PB-243 029
A MODEL COUNTYWIDE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SYSTEM FOR CLARK COUNTY, ARKANSAS
Clark County
Prepared for:
Environmental Protection Agency
1975
DISTRIBUTED BY:
National Technical Information Service
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
I
-------
PB 243 023
A MODEL COUNTYWIDE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SYSTEM
FOR CLARK COUNTY, ARKANSAS
This final report (SW-84d) describes work performed
for the Federal solid waste management programs under Grant No. S-
to CLARK COUNTY, ARKANSAS
and is reproduced as received from the grantee
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1975
i
-------
4. Title and Subtitle
A Model Countywide Collection aad Disposal System for
Clark County, Arkansas
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA
SHEET
1. Report No.
SW- 84d
Recipient's Accession No.
5. Report Date
1975
6.
7. Author(s)
Clark County Parks. Recreation & Planning
8. Performing Organization Rept.
No.
I. Performing Organization Name and Address
Clark County, Arkansas
County Court House
Arkadelphia, Arkansas 71923
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract/Grant No.
S-801-760-01-2
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period
Covered
Final
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstracts
The purpose of this project was to establish a model county-wide rural
collection system and sanitary landfill. For the most part, four-cubic-
yard containers were used to provide collection service for rural and
unincorporated areas. A sanitary landfill was established to serve the
entire county. The final report describes the planning, design, imple-
mentation and cost of the county-operated collection and disposal operation
and also provides a detailed account of a major dump closing.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17a. Descriptors
Collection, Containers, Refuse Disposal
17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
Rural Areas, Storage of Wastes, Dump Closing
17e. COSATI Field/Group
(21. No. of Pages
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This
Report)
""CLASSIFIED
20. Security Class (Thi
Page
UNCLASSIFIED
=ORM NT1S-3B (REv. to-73) ENDORSED BY ANSI AND UNESCO
THIS FORM MAY BE REPRODUCED
USCOMM-DC 8263-^70
-------
This report as submitted by the grantee or contractor has not been tech-
nically reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Pub-
lication does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views
and policies of EPA, nor does mention of comercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government.
An environmental protection publication (SW- 84d ) in the solid waste
management series.
iii
-------
TA TE OF CONTENTS
I. IN CDUCTION
A. T!iePrcblen . . . 1
B. Couniy De criptiort . 2
C. P ’oject Oo ectives . 10
Li. STEM DLSIGN
introductic n 11
3. ‘ste n Concept 11
C . Sol:id Wast Cciiec ion Design 14
Li r(ural Co]lecti.on System 14
(I) Equipment
(2) Personnel
E.. Skiecial and Dulk Item Collection Service. 31
. Rura Incorporated Collection Service . . 32
Urban Collect iOfl Service 33
I’. Sanitai’y andfil1 Design 35
Raticna]e for Site Selection 35
J. Site Analysis 50
(1’ General 50
(?) Jralnage 50
(3) Soil Conditions 51
( -4) Roacis 51
(5) Estimated Volumes 53
IlL llQALJ AND : l; ANCIALcoNsIDE TIoNs
A. Legal Authority . . . . . . . 54
B. Financial Analysis 56
C. F1nanc al Feasibility 61
IV Y5TE Th E’L N TATICN
A. ntrod’ .c1ic r 71
E. ‘Lairii of P..’ojcct Personnel 77
:; ; o catior . 79
I). C3nstr ction at the SanItary Landfill • • . 80
‘- :ectior. of Conta3ner Sites 81
}‘. dostrictLn c i i H ral Waste — Container Sites .83
O Du:p Ee - .abilltstion . 84
(I) i rainage Tnp ovement 87
( ) Sproading and compactIng 87
(3 at Extermination 89
Cov r±ng 90
iv
-------
Le ‘f Contents (corit’d)
1- ESULTS OF PROJECT OPEPATIONS
A. Site Geological Analyses.
(1) Cedar Grove Site .
(2) Manchester Site. .
B. Attorney General’s Opinion.
C. News Articles
D. Water Quality Study . .
E. Organizational Information.
(1) Implementing Court Order
(2) City Resolution. .
(3) Contractual Agreement.
91
91
92
92
93
94
94
97
100
. . . . S • S I • 106
• • . . . . . • . • 107
• • . . . . I S I 108
110
113
117
• 155
• 156
• S • S S I I • • • 157
I I I S I I 158
1. Population Distribution
2. Clark County Population Trends
3. Container Requirements — Rural Collection System.
4. Rural Collection Schedule
5. E.P.A. Eligible Costs and Grant Award
6. Summary of Revenue Bond Funds
7. ?rojected Initial Capital Requirements —
SanitaryLaridfill
8. Projected Initial Capital Requirements —
Rural Collection System
9. Maintenance and Operation Cost — Landfill and
Collection
10. Projected Operating Cost — Sanitary Landfill.
i . Waste Operations
S. Municipal Waste Collection
C. flural Waste Collection
Sanitary Landfill Weighing Operations
‘ ‘:ater Quality Study
F. i’ ’oje t Costs
G. F quipment Costs
i-i. Sanitary Landfill Operating Costs
T, Dump Rehabilitation Costs
APPENDI CES
TABLES
2
3
16
30
58
58
59
60
62
64
V
-------
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
314.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
140.
41.
142.
143.
14 14
145.
.
• . . • . . . . .
• . . S • • • • •
. • .
. . . .
• S • • • S S I S
. .
• S • S
• S S • • • • • .
65
• 66
• 67
• 68
69
94
95
96
96
99
101
101
103
: 104
104
1 35
136
1 37
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
Tables (cont’d)
11. Projected Operating Cost — Rural Collection
System
12. Cost Shares and Sources of Revenues . . .
13. Summary of Total Annual Cost Share by Division.
114. Sanitary Landfill Cost Share Analysis
15. Rural Collection System Cost Share Analysis
16. Sanitary Landfill Equipment Cost
17. Rural Collection Equipment Cost
18. Landfill Construction Cost
19. Management Information Cost
20. Statistics for March 1974 through October 1974:
Clark County Sanitary Landfill
21. Statistics for March 1974 through October 1974:
Rural Wastes Collection Activity. . .
22. Cost Summary — Arkadeiphia, Arkansas Dump
C 1 os in g .
23. Arkadeiphia Dump Closing by Work Task
2 4. Personnel Cost — Arkadeiphia Dump Closing
25. Equipment Cost — Arkadeiphia Dump Closing
26. Fuel and Materials Cost - Arkadeiphia Dump
98
Closing
Temperature (C 0 ). . . . .
Dissolved Oxygen (ppm). •
PH
Specific Conductance (u moles).
C.O.D. (ppm) .
B.O.D. 5 (ppm)
Mg (ppm). . . . . .. . . . .
Ca (ppm)
K (ppm) • .
Na (ppm)
N H 4 (ppm) . . . • . . . •
F (ppm). . . • • . . . .
NO (ppm)
C1—(ppm). . • . . . . . • . •
SO 4 (ppm) . . . . . . . • .
Fe çpptn . • • . . • . . . . . 150
Mn_(ppm) . . • . • • . . . . . . . I S 151
PO (ppm) 152
Fecal Coliforin (organisms/lOOmi) . . • . . . • • • 153
vi
-------
1.
2.
3.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
114.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
214.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
• . • 6,7
• . • . 18,19
• . • • 20,21
.24,25
• • . . 26,27
• 28,29
• • . . 38,39
• 40,41
• . . . 42,43
44,45
• . . . 46,47
• . . . 48,49
• . . • 52
73
73
• 75
• . . . 75
• . . . 76
76
• . . . 78
• • . . 78
• . . . 82
• • . . 82
• . . . 85
• . . . 85
86
• • . . 88
• . . . 88
. . . . 127
FIGURES
General Soil Map
Unoccupied Areas
Container Location • . • .
Rural Collection — Routes 1, 2 & 3.
Rural Collection — Routes 14, 5 & 6.
Rural Collection — Routes 7 & 8
Locational Analysis Map
Sanitary Landfill Site Location
Composite Plan • •.
Soil Test Layout
Sections
OfficePlot Plan.
Diagram of Soil From Water Well Hole.
Compacting Waste . •
Cover Waste . .
Three Cubic Yard Container
Four Cubic Yard Container .
Six CubIc Yard Container. . . . . .
Thirty Cubic Yard Packer Truck
Flat—bed Truck—side Pickup. . . . .
Flat—bed Truck—rear Pickup. . . . .
Scale House and Maintenance Building.
Office Compound
Container Site Improvement
Container Site Improvement
Sketch Map of Old Arkadeiphia Dump. .
Old Arkadeiphia Dump - Westerly View.
Old Arkadeiphia Dump — Southwesterly View
Locational Map of Sampling Stations •
vii
-------
INTRODUCTI ON
The Problem
Simply stated, the solid waste problems existing
prior to project implementation were brought about because
there were rio county or municipally regulated collec-
tion or disposal systems. Refuse collection was accom-
plished very inefficiently by the 15—20 private trash
haulers operating primarily in urban areas. Industry
and businesses were left to their own devices for trash
collection.
Disposal was by open dumping. There were more than
nine (9) open dumps in existence prior to project
implementation. tioperationit of two of these dumps con-
sisted of burning as a means of volume reduction and
periodic burial of the ash. Other dumps, smaller in
scale, were merely left open; most were covered
periodically by the County.
1
-------
County Description
For Clark County, Arkadeiphia is the county seat and
the largest concentration of population with 9,814]. people.
The total Clark County population is 21,5143 with 145.68
per cent classified as urban and 514.32 per cent as rural.
Table 1 presents the breakdown of population for the
County and all incorporated areas.
Table 1. POPULATION DISTRIBUTIO NS
Population %Population Households %Households
9,8141 145.69 2,300 414.31
2,075 9.63 500 9.63
2.88 1145 2.80
1.20 60 1.16
1.08 55 1.06
0.59 30 0.59
38.93 2,100 140.146
It is helpful to include in a population analysis a
picture of the growth pattern over a period of years.
Table 2 presents the trend of population growth since 1890.
Unit
Arkadeiphia
Gurdon
Amity 6114
Gum Springs 269
Oko].ona 233
Whelen Springs 126
Rural (Non Incor— 8,385
orated areas)
Total 2l 5 143 100.00 5,190 100.00 —
2
-------
Table 2. CLARK COUNTY POPULATION TRENDS
Year Population
1890 20,997
1900 21,289
1910 23,686
1920 25,632
1930 211,932
19110 21 1,1102
1950 22,998
1.960 20,950
19611 21,539’
1970 21,5113”
‘Bureau of Census 19611 Revision
197O Census Tract Figures
From 1920 to 1960, the trend has been an outward
migration and a decrease in population. However, Clark
County gained in population 25 per cent over a ten year
period from 1960 to 1970. The presence of industry, the
potential to attract new businesses and industry and the
development of DeGray Reservoir point to a probable steady
increasing population trend in the years to come. More
importantly, Clark County can expect to 1ncreas two to
three times its size In population during peak Isitation
periods for DeGrayLake.
The physical characteristics of Clark County include
three basic land resource areas of the twelve found in
Arkansas. The three resource areas are as follows:
(1) Ouachita Mountains: This area is composed of
about 17,668 acres in the northwest part of
the County two-thirds of which are in comxner—
cial timberland. The topography 18 from gently
rolling to very steep and mountainous.
3
-------
Elevations range from 400 to 600 feet above
sea level.
(2) Blackland Prairies: This area is composed of
about L 8,6 97 acres in the central and western
part of the County. The topography 1$ from
nearly level to moderately steep slopes of up
to 12 per cent. Elevations range from 200 to
00 feet above sea level.
(3) Forested Coastal Plain: This area is composed
of about 338,286 acres and covers most of the
County south of the Ouachita Mountains area
exclusive of the Blackland prairies. The
topography is from nearly level to hii].y.
Elevations range from 180 to 300 feet above
sea level.
There are nine different soil classifications in the
County according to The Soil Conservation Service of
Clark County. These soil types are keyed to the soil
map in Figure 1 and are summarized on the pages following
the map.
The land area of the entire County drains into the
Ouachjta River. The mean annual precipitation is 57
inches, the greater part occurring during the winter and
spring mont is.
Clark County consists of 561,920 acres of land.
Approximately 75 per cent or 422,000 acres of that land
area is woodland and classified as commerical forest.
4
-------
CLARK COUNTY SOILS MAP LEGEND
AMY-SNIT}1TON ASSOCIATION : Deep, slowly permeable, poorly drained,
acid, loamy soils on broad £ late in the coastal plain. Amy 60%,
Smithton 30% (inclusions of Cahaba and Blevina 102). Amy soils
have gray to grayish—brown silt baR surf ace soil and light
brownish—gray or gray 1 mottled silt loam or 8ilty clay loam subsoil.
Smithton soils have very dark grayish—brown to light brownish—gray
fine sandy loam surface soil over light brownish—gray or gray,
m ctled fine sandy loam or loam sub oi1.
BLEVINS—SACUL ASSOCIATION : Deep, moderately and slowly permeable,
veil i d moderately well drained, acid, loamy soils on gently and
z oderately sloping hilltops and ridges on rolling coastal plain up—
. lands. 1 1evins 35%, Sacul 35% (inclusions of Ruston, Tiak, Saffell
3nd SavanrLah 30%). Blevins soils have dark grayish—brown or brown
loam surface soil over yellowish—brown loam, sandy clay loam or silty
clay loam subsoil. Sacul soils have dark grayish—brown or brown silt
lo -un oi sandy loam surface soil over yellowish—red or red silty clay
‘ clay subsoil, mottled gray in the lower part.
KIRVIN—CA}IABA ASSOCIATION : Deep, moderately slowly and moderately
petmeable, well drained, acid, loamy soils on gently and moderately
sloping hilltops and ridges of rolling coastal plain uplands. Kirvin
45% Cahaba 40% (inclusIons of Luverne, Kalmia, Sacu]. and Caddo 15%).
Kirvin soils have brown fine sandy loam surface soil over yellowish—red
or red silty clay or sandy clay subsoil. Cahaba soils have brown
fine sandy loam surface soil over yellowish—red or red sandy clay
loam subsoil.
LEEPER—TEROUGE ASSOCIATION : Deep, very slowly permeable, somewhat
poorly drained, neutral to alkaline and calcareou , cJ ayey soils on
stream flood plains in the blacklanda area. Leeper 452, Terouge 30%
( inc iu tons of Kaufman, Houlka, Una, and Marietta 25%). Leeper soils
have very dark grayish—brown silty clay surface soil over dark
grayish—brown, mottled clay subsoil. Terouge soils are very dark
gray clay to depths of aix feet or more.
O (TIBBEHA—SUMTER ASSOCIATION : Moderately deep, slowly to very
slowly permeable, moderately well and well drained, acid to alka—
line and calcareous, clayey soils on gently and moderately sloping,
rolling uplands in the 1acU .ands area. Oktibbeha 40%, Sumter 35%,
(inclusions of Deinopolis, Sessum, Kipling, Kaufman and Terouge 25%).
Oktibbeha soils have brown to dark brown silt loam to clay surface
soil over red clay subsoil, mottled yellow and gray in the lower part.
Sumter soils have gray to olive ctay surface soil over pale yellow to
i iive clay subsoil, overlying gray chalk or marl.
5
-------
“
e4) 16
-I 5
a —-
a ’
— S b , Th ,C %.t ’ -
& M
a .”
IT:
1 0 t ““
: - ec
.,%Ma a C .,,
-v . , .b
Ac or.t t:?
2
— L’n._ , . ,a# a. ,,A,, &.
. .
1k j
a wt
I
6
Figure 1, page.1
-------
LEGEND
INTERSTATE HIGHWAY
U.S. HIGHWAY
STATE HIGHWAY
COUNTY ROADS
‘ -‘1” RIVERS OR CREEKS
0 TOWNS
CLARK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STUDY
CLARK COUNTY, ARKANSAS
FIGURE 1 page 2
GENERAL SOIL MAP
7 ______________________________
DRAWN BY IDATE: 1— ._‘f75
CHECKED BY I_”13ISCALE:1”:4MILES
I F!’78ISHEET I OF I
APPROVED BY
-------
CLARK COUNTY SOILS MAP LEGEND (cont’d)
0U . c} [ TA—AMY_ASSOC1ATION: Deep, moderately slowly and slowly permeable,
iel and poorly drained, acid loamy soils on bottomlands. Ouachita 30%,
Amy 30% (inclusions of Chenneby, Leaf, and Kalmia soils and water area
1 40%). Ouachita soils have dark grayish—brown to brown silt loam surface
soil over dark grayish—brown to yellowish—brown silt loam or silty clay
loan s.jbsoil, Aniy soils have gray or grayish—brown silt loam surface
soil over li :ht brownish—gray or gray, mottled silt loam or silty clay
oa subscil. Most of the association is subject to flooding.
3MTELL-BLEVtNS ASSOCIATION: Deep, moderately permeable, well drained,
acid loamy oil c ’ ncarly level and gently sloping hilltops and ridges
1 tt1 ot rollins coastal plain uplands. Saf fell 40%, Blevins 35% (inclusions
ti!t. , of C: haba, Savanaah and Amy 25%). Saffell Boils have brown gravelly
3lndy io m surface soil over brown to red gravelly sandy clay loam sub—
1. Bl .win soils have dark grayish—brown or brown loam or fine sandy
1o r surfac boil over yellowish—brown or strong brown loam, sandy clay
ioo or .ilty clay loam subsoil.
PwCOD-FICK S ASSOCIATION: Moderat.eiy deep and shallow, moderately
ier able, well and aomewhat excessively drained, acid, loamy soils on
entiy slopit to steep hilltops and ridges in the Ouachita Mountains.
rwood 4O . Pi J iis 40% (inclusions of Carnasaw, Pirum, Tome and Rock
20%). Sherwood 80115 are 30 to 60 inches thick over tilted and
t red san istcne bedrock. They have grayish—brown sandy loam sur-
face soil that is gravelly or stony in some areas, over yellowish—red
and red sandy clay loam subsoil. Pickens soils are 10 to 20 inches
thick over tilted and fractured sandstone or shale bedrock. They have
grayich—bro zn shaly or stony silt loam or sandy loam surface soil over
yellowish—brown shaly or stony fine sandy loam to silty clay loam sub-
soil.
TIAK-1{hYHEW ASSOCIATION : Deep, slowly and very slowly permeable,
moderately well and poorly drained, acid, clayey soils on nearly level
to gently sloping, rolling coastal plain uplands. Tiak 50%, Nayhew
35% (inclusions of Sacui. and Sawyer 15%). TJ.ak soils haye grayish—
brown or dark grayish—brown silt loam surface soil over yellowish—red
c red clay eubsoil mottled gray and yellowish—brown in the lower part.
I4.v hew soils have grayish—brown silt loam or silty clay loam surface
soil over grays mottled clay subsoil.
8
-------
FIfteen per cent Is pasture land, six per cent cropland,
and approximately four per cent towns and roads.
Clark County can be described as a rural county that
as a good balance between agriculture and Industry.
The ri’-Lmary agricultural products produced in the County
are timber, soybeans, and some cotton.
At present, the County has the following industries:
(1) an aluminum Ingot and reduction plant of the Reynolds
Metal Company) and (2) a division of the National Gypsum
Thmpany engaged in the manufacture of roof deck materials
of wood fibcr, (3) Ouachita Marine and Industrial Corpor-
ation whIch produces aluminum fishing and pleasure boats,
(Li) General Marine which also produces fishing and plea-
sure boats, (5) a division of Munsingwear, Hollywood—
Vassarette, which creates ladies lingeries, and (6) Oberman
Manufacturing Company, which makes wearing apparel for
both men and women.
DeGray Dam, completed in 1969, will Impound 13,Li00
acres f surface water when full. Sportsmen and pleasure
seekers attracted to the lake Just seven miles from
Arkad.elph a wIll undoubtedly add to the solid waste burden
in the County.
.Arkadelphia is the home town for two four—year institu-
tions of higher learning. Henderson State College has an
enrollment of some 2,900 students. Ouachita Baptist
University Is a Southern Baptist co—educational institution
and has an eniollment of approximately 1,200 students.
9
-------
ProJect Objectives
The primary goal to which Clark County aspires is
a comprehensive, economically feasible, and physlca]ly
workable sOlid waste management program for the total
geographic area of Clark County.
The project. objectives through which the above
goal will be achieved, are as follows:
1. To establish an organizational framework to
implement and manage and solid waste manage-
ment program.
2. To provide a rural collection service fpr
iflincorporated communities using a system
of four cubic yard containers and compactor
truck.
3. By using the same container collection system,
provide temporary storage space and refuse
transportation for Incorporated communities
with population less than 5,500.
14• To provide a land disposal facility for solid
wastes generated in Clark County which will
be operated within guidelines established by
the State of Arkansas and the Environmental
Protection Agency.
5. To collec t, organize, report and public data
and case history development which will be
useful as management information for applica-
tion to situations on a state and national level.
6. To organize and carry out a public information
program o the local, state, and national level.
10
-------
SYSTEM DESIGN
Introduction
All elements of the solid waste management plan
were selected for their minimum economic burden as much
as was practical, yet provide a collection and disposal
service which would be environmentally acceptable and which
would be available to all citizens of Clark County.
This management plan required total inter—governmental
participation and cooperation in every area of waste
management.
System Concept
The system concept was based upon the premise that
a centrally located sanitary landfill for the entire
county was the most economical means of final and environ-
mentally acceptable disposal. “Environmentally acceptable”
disposal is (1) a means of disposing of refuse in such a
manner as not to create nuisances, either visual or
physical, to public health or safety, and (2) an alterna-
tive to promiscuous dumping and burning.
11
-------
Methods of reduction and recycling were considered
as possible solutions to the refuse problems In Clark
County. These included compost plants, pulverizers, and
Inc eraiors. These methods were not considered to be
fec.3ibJ at this time for the following reasons:
(I) The relatively small quantity of refuse
expected to be generated in Clark County is
not great enough to Justify composting or
pulverizing.
(‘) The high costs of incineration is prohibitive.
(3) Land area is not a critical factor In Clark
County.
The method of disposal selected for use was a sanitary
lan fill to be operated by the County government to pro-
vide regional jurisdiction of use. It was envisioned as
a facility to serve all political subdivision within
Clark County boundaries.
Refuse is presently being collected in the following
manner:
(1) County government operates a rural collection system.
Rura) coiie tIon is accomplished by utilizing a container
system serviced by a large compactor truck. Containers
have been placed at points in the rural County where
dictated by population concentrations and transporta-
tion routes.
(2) The small incorporated areas of the County have
contracted with the County l’or collection and transfer of
refuse to the csntral landfill. The storage system
12
-------
consists 01’ containers dispersed throughout the town,
which are used by the townspeople for temporary storage.
These storage units are serviced by the County compactor
truc .
(3) ArkadeJphia presentlj manages and operates a municipal
coll ct1on system. Under this method of collection, the
city op rate a collection service by a sanitation depart-
ment to p o..ride co1l ction service to all residential,
commercial, Institutional, and industrial accounts withi
ineorç,oi ated limits. Arkadeiphia’s collection trucks
haul c ty refuse to the sanitary landfill,
(24) For n ustr1ai and commercial areas outside Incor-
porated limits, arrangements have been made and will
continue to be made as businesses desire the service,
for cori ractua1 s&rvices between the County and these
business establishments.
(5) Provisions have been made for the Corps of Engineers
and The state Park Department to utilize the Clark County
San:Itary Landfill for disposing of refuse generated
aro nd the perimeter of DeGray Lake. Present contractual
arrangcments with the Corps dictate that they will pay
for disposal ; erv1ces and will have responsibility for
collecLio n and ha ling of DeGray refuse and for its
transpoftatiofl to the disposal site.
13
-------
Solid Waste Collection Design
The design of the collection system is presented here-.
in as a four part design. The four parts are as follows:
(1) rural collection service, (2) special and bulk items
collection service, (3) rural incorporated collection
service, and (14) urban collection service.
The rural collection service provides for refuse
collection in two major areas, rural Clark County and all
incorporated areas with the exception of Arkadeiphia. Each
cog in the wheel of the Coordinated City—County Solid Waste
Collection System is discussed in the following sections.
Rural Collection System
Rural collection service Is accomplished through
utilization of a compactor truck and container system.*
The containers have been located primarily at traffic
nodes along rural roads. The purpose of these container—
locations 18 to put every household In the rural areas
closer to a refuse container than to one of the existing,
open dumps. These containers will eventually eliminate
*This container collection system follows the format
established by the Chilton County, Alabama Demonstration
Project.
14
-------
the necessity for an individual to haul trash to the sani-
tary landfill. This will help to reduce the quantity of
trash on highway rights-of--way as a result of blowing
out of open—bed trucks.
The computations used to determine container capacity
and number of containers needed is summarized In Table 3.
A refuse factor of 2.0 lbs. per person per day was used
for container requirement computation and Is compatible
with data obtained from the Chilton County, Alabama
experience.
The rural segment of the collection system was estimated
to a minimum of sixty containers having a capacity of
cubic yards. There were business and commercial establish-
ments in the rural area which were known to desire pre-
ferential service, increasing the number of containers
needed by approximately ten containers. A contingency
reserve of ten container was included to allow for possible
unforeseen needs.
To determine the location of the solId waste units
and collection routes, a five step procedure was developed.
The first two phases identify the area of the county to be
served, phases three and four pertain to the location of the
waste units while the la t phase has to do with route
selection.
The first phase In determining the location of the
solid waste units was to delineate those areas of the
county that would not require this service (Figure 2).
15
-------
TOTAL CONTAINER NEEDS 80
‘Source: Chilton County Solid Waste Disposal Demonstration Project
Detailed Progress Report, April, 1971.
Table 3.
CONTAINER
REQUIREMENTS
-
RURAL
COLLECTION
SYSTEM
Population
lb/persori/
day’
Total
lbs/day
300
lbs/day
lbs
yd 3
Days
Stor e
Needed
Capacity
14
yd 3
Number of’
Containers
Amity
6114
2.0
1,228.0
14
yd 3
3
12 yd 3
3
Okolona
233
2.0
1166.0
1.5
yd 3
3
14.5 yd 3
1
Whelen Springs
126
2.0
252.0
.8
yd 3
3
2.14 yd 3
1
Gum Springs
269
2.0
538.0
1.8
yd 3
3
5.11 yd 3
2
Gurdon
2,075
2.0
4,150.0
13.8
yd 3
3
14]• 14 yd 3
11
Rural
8,385
2.0
16,770.0
55.9
yd 3
3
167.1 yd 3
42
C’
Container Needs
Rural
-
Business & Commercial
— Rural
Preferential
Service
10
Add Contingency
Reserve
10
-------
This was accomplished by an analysis of the Clark County
road map, which was compiled by the State Highway
Department. Plotted on the map for each section are
the occupied and unoccupied farm dwellings in the county.
After the unoccupied sections were Identified,
the second phase of the procedure was to count the
occupied structures for each section and record this data
on the county road map. Sections were used for the
basic grid because they were present on the map.
The number of occupied structure8 In each section
was then multiplied by four, the average number of
residents per household in the county. The values thus
derived were plotted on the county map, and it was
used to identify the major rural population concentrations.
At these points, the first series of containers were
planned,
The next phase was to identify the area served by
each solid waste container. This was accomplished by
summing the population figures of the sections surround-
ing these points. When a total of 200 people were
obtained, the collection area for that container was
delineated and considered closed (Figure 3). A value
of 200 people for each container was calculated on the
basis of 2 lbs. of solid waste per person per day.
If a factor of 200 lbs. per cubic yard of uncompacted
waste is used, then waste quantity will convert to
17
-------
Figure 2, page 1
18
-------
0
UNOCCUPIED
AREAS
LEGEND
INTERSTATE HIGHWAY
U.S. HIGHWAY
STATE HIGHWAY
COUNTY ROADS
RIVERS OR CREEKS
TOWNS
CLARK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STUDY
CLARK COUNTY, ARKANSAS
FIGURE 2 page 2
UNOCCUPIED AREAS
DRAWN BY
I w. 1-LA 1 I 1_”1 J DATE: )... I
CHECKED BY SCALE: 1”:4MILES
APPROVED BY 1-”7 , SHEET 1 OF 1
19
-------
Figure 3, page 1
T I%
20
-------
LEGEND
INTERSTATE HIGHWAY
U.S. HIGHWAY
STATE HIGHWAY
COUNTY ROADS
RIVERS OR CREEKS
TOWNS
P%..IZ .dl
0
• CONTAINER
REGION
CLARK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STUDY
CLARK COUNTY, ARKANSAS
FIGURE 3 page 2
CONTAINER LOCATIONS
DRAWN BY I &)J-LA.I 1 ’73 IDATE:
CHECKED BY J I’13 JSCALE: 1:4 MILES
2].
APPROVED BY
I 1-13 ISHEET 4 F 1 j
-------
container capacity per service areas as follows:
A. 200 people X 2.0 lbs/person/day = 1400 lbs/day
B. 1400 lbs/day X 3.0 days = 1,200 lbs/3 day period
C. 1,200 lbs/3 day period + 300 lbs/yd 3 = 14.0 yd 3
capacity needed.
Tnerefore, one container with four cubic yard
capacity will service each area for a three day period
between unloadings.
The next procedure was to ascertain the most strategic
location to place containers which would serve each group of
200 people. This was accomplished by utilizing a process
based on the concept of intervening opportunity, in which
the container is located relative to the population distri-
bution and the distance of that distribution to the other
containers in the area. Here again the figure of 200 was
used, although in many instances it was found that the
population density and distribution was such that lower
totals were delineated. Thus, the container is so located
within the area delineated that it is closer to all dwellings
in the region than they are to any other container.
*The value of 300 lbs. per cubic yard of uncompacted waste
was based upon a combination of an implementation study
done by the Texas Agricultural Extension Service for
Polk County, Texas and informal averages found to be
in force in several projects over the United States.
These averages ranged from 125 lbs. per cubic yard to
1450 lbs. per cubic yard. Actual experience in Clark
County since these planning calculations were made
indicates that a more valid value for calculating con-
tainer requirements is from 175 lbs. to 225 lbs. per cubic
yard.
22
-------
Once the locations for the solid waste containers
were chocen, the design of the collection system was
undertaken (Figures 1, 5, & 6). From its conception,
four factors were kept in mind: the capacity of the
compactor truck, the location of the sanitary landfill,
the geometrical shape of the routes, and the orienta-
tio a of the road pattern3 in the county. Each of the8e
factors played an equally important role in determing
which cofltainer would be connected to which route.
With these factors in mind, the objective was to
de8ign a collection system with as few routes as possible
and the least number of trips to the landfill. Eight
sub—routes were designed in all, the longest is than
75 miles and the shortest not less than 10 miles. Each
is circular in nature and collects an average of 7.6
containers.
The proposed container locations and the rural collec-
tion routes as derived by the above methodology are shown
in Figure 11, 5, & 6. There are eight rural collection
sub—routes. For maximum collection efficiency, the eight
sub—routes were grouped into three major collection routes.
Each major route will require a full day to be serviced and
for the collection truck to return to the landtill.
Table 1 8how8 the groupings of sub—routes Into the major
collection routes and the weekly collection schedule that
these routes will require.
23
-------
Figure 4, page 1
24
-------
LEGEND
INTERSTATE HIGHWAY
U.S. HIGHWAY
cj7 STATE HIGHWAY
- COUNTY ROADS
‘ - ..‘Z/ RIVERS OR CREEKS
TOWNS
• CONTAINER LOCATICNS
NOTE: DOES NOT INCLUDE NUMBER &
LOCATION OF CONTAINERS WITHIN
MUNICIPALITIES.
ROUTES DENOTES
COLLECTION.
ONE DAY’S
COUNTY SOLID WASTE STUDY
CLARK COUNTY, ARKANSAS
FIG 4. RURAL COLLECTION
page 2 ROUTES 1,2&3
DRAWN BY wi.ia. - ‘7 DATE: %. 273
CHECKED BY I 13 SCALE: 1”:4MILES
APPROVED BY 1 :r, SHEET 4 OF .....
25
-------
Figure 5, page 1
26
-------
LEGEND
INTERSTATE HIGHWAY
, J’ U.S. HIGHWAY
STATE HIGHWAY
COUNTY ROADS
r.-’Z/ RIVERS OR CREEKS
o TOWNS
• CONTAINER LOCATIONS
NOTE: DOES NOT SHOW CONTAINERS
WITHIN MUNICI LITIES.
ROUTES DENOTES ONE DAY’S
COLLECTION.’
CLARK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STUDY
CLARK COUNTY, ARKANSAS
RURAL COLLECTION
ROUTES 4,5&6
DRAWN BY 1I.L.A. I I-”lS IDATE: %. 173
CHECKED BY J I t4M 5 I
FIG 5.
page 2
27
APPROVED BY
11 - ‘13 J SHEET....1.....OF ...i_ I
-------
Figure 6, page 1
28
-------
LEGEND
INTERSTATE HIGHWAY
U.S. HIGHWAY
STATE HIGHWAY
COUNTY ROADS
‘ .-‘2’ RIVERS OR CREEKS
O TOWNS
S. CONTAINER LOCATIONS
NOT SHOW CONTAINERS
WHELEN SPRINGS.
ROUTES DENOTES ONE
COLLECTION.
DAYS
COUNTY SOLID WASTE STUDY
CLARK COUNTY, ARKANSAS
FIG 6. RURAL COLLECTION
page 2 ROUTES 7&8
NOTE: DOES
WITHIN
S
29
-------
Table i. RURAL COLLECTION SCHEDULE
Time
Route
Mileage
Mileage
Sub—Total
Number of’ Cubic Yardage
Containers Collected
1st
Amity
66.3
7
28
Day
Amity City
14
16
Okolona
48.7
7
28
Okolona City
2
8
DeGray
23.4
20
Landfill Round
Trip
20
158.11
25
100
2nd
Gurdon I
311.3
7
28
Day
Beirne
55.4
8
32
Gurdon II
3 14.3
11
114
Landfill Round
Trip
20
1411.0
26
1011
3rd
Whelen Springs
75.6
7
28
Day
Whelen Springs
City
2
8
Griffithtown
30.4
5
20
Landfill Round
trip
20
126.0
1 4
56
11th
Amity
66.3
7
28
Day
Amity City
14
16
Okolona
148.7
7
28
Okolona City
DeGray
23.11
2
5
8
20
Landfill Round
Trip
20
158.11
25
100
5th
Gurdon I
3 14.3
7
28
Day
Beirne
Gurdon II
55.14
314.3
8
ii
32
41l
Landf ill Round
Trip
20
11111.0
26
1011
6th
Whelen Springs
75.6
7
28
Day
Whelen Springs
City
2
8
Grifflthtown
30.4
.j
20
Landfill Round
Trip
20
126.00
1 14
•
56
TOTAL PER WEEK 856.8 130 520
30
-------
In establishing the major routing system, considera-
tion was given to mileage and truck capacity. The maximum
round—trip distance of l58. l miles is well within the
truck’s range for a one day haul. The maximum number of
containers in a given major route is also within the 30
cubic yard capacity of the compactor truck. Each route
Will he serviced a minimum of twice weekly. This opera-
tion can be handled on a six day per week collection
operation.
Initial container requirements are estimated to be
80 containers. The service truck for the rural collection
system will be a 30 cubic yard compactor truck with a
front loader capability.
Only one full—time position is necessary for the rural
collection system. This position will be the compactor
truck driver. The landfill manager/dozer operator and the
alternate heavy equipment operator will be cross—trained
as back-up personnel.
Special and Bulk Item Collection Service
This plan is unique in that it provides a means for
collection of bulk waste items such as car bodies, T. V.
sets, appliances, and furniture. With a means for locating
collecting and transporting bulk items to the disposal
site, Clark County can 8timulate the disappearance of a
great proportion of “junk”. Emphasis on bulk items will
31
-------
rid Clark County of much junk material already abandoned
and will give the county the capability of adequate and
responsive collection and disposal of those Items as they
normally go out of service.
The operational plan Is simple but can be very effec-
tive. The County will own and operate a bulk collection
vehicle which will be available on call by either
interested citizens and/or city councils. The bulk collec-
tion vehicle will be operated by the alternate heavy
equipment operator and will not necessitate addition of
ar 1 extra employee. Bulk collection can be accomplished
with a stake and platform truck modified with boom and
hoist for lifting bulk items.
The bulk collection truck will be used also as a
vehicle for servicing container sites. A steam generator
will be a part of vehicle equipment. The steam generator
will be used in periodic cleaning of waste containers.
Rural Incorporated Collection Service
Smaller towns, such as Amity, Okolona, Whelen Springs,
and Gum Springs, cannot individually afford compliance
with the intent of Acts 237 and 238 of the 1971 legislature.
However, If each participates In concert by being a part
of the County collection and disposal service, the solu-
tion becomes reasonable In terms of economics.
The most ecoonomical and environmentally acceptable
means of collection from small towns is through use of a
32
-------
containerized storage and transfer system. Each town has
located within it8 incorporated limits a number of con-
tainers which are being used by the town for dumping and
temporary storage. These containers are being serviced
during the regular rural collection route on a three time
per week basis.
Equipment — The only equipment requirements for the rural
incorporated transfer station are the containers. Table 3
summarizes the expected quantities of’ refuse and number
and sizes of containers required by each town.
Responsibility for providing house-to—house collection
service will rest with each City Government. Regardless
of whether the refuse is collected by private hauler
licensed by the city, or carried by the individual home-
owner, the transfer station concept, as outlined in this
section, provides Clark County with an effective, economical
alternative to the present practice of open dumping a d
incidental littering of City streets and County roads.
Urban Collection Service
The only city considered in this plan to be an urban
area is Arkadeiphia (population 9,8141). The City Board has
made the decision to initiate and operate a municipal
collection 8yetem. The major policy decision has been to
provide behind the house pick—up service.
33
-------
Equipment configuration selected for the service was the
container train system. The City of Arkadeiphia is now
serviced by three trains, each with three, 5 cubic yard
trailers. One 24 cubic yard packer truck Is used to service
these trains. One additIonal 16 cubic yard, front loading
compactor is being used to provide pick—up for institutional
and commercial establishments.
Under the proposed County—wide management plan, refuse
generated within Arkadeiphia city boundaries Is being
transported to the sanitary landfill only by municipal
collection vehicles. Initiation of municipal collection
operations has virtually eliminated individual hauling from
both households and businesses and has therefore decreased
the quantities of trash which normally reaches highway
rights—of-way when collection is unregulated and uncontrolled.
34
-------
Sanitary Landfill Design
The plan presented herein is based upon a 20 year pro-
jection. Studies have been conducted which give planning
agencies a fairly good rule of thumb to determine the
amount of land area required for a sanitary landfill. The
rule of thumb is that two acres per year, six feet deep,
will be required for each 10,000 population.
Clark County has a population of 2l,5 43 so the land
area required would be four acres per year if burial can
be achieved to a depth of 6 feet. Based on a 20 year
plan, the land required will be approximately 80 acres.
Rationale for Site Selection
An analysis of a series of factors, physical and social,
was conducted to determine the most suitable location for
a sanitary landfill. These factors included soil limita-
tions, topography, flood plains, geology, road systems,
population concentrations, haul distances, and land use.
The first proposed site, which was owned by the Corps
of Engineers, was analyzed by the Arkansas Pollution Control
and Ecology Commission Geologist (See Appendix A). He
determined that several aquifers (porous sandstone) sur-
faced on the proposed site and that to avoid pollution of
35
-------
tne mdex ground water table, extensive engineerin would
to te accomplished in order to make the site suitable.
It w üeterinined that the engineering costs on this site
would be prohibitive.
Ac soon s it was learned that the Corpse property
ould ot be suitable due to geological limitations a
carcb aas lrrmiedlat.ely begun for a new site. The same
o. .o ist Lhat 1n peeted the Corp8’ site located and
d ilr.e ea on a Clark County map zoned within which he
u ge .ed a search e confined. These areas are shown in
figure . These zones were established due to the fact
that i;he geological formations within these zones are not
known to contain aquifers or aquifer recharge areas.
Two zones were eliminated completly due to very inade-
quate ccii for cover material. Soils in these two zones
are hard clay with little or no loam content and are
extremely difficult to work with a dozer blade. Priorities
are theci established for the remaining zones as noted in
1 igure 7. The zone east of the Ouachlta River was given a
prIority ox one (most desirable) becanse of its proximity
to tb center of greatest refuse production and the existence
of land remote from high density population areas.
A search for a specific site In the priority one zone
was conau ted In cooperation with Internatior l Paper Company
Soil, C n ervat1on Service, and the Arkansas Department of
Pollution Control and Ecology. This search resulted In the
36
-------
designation of a site owned by International Paper Company
as the proposed Sanitary Landfill site.
The Clark County Sanitary Landfill is located on a
27.7 acre site that is described as that portion lying
south of the exi8tIng county road of the Northwest 1A4 of
Section 12, TownshIp 7 South, Range 18 West, Clark County,
Arkansas. Th18 location is about nine miles east of
Arkadeiphia, Arkansas by route of Arkansas State Highway
51 to the small community of Joan and then about two miles
along county road going northeast to the proposed land-
fill site (Figure 8).
Adjacent to the 27.7 acre site Is an additional 52
acres which can be leased at a future date. Therefore,
general engineering work was accomplished to take this
additional area into consideration. The first portion
(the 27.7 acres) will be the area lying southwest of a
ridge which runs southeasterly across the property from
the county road, marked Phase I on figure 9. Engineering
plans are provided in Figures 9 through 12. The second
portion will be that area which lies northeast of the
ridge and is marked Phase II on figure 9. International
Paper Company also owns all land which Is adjacent to
this proposed site, with the exception of the property
joining the west boundary which is 120 acres In an estate
controlled by Mr. J. P. Sturgis.
37
-------
-ç
c 3
S
ç ’l0’
I
S
\.
O9j
Figure 7, page 1
38
-------
LEGEND
INTERSTATE HIGHWAY
U.S. HIGHWAY
STATE HIGHWAY
COUNTY ROADS
r -’Zf RIVERS OR CREEKS
o TOWNS
DELINEATION OF LAND
JUDGED GEOLOGICALLY
SUITABLE BY STATE
GEOLOGIST
DESIG TES ORDER OF
PRIORrP y ESTABLISHED
FOR EACH ZONE
CLARK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STUDY
CLARK COUNTY, ARKANSAS
FIG 7. LOCATIONAL
page 2ANALYSIS MAP
DRAWN BY 1-”1 IDATE: 1
CHECKED BY J ISCALE 1”:4MILES 1
9—
39
APPROVED BY I
L ’13 ISHEET I OF I I
-------
-ç
S
ç 2.0’
I
S
\
Figure 8, page 1
40
-------
LEGEND
INTERSTATE HIGHWAY
J’ U.S. HIGHWAY
STATE HIGHWAY
COUNTY ROADS
‘ -‘V” RIVERS OR CREEKS
0 TOWNS
CLARK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STUDY
CLARK COUNTY, ARKANSAS
FIG 8. PROPOSED AREA
page 2 OF
SITE LOCATION
DRAWN BY I W.A.I )‘73JDATE:)
CHECKED BY J J ) ‘73 ISCALE r:4MILE5 I
PROPOSED AREA OF SITE
41
APPROVED BY
1 1 ISHEET 4 OF 4
-------
I—
(I
I,
/ 2 ,
1 47’a4) a’ u so 7W W&L.
E
;
—
I!:
— iu__
I I! S l • N S
42
Figure 9, page.1
/
-------
1
WC/4’/TV ‘W4P
ILSEY & HAM
1,1*USIl . . ...
• 9. ea 2 I,’,2- 6 4q
S 2N/722êV 1 ND 712
-
/
43
-------
;/.; — -J
1
( .
I4 ’T 1 w ’(f#’ ’
£WF F fe ,7
: t /’M’J? T
/
P 6’ I V ?’ 7IY 4 (/6//T t’f/&/t ’
r
/rsT U % ( ‘/
FT5T //4 (
?T57 42
.
--
44
Figure LO,
page 1
-
,
-0
-
•
-----
atviss•.ss
)
)
_ 5 T( ,’
6(C T
5f
*V Vi•F /,V($ f
-------
,‘rr,v z’ L9EOIV 24
NTJ
C 2h’II
CO / VTI’
T W$/TifT4’iV(F
ç g j /1*’
Uo’//T £1i7
4g ? 4 6 /’-F4 ’
—-
y ’T .w iri #PTF iWe ’
‘ : ea* wc r#a*’ iP’4’ 1’
. 5—
22 2Zt’ sawi
i2 ø7 /
f/I,”... ../ /1/i /
t/ IL.’ I I V i— r
/x4 ’rp 3Tcr/av$ a .o J
.,S. ‘\•____________
—
üV 9 wcw
7T$T 4t ’( : 1 ec
45
FIG 10.
page 2 6 QN/
Dee _____
4’ t cav
1’d rk’ a’u nr p
4iaV,2 fli ’Y
• (
/
,t 2 4’g [ t/T 7PaMT
IW
£‘ t7 J70
I r#p 16f7
-H,
II IIT1uI 1. -
PJ,,I1SII$I& I ‘‘. H.N-21
UXSIUhI 1 04 C. . • _
a..
I
/ YT Ih’P# ?7 •
1 7 Q2V ( 7NO 7 1
-------
57 9
criar oT m — “
ceciiav 4 0T £4
/ iWI’ Ce2’/ h V% 5 /7 fl /
wc# fr r 6 i rc ’
Y f Tc,,) 29i twt ’ T#4’ // 2 #’
t ri ’ a w 4’ # ‘- ,o r
T
46
Figure 11, page 1
3/’ ; ,
36e
s ’a
‘Fe
51 1
U$VI ION$
-------
a.
5éC17 ’tV 8T / 2”
‘ /
\
\
gg p 1 4%e/ ’-/a9’
L \\ \ \ \ \ I
c r ’ rn’
‘7iV4’ CiVdF
‘ 7rh ’ .;W4:’
‘ ‘ a** e
c/ñZ’ Fg2U4’s ’
47
•
.
£lh s.%S
RIG; ill
u”
•
SY
DAYS
i ’Y
WILSEY & HAM
S INCOSPOSAT S S
1
“
!! #‘ ‘
FIG 11 -‘ “
page 2 Z V,Z #I’ t 1 O4 9f/á’
7O 4’ t /#TY
/
/
/
N
(WE
N
$a,7,# gT ii w ‘ ‘
41
-------
.1
44 1 ’/, g’# €4’T c
,3 $T h*’I / —
rc. 7 c —
73-ST h f 7 -3 F447/#
we
I W?fl
SS7 I W7 s JO7 DYea Tf ) ) Pf(2DXflitU)
s4Wfav z’474e
4 1$
48 ‘FIgure 12. DaRe 1
. — —
. IV S I S S
/
/
L
/
/
g_y’ ‘woe
‘
- -)
-------
I S .
sr
-— -
- 31°
\‘
/
/
r
AIF
-
- S-
-I ’,
S -Mwr
‘S
• F#’AW$
— —a df
-------
Site Analysis
General — The proposed sanitary landfill site contains
approximately 27.7 acres In Phase I and approximately O
acres In Phase II. Timber was removed from the property
by International Paper Company In 1969. There are still
numerous large pine trees scattered over the property and
some small hardwood. All property adjacent to the pro-
posed sIte Is also timberland area. The nearest residen-
tial home is about one—half mile west of the proposed
site.
Dralnage — Generally speaking the county road which
runs along the north side of the proposed site Is a
drainage divide for the area. The water which falls north
of the county road drains north and that which falls south
of the county road drains 8outh. A proposed ditch, which
Is shown on the Plans, running along the south side of
the county road will detour all run-off water around the
landfill. The site 18 presently well drained with two
separate ravines which drain Into L’Eau Frais Creek about
one mile south of the proposed site. This creek drains
into the Ouachita flyer about five miles from this point.
*Note: Actual site design, working drawings, and opera-
tional specifications were accomplished by B. & F.
Engineering, Inc., of Hot Springs, Arkansas. See
figures 9—12.
50
-------
Soil CorBdltions — Six test holes were drilled on the
proposed landfill area by the engineer with a sIx inch
auger type drill. The location and the results of these
borings are shown on the Plans. In general, the ridge
which runs through the center of the proposed site is a
well compacted light tan silt with rock ranging from one-
quarter inch to four Inches in size down to an eleva-
tion of about 325 feet. The areas below the 325 foot
ccntour is a very silty clay, light tan in color, with
the exception of the bottom of the ravine on the south-
west side of the ridge which is a very wet, dark gray
silt. Although there was no surface water at the time
the borings were made, it 18 apparent that there are some
springs located in this area during the wet seasons of the
year. A copy of the geologist report for this area 18
In Appendix A.
Additional Insight was gained Into the subsurface
soil picture at the time the water well was dug, some
16 months after the Initial site engineering work was
done. The well Is a 65 foot deep “dug” well. The actual
hole is dug and cased and is 36” in diameter. Figure 13
diagrams the various soil strata encountered with their
correspondiig depths.
Roads - The proposed sanitary landfill site will be
accessible by approximately two miles of county road
w i’ h will be surfaced with double seal asphalt by the
51
-------
surface
15’ gravel cap
35’ red clay
12’ sandy clay
5 ’ “quicksand” (highly 8aturated sand)
Blue Marl
Estimated to extend down to 100—150 feet
Figure 13. Diagram of Soil from Water Well Hole.
52
-------
county from State Highway 51 at Joan, Arkansas to the
proposed landfill site. The roads within the landfill
area consist of one main road which runs southeasterly
along the ridge with temporary roads turning south-
westerly into Phase I and northeasterly into Phase II.
Estimated Volumes — The estimated potential volume
of Phase I excluding the final cover is 383,000 cubic
yards which was calculated by the area of sections method.
Assuming approximately ten per cent of th1s volume will
be consumed by daily and intermediate cover, Phase I will
have an approximate net capacity of 3145,000 cubic yards
compacted solid waste. Assuming a density’of 1,000 lbs.
per cubic yard for compacted solid waste and using an
annual tonnage of 214,500 tons of refuse to be generated
in Clark County, Phase I should have a life of approxi—
inately seven years.
53
-------
LEGAL AND FINANCIA l 4 CONSIDERATIOI S
Legal Authority
The basic authority for Clark County as an entity of
government to implement and finance the Solid Waste
Program is Arkansas Act 238 of 1971.
The Act states in Section 1: “Any county or munici-
pality in this State is hereby authorized tQ own, acquire,
construct, reconstruct, extend, equip, improve, operate,
maintain, sell, lease, contract concerning, or otherwise
deal in facilities of any nature necessary or desirable
for the control, collection, removal, reduction, disposal,
treatment or other handling of refuse. .
The Act further states in Section 2 that: “Counties
and municipalities are hereby authorized to use any
available revenues for the accomplishment of the purposes
set forth in Section 1 hereof, including the proceeds of
revenue bonds issued under the authority of this Act,
either alone or together wi,th other available funds and
revenues. The amount of revenue bonds Issued shall be
sufficient to pay the cost of accomplishing the specified
purposes, the cost of issuing bonds, the amount necessary
for a reserve, if desirable, the amount necessary to
54
-------
provide for debt service on bonds until revenues for the
)ayment thereof are available, and any other costs and
xperiditures of whatever nature incidental to the accomplish-
nent of the specified purposes.’ t
“Bonds issued pursuant to this Act shall not be general
Dhl:i at ons of the County, but shall be special obligations,
r J in no event shall the bonds constitute an indebtedness
)f the County within the meaning of any constitutional or
statutory limitation. And, bonds Issued under the Act
3hall b exempt from ll State, county, and municipal taxes
except property taxes.”
Several provisions of this Act need to be emphasized.
Section 3(d) states that “The bonds shall be executed by
the county judge and county clerk of the county or by the
mayor and the city clerk or recorder of the municipality
(wIth e2ther the manual or facsimile signature of the county
judge or mayor but with the manual signature of the clerk
or recorder), and In case any of the officers whose signa-
tures appear on the bonds or coupons shall cease to be such
officerG before the delivery of such bonds or coupons such
signatures shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for
all purno es. The coupons attached to the bonds may be
executed by the facsimile signature of the county judge
of the ‘ rurity or the mayor of the municipality.”
5e t:on 7(b) states “Counties and municipalities
are hereby authorized to impose upon and collect from all
persons who can be served by a project reasonable rates
55
-------
and charges for the services of the protect, without regard
to whether such person desires to utilize the services.’ t
The State Attorney General had rendered an opinion
concerning Section 7(b) and can be found in Appendix B.
In short, the opinion stated, with reference to the mechanics
of user fee collection, that “a system of collection could
be set up so that the bills for such collectiQn could be
sent out with the property tax bill to all owners of
realty.”
Section II states “Any county or any municipality is
hereby authorized and empowered to enter into a compact
with any county or counties, any municipality or municipali-
ties, the United State of America and/or the State of
Arkansas, or any agency or political subdivision thereof, for
the purpose of a cooperative effort to carry out any or all
of the purposes authorized by this Act. Any such compact
may provide for joint ownership and/or joint operation of
any facilities, and may contain such other terms and condi-
tions as the parties deem necessary or desirable for the
accomplishment of any of the purposes authorized by this
Act.
.Financial Analysis
The total initial cost of the Solid Waste Management
System was estimated at $178,5514.OO and was allocated as
follows:
56
-------
1. Sanitary Landfill $103,055.00
2. Rural Collection System 75, 99.0O
Total Initial Cost $178,5514.C0
During the early stages of management planning,
several different funding sources were investigated.
Application was made to the E.P.A. for a demonstration
project grant. E.P.A. entered into a contract with Clark
County for a grant in the amount of $93, 4314.00 for the
development of a demonstration Sanitary Landfill (Table 5).
Additional money, in the amount of $68,700.00, was obtained
through the sale of revenue bonds to provide local matching
money requirements and other costs (Table 6). Revenue bond
proceeds and E.P.A. grant money applied specifically to
Landfill construction and equipment purchases. Detailed
capital cost estimates for each category are provided in
Table 7.
Another $75,000.00 was obtained through a Quorum Court
appropriation of Federal Revenue Sharing money. This
appropriation was specifically designated for equipment
purchase and construction related to the rural collection
system. A summary of these items is found In Table 8.
57
-------
Table 5. E.P.A. UIIGIBLE COSTS AND GRANT AWARD
Item Eligible E.P.A. Grant
Salaries and Wages $18,500.00 $18,500.00
Fringe Benefits 2,9i 3.00 2,9 43.00
Consultant Services 5,175.00 5,175.00
Equipment 62,736.00
Travel 218.00 218.00
Publication Costs 1 4,600.oo 1 ,600.0O
Other l,t 00.OO l,1 00.O0
Construction 31,270.00 15,563.00
Total Grant _ $126 ,8112.O0 $93,1134.00
Table 6. SUMMARY OF REVENUE BOND FUNDS
Budget
County Matching Money $19,L 86.00
Road Paving (External Access) 12,600.00
Dump Reclamation 6,000.00
Operating Capital - Six Months 22,607.00
Debt Service Reserve 6,020.00
Legal and Accounting Services 1,987.00
Total Revenue Bonds $68,700.00
58
-------
Table 7. PROJECTED INITIAL CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS
SANITARY LANDFILL
Total
Development
Cost
Shelter and Storage
Fence
Signs
2 miles Roadway—at $2,800/mile seal co5t
Roadbed preparation & widening $7,O00
*Site preparation (clearing & grubbing)
@$ 1 400/acre on 5 acres
Ut1lities
Phone, electricity, thermogas, water
*Offjce Equipment—desk, chair ; file
cabinet, adding machine
*Sjte Design (Job Total
$ 5,000.00
l,l 37.00
200.00
12,600.00
2,000.00
1,000.00
750.00
3,000.00
Dump Rehabilitation
Employee Training: Per
*Equlpment Heavy
Crawler tractor with bucket
Scales — 60,000 #cap ($8,500 scales
+2,000 installation)
Wood Chipper $2,500
Contingency 10%
6,00o.oo
500.00
1 8 , 200. 00
10,500.00
2,500.00
$93,657.00
9,368.00
$103,055.00
*Denotes the items considered absolutely necessary to the
proper functioning of a sanitary landfill and therefore
is that amount which Is shown as cost to users in
operating costs and In computing cost per household.
*Building Facility
59
-------
Table 8. PROJECTED INITIAL CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS
RURAL C0LLECT OR SYSTEM
Cost estimate from Chilton County Report
* IDenotes the items considered absolutely necessary
to the proper functioning of a rural col1 ction
system and therefore is that amount which is
shown as cost to users in operating costs and
in computing cO8t per household.
* Cofltajners:
8O 1 cubic yards at $2 1 0/conta1ner
‘6O Road Pullouts at $221.k3/pullout
* Compactor Truck: 30 cubic yards
**Flatbed Truck: with wench
**Steam Generator:
Rad1os: 2 at $1,200 each
Contingency 10%
$19,200.00
13,285.80
28,000.00
5,000.00
750.00
2, 400. 00
$68,635.80
6,863.58
$75 ,499.38
60
-------
Financial Feasibility
Total annual operating cost for the County Solid Waste
System Is projected to be *60,8614.00. These estimated costs
are provided in Tables 9 through 11.
Operating costs for the system will be supported by
revenues obtained from user charge8. The method used to
arrive at an equitable cost burden for each user and for
each governmental entity involved in the management system
was to prorate cost using a formula of’ population times a
refuse generation factor. The refuse factor for Arkadeiphia
was 14.0 lbs. per person per day and for all other munici-
palities and rural areas, 3.0 lbs. per person per day.
This methodology resulted in a cost sharing schedule as
summarized In Table 12. Detailed analyses of pro-rated
costs for each political subdivision are provided In Tables
13, 14, and 15.
These cost shares served as the basis for the opera-
tional support for the first year. Service contracts for
collection and disposal will be re—established at the end
of the first year based upon weight records kept at the
landfill site. Cost shares will then reflect actual weights
collected and disposed.
In terms of cost per household, cost of the system is
very reasonable. Disposal cost for Arkadelphia residents
was estimated at $7.12 per household per year. This figure
Is only that which applies to Arkadelphia’s share of the
61
-------
Manager/Dozer Operator
(Est. 2080 hrs $3.25 per hi’)
Assistant Dozer & Compactor Truck
Operator (Est. 2080 hrs $2.5O per
hr)
Collection Driver
(Est. 2080 hrs $2.50 per 1w)
Overtime est. p832 hi’s x $Jl.32 per hr.
Extra help est. 520 hrs x $2.00 per
hour
Total Salaries and Wages
Benefits
Insurance est. €$i8.oo per month per
employee
Retirement est. €.07 of total salary
and wages
Social Security est. Q5.2 of total
salaries and wages
Total Personnel Cost
Maintenance and Operation
Gas, oil, and other equipment supplies
Equipment Repairs
Utilities (electricity)
Postage
Telephone
Facility Repairs
$ 11,112.011
5,936.611
1 1 80.00
252.00
2110.00
500.00
Personnel
Positions
1
Table 9. MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION COST
LANDFILL AND_COLLECTION
Title
1
1
Annual Cost
$ 6,760.00
5,200.00
5,200.00
3,593.25
1,0 140.00
$ 21,7911.211
$ 588.00
1,525.70
1,133.29
$ 25,0141.23
62
-------
Administrative Supplies
300.00
$11,820.68
Contingency est. p.10 of total
operation and maintenance
Total Maintenance and Operatiori8
Total Personnel
Depreciation
Debt Service
GRAND TOTAL
1,182.07
$13,002.75
25,0 141.23
13,0141.23
8. 900. 00
$60,863.98
63
-------
Personn I
Positions
Table 10. PROJECTED OPERATING COST
_S NITARY LANDFILL
Manager/Dozer Operator
(Est. 2080 hrs p3.25/hr.
Assistant Dozer & Truck Drive
(Est. 2080 hrs $2.50/hr.
Overtime eat. 55 l hrs x $IL 32
Total Salaries
Benefits
Ins. est. l9.20 per
Other insurance
Retirement eat. .07
and wages
Social Security eat.
Total Benefits
Total Personnel
Maintenance and Operations
$ 6,760.00
5,200.00
2,393.00
$l ,353.OO
‘i6o.8o
201. 6 i
1,OO1 .7l
839.65
$ 2,5l1 .00
$16,867.00
Dozer, TD15-.C
Gas, oil, maintenance
Depreciation
Utilities
Telephone
Facility Repairs
Postage
Administrative Supplies
Depreciation (physical plant)
Debt Service
Total Maintenance and Operations
Tc a1Annual 0oerat1n Cost
$ 7,180.00
4, 340. 00
480. 00
21 10. 00
1 175.00
252.00
300.00
1,1176.00
4,8111.00
$19, 557.00
mo. per employee
of total salary
.O585 of total
64
-------
Table 11. PROJECTED OPERATING COST
RURAL COLLECTION SYSTEM
Personnel
Positions
Collection Drive — Eat. 20 i0 hrs.
$2. 50/hr
5,200.00
Overtime eat. p278 hi’s x 14.32/hr.
i 2O0.96
Total Salaries
Benefits
Insurance eat. P$19. 50/mo/employee
Retirement eat.. p.07 of total salary
Social Security eat. p.0585
$ 6,400.96
Total Benefits
Total Personnel
Maintenance and Operations
$ 1,056.51
$ 7,1157.147
Oil, gas, grease
Equipment Repair & Maintenance
Depreciation
Debt Service
$ 2,232.014
2,936.614
5,900.00
3, 603 . 85
Total Maintenance & Operations
$114,672.53
GRAND TOTAL
$22. 130 . 00
2314.00
14148.06
3714.145
65
-------
Table 12. COST SHARES AND SOURCES OF REVENUES
Political Subdivision Cost Share
1. Arkadeiphla $15,105.00
2. Gurdon 6,922.00
3. Amity 2,0Z 17.O0
1. Gum Springs 899.00
5. Okolona 780.00
6. Whelen Springs 22.0O
7. Non—Municipal Area 27,96 14.00
8. State Park s,ooo.oo
9. Corps of Engineer8 7,500.00
TOTALS $66,639.00
66
-------
Table 13.
SUMMARY OF TOTAL_ANNUAL_COST SHARE BY DIVISIOt I
Clark County
By D1y sion __
Arkade iphia
Gurdon
AmIty
Gum Springs
Okolona
Whelen Springs
Rural
Landfill
1&, 365. 30
2,997.70
885.10
389.714
338.714
182. 12
12,1O7.3 4
$33, 266.014
Rural
Collection
3,923.65
1,161.82
508.99
14140.39
239.00
15,856.15
$22,130.00
Total
$1,365.30
6,921.35
2, 0146. 92
898.73
779.13
1421.12
27,963.140
$55,396. 014
Add State &
Corps
3,157.96
$36, 1 1214 00
3,157.96
$5B,55 1 4.O0
0 ’
MON HLY AND ANNUAL COST PER
HOUSEHOLD BY DIVISION
This arn unt includes only that required for 1andf 11 operation and does not show
the cost of operating the urban collection system. Arkadeiphia will collect a
service charge that will cover both disposal facility operational cost and
urban collection operational costs.
Landfill
Collection
Total
Landfill
Collection
Arkadeiphia
.593
.59
7.12
7.12’
Gurdcri
.500
.6514
1.15
6.00
7.85
13.85
Amity
.509
.668
1.18
6.10
8.01
114.11
Gum Springs
Okolona
.5141
.513
.707
.661
1.25
1.17
6.50
6.16
8.148
8.01
114.98
111.17
Whelen Springs
Rural
.506
.1480
.6614
.620
1.17
1.11
6.01
5.77
7.97
7.55
13.98
13.32
-------
Table ill. SANITARY LANDFILL COST SHARE ANALYSIS
A ade iphia
G don
A. it y
G r Springs
Ckolona
W-.eieri Springs
R ra1 (Non.Inc.)
State
C ps
8,500
2, 75
6114
269
233
126
8,385
20,202
700, 000*
2,000,000*
1
Pds. Refuse by
Division/Day
314,000.00
6,225.00
1,8 1 12.00
807.00
699.00
378.00
25,155.00
3,835.61
2,7214.79
75,666.110
5
% of Refuse
Product ion
8.23
2.113
1.07
.93
.50
33.214
5.07
3.60
100.00
isitors Per Year
A ’kadelphia
G rdon
P.ri ity
Gu Springs
Oko 1 ona
W e1en Springs
?u a1 (Non.Inc.)
State
Cc ps
6
Aliocatlor. of
Monthly Op. Cost
By Division
$1, 363
2149.81
73.75
32. 148
28.23
15.18
1,008.95
153.89
109 .c’7
35T 1i
7
Annual Cost
By Division
16, 365. 30
2,997.70
885.10
389.714
338.714
182.12
12, 107 .314
1,8116.70
1,331.26
36, 11214.
Monthly Cost
Per Hot. ’eho1d
• 593
.500
• 509
• 5141
.513
.506
.1480
9
Annual Cost
Per Household
7.12
6.00
6.10
6.50
6.16
6.01
5.77
Annual Cost Month1y 6st
Sanitary Landfill: 036,1421 1.00* 03,035.314
1
2
3
Pop.
Households
*Refuse
2,300
500
1145
60
55
30
2,100
5,190
14.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
8
: c1udcs Debt Service Requirement
-------
Table 15. RURAL COLLECTION SYSTEM COST SHARE ANALYSIS
Rural Collection System:
Annua1 Cost
$22,130. 00-W
Monthly Cost
$l,811L$.17
Gurdon
Ami ty
Gum Springs
Oko lona
Whelen Springs
Rural
Allocation of
Monthly Op. Cost
By Division
$ 326.97
96.82
42.41
36.70
19.92
1,321.35
Annual Cost
By Division
$3,923.65
1,161.82
508 . 99
1440.39
239.00
15,856.15
$22,130.00
Monthly Cost
By Household
.654
.668
.707
.661
.664
.629
Annual Cost
By Household
7.85
8.01
8.48
8 . 0].
7.97
7.55
Clark County
By DivIsion
Gurdon
Amity
Gum Springs
Okolor..a
Whelen Springs
Rural
Refuse
Pds.
Refuse
by
% Total
By’
Factor
Division/Day
Division
2,075
614
269
500
1145
60
3.0
3.0
3.0
6,225.00
1,842.00
807.00
17.73
5.25
2,30
233
55
3.0
699.00
1.99
126
30
3.0
378.00
1.08
8,385
11,702
2LlOO
2,590
3.0
25,155.00
71.65
100.00
35,106.00
*Includes Debt Service Requirement
-------
disposal facility cost and does not include the City’s
cost for house—to—house collection. The cost per rural
household (non—incorporated area) was estimated to average
$l LOO annually. This figure does include cost for disposal
and rural collection.
User charges to rural households will be made one time
annually by attaching the service charge bill to the property
owner’s tax bill as outlined by the State Attorney General
(See Appendix B).
Revenues as outlined in Table 12 are insured through
existing contract ’a1 agreements between Clark County and
other governmenta’ entities (Appendix E). Payments for
services rendered are made from municipal government to
County government. Each municipality is responsible for
collecting its own user charges.
70
-------
SYSTEM IMP LEMENTAT 1UN
Introduc t ion
Project implementation began in early January of 1973
with the acceptance of bids on all project equipment.
Actual implementation action was concerned with equipment
procurement, selection and education of project personnel
and construction of facilities. These procedures are
reviewed in the following paragraphs.
Landfilling operations began on June 1 , 1973. On
that date, the facility began receiving wa8te from the
City of Arkadeiphia. Due to a late truck delivery, the
County rural collection service did not become operational
until early October, 1973. Actual weighing operations
did not begin until March 7, 19714.
Equipment Selection
Two pieces of equipment were purchased for the
Sanitary Landfill, a TD-15C International dozer and a set of
Toledo, 60,000 pound capacity truck scales.*
*The use of brand rfames for items of equipment used in
this report does not constitute endorsement of those
products. Such references are used merely as a specific
designation as an aid to comprehension and Identification.
71
-------
The tractor 8elected for waste compaction, and cover
operations was an International, TD—15C equipped with a
hydraulically operated Rockland “landfill blade” and an
all—weather cab. Twenty inch treads were selected as
being suitable for landfill operations. Also purchased
with the tractor was a rear cable control unit for possible
future use with a pull scraper. The operating weight
of the unit, with fuel, is approximately 15.5 tons and
is shown compacting and covering wastes in Figure l ê and
15 respectIvely. Operating experience has indicated that
the tractor as outlined above is Bufficient for the quan-
tities and types of wastes being handled.
The second equipment purchase item for the landfill
was the set of 60,000 pound truck scales. The question
has been asked as to why a set of scales is necessary.
Clark County’s situation, in which each political subdi-
vision shares in the total operating cost, demands an
equitable system of distributing costs to those political
subdivisions. It was felt that the only method which would
fairly distribute the costs on a readily and accurately
measured basis was a system of weighing material from each
source, then pro—rating the cost based upon waste quantity
generated. The maximum gross weight recorded to date
for any one load has been 53,100 lbs. carried in by the County
compactor on August 31, 19714.
Equipment needed for the rural collection system
included waste containers, a packer body and chassis, and a
72
-------
FIgure iLl.
Compact i T iaste
Figure 15. CovefIn Waste
73
-------
2—1/2 ton tilt bed truck. Three container sizes are being
used in the Clark County system, three yard, four yards,
and six yards. There are,as of October 3.5, 19714, 1142 con-
tainers being used. One hundred of these are four yard
containers, twenty are three yard containers, and twenty—
two are six yard containers.
The four yard containers are being used in the rural
areas; the three yard boxes are beIng used for commercial
accounts and for added capacity at problem points in rural
areas; and the six yard boxes are being used in the Cities
of Gurdon and Amity and for commercial accounts.
A design adapted from containers used in Chilton County,
A1a’bama, was used for the four yard box. They are top loading
units. The length from side to side, the depth from front to
back, and the height from bottom to top (as viewed by one
approaching the front of the bin at which waste loading Is
most easily possible) are 72 inches, 514 inches, and 148 inches,
respectively. Pictures of the containers are provided in
Figures 16, 17, and 18. ThIs design was used since it is
easier for the housewife to reach and thus easier for her to
handle the garbage.
The packer body chosen has a front-end-loadiflg lift capaci-
ty of 6,000 pounds and a waste holding capacity of 30 cubic
yards. The unit was built by E-Z Pack. Another feature of
the unit includes a 70-gallon washwater rank. The washwater
tank enables the driver to apply a mixture of disinfectant
and insecticide at the container location as the need arises.
74
-------
Figure
Figure 17.
rjlbree C uic ;
11 c ur At ‘tC
75
Iat’c Container
lard CunLainer
4 ’j .
i6.
-------
18. Six Cubic Yard Container
Figure 19. Thirty
Cubic Yard Packer Truck
Figure
76
-------
The truck upon which the packer unit is mounted is a
heavy—duty, cab—over--engine Ford c—8000 model. The truck
is powered by a diesel, caterpillar engine. Figure 19 is
a photograph of the packer truck in the process of collecting
wastes.
A third major piece of equipment purchased for the
rural collection system was a telescoping, tilt—bed truck.
A 1973, Ford F 7000 with a Caterpillar diesel engine was
selected through competitive bidding as the chassis to
be used. The tilt—bed is also equipped with a 50,000
pound winch and cable unit and a stake rack to give the
truck maximum storage capacity.
One modification was made to the tilt—bed factory
design: a boom hoist was constructed at the front of the
bed. This placement enables the driver to pick-up an
old refrigerator or other bulk material by threading the
winch cable through the boom arm and swinging the arm to
the side of’ the truck. Two different pick-up methods are
demonstrated in Figures 20 and 21.
Training of Project Personnel
Personnel training concerned two levels of activity.
Early in the planning stages of the program, the Project
Director visited two counties: Lee County, Mississippi,
and Chilton County, Alabama, where existing solid waste
disposal systems had been initiated by county governments.
77
-------
Figure 20.
Flat-bed Truck—Side Pick—up
Fi ’>ure 21. Flat—bed Truck—Rear Pick—up
78
-------
A literature review was conducted which included• studies
of plans which had been accomplished for different types
of systems.
Training of the sanitary landfill manager and other
personnel was also accomplished. Before landfill opera-
tions were begun, the landfill manager attended an E.P.A.
sponsored solid waste management course for operators in
Kansas City, Kansas. No additional heavy equipment schooling
was necessary because of the manager’s prior operating
experience. The manager subsequently 1natructec a back—up
operator during a period of on-the—job training
User Education
Landfilling operations actually began on June , 1973.
This was after a period of user education stretching back
to 1968. In 1968, the County Judge’s office began efforts
to find a solution to the County’s trash problems. From
1968, until the time operations started, meetings were held
with every Rural Community Improvement Group i the County.
Informational sessions, showing either the Chil on County
“Clean and Greerl”movie, or a slide presentation, or giving
speeches by County Judge Randall Mathis, were presented
to these R.C.I. Groups 1 all civic organizations, and all
City Boards of Directors.
79
-------
News media presentations were also used. Appendix C
shows news articles that appeared during the planning
stages of the program.
The slide presentation mentioned above was developed
by the Project Director with technical assistance provided
by Henderson State College Media Center. This program
covered the County’8 trash problems and the propo8ed
solution for both rural collection and disposal. Pai 4 tl—
cular attention was given to showing the difference between
a dump and a sanitary landfill and to showing precisely
how a sanitary landfill is operated.
Construction at the Sanitary Landfill
The first construction activity was the clearing and
grubbing of approximately 5 acres of the 27.7 acre site.
This was accomplished with County Sanitation Department
personnel and the International TD—15C tractor purchased
for the landfill operation.
Interior road construction was accomplished by utilizing
the landfill dozer for the rough shaping and ditch work.
A scraper and a road patrol were rented from the County
Road Department to spread gravel and accomplish the finish
work on the road. Gravel is available in abundance on the
27.7 acre site, and this gravel was used to provide the
surface for the all-weather interior access road for the
landfill.
80
-------
Other items of construction include an office building,
scales, septic tank and filter field,water well, main-
tenance building, fence, and container pad. The office
building was built to provide protection from the elements,
sanitary facilities and drinking water for department
personnel. The maintenance building was provided for
dozer storage, small equipment storage, and an all-weather
maintenance area. Figure 22 and 23 show the landfill
office complex.
Selection of Container Sites
In a previous section of this Report, “Syst n Design,”
a methodology was outlined whereby optimum contaicier loca-
tions were selected. This “classroom” methodology resulted
in a map showing preliminary container locations for the
entire rural county.
Once this preliminary exercise was accomplished,
County officials moved to involve the citizenry in container
site selection. The procedure Is outlined below.
The Project Director met with the County Agricultural
Extension Agent, Mr. Dallas Holbrook, and his Assistant
County Agent, Mr. L. J. Jackson, and identified the leader-
ship of each rural community. From these names, two or
three people from each community were selected by the County
Judge to serve on a site selection committee for their
individual communities. A total of approximately eighty
83.
-------
F1. ure 22. Scale House and Maintenance Building
Figure 23. Office Compound
82
-------
people representing 30 dIfferent communities wersirivolved
in the container site selection process.
Each committee was given amap with . suggested
location marked on the map. They were informed that the
location on the map was simply a point from which they
could begin their search. The committee was asked to
find the location which best suited the needs of their
particular community and report that location to the
Judge.
To place containers within the incorporated limits
of a municipality, each City Board of Directors was
involved. Actual site selection within incorporated
limits was a function of the City Board.
Clark County officials contend that the time and effort
taken to Involve the site selection committees was an
extremely worthwhile investment. ApproxImately 76 per cent
of the committees functioned adequately. The net result
of involving these committees and spending time in group
presentations from 1968 to 1973 has been a very smooth
implementation with virtually no verbs 1 objections from
rural citizens.
Construction of Rural Wa5te Contath r Sites
Improvement of container ttes ias varied from no Improve-
ment necessary to extensive dirt work, drainage and urf&oe
preparation. When th site requirer 1 improvement a gravel
83
-------
base course was applied. The gravel base course is a
mixture of clay witn a graded gravel from a #14 screen to
2 inches in diameter. The result was a lftghly compacted
surface which holds up and is usable in wet weather as
well as dry weather.
There was no particular geometric design used. The
shape of the site, for the most part, dictated the geometry
of the container pad. The primary objectives in placing
the container was (1) to place it where it could and
would be used in all types of weather, and (2) to place
it where the container, its users, and the serv*ce trucK
would be completely out of the normal traffic p ttern.
Figures 21; and 25 show two different types f container
improvements.
Dump Rehabilitation
The main rehabilitation effort was, because of its
8ize and location, with the Arkadeiphia City Dump.
The Arkadeiphia dump was placed into use in 1970. At
the time It was officially closed, on March 1, 1971;, the
dump had been in use for approximately four years. It
is estimated that tnls dump served a popuLatIon of from
lO,000—11;,000 and comprised an area of about five acres.
A sketch map of the dump is provided as Figure 26.
Volume of material existing in the Arkadelphia dump
at the time of closing was impossible to eetimate accur .;ely .
84
-------
Figure 2
Improvement
25. Cora. e.e te 1rnprcvemer t
Container
F’ I ur e
85
-------
E&•. -&4
W )
/
1!:! 1 —
/.f4P
fLOU //
86
I
-------
However, some guideposts can be provided that will be
helpful. As already noted, the dump had been in use for
about four years. During that time, the ccininon practice
was to uurr. to achieve a reduction n yolume. Figure 2’ and
28 show the dump prior to covering.
There were essent aily rour tasks invcli ed 1c :los ng
the dump: drainage iniprovem nt, spread1n ar. compacting
the refuse, rat exterminatioz , and oo ering.
Draina Improvement - The dump was located In a low 1y ng
area bounded cii two sides by a sougli. Before 1rainago
improvement, the natural flow of water wa arr und the thimp
and Into a drainage d±tch which e ientua1].y took the runoff
water to the Ouachita River.
I& was decided tha In order o bury all existing
refuse, the slough would have to be thained, dammed and
then used as a hole in which solid waste would be buried.
To accomplish this, a new ditch had to be cut which would
rechanriel the flow of water This new ditch eliminated
the natural flow of water.
Spreading nd Com act1n -. ThIs tack simply involved
moving the r posed soi d waste Into tb empty hole and into
low areas aud z;ompsctThg or ediv ing the volume as much
as po slble.
For a period of about five months, Cark County,
locked the gates of the new 3anItar Landfill a d accepted
87
-------
Figure 27. Old Ar’k deph 4
— . t, ri ; IIew
I .
‘ _(i Ar •: ie ::
88
— :‘
V e w
-------
all waste from the City of ArkadeiPhia and, surrounding area
at the old dump. People in the rural areas around the City
as well as some buaines8ea, contractors and industry used
the site ‘or the five month period.
This move was made for two primary reasons. First,
the five month period from October, 1973 to March of l97
was an extremely wet time. Mud made t iwposclble to
complete the dump closing. Second, there was such a mass
of refuse to be moved and spread, that in order to eliminate
the cost of renting a bulldozer, the decision w made tc
use the Sanitation Department ?s landfill dozer. TraflS—
rerring the TD-15C back and forth, dafiy, botwee tne
landfill and the dump (round trip approxitnateli 72 miles)
was an unnecessary logistics problems not to mention an
unnecessary cost.
p.atE terminatiOfl — Consultations with the State Health
Department, Vector Control Section, resulted in a decision
to use Red Squill poison mixed with hamburger meat.
The bait mixture was formulated by people from the
State i-iealt.h Department and trarispOrte i to the Arkad 1Pr’ia
uikip. The bait was then disti’ibuteu in t.he dump o
March 11, l97 . Inspection of the batt the follow1fl
morning showed that approxilflat2iY 3C— 1 O% of the bal c. had
e ii accepted.
The State Health Departmeflt 5 recommendation was to
. o1low several days later with a hattth o Warfarlrl mixed
89
-------
with cornmeal. This was accomplished with satisfactory
results. -
Covering — Covering was accomplished by using some
cover material at the site. The Job was completed,
however, by hauling overburden into the dump from one of
the County 9 s gravel pIts.
All other dumps in the County were smaller in size
and more remote. The State Health Department recommended
that, because of the remote locations in relation to homes,
an attempt not be made to poison any possible rat population.
In all, twelve dumps have been compacted, covered, and
officially closed.
90
-------
RESULTS OF PROJECT OPERATIONS
Waste Operations
Weighing operations began at the Clark County Sanitary
LandfIll on March 7, 1971i. The results obtained and
reported In the following paragraphs are for an eight month pe-
riod. This should be kept In mind In analyzing the reEults.
Municipal Waste Collection
Municipal waste as used in this section refers to
waste generated in the City of !trkadelphla. Arkade].phla
transports all of’ its waste to the sanitary landfill In
two city owned front—loading compactor trucks.
Two units of time have been selected for data analysis,
the week and the day. This was done to give readers the
maximum amount of Information with which to make comparisons
with their own situations. It is possible to give data
based upon the day as a unit of’ time since both the City
of Arkadeiphia and Clark County make collection runs each
day.
During the eight month period, weekly collections from
Arkade1ph a ranged from 133,650 pounds to 219,780 pounds.
The average amount of waste hauled was 182,971 pounds per
91
-------
week. This results In an average waste collection per
person of 22.0 pounds per week or 3.1 pounds per day for
the City of Arkadelphla.
Rural Waste Collection
Included in the rural analysis are five municipali-
ties, Gurdon, Amity, Gum Springs, Okolona, and Whelen
Springs, with an aggregate population of 3,317, as well
as the rural non-Incorporated areas which has a population
of’ 8,379. These municipalities are included in the
“rural’s analy5is since they have contracted Clark County
to collect and dispose of their waste material.
During the first eight month period of weighing,
collections from rural areas ranged from 65,050 pounds per
week to 117,510 pounds per week. The average weekly
collection amounted to 92,1 6 I pounds per week. These
values result In an average waste collection per person
of 9.6 pounds per week or l.i pounds per day.
Sanitary Landfill Weighing 0peration
Statistics pertinent to the landfill operation have
been presented In the previous sections. These statistics
describe the majority of the wastes disposed of In the
landfill. There are additional wastes deposited In the
landfill which are brought there by trucks other than
those of the County and City of Arkadeiphia.
92
-------
At this point j n operations, only a minor, irisigni-
ficant part is brought in by private citizens. These have
averaged about one vehicle per day and have some type of bulk
waste such as tree trimmings, old limbs, or old refrigerators.
Additional quantities are brought in by the Corps of
Engineers and the Arkansas Highway Department. During the
eight month data period, the Corps of Engineers brought in
217,1LIO pounds of garbage. During the same period, the
Arkansas Highway Department brought in 95,700 pounds of
refuse.
Average weekly waste depositions in the lanaf ill, during
the eight month weighing period was 212.0 tons per week.
This averages 25 tons per day for a six day work week.
Figures presented in this paragraph are ccunty-w ide waste
disposal totals and represents a waste disposal average of
19.7 pounds per person per week or an average of 2.3 pounds
per person per day.
Water Quality Study
An important element of the project has been the ground-
water quality monitoring program in the area of the landfill
project. This monitoring effort was conducted by Dr. Joe
Nix of Ouachita University whose report is provided in full
as Appendix D of this report. Conclusions drawn by Dr. Nix
were that groundwater quality in the vicinity of the lar.cifill
was rather poor prior to initiation of operations at the
lancifil.1 sIte. 93
-------
Project Costs
Cost InformatIon 18 key element of the project
management information effort. This sectiOn presents actual
equipment costs, construction costs, management information
costs, operating costs, and dump rehabilitation costs.
Equipment Costs
All of the equipment purchases for this project were
made In accordance with purchasing procedures outlined by
Act 52, 1965 of the State of Arkansas. The cost 8hown in
this section represent the results of competitive bid
purchasing. Table 16 shows actual costs for eqt .pment
purchased for the landfill.
Table 16. SANITARY LANDFILL EQ1JIPNENT COST
Equipment
1. Crawler tractor with landfill
blade, all weather cab, rear
cable controls and tool kit $1i8,81 1 .73
2. Truck scales, 60,000 pound
capacity, installed 8,728.22
3. Office furnishings 1 19997
L. Fuel Tank & Pump 378.Z 12
5. Portable litter control fence 115.58
6. Steam cleaner and generator 1,11110.111
TOTAL LANDFILL EQUIPMENT COST $59,937.06
94
-------
Four different Items of equipment were purchased for
the rural collection system. The5e were the thirty cubic
yard compactor truck, containers, radios, and two tilt-
bed trucks. Costs for this equipment Is summarized in
Table 17.
Table 17. RURAL COLLECTION EQUIPMENT COST
Equipment Cost
1. Compactor truck, 30 yard, front $29,047.36
loading, including packer body
and tandem axle chassis
2. ContaIners, 142 each Includes: 34,146.71
100 fot r yard containers
22 six yard containers
20 three yard containers
3. Tiltbed truck, with stacke rack, 12,435.78
50,000 pound winch and cable,
and hoist
4. Radios, mobile units, two each 1,462.60
Installed
TCY AL COLLECTION EQUIPMENT COST $77,092.45
One explanation should be made concerning purchase
of containers. Containers were purchased on three
different occasions In lot sizes of 77, 26, and 39. The
low cubic yard containers were purchased on three
different occasions and unit costs ranged from $212.00
to $240.00. Unit price for the three yard boxes was
$206.00 and for the six yard box was $262.00.
Landfill construction was a major implementation cost,
For convenience, costs in this category have been sum-
marized in Table 18. Total construction coat was $33,874.05.
95
-------
LANDFILL CONSTRUCTION COST
Table 18 .
It em
1. Building and Facilities Office!
Maintenance Building, Fence 1 sign
and water well
2. Utilities
Phone installation and line
construction power extension
.5 mile
3. Site Preparation
Site clearing and grubbing, six
acres
Interior road construction,
all weather gravel
4. Exterior roadway 2.5 miles __________
Total landfill construction cost
Another element of the grant project was a management forma-
tion program. Costs associated with this element of the
project are summarized in Table 19. Landfill engineering
design costs have been Included In Table 19. However,
engineering costs should be considered as an element of
total landfill development.
Table 19. MANAGEMENT INFORMATION COST
Item Cost
1. Salaries, Project Director and
Secretary 18 months
Salary burden
2. Consultant services
Site design
Water quality
3. Travel, landfill manager’s course
i4 PublIcations
Final brochure
Final report
Slide/tape program __________
Total management Information cost
96
Cost
$16,936.98
182.00
1,234.93
1,828.06
1,092.08
12,600.00
$33, 74 .05
$18,500.00
2,943.00
2,925.00
2,250.00
218.41
4,700.00
800.00
500.00
$32 36. 41
-------
Sanitary Landfill Operating Costs
Table 20 and 21 show month’y operating costs and
production statistics for the landfill and collection system
respectively. As of October 31, 1971, only eight months 1
of weight data had been obtained. Weighing operations
began on March 7, 197k.
The reader should note that operating expenses for
the landfill, as shown th Table 20, include a depreciation
reserve and debt service requirement. Depreciation repre-
sents straight—line depreciation of scales, office building
and landfill dozer. The debt service element represents
the amount required on a monthly basis to amortize
$68,700.00 in revenue bonds, at 5 per cent Interest, for a
10 year period.
Operating expenses for the rural collection system,
as shown in Table 21, includes containers. However, there
was no debt service reserve established for the collection
system since the equipment was purchased with an appropria-
tion of Federal Revenue Sharing money.
97
-------
STATISTICS FOR MARCH 19711 THROUGH OCTOBER 19711:
___CLARK COUNTY SANITARY LANDFILL
Refuse Disposal (Tons)
Man Hours Employed
Machine Hours Employed
Labor Wages
Printing and Duplication
Expendable Office Supplies
Te lep hone
Lease or Purchase of Equipment
Contract Services — Equipment
Maintenance
Gas and Oil, Equipment
Insurance, Equipment
Insurance, Buildings and Grounds
Utilities
Contract Service — Repair and
Maintenance Buildings and
Grounds
Lease or Purchase - Buildings
and Grounds
Purchase of’ Materials
Miscellaneous
Depreciation
Debt Service
Total Costs
5,042.4
1,576.0
771.5
9,099.66
19.98
0.00
0.00
42.21
642.57
688.07
600.00
911.00
16.76
499.35
277. 00
156.96
11.97
4,749.28
5,933.28
$22,831.09
630.3
197.0
96.4
1,137.45
2.149
0.00
0.00
7.0 1 1
80.32
86.00
50.00’
7.83’
2.09
62. 141
23. 08*
19.62
1.149
593.66
741.66
$2,815. :i:i
EFFICIENCY RATIOS FOR ENTIRE PERIOD
Labor: (Man Hours/ton) 0.31
Equipment time: (Machine Hour/tons)0.15
UNIT COSTS FOR ENTIRE PERIOD
Labor: ($/ton of refuse
Operating Overhead ($/ton of refuse ____
Total Cost ($/ton of refuse)
Table 20.
SUMMATION
OF MONTHLY
TOTAL
AVERAGE 0F
MONTHLY
TOTAL
1.80
2.72
4.52
•These monthly averages are based upon a full 12 month period
rather than six months.
98
-------
Table 21.
Refuse Collected
Man Hours Employed
Labor Costs
Printing and Duplication
Expendable Office Supplies
Telephone
Lease or Purchase of Equipment
Contract Services — Equipment
Maintenance
Gas and Oil, Equipment
Insurance, Equipment
Insurance, Building and Grounds
Utilities
Contract Ser 1ces - Repair and
Maintenance, Buildings and
Grounds
Lease or Purchase — Buildings,
Grounds
Purchase of Materials
Miscellaneous Expen8e8
Depreciation
Debt Service
Total Costs
EFFICIENCY RATIOS FOR ENTIRE PERIOD
Labor: (Man hour/ton) 1.26
UNIT COSTS FOR ENTIRE PERIOD
Labor: ($/ton of refuse)
Operating Overhead: ($/ton of refuse) _____
Total Costs ($/ton of refuse )
STATISTICS FOR MARCH 1974 THROUGH OCTOBER 19711
_ RURAL WASTES COLLECTION A CTIVIT IES
SUMMATION
OF MONTHLY
TOTAL
AVERAGE OF
MONTHLY
___TOTAL
1,639.5
2011.9
2,069.0
258.6
8,588.05
l,073. 0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
275.1 15
0.00
34.113
1,8911.87
236.85
1,821.17
227.614
372.00
31,00*
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
1,772.96
0.00
11,530.64
0.00
I9, 2 5. 114
0.00
1117.711
0.00
566.33
0.00
$2,317.49
*Thls monthly average is based upon a full 12 months period
rather than six months.
5.23
6.50
11.73
99
-------
Dump Rehabilitation Costa
Cost data contained in this section pertain primarily
to costs directly associated with closing the Arkadeiphia
City Dump. Reference should be made to the narrative on
“dump rehabilitation” in the section of this report titled
System Implementation.
Costs have been presented in Tables 22 through 26 and
arranged two ways, according to Cost Category and according
to Work Task. Total cost of closing the Arkadelphia dump
was $4,126.56.
Several comments should be made concerning the listed
dump closing costs. These are noted as follows:
1. The problem of water drainage Injected a cost that
might not be common to other dumps.
2. An inordinate amount of time was spent at this
dump because two functions were actually taking
place:
(a) normal landfilling activity, and
(b) covering the existing dump.
The assumption can be made that had effort been
concentrated upon preparation for closing, the
total time required could have been reduced from
il0 hours to about 160 hours.
3. Some materials and equipment were available at
no cost. These were as follows:
(a) the water pump was loaned to the department
by an adjacent landowner;
(b) the poison and rat bait was provided free
of charge by the Health Department;
(c) the TD15—C tractor used in the spreading,
compacting, and covering tasks Sanitation
Department equipment.
The remaining eleven 8maller dumps in the County cost
a total of $2,611.80 to compact, cover and close.
100
-------
Table 22. COST SUMMARY
ARKADELPHIAJ ARKANSAS DUMP CLOSING
I. Personnel
1. Wages $1,435.00
2. Benefits 223.39
3. Contract Labor 533.39 $2,191.78
II. Equipment 1,240.00
III. Fuel and Materials 694.78
TOTAL DUMP CLOSING COST $4,126.56
Table 23. ARKADELPHIA DUMP CLOSING BY WORK TASK
I. Drainage Improvement
A. Personnel
1. Crane Operator $ 130.00
40 hz ’s p3.25
2. D—7 Dozer Operator
33 hrs p3.75 123.75
3. Dump Truck Driver
11 hrs 2.71i 10.96
$ 264.71
B. Equipment
1. D—7 Dozer
33 hrs l3.00 $ 429.00
2. Dragline
I0 hi’s ll.OO 440.00
3. Tractor
12 hrs l.75 2 .00
4. Pump 12 hrs en/c
5. 5 yd. Dump Truck8
20 hi’s Q5.00 100.00
Total Equipment $ 990.00
Total Drainage Improvement $1,254.71
101
-------
II. Preparation
A. Data Collection $ 153.60
B. Spreading & Compacting
1. Personnel
a. Dozer Operator
380 hi’s 3.50 1,330.00
b. Benefits
93% of 223.39 207.75
2. Fuel
380 hrs L 8 gal/hr
182L gal. €.26/gal 171$.21 1
3. InterIor Road
Improvement
(gravel 150 yd. 1.00) 150.00
lj Equipment
a. D—6B 6 hrs l0.00 60.00
b. TD—l5C @N%C’ _________ $2,375.59
C. Covering
1. Personnel
a. Dozer Operator
30 hrs 3.50 $ 105.00
b. Benefits
7% of 223.39 15.61
c. Contract Labor
Truck Drivers
28 hi’s e’l.99 115.08
2. Fuel
30 hrs € i.8 gal/hr.
i i i gal. .26 gal. 37. 4k
3. Equipment
a. TD—l5C €N/C —0—
b. 15 yd. trucks
20 hi’s. 9.5O 190.00
Total Covering Cost $ 63.16
III. Miscellaneous
A. Materials
1. Chain and Locks 28.36
2. Concrete 14.71
Total Miscellaneous $ 33.10
TOTAL DUMP CLOSING COST $4,126.56
102
-------
I. Personnel
Table 211. PERSONNEL COST
ARKADELPHIA DUMP CLOSING
A. Dozer Operator/Manager
$1O hrs p3.50
B. Contract Labor
1. Crane Operator
110 hrs p3.25
2. D-7 Dozer Operator
33 - hrs 3.75
3. Dump Truck
11 hrs p2.75
I4 Labor
5. Truck Drivers 7 ea.
28 hrs @$11.ii
Total Personnel
$130.00
123.75
10.96
153.60
115.08 533.39
$1,968.39
11. Benefits for Non-contract Labor ($1,435.00)
A. Social Security p.0585
B. Retirement €07
C. Insurance 2 7.21/mo/emp1oyee
D. Total Salary Burden
III. TOTAL PERSONNEL COST
83.9k
100.115
514.112
$ 238.51
$2,207.20
$1,435.00
103
-------
Table 25. EQUIPMENT COST
ARKADELPHIA DUMP CLOSING
I. Dozers
A. International TD15C
B. D—7 Caterpillar
33 hrs €13.00 $ 429.00
C. D—6B
6 hi’s. €10.00 60.00
II. Dragline iO hrs €11.00 40.00
III. Dump Trucks
A. 15 yd. trailer 20 hrs €9.50 190.00
B. 5 yd. dump trucks 20 hrs €5.00 100.00
IV. Other
A. Tractor, wheeled 12 hrs €1.75 21.00
B. Pump 12 hrs €n/c ________
TOTAL EQUIPMENT COST $1,240.00
Table 26. FUEL AND MATERIALS COST
ARKADELPHIA DUMP CLOSING
I. Fuel, Diesel
A. lilO hrs. € L.8 gal/hr.
1968 gal .26/ga1. $ 511.68
II. Materials
A. Cover Material €n/c
B. Gravel 150 Cu yd €1.00 $150.00
C. Chain and Lock 28.36
D. Concrete )4 .714
E. Rat Poison N/C 183.10
TOTAL FUEL AND MATERIALS $ 69 4.78
104
-------
APPENDI CES
105
-------
APPENDPC A. Site Geological Analy ee
1. Cedar Grove Site
2. Manchester Site
106
-------
U)
STATE OF ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION CONTROL AND ECOLOGY
8001 NATiONAL DRIVE
LI17LE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72208
- O1 371.1701 GEN. OFF
eci 871.1138 AIR DIV.
May 15, 1972
MEMORANDUM TO: Sidney Fitzgerald, Sanitary Engineer
SUBJECT: Geologic Reconnaissance
Cedar Grove Area, Clark Co., Arkansas
The Cedar Grove area, under consideration as
a sanitary land fill site, consists of about 80
acres in portions of the NEl/ section 3 and NW l/ I
section 35 T6SR2OW Clark County, Arkansas. The
area is mostly located on a Borrow area controlled
by the Corp of Engineers.
The site is located on exposed rocks of either
lower Ozan or upper Brownstown formations of Upper
Cretaceous Age. ‘The basal Brownstown in turn
rests unconformably upon rocks of Paleozoic Age.
The Paleozoic rocks are probably Stanley shale or
Jackfork sandstone.
These Upper Cretaceous rocks are striking
East 10 degrees south and dip south some 6 to 8
degrees. Within these rocks are at least 3 sandstone
beds of varying degrees of purity and thickness.
These 3 sandstone beds are more or less exposed
east-west over the entire borrow area. The sandstones
are very fine to medium grain, tan to bluish, soft,
friable and havegood porosity and permeability.
These sands must be considered as aquifers or potential
aquifers and with the elevation and dip the site is
undoubtably a re—charge area.
If this site is used as a sanitary landfill, some
means must be provided to protect these sands from
pollution.
C. W. Crowson
Geologist
CWC:dh
107
-------
Mr. Fitzgerald —2— Ma y 31, 1972
These three areas have small areas of seeps at elevations of
about 300 feet above sea level. These areas may be wet weather
seeps and are probably aasociated with drainage along the
sand—gravel cap of the surrounding hills. The flow, after
accumulation, is small and seems to go underground at about
the valley fill elevation of about a +270. There are probably
more unobserved seeps at the base of the gravel—sand cap but
were not observed.
The run—off of rainfall will be southeast into L’Eau Frais
Creek which in turn drains south west into the Ouachita River.
Drainage from the site to the Ouachita River Is in excess of
8 miles.
Stream gradient, from the hilly drainage divide to the
rather flat bottom lands to the east and south, is rather steep
and averages about 200 feet per mile. The gradient of this
bottom lands or the L’Eau Frais Creek to its termination only
varies from about 225 foet to 165 feet or an average gradient
of less than 10 feet per mile.
Soils:
The Manchester site lies upon soils derived from the
weathering of terrace deposIts and the under lying Wilcox clays
and sandstone. The hills are capped with sands and gravels
that are the remains of terrace deposition, but are not con-
sidered clean or thick enough to be of commercial Importance.
The soils wIl] , be thicker in the valleys but are rather well.
preserved along the hillsides. The soils, generally speaking,
are somewhat sandy and exhibit good drainage characteristics.
Beneath the soils are materials composed chiefly of sand clay
which may contain various percentages of sand. The sands have
a wide range of purity and are probably lenticular In nature.
Geology:
The entire area overlies the Wilcox formation of Eocene
age. The Wilcox is composed of a series of finely laminated
sandstone and clay containing beds, usually thin and impure,
of lignite. The formation ranges from 0 to 600 feet in thick-
ness. Here the formation is in excess of 100 feet thick and
appears to be composed mostly of sandy clay. Thin lenses of
sand can be present but are considered to be lenticular instead
of sheet. These lenses have porosity and permeability and may
be quartztic in places. These sandstones, under correct con-
ditions, could be a limited source of domestic water during the
108
-------
Mr. Fitzgerald —3— May 31, 1972
wetter years. Although no apparent beading plane8 were noted,
it is believed that the Wilcox strata strike northeast—southwe8t
and dip gently to the southeast. Surface drainage, east of
the divide, is to t1 e southeast and then southwest but the
sub—surface movement of ground water is southeast.
Remarks:
If this site is approved then the following should be
considered.
A. No fill should be west of the drainage divide.
B. Although the local valley water table appears to be 263
above sea level, no fill should be located lower than
270 feet nor a cut be made lower than this sea level datuni
C. The Band-gravel cap, where present, should be removed
prior to compacting.
D. The site should be engineered so that all surface drain-
age can be diverted or be non—existant.
E. Cover material is adequate but may require mixing when
abnormal amounts of sand and or ligniteare encountered.
F. Trench fill and buffer zones around and below the seeps.
C. W Crowson
Geologist
C 41C:ab
109
-------
APPENDIX B. Attorney General’s Opinion
110
-------
APR 2 1 1972
t Y i J
.n7TIC DUIWIO
April O, 1972
Judge Randall Mathis
County Judge
Clark County Courthouse
Arkadeiphia, Arkansas 71923
Dear Judge Mathis:
This is in response to your inquiry in which you ask the
following questions:
(a) Under Acts 237 and 238 does a County Judge
have the authority to collect fees or
charges to support a solid waste management
system?
(b) If yes, what is the mechanism that the Law
provides for collecting such fees or charges?
(c) If payments become delinquent, what means
does a County Judge have available to en-
force collection of the fee or charge?
In reply to your first question please note Ark. Stat. Ann.
§82—2706(b) (Act 237 of 1971), provides as follows:
The County Court shall have the authority to
levy and collect such fees, charges and require
such licenses as may be appropriate to discharge
the County’s responsibility for a solid waste
management system or any portion thereof. Such
fees, charges and licenses shall be based on a fee
schedule contained in an order of the County Court.
Note also the following portion of Ark. Stat. Ann. §82—2719
(Act 238 of 1971):
(a) Counties and municipalities are hereby
authorized to impose and collect rates and charges
for the services provided by projects of the type
authorized by this Act (SSB2—2713 —— 82—2726]
whether or not acquired, constructed, reconstructed,
extended and/or improved under the authority of
this Act,
ATTO $Y U 2AL
111
-------
j APR211972
E i L __
Judge Randall Mathis -2- April 20, 1972
(b) Counties and municipalities are hereby
authorized to impose upon and collect f rpm
all persons who can be served by a project
reasonable rates and charges for the services
of the project, without regard to whether such
person desires to utilize the services.
In reply to your second question please note that no particular
mechanism of collection of the fees by the County is set forth
in Acts 237 and 238 of 1971.
A system of collection could be set up so that the bills for
such collection could be sent out with the property tax bill
to a],l owners of realty. Such system would be limited in’
that it would entail billing people who do not use the system
and would fail to reach others who do use the system. Also
such an approach would enable only an annual billing. Note
also that such fee would not be a lien upon the land as would
be the property tax,
Perhaps an alternative method would be a system of billing of all
persons who use the county disposal system. Note also that
Ark. Stat. Ann. 582-2719, set forth above, does not require that
a person desire to use the system to enable the governing system
to charge for such use, if available.
In reply to your third question note that, as stated above,
there is no provision for the delinquent fees for such a system
to become a lien on the land of the person owing such fee.
Therefore, any delinquent fees would constitute a debt owed to
the county, and as such could be collected by the prosecuting
attorney by appropriate legal actions.
Yours very truly,
RAY THORNTON
At orney General
By: ROBERT H. CRANK
Assistant Attorney General
RHC: s f
112
-------
APPENDIX C. Newa Articlea
113
-------
Every Day More and More People Read the
ASS0CIATEO PRESS
ARKAO(LPHIA, ARKANSAS. THURSDAY EVEN#4G. APR 11 27. 1912
S1 G1E copy 10
VOLUME 51 NUMBER 113
County Studying Comprehensive Solid Waste Disposal
The comprehensive solid
wante uposal ian for Clark
Coimtyisuithe process of being
presented to the people of the
county and each city. The
.o- planning of the Solid Waste
Management Program has
been a joint City-County effort.
Whcrt lznpleniented, the Solid
Waste Managen nt Plan will
be a joint effort with each oity
and the Coax ty pnrtkip i1ing in
the program.
According to Clark County
Judge Randall Mathis, the plan
calls for a highly supervised
Sanitary lawlfill and a aim-
prehensive County-wide
collection service utilizing a
tiwnber of mechanically ser-
‘Piced box-type refuse con-
iner .
The Landfill will not be an
open pit type of dumping. The
sanitary landfill Is defined by
the American Society of C lvii
Engineers as “A method of
disposing of refuse on land
without cnating nuisances or
hazards to public health and
safety, by utthsing the prin-
ciples of engineering to confine
the refuse to the smallest
practical area, to reduce it to
the rnallest practical volume,
and cover it with a layer of
earth at the conclusion of each
da’fs operation, or at more
frequent Intervals as may be
necessary.”
The sanitary landfill plan set
up for the county will consist of
Eve basic oparalions. They are
weigning each truck entering
the site and recording the
weight and source; depositing
the wastes in a controlled
manner in a prepared portion of
the site; read and compact
the waste; covering of the
waste daily or more often and
cornpactfrig the cover material
dafly
The management plan for the
landfill calls for a staff of three
s-npluyecs. One will be a full.
time dozer operator and one
will act as landfill manager.
The Landfill manager will
control access into the site,
condw t the weighing of trucks.
and keep records of weights and
sotnces of rofuse. The third is
an L TIt operator who will
provide the back-up for the
dover operator and the aim-
pactor truck driver.
The comprehensive collection
service will be provided by two
agencies. The City of
4.rkadelphla will provide
a collection service to rural
areas and provide a container
transfer service for refuse
generated in each of the other
towns in the county. The county
collection service will not be a
door to door collection service.
It will utilize the system of
containers placed in strategic
points In the county Containers
will also be provided in the
towns off Gurdon, Amity,
Whelco Sprin Okolona and
Gum Springs. This will allow
the citizens of these towns to
place their refuse in boxes
rather than utili ir’g the open
dumpaites nowin use. These
green box containers will be
serviced a minimum of twice
weekly.
It should be emphasized that
the objective of the solid waste
management program Is to
eliminate open dumping, the
burning of dumps and to
reclaim the esisting open dump
sites.
Judge Math.ls stated that
meetix s were being set up for
the various community groups
to explain the plan, to give more
details and to answer citizens’
questions about the pro am.
The second of these meetings
will be held Friday, April 28, at
7:33p.m. in the DeGray Qun ch
in the DeGray Canmunity.
12 PAGES
-------
• • jj ’ iq,, q 73
Citizens Apparently In Dark
About Solid Waste Disposal
By ED LOWTHER
Of The Her ld Staff
The beginning of
Arkadelphia’ . solid-waste
program has been postponed
nearly three months but its
delay seemingly has done Little
to increase residents’
knowledge about the program.
EDITOR’S NOTE- The city
manager’s office i.s preparing
daily s atus reports on the solid
waste program until it begins
Th’s is the second such report.
As pc nt rl out in prcv:ous
releases, the big compactor
truck is the heart of the
proposed solid waste collection
system for Arkadeiphia. Within
the system it is known as the
“Mother Truck”
In concept, pick up trucks pull
trailers-tr tfls through the
residential area collecting
trash. When the trailers are
full, the employees radio the
Mother truck to meet and
empty the trailers. The Mother
truck also empties the many
containers placed in the central
business district and the
Oiitlyirt husin. s. ai ea ’
Fi em tI . s e planation it. is
“I really don’t know enough
(about the program) to give an
opinion on it,” said Mac
Tatman, a real estate agent
here. “As for the price, I have
no qualms about the fee. My
only question is where are they
going to put thr pick-up
station,” Tatman said in
reference to the downtown
By Friday
eas) to see just how important
the mother truck is. No matter
how many trailers or containers
we ha’.’e on hand, the system
depen1s or. the big compactor to
empty them and get the solid
waste to the landfill.
With o much depending on
this one vehicle, the city has
continued to monitor its
progress closely. At 11:45 A.M
June 18, the plant at Durant,
Oklahoma was called.. The
information was that the truck
was assembled and painted.
When Ihe new tife arrives i!i
Durant on Wednesday or
Thursday, the paint will have
had the necessary two days
drying time and the truck
should he dispatched to
ArkadUphia It is hoped that,
barring unforseen delays, the
truck wiji arrive on Friday.
June 22.
garbage collection. “If it is
handy, that’s fine. If we have to
go a •block or two, that’s
something else.”
Tatman’s “don’t know”
answer was a standard reply
among those questioned about
the program. Another
downtown businessman, Jim
Askew of Heritage, Ltd., knew
even less about the program.
“The general concept is a
good idea,” said Askew, “but I
have no idea what it is going to
cost me and I haven’t been
contacted by the city about it.”
All businesses were supposed to
have received a letter from the
city offices stating a monthly
collection fee.
Although Askew liked the
concept, he said “one man is
complaining because his
(collection rate) is gntng to be
three times more than it was in
the past.”
Col John T. Berry,
superintendent of maintenance
at Ouachita Baptist University,
alsosaid he did not have enough
information to form an opinion,
hut added, “I have seen it
operate in other places and it
seems to he very €fficiont.”
One businessman who is
better-informed about the
program than most is looking
forward to its initiation John
Marbury, manager of the
Minute Man restaurant,
believes the pick-up will aid In
cleanliness.
“We’re using barrels now,
(opposed to the metal
containers the city will use) and
it’s hard to ke trash in them.
They’re always leaking and
rotting out. For just $10 more
then we’re paying iiow, I’ll he
glad to see it come in, if they’re
regular,” said Marhury.
Where the city businessmen
do not have much knowledge of
the program, residents appear
to have even less
“I don’t have any Idea about
it,” said Dr. Randolph Quick. ‘I
don’t know what the city is
going to do except pick up the
garbage. I guess they’ll
probably hire the same guys
who have been doing it.”
Other rcsidents said they also
didr.’t know much about the
program. They said they didnt
know whether it would b” much
. 1 .
ARKANSAS: Scattered show-
ers and thunderstorms toda’
and tonight, meinly nc’cth sec;
tions. Showers ending iroin the
west Wednes&y Mc ’stly cloudy
and not as warm today and
tonight. Decreasing cloudiness
and cooler Wednesday. Highs
today upper 80s to low 90s.
Lows tonight mid GOs to near
70. Highs Wednesday mostly in
the 80s
different than the private
hauling they are having done
now. One lady, who asked to
remain anonymous, said she
had heard complaints about the
program.
“Most. people are kind of
upset because (the city hasn’t)
started it 1aster. The other
people who have been doing the
hauling for them are sl ng
up and not picking up
regularly,” she said.
On her own part, she said
she’ll be glad to see the
program start.
“I think if the city can get it
operating like they think they
can, it will be pretty_pod.”
Compactor Truck Ready:
EMay Be Here
Herald!
Boyce Harrod
City Manager
Dear Boyce:
The”MotherTruck,” Ab!
Come on.
Yours,
Clark
‘vv _
. .
-------
Sanitary Landfill Plan
And Study Nearing End
Qark County Judge Randall
Mathis disclosed today that a
three year plaming effort to
provide a Solid Waste
Management System for the
entire County is close to i-
plelion.
Mcording to Judge Mathis,
the plan calls for erie highly
superv d “Sanitary Landfill”
and a comprehensive County.
wide collection service utilithig
a number of mechanically
serviced, box type refuse
containers.
Judge Mathis indicated that
some have exlressed concern,
primarily about how the
Sanitary Landfill will be
operated.
“I want to assure everyone
that we will not allow what Is
s rmally thought of as an open,
burning dump to be placed
nywhere In the Cuunty. What
we are trying to cto Is to
liininate the practice of open
lwnpirig and burning.”
In order to eliminate this
mdesirable practice, we Intend
to establish a properly
operated, highly supervised and
businesslike disposal facility.
Our management plan calls for
a staff of three employees. One
will be a full-time dozer
operator and one will act as
Landfill Mwiag r. The third
will drive the county collec on
vehicle.
Each collection truck en-
tering the landfill 1te will be
weighed, and Its content, weight
and source recorded. This
weighing operation will be
supervised by the Landfill
Manager.
The refuse will then be
deposited i i a pre.planned area,
then spread In thin layers and
compacted. This compaction
and cover operation will be
accomplished by the dozer
0
At the end of each day, the
refuse will be covered with a
mlnimuinotslxlnchesof earth
and compacted again making a
sanitary cell of refuse, At the
end of the operating day, there
will be no evidence of refuse.
There will be no burning,
everything will be buried. The
operation is clean, neat and
effluent,
Judge Mathis emphasized
that the ob ectlve of the Solid
Waste Management Program i
to eliminate open dumping, to
di inlnate the burning of dumps
and to reclaim th ex1 in open
( LIH sites.
Judge Mathis urged that
every concerned citizen make a
special effort to become
knowledgeable about the solid
waste program. He stated that
meetingswerebelngset up with
various community grouj to
explain the plan, to give more
details and to answer citizen’s
questions about the program.
The first of these meetings will
be held Friday, 7:30p.m., Alvil
21, at The Cedar Grove a wth
In the Cedar Grove Community.
All Cedar Grove residents are
Invited to attend.
Anyone destring to know
more about the County-wide
solid waste plan Is encouraged
to contact Jedge Mathis or
County Director of Parks
Planning at 24& i3l.
116
-------
APPENDIX D. Water Quality Study
l 7
-------
QUALITY SURVEY IN THE VICINITY OF THE CLARK
COUNTY, ARKANSAS, SANITARY LANDFILL
by
J. Nix
Department of Chemistry
Ouachita Baptist University
Arkadeiphia, Arkansas 71923
and
Clark County, Arkansas
for the
Office of Solid Waste Management Program
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Project No. S-801760
January 197 4
118
-------
EPA Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the Envir-
onmental Protection Agency and approved for
publication. Approval does not signify that
the contents necessarIly reflect the views
and policies f the Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement
of recommendation for use.
119
-------
ABSTRACT
-The Clark County, Arkansas, sanitary landfill b,ecaine
operatIonal July 5, .1973. A water quality survey
of ground and surface water In the vicinity of the
operation was conducted from January 1973 through
December 1973. RepresentatIve samples were taken four
times prior to the beginning of operation and six times
after the project became operational.
The results of the study indicate that the quality of
the surface water in the vicinity c ’ the landfill
operation is consistent with that found throughout the
alluvial section of Arkansas. Two domestic wells were
found to contain relatively high concentrations of
chloride and nitrate, This condition was found to be
present prior to operation of the landfill and thus
could not be attributed to the operation of the landfill.
Although ecal coliform were detected In both ground and
surface water, the presence of these organisms could not
be attributed to the operation of the landfill since they
were found both upstream and downstream from the drainag
from the operation.
120
-------
SECTION I
CONC LUS IONS
Surface water in the vicinity of the Clark County
Sanitary Landfill was sampled at four locations during
1973. Results of this survey indicate that the quality
of surface water in the study area is consistent with
that expected for a lowland stream of’ the alluvial
section of Arkansas. Surface water contains a moderately
low concentration of dissolved species but does show
relatively high iron concentrations due to the presence
of humic acids.
Comparison of water quality parameters at stations
located upstream from the drainage of the landfill
operation and those downstream do not indicate that
surface drainage from the operation is significantly
changing the quality of the stream. The intermitent
drainage located within the boundary of the landfill did
not indicate the presence of constituents which could
be attributed to the operation of the landfill. Elevated
values of fecal coliform were found both above and
below the drainage fcom the landfill operation, thus
could not be attributed to operation of’ the facility.
As determined from the two domestic wells and one spring
sampled in this study, the ground water of this area is
121
-------
‘not o(extz’emely high quality. Data 1n dicate that there
V some sa1 water jntj’usj.,on into the wells and, that
nitrate is also being intrcthiced Into the wells either
from natural sourceg or from septic tank leakage. Fecal
coliform were found to be present In both the wells and
spring during several of the sampling periods.
Tb? data indicate that the Inferior nature of the ground
water in this area was established prior to the beginning
of the operation of the landfill, thus cannot be attributed
to the landfill.
Nitrate values in one of the wells sampled in this study
exceeded public health standards (2). Since consumption
by water contaminated with nitrate could pose a serious
health problem to Infants consuming the water, steps should
be taken to tnforrn users of this well and of the situation:
The design of a water quality monitoring program in he
vicinity of a sanitary landfill operation ideally should
give consideration to the following factors: (1) The
possible use by chemists and/or biologist$ working in the
same locality, possibly from local colleges or universities.
Utilization of such personnel should allcw the study t arn
to mair 4 tain close servalence over the system s weU as
permit more frequent sampling, (2) Ac much baseline aa’-a
on surface and subsurface water should be gathered fo ’ a
considerable time prior to beginning of the operstio’.
(3) Sampling sites should be chosen to ccc er the most 1kely
122
-------
aquirera to be contamir ated as well as those located
phyBically close tc. the c era ion, and (ti) The initial
ph ae of the program should allow for the deter ination
of a many parameters as possible in order to aquaint the
inveatigatoi’ with the particular system.
123
-------
SECTION II
RECO?.IMENDATION
It is recornmeded tnat a water quality survey of both
ground and surface water In the vicinity of the Clark
County Sanitary Landfill be continued on a reduced
scale. For a modest expenditure, equipment to measure
selected water quality parameters could be purchased
by the county and operated by persons mainta±nir g the
sanitary landfill. Parainete ’s which could be easily
measured and which would serve as indicators of possible
pollution would be pH, di6solved oxygen, specific con—
ductance, nitrate, ammonia, phosphate, and BOD.
Instrumentation which would be capable of measuring, all
of the constituents listed above with the exception of
BOD Is relatively inexpensive and moderately easy to
operate. Personnel of the Water Chemistry Laboratory
of’ Cuachita University will assume the responsibility of
training personnel In the operation of this oquipment.
It is suggested that samples be furnished to Ouachita
Urilveristy for determination of BOD. It is also recoir-
mended that data collected by the periodically reviewed
by personnel of the Water Chemistry esearch Lab at
Ouachita Baptist University.
Some attempt should be made to determine the origin of
high nitrates in domestic wells In the area.
124
-------
SECTTON III
INTRODUCTION
rhe Clark unty Sanitary Landfill is located approximately
LO, miles east of Arkadeiphia, Arkansas, and two and one
half miles north east of the Joan Community. The 27.7
acre site is located on the south slope of a rise abov
the L’Eau Frais Creek. The average elevation of the s!te
is 325 feet (msl). The elevation on this south slope drops
from a maximum elevation of approximately 350 feet (msl)
to around 250 feet (msl) over a distance of 0.5 miles.
Forest cover in the vicinity of the landfill Is principally
a mixed type consisting of pine and hardwoods characteristic
of’ the alluvial section of Arkansas. Site preparation
began on June 1, 1973. The site became operattonal on
July 5, 1973.
The prtnclple drainage of’ the area is L’Eau Frais Creek
which flows In a southwesterly direction at a point approx-
imately one half mile from the site of the landfill. Two
intermitent feeder streams drain the area adjacent to the
landfill operation and flow essentially south to L’Eau
Frais Creek.
Sub—surface movement of ground water has Leer reported to
be toward the southeast (1). The G1ose t resiucnceF tc
the landfill operation are located 0.7 miles southwest be-
tween the landfill and the community of arL. These huuies
as well as others in the area, obtain water for d zesL c.
125
-------
itsé ‘from wells located near their homeB or from a spring
located approximately 1.5 mi .ea northwest of the site.
Sortie weUs are shaUow, tapping the alluvium, while others
penetrate the alluvium and tap a deeper aquifer. Interviews
with several of the individuals living in this area revealed
that it was a common practice to obtair drinking water from
the spring and use the water from shallow wells for other
household purposes. Septic tanks, often located relatively
near welli appear to be the only method of wage disposal
in use. There were no domestic wells located neur the
landfill southeast of the operation. Ideally, wells located
In the direction of the sub—surface flow should be studIed.
This report presents the results of a water quality survey
conducted in the vicinity of the Clark County Sanitary
Landfill site during the calendar year 1973. Sampling sites
were chosen to be representative of the surface drainage
and ground water in the vicinity of the site.
126
-------
CLARK COUNTY
SANITARY LANDFILL
FIG 29. LOCATIONAL MAP OF
SAMPLING STATIONS
I
‘ .‘-.. *.
I
‘ —I
-------
SECTION IV
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Sampling Program:
The location of each of the sampling stations is shown
in Figure 1. A description of each station is given below:
1. L’Eau Frais Creek at road crossing in NW
l/’l si8 R17W ‘P75, approximately 14 miles
east of Joan.
2. SamIl drainage at road crossing at center
of north section line si14 iii8W T7S, 2
miles northeast of Joan.
3. Carsey Spring, located In the northeast
1/14 of SlO R18W ‘P73.
L Domestic well at residence located on
west side of road 1/14 mIles south of
Mt. Moriah Church (shallow well).
5. Domestic well at residence on south side
of road 0.7 miles southwest of landfill
site (deep well).
6. L’Eau Frais Creek at road crossing near
center of S22 R12W T7S approximately 1/2
mile southeast of Joan.
7. Intermitent drainage located on south edge
of landfill site.
128
-------
Original plans included sampling of two test wells at
the site of the landfill. Since county officials were
unable to have these test wells drilled, plans for taking
these samples were abandoned. Samples were taken from
each of the stations at approximately 5 week intervals.
As explained earlier, wells located downstream from the
sub-surface flow from the landfill were not located near
enough to the operation to have an effect. Thus the
decision was made to sample wells located nearest the
operation even though the probability of their being
effected seemed low. Another reason for choosing these
wells for sampling sites was the need to establish existing
water quality of these wells in case question of contam-
ination from the operation should arise.
Choice of’ the spring as a sampling point was made because
many people living in this area obtain drinking water from
this source. The establishment of the quality of this
spring was important simply as background data.
The sampling of L’Eau Frais Creek both above the operation
(station 1) and downstream from the operation (station 6)
was carried out to determine if the operation of the landfill
caused appreciable change in the quality of the creek.
Although such contamination seems very unlikely, it was
necessary to establish the fact in the early stages of the
monitoring program.
129
-------
Analytical Procedures:
Temperature and dissolved oxygen (surface water samples)
were measured in the field suing a Yellow Springs Dissolved
Oxygen Analyser. Specific conductance was also measured
in the field using a Yellow Springs SCT Meter. pH was
measured colorimetrical].y immediately after collection of
the sample. Samples were collected in one liter poly-
ethylene bottles and transported to the laboratory for
analysis. With the exception of the constituents which
were measured with specific ion electrodes, the analytical
methods were essentially those recommended in Standard
Methods (3).
Sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, iron, and manganese
were measured by direct aspiration of the sample into the
flame of an atomic absorption spectrometer. Instrument
settings and procedures were those recommended by the man-
ufacturer (Li). Chloride, fluoride, and ammonia were deter-
mined using Orion specific ion electrodes at the condition
suggested by the manufacturer (5).
Nitrate was determined using the ultra violet method des-
cribed In Standard Methods (3). Ortho—phosphate was deter-
mined by modification of the extraction method described in
Standard Methods (3). Procedures for COD and BOD 5 were
in accord with those described in Standard Methods (3).
After beginning the survey, the decision was made to deter-
mine fecal coliform In the samples. The membrane filter
technique was used for this determination. This parameter
Is only reported for samples taken after July 1, 1973.
130
-------
SECTION V
F ULTS AND DISCUSSION
TIie results of the water quality survey in the vicinity
of the Clark County Sanitary Landfill are given in
Tables 27 through 145. Dissolved oxygen is reported for
only surface samples.
Water temperature varied from 7.9 °C to 211.9 °C. This
range is consistent with the range of surface water
temperatures observed in the central section of Arkansas.
Dissolved oxygen of’ the surface water ranged from 1.14 to
13.2 with the higher values occurring in the winter.
Values below saturation were observed at Station No. 2
during the months of June, July, and August. Consumption
of dissolved oxygen by natural occurring organicS Is
expected during minimum flow periods of the lowland streams
which characterize this section of Arkansas. Sub_saturation
va]ues were also observed in L’Eau Frais Creek (Station 6)
and the Intermitent drainage on the site of’ the landfill
(Station 7) during the late fall. Such values are easily
explained by the presence of natural occurring organic
matter during a low flow condition of the stream. Oon—
sistently low values of both COD and BOD during the course
of the study indicate that there Is very little organic
loading of’ the streams which were studied.
131
-------
The range of pH values observed for surface water is
consistent with lowland streams with a moderate content
of humic acids from natural sources (5.5 to 6.7). The
pH values observed for the two domestic wells which were
sampled showed a general increase during the summer, then
a decline in winter. The pH of Carsey Spring (Station 3)
was relatively constant throughout the course of the in-
vestigation.
The concentration of calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potas-
sium were consistently higher for the two domestic wells.
Although the concentration of’ these constituents were
consistently higher in the spring water, values were con-
siderably less than the two domestic wells. This data
indicate that the water from the spring has a different
origin than the aquifiers of either of the two wells which
were sampled.
Chloride values of the two domestic wells were also con-
sistently high indicating that there may be significant
salt water intrusion into these aquifiers. The chloride
content of the spring was consistently low.
Nitrate concentrations in excess of the maximum allowable
concentration for drinking water (115 ppm) were observed
at both of the domestic wells during the course of the
study. Nitrate concentration of the spring and the surface
water in the area appears to be low. There are two
possibilities for the origin of the high concentrations of
nitrate in the domestic wells. As indicated by the values
determined for sodium and chloride, there appears to be
132
-------
some intrusion of salt water into the aquifers feeding
these wells. There may be nitr!ates associated with
natural occurring brines in this area. An alternate
origin of the high nitrate values could be the infil-
tration of effluent from neighboring septic tanks.
The occurrence of high nitrate values in the wells
studied was reported to the Arkansas State Department
of Health. A survey conducted of l l wells within a five
mile radius of Joan during the first week in March 1973
showed nitrate concentrations ranging from 6.7 ppm with
three of the wells exceeding the 5 ppm limit. This
data indicates that moderate to high concentrations of
nitrate in ground water is common throughout this area.
Moderately high values for fecal coliform were observed
for both surface and ground water samples during the
period from July through December. ThIs parameter was
not measured prior to this time. Elevated concentrations
of fecal coilform Indicate the presence of sewage.
Elevated values were found in L’Eau Frais Creek both
upstream and downstream from the drainage from the san-
itary landfill operation. There Is no conclusive evidence
to indicate that the origin of the fecal coliform is
associated with the operation Df the landfill.
With the exception of two samples which showed a manganese
concentration of 0.1 ppm, values were below the detection
limit of 0.0 ppm. Surface water showed slightly elevated
Iron contents throughout the study while ground water was
133
-------
consistentlY low in iron. Moderately high iron con—
centratiOns are not uncommOn in surface water which
contains humic acids which stabilize the Iron in solution.
As shown In Table 4, the specific conductance of samples
seem to be an adequate Indicator of the presence of high
chloride water. Should this parameter be measured in
future studies, anomolous values, such as those observed
at Stations 14 and 5, should be interpreted to Indicate
the presence of salt water Intrusion and possible excessive
nitrate values.
The results of phosphate analysis indicate relatively
low concentrations of this constituent in both surface
and ground water. These data do not indicate the presence
of excessive amounts of phosphate.
134
-------
Temperature (C°)
Station No.
I —
U’
(Y
-
o\
r
.-‘ .
v— I
—
..-.‘
,Ø
C\J
‘
C’ vJ
-
-.‘--
(V )
r-1
.
-
S
—
.
-.
1
11.0
10.0
12.5
2
9.5
10.2
11.0
.
:
2.1)
3
15.2
15.7
18.0
:
- - -
; :
:.
15.6
16.1
16.0
.7
L
.
1
•
5
.
6
4
12.5
10.5
ii’.I
17.0
9.2
11.5
13.0
13.0
11.8
2 . ‘2.
2O.’
21.. 23.
23
1.5
‘2
:51.5
€
1C.
—— - ---- - -
-------
Dissolved Oxygen (ppm ) TABIJE 28
-_.Date f
C! ) -
t— \it-. 1 —
c’J
-. r r-4
. “ . . Q r4 (\.I
Statior No. 45 c’JTO ’”°
I .c :j ’— ‘
1 12.2 ‘13.2 1 O. 8.11 8.4 11.0 7.7 9.6 9.8 11.6
2 l2’. 5 11.?ib.6 i4.6 4.6 4•14 8.8 6.9 9. 11.7
3
TJ3 ‘ —
. J t J L
,10
6 12. 12 4 10.4 7.5 8.0 9.1 7.8 14.7 9.3 1L.5
7 1O. 9. 7•?T 4.6 7.9 7.6 8.7 5.2 7.7 9 9
(ç
-------
TABLE. 29
Date of Sainp].e
(n
(Y
(fl
N-
CY
cfl
N-
N-
N-
C
(Y
(
N-
N-
-
‘
N-
N-
N-
C\J
O\
‘ O
(Y
r1
N-
N-
r-I
( J
i -I
\O
‘ O
N-
-..
StationNo.
‘ N
N
.=-
‘..o
..-.-
t—
-••.
a
o
r4
r
ri
‘N
i-I
1
6.2
6.3
5.7
5.7
6.3
6.6
6.3
6.Li
6:LI
2
5.6
6.1
6.2
6.2
5.5
6.2
6.1
6.6
6.4
3
5.5
5.5
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.5
5.6
5.5
5.5
L
6.6
6.1
7.0
8.5
7.2
7.0
6.9
6.5
6.1
5
7.2
6.9
6.9
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
6.8
6
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.3
6.4
6.7
6.5
6.0
6.2
7
5.5
5.8
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.6
5.7
6.4
-------
SpecIfic Conductance ( ii moles)
TABLE 30
Date of - Sample
26
38
614
7140
305
29
27
29 33 65
145 30 90
60 67 106
610 700 750
350 175 650
31 14 67
29 26 91
30 39
37 65
59 80
650 a750
14145 550
32 42
35 30
‘ -I
I )
S.ation No.
en
en
en
N-
en
en
N-
t—
N-
en
en
en
en
-.
N-
- N-
‘s .’
“
N-
N-
N-
N-
(‘J
O
¼0
en
.
..
.
N-
N-
H
C J
H
O
¼ 0
t -
N—
N.
N
N.
N.
N.
CD
,-4
C J
H
(\.I
. -
‘.0
N-
H
H
H
1
2
14
5
6
•1
148 38 35 30
69 75 48 42
—— 78 73 72
—— 800 590 600
—— 205 322 257
62 L 5 35 30
43 50 42 52
-------
C.O.D. (ppm)
TABLE 31
Date of Sample
Station
cn
N- N- N-
r4 C\J
No. r4 C \J
C .,,
N-
C .,,
N- N- N- N- (\J
r4
N- N-
0
N- i—i
C,,
N- N-
N- N-
r -1 ( . J
r1
o 6 14 8 0
8 1 4 0 0 12 5 0
o 0 0 0 0
9 0 0 0 8 14 0
14 0 0 0 0 14 0
8 6 0 3 7 10 0
0 0 10 5
1 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0 0
0 1
10 0
1 0
7 10 8
6 0 0 0 0 0 0
-------
B.O.D.
pprn)
TABLE 32
Date of Sample
Station No.
cn
N- N- N-
(fl
r-I C .’J
i —I
cn
N-
(Y rn t -n t fl
N- N- N- N- C J
-
N- N-
0
N- aD r4
c .n
N- N-
N- N-
‘N ‘ N
(‘4
1
2
3
5
6
3 ii 2 1 7 2 0 3 2
5 7 2 14 1 3 2 1 0 2
3 3 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 2
3 3 2 6 0 2 2 0 0 1
8 14 2 6 0 3 5 1 0 2
6 14 1 3 0 2 2 0 0 1
3 2 2 2 0 2 1 0 1 1
7
-------
TABLE 33
Mg (ppm)
Date of Sample
C—
C’
Station Mo.
rn
N- N-
c J 1-4
c -n
N-
c-n (Y c-n
N- N- N- C— C 4
1 -4
C-- C-
N- i-I
c-n c-n
N- C-
C— N-
1 -4 (\J
I -I
1
0.6
0.14
0.5
2.1-
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.14
0.5
0.5
2
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.3
0.9
2.0
0.1
1.9
0.9
1.2
3
0.6
0.6
0.6
2.8
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.3
0.5
0.7
14
10
5.0
14.3
21
5.0
14.3
3.14
14.9
14.5
5.0
5
2.8
14.0
3.3
13
3.6
2.14
6.3
14.2
3.2
3.0
6
0.6
0.5
0.5
2.2
0.5
0.14
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
-------
Ca t.ppm)
TABLE 34
Date of Sample
Station No.
en en en
N - N- N-
en
I-I
c’4
en
en en
N- N- N- N- C\i
N- N-
- —‘ - —..‘ 0
‘.0 N- - r-4
en en
N- N-
N- N-
i-I C%j
r4 i 4
2.5 1.1 1.3
2.5 1.8 2.1
1.8 1.11 2.1
28 60 35
6.6 56 43
6 2.0 1.14 1.5
0.5 0.8 1.5
3.14 0.7 1.2 1.5 1.1 1.1 0.9
6.8 0.9 4.1 0.6 3.3 1.11 1.7
1414 0.8 1.14 1.6 2.1 1.5 10.6
136 20 110 27 24 19 31
122 20 110 68 22 28 52
7.14 1.0 1.2 3.11 1.8 1.7 1.5
3.7 0.6 0.14 1.5 0.6 0.9 1.1
‘ -I
1
2
3
14
5
7
-------
K (ppm )
TABLE 35
Date of Sample
Station No.
rn
N- N- N-
I_I C\J
r 1 C i
N- N-
t-n c - f l ( Y•) -
N- N- N- N-
f - I
N- N-
Q
N- f-I
N-
N-
c.’J
f-I
1
0.7
0.5
0.6
3.6
0.9
0.8
1.5
0.9
0.6
0.4
0.9
0.9
2
0.7
0.6
0.7
3.0
1.0
0.9
1.7
0.7
0.1
0. 4
3
0.6
0.3
0. ’4
2.7
0.7
0. 4
0.5
6.3
5.4
‘4
‘4.9
4.6
5.2
20
5.2
5.7
‘4.5
3.4
3.5
2.7
5
3.2
3.1
2.9
1 4
3.6
3.3
0.9
5.1
1.5
1.1
0.7
0.8
6
0.9
0.5
0.8
‘4.0
0.9
-------
Na (ppm)
TABLE 36
Date of Sample
(Y
N-
Station No.
N- N-
‘.0
( .\J
-
N- (
cn Cfl N- N-
N- N- N- N- C’J
N- N-
‘ .0 ‘ .0 N- N-
CD r1 IN
‘ .0 N- r1
1 1.8 1.3 1.2
2 2. 2.5 2,3
3 5.2 514 14.9
14 90 70 53
5 32 141 29
6 1.8 1.5 1.5
7 1.14 7.2 1.3
7.5 1.8 1.7 1.4 0.8 1.5 1.5
9.2 1.6 2.5 0.5 2.2 2.7 2.5
214 5.4 5.6 6.5 14.6 59 99
20 4 71 61 58 1490 514 80
122 45 36 52 220 56 23
5.7 1.1 1.7 2.5 1.0 1.6 1.14
14.3 1.8 1.14 0.5 1.0 1.3 1.2
-------
NI (ppm) TABLE 37
Date of Sample
I - f l
I-fl N-
N- I-fl I-fl I-fl I-fl N- N-
N- N- N- N- C\J ‘ -.
N- N-
r4 (\J ‘ .0 N— N- ..--
0 —
Station No. ,— . - N- ,. . —4
1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.5 0. 11
2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.3
3 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.6
- 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.2
5 0.1 0.2 0.2 11.0 O ,3
6 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.11 0.3
7 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2
-------
F (ppm )
TABLE 38
Date of Sample
Station
No.
C—
(Y
H C’J r1
t fl
rY (Y (Y
C— C•’J
H
C—
0
C— H
c.n
C- C--
C— N-
i-I C\i
H H
1
2
3
14
5
6
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.1
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.11 0.0 0.1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.14 0.3 0.7 1.7 0.14
0. 4
0.3 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.14 0.11
0.0 0.0 0.14 0.0 0. 0
0.0
7 0.0 0.1
0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
-------
N0 3 (ppm)
TABLE 39
Date of Sample
Station
cv. cY
C — C-— N-
c’J
No.
—4
N- N-
‘ .0
N-
N-
I - f l
N- N-
I-I
N- N-
- Q
0 ’ i-I
I-n t fl
N- C--
C-- C--
c .’J
1
0.1
0.9
2.1
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.6
1.3
1.3
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.1
2
0.8
—
4.4
1.6
1.0
12
13
ii
8.4
3
0.3
135
18
7.8
11
86
150
135
90
240
65
140
75
115
6
25
20
18
5
10
3.7
18
8.7
6.5
7 1.1
1.0 7.Lt 0.3
0.6 0.9 1.1 0.3 0,1
-------
Cl (ppm)
TABLE Lb
Date of Sample
Station No.
( ,
N-
“
r-1
‘
-1
(n
N-
\O
C\J
‘
C J
cY
-
Cfl
- i-I
.
CY
N-
“,Q
(Y)
N-
.O
N-
C’
N -
N-
m
N-
N-
‘
O\
(n
N-
C J
r -I
0
rl
Cfl
N-
N-
,-4
(fl
N-
N-
C j
i—f
1
2.5
1.2
1.1
1.5
3.6
4.0
10
3.9
5.6
4.6
2
3.6
2.5
0.3
5.4
2.8
5.7
2.4
7.0
7.0
2.0
3
5.6
3.6
0.5
7.5
5.8
7.6
10
10
19
8.4
4
140
170
20
165
92
100
99
190
12 4
160
5
66
59
9.0
62
53
56
180
47
45
314
6
3.6
2.5
0.2
2.6
3.4
11.1
4.6
6.0
10
7.14
7
2.1
1.3
0.2
0. 4
2.1
2.5
1.1
2.6
6.6
11.8
-------
so (ppm)
TABLE
c v i
- N- N-
I - f l (.fl
N- N- N- N- C\i N-
- - ‘ — I -I
N- N-
- ‘-S 0
N- C, •r1 r4
I -n
N-
- 5, ’
O\
I- . ’
-5..
Station No. -1
Date of Sample
‘ .0
I-fl
N- N-
• 5 ,
c v i
c’J I-c
‘ 5 ,
(\J
I-n
N-
N-
‘ 5 5
c ’ .J
1
5.6
2.0
11.0
14.2
3.3
4.3
10
5.11
6.0
5.7
2
5.3
2.0
2.0
6.6
3.2
2.0
i6
5.5
11.8
2.2
3
1 14
2.0
2. 4
3.3
2.8
Ll..2
6.6
14.3
3.8
11.0
Lj
13
70
16
17
16
17
23
17
10
17.5
5
11
19
28
23
18
19
23
18
15
23
6
3.5
2.0
14.3
5.2
3.3
11.9
14.6
14.9
3.9
26
7
14•9
2.0
14•14
11.8
3.0
14.2
11
14.2
14.6
0.0
-------
Fe (ppm)
TABLE 42
Date of Sample
Station :o.
“I
0
C-
C-
C —
çv
cfl
(
-‘.. -
C-
C-
C-
cn
-
—
r-4
C\i
‘0
‘ 0
C-
‘-.-.
.
C J
‘0
C-
‘0 )
cv
C-
(-n -
C— C J
‘-4
C-
0
(n
C- C-
C— C-
1-4 c J
1 -I
1
0.6
0.2
0.6
2.9
2.3
2
0.6
0.2
1.3
2.0
2. 4
1.8
8.6
2.1
0.14
0.6
3
0.0
0.1
0.1
0. 4
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
‘4
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
5
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.14
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
6
0.7
0.2
0.8
3.2
2.5
1.0
0.5
1.2
0.3
0.5
-------
Mn (ppm) TABLE 3
Date of Sample
rn I. ,
N- N-
N-
C J r l
1 0.0 0.0 0.0
2 0.0 0.0 0.0
3 0.0 0.0 O.O
0.0 0.0 0.0
5 0.0 0.0 0.0
6 0.0 0.0 0.0
7 0.0 0.0 0.0
N-
C’
Station No.
N-
(YI
N- N- N- C J
‘-4 N- N-
N- N-
0
a’ , r4
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
-------
P0 (ppm)
TABLE £ 114
Date of Sample
Station
0 \
‘ -I
N.
No. ‘-
N-
N. N.
( v i
c. ’J
N. N.
( ‘J
c v i
N-
( v i ( vi ( vi ( vi
N- N- N- N- C’i
N. N. N. N.
N- N- N.
N. N. N. N.
N- aD r4
( vi cvi
N- N-
N. N.
N- N-
N. N.
r 1
U’
1 )
1
0.13
0.02
0.06
0.16
0.09
0.05
0.08
0.12
0.12
0.08
2
0.03
0.02
0.08
0.13
0.13
0.06
0.13
0.12
0.10
0.10
3
011
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.07
0.05
14
0.07
0.01
0.014
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.05
5
0.10
0.01
0.07
0.18
0.10
0.014
0.18
0.17
0.20
0.10
6
0.10
0.03
0.05
0.16
0.09
0.014
0.25
0.06
0.15
0.07
7
0.09
0.01
0.014
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.10
0.05
-------
Fecal Coliform (organism s/i 00 ml ) TABLE l 5
Date of Sample
(‘1 C N-
N- N- N- r1 Cfl (fl N- N-
N- N- N- N- C\i
D rvl ‘ H N- N-
H C J H N- N- .
..-.‘ - -.‘ 0 H
Station No. H (‘ .4 \O N- H H H
1 0 0 5920 3160 990 0
2 1560 0 19 00 360 270 0
3 0 60 1 12500 1360 50 300
L I 0 70 70 70120 0
0 10 0 60 0 140
6 0 100 850 2360 320
7 0 10 200 30 1t 0 0
-------
SECTION VI
REFERENCES
1. Crowson, C.W., Communication to Solid Waste Division,
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology,
Nay 31, 1972.
2. U.S. Public Health Service, Drinicing Water Standards ,
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Rockville, Md., Public Health Service Publication No.
956 (1969).
3. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Waste Water , APHA, AWWA, and WPCF, New Yoc’k, 13th
Edition (1971).
i. Perkin Elmer Corp., Analytical Nethoos for Atomic
Absorption Spectroscopy , Norwalk, ConnectIcut l97l).
5. Orion Research, Operation Manual for Specific Ion
Electrodes (Chloride, Fluoride, and Ammonia), OrIon
Research, Cambridge, Mass. (1971).
154
-------
APPENDIX E. Organizational Information
1. Implementing Court Order
2. City Resolution
3. Contractual Agreement
155
-------
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF CLARK COUNTY, ARKAI SAS
IN ‘THE MATTER OF ESTABLISHING A COUNTY—WIDE SOLID WASTE MANAGE-
MENT SYSTEM AND THE COUNTY ENTERING INTO AGREEMENT WITH THE
MUNICIPALITIES, JTHE STATE AND THE .CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
ORDER
Now on this day came on for consideration the matter of Clark
County, Arkansas, entering into contractual agreements with its
mun cipa11ties, the State Parks and Tourism Department, and The
Corps of Engineers.
WHEREAS, the County of Clark, including each of its political
subdivisions, seeks to improve living conditions within its
boundaries by implementing a comprehensive Solid Waste Management
System to include a land disposal facility which conforms to
State standards of operation and by prohibiting the practices of
open burning and open dumping; and,
WHEREAS, the Implementation plans for such a Solid Waste
Management System have been prepared through joint County—City
effort, and the price of same has been established;
It further appears to the Court justification, advantages, and
autnority of the County entering into such contractual agreement
and for providing Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services
has been established by Acts 237 and 238 of’ the 1971 Legislature,
and that it is, accordingly in the best interest of and to the
benefit of the County to enter into said Solid Waste Management
Program.
IT IS THEREFORE, CONSIDERED, ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the
County of Clark prohibit the practices of open burning and dumping
and that such service charges to be levied as necessary to cover
the co&t of a rural collection system and a land disposal facility.
The proportion of the annual cost of the system applicable to
County goverr’ment’s burden has been set at $27,96 .OO. Service
charges to rural residents are to begin one year following imple-
mentation of the Sanitary Landfill and Rural Collection System.
156
-------
RE. C UT 1 (J1
WiiEREA ., the City of — , Arkansas
seeks to i iiprove living conditions In its city by imple-
menting a comprehensive Solid Waste Management System; and
WHEREAS, In order to obtain the funds to implement
such a system, it Is necessary to obtain grant assistance
where possible from the appropriate agencies of the United
States Government; and
WHEREAS, the implementation plans for such a Solid
Waste Management System have been prepared through joint
County-City effort, and the price of same has been esta-
blished; and
WHEREAS, the City Board (Council) of the City of
___________________, Arkansas Is well aware and apprised of
the above—mentioned project, and the City of ________________
Arkansas expresses its intent to pass a city ordinance
prohibiting open burning and open dumping and to levy such
service charges necessary to cover the cost of collection
and disposal services for the City of ______________________
Arkansas. Cost of the service has been established at
_______________ for one operating year for the City of
_________________, Arkansas. The annual service charge of
______________ will be divided Into 12 equal payments that
will be paid to the County on a monthly basis. The first
payment will be due one year and one month after the Sanitary
Landfill and Rural Collection System begins operation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ___________________, ARKANSAS, that the Mayor
of said City, or other persons acting by or under his di-
rection, are hereby, authorized to enter into contractual
agreement with the County of Clark, implementing agency
for the Solid Waste Management Systems for solid waste
collection and disposal services to be rendered to the
City of ___________________, Arkansas, such contractual agree-
ment to be consummated as expeditiously as possible.
PASSED: ___________________
(Date)
APPROVED: _____________________
May or
Cost Breakdown :
Seal Arkadeiphia — $16,366.00 (Landfill Only)
Gurdon — 6,922.00
Amity — 2,0147.00
Attest: Gum Springs — 899.00
Okolona — 78C.OO
______________________ Whelen Springs— 1422.00
City Recorder County (Rural)— 27,9614.00
157
-------
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the statues of the State of Arkansas
(Act 237 and 238 of 1973) prohibit the open burning and
dumping of waste and require the disposal of waste under
a Solid Waste Management System.
AND WHEREAS, Clark County, a sub—division of the
State of Arkansas, has undertaken to provide a Solid Waste
Management System and has provided a sanitary land fill
area In Section 12 - Township 7 South, Range 18 West - and
to collect the waste that may accumulate In various areas
of the County and dispose of It In said sanitary land fill.
AND WHEREAS, the city of Amity, Arkansas, desires
to avail itself of their facilities and services In order
that It may comply with the legal requirements.
NOW THEREFORE: The City of Amity, Arkansas, acting
by and through its Mayor and City Council, agree that it will
pay to Clark County $2,0147.oo per annum, payable in four
equal quarterly payments due April 1st., July 1st., October 1st.
and January 1st. of each year after performance, until
cancelled by Ninety (90) days written notice by either party.
158
-------
For which Clark County agrees:
1. To provide suitable containers for waste and garbage
to be placed in agreed strategic locations within said Town and in
which the waste and garbage of the County shall be deposited.
2. To pick up, empty and replace the containers twice
weekly upon duly scheduled days to be determined by the County.
3. To empty said containers, by depositing the waste
and garbage placed therm, in sanitary land fill area in Section
12, Township 7 South, Range 18 West, which shall be properly
maintained by the County for such purposes.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the name of the City of Amity,
Arkansas, duly signed by the Mayor and attested by its recorder
and the name of Clark County duly signed by its County Judge has
been duly executed, this _____ day of May, 1973.
THE CITY OF AMITY, ARKANSAS
BY ___________________________________
ATTEST: ____________________
CLARK COUNTY, ARKANSAS
BY __________________________________
COUNTY JUDGE
159 i.ia12 14
GPO 894-G24
------- |