas may be allowed after revision of the waste dis-
charge requirements which would incorporate experience gained
in the initial site operation and evaluation of geological,
hydrological, and site development information furnished by
the discharger.
2. On or before March 6, 1973, the discharger shall complete
surface water interceptor ditch for surface water on north-
erly and westerly side of disposal area to an elevation
two feet below existing refuse.
B - 3
-------
3. The discharger shall submit a report by May 1, 1973, for review
by the Executive Officer which presents a detailed plan for modi-
fying the disposal facilities in order to comply with the above
requirements and a time schedule for undertaking such improve-
ments; such plans shall specifically indicate:
a. Manner of controlling subsurface drainage from
the northwest slope area.
b. Manner of controlling subsurface drainage from
the northern property boundary area.
c. Method of leachate collection under the landfill.
d. Leachate handling and disposal methods.
4. Group 2 wastes shall not be disposed of below the invert eleva-
tion of the existing drainage channel located at the base of the
northwest slope area until the seepage control drains are in
place and are operating.
5. Discharge of treated leachate will be considered after satis-
factory evidence is submitted by the discharger that pollu-
tion or nuisance conditions would not occur.
6. Within 30 days of the completion of installation of subsurface
drainage, leachate collection, and leachate treatment facili-
ties, a detailed plan drawing of the disposal site shall be sub-
mitted to the Executive Officer for approval, and subsequently
shall become a base measurement tool in the monitoring of this
disposal site.
7. The discharger shall maintain a copy of this order &t the site,
available at all times to operating personnel.
8. The discharger shall file with this Board a report of any mate-
rial change or proposed change in the character, location, or
quantity of this waste discharge. For the purpose of these re-
quirements, this includes any proposed change in the boundaries,
contours, or ownership of the disposal area(s).
9. The discharger shall comply with the Monitoring Program No. 73-14
as specified by the Executive Officer.
10. Ninety (90) days prior to discontinuing the use of this site for
waste disposal the County of Humboldt shall submit a technical
report to the Board describing the methods and controls to be
used to assure protection of the quality of surface waters of
the urea during the final operations and with any proposed sub-
sequent use of the land. This report shall be prepared by or
qnder the supervision of a registered engineer or a certified
B - 4
-------
engineering geologist. The method used to close the site and
maintain protection of the quality of surface and groundwaters
shall comply with waste discharge requirements established by
the Regional Board.
11. This Board considers the property owner to have a continuing
responsibility for correcting any problems which may arise in
the future as a result of this waste discharge or water applied
to this property during subsequent use of the land for other
purposes.
Certification
1, David C. Joseph, Executive Officer, do hereby certify that
the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of an order
adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board,
North Coast Region on February 28, 1973.
(ORIGINAL SIGNED BY)
David C. Joseph
Executive Officer
B - 5
-------
CALLFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
NORTH COAST REGION
Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 73-14
for
BENBOW SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
Garberville, Humboldt County
MONITORING
1. Three monitoring wells shall be installed in locations approved by
the Executive Officer in a position to detect possible southward move-
ment of leachate from the initial landfill area. One of the wells
shall be located in the vicinity of the stream channel.
2. Provisions shall be made to allow measurement of the flow rate of
leachate drained from the landfill area.
3. On the first working day of each month the discharger shall perform
an inspection of the disposal site and the following Items reported
on:
a. Are the subsurface seepage drains functioning properly?
b. Are surface runoff diversion facilities in place?
c. Effectiveness of control system; compute total leachate flow
from the landfill.
d. Note location of springs and any apparent discoloration due to
leachate sources.
e. (An additional item will be added to include surveillance of
leachate handling and disposal after that system is prepared
by the discharger.)
REPORTING
The quarterly monitoring reports shall be submitted to the Regional Board
by the 15th day of the succeeding reporting period. The first reporting
period will commence May 1, 1973, The monthly observation reports shall
be submitted with the quarterly reports.
An annual report shall be submitted by January 31st of each year updating
the disposal site plan drawing (per Provision No. 6, Order 73-14) to show
B - 6
-------
the total areas used for waste disposal relative to a permanent monument
at the site and to include approved changes in the disposal facilities.
The first annual report will be due January 31, 1974.
Ordered bv (ORIGINAL SIGNED BY)
David C. Joseph
Executive Officer
February 28, 1973
B - 7
-------
APPENDIX C
BBTBOW SAHTTARY LAKPFILL - OPtKATICTAL ATO COST DATA
Soil! Bast a Quantities
( t on* )
County Franchise State Monthly Equipment Hur
Month Collected Collected Parks Other Total Hours Hours Equipment t"
Aug.. 1972 222 148 38 115 523
September 197 114 IS 145 -.71
Octjbar i Land<3> Development <4> MJse.<*> Coat
$ 908
878
862
1.425
795
638
652
960
735
.095
.155
,418
.380
.335
.470
.12!
.680
$18.511
$ 1,089
rate of
month).
$ .121 9
,121
,121
.121
.121
.in
.121
.131
.111
.121
.121
,121
.121
.121
.121
.121
,121
806 9
806
306
806
806
806
806
806
806
806
806
806
806
806
806
806
806
-
^
'
•
.
-
-
25
23
25
ZI
25
25
25
25
$19.057 $13.702 $200
$ 1.121 $
$1,732. SO /Booth.
806 $
(4) Initial site development of 954.000 anortlced at 6t for 7 years; 954.000 x 0.17*135 - 99. 673 /year ($806 / month) .
(5) Surface Interceptor trench construction In May, 1473: 41,686 amortised at 61 Cor 7 yeare; $1,686 * 0.179135 • $102 /yaw
(6) Based on (1) assumed equipment cost of 912 /hour that bulldocer Is In use, (2) labor coat Increased by 10.31 to reflect i
remain the sane.
12
9 4,567
4,572
.521
.084
.454
• .297
,311
4,619
4,394
4.779
4,839
3.102
5.064
5.019
5.154
4.809
5.364
$80.949
$ 4,762
{$25 /.oath).
wn- productive)
Actual
Cost Equipment
fS/ton) 0>rs/ton)
9 8.73
9.71
15.22
20.92
21.41
16.98
15.85
IS. 55
15.69
14.75
10.50
12.7)
11.40
17.43
17.65
16.25
2). 30
914.55
paid time.
0.18
0.22
0.26
0.27
0.22
0.08
0.12
0.13
0.20
0.24
0.23
0.29
0.28
0.27
0.36
0.19
0.28
0.22
and (3)
labor
ftirs/ten)
0.23
0.23
0.39
0.78
0.51
0.34
0.32
0.43
0.33
0.4J
0.33
0.47
0.41
0.62
0.67
0.31
1.06
0.44
other cost 4
Adjuated
Cost**'
($/ton)
$ 7.76
8.75
12.76
17.61
16.19
11.35
11.23
11.63
12.13
12. S)
9.68
12.15
11.17
15.10
16.4)
12.9)
21.17
912.26
tampon ants
-------
APPENDIX D
DATA COLLECTION FORMS
-------
Humboldt County. California
SOLID WASTE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
Collection Trip Ticket
Trip tirkcl no.
IJatc.
'-• mo. day
fiufk no.
;->sicm
-. 20 o:-40 rv)
,'jn:...-2 :o cut:
i
'A eight in:
Situ
-.0
SLF
it
,
1 5-
-=!.!
Mileage
a— : .••.
••-7- 1
• L-Mrt
I'-IS
1-1
vr.
10-13
14-U.
17-10
1I-IS
(To be filled out for each separate trip) Form No. D-l
Scheduled: ( ) Ijl
Non-schedule!: ( ) e O
U river:
a
O
«% ^.
;![
No of tilt cycles: 1''
Container no in: o 'iVC
• * inL A
, L. , . . . ._„_. £_ A»^>
Weight out: J(_M -jjj
Time
^rruc
1
ITot.il
Giie
rr»
Hi fuse
tvrte
Non-
us rrs
Non-projixt
:.mc (nun):
.•cparl
^^k. A. 1
\Q*T°l * f Pr"»'ands C/Slocksburg
Shelter ( " \ JS'N A
2 Ny^X^^j/OyvN^O/Alderpolnt
^ *-x^y SLF fQ Garber^UiiX^^,^
1
>mments
- open lids R - rodents 1) - damaged lid
- fire I - insects C - container
I'c.fu.-e lype: II - household I) - demolition C - construction V - vandalism A - animals
XQ F - furniture A - applumccs T - tires Ratings: 1-good, 2-fair. 3-poor
~ B - brush O - other Utter: Refuse on site, except spillage and non-use'
,'vn-uscrs- Estimate number Spillacc: Refuse arou-ul cn.ntainers
-------
COUNTY OF KUM30LDT
SOLID WASTE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
FORM NO. D-2
WEEKLY TRUCK WEIGHT RECORD * To Be Completed By Landfill Supervisor And Turned In Weekly
Week Enging Saturday; 19 * Sheet of
DAY
i
DATE
•
TRUCK
I DENT.
NUMBER
OWNER
; i
TIMS
IN
WASTE
DESCRIPTION
Pron (I)
T.,pef21
TRUCK
WEIGHT
Tn
Out
(1) 8 CY, 40 CY, SP - State Park, F - Franchise, P - Private, 0 - Other
Y (2) H - Household, D - Demolition, C - Construction, B - Brush, T - Tires,
Xj F - Furniture, A - Appliances, 0 - Other
QUANTITY
DELIVERED
(Tons)
DRIVER
SIGNATURE
Sub-Total
Prev. Sub-Total
WEEKLY TOTAL
(Last Sheet)
-------
COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT * SOLID ;\'ASTE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT * FORM NO. D-3
••:E=-KLV TTMECARD "* To Be Filled Out Daily Bv Each Enolovee And Turned In Weekly
EMPLOYEE :
DESCRIPTION
t-
EH
EH
C.
t-
f~
*\
&
C
u
E"
<
a
E-
»r
C
E
t;
c-
ir
<•
3
C
H
*1
C
(fl
•D
I
UJ
[ Collrct.ion
LandCiJl
1 Other
TIME
Route Tire
Collection Activity Tiire - 3 CY
Collection Activity Tirse - -30CY
Joint Collection Tir-e
Repairs and Maintenance
Administration or Ccher
EJETOTAL COLLECTION TIME
Ecuipnent Operation
Traffic Supervision
Site Maintenance
Equipment Repairs and Maint.
Administration or Other
?rjDTOTAL LANDFILL TIME
Sasjty Meetin'-s and Edjcaticr
A'lnpistration
Idle Tine
•
SUBTOTAL OTHER PROJECT TIME.
Garberville CollecticnSDisposnl
SUBTOTAL NON-PROJECT TIME
I'Ovi^s
NOTE: Show Tine to Nearest 5 Win.
Keek Endinq Saturday: 19
SUN
Krs
Xin
MON
Hrs
Mir
TUE
Hrs
::in
1
WED
Hrs
Min
THU
Lrs
Min
FRI
Hrs
Mir.
SAT
Hrs
Mir
APPROVED BY:
Rate:
OFFICE
USE
-------
COUNTY OF HUMEQLDT
ST.LID WASTE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
FO?J< NO. D-
;CZ2KLY LANDFILL EQUIPMENT REPORT * To Be Completed 3y Landfill Supervise- 7.r.3 Turned In '•
"ruisr^r-t No: * Week Er.iir.r Faturdav. 19 * Hours Beain Hours End
DATE
HOUR
METER
OPEP.VTOR
HOURS (D3no.Proiect Onlv)
Refuse
!
-over S?i']
S«r.
Code
(1)
SERVICE (2)
Fuel
(Gals)
-
.
Bngine
Oil
(Ots)
Lube
Grcs^e
(Lb?i
REMARKS (3)
(1) T-l.-onching, S-Stockpiling, R-(Onslte) Roads, D-Drainage, C-Cleanup, 0-Other.
y (2) Enter Diesel Fuel Service opposite appropriate machine HOURS entry, when possible,
•i. (3) Describe special operating problems, including: water table, difficult soils,
soil* classification, etc.
Approved by:
-------
COUNTY OF HUMEOLDT * SOLID WASTE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
FORM NO. D-5
WEEKLY COLLECTION EQUIPMENT REPORT
To Be Kept In Cab And Filled In For Each Trip By Driver
13 * Odometer Out: Odoireter In:
DATE
0
l/\
OPERATOR
TRIP
TICKET
NUMBER
ODOMETER
OUT
IN
CLASSIFICATION
DC.TO
<3 or
! ^
Proi
Non-
Sche'1
Other
Project
dumber
SERVICE (1)
Diesel
Fuel
(Gals)
Engine
Oil
(Gals!
'
Lube
Grease
(Lbs)
REMARKS
(I) Enter Diesel Fuel SERVICE opposite appropriate TRIP TICKHT NUMBER entry
-------
COUNTY Of HLX30L37
SOLIIl '.,7-STr DE1'0"S7RATIOV PROJECT
FOR".
0-6
WEEKLY REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE RECORD
Reoair And Maintenance Performed At BF
To Be Coir.sleted 3y Landfill Supervision And Turned In t'°
SANITARY LAN'DFILL SITE * i-'eek Ending Saturday; 19
DA73
^D
T
APPROVED
EQUIP .
NO.
BY:
ODOMETER
03 HOUR
METER
-iOL-RS
DOV.vI
^APOS
•OURS
DESCRIPTION OF
SERVICE, REPAIR, AND PARTS
Identify Source of Outside Charce If Ar.v
OUT-
SIDE
CHARGE
COST
OFF
Labor
Cost
I C T.
Parts
Cost
•• c —
Total
Ccst
-------
APPENDIX E
TYPICAL DATA SUMMARY
E - 1
-------
MU«Bir,33600».l,50
20 NOV 7) 0910)101 PACK
PI
I
HUNBOLDT COUNTY, CALIFORNIA . SOLID *»JTE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
TRIP TICKET SU«"AH» b» SITE LOCATION
PERIOOl AUGUST I«M PACCl »
•••••••••t***«»*»i********»«»*<***********3 I T E LQCATIQ !(•••••••••••••«••••••••*•••••••••«•«••••••«••«••••••••«•«•••••
OA1E *TNIP* 6 • • • • * • • TRIP •ftUiMATlNG NO. •
• NU. *iiO •!) J»ETNQLIA«2) S. COVE • )) THORN •a)BLCKSeURG*S)FRUITLANO>6)ALDRP01NT* TOTALS • 7« •
• *2!
8/25/73 63 «0
6/45/7) 8d uO
8/25/7) 65 20
8/26/73 66 20
8/26/7) 67 6
8/26/1) 64 20
6/27/73 69 20
8/2T/73 90 20
8/27/73 4| 6
6/2T/T1 92 40
6/26/73 93 20
8/26/73 9u aO
8/26/13 95 ao
8/29/T3 96 20
8/29/7) 97 20
8/29/73 98 4
8/30/73 9« 20
8/30/73 0 20
8/31/73 1 20
8/31/73 2 20
8/31/73 1 6
• S« -I
0 0
A) 110
0 0
0 C
0 0
A| 10
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
.* C..31 VL -H CN.S* VL -H
UOOOOOOOO
0 0 AS 32 S 10 89 ao S
th*SR VL *N CN*3» VL "* CN*SH VL »>* CN*SR VL »H C"«VL«LIT SPL VEC*
0 0 0 0 0 Al «0 0 IS 0 0 0 0 «>0 0 IS 0 200 200 200 1A
8 CT S'STt" 16
«0 Cr srSTEH 22
20 CT SVSTEH 63
0000 20136 «5 ao 6««38 S305 21158 01)5 0000000 0107 732 SO «40
72*0 OlbS 000000000000 8290 020S 7206 0 85 22' 736 0 aSS
1220
8U--NO. IF CONTAINED SERVED
VL-*E3TI»mD VOLUME COLLECTED
«H..CONTAINER ..ASHING 1IHE
CN—SITE CLEAN-UP TIME (HIM)
RATING! 1--COOD 2—FAIR 1—POOR
LIT—LITTER • «*SfE U* SITE EXCEPT SPILLAGE » NON-USERS
SPL'-SPILLAGt • KASTE AWQUM) CONTAINERS
VEC--VLCTOMS - 1NSCC1S. «UDtNTS, ANIMALS
L--U»>tN LlDS F"FI«E V—VANDALISM R».RUOE«T3 1—INSECTS A--ANINAL5 0—OANACEO LIO C--CONTAIKER OAMtCEO
-------
HUKBLT.3)6001,If90
20 NOV TJ 09i03ia| PACE 11
PAGE I
COUNTT, CALIFORNIA • aouo MASTE OINONITIUTION MOJCCT
TRIP TICNIT IUMMMV BY TYPl OF BTSTIH
PER100I AU6UBT |t7)
••••»•••••••••••*»••»»••*•••••••••»*•»•»••*•••••
0*TE •TRIP* 6 CY»SCHO«CH»SbIS«sO. *BIN «"T. •TOT*L«TOT»t««*COLLtCTJON ACTIVITY(HIN)*»**TMANS*UNLO*D»*REFUSE
•NO. «40 C»»OM •NUHBEK *OF >NU. *IN *TRIP "TRIP «3ITE «LOAD *BlN •UThEA*8UB *PCMT *»E1CH MTYPE
• «OR ONON-* «TUT»OUT •TONS *IN «MHE *CLEAN*TSFR *H4Sii «TIHE *TOTAL»TI«£ ^SERVICE*
• *20 CT«SC» «TI»E «TlRE • •(HRS)*(nMS)*(MlN) •
*••*•*•••*•••••••*•••••»*•**••••»*•••••••»•*•••»»<••**••***••*•*•»•«»•*•»**•••»<•*•*»•»••<•»••*••••**•»»••»*<»••*•»»•*»»»»»••**»«••
»NO.
*NON»
«PROJ
USEHB *TIHE
a/2S/73 83 «0 610
a/2S/T] Btt «0 6M
8/2S/7I 6S 20 X 610
8/26/71 86 20 1 610
8/26/7} 67 a 611
8/26/7} as 20 X 610
8/27/73 e« 20 X 610
8/27/73 90 20 X 610
8/27/73 91 B 611
8/27/73 «2 «0 610
8/26/73 <3 20 X 611
8/28/73 9tt «0 610
a/2e/73 "S «0 610
8/29/73 9o 20 I 611
8/29/73 97 20 X 611
8/2«/73 98 6 611
8/30/73 99 20 X 610
8/33/73 0 20 X 610
a/31/73 1 20 X 610
8/31/73 2 20 X 610
8/JI/7J 3 6 611
6UOO 3.3) Si
6UO 2.91 US
l.l« 23
1.00 22
1.10 57
.75 23
I.OS 17
.95 17
2.05 3i
640 1.05 U6
1.00 20
6«0a .65 132
610A a. 38 59
1,38 |u
1.20 15
3.58 51
1.15 18
i.eo ib
1.00 17
1.35 ia
2. OS 35
.0« IS 15 0 0
.«2 IS 15 0 0
.17 10 15 0 0
.aa is 15 o o
.a« 20 is o o
.25 10 15 0 0
.92 15 15 0 0
.00 10 IS 0 0
.«2 35 15 0 0
.00 Ib 15 0 0
.25 15 IS 0 0
.00 5 10 0 0
,8U 10 IS 0 0
.25 S 10 0 0
.09 30 IS 0 0
.17 20 30 10 01
.25 IS IS 0 0
.SO 60 IS 0 01
.09 IS IS 0 0
.au 10 is o o
.64 30 IS 0 0
5 1.59 20 Mb
3.92 20 HO 1
.75 20 H ,
1.34 20 H |
3.25 20 HOB 1
.8(1 20 HF (
.«2 20 HO
,5« 20 h
1.59 20 HF
1.50 20 H6
.75 20 HO
3.75 20 H
1.42 20 H
1.00 20 HBA
.}« 20 HB
2.17 20 H HB
.75 20 H
2.25 20 HB
.59 20 HO
l.«4 20 hfl
3.09 20 MD«
<
> (
t (
)
)
l
)
)
I
0
0
0
a Cr srSTE* ia
«0 CV S»3TEH 22
20 CV S\STEH 63
MON.PNOJECT 0
SI
63
152
0
58,09
76.28
669
1617
1046
0
58.34 490
63.25 455
as.59 1100
3«5
310
860
SO
0
0
14.6
12.0
32.7
43.59
50.50
52.92
360
455
1230
REFUSE TYPEI H--HOUSEHOLD C"CON8TRUCTION T--TIUES F"FU»NlTo»E 8--BRUSN 0—OTMEH D—DtMOUTION *.-*PPLl»NCES
I ESTIMATED
-------
0 U
COUNTY OF HLNgOLOT — DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC
T EQUIPMENT CUMULATIVE COIT RECORD
APR-N»T«JUN-lf7)
INTERNATIONiL TRUCKS EQUIPMENT NO. 610-41
PURCHASED APR 1* 7 8 22.100 REPAIR OONN T|NC MRS IDLE TINE (AS OF JULT 1*69)
JOB NO.
REPORT
T 1*67
TOTAL
012)43678* COST
11 83 )«6 237 3)7 613 162 17 2202
tl 69 )»• 197 937 639 162 17 1102
48 161 302 972 37| 1267 69) 108 92 4074
OPER.
AND
y A f nT
PCI I IV 1
COST
431
128
22
42
2)
13
26
767
3063
C
0
E
T
F
L
P
M
M
A
REPAIR
fiery A
QrLR i
NAINT
2*8*
71)6
MILES
1 U
1 "
USE
3733
2516*
COST
PEM
NILE
.80
.26
SINCE JULT 1*6!
RENTAL MATE
.830
PART AND REPAIR COOCft
I ENGl-iE
2 TRANSMISSION. CLUTCH*
J oirrrotNTiAL. FINAL DRIVE, UNOERCARRAUE
4 STEE-INQ END. FRONT
SHANES
BODY. FMANEi HYDRAULIC SYSTEM
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
COOLING SYSTEM
FUEL
B BATTERIES P PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE
T TIRES M MASHING AND CLEANING
F FUEL N TRANSPORTATION Of LfiUlP.
L LUBMICANYS A FABRICATION 4 MELDING
-------
APPENDIX F
CONTAINER WASTE DENSITY
8-Cubic-Yard
System
Waste Quantity
August, 1972
September
October
November
December
January , 1973
February
March
April
May
June
July, 1973
Augus t
September
October
November
December
Total
* Weighed.
** Estimates b
tons*
A2.16
38.20
40.02
34.10
32.12
57.05
47.20
59.15
51.08
39.03
29.20
36.98
44.90
33.21
36.65
30.15
27.38
678.58
ased on i
cubic
yards**
740
644
511
422
336
470
406
386
448
350
470
688
732
494
444
262
182
7,985
>roportic
Density
Ubs/c v)
114
119
157
162
191
243
233
306
231
223
124
108
123
134
165
230
301
170 (Ave.)
>n of containei
40-Cubic-Yard System
Waste -Quantity
tons*
58.34
43.44
3.4. 10
4Q.-11
24.. 33
31.59
43.72
47.98
53,. 9.0
74.90
77.35
83.17
58.09
49.33
.59.61
40.91
40.06
860. 94
: fillet
cubic
yards**
620
530
400
340
220
295
270
380
430
875
1040
980
736
86,0
670
340
380
9,366
1.
Density
(lbs/c V)
188
164
170
236
1221
:214
324
;253
;251
1171
1149
',170
1158
1115
1178
:24i
;2ii
1184 (Ave.)
F - 1
-------
APPBIDHC
July -
Cost Total
Category Cost
Battery $
Tires
Fuel
Lubricants
Preveitatlve
Maintenance
Cleaning
Transportation
of Equipment
Fabrication &
Veldlng
Repairs
Total $
(1) 19,652 nllea.
(2) 8,139 miles.
(3) 7,166 alles.
(4) 7,766 miles.
(51 11.578 miles.
(6) 11.268 miles.
(7) 65.569 miles.
33
916
331
19
318
30
29
1.299
2.975
COLLECTION
Seatenber October - December January - March
Unit Cist Total Unit Cost Total Unit Cost
(»/nlle)d> Cost ($/n>lle)(2> Cost ($/mtle)O>
5 0.002 S - S - * " » '
0.047 426 0.052 529 0.07ft
0 017 ?95 0.036 246 0.034
0.001 282 0.035 251 0.035
0.016 39 0.005 457 0.064
0.001 37 0.004 52 0.007
0 001
134 0.019
0.066 714 0 088 1,744 0.243
SO. 151 $1.793 30.720 » 3,413 $0.476
VEHICLES'
April
Total
Cost
1,105
791
25
4fl
23
19
28
3,407
4 4.936
OPERATING COST
- June
Unit Cost
(S/mile]<*>
S -
0.143
0.036
0.003
0.006
0.003
0.002
0.004
0.439
$ 0.636
July -
Total
Cost
$ -
1.695
504
194
166
88
14
145
2.334
? S.160
F 3
September
Unit Coat
fS/mlle)(5>
$ -
O.U6
0.04ft
0.017
0.016
0.008
0.001
0.012
0.202
$ 0.446
Project Total
October
Total
Co*st
S 27
617
457
432
42
-
19
208
1,866
* 3,666
- December
Unit Coat
«/«lle)<*>
S 0.002
0.05S
0.041
0.038
0.004
-
O.OC2
0.018
0.166
$ 0.326
July. 1472 - DCCE
Total Unit Cos
S 60 S 0.001
5,288 0.081
2.114 0.032
1,203 0.018
1,090 0.017
230 0.004
81 0.001
515 0.008
11.364 0.173
$ 21,945 $ 0.335
mber. 1973
t Percent
7> of Total
0.31
24.11
9.61
5.51
5.01
1. 01
0.41
2.31
51.81
100.01
-------
8 CUBIC TAKP COKTAIHER COLLECTIOH SYSTg - OPERATIOHAL AtP OUT DATA
llaiaht Caoltal Coat Amortltat
Col- Labor
Compac- Con-
lected Vehicle Direct collection tloe; doe* not Include Idle time. Instruction tune, a
(2) Average container site cost la $28.200. Aaortltatlon of 1 eites for
u*ed for 8 cubic yard container* ($411 /month).
<3) $29.595 tea* 101 salvage value, amortized at 61 for 7
years! ($29,595
<4) HI .915 L*aa 101 salvage value, amortized at 61 for 4 yeaxa; (.$11,915
(S) Anorttiatlon of :0 container* at'io.925 'for 8 'year's at"6S:D $8.925'x 0.
(6) Bated on quarterly unit vehicle coats.
(7) Repairs and maintenance coat averaged over quarterly
(8) $7. 50 /hour; Includes wage and overhead.
(9) Labor Increased 28.91 to reflect non-productive paid
reporting period.
tine. Other cost
Ion
Site
V a r 1 a b 1 i
Conpac-
Sub- Main- Collection tion
total tenance Vehicle <*) BodyO
$ 1,102 $ - $
1,078
1,062
t.012
1.005
1,016
980 200
972
995
798
187
,091
I033
,034
,015
1,017
$17.079 $200 $4
$ 1.005 $ 12 $
nd other non-productive
20 years at 61: $84.
• $2,960) X 0.179135 -
161
144
192
157
127
301
212
192
333
155
119
455
188
321
216
205
208
.108
211
tloe,
600 x
$4,771
$ 16
36
24
24
24
90
90
90
597
597
597
58
W
58
10
10
to
$2,409
« 142
0.0871846 +
/ year. At
C o
Con-
tain-
J 22
22
2
2
2
.
-
•
10
10
10
105
US
105
27
27
27
$476
$ 28
a t
Total
Sub- Monthly
Labor (8) jotal Cost
$ 610 \
514
460
361
249
3)2
215
214
280
274
274
414
41'
326
377
302
328
851 ;
716
678
546
402
743
717
496
1,220
1,237
1,200
1,052
9BB
810
650
S44
,951
.794
,740
,578
,407
,759
,697
,468
.215
.035
.987
.143
,OSO
,841
,684
.559
S73 .590
$6,029 $13.42) $30,502
$ 355 $
$7, 376 /year ($61S /
25,000
mile* / year.
790 $ 1,794
vouch). For Hey
anortlcaclon u
Mftelenev ffetaim
Coat
(S/ton)
$42.27
46.96
41.50
46.28
43.81
10.86
35.95
n.so
43.15
52.18
68.05
J7.92
45.66
55.S1
46.01
51.62
58.01
$44.68
-
and Juni
Labor Adjusted Cost
fhrs/ton) (3/ton)<«)
.82
.80
.54
.42
.03
0.82
0.61
0.48
0.73
0.94
1.2!
.96
.so
.31
.37
.31
.59
l.W
-
i only 2 site*.
*6.21
50.83
46.82
49.35
46.07
12.64
37.27
25. Si
44.91
54.21
70.76
61.31
16.41
58.35
48.99
54.51
61.49
$47.24
SO. 191 /nil*.
- SV.1V.) » 0.1ja>Q% - Sl.JSlSfsaar »15»f nonHi).
161016 .'$!,«> /year ($121 /month).
components unchanged.
-------
A.PPEHDIXI
40 CUBIC YARD CONTAINER COLLECTION SYSTEM - OPERATIONAL AND COST DATA
Caoltal Coat Amortisation
Weight
Collected Vehicle Labor
Month (tons) Miles foanhours} ':> Sites'2*
Aug., 1972 54.0 1,550 92.0 S 615
September 41.4 1.525 79.0 615
October 34.1 1,241 oS.3 615
November 40.1 999 51.7 615
December 24.3 660 3-.0 61S
Jan.. 1973 31.6 849 40.8 61!
February 43.7 595 27.2 615
March 48.0 909 37.0 615
April S3. 9 1,151 47.3 615
Hay 74.9 ,590 76.4 820
June 77.4 ,760 88.1 820
Julv 83.2 ,727 86.8 615
August 58.1 ,617 63.3 615
September 49.3 ,848 72. 5 . 61S
October 59.6 .062 92.8 615
November 40.9 ,284 58.5 615
December 40. 1 ,208 51.4 615
Total 856.6 22.57S l.ubi.l $10.865
Monthly
Average SO. 4 1,328 62.6 $ 639
Collection
Vehicles^3) Containers'4)
i 299 $
294
240
193
127
164
US
175
222
307
340
333
312
357
398
248
233
$4.357 83,
$ 256 $
(I) Direct collection time; does not Include Idle tine, Instruction tine,
(2) Average container slta colt Is 28,200. Amortisation of 3 site* for 20
vard containers.
(3) $29,59$ less 107. salvage value, amortlied at 61 for
(4) Amortization of 5 containers at SI 3.640 for 8 years
(5) Based on quarterly unit vehicle costs.
(6) Repairs and maintenance cost averaged over quarterly
(7) $7. 50 /hour, includes wage and overhead.
(8) Labor Increased 28.97. to reflect non-productive paid
185
185
185
185
185
185
185
185
185
185
185
185
185
185
185
185
185
145
185
and other
years at
7 years: ($29.595 - $2.960)
at 61: $13.640 i
reporting period.
time. Other cost
0.161036 -
Sub- Collection
total Vehicles^)
$ 1,099 $
1.094
1.040
993
927
964
915
975
.022
,312 1
.145 1
.133
,112
.157
.198
.048
.033
$18.367 $8
$ 1,080 $
234
230
273
220
145
404
283
433
732
.011
.119
773
721
824
672
419
394
,884
522
Variable Cost
Sub-
Containers^ Labor (7> Total
$ 65
65
169
169
169
.
-
-
28
28
28
54
54
54
53
53
S3
$1.042
$ 61
non-productive time.
61: $84,600 « 0.0371846 - $7.
x 0.179135
- $4.771
$2. 197 /year ($1857
$ 690 $
S92
490
388
255
306
204
378
355
573
661
651
475
544
696
439
386
$8,083 $18
$475 $ 1
989
887
932
777
569
710
487
811
.us
.612
,808
,475
,250
.422
,421
911
833
,009
.059
376 /year ($615 /month).
/year. At 25,000 miles / year, ami
month)
Total
Monthly
Coit
$ 2,088
1.981
1.972
1,770
1,496
1.674
1.402
1,786
2,137
2.924
3,153
2.608
2,362
2,579
2.619
1,959
. 1,866
$36.376
$ 7.140
7or Hay I
>rtlzatton
Efficiency Factors
Efficiency Factors
Adjusted
Cost Labor Cost
(S/ton) (hrs./ton) (S/ton)<8>
$38.67
45.65
57.83
44.14
61.56
52.97 1
32.08 0
37.21 0
39.65 0
39.04
40.74
31.35
40.65
52.11
43.94
47.90
46.53
$42.47 1
$ -
md June, 4 sites
Is 50. 193 /mile.
.70
.82
.91
.29
.40
.29
.62
.77
.88
.02
.14
.04
.09
.47
.56
.43
.28
.24
used
$42.36
49.59
61.98
46.94
64.60
55.77
33.43
39.48
41.55
41.25
41.20
33.61
43.02
55.50
47.32
51.00
49 32
$45.19
40 cubit
components unchanged.
-------
APPENDIX J
SUMMARY OF SITE SURVEYS
Dates of Field Surveys
April 2-4. 1971(1) April 6-8. 1973<2) October 5-7. 1973
92 164 206
Total Vehicle Usage
Vehicle Arrival Time
Range
Mode
Unloading Time (minutes)
9:30 am - 4:15 pm 8:45 am - 6:24 pm
11:00 am -12:00pm 11:00 am -12:00pm
8:15 am - 5:45 pm
12:00 pm - 1:00 pm
Mean
Mode
Vehicle Type (7.)
Sedan
Station Wagon
Trailer
Pickup Truck & Light Truck
Heavy Truck
Other
Vehicle Driver Age (%)
16 to 35
36 to 55
55 plus
Vehicle Passenger Age (7.)
0 to 9
10 to 15
16 to 35
36 to 55
55 plus
Mean Travel Distance to
Site (miles)
Mean Travel Time to Site
(minutes)
Mean Frequency of Use
(times /month)
Mean Household Size
All Waste Brought to
This Site?
Yes
No
Franchised Collector in
Your Area?
Yes
No
7.3
5-7
21.47.
5.47.
1.07.
65.57.
4.37.
2.47.
Male Female
39.1 14.1
28.3 8.7
8.7 1.1
Total - 103
Male Female
19.4 12.6
15.6 4.8
22.4 13.6
3.9 4.8
1.9 1.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
9.9
5
21.27.
9.97.
2.57.
65.87.
-
0.67.
Male Female
37.2 9.3
28.0 4.4
17.4 3.7
Total - 159
Male Female
18.9 10.6
5.0 5.0
12.6 23.2
2.5 10.0
5.6 6.6
5.3
11.4
4.05
3.45
58.47.
41.67.
15.67.
84.47.
6.0
5
15.67.
10.67.
1.07.
66.57.
1.57.
4.87.
Male Female
40.7 9.5
27.7 8.0
13.1 1.0
Total - 138
Male Female
18.1 8.7
7.3 2.2
21.7 26.1
5.8 6.5
1.4 2.2
5.9
13.6
3.9
4.5
65.77.
34.37.
33.57.
66.57.
(1) Prior to container site development. Disposal by open dumps.
(2) Container collection system in operation for eight months.
(3) Type of containers at four sites interchanged on July 1, 1973
J - 1
------- |