PB-212 589
Evaluation of a Multi-Functional
Machine for use in Sanitary
Landfill Operations in
Sparsely Populated Areas
Battelle Memorial Institute
prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency
Distributed By:
National Technical Information Service
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield Va. 22151
V /
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA
SHEET
1. Report No.
EPA-SW-39D-72
3. recipient's -Accession No.
PB 212-589
[4. art! Subi iric
I Evaluation of a Multi-Functional Machine for Use in Sanitary
Landfill Operations in Sparsely Populated Areas; Final Report
on a Solid Waste Management Demonstration Grant
i 5. iicpr.rt P/Atfi
1972
6.
7. A ut imrN)
V. L. Hammond
ft. Performing Organization Rept.
No.
9. 1 Vr I onn i nu I )r _i;;uu/.ii i on N.imr ,iikI Address
Pacific Northwest Laboratories
Battelle Memorial Institute
Battel!e Boulevard
Richland, Washington 99352
10. l>ro|<-.. i/'l .I'.k/Vlnrk Unit N(,.
11. StM»XOC/Graru No.
G06-EC-00210
\ 'i 2* Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
! U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
! Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
j Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period
Covered
[ Final Report
14.
.15. Supvtemcntary Nores
H*. AnMructh
| The report gives details of an investigation made of a multi-functional machine,
| known as the Multi-Mover, which was originally designed to perform the functions
j of a crawler tractor/dozer, dump truck, compactor, and loader. Its performance
j in accomplishing sanitary landfill and earthmoving operations was evaluated at
! several sites in Idaho and Oregon to determine its effectiveness both absolutely
and in comparison with crawler tractors in compacting waste and soil cover material,
spreading soil cover, and distributing refuse for compaction. Since
a rubber-tired vehicle that can move over highways under its own
at scattered sites in a sparsely populated area was also evaluated,
and disadvantages that result from the basic concept of a multi-
functional machine are presented, the economics of purchase and operation are
analyzed, and certain modifications are recommended.
excavating and
the machine is
power, its use
The advantages
! 17. Key U/onls and T'ocumenr Analysis. 17a. Descriptors
I *Waste disposal, *Earth handling equipment, *Wheel tractors
| "7b. Idcnr ff icrs/Opcn-finded Terms
I *Sond waste disposal, Sanitary landfill
(17-. COSATI /Group 1 3B
j Availability Statement
bv
NATIONAL TECHNICAL
INFORMATION SERVICE
U S of Commofe
Springfield VA 72151
! Reiease to oubnc
rv "I S-.3 5 \ * r. v
19. Security Class (This )21. No. of Pages
Report) I o-i o
USICLASSLEIEIL 1 c 10
20. Security Ciass (Thisj 22. Price
Pago i
UNCLASSIFIED I
"".MM-DC 14y»2-P72
-------
I
EPA-SW-39D-72
EVALUATION OF A MULTI-FUNCTIONAL MACHINE FOR USE IN
SANITARY LANDFILL OPERATIONS IN SPARSELY POPULATED AREAS
Final Report on a Solid Waste Management Demonstration Grant
Library Region IV
US EsOTOBmestal Protection Agency
343 Cofflrttiamd Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
This report (SW-39d) on work performed under
solid waste management demonstration grant no. G06-EC-00210
to the Pacific Northwest Laboratories,
of. Battelle Memorial Institute> was written by
V. L. HAMMOND
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1972
i - a.
-------
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 Agency, nor does mention
of commercial products constitute endorsement by the U.S.
Government. Except for a new title page, the addition of
some footnotes, and restyling of the references, the
report is printed as received from the grantee.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND T~
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5
RECOMMENDATIONS 12
Multifunctional Machine Recommendations 12
Recommendations to Improve Solid Waste Management
in Sparsely Populated Areas 16
DISCUSSION 19
Phase I -- Machine Modification and Renovation 19
. Multi-Mover Description. 19
Engineering Review 24
Modifications and Restoration 28
Evaluation 33
Phase II -- Field Evaluation and Data Collection 37
Data Collection 37
Sites Characterization 40
Field Evaluation 41
Operating Costs 72
Phase III -- Systems Analysis 74
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Multi-Mover
and Crawler Tractor 74
Sensitivity Analysis 85
Comparison of Cost-Effectiveness 97
Transportation Model 104
Market Potential 127
ili
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
Systems Analysis of Solid Waste Disposal in a
Sparsely Populated Area 132
Canyon County Resource Base 159
Projection of Future Solid Waste Levels in Canyon
County 181
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 19 4
REFERENCES 195
APPENDIX A 197
Review of State Road and Highv/ay Regulations 197
APPENDIX B 202
Field Evaluation Data Sheets.. 202
iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 MULTI-MOVER SPECIFICATIONS. . 21
2 LAKE LOWELL SITE DATA 4 2
3 BLACK CANYON SITE DATA 4 3
4 ONTARIO SITE DATA 4 4
5 WASTE CHARACTERIZATION 4 6
6 COMPACTION DATA SUMMARY FOR CELLS CONSTRUCTED DRY.... 52
7 MULTI-MOVER COMPACTION CELL L-8 - WATER ADDED 54
8 COMPACTION RATIOS OF CELLS CONSTRUCTED DRY.... 55
9 LOADING, TRAVEL, AND UNLOADING TIMES - COVER MATERIAL.62
10 .HIGHWAY TRAVEL - MULTI-MOVER VERSUS CRAWLER TRACTOR.. 68
11 LANDFILL TASKS AND OPERATIONS PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS
FOR MULTI-MOVER AND CRAWLER TRACTOR 77
12 CALCULATED AND MEASURED TRAVEL TIMES FOR LADEN
MULT I-MOVER 8 0
13 SUMMARY OF MULTI-MOVER HOURLY OPERATING COSTS 81
14 SUMMARY OF CRAWLER TRACTOR OPERATING COSTS 84
15 EFFECT OF 10% CHANGE IN COMPONENT COSTS ON AGGREGATED
COSTS FOR THE MULTI-MOVER 87
16 EFFECT OF 10% CHANGE IN COMPONENT COSTS ON AGGREGATED
COSTS FOR THE CRAWLER TRACTOR 88
17 EFFECT OF A 10% CHANGE IN OPERATION TIMES ON MAJOR
TASK TIMES FOR THE MULTI-MOVER 93
18 EFFECT OF A 10% CHANGE IN OPERATION TIMES ON MAJOR
TASK TIMES FOR THE CRAWLER TRACTOR 9 4
v
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
Tabic Page
19 SENSITIVITY OF EXCAVATE TRENCH TASK TO A 10% CHANGE
IN OPERATION TIMES FOR SEVERAL HAUL DISTANCES.. 95
20 SENSITIVITY OF "SPREAD COVER FROM STOCKPILE AND
COMPACT" TASK TO A 10% CHANGE IN OPERATION TIMES
FOR SEVERAL HAUL DISTANCES 96
21 COST/UNIT WORK FOR MULTI-MOVER AND CRAWLER TRACTOR... 98
22 TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND MODEL PRINT CONTROL
PARAMETERS 112
23 EQUIPMENT PARAMETERS 113
24 SITE PARAMETERS 114
25 CANYON COUNTY, IDAHO, WASTE DISPOSAL SITES —
SERVICE FREQUENCY „ 118
26 CANYON COUNTY, IDAHO, WASTE DISPOSAL SITES —
GENERAL PROGRAM DATA 119
27 CANYON COUNTY, IDAHO, WASTE DISPOSAL SITES —
INTERSITE ROAD DISTANCES 120
28 EQUIPMENT PARAMETERS 121
2 9 SUMMARY OF CALCULATED TIME TO SERVICE INDIVIDUAL
SITES PER VISIT 123
30 SUMMARY OF RESULTS - WINTER PERIOD, CANYON COUNTY,
IDAHO 125
31 SUMMARY OF RESULTS - SUMMER PERIOD, CANYON COUNTY,
IDAHO .126
32 SUMMARY OF SITE COST 128
vi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
Table page
3 3 RANKING BY SURVEY OF PROFjLEM AREAS IN SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL OPERATIONS IN SPARSELY POPULATED AREAS 14 0
34 SUMMARIZED COST/UNIT WORK COMPARISONS OF MULTI-MOVER
AND CRAWLER TRACTOR 156
35 OPERATING COST/UNIT WORK BREAK-EVEN DISTANCES 157
36 CANYON COUNTY FARM PRODUCT SALES IN 1964 163
37 CANYON COUNTY FARM PRODUCT SALES IN 1959 and 1964....164
38 LAND USAGE IN CANYON COUNTY IN 1964 166
39 TWO-DIGIT STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION OF
MANUFACTURERS 170
40 PROFILE OF CANYON COUNTY MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES ....171
41 CANYON COUNTY POPULATION, 1940-1990 180
42 PROJECTION OF FUTURE SOLID WASTE LEVELS IN CANYON
COUNTY 183
43 SOLID WASTE INCREASE IN 1970-1990 PERIOD BY WASTE
TYPE 185
44 AVERAGE OBSERVED DAILY WASTE INPUT TO CANYON COUNTY
LANDFILL NEAR NAMPA 18 8
4 5 ESTIMATED WEEKLY WASTE INPUTS TO CANYON COUNTY SOLID
WASTE DISPOSAL SITES 191
4 6 PROJECTED WEEKLY WASTE INPUTS TO CANYON COUNTY
LANDFILLS, 1970-1990 192
vil
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Multi-Mover 20
2 Revised Hydraulic System 25
3 Multi-Mover Traveling on Highway 36
4 Regional Map of Evaluation Sites 38
5 Detailed Sites Location Map 39
6 Lake Lowell Compaction Cell Location 48
7 Multi-Mover Spreading Waste for Compaction 59
8 Multi-Mover Depositing Soil Cover over Compacted Cell. 61
9 Multi-Mover Performing Excavation at Black Canyon
Site 64
10 Multi-Mover Performing Snow Removal Operations Near
Cougar Mountain Lodge, Idaho 70
11 Cost/yd"^ Excavated vs Haul Distance to Stockpile 99
3
12 Cost/yd Spread from Stockpil vs Haul Distance from
Stockpile to Cell 99
3
13 Cost/yd Excavated Cover Spread vs Haul Distance to
Cell 100
14 Transporting Cost vs Distance for Multi-Mover and
Crawler Tractor 100
15 Solid Waste Disposal System in Sparsely Populated
Areas 135
16 Idaho Governmental Organizations of Solid Waste
Disposal Operations 138
viii
-------
EVALUATION OF A MULTI-FUNCTIONAL MACHINE FOR USE IN
SANITARY LANDFILL OPERATIONS IN SPARSELY POPULATED AREAS
V. L. Hammond
Program Director
Pacific Northwest Laboratories
a division of
Battelle Memorial Institute
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
A multi-functional machine, known as the Multi-Mover,
was invented and patented by Ike J. Wardle, Boise, Idaho.
The machine is a rubber tired vehicle that performs the
function of a crawler tractor dozer, dump truck, compactor,
and loader. Mr. Wardle was working as a heavy-equipment
operator for a construction firm in the early '40s when
he began thinking of improvements for the machinery he was
using. lie concluded if the apron used for pushing on ordi-
nary earthmoving machines such as crawler tractors could
be hinged and mounted on a hydraulic arm, it could pull
material into or out of an integral box equivalent to a
dump truck box. Mr. Wardle reasoned that a single piece
of equipment so configured should be more efficient than
separate units, such as bulldozer and dump truck, working
together.
-------
His concept of the hinged apron was still in the form-
ative stage when he was captured by the Japanese while work-
ing with a civilian construction crew on Wake Island during
World War II. During his internment he perfected the concept,
determining the most effective hinge point and radius arm
configuration. In 1956 Mr. Wardle was awarded two basic
patents on the design. One was for the hinged-arm claw-
apron. The other was for the drive-chain configuration and
the machine's frame, which forms & "Y" configuration, with
the box in the fork of the "Y". The engine is located at
the driver's end of the machine on the stem of the "Y".
The results of this first venture were mixed. Although
the design proved to be basically sound, the machine lacked
hydraulic power and had other deficiencies. Wardle redesigned
parts of the machine and completed the second Multi-Mover
by 1959. After extensive testing, the second design was
ready for production but for various reasons additional
machines were never produced. The second machine was used
for five years in a sand and gravel operation. Subsequently,
Enterprises Inc,, an Idaho-based firm, acquired the rights
to the design. Its subsidiary, Nampa Sanitary Service,oper-
ated a sanitary landfill for disposal of solid wastes from
Nampa and Canyon County, Idaho. Enterprises Inc. recognized
the potential of the machine for use on landfills, but was
hampered by lack of funds.
-2-
-------
The Multi-Mover is a machine originally denigntul to per-
form the functions of a crawler tractor/dozer, dump truck,
compactor, and loader. Use of the Multi-Mover in these cap-
acities as a earthmover created interest in using it to per-
form the operations for proper sanitary landfill management.
A properly equipped crawler tractor is the usual machine
used on a sanitary landfill, but it was believed the Multi-
Mover could perform more efficiently and economically, parti-
cularly in maintaining a number of widely scattered landfills
in a sparsely populated region.
Proper operation of sanitary landfills, where they are
scattered across a sparsely populated area, is a difficult
problem mainly because of the costs and inconvenience involved
in site-to-site equipment transfer. As a result, open dumps
are the usual situation. The Multi-Mover is a rubber tired
vehicle that can be moved on the highway under its own power,
(as ©pposed to the crawler tractor, which requires a prime
mover for transportation) and offers the possibility of being
more economical to use on scattered sites in a sparsely pop-
ulated region.
In 1969 Battelle-Northwest in cooperation with Enter-
prises, Inc., received a demonstration grant from the Bureau
*
of Solid Waste Management of 1IEW to evaluate the machine. A three-
phase demonstration program was carried out to evaluate the
* Now the Office of Solid Waste Management Proqrams, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA).
-3-
-------
Multi-Mover .in sanitary landfill operations and study
the solid waste disposal problem in Canyon County, Idaho.
The first phase consisted of modification and renovation
of the ten-year-old Multi-Mover; the second phase provided
for field evaluation and data collection and the third phase
consisted of five parts as follows:
a. Systems analysis of solid waste disposal in a
sparsely populated area.
b. An economic and industrial growth study of Canyon
County, Idaho, to define present and expected future
solid waste generation.
c. A market survey to determine the demand for multi-
functional machines in sanitary landfill operations
throughout the country.
d. An operations and cost effectiveness analysis to
determine the best way to use multi-functional equip-
ment of this type.
e. Transportation problems connected with moving equip-
ment from one site to another.
-4-
-------
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
An engineering review of the Multi-Mover was performed to
assess the repair work required to make the subject machine
operable, and determine the modifications required to make it
reasonably suited to perform subsequent landfill work. Every
major assembly was inspected, and excessively worn parts were
either replaced or rebuilt. Major modifications were made to
all hydraulic systems and a dual hydraulic brake system was in-
stalled. Also, many minor modifications were made to the engine
and other major mechanical assemblies.
Performance of the Multi-Mover in accomplishing sanitary
landfill and earthmoving operations was evaluated at several
sites in the states of Idaho and Oregon. The purpose of the
field tests was to determine the effectiveness of the Multi-
Mover both absolutely and in comparison with crawler tractors
in compacting waste and soil cover material, excavating and
spreading soil cover, distributing refuse for compaction, and
transportation from site-to-site. A special trip was made to
evaluate long distance hiahway travel and operations under winter
conditions.
The basic concept of the Multi-Mover -- that of a multi-
functional machine — results in a unit which has certain
disadvantages when compared to a single purpose machine,
such as a dozer, carryall, and blade. These disadvantages
include such things as limited carrying capacity, longer
-5-
-------
turning radius, low ground clearance, and inadequate nower
or speed for some operations. However, these disadvantages
are less significant when considering applications such as
a small sanitary landfill, where the multiple capabilities
of the Multi-Mover would permit it to replace several single
purpose machines. Some of the disadvantages could feasibly
be reduced in impact or eliminated in subsequent models.
These include too large a turning radius and inadequate power
and minimum speed. Other disadvantages, such as the limited
carrying capacity, are inherent in a design that yields a
machine small enough for qeneral highway travel. Even so,
the machine still carries more load than front loaders of
similar size.
From the results of the field tests, we conclude the
Multi-Mover (27,225 lb) to be approximately equivalent in
compaction effectiveness to a heavier crawler tractor (33,757
lb) and markedly superior to a lighter crawler tractor (21,000
lb).* In spite of mechanical deficiencies of the machine
in its present design, it is capable of performing satisfactorily,
at a lower cost, all of the functions of a crawler tractor
in sanitary landfill operations. In addition, it can function
as a snow removal vehicle and it can be driven from site-
to-site economically at distances up to 12 or 15 miles to
service landfills in sparsely populated counties.
* EPA Comment: Based partially on visual observations.
-6-
-------
The results indicate that the Multi-Mover in its present
configuration would be an economical general purpose landfill
machine for operation in sparsely populated counties, and that
certain modifications would improve its compaction capabilities
and overall reliability. The machine is judged worthy of addi-
tional demonstration after its ground clearance is increased
and miscellaneous mechanical features are improved.
The cost-effectiveness of the Multi-Mover was also compared
to that of the crawler tractor. Questionnaires were mailed to
sparsely populated counties and to towns and cities in sparsely
populated areas to determine the type of equipment currently in
use. Data obtained from time and motion studies were used to
develop time/unit work effectiveness parameters for each
machine in performance of the tasks required for landfill
operations. Cost estimates, which included both the capital
and operating costs, were developed on a per operating hour
basis. The cost and effectiveness parameters were combined
to obtain a cost/ unit work measure of cost-effectiveness,
both the cost and effectiveness estimates were analyzed to
determine the sensitivity of the final estimate to estimates
of the various input data.
A computer model was developed to study the economics
of operating several remote solid waste disposal sites. The
model optimizes the assignment of equipment to service each
site, including both transportation of equipment and performance
of the tasks required in sanitary landfill operation. The
-7-
-------
model user must provide parameters describing both capabilities
and operating costs of the equipment and parameters describing
the operation of his disposal sites.
The model was used in this study to compare the effective-
ness of the Multi-Mover with the effectiveness of a bucket-
equipped crawler tractor. The parameters for this study
were obtained from other sections of the program. With the
parameters provided, the Multi-Mover demonstrated, a definite
cost advantage over the crawler tractor.
Potential interest in the Multi-Mover was determined
by a mail survey of 15% of the sparsely populated counties
in the United States. Forty percent of the counties which
operated sanitary landfills expressed an interest in the
machine. A similar survey was made of selected towns and
cities in sparsely populated areas in the Pacific Northwest
and Northern California, and 44% indicated interest in the
Multi-Mover. Comments solicited on the practicability of
the Multi-Mover showed a tendency to question the reliability
of such a complex machine, the suitability of rubber tires
for landfill services, and the expected high purchase price
of the machine. Projection of market potential based on
these surveys show an initial market for 1000 machines over
the next several years.
The problems of solid waste generation, collection,
transportation and disposal in sparsely populated areas were
examined with particular emphasis on ways in which a multi-
-8-
-------
functional earthmoving machine such as the Multi-Mover could
contribute to their solution. Canyon County, Idaho, was
used as an example of a sparsely populated area.
Sparsely populated areas are not likely to provide collec-
tion service for all their residents, and the disposal of
wastes by residents can cause health hazards through land
and water pollution. The low population density makes all
solid waste services more expensive on a per person basis.
Consolidation of services through transfer operations and
multi-site servicing on a rotating basis appear to be feasible
ways of reducing the cost per person. Also, consolidation
of solid waste planning and management on a regional basis
would encourage consolidation of services of adjacent areas
and would allow the cost of improved management and planning
to be shared among a larger number of people.
A mail survey was made to determine what the county
officials in sparsely populated areas consider their most
serious problems, and the Multi-Mover's possible contributions
to solution of these stated problems were analyzed. The
Multi-Mover's superior cost effectiveness would contribute
to the solution of many of these problems by lowering the
overall costs of the disposal operations. Its high capital
cost is the most serious drawback. Even though its overall
cost per unit work would be lower than that of a crawler
tractor, the financial structure of governments in sparsely
populated areas tends to favor lower expenditures for capital
equipment over lower operating costs in a trade-off.
-9-
-------
Canyon County's resource base was examined to identify
those key land, water, mineral, agricultural, industrial,
and human resources upon which the county economy depends.
These resources were evaluated with consideration for the
region's competitive position in the Pacific Northwest and
national markets. Projections were made of Canyon County's
economic profile to 1990 with emphasis placed on translating
projected changes in the mix of local manufacturers and their
growth to effects on solid waste generation. The same was
done for commercial and residential solid waste generation
to 1990. These solid waste projections were made with recog-
nition that technology is being developed in response to
pollution problems associated with waste materials and in
response to pressures to find innovative economic uses for
these materials.
The volume of industrial solid waste is projected to increase
by 32% during the 1970 to 1990 period. This includes the
wastes from manufacturing firms engaged in processing agricul-
tural products. Nearly all the county's manufacturing firms
are located in or near the Nampa-Caldwell area. Commercial
waste generated from retail, wholesale and other service
industries is expected to increase 58% during the same period.
Nearly 9 0% of this material is generated in the Nampa-Caldwell
area. Residential solid waste, which makes up a majority
of the county's solid waste, is projected to increase 40%
-10-
-------
on a county-wide basis. Within the Nampa-Caldwell area,
residential solid waste is projected to increase 61%, while
rpsidential solid waste Generation in the rest of the countv
is proiected to increase 19%.
projected increases in county-wide solid waste generation
to 1990 are affected only to a small degree by manufacturinq
industries (14%) , moderately by commercial industries (27%)
and to a high degree by residential solid waste (59%). Total
solid waste input to the county's disposal site is projected
to increase by 24% by 1980, while the 1990 level is proiected
to be 60% above the 1970 level.
-11-
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
Multi-functional- Machine Recommendations
The basic concept of the Multi-Mover is sound. A versa-
tile machine with highway mobility is needed to service land-
fills in sparsely populated areas, and a well engineered,
reliable Multi-Mover would fill this need. It is therefore
recommended that the Bureau of Solid Waste management sponsor
an incentive program to aid in developing a marketable Multi-
Mover. The incentive program should aid in developing the
machine to a point where it is competitive on the basis of
operability and reliability with the usual sanitary landfill
equipment produced by major heavy equipment manufacturers.
As the future development of the Multi-Mover is not
a responsibility under this qrant, engineering recommendations
based on the evaluations described in this report are offered
to guide those who may undertake future engineering of the
Multi-Mover. In this pursuit the following are recommended:
e Increase Machine Power
An engine of greater horsepower (225-250 hp) well
matched to the transmission and drive train would
greatly improve Multi-Mover performance. A lower
minimum speed (less than 3 MPH) without sacrifice
of top speed (at least 30 MPH) would improve the
machine 1s earthmoving performance.
-12-
-------
Increase Machine Maneuverability
The machine's efficiency could be greatly improved
if the turning radius were shortened. This would
require a different design than that presently used.
Consideration should be given to articulating the
machine to increase its maneuverability.
Simplify and Improve Control of Machine
The rotatable drive station turret should be replaced
with two fixed operator seats and with controls easily
accessible from either operator position. This
arrangement could simplify control connections
and eliminate the turret and turret drive mechanism.
Positioning the operator where he could see the
depth of the cut would improve the grading ability
of the machine. Loading material into the box
while the machine is moving is difficult because
four hand controls must be operated. These are
the steering wheel, depth of blade control, and
the claw control and claw arm control. The claw
and claw arm control should be operated with a single
control lever, and the claw and claw arm mechanisms
should be automatically programmed for loading
cover on a selectable basis. With automatic oper-
ation of the claw and claw arm the operator would
only need to control the depth of cut and steer
the machine when loading cover.
-13-
-------
An all-weather cab to enclose the operator is de-
sirable as optional equipment.
Increase Machine Ground Clearance
The Multi-Mover ground clearance is 10 in. and
should be increased to at least 18 in. With the
present clearance the box drags when the machine
is being used for waste compaction. On occasion
the bottom of the box would drag on waste that
had been compacted and tear out large pieces.
Improve Machine Loading
When the blading end of the box is lowered on a
loading run, it creates a fairly steep angle, and
the earth being loaded must be pushed up this inclined
plane. This allows only partial loading of the
box and with wheel power only. If the back of
the box could be lowered along with the front to
decrease this angle, loading efficiency would improve
greatly. The location of the pivot point, length
of claw arms and rotation of the claw need to be
optimized in relation to the box to obtain the
most efficient design. The most efficient method
for design optimization would employ kinematic
analysis and provide for modeling.
-14-
-------
Redesign Machine Claw and Claw Arm
Power to operate the claw and claw arm should be
increased as much as possible and consideration
should be given to a "back-hde" design claw and
claw arm to facilitate the loading of cover from
a stockpile or bank.
Fit Machine with Larger Tires and Chains
Steel belted tires should be tried on machines
built in the future. These tires were not available
in the required size during the evaluation, but
probably could be obtained in the future if a min-
imum demand is demonstrated or guaranteed.
Clearance between the tires and other parts of
the machine should be provided to allow the use
of,tire chains when operating in mud, snow, or
on ice.
-15--
-------
Recommendations to Improve Solid Waste Management in
Sparsely Populated Areas
1. One of the most serious problems of solid waste manage-
ment in sparsely populated areas is the lack of adequate
planning. Solid waste operations are carried out on
a day-to-day basis and there is little effort to develop
plans past the current fiscal year. The lack of planning
generally arises from a lack of knowledgeability of solid
waste management on the part of local governmental manage-
ment. Frequently the responsibility falls to the county
commissioners, who characteristicly have little time
to devote to the project and little expertise in the
field. From standpoints of cost and specialized know-
ledge, sparsely populated counties and the small cities
and towns in sparsely populated areas cannot individually
support the planning necessary for their area. Regional
planning for solid waste could help solve this problem
both by spreading the cost of a good planning program
over the tax base of a larger area, and amalgamating
experience and expertise of individual city and county
governments to support the planning.
Daily management of solid waste in sparsely populated
areas suffers from the same problems as planning. Responsi-
bility for waste operations ,often falls to an organization
-16-
f
-------
such as the county engineer's office (road department).
Solid waste operations are often a small part of the
agency's responsibilities and do not get the attention
they require. It is also unlikely that the manager
has adequate training in solid waste operations. These
problems could be approached on a regional basis with
the same benefits that are expected from a regional
planning function. In addition, regional management
would encourage and facilitate consolidation of solid
waste operations, which would alleviate present dupli-
cation of effort and provide some economics of scale.
This approach would also help to free solid waste pro-
grams from local politics. A well planned demonstration
should be supported to compare the regional solid waste
program with the existing situation both in terms of
economic cost and the usual level and quality of solid
waste services provided.
2. Another serious problem in sparsely populated areas
is the apathy of the citizenry toward the problems of
solid waste. Most citizens in this type of area are
not aware of the problems of solid waste disposal and
the apathy is of course reflected in the attitudes
-17-
-------
of elected representatives who have the responsibility
for the solid waste program. One surveyed County Commis-
sioner's analysis of solid waste problems was, "It doesn't
take any brains to dig a hole and bury garbage in it."
More emphasis on public information programs to inform
the citizens of the problems and to elicit support for
their solution is recommended. This appears for two
reasons to be a prerequisite to any significant improve-
ment. First, the public's cooperation is essential to
a successful operation (particularly in a sparsely popu-
lated area where many of the people must dispose of their
own solid wastes). Second, the elected officials must
see that their constituents desire improvements and are
willing to pay the necessary costs.
3. Additional research into transfer operations in sparsely
populated areas appears justified and is recommended.
It may be less expensive to move the waste of an area
to one disposal site rather than maintain several disposal
sites. The choice among transfer operations, independently
maintained sites and jointly maintained sites (several
sites maintained by one crew on a rotating basis), is
one which depends on the exigencies in each individual
case. However, in general it appears that transfer oper-
ations should allow some savings to be realized and should
be the most easily adaptable to future changes in disposal
methods (e.g., increased separation for salvage and recycl-
ing) .
-18-
-------
DISCUSSION
Phase I — Machine Modification and Renovation
The Multi-Mover was about 10 years old at the start
of this project, and required extensive renovation to
restore it to a level acceptable for objective evaluation
of its capabilities. The modification and renovation
process began with a formal engineering review of the
machine and its suitability for landfill service. It
culminated in incorporation of the resulting recommended
design changes and performance of extensive corrective
maintenance. The following description describes the
modified machine.
Multi-Mover Description. The Multi-Mov«r (Figure
1) is a multi-functional machine which performs the functions
of four pieces of earthmoving equipment (crawler tractor
dozer, dump truck, compactor, and loader). It was developed
originally for filling, grading and compacting on construc-
tion jobs; has selectable four-wheel cl:;ivp capability;
and can travel at speeds sufficient fc >r highway travel.
Table 1 lists pertinent Multi--^lover specifications.
I '
A three point suspension system lis used or: the machine.
This assures that all four wheels will maintain contact
even when traveling over rough terrain. The wheels on the
side frame alongside the box are in a fixed position relative
to the frame. The wheels on the steering end of the ms*chine
-19-
-------
Engine
I
SO
0
1
-------
TABLE 1
MULTI-MOVER SPECIFICATIONS
POWER TRAIN
ENGINE
Make
Model
Horsepower
RPM
Torque, lb-ft
Fuel Tank Capacity,
(gal.)
TRANSMISSION
Make
Model
Ranges
Low
Inte mediate
High
AXLES AND HUBS (4WD)
Front Steering Axle and Hub Timken Detroit PS-150HX-2 (16.65:1)
Jack Shaft Axle Timken Detroit QT-140-B-2 (4.625:1)
Rear Hubs Timken Detroit PR-20 (3.6:1)
HYDRAULIC SYSTEM
BLADE, EJECTOR GATE, CLAW AND CLAW-ARM CYLINDERS: Eight (two each)
commercial shearing and stamping cylinders.
2
PUMPS: Zeno dual pump, 32 and 56 gal/min @1000 lb/in. and 3,800 rpm;
Vickers variable displacement pump, 45 gal/min @ 1000 lb/in. and 1800 rpm.
VALVES: Four Hoen pilot-operated hydraulic control valves.
RESERVOIR: 70 gal.
PILOT CONTROL SYSTEM: Eight "Hydronic" master-slave hydraulic units to
operate the hydraulic valves, engine throttle and transmission controls.
Waukesha
135-DKBS-Turbocharged
167 (max.)
2400
400
50
Allison
CRT-3331-1 (torque converter)
FORWARD REVERSE
5.27:1 5.11:1
1.91:1 1.85:1
0.659:1 0.639:1
-21-
-------
TABLE 1 (Continued)
RUNNING GEAR
STEERING
Type
Turning Radius
Left
Right
Power-assisted manual operation
39.5'
56.5'
TIRES
1600 x 20
BRAKES
Dual vacuum-assisted hydraulic systems with
four-wheel hydravac-over-hydr>:.ulic 17"
x 4" drums
WEIGHT AND DIMENSIONS
WEIGHT, LB
27,225 (unladen)
DIMENSIONS
Length
Width
Height
Ground Clearance
22'
8' 6"
8'
10" (Box Raised)
OPERATING DATA
TRAVEL SPEEDS
Engine RPM
2000
2400
Forward (MPH)
Max Min
30
35
3.4
Reverse (MPH)
Min
3.5
HYDRAULIC CYCLE SPEEDS
Claw Arm
Claw
Box (empty)
Gate (w/empty box)
Box raised
Box down
6.8 sec up and 2.0 sec down
5.0 sec out and 6.0 sec in
2.8 sec up and 1.0 sec down
11.0 sec out and 17.0 sec in
9.5 sec out and 24.0 sec in
BOX CAPACITY
5.5 yd (Level — Box raised)
-22-
-------
are mounted on an assembly which is free to swivel about the
longitudinal axis of the machine, permitting these wheels to
tilt as needed to maintain ground contact.
The machine has a hinged box that is lowered for scraping,
then raised for transporting material. A claw, supported
on movable arms on each side of the box, can be used to scoop
material piled ahead of the machine into the box as the machine
advances.
The wheels on either side of the box are permanently engaged
to the engine through a drive system consisting of an Allison
transmission, a differential, and chain and sprocket drives
which are located in the side frames that support the box.
The front wheels are steerable and are driven from the transmis-
sion through a manually controlled clutch to a differential
on the axle shafts.
The operator's turret is reversible to permit the driver
to face forward regardless of the direction of machine travel.
It is rotated electrically using a turret-mounted control.
The machine is hydraulically controlled except for steer-
ing, which is manually operated through a power-assisted system.
A pilot control system using "Hydronic" master-slave units
is used to position the main hydraulic control valves for the
box, ejector gate, claw, and claw arm hydraulic circuits, as
well as the transmission controls and engine throttle.
-23-
-------
The primary hydraulic system (Figure 2) consists of
a Zeno dual pump, mounted on the transmission, a Vickers
variable displacement pump driven from the engine power takeoff,
four Hoen pilot operated hydraulic control valves, and eight
Commercial Shearing and Stamping hydraulic cylinders used
to operate the ejector gate, claw, claw arm, and box. The
hydraulic fluid is continuously filtered in the reservoir
tank. These filters, which are equipped with plugging indi-
cators and incorporate magnets for trapping ferrous materials
have a built-in bypass that functions only if the filter
clogs.
The Multi-Mover has a dual braking system. Separate
reservoirs, hydraulic lines, and vacuum boosters are provided
for the front and rear brakes.
Engineering Review. The engineering review was performed
before renovation began. This consisted of a visual inspection
of the machine; discussions with the inventor; and analysis
of the drive train, hydraulic power systems, and brake system.
The visual inspection showed that the box, claw and
claw arm were badly worn. Numerous hydraulic system leaks
were noted, as well as the use of uncoded pressure fittings.
While the motor would run, hydraulic pressure was inadequate
indicating that the pumps would require service. Major compo-
nents were missing from the pilot control system and the
operator's turret was inoperable. The tires were badly worn.
The main frame was cracked near the motor mounts.
-24-
-------
CLAW ARM
Figure 2. Revised Hydraulic System
-25-
-------
Based on the visual inspection the decision was made
to replace the box, claw, claw arm, tires, and all hydraulic
tubing and electrical wiring. In addition, all other compo-
nents, with the exception of the motor, transmission and
differentials, would be removed for inspection and replaced
or repaired as needed. Repairs would be made to the main
frame with these components removed.
Since the motor and transmission appeared to be operable,
the recommendations of the manufacturer's representative
were sought to determine what course of maintenance to follow
with these components. The transmission pressure was checked
with the machine operating and found to be within acceptable
limits; this constituted the manufacturer's suggested service-
ability test. Since the unit functioned normally, transmis-
sion maintenance consisted only of draining the old fluid,
flushing the unit, and replenishing it with new fluid. Tests
on the engine showed that it was generally in good condition
requiring only a major tuneup and overhaul of the turbocharger.
During discussions with the inventor his drawings were
found to contain a design change for relocation of the claw
arm pivot points, which had not been incorporated in the
subject machine. This change would modify the action of
the claw, and thouqh it had not been proven in service, it
appeared to be desirable. Since the original desian had
already been field tested, the decision was made to try the
modified design to permit a comparison of the two.
-26-
-------
The drive train was analyzed to determine the expected
maximum and minimum speeds of the machine and verify that
the transmission was sized for the power output of the engine.
The drive train consists of a Waukesha 135 DKU supercharqed
diesel engine; an Allison transmission; and Timken Detroit
front steering axle and hubs, rear jack shaft axle, and rear
hubs. (The gear ratios for these units are shown in Table 1.)
The expected maximum and minimum speeds for the vehicle were
determined using engine speeds of 2000 and 2400 rpm. The
specifications for the Allison transmission torque gave a
multiplication ratio of 3.5:1 at "stall". This gave a stall
speed, or speed at which transmission slippage would occur,
of 1/3.5 x the minimum normal speed, or approximately 1 mph.
The minimum speed for continuous operation, based on a converter
efficiency of 70%, is 2.4 mph. Continuous operation slower
than this could be expected to overheat the converter, accord-
ing to information obtained from the transmission manufacturer.
The transmission and diesel were found to be well matched.
The liesel has a maximum torque output of 350 lb-ft at 2400
rpm; however, a significant proportion of this torque is
required to operate the auxiliaries — primarily the hydraulic
pumps. Therefore, the net torque input to the transmission
does not exceed the transmission torque rating of 300 lb-
ft. This conclusion was verified by the transmission manufac-
turers, who had made a similar investigation at the time
the transmission was sold.
-27-
-------
The expected cycle times were calculated at approximately
10 sec eacli for the claw arm, claw, and box. These times
would increase when the engine slowed. The inventor felt
that the desired rate for the claw and claw arm should be
about one half of the calculated rate. Although the reduced
times could be obtained by using larger pumps, the hydraulic
system was already using up to 87 horsepower, a large percentage
of engine output, and a larger engine would be required for
installation of larger pumps. This would have resulted in
a schedule delay as well as unduly increasing the cost of
renovation. Since the original engine was in usable condition
and would permit evaluation of machine capabilities, engine
replacement was decided against.
The braking system was reviewed and found to be generally
adequate except that it used a single hydraulic system. For
safety the hydraulic booster units and the hydraulic lines
would be replaced to provide a dual hydraulic brake system.
The brake shoes, drums, and cylinders were adequate and could
be used after inspection and overhaul.
Modifications and Restoration. Restoration was completed
as required to put th2 machine in a condition sufficient
to permit an adequate comparison with competitive landfill
machinery. The basic design of the machine was not changed.
The restoration effort in this task comprised both pre-
ventive and corrective maintenance as follows:
-28-
-------
1. Major tuneup of engine and acces sorietj--This included
setting the injectors, overhauling the turbocharger,
overhauling or replacing engine and transmission gages
as needed, adding a motor safety circuit (high temperature
and low oil pressure cutouts), disconnecting the "glow"
plugs (used originally for starting, but considered
dangerous if used in conjunction with the current practice
of injecting ether for startup), rewiring the engine,
setting the governor, overhauling the starter motor
and generator, rebuilding the radiator, and replacing
all hoses, fan belts and filters.
2. Inspeation and repair of drive-train components--The
four planetary hubs for the wheels were disassembled,
the bearings and gears were inspected and the units
were reassembled with new seals. A worn inboard bearing
on the left rear wheel was replaced. The universal
joints between the engine and transmission were worn
and were rebuilt. The drive lines from the transmission
to the front and rear axles were removed, cleaned, in-
spected and reinstalled.
The transmission was pressure tested and found to be
in satisfactory operating condition. The transmission
fluid was replaced. The oil from both differentials
was drained into clean containers and inspected for
metallic particles. The oil was replaced along with
a leaking housing seal on the front differential.
-29-
-------
Overhaul and modification of braking system--The vacuum-
assisted single hydraulic brake system was replaced
with a dual system with separate reservoirs, hydraulic
lines and vacuum boosters for the front and rear brakes.
In addition, a low pressure safety switch with indicator on
the control turrent was installed to monitor both systems.
The brake shoes were relined, the brake cylinders were
rebuilt and all brake hoses were replaced. The brake
drums were inspected and found in satisfactory condition.
The Bendix Vacuum pump had a broken housing. A new
unit was obtained and installed. The vacuum tank used
with the pump was. cleaned, inspected and reinstalled.
A defective check valve on the pump suction line was
replaced.
Replacement of tires--Before placing the order for tires,
four tire companies (Goodyear, B. F. Goodrich, Firestone,
and Michelin) were contacted for their recommendation
of the most suitable type of tire available for the
expected service conditions. Steel reinforced tires,
which are believed to be the most suitable, were not
available in the size required (1600-20). The available
tire most suitable on the basis of load and speed require-
ments is the same as those which were originally used
on the rear of the machine. The load rating of these
tires is less than that required to handle the calculated
-30-
-------
maximum weight, but they were procured since no tires
of greater capacity were available and since this type
has been used successfully. The only alternative to
this was to replace the existing rims and planetary
hubs with units which would accommodate tires of a larger
size. This should be considered for future machines
to ensure maximum tire life. Since only one type of
tire was available, the selection of tires on the basis
of desired compaction could not be done as previously
planned.
5. Overhaul and modification of hydraulic system--The trans-
mission-mounted dual hydraulic pump was badly worn and
replacement parts were installed. The single stage ;
front pump (positive displacement type), also
badly worn, was replaced with a variable displacement,
compensated pump of larger capacity. The compensated
pump was selected to obviate any power loss when its
cylinders (claw arm and ejector gate cylinders) were
inoperative. The main frame was lengthened to accommo-
date the new pump.
The hydraulic system valves and valve manifold were
removed, disassembled, cleaned and inspected. The valves
were satisfactory with the exception of the built-in
relief valves, which were worn. Since these valves
are no longer manufactured, they were repaired by
-31-
-------
lapping the seats and plunger. The valves were reassembled
2
and the relief settings adjusted to 1100 lb/in .
All hydraulic cylinders were removed, disassembled and
inspected. After obtaining comparative cost estimates
of overhauling and replacing them, the choice was made
to overhaul. During the overhaul the low pressure (150
2
lb/in. ) galvanized pipe fittings, which were originally
welded to the cylinders, were replaced with high pressure
2
(3000 lb/in. ) steel fittings. While the galvanized
fittings had functioned satisfactorily, they are not
2
coded for the operating pressure of 1000 lb/in, and
therefore were not used.
The original hydraulic oil filters in the reservoir
tank were replaced with finer mesh filters of larger
capacity and equipped with visual pluqging indicators.
They also have a built-in bypass, which functions if
the filter cloas, and magnets for trapping magnetic
particles. Neither of these features were on the oriqinal
filters.
Modification of vehicle lighting--^!-,illights and stoplights
were installed. The existing headlights were rewired.
Modification and repair of structural components--Cracks
at a weak ooint in the main frame iust above the front
axle were repaired and the section strengthened by the
-32-
-------
addition of 1/2-in. thick stiffening plates. The frame
cross bracinq in this area was also reinforced.
8. Renovation of load handling components--New fabrication
drawings were prepared for the box, claw, and clav: arm.
These components, which were badly worn, were replaced.
The original ejector gate was modified to fit the new
box.
9. Modification of control components--The operator's con-
trol turret was rebuilt and a new Dilot control system,
using "llydronic" master-slave units, was installed.
Individual units control the box, claw, and claw arm
hydraulic circuits; the transmission controls (Forward-
Reverse, Speed Range. Front Drive Clutch); and the engine
throttle (through a foot-operated unit). While this
system has improved machine performance somewhat by
providing more positive positioning of the primary hy-
draulic system operating valves, mechanical linkages
were preferred, but would have required elimination
of the operator's turret.
Evaluation.
Speed Ranges. The Multi-Mover speed ranges were selected
originally as a compromise between a maximum speed adequate
for highway travel and a minimum speed suitable for earthmoving
operations. The resulting minimum speed is somewhat higher
than that found in competitive equipment and should be reduced
-33-
-------
in future models. A transmission with more than three speed
ranges will be required if the top speed is to be maintained.
Such units are available, but are not physically interchangeable
with the present transmission without some redesign of the
machine.
Turning Radius. The turning radius of the Multi-Mover
is greater than the turning radius for front loaders and wheeled
dozers. These units obtain the shorter turning radius because
of their articulated design, and incorporation of this feature
in the Multi-Mover would require a major redesign. The Multi-
Mover does have an additional feature that most other types
of units do not have which makes a short turning radius less
significant at least in landfill service. This is the capabil-
ity to operate in either direction with the operator facing
in the direction of travel.
Vehicle Clearance. The relatively low road clearance
increases the possibility of high centering the machine. How-
ever, the ability to raise and lower the box, and hence the
machine, affords the operator a means of freeing the machine
if high centering should occur. The four-wheel drive capabil-
ity assists in freeing the machine in the event of high cent-
ering .
Hydraulic System. The operation of the hydraulic system
could be made more reliable by elimination of the rotating
turret. This would permit the direct mechanical operation
of the control valves, rather than operating them through a
i
I
hydraulic pilot control system, resulting in more positive
-34-
-------
operation of the valves. Another change which would improve
the overall reliability would be to use gear type pumps.
The close clearances of other type pumps render them susceptible
to damage from the pumping of fluid containing very small
amounts of particulates. Even extremely fine mesh filters
do not always provide sufficient protection. A replacement
pump with larger clearances is desirable.
Vehicle Code Compliance. A review of state road and
highway regulations was made to assure that the Multi-Mover
would comply with these regulations when operatinq in the
highway mode. (See Appendix A.) The review showed
that the width of the machine exceeds the maximum allowable
width of 8 ft by approximately G in. Therefore, the Multi-
Mover must have an oversize permit to operate on the highways
(Figure 3). A design modification reducing the machine width
to 8 ft would be desirable on future models to overcome this
limitation.
The machine complies with the requirements concerning
weight per axle and minimum speed. The modified braking
system complies with the requirements for a dual hydraulic
brake system. Installation of taillights and stoplights,
in addition to the existing headlights, will provide code
lighting.
Operator Protection. Only one state, Michigan, requires
an all-weather cab. Since standard cabs will not fit the
machine, a specially designed cab would be needed to allow
-35-
-------
Figure 3« Multi-Mover Traveling on Highway
(Note use of road shoulder to obtain comfortable clearance from highway centerline)
-------
operation in Michigan. This feature is a necessary adjunct
to marketing the Multi-Mover as an all-weather machine.
A review of options available for competitive machines reveals
that the all-weather cab option is widely available.
Phase II — Field Evaluation and Data Collection
Comparative evaluations of Multi-Mover performance with
crawler tractor performance were performed at landfill sites
near Nampa, Idaho and Ontario, Oregon. (See Figure 4.) The
purpose of these tests was to determine the effectiveness
of the Multi-Mover in compacting waste and soil cover material,
performing excavation, depositing soil cover, distributing
refuse for compaction, and transporting itself from site to
site. The compaction tests were performed at the landfill
site near Lake Lowell located five miles north of Nampa,
Idaho. Earthmoving tests were conducted at the Lake Lowell
site, the Ontario site, and the Black Canyon site, while
highway transportability tests were conducted between the
sites at Central Cove, Black Canyon and Lake Lowell. (The
location of these sites is shown in Figure 5.) A special
trip was made to Cougar Mountain Lodge, Idaho to evaluate
long distance highway travel and operation under winter condi-
tions .
Data Collection. Data collection for the field evaluation
included measuring and recording the weights or volumes of
waste entering a compaction cell, surveying the cells to
-37-
-------
Figure 4. Regional Map of Evaluation Sites
-38-
-------
BLACK CANYON SITK
Figure 5. Detailed Sites Location Map (Scale: 1"*»2 Mi)
-39-
-------
obtain data on compacted volumes, timing earthmoving operations
and weighing the loads, timing machine operations, recording
fuel usage and obtaining other data necessary to provide
a basis for machine evaluation. Data collection sheets (Appendix
B) were used to selectively obtain the data on refuse weights
(or volumes), compaction, earthmoving, highway travel, and
fuel and oil usage.
It was originally planned to perform all compaction
tests on a volume basis and evaluate the machine on the compac-
tion ratio achieved (trucked volume/in-place volume). However,
it was decided to weigh the refuse and obtain compaction
data expressed in pounds per cubic yard, a more meaningful
figure which would afford a better comparison. Truck scales
were used for weighing refuse for the majority of the cells,
but before completion of this phase, the scales were destroyed
in a fire. After that time, cells had to be evaluated on
a volume basis.
Sites Characterization. Evaluation work was performed
at three landfills -- Lake Lowell, Black Canyon, and Ontario,
Oregon. The Lake Lowell site was operated as an area landfill
for the first three cells and later as a ramp type. This
site serves a population of about 49,000 Regular equipment
consists of two medium size crawler tractors with front end
bucket loaders. The climate, being dry and temperate, has
little effect on landfill operations; i.e., there are little
or no problems from mud or extreme winter conditions. The
-40-
-------
site is located in gently rolling terrain. It was originally
a gravel pit, and at the time of compaction tests on cells
L-l, L-2, and L-3, it had nearly been filled. Cover material
is readily available and ranges from the silty loam described
to a sandy loam with cobble gravel found beneath the cemented
hardpan. Table 2 lists data -for this site.
The Black Canyon site is operated as a trench-type land-
fill. It serves a population of less than 5,000 and does
not have permanently assigned equipment. The site is located
in gently sloping terrain, and has the same climatic conditions
as the Lake Lowell landfill. The available cover material
is sandy loam in ample supply. Site data is listed in Table 3.
The Ontario site is operated as an area-type landfill
in a ravine. It serves a population of about 5,000. Regular
equipment consists of one small crawler tractor ^ith dozer
blade and one medium size crawler tractor with front bucket
loader. The site is located in a ravine, and has the same
climatic conditions as the Lake Lowell site. The available
cover material is a sandy loam with some cobble gravel. Mater-
ial is in short supply and must be taken from the steep ravine
sides. Site data is listed in Table 4.
Field Evaluation. Field evaluation of refuse handling
and compaction effectiveness, consisting of constructing
refuse cells with the Multi-Mover and crawler tractors, was
done entirely at the Lake Lowell landfill. Earthmoving
-41-
-------
TABLE 2
LANDFILL TYPE:
POPULATION SERVICE:
TOPOGRAPHY:
CLIMATICS
LAKE LOWELL SITE DATA
Ramp
49,000
Gently rolling terrain
PRECIPITATION, in./yr
MEAN TEMPERATURES, °F
MEAN WIND VELOCITY, MPH
SOILS
10.6
50.7 (annual)
65.0 (max)
36.5 (min)
9.0
COVER MATERIAL
Type :
Texture:
Dep th:
Availability:
Shrink & Swell
Potential:
Loam
Silty to sandy with 3 in. maximum diameter
cobble gravel
20 to 36 in.
Excellent
Low to moderate
SUBSTRATE
Type :
Cemented hardpan
-42-
-------
LANDFILL TYPE:
POPULATION SERVICE:
TOPOGRAPHY:
CLIMATICS
PRECIPITATION, in./yr
MEAN TEMPERATURES, °F
MEAN WIND VELOCITY, MPH
SOILS
COVER MATERIAL
Type:
Texture:
Depth:
Availability:
Shrink & Swell
Potential:
SUBSTRATE
Type
TABLE 3
BLACK CANYON SITE DATA
Trench
5,000
Gently sloping terrain
10.6
50.7 (Annual)
65.0 (max)
36.5 (min)
9.0
Loam
Sandy
8 ft
Excellent
Low to moderate
Cemented hardpan
-43-
-------
TABLE 4
LANDFILL TYPE:
POPULATION SERVICE:
TOPOGRAPHY:
CLIMATICS
PRECIPITATION, in./yr
MEAN TEMPERATURES, °F
MEAN WIND VELOCITY, MPH
SOILS
COVER MATERIAL
Type:
Texture:
Depth:
Availability:
Shrink & Swell
Potential:
SUBSTRATE
Type
ONTARIO SITE DATA
Area
5,000
Ravine
10.6
50.7 (annual)
65.0 (max)
36.5 (min)
9.0
Loam
Sandy with 3 in. maximum
N.A.
Poor—must be taken from
N.A.
Cemented hardpan
diameter cobble gravel
sides of ravine
-44-
-------
evaluations were conducted at Lake Lowell and at the Black
Canyon site near Middleton. Highway travel was evaluated
by trips between sites and a trip to Cougar Mountain Lodge,
where the Multi-Mover was tested for its ability to plow,
load, an4 unload snow, in addition to its general winter
operation capability. Waste characterization was performed
at the Lake Lowell landfill. The methods used in these char-
acterizations and evaluations and the results are described
in detail in the following paragraphs.
Waste Characterization. Waste characterization studies
were performed in November 1969, April 1970, and May 1970,
to identify the types of waste being handled and to note
seasonal variations therein. Classification of wastes was
done visually by dumping the compactor truck refuse onto
the fill and spreading the loads into layers about 24 in.
deep; then the volume percentages were estimated (Table 5).*
Categories were defined as suggested by the Bureau of Solid
Waste Management.^ Commercial, residential and industrial
wastes were used which are typical of those regularly entering
the landfill. The November classification was made on two
separate waste cell lifts totalling 138,000 lb; the April
classification on 8 compactor truck loads; and the May classi-
fication on 24 compactor truck loads.
Inasmuch as the characterizations were visual estimates
they can be considered only approximate. Seasonal variations
* EPA Comment: Visual solid waste classification is not considered
to be accurate.
-m-
-------
TABLE 5
*
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
Volume % of total)
Type of Waste
Nov
April
May
Paper and Paper Products
55.0
48.0
45.0
Food Wastes
15.0
14.0
14.0
Metal
4.0
5.0
4.0
Glass
2.0
5.0
3.5
Bulk Leaves and Grass
3.0
5.0
6.0
Wood
8.0
15.0
15.0
Plastics
5.0
3.5
3.5
Cloth, Rubber, Leather
and Synthetics
6.0
3.0
7.0
Dirt, Ashes, Rocks
2.0
1.5
2.0
* See F.PA Comment on page 45.
-46-
-------
apparent in Table 5 are also approximate. The most signi-
ficant seasonal variation which affected the compaction oper-
ation in April and May were the larger amounts of bulk leaves,
grass, and wood, which compact less than the other wastes.
This was particularly noticeable with discarded plywood panel
trimmings from a local mobile home manufacturer.
Landfill Performance. Tests were conducted to evaluate
Multi-Mover performance compared to that of a crawler tractor
in compacting waste and soil cover, spreading refuse, excavat-
ing and hauling earth, spreading earth cover, and highway
travel. These tests are described and the results are given
as follows:
1. Compaction comparisons--Compaction comparisons were
made by constructing refuse cells of varying sizes at
the Lake Lowell landfill separately with the Multi-
Mover (27,225 lb unladen) and crawler tractor No. 1
(33,757 lb unladen). Crawler tractor No. 1 was used
on cell L-2 equipped with a 1-1/4 yd front loader bucket.
For cell L-6, crawler tractor No. 2 (21,000 lb unladen)
with a 1-1/4 yd front loader bucket was used. A total
of eight compaction cells were constructed (Figure 6).
For each cell, a baseline was established, elevations
were taken on the baseline, and preliminary cross sections
were taken with a builder's level-transit and hand level
at 20 ft intervals. Except for cells L-l and L-2, inter-
mediate and final cross sections were taken at intermediate
-47-
-------
Road
LEGEND
Fence
Compaction test cells
Survey hub
End of dam
SANITARY LANDFILL
Main axis face of dam
Figure 6. Lake Lowell Compaction Cell Location
-48-
-------
lifts, the top of the cell before addition of cover,
and the top of the cell after cover addition. On cells
L-l and L-2 final cross sections were taken only after
cover addition. Volumes were calculated using the average
end area method.
Crawler tractor cells L-2 and L-6 and Multi-Mover cells
L-l, L-3, and L-8 were completed without incident. Cell
L-8 was constructed using water to improve compaction.
However, varying circumstances rendered data unusable
on three other cells. Cell L-4 was nearly completed
by the crawler tractor when an extended breakdown of
the tractor prevented its completion. Settlement and
traffic compaction during the repair period rendered
that data unusable. Through a misunderstanding the
surface of cell L-5 on which the crawler-tractor-compacted
cell was to be built was excavated to obtain cover soil
and filled with waste, thus negating the original survey.
During construction of cell L-7 by the Multi-Mover,
the Multi-Mover lost engine power and was unable to
negotiate the slopes of the ramp type cell. Consequently,
the cell received minimum compaction, and when the machine
lost power completely, the cell had to be completed
with a crawler tractor.
-49-
-------
Cells L-l, L-2, L-3, and L-6 averaged 3 to 4 ft in thick-
ness, and the maximum thickness was 4-1/2 ft. To deter-
mine the settlement of the surface on which the cell
was constructed (the top of the existing landfill),
settlement gages were employed. Measurements by level-
transit of elevations of the top of these gages, placed
at 50 ft intervals on the centerline of cell L-l, showed
that for a cell of this thickness the settlement was
0.05 ft. This was judged negligible considering that
the accuracy of a hand level used for a portion of the
cross section surveys was +0.10 ft. Because of this
small settlement, the use of gages was discontinued
for the other cells.
For cell L-8, constructed June 4, 1970, the Multi-Mover
compacted 96 yd3 of packer truck residential refuse
3
in two lifts of 48 yd each, using water and two compac-
tion passes per lift to improve compaction. The refuse
for this cell was classified as follows:*
Waste
Paper and pap^r products
Food v/astes
Approx. % by volume
Bulk leaves & grass
Wood
Plastics
Metal
Glass
55
15
4
5
5
5
5
Cloth, rubber, leather,
and synthetics
Dirt, ashes, & rocks
4
2
* See EPA Comment on page 45,
-50-
-------
A summary of compaction data for cells constructed dry
is given in Table 6. Table 7 lists data derived from
cell L-8. Compaction ratios (trucked volume/in-place
volume) obtained on cells L-l, L-2, L-3, and L-6 under
dry conditions are listed in Table 8.
As shown in Tables 6 through 8, the Multi-Mover can
accomplish a relatively high density of compaction in
•k
a landfill. With four compaction passes per lift it
was able to achieve an in-place waste density of 1178
3
lb/yd . In comparison to crawler tractor No. 1 and
using one compaction pass ner lift, it achieved an in-
3
place waste density of 906 lb/yd , where the tractor
3
achieved 1015 lb/yd . In constructing cells L-l and
L-2, all the wastes entering the landfill were placed
in the cells. Hence, waste agricultural seed was used
along with the normal commercial, residential, and indus-
trial wastes. The high density of these seeds, about
3
960 lb/yd-, contributed to relatively high compacted
waste densities in both cells. The greater percentage
of waste seed in the crawler tractor cell, 15.4% Hy
weight versus 9% in the Multi-Mover cell, gave a higher
*One compaction pass consisted of passing the front and
rear tires (or tracks of the crawler tractor) one time
over the entire surface of a cell.
-51-
-------
TABLE 6
COMPACTION DATA SUMMARY FOR CELLS CONSTRUCTED DRY
Cell Number
(1)
PARAMETER
L-l
L-2
L-3
L-4
Equipment Used
Type of Landfill
Cell Size, ft
Waste Lift Depth,
Loose, in.
No. of Waste Lifts
Water Added
No. of Compaction
Passes/Waste Lift
Total wt. of
Waste, lb.
Compacted °f
Waste, yd
3
In-Place Waste yd
Density, lb
(4)
Multi-mover
(27,225 lb.)
Area
50 x 110
x 3.5
12
7
None
1
Waste Density by USPHS
Formula lb/yd^
Cover Lift Depth,
Loose, in.
Cover Lift Depth
Compacted, in.
Total Compacted Vol. .
of Waste + Cover, ia
Weight of Soil Cover,
lb. (calculated)
Total In-Place Density
Cover + Waste lb./yd3
(6)
260, 180
287.2
906
679
8
(3)
383.3
288,000
1430
Crawler
Tractor
No. 1
(33,757 lb.;
Area
60 x .155
x 3.5
12
None
1
(2)
Multi-mover
(27,225 lb.)
Area
50 x 78
x 2.5
24, 96, 12
3
None
4
535, 990(3) 137, 960
528.0
1015
766
6
6
700
455,800
1417
117.1
1178
758
8
182.1
230,000
2021
Crawler
Tractor
No. 2
(21,000 lb.)
Ramp
45 x 90
x 4
36
3
None
3
214, 960
356.6
603
508
6
423.2
191,750
961
Footnotes itemized on the following page
-52-
-------
TABLE 6 (continued)
Footnotes for Table 6
(1) Data for Cells L-4, L-5, and L-7 not noted and not shown.
(2) Cell L-2 received about 0.10 in. of rain. This added moisture
assisted in obtaining compaction somewhat higher than might
normally be obtained with the crawler tractor.
(3) Cell L-l contained 23,300 lb. of waste agricultural seed. Cell L-2
contained 82,600 lb. of waste agricultural seed. This material
weighed approximately 960 lb./yd , loose.
(4) In-place densities and compacted volumes of waste were calculated
from data taken after placing soil cover.
(5) The formula recommended by the USPHS for waste density is
wt. of refuse
vol. of refuse + vol. of soil
When a significant percentage of the total volume is soil as in
these relatively thin cells, this waste density is disproportionately
low. This is particularly noticeable in Cell L-3 where the soil
volume is 65 yd^ compared to 117.1 yd^ of refuse.
(6) These total in-place density figures will be higher than normally
obtained in most land fills because of the relatively thin cells
(3 to 4 ft thick for Cells L-l and L-2, 2 ft thick for Cell L-3).
The weight of cover material in these thicknesses is often greater
than the weight of refuse, which results in a high total density.
-53-
-------
TABLE 7
MULTI-MOVER COMPACTION CELL L-8 - WATER ADDED
PARAMETER
Lift 1
Dry
Wet
Total Cell
Lift 1 + Lift 2
Dry
wet
Total Uncompacted
Refuse, ycP 48 48 96 96
No. of Compaction
Passes/Lift 2 2 2 2
Total Passes 2 4 6 8
Amount of Water
Added,gal/yd None 7.15 None 14.3
Volume of Compacted
Refuse, yd^ 16.8 14.46 29.45 21.8
(2) *
Compaction Ratio 2.86:1 3.32:1 3.02:1 4.4:1
(1) 3
Average of water added for both lifts is 10.7 gal./yd
(2)
The compaction ratios for the total cell are calculated on the combined
volumes of Lift 1 and 2. The compaction ratios for Lift 2 alone
are 3.20:1 (dry) and 6.54:1 (wet). However, these figures are not
representative because there was further compaction of Lift 1 during
Lift 2 construction. Therefore, the average for the combined lifts
is shown.
*EPA Comment: Since the density of solid waste in collection
vehicles ma.y vary considerably, compaction ratios would yield only very
gross comparisons of the compaction capabilities of landfill equipment.
-54-
-------
TABLE S
COMPACTION RATIOS OF CELLS CONSTRUCTED DKY
PARAMETER
Cell No.
L-l
L-2
L-3
L-6
Equipment Used
Multi-Mover Crawler
Tractor
No. 1
Multi-Mover Crawler
Tractor
No. 2
Trucked Waste
Vol., yd^ (1)
Compacted Waste
Vol., yd^
No. of Passes
Per Lift
Compaction Ratio
750
287.2
1
2.6:1
1463
528.0
1
2.8:1
495
117.1
4
4.2:1
733
356.6
3
2.1:1
Trucked volume is the rated volume capacity of the compactor trucks,
which deposited 95% of the waste in these cells. Thus, the waste
had some pre-compaction.
* See EPA Comment on Page 54.
-55-
-------
than normal density in the crawler tractor cell. Consid-
ering that the tractor cell, L-2, had the benefit of
rainfall to assist compaction and a higher percentage
of waste seed, it would appear that the Multi-Mover
(27,225 lb) is approximately equivalent to the heavier
tractor (33,767 lb) in compactive effort when using
one pass per waste lift in an area-type landfill.
When the compaction of the Multi-Mover from multiple
passes tfour) on an area fill is compared to that of
a lighter (21,000 lb) crawler tractor using 3 passes
per lift on a ramp-type fill, the Multi-Mover yields
a compacted waste density nearly two times as great,
3 3
1178 lb/yd versus 603 lb/yd . However, the differing
conditions (particularly with the lighter tractor and
under ramp cell conditions! where the material tends
to roll under the tracks rather than compact vertically,
tended to give the Multi-Mover an unfair advantage in
this comparison.
Observations made in the field indicated that the compac-
tive effort oi: the Multi-Mover was markedly better than
either of the crawler tractors used. The Multi-Mover
tires would compact up to one-third the original depth
of a loose waste lift in one pass with little springback,
whereas the crawler tractor would compact to about one-
-56-
-------
half the depth with springback of the upper loose mater-
ials to nearly the original level.
The data in Table 8, which summarizes the compaction
ratios* indicates that under dry conditions the Multi-
Mover compacts somewhat less than a heavier crawler
tractor, 2.6:1 versus 2.8:1, on an area-type fill with
single pass compaction per lift. Again, the larger
amount of waste seed and the moisture from the rain
in the crawler tractor cell contributed to a density
and compaction ratio higher than normal for the crawler
tractor. With multiple passes, the Multi-Mover can
achieve a compaction ratio of 4.2:1. As shown in Table
7, when water is deliberately added, compaction ratios
as high as 4.4:1 can be achieved in two passes per waste
lift. On a dry, ramp-type cell, the 21,000 lb crawler
tractor achieved a compaction ratio of 2.1:1 with 3
compaction passes per waste lift. In other tests, measure-
ments made during area-type cell construction showed
compaction ratios of 3:1 in four passes of the Multi-
Mover on 24 in. lifts of compactor truck refuse. The
33,7 57 lb crawler tractor produced a compaction ratio
of 2:1 under these conditions.
2. Distributing refuse for compaction--The Multi-Mover
was able to move large amounts' of light, loose wastes
3
better than crawler tractor No. 1, moving 15 to 30 yd
* See EPA Comment on Page 54
-57-
-------
3
of waste at one time compared to 6 to 8 yd for the
crawler tractor. However, in soil moving, as a dozer,
they were about equal, and when large heavy loads were
encountered under poor traction conditions, the crawler
tractor was clearly superior.
In spreading and compacting the wastes (Figure 7), the
Multi-Mover did not perform as uniformly as either crawler
tractor. Because of the 10 in. clearance above the
fill, the machine caught refuse already spread and rolled
it ahead. The operator was often unaware of this since
the box and ejection gate obstructed his view of the
area directly in front of the machine. On the crawler
tractor, the front end loader could be lifted several
feet to clear and spread the wastes and visibility was
better. This tendency to catch refuse contributed to
the Multi-Mover achieving lower actual compaction than
it was capable of achieving, and left the fill surface
uneven. This was judged to be the most serious shortcomina
of the Multi-Mover in compacting refuse. The Multi-
Mover did spread wastes faster than the crawler tractor,
3
achieving a spreading rate of about 6 yd /min compared
to 4.2 yd"Vmin for crawler tractor No. 1. The higher
rate of the Multi-Mover is due to its ability to move
a larger amount of waste at one time and its higher
speed in the low gear range used in spreading.
-58-
-------
Figure 7. Multi-Mover Spreading Waste for Compaction
-------
3. Depositing soil cover--In depositing soil cover (Figure 8)
the Multi-Mover achieved approximately the same spreading
rate as crawler tractor No. 1 with front bucket loader.
This rate was about 0.05 yd3/sec. The Multi-Mover spread
3
2-1/4 to 3 yd in 45 to 50 sec and the crawler tractor
3
spread 1 to 1-1/4 yd in 15 to 25 sec. Uniformity of
cover thickness as spread by the Multi-Mover was better.
3y controlling forward speed and ejection gate speed,
a fairly uniform layer 6 to 8 in. thick and 4 ft wide
could be deposited. The crawler tractor spreading was
controlled by tractor speed and rate of bucket tipping.
Because the soil tended to hang together until the angle
of repose was exceeded, it tipped out unevenly and the
resulting layer varied from about 2 to 6 in. in thickness
and 6 to 8 ft in width.
4. Excavation and earthmoving--Tests were performed to
compare excavation and earthmoving from a vertical bank
at the Lake Lowell site. Table 9 lists the results
of this comparison. Multi-Mover loading time from a
vertical bank or stockpile is comparatively slow. As
the machine moves into a stockpile the front wheels
climb the slope and raise the box and claw above the
point where efficient loading can be accomplished. In
contrast, the crawler tractor bucket loads very quickly
under these conditions because it is well ahead of the
tracks.
-60-
-------
Figure 8. Multi-Mover Depositing Soil Cover Over Compacted Cell
-------
TABLE 9
LOADING, TRAVEL AND UNLOADING TIMES - COVER MATERIAL
Multi- Mover Crawler Tractor No, 1
OPERATION (yd3) (sec) (yd3) (sec)
Loading from Vertical
Bank 2-1/4 60 1-1/4 20
Travel Time Per
Cycle, 240 ft
Haul Each Way 180 200
Unloading
Time-Spreading 2-1/4 45 to 90* 1-1/4' 15 to 25*
Total Time/Cycle 280 to 330 235 to 245
3
Seconds/yd in
Place 127 to 147 . 188 to 196
Differences in unloading time reflect difference in time required to
spread a 4-in. thick layer compared to an 8-in. thick layer.
-62-
-------
In excavating tests on level ground (Figure 9), excavat-
ing sandy loam cover material, the Multi-Mover was able
3 3
to load 2-1/2 yd in 45 sec. Loading to 3 yd required
3
90 sec and loading to 4-1/2 yd required 5 min.
The tests indicated that for a haul distance of about
60 ft, loading cover from a bank or stockpile, the crawler
tractor outperformed the Multi-Mover because of the
crawler tractor's shorter loading and unloading times.
For longer haul distances, over about 60 ft, the Multi-
Mover outperformed the crawler tractor because of its
faster travel.
For a test of excavation ability, the Multi-Mover and
crawler tractor No. 3 (19,325 lb unladen) were taken
to the Black Canyon site where an area had been excavated
to a dense hardpan material. The crawler tractor equipped
with a 1-1/4 yd front bucket having ripper teeth was
unable to excavate this material at all, there not being
sufficient traction for the flat-type tracks. (The
heavier crawler tractor No. 1 was scheduled for this
test, but was under repair.) The Multi-Mover excavated
a trench approximately 4 ft deep by 12 ft wide by 50
ft long in this material in 3 hr. The amount of material
excavated, as measured by survey of the deposited material,
3
was 107 yd for an average excavation rate of about
3
35 yd /hr of dense, cemented hardpan.
-63-
-------
Figure 9. Multi-Mover Performing Excavation at Black Canyon Site
-------
5. Speed, maneuverability} and handling--The Multi-Mover
speeds on level ground were the same for loaded (3 yd\
7500 lb) and unloaded conditions as shown below:
Maximum at 2400 RPM Average at 2200 RPM on Landfill
1st gear (Fwd and Rev) 3.9 mph 1st gear 3.0 mph
2nd gear (Fwd and Rev) 9.5 mph 2nd gear 6.2 mph
3rd gear (Fwd and Rev) 30 mph 3rd gear not used
Maneuverability of the Multi-Mover for most landfill
operations was good because its direction could be reversed
immediately and it could travel at the same speeds in
forward and reverse for spreading and compacting opera-
tions. For right angle turns during highway travel
or for instances where the machine was turned around
on the landfill, maneuverability was poor. The turning
radius is 39.5 ft to the left and 56.5 ft to the right.
This requires a large clear space to complete a turn
on a landfill and a wide swinq to complete right angle
turns during highway travel without backing up.
Generally the Multi-Mover has the good low speed control
needed for landfill service. Sneeds over about 8 miles
per hour on an uneven surface crave an uncomfortable
ride and bouncing action because of the heavy, stiff
springs; otherwise, the machine crave an acceptable ride.
Speeds for crawler tractors at rated governed RPM were
as follows:
-65-
-------
Crawler Tractor No. 1 with 1-1/4 yd Bucket Loader-Unloaded
Forward
Reverse
Gear
(MPH)
(MP1I)
1st
1.5
1.8
2nd
1.9
2.3
3rd
2.5
3.2
4th
3.3
4.1
5th
4.3
5.3
6 th
5.8
7.1
Crawler Tractor No. 2 with 1-1/4 yd Bucket Loader-Unloaded
Speed
Gear
(MPH)
Low Reverse
2.0
High Reverse
4.1
1st
1.5
2nd
2.4
3rd
3.3
4th
5.5
Crawler Tractor No. 3 with 1-1/4 yd Bucket Loader
Gear
Low Reverse
High Reverse
1st
2nd
3rd
4 th
5 th
Speed-Unloaded
(MPI1)
1.75
3.4
1.62
2.27
Inoperative
4.01
5.68
Speed-Loaded, yd"
2500 lb (MPH)
1.75
3.4
1.62
2.23
Inoperative
3.78
3.68
-66-
-------
Maneuverability of the crawler tractors for landfill
service was very good since they were able to both reverse
and turn in their own length by stopping one track and
powering the other. Regulations prohibit highway travel
with the crawler tractors under their own power; however,
their low speed makes this an uneconomical long distance
travel mode. Any speed over about 3 miles per hour
on an uneven surface produced a rough, uncomfortable
ride. The crawler tractors were easily started and
responded well to the controls.
Highway travel--Highway travel of the Multi-Mover was
evaluated in comparison to the crawler tractors, which
required trucking, by separate trips to the Central
Cove and Black Canyon landfills. These data are summarized
in Table 10.
In other highway travel the Multi-Mover was driven from
Nampa to Cougar Mountain Lodge, Idaho and back. On that
trip the following data were obtained on highway travel:
Total distance traveled
(hill & mountains, dry highway) 164 miles
Maximum speed attained 30 mph
Average speed 18 mph
Actual travel time, 164 miles 9 hr
Average fuel consumption 3.36 gal/hr
Mileage (includes fuel used for snow
work and idling during stops) 3.5 miles/gal
Tire wear 1/16 in. on
front tires.
None on rear
tires.
-67-
-------
TABLE 10
HIGHWAY TRAVEL—MULTI-MOVER VERSUS CRAWLER TRACTOR
PARAMETER
Multi-Mover
Crawler Tractor
on Low-Boy
One-Way Distance 12 miles
Shortest Time, One-Way 1 hr 3 min
Total Round-Trip Time 2 hr 9 min
Load-Unload Time
Average Travel Speed,
MPH
Total Cost
Cost/Mile
(1)
0
11-2
$ 19.92
$ 0.83
15 miles 12 miles 15 miles
1 hr 3 min 1 hr 3 min 1 hr 5 min
2 hr 30 min 2 hr 12 min 2 hr 10 min
2 3 min
0
12
§ 24.90
$ 0.83
10.9
$ 63.86
$ 2.66
25 min
13.8
$ 63.73
$ 2.12
(1)
Includes $ 52.00 fee for lowboy rental to move tractor, operator's
time, equipment depreciation and fuel.
-68-
-------
While the maximum speed attainable is 30 mph, slow steer-
ing response while traveling downhill and stiff, undamped
springing dictated a safe maximum speed of about 20 mph.
The large turnino radius required extra care while man-
euvering sharp corners. In general, the machine performs
well in highway travel; braking is good and steering is
smooth at the recommended safe maximum speed. On short
trips of 5 to 30 miles, fuel consumption was 3.0 miles
per gallon.
1. Snow removal--While at Cougar Mountain Lodge, during
April 1970, the Multi-Mover was used to plow, load,
and unload snow (Figure 10). Operations was good even
though heavy spring snow conditions prevailed. The
machine easily loaded, unloaded, and plowed snow. Plow-
ing was hindered by lack of traction where snow over
slick ice was encountered. When traction was lost, the
machine regained mobility by using the claw to back out
and resume plowing. Sufficient wheel clearance for the
mounting of. chains to improve traction under these condi-
tions would have been beneficial.
8. Miscellaneous observations of machine performance--Dur-
ing the field evaluation of the Multi-Mover the following
general observations on the machine performance were noted:
-69-
-------
Figure 10.
Multi—Mover Performing Snow Removal Operations Near Cougar Mountain Lodge, Idaho
-------
a. Until protected with.guards, the universal joints
would readily pick up discarded wire on a landfill,
which would foul the drive shaft. After guards were
installed, no further problems were experienced with
wire.
b. The tires were considerably abraiaed by glass and
sharp metal in the refuse. Cuts in the tread up
to 1/2 in. deep were observed, but they did not cause
flat tires or noticeably impair tire function or
traction. One flat tire was experienced from puncture
by a large nail.
c. Several hydraulic leaks developed in difficult-to-
reach areas. These leaks were never completely stopped.
Similar leaks occurred in hydraulic equipment on
the crawler tractors but were generally more accessi-
ble for repair.
d. The Multi-Mover was able to move and compact large
amounts of waste rapidly. During a period when the
crawler tractors were undergoing repair, the Multi-
3
Mover was used to move approximately 1475 yd of
2
refuse and compact it in a 10,000 ft area in 1-
1/2 hr. During this operation the Multi-Mover routinely
moved several loads of refuse up to 30 yd"^ each approxi-
mately 300 ft across loose refuse that was 6 to 7
ft deep. In contrast,the crawler tractors were able
3
to move only about 6 to 8 yd under these conditions.
-71-
-------
e. The Multi-Mover had good traction on loose refuse.
Although it could no doubt be stuck under some conditions
(as can a crawler tractor), it did not get stuck
during the performance evaluations.
f. The position of the operator is such that he cannot
see the cutting depth of the blade on the box. This
made it difficult to do good grading work.
g. The Multi-Mover loaded most efficiently on level
runs. The design of the machine favors this operation
over loading from a stockpile.
h. The exhaust stack temperature limitation (1350 °F
max.) prevented steady use of the engine at the rated
2400 rpn. Operation for over a few minutes generally
had to be done at 1900 rpm. This prevented use of
full engine power.
i. The transmission had a tendency to overheat when
subjected to more than about 1/2 hr of heavy work.
The transmission is an older model with a small oil
cooler, using the engine radiator fluid for cooling
by convection flow. Later models of this transmission
are equipped with separate oil cooling radiators.
Operating Costs. Data obtained on fuel consumption
usage and other operating cost data for the Multi-Mover are
incorporated and evaluated in the systems analysis section
of this report.
-72-
-------
It should be pointed out that data obtained on the repair
costs of both the Multi-Mover and the crawler tractors were
higher than would be normally incurred for equipment of these
types. Both crawler tractors involved in the majority of
the comparison testing were older models in poor condition
and consequently required maintenance at a higher than normal
rate. They were under repair or awaiting parts for repair
approximately 50% of the time. Use of this costing data
would not provide realistic cost projections typical of crawler
tractor operations. Instead, typical maintenance costs of
crawler tractors obtained from equipment maintenance were
utilized as discussed in the section on systems analysis.
The Multi-Mover, though overhauled at the start of the project,
was not restored to completely new condition. The original
transmission and engine, for example, though worn, were indicated
to be capable of performing satisfactorily during the test
period. The total repair costs on the Multi-Mover from October
1969 to October 1970 were $7,522. The major items of repair
were:
1. overhaul of the transmission (required removing the
box from the frame of the machine).
2. Replacing front hydraulic nump.
3. Replacing cracked engine head including new firing
cups.
4. Repairing fuel injector line leaks.
5. Cleaning olugged fuel injector lines.
-7 3-
-------
6. Replacing transmission oil seal.
7. Adjusting ejection nate and hydraulic divider valve
to qate cylinders.
3. Repairing broken hydraulic hose.
9. Repairing broken weld on claw arm.
10. Repairing flat tire.
11. Rewiring and repairing battery, charging circuit.
12. Repairing miscellaneous hydraulic leaks.
Many of these Multi-Mover maintenance costs were unusual,
not representative --- particularly the complete transmission
overhaul, replacement of the front hydraulic pump, replacement
of the cracked engine head, and repairs and cleaning of the
fuel injection lines. Aqain, maintenance costs typical of
similar equipment were used in the systems analysis to enable
comparison on a more representative basis.
Phase III — Systems Analysis
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Multi-Mover and Crawler
Tractor. The primary purpose of this analysis is to compare
the cost-effectiveness of a multi-functional earthmoving
machine (Multi-Mover? with a crawler tractor. The operating
rates and costs developed in the course of this analysis
were employed as input parameters for a computerized transporta-
tion model used to evaluate the economics of servicing several
landfill sites in a sparsely populated area.
-74-
-------
A total of 473 questionnaires were mailed to sparsely
populated counties and small towns and cities in the Pacific
Northwest and Northern California to determine the type of
equipment presently used in landfill operations. The results
of the survey indicate the use of a wide variety of equipment,
3
ranging in size from a small agricultural tractor to 20 yd
capacity scrapers. The most frequently used equipment is
a medium size (25,000 to 40,000 lb) crawler tractor equipped
with either a bulldozer blade or a bucket loader. Several
of those responding reported the use of equipment larger
than usually recommended for landfills of the size they oper-
ate. This is attributable to the fact that many landfills
are operated by county and municipal governments that mini-
mize equipment inventory by sharing equipment between land-
fill operations and road work; road construction and main-
tenance requires the larger capacity equipment.
Method of Analysis. The first step in the analysis was to
develop an operations flow diagram to establish the various
operations required in a sanitary landfill and their relation-
ships. The operations were chosen to provide a reasonable
balance between the detail required for validity and ease
of data collection and manipulation. To facilitate comparisons
of productivity under normal landfill conditions, some of
the operations were combined into groups, or tasks. A task
consists of the operations required to perform a comrion
-75-
-------
landfill function, such as excavating a cell. Each task
and its component operations are listed in Table 11 in order
of their performance.
Certain operations may exist as alternative tasks. For
example, in a trench-type operation, after a load of material
is excavated fron the trench it may be transported to either
a stockpile for dumping or to a partially completed cell
for spreading to a controlled depth. The flow will depend
on the specific requirements and operating policies of the
particular site.
Data obtained from test site time and motion studies
were used to develop average time coefficients for each task.
Table 11 shows the time per unit work for each operation
and each task for both the Multi-Mover and the crawler tractor.
The Multi-Mover is faster than the crawler tractor in performing
every task. The performance parameters were developed from
time and motion data collected under controlled conditions.
The Multi-Mover is more than twice as fast as the crawler
tractor in spreading waste. This "is due to the larqe blade
area of the Multi-Mover compared to the small bucket on the
crawler tractor. J.'ad the crawler tractor been equipped with
a bulldozer or trash blade the comparison would have been
more equal. Both machines tended to catch and tear loose
waste that had already been spread. The operator of the
crawler tractor could see this happen and correct it by
-76-
-------
TABLE 11
LANDFILL TASKS AND OPERATIONS PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS FOR MULTI-MOVER AND CRAWLER TRACTOR
TASKS
OPERATIONS
Performance Parameter
Performance Parameter
Tasks
Multi-Mover
Crawler Tractor
Operation
Multi-Mover
Crawler Tractor
Excavate cell
Spread waste
Compact waste
Spread cover
from stockpile
t =
(0.045 d +
54) sec
yd3
10 sec/yd
8.1 sec/yd"
t = 0.06 d + 44
t = (0.38 d +
39) sec
yd3
23.1 sec/yd~
14.3 sec/yd"
t = 0.38 d + 39
Spread excavated t = 0.045 d + 54 t = 0.38 d + 47
cover
Compact cover
0.115 sec
ft2
0.169 sec/ft
Load earth
Transport to stock pile
Unload
Return to cell
Spread waste
Compact waste
Travel to stockpile
Load cover
Transport to cell
Spread
Travel to stockpile
Load cover
Transport to cell
Travel to excavation
Compact cover
Note: d = one-way hauling distance in feet.
3
3 yd in 90 sec
t = 0.081 d +
5.5 sec
3
3 yd in 60 sec
t = 0.054 d x 6.4
sec
6.0 yd3/min
3
7.4 yd /min
t = 0.054 d +
6.4 sec
2-1/4 yd3 in
42 sec
t = 0.081 d + 5.5
sec
2-1/4 yd3 in 45
sec
t = 0.054 d +
6.4 sec
3 yd^ in 90 sec
t = 0.081 d +
5.5 sec
t = 0.054 d + 6.4
sec
3
3 yd in 60 sec
52 3 ft^/min
1-1/4 yd in 30 :
t = 0.24 d + 2 s<
1-1/4 yd3 in 15 :
t = 0.24 d f 2 S'
2.6 yd /min
4.2 yd3/min
t = 0.24 d + 2 s
1-1/4 yd3 in 20
t = 0.24 d + 2 s
1-1/4 yd in 25
t = 0.24 d + 2 s
1-1/4 yd3 in 30
t = 0.24 d + 2 s
t = 0.24 d + 2 s
1-1/4 yd in 25
355 ft^/min
-------
lifting the bucket to drop the offending object(s). The
operator of the Multi-Mover frequently could not sec the
blade area, and even if he did, the Multi-Mover's box could
not be lifted high enough to drop a large object. The crawler
tractor was frequently able to produce smoother waste cells,
particularly when the waste included bulky objects such as
tires. The difficulties caused by the Multi-Mover's maxi-
mum blade height were compounded by a tendency for the wheels
to sink into soft areas of the cell, effectively lowering
the blade and digging up already-compacted waste.
The Multi-Mover was operated by several different people
in the course of making the time and motion studies, and
no one operated the machine long enough to become really
proficient in its operation. On the other hand the operators
of the crawler tractors were well experienced in operation
of their machines in landfills. Although efforts were made
to discount data taken when the Multi-Mover operators were
unfamilar with the machine's operation, it is expected that
the data are somewhat biased in favor of the crawler tractor.
The task time data which depend on haul distance were
handled in the following manner: Observed times were recorded
for several different haul distances and then a least-squares
linear regression analysis was used to determine the equation
of the regression line. This approach was used to simplify
later modeling of the tasks for various haul distances and
-78-
-------
the determination of breakeven points. A typical set of
experimental data is presented in Table 12 along with the val-
ues calculated with use of the regression line. The percentage
differences between the calculated and measured values are
also given.
Cost Estimation — Multi-Mover. Table 13 summarizes
the derivation of the hourly operating costs for the Multi-
Mover. The selling prices of $45,000 is based on estimates
of production costs made in 1967. These costs were modified
to reflect the inflation in producers' durable equipment-
construction machinery as given by the U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Survey of Current Business,
July 1970. The estimated 1970 manufacturing cost is $30,000.
The total cost of promotion, distribution, service under war-
ranty, profit, and related selling costs is estimated at 50%
of the total manufacturing cost, bringing the total selling
price to $45,000.
The cost of capital was assumed to be 8% annually and
the insurance rate was assumed to be 1% of the new value of
the machine per year. The salvage value of the machine after
10,000 hr was estimated at 25% of the original selling price.
Operating expenses were estimated by applying the current
costs of fuel and lubricating oils in the Richland, Washington
area to consumption rates based on equipment manufacturer's
estimates for similar-sized equipment. This approach was
-79-
-------
TABLE 12'
CALCULATED AND MEASURED TRAVEL TIMES FOR LADEN MULTI-MOVER
Calculated Measured
Distance Time Time Difference
(ft) (sec) (sec) (_%)
50 9.6 10.0 4.0
100 13.6 11.6 -14.7
200 21.7 23.0 6.0
500 46.0 47.6 -3.5
1000 86.5 90.0 4.0
-80-
-------
TABLE 13
SUMMARY OF MULTI-MOVER HOURLY OPERATING COSTS
10,000 hour useful lifetime over 5 years
5-Year
Total
Initial cost (excluding sales tax) $ 45,000
Interest @ 8% annual rate 10,035
Insurance 2,250
Total $ 57,285
Less salvage value 11,250
Net capital cost (owning expense) $ 46,035
Fuel @4.5 gal/hr and $0.188/gal
Tires @ $500 each and 2000 hr life
8000-hr major overhaul 1,500
Repairs and labor @ 20% of initial cost
Lubricants, etc.
Total hourly operating expense
Total hourly owning and operating
expense
-81-
-------
chosen in preference to relying on actual operating data
since numerous•minor problems with various svstems were encount-
ered, which resulted in abnormally high .consumption of transmission
fluid, hydraulic oil and diesel fuel. The present design
of the machine does not offer reliability equal to
competitive equipment now on the market. Redesign to make
reliability and longevity comparable to that of currently
available equipment is considered a prerequisite to successful
marketing of the machine. This would also result in lubricant
and hydraulic fluid use rates similar to currently marketed
machinery.
Actual maintenance costs observed during the test program
were not considered reasonable estimates of those which
could be expected for a production version of the Multi-
Mover. The maintenance cost estimate was derived from those
suggested'by the manufacturers of currently available equinment.
Since the estimate is expressed as a percentage of the owning
expense, the complexity of the Multi-Mover is reflected in
the owning expense and the absolute maintenance cost is nro~
oortionately higher than that for the wheeled loaders on
which the Dercentages were based. The overhaul cost and
time period were similarly derived.
Tire life was particularly difficult to estimate because
of the expected multiple use of the Multi-Mover (i.e., on
highways, haul roads, and waste cells^. If the Multi-Mover
-82-
-------
were used to haul maximum loads of cover material moderate
distances at hiqhway speeds, tire life would be only a small
fraction of that which would be expected if the same time
was spent at lower speeds and short hauls on landfill haul
roads. (The section of this report entitled "Sensitivity
of Cost Estimates to Initial Assumptions" discusses the effect
of errors in estimation of any parameter on the total esti-
mate of cost-effectiveness.) An estimate of 2000 hr average
tire life was chosen after discussions with several dealers
of tires for heavy equipment.
No estimate of taxes was included in the cost estimates
because this will of course vary from state to state. If
the Multi-Mover is to be used on the public highways it will
require some type of vehicle license. The fee and licensing
structure will vary from state to state, and for this reason,
it is not included in the analysis. State and federal high-
way taxes, which would have to be paid on the fuel used for
highway travel, are not included for the same reason. Fuel
taxes are included in the cost of operating the tractor-
trailer for transporting the crawler tractor, because those
taxes are included in the sales price of the gasoline; however,
no other taxes or license fees are included.
Cost Estimation — Crawler Tractor. Table 14 summarizes
the hourly operating costs for a crawler tractor with a front
end loader. The initial cost of $24,000 was the estimate
-83-
-------
TABLE 14
SUMMARY OF CRAWLER TRACTOR OPERATING COSTS
10,000 hour lifetime over 5 years
5-Year
Total . $/Hr
Initial cost (excluding sales tax) $ .24,000
Interest @ 8% annual rate 5,350
Insurance 1,200
Total $ 30,550
Less salvage value 7,500
Net capital cost $ 23,050 $ 2.30
(owning expense)
Fuel @4.0 gal/hr and $ 0.188/gal 0.75
5000-hr major overhaul 7,500 0.75
Repairs and labor @ 55% of initial cost 1.32
Lubricants, etc. 0.22
Total hourly operating expense 3.04
Total hourly owning and operating expense $ 5.34
-84-
-------
obtained from the manufacturer's representative. Interest,
insurance, and salvage value were estimated in the same manner
as those for the Multi-Mover.
The fuel, lubrication, and hydraulic fluid use rates
were obtained from the manufacturer's representative and
costs are based on current prices for the Richland, Washington
area. These costs will vary with location and supplier.
The manufacturer's estimates were used in preference to observed
values for two reasons: first, to make the estimating procedure
for the crawler tractor and Multi-Mover as similar as possible,
and second, because the crawler tractor was in a poor state
of repair during the testing, the use rates and maintenance
costs encountered were not expected to be typical of those
which would be experienced over the entire lifetime of the
machine.
The literature received from the manufacturer estimated
repairs and maintenance expense at 90% of the owning expense
and did not include separate estimates for major overhaul
of the machine. Cost of a 5000 hr major overhaul was estimated
at y7,500 and the 90% figure was adjusted downward to reflect
this change. After this change the repair and maintenance
expenses estimate was found to be reasonably consistent with
the rates suggested by other manufacturers of crawler tractors.
Sensitivity Analysis. The results of a cost-effectiveness
analysis depend on the estimates of cost and productivity.
-85-
-------
Since the cost and productivity estimates are based partially
on assumptions and engineering estimates rather than entirely
on historical data, it is appropriate to investigate the
sensitivity of the final estimates to changes in each component.
Tables 15 and 16 show the major components of cost for
the Multi-Mover and the crawler tractor, respectively, and
for four levels of cost aggregation: Capital Cost, Operating
and Maintenance Cost (fuel, lubricants, repairs and maintenance
costs), Total Machine Cost (Capital Cost plus Operating and
Maintenance Cost) and Total Operating Cost (Total Machine
Cost plus operator's wages and benefits). The body, of each
table shows the effect on the aggregated cost of a 10% change
in the component cost. (Negative figures indicate that an
increase in a component value results in a decrease in aggra-
gated cost.) For instance, in Table 15, if the hourly cost
of fuel is increased by 10% (i.e., from $0.85 to $0.94/hr),
the Operating and Maintenance Cost increases by 2.6%, the
Total Machine Cost increases by 1.1% and the Total Operating
Cost increases by 0.7%. The capital cost is unaffected.
The percentages given in these tables are both linear
and additive. A 20% increase in a component cost will affect
the aggregated costs twice as much as a 10% increase. The
individual effects of simultaneous changes in two or more
components may simply be summed to determine their joint effect on
an aggregate. For example, the effect on Multi-Mover's Total
-86-
-------
TABLE 15
EFFECT OF 10% CHANGE IN COMPONENT COSTS
ON. AGGREGATED COSTS FOR THE MULTI-MOVER
Effect in % of
a +10% Change in Component Cost Estimate
Operating Total Total
Estimated Capital Maintenance Machine Operating
Component Cost Value Cost Cost Cost Cost
Purchase price
Interest 5-yr total
Insurance 5-yr total
Salvage value
Fuel cost/hr
Tire cost/hr
Lubricant, etc/hr
Repairs & maint./hr
Major overhaul
Operator's cost/hr
$ 45,000 9.8
10,035 2.2
2,250 0.5
11,250 -2.4
0.85 NE
1.00 NE
0.32 NE
0.90 NE
1,500 NE
3.75 NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
2.6
3.1
1.0
.2.8
0.5
NE
7.3
1.3
0.3
-1.4
1.1
1.3
0.4
1.2
0.2
NE
4.9
0.9
0.2
-1.0
0.7
0.9
0. 3
0.8
0.1
3.2
N.E. = no effect.
-87-
-------
TABLE 16
EFFECT OF A 10% CHANGE IN COMPONENT COSTS
ON AGGREGATED COSTS FOR THE CRAWLER TRACTOR
Component Cost
Effect in % of
a 10% Change in Component Cost Estimate
Operating Total Total
Estimated Capital Maintenance Machine Operating
Value Cost Cost Cost Cost
Purchase price
Interest 5-yr total
Insurance 5-yr total
Salvage value
Fuel cost/hr
Lubricants, etc./hr
Repairs R maint./hr
Major overhaul
Operator's cost/hr
$ 24,000
5,350
1,200
7,500
13.2
2.3
0.5
-3.3
0.75 N.E.
0.22 N.E.'
1.32 N.E.
7,500 N.E.
3.75 N.E.
N.E.
N.E.
N.E.
N.E.
2.5
0.7
4.3
2.5
N.E.
5.7 ¦
1.0
0.2
-1.4
1.4
0.4
2.5
1.4
N.E.
3.4
0.6
0.1
-0.8
0.8
0.2
1.4
0.8
4.1
N.E. = No effect.
-88-
-------
Machine Cost of a 15% increase in insurance cost and a
11 decrease in tire costs would be determined as follows:
^ x 0.3 + ^ x 1.3 = -0.46
a 46/100 of one percent decrease in Total Machine Cost.
The Multi-Mover and the crawler tractor are more highly
sensitive to the purchase price than to any other single
component cost, with the Multi-Mover being slightly more
sensitive. This results because the operating and maintenance
costs of the two machines are nearly equal (at $3.22/hr and
$3.04/hr for the Multi-Mover and the crawler tract6r, re-
spectively) while the Multi-Mover's purchase price is nearly
twice that of the crawler tractor. This affects the other
capital-related costs such as interest and insurance. The
sensitivity of the Multi-Mover's costs to the purchase price
is unfortunate because the purchase price is the most difficult
of the costs to estimate. Although the manufacturing cost
of the machine can be estimated with a reasonable degree
of confidence, the costs of promoting and distributing the
machine are more difficult to estimate. These costs depend
on the firm marketing the machine, whether the marketing
is done through an established manufacturer of heavy machinery,
what financial backing is available to the enterprise, and
the reputation of the marketing organization.
-89-
-------
Tire cost per hour was another difficult factor to assess
with any degree of certainty. Experience with the prototype
machine is not particularly enlightening for several reasons:
first, the size of the existing planetary hubs fitted to
the machine made it impossible to use tires rated for the
maximum gross weight of the machine; second, the machine
has not been operated a sufficient number of hours to make
a reasonable assessment of the average tire life; .third,
the actual life of the tires will depend greatly on the par-
ticular conditions under which the Multi-Mover is operated.
For example, any appreciable amount,of hauling cover material
at highway speeds will shorten tire life. Fortunately, the
total operating cost is not overly sensitive to the tire
cost and would increase less than 9% if the per hour cost
of tires were doubled.
The crawler tractor costs were more sensitive to repairs
and maintenance, major overhaul, and operator's costs. Repairs,
maintenance and overhauls tend to be more expensive for trackr
type vehicles than for wheeled vehicles. Crawler tractors
generally require at least one major overhaul of the complex
and expensive undercarriage in their 10,000 hr lifetime,
in addition to the general power plant overhaul required
by both wheeled and tracked machines. The undercarriage
is also the prime reason for higher cost of routine repairs
and maintenance for the crawler tractors.
-90-
-------
The cost-effectiveness evaluation is based on estimates
of costs and productivity (unit of work per unit of time).
There are certain basic tasks which must be performed in
the operation of any landfill. As an example, one task in
a trench-type landfill is digging the trench. One likely
series of operations for a crawler tractor would be; (1)
fill bucket with earth, (2) drive tractor to stockpile, (3)
dump earth on stockpile (4) drive back to cell, and (5) repeat
steps 1 through 4 as required to obtain the size trench desired.
Other levels of breakdown are also possible. Tt would of
course be possible to break step 2 down into steps ^uch as
shifting gears, manipulating the steering clutches and so
on, but this can lead to a complex procedure for estimating
the time required to perform the major tasks. Therefore,
the level of major breakdown was selected to qive accurate
results without requiring unreasonable effort in either data
collection or analysis. Greater detail in defining the opera-
tions would mean that hypothetical cases for comparison would
have to be specified in correspondingly areater detail. Since
the operations will not be carried out in exactly the same
way each time, it is appropriate to examine the effect of
each operation in the tasks on which the cost-effectiveness
comparisons will be primarily based. Table 11 showed the
operations for which performance data was obtained and the
-91-
-------
grouping of these operations into major tasks. Tables 17 and
18 are analogous to Tables 15 and 16 and show the effects that
a change in the estimation of one operation's performance
parameter will have on the major tasks. As an example, a 10%
increase in the Multi-Mover's cover spreading time will result
in a 3.2% increase in the time required to spread and compact
cover when the cover is excavated as needed. The factors
given in Tables 17 and 18 may be used to estimate the effects
of specific operating conditions; for example, from Table 13,
if the site under consideration has a soil which has a high
percentage of clay and we feel that this will cause a 25%
increase in loading times, we can determine the percentage
increase in time required to excavate a trench as follows, using
Table 18:
(4.1 x 25/10) = 10.3.
Since the times required to perform several of the opera-
tions are functions of the haul distance, it is important to
assess the effect of this distance on the various sensitivities.
The effects of haul distance on the sensitivities of the tasks
"Excavate Trench" and "Spread Cover from Stockpile and Compact"
to a 10% change in operation times are shown in Tables 19 and
20. Increasing the haul distance decreases the sensitivity
to changes in loading, spreading, and dumping times for both
machines, but the effect is more apparent for the crawler
tractor. As that portion of the time required for hauling
-92-
-------
TABLE 17
EFFECT OF A 10% CHANGE IN OPERATION TIMES
ON "MAJOR TASK TIMES FOR THE MULTI-MOVER
Effect in % of a 10% Change in Operation Time
Operation
Excavate
Trench
Spread and Spread and
Spread and Compact Compact
Compact Cover From Cover From
Waste Stockpile Excavation
Loading time (scraping) 5.3 N.E.
Loading time
(vertical bank) N.E. N.E.
Optimum load (scraping) -1.0 N.E.
Optimum load
(vertical bank) N.E. N.E.
Travel time (empty) 0.5 N.E.
Travel time (loaded) 0.6 N.E.
Cover spreading time N.E. N.E.
Cover dumping time 3.6 N.E.
Waste spreading time N.E. 5.5
Waste compacting time N.E. 4.5
Cover compacting time N.E. N.E.
N.E.
3.5
N.E.
-1.4
0.8
0.8
3.8
N.E.
N.E.
N.E.
1.2
4.8
N.E.
-0.9
N.E.
0.5
0.5
3.2
N.E.
N.E.
N.E.
1.0
N.E. = No effect.
-93-
-------
Operation
TABLE 18
EFFECT OF A 10% CHANGE IN OPERATION TIMES
ON MAJOR TASK TIMES FOR THE CRAWLER TRACTOR
Effect in % of a 10% Change in Operation Time
Spread and Spread and
Compact Compact
Spread and Cover Cover
Excavate Compact From From
Trench Waste Stockpile Excavation
Loading time (scraping) 4.1 N.E.
Loading time
(vertical bank) N.E. N.E.
Optimum load (scraping) -6.7 N.E.
Optimum load
(vertical bank) N.E. N.E.
Travel time (empty) 1.9 N.E.
Travel time (loaded) 1.9 N.E.
Cover spreading time N.E. N.E.
Cover dumping time 2.0 N.E.
Waste spreading time N.E. 6.2
Waste compacting time N.E. 3.8
Cover compacting time N.E. N.E.
N.E.
2.4
N.E.
-3.0
1.7
1.7
2.9
N.E.
N.E.
N.E.
1.4
3.2
N.E.
-5.2
N.E.
1.5
1.5
2.6
N.E.
N.E.
N.E.
N.E.
N.E. = No effect.
-94-
-------
TABLE 19
SENSITIVITY OF "EXCAVATE TRENCH" TASK TO A 10% CHANGE
IN OPERATION TIMES FOR SEVERAL HAUL DISTANCES
Multi-Mover
% of Change for Haul Distances
Parameter Affected 50 ft 100 ft 500 ft 1000 ft
Loading time
5.34
5.13
3.92
3.03
Optimum load
-1.01
-1.32
-3.15
-4.50
Travel time
1.11
1.44
3.47
4.96
Spread & dump time
3.56
3.42
2.62
2.02
Crawler Tractor
% of Change
for Haul
Distances
Parameter Affected
50 ft
100 ft
500 ft
1000 ft
Loading time
4.11
3.09
1.04
0.57
Optimum load
-3.49
-4.87
-7.68
-8.32
Travel time
3.82
5. 36
8.44
9.16
Spread and dump time
2.05
1.55
0.52
0.28
-95-
-------
TABLE 20
SENSITIVITY OF "SPREAD COVER FROM STOCKPILE AND COMPACT"
TASK TO A 10% CHANGE IN OPERATION TIMES FOR SEVERAL HAUL DISTANCES
Multi-Mover
% of
Change for Haul
Distances
Parameter Affected
50 ft
100 ft
500 ft
1000 ft
Loading time
3.51
3.32
2.33
1.69
Optimum load
-1.42
-1.83
-4.00
-5. 39
Travel time
1.57
2.02
4.40
5.93
Spread and dump times
3. 76
3.56
2.50
1.82
Compact cover time
1.17
1.10
0.77
0.56
Crawler Tractor
% of-
Change for Haul
Distances
Parameter Affected
50- f.t
100 ft
500 ft
1000 ft
Loading time
2.37
1.84
0.67
0.37
Optimum load
-3.02
-4.36
-7.38
-8.14
Travel time
3. 32
4.78
8.12
8.96
Spread and dump times
2.96
2. 31
0.83
0.46
Compact cover time
1.35
• 1.05
0.38
0.21
-96-
-------
increases, increasing the speed at which the machine is cap-
able of loading and emptying becomes less and less effective
in reducing total time. This is emphasized for the crawler
tractor since its speed is slower and its load and unload times
are less significant. As expected, sensitivity to changes
in travel time and optimum load increase with longer haul
distances and this effect is more pronounced for Multi-Mover
than for the crawler tractor.
Comparison of Cost-Effectiveness. The estimates of
the costs associated with the operation of each machine and
the times required to perform typical landfill operations
were combined into one set of cost-effectiveness parameters.
There are several different cost parameters as well as different
performance parameters which may provide relevant comparisons
between the two machines. The most important of these is
the total cost/unit work performed. Others which might be
of interest include the fixed expense/unit work or fixed
expense/yr, operating cost/unit work and labor cost/unit
work.
The Multi-Mover's cost/unit work is lower than that of
the crawler tractor for the waste spreading, waste compacting
and cover compacting operations (Table 21). The cost/unit
work for the other operations depends on the distances involved.
(Figures 11, 12, and 13 compare the cost/unit work of the
Multi-Mover and crawler tractor in excavating trenches,
-97-
-------
TABLE 21
COST/UNIT WORK FOR MULTI-MOVER AND CRAWLER TRACTOR
Task
Multi-Mover
Crawler Tractor
Excavate trench
Spread waste
Compact waste
Spread cover from
stockpile
Spread cover from
excavation
Compact cover
Travel between sites
(0.144 d(1)+ 173)
dollars
1000 yd3 excavated
3 (2)
$32.10/1000 yd looseK '
$26.00/1000 yd'
loose/pass
dollars
(0.192 d + 141)
(0.144 d + 173)
dollars
1000 yd"
dollars
1000 yd"
$0.37/1000 ft2/pass(3)
$0.83/mile
(0.96 .d + 98) 1000 yd3
excavated
$58.30/1000 yd loose
,3
$36.10/1000 yd'
loose/pass
dollars
<0-96 d + 98)1000 yd3
dollars
(0.96 d + 119)l000 yj3
$0.43/1000 ft^/pass
$0.52/mile + $3.64
(1) d = one-way haul distance from-trench or cell to stockpile or
other cell.
(2) Waste spreading and compaction fiqures are based on as-delivered
volumes of waste. This was delivered pritnariiy by compactor-
type collection vehicles, and yardages are based on as-delivered
volume and not on volumes loaded into the trucks.
(3) A pass is defined as a series of trips across the area to be
compacted so that the entire area receives one tire or track
mark.
-98-
-------
3
Figure 11. Cost/yd Excavated vs Haul
Distance to Stockpile
300
HAUL DISTANCE (FT)
Figure 12.
Cost/yd Spread from Stockpile
vs Haul Distance from Stockpile
to Cell
-------
Figure 13. Cost/yd Excavated Cover
Spread vs Haul Distance
to Cell
HIGHWAY COSTS INCLUDE OPERATING AND
CAPITAL COSTS OF A TRACTOR AND LOWBOY
AND OPERATOR. CRAWLER TRACTOR CAPITAL
AND OPERATING COSTS ARE INCLUDED FOR
THE TIME REQUIRED TO LOAD AND UNLOAD
THE CRAWLER. /
MULT I-MOVER
CRAWLER TRACTOR *
I 11.7
10 20 30
DISTANCE (WILIS)
40
50
Figure 14. Transporting Cost vs
Distance for Multi-Mover
and Crawler Tractor
-------
spreading cover from a stockpile, and spreading cover from
an excavation, respectively.) The breakeven points (i.e.,
the distances at which the cost of doing the work with the
Multi-Mover is equal to that of doing the work with the crawler
tractor) vary from 56 ft for spreading stockpiled cover mater-
ial to 92 ft for excavating trenches. The Multi-Mover's
cost/mile of highway travel is lower for distances shorter
than 11.7 miles (Figure 14). The crawler tractor is more
economical at short haul distances because of its faster
loading and dumping times. Multi-Mover's greater speed
and payload make it the more economical of the two machines
at longer haul distances. These breakeven distances are
all within the range that would be encountered in many land-
fill operations. If several landfills were being considered
for service by the same machine, the crawler might be slightly
more economical at some sites and the Multi-Mover at others.
In general, it is not possible to say that either machine
should prove superior consistently in normal landfill opera-
tions for these tasks; the economics would depend on the
circumstances at the particular landfill.
Systems of landfills for sparsely populated areas are
usually planned with a goal of providing a disposal site
within 8 to 15 miles of each resident in the area. In Canyon
County, for example, the goal of a recent plan was a maximum
distance of 12 miles. In general, the average distance
-101-
-------
between sites will be something less than thwice the
maximum distance any resident is expected to travel.
This will vary substantially with the topography and road
network of a given area. Whether the Multi-Mover or crawler
tractor is the more economical will depend on the specific
situation.
The performance parameters used in this study have some
limitations. The times required for each of the operations
were obtained under controlled test conditions and do not
exactly reflect normal landfill operations. In actual prac-
tice the operator cannot possibly operate at maximum efficiency
and concentration at all times. During the data collection,
the operator was instructed to work at his normal pace but
it is not realistic to assume he could maintain this pace
all day. There should be consideration in normal operation.
Rest stops and the like would take their toll, and, therefore,
the parameters we have used certainly overestimate the average
productivity of both machines. In addition, certain simplifying
assumptions were required in developing the models on which
the comparisons are based. As an example, the time required'
to excavate a trench will depend not only on the volume to
be excavated and the distance to be hauled, but.on other,
factors such as the type of ground, the depth of the trench,
the amount of turning and maneuvering required on each trip,
the weather, and operator productivity'. It was not feasible
-102-
-------
to evaluate all these factors and still retain a sufficient
degree of flexibility and generality. Therefore, the evalu-
ation was made with the help of simplified tasks. Since all
of the pertinent factors could not be taken into consideration,
every attempt was made to make the evaluations of the two
machines comparable.
An additional factor could account for some of the vari-
ables which could not be included explicitly. If we assume
the performance parameters used reflect 100% efficiency then
we can develop efficiency factors for each piece of equipment
to account for such factors as maneuverability, operator
fatigue, operating ease, etc. These factors could be applied
for each individual operation, each major task, or the entire
landfill operation. The efficiency factors could be evalua-
ted simply by observing the operation of each machine over
a long period of time and then comparing the actual times
required for the tasks and operations with the times pre-
dicted by the 100% efficiency parameters. Unfortunatley
this type of observation was not within the scope of this
study. The efficiency of the two machines is unlikely to
be exactly the same, but quantitative data is not available
on which to base any other conclusions. This costeffective-
ness analysis implicity assumes that the efficiencies are
not significantly different.
-103-
-------
Transportation Model. A way of reducing the cost of
maintaining disposal sites in sparsely populated areas would
be to service several remote, small waste disposal sites
with multi-functional equipment of highway mobility, such
as the Multi-Mover.
A computer-based model has been developed to study the
economics of such an operation. The model compares two types
of equipment, which must be described by the model user in
terms of capabilities and operating costs. In this context,
an equipment type may describe a single machine, or a group
of machines working together.
In computer runs made for this study, the Multi-Mover
was compared with a single crawler tractor equipped with
3
a 1-1/4 yd bucket in the operation of several sanitary land-
fill sites in Canyon County, Idaho. In these computer runs,
the Multi-Mover has exhibited a definite economic advantage.
Model Description. The model simulates the operatiori*
of a number of waste disposal sites with various types of
equipment. Any two types of equipment may be modeled, but
capability and cost data must be specified by the model user.
The model consists of a set of linear constraints represent-
ing the services required at each disposal site and the cap-
acity limitations on each type of equipment. The model was
designed to compare the effectiveness of the Multi-Mover
with the effectiveness of conventional types of equipment in
-104-
-------
landfill operations and to determine optimum use of the equip-
ment. The objective function for the optimization is a linear
equation representing the cost of owning and operating the equip-
ment .
The principle variables in the model formulation represent
a trip nade by a particular type of machine. A trip represents
traveling to a combination of up to three sites and performing
the tasks required in a typical landfill operation. These tasks
are:
1. Excavating before fill (when needed).
2. Spreading waste.
3. Compacting waste.
4. Spreading cover (from stockpile or excavation).
5. Compacting cover.
An arbitrary limit of three sites per trip was chosen because
the work at three sites normally requires a substantial time
(two to three days, or more) and the equipment would require
maintenance or be required back to start another cycle before
more than three sites were serviced. Using more than three
sites greatly increases the number of travel combinations,
resulting in excessively complicated programming and longer
solution times. Furthermore, the additional savings in travel
time becomes negligible compared to the overall costs of the
trip, thus more sites per trip would not appreciably affect
the solution. All combinations of one, two, or three sites
are possibilities examined in the model.
-105-
-------
In addition to the trip variables, there are variables
representing slack in the constraints. The slack in the service
requirement constraints represents requirements that cannot
be satisfied with available equipment. These unsatisfied ser-
vices are assumed to be performed by rental equipment. The
model assumes .that an unlimited amount of the second specified
equipment type is available for rent at a price specified by
the model user. The slack in the capacity constraints represents
unused capacity. The capacity slacks are allowed to go negative
by a limited percentage of total capacity with a cost penalty,
thus representing driver and equipment, overtime costs. The
model is based on a 40 hr work week. The amount of overtime
allowed and the overtime cost must be specified by the user.
There are two types of constraints in this model, first,
the services required constraints, and second, the equipment
capacity constraints. The services required constraints stip-
ulate the number of times each site should be serviced within
the defined model period. There is one of these constraints
for each disposal site. They may be written,, for each site k,
N M
z E 6^ tj. + rj, = S^, (1)
i=l j=l J
-106-
-------
where
N = number of types of equipment
M = number of trips (all combinations of 1, 2, and 3 sites)
tij = variable representing type i servicing the jth combi-
nation of sites
6j= 1 when site k is included in the jth combination of
sites; 0 otherwise
r^ = the variables representing the number of times site k
is serviced by rental equipment
Sk = the number of times site k will be serviced in the model
period
The equipment capacity constraints limit the hours each
type of equipment is used. There is one capacity constraint
for each type of equipment. It may be written for each type i
M
E hij tij — / (2)
j = l
where
M and t^j are as described in Equation (1)
hj_j = the total hours for a type i machine to travel and
service the jth combination of sites
= the total capacity (hours) of operating time expected
for type i
The objective function represents the total equipment
operating cost and rental costs incurred to perform the services
required at all the disposal sites. It may be written
-107-
-------
N M
Z Z
cijtij+1Z:, dkrk = z< (3)
k=l
L
i=l j=l
where
N, M, t-j_j , r^ are as described in Equation (1)
c^j = the total operating cost for type i to travel and
service the sites in combination j
d^ = the cost to have rental equipment service site k
Z = the objective function value
The coefficients h^jf Bj_, c^^, and dk are calculated by
the computer program and are discussed under Program Description.
The goal of the optimization is then to find the solution
to the constraints defined above, which results in the lowest
value for the objective function. Linear programming, a well
developed optimization technique, would solve this problem
very efficiently. However, the results would not necessarily
be integer values, and a partial trip is not meaningful. Various
algorithms have been developed to find the optimum integer
solutions, but in general they are time consuming and costly
to solve with a computer'. Therefore, a modified linear program-
ming solution algorithm was developed.
"Pivoting" is a term applied in linear algebra to the
process of manipulating a set of simultaneous linear equations
so that a given variable will have a coefficient of one in
only one equation arid be eliminated (coefficient of zero) in
all of the other equations. This process is performed using
-108-
-------
only elementary transformations resulting in an equivalent
(same solutions) set of linear equations. In effect, the pro-
cess of pivoting brings the variable into the basic solution
and removes another variable previously in the solution. Each
pivot performs one iteration in the linear programming algorithm.
The modified algorithm has the following changes from
the standard linear programming algorithm: (1) pivots are made
only on coefficients equal to one, causing the solution to
remain integer; (2) pivots are made only on the service require-
ment constraints, and none are made on the equipment capacity
constraints; and (3) the equipment capacity constraints are
used to determine if there is enough capacity to allow the
selected pivot. These limitations could prevent some beneficial
pivots on the capacity constraints. However, after all accept-
able pivots on the requirement constraints have been made,
one additional "partial pivot" is allowed on each equipment
capacity constraint. The "partial pivot" refers to letting
the variable into the solution with value equal to the largest
integer that is no larger than its Value would be if a normal
pivot were made. For instance, if the value of a variable
would be 4.7 after pivoting on a capacity constraint, then
the value 4.0 is assigned to the variable.
This technique does not insure the optimal integer solution;
however, it is a near optimal integer solution and requires
a very small amount of computer time for solution. In all
-109-
-------
cases optimized in the study., whenever adequate Multi-Hoyer cap-
acity. was available, the integer solution was optimal..
Currently,, the model assumes a fixed number of each type
of equipment is available. Capital cost for financing the
purchase is prorated on an hourly usage basis and included
in the hourly operating cost. Since the solution algorithm
is very efficient, this model could be incorporated into a
dynamic programming model over an extended period of time.
By inputting projected waste disposal requirements, and using
present value techniques, .the optimum equipment purchasing
schedule for an extended period could be analyzed.
Program Description. A Fortran program was written for
the Univac 1108 to generate the model.and perform the optimiza-
tion. This program may be converted for use on other computers
with only a minimal amount of conversion.. -The program is flex-
ible enough to simulate any type of equipment with known.or
estimated capabilities servicing any reasonable combination
of sites. Various parameters describing the capabilities, of
the equipment and the. disposal site configurations must be
provided by the user.
The general flow of the program, is as follows:
1. Input all parameters.
2. List model and equipment parameters.
3. For each site, list site parameters and calculate and
list the time- required for .each' type of equipment- to
service a site.
-110-
-------
4. Generate all combinations of trip variables, cal-
culating time and cost for each trip.
5. Generate the slack variables for each constraint.
6. Generate the right hand side for each constraint.
7. Assume the starting solution is the slacks (rental
and capacity slacks) and make the necessary pivots.
3. Optimize.
9. Report the solution.
10. Input parameters for the next case. Only those values
which are changed need to be specified. All other
parameters will retain the same value.
11. Proceed to Step 2 above. If no more cases exist,
terminate.
The input parameters may be divided into three general
categories; these are parameters describing assumptions concern-
ing the overall model (Table 22), the parameters describing
the capabilities of the equipment (Table 23), and the parameters
describing the operation of each site (Table 24). The parameters
(2)
are r'jad using the Namelist feature of Fortran.
Using the input parameters, the average time to service
a site is a straightforward calculation. The total time to
service a site is the sum of the following five items divided
by the efficiency factor:
-111-
-------
TABLE 22
TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND MODEL PRINT CONTROL PARAMETERS
I
Designator Description
Model Parameters
TM Model period in weeks
DIST(I,J) Distance between site (1-1) and
site (J-l). If the index is 1,
it represents the base location
for the equipment. The base
location should be the shop or
storage area or the most active
disposal site.
NSITE The number of waste disposal sites,
OVC Additional cost for overtime pay
($/hr).
OVF Fraction .of overtime allowed,
based on a 40 hr week.
Designator Description
Model Print Control Parameters
LMP
LEP
LSP
LSW
Model parameters will be listed
only if a non-zero value is
specified.
Equipment parameters will be listed
only if a non-zero value is
specified.
Site parameters will be listed only
if a non-zero value is specified.
Work calculations for each site will
be listed only if a non-zero value
is specified.
MAXSPT
RENT
Maximum sites per trip. The limit
is three. If no value is specified
three is assigned.
The rental price ($/hr) for the
second type equipment.
NAMCAS
60-character case title.
-------
TABLE 2 3
EQUIPMENT PARAMETERS
Designator Description
Designator Description
NAMTYP
FOP
COP
CDR
CTR
EFF
TSW
TCW
12-character equipment name.
Fraction of time equipment is
operable.
Operating cost ($/hr).
Driver cost (?/hr).
Travel cost ($/hr).
Efficiency factor. The operating
capabilities are determined for a
short test and are not realistic
for extended operation. This
efficiency factor compensates
therefore.
3
Time to spread waste (sec/yd ).
3
Time to compact waste (sec/yd ).
TSCS
Note: All equipment parameters are
dimensioned and all values
must be specified for each
type of equipment.
Two parame ars representing time/unit
volume to spread cover frcm stockpile
as a linear function of the haul
distance. If d is the distance between
stockpile and fill area, the time/unit
volume of cover is equal to the second
parameter plus the product of d and
the first parameter.
Two values (similar to TSCS above)
representing the time to excavate and
spread cover (sec/yd3).
Two values (similar to TSCS above)
representing time to excavate and
stockpile cover (sec/yd3).
2
Time to compact cover (sec/ft ).
Waste compaction ratio.
Time to prepare equipment for rosd
travel, and then after traveling to
next site, to prepare for work such
as on-load and off-load lowboy 'hrj.
TR£F(I,2) Road travel speed (miles/hr).
TSCE
TE
TCC
RC
TRSP(1,1)
NEQ
Number of machines available.
-------
TABLE 24
SITE PARAMETERS
Designator Description
FE Fraction of fill volume that must be excavated
prior to filling.
FCE Fraction of cover spread directly as excavated.
(1-FCE) then is the fraction of cover spread
from the stockpile.
DSC Average distance from stockpile to fill area (ft).
^ DES Average distance from excavation to stockpile (ft)
.to
I DEC Average distance from excavation to fill area (ft)
HL Depth of compacted waste lift (ft).
HC Spread depth of cover (ft).
3
W Trucked waste volume (yd /wk).
NS Frequency of service (services/model period).
NCC Number of compaction passes.
Note: All site parameters are dimensioned, and therefore, must be
specified for each disposal site.
-------
1. Time to spread waste.
2. Time to compact waste.
3. Time to spread cover from stockpile or excavation,
or both.
4. Time to compact cover.
5. Additional excavation when the amount of pre-fill
excavation exceeds the amount of excavation used
immediately for cover material.
The model coefficients h^j and c^^, discussed previously,
represent the hours and cost, respectively, for equipment type
i to service the sites in combination j. The hours term is
calculated as the sum of the time to service the individual
sites plus the time to travel from the base to each of the
sites and finally back to the base. The travel time includes
the time to prepare for road travel plus the time on the road.
The optimum sequence of sites visited is determined by the
program and used in the time calculation. The cost term is
the sum of travel cost and site servicing cost. The travel
cost is the product of travel time and travel cost hourly rate.
The service cost is the product of the service time and the
sum of the hourly operating rate and driver's salary.
The model coefficient d^ represents the rental cost to
service site k. It is the product of rental rate ($/hr) and
the time for the second equipment type to service site k. Travel
cost is not included since the location of rental equipment
is not known. Travel charges should be included in the rental
rate.
-115-
-------
The model coefficient represents the total capacity
(hr) for equipment type i. It is the product of model period
in weeks, 40 hr/wk, number of type i equipment available, and
estimated fraction of operating time.
Output from this program consists of three general categor-
ies: input parameters, calculations made during model generation,
and the final solution. The input parameters are grouped as
model parameters, equipment parameters, and site parameters.
Each group listing is optional and is printed only when parameters
LMP, LEP, and LSP, respectively, are set nonzero by the user.
Listing of the calculations made during model generation
is also optional and is triggered by parameter LSW. This output
includes a breakdown of time required to perform the various
landfill tasks in servicing a site with each type of equipment.
In addition, the cost of site work and travel is listed for
each trip by each type of equipment. The trips are coded as
TI-JKL, where T represents trip; I is a single digit represent-
ing equipment type; and J, K, and L are single digits represent-
ing the sites visited and the travel sequence.
The final solution output includes the objective function
value; the amount and percentage of unused capacity for each
type of equipment; and a detailed list of trips, hours of cap-
acity used, and cost of each type equipment for each site.
The total travel time and cost is allocated to each site based
on a weighting factor determined by the distance between the
site and the base location.
-116-
-------
Modeling Canyon County, Idaho. Canyon County, Idaho is
a sparsely populated county with several widely dispersed waste
disposal sites. The selection of parameter values was made
to simulate the operation of the disposal sites according to
(3)
Idaho regulations, specifically with respect to frequency
of servicing the sites. These regulations are as follows:
Sanitary landfills should be covered daily.
Community modified landfills should be covered
twice per year per 100 people, at least 50
times per year, and twice per week between May
15 and September 15. Community improved dumps
should be serviced once per year per 100 people,
at least four times per year. *
Because of the twice per week requirement in summer for commun-
ity modified landfills, a one year operation was divided into
two model time periods.
Winter — September 15 to May 15 — 35 weeks
Summer — May 15 to September 15 — 17 weeks
There are five disposal sites modeled in Canyon County.
Table 25 lists the data describing service frequency. Table
26 contains other data describing the site operation. Table
27 lists the distance between sites obtained from a County
Atlas Co. map. Lake Lowell was assumed to be the equipment
base location.
Two types of equipment were modeled, the Multi-Mover and
a crawler tractor with a 1-1/4 yd^ bucket. Table 28 lists
the capabilities of each type of equipment. The hourly operat-
ing cost is detailed in Tables 13 and 14 for the two equipment
* Solid waste disposal operations other than sanitary landfills
are not considered acceptable by EPAJ17-
-W-
-------
TABLE 25
CANYON COUNTY, IDAHO, WASTE DISPOSAL SITES — SERVICE FREQUENCY
Site
Lake Lowell
Middleton
Type *
Sanitary
Landfill
Modified
Sanitary
Landfill
Popula-
tion^
49,573
3,285
Waste Input Yearly Summer
(ydVwk) Services Services
3,619
304
65
34
Winter
Services
(52)(5)=260 (17)(5)=S5 (35)(5)=175
31
Central Cove Modified
Sanitary
Landfill
4,137
387
82
34
48
Parma
Modified
Sanitary
Landfill
4,276
396
85
34
51
Melba
Community
Improved
Dump
885
82
(1)
Population: Recommended Solid Waste Disposal Plan for Canyon County, Idaho.
Idaho State Department of Health, June 1969.
* See EPA Comment on page 117.
-------
KO
I
TABLE 26
CANYON COUNTY, IDAHO, WASTE DISPOSAL SITES — GENERAL PROGRAM DATA*
Lake Middle- Central
Designator Description Lowell ton Cove Parma Melba
FE Fraction of pre-fill excavation 0 0.5 0 0 0
FCE Fraction of cover directly 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
from excavation
DSC Average distance from stockpile 150
to fill (ft)
DES Average distance from excavation
to stockpile (ft) 50
DEC Average distance from excavation
to fill (ft) 300 100 50 30 250
HL Compacted waste lift depth (ft) 6 6 6 6 4
HC Spread cover depth (ft) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
NCC Number of compaction passes 2 2 2 2 2
*
From R. P. O'Hara, Nampa, Idaho.
-------
TABLE 27
CANYON COUNTY, IDAHO WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
INTERSITE ROAD DISTANCES*
Site
Base
Lake Lowell
Middleton
Central Cove
Parma
Melba
Base
(Mi)
0
0
20
13
34
20
Lake
Lowell
(Mi)
0
0
20
13
34
20
Middle-
ton
(Mi)
20
20
0
22
19
40
Central
Cove
(Mi)
13
13
22
0
21
33
Parma
(Mi)
34
34
19
21
0
54
Melba
(Mi)
20
20
40
33
54
0
From County Atlas Co. map of Canyon County, Idaho.
-120-
-------
Desig-
nator Description
FOP fraction of uptime
TSW time to spread waste
(sec/yd3)
TCW time to compact waste
(sec/yd3)
TSCS time to spread cover from
stockpile (sec/yd^)
TSCS time to spread cover from
excavation (sec/yd^)
TE time to excavate and
stockpile (sec/yd-^)
TCC time to compact cover
(sec/ft^)
RC compaction ratio
EFF efficiency factor
CDR driver cost ($/hr)
COP operating cost ($/hr)
CTR transportation cost
TRSP load-unload time (hr)
TRSP road speed (MPH)
TABLE 28
EQUIPMENT PARAMETERS
Multi-Mover
0.9
10.0
8.1
0.06 d + 44
0.045 d + 54
0.045 d + 54
0.115
4.0
0.5
3.75
7.82
11.57
0
14
Crawler Tractor
0.9
23.1
14.3
0.38 d + 39
0.38 d + 47
0.38 d + 39
0.169
3.0
0.5
3.75
5.34
12.33
0.4
19
-121-
-------
types. The transportation cost for the crawler tractor was
based on a fixed owning cost of $0.202/mile, and a variable
operating cost of $0.12 4/mile, or a total of $ 0.326/mile.
With an average distance between sites of 2.6.9 miles, the
travel cost in dollars per hour may be derived as:
mileage cost + cost for two drivers
time
26.9
(26 .9) (. 326) + 2 (3 .75) ( 19 + .4) = $12.33
Other parameters include operator wages at $3.75/hr, with
a 20% overtime provision paid at straight rate. An overtime
penalty factor is used to keep the model from worJcing one
machine and driver overtime and having the other idle. The
overtime penalty is later removed from the objective function
value and therefore, does not distort the answer. The rental
price of the crawler tractor is $20/hr.
Under the conditions assumed in modeling Canyon County,
the Multi-Mover exhibits definite economic advantages over
the crawler tractor for operation of remote disposal sites.
Table 29 exhibits about a two to one capability advantage
for the Multi-Mover in the time required to service a site.
Since the hourly operating cost for the Multi-Mover is only
about 25% higher, it will obviously be the choice in any opti-
mization model. Several cases were run for this study,
-122-
-------
TABLE 29
SUMMARY OF CALCULATED TIME TO SERVICE INDIVIDUAL SITES PER VISIT
Winter
Summer
Site
Waste
(yd3)
Multi-
Move^
(hrs)
Crawler
Tractor
(hrs)
Waste
(yd3)
Multi-
Mover
(hcs)-
Crawler
Tractor
(hrs)
Lake Lowell
Middleton
Central Cove
1 Parma
to
" Melba
724
343
282
272
718
7.9
4.9
3.1
2.9
8.2
17.0
9.2
6.2
6.0
17.6
724
152
193
198
279
7.9
2.1
2.1
2.1
3.2
17.0
4.1
4.3
4.3
6.8
-------
changing the equipment availability in each case. The results
are summarized in Tables 30 and 31. The final results show
that any of the three following equipment combinations v;ould
be sufficient to service the sites as modeled:
1. Two Multi-Movers with a total yearly operating cost
of $37,512.
2. One Multi-Mover and two crawler tractors with a total
yearly operating cost of $48,548.
3. Three crawler tractors with a total yearly operating
cost of $59,108.
There are three apparent peculiarities in the solutions.
First, in Table 29, rows 2, 3, and 4 show the same hourly
usage for the Multi-Mover, but a slightly different cost.
This is caused by the program rounding the time to the nearest
hour after the total cost has been determined. The total
hourly usage in the various lines are the summation of differ-
ent trip selections that have the same total hours after round-
ing. Second, a $10/hr cost for overtime has been included
to keep the model from working one type equipment overtime
while the other type is working only at partial capacity.
However, this penalty was insufficient, as indicated by row
4, because Multi-Mover worked at over 100% capacity and the
crawler tractor worked at less than 100% capacity. The $10
penalty should be almost sufficient in view of the capability
and cost estimates. Third, one case (row 4, Table 31) selected
service by rental equipment at $20/hr while the crawler tractor,
-124-
-------
TABLE 30
SUMMARY OF RESULTS - WINTER PERIOD, CANYON COUNTY, IDAHO
Total Hour Hour
Capacity Capacity Percentage
Qty Qty Available Used Used Cost
Multi- Crawler Multi- Crawler Multi- Crawler Multi- Crawler Multi- Crawler Total
Mover Tractor Mover Tractor Mover Tractor Mover Tractor Mover Tractor Rental Cost
(hr) (hr) (hr) (hr) (%) (%) ($) ($) ($) ($)
2 0 2,520 0 2,151 0 85.4 0 24,786 0 0 24,786
1 0 1,260 0 1,508 0 119.7 0 17,225 0 31,372 48,597
1 1 1,260 1,260 1,508 1,506 119.7 119.5 17,153 14,214 2,728 34,095
1 2 1,260 2,520 1,508 1,564 119.7 62.7 17,225 14,260 0 31,485
0 1 0 1,260 0 1,501 0 119.1 0 13,992 52,024 66,016
0 2 0 2,520 0 3,023 0 120.0 0 28,594 24,909 53,503.
0 3 0 3,780 0 4,211 0 111.4 0 39,221 0 39,221
-------
TABLE 31
SUMMARY OF RESULTS - SUMMER PERIOD, CANYON COUNTY, IDAHO
Total Hour Hour
Capacity Capacity Percentage
Available used Used Cost
Qty Qty Multi- Crawler Multi- Crawler Multi- Crawler Multi- Crawler Total
Multi- Crawler Mover Tractor Mover Tractor Mover Tractor Mover Tractor Rental Cost
Mover Tractor (hr) (hr) (hr) (hr) (_%) (_%) (_$) {$) (_$) (?)
2 0 1,224 0 1,118 0 91.3 0 12,726 0 0 12,726
1 0 612 0 727 0 118.8 0 8,485 0 14,458 22,943
1 1 612 612 727 731 118.8 119.4 8,485 6,665 2,523 17,673
1 2 612 1,224 647 765 105.7 63.9 7,565 6,975 2,523 17,063
0 10 612 0 732 0 119.6 0 7,205 26,577 33,782
0 2 0 1,224 0 1,467 0 119.9 0 13,976 12,071 26,045
0 3 0 1,836 0 2,107 0 114.8 0 19,887 0 19,837
-------
costing $9.09/hr, was not used to capacity. These costs do
not appear in Table 29, but are input parameters discussed
previously. This apparent discrepancy is caused by the travel
time to the remote site being more significant with the increased
service frequency (decreased service time per visit) of summer
operation. The base for rental equipment is not known, so
only the time at the site is charged. Perhaps a flat charge
for travel should be added for rental service.
Table 32 summarizes the allocation of costs to each site
for the three cases that were found to have sufficient capacity.
Market Potential. A survey of sparsely populated counties
was made to determine the degree of interest in the Multi-
Mover. Questionnaires were mailed to a 15% random sample
of counties having a population of 100,0 00 or less and an
area of at least 300 square miles. One hundred and thirty-
three of the questionnaires were returned with 86 indicating
that their county either did not maintain a disposal operation
or operated burning dumps only. Of the 47 respondents that
operated some type of landfill disposal operation, 19 (40%)
expressed an interest in the Multi-Mover after reading a brief
uescription of the machine's capabilities. Forty-nine percent
said they were not interested and 11% did not respond to the
question.
A similar survey was made of 111 small cities and towns
in the Pacific Northwest and Northern California. Fifty-
six percent of the questionnaires were returned, and of the
-127-
-------
TABLE 32
SUMMARY OF SITE COST
Qty Qty
Multi- Crawler
Mover Tractor Lake Lowell Middleton Central Cove Parma Melba Total
2
0
Winter
$
16,100
?
2,306
$
2,344
$
3,552
$
484
$
24,786
Summer
7,820
1,462
1,224
1,870
350
12,726
Total
23,920
3,768
3,568
5,422
834
37,512
1
2
Winter
?
21,896
$
2,759
?
2,448
$
3,870
$
512
$
31,485
Summer
10,655
1,772
1,448
2 ,830
350
17,063
Total
32,551
4,531
3,896
6,708
862
48,548
0
3
Winter
$
27,125
$
3,233
$
3,424
$
4,695
$
744
?
39,221
Summer
13,175
1,938
1,768
2,516
490
19,887
Total
40.300
5.171
5,192
7.211
1
,234
59,108
-------
62% which responded to a question regarding interest in the
Multi-Mover, 44% were interested and 56% were not. Failure
to answer this question was frequently explained with comments
indicating the respondent was not responsible for the actual
operation of the disposal site and was not in a position to
judge the equipment requirements.
The questionnaires requested comments on the practi-
cability of the Multi-Mover concept. Negative comments ques-
tioned the practicability of rubber tires for landfill use
and the reliability of a machine as complex as the Multi-
Mover. The high expected purchase price also received unfavor-
able comments. The positive comments praised the versatility
of the machine.
Comments regarding presently used equipment were also
requested. Most of these constituted complaints of excessive
repair and maintenance costs for track-type vehicles. Several
respondents mentioned the crawlers' tendency to pick up wire
in the undercarriage, which causes downtime and repair bills.
Battelle-Northwest1s surveys indicate that, the demand
for the Multi-Mover will exist primarily among disposal site
operators using either modified or sanitary landfill techniques.
Only one of the open dump operators surveyed expressed an
interest in the Multi-Mover, and he noted that his operation
was being converted to sanitary landfill and required additional
equipment. The number of landfills currently in operation
or in the planning stage should be a measure of the potential
-129-
-------
market for the Multi-Mover. There are now approximately 9 0,0 00
recognized land disposal sites in the U.S. and approximately
(4) *
12,000 of these are identified as sanitary by local agencies.
The surveys show approximately 42% of the landfill operators
surveyed to be interested in the Multi-Mover for their operations.
Applying this ratio to the 12,000 landfills in the United
States yields an interest potential for approximately 5,100
units. The remaining 78,000 recognized disposal sites are
open dumps. As public opinion and health and environment
standards become less tolerant of this method of disposal,
most of the dumps will be either closed or converted to sanitary
landfills. In either case, additional earthmoving equipment
will be required. Applying the 42% interest ratio to these
78,000 sites yields approximately 33,000 operators who would
be interested in the Multi-Mover. Of course, these dumps
will be converted or replaced over a period of many years.
It is not expected that each interested landfill operator
would actually purchase a Multi-Mover or that each purchaser
would make his purchase immediately. If we assume that one
Multi-Mover could be sold for every five interested landfill
operators (over a period of five years), we have a potential
market of just over 1,000 machines. This does not include
the effect of conversion of dumps to new landfills, which
could provide a potential market of an additional 6,800 machines
over a period of several years.
* EPA Commment: The identification of 12,000 land disposal sites
as ^sanitary" 1s apparently not correct; the National iwrvey 1nd1est
-------
The projections of the potential market for Multi-Movers
consider only the solid waste industry. The versatility and
adaptability of the machine could make it useful for road
construction, mining, or general construction. The machine
should be evaluated for these uses and the market potentials
assessed.
These estimates are based on several implicit assumptions.
The production model Multi-Movers would have to live up to
performance expectations and both the machine and the manu-
facturer would have to gain satisfactory reputations in the
field. Successful marketing of the machine will depend heavily
on the reputation of the manufacturer, since many operators
consider parts availability and service to be very important
factors in their choice of equipment. They also want to assure
themselves as much as possible that the equipment will be
available when needed and not down for repairs, and therefore,
rely heavily on personal experience and manufacturer reputation.
It is not within the scope of this study to evaluate
in detail all of the factors affecting the potential market
for the machine. The above estimates, however, are sufficiently
precise to indicate a valid and significant potential market
for the Multi-Mover. This market will tend to increase in
the next 5 to 10 years as the number of sanitary landfills
increases in response to increasing concern for the quality
of the environment. Although alternative disposal methods
-131-
-------
will account for an increasing share of our solid wastes,
the landfill's low cost and adaptability will assure its con-
tinued importance in the solid waste program. The potential
market for Multi-Mover should also steadily increase for at
least several years.
Systems Analysis of Solid Waste Disposal in a Sparsely
Populated Area. The problems of solid waste generation, collec-
tion, transportation and disposal in a sparsely populated
area are not fundamentally different from those of a densely
populated metropolitan area. In both cases, the primary objec-
tive of a solid waste program is to provide the maximum solid
waste disposal service within the limitations of law, funding,
and public demand for services. The tasks which must be com-
pleted to meet this objective are basically the same in either
a sparsely or densely populated area. The citizens must be
educated to store their waste in such a way as to minimize
health hazards and aesthetic blight, and the waste must be
collected and transported from its point of generation to
some central location for reclamation or disposal. These
three major steps reduce to many different tasks and the proper
execution of each of these tasks becomes a problem for the
agency(s) charged with the responsibility of administering
the solid waste program in a given area. Although the problems
encountered are similar for densely and sparsely populated
areas, the relative importance of the various problem areas
-132-
-------
depends on the population density. This section defines some
of the problem areas that are likely to be particularly impor-
tant in a sparsely populated area and examines solutions to
these problems. Particular emphasis is placed on ways that
a multi-functional machine (such as the Multi-Mover) might
contribute to the solution of these problems.
The 1970 Census classes 57.1% of the 61,288 Canyon County
residents as urban (i.e., residing in incorporated cities
of 2,500 or more). The urban residents live in the cities
of Caldwell, Nampa, and Parma. The average population density
for the entire county is approximately 120 people per square
mile, but if the cities of Nampa and Caldwell are excluded,
this drops to approximately 69 people per square mile for
the rest of the county. The cities of Nampa and Caldwell
have ordinances for compulsory pickup of household refuse
by franchized collection agencies. Contract collection service
is available in some other parts of the county, but many of
the people living outside of these two cities must dispose
of their solid wastes themselves.
Areas considered as sparsely populated may differ considerably
from Canyon County; however, in the context of this report
the primary criterion for a sparsely populated area is that
its solid waste collection and disposal operations are hampered
by low population density. Although no two sparsely populated
areas are exactly similar in terms of population distribution
-133-
-------
and solid waste disposal problems, use of a typical example
facilitates the discussion of some of these problems.
Description of a Typical Solid-Waste Disposal System.
The solid-waste disposal system in a sparsely populated area
includes all the steps of handling solid waste from the time
it leaves the point of generation (the housewife's kitchen
garbage pail, or the merchant's trash barrel), to the time
of its disposal or recycle. Common practice in sparsely pop-
ulated areas at the present time is to dispose of the wastes
in some type of open dump or landfill. Figure 15 shows the
most common possibilities of solid waste generation, trans-
portation, and disposal in a sparsely populated area. This
flow chart shows only the solid waste bound for disposal in
a solid-waste disposal operation. It does not include solid
waste which is reused, or recycled. For example, a significant
amount of solid waste from food processing operations is used
by nearby feedlots and does not enter the county solid waste
system.
A sparsely populated area is not likely to provide collec-
tion service to all :;he producers of solid waste. In Canyon
County, for example, there is compulsory collection service
in the cities of Caldwell and Narnpa, and collection services
are available in the towns of Parma, Notus, and Wilder for
those residents who wish to contract for this service. There
is no organized collection service available to approximately
4 0% of the residents of the county. Many of the residents
-134-
-------
Figure 15. Solid Waste Disposal System in Sparsely Populated Areas
-------
in areas where collection service is available do not take
advantage of the service, but prefer to handle the disposal
of their household refuse themselves. In addition, many of
the processors of commercial and industrial solid waste also
handle their own disposal operations. There are several possi-
bilities open to those residents and industries who either
must handle their own solid waste disposal or elect to do
so rather than availing themselves of a collection service.
Many residents simply collect their household refuse and period-
ically transport it to a county operated disposal site. Other
residents elect to burn the combustible portion of their refuse,
collecting the ashes and noncombustibles for a later trip
to a disposal site. Some rural residents dispose of their
refuse by burying it on their own property, or by burning
it and burying the ashes. Some residents simply dump their
refuse wherever it is convenient, and in spite of "no dumping"
signs and ordinances, promiscuous dumps are common in sparsely
populated areas.
In the State of Idaho, the County Commissioners are re-
sponsible for establishing -and operating sufficient solid
waste disposal sites to provide convenient access for all
citizens of the county. The State Board of Health is respons-
ible for adopting and promulgating rules and regulations govern-
ing the operation of the disposal sites, and the Boards of
County Commissioners must provide ordinances governing the
use and operation of the sites within the State's regulations.
-136-
-------
The cities are allowed to operate disposal sites subject to
the same rules and regulations as the county. Any private
land owner must obtain a written permit from the Board of
County Commissioners to dispose of solid waste on his own
property. The counties are allowed to fulfill their responsi-
bilities by several possible means: they may operate disposal
sites themselves, they may enter into joint operations with
cities or other counties, or they may contract with private
firms to operate the sites. The counties may finance solid
waste disposal operations by using current revenues; by levy-
ing taxes; by charging fees for the use of the disposal facilities
or by receiving and expending monies from any other source,
or both.^ A typical governmental organization of solid
waste operations is shown in Figure 16.
Major Problem Areas. Whether any part of a solid waste
disposal system is described as a problem area often depends
on the observer's point of view. For example, a person famil-
iar with solid waste disposal in a large, densely populated
metropolitan area would not be likely to consider site acquisi-
tion in a sparsely populated area a very serious problem.
To the County Commissioner faced with finding a suitable dis-
posal site in a convenient location at a reasonable price,
this may be a very serious problem. This example, then, empha-
sizes that the term "problem area" is subjective. The situa-
tions to be discussed are defined as "problem areas" only
because they are most likely to be major stumbling blocks
to either efficient or cost effective operation of a solid
waste program in a sparsely populated area.
-137-
-------
REGULATIONS & TECHNICAL ADVICE
Figure 16. Idaho Governmental Organization of Solid Uaste Disposal Operations
-------
The definitions of problem areas given in Table 33 night
better be described in some cases as symptoms rather than prob-
lems. For example, problem areas of collection and earth-
moving equipment capital and operating costs might be symptoms
of a tax base which is inadequate to support the desired level
of solid waste services. In any given situation, the optimum
solid waste system will be achieved only by looking beyond
the type of "problem areas" or symptoms listed in Table 3 3
and determining the underlying causes of these symptoms. It
is meaningful to look at the various problem areas or symptoms
and to discuss ways in which multi-functional machines may
contribute to their solution, remembering that the treatment
of symptoms alone will not solve any basic problem. After
determining, for example, that the capital costs of earthmov-
ing equipment that manifest as a problem are not just a symptom
of poor financial management or an inadequate tax base, we
may discuss methods of lowering capital costs with some assur-
ance that any solutions we find will have a significant effect
on the solid waste program.
Before discussing how the Multi-Mover may contribute
to the solution of specific problems, it is necessary to dis-
cuss the general characteristics of the multi-functional machine
and to compare it to other equipment currently in general
use. The most commonly used equipment for small landfill
-139-
-------
TABLE 33
RANKING BY SURVEY OF PROBLEM AREAS IN SOLID
WASTE DISPOSAL OPERATIONS IN SPARSELY POPULATED AREAS*
Affirmative
Ranking Response
Order (%) Problem. Area
1
58
Disposal site availability
2
52
Earthmoving equipment - capital cost
3
46
Blowing paper
4
44
Collection vehicle capital cost
5
36
Collection labor expense
6
36
Disposal of industrial or agricultural wastes
7
35
Haul distance to disposal site
8
33
Cover material availability
9
33
Earthmoving equipment - operating expense
10
31
Groundwater pollution
11
29
Customer cooperation
12
29
Disposal labor expense
13
28
Collection vehicle operating expense
14
15
Transportation - special handling problems
15
10
Collection frequency
From Battelle-Northwsst Survey (described previously in this report)
in response to the question "Which of the following do you feel are the
major problem areas for a community such as yours?"
-140-
-------
operations(such as those usually found in sparsely populated
areas) is the crawler tractor equipped with either a bulldozer
blade or a bucket loader. In some operations other equipment
such as scrapers (either drawn by a crawler or self-powered),
wheeled loaders and dump trucks are also used. In most cases
the use of this additional equipment indicates the disposal
operation is large enough to take advantage of this specialized
equipment to achieve lower unit costs. Landfill operations
which must use the minimum amount of equipment most often
use a crawler tractor equipped with a loader attachment. This
one piece of equipment is capable of performing all of the
functions required for landfill operation such as digging
trenches; moving and compacting waste; transporting, spreading,
and compacting cover material; and maintaining haul roads.
The crawler tractor with a bucket loader is reasonably efficient
at excavating trenches and handling the wastes. It is less
efficient in spreading cover material, and its efficiency
decreases greatly with longer haul distances for cover material.
When additional equipment is added to an operation, it is
frequently a dump truck, scraper, or perhaps a wheeled loader
to increase the efficiency of the hauling part of the operation.
When this equipment is available to expedite hauling and exca-
vation, a crawler tractor with a bulldozer or "trash blade"
(a large bulldozer blade fitted with extensions to allow more
waste to be pushed at one time) is often used instead of the
front loader.
-141-
-------
In the detailed cost-effectiveness comparison of the
Multi-Mover and a typical crawler tractor included in this
report, the Multi-Mover was found to be somewhat more expen-
sive to own and operate, but its productivity is great enough
to more than offset its higher cost, particularly where longer
haul distances are involved. The Multi-Mover was quicker
in transport from site-to-site for distances less than 21
miles, and less expensive to transport for distances less
than 12 miles. Each of the major problem areas is analyzed
in light of the results of the cost-effectiveness analysis
to determine whether the Multi-Mover would help to solve the
problem.
A mail survey of city and counties in sparsely populated
areas was used to determine the most important problems in
solid waste operations (Table 33). The possible solutions
to these problems were evaluated. The criteria for this eval-
uation were (1) the ability of the possible solution to in-
crease the quality of solid waste service to a desired level
at a reasonable cost and (2) to significantly reduce the cost
of providing an already acceptable level of service.
One major difficulty facing the application of the first
criterion was definition of a desired or acceptable level
of service. This may be considerably different in a sparsely
-142-
-------
populated area than in an urban area and will also depend
on the individual and collective viewpoints of the citizens.
As an example, a man burning refuse in his backyard does not
feel there is a pollution problem (as long as there is a breeze
blowing) but obviously his next door neighbor may have a very
different opinion. Many sparsely populated areas have solid
waste conditions which they feel are entirely adequate, but
which would be wholly unacceptable in a more densely populated
area.
The Problem of Low Population Density. Although it was
not mentioned explicitly in the questionnaire, one of the
most important factors affecting solid waste disposal in a
sparsely populated area is the low population density, which
tends to make solid waste service either more expensive or
less convenient. Since the population is distributed over
a wide area, it is difficult to take advantage of the economies
of scale. A recent study^ found that the cost per ton of
waste disposed in landfills dropped markedly as the popula-
tion served by the landfill increased. A survey of 120 landfill
sites serving populations ranging from 10,000 to over 500,000
showed that the average cost per ton of waste dropped from
$1.62 for an operation serving 10,000 people to ?0.90 for
one serving 40,000, and $0.25 for an operation serving a pop-
ulation of 500,000 or more.* Collection service also tends
to be more expensive because of the greater distances between
residences, and therefore is not generally available in sparsely
populated areas.
* EPA Comment: These reported disposal costs are probably lower
than could normally be expected for sanitary landfill operations.
-143-
-------
The problem of services being more expensive because
of the low population density is frequently compounded by
an associated inadequate tax base, which often cannot support
the required services. The fact that the economy is generally
agriculturally oriented with minimal industrial development
contributes to the inadequate tax base. Often the people
in sparsely populated areas are not as concerned about solid
waste problems as their urban or suburban counterparts. This
lack of concern is usually reflected in the governing body
of the area, and attempts to increase taxes to improve solid
waste disposal are not likely to be politically rewarding
actions.
The effects of the typical lack of universal collection
in sparsely populated areas are many. In every case these
effects accrue to the historical lack of personal responsibility
on the part of many citizens when they are charged with an
unenforced social responsibility that represents a personal
inconvenience. This is shown in the continuing existence
of residential burning, promiscuous dumping, indiscriminate
burial, and poor containment during storage and hauling of
solid wastes on the part of individuals. And while universal
collection service for all residents of the area would eliminate
most of the effects, the costs of providing such a service
would be high. It is expected that a significant percentage
of the residents would not be willing to pay such costs, pre-
ferring to continue handling their own solid waste disposal.
-144-
-------
An alternative to universal collection is to make proper
waste disposal as convenient as possible. This requires that
disposal facilities be available .within a reasonable distance
from each residence in the area. The most widely practiced
alternative is to scatter small dumps or landfills, or both,
about the area so that no resident must drive too far to reach
one. Since each of these disposal sites serves only a relatively
small population, it is usually not economically feasible
to operate them as sanitary landfills. An acceptable compromise
is to operate them as modified landfills or community improved
dumps with service on a rotating basis.* The drawback of this
approach lies in the expense of their operation. In most
instances the sites of this type are not operated as modified
landfills, or even as improved dumps, but rather as open or
burning dumps, thereby nullifying many of the reasons for
their existence.
In most cases it is considerably less expensive to main-
tain one disposal site to serve the population of an area
than co operate the several. A possible method of realizing
the economies afforded by one large operation while still
retaining the advantages of conveniently located disposal
facilities is the use of transfer stations. In this type
of system, a number of receptacles are strategically placed
about the service area. The residents bring their refuse
to these receptacles, from which refuse is periodically
* See EPA Comment on page 117.
-145-
-------
transferred to a central disposal site. There are many types
of transfer systems using this approach. Most consist of
a large bin which is either lifted onto a special trucl: chassis
and hauled to the disposal site to be emptied or emptied into
a specially constructed compacting truck, which services sev-
eral bins before going to the disposal site. The bins may
be equipped with devices to compact the refuse as it is dumped
into them, extending the time between emptyings. A recent
(7)
study made by the California State Department of Public
Health and the Consulting Firm of Elmendorf, Zinov, and Rubin
investigated the feasibility of such a system for use in Hum-
boldt County, California. Humboldt County is located in the
coastal Redwood Forests of California and has an overall pop-
ulation density of less than 30 people per square mile. After
considering such alternatives as extension of house-to-house
collection, containerized storage and transfer facilities,
local disposal sites, central sanitary landfills, incineration,
composting and pyrolysis, an advisory committee determined
that modified sanitary landfills dispersed throughout the
county and serviced by mobile crews or containerized transfer
operations were the only feasible alternatives. These alterna-
tives were then studied in some detail to determine the prob-
able costs of each system. Two containerized transfer systems
3
were studied, one using 4 0-yd drop boxes and noncompacting
-146-
-------
3
collection vehicles, and the other using 8-yd bins and compaction-
type collection vehicles. The modified landfill system was
found to be more expensive than either of the containerized
systems.
The principle advantages of a system of modified landfills
are low initial cost and the ability to dispose of all types
of solid waste. The disadvantages include the difficulty
in finding suitable sites in locations most convenient to
the citizens, the problems of environmental pollution and
aesthetically offensive appearance, and inefficient m;e of
the site because of ineffective compaction. The advantages
of a container system include few restrictions on container
location and reduced environmental pollution since the waste
is disposed of in one well-run sanitary landfill. Its biggest
disadvantages include the high initial equipment cost and
the limited types of refuse accommodated (only refuse which
is small enough to pass through the container opening can
be handled).
Determination of the superior system depends on many
factors, including costs of site acquisition and preparation
for both systems, the terrain and the highway system in the
area, the desired level of service, availability of capital
and operating funds, the minimum standards for operating the
disposal sites, the existing disposal sites, and the type
of bins being considered. Only a detailed analysis of each
-147-
-------
situation can determine the most effective system. In sone
sparsely populated areas, other methods of solid waste disposal
might prove more feasible than either the system of scattered
landfills or the transfer operations, and all potential systems
should be considered in view of the specific circumstances
of a particular area.
One alternative to making disposal operation:-; more effi-
cient is reducing the amount of waste for disposal. Fince
the cost of disposal operations depends on the amount of waste
to be disposed, any possible reuse or recycling opportunities
should be carefully considered as a part of the evaluation
of a solid waste program. Several factors exist to encourage
this approach, including a growing public awareness of the
inevitable environmental degradation resulting from present
methods of waste disposal and the increasing concern for con-
servation of our limited natural resources. It is conceivable,
for example, that the savings in disposal costs might be greater
than the cost of an incentive program to promote the recycling
of some types of v/aste.
Sanitary and modified landfill operations will continue
to be a popular and suitable means of solid waste disposal
for some time in sparsely populated areas where suitable land-
fill sites are available and the tax base does not favor large
capital outlays. Therefore, it is appropriate to determine
ways in which a multi-functional machine such as the Multi-
Mover might help to improve service or lower costs, or both.
-148-
-------
J.t is not helpful to evaluate the Multi-Mover using generalities
such as "The multiple capabilities of the machine should con-
tribute to increased efficiency, since one machine can do
the same operations as four separate machines." Any useful
evaluation must determine whether a given job can be done
more economically by the Multi-Mover or by some other type
or combination of earthmoving equipment. In the following
analysis the Multi-Mover is compared with a crawler tractor
equipped with a 1-1/4 yd"^ general purpose bucket. This machine
is reasonably typical of the equipment currently used for
landfill operations in sparsely populated areas.
Disposal Site Availability. Disposal site availability
appears to be the most widely felt problem, since it was men-
tioned by 58% of the respondents to the questionnaire. The
problems related to the acquisition of disposal sites include
(1) the lack of area (more precisely, usuable volume) sufficient
to handle the projected waste input for a reasonable length
of time, (2) zoning ordinances prohibiting landfill operations,
(3) unreasonable haul distances from the population center(s)
served, (4) lack of accessibility from population centers
without creating heavy truck traffic through residential areas,
(5) nonavailability of suitable on-site or nearby cover mater-
ial, (6) potential of ground and surface water pollution,
(7) need for suitable separation from existing residential
and commercial developments, (8) prohibitive real estate prices,
and (9) public acceptability of the site.
-149-
-------
One of the most straightforward approaches to the problem
of disposal site availability is to make more efficient use
of each available site. If more waste can be disposed in
a site, it will have a longer useful lifetime. Smaller sites
are generally easier to find and less expensive than larger
sites. This may mean an available parcel of land suitable
for landfill service may be used in spite of its small size.
In addition, higher refuse densities usually result in more
rapid stabilization of the fill, thereby making it available
for other uses sooner after completion of the landfill opera-
tions. Battelle-Northwest's studies indicate the Multi-Mover
is capable of higher compaction ratios than the crawler tractor
under similar conditions, with observed compaction ratios
of approximately 4.2:1 and 2.1:1, respectively. Thus, under
these test conditions, about 100% more waste may be disposed
in a given site by using the Multi-Mover for compacting.
Maximum use of available land is one reason for operating
a disposal site as a sanitary landfill. An open dump operates
at essentially a one-to-one compaction ratio (trucked volume/in-
place volume). In sanitary landfills, which are compacted
and covered daily, average compaction ratios from 2:1 to 3:1
are achievable with conventional crawler tractors, and with
the Multi-Mover, ratios as high as 4:1 are possible at a rea-
sonable cost. A dump that is covered periodically might typi-
cally consist of one part earth cover for each ten parts
-150-
-------
waste, while a sanitary landfill typically consists of one
part cover for each four parts waste. Even though moro cover
is included, a landfill operating at a 3:1 compaction ratio
can store approximately 2.6 times as much waste per acre-
foot as a covered dump.
The Multi-Mover can haul cover material for moderate
distances at a lower cost than the crawler tractor. For example,
the cost of moving cover material 500 ft from stockpile to
cell with the Multi-Mover is estimated at $0.24/yd . The
3
cost using the crawler tractor is estimated at $0.53/yd .
Both estimates include capital costs, operating expenses,
and the operator's wages.
A reduction of cost in any part of the landfill operation
may be considered as contributing to the solution of the other
cost-related problems. For example, if the Multi-Mover results
in lower overall cost because of higher productivity, the
savings could be used to balance the cost of acquiring a new
site. This relationship may not exist in some counties. In
many cases, operating costs must be paid from the county's
general fund and site acquisition must be financed by bond
issues. However, the savings can be applied to some operating
account. This indirect relationship is assumed to be implicit
in each of the following discussions.
Earthmoving Equipment -- Capital Cost. The capital cost
of earthmoving equipment for landfill use was considered a
major problem by 52% (Table 33) of the respondents in the
-151-
-------
survey. The analysis of this problem in relation to the Multi-
Mover is complicated by the financial circumstances of the
purchase and individual earthmoving equipment requirenentn.
Many of the landfills in sparsely populated counties are oper-
ated by city and county governments. Although the financial
circumstances among similar units of government vary widely,
they generally purchase large capital items by voter-approved
bond issues and pay operating expenses from the general fund.
Since voters are seldom enthusiastic about bond issues, equip-
ment with a low capital cost is usually preferred to more
expensive and efficient equipment. Even though the Multi-
Mover is more efficient and would have a longer usable life
than a crawler tractor, the Multi-Mover's higher capital cost
is a negative factor. In the case where all of the Multi-
Mover's capacity is required to maintain the desired level
of service, the situation would be slightly different. Several
crawler tractors and other earthmoving equipment would be
required to meet the productivity of the Multi-Mover. In
a case where the total capital expenditures for the required
equipment are approximately equal, the measure of cost/unit
work performed becomes the most important selection criterion.
The Multi-Mover's cost/unit work is lower than that of the
crawler tractor under most operating conditions. It must
be emphasized that the above comments deal with tendencies
and that actual financial decisions, even under apparently
-152-
-------
similar circumstances, will depend to a great extent on local
policies and the idiosyncracies of the individuals involved
in the purchase decision.
Blowing Paper. Forty-six percent of the respondents
to the survey indicated blowing paper was a major problem.
The Multi-Hover would not contribute directly to the solution
of this problem.
Collection Vehicle Capital Cost. The capital cost of
collection vehicles was the fourth most often mentioned major
problem. The Multi-Mover might contribute to the solution
of this problem only where both the collection and disposal
operations are operated by the same entity and the savings
in the disposal operation costs could be applied to the purchase
of collection vehicles. As discussed previously, governmental
capital outlays are often financed from bonds rather than
from the general fund, and it is doubtful in many cases that
the savings in operating costs could be applied to capital
expenditures.
Collection Labor Expense. Collection labor expense was
a major problem to 40% of survey respondents. The Multi-
Mover might lower collection labor expenses in one or more
ways. The Multi-Mover's superior compaction ability might
make feasible the use of smaller, more advantageously located
disposal sites. This would reduce collection labor expense
by reducing the slack time spent by collection crews during
trips to and from the disposal site. Also, the Multi-Mover's
-153-
-------
flexibility and capability for highway travel might make feas-
ible the operation of additional disposal sites at convenient
locations. At best, these are possibilities for secondary
effects and in themselves would not constitute a direct advan-
tage in the use of the Multi-Mover.
Disposal of.Industrial or Agricultural Wastes. Thirty-
six percent of the respondents considered the disposal of
industrial and agricultural wastes to be a major problem.
In sparsely populated areas, agricultural wastes are more
likely to be encountered than industrial wastes. The Multi-
Mover would make no direct contribution to the solution of
this problem.
Haul Distance to Site. Haul distance to the disposal
site was considered a major problem area by 35% of the respon-
dents. The Multi-Mover could perhaps influence the choice
of a new site. (Disposal Cite Availability, see page 149.)
Cover Material Availability. Thirty-three percent of
the respondents felt the availability of suitable cover material
is a major problem. The Multi-Mover could contribute in cases
where the amount of cover material to be hauled and the haul
distance are not sufficient to support the cost of a scraper
or a loader and dump truck, but where the distance to the
cover supply is too great for the economical use of the crawler
tractor.
-154-
-------
Earthmoving Equipment -- Operating Expense. The operat-
ing expense of the earthmoving equipment required to operate
a landfill was cited as a major problem by 33% of the respon-
dents. According to Battelle-Northwest estimates of hourly
operating costs and productivity for the Multi-Mover and the
crawler tractor, the Multi-Mover should be able to significantly
reduce the operating expenses. The hourly operating cost
of the Multi-Mover is slightly higher than that of the crawler
tractor. However, the higher productivity of the Multi-Mover
more than compensates for its higher hourly costs. Table
34 summarizes the machine operating costs for the Multi-Mover
and crawler tractor on a cost-per-unit work basis. The cost
estimates include only the variable machine operating expenses
such as fuel, lubricants, hydraulic fluid, repairs, maintenance
and overhauls, and do not include any allowance of depreciation,
interest, insurance, taxes or operator's v/ages.
For three of the tasks the cost/unit work depends on
the haul distance involved. For short distances the faster
loading time of the crawler tractor makes it less expensive
to operate. However, for longer haul distances, the higher
speed and greater carrying capacity of the Multi-Mover make
it more economical on a work per dollar basis. The breakeven
points (distance where the operating cost/unit work is equal
for the two machines) are given in Table 35.
-155-
-------
TABLE 34
SUMMARIZED COST/UNIT WORK COMPARISONS OF
MULTI-MOVER AND CRAWLER TRACTOR
Operation
Multi-Mover
($)
Crawler Tractor
($)
Cost per operating hour
n (1)
Excavate cell
Spread waste
Compact waste
Spread cover (excavated)
(1)
Spread cover (stockpiled)
Compact cover
Travel between sites
(1)
3.22
(0.04 d + 48.30)/
1000 yd3
8.94/1000 yd3
7.24/1000 yd3
(0.04 d + 48.30)/
1000 yd3
(0.05 d + 39.35)/
1000 yd3
0.10/1000 ft2/pass
0.23/mile
3.04
(0.32 d + 32.93)/
1000 yd3
19.50/1000 yd"
12.07/1000 yd~
(0.32 d + 39.68)/
1000 yd3
(0.32 d + 32.93)/
1000 yd3
0.14/1000 ft^/pass
0.124/mile
(1)
d = one-way haul distance in ft.
-156-
-------
TABLE 35
OPERATING COST/UNIT WORK BREAK-EVEN DISTANCES
Task Break-Even Distance
Excavate trench 55
Spread cover from excavation 31
Spread cover from stockpile 24
-157-
-------
Groundwater Pollution. Thirty-one percent of the respon-
dents considered groundwater pollution to be a major problem.
The nulti-riover however, would not contribute directly to
the solution of this problem.
Customer Cooperation. Twenty-nine percent of the respondents
felt that their customers' cooperation was a major problem.
Customer cooperation is important both in providing suitable
containers for home storage of refuse and in operating a dis-
posal site in an acceptable manner. The Multi-Mover will
have little effect on any attempts to improve customer cooper-
ation. It is possible that improved disposal operations (the
site carefully policed and maintained, cover applied frequently,
etc.) would encourage customers to be more cooperative.
Disposal Labor Expense. Disposal labor expense was cited
by 29o of the respondents ap a major problem. At small sani-
tary landfills, most improved dumps, and modified landfills,
the equipment operators' wages and benefits usually account
for the total disposal labor expense. At the larger sanitary
landfills, however, disposal labor expense would include the
wages of gatekeepers, supervisors, laborers and equipment
operator (s) . Since the Multi-Mover is faster than the crawler
tractor at performing some of the basic landfill operations
(depending on the situation at the particular landfill), a
reduction in the labor expense should occur in one or more
of the following ways: (1) the operator will be needed for
-158-
-------
fewer hours per week (elimination of overtime, use of a part-
time operator, and the use of operator and machine at other
sites are possibilities), (2) the operator will be able to
devote part of his time to other functions such as policing
the site or handling gatekeeping duties during off-peak periods,
and (3) the operator will be able to devote more time to the
normal operations, thereby improving the quality of the disposal
operation (perhaps achieving better overall compaction efficiency
and thus increasing the useful life of the site).
Collection Vehicle Operating Expense. Twenty-eight percent
of the respondents considered the operating expense of collec-
tion vehicles to be a major problem. The Multi-Mover would
have no direct effect on the operating expense of collection
vehicles. However, it might have a small effect on the main-
tenance and repair expenses of a collection vehicle because
it produces a smoother and more solid compacted cover lift
over the area where trucks drive before unloading, which should
also reduce the likelihood of trucks becoming stuck on the
landfill. The Multi-Mover could reduce collection vehicle
expenses by permitting the use of a more convenient disposal
site.
Canyon County Resource Base. The purpose of examining
Canyon County's resource base is to identify those resources
on which future county employment and income depend, to project
Canyon County's economy to 1990, and to assess the projected
-159-
-------
impact of these on solid waste generation. This analysis
concentrates on the natural resources of Canyon County, their
general degree of development, and their potential for influenc-
ing future economic growth in the county; the County's current
and future industrial base; and the County's service industry
trends. The results form the basis for projecting future
county population, economic profile and solid waste generation.
Natural Resources. Canyon County encompasses an area
(S)
of approximately 580 square miles, or 371,200 acres. It
is one of the smallest counties in the State of Idaho, where
the average county size is 1,880 square miles. The county
itself is located in the Southwest portion of Idaho with much
of its eastern and southern border along the Snake River.
The relatively flat land supports agriculture but is semi-
arid and receives insufficient rain during the growth season
to support farming without irrigation. The county has within,
or along, its boundaries the Snake and Boise Rivers, which
provide much of the water used for irrigation. The 19 64 Census
of Agriculture indicates that of the 190,500 acres of crop
plant harvested, 189,674 acres were irrigated. Most of the
reasonably farmable land within the county is now being farmed.
Only moderate expansion of sprinkling systems is foreseen
for the dry land farms, which total a small area in compari-
son to the land now being irrigated.
-160-
-------
Of the two primary sources of irrigation water, the Snake
River forms the southern as well as a large part of the eastern
border of the county, and the Boise River cuts across the
county from east to v;est. The Boise River primarily serves
water diversion projects, both publicly and privately developed,
with little pumping of its waters. On the other hand, little
water is diverted from the Snake River, while considerable
quantities of water are pumped from it. In some instances
water is pumped to 500 feet above the river elevation. Canyon
County also derives significant quantities of water for irri-
gation from deep wells. In view of the highly developed irri-
gation system in Canyon County, it is expected that only mod-
erate expansion of the present system will take place over
the next 20 years.
Most of the metallic and nonmetallic mineral resources
of Canyon County offer prospects for only small economic growth.
-Such nonmetallic minerals as sand, gravel, limestone, and
pumico are commercially quarried for the local county market.
Currently, there is no known commercial mining of metallic
minerals in the county. Mineral production for 1968 was slightly
over $1 million with sand and gravel providing the greatest
income, followed by lime then pumice. The 1968 sales were
20% below the revenues from 1967 primarily because of a decline
in sand and gravel revenues. The reason given for this decline
was the reduced requirement for these materials in state
-161-
-------
highway department projects. The volcanic scoria pumice pro-
duced in the county is used mainly as light-weight aggregate
in precast concrete construction products with smaller quanti-
ties used as roofing rock and landscape materials.
Agricultural Complex. Canyon County ranks fifth among
Idaho counties in the number of acres of cropland harvested
in 1964 and leads all other Idaho counties with $60 million
of farm products sold annually (Table 36). This is approximately
one-eighth of the state total and is almost equally divided
between crops and livestock and livestock products. The impor-
tance of agriculture's direct contribution to the county economy
is indicated in information developed by the Bonneville Power
(9)
Administration, which shows personal income from agriculture
accounting for over $17 million in 1961, or approximately
13% of personal income within the County. For the state as
a whole, the same source indicates that agriculture accounts
for about 12% of the personal income.
In the five year period between 1959 and 1964, farm pro-
duct sales increased nearly 21% (Table 37). The largest abso-
lute gain was an increase of almost $5.9 million, or nearly
40%, in livestock and livestock products. Vegetables showed
the largest percentage gain for the period with a 54% increase.
Field crops increased by 26%. Three product areas showed
a reduction in products sold between 1959 and 1964. Compari-
son of the 1959 and 1964 census of agriculture indicates
-162-
-------
TABLE 36
CANYON COUNTY FARM PRODUCT SALES IN 1964*
Product
Sales
Value of all farm products sold
$ 57,319,356
All Crops
Field crops
Vegetables
Fruit
Forest and horticultural specialty
products
$ 25,379,585
1,511,073
1,776,229
540,817
$ 29,207,704
All livestock and livestock product
Livestock and livestock product
Poultry and poultry product
Dairy product
$ 28,11],652
$ 20,847,428
1,063,949
6,200,275
From u. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
1964 Census of Agriculture
-163-
-------
TABLE 37
CANYON COUNTY FARM PRODUCT SALES. IN 1959 AND 1964*
1959
Product
Value
% of
Total
1964
Value
% of
Total
% Change
All farm products sold
$ 47,505,483
100.00
$ 57,319,356 100.00
>0. 7
Field crops $ 20,076,537
Livestock and livestock products 14,958,794
Dairy products
Fruit
Vegetables
Poultry and poultry products
Forest and horticultural
specialty products
7,668,404
1,652,986
984,691
1,321,674
842,397
42.3 $ 25,379,585 44.3
31.5 20,847,428 36.4
16.1 6,200,275 10.8
3.5 1,776,229 3.1
2.1 1,511,073 2.6
2.8 1,063,949 1.9
1.7 540,817 0.9
26.4
39.4
-19.1
7.5
53.5
-19.5
-35. 8
*
From U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1964 Census of Agriculture.
-------
that agricultural sales increased nearly $10 million between
1959 and 1'964. Two product categories account for over 30%
of the total value of the products sold in 1964. Field Crops
have the largest value, followed by livestock and livestock
products, but the order is reversed when one reviews the per-
centage growth in this period; livestock and livestock products
have a percentage gain of nearly 40% and field crops show
a gain of slightly over 26%.
Crops were harvested from 19 0,52 0 acres by Canyon County
farmers in 1964. This is an increase of 10,881 acres, or
6° more than the number of acres harvested in 1959. The basic
agricultural products harvested on these lands have been identi-
fied as alfalfa, the largest crop, followed by sugar beets,
corn, wheat, and seed alfalfa (Table 38). It is interesting
to note that Canyon County leads all other Idaho counties
in the number of acres of sugar beets with nearly 18-1/2?
of the sugar beet acreage in Idaho. On the other hand, Canyon
County's 52,775 acres of alfalfa represent only 5% of Idaho's
alfalfa acreage. Except for sugar beets, which increased
production acreage from 22,124 acres in 1959 to 31,224 acres
in 1964 and 37,000 acres in 1969,^^ other agricultural pro-
ducts have shown only moderate shifts in acreages.
Canyon County supports an intensified agricultural economy
that is both diversified and mature. In addition, there appears
to be only moderate shifting of crops, but from tine to time
-165-
-------
TABLE 38
LAND USAGE IN CANYON COUNTY IN 1964*
Acres
Land area
371,200
Cropland Harvested
Acres
190,520
Corn
Wheat
Oats for grain
Barley
Mixed and other grains
Alfalfa
Clover
Other hay
Seed alfalfa
Seed clover
Irish potatoes
Dry field beans
Sugar beets
Sweet corn
Dry field peas
Vegetables
Fruit and grapes
Counted twice
Cropland not harvested
Woodland
Pasture
Public and other land usage
18,018
16,348
2,764
8,370
11,024
52,775
2,728
1,881
15,967
2,849
8,487
4,911
31,224
4,319
131
5,456
4,732
1,460
(1)
7,735
450
104,987
67,548
From U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census
1964 Census of Agriculture.
^Public lands include the following recreational acreages:
Federal 11,000; State 1,541; County 65; Municipal 360 .
Phone Conservation, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, December 1970.
-166-
-------
crop market conditions or disease problems may accentuate
shifting specific crops. Such has been the case in recent
years with curly tops in sugar beets. However, with the in-
troduction of resistant varieties of sugar beets, production
of this crop is expected to grow moderately over the next 20
years. Expansion in sugar beet production between 1960 and
1968 has nearly doubled. This is attributed largely to the
termination of sugar imports from Cuba in 1960 and has re-
sulted in re-allotment of Cuban sugar production to domestic
producers. Production of sugar beets in Idaho and Canyon
County for the next 20 years is expected to relate closely
to the growth in national consumption of sugar. Thus, the
general agricultural economy of Canyon County shows only
moderate crop production growth prospects, limited by the
small amount of expandable farm land available, and a farily
mature crop mix. Prospects for livestock growth appear better,
but only moderate production increases are foreseen for the
period from 1970 to 1990.
For the five year period from 1963 to 1968, agricultural
employment in Idaho decreased at a rate of 2.8%/yr while agri-
cultural employment in Canyon County increased nearly 1.3%/yr.
Mechanization of farm work will continue, resulting in a
decrease of agricultural employment in relation to agricultural
-167-
-------
output. Agricultural employment in Canyon County will first
stabalize then begin to decline late in the period. Projected
1980 agricultural employment is 5,300, while 1990 agricultural
employment in Canyon County is projected to be 4,800.
Industrial Base. Although agriculture is a basic employer
in Canyon County a shift toward the food processing industries
is occurring. Therefore, food processing is expected to con-
tinue to have a significant impact on the economy of the county.
Between 1963 and 1968, direct employment in food process-
ing is estimated to have averaged 2,100 or 9.7% of the 21,700
total employed in the county. Agricultural employment accounted
for another 5,100 jobs. The agricultural sector of Canyon
County provided direct employment for one-third of the county's
employed labor foree.
In comparing Canyon County's agricultural and food pro-
cessing employment to that of the State of Idaho, the most
significant difference appears in the amount of labor force
employed in food processing. Canyon County employs almost
10% of its labor forue in this area, while the state averages
only 5%. By 1969 employment in the food processing industries
had grown to 2,940. Employment in Food and Kindred products
manufacture is projected to be 3,300 by 1980 and 3,500 by 1990.
-168-
-------
There is a useful system used to identify industries
that have similar economic activities, this system is known
throughout industry as the Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) . The Standard Industrial Classification coding system
is designed to cover the entire field of manufacturing activities,
assigning to each manufacturer or establishment an industrial
code on the basis of its major activity. The SIC number for
a firm is usually determined by a product, a group of products
produced or handled, or the cervices rendered. Thus, SIC
numbers are structured so as to make it possible to classify
establishments by industry on a 2-digit, 3-digit, or 4-digit
basis according to the detailed information desired. Each
2-digit classification can have as many as ten 3-digit sub-
classifications. In a like manner, each 3-digit classification
can have as many as ten 4-digit classifications. The manu-
facturing industry is divided into twenty-one 2-digit SIC
classifications. The classification of manufacturing indust-
ries begins with SIC 19 and continues through SIC 39 (Table 39).
Table 40 provides a profile of Canyon County's manufactur-
ing industries. The major 2-digit SIC categories of industrial
products produced in Canyon County are provided as well as
a more detailed 4-digit identification of specific product
lines. The number of firms and the employment of these firms
by employment classification codes are also provided in this
table. Of the twenty-one 2-digit SIC manufacturing classifica-
tions, Canyon County supports industrial firms in 10 of these.
-169-
-------
TABLE 39
TWO-DIGIT STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION OF MANUFACTURERS
SIC
Code Manufacturing Industries
19 Ordnance and accessories
20 Food and kindred products
21 Tobacco manufacturers
22 Textile mill products
23 Apparel and other finished products made from fabrics and
similar materials
24 Lumber and wood products, except furniture
25 Furniture and fixtures
26 Paper and allied products
27 Printing, publishing, and allied industries
28 Chemicals and allied products
29 Petroleum refining and related industries
30 Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products
31 Leather and leather products
32 Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products
33 Primary metal industries
34 Fabricated metal products, except ordnance, machinery, and
transportation equipment
35 Machinery, except electrical
36 Electrical machinery, equipment, and supplies
37 Transportation equipment
38 Professional, scientific, and controlling instruments;
photographic and optical goods; watches and clocks
39 Miscellaneous manufacturing industries
From: Executive Office of the President, Bureau of the Budget,
Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1967.
-170-
-------
TABLE 40
PROFILE OF CANYON COUNTY MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES
Manufacturing Industry
Employment
of Firm:
Number Employment
of Classification
Firms Code*
1
2
3
4
5
. . . !
6
20 Food and kindred products 32
2011 Meat packing plants
7
0
2
0
1
0
2015 Poulty etc., packing
1+
0
1+
0
0
0
2021 Creamery butter
1+
0
0
0
0
0
2024 Ice cream, etc.
+
0
0
0
0
0
2026 Fluid milk
1+
0
0
1
0
0
2033 Canned fruit, vegetables, etc.
0
1
0
0
0
0
2037 Frozen fruit, vegetables, etc.
0
0
0
0
2
1
2042 Prepared feed for animals
4+
1
+
0
0
0
2051 Bread, bakery products
0
2
0
0
0
0
2063 Beet sugar
0
0
0
0
1
0
2094 Grease and tallow
0
1
0
0
0
0
2099 Food preparations NEC
1
1
0
0
0
0
24 Lumber and wood products 3
2431 Millwork plants
1
0
0
1
1
0
25 Furniture and fixtures 3
2512 Wood household furniture
1
0
0
0
0
0
2515 Mattresses and bedsprings
1
1
0
0
0
0
27 Printing, publishing,and allied industries 7
2711 Newspapers, publishing
2
0
1
0
0
0
2751 Commercial printing except lithographic
2
0
0
0
0
0
2752 Commercial printing with lithographic
2
0
0
0
0
0
2 771 Greeting card manufacturing
0
0
1
0
0
0
28 Chemical and allied products 1
2844 Perfumes, cosmetics, other toilet preparations
1
0
0
0
0
0
32 Stone, clay, and glass products 5
3269 Pottery products, NEC
1
0
0
0
0
0
3271 Concrete, brick, and block
0
1
0
0
0
0
3272 Concrete products, except block and brick
1
0
0
0
0
0
32 73 Ready mixed concrete
1
0
0
0
1
0
-171-
-------
TABLE 40 Profile of Canyon County Manufacturing Industries (continued)
Manufacturing Industry
Employment
of Firm:
Number Employment
of Classification
Firms Code*
1
2
3
4
5
6
Fabricated metal product, except
ordnance and transportation equipment
3
3411 Metal cans
0
0
0
1
0
0
3442 Metals doors, sash, frames, moldings
0
0
0
1
0
0
3443 Fabricated plate work (boiler shop)
1
0
0
0
0
0
Machinery except electrical
3
3522 Farm machinery and equipment
1
0
1
0
0
0
3599 Machinery and parts, NEC
1
0
0
0
0
0
Transportation equipment
6
3791 Trailer coaches
0
1
0
2
1
0
3799 Transportation equipment, NEC
2
0
0
0
0
0
Miscellaneous manufacturing, industrial
1
3993 Signs and ad displays
1
0
0
0
0
0
64
36
9
7
5
6
1
34
35
37
39
Employment classification code: 1 = 1 to 15; 2 = 16 to 30;
3=31 to 50; 4=51 to 100; 5=101 to 500; 6 = over 500.
-172-
-------
Identification of firms at the 4-digit SIC level is a good
indicator of the size and variety of the industrial complex
of Canyon County.
The major employment industries in Canyon County are
SIC 20, Food and Kindred Products; SIC 24, Lumber and Wood
Products, SIC 32, Stone, Clay, and Glass Products; and SIC
37, Transportation Equipment. The industries that are most
diversified in terms of the variety of 4-digit SIC manufacturing
products are SIC 20, Food and Kindred Products; SIC 27, Printing,
Publishing, and Allied Industries; and SIC 32, Stone, Clay,
and Glass Products. Thirty-two firms, one-half of the total
firms in Canyon County, produce food and kindred products.
These firms employ over 6 0% of the people employed in manu-
facturing industries. The food and kindred product firms
include four of the seven largest manufacturing employers
in the county. Recently, Amalgamated Sugar and J. R. Simplot
Company have expanded their facilities and work forces, and
Canyon County now has the largest sugar beet processing plant
• 4.1 (10)
m the nation.
The second largest industry in Canyon County is in
transportation equipment. This industry has expanded greatly
in recent years. The Nampa-Caldwell area of Canyon County,
along with the Boise area of Ada County, 30 miles away, comprise
a flourishing Mobile Home and Support Industry complex. Ten
major manufacturers in Mobile Homes are located in this area:
-173-
-------
Four in Canyon County and six in Ada County. The.se nanuf ac turers,
plus the support industries of lumber, and finished aluminum
products, are capable of expanding production in the mobile
home and nodular home markets and are expected to participate
fully in this industry's growth through 1990.
Employment in transportation equipment is expected to
be one of the leading growth industries in Canyon County through
the 1970's and 1980's with employment in the manufacture of
mobile and modular homes reaching 1,600 by 1980 and 2,400
by 1990. Employment gains in the lumber and finished aluminum
products industry will not increase as dramatically since
the market in the mobile home and modular home industry is
only part of their total production. Employment in Lumber
and Wood Products is projected to grow from 500 in 1968 to
700 in 1980 and to 800 in 1990.
Total employment in manufacturing industries will continue
to grow during the next two decades. Canyon County manufactur-
ing employment is projected to increase from a level estimated
to be 5,400 in 1970 to 6,700 in 1980 and to 7,900 in 1990.
Another group or" employed is the nonagricultural self-
employed. The nonagricultural self-employed include approxi-
mately 3,000 people. Employment in this group has been stable
for the past decade. It is projected to remain at this level
through 19 90.
-174-
-------
Manufacturing/Service Industry Relationship. Historically,
Idaho's economy has centralized around the state's agriculture
and timber resources. Much of the state's manufacturing indus-
try depends on this economic base. The exports from Idaho
of these natural resource-based products has provided an inflow
of money which the economy has exchanged for other manufactured
products and services from outside the state. The population
growth patterns characteristic of an agrarian economy are pre-
sent within the state and within Canyon County. Several small
rural communities throughout Canyon County are primarily sup-
ported by agriculture, with little or no manufacturing base
present within the community.
riany service industries do not export their services
long distances. To meet the business and residential needs,
these industries tend to locate to some extent within local
communities and, to a larger extent, around one of the several
subregional centers within the State of Idaho. The location
of service-oriented industries within the state has resulted
in a service-to-manufacturing industry relationship that is
high when compared to the national average. In recent years,
however, industry has been moving into Idaho and manufactur-
ing employment in Idaho, particularly in Canyon County, has
grown at a much faster rate than the service industries.
This has caused the service-to-manufacturing industry employ-
ment ratio to decline. This contrasts directly with the trend
taking place on the national scene where the ratio increased
more than 152 between 1950 and 1970.
-175-
-------
The City of Boise plays a prominent role in providing
nonmanufacturing services to the State of Idaho. The Boise
area relationship for service-to-manufacturing industry has
been about twice that of the state during the 1960's. On
the other hand, Canyon County, which is adjacent to the noise
area, has historically been below the state average. In recent
years Canyon County's manufacturing base has expanded and
the service-to-manufacturing industry relationship has dropped
even more. This trend is expected to stabilize and eventually
reverse itself as the Nampa-Caldwell area grows industrially
and becomes more self sufficient in the local services provided.
Even so, manufacturing industries as well as local residents
vvill continue to look to the Boise area for certain types
of services. As a result, nonmanufacturing employment in
Canyon County is projected to grow from 10,840 in 1968 to
13,400 in 1980 and 17,400 by 1990.
Projected Employment and Population Growth. In forecast-
ing Canyon County's labor force, the natural, agricultural,
and industrial resource bases of the county were reviewed.
Although the value of agricultural products produced in Canyon
County is expected to continue to increase, the number of
people directly employed in production and harvesting of agri-
cultural products is expected to decline from an estimated
level of 5,500 in 1969 to 5,300 in 1980 and 4,8C0 by 1990.
Host of the materials considered as solid waste at the
-176-
-------
agricultural production level are either returned to the soil
or disposed of by farm operations and do not significantly
influence the level of solid waste generated for disposal
at public sites. Solid waste materials resulting from process-
ing of foods are treated in this report as industrial waste.
Although manufacturing employment is not the largest
principal labor force component, its size is critical to the
projection of other types of activities. Moreover, it is
an important generator of waste. Employment in food process-
ing firms will continue to grow, but at a reduced rate from
the rapid growth during the 1960's. Employment is expected
to jump from 2,940 in 1969 to 3,300 in 1980 and to 3,500 in 1990.
The same pattern is expected for employment in the lumber
and wood products industry. Employment in this industry jumped
from 161 in 1960 to an estimated 500 by 1969. Continued growth
in this industry will push employment levels to 800 by 1990.
The largest projected growth in employment and manufactur-
ing will be in the transportation equipment industry where
mobile and modular home manufacturers hold the key to local
growth. Prospects for this industry appear good for the next
two decades, especially if Canyon County is successful in
obtaining its share of this industry's growth. Employment
is expected to climb to 1,600 by 1980 and to 2,400 by 1990.
-177-
-------
Limployment in the other manufacturing industries is expected
to increase at a moderate rate. Much depends on the ability
of private entrepreneurs to see business opportunities in
the community and to obtain the expertise and financial back-
ing required to successfully develop a new enterprise.
Under low employment conditions, total manufacturing
employment is projected to reach 6,700 by 1930 and 7,900 by
1990. On the basis of the historical relationship between
employment in nonmanufacturing and manufacturing industry,
nonmanufacturing employment in Canyon County is projected
to reach 13,400 by 1980 and 17,400 by 1990.
Nonagriculture self-employment is expected to remain
at 3,000 through 1990. The total employment in Canyon County
is projected to reach 28,500 by 1980 and 33,000 by 1990.
The level of population in Canyon County in 198C and
1990 is directly linked to the projected employment levels
discussed above. Employment participation rates (percent
of the total population actively employed) have increased
not only throughout the nation and in Idaho, but in Canyon
County as well. The employment participation rate in Canyon
County increased from 37.3% in 1960 to a level estimated to
be 4 0.6?. in 197 0. As more manufacturing and service industry
jobs become available and more women enter the labor force
on a full-time basis, employment participation rates for Canyon
County are expected to continue to increase. With an increase
-178-
-------
in participation rates, population growth in Canyon County
will increase at a slower rate than county employment. Even
so, with rising employment as a base, Canyon County population
is projected to reach 67,500 by 1980 and 76,000 by 1990 (Table 41).
Factors Influencing the Production of Solid Waste. Tech-
nology is being developed today in response to the pollution
problem associated with waste materials and in response to
economic pressures to utilize what are now waste products.
What are noneconomic by-products of today's processing and
manufacturing operations may become economically usable in
tomorrow's economic complex. In general, this is more true
of waste generated by larger manufacturers by virtue of the
economies of scale. Of particular interest in Canyon County
is the waste by-products from food processing operations.
VJithout a change in the waste by-product-to-manufacturing
product relationship, the food and kindred product industry
waste materials would be expected to expand as fast as the
production rise during the next 20 years. Any change (in
the relationship between waste materials and production) that
is derived because waste products become an economic asset
is expected to influence in the form of a step-function the
quantity of materials destined for waste disposal. That is,
quantities of a particular material will tend to drop signi-
ficantly in a short period. It is difficult to predict when
such decreases in waste materials will occur. It is expected,
-179-
-------
TABLE 41
CANYON COUNTY POPULATION, 1940 - 1990*
Estimated
Population
Projected
Population
1940
1950
1960 1970
1980
1990
10,987
53,593 57,662 61,288
67,500
76,000
Estimated population from Idaho Statistical Abstract, 1970
Census of Population.
-180-
-------
however, that there will be some changes in the relationship
between volume of saleable products produced and the related
quantity of solid waste generated during the next 20 years.
Changes in technology and economic value of waste by-products
may have the impact of decreasing industrial solid waste gener-
ation per saleable product by as much as 5 to 15%.
Projection of Future Solid Waste Levels in Canyon County.
Increases in solid waste materials from industrial, commercial,
and residential sources relate directly to employment and
population levels. On these bases projections for both future
solid waste quantities and future ratios of generated waste
quantity to waste quantity input (to county disposal operations)
have been made for Canyon County. The forecasts do not, however,
reflect an abative effect on waste quantity from improvements
in packaging and recycle of special materials and commercial
containers. Although passage of the Federal Resource Recovery
Act of 197 0 establishes recoverable wastes as a.national resource,
the resulting effects of significantly greater recovery of
solid wastes will last affect sparsely populated areas such
as Canyon County. By virtue of the unfavorable economics
of residential solid waste recovery,the greatest recovery
effort will be seen in the areas of commercial and industrial
wastes, which together in Canyon County, do not equal residential
solid waste in quantity. Further, with the strong possibility
of increasing constant dollar income for families, the resi-
dential solid waste generator may further increase in significance
-181-
-------
over the commercial and industrial generators, thereby negating
quantity reductions from increased solid waste recovery in
these areas.
Manufacturing Solid Waste. The increase in the amount
of industrial waste generated by Canyon County manufacturing
industry will be influenced by technological change and changes
in economic value of current waste materials. These factors
will have an impact on all materials, not just those that
are associated with production increases. The simplifying
assumption is made that the impact of change manifests only
in incremental increase in generated solid waste. While man-
ufacturing employment is projected to increase 46% between
1970 and 1990, the volume of solid waste is projected to increase
32% (Table 42).
Review of the Department of Commerce and Development's
Idaho Directory of Manufacturers, 1967-68 suggests that approxi-
mately 98% of the county's employment in manufacturing is
in the Nampa-Caldwell area. The fact that almost all the
county's manufactured solid waste is delivered to public solid
waste disposal sites is substantiated by the Battelle-Northwest
survey of Canyon County manufacturers, which indicated slightly
over 2% of the firms responding were using sites other than the
Lake Lowell site for solid waste disposal. The increase in
total county-wide solid waste generation to 1990 is affected
only to a small degree by the manufacturing industries.
-182-
-------
TABLE 42
PROJECTION OF FUTURE SOLID WASTE LEVELS IN CANYON COUNTY
Waste Type 1970 1980 1990
Manufacturing^ ^ 1.00 1.18 1.32
(3)
Commercial 1.00 1.22 1.58
Residential 1.00 1.17 1.40
Urban(4) 1.00 1.27 1.61
Rural 1.00 1.06 1.19
Includes agricultural processing solid waste materials.
(2)
98% of the County's manufacturing employment is within the urban
(Nampa-Caldwell) area.
(3)
88% of County retail sales occurs within the urban (Nampa-Caldwell) area.
(4)
Includes Nainpa, Caldwell and local area.
-183-
-------
Increases in manufacturer's volume of solid waste is expected
to make up only 14% of the total county-widc increase in solid
waste volume to 1990 (Table 43).
Commercial Solid Waste. Commercial solid waste is expected
to increase at the same rate as industry employment, or 58%
between 1970 and 1990. As would be expected, a large share
of the total commercial solid waste generated in Canyon County
comes from the Nampa-Caldwell area. Review of Sales .Management
indicates that approximately 88% of the total retail sales
in the county were made in the Nampa-Caldwell area. On this
basis, Lake Lowell (and its replacement) is expected to continue
to absorb 88% of the county's commercial solid waste. Increases
in commercial solid waste for the period to 1990 are expected
to account for 27% of the county-wide solid waste increase.
Residential Solid Waste. Between 1970 and 19S0 residential
population is projected to increase 24%, and residential solid
waste is projected to increase 40%. Residential solid waste
is by far the most significant of the solid waste generators,
accounting for 59% of the solid waste increase. The relation-
ship between the amount of all types of waste generated and
the amount of all types of waste entering the county's disposal
operations is expected to remain essentially constant over
the next 20 years. (The effect of increased utilization of
wastes is considered in this projection.) The percentage
of residential waste that enters the disposal operations,
-184-
-------
TABLE 43
SOLID WASTE INCREASE IN 1970-1990 PERIOD BY WASTE TYPE
Contribution
Type of Waste (_%)
Manufacturing 14
Commercial 27
Residential 59
-185-
-------
however, is expected to increase, particularly that generated
in the rural areas of the county.. Increasingly strict regula-
tion of burning and on-site burial of wastes will cause a
greater percentage of the waste to be disposed of in the county
operations. The percentage of residential generated wastes
that enter the county disposal operations is expected to increase
from the estimated current level of 67% to 90% by 1990.
Current Waste Input Estimate. Current waste input esti-
mates for Canyon County are based on a survey of waste inputs
to the Canyon County landfill near Nampa. For a period of
37 working days the net waste weight for each truckload enter-
ing the landfill was recorded. All collection service vehicles
and all commercial and industrial haulers were included in
the survey, but private automobiles, pickup trucks and small
trailers were excluded. Each load of vraste was classified
as residential, commercial or industrial by the drivers' report
of the type of route, or by visual inspection of the contents.
All wastes which could not be classified either as residential
or commercial were considered industrial.
The per capita daily waste input shows a seasonal vari-
ation. In the spring, for example, a large volume of tree
prunings and other residential yard waste is collected. Since
the purpose of this study was not to evalute this type of sea-
sonal variation in exhaustive detail, the observations of waste
input were made during the months of November, December, and April
and are assumed to be representative of the yearly average.
-186-
-------
(The average daily input of each type of waste is shown in
Table 44.) At the time this data was taken, the collection
services in Narnpa and Caldwell were servicing a total popula-
tion of approximately 28,360. Assuming that the collection
service handles 100% of that portion of its customers' waste
which finds its way to the landfill, the data gives a per
capita daily waste input of 3.0 lb.
(12)
A recent studyv ' found a strong correlation between the
population density of rural areas and per capita waste produc-
tion. It predicts that an area with a population density
of 120 people per square mile, such as Canyon County, would
have a per capita waste production of approximately 2.8 lb/day,
in good agreement with the observed 3.0 lb. The Canyon County
landfill serves an additional 21,423 people who do not subscribe
to a collection service. Most of these people do not live
in the cities and many do not dispose of all their solid wastes
in the landfill. Many burn the combustible portion of their
refuse and either bury the ashes and noncombustibles or haul
then to the landfill. Some people bury most of their waste
on their own property. Because of the alternatives to the
landfill available to these people, it is estimated that their
average per capita daily input to the landfill is only two-
thirds of the average for people served by the collection
service, or 2.0 lb. Their estimated combined input to the
Canyon County landfill is 42,84 6 lb/day. This brings the
-187-
-------
TABLE 44
AVERAGE OBSERVED DAILY WASTE INPUT TO
CANYON COUNTY LANDFILL NEAR NAMPA
Average Percentage of
Waste Daily Input Total Daily Input
Classification (lb) (%)
Residential 83,785 62.5
Commercial 26,425 19.7
Industrial*1* 23,843 17.8
Total 134,053 100.0
Includes food processing and agricultural wastes.
-180-
-------
total estimated daily input to 176,899 lb. The average density
of the waste hauled to the Canyon County landfill was approximately
1 . 3
300 lb/yd~ . This gives an average daily input volume of 490 yd .
Current waste input estimates for the other disposal
sites in Canyon County are based, on the data collected at
Lake Lowell. As noted previously, the Nampa-Caldwell area
served by the Canyon County landfill accounts for approximately
33j of the commercial solid waste generation in the county.
The remaining 12% was allocated to the population outside
of the L-.'ampa-Caldwell area, and the resulting commercial solid
waste generation per capita was distributed among the various
disposal sites according to the population served by each.
The population served by each site was taken from the Recommended
Solid V7aste Disposal Plan for Canyon County, published by
the Idaho Department of Health, June 26, 1969. The estimate
of the total county population in that report varies less
than C.53 from the 1970 Census of Population.
Per capita residential waste inputs were obtained by
dividing the observed residential waste input by the population
served by collection services at the time the observations
were made. The per capita input from residents not served
by a collection service is estimated at 0.67 times that of
a resident served. The 1970 estimated input to the Canyon
County Landfill was corrected to reflect the increase in pop-
ulation served v:hich resulted when, after the waste input
observations were made, Nampa adopted a uniform collection
policy.
-189-
-------
The current solid waste inputs to the disposal sites
in Canyon County are given in Table 45. The waste density
3
observed at the Lake Lowell site was 300 lb/yd , with much
of the waste arriving in compacting collection trucks. The
average density at the other sites (where no compacting trucks
are used) is estimated at 150 lb/yd^.
Waste Input Projections, 1970 to 1990. The projections
of solid waste generation increases (Table 42) were applied
to the current estimated input levels to project the solid
waste inputs to each site through 1990. The residential,
commercial and industrial waste input changes were projected
separately for each site to obtain the totals shown in Table
46. The volume estimates in this table were based on the
assumption that the trucked density of the waste to each site
would remain constant. If compactor trucks are used at some
of the sites, this would affect the average trucked density
of the solid waste arriving at the site.
The present Canyon County landfill at Lake Lowell will
be full in less than two years. The projections assume
that another site can be obtained in the Nampa-Caldwell area
when the present site is full. The situation at the other
sites is not as critical since they have either longer expected
useful lifetimes or suitable sites are more readily available,
or both.
-190-
-------
TABLE 45
ESTIMATED WEEKLY WASTE INPUTS TO
CANYON COUNTY SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
Site
Population
Served
Weekly Waste Input
(lb) (yd3)
Canyon County Landfill
(Lake Lowell)
Black Canyon
(Middleton)
Parma
Central Cove
Me lb a
49,573
3,285
4,276
4,187
885
1,086,000
45,600
59,400
58,000
12,300
3620
304
396
387
82
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
^From recommended Solid Waste Disposal Plan for Canyon County,
Idaho State Department of Health, June 26, 1969.
(2) 3
Average density of 300 lb/yd .
(3) 3
Average density of 150 lb/yd .
-191-
-------
TABLE 46
PROJECTED WEEKLY WASTE INPUTS TO
CANYON COUNTY LANDFILLS
1970-1990
Site
1970
(lb/wk)
(yd3/wk)
1980
(lb/wk)
(yd?/wk)
1990
(lb/wk)
(yd3/wk)
Canyon County Landfill 1,086,000
(Lake Lowell) (3,619)
1,353,000
(4,511)
1,800,000
(5,670)
Black Canyon
(Middleton)
45,600
(304)
56,700
(378)
73,100
(487)
Parma
59,400
(396)
73,800
(482)
95,100
(634)
Central Cove
58,000
(387)
72,300
93,000
(621)
Melba
12,300
(82)
15,200
(102)
19,685
(131)
-192-
-------
The total solid waste input to the county disposal sites
is projected to increase by approximately 241 by 1980, while
the 1990 level is projected to be 60% above the 1970 level.
-193-
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Battelle-Northwest contrib
Program Direction: V. L.
C. H.
1st Phase
Machine Renovation
2nd Phase
Field Testing and
Data Collection
3rd Phase
Systems Analysis
Surveys, Etc.
itors were as follows:
Hammond
Allen
W. S. Kelly, Leader
R. G. Sullivan
R. A. Scoggin
C. H. Henager, Leader
W. E. Masters
R. C. Kelley
A. M. Schneider, Leader
J. V. Thompson
R. L. Engel
G. L. Wilfert
A. J. Buckley
The above individuals wish to acknowledge the assistance
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Wastes
Management Office personnel; Mr. Robert P. O'Harra, Enterprises
Inc., Nampa, Idaho; and Mr. Robert P. Olson, Department of
Health, State of Idaho, in carrying out this program.
-194-
-------
RKVRKKNf.ES
1. Hickman, H. L., Jr. Characteristics of municipal solid waat.es.
Scrap Age, 26(2):305-307, Feb. 1969.
2. UNIVAC. [1108 Multi-processor system.] Fortran V; Programmer
Reference UP-4060. [King of Prussia, Pa.], Sperry Rand Corporation,
1971.
3. Idaho solid waste control regulations & standards. Boise, Idaho
Department of Health, Sept. 4, 1968. 45 p.
4. National Academy of Engineering-National Academy of Sciences.
Policies for solid waste management. Public Health Service
Publication No. 2018. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office,
1970. 64 p.
5. Idaho Solid Waste Act. Section 31-4401 to 4410, Idaho Code. Boise,
State of Idaho. 5 p.
6. Stone, R., and H. Friedland. A national survey of sanitary landfill
practices. Public Works, 100(8):88-89, Aug. 1969.
7. Andres, D. R., and F. W. Cope. Solid waste transfer and disposal
for rural areas. California Vector Views, 17(7):67—76, July 1970.
8. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1964 Census of Agriculture, v.1.
pt.39. Idaho. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967.
[355 p.]
9. [Pacific Northwest economic base study for power markets; joint
U.S. Department of Interior--Bonneville Power Administration study.
In Personal Income, v.2. pt.4. Portland, Oregon, 1964.]
-195-
-------
10. Personal communication. R. B. Long, Department of Agriculture:
University of Idaho, to G. L. Wilfert, Battelle-Northwest
Laboratories, July 27, 1970.
11. Darnay, A., and W. E. Franklin. The role of packaging in solid
waste management, 1966 to 1976. Public Health Service Publication
No. 1855. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969; 205 p.
12. Westerhoff, G. P., and R. M. Gruninger. Population density vs per
capita solid waste production. Public Works, 101(2):86-87j Feb.
1970.
13. Recommended solid waste disposal plan for Canyon County^ June 26;
1969. [Boise], Vector Control Section^ Idaho Department of H'ealth.
6 p.
-196-
-------
APPENDIX A
REVIEW OF STATE ROAD AND HIGHWAY REGULATIONS
-197-
-------
APPENDIX A
REVIEW OF STATE ROAD AND HIGHWAY REGULATIONS
A review of state road and highway regulations was under-
taken to assure that the Multi-Mover would comply with these
regulations when operating in the highway mode. The review
includes identification of road envelope parameters, weight
limits, speed limits and operating equipment requirements.
Each state was requested to send a copy of its regulations
governing the use of vehicles similar to the Multi-Mover.
The analysis of road and highway regulations will also re-
sult in design modification leading to a better vehicle for
highway operations.
The Multi-Mover is 8-1/2 ft wide by 8-1/2 ft high by
22 ft long. It is 6 in. wider than regulations in most states
allow and must have an oversize permit to operate on the high-
ways. The vehicle meets the minimum weight requirements of
18,000 lb on each axle. Clearance lights, while not required,
are desirable. The Multi-Mover would also require an all-
weather cab with windshield wipers and safety glass. Many
states require a horn on this type of vehicle.
Highway Envelope. The legal highway envelope in which
a vehicle can operate without an oversize permit is defined
as follows:
Width 8 feet
Height 12 feet 6 inches
Length 35 feet
-198-
-------
These parameters are based on data derived from review of
highway regulations (Table A--1) . The width of 8 ft is common
to all states except Hawaii (9 ft) and Rhode Island (3-1/2
ft). The height of 13-1/2 ft is common to all states except
Colorado, which has a 12-1/2 ft limit and is the most restrictive
state. Length restrictions vary from 35 to 55 ft. Some states
will issue an oversize permit only on a per-trip basis, while
others will issue them on a periodic basis. Additionally,
some states will waiver this requirement for governmental
vehicles.
Weight Limits. In most states, the allowable weight
is based on the axle loadings, but some states use gross vehicle
weight. Axle loading was chosen over gross vehicle weight
because of the preference of the states themselves. Host
states limit a single axle to 18,000 lb while others restrict
axle loading on specific axles. For example, Tennessee limits
the weight on the steering axle to 12,0 00 lb. A combination
of axle loading and pounds per square inch of tire surface
is the criterion in a few states. The state of Hawaii is
2
the most restrictive with 60 lb/in. tire loading. However,
the requirements of the next most restrictive state, Louisianna,
2
with 450 lb/in. is more representative of the other states.
Therefore, the weight limitation for a Multi-Mover should be
450 lb/in." of tire surface and 18,000 lb per single axle.
-199-
-------
Speed Limits. Regulations on speed did not identify
vehicles similar to the Multi-Mover; most states limit speed
on all vehicles on the basis of "whatever is safe and proper."
However, Pennsylvania has a maximum speed limit of 45 miles
per hour for earthmoving equipment. Only Oregon has a limiting
speed, where a minimum of 20 miles per hour on all grades
on two-lane highways is required. The Multi-Mover should
have a gear ratio sufficient to provide at least 20 miles
per hour on all grades and 35 miles an hour on level highway.
OPERATING EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
Lights. The lighting requirements for earthmoving equip-
ment such as the Multi-Mover are vague. However, all states
require headlights, taillights, and stoplights on all vehicles
operating on the highway. Earthmoving equipment operating
off the road in some states are required to have a single
light which is visible from 500 ft. Vehicles operating on
the highway must have headlights visible for a distance of
500 ft and mounted 24 in. off the ground and at least 54 in.
apart. Taillights must be 20 in. off the ground and no more
than 72 in. apart, and visible for a distance of 500 ft. Clear-
ance lights are required for large vehicles and trailer rigs.
The Multi-Mover, therefore, must have two headlights, two
taillights, two stoplights, and clearance lights as required.
Brake Requirements. Most states require that all vehicles
operating on the highways have a service brake system, a parking
-200-
-------
brake, and brakes on all wheels. All vehicles manufactured
after 1968 must have a two-part service brake system in which
each part controls the brakes on at least two wheelr, independently
from the other part. The service brake system must be capable
of stopping the Multi-Mover in 40 ft at 20 miles per hour
and capable of applying a braking force of 43.5% of the vehicle's
gross weight.
Cab Requirements. Several states require that road main-
tenance equipment traveling on the highways have an all-weather
cab. However, the majority of states have no cab requirements.
If an all-weather cab is included as part of the Multi-Mover,
it must have safety glass, windshield wipers, and a horn.
-201-
-------
APPENDIX B
FIELD EVALUATION DATA SHEETS
-202-
-------
APPENDIX B
FIELD EVALUATION DATA SHEETS
MULTIMOVER EVALUATION--Y-fc9552
DATA SHEET—HIGHWAY MODE
Date June 23. 1970 Data By R. C. Ke.lley
Weather Conditions Clear. Warm
Move from Site Lake. Lowell To Site Blac.k Canyon
Road Distance Between Sites 15 miles one way
Multimover
Crawler
Tractor
Remarks
]. Trip preparation time
(loading^ di fjen^age front
wheel drive, etc.)
None
Load
15 mtn.
1
| Crawler Tractor
2. Travel time of equipment
2 hr, 30 mir
round trip
40
Total Round Trip
2 hr, 10 min.
3. Preparation time for job
(unloading, engage front
vheel drive, etc.)
None
Unload
10 min.
U. Fuel Consumption
10.0 gal.
None
5. Fuel Cost
$1.79
None
Lowboy rental for
crawler tractor - $52.00
6. Travel time of operator(s)
2 hr, 30 min .
2 hr. 10 min.
7. Down time for maintenance
None
None
8. Cost of repairs, parts
and labor
None
None
9. Cost of over legal permits
None
None
-203-
-------
MULTIMOVER EVALUATION--Y-l*9552
DATA SHEET—HIGHWAY MODE
Dnte .June 30, ]970 Data By W. E. Masters
Weather Conditions Clear, Harm
Move from Site Lake Lowell To Site Central Cove
Road Distance Between Sites 12 miles one wav
Mult icover
Cravler
Tractor
Remarks
1. Trip preparation time
(loading, disengage front
wheel drive, etc.)
None
Load
13 nin.
\
| Crawler Tractor
2. Travel time of equipment
2 hr, 9 min
Round Trip
46 min.
One U'ay
^ Total Round Trip
( 2 hr, 12 min.
3. Preparation tine for job
(unloading, engage front
wheel drive, etc.)
None
Unload
10 min.
J
U. inel Consucpt-ion
11.2 gal.
None
Includes sope wording
time for Multimover fuel
5. Fuel Cost
$2.00
None.
Lowboy rental for crawler
tractor - $52.00
6. Travel tine of operator(s)
2 hr, 9 min ,
2 hr, 12 min
7. Down time for maintenance
None
None
8. Cost of repairs, parts
and labor
None
None
9. Cost of over legal permits
None
None
-204-
-------
"ultl.TCver
Cr.jvlor
T: ictor
Rcrnrks
] . C"W Mo.
L-2
2. isto '.A ft inches
12
1. e lift '^ir'.h \ vidth, ft.
60 x 155
(a)
(b) .10 inches
60 tnin.
None
1
L. A^our. t of ujter added
(i) nor lift (b) total
(a)
(b)
Rain
r Ti-" to -. 1 c-r lift
S. Ti~o to a-cl y vi'.er o-;r lift
7. N'.-bor o'" cc- i.^sc/llft
3. Tir" oer rcet: cn r>T>: , one direction
55 sec. torv
ird
9. T r.:ir. Vi: f < r lb". y
535.990
Inc 1 udes 82 ,6Qi
10. Cc~~-ctfed vclii"-i of\c.<5te, C.Y.
528.0
lbs. or waste
11. 7--P1 ic-3 . c ce~s.tv Ic-i/C.Y.
1015
12. Inter-. z: lico'.o: aided (: f ar.y)
nihos, jocie th.c-.T*Gs
None
13- Intermediate cover ad-led {if any)
cubic vards total
None
1 >*. Tot'il r. • • V: r vast'.- lifts
6
15. Ccver ;]ft ce->tK , irchf-s, loose
6
jC. \"o. Of C " *i' * '"i • - f c --1' - lift
1
17. 7)re tor c *5 ?tion oass i cocal cell
12 mm.
13 Cover -.ptorir-i added, C.Y., loose
172
19- Cover lift 'J' oth, inches, eorpacted
1 6
20. In-Place ccr.er lift dc.ncitv, lbs/C.Y
j 2650
approximate
?1. Total tc.".;.'.ictcd vol. of -r&ste
olu«: cov.r, C.Y. *
| 700
22. Total i'-pic.ce varsity.
' Tot.-l ir.-j2ac: /ol. lbs/C.Y.
1417
kult1i:c v?:n L'valua?ic::--Y-i.9552
DATA—CO"PACT"!C'.' (VII'} .7 rAGTS)
Data By W. E. Masters
Site Lake Lowell
11-3-65 cnru
-'--e 11=10=62
Weather Conditions Cloudy Rainy
Type of Cover "aterial Sandy loan
ed Total Cell Depth, it. 3 1/2 (appraxlaaiely)
¦Fron separate Tally Sheet; enter totals here.
-------
I
NJ
O
'., mces
12
^ ft
^ f V H J- t O C '
50 x 110
U; x.
(b)
jo0 nin.
1ir- sep/lifr. i ^
30 seconds
T:~ per cc:rac*.icn c.rr or.e dlrectlon.{
:-mal C'vaste lbs.* kfiO.'PO
287.2
\'i lbs/C.Y.
:9os
[lone
Intermediate cover aided (if any)
cubir v«rds total
Tctr.l * j-'rer :
ir _ocsc
55/cover lift
I i
„1 rp11 16 mln.
13.
Cr.ver rp.terial added.
Cover lift deotK, inches, co-r-.ict.ed
In-Pl^.ce cover lift density, lbs/C.Y.
iOOO
let9.1 c:-?r.cted *.ol. of vastc
c1*js ccv-»r, C.Y.
xOi'i1. ir.-plice density
V?irht of v-.ste U soil cover n
?ct«il :~-nj2cc vol.
lbs/C.Y.
383.3
L^30
(s)
|Mul to.-rover cell
with r.^si^trnce
[of c r ' «'ic r
kr uror
|m spreading
Itoo 3 lifts
iincludes 23,300
tfrs of vn-gtJ~5CC
approximate _
WJLTiyOVE?. EVAL'JAT10:i—Y - k 9 " 2
DA7A--C0.'"'ArVTO I (Vfilf,}): 7)
Dn.ta By C. H. Hcnapcr
Site Lnke Lovely
10-29 thru'
i'.hcr C'-- '11t 5 ono Clear, cool
Type cf Cover Material Sandy loan
d Total Cell D'.p-h, Ft.. 3 1/2 (approximately)
From separate Tally Sheet; enter totals here.
-------
Multir.over
Crawler
Tractor
Bexarks
1. Cell Xo.
L-3
2. Vaste Lift deoth, inches
24, 96, 12
VAste lift lo::rth & vidth, ft.
50 x 7S
1. Ar:cur.t of vater added
(a) rer lift (b) total
(a)
(b) None
(a)
(b)
Ti".c to vnstcc rcr lift.
30 rain
6. Tiro to at'dy vater cor lift
None
7. Nurbor of vaste ccrr ','tior. passes/lift
-ift (1) 2
See Note 1
8. Tir^e t>er ctrract:op diss , total cell
25 min
9- Total irttial vs-.-Vl of vaste lbs.*
137,960
10. Ccr?Acted volume of vaste, C.Y.
117.1
11. 7n-P2acc vaste densitv: lbs/C.Y.
1178
12. Interrelate cover added (if any)
inches, loose thickness
None
13. Inter.iodiate co\er added (if any)
cubic yards total
. None
ik. To*aI cf vaste lifts
3
15• Cover l"'ft cecth. inches, loose
R
lo. TJo. cf cc~:actici rasses/cover lift
u
17. Tire rcr cc-^action T>ass . total cell
20 min
18. Cover eateria] added, C.Y. , loose
86.6
10. Cover lift dj'^th, Irches. cornacted
fi
20. Tn-Place cover lift, density, lbs/C.Y.
3000
21. Tctal ccrpacted vol. of vaste
ol'jc cover, C.Y.
182.1
22. Total in-place density:
Welrht of vaste !< soil cover ^ ^
Total m-Dlare vol.
2021
MULTIKOVER EVALUATION—Y-^9552
DATA--CO.".PACTIO'l (W"IG:iT EAITn)
Data By W. E. Masters
11-11-69 thru'
Site Lake Lowell Date 11-13-69
Weather Conditions Clear. Warm
Type of Cover Material Sandy gravel
Total Cell Depth, Ft. 2 1/2 (approximately)
Note 1. Life 1 received only 2 compaction passes
with oiultimover down for repairs. Lift 2
spread by crawler tractor, compacted by
Kultimover.
*Froa separate Tally Sheet; enter totals here.
-------
Hultimover
Cravlc r
Tractor
Remarks
1. Cell :.-o.
L-6
1
2. Waste Lift death, inches
32
Waste lift lentrth !t vidth, ft-
45 x 90
k. I cf vater added
(a) ner lift (b) total
(a)
(b)
( a)
(b) None
\
\
7Tsrrcad wastes rer lift
1 hr., 15 min.
\
6. Tire t~ a-liv va*,er rer lift
7. Sjrber of vaste co—oaction masses/lift
3
8. Tiro r.'r ccscactici onr-s» total cell
20 min.
o. Tcta! initial veirht of vaste lbs.*
214, 960
10. Ccrract^d vciur.e of vaste, C.Y.
356.6
11. Ia-Place vaste der.sivy: Ibs/C.Y.
603
12. Intermediate cover added (if any)
irc!es, loose thickness
None
13. Intermediate cover added (if any)
cubic aris total
None
1^. To*, el njj-.ber of vaste lifts
3
15- Cover lift derth, inches, loose
6
lo. No. of conraclion uasses/cover lift
3
IT. Tire rcr correction rass » total cell
15 min.
l8. Cover naterial added, C.Y. • loose
66.6
19. Cover lift deuth, inches, ccroacted
6
20. In-Place co\er lift densitv, Ibs/C.Y.
2650
approximate
21. Total corracted vol. of vaste
tIls cover. C.Y.
423.2
22. Total ir.-p2o.ee density:
Weight of vaste & soil cover ^ ^ ^
Total in-t>lace vol.
961
MULTIMOVER EVALUATION—*-1*9552
DATA—COMPACTION (WEIGHT BASIS)
Data By W. E. Masters
4-27-70 thru*
Site Lake Lowell Date 5-1-70
Weather Conditions Cool, Windy
Type of Cover Material Sandy loam
Total Cell Depth, Ft. 4 (approximately)
*Fron separate Tally Sheet; enter totals here.
-------
I
t\J
0
KO
1
y, - t • - >
C'ravlor
1 vct-o-
f . ... . .
• . .-/¦. 1 -
- f- . ...
iS 3-
•- - - r : -J.
\*i. j^5 & 636>;n
1019 g.il
(a)
(b)
1
j •
| .,1 *. t 1 i U m i r
, j ?
01 -'is.
11. V.'iste ccrractior ratio.Trj?'-:ec ol
Ir-Placo Vol.
11. Ir'.crrf La'.e cover (if e~y)
13. Irtc—ell?, to -v-r adiec, (if arv)
l-C. o. of corpactic' passes/cover 1:
1". 7:t-? rer cc -cactic" pass
Trurk conpactec
DATA — C'l'.'.'/.CZ 10,1 ('/Ol'.-O. H.T.'Z)
Dati ?y u- C. Mnstcrs
Site ___Lakc_LcuelJ
Wcatncr Co-yatic .3 Clear. k°'
Tvco of Cover Material
None
Total cell depth, ft. 1 (approximately)
** Cover material compaction was not a part cf
this test. Cell was covered later as pa'rt
of the landfill.
*"ches . ccr
:t; , lbs/C.\ .
il cc-rnct:- '. ol. of
: rev-—. C.Y. __
22. To.ai cc-v.actic-' ratio:
Tr-.:;R-:1 Vol. +¦ Cover Vol.
To*-:-.- Ir.-Flnce .'ol"_j~c
•From separate Tally Sheet; enter total's here.
-------
THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE DUPLICATES OF
ILLUSTRATIONS APPEARING ELSEWHERE IN THIS
REPORT. THEY HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED BY
A DIFFERENT METHOD SO AS TO FURNISH THE
BEST. POSSIBLE DETAIL TO THE USER.
------- |