LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY
REGIONAL PLAN
FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
UTILIZING RAIL HAUL
A solid waste management
open-file report (SW-5tg)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government.
-------
LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY REGIONAL PLAN
FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
UTILIZING RAIL HAUL
This open-file report (SW-5tg) on work performed under solid waste management
training grant no. EC-00010 to the University of Texas
was written by J. F. MALINA, JR., and B. F. MARTIN
and is reproduced as received from the grantee.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1971
-------
An environmental protection publication
in the solid waste management series (SW-5tg),
-------
FOREWORD
This Nation is facing the ever-growing problem of how best to
manage its solid wastes. Not only are present practices of solid
waste storage, collection, processing, and disposal becoming inadequate,
but the United States also faces a shortage of trained professional
workers in the field who are equipped to deal with the problem.
To help alleviate this shortage, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, under authority of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (Public Law
89-272), administers a program of grants-in-aid which supports
graduate-level training programs at 13 universities for approximately
65 masters' degree candidates each year. These students receive
specific training in the many aspects of modern-day solid waste tech-
nology and management. Some of these training programs are located
at large urban universities and center their instruction on solid
wastes in the urban environment, while other programs are at schools
in agricultural regions and may place their emphasis on food-processing
and farm waste problems. To date, over 100 engineers have been trained
at the graduate level in universities receiving support from the Federal
solid waste management training grant program.
One phase of the graduate students' training is to conduct a re-
search project dealing with a specific aspect of solid waste management.
This document reports on the results of one such research project and
provides information which should be useful to others concerned with
better solid waste management practices.
iii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author owes a debt of gratitude and thanks to the
personnel of the Texas Department of Health, Solid Wastes Section,
for making available the data obtained from their solid waste
facilities survey in the Lower Rio Grande Valley area.
The fine cooperation of the city officials of the Valley com-
munities was a major factor in making this report possible. A
special thanks to Mr. Robert A. Chandler and Mr. John Janak
(Council of Governments) and Mr. John Clary (Harlingen City
Manager) for their help in data collection and moral support.
The financial support provided by the U.S. Public Health
Service* is hereby gratefully acknowledged.
*The supporting organization, the Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs, formerly a part of the U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, is now a
component of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
iv
-------
ABSTRACT
Solid wastes collection and disposal is one of the major urban
problems facing the public officials of the United States today. An
accurate appraisal of the solid wastes production in the community
is an important but often overlooked factor. A thorough evaluation
of the alternative methods of solid wastes collection and disposal must
be completed, and the local factors which influence the disposal sys-
tem must be considered.
The objective of this study was to develop a regional approach
to solid wastes management for the Lower Rio Grande Valley (Cameron
and Hidalgo Counties) in the State of Texas. The measurement of the
solid waste production was the first step. The solid waste production
was determined by weighing the municipal refuse and brush collected
by trucks in several communities in the Valley. The average net
load by each size of truck was determined. The weekly average
number of loads for each community was obtained from municipal
records and Department of Public Works personnel. This approach
gave an average 4. 8 pounds of municipally collected refuse per
capita per day. The total solid waste production estimate of 8. 0
pounds per capita per day was based on the municipal sanitary land-
fill operations and the estimated industrial and feed processing •waste
disposal by private organizations.
v
-------
A secondary objective was the investigation of the feasibility of
utilizing the existing railroad system as an integral part of the regional
refuse disposal operation. The present refuse transport and disposal
practices in the Lower Rio Grande Valley were studied for quality and
cost of operation. The average truck operates far below rated net
load capacity, thus the transportation cost per ton to the sanitary land-
fills is very high. The central location of the railroad system and the
availability of sanitary landfill sites adjacent to the system make
refuse rail-haul applicable to the Valley region. Economic factors
indicate that rail-haul may be the best method for removing refuse
from the nation's urban centers.
Solid waste disposal in the Valley was excessively costly and
often of poor quality. In most cases, the sanitary landfill equipment
was undersized for the task of compacting and cove ring. The lack of
standby equipment and the frequent breakdowns caused periodic
excessive build-up of uncovered refuse, The high cost of rental
equipment during these emergencies increased the overall cost of
operation. The unusually large volumes of brush, demolition wastes,
food proce ssing waste s, and dead animals caused many problems
for the small community sanitary landfills, A large-scale operation,
such as a regional solid waste management approach, could solve
many of the solid waste problems in the Lower Rio Grande Valley,
vi
-------
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1, The data collected during this investigation indicate-d that
for the cities studied, the average solid waste production is 8 pounds
per capita per day. Yard trimmings and brush constitute 50 percent
of the volume, and refuse production is 4. 8 pounds per capita per
day-
2, Records on solid waste production and disposal are at best
only fair and are not always comparable from town to town. More
extensive weighing of the solid wastes collected by private and com-
mercial haulers as well as by city crews is required in order to plan
a sound solid waste management program,
3, The development of a regional solid waste management
agency (SWMA) for the two-county area would give better reliable
service to the people. The SWMA would give better protection to the
communities* health and minimize the cost of operation by economy
of scale and long-term planning, A large central disposal facility
would improve the economy for reclamation and salvage of material
from the refuse.
4, Rail-haul as an integral part of the regional refuse col-
lection and disposal system appears feasible. The location of the rail
system in the centers of the population, the availability of existing
rail siding for transfer stations, and the availability of landfill sites
vii
-------
adjacent to and paralleling the railroad rights-of-way are factors
which make the railroad a feasible transportation system for the
Lower Rio Grande Valley regional solid waste management agency.
5, Sanitary landfill is the most economical disposal method
for the Lower Rio Grande Valley, However, the high elevation of
the ground water table increases the possibility of ground water
pollution in this irrigated farm land area, so these operations should
be moved to the perimeter of the Valley with the use of the rail-haul
sy stem.
6. Long-term plans should be developed with emphasis
toward salvage and recycle of material. The extensive agriculture
development of the Lower Rio Grande Valley indicates a possible
market for compost which is a potential method of recycling our
refuse.
viii
-------
CONTENTS
Page
I INTRODUCTION 1
II SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 4
Regional Approach to Solid Waste Management .... 4
Trends in Solid Waste Production 7
Present Methods of Solid Waste Disposal 11
Refuse Rail-Haul 13
Transfer Stations 17
III DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA 20
IV PRESENT SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES ... 25
Present Disposal Methods 26
Equipment 32
Land , 32
Cost and Charges 33
V EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 35
Highways 35
Railroads 35
Other Types of Transportation 40
VI PROPOSED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN ... 41
Area To Be Served 41
Organization 42
Type of Service 43
Transportation , 48
Disposal Methods 51
Transfer Station 54
ix
-------
VII SPECIAL PROBLEMS WITH DEVELOPING PLAN ... 56
BIBLIOGRAPHY , 61
APPENDIX A '. 65
APPENDIX B , 68
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Refuse Production by Selected Communities
in the Lower Rio Grande Valley , 23
Z Two-Week Record of Visits to City of Edinburg
Sanitary Landfill 30
xi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Population Growth in Study Area 9
2 Lower Rio Grande Valley Total Solid Waste
Production Per Day 10
3 Location of Study Area ..,.,,... 16
4 Present Sanitary Landfill Problems 27
5 Complex Solid Waste Disposal Problem ....... 28
6 Rural Solid Waste Accumulation . 31
7 Study Area Highway System and Location
of Present Refuse Disposal Sites 36
8 Location of Rail-Haul Transfer Stations and
Sanitary Landfills 37
9 Refuse Compactor Trucks Loading Efficiency 46
10 Estimated Refuse Rail-Haul Cost 49
11 Existing Sanitary Landfill Conditions 58
xii
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
In recent years there has been.a public awakening to the
magnitude of the growing problem of solid waste disposal in com-
munities throughout the United States. The development and opera-
tion of a refuse collection and disposal system is one of the major
financial obligations of a community or area. This public invest-
ment must be preceded by a thorough investigation of the local solid
waste production, evaluation of the alternative methods of disposal
and collection, and the unusual local factors which might influence
or dictate the system of collection and disposal. The rising stan-
dards of living are causing an ever-increasing quantity of refuse
produced per person. The trend toward urbanization and industrial-
ization has magnified the problem through concentrating the population.
The primary objective of this study was to investigate the
various facets of a regional program of solid waste production and
disposal within the Lower Rio Grande Valley in the State of Texas.
A secondary objective was to investigate the feasibility of using the
existing railroad system as an integral part of the regional refuse
disposal system. Alternate methods of disposal are also discussed
to a lesser extent.
The Lower Rio Grande Valley includes Cameron, Hidalgo,
Willacy, and sometimes Starr Counties. Cameron and Hidalgo
-------
Counties were selected to form the solid •waste management region
because of several common factors; namely, high population growth
rate, similarity of refuse disposal problems, and existing railroad
system. Investigation of the solid waste problems of all four
counties were included in the field study, but a regional plan -was
developed for Hidalgo and Cameron, These two counties had a I960
population of 332,000 (10). The area is primarily agriculturally
supported with 749, 271 acres of irrigated farm land. The dollar
value of crops sold by the farmers in these two counties in 1969 was
$81.2 million ( 10).
All the communities in the Lower Rio Grande Valley with a
population greater than 5, 000 were visited to obtain refuse production
data and present disposal methods. The quantities of solid wastes
generated were obtained from the records of the various municipal
agencies, and actual weights were taken in Pharr, McAllen, Edinburg,
Harlingen, Brownsville, and Mission, Texas. The mayors, city
managers, and Department of Public Works personnel of the com-
munities in Cameron and Hidalgo Counties were contacted to get
their opinions of a regional refuse disposal organization for their
area. Visits to the local Missouri Pacific Railroad Office in Har-
lingen and field investigations of the rail network in the Valley were
conducted to analyze the feasibility and accessibility of the rail
system for solid waste transport.
-------
The Valley area was selected for this study because of the high
brush production and the extreme pressure on the public officials to
find a solution to the present refuse disposal problem. The two-county
area is presently spending $1. 3 million on refuse collection and
disposal (30). The enactment of the Texas Air Pollution Law (Clear
Air Act of Texas, 1967), which prohibits open dump burning, has
caused a temporary crisis for the communities in the Lower Rio
Grande Valley, Brush, trees, and yard trimmings, plus some over-
sized furniture and appliances, account for approximately one-half
the volume of the municipally collected refuse in the Valley. Until
July 1, 1969, the major part of this material was burned along with
varying percentages of the garbage. Landfill areas that were pre-
dicted to last another five to ten years will be filled in half that, time
as a result of the increased volume that must be buried. The layout
of the rail system was such that over 90 percent of the solid wastes
is produced within five miles of the tracks. Therefore, the rail-
haul system was selected as the primary method of investigation for
hauling the refuse to a disposal site. The relative high cost of land
in the Valley and the availability of cheaper land which includes
salt flats to the east and arid land to the north, within 50 to 100 miles,
support the selection of a disposal system with rail-haul transporta-
tion.
-------
II. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
A review of published inforrnation on solid waste production
and disposal was necessary prior to investigating the local solid
waste conditions in order to establish study guidelines and bases
of comparison with other areas. Therefore, the evaluation included
(1) regional approaches to solid waste disposal; (Z) trends in solid
waste production; (3) present methods of solid waste disposal;
(4) refuse rail-haul systems; and (5) transfer stations.
The approach taken in this study was the development of the
type of information that the communities in the Lower Rio Grande
Valley •would need to form a regional solid waste management organi-
zation. Such evaluations are usually required by any community or
region in planning and executing a solid waste management program.
Regional Approach to Solid Waste Management
There is a trend in the United States today toward regional
planning and development. This trend is partially due to the influence
of the federal programs that give preference to regional plans over
individual community plans. However, the major causes for this
regional planning trend has been the recognition by public officials
that the surrounding area has a profound effect on the town and that
the municipality affects the immediate environments. The economies
-------
and comprehensive nature of large-scale operations are obvious to
urban planners. The union of several towns into a single unit to solve
a common problem has been widely practiced in recent years and
appears to be the pattern for the foreseeable future.
The advantage to both large and small communities of having
access to specialized personnel and equipment made possible by a
large operation should not be underestimated. Towns of a population
of less than 20,000 normally cannot economically operate the size
and specialized equipment required for an adequate sanitary landfill.
In the past, rural families and the commercial and industrial
establishments outside of the jurisdiction of the city were not included
in the refuse collection and disposal plans of the community. The
realization by the municipal public officials that the surrounding rural
area has a great deal of effect on the environment of the city has
caused the change in approach. Any inadequate disposal methods in
the outlying rural area may completely void the sanitation and public
health projects conducted by the city. The recognition by public
officials of the interplay of solid waste disposal methods on the urban
and rural environment has caused many cities and counties to form
regional agencies to solve their common refuse problems. These
regional agencies have been able to serve the people better for less
cost.
-------
A recent study of the De s Moines, Iowa, Metropolitan Area
for the development of regional refuse collection and disposal plan
showed that a regional agency could collect the refuse from both urban
and rural population with greater reliability and at less cost to all tax-
payers (1). Added advantages such as better sanitary disposal opera-
tions, more flexibility to handle emergency situations, and more
reliability are made possible by a regional solid waste agency.
There are many other successful solid waste disposal regional
programs such as Butler County, Ohio; Flint, Michigan; and St.
Joseph, Michigan (2,3,4,5,6). These regional programs have shown
the way for regional comprehensive solid waste disposal plans.
Another program, the "Centre Regional Sanitary Landfill" program
of State College, Pennsylvania, with six communities cooperatively
running a landfill is applicable to the Lower Rio Grande Valley solid
waste problems (7).
One of the normally forgotten but important benefits made
possible by a regional approach to solid waste management is future
reuse. The technology to reclaim and reuse some of our waste products
is rapidly developing. The economics of refuse reuse is tied very
closely to the size or volume of material handled. Presently, the
separation of tin cans from refuse for sale to industrial and manu-
facturing organizations is only economical for populations larger
-------
than approximately 200, 000. The economics of this ferrous metal
reclaiming operation improves rapidly with increasing volume. The
regional approach gives the disposal operation a better chance of
taking advantage of these reclaiming operations resulting from the
large volume as compared to the production of the individual towns
and cities. An interpretation of the 1965 Solid Waste Act by Mr.
Richard D. Vaughan was stated as the development of technology for
refuse recycle, reuse, and management to protect our nation's health,
natural resources, and environment (2).
Even "when the present technology does not permit the salvage
of valuable material from the refuse, the regional management
approach can operate a resource storage facility, sanitary landfill,
for future reclamation. The ultimate need for the recycle of our
natural resource is obvious to the writer because this method guaran-
tees a supply of these resources for future generations and the pro-
tection of our environment.
Trends in Solid Waste Production
The United States is expected to double its population within
the next thirty years. This estimate is baaed on an expected annual
growth rate of 1, 75 percent per year. Therefore, an area whose
growth can be expected to approximate the national average will have
an estimated solid waste production increase of almost 10 percent
-------
8
within five years even •without considering per capita increases of
even greater magnitude. A recent National Academy of Science
report states that the United States daily per capita production of
routinely collected refuse grew from Z. 75 pounds in 1920 to 4, 5 pounds*
in 1965 (8). Recently the per capita solid waste production has been
increased at the rate of 4 percent per year. An investigation of
refuse production in seven major cities in Texas during 1965-66 indi-
cated total refuse collected by municipal and private collectors at the
rate of 5. 0 pounds per capita per day (9). The national trend of urban-
ization shows an annual increase in the percentage of our population in
the metropolitan areas. This trend has however slowed somewhat in
recent years. The concentration of the population in our urban areas
complicates and magnifies the solid waste problems.
The population of the study area has more than doubled be-
tween 1940 and I960. The Valley area continues to show great popu-
lation increases in the urban areas, but little if any increase in
population is reported in the rural sections (10). This rapid growth
continues as indicated by the 1968-1969 predictions indicated in
Figure 1. The two-county study area including Cameron and Hidalgo
Counties is one of the fastest growing areas in Texas. The estimated
future refuse production for the Valley is shown by Figure Z. This
graph indicates the magnitude of the solid waste problem facing the
population of the Lower Rio Grande Valley.
-------
400
U)
o
o
o
^ 300
(tJ
3
Cu
O
Pu
200
o
o
Source: 1968 Texas
Almanac
— — — Estimated
I
100
1940
1950 I960 1970
Year
1980
1990
Figure 1. Population Growth in Study Area
-------
18
16
>*
Rj
Q
o
H
o
o
o
G
O
O
3
in
*D
•i-i
j — i
O
CO
14
12
10
8
1940
Source: Estimated
1950
1960 1970
Year
1980
1990
Figure 2. Lower Rio Grande Valley Total Solid Waste
Production Per Day
-------
II
Present Methods of Solid Waste Disposal
The excellently prepared report by M. L. Smith summarizes
the present methods of solid waste disposal (9). Therefore, only a
short review of solid waste disposal methods will be included in this
report.
Sanitary landfill is recommended as the most economical
method of solid waste disposal for the State of Texas according to a
1969 report by L,. P. Gazda (11). A well-operated sanitary landfill
provides at least six inches of compacted cover at the close of each
day's operation and a minimum of two feet of compacted cover over
the fill after it is completed (35). The relatively low cost of land and
the availability of this land near the population centers of the Valley
for the next few years confirms this recommendation. As the popu-
lation increases in the Valley, the cost of land will increase and the
distances to available landfill sites will be greater, resulting in a
higher cost for the landfill disposal system. However, the landfill
operation seems the most economical for the Valley for the foresee-
able future.
Composting has some promise for agriculturally oriented areas
but only as one part of the solid waste management operation. The
compostable fraction of municipal refuse seems to be decreasing in the
United States (12), The operation of a compost plant at a large landfill
-------
12
site where only the best compostable material is used has some
potential. One of the major factor s limiting pre sent composting opera-
tions is the limited market for the product (13). The Lower Rio Grande
Valley has 749,271 acres of land in irrigated agriculture production (10).
These conditions are favorable for the development of a local market
for the compost. The large production of organic waste from local food
processing, vegetable farms, and citrus groves are additional factors
that could make composting feasible for this region.
The development of a compost market in the Valley could greatly
reduce the overall cost of the composting operation. As the cost of land
increases and the haul distance to landfill sites increases, the compost
operation will become more competitive. The combination of com-
posting, landfill, and salvage has great promise as a part of the solution
to the solid waste problem of the Valley. The present costs of opera-
tion of compost plants average $3. 38 per ton. This is still above
those of a sanitary landfill for this area (14, 15, 16, 17).
Incineration seems to be too expensive, both in capital invest-
ment and ope rational cost, as compared to sanitary landfill. The recent
enforcement of the Texas Air Pollution Control Law (18) has increased
the cost of incineration even further through the increased air pollu-
tion control equipment. Present cost estimates for incineration
range from $3. 50 to more than $5. 00 per ton (19).
-------
13
The recovery of heat and power from refuse has good possibility;
but U. S. utility companies have been very reluctant to invest in this
area. The difficulties of refuse incineration operation, the increased
capital investment to handle refuse, and the variable heat value (BTU)
per pound of refuse are only some of the problems facing the utility
companies in using refuse. The existence of oil and gas reservoirs
in the Valley makes refuse as a fuel even less competitive.
The use of an above-ground sanitary landfill to develop hills in
an otherwise flat terrain is an interesting possibility in this area. A
plan submitted to Norfolk, Virginia, proposes building a hill out of
refuse to form a 35-acre park on a flat area near Virginia Beach (20).
Surrounding the refuse hill are burrow pits resulting from the removal
of soil to cover the refuse; these holes are filled with water to become
a recreation lake. The hill was developed as a tourist lookout. Park-
ing, trails for hiking, slopes for soap box derby coasting, and im-
provement of the general scenic beauty of the area are also included.
The added effect of a wind breaker for a Valley town may have some
value in protection from the frequent hurricanes of the Valley. The
addition of a recreational area arid scenic landmark would definitely
be an advantage to this flat land.
Refuse Rail-Haul
In recent years a great deal of interest has been developing
around the use of railroad transport of refuse from the high population
-------
14
centers to suitable disposal sites. The railroad has a low ton-mile
haul rate for bulk and containerized freight. The average rate of
rail-haul during 1965 was $0, 01 18 per ton-mile. The existence of the
rail system in nearly all metropolitan areas makes this type of trans-
portation readily accessible.
A rail-haul landfill disposal system proposed by the Rio Grande
Railroad to the City of Denver, Colorado, and the recently operating
Reading Railroad and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Refuse Rail-Haul
and land reclamation projects are proving the feasibility of this ap-
proach {21, 22, 23). One of the disadvantages of this system is the one-
direction haul. The freight rate must be high enough to cover the cost
of returning the empty cars.
The rail-haul cost estimates vary over a wide range from under
$2. 00 to over $4. 00 per ton for a round trip of less than 200 miles,
including cost of the transfer stations. However, landfill operations
in conjunction with rail-haul may be operated as low as $. 50 per ton.
It appears that a sanitary landfill can be operated cheaper in con-
junction with the rail-haul system. The U. S. Public Health Service
and American Public Works Association are presently investigating
this combination.
The rail-haul system has the potential of collecting the refuse
from a large geographical area for central processing, salvage, and
-------
15
and disposal. The area economically covered by the rail-haul system
serving the Valley could be as great as'200 miles in radius (120, 000
square miles) or larger as illustrated in Figure 3. The potential
dollar value of salvageable material produced in an area of this size
makes a thorough investigation fully justified. The American Public
Works Association and Public Health Service demonstration and
research programs that are presently going on should help determine
the feasibility of this type of operation (24).
The rail-haul transportation system has many good features.
Work stoppage and strikes have not seriously affected the daily opera-
tion of the railroad. Weather conditions have little effect on railroad
transportation. Railroad bulk ton-mile freight rates are usually very
low. The flexibility of the rail-haul system to handle large shock
loads is a definite advantage in an area like the Valley with periodic
storms and freezes that generate large volumes of solid wastes. The
railroads are developing cars specifically designed to carry refuse.
It was reported that these cars can be delivered in less than a year
from order date (25); therefore, a refuse rail-haul system could be
put into operation quickly. Municipal or public ownership of equipment
and hard-ware should reduce these reported rail-haul costs through tax
advantages. The non-profit operation by a public agency will give
another reduction in the cost of rail-haul operation as compared to the
-------
Missouri Pacific and Southern Pacific Railroad Lines
Servicing Lower Rio Grande Valley
State of T.exas
16
Houstorr
San Antoni<
Potential Boundary
for Rail-Haul Central
Disposal System \
(200-mile radius) \
\
iLaredo
Corpus Christ!
Figure 3. Location of Study Area
-------
17
cost proposed by some of the railroad companies. However, the tax
savings are not true savings because the area does lose the tax revenue
the railroad companies would have paid.
A regional solid waste collection and disposal agency with
rail-haul as an integral part of the system definitely seems economically
feasible for the Lower Rio Grande Valley and particularly for the two-
county study area.
Transfer Stations
A regional refuse disposal plan to serve the Valley area will
eventually involve one or more transfer stations. The reported cost
of operating a transfer station has varied considerably from less than
$1. 00 per ton to over $4. 00 per ton. Some processing such as baling,
size reduction, containerizing, separation, and salvage has been
included in most of the stations which report higher operating costs.
The cost of baling or size reduction appears to be between $0. 80 and
$1. 50 per ton (Z6). Adequate data on the cost of the separating or the
containerization of refuse at the transfer station is not available.
Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and six nearby townships are operat-
ing a transfer station to transport refuse 17 miles to a sanitary landfill
(27). The construction and operation was started with an advancement
of $31, 000 from each township instead of a bond issue. This amount
was repaid in a few years as the regional transfer and disposal agency
-------
18
became self-supporting since a monthly service charge was levied on
each family served. This system is a good example of how a regional
refuse collection and disposal plan can go into operation with little diffi-
culty or time-consuming delays. A transfer station will be a definite
part of any rail-haul system or any disposal system with transportation
distance from point of refuse generation to disposal site of more than
ten to fifteen miles (28). The size of the collection trucks will help
determine when the cost of the haul warrants a transfer to a larger unit.
Orange County, California, uses the direct dump collection
truck to truck transport transfer station (29). The collection trucks
dump directly into a trailer. Compaction to get the maximum legal
highway load is obtained with a modified back hoe, with clamshell.
The hydraulic equipment exerts 8, 000 pounds of down pressure on
the pile. One transfer station in Orange County services 200, 000
people and handles on the average of 94 trucks per day and 457 tons
of refuse per day. As many as 170 loads and as much as 830 tons of
refuse have been dumped at the transfer station in a single day. Total
average cost of transfer, transportation, and sanitary landfill opera-
tion was $1. 02 for three transfer stations and five landfills. This
type of transfer station could be readily adapted to rail haul trans-
portation system.
-------
19
getting to the landfill. The maintenance of the collection trucks and
the loss of time due to breakdowns are reduced. Orange County esti-
mates that the elimination of the three transfer stations would increase
the cost of the system about $5. 00 per ton. The collection costs are
estimated at $1, ZO per month per family, and this cost •would increase
to $3. 00 per month without transfer stations. The use of the simple
hydraulic compaction equipment at the Orange County transfer stations
to economically increase the density of the refuse is a good approach.
This boom type equipment could be readily adopted to the railroad car
transfer station at a lower operating cost than those reported or esti-
mated for the shredding or baling processes.
The simplicity of, as well as the minimum amount of, equip-
ment and manpower needed at the direct dump transfer stations makes
it most economical to operate. The capacity of the open transport
unit to handle all kinds of wastes is a big advantage over the shredding
and baling operations. The economics of a transfer station with haul
distance that •will be involved in the Valley refuse disposal system
make this operation applicable to this area.
-------
III. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA
The Lower Rio Grande Valley includes Cameron, Hidalgo, and
Willacy Counties and is an area of rich alluvial soil with intensive
irrigation, Starr County is sometimes included as part of the Lower
Rio Grande Valley. Parameters such as economic growth, population
growth, agriculture, and topography would indicate that Cameron and
Hidalgo Counties have the most in common. The number of acres
irrigated and the annual crop value according to the Texas Almanac {10)
indicate that Cameron and Hidalgo Counties are chiefly agriculturally
oriented. Cameron and Hidalgo Counties were selected to form the
study area because of several common factors; namely, high popula-
tion growth rate, similar refuse disposal problems, and existing rail-
road system. Although sections of Starr and Willacy Counties are
very similar to Cameron and Hidalgo, a more effective solid waste
disposal system could be developed for Cameron and Hidalgo Counties
and then later expanded to include that portion of Starr and Willacy
Counties that could be economically included in the system.
The population is distributed in a linear pattern along the high-
way and railroad system from Brownsville to Mission. Over 90 percent
of the population is located within five miles of the new four-lane high-
way which parallels the railroad tracks. The population has been
continually supplied with the flow of Mexican laborers into the area.
20
-------
21
The high, unemployment rate of 8. 2 percent is partially attributed to
the influx of the unskilled labor. The seasonal nature of the agriculture
•work also contributes to some of the high unemployment.
There is a great deal of competition among the towns in the
Valley as evidenced by local high school sports, parades, political
issues, and community projects of neighborhood appearance and flower
planting. This healthy community rivalry, although useful as an incen-
tive to be better than their neighbors, makes regional cooperative
projects more difficult.
The study area is very flat with less than a 200-foot drop in the
80 miles across the two counties to the Gulf. The flat terrain causes
severe runoff problem s during the infrequent heavy rains caused by
hurricanes and storms. The ground water table nearly parallels the
slope of the land and fluctuates from a depth of ten to fourteen feet to
within a few feet of the ground surface. Excavation in the area must
be preceded by a good understanding of the soil type and ground water
elevation. The annual average rainfall is 24 inches with a mean annual
temperature of 74 degrees F. There is an occasional freeze in January
or early February. The latest heavy damaging freezes occurred in
1951 and 1961; these freezes destroyed over 75 percent of the citrus
trees in the Valley. The growing season is approximately 320 to 340
days out of the year or essentially year around.
-------
22
The area is primarily agriculturally supported with a large
number of food processing plants. Citrus and vegetable farms grow
the following crops: oranges, grapefruit, broccoli, carrots, cabbage,
onions, tomatoes, corn, cantaloupes, etc. Cotton and grain are also
grown in this area,
The solid waste production of the area is extremely hard to
quantify. The larger towns keep records of the municipally collected
refuse by number of truck loads. The refuse collected by the munici-
palities includes residential with some commercial and is estimated
at 4. 8 pounds per capita per day. These data from both field survey
and Texas State Health Department Solid Waste Survey are presented
in Table 1. Brush accounts for 50 percent by weight of the total
municipally collected refuse. The amount of solid -waste produced by
the food processing plants and other industrial operations was not
available, but several food processing plants estimated 10 to 20 per-
cent of the waste based on amount shipped was discarded. A certain
amount of culling was reportedly done in the field, and culls and waste
at that point are not considered in the solid waste production data.
It is estimated that less than 35 percent of the basic industries and
markets in the Valley that produce solid wastes are serviced by the
municipalities. A total solid waste production of approximately 8
pounds per capita is generated in the Valley •when these industrial
and market solid wastes are added to the 4. 8 pounds per capita
-------
23
TABLE 1
REFUSE PRODUCTION BY SELECTED COMMUNITIES
IN THE LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY
Community
Alamo
B rownsville
Donna
Edinburg
Harlingen
McAllen
Me rcede s
Mission
Pharr
San Benito
San Juan
We slaco
Population*
4, 700
53, 600
7, 600
20, 100
41, 400
35, 000
12, 300
14, 800
15, 300
17, 000
5, 000
16, 500
Data From Field
Study & Refuse
Production
Tons/ Capita/ Year
0. 405
0. 830
-
0. 548
0. 510
0. 827
0. 470
0. 808
0. 642
0. 837
-
0. 721
State Health Dept.
Total Solid Waste
Production
Tons/ Capita/ Year
1. 06
1. 01
1. 58
1. 14
1. 35
1. 13
1. 78
1. 11
2. 22
1. 47
1. 30
1. 37
^Population 1968-69 Texas Almanac.
-------
24
already being collected. The high production rate and accumulation
of solid wastes in the rural areas have'complicated the problem in the
Valley. However, the interest of the municipal officials, the existence
of a Valley solid waste study committee, and the recent publicity at
both the national and local levels have caused the present time to be-
come the most appropriate time to attack the solid waste problem.
-------
IV. PRESENT SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES
The towns in the Valley have worked independently for many
years solving their individual solid waste problems. Most of the cities
had established a fairly adequate disposal system or more properly
stated a political balance between the demands of the citizenry in the
way of services and the cost which the public was willing to pay. The
resulting disposal systems at times were modified to meet the State
Health Department requirements. Most of the public officials and
sanitation personnel understood the need for better disposal methods,
but at that time it was the best they could do under the financial and
political atmosphere of the area.
The enactment of the Air Pollution Control Law prohibiting
open burning at refuse dumps upset the established solid waste dis-
posal methods; namely, burning the brush and combustibles and land-
filling the household garbage. The volume of brush in nearly all cases
equaled the volume of garbage; therefore, landfill operations will
double after July 1, 1969. Most of the towns have neither the equip-
ment nor the land for this increased sanitary landfill operation. The
Air Pollution Law was not unexpected, and most of the towns had
known about it for several years, but the lack of good solid waste
data and lack of public interest caused a delay in planning for the
change-over from the open dump type operation with burning to com-
plete sanitary landfill.
Z5
-------
26
Present Disposal Methods
All of the towns in the Valley dispose of their refuse on the
land. Most of the towns are developing sanitary landfill methods
although the quality of some lacks much that is desirable of a good
sanitary landfill. This point is illustrated in Figure 4.
One big problem that all of the communities will have to face
is the potential ground water pollution and further action by the Water
Quality Board similar to the Air Pollution enforcement. The shallow
ground water table and the seasonal fluctuation of the ground water
elevation to within a couple of feet of the surface are conditions that
will require good engineering design and operation to eliminate ground
water pollution by the leachate of a sanitary landfill.
The periodic intensive rain storms in the Valley at times cause
severe flooding; therefore, landfill site location and operation must
take this into account. The present methods of leaving large holes and
open pits partially filled with refuse for long periods of time must be
discontinued. The open pit dumping of large volumes of citrus fruit
culls and vegetable waste from the food processing plants must be
handled in a way other than that presented in Figure 5a, The high
temperature of the area, rains, and exposure of ground water cause a
rodent, insect, and vermin breeding environment that has great
potential of endangering the health of the communities.
-------
27
Open Dump Burning
-
Blowing Paper and Plastic
Figure 4. Present Sanitary Landfill Problems
-------
28
£&5>?is
« $>
(a) Food Processing Wa ste-- Orange s
(b) Demolition Waste
Figure 5. Complex Solid Waste Disposal Problem
-------
29
Approximately half of the municipalities make pit space
available for the waste from the food processing plants within their
community. Several of the towns charged the companies a small fee,
but most were allowed free dumping. Very little attention or effort
was given to the disposal of these food wastes because this operation
did not pay for itself. Demolition waste (see Figure 5b), highway
department roadway waste, industrial waste, and some wastes from
individual rural residents are allowed to dump at the municipally
operated landfills. Table 2 is a two-week survey of landfill users at
the Edinburg sanitary landfill. The landfill operator does not usually
have control of the private haulers, and attempts by the operator to
keep a narrow working face are wasted. Strict rules or high user
charges caused some of the private haulers to dump along the roads
in the rural areas or outside of the sanitary landfill fence. One
official felt that the ban on open burning would greatly increase the
litter problem along the roadways and vacant lots,
The rural areas show a significant buildup of solid waste in
and around the residences, equipment storage areas, and fence
rows (Figure 6). This condition -will continue to be a potential trouble
spot for the communities and individual rural dwellers until an effec-
tive area-wide plan is in operation. None of the communities have
developed a refuse collection and disposal program on area bases,
although a Valley committee has been investigating these problems.
-------
TABLE 2
TWO-WEEK RECORD OF VISITS TO CITY OF EDINBURG SANITARY LANDFILL
Number of Loads Brought to Landfill
Classification
of User
City of Edinburg
Refuse Compactor
Trucks
City of Edinburg
2-Ton Brush Trucks
Public Agencies,
Schools, County &
State Highway
Dept. , etc.
Others- -Commercial,
Industrial, Food
Processing, and
Individuals
Total Visits
for Date
Day of Week
3/10/69
7
7
7
17
38
Mon
11
10
7
11
14
42
Tue
12
10
9
18
35
72
Wed
13
10
8
7
74
99
Thur
14
8
8
5
78
99
Fri
15
5
6
8
30
49
Sat
17
9
8
10
25
52
Mon
18
9
8
6
39
62
Tue
19
10
9
11
23
53
Wed
20
10
8
14
18
50
Thur
21
8
7
6
32
53
Fri
22
6
5
5
17
33
Sat
-------
31
Junk and Abandoned Cars Around Farm House
Discarded Truck and Tractor Tires
Figure 6. Rural Solid Waste Accumulation
-------
32
Equipment
The operation of a sanitary lancffill for the towns -with popula-
tions less than 20, 000 seems to be inherently inefficient. Normal
equipment breakdowns cause excessively long interruptions in the
collection and disposal operations.
In nearly all cases a single bulldozer and operator was respons-
ible for the sanitary landfill. A few of the communities were in the
process of purchasing a new bulldozer. No specialized compaction
and refuse landfill equipment are in the plans of the individual com-
munities because the equipment could not operate efficiently on such
a.small scale. The present undersized bulldozers are not doing an
adequate job on compacting the refuse, back filling, and dressing up
the finished area. A study conducted at Harlingen showed that a
steel-tracked bulldozer improved compaction 23 percent over the
rubber-tired payloader the city presently owns.
Land
Most of the towns are in the process of acquiring land for
future use as sanitary landfill sites. Public opposition is rather
strong against a landfill near any residences. This attitude is
probably due to the long history of open dump burning practiced by
the cities. Another public opinion factor is that most sanitary land-
fills once established continued at that site for ten to twenty years.
Only a couple of the towns have enough available land at the present
-------
33
time to properly dispose of all their waste for more than five years.
Some of the towns have the space, but because of the opposition of
adjacent property owners future problems are predicted for the elected
officials. Most of the operational cost estimates for the landfills did
not include the value of the land. Most of the accounting procedures
did not show the taxes lost because of municipal ownership of the land
nor the cost of replacing the landfill area as it is used up. Very few
plans are finalized regarding the use of the completed landfill areas.
Accurate mapping of the location of the sanitary landfill sites
is almost completely lacking; therefore, future land development in
and around these areas could be hampered. The lack of good maps
may even decrease the sale price of the land because developers are
uncertain of the compacted refuse depth and location.
Cost and Charges
The cost of operating the present refuse collection and disposal
systems is passed on to the local citizens in several different ways.
A few years ago one town eliminated the direct charge on individual
dwellings for refuse collection and increased the prope rty tax to cover
these costs. However, most of the towns levy a fixed monthly charge
on each dwelling or business to cover the major cost of collection; in
all cases the income from the service rates was not sufficient to cover
the total cost of collection and disposal. The solid waste survey
-------
34
conducted by the Texas State Department of Health estimated that the
Lower Rio Grande Valley communities spend more than $1. 28 million
on refuse collection and disposal. This estimated cost of operation
was for 343, 000 tons and served a population of 254, 600 (30). The
average cost of collection and disposal based on these estimated values
was $5. 00 per capita per year or $1. 67 per month for a family of four.
The rates most common are $1. 00 and $1. 50 per month per family for
twice a week collection and once or twice a month brush collection.
Only a few of the towns have a good estimate of the actual cost of the
administration, billing, equipment amortization, land replacement,
labor, private property damage, special crew cost during storm
cleanups, vehicle operators, insurance, personnel retirement, per-
sonnel training, and other expenses associated with refuse collection
and disposal in sanitary landfills. Very limited information is avail-
able to the supervisors regarding the cost of operation of comparative
methods and equipment, thus well-supported decisions are hard to make
because of this lack of information. The cost of obtaining refuse pro-
duction information and developing the costs for alternate collection
methods have not been included in most city budgets.
-------
V. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Highway s
The Valley has good transportation facilities throughout the area.
The network of roads are laid out in a grid pattern as shown in Figure 7.
The present construction of a four-lane controlled access highway from
Brownsville to Rio Grande City, which is also shown in Figure 7, will
greatly improve the transportation facilities for both passenger cars
and trucks. The new four-lane highway, which is nearly complete as
of August, 1969, passes through or adjacent to the city limits of all the
major towns in the study area. This system is readily accessible to
trucks from any of the towns. This new highway will be an important
factor to consider in selecting a refuse transport system. The shipment
of a large portion of the citrus and vegetable crops by truck transport
means that trucking equipment, supplies, personnel, and service
facilities are available in the area.
Railroad s
The second transportation system, by volume of traffic, is
the railroad. During the last thirty-five years the number of miles
of rail in operation has been decreasing in Texas. This decrease is
particularly true for the Valley area, as illustrated by the amount
of abandoned tracks shown in Figure 8. Many miles of track have
35
-------
THE LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY
Texas
/Hidalgo Comnty j
tarr County
^Willacy County
77
Legend
Population Center
•— County Boundary
= Four-Lane Highway
| Refuse Disposal Areas in Operation
Figure 1, Study Area Highway System and Location of Present Refuse Disposal Sites
-------
o
0
THE LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY AREA
Texas
r
7XHidalgo
/-
'
:
5
/ °-
/
County j
i
i
!
.
r5
Willacy County
Cameron County
Legend
Railroad
Abandoned Railroad
Proposed Sanitary Landfills
Proposed Transfer Stations
1 Mission
2 McAllen
3 Pharr
4 San Juan
5 Edinburg
6 Alamo
7 Donna
8 Weslaco
9 Mercedes
10 La Feria
11 Rayrnondville
12 Harlingen
13 San Benito
14 Brownsville
Mexico
Figure 8. Location of Rail-Haul Transfer Stations and Sanitary Landfills
-------
38
been abandoned in the last few years. It is assumed that the demand
for the rail services for particular areas has not been sufficient to
cover the cost of operation. Future plans of the railroad companies
should be investigated before this means of transportation is actually
incorporated into a refuse disposal system.
The location of the rails through the center of each town makes
this system very accessible. Unused sidings, switching, and storage
areas are available along the system in nearly every town. Miles and
miles of the abandoned tracks are open and could be returned to use.
Several stretches of the abandoned tracks are located in unproductive
salt flats, which include some of the lowest priced land in the Valley.
The economy of using the abandoned rail system for strip sanitary land-
fill operation has great potential and a relatively low cost operation.
Although a sizeable volume of freight is shipped from this area by
rail, the system is operating far below capacity. Therefore, a regional
rail-haul system should be in a good position to bargain for good haul
rates as well as an improvement in the efficiency of the railroad
operation. The average rail-haul rate in Texas in 1965 was $0.0118
per ton-mile for all freight. The increased use of the railroad would
help influence the railroads to maintain good rail service to the area
and thus give the communities another benefit through increased
appeal to industrial location.
-------
39
The present switching times are too slow for effective
movement of cars hauling refuse, primarily because of the bottle-
neck at the Harlingen railroad scales. This problem could be over-
come by a billing system which is based on something other than
weight or other adjustments with miiiimum effort or cost. The switch
engines usually start at Rio Grande City and Brownsville and collect the
loaded cars along the way and make up the train in Harlingen at night.
The cars that are loaded by 5 p. m. are picked up that very night.
This existing service is the same type that would be required by a
refuse system, and if the delays at Harlingen could be overcome, this
railroad system could be very reliable.
The location of the railroad in the center of the municipal
refuse production areas and connecting all the major refuse-gene rating
areas makes the railroad a good potential competitor for the Valley
refuse transport business. The Missouri Pacific and Southern Pacific
Railroads serve the area.
The recent development of specialized refuse rail-haul cars
by Reading, Penn-Central, and Rio Grande Railroads makes it possi-
ble to put a rail-haul system into operation in a short period of time.
A delivery time of approximately one year is estimated. The special
refuse cars are estimated to cost between $25, 000 and $35, 000. The
capital investment expense for the refuse rail cars would be around
$1, 000 per year per car.
-------
40
Other Types of Transportation
The accessibility to a waterways transportation system is
limited to the Brownsville-Harlingen area. The use of a barge-haul
refuse system would involve at least two transfer stations for the
Edinburg, McAllen, and Mission area. Refuse from Hidalgo County
would require transfer to either rail or truck transports for trans-
portation to intercoastal canal systems in Brownsville. At the
Brownsville dock a second transfer station would be needed to fill the
barges. The double transfer stations would significantly raise the
total cost of operation. In addition to the complex transfer operations,
there is growing opposition to dumping any waste in or near the Gulf
of Mexico.
The Valley area has a good network of gas and oil pipelines.
The feasibility of pipeline transport of refuse has not been proven.
Several studies are underway because the economy of pipeline trans-
portation gives this method great promise if the problems can be
solved (31).
-------
VI. PROPOSED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Area To Be Served
The Lower Rio Grande Valley has long been recognized as an
economically identifiable section of the State of Texas, The large
irrigated citrus groves and vegetable farms has also established the
boundaries of this region. The low productivity of the semiarid mes-
quite covered land to the north, the salt flats to the northwest and
northeast, Gulf coast to the east, and the Rio Grande to the south and
west have certainly helped establish the boundaries of the Lower Rio
Grande Valley. It is suggested that the counties of Hidalgo and
Cameron form a region solid waste management agency. Although
Starr and Willacy Counties are frequently considered as a part of the
Lower Rio Grande Valley, the population growth of recent years has
been in Hidalgo and Cameron. The major agriculture production of
citrus and vegetables has its greatest area importance in these two
counties. The similarity of topography and land use puts Hidalgo
and Cameron Counties in a class by themselves. The rapid growth of
the solid waste problem is worst in Cameron and Hidalgo Counties
because of increased population, urbanization, and refuse production
increase s.
41
-------
42
Organization
To attack the Lower Rio Grande Valley solid waste problem,
an area-wide organization is recommended. The proposed organi-
zation would have the responsibility and authority to organize and
operate a two-county regional solid waste collection and disposal
system. The name of Solid Waste Management Agency (SWMA) will
be used to describe this organization during the rest of this report.
The SWMA will be a nonprofit organization controlled by a committee
appointed by the locally elected officials. The size of the committee
should be held to less than ten or twelve members to be an effective
•working committee. The committee members should have over-
lapping terms of four or five years so that long-range programs \vill
have continuance and uniformity even with changing committee members.
The committee position will be a non-salary appointment, and
only the expenses incurred during the course of performing the duties
of the position will be reimbursed by the SWMA.
The committee should hire the permanent management staff,
and in turn the staff can develop a personnel system, plans of opera-
tion, and budgets for committee approval. Annual operational and
financial reports will be submitted by the staff through the committee
to the communities served.
Each community should sign a contract with the SWMA for not
less than five years, with a guarantee that the contracts are renewable.
-------
43
Contracts will be automatically renewed unless the agency has
received a written report to terminate the contract before the end of
the fourth contract year. The rural families could be covered by a
county government contract with the agency to provide access to a
disposal site and possibly individual collection if economy permits.
The service charge will be in two parts. All people will pay
a fixed fee for the operation of a disposal system. The other part of
the service charge would be for collection and should be based on type
and cost of service.
The SWMA could operate as a publicly operated and owned
utility; it would be a tax free local government organization. County
regulations must be passed to prohibit waste disposal at any sites
other than the approved SWMA sanitary landfill sites.
Type of Service
The Solid Waste Management Agency would be responsible for
collection, transport, and disposal of all solid waste generated in the
two-county area. This service would include residential, commercial,
manufacturing, industrial, off-farm agriculture, and governmental
sources. If collection does not seem feasible in some of the rural
areas, the sanitary landfill or transfer stations must be open to
these people.
The present collection methods and operations vary greatly
among communities in cost and services provided. Families with
-------
44
similar services are often paying different rates depending on the
community in which they live. It is proposed that all individual col-
lection operations be done by the SWMA, thus uniform collection prac-
tices and uniform service charges can be established. All the present
collection equipment will be turned over to the new agency, a private
firm will evaluate the equipment, and the contributing city or county
will receive credit.
Uniform collection procedure and schedules will be developed
by the agency; these will include twice a week collection for residential
and six times per "week for some commercial. The schedule of services
and type of equipment for the best service at an acceptable cost will be
developed by the SWMA. The service rates will be as nearly as possi-
ble to the cost of that particular operation and schedule. No solid waste
producer will be required to pay more than his fair share. One of the
big responsibilities of the committee will be the review of the rates
versus the services of each type of waste producer.
The collection of special wastes such as abandoned vehicles,
fallen trees, bulky furniture, appliances, and large items that cannot
be picked up by the regular collection truck will be handled by the
trash and brush crews. The schedule of these crews will be flexible.
They will depend more on the demand or buildup of this type of waste
than on a. fixed time schedule like the residential and commercial
garbage collection crews.
-------
45
If feasible, the collection schedule of the rural residences will
be set according to cost of collection, refuse production, and local
conditions. It is recommended that once a week collection but not less
than twice a month service be provided as a minimum.
The big emphasis of the collection operations will be the uni-
formity of services and equality in service charges. The SWMA will
also try to develop uniform garbage container standards, improved
storage and collection procedures to reduce the cost to the citizens.
The vehicles that are presently used will be operated by the
agency. These collection vehicles will be replaced or the fleet increased
as the work load dictates. The area-wide assignment of vehicles will
enable the agency to assign each type of vehicle to a task to get max-
imum utilization of the vehicles. The larger operation will permit a
lower percent investment in standby equipment and still have better
reliability of coverage for emergencies and normal breakdowns.
The collection trucks should be routed for two loads per day
with two- or three-man crews. The present three and four loads per
day per truck means that too much time is spent in hauling the refuse
and too little in the collection operation (32). This can be corrected
by selecting the routes and truck size to make two loads per eight-hour
working shift. Figure 9 presents loading efficiency data of the present
collection compactor trucks.
-------
Lower Rio Grande Valley, Texas
June-July, 1969
46
22,
CO
"O
u
U
c
•r-t
>-
-^-*
• f-*
O
Du
rtJ
T3
U
o
4_>
u
cti
Oi
s
o
U
to
3
»+-!
4)
20'
18
16
14.
12.
10
1. 0
Actual Net Load*
Design Net Load @ 300
pounds per cubic yard
rated capacity
2. 0
Net Refuse Load in Tons
*Note: Each point represents the average of 10 loads.
3. 0
Figure 9. Refuse Compactor Trucks Loading Efficiency
-------
47
The practice of alternating driver and pick-up man during the
eight-hour shift has shown to improve worker efficiency as "well as
improving working conditions. The purchase of air-conditioned cabs,
automatic transmission, diesel engines, and right-hand walk-in cabs
have all been shown to be cheaper per ton of collected refuse due to
increased worker production. These types of specialized equipment
investments will be possible for the regional solid waste organization,
whereas the individual communities could never afford such expensive
capital investments even though the operating cost per ton may be
lower.
The standardizing of collection equipment will give more uniform
service to all the people in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. The schedule
will be more dependable. The collection cost will be reduced through
reduced overhead costs. Specialized equipment can be more efficiently
assigned to the particular tasks. Routes can be selected on a larger
scale, and the restrictions that cause small expensive routes in cer-
tain areas of the individual cities can be eliminated.
Collection and disposal of dead animals could also be provided.
Dead animal collection vehicles and containers could be operated to
transport the dead animals to a central animal incinerator operated
at the sanitary landfill or some central location. The need for this
special service should be investigated during the first few years of
the SWMA operation.
-------
48
Tran spor tat ion
The movement of the refuse from the collection point or area
to the disposal area has become an increasingly expensive part of the
refuse disposal system. The collection trucks used in the Valley at
the present time haul the refuse to the disposal site. Haul distance
of less than ten miles and truck capacities of sixteen and twenty cubic
yards have made this method practical until recently. The nearby
landfill sites are rapidly becoming filled, developed, or use re-
stricted due to local land use. The increasing haul distances make
the collection less efficient. When transportation time or mileage
exceeds twenty minutes or five miles, respectively, a specialized
transport vehicle becomes economically advantageous {33). Truck
transports have become about the only type of vehicle used for this
operation to date. However, the railroad seems to be the long-term
answer for many metropolitan areas. Tractor and trailer transfer
units are presently hauling refuse the five to twenty mile one-way
trips to landfill sites. For this short range the railroad will have
trouble competing. However, when the distance to the nearest landfill
exceeds approximately twenty miles, the railroad will become very
competitive, according to the estimated rail-haul rates in Figure 10.
The use of the present sixteen and twenty cubic yard capacity
compactor collection trucks to transport the refuse to the disposal site
reduces the efficiency of this specialized collection equipment. The
-------
49
Estimated from gravel and sand rates, with reduction based on the
Solid Waste Management Agency owning the rail cars. This should
be about the best possible rail-haul rate.
a
o
H
U
c
en
O
U
o
H
60.
4O
30
rt
t—t
• «~*
rt
I 2°
OJ
ia
0
20 40 60
Length of Haul in Miles
80
100
Figure 10. Estimated Refuse Rail-Haul Cost
-------
50
Valley collection trucks are hauling an average net load far below
their rated capacity as illustrated in" Figure 9. This reduced pay load
increases the cost of collection and transport per ton of refuse. How-
ever, the use of 25 and 30 cubic yard capacity compactor trucks, if
used effectively, would increase the range of economic hauls. Many
of the communities in the Valley have used all the nearby sanitary
landfill sites. Now these communities are looking for new locations
out in the county. The use of a. transfer station and special transport
units are in the near future for the Valley. When the distance between
the collection area and disposal site becomes too great for transport-
ing by the collection vehicle, a transfer station is required, A
transfer station would be required for the transfer from collection
vehicle to truck, railroad, barge, or pipeline transportation means.
The details of the proposed transfer station will be developed and
described later in this report.
Rail-haul appears feasible "when the one-way distance from
center of refuse production to disposal site exceeds approximately
twenty miles. Because of the economy of scale, a single large
sanitary landfill is proposed for the Valley as the final solution. The
transportation system will be made up of the following;
(a) a series of direct dump transfer stations with hydraulic
rams for compaction;
-------
51
fb) covered railroad cars of 80-ton and 400- to 450-cubic yard
capacity, capable of being' loaded from the top at transfer
station and discharging the load along the side of the track
at the sanitary landfill;
(c) rail cars which will be spray-cleaned as they leave the
landfill site and return to the transfer station;
{d) rail-haul equipment owned by the SWMA who pays the rail-
road company only to move the cars
Disposal Methods
The disposal of 1000 tons of refuse per day that is produced by
the 390, 000 population of the Lower Rio Grande Valley will be no small
task; however, many communities in the United States have solved
very similar problems. Sanitary landfill is recommended as the
refuse disposal method for the Valley. Sanitary landfill has been the
most widely used refuse disposal method in the State of Texas, The
condition that makes the sanitary landfill method economical is the
simplicity of operation. The training and experience required for an
adequate sanitary landfill operation are minimum but are definitely
important. The equipment is available and relatively inexpensive to
operate as compared to the operation of an incinerator or composting
planf.
-------
52
Anti-pollution controls such as fences, earth dikes, small
operating face of fill, site selection to prevent ground water pollution,
good seal, and finish grade to prevent surface run-off or infiltration
from standing -water, are usually the precaution in operation of the
landfill. These operational procedures and precautions have little
expense but require a good understanding of earthwork and ground
water contamination.
The availability of land at less than $500 per acre with some
large tracks of salt flats priced at less than $50 per acre supports this
choice. The average value of farm land in the Valley was $300 per
acre for Cameron County and $132 per acre for Hidalgo County,
according to the Texas Almanac, 1968-69. There is a good chance
of no cost leases for large tracks of land. The owner would be paid
through the increased value of the land by its increased elevation.
Land use leases have become very common and serve the purpose of
both parties. The land investor increases the value of his holdings
and the city disposes of its refuse. Lease terms of 10, 20, and 50
years are real common, but short leases could be just as effective
if these are easier to obtain. Trench and pit sanitary landfill
operation may cause some ground water pollution in the flat irrigated
regions of the Valley. This problem can be overcome by above
ground landfill operations or locating the landfill sites in the higher
-------
53
ground north and west of the Valley, It is recommended that both
the salt flats near San Benito and Brownsville and the mesquite
covered higher dry land northwest of the Valley be used for landfill
operations. The operation of several locations during the early phase
of operation is recommended for several reasons. First, to reduce
haul distance by locating landfill sites as close to production areas
as possible. Second, during the first few years of operation the
agency will have to use the numerous small pieces of equipment avail-
able from the individual cities during the organization of the regional
solid waste disposal agency.
The transition period will be completed in several stages so
that as much flexibility as possible can be maintained with little
interruption of services to the citizens. The transition phase will be
the training period for the operation personnel, the management, and
the planning staff. The operation of several locations and types of
sanitary landfills will guide the agency in the type of replacement
equipment to purchase and the most efficient landfill operations and
site s.
Locating and purchasing suitable land, as well as designing
and building of transfer stations, will take several years. Thus the
local landfills must continue to operate until the transfer stations are
completed. The availability of low cost land in the vicinity of most
-------
54
cities eliminates the need for transfer stations at the present.
Therefore, time is available for the construction of transfer stations,
As local landfill sites are filled and the distance to new sites becomes
greater, transfer stations will be required. The planning staff will
have adequate time to make the programmed transition from present
disposal methods to the smooth collection and disposal operations in
the near future.
The cities will be permitted to transfer land and equipment.
to the agency as part of their capital investment during the start-up
period to help the cities that have invested recently in land for sani-
tary landfill sites. The land must be adequate for a sanitary landfill,
and the present fair market value will be credited to the contributing
city.
Transfer Station
The transfer station will become an important part of the
refuse management system as the urbanization and population increase
continue along with the exhausting of local landfill sites. The transfer
of the refuse from the collection vehicle to a transport unit reduces
the cost of operation by utilizing a low cost haul unit and reduces the
collection fleet operating expense.
The operation cost of the transfer station must be kept low or
the system will not be practical. Again simplicity is the key to
-------
55
reliability of operation and minimum operating cost. The use of direct
dump transfer stations is recommended. The size of the station will
be determined by the area served.
The existence of numerous unused sidings throughout the Valley
communities should minimize the cost of transfer station sites. The
location of a transfer station in the industrial areas of a city will
minimize the' complaints and the sites are usually the most accessible
to the collection trucks.
Transfer stations -will have elevated concrete floors from which
the collection trucks can dump directly into rail cars. A hydraulic
boom will be located at each station. This boom will produce the
desired compaction of the refuse in the rail cars by exerting a down-
ward pressure on the piles of refuse; the boom can also be used to
load or unload large items such as automobiles and demolition waste.
The tipping area is recommended to be covered both for the protection
of equipment and air pollution control.
One of the central transfer stations will also include a shop
for truck maintenance and repairs. Collection fleet parking could
be provided at each transfer station.
The design of all transfer stations will be kept as simple as
possible with the idea of maintaining good sanitation practices
around and in the transfer stations.
-------
VII. SPECIAL PROBLEMS WITH DEVELOPING PLAN
The regional refuse management approach to solving the solid
waste problem for Cameron and Hidalgo Counties, although economi-
cally feasible, may have serious problems during the organization
phase. The competitive spirit among the communities does cause
problems "when the populace try to get together for a common purpose.
Several years ago, Valley-wide water distribution and sewage
collection and disposal systems were recommended. These systems
failed to be adopted because some communities felt they could do the
job cheaper themselves or they were not willing to pay the price for
the quality of service recommended.
The quality of service is the second major factor that may inter-
fere with the development. Some communities are willing to pay for a
high quality of refuse handling service while another community would
prefer less service at a lower cost. One of the advantages of a regional
plan is the equality of service charges versus service received. A
public information program covering the cost of each type of service
would help overcome this problem. Many of the people do not realize
that their small service charge does not cover the total cost of refuse
collection and disposal. Once the public understands that they are
paying for it just through some other tax plan, a uniform service
charge could be developed for all the communities,
56
-------
57
Another problem is the quality of the disposal; some of the
communities feel that they are saving the tax payer a lot of money by
reducing the landfill operation cost. Most of these savings have been
in the form of reduced quality of landfill operation as illustrated in
Figure 11. The task of refuse collection and disposal is not just the
removal of the nuisance but also the protection of public health. The
operation that •will assure this protection must first be determined.
The minimum quality of disposal that is acceptable must be estab-
lished. Any reduction of this operation will fail to give the public
what they assume their elected officials are providing. Operations that
give added convenience and service are employed as the customers are
willing to pay. The citizens should be informed of the cost of minimum
service as •well as of the added services that are requested or demanded.
Often when the citizens know the cost of the added convenience, they
would rather do without the additional service. The public in recent
year-s has overwhelmingly supported projects that protect their health.
The ability of a regional organization to give better environmental
protection should be one of the major public selling points.
Many of the cities in the Valley are at the limit of bond debt;
therefore, a bond issue would be a very difficult method of starting
the regional plan. The cities have rather tight budgets although the
area is growing rapidly. Allowing the cities to transfer their refuse
-------
58
Scavengers Cause Landfill Problems
A Valley Landfill Entrance
Figure 11. Existing Sanitary Landfill Conditions
-------
59
equipment as a part of their capital investment in the regional agency
will help solve the initial problem of lack of funds.
The ground water pollution potential of landfill operations in the
high water table areas of the Valley will be a serious problem. If the
state enforces the water pollution laws, the cost of hauling the refuse
out of the area will cause a significant increase in the service charges.
If this increase in.charges occurs during the early takeover period of the
new regional agency, the citizens and officials will be turned against the
new organization. This increased cost may be for less than that which
each city would have had to pay if it had worked independently, but
unfortunately this is often overlooked or misunderstood.
The forming of the districts that will send a committee member
to the regional agency "will be a difficult problem. All the cities and
towns will want to be represented, but a large committee could not
work effectively. The regional solid waste management program will
affect the whole Valley, thus an organization that has planning and co-
ordinating responsibility for the region should take the lead in develop-
ing the organization. The local Council of Governments office would
be a good organization to establish the district boundaries and develop
public support.
The interest and awareness of the public in refuse disposal in
the last few years should help the implementation of a regional plan.
-------
60
The existence of the solid waste committee that has been investigating
the scope of the solid waste problem of the Valley and looking for poss-
ible solution has provided the opening for the development of a regional
solid waste management organization.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Anon., "Collection and Disposal of Solid Waste for the Des Moines
Metropolitan Area--An Interim Report," U. S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Environmental Control Adminis-
tration, Bureau of Solid Waste Management, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1969.
2. Anon., "Bureau Attacks Nation's Solid Waste, " _Envi.ronmental
Science and Technology Journal, Vol. 3, No. 8, pp. 705-707,
August, 1969.
3. Anon., "Quad-City Solid Wastes Project, " U. S, Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, National Center for Urban and
Industrial Health, Solid Wastes Program, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1968.
4. Anon., "Solid Waste Disposal Study, Genessee County, Michigan,"
U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National
Center for Urban and Industrial Health, Solid Wastes Program,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1968.
5, Korbitz, W. E. , "Looking to the Future with a Regional Refuse
Disposal Plan, " Public Works, pp. 120-121, June, 1967.
6. Fritz, D. , "County Sets Practical Goals for Refuse Disposal, "
Public Works, pp. 68-69, April, 1969.
7. Anon. , "Centre Regional Sanitary Landfill, " 1 tie American ^ity
Journal, July, 1968.
8. Gilbertson, W. E. , and R. J. Black, "A National Solid Waste Pro-
gram Is Created, " Compost Science Journal, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp.
4-7, Autumn-Winter, 1966.
9. Smith, M. L. , and J. F. Malina, Jr. , "Solid Waste Production
and Disposal in Selected Texas Cities, " Technical Report, EHE
08-6801, Environmental Health Engineering Research Laboratory,
The University of Texas at Austin, p. 222, August, 1968.
10. Anon. , "Texas Almanac and State Industrial Guide, " The Dallas
Morning News, 1968-69.
11. Gazda, L. P. , and J. F. Malina, Jr. , "Land Disposal of Municipal
Solid Wastes in Selected Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas
in Texas," Technical Report EHE 69-13, Environmental Health
Research Laboratory, The University of Texas at Austin, April, 1969.
61
-------
62
IZ, Anon. , "Composting: Is It Economically Sound?" Refuse
Removal Journal, July, 1966,
13. Wiley, J. S. , and O. W, Kochtitsky, "Composting Developments
in the United States, " Compost Science, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 5-9,
Summer, 1965.
14, Anon. , Municipal Re 1 use _Disp o sa 1, American Public Works
Association, Chicago, Illinois, 1966.
15. McCollam, J. G, , "Refuse Composting in St. Petersburg,
Florida, '' _C_o_m p o s t Science^ Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 3-6, Autumn,
1966.
16. Anon. , "What Went Wrong at Phoenix, " Compost Science, Vol. 5,
No. 3, p. 3, Autumn-Winter, 1965.
17. Anon. , "Houston Sets Up Research Program for Waters, "Corn-
post Science, Vol. 6, No, 1, pp. 9- 10, Spring, 1965,
18. Texas State Department of Health, Clean Air Act_pf Texas, 1967,
Approved June 18, 1867,
19. Anon. , "Municipal Incineration of Refuse: Foreword and Intro-
duction-- Progre s s Report of the Committee on Municipal Refuse
Practices, " Proceedings, ASCE Journal of SEP, Vol. 90, No. SA3,
p. 3942, June, 1964.
20. Anon. , "A Hill of Municipal Refuse, " Civil E n g i n e e r i n g_ J o u r n a 1,
ASCE, Vol. 36, No. 8, p. 50, June, 1968.
21. Moore, E-. J. , The Grande Plan lor Refuse Disposal for the City
and County of Denver, The Denver and Rio Grande Western Rail-
road Company, Denver, Colorado, September, 1967.
22. Anon. , "Philadelphia Will Sign Deal to Dump Trash in Mines, "
Philadelphia Enquirer, September 21, 1967,
23. Anon. , "Refuse Trains: Reading Sees Cash in Trash, " Railway
Age--The Transportation Weekly, August 14, 1967.
24. Anon. , "Rail Transport of Solid Waste, " U. S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Consumer Protection and Environ-
mental Health Service, Environmental Control Administration,
Bureau of Solid Waste Management, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1969.
-------
63
25. Information obtained from Railroad Company personnel in Texas,
Colorado, and Washington, D. C. , August, 1969.
26, Anon. , "Refuse Bales at 40-90 Pounds per Cubic Foot," American
City, p. 36, July, 1969.
27. Gilbertson, W. E. , "Scope of the Solid Waste Problem, " Pro-
ceedings, ASCE Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division,
Vol. 92, No. SA3, June 1966.
28. Anon. , "Transfer Stations Assist Refuse Disposal, " P u b 1 i_c _W o r k s ,
pp. 74-76, January, 1969.
29. Anon. , "Rail-Haul Refuse Disposal, " American City, August, 1968.
30. Texas State Department of Health, Solid Waste Division, Solid
Waste Survey, 1968-69.
31. "Pipeline Transport and Incineration, " Water Works and Wastes
Engineering, September, 1965.
32. Anon. , "Transportation System, " Compost Science, Spring, 1968.
33. Brigman, V. L. , "Time and Motion Studies Aid Solid Waste Col-
lection, "JPjibU£_W_ojrk_s_, pp. 84-85, February, 1969,
34. Information obtained from City and County Employees in the Lower
Rio Grande Valley.
35. Anon. , "Refuse Collection and Sanitary Landfill Operational
Methods," Texas State Department of Health, 1956.
36. Williamson, R. B. , The .Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas,
Bureau of Business Research, The University of Texas at Austin,
1966.
37. Heaney, F. L. , "Regional Districts for Incineration, " Civil
Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 36,
No. 8, p. 69, August, 1968.
38. Anon. , "Disposal of 21, 000 Tons Daily, " Refuse Removal
Journal, October, 1966.
-------
64
39. Anon. , "A Study of a Metropolitan Solid Waste Program, " Public
Works, pp, 78-79, March, 1969.
40. Smith, D. I. , "Refuse Collection Fleet Updated for Efficiency, "
Public Works, pp. 67-68, January, 1969.
41. Anderson, J, R. , and J, N. Nornbush, "Influence of Sanitary
Landfill on Ground Water Quality, " Journal, American Water
Works Association, Vol. 59, No. 4, April, 1967.
42. Anon. , "Rules and Regulations Regulating the Disposal of Refuse,
Garbage, Rubbish, or Junk, " Texas State Department of Health,
May, 1964.
43. Ehlers, V. M. , and E. W. Steel, Municipal and Rural Sanitation,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1965.
44. Anon. , Refuse C oil e c tion P r ac tic e, American Public Works
Association, Chicago, Illinois, 1966.
45. Anon. , "Sanitary Landfill, " Manuals of Engineering Practice,
American Society of Civil Engineers, No. 39, New York, 1959.
46. "The Solid Waste Disposal Act, " Public Law 89-272, S. 306,
Washington, D. C. , October, 1965.
47. Sort, T. J. , and H. L. Hickman, "Sanitary Landfill Facts, " SW-4ts,
U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, U. S.
Public Health Service, Solid Wastes Program, Cincinnati, Ohio,
1968.
-------
APPENDIX A
NET LOADS OF REFUSE COMPACTOR TRUCKS AND
OPEN-BED BRUSH TRUCKS IN LOWER RIO GRANDE
VALLEY, 1968'- 1969
Truck tare weights were measured each day during the sampling
period. The public truck scales -were used for this study.
I, Harlingen, Texas
The city of Harlingen conducted a two-week Refuse and Brush
Study in 1968, Results:
Garbage: 346, 570 pounds in 77 truck loads for an average of
4, 501 pounds per truck,
Brush: 313,760 pounds in 96 truck loads for an average net
load of 3S268 pounds per truck.
The city uses 16- and 20-cubic yard capacity refuse compactor
trucks and two-ton open-bed brush trucks.
II. Mission, Texas
15-Cubic Yard Refuse Trucks
Net Load in Pounds
_____
1, 840
4, 140
3, 795
Two-Ton Brush Trucks
Net Load in Pounds
_____ . _
3, 085
2. 095
Average 2 , 401
Average 3,235
III.
exas
Edinburg,
20-Cubic Yard Refuse Trucks
Net Load in Pounds
5, 170
4, 810
4, 400
4, 020
4, 200
4, 240
4, 000
9, 360
9, 520
8, 540
8, 610
6, 050
4, 060
3, 010
3, 650
1, 500
5, 110
2, 400
5, 150
6, 440
3, 820
8, 120
16-Cubic Yard Refuse Trucks
Net Load in Pounds
3, 510
4, 570
3, 730
Ave rage 3,937
Average 5,281
65
-------
Two-Ton Brush Trucks
Net Load in Pounds
3, 100 4, 670
4,200 4,200
6, 100 3, 770
2,620 3,860
3,290 4,, 980
Average 4, 089
IV. McAllen, Texas
Net Load
20-Cubic Yard Refuse
4,767
3, 884
8, 870
6, 815
6, 921
6, 868
Average 6, 354
15-Cubic Yard Refuse
3, 235
Two- Ton
3,490
1, 050
2, 520
3, 720
2, 840
3,810
2, 800
1, 670
2, 030
4, 830
Trucks
Truck
Brush T
2, 720
2, 540
2, 160
2, 330
1, 950
2, 270
2, 560
2, 940
2, 220
2, 370
in Pounds
16-Cubic Yard Refuse Trucks
4, 820
4, 894
3,730
3, 510
4, 570
Average 4, 305
14- Cubic Yard Refuse Truck
2,910
rucks
3, 520
4, 140
2, 220
2, 820
3, 310
1, 810
2, 750
2, 070
1, 960
4, 390
4, 050
Average 2,760
-------
67
V. Pharr, Texas
Net Load in Pounds
Size of Refuse Trucks Not Known
Approximately 14 Cubic Yards Two-Ton Brush Trucks
2, 500
5, 000
Z, 880
3, 580
3, 160
1,700
2,840
2,440
2, 120
2, 880
Average 2, 910
VI. Brownsville, Texas
Refuse trucks are both 16- and 20-cubic yard capacity. Records
of brush truck net weights were not available.
Net Load in Pounds in Refuse Trucks
2, 480
1,640
2, 060
2, 040
1, 640
1, 020
1, 620
1, 740
Average
1, 360
1, 540
2, 700
Z, 420
1, 460
2, 420
1, 780
1, 740
1, 850
7, 300
2,400
3, 980
5,920
3, 220
6, 380
3, 920
7, 880
5, 200
4, 380
5, 800
6, 040
4, 860
6, 000
4, 800
3, 980
3, 960
3, 920
5, 520
6, 500
3, 960
4, 040
3, 940
2, 820
2, 960
5, 160
4, 780
5, 580
6, 200
5,460
5, 580
5,440
5, 080
5, 440
5, 240
5, 500
7, 400
6, 200
4, 900
4, 240
5, 900
5, 320
Average 5,074
-------
APPENDIX B
COST ANALYSIS OF REGIONAL REFUSE
RAIL-HAUL DISPOSAL SYSTEM
I. Cost of hauling refuse to present sanitary landfills and proposed
rail-haul transfer stations.
Community
Brownsville
Harlingen
San Benito
La Feria
We slaco
Me r cede s
Donna
Alamo
McAllen
Edinburg
San Juan
Pharr
Mission
Annual Refuse
in Tons
54, 100
56, 000
25, 000
5, 000
22, 000
22, 000
12, 000
5, 000
39,700
23, 000
6, 500
35, 000
16, 500
Distance to
Present Sani-
tary Landfill
in Miles
5. 5
6. 5
4. 0
2. 0
2. 0
3. 0
2, 5
3. 0
3. 0
2. 5
2. 5
2. 0
2. 5
Distance to
Proposed Trans-
fer Station
in Miles
0. 0
0. 0
4. 0
9. 0
0. 0
4. 5
4. 5
8. 0
2. 0
4. 0
4. 0
2. 0
8. 0
Present
Annual
Cost
59, 500
73, 000
10, 000
2, 000
8, 800
13, 200
6, 000
3, 000
23, 820
11, 500
3, 250
14, 000
8, 250
Proposed
Annual
Cost
-0-
-0-
10, 000
9, 000
- 0-
19, 800
10, 800
20, 000
15, 880
18, 400
5, 200
14, 000
26, 400
Total
$236,320 $159,480
Collection truck cost of $0. 20 per ton-mile was used for calcula-
tions based on the estimated cost of operation developed from a
Harlingen, Texas, study. Costs in other cities in the United
States are around $0. 30 and $0.40 per ton-mile.
II. Rail-Haul Refuse Transfer Station Cost.
Four transfer stations are recommended for the Regional Solid
Waste Management Agency to serve both Cameron and Hidalgo
Counties. Two transfer stations will be located in each county.
Capital Cost
4 Buildings-- 10, 000 square feet each--@ $10. 00
per square foot $400, 000
Truck scales at each transfer station @ $5,000 each
Compaction equipment, hydraulic electrical @
$5,000 each
Property and railroad siding @ $10, 000 each site .
plus 10%
20,000
20, 000
40,OOP
480,000
48,000
68
-------
69
Capital investment for 20-year design life
Annual capital cost @ 5% ,
Operation Cost
Personnel, 2 full time and 1 part time at each
transfer station, total annual cost
Utilities @ $50. 00 per month per station . . .
Maintenance and Miscellaneous 10%
Annual Operating Cost
Total Annual Cost of Transfer Stations .
$528,000
42,240
$ 60,000
2,400
6,240
$ 68, 640
$1 10, 880
III. Cost Analysis for Rail-Haul from Transfer Stations to Sanitary
Landfill and Return Empty Cars.
Station # 1
Brownsville
Station # 2
Harlingen
San Benito
La Feria
Station # 3
We slaco
Mercedes
Donna
Alamo
Station # 4
McAllen
Edinburg
San Juan
Pharr
Mi ssion
Total Tons
Annual
Refuse
Tonage
54, 100
56, 000
25, 000
5, 000
86, 000
22, 000
22, 000
12, 000
5, 000
61, 000
39, 700
23, 000
6, 500
35, 000
16, 500
120, 700
321, 800
••"• • • • " •
Rail- Haul
Distance
Mile s
22
20
40
56
Rail-Haul
Rate per
Trip per
Ton
21£
20£
32£
36£
Annual
Costs
$11, 360. 00
$17, 200. 00
$19, 520. 00
$43, 450. 00
Total Annual Costs $91,530-00
-------
70
V, Sanitary Landfill Cost of Operation
Proposed sanitary landfill cost of operation for a single landfill
operation, 1000 feet wide, handling on the average of 100 tons
per day, should operate at $0. 60 per ton including cost of land
@ $50. 00 per acre.
Total Annual Cost: 321 , 800 tons x $0. 60/ton
$193,080.00
Present Sanitary Landfill Cost of Operation:
16 separate landfills serve the 13 communities
The estimated cost of sanitary landfill operation--$ 1. 20/ton
321, 800 tons annually x $1. 20 = $386,160
VI. Rail-Haul Refuse Disposal vs Present Operation
Annual Cost of Proposed System
Collection Fleet
Transfer Station
Rail-Haul
Sanitary Landfill
Totals
$159,480
91,530
131, 980
193,080
$576,070
Annual Cost of Present System
Collection Fleet $236,320
Sanitary Landfill 386, 160
$622,480
ycr 599
------- |