problem-solving
in solid waste management
through
federal-local cooperation
case studies
-------
11801
problem-solving
in solid waste management
through
federal-local cooperation
case studies
This digest (SW-134)
summarizes the experiences of eight communities
receiving major technical assistance in solid waste collection
under a special Federal environmental protection program.
The publication was compiled by
BRUCE WEDDELL and MARTHA MADISON
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1974
-------
an environmental protection publication (SW-i 34)
in the solid waste management series
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
-------
FOREWORD
During the past three years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s solid waste
management program has conducted a major technical assistance (MTA) program to meet
the growing need for new approaches to solving solid waste management problems. The
objective of the technical assistanice program was to develop and field test a set of real-
world tools and techniques in response to community situations.
Although both collection and disposal problems were addressed, the major thrust was
in the area of increasing collection productivity. We selected this area first because collection
accounts for as much as 75 percent of many local solid waste budgets. Savings that could be
achieved in this area could then be applied to offsetting the increasing cost of environ-
mentally acceptable disposal.
The MTA program assisted several communities to greatly improve their solid waste
management systems while simultaneously it developed a number of problem-solving tools
and techniques. As can be seen from the following digest of summary reports, the tools
were designed for easy application by local communities, and provide a step-by-step pro-
cedure for improving local collection productivity.
These tools and techniques, used in most of the cities in the MTA program, have en-
abled communities to either reduce costs dramatically, or to increase the quality and reli-
ability of their collection systems while holding the line on previously soaring collection
costs.
A brief description of these tools and a collection of summary reports are presented in
this publication. Two of the reports illustrate the benefits of regional disposal, while the
remaining six address the issues surrounding collection productivity. All eight summaries
illustrate what can be achieved when forward-looking public officials and management per-
sonnel expend the time and energy necessary to overcome the reluctance to change that
exists in many communities today. We hope that these examples will encourage additional
cities to take the steps necessary to achieve similar results.
-ARSEN J. DARNAY
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste Management
111
-------
CONTENTS
TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES FOR IMPROVING SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
Five-Stage Improvement Process, I
COLMIS—A Computer Program, 2
Districting and Route Balancing, 4
Macro-Routing, 5
Heuristic or Micro-Routing, 5
RESULTS OF THE MAJOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Akron, Ohio, 6
• Akron changed from a separate garbage collection every nine days, and unregulated trash collection by
numerous private haulers, to combined, curbside collection once per week utilizing both private and
city work forces.
East Peoria, Iffinois, 1 2
• Through the purchase of new equipment and better routing, efficiency was increased resulting in reduc-
tions in manpower and overtime pay. Openbed trucks which had been used during equipment break-
downs are now used less often.
Hot Springs, Arkansas, 16
• A change from unregulated private haulers to a city-controlled franchise system has increased efficiency
and reliability of service.
Little Rock, Arkansas, 20
• New equipment was purchased and crew size was reduced from S to 4 men. The overall savings has
been applied toward offsetting the increased haul costs and operating costs at the city’s new disposal
Site.
Portland, Maine, 23
• Frequency of dry trash collecticn was increased from biweekly to weekly, and the number of dwellings
eligible for city service was increased 1 0 percent while the total collection budget has been reduced.
Southeastern Oakland County (Michigan) Incinerator Authority, 27
• Fourteen member communities reduced their collection costs an average of 16 percent during a 6-month
period by using COLMIS and other collection improvement tools.
Latah County, Idaho, 31
• Collection has been provided to the entire County, resulting in the elimination of many open dumps.
Proper planning increased the effective life of the sanitary landfill by a factor of four and minimized the
chances of groundwater pollution.
Colorado Planning Region No. 10, Montrose, Colorado, 35
• As a result of workshops for local, State and Federal agences, local awareness of area needs and poten-
tial solutions has been increased. Nine open dumps have been closed and two of six counties are
planning rural green-box systems.
APPENDIX A
Local and Federal contacts, 38
APPENDIX B
Reading list of current reports on solid waste collection, 40
V
-------
TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES
FOR IMPROVING
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
The Office of Solid Waste Management Programs (OSWMP) has devised a number of tools
and techniques which are helpful in improving productivity and reducing the cost of solid
waste collection. These tools have been designed for ease of application, and can be used by
solid waste managers and consultants.
They are described below and are essentially modern management methods as applied to
residential solid waste collection systems. The regional reports contained in the main body
of this digest describe some of the successful applications of these methods. Reports describ-
ing these methods in greater detail are listed in Appendix B, along with information on how
to obtain single copies free of charge as supplies permit.
FIVE-STAGE IMPROVEMENT PROCESS
This process is a logical common sense process which enables a critical evaluation and
redesign of collection systems. It guides the user from the initial policy decision and design
phases through actual implementation. The five stages are:
1. Review of Existing Policies and Methodologies and Their Alternatives—There are two
policy levels:
System Policies
Organizational policies
Level-of-service policies
Operational Policies
Route policies
Labor policies
Management policies
2. Macro-Routing—Determination of optimum assignment of the daily collection routes
to existing or proposed processing and disposal facilities.
3. Districting and Route Balancing—Determination of a “fair day’s work” and the
structuring of collection areas so that all crews have equal workloads.
4. Micro-Routing—Determination of the actual route the individual collection vehicles
will follow in collecting waste from each service in a specified area. Heuristic Routing,
1
-------
the method of micro-routing we have found most effective, utilizes human talent, com-
mon sense, and knowledge of the local area rather than depending on sophisticated
computerized methods.
5. Implementation of Changes
COLMIS-A COMPUTER PROGRAM
Computers are still thought by many people to have application only within scientific
laboratories or in government operations such as the Internal Revenue Service where large
amounts of data must be correlated and analyzed. But, in the last decade, computers have
become involved in everything from the guidance of space vehicles to the design of auto-
mobile tires. Computers have also become an important tool in the management of retail
sales, food processing control, and agricultural operations, to give a few examples among
many. Computers can be useful in the management of almost any large-scale enterprise.
OSWMP has available a computer program for the management of residential solid
waste collection activities. The program is called COLMIS, which stands for COLlection
Management Information System.
COLMIS produces definitive information on the operational aspects and costs of
collection, and was designed to accomplish two objectives: to provide managers at all levels
with a tool to facilitate the decisionmaking process, and to provide the necessary informa-
tion for detailed evaluation of the needs for and effects of change in operational
procedures.
Providing information at every level in the organization enables each manager to
evaluate his performance by his own standards and in comparison to the performance of
other managers. In examining his operation he is able to review the activities of all his
subordinates and pinpoint the need for improvements. The reports produced by COLMIS
also serve as a creditable record of operations and costs.
As a planning tool, the COLMIS reports provide the specific data needed to gauge
truck and crew requirements for an entire collection area and a fair day’s work for each
crew. The reports can also be used to establish boundaries for daily routes and collection
districts. As an on-going part of a collection system, the reports can aid in determining
the useful life of equipment and thus help in planning a capital replacement program.
The COLMIS reports can also be useful in the analysis of crew size and management
structure and in the determination of the types of equipment to be used.
V
Input Requirements
There are two kinds of input data required for the operation of COLMIS. One is
background or general information which is placed in the computer program. It is col-
lected at the time the system is implemented. Included are items such as vehicle costs
and useful life, salaries and fringe benefits. This type of data is relatively stable and is
re-entered into the system only if the values used are changed.
The other type of input is daily operational information. Each day, each driver of
a collection vehicle completes a simple form which outlines his crew’s activities for the
2
-------
day. The form was designed to make this job as easy as possible and to take the driver
only a few minutes to complete. It is necessary. however, that the drivers be able to
read, write and tell time. The data provided, including times and mileage when specific
actions were begun and ended, make it possible to set forth in report form an accurate
accounting of how the collection operation functions on a day-by-day basis. Daily
activities to be monitored encompass traveling from the motor pool to the route. col-
lecting solid waste from the residences, transporting the waste to a disposal point, and
returning to the motor pool.
Data Processing
The COLMIS program, which converts the input data to management reports, is of
relatively simple design. it is written in Fortran IV computer language and will operate
on computers generally available throughout the nation. Weekly computer operating
time for a city having 30 routes would probably be between 20 and 45 minutes. but
would depend on the capabilities of the computer used.
Management Reports
COLMIS reports are generated on a weekly and monthly basis. Weekly reports are
geared toward direction and control of the collection operation. There are four parts to
each set of weekly reports: route information dealing with times. miles and weights:
collection information dealing with characteristics of the area collected and parameters
of crew performance: collection cost information showing a breakdown of the cost of
collection activities: and a collection system operation summary providing a capsulized
picture of the most significant items from the other three sections. One set of weekly
reports shows the day-by-day performance of each crew and is aimed toward the im-
mediate supervisor of the collection crews. Reports for middle management give only a
summarization of weekly activities for each crew. Top management’s reports contain
summary information on the total operation with a breakdown by organizational units
(i.e., assistant superintendents, supervisors, foremen), if applicable, in addition to these,
management analysis reports comparatively rate the performance of the crews or organ-
izational units on 10 performance indicators such as weight collected and homes served.
These are most useful to route foremen and middle management.
Monthly reports are prepared in a four-part format identical to the weekly reports;
however, information is summarized by day of the week for each crew. This makes it
possible to compare the operation on Monday to that on Tuesday, and makes comparison
of all crews on each day of the week feasible. These reports can be very helpful in
evaluating the balance of work loads throughout the week. Middle management receives
a summarization of the whole nionth for each crew. And top management is provided
with an overall summarization with optional breakdown by organizational unit. Manage-
ment analysis reports are also generated. Monthly reports serve a dual purpose. They
complement the weekly reports when used as an operational management tool, and they
provide a well organized data base for planning collection system modifications and
improvements.
3
-------
It is the purpose of COLMIS to provide a systematic base of information from which
all levels of management can plan and operate an effective and efficient solid waste col-
lection system.
DISTRICTING AND ROUTE BALANCING
Districting and Route Balancing is a method of determining a fair day’s work and of
dividing the collection areas into balanced routes wherein all crews have equal workloads.
The objectives of a fair thy’s work determination and Route Balancing may be:
1. to estimate the number of trucks and men required to collect the waste in
order to determine a reasonable bid price for a collection contract or to
design a new system.
2. to evaluate the performance of the collection crews, both individually and
collectively
3. to establish a standard to be used in a task system (whereby the crews may go
home when their predetermined tasks are completed for the day) or in a wage
incentive system (whereby the crew is rewarded in financial bonuses for any
increases in productivity over a standard or over previous performances)
4. to balance or equalize the workloads among collection crews.
Districting and Route Balancing is required if any of three situations occurs:
1. If a collection contract is up for bid—In order to obtain insight into what con-
stitutes a reasonable bid price, and to eliminate much of the guesswork in bidding,
it is in the best interest of the customers for both parties of the contract process
to have the basic information required to determine a fair bid price.
2. If a ma/or change occurs in the system—A major change occurs when there are
changes in policies and methodologies (such as backyard to curbside collection
or public to private contractor system) or development of new disposal facilities
or assignments to facilities.
3. If the crew performances have never been evaluated or need re-evaluation—Current
routes may be unbalanced if Route Balancing has never been performed or if new
accounts have been added (e.g., construction of new homes) or other accounts
deleted (e.g., urban renewal). Inadequate standards or assigned tasks mean routes
may be too large, requiring excessive overtime, or too small, requiring too much
incentive time (time paid for but not worked).
Districting and Route Balancing is accomplished by analyzing the time components for
the work day; that is, travel from garage to route, collection route, haul to disposal site, and
return to garage, as well as lunch and Other breaks and allowances for time lost due to
breakdowns and other delays. Also taken into account in defining a fair day’s work are
distances from street to storage, housing density along the collection route, and amount of
waste to be collected.
4
-------
MACRO-ROUTING
Macro-Routing is a procedure for determining the most efficient assignment of collection
routes to disposal facilities. When only one or two disposal facilities need to be considered,
the solution is readily apparent: minimize the round-trip haul time for each route, taking into
account the queue times at each site.
When many different facilities are to be considered, such as shredders, balers, incinerators,
transfer stations, compost plants and landfills, the following factors must be considered in
optimizing the system:
1. Fixed and operating costs of each facility—As an example of the way in which this
factor can affect the total cost of a system, consider the economics of operating an
incinerator. Because of the high capital investment involved, the daily fixed cost
(bond principal, interest, insurance. etc.) is also high. Added to the fixed cost is
the actual cost of operating the facility (labor, fuel, electricity) at a certain level.
If that level is increased, the total cost increases also, but only by the additional
operating expense, since the fixed cost ias already been “paid” by starting the
facility at all. This marginal increase is relatively small, and might be less expen-
sive than sending a collection vehicle to a closer site.
2. Short and long range capacities of each facility—If an incinerator has a daily
capacity which is not being used, it may be desirable to run it at maximum in
order to extend the life of a landfill.
3. Round-trip haul time (cost) for each route, accounting for queues at each
facility—This is the total transport and discharge cost incurred each time the crew
goes to a disposal facility.
4. Effect of facility on collection equipment—Many disposal sites have poor access
roads and discharge areas which cause flat tires, stuck vehicles, wear on trans-
missions and differentials, as well as lost time; most processing facilities have
concrete pads at the discharge areas, making them much easier on equipment.
HEURISTIC OR MICRO-ROUTING
Heuristic or Micro-Routing is a simple, noncomputerized, commonsense approach to
minimizing the noncollection distance and delay times for each collection vehicle. The
heuristic approach is based on several rules of thumb; for example, routes should be com-
pact, continuous, and contiguous; they should be initiated as close to the garage as possible;
they should avoid heavily traveled streets at rush hour; they should follow determined
patterns when collection is made on one side of the street or on both sides. Because of its
simplicity, Heuristic Routing has the added advantage of rapid application by local officials.
5
-------
AKRON, 011101
The City of Akron’s residential solid waste collection system was antiquated and inefficient.
It consisted of garbage-only (i.e., food waste) collection by the city and dated back to the early
1900’s when the City started collecting the garbage for health and sanitation reasons. The resi-
dents had to either contract with a private hauler to collect the rest of their waste or haul it them-
selves to the City disposal site. The City collected the garbage from residential backyards ata
frequency of once every seven working, or nine calendar days. The problems with this system
were:
1. Frequency of collection—every nine days, unless it rained, which made it longer—
was unacceptable.
2. Routing methods were inefficient; for example. at the end of each collection day,
the collectors would color in a route map to show which streets had been collected.
3. Cost to the citizens was high because the City’s collection fleet was underutilized
(20-cubic-yard packers were collecting considerably less than one load of garbage
each day), and superfluous collection resources (labor and equipment) were re-
quired for private haulers to make additional passes to pick up the remainder of
the waste.
4. With the public sector collecting some waste and the private sector collecting the
remainder, it was difficult to control which wastes were to be picked up by the
public (for “free”) or by the private (at a fee). Without an end use for the separated
wastes, and since all wastes went to the same landfill anyway, there was no incen-
tive for the City to encourage or for the citizens to comply with the idea of “clearly”
separated wastes.
5. Experimentation in parts of the city showed that citizens preferred curbside, once-a-
week collection of combined wastes.
The City decided to improve its residential solid waste collection service. The City
Administration with the backing of the City Council took a careful step-by-step planning and
implementation course in this upgrading effort. In 1969, the Department of Public Service
experimented with curbside, twice-a-week collection of combined refuse in free plastic sacks
in an area containing about 1500 dwellings. In 1970, this area was expanded to about 5000
dwellings by including the Model Cities neighborhood with the same collection service except
that the frequency was changed to once a week.
In January 1972, the city implemented a curbside, once-a-week, combined waste col-
lection experiment in the North Hill area containing about 5000 dwellings. Here, however,
participation was on a voluntary basis (residents could continue to contract a private hauler),
only one- and two-family units could participate, and the residents were given the choice
Appendix A lists names and addresses of local and Federal personnel involved in
this project.
6
-------
of providing their own plastic sacks or using 20-gallon cans. Within two months, an adjacent
5000-dwelling area was added to this program. The major concern of the City Administration
was how the citizens would react to such a new system of combined wastes. Curbside, once-
a-week collection was selected because it was of sufficient frequency and was less costly than
the backyard or twice-a-week collection alternatives.
Besides citizen acceptance considerations, the City was concerned with how the new sys-
tem would be financed and how much it would cost relative to the existing budget. The City
was also considering supplying the citizens with plastic sacks.
This was the status of the progress of the City of Akron toward a new system when EPA
offered technical assistance, and the City accepted the offer in November of 1972.
HOW EPA AND CITY PERSONNEL IMPROVED THE COLLECTION SYSTEM
From December 1972 to February 1973, data were gathered on the existing experimenlal
areas, and during March and April a suitable collection system was designed. From May to July
the City Council made its necessary approvals, bids were made and a contract was given a private
hauler, final routing decisions were made and citizens were notified of the new system. On
August 6. 1973, the new system went into effect.
The Project Officer, from the EPA ’s Office of Solid Waste Management Programs (OSWMP).
had been in Kansas City, Missouri. to observe its transition on March 1,1971, from a system very
similar to that in Akron (separate garbage collection by the City) to once-a-week, plastic sack,
combined collection and was able to draw upon this experience of a very smooth transition in
advising the City of Akron.
OSWMP installed the COLMIS computer program, and the information gathered in the
North Hill test area (three routes) and in the Model Cities area (two routes), both once-a-week,
combined, curb service, provided the basic information used by the City and OSWMP in
designing the new City-wide system.
A number of major decisions were made after OSWMP became involved. For example, as
to whether the implementation should be gradual—converting one or several routes at a time to
see how many resources are utilized and to minimize the area of concentration—or one-shot
City-wide, the City decided to divert from its conservative course and to do a City-wide
implementation. Project personnel felt a good estimate of resources (trucks and men) and
costs could be made based on the existing North Hill and Model Cities data and data from other
cities, including Kansas City, Missouri. They also felt implementation would be facilitated
by City-wide conversion and that all of the citizens of Akron should receive the improved
service at the same time and as soon as possible.
7
-------
As to whether the City should provide plastic sacks, OSWMP supplied the City with. cost and
usage estimates in order to make this decision. The City finally decided not to provide sacks
since the sacks meant a rather large capital outlay, procurement and distribution of the sacks
would be a continuing problem and would compound implementation tasks and costs, and a large
usage could probably be obtained on a voluntary basis anyway.
In order to minimize labor problems during transition and requirements for more and dif-
ferent trucks, the City decided to keep the same three-man crew size. After implementation
of the new system, the City could evaluate the use of one- and two-man crew sizes based on
information which OSWMP supplied the City and on the characteristics of the new operation.
Based primarily on the budget constraints and the fact that the private sector already serviced
larger units, the City decided to provide its collection service to one- and two-family units only.
The City also decided the new system would be on a voluntary basis because of State
requirements for citizen approvals for billing purposes and because of concern for citizen
and private hauler reactions. OSWMP felt the system should be mandatory in order to
facilitate route design and route balancing, and to avoid:
I. the high cost of initially identifying who wanted the service and who did not
2. the operational costs and problems of learning who does and who does not receive
City service and of adding and deleting specific customers
3. duplication of effort by the public and the private sectors.
COLMIS was installed on the three North Hill and two Model Cities routes and four weeks
of productivity data (number and types of containers per residence, number of residences per
day, pounds of waste per day) and time data (garage to route, route to disposal site, disposal
site to garage, lunch and breaks) were collected and processed. From these data,
a report was prepared showing the resource and cost calculations and results. Using
conservative estimates, the results showed 22 to 24 routes would accomplish the job with
minimum overtime costs. The total estimated annual cost for 24 routes was $1.37 million, or
$1.56 per home per month. These figures assumed 100-percent participation of the one- and
two-family homes. The existing solid waste operating budget was $830,054 for food-waste-only
collection. Adding an annual equipment expense of $75,000 (five-year straight-line depreciation
for the 21 packer trucks) yields $905,054. Private sector collection fees were typically $3.50 to
$4.00 per home per month, making the total cost of the existing collection system to the citizens
of Akron $3.48 to $4.36 million per year.
Estimates of seasonal waste loads showed Akron to be similar to the typical northern city
pattern with a low from January through March, rising to a peak in late April and May, running
high and constant over the summer, declining slightly toward the end of August and October,
then rising to another peak in the leaf season during November. With three-man crews and
seasonal peaks lasting only four weeks a year, it was decided to operate with overtime during the
peaks. at a normal 7 to 8 hours during most of the year, and less during the winter low (on a task
system basis whereby the crews go home when their routes are completed.).
8
-------
Should the new system be public or private or a combination? OSWMP personnel discussed
the pros and cons of each of these arrangements with the City personnel who either favored pub-
lie or a combination. OSWMP recommended a combination, as Kansas City. Missouri, had done, with
the following reasoning. With the shift in collection from backyard to curbside, from separate to
combined waste collection, and the limiting to only one collection agency per street segment.
the total equipment and manpower resources (public and private) required for the collection
of residential waste would be sharply reduced. Also, the City wanted to maximize the use
of its existing equipment and manpower resources. The result of this policy decision was to
transfer the burden of excess equipment and personnel to the private sector, although under the
proposed system, the City would no longer collect from apartments.
To help soften the burden of cutback on the private sector, to permit the City to compare the
performance of the public to the private collection crews, and to build into the system an inherent
competitiveness between the public and the private sectors. OSWMP recommended contracting out
part of the City rather than expanding the City resources. It was further argued that, since the
City would use its existing resources, three alternatives existed for obtaining the additional vehicles
required: outright purchase, leasing, or utilization of private contractors. Outright purchase would
enable the City to operate all collection crews in the new system. Such purchase, however, would
involve a large capital outlay and a long lead time, generally at least six months. Leasing would
also suffer from the same difficulty of lead time and is in addition thought by many officials to be
less cost effective than outright purchase. The advantage of leasing, of course, would be less initial
capital outlay. Aside from immediate costs, however, the purchase or leasing options suffered the
disadvantage of not utilizing the resources immediately available in the private sector. Therefore,
the City decided to use 17 City routes (keeping four trucks as spares) and contract out the
remaining four to six routes. The City was supplied with sample contracts to assist in
developing its contracts. The City received two bids by the specified deadline hour and
returned others unopened which were received after the deadline. One bid was for one
route only and was higher than the other, so the one bidder who bid on the whole area
received the contract. The rate of $2.21 per month per home was considered very reasonable.
The City employed the techniques of route balancing and heuristic routing. The
heuristic routing procedure was explained to the crews who knew their route areas and,
therefore, could effectively develop their own routings. The City assisted on some of
the routings and found the crew-developed routes to be very efficient.
In order to help implement the new system, the City gathered examples from
other cities of brochures, newspaper articles and letters to the citizens from the mayor explaining
the new system, its implementation date, and what was expected of the citizens. Akron effectively
developed its own public information system from these examples.
The City decided to bill participating customers for the difference in cost between the existing
budget and the new cost. For implementation and for determining what to charge, the City con-
ducted a random survey of citizens to determine what the participation rate would be. Based on
9
-------
this and an estimated quarterly billing cost of 1 5/. per home for each billing, a $1 per month user
charge was determined to be the user fee. The charge was to be effective January 1, 1 974.
COLMIS was installed on the City’s computer system with the intention that the
program would be used after implementation of the new system in order to “fine tune” the
route balancing and to compare crews, both public and private.
RESULTS
On August 6, 1973, the new City-wide curbservice collection system was put into effect
without problems. Now all one- and two-family detached residential units may receive weekly
curbside collection of combined wastes on a voluntary basis from the City for $1 per month.
The new system has the following additional advantages:
1. The citizens of Akron save between $1.5 and $2.0 million per year.
2. The number of complaints has decreased from an average of 56 per day before
implementation to about five per day after.
3. The combined waste and reduction in packer trucks operating in the City and
at the disposal site has enhanced the landfill operation.
As of January 16, 1974, 71.5 percent of the one- and two-family units in the City responded
to the 100-percent mail survey to accept the City-provided service at $3 per quarter; 12.7 percent
declined the service and 15.8 percent did not respond at all. A special billing section was set up
in the Public Utilities Bureau to handle the billing and collection of the service fee.
Neither the City nor the private hauler has experienced any major operational problems.
However, to avoid the problem of determining which homes are or are not participating customers,
the City operational unit decided to pick up all the waste placed at the curb. When the City
fmalized the list of participants, the operational force anticipated it would continue this policy,
but a policing force would probably be used to identify non-participants who put their waste
out to be collected.
The original resolution passed by the City Council in going to a public/private split on the
new system provided for the preparation of a report comparing the performance between the
systems. The City reports that data from the second through the fourth months (see the
table below) showed the public sector outperforming the private sector on a tonnage per
hour basis by a factor of almost two to one. (The private collector picks up more tonnage
per day but at a slower rate.) City crews are allowed to take 30 minutes for lunch, 30
minutes for breaks, and 15 minutes for cleanup. In nearly all cases, the City crews choose to
work until their route is completed and not take the allowable time. If allowable time is
included, City crews still average 20 percent more tons per hour than the private haulers.
This, the City feels, demonstrates the benefits of incentive time under a task system.
10
-------
Month
Sector
Average
Average
Average
Tons/hr
Hrs/day/cre w
Tons! day! crew
Sept 73
Public
Private
5.40
10.78
10.5
10.1
1.94
0.94
Oct73
Public
Private
5.63
9.58
10.8
11.6
1.92
1.21
Nov73
Public
Private
6.10
10.03
12.1
14.4
1.98
1.44
Average
Public
Private
5.71
10.13
11.13
12.03
1.95
1.19
Other factors must be considered in evaluating the difference in performance between
public and private crews: the City has 17 crews who service an average of 490 homes each
day, whereas the private hauler has four crews with an average of 5 1 2 homes per crew per
day. Housing density is less in the private area than in the area served by the City. On the
other hand, traffic congestion is higher in many of the City-collected areas, and the private-
collected areas are closer to the disposal site than most of the City-collected areas.
FINANCIAL BENEFITS
In the old system the homeowners were paying $3.50 to $4.00 per month to private haulers,
and an average of 93 per month through taxes for the municipal garbage-only service. This
totaled $53.1 6 to $59. 16 per home per year for collection. The new system is estimated to cost
$1.93 per home per month, or $23.16 per year. Of the 95,000 families in Akron, 72,000 qualify
for City curbservice; 72 percent, or 52,000 have signed up. These residents save between $L56
and $1.87 million per year.
11
-------
EAST PEORIA, ILLINOIS’
East Peoria is a suburb of Peoria, Illinois, lying southeast of Peoria and on the opposite side
of the Illinois River. It has a population of 20,000 persons living in 6100 residences. The 80
commercial establishments add the equivalent waste of 100 residences.
Prior to EPA’s Major Technical Assistance in July of 1972, East Peoria’s solid waste system
was both expensive and undependable. Collections were irregular, and practically no records
were kept of daily collection activities. The system, if it could have been called such, was
plagued by frequent breakdowns resulting in many overtime collection hours; exhorbitant
maintenance costs compounded this expense. Service to commercial establishments was provided
at a disproportionate rate relative to residences, and in most instances the establishments were
paying less than the actual effective cost of service. Also, the extra crews and dump trucks used
for bulky waste collection were, at best, used inefficiently.
A large part of the problem was the result of management neglect. Management was
essentially split between the Commissioner of Public Health and Safety (one of the four
Councilmen for the City) and the Director of Public Works.
The Commissioner’s job is part time, since he holds a full-time job on the outside as his main
source of income. In addition, the management of the solid waste system is only a portion of the
responsibility of the position of Commissioner of Public Health and Safety. Consequently, very
little time could actually have been spent on the management of the wllection system.
The Public Works Director, on the other hand, was really involved in no more than the
hiring, pay and personnel activities of the collection system. The day-to-day supervision of the
collection operation was left up to the senior driver of the collection vehicles. He acted basically
as a foreman, but he did not have the expertise or background necessary for the efficient opera-
tion and maintenance of the collection system.
HOW THE SYSTEM WAS IMPROVED
The Office of Solid Waste Management Programs became aware of the situation in East
Peoria via a pre-application proposal submitted by the Tn-County Planning Commission in
answer to OSWMP’s solicitation for the demonstration of improved local and regional solid
waste management systems. East Peoria had approached the Tn-County Planning Commission
to secure aid in designing a better collection system.
Prior to OSWMP involvement, the City had initiated plans to purchase two one-man side
A lists names and addresses of local and Federal personnel involved in
this project.
12
-------
loading compactors for collection of household waste. A preliminary analysis indicated that
this equipment and crew would be adequate to handle the City’s collection requirements
although a recommendation was made for providing a back-up vehicle.
East Peoria’s main objective was to design a new, efficient and cost-effective collection system.
To achieve this end, the City asked OSWMP to analyze the management system, to make
recommendations, and to review the existing solid waste ordinances and show where
improvements could be made. On July 15, 1972, Major Technical Assistance activities were
officially begun.
A detailed map of East Peoria showing the number of dwelling units per block face was
prepared, and a survey of commercial establishments was carried out to find out the number
and location of establishments served, the volume of waste per establishment per week, and
the type, size and number of containers used by each. The map and the information on commercial
establishments was eventually used in setting up collection districts and in designing specific
collection routes.
A sample survey of commercial establishments and single- and multi-dwelling residences
was made to determine the amount of property tax paid by each and to determine the portion of
that tax which paid for collection services. Using the sanitation tax levy of 5.0757 per $100
valuation, the average tax payment per year to the Sanitation Department was found to be
$5.83 (5.1 12 per week). The average generation rate of 60 pounds or two 20 gallor, containers—
per household per week, a value projected by the Tn-County Regional Plan Data of 1972. became
the allowable standard for the commercial customers served. It was planned that in instances
where commercial customers pay less sanitation tax than S. 112 per 60 pounds or 40 gallons per
week, the difference would be levied as a user charge in a proportional or straight line manner.
Using the dwelling unit data and other design parameters specified by the City, a collection
system was designed. Since the City did not accept the recommendation to acquire a back-up
vehicle, the system was designed to minimize the effect of vehicle breakdown. The three vehicles
finally decided upon by the City were two 29-cubic-yard one-man side loaders and a two-man
25-cubic-yard rear loader.
The collection system design was simple and straightforward. The City was divided into
five districts of approximately equal number of dwelling units, with adjustments for density
variations. Only one district is collected on a given day. Each district is divided into three routes
labelled A, B, and C. Each week crews and trucks rotate; one truck collects all A’s one week.
B’s the next, and so on. The two-man rear loading vehicle collects both household and bulky
wastes. On holiday weeks, collection days are slipped for the remainder of the week and
Saturday is catch-up day.
For special situations, one of the previously used dump trucks and a two-man crew are
kept on a call-as-needed basis for unscheduled pickup of bulky items. (In the old system,
bulky waste collection required six men and three trucks on a part-time basis from the Street
13
-------
Department.) This service is paid, at least in part, by user charges. Since this crew is also
familiar with theregular routes and equipment operation, it can stand in for sick leave or
vacations of the regular crew.
To minimize the effects of having no back-up equipment, the following procedure was
used. If one of the one-man trucks is out of commission, the crew member helps the other
one-man truck complete both routes, working overtime if necessary. The rear loader may
also be used to help. If the rear loader is out of commission, the two-man crew is split
between the side loaders and the extra route is divided in half.
Under normal operation, the crew for the two-man rear loader alternate by the hour
or half-day between driving and collecting. The driver only helps on bulky waste or unusually
large amounts of waste at a given stop.
In addition to the above-described collection system, it was recommended that a
supervisor familiar with solid waste management practices be assigned full-time to be
responsible for maintaining the system in efficient operation and making adjustments and
changes as required to meet changing situations. The recommendation was rejected, however,
since the City felt it could not afford the added expense. Indications are that such a position
may be established some time in the future.
The survey of property taxes and amounts of these taxes paid for the collection of solid
waste revealed that many commercial accounts appear, in effect, to be subsidized by the
residents. However, under closer examination, the total system was found to be subsidized
by taxes paid by a few very large manufacturers whose waste was not being collected by the
City.
Recommendations were made to the City to drop the existing 80 commercial customers
as a way of saving money or, as a second choice, expanding the service to include all the
commercial accounts paid by a user charge system. The latter choice would have required
additional equipment and manpower and was not pursued in detail because of the City’s
desire not to move in this direction. Instead the City adopted a middle-of-the-road system
that would maintain the existing commercial accounts, eliminate higher frequency service and
drop any customers requiring bulk containers.
The bid specifications were prepared by City/Tn-County personnel, approved by council,
and issued in early October of 1972. Purchase orders were placed during mid-October with a
promised delivery date of mid-January. It was estimated that implementation of the new
system would take place in late January 1973. The two-week period between delivery and
implementation would be to train operators. However, the delivery schedule slipped to mid-
June because of a strike at one of the part manufacturer’s plants.
With the arrival of the equipment, revised ordinances were approved by council, and the
information system designed to inform the public about the new collection system was started.
14
-------
RESULTS
The new system has provided a more regular and dependable collection service through
improved routing and utilization of equipment. However, savings arid system improvements
would have greater continued assurance if a full-time manager knowledgeable in solid waste
management was hired. In addition, the lack of proper back-up equipment may also prove
to be more costly than the purchase of such equipment.
FINANCIAL BENEFITS
The projected savings on the new system were expected to be on the order of $ 100,000
annually, but have turned out to be considerably less due to breakdown costs, manpower
overtime costs, and the lack of full-time managerial direction. However, the savings that
were realized have been used for the payments on the new equipment, and to offset the
cost of a new municipal building which has garage facilities, a maintenance department.
and a parts inventory department.
15
-------
HOT SPRINGS, ARKANSAS’
When the Major Technical Assistance effort began in March 1972 there were approximately
17 private haulers operating iii this city of 35,000 persons. Because the haulers were not regu-
lated in any manner, they were allowed to do business throughout the entire City. As a result,
it was not uncommon to find several haulers on the same block at different times during the
same day.
The equipment used by the haulers varied from a relatively new rear loading compaction
vehicle to open pick-up trucks. If a collection vehicle was out of commission on a given day,
it was rare if a back-up vehicle was available. The overall poor condition of the collection
vehicles and the lack of back-up equipment resulted in very unreliable service. Even though
residents paid for twice-per-week service, the best service given was weekly. Residents reported
service as infrequent as once per month or even once every six weeks. Both residential and
commercial accounts reported similar poor service, but the commercial accounts received better
service because of the larger amounts of money involved.
When the study started, the basic charge for residential service (backyard service twice per
week) was $3.00 per month. After the City announced plans to take over the collection ser-
vice, the charge was increased steadily until fees as high as $8.00 per month were reported just
before the City initiated collection operations. It is not known for certain, but a similar
situation probably existed for commercial establishments.
At approximately the same time that the project began, the State closed the largest
land disposal facility in the area: it had been a classic town dump. To replace this facility a
landfill was opened on a State-approved site approximately 12 miles from the center of Hot
Springs. But lack of operator competence and/or proper guidance has caused this site to become
another dump. The City plans to use. this site for only a short while. The refuse from a large
part of the County will continue to be placed in the fill after the City leaves.
The City had initiated the change in the local solid waste management system and had
passed a bond issue in excess of $1 million to finance a collection and disposal system for the
City. The heart of the proposed disposal system is a I 00-ton-per-day incineration facility. With
the incinerator now open, the City uses a fill site within the city limits for the residue disposal.
The City had also planned a fairly unusual method to use the present haulers in the
residential collection system. Contracts between the private haulers and the City were being
prepared. Basically the haulers provide the necessary labor and the City provides trucks, all
operating and maintenance equipment. and disposal facilities. The City hired its own drivers
to provide service for the bulk containers.
‘Appendix A lists the names and addresses of local and Federal personnel involved
in this project.
16
-------
IMPROVEMENTS MADE IN THE LIMITED TIME AVAILABLE
When the original agreement was made to provide technical assistance, the severe time
constaints restricted the project scope to little more than vehicle routing and route balancing.
It seemed inappropriate to recommend specific vehicle types, especially since the City’s
plans at that time were to initiate collection service on September 1. 1972. There was a 90-
day lead time required to order collection equipment, and there would not have been enough
time to study the City and determine the truck type best suited to the City’s needs, and
besides, the City seemed to have a firm idea of the trucks they were going to purchase anyway.
The situation was comparable to other MTA cities where a new system is designed around
the vehicles already in use.
Since the City had already committed itself to purchasing a specific type of incinerator,
it was neither timely nor appropriate to conduct a formal effort for the processing and
disposal aspects of the system.
In addition to the bond issue, the City Council passed an ordinance establishing a Sani-
tation Department and the regulations which would govern the solid waste management sys-
tem. OSWMP helped design the ordinance from both technical and legal standpoints. In
general, the City pledged to provide the same type service that had been promised by the
private haulers. The customers would be charged for the mandatory service using a modified
system of user charges. The basic charge was set at $1.50 per month per standard
container of less than 32-gallon capacity with a $3.00 minimum per month. Twice-per-
week, backyard service was provided. Drivers report residences using more than
two cans. Yard waste can he placed at the curbside but must be in plastic bags. Any plastic
bag can be used now, but the City plans to become the supplier soon. The charge for the bags
will include the cost of both collection and disposal.
Commercial establishments receive comparable service, but the minimum charge for two
containers is $5.00 per month with each additional container costing $2.50 per month. Bulk
containers compatible with front loading compaction vehicles are available at no charge from
the City. Virtually any combination of volume and frequency can be purchased. A minimum
of $ 11 is charged for a I-cubic-yard bulk container collected once per week. Most residential
and commercial customers are charged for service on their water bill. Customers not having water
service are billed directly by the Sanitation Department.
The bulk of OSWMP’s effort was in residential route design. The City provided a map
showing the number of residential and small commercial stops on each block face of the
City. Using the total number of stops for the City and an estimate of a fair day’s work, it
was possible to determine the number of trucks required to provide collection service.
The City, by establishing general policy for the service, provides the framework for the
fair day’s work calculations. The most important points of general policy needed are: length
17
-------
of work day, type of service to be provided, and frequency of collection. Several possibilities
were considered, using a four-day work week based on a 10-hour day. The first plan used one
crew and would have been operated with either Wednesday or Friday as the off day. Another
plan involved using two crews working four 10-hour days on a, rotating schedule within a
work week consisting of six 10-hour days. The final choice was to have one crew work a
six-day week, 8 hours per day, with the overtime to be included in the contract costs.
The City had been using standard metal and plastic containers with backyard service for
some time. OSWMP recommended changing to curbside service, and the City was in favor of
the suggestion because of the potential savings—as much as 30 percent. But the change from
private to public collection was receiving a great deal of attention and any further changes
might have resulted in opposition. The savings are so impressive that the City is now serious-
ly considering using curbside service rather than a rate increase when their costs increase.
Commercial route design was based on a survey of the City’s commercial establishments.
Each establishment was contacted by the City. The interviews established the volume of
waste generated and the frequency of collection desired. The survey showed that over 700
collections per week from bulk containers would be required to service the commercial
community.
When the study began the decision was supposedly firm that rear loading compaction
vehicles would be purchased. The City began to consider front loading vehicles after the
commercial survey was completed. OSWMP recommended the rear loaders because such
vehicles had already been purchased for the residential routes and the acquisition of more
specialized equipment would complicate the problem of providing back-up vehicles. Also,
the City Council had authorized the purchase of only 12 vehicles, of which nine, ordered
for residential services, did not have the capability of collecting bulk containers. OSWMP
personnel felt that the overall reliability of the system would be in jeopardy if front
loaders were ordered before sufficient back-up equipment for residential collection coulcr
be obtained. Rear loaders could provide both commercial and residential service.
Unpublished OSWMP data on the performance of both rear loaders collecting bulk
containers and front loaders collecting bulk containers was used to calculate that three
trucks would be required to service the commercial establishments. City officials, however,
decided that only two trucks would be sufficient. Their estimates were apparently based
on information provided in manufacturer’s brochures. Since the collection system was
initiated in February 1973, the City has decided to purchase an additional front loading
vehicle.
This project did not make any contribution to developing the disposal system. The
100-ton-per-day incinerator system the City had decided upon met with stiff public
opposition of the type experienced in many communities. A citizens group near the
proposed site used a lawsuit to delay construction of the incinerator for about six months.
The facility became operational in the late summer of 1973.
18
-------
RESULTS
The collection system has been operational since February 1973. The best
result so far has been the elimination of 55-gallon drums as residential storage containers.
But there have been many mechanical problems with the collection vehicles. Absolutely no
back-up equipment was provided so there has been a considerable amount of overtime
worked, a situation which has further aggravated the breakdown problem. Since the
residential routes are collected using a “flat fee” contract, the overtime is not paid to
the contractor. There may be some problems in negotiating new contracts when the present
ones expire unless the additional work load due to lack of proper back-up equipment is
somehow reduced.
The City had three contractors for the residential routes at the outset of the new sys-
tem, with each contractor assigned three of nine collection routes. After about two months,
two of the three contractors were fired, and all three routes were assigned to one contractor.
The City is collecting the bulk container routes with its own drivers.
A benefit derived from the project was the increased ability of the Sanitation
Director to use the latest management techniques in his daily activities. He now has a work-
ing knowledge of route-design tools and has applied them well. Due to the
equipment problems he has encountered during the early stages of implementation, he was
able to initiate some radical changes in the original system with minimal disruption in ser-
vice to the citizens.
FiNANCIAL BENEFITS
The overall cost to the residents of Hot Springs is approximately the same for the pub-
lic system as for the original private system. However, each resident now receives reliable
collection service twice each week.
The commercial accounts pay considerably more for service now, but the exact differ-
ence in cost will probably never be known since records were not kept before the City
assumed collection responsibility. The commercial establishments also receive much more
reliable service from the new system, which helps to offset the higher costs.
19
-------
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 1
Before March of 1 972, Little Rock, Arkansas, had a functioning twice-weekly solid waste
collection system. However, there was room for improvement in the overall efficiency of the
operation, especially in the area of effective route balancing and in the handling of waste from
commercial establishments. The City of Little Rock felt that any savings which could be in-
curred in the collection operation could be applied toward an environmentally acceptable dis-
posal method. Major Technical Assistance was initiated in March 1972.
Prior to MTA. Little Rock. with a population of 132,000, was divided into 27 residential
collection routes. Most of these were composed of two sections, one being collected Mondays
and Thursdays, the other Tuesdays and Fridays. Both sections were collected Wednesdays for
dry trash and yard wastes only. Twenty-cubic-yard rear loading packer vehicles were used for
this residential service. Most commercial accounts were collected by Arkansas Waste Disposal,
a private contractor. However, the City serviced more than 200 2- and 4-cubic-yard bins lo-
cated at schools, churches, small shopping centers and small commercial establishments.
The crews on the routes consisted, for the most part, of five men each. They were com-
posed of one driver, two set-out men, one collector, and one set-back man. The driver usually
stayed with the truck, not collecting unless his crew encountered a service having an unusually
large number of bags or containers. Quite often the set-back man assisted the collector, leaving
the cans to be set back by the homeowner. As an incentive system, the City allowed the col-
lectors to leave work as soon as their routes were completed, a system within which the collec-
tors generally worked about 30 hours per week even though they were paid for a 40-hour week.
In early 1972 the City began planning for the opening of a new disposal site which
was located further from the City than the existing dump. Little Rock and OSWMP personnel
joined forces in an effort to minimize the effect of the longer haul times upon existing opera-
tions and to plan for future productivity increases.
HOW OPERATIONAL COSTS WERE CUT
A time study of the existing system was conducted to determine where efficiencies
might be made in the system. This study revealed a number of problems in the collection
system. Many homes on the sample routes examined were not receiving set-back service,
as the set-back man on the crew was instead working as a collector; residents accepted this
situation, as evidenced by the small number of complaints received by the City Administration.
In addition, many residents seemed unaware that yard waste should be set out on
Wednesdays since it was often set out with household waste. The collectors, as a result,
A lists the names and addresses of local and Federal personnel involved in
this project.
20
-------
would have to examine each can to determine if it contained the type of waste to be
collected on that day.
Another problem was in commercial collection. Commercial accounts were often mixed
with the residential collection routes. Many of these commercial accounts used ungainly 55-
gallon drums for waste storage, slowing the collection of these routes. As a result. the distri-
bution of charges did not reflect the true cost of commercial collection. Residential collection
was, in fact, subsidizing commercial collection.
After analysis of the time study data, it was decided that more detailed information was
needed on how each crew spent its time. This was done through application of the COLMIS
collection management computer program to the residential routes. During the first day of the
3-week data collection period, the drivers were interviewed after they completed their routes
to make certain they were filling out their information forms correctly. This was particularly
important in assuring data validity.
Analysis of the COLMIS data revealed that commercial collection, while requiring almost
a quarter of the collectors’ time, generated only about one-tenth of the Sanitation Department’s
revenue, with the difference being made up by the attaching of a $2.50 monthly charge to the
water bill of each dwelling unit.
The results of the COLMIS program were then used to model the City. The City was
broken into small homogeneous areas. within each of which a determination was made of the
Sanitation Department manpower and equipment requirements. Using this model as a data base.
and time studies from other collection systems, it was possible to study the effect of modifying
certain elements of the collection system. Equipment requirements were then determined using
various types of collection trucks. The model analyzed the system with the existing rear load-
ing packer trucks, and with side loading vehicles with right-hand drive and smaller crew sizes.
For each type of truck used, a cost analysis was performed for the collection system with
set-out/set-back service, set-out service, and collection at curbside. Since the City was consider-
ing a 10-hour day, various alternatives using this possibility were analyzed. Ten alterna-
tives were presented to the Little Rock Board in October 1972. In addition, combined garbage
and yard-waste collection, the elimination of all commercial collection which could not be han-
dled in the same way as residential collection, and the elimination of the t se of 55-gallon drums
were recommended. Finally, a feasibility study was performed on the economics of constructing
a transfer station it turned out to be economically unjustifiable.
RESULTS
The City dropped 200 commercial accounts, the total number falling from 1300 to 1100.
Most apartments, schools, and gas stations, those accounts most difficult to collect, were dropped.
The remaining accounts were principally “mom and pop” establishments which could be handled
as if they were residential. The use of 55-gallon drums was banned, with a beneficial effect on
21
-------
the remaining commercial accounts. The remaining commercial accounts are now using acceptable
containers. These adjustments permitted one of the two completely commercial routes to be
eliminated.
The City placed orders for five new right-hand drive, side loading trucks and five new
rear loading trucks. After delivery, the vehicles were operated by two men each, with the
goal of phasing the trucks into one-man operations. If this proves successful, more trucks
will be ordered.
Residential set-back service was eliminated because most of the residents had not re-
ceived this level of service anyway. This resulted in a crew size reduction from five to four
men. No layoffs were required since attrition and other job assignments accounted for the
manpower reduction.
The City still practices separate collection of yard waste on Wednesdays, though many
crews make combined collection on their own initiative. The City has made no formal
decision on this aspect of the project, but believes the status quo is adequate for acceptable
collection.
The collection personnel have also benefited from the project. By relying on the collec-
tors for information, whether in filling out COLMIS data sheets or in reporting 55-gallon drums
and time consuming commercial accounts, the collectors have been brought into greater par-
ticipation in management decisions. More importantly, as a result of discussions surrounding
absenteeism and labor turnover, the City has instituted a training program on Wednesday after-
noons. This program teaches basic reading and writing skills to participating Sanitation Depart-
ment employees.
FINANCIAL BENEFITS
With the elimination of set-back service, the cost of approximately one man per crew
was eliminated. Although some residents now receive a lower level of service, the cost of the
previous service far exceeded the benefits gleened by the City. The savings accruing from
eliminating 27 crewmen at $6500 per year each is $175,000 per year. The elimination of one
commercial collection truck resulted in a savings of $20,550 per year, which had covered the
annual cost of one truck and salary for a laborer and a driver.
These savings of $196,000 annually are being applied to offset the increased haul costs
and operating costs at the City’s new disposal site. Thus, the project has been successful in
applying collection savings to the improvement of the disposal operation.
22
-------
PORTLAND, MAINE’
Major Technical Assistance was initiated in Portland, Maine, in February 1972. Prior to
that time, this City of 65,000 persons had provided residential curbside collection of trash
every other week and had contracted with a pig fanner for weekly collection of residential
food waste. Funds to support this costly duplication of effort—$ 227,000 for the City and
$89,000 for the farmer—were appropriated from tax revenues. Commercial and industrial
establishments were required to contract directly with private haulers.
Operational inefficiencies further added to the City’s costly collection system. As the
community grew, new collection stops were haphazardly added to existing routes. This
practice resulted in an unequal distribution of workloads among the collection crews and
days of the week; overtime was required on some days while on others the collectors finished
early.
Since much of this new growth occurred in areas distant from the disposal site, the City
added an additional crew truck for collecting in those areas. This meant that during the first
week of the two-week cycle five trucks, each with a three-man crew, were used, and during
the second week, when the outlying areas were collected, six trucks, also having crews of three
men, were used. Each day one of the trucks was used half time on litter barrel and municipal
building collection.
The City’s policy of a fixed lunch from noon to 12:30 pm at the garage forced the crews
to spend potential collection time driving to and from the garage. A flexible lunch period would
have permitted the crews to stop for lunch while traveling to or from the disposal site.
Inefficient vehicle routing also added to costs. Routing of the vehicles through the collec-
tion areas was left to the drivers’ imaginations, and several routes were not geographically con-
tiguous, which forced the crews to spend more time driving than was necessary. Many
streets were traversed several times by crews doubling back to pick up street segments.
In addition to many collection inefficiencies, varying regulations established by different
public works directors over a period of time created a situation in which some apartment
complexes received municipal service while others were forced to contract directly with private
haulers. Approximately 80 percent of the apartment buildings containing eight or less units
received municipal collection while only 50 percent of the larger buildings received it.
Finally, the City has been operating an open dump. Cover material, when used, is
improperly placed. A fire hose continually spraying water into the fill does little to prevent
fires and adds greatly to water pollution around the site.
A lists the names and addresses of local and Federal personnel involved in
this project.
23
-------
HOW COLLECTION EFFICIENCY WAS IMPROVED
During 1971, the Public Works Director recognized that the City needed improvement
in its collection and disposal operations. The City and the Greater Portland Council of Govern-
ments began planning to convert the City dump into a sanitary landfill. However, Portland,
like many other American cities, was facing financial problems and was reluctant to implement
the weekly collection service requested by many citizens and convert its inexpensive dump
into a sanitary landfill.
It was at this point that the Portland Public Works Department and OSWMP agreed to a
joint effort with increased collection-crew productivity as the key goal. The disposal problem
was not specifically addressed by the OSWMPICity team; rather, it was left to the Greater Port-
land Council of Governments which appeared to be progressing well toward its goal of locating
and operating a regional sanitary landfill.
The team’s first task was to collect data on the existing collection system in order that the
COLM1S computer program which was at that time still in the developmental stage could be used.
COLMIS provided definitive information on the operational aspects of collection and the costs
involved and provided information on generation rates, collection time per stop, overtime costs,
time spent driving to the disposal point and on other functions which require regular management
attention.
Maps showing one-way streets, major arterials, population density, existing routes and col-
lection services by block were prepared by City personnel. The initial accuracy of the collection
services map is critical since this information is used to balance workloads among crews. A
quality control check, however, showed numerous errors in the map and therefore the route
balancing effort required much more time than usual.
During this data gathering phase, the City Manager, because of a problem in breaking the
existing contract with the pig farmer, ‘decided that the City should continue to collect residen-
tial waste only. He therefore decided not to propose implementation of the combined collec-
tion of trash and garbage until September 1973 when the farmer’s contract expired. This meant
that the community would face a temporary increase in collection costs upon implementation
of weekly trash collection. City Council approval of this increased cost and the purchase of
new equipment was necessary. The Public Works Director estimated that a maximum of eight
collection routes, an increase of three routes, would be required at an additional cost of $80,000
annually. In addition, $38,000 would be needed for the purchase of two additional 20-cubic-
yard rear loading packer vehicles. (The existing budget had authorized the purchase of one new
vehicle to replace an older I 6-cubic-yard truck.)
After discussing the proposal and considering the extra cost, the City Council decided to
postpone weekly collection until the September 1973 termination of the garbage contract.
Their decision, however, was strongly opposed by a local community action group in the
24
-------
Model Cities area of the City. The Council reconsidered its decision at its next meeting and
voted to implement weekly collection and approved the purchase of the two additional 0-
cubic-yard rear loading packer trucks.
Once given the authority to implement weekly collection, the City was faced with sev-
eral additional policy decisions regarding crew size, collection from apartments and on-site
storage. Therefore, the joint team began an intensive study of collection from multiple family
dwellings. The cost for serving various size apartment buildings using both conventional and
bulk containers was calculated. From these figures it was recommended that whenever
possible. apartments containing nine units or more should have bulk containers. Unfor-
tunately, the majority of apartments in Portland could not locate the bulk containers where
they would be easily accessible. The study also showed that the City collected from more
than 80 percent of the apartment buildings with less than nine units, from approximately 60
percent of those containing between nine and 19 units, and less than 30 percent of those con-
taining more than 19 units. In addition, tax records showed apartments paid a smaller per-
centage of the City’s cost to collect their waste than did the single family homeowner. This
information along with four alternative policy recommendations concerning collection from
multiple family housing units was submitted to the City Council. The Council chose the most
expensive alternative, the one whereby waste would be collected from all residential units and
apartments even though the additional annual cost vvas projected to be $95.000. This alterna-
tive was selected because the Council did not want to force the lower income housing units to
pay a user charge in addition to taxes for a service which many had been receiving for taxes
only. It also believed that municipal collection for no user charge would help in the commu-
nity’s fight against litter in the low income areas. The City probably will not provide collec-
tion service to all apartment complexes because it is offering only once per week collection
and can only collect those bulk containers that are suitable for rear loading vehicles. There-
fore, some complexes will continue using private contractors that offer a higher level of service.
Once the apartment policy decision was finalized, the OSWMP/City team began planning
for implementation. In order to determine the number of routes required. the team decided
to base its calculations on an 8½-hour work day (excluding lunch) for the peak waste-load
period. This meant that the collection crews would finish early during average and low genera-
tion periods but would work overtime during the six peak weeks of the year.
Since basic information collected by the COLMIS program was gathered during a low
generation period, it was corrected to the peak period using disposal site weight records. Next,
the biweekly weights had to be corrected to weekly weights. Studies have shown that
as frequency of collection increases the weight collected tends to increase. The team decided
to use a 20 percent correction factor. The average weight at the curb during weekly collection
was assumed to be 60 percent of the biweekly weight—an assumption which turned out to be
very accurate.
Using the corrected basic data, the street maps and the City Council’s policy decisions,
the team divided the City into five equal workload districts. Calculations then showed that
25
-------
seven trucks rather than the eight originally estimated were required. (One truck with a three-
man crew working half time on litter barrels and collection from municipal buildings was
necessary.) Finally each vehicle was optimally routed through its collection district using the
heuristic routing technique.
At the end of October 1972, after numerous equipment delivery delays, the City imple-
mented weekly collection. Each truck driver was given a route map and a verbal description
detailing the exact vehicle routing. In addition, extra management personnel worked with
the foremen in assisting the drivers through the routes. Minor changes in vehicle routes were
made as conditions dictated. However, the drivers were encouraged to follow their routes as
closely as possible.
While rapid progress was made on the improvement of the collection system, the date
for implementation of the regional sanitary landfill was still remote. The plan to convert the
City’s dump into a regional sanitary landfill was scrapped because the expected life, available
cover material and environmental impact were not favorable.
The Council of Governments has granted approval, and is now seeking approval from
individual communities, of a $2.5 million refuse disposal plan including a baling station and
landfill. A site had been selected, and the summer of 1974 was set as the target date for
operation.
RESULTS
The City’s decision to provide service to all apartments increased the total number of
dwellings eligible for weekly municipal trash collection by 10 percent. However, because the
City has not wanted to take food waste to the existing dump, the citizens have not begun
receiving combined collection of garbage and trash. in the interim, the pig farmer’s contract
has been extended. When weekly combined collection is commenced, seven vehicles will be
needed, an increase of only two vehicles and six men over the present operation. The savings
the City expects will be used to offset part of the increased costs of acceptable disposal.
FINANCIAL BENEFITS
The new weekly combined collection system will save the taxpayers approximately
$30,000 annually. However, this does not take into account the additional cost of the
expected regional sanitary landfill. It currently costs the City $1.05 per ton to operate its
dump. If the regional site costs $3.00 per ton, the additional cost of disposal—based on the
expected volume—will be nearly $53,000 annually. Thus the savings will be used to offset
about 60 percent of the additional cost of the environmentally acceptable disposal system.
26
-------
SOUTHEASTERN OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN 1
In 1951, the administrators of 14 communities located in Southeastern Oakland County,
just north of the Detroit city limits, joined together to form the Southeastern Oakland Coun-
ty Incinerator Authority (SOdA). SOCIA’s job has been to provide disposal facilities for the
area’s 350,000 residents.
For two decades, the member communities were very satisfied with the disposal services
SOCIA provided. In 1971, the member communities approached the SOCIA General Manager
with a request that SOCIA study the solid waste collection practices in use and assume an ad-
visory role in upgrading the collection services.
The SOCIA staff felt that a potential cost savings was possible. if the efficiency of the
collection operations could be improved. However, a great deal of hard data would have to
be gathered before any real progress could be made. SOCTA also wanted to do something
about the general lack of back-up equipment available to member communities when their
regular equipment was out of service. Four communities had no back-up equipment at all,
which resulted in a great deal of crew overtime and collection schedule readjustment when-
ever there was a breakdown.
Commercial waste collection practices varied widely among communities with respect to
level of service and charges. Some communities offered no commercial collection services
even though property tax revenues being paid were supposed to cover collection costs. Other
communities provided services, but without a system of charges based on the quantities of
waste collected.
Five of the 14 communities were under contract to private collection companies under
franchise agreements, and three communities were considering franchising arrangements. Many
member communities were anxious for SOCIA to offer collection services in order to compete
against the private sector.
In March 1971. the SOCIA General Manager requested Major Technical Assistance from
the Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. The SOCIA staff felt the need for guidance
in studying the above problems and the feasibility of a regional SOCIA-managed and -operated
waste collection system.
HOW COLLECTION SERVICES WERE IMPROVED
From March through November 1971, SOCIA gathered information on the solid waste
collection systems of each of the 14 member communities. The data provided insight into
1 Appendix A lists the names and addresses of local and Federal personnel involved in
this project.
27
-------
the collection operations of the communities and served to redirect the effort towards a
program of individual technical assistance to member communities seeking assistance.
COLM1S was used to provide basic data on the detailed operations of the collection systems
within SOCIA. Seminars were conducted to brief the various City Managers, Mayors and
Department of Public Works Directors in its operation.
Collection crew drivers submitted COLMIS-required daily activity reports to their fore-
men who in turn forwarded the reports to the SOCIA staff on a weekly basis. OSWMP pro-
vided data-processing services and supplied the COLM1S output reports to the SOCIA staff
who then distributed weekly community reports to all Public Works Directors.
A series of bar graphs comparing several parameters of the waste collection systems operating
within SOCIA were prepared. The most important parameters were considered to be:
1. Average number of homes served per crewman per collection hour—The COLMIS
results showed this to vary from a low of 28 homes per hour for one community
to over 90 for another; the average for all 14 communities was 40 homes per
hour.
2. Average weight collected per crewman per collection hour—This ranged from 0.5
to 2.5 tons per hour for the various communities, with the average for all commu-
nities being 1.3 tons per hour.
3. Average cost per home per collection—The lowest cost was 17 cents in one commu-
nity, and the high was 41 cents; average cost for all communities was 30 cents.
4. Analysis of collection performance as a function of crew size—Cost per home
worked out to 10 cents for one-man crews, 14 cents for two-man crews, and 17
cents for three-man crews.
The bar graph comparisons of the communities gave a great deal of insight into differ-
ences in operation and showed where improvements could most easily be made.
As for the question of need for back-up equipment, SOCIA and OSWMP studied the fre-
quency of breakdowns as reflected in the COLMIS reports. For the four cities that had no
back-up equipment, the total number of days out of a three-month period that back-up equip-
ment could have been used was 24. This corresponded to 96 days per year. Holidays, and the
need for overtime efforts on Saturdays to make up for them, would produce an additional
demand for back-up equipment of 30 days per year.
A one-man collection unit costing $27,000 and amortized over 5 years (allowing 10 per-
cent salvage) costs $4,860 per year; adding to this the costs of insurance, maintenance and
contingency repairs brings the total yearly cost to $6,000 for SOCIA to provide a back-up
vehicle. Assuming that this vehicle would be used at least 100 days out of the 260 regular
working days, a rental fee of $60.00 per day would cover the costs. This is a reasonable
charge when alternative costs are considered; for example, a breakdown causing collection
28
-------
to fall behind so that Saturday work would be required would involve a $13.00 per hour
labor cost, or $104.00 per day, plus fringe benefits.
Commercial collection practices were surveyed by SOCIA and it was found that incon-
sistencies existed between cities with respect to frequency of collection and service charges.
Interviews with each of the City Managers indicated it would be difficult to establish a uni-
form SOCIA-wide rate structure for commercial collection.
SOCIA has been considering direct involvement in the operation of specialized collec-
tion equipment for large commercial establishments and apartment complexes. This effort
has not yet been completed due to the extensive field work required to gather the necessary
data. It appears thus far that each SOCIA member community had difficult or costly com-
mercial stops which could be serviced by a system of specialized equipment that would ser-
vice the entire SOCIA area. To this end, each city is compiling a record of its commercial
accounts, their frequencies of collection, amounts, names and addresses.
Once the larger accounts are isolated from the commercial routes of each city, the re-
routing of the commercial collection vehicles should produce greater efficiencies in the
commercial collection. The possibility of merging small commercial neighborhood pockets
into the residential routes, as is currently done in the smaller cities, will also be studied.
It is anticipated that SOCIA would acquire the specialized equipment necessary to
service large commercial accounts and would operate as a special collection agency, thereby
relieving its member communities of this responsibility.
In evaluating the feasibility of a SOCIA-operated regional collection system, it was
determined that the system with the lowest cost per home would use one-man collection crews
with side loading vehicles. The SOCIA staff indicated that the one-man collection system would
be the mode of operation should SOCIA actually become directly involved in solid waste
collection.
RESULTS
SOCIA has been operating the COLMIS program since June 1972. The Authority is
convinced that the COLMIS reports have provided a valid measure of performance and a
basis of companson for evaluating its member cities’ waste collection operations. In Janu-
ary 1973, SOCIA contracted with a local data firm to produce the COLMIS reports as a service
to the member communities.
The introduction of one-man collection vehicles has proven successful. The vehicles have
been well received by employees, especially in working on high-traffic-volume streets. SOCIA
has surveyed each member community to determine the status of back-up equipment available
29
-------
for solid waste collection and the need for a SOCIA operated back-up equipment pool. In
December 1972, the SOCIA Board of Directors acted on the proposal of providing back-up
collection equipment at a rate of $60.00 per day per truck. The pool should be in operation
by the summer of 1974.
The study of commercial waste collection operations has not convinced the member
communities that SOCIA should be directly involved in commercial collection. In most
instances, the prevailing attitude has been that “commercial collection doesn’t present the
problems we have with residential collection and commercial accounts are paying their fair
share.” The SOCIA study showed this to be in error, but strong political pressures have
tended to resist any changes in commercial collection policies.
The idea of a regional collection study has not received a high priority by the SOCIA
staff, and consequently, even with OSWMP encouragement. the study has not progressed
very far. It is generally felt that the duty of SOCIA at this time should be to assist in the
continuing improvement of the present system. When the cities have developed their opera-
tions to maximum efficiency, SOCIA will be in a position to analyze the differences in unit
costs between the cities and make effective recommendations in combining routes, especially
in the smaller cities, to gain further economies in the overall system.
FINANCIAL BENEFITS
A measure of the success of the effort in collection efficiency improvement is reflected
in the gradual decrease in the collection cost per home per week. Costs have decreased from
an average of 31 in June 1972 to 26 in January 1973. For the 85,000 homes serviced, this
corresponds to an annual savings of $22 1,000. This decrease is a direct result of crew-size
reductions and more efficient routing. Further reduction of costs is expected.
30
-------
LATAH COUNTY, IDAHO 1
Latah County is one of the northernmost counties of Idaho. It has nine incorporated
communities, the largest of which, Moscow, has a population of 14,000 persons. The eight
other communities have a combined population of 3800 while the remainder of the County’s
7000 residents live in rural areas.
Prior to October 1972. mandatory collection was practiced in the City of Moscow:
throughout the rest of the County, collection was sporadic at best, with only two of the
other eight incorporated communities having mandatory collection. The remaining communi-
ties had some service available, but it was on a voluntary basis and was usually by part-time
collectors using open trucks. Backyard burning was common, adding to air pollution. Rural
collection was even more of a problem since not even voluntary collection was available.
The disposal situation was also unacceptable. The largest site was operated for the City
of Moscow. Attempts to maintain it as a sanitary landfill failed due to a lack of daily cover
at certain times, particularly during rain. The soil there. as in other parts of the County. is a clay
of low permeability which becomes difficult to handle when vet. The other incorporated
cities also operated disposal sites, but they were all open-burning dumps having little planning
or control. Air pollution from the burning, and surface and groundwater pollution from these
dumps had been a continuing problem. In addition, all sites had insects, one had rodents, and
two others showed signs of feeding by bears and other large animals. The fires were also a
hazard to people in the vicinity and to the adjacent forests. In rural areas, residents resorted
to illegal roadside dumps throughout the County.
Even though County Officials had had no prior experience in solid waste management,
they decided to proceed with a complete County system in accordance with a State law making
it the duty of counties to provide solid waste programs. A special Solid Waste Study Commit-
tee was appointed along with a consultant to plan the project. The County decided that the
project would be a contract operation and would involve complete County-wide collection with
the contractor bidding on from one to three sanitary landfills at his option. The sites them-
selves plus plans and specifications were provided by the County. A contract was awarded in
August of 1972. The contractor chose to operate a single landfill to be located near the popu-
lation centroid of the County, an area also having easy accessibility from all directions.
At this point the County requested technical assistance from EPA’s Office of Solid
Waste Management Programs. OSWMP, it was hoped, would review the County’s plans
and find any points the County might have overlooked; and further, it might make sug-
gestions to keep past problems from recurring. Also, there were the public relations problems
of implementing any new systems; and as for the open dumps, the County still had no plan
or knowledge of the methods and equipment necessary for their effective closing. There was
1 Appendix A lists the names and addresses of local and Federal personnel involved in
this project.
31
-------
also the need for specific recommendations for the continuing management of the system.
The County was on the verge of providing the best solid waste service in the State, but Offi-
cials realized that there was still much work ahead to insure that it would operate most
efficiently.
HOW THE COUNTY ALTERED ITS PLANS
Of immediate importance was the preparation of the sanitary landfill site; the collection
contract had been signed in August 1972 and the landfill had to be in operation by the be-
ginning of October. OSWMP reviewed the County’s landfill plans and specifications and found
a number of points in need of improvement.
The landfill is in a 20-acre basin. Calculations based on expected waste load, compaction,
and soil-to-refuse ratio showed that with the original design the landfill would last only about
three to four years, even though it had been leased by the County for 10 years. In addition,
the planned trench excavations turned out to be below the water table, an unacceptable
situation. The site was redesigned and, as a result, is now expected to last for more than
12 years.
Many other points in the proposed landfill operation needed attention, everything from
a holiday policy for the workers to providing for winter and wet weather operation. The high
clay content of the soil makes wet weather particularly unwelcome since the soil holds water,
does not drain well, and becomes difficult to move properly. A system of drainage ditches and
trenches and a method of grading the work areas have worked effectively in keeping the landfill
open in all weather.
A field examination of actual operations showed that there was more than adequate time
for all required activities of traffic directing, refuse spreading, compaction, covering, and excavating,
but the otherwise smooth operation was hampered by the narrow 20-foot-wide working face.
For persons unloading their cars, not more than two cars at a time could gain access, thus
causing delays. Also the dozer did not have enough area to compact while unloading was in
progress. Widening the work face to 40 feet helped.
Another problem was that top soil was being mixed with other soil. Since the site was
eventually to be returned to its original agricultural use, the top soil had to be more thoroughly
separated. Excavations were not being properly carried out and in some places the fill’s lifts
were not coming up to specification. The use of surveying markers made it easier for the dozer
operators to check alignments and elevations as needed.
A groundwater analysis program was established to periodically monitor water quality.
Another operational check will be the scales when they are installed.
32
-------
All of the above recommendations were made to the County in writing and through dis-
cussions with the County Coordinator and the contractor. Operational points were also dis-
cussed with the dozer operator at the site. Most of the changes cost nothing, but they made
for improved use of the site. The only extra costs were for test holes and gravel. The same
manpower and equipment were used, but in a more effective manner.
The collection operation in the new areas to be served—that is, outside Moscow—expanded
first to the incorporated cities. Two 16-cubic-yard packer trucks were purchased for the task.
These would also eventually serve rural areas.
At this stage the effort was to balance the routes and provide equal workloads. Data forms
with directions were prepared by the OSWMP Project Engineer. The County, however, could
not spare the manpower to gather the data, so it contacted the University of Idaho where there
was a program of financial aid for students working in community assistance. As a result, a
senior civil engineering student undertook to gather, analyze and report on the data gathering.
One of the points he studied was the use by commercial establishments of 1- to 2-cubic-yard
containers designed for mechanical loading into rear loading trucks. This was important since
the use of containers was part of one of the alternatives for collecting from rural residents.
The alternatives for rural collection were:
1. Container collection, with containers being an average of 1.6 miles from residences—
Cost: $1.88 per month per customer. Two-man crews would be necessary for safe
handling of the containers.
2. Weekly collection with service at the road—Cost: $2.92 for one-man crews, $3.40
for two-man crews.
3. Biweekly collection with service at the house—Cost: $2.42 for one-man crews, $2.90
for two-man crews.
The first alternative was decided against because there was no way to assure that people
using the containers would be paying for the service. The second alternative was deemed un-
safe for motorists driving through the winding roads and unexpectedly finding a parked packer
truck. The third alternative promised a reasonable level of service at a moderate cost.
Implementation of rural collection was difficult because of the scattered population.
The County was broken up into manageable areas, then a detailed public information program
was carried out. The new system was described at public meetings where residents could sign
up for service at that time and their locations could be marked on an area map. The advantage
of the map was that mailing addresses are usually inadequate in telling exactly where rural homes
are located. Visits were paid to those persons not receiving service to explain that because ser-
vice was now available open burning was no longer legal and County ordinance required all waste
to go to the landfill.
With the opening of the landfill and the provisions for collection service, each community
was in need of a plan for closing its dump. The site serving Moscow was closed by a contractor.
33
-------
The OSWMP Project Engineer visited the other sites, and from the information obtained, a plan
for each site was developed. Each plan consisted of a locational map plus a site map showing
all pertinent features. An accompanying narrative explained where the refuse could be moved,
if need be, how and where to compact it, sizes and types of equipment needed, where cover
material could be obtained, and how to grade and seed the final covered surface. Costs had
to be absorbed by the communities involved, but the result was the removal of numerous eye-
sores.
The County also requested OSWMP to consider the future management needs and to make
suggestions for the control of the fully operational system. Guidance was provided in the
areas of data collection and analysis, records maintenance, contractor relations, public relations,
enforcement, and training. The recommendations were accepted by the County and a Solid
Waste Coordinator to head the County system was named.
RESULTS
All cities in the county have now joined the system. The environmental benefits of
the project are many. The fact that collection is available will reduce instances of poor
refuse storage conditions at residences and commercial establishments. Air pollution will
also be cut by the elimination of burning in dumps and backyards. The use of the sani-
tary landfill will prevent the water pollution that had taken place with the open dumps.
Insect and rat problems will also be controlled.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The cost of the weekly service to city residents and biweekly service to rural residents
has worked out to $2.90 per month. Cities keep 10 percent of the fee before paying the
County; the County keeps 10 percent to pay for the site, enforcement and management;
the remainder goes to the contractor. For this cost, the citizens of Latah County get
cleaner air, cleaner water and a more appealing countryside.
34
-------
COLORADO PLANNING REGION NO. 10
MONTROSE, COLORADO’
The Colorado Planning and Management Region 10 consists of six very rural and
mountainous counties in the southwestern part of the State. The counties are Delta, Gun-
nison, Hinsdale, Montrose, Ouray and San Miguel with a total population of 45,000. The
area is characterized by small towns, scattered homes and farms, lack of adequate transpor-
tation facilities and low median income. Because of these conditions, services were limited
and routes were disorganized or lacking altogether. Disposal sites were small, scattered, open-
burning dumps. Of the 29 State-designated disposal sites in the six-county region, only two
were in compliance with State regulations. An uncounted number of illegal roadside dumps
plagued the area. Since the population of the counties was small and incomes were low,
there was not enough money to support an efficient collection and disposal system. Thus
the problem was to correct the existing situation of unauthorized and inadequate disposal
and irregular and inefficient collection at a cost the areas could support.
The problem had been aggravated, however, by an Executive Order which made it im-
perative that several Federal agencies, particularly the Bureau of Land Management, move
quickly to either close or upgrade existing dumps that were operating on Federal land. Also
the Russel Stover Candy Company had indicated plans to construct a 600-employee plant
in Montrose, dependent upon the community’s pledge to provide waste collection and dis-
posal. This expected increase in the normal waste load demanded a revision in Montrose’s
collection and disposal operations.
A WORKSHOP IS HELD
In August 1972, the Executive Committee of the District 10 Regional Planning Commis-
sion held a regular meeting and discussed the need for solid waste planning. The Committee,
at the urging of the Montrose City Manager, voted to recommend a detailed study of the Re-
gion’s actual solid waste accumulations and authorized the Big Country Comprehensive Health
Planning Council to submit a project grant application to EPA.
Based on the documented need for solid waste planning, the Health Council submitted a
pre-application proposal to EPA’s Region Viii Solid Waste Management Office for funds to
develop a multicounty solid waste management system for the collection, processing and dis-
posal of solid waste in an environmentally acceptable manner.
The pre-application was approved in November. However, between the time the pre-
1 Appendix A lists the names and addresses of local and Federal personnel involved in
this project.
-------
application was approved and the formal application was to be submitted, EPA changed its
administrative policy regarding solid waste planning grants.
In response to a suggestion by the Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, a deci-
sion was made locally not to submit the formal application, but instead to hold a workshop
for local officials to outline potential solutions and the approximate costs of each. OSWMP
was then asked to provide technical assistance.
OSWMP responded by sending two specialists in rural systems—an urban planner and an
engineer—to the workshop set up by the Planning Commission and the Health Council. The
workshop was attended by various county personnel and by representatives from the National
Park Service, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Colorado Depart-
ment of Health.
On the first day of the workshop, a group meeting was held to discuss the project area
and a general overview of rural collection and disposal systems. A smaller meeting was then held
to discuss the goals of the workshop and to define refuse sheds within the project area.
On the second day a group meeting was held to discuss the efforts of two neighboring
counties in solving their solid waste management problems. A Bureau of Land Management
representative discussed his Agency’s policy with regard to the buying and leasing of land for
solid waste disposal. A number of smaller meetings were held the rest of the day on the fol-
lowing topics: general financing and funding requirements, City of Montrose solid waste volume
increases, and costs of regional vs. separate-county systems.
The third day of workshop meetings considered specific county problems and possible
solutions. Two County Commissioners from San Miguel County came to discuss their Coun-
ty’s solid waste problems. Two private haulers also came to offer their suggestions.
A final meeting was held on the fourth day to organize the general findings of the
workshop and the possible solutions on regional and county-by-county bases.
RESULTS
It had been the hope of the Director of the Health Council, in requesting OSWMP tech-
nical assistance, that EPA would do two things: provide representatives to focus and direct
the workshop and meetings; and develop specific alternative systems for the counties and ad-
vise local officials of costs and specific equipment requirements for each alternative.
EPA, on the other hand, limited its contribution to the presentation of general ap-
proaches to rural waste collection and disposal. Costs and effectiveness of varied solutions
were presented. In addition, EPA encouraged regional disposal sites rather than multiple sites
within each county.
36
-------
The decision to provide this type of assistance rather than developing and submitting a set
of specific alternative systems, including costs and equipment requirements, was based on EPA ’s
belief that plans developed through the expenditure of local funds and/or manpower are more
likely to be implemented than those which are funded or developed by outside agencies.
As a result of the week-Long workshop and the contributions from the U.S. Forest Service
and the Bureau of Land Management, a report was prepared by the Director of the Health Coun-
cil. The report presented sound alternatives to area officials and provided the basis for establish-
ing economic estimates of various county systems and the steps needed for implementing those
systems.
Presentation of alternate systems to Hinsdale County, coupled with pressure from the Bu-
reau of Land Management, brought about the closure of a county-operated open dump and a
decision by the largest municipality in the County, Lake City, to begin a sanitary landfill on
the site of what had been an open dump. Hours of access to the landfill have been limited, an
attendant is on site each day, arid refuse is covered with six or more inches of earth at the end
of each day. Gunnison County is operating a central sanitary landfill for the Gunnison River
Basin at Gunnison. Much of the groundwork for this was provided by a 1972 Forest Service
report.
Delta County has closed an open dump at Austin. Montrose (eastern section) and Ouray
Counties have jointly decided on a rural green-box collection system to be funded from revenue
sharing funds. The City of Montrose has had difficulty in deciding how to handle the waste
from the Stover Company and has, therefore, been seriously behind schedule in its solid waste
management improvements. Within the San Miguel Basin, the City of Telluride has passed a
mandatory house-to-house collection ordinance and contracted with a private hauler for collec-
tion and disposal. The hauler also collects from County residents who live along the route to
the disposal site. Four open dumps in the area have been closed and the site at the City of
Norwood is now being operated in conformity with State standards. The Town of Rèdvale
closed its dump and went to private contracting of collection and disposal.
Although EPA’s assistance fell short of local expectations, it was felt locally that without
it, in all probability, no meeting would have been held and no one would have been forced to
become sufficiently knowledgeable in solid waste management to produce a local plan with im-
plementable alternatives. In addition, the meeting served to bring varied State, Federal and local
interests together. This resulted in an exchange of information and a provision for assistance
vital to the interests of several communities within the Planning Region. Local officials now
seem to have a grasp of the costs involved and a knowledge of the equipment needed to operate
good collection and disposal systems.
37
-------
APPENDIX A
Local and Federal Contacts
The following is a list of local and Federal officials involved in the various technical assist-
ance projects described in this report. All Federal staff are from the Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1835 K St., N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20460).
Local Federal
Akron, Ohio-
David M. Zimmer, Director Kenneth Shuster
Department of Public Services
203 Municipal Building
166 South High Street
Akron, Ohio 44308
East Peoria, Illinois—
Sherman Burrus Bruce R. Weddle
222 East Washington Street
East Peoria, Illinois 61611
Michael Edwards, Planner
Tn-County Regional Planning Commission
Peoria, Illinois
Hot Springs, Arkansas—
Vernon Turnbow, Sanitation Director Allen Geswein
City Hall
Hot Springs, Arkansas 71901
Little Rock, Arkansas—
James Lynch, Administrative Assistant Bruce R. Weddle
City of Little Rock
Little Rock, Arkansas
Portland, Maine—
Worth Landers, Director Bruce R. Weddle
Public Works Department
Portland, Maine 14103
38
-------
Local Federal
Southeastern Oakland County (Michigan) Incinerator
Authority— J. Lamerato, General Manager George A. Garland
SOCIA
P.O. Box 1248
Berkley, Michigan 48072
Latah County, Idaho —
James K. Armitage, Director Truett DeGeare
Civil Defense and Planning
Latah County Courthouse
Moscow, Idaho 83843
Planning Region No. 10 Montrose, Colorado—
Michael Vitek, Executive Director Bruce R. Weddle
Big Country Comprehensive Health
Planning Council
Montrose, Colorado 81401
39
-------
APPENDIX B
Reading List of Current Reports on Solid Waste Collection
Single copies of the following reports can be obtained free of charge by writing to:
Solid Waste Information Materials Control Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Colonna, R. A., and C. McLaren, comps. Decision-makers guide in solid waste management.
Environmental Protection Publication SW-127. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1974. 157 p.
Garland, G. A., and B. R. Weddle. Shaving solid waste collection costs. Nation ‘s Cities,
12(2): 13-14, 16-17, Feb. 1974. Reprinted, [ Washington], U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 1974. 4 p.
Shuster, K. A. A five-stage improvement process for solid waste collection systems. Washing-
ton, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974. (In preparation.)
Shuster, K. A., and D. A. Schur. Heuristic routing for solid waste collection vehicles. En-
vironmental Protection Publication SW-I 13. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1974. 45 p.
User’s manual for COLMIS; a collection management information system for solid waste
management. v.1. Environmental Protection Publication SW-57c. Washington, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. 99 p.
User’s manual for COLMIS; a collection management information system for solid waste
management. v.2. Environmental Protection Publication SW-58c. Washington, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. 49 p., app.
ic 1020
------- |