SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
AT INDIAN COMMUNITIES
A Division of Technical Operations
Open-File Report (TO 1.1.395/0)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Solid Waste Management Office
-------
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
AT INDIAN COMMUNITIES
A Division pf Technical Operations
Open-File Report (TO 1.1,395/0)
written by
TRUETT V. DEGEARE, JR., Sanitary Engineer
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Solid Waete Management Office
1971
0239.2
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Summary 1
Recommendations 2
I. Introduction 3
II. Observations of Study Areas 5
III. Survey Procedures 9
IV. Results and Conclusions 12
V. System Alternatives f 18
VI. Demonstration Project 23
VII. Appendix
Exhibit A - Area I
Exhibit B -*. Area II
Exhibit C - Area III
Exhibit D - Area IV
Exhibit E - Colville Indian Reservation
Exhibit F - Location of Bulk Containers and Sanitary Landfill,
Plan A
Exhibit G - Location of Sanitary Landfills, Plan B
iii
-------
SUMMARY
At the request of the Indian Health Service, U.S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, solid waste management practices at selected
Indian communities were studied. Unacceptable practices were found to
prevail in all cases. Extensive littering of both residential and
roadside areas was evident. Solid waste is commonly stored and burned
at residences in uncovered 55-gallon drums. Open burning dumps are
used for disposal of solid waste and residue from burning. Collection
services and acceptable disposal facilities are not generally available.
To obtain data on solid waste generation characteristics, surveys
were conducted at Zuni, New Mexico; Lac du Flambeau, Wisconsin; and
Colville, Washington. Weights and volumes of solid waste collected
from residences were determined. Samples were separated categorically
to determine the composition of the waste. These surveys indicated that
for design purposes, a daily per capita generation rate of 1.4 Ibs and
an as-stored density of 160 Ib/c.y. should be assumed,
Acceptable solid waste management practices should be used in Indian
communities. Solid waste can be stored in a sanitary manner in disposable
plastic bags. Storage in plastic bags may allow the use of simplified
collection methods. The sanitary landfill method of disposal is the
most appropriate for Indian communities.
Using data obtained from the surveys, a solid waste management
system was proposed for implementation at Colville Reservation as a
demonstration project. The project could demonstrate the feasibility of
operating reservation-wide collection systems for small communities and
rural areas.
-1-
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. In design of solid waste management systems for Indian communities
an as-stored density of 160 Ib/c.y. should be used. For design of
systems where Zuni-type practices are expected to continue, a generation
rate of 0.8 Ib/capita/day should be used; however, all effort should be
made to upgrade such practices. Where such efforts are expected to be
successful, and for all other communities, a rate of 1.4 Ib/capita/day
would apply.
2. Open burning should be effectively prohibited at all Indian communities
both at disposal sites and at residences.
3. The sanitary landfill method of disposal should be provided for all
Indian communities. All open dumps should be closed.
4. Feeding of food waste to animals should be prohibited.
5. All Indian communities should be provided with once weekly or more
frequent collection of solid waste.
6. The proposed demonstration project (section VI of this report)
involving Plan B should be implemented.
7. Where the initial cost, about $7500/vehicle, is not prohibitive,
small compactor vehicles of about 10 c.y. capacity should be used for
door-to-door collection. Plastic liners must be used regularly so that
pick-up trucks could be used in case of compactor failure.
8. Where the advantages of compaction are not required, pick-up trucks
equipped with sideboards should be used for door-to-door collection. All
solid waste to be collected must be stored in plastic liners.
9. Private enterprise in the area of solid waste management should be
encouraged in Indian communities.
-2-
-------
I. Introduction
In May, 1970, the Special Projects Branch of the Indian Health
Service, HSMHA, requested the Division of Technical Operations,
Solid Wastes Office, to provide technical assistance in examining
the problem of solid waste management in Indian communities. In
requesting this assistance, it was considered that characteristics
of solid waste generated at Indian communities might differ sufficent-
ly from those of non-Indian communities to require other than the
usual storage, collection, or disposal methods. It was also recognized
that the ability of Indian communities to purchase, operate, and main-
tain collection and disposal equipment would be less than that of
typical non-Indian communities.
Specific assistance was requested in evaluating the quantity and
composition of solid waste generated by Indian communities and rural
homes on Indian reservations and in selecting types of equipment for
solid waste collection and sanitary landfill operation. Also to be
considered were any special design factors which should be applied
in the design and operation of sanitary landfills for Indian communities,
The Indian Health Service requested that, on the basis of infor-
mation obtained in our study of solid waste management in Indian
communities, a project be tentatively designed to demonstrate the
practicality of operating a reservation-wide collection and disposal
system. The demonstration could possibly be financed by the Indian
Health Service as funds become available, and could later be presented
to the Indian community for continued operation.
-3-
-------
In this study solid waste management practices were observed at
six Indian communities: Adair County, Oklahoma; Zuni Reservation, New
Mexico; Lac du Flambeau Reservation, Wisconsin; Pine Ridge Reservation,
South Dakota; Salt River Reservation, Arizona; and Colville Reservation,
Washington. Subsequently, surveys were conducted at the Zuni, Lac du
Flambeau, and Colville Reservations to obtain data on the quantities
and compositions of solid waste produced. Selection of these com-
munities was based on recommendations of the Indian Health Service
Area Offices.
This document reports the results of our observations and surveys
and includes recommended methods of providing adequate solid waste
storage, collection, and disposal for Indian communities. Of prime
consideration in forming the recommendations were maintenance of low
capital and operating costs, and simplification of operation. Also
presented herein is a discussion and associated cost analysis of
example solid waste management systems which could be applied to
Indian communities.
-------
II. Observations of Study Areas
A. Zuni Reservation, New Mexico
The population of about 5000 persons is concentrated in the Zuni
Pueblo and nearby Blackrock. Most of the housing appeared to be sub-
standard, although several new and improved dwelling units were observed.
Extended-family adobe dwelling units house a large portion of the populace.
The reservation appeared to be economically depressed.
Solid waste management practices at Zuni are unacceptable. Open
drums of 55-gallon capacity are used almost exclusively for storage
and burning of solid waste at all residences. Solid waste and residue
from burning is taken by the residents to one of two open burning dumps
on the Reservation. Some food waste does not enter the waste stream,
but is fed uncooked to swine kept in the Pueblo. No solid waste col-
lection service is available to the residents.
Sheep were feeding at one open burning dump, and children were
observed playing at the other. In addition to these two large dumps,
smaller roadside dumps were observed.
Roadside littering is prominent throughout the Reservation, as is
littering of the Zuni River. Quantities of solid waste were observed
lying in the stream bed and along the banks of the Zuni River which
flows through the Pueblo and is used for recreation.
B. Lac du Flambeau Reservation, Wisconsin
The population center of this reservation is the Town of Lac du
Flambeau. The basic population of about 900 varies considerably due
to tourism. Most of the dwellings observed appeared to be in relatively
good condition. The economic depression observed at Zuni was not
apparent here.
-5-
-------
Most residences have one or more solid waste containers; generally
20 to 30-gallon conventional galvanized cans. Back-yard burning is
not extensive; the residents commonly take their solid waste to either
of two nearby open burning dumps. Litter was not observed to be a
severe problem at this reservation.
A private collection service is available at a monthly cost of
about $3 per container; however, most residents do not subscribe to it.
The collector is equipped with a 10 cubic yard capacity compactor
vehicle and disposes of waste at an open burning dump on the Reservation.
C. Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota
The 10,000 Indians and 3500 non-Indians on this Reservation live
primarily in small towns and groups of houses dispersed over a large
area. The most densely populated portion of the Reservation is the
Town of Pine Ridge, with a population of about 1500. The conditions
of the dwelling units observed varied considerably, both in the towns
and in the rural areas.
Burning of solid waste is prominent throughout the Reservation,
both at residences and at open burning dumps. A large open burning
dump is maintained near the Town of Pine Ridge. Scavengers were
observed at this dump.
The only collection service available on the reservation is the
once-weekly collection provided by the Pine Ridge Utilities Commission
(twice weekly for BIA and PHS facilities) for the Town of Pine Ridge,
which represents only about one tenth of the Reservation population.
The collected solid waste is disposed of at the large open burning
dump located near the town.
-6-
-------
D. Salt River Reservation, Arizona
This Reservation, populated by about 2000 Indians, is neither sparsely
populated as Pine Ridge Reservation nor as densely populated as Zuni.
Many small, sub-standard dwellings were observed, most of which had large
quantities of solid waste strewn around them. Open 55-gallon drums are
commonly used for storage and burning of solid waste.
Irrigation ditches were observed along several roads on the Reser-
vation. These ditches are commonly used by children for recreation and
were found to be strewn with litter, especially with cans and broken
glass bottles. Extensive roadside littering was evident.
The Tribe operates a sanitary landfill on Tribal land which receives
solid waste from neighboring cities. The operator of the sanitary land-
fill estimated (by truck count) that each day 2000 cubic yards of solid
waste is received from the cities of Mesa and Scottsdale, and 1000 cubic
yards is received from private haulers and individuals. A Caterpillar
D-8 bulldozer is used to spread, compact, and cover the waste. This
site should last for at least 15 years more. The sanitary landfill is
in close proximity to most residents of the Reservation and is available
to them. However, no collection service is available on the Reservation.
Several large, burning, uncontrolled dumps were observed on the
Reservation.
E. Adair County, Oklahoma
The area of concern in Adair County is the predominantly Indian
community in the south-central portion which can best be defined as
comprising the Tribal Water District. The Indian population is re-
portedly about 1000. Many of the dwellings observed were sub-standard.
—7—
-------
Apparently, most families live in individual, as opposed to extended-
family, dwelling units.
Solid waste collection services are not avilable to the residents.
Open 55-gallon drums and other containers are used to store and burn
solid waste at the dwellings. There are no condoned disposal areas;
solid waste and residue from burning are merely dumped at the many
promiscuous burning dumps which scatter the area.
F. Colville Reservation, Washington
The estimated population of this Reservation is 2300. Several
deeded communities exist within the confines of the Reservation boundaries.
In addition, there are several unincorporated communities and a government
compound on the reservation. The remaining residents live in single
family homes in loosely organized, dispersed rural communities. There
are four or five of these rural areas with as much as one or two miles
between homes. Most of the reservation is an uninhabited terrain used
for mining, timber or recreational purposes.
Residential burning of solid waste is not common; solid waste is
stored in standard galvanized containers. Residents take their waste
to any of the more than 17 open burning 'dumps on the Reservation. Once-
weekly door-to-door collection service is available in some of the
deeded towns and at the government compounds.
-8-
-------
Ill Survey Procedures
Detailed surveys were conducted at three reservations in order
to obtain data indicative of the quantities and compositions of solid
waste generated by Indian communities. It was anticipated that such
data could be used to design solid waste management systems applicable
to Indian communities. In conducting these surveys it was also
anticipated that the methodology and value of the surveys could be
evaluated. Thus, the desirability of conducting similar surveys at
other reservations could be demonstrated.
The reservations selected for survey were Zuni, Lac du Flambeau,
and Colville. The Zuni and Colville surveys were conducted by the
respective Tribal Councils under contract to the Division of Technical
Operations. The survey of Lac du Flambeau was conducted entirely by
personnel of the Division of Technical Operations.
At each reservation, Indian Health Service personnel enlisted
the cooperation of residents to allow the monitoring of their solid
waste during the survey periods (Table 1). Indian Health Service
personnel also provided data on the number of occupants of each partici-
pating residence.
In order to simplify the collection and weighing of the waste,
all participating residents were issued disposable, 32 gallon capacity,
plastic liners in which to store their solid waste. Participants at
Zuni did not have containers for use with the liners, and so were
provided with 20 gallon capacity galvanized containers.
Collection routes were established, and solid waste was collected
from all participating residences each week-day of the study periods
at Zuni and Lac du Flambeau. Collections were made on alternate week
-------
days at Colville. Collectors went from door to door labeling and
collecting all waste in the plastic liners for weighing. Solid waste
volumes were approximated. This was accomplished by first determining
the dimensions of all solid waste containers. Then, each time a
container was collected, the depth of the solid waste as stored was
measured from the top of the container. These measurements were then
correlated with the dimensions of the respective containers to determine
the volume of solid waste as stored. Each liner was secured, labeled
to identify its source, and weighed on portable scales. All data were
referenced to the house numbers or names of the occupants of the partici-
pating residences. Thus, all values reported herein as "generation
rates" are based on solid waste made available for collection and
weighing.
Following weighing, the waste from selected bags of solid waste
was separated into nine categories: garden; paper; plastic, rubber,
and leather; textile; wood; metal; glass and ceramic; ash, dirt, and
rock; and food.
-10-
-------
TABLE 1
Reservation Study Month Sample No. Lbs.
Period, (1970) Population Dwellings Separated
Days
luni 11 August 536 54 1992
:olville 7 October 265 52 637
.ac du Flambeau 10 September 286 54 4267
Total 28 1087 160 6896
-11-
-------
IV Results and Conclusions
Waste Generation
A total of 9,701 pounds of solid waste was collected during the
three surveys. Average daily waste generation rates for Zuni, Colville,
and Lac du Flambeau were 0.5, 1.2, and 1.5 Ib per person, respectively.
Average daily volume generation rates were 0.6, 1.3, and 2.1 gal per
person, respectively. The densities found in the surveys ranged from
1AO to 180, averaging 160 Ib per cubic yard (Table 2 ).
Consideration must be given to the fact that, in conducting the
surveys, collection services were provided which did not normally exist
at any of the three reservations. Thus, it is believed that abnormally
large quantities of some waste components were collected during the
survey periods. This factor would influence both the generation and
composition data obtained in the surveys.
Statistical analysis of the weight data at the 95 percent confidence
level confirmed that the value obtained at Zuni (0.5) was significantly
different from those obtained at Colville (1.2) and Lac du Flambeau
(1.5). Values from the latter two reservations were not significantly
different. The data thus indicates that two types of waste generation
practices were studied: Zuni and Colville-Flambeau. This conclusion
is consistent with the observations previously reported herein.
Practices at Zuni were observed to be different from Colville and Lac
du Flambeau with respect to on-site burning of solid waste and feeding
of food waste to animals.
-12-
-------
TABLE 2
Densities and Generation Rates
Daily Per Capita
Density
Zuni
Colville
Lac du Flambeau
Ib/gal
0.8
0.9
0.7
Ib/c.y.
160
180
140
Generation Rate
Ib
0.5
1.2
1.5
gal
0.6
1.3
2.1
National Average 0.8 160 2.3 2.9
-13-
-------
Lack of precision in the volume approximations precluded statistical
analysis of their variance. However, use of this data in density calcu-
lations did yield realistic results. Thus, the volume generation rates
of Table 2 may be considered in systems design.
Also presented in Table 2 are values based on the national average
household solid waste generation rate of 2.3 Ib/capita/day. This value
was determined from the 1968 National Survey of Community Solid Waste
Practices conducted by The Solid Wastes Office*. The national average
volume generation rate reported is based on a density of 160 Ib/c.y.
found in other studies.
Wa s t e C omp o sit ion
The results of the separation studies are presented in Table 3 along
with similar data obtained from several non-Indian Communities. The
total quantity of waste separated in the three Indian community surveys
was 6,896 Ibs (Table 1). Data from non-Indian communities indicate that
waste composition may be expected to vary among locations and seasons of
the year. This variation was also evident among the three reservations
surveyed. In most categories, however, the wastes separated at Colville
and Lac du Flambeau resembled each other more closely than either
resembled the waste from Zuni, especially in the category of food waste.
Conclusions
After critical review of the survey methods and results and com-
parison to non-Indian surveys, it is concluded that the data obtained
is adequate for the design of solid waste management systems.
*Formerly Bureau of Solid Waste Management
-14-
-------
The surveys probably were conducted under abnormal conditions
since, in order to obtain the required data, it was necessary to
significantly alter the normal solid waste practices of the partici-
pating individuals. Also, the survey durations were such that no
information on seasonal variation was obtained. In order to precisely
define the solid waste generation characteristics of any community, it
would be necessary to conduct more extravagant and lengthy surveys
over the various seasons of the year. However, it is believed that
more lengthy surveys are not really necessary for system design.
Primary consideration must be given to the effect which further,
more precise, definition of solid waste generation characteristics
would have on the design of solid waste management systems. The
normal day-to-day fluctuations in solid waste composition, and
especially in generation rates, demand a flexible collection and
disposal system. Variation of waste composition with time or location
is of minor importance as it would not significantly affect solid waste
management systems appropriate to Indian communities. Variation of
waste generation rates with time or location is more important; however,
most solid waste management systems are flexible and are capable of
absorbing reasonable variations. Therefore, the solid waste generation
rates determined in these surveys are considered adequate for the
design of solid waste management systems at Indian communities.
Where existing practices such as were found at Zuni, i.e., extensive
on-site burning and feeding to animals, are expected to continue, a
daily generation rate of 0.8 Ib/capita should be used for design. For
other Indian communities, the design value of 1.4 Ib/capita/day should
-15-
-------
TABLE 3
COMPOSITION DATA
Percent (wet weight basis)
Waste Component
/
Garden
Paper
Plastic, Rubber, Leather
Textile
Wood
Metal
Glass, Ceramic
Ash, Rock, Dirt
Food
8/70
Zuni
1.0
24.7
8.4
3.3
2.1
18.8
23.4
9.1
9.4
Indian
10/70
Colville
6.5
20.0
6.8
5.6
0.6
17.4
16.4
2.1
24.7
9/70
Lac du
Flambeau
0.5
33.1
3.5
6.0
0.5
15.7
14.0
1.9
25.0
8/70
Blackrock,
N. M.
0
38.9
7.4
2.4
0.9
16.9
16.4
1.5
15.5
Non- Indian
10/67
Johnson City
Tenn.
1.6
45.0
2.7
1.4
0.4
10.9
11.0
1.0
26.1
10/66
Cincinnati
Ohio
6.4
42.0
1.6
1.4
2.7
8.7
7.5
1.7
28.0
6/67
Flint
Mich.
26.7
13.0
1.9
0.3
1.0
14.5
12.7
0.8
29.1
1/68
Flint
Mich.
0.3
21.1
2.6
0.8
0.8
14.5
23.2
0.7
36.0
-16-
-------
be used (average of Colville and Lac du Flambeau values). Extensive
efforts should be made to end such undesirable practices as were
observed at Zuni. Where these practices are ended, design should
be based on a daily generation rate of 1.4 Ib/capita. An as-stored
density of 160 lb/c.y., the average from all three surveys, should
be used at all locations.
-17-
-------
V System Alternatives
There are many components available for solid waste management
systems of various costs and degrees of complexity. It is the purpose
of this section to point out some of the components which appear most
appropriate for Indian communities observed in this study.
Storage and Collection
A storage and collection system applicable to rural areas is the
bulk container system (Plan A of Section VI). In this system bulk
containers of at least 3 cubic yard capacity are selectively located
throughout the area to be served. Container sizes and locations are
selected on the basis of expected generation rates and public convenience.
It is then the responsibility of the residents being served to transport
their waste to the nearest bulk container. In most cases, solid waste
is stored at the residences for about a week in standard (20-32 gal.
capacity) galvanized containers at the residences. The residents then
make the weekly trip to the bulk containers at their convenience.
Compactor vehicles equipped with hoists (fork loaders) for emptying
the bulk containers collect the waste and haul it to the disposal site.
This system can be designed for weekly or more frequent collection by
the compactor vehicles.
The bulk container system has several disadvantages: Two storage
containers are employed, the home storage can and the bulk container,
both of which must be maintained clean and intact. Also, double handling
is required; (1) the residents hauling to and depositing into bulk
containers, and (2) the collectors picking up the waste from the bulk
-18-
-------
containers and hauling it to the disposal site. All-weather pull-off
areas must be provided at the container stations to allow access to
the containers for residents who must deposit their waste and for the
collection vehicle which must empty the containers. Another possible
disadvantage is the sophisticated nature of the collection vehicle which
employs relatively complex hydraulic loading and compacting mechanisms.
One of the most essential factors in the successful application of
this system is the cooperation of the public served. It is the re-
sponsibility of each resident to transport his waste to the bulk con-
tainers. Thus, unless cooperation is assured and the residents are
willing and able to haul to the containers, the system will fail.
The capital investment in such a system is of considerable magnitude.
Bulk containers of 3 cubic yard capacity cost about $225 each and have a
reported life of 8 to 10 years. Small (20 cubic yard capacity) compactor
vehicles equipped with hoists cost about $25,000 and may be expected to
last about 5 years. In order to prevent system failure due to breakdown
of the compactor vehicle, it is essential to provide a back-up vehicle
either through a loan or rental agreement with some nearby agency equipped
with similar vehicles or by purchase of a second vehicle. A hidden cost
item to be considered in such a system is the hauling of waste to the
containers by the residents.
A system which provides additional service with less likelihood of
failure employs pickup trucks with sideboards as collection vehicles.
This system requires the use of disposable plastic liners for storing
the solid waste (Plan B of Section VI).1'2 Residents store solid waste
in standard covered containers lined with disposable plastic bags.
-19-
-------
When a bag is filled, the resident simply secures the top of the bag,
removes it from the galvanized container, and places an empty.liner in
the container. The filled bags are stored until collected.
Use of plastic liners keeps galvanized containers cleaner, prolongs
their lives, and reduces the need for frequent cleaning. The liners
provide a flexible storage capacity in that only as many liners as are
necessary are used. The required number of permanent containers is
reduced, minimizing their initial cost and upkeep. Liners also reduce
littering, keep the collection vehicle cleaner, and allow prolonged
storage in emergency situations. Liners can be purchased for as little
as $0.04 each. In purchasing liners, caution must be exercised to
assure high quality and satisfactory performance. Liners having a wall
3
thickness of less than 1.5 mils should not be used.
As all solid waste to be collected is contained in disposable
plastic bags, and since compaction is not an essential factor in the
system, it is not necessary to use expensive close-bodied compactor
vehicles for collection. Thus, pick-up trucks equipped with sideboards
can be used for door-to-door collection of bagged solid waste. Trucks
of this type can be purchased for about $3500. Also, they are a common
item in most areas and would be readily available to serve as back-up
vehicles.
Where long hauls are necessary and funds are available, small com-
pactor bodies mounted on 1 or 1 1/2 ton truck chassis can be used for
collection. These compactor vehicles of 10-13 cubic yard capacity,
mounted on suitable light truck chassis are available at a cost of
$7000-$8000 and reportedly compact to a density of about 350 Ib/c.y.
-20-
-------
Where these compactors are used, all solid waste to be collected should
be contained in plastic liners. Pick-up trucks could also serve as
back-up vehicles.
In section VI of this report is a cost analysis comparing the bulk
container system with the pick-up system. This analysis is based on the
Colville Reservation and can serve as an example for costing collection
systems in other areas. All collection system designs should provide for
a collection frequency of at least once per week.
Disposal
The sanitary landfill method of disposal is the only practical
method suited for Indian communities, because it can be adapted to
4 5
serve small populations relatively inexpensively. ' Where funds are
available and large quantities of waste are to be disposed of, the methods
and equipment for sanitary landfill as described in "Sanitary Landfill
Facts," should be used. However, in the case of small and dispersed
populations such as were observed in the six Indian communities studied,
the sanitary landfill method may be altered to satisfy the needs of the
people to be served at a more reasonable per capita cost, provided that
protection of the environment is not compromised in the process.
In all areas visited, Tribal lands were found to be available which
would have no higher use than agriculture. Such land could be used for
sanitary landfill and later returned to its original use without undue
concern for attaining great compaction of the waste being disposed.
Thus, heavy equipment capable of achieving high landfill densities is
not needed, and smaller equipment may be employed. Trenching, stockpiling
-21-
-------
of cover material, and other excavation work requiring heavy equipment
could be done on a contract basis or heavy equipment borrowed for this
occasional use.
For normal daily operation, where small quantities of waste need be
only spread and covered with soil, small machines such as farm tractors
equipped with front end loaders could be used. It would be necessary
for the operator to exercise caution to prevent damage to the tractor
tires. The tractor should be driven on a blanket of soil, rather than
directly on the solid waste when spreading and covering the waste.
Since the tractor would be unable to achieve a high degree of cover
material compaction, the use of a 12 inch depth of daily cover is recom-
mended instead of the 6 inch depth normally used where greater compaction
is obtained.
In most small operations it is not economically feasible to provide
for spreading and compacting of solid waste each day, because it is
likely that only small quantities of waste would be received at the
site each day. In order to minimize operational costs and still provide
sanitary disposal of solid waste, small sanitary landfills need not be
open every day, but should be accessible to the public only during
limited but regular hours.
Where a collection service is provided, the sanitary landfill should
be open to the public on collection days. At the end of the day, the
operator can spread and cover the waste received from the public and
from the collection vehicles. Limiting the hours of disposal site
accessibility would require that the hours be well posted and the public
well informed, especially where all residents are not served by collection
systems.
-------
VI DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
Two alternate solid waste management systems were proposed for
possible application at a selected reservation in order to demonstrate
the practicality of operating a reservation-wide collection and disposal
system. These systems and their associated costs are discussed below.
The initial operation of this demonstration could be funded by the
Indian Health Service and continued operation funded by the Indian
community served. It is suggested that the demonstration be conducted
at the Colville Reservation because successful operation of such a system
on this relatively large reservation made up of small communities and
dispersed rural housing should indicate the liklihood of success in
areas of more concentrated population as well as in rural areas. Also,
the demonstration at Colville could serve to eliminate as many as 17
open burning dumps.
At Colville, as in any area, a strong public education effort is
essential in obtaining public acceptance and utilization of the system
to be initiated. An additional factor considered in selecting Colville
for the demonstration was the interest on the part of this Indian com-
munity to upgrade their solid waste management system. However, the
community would have to be informed of their responsibilities in the
new system. All open dumps should be closed as soon as possible after
initiation of the new system. This action would make presently used
dumps unavailable to the public and should effect more extensive acceptance
and use of the new system.
It is recommended that collection service be provided to the four
main population regions of the Reservation:
-23-
-------
I. Okanogan Valley-Kartar-Disuated Region
II. Nespelem-Coulee Dam Rural Area
III. Keller-Helgate Westfork Area
IV. Inchelium Rural Area
These regions are indicated in Exhibits A-D, and their relative
locations are shown in Exhibit E. Nespelem now has a weekly collection
service and, therefore, was only considered as contributing solid waste
for disposal.
Tabulated below are the number of dwellings, populations, and
estimated waste quantities for each region considered. A solid waste
generation rate of 1.2 Ib/capita/day and density (as stored) of 180 lb/
cubic yard (values obtained through survey of this specific Reservation)
were assumed.
Dwelling Estimated solid waste
Region
I
II
III
IV
Total
Units**
83
148
38
158
427
Population*
349
621
160
677
1807
tons/wk
1.5
2.6
0.7
2.8
7.6
cubic yards /wk
16.3
30.0
7.5
31.6
85.4
*Based on 4.2 people/dwelling from 2500 survey
**Dwelling units were taken from maps furnished by IHS
-24-
-------
The sanitary landfill method of solid waste disposal is considered
to be the best method available for use on this and all other reserva-
tions studied. Thus, the most basic differences in the two alternatives
are the degree of service provided and the method of collection.
Land values have not been included as cost items in the analyses
which follow, as it is assumed that tribal land would be available, and
the land value would be the same after completion of the operation as
before its inception.
Plan A
Plan A is a bulk container system wherein 37 three cubic yard
capacity containers would be distributed in the main population areas
of the reservation as shown in Exhibit F. Residents would be responsible
for storing solid waste at their dwellings and for transporting their
waste to the bulk containers. A front-loading compactor vehicle would
collect the deposited waste from all containers once each week and
transport it to a single sanitary landfill. The sanitary landfill would
be centrally located as indicated in Exhibit F.
The compactor vehicle should be able to collect from all bulk con-
tainers in any one of the four population regions and transport the
collected waste to the sanitary landfill in one day. A single collection
vehicle could therefore service all bulk containers in one week's time.
In order to provide the required back-up capability in case of
mechanical failure, it would be necessary to purchase two such vehicles.
A track-type front-end loader would be used at the sanitary landfill
to spread, compact and cover the solid waste. The loader would be
-25-
-------
required for these duties for about two hours each day following com-
pletion of the collection routes. When not in use the loader would
remain at the site, but would be available for off-site duties in
emergencies.
This system would require a capital investment of about $80,000
(Table A). Sixty percent of this expenditure would be for two col-
lection vehicles, each of which would have an expected useful life of
5 years. The vehicles could be used alternately, maintaining one in
a "ready" condition to serve as a back-up for the vehicle in use, for
a combined useful life of 10 years. An additional essential expenditure
would be the construction of an equipment shelter at the sanitary land-
fill. The shelter would be used for maintenance and repair, as well
as for storage.
The system should have a design life of 10 years. The annual
operating cost would be about $18,000. A ten-year sinking fund with
annual contributions of $8,000 would allow replacement of all system
components at the end of the 10-year life. This contribution, added
to the expected operating cost, yields an annual cost of about $26,000;
$66.20/ton at 395 tons/year, or $14.50/capita for 1,807 persons.
Plan B
This is a simple plan for door-to-door collection from the four
regions considered, with disposal at two sanitary landfills. Residents
would be issued plastic liners for solid waste storage. All solid waste
contained in secured liners would be collected each week. Two one-ton
pick-up trucks with sideboards would be used as collection vehicles.
These vehicles would transport the collected solid waste to two sanitary
landfills located as indicated in Exhibit G.
-26-
-------
TABLE 4
COST DETAILS—PLAN A
ITEM Dollars per year**
apital Expenditures $79,450 7,945
Collection 5,945
2 trucks @ $25,000: 50,000 5,000
*42—3 c.y. containers @ $225: 9,450 945
Disposal 2,000
Track loader: 18,000 1,800
Shelter at disposal site: 2,000 200
Derating Expenditures 18,220
Collection 14,100
Labor, 8 tnan-hr/day @ $2.50/hr. : 5,000
Truck 0 & M, 350 miles/wk @ $.50/mile: 9,100
Disposal 4X120_
Labor, 3 man-hr/day @ $4.00/hr: 3,120
Loader 0 & M, 2 hr/day @ $2.00/hr 1,000
otal ' 26,165
Includes 5 extra containers
?Based on ten-year system life
-2?-
-------
A schedule similar to the following would provide collection from
all four areas each week:
Day 1—Both trucks collect from Area IV; dispose at sanitary
landfill A.
Day 2—One truck finishes Area IV, other truck collects from
Area III; dispose at sanitary landfill A.
Day 3—Both trucks collect from Area II; dispose at sanitary
landfill A.
Day 4—One truck collects from Area I, other truck shuttles loader
on trailer to sanitary landfill B, then collects from Area
I; dispose at sanitary landfill B.
Day 5—Both trucks complete collection from Area I; dispose at
sanitary landfill B. Shuttle loader on trailer to sanitary
landfill A to be ready for use on next cycle.
As specialized vehicles are not used, and all solid waste to be
collected is contained in plastic liners, purchase of back-up vehicles
is not required. Should a truck be temporarily removed from service,
a substitute may be readily obtained through a rental or loan agreement.
The expected life of the collection vehicles would be 3-5 years.
Thus, at least two, and possibly three, fleets would be purchased in
a ten-year system life. The initial investment for purchase of two
such vehicles would be about $8,000. Purchase of a track-type front-
end loader, a trailer (to enable shuttling of the loader behind a
collection truck), and equipment shelters would require an additional
investment of $23,000; for a total of $31,000 required to initiate the
system (Table 5).
-28-
-------
TABLE 5
COST DETAILS — PLAN B
Item Dollars per year*
Capital Expenditures $31,000 4,300
Collection 2,000
2 Trucks @ $4,000: .8,000 2,000
Disposal 2?300
Track loader: 18,000 1,800
Trailer: 3,000 300
2 Shelters @ $1,000: 2,000 200
20,040
Operating Expenditures
Collection 19-040
Labor, 2 men @ $5500/yr: 11,000
Truck 0 & M, 1200 Truck-miles /wk
@ $.10 /mile: 6,240
Plastic liners, 2/residence/wk @ $.04/
liner: 1,800
*Based on ten-year system life
-29-
Disposal
Loader 0 & M, 2 hr/day @ $2.00/hr. 1,000
Total 24.340.
-------
The annual operating cost of this system would be about $20,000.
A ten-year sinking fund with annual contributions of $4300 would allow
for fleet replacement in years 5 and 9, and replacement of all other
system components at the end of their ten-year life. This contribution,
added to the expected operating cost, yields an annual cost of about
$24,000; $6.60/ton at 395 tons/year, or $13.50/capita for 1,807 persons.
Further details on these costs follow.
The annual costs of both systems are higher than those generally
found in systems used in other communities because a small and dispersed
population, as opposed to a more concentrated "community", is to be
served. However, implementation of Plan B at Colville Reservation as
a demonstration project is recommended. Plan B is preferred to Plan A
for the following reasons:
1. Plan B is more flexible and could have more widespread appli-
cation at other reservations.
2. The investment required to initiate Plan B is only about 40%
of that required to initiate Plan A.
3. The annual cost of Plan B is less than that of Plan A.
4. At a lower cost, Plan B provides additional employment.
5. Plan B is more likely to succeed, as less sophisticated equip-
ment is employed and less responsibility lies with the residents
6. Plan B provides more service than does Plan A and therefore
should be more readily accepted by the residents.
7. Should the demonstration fail, the Indian Health Service
investment in Plan B could be more easily recouped than that
in Plan A.
-30-
-------
REFERENCES
1. "Equip Tips," Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Equipment Development Center.
2. McElwee, W.C., and M.J. Wilcomb. Some effects of disposable
plastic liners on refuse handling efficiency. Journal of Environmental
, vol. 30, No. 5, March/April, 1968.
3. "Proposed National Sanitation Foundation Criteria for Polyethylene
Refuse Bags," National Sanitation Foundation, Ann Arbor, Michigan,
1969.
4. Brunner, D.R., and D.J. Keller, Sanitary Landfill Design and Opera-
tion. Solid Wastes Office, Environmental Protection Agency, 1970.
5. Sorg, T.J. and H.L. Hickman, Jr., Sanitary Landfill Facts, 2d ed.
Public Health Service Publication No. 1792. Washington, U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1970.
-31-
-------
VII. Appendix
-------
EXHIBIT A - AREA I
j $- 7 ^R•HUR RE^ T
^.teQuasMB
;
Ul
I
-------
NEsPELEM - COULEE DAM" KU^ML ZXR-EA
,„.-,<; -rrM tN5PEW*
4 n'1 L 3f;?i?£
5"',v. .o^rojj
£G:L2?PT CLfPAPTY
^rpANOS T;VC"M-r>VA
c Ai_£ £ SAM
^ cW'-STiNr *;AM
jfiJCMW JA VC"S
ff PAY D. K'lS^ON
•?G'L«FPT DrSyAurfL
^IKf7 JACK
•jL<*HrsTr« f j. /^(^K
^v.4TV£w PAKOOTAS
*rV *^. r WIL( ,AVq
£•>*. M, ^A*' £LS
cr»/.i.vi»yt S'MPSCN
S^^SAV^L^— L.GUJ£
r;iF TPC-MAS
5?<^,'~V^"Y ^/-fCOOTAS
cf w. rnvfj^TOK'
J ^eW a.DALJMC" V^ST «
?^A^1C ATKIWS -a. JACK CLAPX
P^^L'DV hTTON JT-flVAT^rvs/ S,r^
?*'$A2etLE APC^SA l»jM^5Tif ffCYWOLO^
?/;^JA^CY JACK ^HJTN^V fffrwot cs
TTANNlf OWHI j75rf?AN'K L^-^r^T
2*JOSCPH'^£ wA*!CH<*wO JT/TvA MILI FP
£9u'TT/f A.RFO5TAR V^JFPOMr O'MLL
3cWip^'^rA £/• ^u£ L5
3/M^NKC C! TvfLANO
325ADl£ W, WiLl/^M5
331 AP^y rP f D/V
34^iJ2AfsfwA MORGAN/
^cp.-cr crvroA^
16 J-'-'f ^ SO^COAY
^?MAPY GUA
WAfcE D'CK
59yA7H.C^.' L/, f»/^PATO
JoC-;*f' /£ W/LL/AM5
^;CD C^-'cT
•f?f""~l5_£ ^^'^j ^^.
^3i£i\P£'/vCi: CCV-'VGTONJ
^lf?£NLDuCVN:r!v!
rf'CtVK- PlCA^D
^c/^T Ci^rtr
J7HARVrv VCSfS
7£:LCu'Sr iPCASA
77CKPi5TlNC PCASLCY
TfiT^ANlK KOCPf
yaCLA'JA MO oPf
PaGFC. NAN A MK i N
5| PCT£' W H i " E LAW
j=! KfD C CM t DOWN
= ? SOLQ^O NJ HI LL
84 JOHN SW ITH
wELCiN fit KINS
EXHIBIT B - AREA II
/
-------
FACILITIES
J\ Plan 1 Plon 2
GO Ai,ft H'""*-""1 *
(.^_4i,v_r-irn'-o-vi ~x
$) P»n KVCIjrq X
« *« *,hr.tn
W nvr.n W-i.liH.
(y ,1^-j Covimlcn
(3) VcdBl ftihjj
©, Nwmen Boil
QD Marv Sunmcrlin
^5 FM«<
-------
v[ 5 Relph Ri"kard - C_^/*Vv/tt t /i f -PJ a.
\ a A Mnr.ru .Ifcrrrd - /-/A-_-> /**< r i J^ tf c "T C-". *j
/ H<--|?_j ury Srnn
S -= : — — SEYLER VALLEY ROAD
1 1 TWl*J LAKES ROAD —
JF / P/ETOR ROAD = : —
5^" '/ MR~l vYn *«iC DOT* II
Xy ?
r 7 Tern White
t Q w™ Fry l/S £ S.Z2
"/ S'LV^R CREEK R^AD •• —
r s~" "N
fiC-i J Hermcin Bouf^sc'-1 - -
VL,-'
3 V/it^fw From 'ProjO^f
•7 \Yi'*h-f 'fv< rf osT) Pro ;ect
(\3 Ma-T"'ie± R>/
p^.j\-r p-rk?
17 Henry C^rmichoc!
jg Qj^j ^Qf PcrticippT?
cclTi-L- Bcrnodjne P.olm«r -
7 Clor«Mt_.L, HoMman. _ _
HC-IA Gcorae Lcvingion
\A Cc-elia Q";n'n'V"?
15 L»na S«W'«
16 Withdrew _From Proiect
17 Don RiiXpfiJ
IR House Vc3ccnt
i?J Minnie Rickard _ .
?O James Spyr^re
?l Mary . Michel
?? cd-cr r-~I>
^3 Hira _PL'-l['"d
24 Frark Soith
25 Ewntii _,Ch5f-£tto_^_i)j n j / .1 L. "^i-LC^
: — : — 2B Euipti C.r.niiii , .. -
HfT2? Francis X. Green
5^5:^ Mory Ma«h-nd
R WitMrew _F/rm P'Oj^c* '
7 John Herrnr
TL-IO _____Did-_NoLEnrtici,'intc ,
II Did Not FcrTiciPSte
IS ln»z Wn!c. r "...
ff.*. Kntio Snvi<»r
v_-
/6A i,,^ Mr r. n,j
18 Johanna Sinnsjar
ff$^ Vcrn Toulou
?r> Carol C"ffb°y
21 Marvfn Wy^scoop
TL-22 Don Finely- £*a : , i^.£.//t-i' , .
I
EXHIBIT D - AREA IY
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
------- |