PB-241 468
LEE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL PROJECT
Lee County Board of Supervisors
Tupelo, Mississippi
1974
DISTRIBUTED BY:
KFLn
National Technical Information Service
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA
SHEET
1. Report No.
EPA/530/SW-8 3d
PB 241 468
4. Tide and Subtitle
Lee County, Mississippi Solid Waste Disposal Project
S. Report Date
1974
6.
7. Auihor(s)
8. Performing Organization Kept.
No.
9. Pei:'«rniing Organization Name and Address
Lee County Board of Supervisors
Tupelo, Mississippi 38801
10. Project/Taslc/Work Unit No.
"
rant No.
G06-EC-0031 5
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 & Period
Covered
Final
14.
15. Supplementary Votes
County, Mississippi, with the aid of an EPA grant, has demonstrated a unique
county-wide approach to rural solid waste collection and disposal. Many of the
smaller secondary roads in the county could not be safely traveled by a large
packer truck. However, by placing wheel-and-axle-mounted mobil waste containers
in areas with these roads, collection service could be provided to rural loca-
tions. On collection day, a pick-up truck would tow the mobil containers to
a predetermined point for emptying by the packer truck. Standard stationary
containers are utilized along Improved roads. The final report on this project
describes the system, documents the implementation problems and provides cost data,
; 17 "><-) Tords jn 'document Analysis. 17a. Descriptors
«efuse disposal; waste disposal; sanitary engineering
''To. Hc-ntiiiets/Open-Ended Terms
''Green Box" Collection System, Rural Collection and Disposal, Sanitary Landfill,
Bulk Containers, Mechanized Collection, Front-end Loading Collection Vehicles
18. Availnml'.i) Statement
19. Setunty Class (This
Report)
LJNCLASSIFIEI
[21. No. of Pages
LASSIFIEG
Class (Thi;
20. Security Class (This
UNCLASSIFIED
FORM i-j-riS-33 IREV. io-73i ENDORSED BY ANSI AND UNESCO.
THIS FORM MAY BE REPRODUCED
USCOMM-O
-------
LEE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL PROJECT
This final report (SW-83d) describes work performed
for the Federal solid vaste iranagerrent programs under grant No. GOJB-EC-00315
to LEE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
and is reproduced as received from the contractor
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1975
-------
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 contents 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.
3
An environmental protection publication (SW- 8JW) 'n "I"06 solid waste
management series.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
Summary 1
I. Introduction 5
II. Conclusions and Recommendations 13
III. System Design
A. Collection and Disposal Methods 25
B. System Facilities 28
C. Project Personnel 29
IV. System Implementation
A. Equipment 31
B. Training Programs 33
C. Initial Studies 35
D. Container Sites 56
V. Sanitary Landfill Operations
A. Site Features , 38
B. Site Development 39
C. Operations and Procedures 40
VI. Rehabilitation of Previously Used Dumps 43
VII. Collection Activities 45
VIII. Public Impact 47
IX. Economic Assessment
A. Project Equipment Costs 50
B. Construction Costs 53
C. Personnel Costs 53
D. Operating Costs 54
E. Other Costs 82
Appendices Ill
111
-------
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure No.
1 Location Map [[[ 84
2 Typical Disposal Sites ......... . ............................... 8S
3 Existing Dump Areas ............................................ 86
4 Six Cubic Yard Stationary Container chosen for use on primary
road system ................... . ........................... 88
5 Five Cubic Yard Mobile Container chosen for rural collection. . .89
6 Mobile Container located on typical rural collection site ...... 90
7 Mobile Container connection, folding leg, and wheel locking
features .... .............................................. 91
8 Facilities location ................................. .......... 92
9 Scalehouse designed for Lee Co. Solid Waste Disposal Project... 94
10 Landfill tractor shown spreading and compacting dumped wastes.. 95
11 Thirty Cubic Yard Packer Truck shown emptying collection
containers ................................................ 96
13 User Inquiry Form sent to random sample of Lee Co. residents. . .97
13A Attitude and Usage Survey ....................... ............... 98
14 Soil Structure Map, Lee County, Mississippi ................... 104
15, Landfill site chosen for initial fill with clearance of trees
in progress .............................................. 106
16 Typical Dumping Area Rehabilitation ........................... 106
17 Location of Stationary and Mobile Containers .................. 108
-------
TABLES
Table No.
1 Statistical Results of Collection and Disposal Costs 17
2 Rehabilitation of Rural Dumps Statistics 56
3 Recapitulation of Maintenance Expenses 66
4 Monthly Operating Statistics for the Sanitary Landfill
Operations 67
5 Monthly Operating Statistics for the Rural Collection
Operations 75
GRAPHS
Graph No.
1 Graphical Results of Collection and Disposal Activities 19
2 Graphical Results of Collection and Disposal Costs 20
-------
LEE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL PROJECT
DEMONSTRATION GRANT NO. G06-EC-00315
FINAL REPORT
Lee County Board of Supervisors
B. G. Coggin, Jr., Project Director
SUMMARY
To undertake the task of cleaning Lee County of its many road-
side dumps and its increasingly littered highways and landscapes
required much research, planning, and personal determination on the
part of many. It was an apparent fact that Lee County, located in
the hills of northeast Mississippi, was fast becoming a litterbug's
paradise. Open dumps were flourishing due to the fact that no other
suitable method of solid waste disposal was available. As will be
shown in the following detailed report, litterfree roads and highways are
not impossible, but much effort bv all is reouired for success.
Thanks to the concern of many citizens and the Board of Super-
visors, a county-wide approach to rural solid waste collection and
disposal has been initiated. This system basically consists of a
containerized collection program coupled with a single sanitary land-
fill disposal method.
The collection system consists of stationary waste containers
on the major highways and wheel and axle mounted mobile waste containers
on the smaller secondary road? where the large packer truck which
empties this container could not safely travel. These mobile containers
-------
;ire towed by pickup truck to a predetermined point for emptying
by the packer truck. This unique method of solid waste collection
was the basis for the solid waste demonstration project initiated
in Lee County.
The collected refuse is brought to a single sanitary landfill
site located near the center of the county for proper disposal.
In addition to rurally generated wastes, numerous manufacturing
companies and private individuals bring loads of solid wastes to the
landfill daily.
After an initial study on solid waste generation rates in
Lee County, it was found that rural residents produce approximately
two pounds per person in each household per day. In cities where
commercial and industrial wastes are considered, the weighted average
increases to approximately 4.55 pounds per person per day. From
these figures, we can see the large mass of solid waste accumulating
daily from Lee County's 46,000+ people.
Collection and disposal of these wastes proved to be a costly pro-
ject. Statistics for the period of operation, June, 1971 through August, 1973,
give an average cost of $11.94 per ton for collection and $4.55 for dis-
posal into the landfill. This gives a combined average cost of $16.27 to
collect and dispose of each ton of solid waste in Lee County thus far. Re-
cords show these respective costs to be decreasing as more tons are being
collected and disposed of each month with overhead costs being relatively
stable. Por the past year of operation, respective costs for collection
and disposal were $9.56 and $5.75, showing a decrease in operational costs.
These costs appear to be representative with a more or less stable point
being reached due to relatively fixed overhead costs.
2
-------
To date, rural Lee County residents have enjoyed a convenience to which
they were not accustomed. Statistical surveys have shown the public to over-
whelmingly approve the present method of solid waste handling over
previous methods. This project has opened the public eye to the formerly
increasing number of unauthorized roadside dumping areas and the
related sanitation problems. This project has shown Lee Countains
that a feasible approach to county-wide solid waste collection and
disposal does exist and can be initiated in any county if the people
are oriented toward environmental improvement and willing to work
and pay for it.
To date, all of the 225 open roadside dumps in the county have
been rehabilitated by the county forces and interested citizens
working to improve the appearance of their neighborhood. Also
stricter enforcement of anti-litter laws has been initiated with
several convictions reported to date. This strict law enforcement
is an integral part if the program is to remain a success.
At present, the rural residents and all of the municipalities
are fully utilizing the county's solid waste system. A second
packer truck and additional containers along with three new rear
loading packer trucks bought by the county with the help of the
Appalachian Regional Commission for door to door municipal collection
have been put into service in order to strive for 100% involvement
in the solid waste system by all people in Lee County. It is hoped
-------
that in the near future, every single pound of solid waste generated
in Lee County will eventually find its way into the Lee County land-
fill and not be scattered along the highways to destroy the beauty
of nature and peril the future of our environment.
-------
INTRODUCTION
Lee County lies in the northeastern part of Mississippi, about
35 miles south of Tennessee and 20 miles west of Alabama (See Figure
One). The County is roughly rectangular in shape measuring 30 miles
north to south and 16 miles east to west. Lee County is bounded
on the north by Prentiss and Union Counties; on the east by Prentiss
and Itawamba; on the south by Monroe and Chickasaw, and on the west
by Pontotoc and Union Counties. Its boundaries enclose approximately
455 square miles with eight (8) incorporated towns located among
its wooded hills.
The incorporated towns are Tupelo, the county seat, which had
a 1970 population of 20,471; Baldwyn with 2,366, lying partly in
Prentiss County; Nettleton with 1,591, lying partly in Monroe County;
Verona with 1,877; Plantersville with 910; Shannon with 575; Saltillo
with 836; and Guntown with 304. This gives a total incorporated
population of 28,930 or 63 percent of the 1970 totals. This leaves
17,218 or 37 percent of the county's 46,148 people in predominantly
rural areas. Comparison with 1960 census figures gives a decrease
of rural population of eight percent (8%) with the towns gaining
this movement along with most new additions to the county's census
counts. The rural populations stood at 58 percent in 1950 and 67
percent in 1940, giving an indication that the rural population is
approaching a stable figure in absolute numbers in the near future. The
population in the incorporated areas is expected to grow at even greater rates
-------
in the future due to industrial expansion creating new jobs. This
will be especially true in the smaller towns surrounding Tupelo which
afford convenient living areas for workers committing to Tupelo fac-
tories. These towns such as Plantersville, Verona, and Saltillo
have shown remarkable growth rates during the past ten years.
In times past the people of Lee County were to a large extent
dependent upon agriculture as a source of income. Thanks to the
foresight and initiative of many of the early leaders, the Tupelo
area is now the envy of many areas in the southeastern states. In
recent years, a variety of industries have moved to Lee County offer-
ing employment for the displaced agricultural workers. Lee County
also can expect future industrial development when the long awaited
Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway becomes a reality.
The governing body in the County (other than municipalities]
is the Board of Supervisors. One supervisor is elected from each of
the five districts or beats. Each supervisor is elected by popular
vote of the district in which he is a candidate; he must also reside
in the district he represents.
The functions of the Board of Supervisors are wide and varied.
Each supervisor is responsible for maintaining the rural roads and
bridges in his district, though most plans are approached on a county-
wide basis. The Board of Supervisors is directly responsible for
all programs and functions in the county except for the municipalities,
which gives an indication of the power and influence held by the Board.
Like many other neighboring counties, Lee County's solid waste
-------
problem had become acute. Wastes were being collected'in most munic-
ipalities house-to-house and disposed of by depositing in open dumps
and, in practically every case, burning. Rurally generated wastes
were the individual owner's problem; he usually tried to dump it on
someone else's property unless he had a suitable gully or hole that
needed filling. This waste was usually pre-burned in barrels before
disposal, a minor contribution to air pollution. The rural house-
holder could not be held entirely at fault, however; he had very
little choice due to the non-existence of suitable disposal sites.
Current studies on per capita solid waste generation rates done
by the Mississippi State Board of Health give an average of about
5.5 pounds per person per day of solid wastes in the State. These
figures are based on national trends in solid waste generation and
are not weighted averages. This figure drops considerably in a strictly
rural situation due to burning of the wastes, the absence of industrial
and commercial wastes, and also the difficulty in obtaining accurate
measurements. Similar studies done by the county's engineering staff
gave generation rates similar to this ranging from 2.2 pounds per
capita per day in rural areas to 6.4 pounds in Tupelo with a weighted
average of 4.55 pounds for the entire area. This figure is growing
and expected to grow each year as industrialization brings more solid
wastes' into the area.
These generation figures take on a more serious light when some
manipulations are made. The Lee County population of 46,148 times 4.55 pounds
per person per day gives the astounding total of almost 210,000 pounds
-------
of solid wastes per day accumulating in Lee County. It is evident
that a large volume of solid wastes such as this presents a con-
siderable problem of disposal. A simple example to help visualize
this amount of wastes would be to take all of the solid waste generated
in the Lee County area during 1970 and confine it to a ten-acre tract.
This would cover the ten acres with almost 25 feet of uncompacted
refuse.
As mentioned earlier, all of the municipally collected wastes
were subjected to open dumping and burning which contributed to a
myriad of undesirable conditions. These burning dumps created offen-
sive smoke and odors as well as producing safety hazards with the
many broken bottles and sharp objects scattered throughout the refuse.
It should be noted that these dumps were not considered off-limits
to anyone; scavenging was unofficially permitted but was not a problem.
Also the dumps were a virtual haven for flies, mosquitoes, and other
insects as well as rats and other rodents. These adverse sanitary
conditions alone were enough to cause much concern among health
officials and interested citizens. It seems that with our modern
modes of living and great advances in technology such atrocious
eyesores as city dumps with all their undesirable accompaniments
could be eliminated.
Generally speaking, the existing collection services offered in
Lee County were very poor. Only about one-half of the total number of
families in the County had collection service. The majority of the
municipalities offered some type of refuse collection at.a charge to.
8
-------
the customer, but some had no collection service whatsoever. One can
imagine the undesirable task confronting a householder who owns only
a 100-foot front lot and approximately two pounds of solid waste for each
person in his family piling up on him each day. This is the primary
reason for the initiation of roadside dumps due to the non-existence
of suitable disposal sites.
These dumps, authorized or not, continued to grow in ever increasing
number. (See Figure Two) Aside from public nuisances, they were
illegal according to current Mississippi laws which forbade the dump-
ing of solid waste on public or highway property. These offenses-
are punishable by fines in every case. This law was pretty much ignored
by everyone, however, due to the difficulty encountered in legal dis-
posal. It seemed that every method of disposal in Lee County was un-
sanitary, unhealthy, undesirable, unpleasant or illegal.
This situation naturally led the governing body, the Board of
Supervisors, to seek a route of redemption. A total of over 200
unauthorized dumps existed alongside the county roads in addition
to the various municipal dumps. Figure Three shows these dumping
areas which have since been rehabilitated by the countv and its
forces.
Realizing the complexity of the problem as well as the need for
professional consultation, the board contacted the County Engineer
for help on the problem. He and other members of his staff embarked
on a detailed study of the solid waste problems in Lee County seeking
possible solutions and proper management. This study was supported
-------
in the major part by a federal grant from the Office of Solid Waste Management
Programs:, Environmental- Protection-.Agenoy. This -study!,was'..
-------
be collected and delivered to the landfill.
The answer to this question paved the way for a solid waste
demonstration project for Lee County. The primary roads and highways
that could stand the load of a large packer truck would be equipped
with stationary metal containers that could be emptied by the packer
truck. The secondary rural roads would be equipped with mobile con-
tainers; i.e., stationary containers mounted on wheels. This unique
feature of rural solid waste collection was the basis for Lee County's
Solid Waste Demonstration Project. These mobile containers would
be towed by a pickup truck to a predetermined point where the packer
truck would stop and empty them as the mobile containers were being
brought to the various predetermined emptying points decided on by
the collection personnel, the packer truck would be stopping along the
route emptying the stationary containers as he came to them. This
arrangement proved to be very desirable in that no appreciable time
was lost by either parties during the course of the day. This seem-
ingly solved the overloading problem of roads and bridges by the packer
truck, thus affording a much needed service to rural residents.
Specific objectives were set up by Lee County which included
demonstration of the feasibility of a county-wide plan of solid
waste collection and disposal by a centrally-located sanitary landfill;
proper refuse collection in each small municipality in the County by
use of county-owned and operated packer trucks, with the towns bearing
the labor costs; provide solid waste disposal methods for rural resi-
dents, and eliminate open-dumping, burning, and accompanying pests
11
-------
associated with dumps. This would be contingent upon proper training
of the personnel who will be responsible for operation and supervision
of the solid waste storage, collection, and disposal program. This
demonstration project was supported in the major part by a federal grant
from the Office of Solid Waste Management Programs,Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. This project is anticipated to be of possible assis-
tance to similar counties who wish to initiate solid waste disposal
programs. It was in this light that the project of cleaning Lee County
was developed.
12
-------
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
With almost three full years of experience in solid waste
collection and disposal, Lee County officials realized among other
things, that the solid waste business was expensive and time consuming.
Some other important points should be made, also, concerning the
feasibility of providing a county-wide system for collection and
disposal of solid wastes. Even with limited experience in this system,
its benefits are already beginning to present themselves. It should
also be added that some problems must accompany any worthwhile endeavor.
For any project whose success depends upon public approval and
use, the related parties must be educated to the proper aspects of
its design as well as to the goals that are hopefully to be acoom^
plished. Simply because one puts a green colored box on the side of
a highway does not mean that everyone will instinctively put all their
trash and garbage into it. They either must be informed of its pur-
pose or see someone else in the old "monkey see-monkey do" sort of way.
This is at times a problem in itself. During periods of rainy
weather, or if the container is relatively full, some people will not
try to put their refuse into the containers. They only place.it beside
or on top of the container. This becomes susceptible to stray dogs and
cats to scavenge through. It would appear that well constructed con-
tainer sites would be a help in this case. For this reason, it is rec-
ommended that containerizes be paved if at all possible. This will
assist the housewife who doesn't want to drive or walk through mud to a
container. A clean paved site would welcome use much more than a muddy,
wet and littered site. This would also stimulate people to keep the
sites cleaner - "litter breeds litter". A person would be less likely
13
-------
to carelessly liltor a neat pnvcd ::ito thnn one giving an unkempt
appearance.
It should be noted that some people will not use a system such as
this no matter how well informed they are of its merits. It is unfor-
tunate that some people must be forced by law to obey littering rules
or roadside dumps will continue. For this reason, a stiff penalty is
recommended for the habitual Jitterbug who persits in dumping his re-
fuse on public or private property other than his own. It is imperative
that the public is informed from the outset of a project such as this in
order for it to be a success. Methods used by Lee County for public
education will be discussed later in this report.
Another important factor to be considered in implementing a
county-wide solid waste collection and disposal facility is economy.
No project is a success if it presents too large a financial burden;
i.e., it must be practical. This aspect is further discussed in
later sections of this report.
To determine the economic practicality of such a system, each
load of refuse brought to the landfill must be weighed and recorded.
This is done to compare with the associated costs incurred in col-
lecting and disposing of the waste in order to develop a cost per
unit of weight for the accumulated materials. Since there is no direct
charge levied for placing solid waste materials in the landfill, weighing
is not needed to establish an equitable charging.basis; however weights of
incoming refuse are desirable to develop per capita generation-rates, design
landfill capacity, and give..indication as to equipment needed for collection
and disposal. This practice has now been stopped for a while. When Tupelo and
the other towns became involved in the system, then traffic was so f re quant into
-------
the landfill site, that the weighing operation was a major con-
striction to the smooth flow of vehicles in and out of the landfill.
For this reason weighing was discontinued. If for any reason, it
should become necessary then weighing operations could resume.
From data gathered before weighing operations ceased, average waste dens-
ities in the 5.5 cubic yard containers of approximately 140T1§0 pounds per
cubic yard (less container weight) were computed. . In addition, generation rate
figures ranged from 1.5-2.5 pounds per capita per day. This figure
is very inconclusive due to the wide variance of people using the
system of containers. That is to say, not all of the refuse placed
in the containers was from strictly rural sources. It was found that
the packer trucks averaged two trips to the landfill daily to empty
with an average of seventeen containers per truckload or thirty-four
containers per day per truck. It is found that each truck empties an
average of 14,000 pounds per load. Multiplying this by an average of
four loads per day for the two trucks gives a total of 56,000 pounds.
This represents sixty eight containers (17 x 4) for an average of
823.5 pounds per container or 149.7 pounds per cubic yard. These
figures represent weighted averages of loads brought into the landfill
by the packer truck serving rural, some municipal, and other miscellaneous
containers. Dividing the 56,000 pounds per day by approximately 20,000
people served gives an average of 2.8 pounds per person per day generated.
This compares favorabily with assumed and computed figures in other areas
of the study.
15
-------
It is felt that participation in the program is such that approximately
99% of»waste generators do actually use the system. This figure is
assumed to be a stable one with the apparent non-use of roadside dumping
areas.
To give an indication of the actual costs for collection and
disposal of solid wastes in Lee County, figures for the period of
operation were compiled and compared as follows:
16
-------
TABLE 1
STATISTICAL RESULTS OF COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL COSTS
Total Tons Total
Weighed * Cumulative
(Disposed) Tons Weighed
(Disposed)
June 1971
July
August
September
October
November
December
January 1972
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January 1973
February
168
315
357
330
351
310
443
642
434
682
1003
770
733
683
1122
1168
1134
1141
1016
1115
1100
* Includes waste collected
168
483
840
1170
1521
1831
2274
2916
3350
4032
5035
5805
6538
7221
8343
9511
10645
11786
12802
13917
15017
by private
Total Tons Total Collection
Collected Cumulative Cost/Ton
Tons Collected
58
136
158
148
148
175
227
227
205
266
257
352
354
404
462
454
504
485
568
585
521
haulers
17
58
194
352
500
648
823
1050
1277
1482
1748
2005
2357
2711
3115
3577
4031
4535
5020
5588
6173
6694
$62.6*2'
23.S4
20. 9*
22.06
24.08
21.41
14. 99
15.34
20.69
15.24
15.9-8
10.93
13.63
11.70
11.28
9.33
9.1*
8.78
8.1?J
9.02
10.42
Landfill
Cost/Ton
£4 JSL ttA*
An/Km L4
7.49-
7.4*
7.27
9.27
8.96
6.12
S.27
6.07
3.53
5.21
4.12
3.99
5.18
2.83
3.24
3.40
2.93
3.J6
3.4S
10.34
-------
TABU. 1 - rONTTNUF.D
March
April
May
June
July
August
Total Tons
Weighed
(Disposed)
1167
1179
1307
1330
1403
1237
Total
Cumulative
Tons Weighed
(Disposed)
16184
17363
18670
20000
21403
22640
Total Tons Total Collection
Collected Cumulative Cost/Ton
Tons Collected
491
522
555
559
601
575
7185
7707
8262
8821
9422
9997
$12.95
1134-
9.2.*
9.221
7.W
8.9»
Landfill
Cost /Ton
$3.4*
5,008
3.86
2. SB
2.32
2. SI
From the previous chart one can easily see that the total number
of tons collected and disposed by county forces increased steadily
over the period. Also the unit costs came down on an equally steep
scale. This can be seen graphically by reference to Graphs 1 and 2
which depict the landfill and collection activities on a graphical
scale (Graph 1) as well as the respective costs incurred for each
(Graph 2). The unit costs will tend to decrease to a certain point
due to the relatively fixed overhead costs; therefore, it is imperative
to strive to somehow get every possible ton of solid waste in the county
to the landfill.
Since very few collection and disposal methods existed before the
demonstration project, little could be said about improvements over
existing systems. The demonstration project affords a much needed
service to all rural citizens who before had no means of waste disposal
that was ecologically practical.
18
-------
1200
1000
<£>
800
to
o
600
400
CD
200
AUGUST
End of P»flod
-------
AUGUST
End of Project
-------
Experience has suggested several modifications of the system
even though the system is relatively new. It proved best to locate
container sites near a lighted area or residence in order to discourage
vandals from stealing or damaging parts on the containers although
this problem virtually eliminated itself when people realized the
importance of the containers and also the novelty wore off of
vandalizing them. Particularly vulnerable items are tires on mobile
containers. In addition, these tires should not be tubeless but tube
type to prevent leakdown due to extended periods of inactivity. Another
suggestion is to keep mobile containers locked to a stationary base
at the container site at first in order to keep pranksters from towing
them away. This problem, too, has disappeared and the containers are
no longer locked down.
Another recommendation to be offered is that an additional packer
truck be available if at all possible due to the problems encountered
in a breakdown as well as make additional runs to high generation rate
areas. Lee County suffered a time loss of two weeks due to one minor
breakdown and subsequent delay in parts arrival. This happened on two
occasions. This prompted the county into purchasing a second packer
truck. Response to the system has been so overwhelming that now a third
truck would be useful for standby purposes since both trucks are presently
on route all day.
Another recommendation is to avoid trying to pull more than one
mobile container for a great distance at moderate speeds. One con-
tainer can be pulled as fast as desired; however, the addition of
21
-------
more containers to form a tr.iin causes a whiplash effect on the rear
trailer which will not stop unless the speed is reduced to be]on 20
mph. This train-type f.ishion of towing containers would be ide.il
for door to door city pickup where slow speeds are common, but is
impractical in the rural pickup system for which it was designed.
It is possible that a rural mailbox-type pickup schedule such as in
the smaller municipalities would be practical over the mobile containers.
It would be a good point to study at any rate. For example, a county
similar to Lee County in northwestern Alabama has initiated a program such
as this which appears to be working quite well. They serve the rural areas
with two small packer trucks offering roadside pick-up twice weekly for a
flat rate of $2.50 per month per customer.
It has been found also that a solid waste system such as Lee
County has cannot be properly operated on a 5-day per week basis.
Therefore, an additional pickup of some highly utilized containers
has been initiated on Saturdays. This helps to alleviate some of the
overfilling problems at these containers. In conjunction with this,
it is recommended to regulate the landfill hours to include more
operating hours especially in warm weather when people are more likely
to clean up. To effect these changes and still keep the employees on
a 40-hour week, then a rotational system that allows employees to be
off during the week after a Saturday on the job must be utilized.
Several tons each Saturday are brought into the landfill with the
packer truck alone operating in high generation rate areas. If left
until Monday, these sites would be overflowing with deposited refuse,
causing complaints from nearby residents. Another solution would be
additional containers placed at these sites to provide ample storage
volume of waste until pickup time.
22
-------
In conjunction with the above, it is highly recommended to initially
keep productjvity records of each container to determine the sites in
gre.it esl in.-i.-il of additional pickup service-.
To eliminate coordination problems, it is imperative that each
element of the collection unit be provided wjth rudio commuiiicatLou
units. This prevents lost time during the collection process as well
as give the project director ready communication with each unit of
the collection force to handle any emergency that might arise.
During the course of emptying a container, the packer truck lifts
the full container up and over the cab of the truck. This gives any
liquids or small dust-like particles trapped in the container the
opportunity to fall doi%n upon the cab of the truck. Some of this
material will inevitably fall directly into the window of the packer
truck greatly annoying the driver. Therefore, it is recommended that
air-conditioned cabs be installed in the packer truck units to prevent
this unsanitary and unpleasant event from taking place.
Also carbon black dust brought to the landfill in emptied sacks
by a local tire manufacturer was so bad that the landfill tractor was
carried to the manufacturer for the installation of an air-conditioned
cab. (Another tractor was loaned to the county by the manufacturer
for use during this period. This tractor was a smaller front end
loader equipped tractor and proved to be very inferior to the large
dozer type tractor employed by the landfill personnel.) This air-
conditioned cab will also be a very welcome addition to the operation
during the hot summer months.
It is further recommended that in order to make the project a
success, it is imperative that all roadside dumps be rehabilitated.
After rehabilitation, it will be necessary to enforce anti-litter
23
-------
laws to the maximum if the project is to remain effective. It is of
no value to clean a dump and then let people start it all over again;
and this will inevitably happen if anti-litter laws are not strictly
enforced. As an example Lee County has had several convictions of
littering offences since rehabilitation of the roadside dumps. The
threat of legal prosecution is the greatest deterrent to willful
littering available and must be used if rehabilitated areas and clean
roadsides are to remain so.
It should be noted that in comparison of containers used, the
stationary containers which load from side mounted doors seem to be less
desirable than the top loading models. This was due to the inability to
practically fill this container to its maximum capacity. One can see that
when the container is almost full, it is difficult to open the side door and
place more refuse inside. This is mostly possible by using the top door, but
it is ''very heavy. Also the doors were sometimes left ajar, and if not noticed
by the packer truck operator and closed, they would be damaged upon emptying.
With the experience gained thus far in county-wide waste handling,
it is felt that the present Lee County system is the most feasible and prac-
tical-method of collection and disposal for the mass of solid wastes
accumulating daily. This method is recommended for any county size unit
comparable to Lee County in area and population. It is evident that counties
very large in area or very small might find alternate methods or modifications
of the Lee County system to more efficiently satisfy their solid waste
problems. This can be financed in various ways, such as use charges,
increased taxes or revenue sharing funds. Lee County plans to primarily use
revenue sharing funds as a source of financing for the solid waste project.
There is already in existence a one mil tax levied for this purpose.
24
-------
SYSTEM DESIGN
Collection and Disposal Methods
To successfully design a properly oriented solid waste handling
system for a unit the size of a county requires much study. Such
things as container type, size, and location; collection schedules;
generation rates; disposal sites; etc. become important design para-
meters .
The foremost unit to be considered in a system such as this is
the collection container. Before any solid waste can be disposed of,
it must first be collected in some type of container. This container
should be of adequate size to facilitate large objects as well as
provide ample storage volume for periods between collection.
As previously mentioned, containers chosen for primary roads in
the county, upon which the packer truck can safely travel, were of
six cubic yard capacity. These were located on prepared sites along
the highways at locations which afforded convenient waste disposal
service to nearby residents or passing motorists. They were also
located so as to provide easy access by the packer truck for emptying.
These containers were equipped with easily opened side mounted doors
for convenient waste disposal by everyone (See Figure Four).
These stationary containers were useful and convenient, but by
no means were they unique. The containers chosen for rural collection,
however, were quite unique in design. As previously mentioned these
25
-------
containers were afforded mobility by the installation of wheels and
axles. Their design was further refined by installation of front
and rear loading platforms (steps to facilitate access to doors),
rear lights and reflectors, front and rear top loading doors, electric
brakes, trailer hitch accessories to enable tandem or train hookups,
and proper markings to enable ready identification (See Figure Five).
These mobile containers were of five cubic yard capacity (largest
practical size available). They, too, were located on easily acces-
sible sites to both users and pickup tow trucks (See Figure Six).
These sites were equipped with a locking-hook device set in concrete
to immobilize these containers, thereby discouraging pranksters bent
on moving them. A fold-up leg on the mobile container was installed
to provide a level attitude of the ccntainer as well as accommodate
the locking-hook mounted on the concrete base (See Figure Seven). To
facilitate hook-up to the tow truck, a sliding connection was construc-
ted on the hitch assembly giving approximately 18 inches of free travel
(See Figure Seven). This was very useful in connecting to a loaded
mobile container which weighs approximately 700 to 1000 pounds when fully loaded
with typical solid wastes.
With all of the aforementioned additions and refinements to the
container system, a very practical and workable program of solid waste
storage and collection was developed.
Of equal importance in a worthwhile solid waste system was the
disposal method used. Design parameters to consider here were avail-
able sites as well as cost of such sites. The sanitary landfill method
26
-------
of disposal was chosen due to its practicality along with the desirable
ecological results it produces, i.e., no objectionable odors, flies,
rodents, smoke, and unsanitary conditions if properly managed. The
sanitary landfill is a method of disposing of refuse on land without
creating nuisances or hazards to public health or safety, by utilizing
the principles of engineering to confine the refuse to the smallest
practical volume, and to cover it with a layer of soil at the conclu-
sion of each day's operation, or at much more frequent intervals as
may be necessary. These wastes include all useless, unused, unwanted,
or discarded solid or semi-solid materials, including garbage, rubbish,
ashes, and all other putrescible and non-putrescible materials except
sewage. One can readily see the desirable results obtained by the
sanitary landfill method of disposal as compared to the open dump.
Figure 18 shows a typical sanitary landfill operation where final
plans are to bring the entire area to the highest original ground
elevation, filling the depression with daily amounts of solid wastes
and covering with soil creating a cell of compacted wastes. It Should
be kept in mind that this is only one application of a sanitary land-
fill, and each particular site will have its peculiar variation
of fill procedure required, thus emphasizing the need for competent
engineering application for efficient operation. As recommended by
the preliminary study on solid waste problems and disposal procedure,
the use of but one sanitary landfill area was initiated. Extreme
marginal collection of county wastes:-requires long hauls, but the
expenses are generally not as great as the multi-landfill system would
27
-------
be. The primary objection to multiple landfills is the duplic.it ion of
equipment for operation and personnel. It is evident that there is
a limit as to the area to be served by one landfill due to the long
haul distances that would be required to dispose of wastes in a very
large service area. For a unit the size of a city or a moderately sized
county as is the case with Lee County, the single sanitary landfill is felt
to be the most practical and economical method to use as opposed to multiple
landfills. This, of course, will be dependent upon the size and population
of the area to be served.
System Facilities
The single sanitary landfill site chosen for Lee County was 52.6
acres of hilly, wooded land located in the southeastern part of the
county near Tupelo (See Figure Eight). This site was rich in well
drained granular material needed for covering the compacted refuse.
This site was fortunate to be served with a relatively stable paved
roadway. Another feature was the existence of a sound block building
which could be used for a maintenance building for the containers
(mobile and stationary) and trucks, as well as shelter from wind, rain,
and cold weather. Since sanitary landfills were relatively new for
Mississippi, the State had no formal guidelines for landfill design and site
requirements. No permits were required, but a visual inspection of the site
was conducted by the Mississippi State Board of Health. Since this more
stringent rules have been established by the State governing landfill design
and implementation due to the increasing number of landfills in the state.
In addition to the existing facilities, construction of an office
and operations building for the scale operator was undertaken (See
Figure Nine). This office also housed the large scales necessary to
weigh the mass of wastes from each source brought to the landfill daily
for disposal. This scalehouse would also serve as shelter and sanitary
facilities for project personnel.
28
-------
For security, a chain-link fence was installed around the perim-
eter of the scalehousc lot. Inside this fence was also included the
tower for radio communications, fuel pumps, and tanks. The scale-
house contained the base unit for the short-wave radio sets mounted
in each pickup and packer trucks, affording radio communications
between units of the project personnel for better coordination of
the collection and disposal systems.
Project Personnel
To properly operate a solid waste project, personnel were selected
and trained to fulfill each task well and in accordance with standard
and special operational procedures. Consideration in this case proved
initially a minimum of six people were required to fully carry out the
required operation. These included a scale operator, landfill tractor
operator, mechanic and assistant equipment operator, packer truck driver,
and two tow truck drivers. This number has now grown to a total of 23
personnel employed by the county's Solid Waste Department with the
addition of the other packer trucks and equipment. This gives an
idea of the scale of operations that a solid waste project encompasses.
It should be noted that 10 of these personnel are used in the municipal
pickup system leaving 13 to operate the county system. These thirteen include
the original six people plus two additional landfill tractor operators, a
spotter or dumping operations director, an additional packer truck driver
and assistant driver, plus two maintenance men for various maintenance and
cleanup problems.
The ten men needed to carry our the municipal collection include
the three packer truck drivers, six loaders, and one spare helper.
29
-------
Extra project assistance was provided by certain other organiza-
tions, all of whom are directly supervised by the County Engineer.
Secretarial and clerical assistance is also provided by the County
Sanitarian and other members of the Health Department as to sanitary
design and possible solution of sanitation related problems.
30
-------
SYSTEM IMP] .I-.MHNTAT I ON
Equipment
Successful implementation of any program calls for proper selec-
tion of related equipment. For Lee County to begin a solid waste
disposal project as designed, a crawler tractor, scraper, stationary
and mobile containers, packer truck and body, scales, and pickup tow
trucks had to be selected.
For spreading and compacting refuse at the landfill site, Allis-Chalmers
HD11 crawler tractor uith a pull-type scraper was purchased.* This tractor
can also be used for site clearing, covering filled areas, and access
road maintenance. It is equipped with a hydraulically-operatcd blade
and has an enclosed operator's c;:b. The total weight of the tractor
is approximately 31,000 pounds with 20 inch treads which gives ample
unit pressures to compact Apical solid wastes (Sec Figure 10).
For weighing the collected refuse brought to the landfill site, a
scalehouse was built and a set of 60,000 pound capacity scales was
purchased. With a typical weight of approximately 45,000 pounds
recorded for the loaded packer truck, these scales are adequate for any
weighing done at the landfill.
The rural collection system required waste containers, mobile
:md stationary, along \\itli a packer body and truck to empty them.
The selected containers uere of six and five cubic yard capacity for
the stationary and mobile units respectively. Containers of larger
* Mention of commercial products docs not imply endorsement by the
United States Government.
31
-------
capacity would present difficulties when trying to place waste into
them. The mobile containers were of the top loading design with
four smaller and lighter doors cut into the larger metal cover. The
stationary containers have easy-open side doors for waste loading.
The stationary containers were supplied by E-Z Pack Corporation
while the mobile containers were built by a local Tupelo firm, Central
Electric Machinery Company. The local construction of the mobile
containers proved to be a big advantage; since the engineers in charge
of project design could keep a close check on the progress and quality
control, as well as make any needed modification of the prototype
before the entire lot was completed. Since the original container
purchase, several other types have been purchased and used in the
county collection system. All types have proven relatively satis-
factory, with minor variations preferred by some over others. At
present there are 70 mobile containers and 97 stationary containers
belonging to the county system. In addition, there are private
containers at schools, factories, municipalities, and other organ-
izations for a total of approximately 280 solid waste containers
served by the county collection forces.
Selection of a packer body required consideration of several
parameters. The body chosen had to be of sufficient capacity so as
to eliminate frequent and unnecessary trips to the landfill to empty.
It also had to be of such a weight that highway load limits were not
exceeded for the primary routes.
With these factors in mind, a 30 cubic yard capacity packer body
was chosen. This body was equipped with front end loading capacity
of 6000 pounds, more than enough to handle the selected containers. This
32
-------
unit can lift a container without tipping before it reaches the door in
the top of the body through which the wastes are received. This body
was manufactured by E-Z Pack Corporation.
Chosen as a truck upon which the packer body is mounted was a Ford
diesel powered, cab-over-engine model with an automatic transmission.
This truck was one of various models recommended by the packer body
supplier for use with the selected packer unit (See Figure 11).
Three half-ton Chevrolet pickup trucks were purchased for use as
tow trucks for the mobile containers. Two of these trucks were designed
for use as collection vehicles and the third for maintenance and standby
service. These trucks were equipped with movable trailer hitches so as to
facilitate container connection. They also have plug-in connectors to
operate the electric brakes and brake lights on the mobile containers.
To allow communication between personnel and various collection units,
short-wave radio sets were installed in each truck with a base station at
the scalehouse. This gives the various collection parties greater coor-
dination capacity.
Training Programs
Prime requirements for program success are user and operator education,
both of which share equal importance. To familiarize the personnel of Lee
County's solid waste project with proper waste handling procedures, several
trips were made to similar operations around the South (Meridian, Miss.,
Cleveland, Miss., Chilton Co., Ala.) to study problems encountered there
and devise possible solutions to problems Lee County might encounter. The
personnel involved needed no extensive training because each had prior
experience in his respective field of equipment operation. For example, the
landfill tractor operator had worked for years as an operator of crawler
tractors similar to the one selected for Lee County. He only had to be
trained in landfill operation.
33
-------
Secondly, the mechanic and assistant equipment operator had
extensive experience as a diesel and small engine mechanic; there-
fore, he required little training in his particular job.
The other men chosen to operate the packer truck and tow trucks
had experience as truck operators and only needed a familiarization
period with each particular piece of equipment in order to function
in his job. Each gained more knowledge of proper collection and
disposal procedures as time progressed and the project began to get
into "full operation.
Once the project personnel were educated as to proper collection
and disposal procedures, there followed a program of user education
to complement success of the project. Extensive coverage by local
newspapers as well as a Memphis newspaper gave the solid wastes project
a public airing. In addition to this, numerous visits were made by
the scale operator and the staff of the County Engineer to various
civic organizations to explain the goals and operations of the project.
At these meetings slides were shown which had been made of the existing
conditions in Lee County and the steps taken to correct them. To aid
in these presentations, a copy of the film "The Green Box" was pur-
chased. This is a review of Chilton County, Alabama's solid waste
project which is similar to Lee County's project. This helped to
stimulate interest in Lee County's endeavors to clean up the numerous
open dumps and initiate a modern satisfactory method of solid waste
disposal.
34
-------
Initial Studies
Before the sanitary landfill could be put into full operation,
some studies had to be made in order to insure proper initiation.
For determination of fill capacity, a topographic survey was done of
the entire landfill site- With the aid of this survey,
a quick determination of fill depths and are°as to be filled could be
made. This also provided a basis for planning the fill sequence for
the landfill site.
In conjunction with the site investigation, a subsurface soil
investigation was conducted by the County Engineer in order to determine
the quantity and quality of suitable cover material at the site.
Appendix A is a report of the borings and soils analysis done for
the Lee County Sanitary landfill site. The investigation consisted
of four subsurface borings made with a continuous flight power auger
with representative samples taken at each change in soil conditions
for laboratory testing.
Soils at the site consisted of predominately tan to red sands
and clays overlying the blue Selma Chalk formation as shown by the
boring logs. These soils are well drained, granular soils and are
very suitable for landfill cover operations as shown by the mechanical
analysis reports in Appendix A.
To determine the public knowledge of the project, as well as
present disposal practices and related items, questionnaires were
mailed to 1,000 randomly selected county residents for their comments
(See Figure 13). These questionnaires asked for comments in regard
35
-------
to the neighborhood's pride in its appearance, disposal practices
and any costs incurred, disposal-related problems or pests, adequacy
of any present system, and awareness of pending county collection
and disposal program. The results of these studies will be discussed
later in this report.
In addition to this questionnaire, a later Attitude and Usage
Survey form was mailed out to the same 1000 residents to determine the
public satisfaction of the mewly initiated solid waste collection
system and whether or not each person surveyed took advantage of it.
(See Figure 13A).
Container Sites
The next step in program development was selection of the numerous
container sites over the county. This proved to be not so easy a task,
as"public reaction in many cases showed apprehension toward close prox-
imity to a container. In other words, the citizenry were enthused about
the idea, but not about the possibility of a container located next
door. This was understandable due to the inevitable fate of previous
types of collection methods such as litter barrels or bins; the public
thought that a container site would become an unsightly and unsanitary
spot. Due to the fact that they were not familiar with a project
of this nature, a reaction such as this was expected. This opinion was
not shared by all, fortunately, and soon container sites were being
constructed as fast as the supervisor of the respective district could
manage. These sites were chosen for several reasons. The most logical
36
-------
location was at densely populated areas preferably near main road
intersections. This gave people from several directions easy access
to the containers. Another consideration which proved fruitful was
to locate a container near a rural store or business area. It proved
convenient for workers and housewives on their way to the store to
carry along their collected solid wastes for deposit in a container.
Another consideration in the location of containers in very
rural situations is to place them near an existing dumping area
preferably where the motorist would approach a waste container before
reaching his usual unauthorized dumping area.
These sites were mostly clay gravel stabilized unless a paved
area was already available. These sites were constructed adjacent
to the roadway to allow easy access to the motorist who stops to
deposit his wastes in the container, as well as provide ample working
space for the collection activities.
As will be discussed later in this report, time proved that
public acceptance was growing by rapid measures due to the excellent
collection activities and the cleanliness of the container sites.
The rural public had encountered a newly found convenience to which
they were not accustomed.
37
-------
SANITARY LANDFILL OPERATIONS
Site Features
The site chosen for the Lee County sanitary landfill consisted
of 52.6 acres of wooded hills and some rather deep hollows. These
hollows were naturally chosen as the fill area with cover material
coming from the hillsides.
Physiographically Lee County is divided by the Tombigbee Hills and
the Black Prairie belt of Mississippi. The landfill itself is located
in the Tombigbee Hills belt which is the second oldest formation in the
State. The surface material is composed mostly of a light gray or red-
dish, cross-bedded to massive glauconitic sand and sandy clay, slightly
calcareous; and, in some areas, containing calcareous sandstone. This
is the Coffee Sand Formation which is in some instances a localized
aquifer; however, it is not a continuous aquifer due to its upheaval by
past diastrophisms leaving it perched in this area above underlying for-
mations. This sand and sand-clay formation is underlain by the Selma
Chalk formation which ranges from 15 to 20 feet in depth in most areas
and is about 250 to 300 feet thick. These great chalk beds of the Cre-
taceous Age are of marine origin. As proof, there are thousands of fos-
sils to be found today in this area. Both chemical and detrital sedi-
mentation played a part in the formation of the beds. Formed by the
shells of millions of tiny marine organisms that were deposited when the
seas receded from the northern part of the State to its present position,
these beds present an impervious layer of material to surface waters
percolating down from above.
38
-------
Underlying the great chalk beds are found three formations clas-
sified as aquifers from which water is obtained by wells drilled through
the overlying chalks. The oldest of these is the Tuscaloosa formation.
It contains considerable deposits of sand, clay, and gravel and is one
of two sources of natural gravel in the State. The Eutaw formation con-
sists of medium to fine grained sands and clay. The Tombigbee formation
is made up of massive, fine, glauconitic sands that are in some places
calcareous.
From the aforementioned information, one can see that there is
little possibility of extensive primary aquifer contamination from land-
fills placed over the chalk due to its impervious nature.
Any water percolating down from above is trapped by the chalk formation.
For a more detailed look at Lee County's surface soil structure
refer to Figure 14.
Site Development
Development of the landfill site began by building a gravel surfaced
access road to the primary fill area. This was facilitated by the trac-
tor and the pull-type scraper. A motor grader was borrowed from one of
the supervisors for shaping and drainage ditch preparations. Also an
existing dilapidated dwelling on the site was torn down and pushed into
the fill area.
After choosing a starting point for the fill, the first procedure
was to clear trees and stockpile some cover material for use after each
day's fill (See Figure 15). This was a relatively simple task since no
initial trench had to be cut in order to begin fill operations.
39
-------
The large existing block building, which was chosen for a shop
and maintenance building, was painted and generally reconditioned,
including the addition of large sliding doors to allow packer truck
access.
A water line from the existing well on the site was laid to the
shop building and the scalehouse; however, since this a Fanners Home
Administration community water system extension from Plantersville
was installed which provides better water service to the project
facilities.
To prevent erosion of the soil surrounding the shop building,
several loads of gravel were placed around the area by county forces.
This aids in mobility during inclement weather.
Also as a deterrent to blowing paper and other loose items, a
woven wire fence was placed around the immediate fill area. This pre-
vents the spread of litter over the site when windy conditions exist.
The landfill entrance area was landscaped to improve its appearance.
The area surrounding the scalehouse inside the the fence was sown
with Bermuda grass to prevent erosion and improve appearance. Also
signs directing users to the dumping area were installed along the
entrance road.
Operations and Procedures
Refuse was placed and compacted in one of the natural
valleys located within the site boundary. It is planned to fill
these deep valleys with solid vastes, thereby accomplishing two
40
-------
goals; i.e., to dispose of Lee County's solid wastes, and
to also possibly rehabilitate some land which in its present state
is relatively useless.
As mentioned previously, the increasing refuse is spread and
compacted by the landfill tractor and covered daily with a minimum
of 6 inches of soil to seal the refuse cell from rainwater and to
isolate the fill from rats and flies. If properly done, a sanitary
landfill operation is a very neat and clean operation with no visible
signs of litter or refuse present after the daily final cover is
placed.
Equipment maintenance is of prime importance in any workable
program including the use of equipment. The landfill tractor and
scraper, the packer trucks, and the pickups have regularly scheduled
maintenance according to the manufacturer's specifications supplied
with the equipment. This scheduled maintenance should insure a long
useful life of the equipment. Special attention should be placed on
proper grease levels in all parts of the landfill tractor. This is
necessary because of the very coarse and abrasive nature of the sandy
soils at the site. These sands are especially rough on the undercarriage
and moving parts which come in contact with these soils. This problem
is reflected in an almost annual need for overhaul of the tractor's under-
carriage assembly.
The stationary and mobile collection containers are serviced
when needed. This service includes spot painting, light replacement,
brake adjustment, or other needed repairs. The mobile containers
41
-------
can be towed to the maintenance shop for.-washing or other required
repairs. The emptied containers are sprayed with a disinfectant
for the control of odors related with the deposited refuse. This
disinfectant is manufactured by Del Chemical Co. labeled Triple-X'
and is useful for sanitation control in sewage related applications
or landfills.
As mentioned above, the collection containers are normally
emptied twice weekly or more often as needed. This operation usually
requires four days of the week, however, an extra pickup on Saturdays
is required for some containers where generation rates are highest.
This leaves the collection crew one day to perform the required
equipment maintenance, site maintenance, or necessary improvements.
However, at the present rate of operation, this day of maintenance
is virtually eliminated and normal collection procedures are carried
out a full six days per week. This means maintenance must be done in
the afternoon or at other suitable times rather than a scheduled weekly
event.
42
-------
REHABILITATION OF PREVIOUSLY USED DUMPS
Initially, the dumps rehabilitated were those located on county
roadsides and/or private property. Since this, the municipalities
have begun to participate in the county solid waste program, and their
respective dumping areas have been shut down and cleaned up.
Cleanup of an open dump on a county road was simple enough in
that it required either removal of the dumped wastes and transporting
to the landfill; or, in case of larger quantities, burial was accomp-
lished with a well-compacted soil cover at the dump site. The municipal
dumps were all cleaned by burying the wastes in a section of the site.
To date all of the existing 225 dumps have been cleaned up by the
county forces and have not shown any appreciable further use. This
removal of any present dumps must be done in order for the program to
be a success because unfortunately some people would probably use the
most convenient disposal method, and in some cases it may be an exist-
ing dump instead of a collection container.
The cleaning of a roadside dump can be accomplished by either of
basically three methods. First, in the case of smaller quantities, the
refuse can be picked up by hand and/or front-end loader equipment and
transported to the landfill. In the case of larger quantities, a trench
can be cut and the refuse pushed in and buried near the dump site. In
some cases, where terrain is very abrupt causing problems for equip-
ment to operate safely and efficiently and the quantity is too large for
hand collection, then the only alternative is to bury the refuse with
as much soil as needed to completely cover and dispose of the dumped
litter.
43
-------
This hn-,ic:illy covers rhc rHinbi 1 i trition projj.r.im. Tt should ho
noted that each dumping area is a problem within itself and no unit
costs can reliably be established for rehabilitating a dump. Figure 3
shows the previously used dumping areas in Lee County which have now been
rehabilitated. Table 2 eives a list of some of the first cleaned
dumping areas in Lee County with the method of rehabilitation, costs in-
curred, and machine/man hours compiled for each dump. Further discus-?
sion of the costs incurred in this rehabilitation program will be listed
in section F, other costs, the Economic Assessment section of the report.
It has been noted previously that open dumps were illegal for
several reasons. Up until now, however, this law has been ignored due
to non-available alternatives. Now that a suitable program has been es-
tablished and a satisfactory disposal system is available, it is felt
that strict legal action should be taken by proper authorities against
illegal waste disposal. The threat of conviction for this practice
would do much to establish proper disposal techniques for those that find
old habits hard to break.
With the closing of these old dumps, then the related problems of
flies and rats will be eliminated along with the threat of possible dis-
ease that an open dump poses. In addition, the occasional burning that
occurs in these dumps will be eliminated.
44
-------
COLLECTION ACTIVITIES
At present all of the municipalities as well as rural populous
.11 c ill i I i i UK I In i i ii i M I \ ' . I .mil I i I I . I ii .ultl i I i IMI (ii (In- mini u i p.i 1 i I i r-t ,
other organizations have purchased waste containers which are presently
being served by the collection forces. Each county school has at least
one and various manufacturing companies and businesses have containers
served by the county's packer truck for a total of approximately 113
containers not owned by the county but served by county collection forces.
It is the owner's responsibility, however, for the condition of the
containers and surrounding site. There is no charge for serving these private
containers by the county collection crews.
Combining the 113 containers mentioned above with the ones owned by the
county give a total of approximately 280 solid waste containers serving Lee
County. Of these, 70 are mobile type containers and 97 are stationary.
Taking the 167 county owned containers and dividing into the present
county rural population of about 20,000 gives approximately 120-persons
served by each rural refuse container.. Multiplying this number by
an average of 2.5 pounds per person per day gives 300 pounds per day
of solid wastes for each container. Multiplying an average capacity
of 5.5 cubic yards (mobile 5 5 Stationary 6) by an average waste density
of 150 pounds per cubic yard gives 825 total pounds capacity per
container. Dividing this by 300 pounds per day gives an average life
of 2.8 days before the container needs emptying. This is computed
assuming that only rural wastes are placed in the containers at rural
generation rates. Of course, this is not true in every case as many
types of uaste generators use the rural containers also.
45
-------
The use of stationary container units spread over the county is
not unique as previously mentioned. The solution to Lee County's
rural collection problem; however, is in itself quite different from
an)r used in the past. Containers mounted on wheels allow mobility
over already failing roads and bridges in areas where the 30 cubic
yard packer truck cannot travel. Figure 17 gives the location of
each stationary and mobile container in Lee County.
The present arrangement is to empty each container twice weekly.
This is done even if the container is not full, even though this would
be a rarity. The containers are usually filled to capacity when
collected. As expected, some sites receive more waste than others,
although results from the Attitude and Usage Survey show extreme
overloading not to be a serious problem. It was suggested that
several containers needed more pickups per week. For this reason,
an additional pickup on Saturday is done to alleviate overfilling
on weekends of some containers. This is done primarily for the
containers located in and around population centers and areas where
generation rates are highest. To remedy the overloading of the
containers, another container can be located adjacent to the existing
one. In addition cost records are kept of monthly rural refuse collection
and landfill operations. These unit costs are compared to study the
possible use of a system such as this in other counties. These studies
are the heart of any demonstration project since a demonstration grant
is awarded only to demonstrate a unique system not previously used.
-------
PUBLIC IMPACT
A great measure of any project's success is its impact upon the
public, which in this case is the user. As mentioned before, question-
naires were mailed out prior to system implementation to representative
samples of the public to possibly establish public knowledge and opinion-of
present and proposed disposal practices regarding solid wastes.
Results of this questionnaire survey were inconclusive due to the
poor responses; only 20 percent of the mailed forms were returned. Of
the people answering the questionnaire, 77 percent said that their
neighbors and they took pride in the neighborhood's appearance even
though 76 percent said trash and garbage was being dumped or scattered
on roadsides near them. Also 57 percent said that trash and wastes
were being dumped on private property near them contributing to gather-
ings of stray dogs, flies, rats, etc.; however, only 30 percent said
unusual odors were present in their neighborhood.
Of the persons answering the form, 74 percent stated that they had
no type of waste collection service. Sixty-five percent of these
people had a place to dispose of their waste within one mile of their
home. To reduce wastes to be discarded, 76 percent of the returned forms
indicated that wastes were burned in metal barrels or cans before dump-
ing. Of interest also was the fact that nine percent of the people
answering were paying $4.00 or more for waste collection per month.
Even though The Tupelo Daily Journal and the Commercial Appeal
47
-------
(Memphis-Mid-South) newspapers gave good coverage to the project, 28
percent of the people in Lee County questioned said they were not aware
of the solid waste program. Also the word of a program initiation was
spread by the County Engineer's staff in its many presentations to civic
and local governmental organizations regarding the solid waste program.
To date numerous groups have visited the landfill operation. These
groups include visiting supervisors from other counties, city officials
from other areas, scout packs, school groups,and various other interested
parties. In addition, a solid waste equipment show was held at the land-
fill site by a local supplier. Another item of interest which served
as a follow-up to the publicity, was a county-wide clean-up program
sponsored by the Lee County Council of Governments to help rid the
county of needless roadside litter and trash. This drive brought over
100,000 pounds of solid waste to the landfill. It is anticipated for
this to be an annual affair.
With a rather extensive user education program undertaken, it was
decided to study the effects of the efforts made to clean Lee County's
roads of litter and refuse. To do this an Attitude and Usage Survey
form was mailed out to the same 1000 residents as before to try to de-
termine the impact that user education programs had had on the public.
(See Figure 15^.
The response to this survey was much more satisfactory than to the
initial questionnaire; approximately 35% of the mailed forms were
returned. Of the people answering the survey, 85% thought that Lee
County had a good solid \vaste system, and the same 85% used the system.
The survey showed that 59% lived less than one mile from a container
48
-------
and 89% was less than 2 miles from a solid waste container. Only
1% of the people answering the form lived more than 5 miles from a
container. With the addition of more containers since this survey,
the maximum distance of anyone from a container is less than two
miles. Normally one has to travel less than a mile to find a solid
waste container. Also 80% said that the container was close enough
to his home.
The survey tended to show that the majority of people go to
the "Green Box" for that purpose only rather than in conjunction with
a trip that takes them by a container. Fifty-five percent of these
people said that the container was usually full to overflowing and
needed an extra pickup periodically.
Of the people answering this form, 80% thought that this waste
handling system was superior to their former method of handling wastes.
In addition 20% of the people answering the form had seen the landfill,
and all of them thought it was maintained neatly.
To reinforce the conclusion that Lee County has a desirable solid
waste program, 87% of the questioned people said that they would not
prefer a different type of solid waste service. Of interest is the
fact that of the remaining 13% who would prefer a different type service,
only 82% of them said they were willing to pay for it.
To this date 4 other counties in the area have adopted Lee County's
system of solid waste disposal. It is hoped that in the future many
other counties will see fit to try Lee County's approach to proper
solid waste management.
49
-------
ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
Project Equipment Costs
Initiation of a project such as this requires the purchase of
some expensive equipment. This expense is minimized, however, when
the results of the efforts are seen. No cost is too great when the
protection of our environment is concerned.
The crawler tractor to be used at the landfill for compaction and
cover of waste material was the first equipment purchased. Selected
for Lee County was an Allis-Chalmers HD-11 tractor which was purchased
for $42,731.48. To be used with this, a Caterpillar pull-type scraper
was bought for $2,500.00. The tractor has an estimated life of eight
years, and by straight line depreciation, this gives annual and monthly
depreciation rates of $5,341.44 and $445.12, respectively. The -scrapen
also was estimated to last eight years with annual and monthly depreci-
ation rates of $312.50 and $26.04. This completed the equipment needed
for disposal of wastes brought to the landfill. Recently when the
municipalities came into the program, an additional crawler tractor
(used price $20,000) was purchased to help operate the landfill. Due to its
purchase coming at the end ;of the project period, depreciation costs were
not included for this in any reports on this project or in this report.
The next equipment needed to implement the project was collection-
oriented. Most prominent among collection items was the packer truck
and body. The packer body was manufactured by E-Z Pack Corporation and
was mounted on a 1971 Ford CT-8000 diesel powered, cab-over-engine,
automatic transmission equipped truck. This complete packer unit was
purchased for 527,167.40. With an eight-year life estimation, annual
and monthly depreciation rates of $3,395.93 and $283.00 were computed.
50
-------
In addition a si cond truck ' ..-o purchased to help relieve the
sn.ijle truck of some if t!.^ . _rc: .->. of serving tne entire county.
This truck was put into se.vice in June, 1972, as is reflected by the
increased depreciation co^t.- ror .1= moi.t ;.
The forty-three ^i\ _c / . . -ic -ry containers vvere ".-'--
chased for a total of $12..'^6.10. These ware estimated ':.; la
12 years with a monthly c.-precit"-;: .rate of $87.40. The sixty-one
five cub^j yard mobile containers '%'t.re supplied for $42,490.00. Their
life was estimated at 12 years with a monthly depreciation rate of
S295.07. Presently fifty-four additional stationary and nine additional
mobile containers have been added to the system.
To tow the mobile containers, three 1971 Chevrolet half-ton pick-
ups were purchased for $2,411.10 each. They were estimated to last four
years with a monthly depreciation of $50.23 each. In each vehicle was
installed a Motorola T51 BBN mobile radio unit at a cost of $902.00 each.
These units were estimated to last 10 years with a monthly depreciation
cost of $7.52. The base unit for these radios was a Motorola T 3R TN
which sold for $1,240.00. including a 150-foot tower and antenna. The
estimated life for t iis instil .Lotion was also 10 years, giving a monthly
depreciation of $10.33.
In conjunction with th^ aforementioned items of equipment, a 20
foot by 20 foot brick .ical louse was constructed for $10,876.00 (See Fig. re
Nine;. Monthly depreciation rates for this were computed to be $36.50 for a
-\%enty-five year life. This modern, air-conditioned facility ..as furnished w, :h
desks, chairs, calculating machine . crafting table, and stor. .,e => :v: :
cost of $1,262.00 with a month depreciation c £ $5.26. Installed in t...
scalehouse, but not in t.-.i original price was : ?et of 30-ton capacity
Fairbanks-Morse r:ales to weig scorning wastes. These scales were -urchased
-------
for $8,326.00. They were estimated to last 25 years with a monthly
depreciation of $27.75. For accounting purposes, this cc:t was re-
flected in collection phase tc properly disperse grant fjr.c's.
-------
Lonst: ction Costs
Costs incurred by construction activities at the initial container
sites was approximately $6,OC-T.OQ for grading, gravel surfacing, and
concrete anchor con .uction. The'0 sites were estimated ro last eight
years with a $62.50 monthly deprec-a-cion. No cost records were kept
for the additional sites, and, therefore, the depreciation cost records later
in this report reflect only the depreciation costs for the initial 104
container sites.
Costs at the landfill were $3,000.00 for 0.5 miles of gravel sur-
faced access road, $360.00 for 2,000 feet of waterline from well to
scalehouse, $300.00 for lights around the scalehouse and shop building,
and $2,590.00 for a chain-link fence around the scalehouse area and
landfill road entrance.
Personnel Costs
The personnel costs needed initially to operate the landfill consisted
of $525.00 per month for the landfill tractor operator and was the only
personnel cost whoI'/ related to the landfill. Since this, other personnel
have been added to r. c ^ystem for a total of twenty-three full-time employees.
A breakdown of these various jobs was listed in Section III-C, page 27 of
this report. Various salaries for each job are not mentioned here due to the
fact that these will vary with location. However, these twenty-three
men represent at present a total monthly personnel cost for collection ~-d
disposal of approximately $10,850.00 or $130,200.00 per year. This gives an
idea as to the expense burden a solid waste project subjects a coun-./ to;
it is no inexpensive propcsitier. in any sense of the word.
53
-------
Opeiv. + ng Costs
Having been in actual operation for .ver.ty-seven full months,
a relatively sound report o.i operating costs can be given. These
costs are composed of oil, gas, grease, depreciation, etc. The
personnel and maintenance costs were mentioned in detail earlier in
the report, but will be included again in this section.
The operating costs for the landfill are reported each month on
the Landfill Operating Cos. Report Form. This form shows the activity
at the landfill and the related costs incurred. Monthly operating
statistics for the sanitary landfill operation are shown in Table 4.
With almost three years of operation under the belt, Lee County
began to experience some realistic figures for equipment, maintenance
and repair. Table 3 shows a recapitulation of maintenance and repair
expenses on a monthly basis. It should be noted that a large part of
the landfill expense was for undercarriage overhaul of the landfill
tractor; however, it seems cnat this will probably be an annual expense
due to the coarse nature of the sci" a the site and the abrasive action
of working in the dumped refuse.
The total maintenance and repair expense for the landfill s
.? 18,465. 25 and for the c lection activities $15,047.58 giving a total
of $33,512.83. This giiL-s z la Jill maintenance cost of $683.90 . r
mont.i and $557.32 fc. col.Action or a total of $1241.22 r^r onth for
maintenance and repair on tne overall system.
-------
T.-._5 figure probably is a fairly representative one for the present
time. It should be noted that Lee County started their waste collection
and disposal system with all new equipment, and it is expected that as
the equipment begins to age, their maintenance costs will begin to climb.
An amount for depreciation is shown in each monthly report, Tables
4 and S. One will note that these figures will change as new or additional
equipment is added to the system and a value for depreciation is added to
compensate. A recapiv-.lation . : the various depreciation costs for disposal
and collation, along with reasons for each change follows:
RECAPITULATION OF DEPRECIATION COSTS
C ^POSAL
Depreciation
Period Cost Reason for Change
6/71-9/71 $613.84 Added road, lights, fence, scalehouse,
water line to report
9/71-5/72 651.00 Added air-conditioned cab on dozer
and more fences
5/72-9/73 712.44
COLLECTION
6/71-5/72 882.05 Added item not previously re rted
5/72-6/72 933.19 Added containers
6/72-8/72 1253.48 Added second packer truck
8/72-9/73 127.;.64 Added containers
55
-------
TABU 2 RrilABILITATION OF RURAL DUMPS STATISTICS
DISTRICT NO. 1
HJUIPMENT
LABOR COVER
Uumii Tons of Volume Gradnll Bulldozer Front End L( ader D'"np Truck DIRT @ Method Total
No. Refuse of Refuse Hrs. Cost $l/f> CuYd of Cost
CuYd Hrs. 'lost @ Hrs. Cost @ Hrs. Cost « Hrs. Cost 8 @ $2/Hr. load Disposal
$17.50/Hr. $15/Hi . $6.50/Hr.
Buried $ 212-51
Hauled 53.00
Hauled 53.00
Hauled 53.00
1-1 200 800
1-2 1 4
1-3 1 4
1-4 1 4
1-5
1-h
1-7
1-8
1-9
1-10
-11
-I.1
-n
14
-Hi
-16
-17
-18
-19 1 4
1-20
1-21
1-22
1-23
1-24
1-25
1-26
1-27
1-2H
1-29
1-30 2 8
5 $87.50 5 $75. 0( >S $50.00
2 $13.00 20 40.00
2 13.00 20 40.00
2 13.00 20 40.00
1 6.50 6 12.00
2 35.00
Hauled 18.50
Buried 35.00
-------
TABLE 2. REHABILITATION OF RURAL DUMPS STATISTICS (CONT'D)
DISTRICT NO. I
EQUIPMENT
Dump
No.
1-11
I 12
1-..
!-<*
1-3.',
1-36
1-37
1-38
1-39
1-40
1-41
1-42
1-43
1-44
1-45
1-46
1-47
1-48
1-4U
1-50
1-51
1-52
1-53
1-54
1-55
1-Sf,
1-' i
1-1,1
1-59
1 -(,()
Tons of Volume Gradall
Refuse
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
3
2
10
8
2
50
47
1
of Refuse
CuYd Hrs. Cost @
$25/Hr.
4
8
4
4
4
4
4
4
8
16
12
8
40
32
8
200
188
4
LABOR COVER
Bu. ilozer Front End Loailer Dump Truck DINT 9
Hrs
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
6
5
3
4
4
2
. Cost 6 Hrs. Cost @
$17.SO/Hr. $15/Hr.
$17.50
17.50
17.50
17.50
17.50
1 7 . 50
17.50
35.00
35.00
35.00
35.00
105.00
87.50
52 . 50
70.00 4 60. Of
70.00 4 60. OC
35.00
Hrs.
Hrs. Cost 0 i
$6.50/Hr.
2
2
1
2
2
6
2
2
4
2
3
8
5
2
16
16
2
Cosi $1/6 n.Yd
8 $2/Hr. I'1
$4.00
4.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
12.00
4. 00
4.00
8.00
4.00
6.00
16.00
10.00
4.00
32. (n;
->2.00
4. 00
K'-'-hod
of
Disposal
Buried
Buried
Buried
Buried
Buried
Buried
Buried
Buried
Buried
Buried
Bu r i cd
Buried
Buried
Buried
H.iried
Buried
Uuricd
i- al
U t
$ 21.50
21.50
19.50
21.50
21.50
12.00
17.50
21.50
39.00
43.00
39.00
41.00
121.00
97.50
56.50
16?. bit
162.00
39.00
-------
00
TABLE 2. REHABILITATION OF RURAL DUMPS STATISTICS (CONT'D)
DISTRICT NO. 1
Dump
No.
1-61
1-62
1-63
1-64
1-65
1-66
1-67
1-68
1-69
1-70
1-71
1-72
1-73
1-74
1-75
Tons of
Refuse
1
1
2
1
20
1
5
1
20
10
15
EQUIPMENT
LABOR COVER
Volume Gradall Bulldozer Front End Lo.ider Dump Truck C.RT8 Method
of Refuse
CuYd Hrs.
4
4
8
4
80
4
20
4
80
40
60
Cost 6 Hrs. Cost @ Hrs. Cost §
S25/Hr. -
1
1
2
1
4
1
4
2
16
4
6
$17.50/Hr. .jiS/Hr
$ 17.r,'
17. SO
35.00
17.50
70.00
17.50
70.00
35.00
280.00
70.00
105.00
Hrs. Cost $1/6 CuYd of
Hrs. Cost 0 g $2/Hr. load Disposal
$6.50/Hr.
1
2
2
1
8
1
6
2
24
12
8
$ ?.oo
4 00
4.00
2.00
16.00
2.00
12.00
4.00
48.00
24.00
16.00
Buried
Buried
buried
Buried
Buried
Buried
Buried
Buried
Buried
Buried
Buried
Total
Cost
$19.50
21.50
39.00
19.50
86.00
19.50
82.00
39.00
328.00
94.00
121.00
421
1684
$ 2,250.50
-------
Ol
VO
TABLE 2. REHABILITATION (F RURAL OUMPS STATISTICS
DISTRICT NO. 2
EQUIPMENT
Dump
No.
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-8
2-9
2-10
2-11
2-12
2-13
2-14
2-15
2-16
2-17
2-18
2-19
2-20
2-21
2-22
2-23
2-24
2-25
2-26
2-27
2-28
2-29
2 30
Tuns ol Volume Gradall Bulldozer l-'ront End
Refuse
2
2
2
2
ion
300
3
2
?
2
2
100
3
2
1
1
1
20
10
1
1
2
2
10
2
1
2
2
1
1
of Refuse
CuYd Mrs. Cost 8 Hrs. Cost 6 Hrs.
$25/Hr. $17.50/Hr.
8
8
8
8
400
1200
12
8
8
8
8
400 16 400.00
12
8
4
4
4
80 4 100.00
40 4 100.00
4
4
8
8
40
8
4
8
8
4
4
2
2
2
2
20
30
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
1
2
LABOR
Locder Dump Truck
Cost 6
$15/Hr.
30.
30.
30.
30.
300.
450.
45.
30.
30.
30.
30.
45.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
45.
30.
1?..
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
nil
Ml)
00
Hrs.
10
10
10
10
10
15
15
1
80
10
3
20
Hrs. Co
Cost @ @ $
$6.50/Hr.
65.
65.
65.
65.
65.
97.
97.
6.
520.
65.
19.
130.
00
00
00
00
00
50
50
50
00
00
50
00
30.00
COVER
DIRT 0 Method
ist $1/6 CuYd of
2/Hr. load Disposal
IJii.-icd
Buried
Buried
Buried
Buried
Buried
Buried
Buried
Buried
1 Buried
Buried
Buried
Buried
Hauled
Buried
Buried
1 Buried
Buried
Buried
Buried
Buried
Buried
Buried
Buried
Buried
Hauled
Hauled
Buri ed
Buried
Buried
Total
Cost
9b.
95.
95.
95.
365.
547.
142.
30.
30.
37.
30.
920.
45.
95.
30.
30.
20.
100.
230.
30.
30.
30.
30.
00 <
00
00
00
00
50
50
00
00
50
00
00
00
00
00
00
50
00
00
00
00
00
00
30.00
30.00
30.00
45.00
30.00
15.00
30.00
-------
o
o
TABLE 2. REHABILITATION OF RURAL DUMPS STATISTICS (CONT'D)
DISTRICT TO. 2
EQUIPMENT
Dump
No.
2-21
2-32
2-33
2-34
2-35
Tons of
Refuse
U
8
4
i
Vuiiime
of He fuse
ni'Yd [i
i
16
J2
4
Grada ' Bulldozer
i .
-------
TABLE 2. REHABILITATION 01 RURAL DUMPS STATISTICS
DISTRICT NO. 3
EQUIPMENT
Dump
No.
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-8-
3-9
3-10
3-11
3-12
3-13
3-14
3-15
3-16
3-17
3-18
3-19
3-20
3-21
.S-22
3-23
3-24
3-25
3-26
3-?7
3-28
3-29
3-30
LABOR COVER
Tons of Volume Gradall Bulldozer Front End Loacer Dump Truck DIRT 8
Refuse of Refuse Hrs. Cost $1/6 CuYd
CuYd Hrs. Cost @ Hrs. Cost @ Hrs. Cost @ Hrs. Cost 8 @ $2/Hr. load
S25/Hr. $17.50/Hr. $15/Hr. $6.50/Hr.
1 4 1 6.50 3 6.00
h 24 2 35.00
10 40 1 17.50
ISO 600 10 175.00
200 800 12 210.00
10 40 4 60.00 IS
2 84 100.00 8 16.00 2
4 16 1 25.00 2 4.00
2 PI 25. Uy 2 4.00
]() 440 7 175.00 21 136.50 14 28.00
160 640 16 400.00 16 240.00 96 192.00
Method
of
Disposal
Hauled
Buried
Buried
Buried
Buried
Covered
Buried
Buried
Buried
Covered
Hauled
Total
Cost
12.00
35.00
17.50
175.00
210.00
75.00
118.00
29.00
29.00
339.50
832.0"
-------
TABLE 2. REHABILITATION 01 RURAL DUMPS STATISTICS (CONT'D)
DISTRICT NO. 3.
of Refuse
CuYd Hrs. Cost
EQUIPMENT
Gradall Bulldozer Front End Loacer Dump Truck
Hrs. Cost 6 Hrs. Cost @
Hrs. Cost 8
LABOR COVER
DIRT @ Method
Hrs. Cost $1/6 CuYd °f
e $2/Hr. load Disposal
779
31 Ib
Total
Cost
3-31
3-32
3-33
3-34
3-35
3-36
3-37
3-38
3-39
3-40
3-41
3-42
3-43
3-44
3-45
3-46
3-47
3-48
4
SO
30
25
5
10
16
200
120
100
20
4',
1
3
2
2
1
4 70.00
15.00
45.00
30.00
30.00
15.00
2
6
4
4
1
4.00
12.00
8.00
8.00
4.00
Buried
Buried
Buried
Buried
Buried
Buried
19.00
57.00
38.00
38.00
19.00
70.00
TOTAL
2,113.50
-------
TABLE 2. REHABILITATION Or RURAL DUMPS STATISTICS
DISTRICT NO. 4
EQUIPMENT
LABOR COVER
Dump Tons of Volume Gradal1 Bulldozer Front End Loider Dump Truck DIRT @ Method Total
No. Refuse of Refuse Mrs. Cost $1/6 CuYd' of Cost
CuYd Hrs. Cost @ Mrs. Cost @ Hrs. Cost @ Hrs. Cost @ @ $2/Hr. load Disposal
S25/Hr. $17.50/Hr. $15/Hr. S6.SO/HT.
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5 40
4-6
4-7 2
a-8
1-9 2
4-10 80
4-H
4-12
4-13
4-14
4-15 2
4-16 100
4-17 1
4-18
4-19 221
4-20
4-21
4-22
4-23
4-24
4-25
4-26
4-27
4-28
4-29
4-30
4-31
4-32
4-33
160
8
8
320
U
400
4
908
4 7P.OO Buried 70.00
2 35.00 Buried 35.00
2 35.00 Buried 35.00
lb 280.00 Buried 280.00
2 35.00 Buried 35.00
24 420.00 Buried 420.00
2 35.00 2 13.00 Buried 48.03
923.00
-------
TABLE 2. REHABILITATION OF RURAL DUMPS STATISTICS
DISTRICT JIO. 5
Dump
No. ,
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
5-5
5-6
5-7
5-8
5-9
5-10
5-11
5-12
5-13
5-14
5-15
5-16
5-17
5-18
5-19
5-20
5-21
5-22
5-23
5-2-1
5-2r.
5-26
5-27
5-28
S-29
5-30
Tons of
. Refuse
1-1/2
20
15
12
IS
30
50
60
44
50
10
8
9
12
15
12
40
1
2
12
ir.
?
21
f '
EQUIPMENT
LABOR COVI
V' fume Gradall Bulldozer Front End Loader Dump Truck DIR1
of "-fuse
(1 Mrs. Cost 9 Hrs. Cost 9 Hrs.
il /Hr. $17.SO/Hr.
5 1 25.00
80 3 75.00
60 3 75.00
48
60
120
200 14 350.00
240
176
200
40
32
36
48
60
48 2 60.00
160 4 100.00
4
8
48 22 550.00
60 1 25.00
8 2 50.00
84 8 200.00
161' 6 150.00
2
3
7
8
4
4
3
2
2
2
3
4
Cost e
$15/Hr.
30.00
45.00
105.00
120.00
60.00
60.00
45.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
45.00
60.00
Hrs.
Hrs. Cost 6 e
$6.50/Hr.
2 13.00 1
3 19.50 3
6
4
6
14
28 182.00 14
16
8
8
6
4
4
4
6
4
8 52.00 4
2 13.00 2
3 19.50 3
28 182.00 22
1 6.50
2
16 104.00
6 39.00 4
Cost $1/6 C
i $2/Hr. Aoat
:.oo
: .00
1.2.00
R.OO
17.00
28.00
28 10
St. 00
16.00
16.00
12.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
12.00
8.00
8.00
4.00
fi.OO
44.00
1.00
8"00
R
f @ Method
:uYd' of
1 Disposal
ilauled
Buried
[Juried
Buried
Buried
Buried
Hauled
Buried
Buried
Buried
Buried
Buried
Buried
Buried
Buried
Buried
Hauled
Ilauled
Ilauled
Hauled
Ilauled
Buried
Hauled
Buried
Total
Cost
40.00
100.50
87.00
38.00
57.00
133.00
560.00
152.00
76.00
76.00
57.00
38.00
38.00
38.00
57.00
68.00
160.00
17.00
25.50
776.00
31.50
54.00
304.00
257.00
-------
TABLE 2. REHABILITATION OF RURAL DUMPS STATISTICS
DISTRICT TO. 5
Dump
No.
EQUIPMENT
LABOR COVER
Tons of Volume Gradall Bulldozer Front End Load?r Dump Truck DIRT 6
Refuse of Refuse Hrs. Cost $1/6 CuYd
CUT! Hrs. Cost 8 Hrs, Cost @ Hrs. Cost @ Hrs. Cost 8 @ $2/Hr. load
$6.SO/Hr.
Method Total
of Cost
Disposal
in
"-31
b-32
5-33
5-34
22.1*
25
37.5
3
90
100
150
12
15
8
375
200
.00
.00
20
2
300.00
30.00
30
36
24
105.00
234 f)0
ibh.on
23
8
8
2
4(>.no
i h.nn
10.00
8.00
584.5 2338
Hauled
Hauled
Hauled
Buried
TOTAL
616.00
450.00
372.00
38.00
4,716.50
RECAP OF COSTS
District 1 $ 2,250.50
District 2 3,777.00
District 3 2,113.50
District 4 923/00
District 5 4,716.50
Total $13,780.50 For 2623 5 Tons = $5.25 Per Ton
Tota] Dumps Rehabilitated - 122
TotaJ Tons Disposed - 2623.5
Av< afjt Tons/Dump - 21.5
Total Dumps Remaining - 103
Probalilc Tons to be Disposed - 103 x 21.5 = 2214 5
P.nbahlc Cost for Remaining Dump Rehabilitation ?214.5 x 5.25 = 11,626 1'
l".stiniated Total for Rural Dump Rehabilitation = 13,780.50 + 11.626.1J = $."i,-106.62
-------
TABLE 3
RECAPITULATION OF MAINTENANCE EXPENSES
Landfill
$18,465.25
Collection
June 1971
July 1971
August 1971
September 1971
October 1971
November 1971
December 1971
January 1972
February 1972
March 1972
April 1972
May 1972
June 1973
July 1972
August 1972
September 1972
October 1972
November 1972
December 1972
January 1973
February 1973
March 1973
April 1973
May 1973
June 1973
July 1973
August 1973
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
89.48
6.82
0.00
796.71
174.90
0.00
2,059.14
266.00
120.00
211.99
374.89
594.10
989.84
8.00
859.73
147.62
8,259.00
726.72
394.15
1,609.85
240.09
176.02
360.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
96.08
237.93
35.34
67.17
168.59
626.12
461.87
218.80
122.31
695.22
805.66
716.76
240.70
513.08
203.51
540.97
1,167.04
1,386.62
2,169.58
1,740.42
893.78
758.00
351.63
830.40
$15,047.58
Total Maintenance Expenses - $33,512.83
Landfill costs per month - $18,465.25/27 = $683.90
Collection costs c Tionth - $15,047.58/27 = $557.32
Total costs per month - $1241.22
66
-------
TABLE 4
MONTHLY OPERATING STATISTICS FOR THE SANITARY LANDFILL OPERATIONS
For month ending:
6/30/71
7/31/71
8/31/71
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Refuse disposed (tons)
Man-hours employed
Machine-hours employed
Labor wages (includes fringe benefits)*
Fuels and lubricants
Equipment repairs and maintenance
Utilities
Building repairs and maintenance
Supervisor's salary**
Facility and equipment depreciation***
Other costs
Total operating costs
Labor efficiency (hours/ton)
Equipment efficiency (hours/ton)
Labor costs per ton disposed
Operating overhead cost per t_.i
Depreciation costs per ton
Total operating cost per ton
ACTIVITY
168
352
132
COSTS
$1,157.20
132.10
0.00
14.11
0.00
458.33
613.84
0.00
$2,375.58
EFFICIENCY
2.10
0.78
UNIT COST
$ 6.89
3.60
3.65
$14.14
315
336
126
$1,157.20
118.51
0.00
11.81
0.00
458.33
613.84
0.00
$2,359.69
FACTORS
1.07
0.40
FACTORS
$3.67
1.87
1.95
$7.49
357
352
132
$1,157.20
157.28
244.88
12.42
0.00
458.33
613.84
$2,643.95
1.00
0.37
$3.24
2.45
1.72
$7.41
* includes scale operator and landfill equipment operator
** this amount represents one half of prcject director's salary; additional one-half is
shown under collection expenses
*** includes landfill tractor, scraper, cab and A/C for tractor, land purchase, lights,
fences, water line, scalehouse, base radio, and office furniture
67
-------
TABLE 4 (Continuation)
MONTHLY OPERATING STATISTICS FOR THE SANITARY LANDFILL OPERATIONS
For
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Ic.
17.
IS.
month ending:
Refuse disposed (tons)
Man-hours employed
Machine-hours employed
Labor wages
Fuels and lubricants
Equipment repairs and
maintenance
Utilities
Building repairs and
maintenance
Supervisor's salary
Facility and equipment
depreciation
Other costs
Total Costs
Labor efficiency
(hours/ton)
Equipment efficiency
(hours/ton)
Labor costs per ton
disposed
Operating overhead cost
ton
9/30/71
ACTIVITY
330
352
132
COSTS
$1,157.20
116.03
0.00
15.16
0.00
458.33
651.00
0.00
$2,397.72
EFFICIENCY
1.06
1.06
L.\iT COST
$5.51
per
"9
Depreciation costs per ton 1 ^7
Total operating cost per
ton $7.27
10/31/71
351
336
132
$1,157.20
115.00
89.48
35.47
0.00
458.33
651 DO
751.87
$3,258.37
FACTORS
0.99
0.40
FACTORS
$3.29
4.12
1.86
§9.27
11/30/71
310
336
126
$1,157.20
172.09
6.82
61.95
8.80
458.33
651.00
258.01
$2,774.20
1.12
0.41
$3.74
3.12
2.10
$8.S6
12/31/71
443
320
120
$1,157.20
161.44
0.00
70.35
0.00
458.33
651.00
215.31
$2,713.63
0.72
0.27
$2.61
2.04
1.47
$6.12
68
-------
TABLE 4 (Continuation)
MONTHLY OPERATING STATISTICS FOR THE SANITARY LANDFILL OPERATIONS
For
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
month ending:
Refuse disposed (tons)
Man-hours employed
Machine-hours employed
Labor wages
Fuels and lubricants
Equipment repairs and
maintenance
Utilities
Building repairs and
maintenance
Supervisor's salary
Facility and equipment
depreciation
Other costs
Total Costs
Labor efficiency
(hours/ton)
Equipment efficiency
(hours/ton)
Labor costs per ton
disposed
Operating overhead cost
ton
Depreciation costs per
1/31/72
ACTIVITY
642
320
120
COSTS
$1,157.20
204.70
796.71
42.00
0.00
458.33
651.00
76.97
$3,386.91
EFFICIENCY
0.49
0.19
UNIT COST
$1.80
per 2.46
ton 1.01
Total operating cost per ton 5.27
2/28/72
434
336
126
$1,157.20
95.45
174.90
37.77
0.00
458.33
651.00
61.80
$2,636.45
FACTORS
0.77
0.29
FACTORS
$2.66
1.91
1.50
$6.07
3/31/72
682
368
138
$1,157.20
101.20
0.00
42.49
0.00
458.33
651.00
0.00
$2,410.22
0.54
0.20
$1.70
0.88
0.95
$3.53
4/30/72
1003
368
140
$1,157.20
118.45
2,059.14
79.76
0.00
458.33
651.00
707.61
$5,231.49
0.36
0.14
$1.15
3.41
0.65
$5.21
69
-------
TABLE 4 (Continuation)
MONTHLY OPERATING STATISTICS FOR THE SANITARY LANDFILL OPERATIONS
For
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
it>.
17.
18.
month ending:
Refuse disposed (tons)
Man-hours employed
Machine-hours employed
Labor wages
Fuels and lubricants
Equipment repairs and
maintenance
Utilities
Building repairs and
maintenance
Supervisor's salary
Facility and equipment
depreciation
Other costs
Total Costs
Labor efficiency
(hours/ton)
Equipment efficiency
(hours/ton)
Labor costs per ton
disposed
Operating overhead cost per
ton
Denied at ion costs per tcr.
To^al operating cost per to:
5/31/72
ACTIVITY
770
368
140
COSTS
$1,236.10*
231.93
266.00
37.36
0.00
458.33
712.44
220.34
$3 , 162 . 50
EFFICIENCY
0.45
0.18
UNIT COST
$1.61
1.58
0.93
$4.12
6/30/72
733
416
154
$1,236.10
149.27
120.00
32.48
0.00
458.33
712.44
316.39
$2,925.01
FACTORS
0.57
0.21
FACTORS
$1.69
1.33
..97
$3.99
7/31/72
683
416
162
$1,236.10
218.41
211.99
113.27
0.00
458.33
712.44
587.44
$3,537.98
0.61
0.24
$1.81
2.33
1.04
$5.18
8/31/72
1122
424
178
$1,236.10
116.15
374.89
68.51
0.00
458.33
712.44
218.04
$3,184.46
0.37
0.16
$1.10
1.10
0.63
$2.83
-
* increased due to raise in salary
70
-------
TABLE 4 (Continuation)
MONTHLY OPERATING STATISTICS FOR THE SANITARY LANDFILL OPERATIONS
For
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
15.
17.
18.
month ending:
Refuse disposed (tons)
Man-hours employed
Machine-hours employed
Labor wages
Fuels and lubricants
Equipment repairs and
maintenance
Utilities
Building repairs and
maintenance
Supervisor's salary
Facility and equipment
depreciation
Other costs
Total Costs
Labor efficiency
(hours/ton)
Equipment efficiency
(hours/ton)
Labor costs per ton
disposed
Operating overhead cost per
ton
Depreciation costs per ton
Total operating cost per ton
9/30/72
ACTIVITY
1168
428
180
COSTS
$1,236.10
193.55
594.10
79.20
0.00
458.33
507.55
$3,781.27
EFFICIENCY
0.37
0.16
UNIT COST
$1.06
1.57
0.61
$3.24
10/31/72
1134
428
183
$1,236.10
47.40
989.84
80.69
0.00
541.66
244.35
$3,862.48
FACTORS
0.38
0.16
FACTORS
$1.09
1-69
0.63
$3.40
11/30/72
1141
420
185
$1,236.10
304.10
8.00
94.04
0.00
541.66
223.16
$3,120.50
0.37
0.16
$1.09
1-03
0.62
$2.73
12/31/72
1016
420
178
$1,236.10
218.19
859.73
73.47
0.00
541.66
177.50
$3,819.05
0.41
0. 17
$1-22
1 .84
0.70
$3.76
71
-------
TABLE 4 (Continuation)
MONTHLY OPERATING STATISTICS FOR THE SANITARY LANDFILL OPERATIONS
For
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
month ending:
Refuse disposed (tons)
Man-hours employed
Machine-hours employed
Labor wages
Fuels and lubricants
Equipment repairs and
maintenance
Utilities
Building repairs and
maintenance
Supervisor's salary
Facility and equipment
depreciation
Other costs
Total Costs
1/31/73
ACTIVITY
1115
420
184
COSTS
$1,236.10
118.50
147.62
121.18
633.02
541.66
712.44
337.71
$3,843.23
2/28/73
1100
400
180
$1,236.10
176.01
8,259.00
112.03
0.00
541.66
712.44
341.52
$11,378.76
3/31/73
1167
428
188
$1,236.10
132.72
726.72
92.95
0.00
541.66
712.44
613.72
$4,056.31
4/30/73
1179
400
180
$1,236.10
188.00
394.15
105.20
0.00
541.66
712.44
394.15
$3,571.72
EFFICIENCY FACTORS
13.
14.
IS.
16.
17.
18.
Labor efficiency
(hours/ton)
Equipment efficiency
(hours/ton)
Labor costs per ton
disposed
Operating overhead cost per
ton
Depreciation costs per tor.
Total operating cost per t'n
0.38
0.16
UNIT COST
$1.11
l.'O
0.64
$3.45
0.36
0.16
FACTORS
$1.12
8.57
0.65
$10.34
0.37
0.16
SI. 06
1.81
0.61
$3.48
0.34
0.16
$1.05
1.38
0.60
$3.03
72
-------
TABLE 4 (Continuation)
MONTHLY OPERATING STATISTICS FOR THE SANITARY LANDFILL OPERATIONS
For
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
month ending:
Refuse disposed (tons)
Man-hours employed
Machine-hours employed
Labor wages
Fuels and lubricants
Equipment repairs and
maintenance
Utilities
Building repairs and
maintenance
Supervisor's salary
Facility and equipment
depreciation
Other costs
Total Cost
Labor efficiency
(hours/ton)
Equipment efficiency
(hours/ton)
Labor costs per ton
disposed
Operating overhead cost per
ton
Depreciation costs per to::
Total operating cost per ton
5/31/73
ACTIVITY
1307
396
188
COSTS
§1,236.10
262.75
1,609.85
89.36
0.00
541.66
712.44
587.21
$5,039.37
EFFICIENCY
0.30
0.14
JNIT COST
$0.95
2.36
0.55
$3.86
6/30/73
1330
410
192
$1,236.10
280.12
240.09
51.68
0.00
541.66
712.44
361.65
$3,423.74
FACTORS
0.30
0.14
FACTORS
$0.93
1.11
0.54
$2.58
7/31/73
1403
392
192
$1,236.10
301.48
176.02
62.84
0.00
541.66
712.44
218.93
$3,249.47
0.28
0.14
$0.88
0.93
0.51
$2.32
S/31/75
1237
400
190
$1,236.10
340.20
360.20
61.10
0.00
541.66
712.44
217.04
$3,468.74
0.32
0.15
$1.00
1.23
0.58
$2.81
73
-------
TABLE 4 (Continuation)
MONTHLY OPERATING STATISTICS FOR THE SANITARY LANDFILL OPERATIONS
For month ending:
Average for
Period
1. Refuse disposed (tons)
2. Man-hours employed
3. Machine-hours employed
4. Labor wages
5. Fuels and lubricants
6. Equipment repairs and
maintenance
7. Utilities
8. Building repairs and
maintenance
9. Supervisor's salary
10. Facility and equipment
depreciation
11. Other costs
12. Total Cost
13. Labor efficiency
(hours/ten)
14. Equipment efficiency
(hours/ton)
15. Labor costs per ton
disposed
16. Operating overhead cost per
ton
17. Depreciation costs per ton
18. Total operating cost per ton
ACTIVITY
838
383
158
COSTS
$1,203.96
176.70
692.97
62.91
23.77
492.28
683.28
282.90
$3,618.77
EFFICIENCY FACTORS
0.46
0.19
UNIT COST FACTORS
SI.44
2,07
.82
$4.33
-------
Rural collection costs are also reported monthly on a Rural Refuse
Collection Summary Form. This form lists activity and related cost, as
does the landfill report form. A survey of the twenty seven months
reported thus far are shown as follows in Table 5.
TABLE 5
MONTHLY OPERATING STATISTICS FOR THE RURAL COLLECTION OPERATION
Period ending:
6/30/71
7/31/71
8/31/71
ACTIVITY
1. Refuse quantity collected (tons) 50
2. Total man hours 382
3. Total machine hours 174
Pickup truck hours on route 116
Packer truck hours on route 58
4. Total machine miles 3,532.00
Pickup truck miles on route 2"]420:00
Packer truck miles on route 1,112.00
5. Labor costs (with fringe benefits)* $1,700.35
6. Fuels and lubricants ' 90.33
7. Repairs and maintenance 0.00
8. Supervisor's Salary 458.33
9. Depreciation costs ** 882'.05
10. Other Costs 0.00
11. Total Costs 3,196.34
EFFICIENCY FACTORS
11. Labor efficiency (man hours/ton)
12. Equipment efficiency (machine hours/ton)
COST FACTORS
7.64
3.48
136
591
197
137
60
'7r,561.00
6,443.00
1,118.00
$1,700.35
201.12
0.00
458.33
882.05
0.00
3,417.92
4.41
1.47
158
517
315
212
97
6,523.00
4,462.00
1,975.00
$1,700.35
274.82
0.00
458.33
882.Q5
0.00
3,565.32
3.27
2.00
13.
14.
15.
16.
Labor cost per ton collected
Operating overhead cost per ton
Depreciation cost per ton
Total cost per ton collected
$34.01
10.97
17.14
62.62
$ 12.50
4.85
6.49
123.84
$10.76
4.64
5.58
20.98
*includes assistant equipment operator, packer truck driver, two pickup truck drivers
**includes container site preparations, 3 pickup trucks, packer truck, containers,
radio (mobile)
75
-------
TABLE 5 (Continuation)
MONTHLY OPERATING STATISTICS FOR THE RURAL COLLECTION OPERATION
Period ending: 9/30/71
10/31/71
11/30/71
12/31/71
ACTIVITY
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Refuse quantity collected
(tons)
Total man hours
Total machine hours
Pickup truck hours on route
Packer truck hours on route
Total machine miles
Pickup truck miles on route
Packer truck miles on route
148
494
292
195
91
6,223
4,135
1,937
Labor costs $1,700.35
Fuels and lubricants
Repairs and maintenance
Supervisor's salary
Depreciation costs
Other Costs
Total Costs $3
216.74
96.08
458.33
882.05
0.00
,353.55
EFFICIENCY FACTORS
11.
12.
COST
13.
14.
15.
16.
Labor efficiency (man hours/ton)
Equipment efficiency (machine
hours/ton)
FACTORS
Labor cost per ton collected
Operating overhead cost per ton
Depreciation cost per ton
Total cost per ton collected
3.32
1.97
$11.49
5.21
5.96
22.66
148
523
315
210
95
6,272
4,062
1,957
$1,700.35
209.51
237.93
458.33
882.05
74.94
$3,563;'ll
2.86
2.13
$11.49
6.63
5.96
24.08
175
552
344
229
102
6,481
4,315
1,832
$1,700.35
227.26
35.34
458.33
882.05
443.28
$3,746.61
3.15
1.96
$ 9.72
6.65
5.04
21.41
227
533
330
227
90
6,762
4,794
1,697
$1,700.35
217.55
67.17
458.33
882.05
75.30
$3,400.75
2.35
1.45
$ 7.49
3.61
3.89
14.99
76
-------
TABLE 5 (Continuation)
MONTHLY OPERATING STATISTICS FOR THE RURAL COLLECTION OPERATION
Period ending: 1/31/72
2/28/72
3/31/72
4/30/72
ACTIVITY
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Refuse quantity collected
(tons)
Total man hours
Total machine hours
Pickup truck hours on route
Packer truck hours on route
Total machine miles
Pickup truck miles on route
Packer truck miles on route
Labor costs $1 ,
Fuels and lubricants
Repairs and maintenance
Supervisor's salary
Depreciation costs
Other Costs
Total Costs $3,
227
523
345
230
101
6,747
4,413
1,675
700.35"
222.74
168.59
458.33
882.05
48.45
448.45
EFFICIENCY FACTORS
11.
12.
COST
13.
14.
15.
16.
Labor efficiency (man hours/ton)
Equipment efficiency (machine
hours/ton)
FACTORS
Labor cost per ton collected
Operating overhead cost per ton
Depreciation cost per ton
Total cost per ton collected
2.30
1.46
$ 7.49
3.96
3.89
$15.34
205
578
424
308
101
8,775
5,371
1,258
$1,700.35
260.22
626.12
458.33
882.05
316.75
$4,243.82
2.81
2.07
$ 8.29
8.10
4.30
$20.69
266
607
414
278
113
11,485
5,025
2,095
$1,700.35
392.86
461.87
458.33
882.05
158.77
$4,054.23
2.28
1.55
$ 6.39
5.53
3.32
$15.24
257
606
390
260
100
9,320
4,820
1,963
$1,700.35
277.48
218.80
458.33
882.05
570.07
$4,107.08
2.38
1.52
$ 6.62
5.93
3.43
$15.98
77
-------
TABLE 5 (Continuation)
MONTHLY OPERATING STATISTICS FOR THE RURAL COLLECTION OPERATION
Period ending:
5/31/72
6/30/72 7/31/72
8/31/72
ACTIVITY
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Refuse quantity collected
(tons)
Total man hours
Total machine hours
Pickup truck hours on route
Packer truck hours on route
Total machine miles
Pickup truck miles on route
Packer truck miles on route
Labor costs $1
Fuels and lubricants
Repairs and maintenance
Supervisor's salary
Depreciation costs
Other Costs
Total Costs $3
352
584
467
289
145
10,639
5,584
2,743
,810.06
361.94
122.31
458.33
938.19
154.77
,845.60
354
590
441
268
146
9,997
4,878
2,837
$1,810.06
341.97
695.22
458.33
1,253.48
299.19
$4,825.25
404
590
412
181
201
9,887
3,457
4,071
$1,816!06
370.20
805.66
458.33
1,253.48
30.17
$4,727.90
462
610
482
218
237
11,303
4,165
4 ,664
$1,810.06
392.00
716.76
458.33
1,253.. 48
555.11
$5,211.90
EFFICIENCY FACTORS
11.
12.
Labor efficiency (man hours/ton) 1.66
Equipment efficiency (machine
hours/ton)
1.33
1.66
1.25
1.46
1.02
1.32
1.04
COST FACTORS
13.
14.
15.
16.
Labor cost per ton collected
$5.14
Operating overhead cost per ton 3.12
Depreciation cost per ton
Total cost per ton collected
2.67
10.93
$5.11
4.98
3.54
13.63
$4.48
4.12
3.10
11.70
$3.92
4.59
2.77
11.28
78
-------
TABLE 5 (Continuation)
MONTHLY OPERATING STATISTICS FOR THE RURAL COLLECTION OPERATION
Period ending:
ACTIVITY
1. Refuse quantity collected
(tons)
2. Total man hours
3. Total machine hours
Pickup truck hours on route
Packer truck hours on route
4. Total machine miles
Pickup truck miles on route
Packer truck miles on route
5. Labor costs 1 »
6. Fuels and lubricants
7. Repairs and maintenance
8. Supervisor's salary
9. Depreciation costs 1,
10. Other Costs
11. Total Costs $4,
EFFICIENCY FACTORS
9/30/72
454
595
468
219
233
11,186
4,048
4,549
810.06
399.50
240.70
458.33
279.64
45.13
233.36
11. Labor efficiency (man hours/ton) 1.31
12. Equipment efficiency (machine
hours/ton)
COST FACTORS
13. Labor cost per ton collect ec.
14. Operating overhead cost per ton
15. Depreciation cost per ton
16. Total cost per ton collected
1.03
S3. 99
2.52
2.82
9.33
10/31/72
504
595
489
219
254
12,080
4,345
4,460
1,810.06
442.45
513.08
541.66
1,279.64
32.75
$4,619.64
1.18
0.96
$3.59
3.04
2.S4
9.17
11/30/72
485
571
465
219
230
10,985
4,614
4,229
1,810.06
416.57
203.51
541.66
1,279.64
6.50
$4,257.94
1.16
0.96
$3.73
2.41
2.64
8.78
12/31/72
568
585
499
252
212
12,279
4,669
3,715
1,810.06
432.20
540.97
541.66
1,279.64
0.00
$4,604.53
1.03
0.88
$2.19
2.67
2.25
8. 11
79
-------
TABLE 5 (Continuation)
MONTHLY OPERATING STATISTICS FOR THE RURAL COLLECTION OPERATION
Period ending:
1/31/73
2/28/73
3/31/73
4/30/73
ACTIVITY
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Refuse quantity collected
(tons)
Total man hours
Total machine hours
Pickup truck hours on route
Packer truck hours on route
Total machine miles
Pickup truck miles on route
Packer truck miles on route
Labor costs $1
Fuels and lubricants
Repairs and maintenance 1
Supervisor's salary
Depreciation costs 1
Other Costs
Total Cost $5
585
675
603
362
210
12,566
6,984
3,490
,810.06
433.39
,167.04
541.66
,279.64
45.65
,277.44
521
621
551
350
162
12,789
6,940
3,097
$1,810~06
394.55
1,386.62
541.66
1,279.64
15.36
$5,427.89
491
681
677
231
13,188
7,072
4,504
$1,810.06
456.69
2,169.58
541.66
1,279.64
99.60
$6,357.23
522
896
764
426
17,715
9,265
7,024
$l,8io.06
684.60
1,740.42
541.66
1,279.64
178.11
$6,234.49
EFFICIENCY FACTORS
11.
12.
Labor efficiency (man hours/ton)
Equipment efficiency (machine
hours/ton)
1.15
1.06
1.20
1.10
1.39
1.38
1.70
1.40
COST FACTORS
13.
14.
15.
16.
Labor cost per ton cu 1 J t:i_teci
Operating overhead i_osr per ton
Depreciation cost per ton
Total cost per ton collected
S3. 09
3.74
2.19
9.02
$3.47
4.49
2.4o
10.42'
$3.69
6.65
2.61
12.95
$3.47
6.02
2.45
11.94
80
-------
TABLE 5 (Continuation)
MONTHLY OPERATING STATISTICS FOR THE RURAL COLLECTION OPERATION
.
Period ending:
5/31/73 6/30/73 7/31/73 8/31/73
ACTIVITY
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Refuse quantity collected
(tons)
Total man hours
Total machine hours
Pickup truck hours on route
Packer truck hours on route
Total machine miles
Pickup truck miles on route
Packer truck miles on route
Labor costs 1
Fuels and lubricants
Repairs and maintenance
Supervisor's salary
Depreciation costs i
Other Costs
Total Costs $5
555
725
682
335
335
14,429
5,076
5,617
,810.06
551.40
893.78
541.66
,279.64
34.90
,111.44
559
838
694
342
340
14,390
5,268
5,270
1,810.06
544.31
758.00
541.66
1,279.64
219.94
5,153.61
601
824
792
441
340
14,616
5,214
5,547
1,810.06
567.27
351.63
541.66
1,279.64
76.20
$4,626.46
575
852
692
342
339
16,046
5,180
5,230
1,810.06
637.93
830.40
541.66
1,279.64
14.80
$5,114.49
EFFICIENCY FACTORS
11.
12.
Labor efficiency (man hours/ton)
Equipment efficiency (machine
hours/ton)
1.30
1.23
1.52
1.24
1.37
1.32
1.48
1.20
COST FACTORS
13.
14.
15.
16.
Labor cost per ton collected
Operating overhead cost per ton
Depreciation cost per ton
Total cost per ton collected
53.26
3.64
2.31
9.21
$3.24
3.69
2.29
9.22
$3.01
2.56
2.13
7.70
$3.15
3.52
2.23
8.90
81
-------
TABLE 5 (Continuation)
MONTHLY OPERATING STATISTICS FOR THE RURAL COLLECTION OPERATION
Period ending: Average for
Period
ACTIVITY
1. Refuse quantity collected 370
(tons)
2. Total man hours 620
3. Total machine hours 471
Pickup truck hours on-iroute 270
Packer, truck hours on.route 187
4. Total machine miles 10,510
Pickup .truck miles on route 5,075
Pickup truck miles on route 3,321
5. Labor Costs $1,765.36
6. Fuels and lubricants 371.02
7. Repairs and maintenance 557.32
8. Supervisor's salary 492.28
9. Depreciation costs 1,103.07
10. Other Costs 129.47
11. Total Costs 4,418.52
EFFICIENCY FACTORS
11. Labor efficiency (man hours/ton) 1.68
12. Equipment efficiency (machine 1.27
hours/ton)
COST FACTORS
13. Labor cost per ton collected $4.77
14. Operating overhead cost per ton 4.19
15. Depreciation cost per ton 2.98
16. Total cost per ton collected 11.94
Other Costs
To date, no major associated costs that do not fit into the
landfill or collection categories have been incurred with the
exception of the costs involved in rehabilitation of the approximately 122
82
-------
roadside dumping areas throughout the county. A breakdown of these
costs as associated with each respective dump is depicted in Table 2.
Records were not kept on the remaining dumps, but projected costs
were computed and are shown also. It should be noted that this is
only an estimate and accurate records of this activity are difficult
to compile. Such small items as gloves, rain wear, shovels, and other
miscellaneous items have been purchased but have not contributed to
a large expenditure for the program. Other services have been per-
formed for the program such as soil borings, laboratory analyses,
surveying, and drafting projects. These were done by the personnel
of the County Engineer at no extra expense to the project.
83
-------
LOCATION MAP
-------
TYPICAL
DISPOSAL SIT^ S
FIGURE 2
-------
VJ.-TI II I I .
;> T'
' j,
LEE COUNTY
SOLID WASTE f**2*f t^/%
MANAGEMENT PROJECTJ/4" * * '
2'\
v
LEE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
r
h
o
,'J
I
XJ
'' \ ^"c-;.
;i- Vjf -^
\ 'ijlAu^
; -V^j[.. ^""t V
<=W^.'* .-**- ':V
v '$+ i :
jL. , -V^.T^'.
. AfcU'."«««'"« ' 1%R.
. »'*-ii^ ^
!«!K-'' *-.«/ .
fr"U
v- %
^v
'O* p
-------
LEGEND
County Mobile Containers
County Stationary Containers
School Containers J|
Municipal Containers
Mncslloneous Containers
2]
G)
I
T'
N)
I
-------
Figure 4. Six cubic yard stationary container chosen for use on primary
road system.
-------
Rear loading platform, rear 1ights and
reflectors; identification markings
Easy-access top loading doorr
c..-- .-4." _. I'«^V«. ',^»- . '.-..
Tandem-hookup feature
Tandem-hookup assembly
Figure 5. Five cubic yard mobile containers chosen for rural collc
89
-------
Figure 6. Mobile container located on typical rural collection site,
-------
Figure 7. Mobile container connection, folding leg, and wheel lock
features.
91
-------
FIGURE 8 - p. I
92
-------
fx/^SM'^ .
>4< W
FACILITIES
LOCATION
FIGURE 8 - p. 2
-------
-f -- -. ,
Figure 9. Scalehouse designed for Lee County Solid Waste Disposal Project
-------
Figure 10. Landfill tractor shown spreading and compacting dumped wastes,
95
-------
Packer truck emptying six cubic yard stationary containers
,.
Packer truck emptying five cubic yard mobile container
Figure 11. Thirty cubic yard packer truck shown emptying collection
containers.
-------
THE AMSU'ERS TO THESE QUESTIONS ARE BASED ON YOUR ACTIONS PRIOR TO JUNE 1, 1971
1. Do your neighbors take pride in the appearance of your neighborhood?
( ) Yes ( ) No
2. Is trash and garbage dumped or scattered on roadsides near you?
( ) Yes ( ) No
3. Is trash and garbage dumped on private property near you?
( ) Yes ( ) No
4. If answer to 2 or 3 is yes, do you think that unauthorized dumping contributes
to the menace of:
( \ Stray dogs C ) Rats and Mice
( ) Insects (Flics, Mosquitoes, Yellowjackets, Gnats)
5. Are unusual odors present in your neighborhood?
( ) Yes ( ) No
6. If yes, what source or sources contribute to the odor problems?
( } Garbage ( ) Trash ( ) Burning ( ) Industrial Wastes
7. How often is your trash or garbage collected?
( ) Once Week ( ) Twice Week { ) Less Frequently
( ) No collection service
8. How long have you had this collection service?
C ) 1 year ( ) 2 years C ) 2-5 years ( ) over 5 years
9. If answer to No. 7 is "No collection service", do you have place to dispose of
your trash or garbage?
( ) Yes ( ) No
10. How far to dump used:
( ) 0-1 miles ( ) 1-2 miles ( ) 2-4 miles ( ) 5 miles
11. How often did you take garbage to dump:
{ ) 1 time per week ( ) 2 times per month ( ) 1 time per month
12. Would you say your present method of trash or garbage collection and disposal
is:
( ) Excellent [ ) Adequate ( ) Bad
13. Do you burn your flammable materials (Papers, cardboard, etc.) and dispose of
your non-flammable materials (cans, bottles, etc.,) in another manner?
( ) Yes ( ) No
14. What type garbage or trash container do you use?
( ) Metal barrel ( ) Metal Can ( ) Paper sacks ( ) Cardboard boxes
IS. How much are you charged for trash or garbage collection?
($ month) ($ trip) ( ) Free Service ( ) Don't know
16. Were you previously aware that Lee County is developing a Solid Waste collection
and disposal program?
( ) Yes ( D No.
Figure 13. User Inquiry Form sent to random sample of Lee County,residents
97
-------
ATTITUDE AND USAGE SURVEY
Dear Lee County Resident:
The Board of Supervisors is conducting a survey for Lee County to
determine if you and your neighbors arc satisfied with the present garbage
collection and disposal system. Questionnaires have been sent to a random
sample of families in your neighborhood.
In order to aid Lee County in its attempt to operate the garbage
system the way you would like, we would appreciate it if you would answer
a few simple questions. Your responses to all the questions will not
be made public. After completing the questionnaire, please return it in
the enclosed envelope which is addressed and stamped.
1. How many years have you lived in Lee County?
Number of years ( )
Please place a check in the box next to the correct answer for each question.
2. How does this county compare with other areas that you are familiar with?
Far Superior ( )
Superior ( )
About the same ( )
Inferior ( )
Far Inferior ( )
3. Do you think Lee County has a good garbage system?
Yes ( )
( )
4. The distance between your home and the nearest "Green Box" garbage
container is -
Less than one mile ( )
Between 1 and 2 miles ( )
2 to 5 miles ( )
More than S miles ( )
Figure 13A Attitude and Usage Survey
98
-------
5. Do you deposit your garbage in a "Green Box"?
Yes ( ;
No ( j
If the answer to question 5 is "no" please skip to question /'IS.
6. On the average how often do you carry waste to one of the containers?
Daily ( )
3 times a week ( )
1 or 2 times a week ( )
At irregular intervals ( )
7. Means of transportation of waste to "Green Box":
Sedan ( )
Trailer ( )
Heavy truck ( )
Station wagon ( )
Pickup ( )
Other ( )
8. Are trips to the "Green Box" usually made:
For that purpose only ( )
When going shopping ( }
When going to work ( )
When going to visit friends or relatives ( )
At odd times in connection with one or more of the above ( )
9. What type container do you use to transfer waste from home to the "Green
Box"?
Cardboard or wooden boxes ( )
Paper or plastic bags ( )
Metal or plastic containers ( )
Loose ( )
Other ( )
99
-------
10. List those in your household who take waste to the "Green Box":
Family Position Age Sex
General Health
E G F P
E G F P
E G F P
E G F P
E - excellent
G - good
F - fair
P - poor
11. Normally the "Green Box" container is -
12. Do you think the "Green Box" -
Empty C )
Partially filled C )
Fairly full C )
Overflowing ( )
is emptied often enough ( )
occasionally needs a special pickup ( )
needs an additional pickup per week ( )
needs several more pickups per week ( )
13. A "Green Box" receptacle -
should be placed closer to my home ( )
is close enough to my home ( )
is too close to my home ( )
14. How does this container service compare with your former method of
handling garbage?
Vastly Superior C )
Superior ( )
About the same ( )
Inferior ( )
Far Inferior C )
100
-------
15. Normally the parking and walking area around the container is -
Neat and clean ( ",
Somewhat littered ( )
Strewn with refuse ( )
Foul and smelly C )
None of the above ( )
16. Do you think it would be better if the area for walking and parking
around the "Green Box" were paved?
Yes ( )
No ( )
17. For each item below please place a check in the box which best
describes your experience with the present garbage collection and
disposal system.
Always Often Occurs at Never
occurs occurs infrequent occurred
occasions
a. Receptacle filled () () () ()
b. Smell so bad that couldn't
use box () () () ()
c. Fire in container () () () ()
d. Area for parking car
unuseable due to mud () ( ) () ()
e. Box was broken and couldn't use () () () ()
f. Doors to box are hard to use () () () ()
g. Litter in box area made it
impossible to dump in box () () () ()
h. Box moved without telling
user new location () () () ()
i. Flies were so bad around box that
I could not get to it () () () ()
18. Have you seen the Lee County Landfill?
Yes ( )
No ( )
101
-------
If the answer to question IS is no, skip to question 20.
19. How would you describe the maintenance of the landfill area?
Always neat ( )
Usually neat ( )
Garbage strewn all over ( )
Very unsightly ( )
A few questions about the total garbage system.
20. How would you rate this garbage disposal service overall?
Outstanding ( )
Very good ( )
Satisfactory ( )
Needs improvement ( )
Unsatisfactory ( )
21. Would you prefer a different type of garbage service?
Yes ( )
No ( )
If the answer to question 21 is yes, please specify type desired
22. If you suggested a different type of service in question 21, would you
be willing to pay a garbage collection fee for it?
Yes ( )
No C )
25. Please describe any other problem you may have encountered in trying to
use the "Green Box" system.
102
-------
24. How do you dispose of any wastes not taken to the "Green Box"?
(check all applicable answers)
Burning ( )
Burying on private property ( )
Composting ( )
All wastes taken to container ( )
Other
25. Number of persons in this household (include renters, companions who
live there, etc.) ( )
Thank you for your cooperation in completing this questionnaire.
103
-------
^XXXXXVXXXXXXXX
\XXXNXXXX*,XXXXX
S.XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X NX X>3(XXXXXX\XX
XX XXXNXXXXXXXXX
XxXXXXXXXXXXXXX
VXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX XXXXXX X
XXXXXXXXVXXXVXV
XXXXX
XXXXX
LEGEND
AREAS DOMINATED BY ACID AhD NOMACIO LOAMY AM> CLAYEY SOILS SUBJECT TO FLOODING
I. leeper-Catalpa Association: Somewhat poorly to moderately well drained medium acid
in mildly alkaline clayey soils on nearly level stream bottoms.
2. Leeper-Marietta Association: Somewhat poorly drained clayey and loamy soils on wide
stream bottoms.
S. Mantachle-Marietta Association: Somewhat poorly and moderately well drained loamy
soils on wide stream bottoms.
AREAS DOMINATED BY ACID AM} ALKALINE UNSTABLE CLAYEY SOILS OVER CHALK OR MARL
4. Oktibbeha-Providence Association: Moderately well drained, clayey and silty soils on
gently to strong slopes.
9. Oktibbeha-Gullied land-Demopolis Association: Moderately well drained clayey acid
and calcareous soils on gentle to steep severely eroded slopes.
FIGURE 14
p. I
104
-------
I* x x,xx v. \ \
Central Sanitary
Landfill
DOMINATED BY SOILS WITH FRAGIPANS
6. Orj-Quitman-Oktibbeha Associations: Moderately well and somewhat poorly drained
loimy and clayey soils on nearly level to strong slopes.
7 Ora-Prentiss-Quitman Association: Moderately well and somewhat poorly drained lotny
soils with fragipans on nearly level to moderate slopes.
AREAS DOMINATED BY DEtP WELL DRAlNtO LOAMY AN) CLAYEY SOILS
8 Cahaba-Luverne-Gullied land-Ora Association: Moderately well to well drained loamy
and clayey soils on moderate to very steep uplands.
SOIL STRUCTURE MAP
LEE COUNTY, MISS.
FIGURE 14 - p. 2
105
-------
Figure 15. Landfill site chosen
for initial fill with clearance of
trees in progress.
Figure 16 - Typical Dumping Area Rehabilitation
Sheet 1 of 2
106
-------
Figure 16 - Continued
107
Sheet 2 of 2
-------
,-p-
?l X
Mlh.n,
LEE COUNTY ' «
SOLID WASTE T^
jr
MANAGEIVENT PROJECT 1 A;. J|,
i 1 '
I.RE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
^-^
?
.V
j8Aiowvn
iTO'«l I .
--#**=?
+*'
.-. > /-.
:-^r*
i
==-» ^Mj!
y
* l>v
Sr61 I N M
r-.,Jt.
|- T"*';:. *Jr "I .'i-ifK-p-'ur»
1 L 'Vv-i-»ri-.7 L 444^
H^f^iifeT^
i ' *!: \ r« . 9 -V tfras.. *5y-nr <( jf-
I A--^"^ * if f?« '' &**"
l«Hr*^-Hlt^i^
, V'
Tfog
A*3C?y MocmoMo
TCK
Iw
liaiJSIEIBI^
iJrT---: -?
^^
r"^r
Wfl
I.
."«
«:**^
M
%tr-
«/
»A «^
I'-' ^ ^A'v^rV ^
1 ;» VIA
Af-M-
«
! * \ tt B"«l
l^-ff^
f
.'^* .. kc.
")
AUA^
T-^V:
J1 .V ^
ld^
-------
LEGEND
Rehabilitated A
Municipal Dumps
Rehabilitated A
Rural Dumps
CD
;o
m
M
-------
FINAL COVER MATERIAL
irep^
$&Z&£tyG---£%^^
<5&$^$&$s^ v
Original Ground
Figure 18
SANITARY LANDFILL CONSTRUCTION
ya 1138
110
-------
APPENDIX A
Report of Borings and Soils Analyses
for Lee County Sanitary Landfill Site
111
-------
P O BOX 8»l
STATE COLLEGE MISSISSIPPI
70S CROSSOVER ROAD
TUPELO MIBSISSIPP
FOUNDATION SERVICES, INC.
Lab Nos i../...2.,JL..4....^ _ ..Project.. "\ta-.. E.^.r. Op?15.
REPORT ON SAMPLES OF..../L^:.a:......4\S.RX*rL-. P..1?-ATJr.tT.L'.'..'sf.. .A.C?E//:.kY. _.Date Sampled. . ^?~L°r7.f
Producer -Date Received uT.'.P. ~ l\
TEST RESULTS*
Lab. No.
Sample No.
Station No.
Quantify Rep.
/
^
&I
lit.
2
JTT
t-J, B-4
/ /b.
'^
.TO:
fc-A fe-2>
4
B>-< B-2.
l.fc.
*5
J?£^
B-'b. JB-4-
lib.
SIEVE ANALYSIS-TOTAL % PASSING BY WEIGHT (SQUARE OPENINGS)
No. 2" Steve
No. 1%" Sieve
No. W Sieve
No. 1" Sieve
No. Yt" Sieve
No. 4 Sieve
No. 10 Sieve
% Voids above No. 10
Wgt. in Lbs./Cu. Ft.
loo
H
n
it
it
a
i>
/V^
ii
100
II
II
n
n
n
it
/VA
i'
loo
If
II
II
M
II
It
//A
/.
loo
It
Jl
II
II
II
//
A/A
/i
/oo
V
ll
II
II
//
//
A/A
>f
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS MATERIAL PASSING NO. 10 SIEVE
% Pass No. 10 Sieve
% Pass No. 40 Sieve
% Pass No. 60 Sieve
% Pass No 200 Sieve
% Pass No. 270 Sieve
% Silt
% Clay
% Colloids
Dust Ratio**
Consistency
GROUP
IO3
S5
35
2
R
-i.
h
A/tv
Z
//A
/£?£>
Sff
25
2.
«?
?>
b
A/A
2
A/A
/00
94
31
5
T7
16
1 1
A/ A.
5
AM
loo
9&
(*&
"7
\?>
Z
JO
AX/x
?
A/A
/CO
44-
49
&
Z4
4
JO
A/A
6
A/A
.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS MATERIAL PASSING NO 40 SIEVE
liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Plasticity Index
Shrinkage Limit
Shrinkage Ratio
Cer.- fuge Moisture
F!- ^ f/iisti're
Vo'ume O'-.-.ge
A/Pe
AVA
/i
n
12.
AVA
V&C
A/A.
/i
i
If
A/«
//P°
A/A
n
<>
2c?
A'A
Z*?
23
C,
AW.
|1
n
/3
A-'A
fJP°
A/A
11
ii
w
A^A
-
Pcrtirles above 0074 mm. in d.omeier by sieve meihod. parttclei below 0074 mm in diameter by hydrometer met1- -1
erccniage of material finer than No. 40 neve poising No ZOO ifeve
REMARKS:
*A/P-
Reported by T.O A^.N\ y
-------
FOUNDATION SERVICES INCORPORATED
703 CROSSOVER ROAD-TUPELO MISSISSIPPI- 38801
LOG OF TEST BORING
PROJECT- LEEr'
BORING NUMBER .
J^L
JOB NUMBER, -f-
DATE
& - /CL-
bJ
t
UJ
o
5 -
WL
i
N
.
. . .
;.
".
. ' ;
.
:- .
> : :
x/x/x/
xxxxx/
xxxxx/
xxxxx/
xxxxx.
xxxxx,
xxxxx<
xxxxx/
xxxxx,
xxxxx,
xxxxx
xxxxx,
xxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
x^/xx
\itt4(
%-&
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
KR_Cxw;Ay *3 A. /'/". ('i")
~r^N ^z-^-i /o (~/T)
»
TAA/ Ci-^Ve V -,/.v^ /"/ZTJ
-^-A
T^M -i^N'^ ^J
&u/e «i^*.'c.s- w --.i ii ,'jir;
UNCONFINED
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH-ksf
1»/o FIELD
MOISTURE
ti
3 -i
PLASTICITY
INDEX
1
t
1
'
t
r
(
1
.
N = Blows per foot for 2" 0 D. sampler driven
with 140Ib. hammer falling 3O"
(STANDARD PENETRATION TEST)
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
WL= Water Level
113
NOTES
SAMPLED BY. E~.
ENCLOSURE NO.
-------
FOUNDATION SERVICES INCORPORATED
/03 CROSSOVER ROAO- TUPELO MISSISSIPPI- 38801
LOG OF TEST BORING
PROJECT- LI.L- C^Z»U\ f V-i '^ WflL&T^ PR. '-rg^rTL
BORING NUMBER 2-
JOB NUMBER, t- /'J.~'. / DATE. la- ]0-~?/
N
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
FINED
SSIVE
H-ksf
UN
COM
STRE
% FIELD
MOISTURE
o
PLASTI
INDEX
-K>
-15
-20
-25
-30-
-40
N = Blows per foot for 2" O.D sampler driven
with WOIb. hammer falling 30"
(STANDARD PENETRATION TEST)
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
WL = Water Level
NOTES
SAMPLED BY
ENCLOSURE N0.
-------
FOUNDATION SERVICES INCORPORATED
703 CROSSOVER ROAD- TUPELO MISSISSIPPI- 38801
LOG OF TEST BORING
PROJECT-
BORING NUMBER
JOB NUMBER. 5-/12',' DATE. 6 -/* -7/
UJ
t
8
^^w^
N
:££'
/.'/''/
;.':.;...
*."« '.'""
;:.";.;.;.
VVV-";\V
V/'-'.'Vj
'xxxxx
/xxxx
v/xxy
'/XXX/
v/xx/
xxx/x
vxxx/
xxxxx
^ ^x ^x
xxxxx
x/xx/
xxxxx
f * f ' t
XXXxx
'^XXXX
XXX XX
' X XXXX
' xyxxx
'XXXXX
'XXXX X
'XXXX X
'XXXXX
'XXX/X
'XXXXX
'XXXXX
"XXXXX
'XXX/X
' X / XX X
xxxxx
'XXXX X
'XXXX X
'XX XXX
' XXXXX
'XXXXX
'XXX XX
' X X X X /
'XXXXX
'XXX X X
'XXX X X
'XXXXX
xxxx x
'XXX X X
'XXXXX
'XXX XX
'.X XXXX
* r ^ 9 f y
'XXXXX
T.CO' '."i-^'t" ". / :- "-Il'J
UNCONFINEO
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH-ksf
% FIELD
MOISTURE
li
3 _i
PLASTICITY
INDEX
:
N = Blows per foot for 2" 0. D sampler driven
with WOlb. hammer fall-rig 30"
(STANDARD PENETRATION TEST)
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
WL= Water Level
NOTES.
SAMPLED BY.
115
ENCLOSURE NO.
-------
FOUNDATION SERVICES INCORPORATED
703 CROSSOVER ROAD-TUPELO MISSISSIPPI- 38801
LOG OF TEST BORING
PROJECT'
BORING NUMBER:
y
r,
w/v
c
JOB NUMBER. 5-/2-3V DATE 6 -/C - ~?/
Ul
t
UJ
o
. K
N
';'':';'.:'.'.
"'"/.".'"""
'::'::
*"" J
- ?"!*
\£#
:-v.-v.v
./
"
«.
:.....''
:::::'.
;
:
:
;
;
'
..
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
t. & k i :;.'-*" -rJ"- )
T>A/ ^>/XAiP /^XZl)
UNCONFINED
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH-ksf
t
% FIELD
MOISTURE
Ii
J -I
PLASTICITY
INDEX
(
1
N = Blows par foot for 2" 0 D. sampler driven
with !4Olb. hammer falling 30"
(STANDARD PENETRATION TEST)
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
WL= Water Level
NOTES
SAMPLED BY. &
116
.INCLOSURE NO.
-------
APPENDIX B
Accounting Forms
117
-------
WEEKLY LABOR TICKET
FORM NO. I
SITE:
DATE:
EMPLOYEE
IDENTIFICATION
TOTALS
DAY 1
,10R
X
MRS
DAY 2
,10R
X
HRS
DAY 3
JOB
X
HRS
DAY 4
JOB
X
HRS
DAY 5
JOB
X
HRS
DAY 6
JOB
X
HRS
DAY 7
JOB
X
HRS
INDI-
VIDUAL
TOTALS
NOTE CAUSES OF
ABSENCES, EXTRA HRS.
TO BE PAID, ETC.
00
*LFS = Landfill Supervisor, S = Secretary, TO = Tractor Operator (Divide activity into [s]-spread & com-
pact refuse and [c]-cover operation, EM = Equipment Maintenance, US = Unloading Supervisor, AO = Asis-
tant Operator, TTD = Tow Truck Driver, CTD = Collector Truck Drive-, MCTD = Municipal Collector Truck
Driver, L = Loader
-------
TIME OUT:
COLLECTION ACTIVITY REPORT
TIME IN: NET TIME:
FORM 2
MILEAGE OUT:
MILEAGE IN:
NET MILEAGE
DATE:
DRIVER:
LOADER:
LOADER:
LOADER:
LOADER:
START
TIME
MILEAGE
FINISH
TIME
MILEAGE
TOTAL WEIGHT:
2
0£
5
CC.
ROUTE IDENTIFICATION
TRUCK NO.:.
FUEL (GAL):
OIL (QTS): .
HYD, FLUID (GAL):.
ENGINE TIME (MRS):.
CHECK IF NOT NORMAL:
ENGINE TEMP.:
OIL PRESSURE:
AMMETER:
PACKER:
LIGHTS:
OTHER:
CHECK AND REPORT TO THE
SUPERVISOR IF YOU HAVE:
PERSONAL INJURY:
AUTO. ACCIDENT:
INSTRUCTIONS:
The driver is to complete this form each day.
"Time out" and "mileage out" are to be completed
when the truck leaves the garage in the morning.
"Time in" and "mileage in" are to be completed at
the end of the day when the truck is back at the
garage. When the truck reaches the first route
the time and mileage is noted in the "start" column
and the route designation is also noted. When the
truck is full or the route is left for any reason
"Time & mileage finish" is entered. Upon returning
to the same route or another (after a trip to the
disposal site) the next "time and mileage start"
entry is made, Also at the disposal site the net
weight of wastes collected is entered. Accidents,
injuries or any malfunctions of the equipment are to
be noted in the boxes provided and a detailed ex-
planation given on back of sheet. Remarks column
to be used for comments relative to personeli.
119
-------
TRUCK IDENTIFICATION
REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE RECORD
FOR PERIOD
FORM 4
THROUGH
DATE
TOTAL
ODO.
MILE-
AGE
s
TYPE SERVICE
OR
REPAIR
HRS,
DOWN
LABOR
HRS.
PARTS
DESCRIP-
TION
LABOR
COST
PARTS
COST
OUT-
SIDE
CHARGE
OVER-
HEAD
(Rate
Hrs)
TOTAL
COST
:20
-------
DISTRICT
CREW PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
FOR WEEK OF
FORM
CREW
IDENT.
TOTALS
AVERAGE
TOTAL
PAID
HOURS
% TOTAL
HOURS ON
ROUTE
TONS
COLL-
ECTED
TONS/HRS.
ON
ROUTE
#COMP
THIS
WEEK
LA I NTS
YR.T0
DATE
WEIGHTED
ROUTE
DIFFICULTY
ADJUSTED
TONS/HRS
ON ROUTE
1 This factor should be completed based on past performance of all crews on each
route; i.e., if on the average, "route A" takes twice as long to Service as "Route
B", then enter 2 for crew that did Route A and 1 for crew that did Route B.
2 "Adjusted Tons/Hr. on Route" = ("Tons/Hr, on Route") . (weignted route difficulty)
This is more representative of crew performance, adjusted for route 'ifferenceb.
121
-------
FORM 9
VEHICLE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Garage
For period: fron_
to
EQUIP.
IDENT.
.
-
TOTALS
AVERAGES
BUDGET
TOTAL
MILES
HOURS
DOWN
'
HRS. DOWN
TOTAL HRS.
REPAIRS
& MAINT.
COST
FUEL
COST
REPAIR
& MAIN.
PER/HR
FUEL
COST
/HR.
TOTAL
COST
/HR.
TOTAL
COST
.22
-------
LANDFILL OPERATING COST REPORT
1 1 WEEK
F(JI<: | 1 MONTH
| 1 YEAR
mo. day
PERIOD ENDING: fT~i FTl
yr.
SITE:
ACTIVITY
1. Refuse quantity disposed [_ jL 1
2. L'over material quantity f ] \
3. Man hours employed t~ T 1
j tons
, tons
| hrs.
4. Machine hours employed |" fill \ \ jhrs.
COSTS
5. Labor wages $ T
6. Cover material costs $ [
7. Oil, gas, grease, etc. $ 1
8. tquipment repairs and maintenance $ [_[
9. Electric, gas, heat, water, telephone $ I 11
10. Building repairs and maintenance $ | | 1
11. Supervisor's salary $ £~I 1
12. Other costs $ \ L
L__J
£1
HCID
1 Ml
1 1 1 ILLJ
~mi=a
i i i im
i i i
13. TOTAL OPERATING COST (add #5 through #12) fl 1 1 1
14. DEPRECIATION COST « 1 j |
15. TOTAL COST $ "*
i i i
EFFICIENCY FACTORS
Cover Material Utilization (#2 * #1) m»l~T~l ton/tr
Labor Efficiency (#3 * #1) m.n~l hr/
Equipment Efficiency (#4 * #1) [ 1 |.| T~l hr/toi
Labor Cost per Ton Disposed (#5 * #1}
Cover Mat'l Cost per Ton Disposed (#6 *
Operating Overhead Cost per Ton Disposed
(97 through #12 * *1)
TOTAL OPERATING UNIT COST (#13 * #1)
DEPRECIATION COST PER TON (m * #1)
TOTAL COST PER TON (#15 f #1)
J/t.n
-on
123
-------
TOTAL COLLECTION COST SUMMARY
FORM 10
DISTRICT
PERIOD OF REPORT: From
to
DATA
TONS OF REFUSE COLLECTED
Total OneratinE Cost
Total Financing § Ownership
Cost
TOTAL COST
Operating Cost per Ton
Financing § Ownership Cost
Per Ton
TOTAL COST PER TON
FOR THIS
PERIOD
- r
BUDGET - THIS |
PERIOD '
T~
i
1
i - !
' i
j '
i
! 1
I !
i I
i
i
i
';
I
t
. f
\ r
. . . . t.
- T
YEAR TO
DATE
--1-
1
!
BUDGET - YEAR
TO DATE
1
!
i
l
INSTRUCTIONS:
To be completed by the accounting department from data available in operating cost report,
capital cost reports when requested, or periodically. Copies sent to the city
manager [ or his superior).
-------
FOR:
Month
Year
RURAL R:rusc coi.u:cT!Oi\' COST su-1,';1.;^
Period Ending:
CODE: G06-EC-00315
ACTIVITY
Refuse Quantity (Rural Containers)
Refuse Quantity (Gate Containers)
1. Total Refuse Quantity
Pickup Driver Manhours
Packer Driver Manhours
Supervision Manhours
Other Manhours (specify)
2. Total Manhours
Pickup Truck Hours on Route
Other Pickup Truck Hours
Packer Truck Hours on Route
Other Packer Truck Hours
3. total Machine Hours
Pickup Truck Mileage on Route"
Other Pickup Truck Mileage
Packer Truck Mileage on Route
Other Packer Truck Mileage
3A..Total Machine Miles
tons
tons
tons
hours
hours
hours
hours
hours
hours
hours
hours
hours
hours
miles
miles
miles
miles
miles
125
-------
COSTS
4. Labor Wages (+ fringe benefits) $
Oil, Gas, Grease, etc. Pickup Trucks $
Oil, Gas, Grease, etc. Packer Truck $
5. Total Oil, Gas, Grease, etc. $
Pickup Repairs + Maintenance Labor $
Parts $
Packer Repairs + Maintenance Labor $
Parts $
6. Total Repairs + Maintenance $
7. Supervisor's Salary $
8. Other Costs (specify) $
9. Total Operating Costs $
10. Depreciation Costs $
11 . Total Costs $
EFFICIENCY FACTORS
12. Labor Efficiency #
13. Equipment Efficiency r'3/fl
COST FACTORS
14. Labor Cost per Ton Collected #4/#l
15. Operating Overhead Cost per Ton
Collected £5 through ='8/21
16. Total Operating Cost per Ton Collected
17. Depreciation Cost per Ton Collected
18. Total Cost per Ton Collected #
manhours/ton
machine hours/ton
$/ton
$/ton
$/ton
$/ton
$/ton
L?.:
-------
Form 6
FACILITY REPORT - DISPOSAL
DATE:
SITE
DESCRIPTION
Original Land
I
M
P
R
0
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
F
A
C
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
Roads
Lights
Fences
Surveys
Dther
Scales
Sarages
Juil dings
)ther
TOTALS
SIZE
or
AMOUNT
X
DATE
of
ACQ.
X
COST
X
EST.
TOTAL
LIFE
X
OTHER
COMMENTS
i
X
T
H
1
:- (hor use by acctg. dept. onlyj
ANNUAL
DEPRECIATION
MONTHLY \
DEPRECIATION :
i
1
i
i
i
i
j
1
-------
Form 6
FACILITY REPORT - COLLECTION
SITE:
DATE:
, .
DESCRIPTION
Original Land
I
M
R
0
V
E
M
K F
00 N
T
S
F
A
C
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
[loads
Lights
Fences
Surveys
Other
Scales
Garages
buildings
Dther
TOTALS
SIZE
or
AMOUNT
X
DATE
of
ACQ.
X
COST
X
EST. 1 OTHER
TOTAL COMMENTS
LIFE |
'
1
x 1 x
/i- i
' (.For use
jy acctg. dept. only)
ANNUAL
DEPRECIATION
I
MONTHLY
DEPRECIATION
-------
Form 7
SITE:
EQUIPMENT REPORT - COLLECTION
DATE:
.
MFG.
NAME
TOTAL
MODEL
NO.
i
X
:
MODEL
YEAR
X
TYPE
X
DATE
of
PURCH.
X
COST
EST.
LIFE
X
f~
% TIME
USED BY
OTHER DEPT.
x
uor us
1
ANNUAL
DEPRECIATION
_ 1
1
3 oy acctg. dept.
MONTHLY
DEPRECIATION
..
i
;
i
only}
-------
Form 7
EQUIPMENT REPORT - DISPOSAL
SITE:
DATE:
MFG.
NAME
p
TOTAL
MODEL
NO.
X
MODEL
YEAR
X
TYPE
X
DATE
of
PURfH.
X
COST
EST.
LIFE
X
%TIME
USED BY
HTHF.R DFPT
X
(for use
by acctg. dept. only)
ANNUAL
DEPRECIATION
MONTHLY
DEPRECIATION
-------
DAILY REFUSE SUMMARY
Month:
1 .Y
*
3
4
5
6
7
i
^
10
11
12
13 "
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
TOTALS
TOTAL KT.
(TonBasis)
Rural Refuse
Loads
Lbs.
Gate Refuse
Loads
Lbs.
'
City Refuse
Loads
- -
Lbs.
Other
Residential
Loads
Lbs.
.
1
Commercial
Loads
Lbr.
Indus' 1
I.^r !
.
al
Lbs
L_
131
-------
APPENDIX C
Specificiations for Stationary
and
Mobile Containers
132
-------
LEE COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROJECT
Specifications for Stationary Containers
Forty-three (43) low top and end loading six cubic yard stationary
containers to be used with specified front loading unit. Maximum
height of 60". The container will have 12 gauge walls, 10 gauge bottom
and 16 gauge split top lids. The pick-up lids will be provided with
adequate hinges and springs. End doors will have minimum dimensions
of 27-7/8" high by 30 wide. The containers will be equipped with a drain
plug flush to the bottom. All container will be steam-cleaned prior to
painting, all welds wil] be chipped and wire-brushed. Containers will be
painted with at least two heavy coats of air dry paint or equivalent.
Color to be selected by owner.
Supplier shall specify delivery date for equipment.
The failure of the County to specifically ask for items that are
considered to be of the manufacturer's standard design will not relieve
the Manufacturer of the responsibility of furnishing these items. The
design furnished shall be of the latest as furnished by the bidder under
similar contracts.
133
-------
LEE COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROJECT
Specifications for Train Type Containers
Sixtyvone (61) train type containers, each with capacity not less than
five cubic yards. Containers shall be constructed of hot rolled steel
sheets. Side walls to be a minimum of 12 gauge and bottom to be of 10
gauge minimum thickness American made steel. Container shall be equipped
with adequately braced alcoves for a two point side pickup. All seams shall
be continuously welded and container shall be water-tight.
Loading height of the container above ground level shall not exceed 56.5
inches. Axle clearance shall be a minimum of 8 inches.
Each container shall be equipped with a 2" ball type trailer hitch in front
and a 2" diameter ball in rear. Hitches shall be of the slip coupling type
as manufactured by the Hammerblow Company.
Tires shall be 900 x 14 Flotation type. Axle shall be a minimum of 2"
square drop forged design, Track shall be 72", and axle shall be rated at
a minimum of 3000 pounds. One wheel locking nut per wheel (Keyed alike) shall
be furnished.
A full width grip strut riding step shall be provided across the forward bot-
tom of the container. Step should pass over the tongue to act as additional
reinforcing of the tongue. Grab handles shall be provided for the ridder.
A solid metal hinged lid with two flip type lids on each end (total 4)
shal] be provided for each container.
Containers shall be chipped free of all slag and weld splatters and finished
with two coats of high quality industrial enamel, color to,be selected by
Owner.
The container shalj. be equipped with a 1" drain plug flush to the-bottom.
The container shall be equipped with two reflector type lights on the rear.
Turn signals, brake, tail lights £ tag bracket complete with connection to the
pickup wiring shall be provided; also, connection to the rear of the con-
tainers so that more than one can be hooked in tandem.
Anchor Post § lock (Keyed alike) for each shall be provided. - See detail.
Supplier shall specify delivery date for equipment.
The failure of the County to specifically ask for items that are considered to
be of the manufacturer's standard design will not relieve the manufacturer of
the responsibility of furnishing these items. The design furnished shall be
of the latest as furnished by the bidder under similar contracts.
134
------- |