Bulletin 464 January 1975 J Pl.n Planning for Communi ty Services ARegional A proach to Solid Waste Management AGRICULTURAL R. DENNIS ROUSE, inRural Areas ... EXPERIMENT Director AUBURN, STATION AUBURN UNIVERSITY ALABAMA CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION .... RESEARCH OBJECTIVES - -- ---- -3 4 4 6 STUDY AREA METHOD AND SCOPE OF STUDY--- The Solid Waste Management System 6 Simulating the Solid Waste Management System 9 A m ount of Solid Waste------------------------------------- 9 Best Sanitary Landfill Locations -11 Best Vehicle Routing- - - -- - 13 Budgets for Cost Comparisons _-14 Collection Costs 18 Storage and Disposal Costs-19 RESEARCH RESULTS --- 22 General Cost Comparisons The Least Cost System SUMMARYSELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY- -- - - --- 22 25 27 28 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B 29 48. FIRST PRINTING 3M, DECEMBER 1974 Auburn University is an Equal Opportunity Employer Planning for Community Services in Rural Areas: A Regional Approach to Solid Waste Management CURTIS L. GRISSOM and WILLIAM E. HARDY, JR.** INTRODUCTION ROVIDING ADEQUATE community services in cities, towns, and counties is a nationwide problem. Costs associated with the provision of such services have risen to such levels that heavy financial burdens are being placed upon many local governments, yet state or federal laws require that many of these services be provided. The concepts of regionalism and intergovernmental cooperation in planning for community needs have received much emphasis in recent years. These concepts are being considered in many areas as a possible means for local governments to share and possibly reduce their required expenditures. The research reported in this bulletin was conducted to determine what economic gains or savings could be realized if counties or other units of local government would cooperate in providing certain necessary services. Intergovernmental cooperation would spread the costs of these services among the individual localities and would possibly reduce the total costs as well. Solid waste collection and disposal was selected as the specific community service to be studied. This service was chosen because it is a relatively expensive operation and is one which is required by law in all Alabama counties. * Research on which this report is based was supported by Federal and State research funds and was carried out under Hatch Project Ala-363 titled "Solid Waste Management for Northwest Alabama Using Sanitary Landfills." ** Research Associate and Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology. 4 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION RESEARCH OBJECTIVES The major objective of this research was to determine the minimum cost solid waste collection and disposal system for a selected multi-county region in Alabama. The accomplishment of this objective required that the best or least cost system for each individual county and each possible multi-county unit in the study area be derived and then the results compared to determine the least cost system for the region as a whole. The research was designed to determine the best locations and sizes for specified numbers of sanitary landfills for each county, various subregions and the region, determine the least cost routing of pickup vehicles for each locational pattern, and to determine the total investment and annual operating costs for each locational and routing pattern. STUDY AREA A five-county area located in northwest Alabama was selected for analysis, Figure 1. The area was selected because of its geographic and demographic characteristics and because the Muscle Shoals Council of Local Governments, a very active regional planning body that has jurisdiction over Alabama Planning Region 1, plans to use the results of this research effort. The study area encompasses 3,324 square miles and is bordered on the north by Tennessee, on the west by Mississippi, and on the south and east by other Alabama counties. With the exception of a segment of northeast Franklin County and the southern portion of Marioni and Winston counties, the area is drained by the Tennessee River. Elevations range from over 1,000 feet in Marion County to around 480 feet along the Tennessee River. Predominant elevations in the area vary between 500 and 700 feet above sea level.1 The Quad-Cities area is the commercial hub of the area. It is composed of the city of Florence, in Lauderdale County, and the cities of Sheffield, Tuscumbia, and Muscle Shoals in Colbert County. The cities share common boundaries and form one large metropolitan area. The Tennessee River is the dominant geographical feature of SMuscle Shoals Council of Local Governments, Regional Open Space and Rec- reation Study (Muscle Shoals, Alabama: July, 1971), p. 27. PLANNING FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES 5 FIGURE 1. Alabama State Manning Region, served by the Muscle Shoals Council of Governments. 6 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 1. POPULATION BY COUNTY IN ALABAMA PLANNING REGION 1, 1970 County population Totaon Urban Number 34,031 28,031 7,814 6,241 4,134 81,070 Percent 50.0 581 32.6 26.2 24.8 44.5 Rural Number 34,080 20,782 16,119 17,520 12,520 101,048 Percent 50.0 41.9 67.4 73.8 75.2 55.5 Number 68,111 Lauderdale____________ 49,632 Colbert 23,933 Franklin____________________. 23,788 Marion_______________________ 16,654 Winston_________________ 182,118 Total ___________---------- the region. A system of dams and locks was established on the river during the 1930's by the Tennessee Valley Authority and since that date, the river has served as the major economic stimulant for the region. Major highways, including U.S. 43 in a north-south direction, and U.S. 72, 72-A, 24, and 278 in an east-west direction, provide access throughout the region. Air transportation is available at Muscle Shoals and at several smaller airports throughout the region. In 1970, the five-county area had a population of 182,118.2 On a rural urban basis (urban being a population concentration greater than 2,500), there were 101,048 (55.5 percent) rural residents and 81,070 (44.5 percent) persons living in urban areas. Of these 81,070 urban residents, 62,881 (77.6 percent) lived in Colbert and Lauderdale counties. Franklin, Marion, and Winston counties were predominantly rural. A summary of the population in the respective counties of the study area is given in Table 1. METHOD AND SCOPE OF STUDY The Solid Waste Management System A complete solid waste management system performs three basic functions: (1) storage; (2) collection; and (3) disposal. Each of the functions may be accomplished by any one of several methods, making it possible to have many variations within a total system. Storage is normally considered to be the first activity in a solid waste management system, with storage methods being classified ' U.S. Bureau of Census, 1970 Census of Population. Volume 1, Final Population Counts. Advance Report PC (VI)-2, Alabama. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. PLANNING FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES 7 according to their location. The most common storage location is at or near the site where refuse is generated; that is, at the residence, industry, or firm where waste is initially produced. In densely populated areas where distances between residences, businesses, or industrial sites are sufficiently short to make pickup at each location feasible, storage in suitable containers at each site becomes the normal procedure. Depending on collection and disposal methods and the location of the disposal site, it may be necessary to provide short term storage at a transfer station. In urban areas, transfer stations may be relatively elaborate and used to collect waste in a sufficiently large volume to make train or large trailer truck hauling feasible. In these systems, collection trucks unload into bins or onto larger trucks or rail cars. The waste is then compacted and transported to the disposal site. This system is normally used when disposal sites are relatively distant from the solid waste producing units. In rural areas, the transfer station may simply be collection bins where individuals deposit waste. This practice consolidates widely scattered waste into a larger volume for transfer to a disposal site. For this study, it was assumed that this containerized system of storage would be used. The second activity in a solid waste management system is collection; the process of removing solid waste from storage and transporting it to a disposal site. Collection may be accomplished in different ways, but the method and frequency of collection are directly related to the type of storage process being used. Collection is normally the most expensive phase of solid waste disposal, accounting for as much as 80 percent of the total cost.3 This activity involves the use of several pieces of equipment and a large number of personnel. The productivity of each collection vehicle and its crew is dependent upon the amount of time spent in transit. Therefore, the distance between each origin of solid waste and each disposal site is reflected in the collection cost and is thus a primary determinant of the disposal site location. In this investigation, it was assumed that thirty cubic yard front-end-loader compactor trucks would be used to service the containers. Use of this type of equipment increases initial inSJohn M. Huie, Solid Waste Management: Storage, Collection and Disposal, (Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University, Cooperative Extension Service EC-397), p. 5. 8 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION vestment costs but reduces labor requirements. Disposal, the third activity in a solid waste management system, provides for the destruction and final removal of solid waste. Several technically feasible methods of solid waste disposal are permitted within the standards imposed by Alabama law and the Alabama Department of Health, with incineration and sanitary landfills being the most frequently used methods. "The sanitary landfill is presently the only true disposal method and is basic to any solid waste program. Incineration is a volume reduction process and produces residue which should be sanitary landfilled."4 Grinding, composting, pyrolysis, and high temperature incineration are other less often used techniques of solid waste disposal. Salvaging, recycling, and the use of waste products for fuels are receiving increased emphasis. These less frequently used methods may be preferred under certain conditions and with improved technology, some of them may become more prominent in the future. In the sanitary landfill disposal process, solid waste is spread and compacted in layers of not more than 2 feet in thickness. Each of these layers is covered with 6 to 8 inches of soil at the end of a day's operations, or more frequently if required. A completed landfill receives a final 2-foot cover of soil. For rural areas, the apparent least cost method of waste disposal is by means of a sanitary landfill. Golucke and McGauhey reported an average cost of about $1.13 per ton for solid waste disposal with cost ranging from $0.05 per ton to $2.00 per ton.5 Costs of incineration are reported to range from about $4.00 per ton to over $12.00 per ton. Clearly, for rural areas with an abundance of possible disposal sites, landfill is the best alternative. The sanitary landfill was assumed to be the method of disposal for this study. The methods of financing a solid waste management system SNational Association of Counties Research Foundation, Solid Waste Management-Design and Operation (45), U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service, Environmental Control Administration, Bureau of Solid Waste Management, 1969, p. 10. SC. G. Golucke and P. H. McGauhey, Comprehensive Studies of Solid Waste Management: First and Second Annual Reports, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Public Health Service Publication 2039, 1970), p. 20. PLANNING FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES 9 were not considered in this research. The costs for the different variations are presented and the least cost system selected. It was beyond the scope of this study to determine the best ways to meet these costs. Simulating the Solid Waste Management System Three quantitative models were utilized to determine the least cost solid waste management system for the five-county study area. The first was used to determine the amount of solid waste expected to be generated. The second permitted determination of the locations for landfills which would minimize the total travel required to dispose of all solid waste. The final model was used to determine the best routes for the collection vehicles for each selected best sanitary landfill location. Results from these three models were combined to aid in deriving cost data and budgets which permitted determination of the least cost solid waste management system for the total region. Amount of Solid Waste The waste generation model was used to estimate the total waste expected to be generated in the study area and the amount of landfill area needed for disposal. The amount of household waste generated in the area was calculated by using census enumeration district population data and established figures which indicate the average amount of solid waste expected to be generated by each resident. The established waste generation coefficients indicated that the quantities of solid waste collected differ according to the area rural or urban. The average number of pounds of solid waste collected per capita per day in the United States from households, business, and industry during 1967 was 5.72 in urban areas and 3.93 in rural areas. Of these totals, persons in urban households accounted for 1.26 pounds and those in rural areas, 0.72 pounds per day.6 It is safe to assume that the total generation of waste has increased since 1967 and will continue to increase in the future. Taking this into consideration, it was assumed for this research 6 A. J. Muhich, "Sample Representativeness and Community Data," An Interum Report 1968 National Survey of Community Solid Waste Practices, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, p. 13. 10 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION that the estimated collection of waste from rural households would be 1 pound per capita per day and 2 pounds per day from each urban resident. Total solid waste, including business and industrial sources, were estimated to be 8.5 pounds per capita per day in urban areas and 6.0 pounds per capita per day in rural areas. Table 2 presents the expected daily generation of solid waste material for each county. It was assumed that only household waste from rural areas would be picked up by the collection vehicles. Business and industry would be responsible for either transporting their own waste to the landfill or it would be collected and transported by a municipal system. In determining the land area needed for disposal, it was assumed that 800 pounds of waste material would occupy 1 cubic yard of space when landfilled. One pound at a bulk density of 800 pounds per cubic yard would occupy a volume of .00125 cubic yards. Therefore, the annual volume of landfilled waste can be estimated by multiplying .00125 by the total pounds of solid waste generated. Cubic yards of waste per year = [(.00125) (rural population) (6.0) + (.00125) (urban population) (8.5)] [365] Estimates of the landfill area needed annually were obtained by assuming that the ratio of waste material to cover material would be 4:1.7 With 1 acre of land, 1 foot deep (1 acre-foot) containing 1,613 cubic yards and filling at the ratio of 4:1, each acrefoot of land area would have a capacity of 1,290 cubic yards of solid waste material. Assuming a landfill depth of 10 feet, dividTABLE 2. DAILY BY RESIDENTIAL AND TOTAL SOLID WASTE REGION 1 QUANTITIES COUNTY, ALABAMA PLANNING County Residential solid waste per day Business and industrial waste per day Total solid waste per day Tons Lauderdale Colbert Franklin ... Marion Winston Total -51.07 -39.24 ------- 15.87 15.01 10.39 131.58 Tons 195.80 145.71 65.69 64.15 44.74 516.74 Tons 246.87 184.95 81.56 79.16 55.13 647.67 'D. H. Carley, Handling Solid Waste Materials in Urban-Fringe and Rural Communities in Georgia, (Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia, College of Agriculture Experiment Stations, Research Bulletin 149, 1973), p. 19. PLANNING FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES 11 ing the annual estimate of cubic yards of waste by 12,900 provides an estimate of the acre-feet of landfill area needed annually. This factor could be adjusted to account for deeper or more shallow landfills. Multiplying this figure by the planned life of the landfill would give an estimate of the total land needed for a given landfill operation. Total land needed = [(cubic yards of waste per year) 12,900 (years of expected life) ] Best Sanitary Landfill Locations A computerized procedure was utilized to determine the best locations for various numbers of sanitary landfills for each of the five counties, for several combinations of the counties, and for the region as a whole." The locations selected as best were those which minimized the total travel required to dispose of the expected solid waste. Several sources and types of data were assembled to complete the location analysis. The first step in assembling these data was to select potential locations for sanitary landfills within the study area. Possible sites were established through the use of a general soils map which was constructed by the Soil Conservation Service for the five-county region. 9 The map indicated the soil limitations of the different soil associations in each county. Any area illustrated on the map with slight or slight to moderate limitations for landfill use was considered as a feasible area for a possible sanitary landfill location. The maps in Appendix A illustrate the general areas within the five-county region which could possibly support a landfill operation and the specific points which were selected as potential sites. Thirty-four sites were chosen. Six potential sites were specified in Winston County, seven in Marion County, seven in Franklin County, six in Colbert County, and eight in Lauderdale County. Six of the specified potential landfill sites lie outside of the areas designated as satisfactory for landfill use. These points are the existing landfills in the counties. The fact that they lie outW. E. Hardy, Jr., A Computer Program For Locating Economic Facilities (Auburn, Alabama: Auburn University, (Ala.) Agricultural Experiment Station, A. E. Series 24, March 1973). SMuscle Shoals Council of Local Governments, Regional Open Space and Rec8 reation Study (Muscle Shoals, Alabama: July, 1971), p. 29. 12 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION side the generally accepted areas emphasizes the importance of specific site investigation before landfill establishment. The next step in assembling data for the location analysis was to specify the locations of collection points and amount of waste to be collected at each. Census enumeration district maps and associated population data were used to determine population density and distribution for the five counties in the study area. These data were multiplied by the established household waste generation coefficients - 1 pound per capita per day in rural areas and 2 pounds per capita per day in urban areas - to determine the total household waste expected from the area. One or more pickup sites were selected for each enumeration district, giving a total of 237 collection points for the five-county area. These locations were strategically placed at highway intersections and other easily accessible places throughout each county so that they would be convenient for both local residents and travelers. Population density was a major factor considered in specifying the locations. The exact location of each of the 237 collection points is illustrated on the maps and presented in the tables of Appendix A. The amount of waste to be collected at each point is also presented in the tables with the volume being based upon population numbers and an assumed pickup of twice a week or every 3.5 days. The tables presented in Appendix A also indicate the number of 4-cubic-yard containers which should be located at each pickup site. Certain assumptions were made in determining how many collection bins to place at each site. These assumptions were supported by preliminary findings for Chilton County, Alabama.' ° Specifically, it was assumed that solid waste is discharged from the collection vehicle at an average density of 400 pounds per cubic yard. Assuming the collection vehicle has a compaction ratio of 3:1, then the non-compacted density of 1 cubic yard of waste is approximately 134 pounds. At this density, a standard 4-cubic-yard collection bin is capable of holding 536 pounds of non-compacted waste. It was further assumed that only 50 percent of bin capacity will be utilized. This assumption was necessary to allow for pe10 A. M. Alexander, G. D. Smith, and J. V. Walters, Chilton County Solid Waste Disposal DemonstrationProject Detailed Progress Report, Project Clean and Green, Clanton, Alabama, 1971, pp. 42-45. PLANNING FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES 13 riods of peak generation, and to allow a margin of error to ensure against undercapacity. Therefore, at 50 percent capacity, a 4-cubic-yard bin will contain approximately 268 pounds of solid waste. According to previously established guidelines, the average daily waste produced by each rural resident is approximately 1 pound. Given the average capacity of each 4-cubic-yard bin of 268 pounds, this means that one bin will be able to contain the waste generated by 268 rural residents in 1 day. Assuming a twice weekly pick-up, one 4-cubic-yard bin should be able to serve the disposal needs of 75 people. The number of bins needed in the rural collection areas was calculated by dividing the rural population (1970 Census) in each enumeration district by 75. It was assumed that all incorporated towns and cities had their own means of solid waste collection. The mechanics of municipal collection was not important to this study, but the quantities of waste collected did have an impact upon the location analysis. Each city was assumed to be a single collection point for the location analysis. The final step in assembling data for the location analysis was to determine the distances connecting all 271 specified points 237 collection points and 34 potential landfill sites - to each other. The distance from each point to all directly adjoining points was calculated by using a map measure on county highway maps. A computerized procedure was utilized to determine the shortest distance between each site and other 270 sites. In total, 73,441 different distance measurements were needed to determine the best sanitary landfill locations. Best Vehicle Routing After the best sanitary landfill locations were determined for each county and for various combinations of the counties and region, a computerized routing model was utilized to determine the best routes for the collection trucks to follow in picking up the waste.1' Since costs involved in the collection process are a major component of total operating cost, it is important that all collection vehicles be used as efficiently as possible. " M. C. Hallberg and W. R. Kriebel, Designing Efficient Pickup and Delivery Route Systems by Computer, (University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University, College of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 782, 1972). 14 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Distance and collection volume data used to determine best location also were used to determine the best routes. It was assumed that 30-cubic-yard compactor trucks would be used to collect waste from containers, and that each would be used for 8 hours a day- 7 hours for travel and pickup and 1 hour for unloading. Results of the routing analysis provided several types of useful information. In addition to indicating which routes the trucks should follow in picking up the waste, the solution permitted the determination of the number of trucks needed and an estimation of the total travel miles required to serve a given landfill. Such information was very useful in establishing the amount of investment and operating capital needed for the collection process. Each landfill operation was allotted a certain number of collection trucks based on the total number of routes and the time required to serve each route. Routes were combined so that a given truck would be used as efficiently as possible. The basic goal in combining routes for a given truck was to have it working 8 hours, however, it was virtually impossible to have a work day of exactly 8 hours. Tables 3 and 4 present the basic logic used in determining the number of collection trucks needed for a particular landfill operation. Table 3 illustrates the number of route combinations that a given truck could handle and in what sequence each of these route combinations occurred. For example, three trucks could handle up to nine 8-hour route combinations. With pickup scheduled for 5 days a week, 3 weeks would be required for each route combination to be served five times, for a schedule of 1% pick-ups per week. The three trucks would serve route combinations 1, 4, and 7 on the first day, 2, 5, and 8 on the second, etc. Table 4 presents the specific guide used for determining the number of trucks needed. If the number of route combinations for a given landfill did not allow for more than one open day per week, then it was assumed that a backup truck would be required for the collection system. Budgets for Cost Comparison In satisfying the central objective of determining the least cost solid waste management system for the five-county area, it was necessary to devise complete budgets for each possible sys- z z .AI 0 Q TABLE 3. GUIDE FOR DETERMINING NUMBER OF TRUCKS NEEDED FOR ROUTES ON A THREE WEEK OPERATING CYCLE SHOWING THE NUMBER OF ROUTE COMBINATIONS THAT CAN BE HANDLED BY SPECIFIED NUMBERS OF COLLECTION TRUCKS C z No. of No. of route combinations' M 1 to 3 4 to6 7to9 10tol12 T W T F S S M Days T W T F S Route Combinations 12 45 3 6 1 S M T W T F 3 6 S S mn 0 1_______________ 2--------------3---------------4-_------------- 1 2 45 7 10 13 16 19 3 1 64 2 ___3 5_-_ ---- 6 9 5 --------------6 --------------- 7 --------------- 13 to 15 16 to 18 19 to 21 8 97 8 1112 10 11 14 15 13 14 17 18 1617 2021 19 20 -_-_--12 ------ _ ___- 78 9 1011 12 15 13 14 15 18 161718 21 1920 21 7--_ 10 13 16 19 4 23 12 5 64 5 89 -__--_ _-_ __-_____-- -- 78 9 -1112 10 11 12 14 15 13 1415 -17 18 1617 18 -1 20 21 19 2021 -_- -- 'A route combination consists of an 8-hour work day. 16 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 4. GUIDE TO DETERMINING THE NUMBER OF PRIMARY AND BACKUP COLLECTION TRUCKS NEEDED FOR A SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM No. of route combinations 1 2 3 4 Open day/week' 3 1 0 3 No. of primary trucks needed 1 1 1 2 No. of backup trucks needed' 0 1 1 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 0 3 1 0 3 1 0 3 1 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 0 3 1 0 3 1 0 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 1 0 1 ] 0 1 1 open day is when a primary collection truck is not scheduled to collect on that day. 2A backup collection truck is needed when there are one or less open days per week. 'An tem. The waste generation, location, and routing analyses provided the basic input for the cost comparison budgets. The information illustrated in Table 5 is representative of the cost data used for establishing annual operating costs for each sanitary landfill operation. Size of operation and amount of equipment needed varied for each system. The budget for each system was divided into two basic parts cost of collection, and cost of storage and disposal. Each of these parts was further divided into investment costs and annual operating costs, giving four sections to each budget - collection investment costs, annual collection operating costs, storage and disposal investment costs, and storage and disposal annual operating costs. The two investment cost values were combined to show the total initial investment required for each operation and the operating costs were combined to show the total annual operating expense. The total annual operating cost was used for comparison with other derived budgets to establish the least cost solid waste management system for the study area. PLANNING FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES 17 PLAN~INIG FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES 1 The cost rate values illustrated in Table 5 were used for -budgets. Some of these values were obtained from previous studies. Others were set at a reasonable value based on the judgement of the researchers. TABLE 5. SAMPLE BUDGET, ILLUSTRATING INITIAL INVESTMENT AND ANNUAL OPERATION COST FORl A TYPICAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Item Collection investment costs Collection truck.___0 Collection truck (backup) Pickup truck ________Dump truck -----Total collection investment costs---Manager-supervisor (1/2 tim e)------ Unit Quantity Rate Amount (Dollars) cu *.yd. 30 cu *yd. 35,00:0.00 23,000.00 2,500.00 5,000.00 35,000.00 23,000.00 2,500.00 5,000.00 65, 500.00 Annual collection-operations costs -- - yr r. r. 1 8,400.00 5,500.00 4,200.00 2,750.00 6,760.00 5,720.00 5,895.00 10, 000.00 Secretary-bookkeeper - (1/2 tim e)-- --- --Labor: driver----helper -- -- -- -- -- -Depreciation Gas, fuel, oil, repairs, Interest on yr hr, r. 1 2,080 2,080 65,500 loan etc.- y_______r mil les 40,00;0 .-------- yr. 3.25 2.75 5,895.00 .25 8% 5,240.00 Total annual collection operations costs --------costs -,- 40, 565.00 1 50 Storage and disposal investment Crawler tractor with landfill Waste containers equipment --------- 4 cu. yd. Portable steam generator Misc, equipment-------Truck 1 1 50 scales ------------ 50 L and ------------------. Landfill site preparation--- t, on acr re acr Container site preparation. Equipment shed and scalehouse---------- -Acess road to landfill------ re sit( _-- 50 25 1 1 1 47,200.00 300.00 600.00 2,000.00 8,300.00 300.00 150.00 85.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 5,000.00 47,200.00 15,000.00 600.00 2, 000.00, 8,300.00 15,000.00 7,500.00 2,125.00 10, 000.00 10,000.00 5,000.00 -- Water supply----------Total storage and' disposal investment costs--------1 1 2,080 2,080 8,400.00 122,725.00 2,100.00 1,375.00 8,320.00 5,720.00 1,000.00 Annual storage and disposal operation costs Manager-supervisor yr. (14 time) -------------Secretary-bookkeeper (/4 Labor: operator laborer time)----yr.---hire 5,500.00 4.00 2.75 1,000.00 - hr. hr. - ------------ Building depreciation .--- _ Site payment and road depreciation .--------Equipment yr. yr. yr. 3,962.50 2,000.00, 3, 962.50, 2,000.00 18 ALABAMA. AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 5 (Continued). SAMPLE BUDGET, ILLUSTRATING INITIAL INVESTMENT AND ANNUAL OPERATION COST FOR A TYPICAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Fuel, oil, grease, 50 repairs, etc. ____-----... waste tons/ day 50 Utilities, office supplies___ waste tons/day yr. Building maintenance_______ Equipment depreciation---. yr. Miscellaneous cost yr. 1 Interest on loan________________ yr. 124,725 Total annual storage and disposal operations costs Total investment costs Total annual operations costs 25.00 10.00 200.00 6,579.00 200.00 8% 1,250.00 500.00 200.00 6,579.00 200.00 9,978.00 43,184.50 188,225.00 83,749.50 Collection Costs Collection equipment investment costs were based on approximations of the current market value of the equipment. 12 Thirty cubic yard, front loading packer trucks, costing approximately $35,000 each, were used in the budgets. A used packer truck, of the same size and type, was included as a backup vehicle in those systems where the primary collection trucks operated on a full schedule. The cost of the backup truck was set at $23,000. One pickup truck was allotted to each system, except in the cases where one supervisor was in charge of more than one landfill. In these instances, the cost of purchase and operation of the truck was divided evenly among the systems involved. The cost of a pickup was set at $2,500. A $5,000 dump truck was allotted to each landfill. The annual operating costs for the collection process consist of the salaries and wages of the workers, equipment depreciation, collection truck operational costs, and interest on the investment loan. The manager-supervisor's salary was divided between the collection and disposal budgets. For the individual county systems this position was allotted an annual salary of $8,400, a cost of $4,200 to the collection process. For two or more landfills in a county., a single manager-supervisor was used for all landfills and his salary was divided evenly between them. The manager-supervisor on the regional budgets received an annual salary of $9,400, divided equally between collection and disposal costs and between landfills. " Current prices of collection and disposal equipment were obtained from personal interviews with representative of Truck Equipment, Inc., Birmingham, Ala- bama, and Truxmore Industry, Inc., Richmond, Virginia. PLANNING FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES 19 Duties and salaries of the secretary-bookkeeper were allotted to each budget in the same proportion as the manager-supervisor for that landfill. The annual salary for the secretary-bookkeeper was set at $5,500 for county budgets and $6,000 for the regional and subregional budgets. The annual salary for drivers and helpers was based on a representative hourly wage rate for that type job and a 40-hour work week, 52 weeks per year. The driver's salary was set at $6,760 annually or $3.25 per hour. The helper's salary was set at $5,720 annually or $2.75 per hour. One of the primary determinants of the least cost system was the cost of operating collection trucks. A rate of $0.25 per mile times the total annual miles traveled by the collection trucks was levied on each system. This made the costs representative of the size collection area a solid waste system covers. The rate was established assuming the truck got 4 miles to each gallon of gas at $0.50 per gallon, or $0.125 per mile. The other $0.125 per mile included the cost of maintenance, repairs, and oil. The annual collection equipment depreciation was based on a 10-year, straight-line basis, with a 10 percent salvage value placed on the equipment. The final collection operations cost, assuming that a system had to borrow money to cover the initial investment cost, was in the first year's annual interest that must be paid on the borrowed money. The loan rate was set at 8 percent. Storage and Disposal Costs The type and number of bulldozers needed at each location was determined by the amount of waste delivered to the disposal site each day. Guides for determining the size of machine needed for each size landfill were obtained from other studies.1 3 A bulldozer capable of handling 50-149 tons per day costs approximately $47,200, while one capable of handling 150-249 tons per day costs approximately $57,000. Other machines, such as scrapers, draglines, compactors, and front-end loaders are used at many landfill sites. Their use depends on the volume of waste, types of waste, and soil character13 National Association of Counties Research Foundation, Solid Waste Management, Volume 5, Design and Operation, 10 volumes, (Washington: National Association for Counties Research Foundation), p. 1. 20 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION istics. They were omitted from this study because of the variability of their use. A standard 4-cubic-yard collection bin was assumed to be the type used because of its ease of handling and convenience to users. Costs of the bins were set at $300 each. A cost for preparation of container sites also was included at $85 per site. The number of pickup sites ,and the number of containers at each site was set for each system based upon population and expected generation of waste materials. A portable steam generator, used for cleaning the waste containers, was allotted to each landfill at a cost of $600 each. The cost of miscellaneous equipment needed for each landfill was valued at $2,000. The types of equipment may vary from landfill to landfill because of need. Truck scales, costing $8,300, also were included in the regional and subregional landfill budgets. They are used to record the amount of waste generated by each county. Scales are not needed at individual county landfills unless the counties prefer them. The purchase price of land was set at $300 per acre. This amount was based upon the average price of farm land in Alabama. Many governments lease land for sanitary landfill purposes, but for uniformity, all systems were budgeted using the purchase price of land. The amount of land needed for each landfill was based upon the formula presented earlier. The annual acreage requirement was multiplied by 10 to compute the estimated acreage needed for a 10-year life span. This acreage was used to determine the cost of land acquisition. Once the land has been acquired, it must be cleared and made ready for operation. The rate of $150 per acre includes the cost of fencing, clearing, and other necessary preparations. An allowance of $10,000 was made for constructing an access road to the landfill. A water supply is needed at each landfill site for sanitation purposes and various other uses. To get a permanent supply, a well must be dug or a connection made to an existing water line. The cost for the acquisition of water was set at $5,000 per landfill. An equipment shed is needed at each landfill to provide protection for the men and equipment. It also can serve as a workshop, scalehouse, and a place for restroom facilities. The cost of the building and its furnishings was set at $5,000 per landfill. PLANNING FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES 21 The storage and disposal operations costs consist of wages, salaries, equipment depreciation, equipment hire, site payment and road depreciation, equipment operational costs, building maintenance, interest on loan, and miscellaneous costs. The expense of the manager-supervisor was allocated equally between disposal operations costs and collection operations costs, with the salaries the same as previously stated. The only difference appears in the county budgets where the expense for the manager-supervisor on the disposal operations budget is onefourth of the annual salary. The remaining one-fourth of this salary is assumed to be paid from other funds, because the duties associated with the solid waste management systems in the county should not take up all of the manager-supervisor's time. The salary of the bookkeeper-secretary was allotted at the same rate as the manager-supervisor serving that system. The annual salaries of the equipment operators and laborers were based on a representative hourly wage rate for that type job and a 40-hour work week, 52 weeks per year. The salary for equipment operators was set at a $8,320 annually, or $4.00 per hour. The salary for laborers was set at $5,720 annually or $2.75 per hour. The annual disposal equipment depreciation was based on a 10-year, straight-line basis, with a 10 percent salvage value placed on the equipment. The buildings at the disposal site were depreciated on a straight-line basis, with no salvage value. The operational costs for the equipment at the disposal site also was figured on a rate basis. A rate of $25 per ton multiplied by the average daily tons disposed was levied to estimate the annual cost of fuel, oil, grease, and repairs. This rate 4was con15 sistent with other studies of solid waste management. ' Site payment and road depreciation includes the costs of buying the landfill site, the preparation of the landfill site, the preparation of the collection point sites, the access road, and the water supply. These costs were depreciated on a straight-line, 10-year basis, with no salvage value. There will be times during the year's operation when special 4 H. B. Strawn, Factors to Consider in Developing a Solid Waste Management System, (Auburn University, Cooperative Extension Circular R-30, 1971). 15 K. Clayton, "An Evaluation of the Economic Feasibility of a Regional Solid Waste System for the Southwestern Indiana and Kentucky Council of Governments Region," (Unpublished M.S. thesis, Purdue University, 1972). 22 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION or additional equipment will be needed. A $2,000 per year allowance was made for the renting of this equipment. Utilities used at the landfill and at the offices of the manager and secretary were included in the budgets. The utility rate was set at $10 per ton and multiplied by the tonnage disposed each day to give an annual cost estimate.16 Building maintenance and miscellaneous costs were estimated at $200 annually for each system. The final cost included in the disposal operations was the annual interest that must be paid on borrowed money. It was assumed that the system would have to borrow enough to cover the total investment and that interest would be charged at a rate of 8 percent annually. RESEARCH RESULTS General Cost Comparisons A total of 69 sanitary landfill budgets were prepared to aid in determining the least cost solid waste management system for the total region. The data presented in Table 6 and figures 2, 3, and 4 represent the total annual operating costs for each specified number of sanitary landfills in each county, three multi-county subregions, and the entire five-county region. The data indicate that size of the solid waste management operation being considered has a direct effect on system cost and that economies of scale are present. The "U" shaped total operating cost curve in Figure 2 clearly indicates this relationship. Each point in the curve represents the cost of storage, collection and disposal for the same amount of waste: the total generated by the region. A single landfill operation appears to be too large and is required to serve too wide an area since the total annual operating cost is greater than with a system operating two landfills. The two landfill operation apparently gives something closer to the optimum size landfill and service area since a higher total cost is also realized if three smaller landfills, each having a smaller service area, are utilized. As the number of landfills increase, the possibility of duplication and underemployment of equipment and manpower becomes more likely, thus increasing system costs. 6Ibid. PLANNING P LNNIN FOR FOR~ COMMUNL IY COMMUNITY SERVICES S~ EVI CS2 23 Total costs ($1,000) 625 600 575 550 525 500 475 450 425 400 0 1 I I I 1 6 Number of landfills FIGURE 2. Total annual operating costs for specified number of landfills for Alabama Planning Region I. 24 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 24 ALABAMA GRICUTURLEPRMN TTO Additional information presented in Table 6 and on figures 3 and 4 indicates that a single landfill would provide the best size for two of the operation for each of the individual counties three sub-regional multi-county combinations. The four-county combination of Winston, Marion, Franklin, and Colbert could realize some savings if the solid waste management system were expanded to include two sanitary landfills. and TABLE 6. ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR SOLID WASTE IN EACH COUNTY, THREE MULTIGOUNTY SUB-REGIONS, MANAGEMENT AND SYSTEMS THE REGION Area landfills Best locations cost (Dollars) 83,461 118,342 171,948 100,630 (Number) (Si ite number) 1 1 Winston County ---------------1, 3 2 W inston County --------------1, 8, 6 3 W inston County--------------8----------1 1 Marion County 8, 7 2 Marion County----------------11 7, 10------------3 Marion County 14____---1 1 Franklin County 17, 5 2 Franklin County---------------33 17, 1J 5, 19 3 Franklin County-------------- 21 1 Colbert County ------- Colbert County ________________________ 21, 2 6, 23 21, 24_------3 Colbert CoLnty 1 30_ __ L aude-rd ale Co unty___ 30, 2 2--Lauderdale County- ----- -_-------- Lauderdale County 3 30, 2 S, 2 27 139,596 180,298 95,317 134,457 179,737 114,375 149,350 211,981 167,072 171,836 248,895 239,971 255,098 278,402 215,370 240,445 275,712 301,219 300,859 309,474 505,480 442,755 456,197 502, 621 538,313 594,192 Col., Lan.1----------------Col., Lan.------------- ---Lan.----------------. 1 2 3 1 2 3 30 Col., W in., Mar., Fkl.2'-------------W in., Mar., Fkl.----_--W in., Mar., Fkl. 30, 21 28 30,2-1, 10 ------- ---_ 13, 1"7 22 9, 21 9, 21, 17, 1, ,11 Win., Mar., Fkl., Col.Y------Win., Mar., Fkl., Col.-------Win., Mar., Fkl., Col.-----4 1 2 3 11 R egion ---------------- --- R egion ---------------- --R egion .----------- ------Region ------------ ----- -Region.----------------- -- 1 2 21 21, 9 Region .----------- ----- 3 4 5 6 29 21, 9, 29, 11 21, 9, 29, 11, 17 9, 11, 17, 7, 6 I 21, 9, 21,2 (1 / 'Winston, 'Wlinston, 4 ' Colbert and Lauderdale counties. Marion, and Franklin counties. Marion, Franklin, and. Colbert counties. five counties. PLANNING FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES PLANNING FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES 25 25 Total costs ($1,000) 245 230 215 200- Lauderdale County Colbert County 185 170 155 140 125 110 95 County 80 0 2 3 Number Number of landfills numbers of landfills in FIGURE 3. Total annual operating costs for specified each county of Alabama Planning Region 1. 26 26 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION ToI Totalcot costs ($1,000) 310 300 290 280 270 260 250 240 230 220 210 0 s Win., Mar., FkI., Cal. Col., Lau. Win., Mar., Fkl. r 2 3 Number of landfills FIGURE 4. Total annual operating costs for specified numbers of landfills in selected sub-regions of Alabama Planning Region I. PLANNING FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES 27 The Least Cost System The total annual operating costs for eleven solid waste management systems in the total five-county region are presented in Table 7. Comparison of the data reveals that the least cost system calls for operation on a regional basis, with two sanitary landfills. The estimated annual operating cost for this system is $442,755, representing a savings of $12,586 over the next best system, and $118,100 over the system where each county operates its own landfill. At least 10 regional or subregional systems serve the entire five-county area with lower total annual operating costs than the combined individual county systems. Budgets representing the investment and operating costs for the two landfills in the least cost system are presented in Appendix B. The cost data presented in these budgets are based on the results of the waste generation, location and routing analyses. As indicated, the two sites selected as best for the least cost regional TABLE 7. TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR VARIOUS SOLID MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS FOR ALABAMA PLANNING REGION I WASTE Combination Region Win., Mar., Fkl.' Col., Lau. 2 - Number of landfills 2 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 Annual operating cost $442,755 215,370 239,971 456,197 300,859 167,072 301,219 167,072 215,370 255,098 309,474 167,072 502,621 505,480 538,313 83,461 100,630 95,317 114,375 167,072 Total annual operating cost $442,755 455,341 456,197 467,931 468,291 470,468 476,546 502,621 505,480 538,313 560,855 Region Win., Mar., Fkl., Col.' Lauderdale County Win., Mar., Fkl., Col............ Lauderdale County Win., Mar., Fkl. Col., Lau. Win., Mar., Fkl., Col............ Lauderdale County Region -4 Region Region Winston County Marion County Franklin County Colbert County Lauderdale County 'Winston, 2 Marion, and Franklin counties. 'Winston, Marion, Franklin, and Colbert counties. COlbert, and Lauderdale counties. 28 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION system are sites 21 and 9. Site 21, located in east central Colbert County, is the larger of the two. It would handle 505 tons of solid waste per day produced in Lauderdale County, Colbert County, and part of Franklin County. The acreage needed to handle the annual waste of 184,325 tons for 10 years was estimated to be 358 acres. Site 9, located in the northeastern part of Marion County would serve all Marion and Winston counties and part of Franklin County. The 161 tons of solid waste produced each day in this area would require 114 acres of land for a 10-year life. Site 21 serves 152 pickup points along 22 routes. These 22 routes were combined to, form 10 route combinations, with each route combination scheduled to take no more than one 8-hour day for its completion with four primary collection trucks serving these routes. The low number of trucks required is attributed to the establishment of optimum travel routes which decrease the amount of wasted time the truck spends in transit. The individual routes for site 21 and a descriptive table giving a more complete analysis of the routes, showing pickup points served, quantity of waste pickup, distance traveled, and the time necessary to complete the routes are presented in Appendix B. Site 9, the smaller of the two landfill sites, serves 75 pickup points along 13 routes. These 13 routes, which run through predominantly rural Winston County and Marion County, and rural Franklin County, were combined into seven route combinations requiring three primary collection trucks. The routing patterns for site 9 and a detailed route explanation giving the pickup points served, quantity of waste delivered, distance traveled, and the time necessary to complete each route are presented in Appendix B. The cost data for the landfills at sites 21 and 9 - the least cost system - illustrate why a regional approach to solid waste management is more economical. Having two landfill sites reduces the duplication of many of the fixed facilities at each landfill. Also, less equipment is needed and each landfill can be operated more efficiently because of the increased daily tonnage. This decreases idle working hours and increases returns to equipment and labor investment. The investment and operating costs for the collection process are reduced as a result of the regional routing. Collection routes PLANNING FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES 29 were established without regard to county boundaries preventing many unnecessary deadends and turnarounds. More efficient routes require fewer trucks, reducing the investment in vehicles and labor. SUMMARY The information presented in this bulletin is the result of a study designed to objectively analyze the possibility of economic gains from regionalization or inter-county cooperation in the provision of a given service. Solid waste collection and disposal was the service chosen for study. Five northwest Alabama counties Colbert, Franklin, Lauderdale, Marion, and Winston - were selected as the study area. Three separate simulation models were utilized to determine the least cost solid waste management system for the entire fivecounty region. The first model was used to establish the expected quantity of waste that would be generated in the study area, the location of this waste, and the size of sanitary landfill needed to dispose of the waste. The second basic model employed a computerized procedure to determine the best sanitary landfill locations from specified potential sites. The final model was used to establish the best routes for collection trucks to travel in picking up solid waste. Results of the three simulation models were assimilated into budget form so that the costs (both investment and operating) for various ways of serving the entire region might be compared. These cost comparisons indicated that economies of scale are present in solid waste management operations. The least cost system for the five-county region is comprised of two regional sanitary landfills. Expected annual operating cost is $442,755 or $12,000 less than the next best alternative. The least cost regional system would permit annual savings of $118,100 over the system with each county having a single landfill. In fact, at least ten regional or combined subregional systems serve the entire fivecounty area for a lower cost than the combined individual county system. The results of the study clearly indicate that there are gains to be realized from regional cooperation and coordination in the provision of services. In times of increasing accountability for public dollars and increased demand for public services, regionalization is a possible answer. 30 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY (1) A. M., G. D. SMITH, J. V. WALTERS. Chilton County Solid Waste Disposal Demonstration Project Detailed Progress Report, Project Clean and Green, Clanton, Alabama, 1971. ALEXANDER, (2) CARLEY, D. H. Handling Solid Waste Material in Urban Fringe and Rural Communities in Georgia. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia, College of Agricultural Experiment Stations, Research Bulletin 149, 1973. (3) CLAYTON, K. "An Evaluation of the Economic Feasibility of a Regional Solid Waste System for the Southwestern Indiana and Kentucky Council of Governments Region." Unpublished M.S. thesis, Purdue University, 1972. (4) GOLEUKE, C. G., AND P. H. McGAUHEY. Comprehensive Studies of Solid Waste Management: First and Second Annual Reports. Washington, D.C.; U.S. Public Health Service Publication 2039, 1970. (5) HALLBERG, M. C., AND W. R. KRIEBEL. Designing Efficient Pickup and Delivery Route Systems by Computer. University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University, College of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 782, 1972. (6) HARDY, W. E., JR. "A Computer Program for Locating Economic Facilities. Auburn, Alabama: Auburn University (Ala.) Agricultural Experiment Station, Ag. Econ. Ser. 24, 1973. (7) HUIE, JOHN M. Solid Waste Management: Storage, Collection, and Disposal. Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University, Cooperative Extension Service EC-397. An Interim Report 1968 National Survey of Community Solid Waste Practices, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, p. 13. (8) MUIICH, A. J. "Sample Representativeness and Community Data." (9) MUSCLE SHOALS COUNCIL OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. Regional Open Space and Recreation Study. Muscle Shoals, Alabama: 1971. (10) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES RESEARCH FOUNDATION. Solid Waste Management - Design and Operation (No. 5). U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service, Environmental Control Administration, Bureau of Solid Waste Management, 1969. agement System. Auburn, Alabama: Auburn University, Cooperative Extension Circular R-80, 1971. (11) STRAWN, H. B. Factors to Consider in Developing a Solid Waste Man- (12) U.S. BUREAU OF CENSUS. 1970 Census of Population: Final Population Counts. Advance Report PC(VI)-2, Alabama. Washington, D.C. Government Printing Office. PLANNING FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES 31 APPENDIX A Distribution and Location of Pickup Sites and Landfill Sites by County TABLE A.1. DISTRIBUTION AND LOCATION OF PICKUP SITES BY CENSUS ENUMERATION DISTRICTS, WINSTON COUNTY EDsite 1 2 ---------------------3 4 5 6 7 8 9-12 .______. 13 692 164 1,046 1,425 1,258 957 1,418 838 4,134 1................... 1,078 Number of No. ED No.opulation cubic Pickup four yard bins"2, 33 29 26 34 35 25 27 28 30 31 32 23 15 16 36 21 22 24 11 9 10 12 7 8 13 18 14 17 19 20 30 Waste/site 3.5 days (cubic yards) 12.1 2.9 2.6 3.9 2.6 5.3 2.5 3.7 3.1 3.7 4.3 16.7 3.9 4.4 4.1 3.1 3.0 1.3 72.3 4.8 6.1 3.0 4.4 4.4 3.7 5.0 3.0 2:8 3.5 3.1 200.3 Pickup site locatione 4 6 4 8 5 6 4 5 6 6 7 6 5 5 2 7 9 5 7 7 6 5 4 5 5 189 331441278-35 63412277278-77 195195278195-21 195195-93 195-19 19-32 724355-17 5278-5 278-17 14 ._____________________. 943 15 ______________________ 997 16 286 16 1,418 16,654 Based on 1970 Census data. 2 Bins are not allocated to incorporated enumeration districts since collection service is not provided. SSome enumeration districts are not alloted collection bins because of their small population. SThere is not a set number of bins for each pickup site due to differences in population densities. Waste generation is expressed in volume per 3.5 days because twice a week collection is assumed. The pickup site locations are specified by the identification numbers of the federal state, or county highways and roads which intersect at that point. In cases where only one or neither of the road numbers is given, the road numbers were unavailable. Federal roads: 278 State roads: 5, 33, 195, 243 County roads: 7, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 32, 35, 41, 63, 77, 93 'Incorporated town see Figure A.1. for name. ' ' 32 32 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION FIGURE Al. Waste pickup points and potential landfill sites in Winston County. o * Landfill sites Pickup points L Feasible landfill site areas FIGURE A.2. Waste pickup points and potential landfill sites in Marion County. PLANNING FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES TABLE A.2. DISTRIBUTION AND LOCATION OF PICKUP SITES BY ENUMERATION DISTRICTS, MARION COUNTY Pplto'Pickup 33 ED No. SitelaNo. sieN.yard Number of four cubic bins'', 9 9 Waste /site 3.5 days (cubic yards)' Pickup site location6 re 1-- - - - - - 2-----------3---- ------- 336 1,035 1,014 62 63 60 5.9 6.1 6.1 hA7 237-172 5-34 61 57 4 8 757 4_____________________ 5 66 978 6----------------------_----- -------------- - 59 64 6 10 2.9 5.5 3.8 12.7 6.3 241-12 278-241 129172- 726 6 58 778 16 ---------------------69 5 54 726 17-----------------7 56 638 18 ------------------9 48 1,129 _------------19------55 7 50-1.4 79 20 .---------------------49 _ 3,153 21-23--------------51 1,226 24 ---------------------4 5 52 3 53 5 67 5 65 7-------------- 511 7 78 1,082 8----------------------4 79 6 80 53. 77 527 9 .__________ 71 3,088 ---------------10-11 763. 187 12 ---------------------. 7 68 876 13--------------------5 70 73 802 80--------------- 6 14 5 74 6 72 933 --15------------------75 6 3.4 3.2 4.4 18719- 2535619- 2.5 3.9 54.0 4.4 17- - 3.3 3.8 1719-17 3.1 4.2 19 278, 35 4.0 3.7 17-11 278-45 3.1 12.7 4.4 6.3 278 27844-253 4.8 55.2 2.4 12978-233 3.1 1.8 3.5 38.8 233-38 2-62,1220 27-----------28------------ 81 45 5 1297 231 756 23,788 47 44 46 2 Bins are not allocated to incorporated enumeration districts since collection service is not provided. 3Some enumeration districts are not alloted collection bins because of their small population. 4There is not a set number of bins for each pickup site due to differences in 'Based 38' 5 5 174 4.07 3.5 3.1 301.9 278-45 107- on 1970 data. population densities. Waste generation is expressed in volume per 3.5 days because twice a week collection is assumed. 6The pickup site locations are specified by the identification numbers of the federal, state, or county highways and roads which intersect at that point. In cases where only one or neither of the. road numbers is given, the road numbers were unavailable. Federal roads: 78, 278 State roads: 5, 17, 19, 44, 107, 129, 172, 187, 233, 237, 241, 253 County roads: 11, 12, 34, 35, 38, 45, 56 Incorporated town, see Figure A.2. for name. 34 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE A.3. DISTRIBUTIoN AND LOCATION OF PICKUP SITS BY ENUMERATION DISTRICTS, FRANKLIN COUNTY EDNo opltin EDN. Ppuain 1_0 1-6'701A Number of Pku scupNo four cubic 4 2 sieN.yard bins ,' lISA I V'± Waste /site (cubic Pickup 5 3.5 days 1Q/2 1617.o yards) locationa 7 site 9--10_ 11 _ 12_ 1,187 1,097 899 99 3.1 808 894 13_ 14_ 15-16. 17 ---181920- 838 2,464 100 101 102 103 110 111 112 108 109 95 105 96 97 98 117 4.2 3.8 3.8 3.7 2.4 2.0 2.2 3.5 4.2 3.5 3.5 3.1 43- 2418724-187 43- 3.1 3.9 43.1 242424-247 247 655 1,132 207 366 1,080 118 120 121 119 113 2122232425- 1,230 1,098 1,011 1,153 23,933 115 114 116 91 92 89 90 93 94 4.5 3.7 3.1 4.3 3.6 6.4 5.9 3.5 172243- 21.5 3.9 3.8 5.1 106 107 33 158 1970 Census data. 5.3 3.9 3.9 2.6 314.9 543-5 43187- 1 Based on are not allocated to incorporated enumeration districts since collection service is not provided. small population. 4There is not a set number of bins for each pickup site due to differences in generation is expressed in volume per 3.5 days because twice a week collection is assumed. 2 Bins population densities. ' Some 'Waste enumeration districts are not alloted collection bins because of their s The pickup site locations are specified by the identification numbers of the federal, state, or county highways and roads which intersect at that point. In cases where only one or neither of the road numbers is given, the road numbers were unavailable. Federal roads: 43 State roads: 5, 24, 174, 187, 243, 247 'Incorporated town, see Figure A.3. for name. I- 177 W z z 0 Q 0 C '0 CD z < 0 m a. -r, a Landfill sites Pickup points Feasible landfill site areas Iw 36 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT 36 TABLE ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION A.4. DISTRIBUTION AND LOCATION OF PICKUP SITES BY ENUMERATION DISTRICTS, COLBERT COUNTY XT.1I~o STATION r~C Waste/site D ED: 1 -- -- 2 --- - - 1,231 -------. -------. Site No. yard 139 128 2,066 four cubic bins '3 '4 3.5 days (cubic yards)5 Pickup rI( site locations 404040-48 40184184184247272157 157-48 485740- _------- 1,569 ----------------7-12--13 --- - - 14 ----15----17 ----18 - - -19-31 32---- 33----34 ----35 ----36-45--_ 46 -----47----48 ----49---- 50 ----51---- -------------- 808 810 129 130 131 134 133 135 137 138 140 144 145 146 147 ---------816 6,907 154 ---_---------- --- 408 3 73 132 -136 141 143 149 150 155 21.5 3.5 3.5 3.9 4.4 4.1 3.1 3.8 4.2 3.7 4.4 3.4 3.9 3.5 3.8 120.9 5.0 * 698 722 ------13,115 14 1 --8,828 858 -9 65 387 76 2,416 4.2 3.5 1.8 2.0 2.8 229.5 g, 18472-133 15757, 156 151 142 148 152 153 158 157 159 160 162 161 163 164 166 167 169 168 6 8 10 9 5 5 5 4 6 5 3 3 4 6 6 154.5 15.0 4.1 5.1 6.3 5.9 3.1 3.5 3.5 2.6 3.8 3.1 2.2 1.8 2.6 3.9 26.0 3.7 72-43 55555151-65 6549-65 72247-72 247-33 72-33 7272(C1ontinued) 52- 1,370 53- 1,556 5455 ------------- ~ -- 1,484 1,043 PLANNING FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES TABLE A.4 (Continued). DISTRIBUTION AND LOCATION OF PICKUP SITES BY ENUMERATION DISTRICTS, COLBERT COUNTY 37 ED No. Population s Pickup 173 174 175 171 172 165 170 48 Number of four cubic yard bins' ' 5 6 5 5 5 5 4 230 Waste/site 3.5 days (cubic yards)5 3.6 3.8 3.1 3.0 3.6 3.0 2.9 718.1 Pickup site location 6 7215124715- 56 57-... 1,099 9013 49,632 2Bins are not allocated to incorporated enumeration districts since collection service is not provided. Some enumeration districts are not alloted collection bins because of their small population. There is not a set number of bins for each pickup site due to differences in population densities. SWaste generation is expressed in volume per 3.5 days because twice a week collection is assumed. 6 The pickup site locations are specified by the identification numbers of the federal, state, or county highways and roads which intersect at that point. In cases where only one or neither of the road numbers is given, the road numbers were unavailable. Federal roads: 42, 83 State roads: 133, 157, 184, 247 County roads: 1, 15, 24, 33, 40, 48, 49, 51, 55, 57, 65. 7Incorporated town, see Figure A.4 for name. 2 1Based on 1970 Census data. Iw m .1~ L® Landfill sites "Pickup points Feasible landfill site areas O CD W C '0 0_3 0 3 a0 .y. a C r- rn Cn z- 0 aQ S Q z PLANNING FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES TABLE A.5. DISTRIBUTION AND LOCATION OF PICKUP SITES BY ENUMERATION DISTRICTS, LAUDERDALE COUNTY Waste/site Pikp Number of icu four cubic 4 3.5 site No. yr binsD, 3 (cubic days is'' yards)' 39 L ED No. 1yard 2-3--5- - Population'1 950 * 1,156 * 1,006 289 1,284 Pickup site locations 64-207 64-89 Or 1,188 * 278 1,350 1,368 683 * 1,076 67-541 1,093 1,607 70-80B91--* 1,048 1,383 189 194 195 196 197 193 188 190 191 192 185 186 187 198 204 202 203 205 208 199 200 201 215 206 219 218 220 221 222 223 224 207 214 216 217 209 210 211 212 213 5 5 6 5 6 6 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 9 6 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 6 -- 16.6 3.1 3.3 3.7 3.5 3.8 3.7 2.8 3.6 3.3 3.1 3.2 3.1 2.9 4.9 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.3 2.9 3.6 2.3 12.0 2.9 3.5 5.9 4.2 3.5 3.4 3.6 3.8 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.7 2.6 2.8 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.1 2.5 3.0 3.5 3.3 3.8 207-50 722620720720720772101-50 10164714372-101 101434743-47 4743-72 647264717272- 1,468 1,192 636 --- 234 235 237 238 239 231 232 240 233. 226 616117171747174772 (Continued) 306 * 1,390 --225 40 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE A.5 (Continued). DISTRIBUTION AND LOCATION OF PICKUP SIES BY ENUMERATION DISTRICTS, LAUDERDALE COUNTY Pplto EDNo Pouain No. 1 Pickup st Number of four sieN.yard 227 228 254 236 230 242 241 243 244 245 253 cubic 3.5 days 5 bins2 ,',' (cubic yards) 5 6 3.3 3.3 595.5 3.5 3.7 3.5 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.8 Waste /site Pickup locations 72 72 47 133 1717157157site 5 5 22-6364---65---- 34,031 663 417 508 __ 571 260 65-A-65-B-65-C-65-D-- 5 6 5 5 6 66---69---- 67---67-A -67-B-68---70---71---72---73---74---75---76---77---78-A-- 126 88 9 317 37 321 5 9 229 6 3.7 72-133 1,105 78-B 79-A-79-B-80---- 1,208 744 1,148 1,237 81---- 799 82838485- 1,368 339 248 249 250 251 247 259 260 257 258 246 252 263 265 266 267 269 255 261 262 264 256 271 1,242 262 --268 270 272 88 6 5 5 6 6 4 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 4 4 4 425 3.8 3.5 3.3 3.7 3.7 2.9 4.0 3.9 3.7 3.7 3.4 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.6 3.1 3.2 3.4 4.6 2.6 2.8 2.6 912.5 15715715720 20-8 202015714141420-14 14201414-8 14(Continued) 68,111 PLANNING FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES 41 TABLE A.5 (Continued). DISTRIBUTION AND LOCATION OF PICKUP SITES BY ENUMERATION DISTRICTS, LAUDERDALE COUNTY 1 Based on 1970' Census data. enumeration districts since collection 2 Bins are not allocated to incorporated service is not provided. 3 Some enumeration districts are not alloted collection bins because of their small population. 4 There is not a set number of bins for each pickup site due to differences in population densities. SWaste generation is expressed in volume per 3.5 days because twice a week collection is assumed. 6 The pickup site locations are specified by the identification numbers of the federal, state, or county high ways and roads which intersect at that point. In cases where only one or neither of the road numbers is given, the road numbers were unavailable. Federal roads: 43, 72. State roads: 17, 20, 64, 101, 133, 157, 207. County roads: 8, 14, 26, 47, 50, 61, 71, 89. 7 Incorporated town, see Figure A.5 for name. A Landfill sites * Pickup points . Feasible landfill site areas FIGURE A.5. dale County. Waste pickup points and potential sanitary landfill sites in Lauder- C.C aM VI cA 3Q 3 ^r 2. 0 (A a C C m- 0 m Landfill sites V " ::Feasible Pickup . z -I points landfill site areas z PLANNING FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES 43 APPENDIX B Budgets and Collection Vehicle Routes for Least Cost Solid Waste Management System TABLE Bi. BUDGET, SITE 21 OF TWO REGIONAL LANDFILLS Item Unit Quantity Rate Amount Collection equipment costs Collection truck 30 Collection truck (backup) 30 Pickup truck------------ -Dump truck--------------Total collection equipment costs--- ----- cu. yd. cu. yd. _-- 4 0 1 2 $35,000.00 23,000.00 2,500.00 5,000.00 Dol. $140,000.00 2,500.00 10,000.00 $152,500.00 Annual collecting (1/2 (1/2 operations cost ------ Manager-supervisor Secretary-bookkeeper time) Labor: 4 drivers 6 helpers time)-------- yr. 1 3DG35 8,400.00 6,000.00 2.75 13,725.00 4,700.00 3,000.00 27,040.00 34,320.00 13,725.00 28,652.00 12,200.00 $123,637.00 Depreciation -----------Gas, fuel, oil, repairs, etc.Interest on ---------- --loan ----------- --------- yr.----hr. hr. :35 yr. miles yr. 1 8,32)3.25 12,4830 p>15 Total annual collection operations 114,60S.25 152,5( costs--_---2 2 1 75 )8 47,200.00 54 300.00 600.00 2,000.00 8,300.00 300.00 58 150.00 52 85.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 5,000.00 Storage and disposal equipment costs Crawler tractor with landfill equipment Waste containers 4 cu. yd. Portable steam generator-Misc. equipment Truck Land -- -- - - -- -- - - - -- -- . Landfill site site shed and scales 50 tons acre acre site Container preparation- Equipment preparation 94,400.00 226,200.00 1,200.00 2,000.00 8,300.00 107,400.00 53,700.00 12,920.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 5,000.00 $531,120.00 scalehouse----------__ Access road to W ater supply----------Total storage and disposal equipment costs---------- landfill 1 ---- 1 1 Annual storage and disposal operations costs Manager-supervisor ('/2 tim e) yr.--------Secretary-bookkeeper ('/2 1 n4,1 $ 9,400.00 6,000.00 2.75 1,000.00 4,700.00 3, 000.00 16,640.00 11,440.00 1,000.00 18,902.00 2,000.00 tim e) -------------- Labor: 2 2 laborers - --- - hr. Building depreciation.yr. Site payment and road depreciation----------yr. Equipment hire-------- yr. Fuel, oil, grease, operators ----- . yr. hr. 1 S4.00 __ - 18,902.00 2,000.00 (Continued) 44 ALABAMA TABLE B.1 (Continued). BUDGET, AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SITE 21 OF Two REGIONAL LANDFILLS Item Unit Quantity Rate Amount 505 waste tons/day repairs, etc._______________,_____ 505 Utilities, office supplies-----. waste tons/day Building maintenance-yr. 332,100 yr. Equipment depreciation___ 1 yr. Miscellaneous costs____________ 531,120 yr. Interest on loan _______---Total annual storage and _148,136.00 disposal operation cost Total investment costs______ Total annual operations costs 25.00 10.00 (Dollars) 12,625.00 5,050.00 200.00 29,889.00 200.00 8% 200.00 29,889.00 200.00 42,490.00 683,620.00 271,773.00 TABLE B.2. ROUTES AND PICKUP POINTS SERVED FROM THE LANDFILL LOCATED AT SITE 21 Route Pickup points served 103, 95, 105 98, 97, 100 101, 102 108, 108, 112 119, 118, 116 115 132, 131, 130 128, 129, 133 134 137, 135, 136 243, 244, 241 242 140, 138, 139 142, 120, 121 153, 152 143, 146, 149, 151, 162, 165, 160, 158 168, 173, 170 169, 195, 192, 187, 144, 147, 150, 148 161, 111, 159, 145 99 141 164 110 157 Quantity picked up Cu. yd. 29.5 Distance traveled Hours spent 3.40 Miles 59.4 28.6 89.4 4.32 27.5 34.0 2.43 26.5 33.2 2.37 296 23.1 27.8 22.4 33.6 31.6 2.22 2.23 2.37 20.1 28.8 18.8 60.0 1.60 3.38 10_ 175, 174 172, 171 166 194, 193 190, 188 185, 186 29.8 76.2 4.47 12._ _ 28.6 29.4 33.6 82.2 2.52 4.25 (Continued) PLANNING FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES TABLE B.2 (Continued). ROUTS AND PICKUP POINTS SERVED FROM THlE LANDFILL LOCATED AT SITE 45 21 Distance Quantity picked up traveled Cu. ydl. -Miles ---13---_------------------------ 29.7 189, 191, 196 61.2 197, 201 14------------------------------- 199, 198, 200 29.6 71.0 202, 203, 204 205, 207, 206 15 ------------------------------ 27.4 213, 211, 210 57.4 212, 209, 208 216, 217 16 -----------------------------226, 214, 215 26.3 34.6 225, 229 17--_--------------------------27.9 222, 221, 218 48.8 219, 220, 223 224 18-----------------------------235, 234, 238 29.2 61.6 237, 250, 251 249, 248, 247 Route Pickup points served 19---------------236, 233, 239 29.0 39.2 Hours spent 3.47 3.70 3.22 2.43 2.93 3.47 2.67 20---------------21---------------- 240, 227, 245, 266, 262, 255, 252, 232, 228, 246, 265, 261 264, 253 231 230 257 .263 256 26.8 17.9 29.5 46.4 26.8 80.6 2.87 1.73 4.13 22 ---------------- 267, 269, 268 270, 271, 272 260, 259, 258 152 ILA 602.6 1,102.0 66.17 V V " 1 46 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION FIGURE B.1. Routing patterns for site 21. PLANNING FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES PLANING OR CMMUNTY SRVICS 47 4 FIGURE B.I. (Cont.). Routing patterns for site 21. 48 1 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT r 1 STATION -9 FIGURE B.I. (Cont.). Routing patterns for site 21. PLANNING FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES 49 TABLE B.3. BUDGET, SrrE 9 OF Two REGIONAL LANDFILLS Item Collection equipment costs Collection truck Collection truck (backup) Pickup truck---______ Dump truck------- Unit Quantity Rate Amount Dol. 30 cu *. yd. 30 cu z. yd. - 3 0 $35,000.00 23,000.00 i 105,000.00 2,500.00 5,000.00 112,500.00 1 1 2,500.00 5,000.00 Total collection equipment costs---Annual collecting operations costs Manager-supervisor (1/2 tim e)-----------Secretary-bookkeeper (1/2 Labor: ,r. 1 1 6,240 6,240 85,270 112,500 9,400.00 6,000.00 4,700.00 3,000.00 20,280.00 17,160.00 10,125.00 21,318.00 9,000.00 85,583.00 time)------3 --- r. drivers ----------- hr r. 3 helpers _---------__ ______---Depreciation Gas, fuel, oil, repairs', etc._ Interest on hr yr r. r. loan ---------- mils yr les r. 3.25 2.75 10,125.00 .25 8% Total annual collection -________ operations disposal equipment costs Storage Crawler tractor with landfill equipment 4 cu. yd. Waste containers Portable steam generator Misc. equipment--------50 tons Truck scales------------------acre L an d --.- ---- --acre site preparation site Container site preparation and costs 1 372 2 1 114 114 75 Landfill Equipment 57,000.00 300.00 600.00 2,000.00 8,300.00 300.00 150.00 85.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 111,600.00 1,200.00 2,000'.00 8,300.00 34,200.00 17,100.00 6,375.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 5,000.00 262,775.00 57,000.00 shed and scalehouse---------Total storage and disposal equipment costs Access road to landfill supply----------- W ater ---- 1 1 1 Annual storage and disposal operations costs Manager-supervisor (1/2 time)-1 yr. S ecretary-b ookke eper (1/2 time) yr. 1 hr. 2,080 Labor: operator hr. 2,080 laborerBuilding depreciation--yr. Site payment and road depreciation _----- yr. -Equipment yr. -Fuel, oil, grease, 161 repairs, etc.waste tons/day Utilities, office supplies - waste tons /day -161 yr. Building maintenance yr. Equipment depreciation Miscellaneous costs yr. 1 yr. 262.775 Interest on loan_----_- ------------------ $ 9,400.0 0 ac86,000.0 0 4.0 0 2.7 5 1,000.0 o0 7,268.0 0 2,000.0 0 25.0 0 10.0 0 200.0 '0 26,334.0 200.0 '0 $ 4,700.00 ------- _ 3,000.00 8,320.00 5,720.00 1,ooo0.oo 7,268.00 2,000.00 hire 4,025.00 1,610.00 -- 0 200.00 26,334.00 200.00 21,022.00 __ 3~--- V, l__ __ (Continued) 50 50 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE B.3 (Continued). BUDGET, SITE 9 OF Two REGIONAL LANDFILLS Item Unit Quantity Rate Amount Dol. Total annual storage and disposal operation cost Total investment costs Total annual operations costs TABLE B.4. .$375,275.00 $ 85,399.00 $170,982.00 ROUTES AND PICKUP POINTS SERVED FROM THE LANDFILL LOCATION AT SITE 9 RuePickup Rueserved points Quantity picked up Cu. Distance traveled Hours spent yd. Miles 16.4 28.2 62.6 50.2 111.4 103.6 46.8 63.8 70.2 51.6 102.8 83.5 28.8 819.9 1-- -- --- --- - -- -. 10, 9 10.9 24.7 26.5 28.3 27.4 27.7 28.6 27.9 28.6 29.7 28.3 29.3 26.6 344.5 1.07 2.12 3.40 3.07 5.05 5.30 2.98 3.43 3.72 2 ---------------3 ---------------4 -------------- 5------------- 13, 60, 62 63, 61 15, 12, 8 92, 96, 89, 7 20, 36, 16, 23 33, 35, 25 --- 21, 22, 24 34, 32, 31 30, 29, 28 27, 26 55, 54, 53 51, 5,5 57, 58, 56 18,27 1,1 67, 113, 114 107, 106, 93 94 69, 68, 66 64, 65 75, 73, 74 77, 78, 80 79, 76 50, 81, 48 6---------------7--- - ----------------- 8---------------9---------------10---------------11--------------- 3.17 4.82 4.17 2.27 44.55 12 ------------------ 47, 46, 44 72, 70 13-------------------------90, 91 75 PLANNING FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES 51 PLNIGIO OMUIYSRVCS5 I I /I; r\l FIGURE B.2. Routing patterns for site 9. Alabama's Agricultural Experiment Station System AUBURN UNIVERSITY With an agricultural research unit in erv2 major soil area, Auburn Universitv se rv es the needs of field crop, livestock. forestrv, and horticultural producer s in each region in Alabama. Ever citizen of ? 1 5 Q 6 the State has a stake in this research program, i2 n to i since anv advxantage from new and more economical Nvays of producing and handling farm pro lucts directly benefits the consuming public. a , 20 Research Unit Identification Maur, 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Agriculturlc Experiment Station, Auburn. Tennessee Volley Substation, Belle Mina. Sand Mounrain Substation, Crossville. North Alabama Horticulture Substation, Cullman. Upper Coastal Plain Substation, Winfield. Forestry Unit, Fayette County. Thorsby Foundation Seed Stocks Farm, Thorsby. Chilton Area Horticulture Substation, Clanton. Forestry Unit, Coosa County. Piedmont Substation, Camp Hill. Plant Breeding Unit, Tallassee. Forestry Unit, Autauga County. Prattville Experiment Field, Prattville. Black Belt Substation, Marion Junction. Tuskegee Experiment Field, Tuskegee. Lower Coastal Plain Substotion, Camden. Forestry Unit, Barbour County. Monroeville Experiment Field, Monroeville. Wiregross Substation, Headland. Brewton Experiment Field, Brewton. Ornamental Horticulture Field Station, Spring Hill. Gulf Coast Substation, Fairhope