Solid Waste Management Plan - 1972 (Prelim)
I
III
I
I
-I
I
I
1
-I.. ...c, "'...PL..A.....N.. . .
~ 'T'~~\..'. .' . . . '_'
:1
01
~I
"I
~I
~I
:1
:1
:1
-I .....;::i::~:}':;~:.~::..~~..:.;: .Zc~;
~. -. . - . "":. -.- - ..... ._~ ~ -' -.. -+-..--
~,.:.......:'.~0~c-' ;; :~:~. ::~: _7~~:::c ~;:: c-:.::.,~:.. ~<"L;~~:' :;.c=:i-..:<_..::~ =E~.:.::;~:.=_~'.:,;::;;:ii-~:'2:;.:;~;1;~~c :.:.~-:;~:~3'I..fii-?if&".; j_;::;:.,~~:~;;.i0:.:4;~L~~~~'~0i
SALINE
CD,UNTV
. SOLID
,'WASTE
.MANAGEMENI
.~~~~
"':-:.., ~~.-::~:?'
.1
,. /,~
. ~'~';')..
. '~i:t~.:.:::.
PAIiLIMINJiRY
1972
...,
..,.
P'
[I
...~
I
11" .~
I
I':.'
;1
. ,..
~I
,~
cl
r-
il
,. -,
LI
t
r-9
I ;
II
,
II
It. :~~
11
.1
11
~
lJ
ril
LJI
I N D E X
PART 1 - BACKGROUND STUDIES
GENERAL . .
DEFINITION OF TERMS . .
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA
ECONOMICS, POPULATION AND LAND USE . .
Economics.
Population.
Location and Density of the Population:
Population Projections:
Land Use.
TRANSPORTATION
Airports.
Railroads.
Highways.
UTILITIES . .
Telephone.
Electricity.
Gas.
PART 2 - EXISTING PRACTICES
EXISTING SYSTEMS
Salina.
Brookville.
Assaria.
Falun.
Gypsum.
Smolan.
New Cambria.
Schilling.
Kansas Wesleyan Reclamation Center.
PART 3 - REFUSE GENERATION
SOLID WASTE QUANTITIES
WASTE CATEGORIES . .
REFUSE PRODUC~ION . .
Projections of Solid Waste Generation.
Special Waste.
tI
II
-i-
Page No.
1
1
2
6
7
7
8
10
11
12
13
13
13
14
14
14
14
15
16
16
17
18
18
18
18
19
19
19
19
20
20
21
22
25
26
:1
I
I
'I
~I
,--..,
;1
,--~
II
r ..
il
t
r,:;
tl
I
.1
:1
, ~
I
II
LI
I
I
I
PART 4 - GENERAL STANDARDS
Page No.
29
29
29
29
30
31
32
33
33
34
34
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
GENERAL . .
STORAGE . .
General.
Specific Storage Standards.
Residential Storage Facilities.
Commercial and Industrial Storage
Facilities.
ON-SITE VOLUME REDUCTION . .
COLLECTION SYSTEMS AND STANDARDS
Municipal and Contract Systems.
Private System.
Transportation Systems.
Standards.
DISPOSAL SYSTEMS AND FACILITY STANDARDS
Incineration and Landfilling.
Composting and Landfilling.
Pulverizing and Landfilling.
Sanitary Landfilling.
PART 5 - SOLID WASTE PLAN
49
GENERAL . .
DISPOSAL . .
Sanitary Landfill Acreage.
Operating Equipment Necessary for
Sanitary Landfill.
Closing Open Dump Sites.
SANITARY LANDFILL COST ESTIMATES
Land Cost.
Initial Site Development.
Equipment Purchase.
Equipment Maintenance, Operation and
Amortizing.
Labor.
Miscellaneous Expenses and Contingencies.
Annual Cost.
FINANCING THE SANITARY LANDFILL . .
ADMINISTRATION . .
Administrative Services under Contract.
Administrative Services under Department
of Public Works.
DISTRIBUTION OF COST . .
49
49
50
50
51
51
51
52
52
52
52
52
52
59
60
60
60
60
-ii-
I
~~
I
~~.
I
r~~
-I
." ,
:1
~~
-I
~~
11
.~
il
~
r-
LI
~I
.1
.1
J
il
~
I
]
1
TABLES
Dominant Employment Groups --------------______________
Estimated Employment Classifications -------___________
Employment Comparisons ----------~-----------__________
Population Trends ----------------------_______________
Township Population ----------------------_____________
Population Density, 1972 -------------------___________
Population Projections ---------------------___________
Solid Waste Materials by Kind, Composition
and Sources ------------------------_______________
Saline County Solid Waste Generation ----------________
Solid Waste Disposal Factors ---------------___________
Total Waste Generation and Adjusted Quantities
Receivable at Central Sanitary Landfill ---------__
Total Waste Generation and Waste Received at
Disposal Site -------------------------____________
Sanitary Landfill Cost (County-Wide) ---------_________
Sanitary Landfill Cost (Excluding Salina) -------______
Table of Estimated Cost ------------------_____________
Solid Waste Disposal Costs ------------------__________
-iii-
Page No.
7
8
8
9
9
10
11
21
23
24
25
25
54
57
61
62
'I
~~
I
I
.~
:1
~~
t
~~
il
T-
~I
r c
II
,
,
,
.~
II
~I
~I
I
r.
~
r.
~
~
lJr.....-
1
;
I
PART 1
BACKGROUND STUDIES
GENERAL
The responsibility for removal and disposal of solid waste in
a safe and sanitary manner is shared by every person within the
Study Area of Saline County. With increasing population and ever
larger quantities of waste being discarded, the problems of exist-
ing waste handling and disposal systems are growing rapidly.
Any waste disposal system that is to receive public acceptance
must be economical as well as nuisance-free. Ultimate disposal of
waste under present-day technology is dependent on some form of
landfilling.
The basic problem in solid waste management is the apathy of
the general public and the unglamorous nature of solid waste
disposal. Until recently, few people were concerned with these
matters. Except in a few cases, little professional skill has
been applied to the storage, collection, transportation and dis-
posal of solid waste. As a result, the services being offered
are often inadequate in scope and execution, and cost more than
first-class, well-organized services.
Cognizant of the problems of waste handling and lack of suit-
able disposal facilities in Saline County, and as required by
State statutes, the County Commiss~on has undertaken a compre-
hensive analysis of its solid waste problems and solutions.
The scope of the report includes:
1. General background studies -- economics, population, and
land use.
2. Development of the nature and quantity of solid waste
being produced in the Study Area and an estimate of future
waste production.
3. Development of alternative plans for collecting and haul-
ing waste from the point of generation to the point of
disposal.
4. Location of sites that are suitable for disposal of waste
produced in the study area.
-1-
.',,",
fl
.~
I
lJ:-".'
-I
r.-~
;1
..,....
jl
I
I
'I
II
~
il
~I
~I
II
fI
II
r.
t.
[I
1'1
5. Development of a master plan for the handling and disposal
of the Study Area's solid waste to the year 1990.
6. Recommendations for administration and financing the
master plan, including a time-table and plan of action.
DEFINITION OF TERMS .
1. Ab~ndoned Vehicles -- Passenger automobiles, trucks, and
trailers that are no longer useful as such which have been
abandoned on streets, highways and other public places.
2. Agricultural Waste Solid waste resulting from the pro-
duction of farm or agricultural products.
3. Air Pollution -- The presence in the outdoor atmosphere
of one or more air contaminants in such quantity and dura-
tion as is or tends significantly to be injurious to human
health or welfare, animal or plant life, or property, or
would unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life or
property.
4. Bulky Waste -- Large items of refuse such as appliances,
furniture, large auto parts, trees and branches, stumps,
and similar large items not easily crushed or reduced in
volume using light landfilling equipment.
5. Commercial Haste -- All solid waste originating in commer-
cial establismaents.
6. Composting -- A process for biological decomposition of
organic waste in a nuisance-free manner through controlled
environment either aerobic or anaerobic, producing a stable
residue which may be used as a soil conditioner.
7. Construction and Demolition Hastes -- Waste building ma-
terials and rubble resulting from construction, remodeling,
repair, and demolition operations on houses, commercial
buildings, pavements and other structures.
8. Demolition Landfill -- A landfill used exclusively for the
disposal of demolition waste.
9. Disposal Area -- A site, location, tract of land, area,
building, structures, or premises used or intended to be
used for partial and/or total refuse disposal.
-2-
.,. .~
.1
II"'':lII
I
.
I
'--'1
I
I' -...
I
f '''~
~I
~i
r ''':
11
II
r)
II
f-....,
11
~I
kl
1.
4
J.....'"
~
[J
LI
']-
.,
]
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Domestic Waste -- All types of refuse which normally
originate in the residential household or apartment house.
Dump, Open -- The consolidation of waste from one or more
sources at a central out-of-doors disposal area, which has
little or no management and which does not conform to the
requirements of a landfill or sanitary landfill.
Dump, Open Burning -- An open dump where burning is per-
mitted in an uncontrolled manner.
Dump, Controlled Open Burninq -- An open dump where burn-
ing is controlled by some responsible person. Burning is
not confined to an incinerator but is practiced in the open
on the ground.
Dump, Controlled -- See Landfill.
Garbage -- Garbage is the solid or semi-solid animal and
vegetable waste resulting from the handling, preparation,
cooking and serving of foods, including cans, bottles and
cartons in which it was received and wrappings in which it
may be placed for disposal. Garbage does not include com-
mercial and industrial waste from meat-packing plants, food
processing plants such as canneries and crop wastes from
farms, nor market wastes which originate in wholesale and
retail stores or markets engaged in the storage, process-
ing and selling of food products.
Ground Hater
saturation.
Water in the ground that is in the zone of
Hazardous Waste -- Solid and liquid waste which requires
special handling and disposal to protect and conserve the
environment and shall include pesticides, acids, caustics,
pathological waste, radioactive materials, flammable or
explosive materials.
Incinerator -- The controlled process of burning solid,
semi-solid, liquid or gaseous conbustible wastes in an
enclosed device, producing an inoffensive gas and a sterile
residue containing little or no combustible material. The
process is used to reduce the volume or weight of waste
material or to change the characteristics of hazardous
wastes to. a safer form.
Industrial Waste -- All solid waste originating in indus-
trial establishments.
-3-
....
t
..~
I
'l"
I
'1 ~.
I
f.-.'
tl
~--'1.
;1
r -
tl
f'---~
il
e-. - ~
III
C'l
II
C"'
II
il
.1
!I
"'~
tI
[I
[J
[J
I
20. Landfill Same as a sanitary landfill, except, cover
material is applied from time to time as required, instead
of daily or more frequently. To be acceptable, landfills
must be restricted to inert, non-combustible, non-putrescible
solid waste materials.
21. Mixed Refuse -- A mixture of solid waste containing both
putrescibl~ and non-putrescible materials.
22. On-Site Disposal -- The disposal or partial disposal of
solid wastes on the premises where it was originated, in-
cluding incineration or burial.
23. Person -- Means individual, partnership, corporation,
institution, political subdivision, or state agency.
24. Pollution -- The contamination of any air, water or land
so as to create a nuisance or render such air, water or
land unclean or noxious, or impure so as to be actually or
potentially harmful or detrimental or injurious to public
health, safety, or welfare, to domestic, commercial, indus-
trial or recreational use, or to livestock, wild animals,
birds, fish, or other aquatic life or to plant life.
25. Processing of Wastes -- Any technology applied for the pur-
pose of reducing the bulk or hazards of solid waste mate-
rials or any technology designed to convert part or all of
the solid waste materials for reuse.
26. Refuse -- Unwanted or discarded material resulting from
commercial, industrial and agricultural operations and
from normal comnlunity activities. Refuse includes in part
the following: garbage; rubbish, ashes and other residue
after burning; street refuse; dead animals; animal waste;
motor vehicles; agricultural, commercial and industrial
waste; construction and demolition waste, and sewage treat-
ment residue; provided, however, that the term "refuse"
does not include any uncontaminated earth, stone or minerals.
27. Residue -- Solid material remaining after burning, including
ash, metal, glass, ceramics, plastics, and unburned combus-
tibles.
28. Rubbish -- Non-putrescible wastes, such as cardboard,
paper, ti~ cans, wood, glass, bedding, crockery, or litter
of any kind.
-4-
"I
-
"'"
'I
'1""
I
\1 ~~
'I
,,,
,I
,.~"
'I
II
, .
il
II
~
29. Salvage, Auto -- A commercial enterprise engaged in the
purchase of obsolete or damaged motor vehicles for the
removal and resale of usable parts and the reclaiming of
valuable metals.
30. Salvage, Metal -- A commercial enterprise engaged in the
purchase of salvaged metals for resale, or processing and
resale of these metals to metal-consuming industry.
31. Salvaging -- The controlled removal of reusable materials,
not to be confused with scavenging.
32. Sanitary Landfill Operation -- A method of disposing of
solid wastes on land without creating nuisances or hazards
to the public health or safety by confining refuse to the
smallest practical area, compacting it to the smallest
practical volume by employing power equipment, and cover-
ing with a layer of compacted earth or other suitable cover
material at the conclusion of each day's operation.
33. Scavenging -- The uncontrolled picking of materials, not to
be confused with salvaging.
,~
11
il
~
~
II
LI
It
)
)
34. Solid Waste Disposal Area -- Also referred to herein as
"disposal area" or "disposal site", means any area used
for the disposal of refuse from more than one residential
premise, or one or more commercial, industrial, manufac-
turing, or municipal operation.
35. Solid Waste Management System -- The entire process of
storage, collection, transportation, processing, and dis-
posal of solid wastes by any city, authority, county or
any combination thereof, or by any person engaging in such
process as a business.
36. Solid Waste -- Garbage, refuse and other discarded material
including, but not limited to, solid and liquid waste mate-
rials resulting from industrial, commercial, agricultural
and domestic activities.
37. Solid Waste Processing Facility -- Also referred to herein
as "processing facility" means incinerator, compost plant,
transfer station or any other location where solid wastes
are consolidated, temporarily stored or salvaged prior to
being tra~sported to a final disposal site.
-5-
..'"
t
.",
I
I
lr ...~
,I
It'.'"
II
I
[I
,
;1
t
II
r-~
[I
.,.--"
II
!..
~I
1
fI
[I
[J
[I
I
38. Street Refuse -- Material picked up by manual and mechan-
ical sweeping of streets and sidewalks, litter from public
receptacles, and dirt removed from catch basins.
39. Vector (of disease) -- An animal or insect which transmits
infectious diseases from one person or animal to another by
biting the skin or mucous membrane or by depositing infec-
tive material on the skin, on food, or on another object.
40. Water Pollution -- Contamination, or other alteration of
the physical, chemical or biological properties of any
waters of the state as will, oris likely to, create a
nuisance or render such waters harmful, detrimental, or
injurious to public health, safety or welfare, or to the
plant, animal, or aquatic life of the state, or suitable
for other legitimate beneficial uses.
41. Waters of the State -- All streams and springs, and all
bodies of surface or ground water, whether natural or
artificial, within the boundaries of the state. (Author-
ized by K.S.A. 1970 Supp. 65-3406: Effective January 1,
1972)
42. Yard Rubbish--- Prunings, grass clippings, weeds, leaves,
and general yard and garden wastes.
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA .
As established for the purposes of this report, Saline County
and the incorporated cities therein is the area to be included
in the Study Area. Saline County is located in Central Kansas
and encompasses an area 25 miles long from north to south and 30
miles in width or approximately 750 square miles. Lincoln and
Ellsworth Counties border Saline County on the west, Ottawa County
borders on the north, McPherson County on the south, and Dickinson
County on the east. Six incorporated cities and several unincor-
porated communities are present in the Study Area. State and
Federal highways cross the County, connecting its communities,
cities and trade areas. I-70 runs east-west, approximately follow-
ing the line of the Smoky Hill River. I-35 transverses the County
north to south.
-6-
-""
I
....
I
~..~.
I
~.,..,
cl
'f-'
I
"f--
I
'r'
1
r>
~I
(....,
~
ri
II
~I
~I
II
[I
I
I
]
I
ECONOMICS, POPULATION AND LAND USE. .
Economics.
In general, agriculture is the basis of the Study Area's econ-
omy. Salina, the major city in the Study Area, is a trade,
service and educational center with a good amount of light industry.
The diversification of Salina's industrial base has resulted in a
stable economy.
Employment by industrial groups has shifted considerably within
the county the past few decades. Declines in agriculture, transpor-
tation, communications and utility employment during the last decade
have been offset by substantial growth in other industrial employ-
ment. Professional, educational and public administration employ-
ment has increased 14.6% during the last decade, while mining,
construction and manufacturing employment increased 8.5% for the
same period. The total employment figure has grown 3.7% the last
decade, indicating a positive effect of the diversification of the
economic base.
DOMINANT EMPLOYMENT GROUPS
Source: U.S. Census of Population
1960
%
1970
Agriculture
Mining, Construction, Manufacturing
Transportation, Communication
Utilities
Wholesale, Retail, Services
Professional, Education, Public
Administration
950
3,325
1,386
-12.4
+ 8.5
-14.1
832
3,606
1,190
8,024
2,995
+ 2.7
+14.6
8,240
3,432
TOTAL
16,680
+ 3.7
17,300
The April 1972 employment percentage estimates by the Kansas
Department of Labor, Employment Security Division, are shown in
the following table. A representative standing of the employment
in Saline County is gained by this data. It should be noted that
these are percentages of employed persons and do not include
skilled unemploye~.
-7-
;1
.' ~
I
~ ._~
I
;r-..,
;1
, - ~
:1
f"'" ~.
I
(I
il
I
i
i.
.1
I
1.;-.,
,I
:1
ii
11
I
11
I
ESTIMATED EMPLOYMENT CLASSIFICATIONS
Source: Employment Security Division
Agriculture
Manufacturing
Mining
Construction
Transportation and
Utili ties
3.3%
11.8%
0.1%
7.5%
6.5%
Trade
Finance
Services
Governmental
Other
TOTAL
29.1%
3.2%
17.1%
10.9%
10.5%
100 rO%
The Employment Comparisons table indicates Saline County's
economy shows a diversification similar to the State as a whole
and is a positive growth indicator.
EMPLOYMENT COMPARISONS_
Source: U.S. Census of Population, 1970
Industry
Saline
County
Rural
Saline
County
Rural
Kansas
Agriculture
Mining, Construction and
Manufacturing
Transportation, Corrmunication
and Utilities
Wholesale, Retail Trade and
Services
Professional, Educational
and Public Administration
Other Industry
4.9%
20.8
26.9%
19.3
23.9%
22.3
6.9
4.6
6.1
47.6
23.3
32.5
19.8
16.7
15.2
0.0
9.2
0.0
TOTAL
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Population.
Kansas
8.7%
24.6
7.6
40.9
18.2
0.0
An analysis of past, present and future population trends of
a community are a necessary prerequisite to planning solid waste
facilities. The quantity, type and volume of solid waste that is
generated, and for which provisions for disposal must be made,
are related to the population and the associated commerce and
industry which support the population.
-8-
'I
'1'''"1
1
1
1
.1
1
'I
I
'I
in
1<1'
~-
:1
,I
,I
',I
,-;
:1
[I
II
I
I
I
A review of the County and its cities over a 20-year period
indicates the migration of the population. Migration trends indi-
cate where or not we are dealing with a study area that is losing,
gaining, or keeping its population steady. All trends are import-
ant in relation to future needs.
The Population Trends table indicates the total county popu-
lation has grown substantially since 1950. It should be noted,
however, that the county population has shown a declining trend
since the closing of the air base at Salina. All cities in Saline
County have experienced population losses since 1965, while rural
Saline County has experienced substantial growth.
POPULATIG:, TPE,,;ns
Source: Coun ty Enu/T',eration Records
1972 1965 % 1960 % 1955 % 1950
Saline Coun ty 45,421 .
- .11 45,471 - 2.2 46,459 +15.7 40,138 +22.3 32,813
Assaria 331 .3 332 + 6.8 311 + 9.5 284 +27.4 223
Srookvl.lle 2~- -12.8 256 .. 9.9 233 ~ I 238 + 9.7 217
"" - "'.+
G~'?::; ur~l <i2l - 8.8 458 -..26.4 579 .. 8.4 534 + 1.3 527
~e~.'" (:ambria ' -- - 7.1 166 -19.3 198 5.9 187 +19.1 157
L..:J::) +
",nol.:ln 188 - 2.7 193 1\' l... ::; i\ '.' .1;'1
..~/ rl ;'0' .:\
Salina 36,609 - 5.7 38,706 - 1.4 39,250 +16.6 33,663 +32.2 25,466
Rural Saliae 7,490 "39.3 5,360 -10.1 5,903 - 9. 7 6,475 + 4.0 6,223
County
A breakdown of the rural population is detailed by the follow-
ing Township Population table:
TOI':CiS!!IP POPULATIO;';
Source: Count~' Enurcration Records
Change,
1972 1965 1960 1955 1950 1950-1972
Canbria 232 254 304 287 263 ~
- 11. 8
Day ton 152 138 175 182 198 - 23.3
Ell:! Creek 469 506 479 470 417 + 12.5
Eureka 237 271 243 252 243 2.5
Falun 222 285 315 336 317 - 30.0
Glendale 90 128 155 174 169 - 46.8
Greeley 627 763 848 701 . 636 1.4
Gypsum 183 214 237 296 300 - 39.0
Liberty 124 173 177 203 209 - 40.7
Ohio 354 416 354 405 396 - 10.6
Pleasant Valley 120 129 134 175 177 32.2
Smoky Hill 2,009 445 603 1,207 1,200 + 67.4
Smoky View 428 413 393 390 381 + 12.3
Smolan 1,502 352 652 584 485 +209.7
Solomon 215 248 252 277 289 - 25.6
Spring Creek 96 120 135 150 157 - 38.9
Summit 0 19 23 22 23 - 17.4
Ivalnut 349 384 320 260 278 + 25.5
Washington ~ ~ --1Q! --ll --!2. 4.7
TOTAL .7,490 5,360 5,903 6,475 6,223 + 20.4
-9-
...
I
.,...,
I
I
I
.' ..
il
f"~
:1
"-
.1
f .
tl
~"1
11
fi
II
:1
aul
[J
[I
!'
tl
II
]
tI
Location and Density of the Population:
Approximately 83.5% of the county's 1972 population lives in
the incorporated cities. Approximately 96.5% of the 83.5% lives in
Salina. The rural county population accounts for the rema~n~ng
16.5%. The density of the population for each of the 19 townships
is listed in the following Population Density Table. Saline County
has a high density of 69.8 persons per square mile when compared to
the Kansas average of 27.9'persons per square mile. The rural
density of 11.5 persons per square mile is only slightly higher
than the 8.5 persons per square mile average for the rural section
of the state.
POPULATION DENSITY, 1972
Rural
Total Persons/ Rural Persons/
Township Population Sa. Mile Population Sa. Mile
-
Cambria 387 10.8 232 6.5
Dayton 152 4.4 152 4.4
E 1m Creek 469 13.1 469 13.1
Eureka 658 18.5 237 6.7
Falun 222 7.0 222 7.0
Glendale 90 2.5 90 2.5
Greeley 627 20.0 627 20.0
Gypsum 183 5.1 183 5.1
Liberty 124 3.5 124 3.5
Ohio 354 10.0 354 10.0
Pleasant Valley 120 3.3 120 3.3
Smoky Hill 38,618 1340.9 2,009 69.8
Smoky View 759 21.6 428 12.2
Smolan 1,690 51.2 1,502 45.5
Solomon 215 6.0 215 6.0
Spring Creek 323 5.9 96 1.8
Sununit 96 4.8 19 0.9
Walnut 349 9.7 349 9.7
Washington 81 3.7 81 3.7
-
TOTAL 45,421 69.8 7,490 11.5
-10-
~I
--~
'I
""-"!'
e'l
~'~
~I
;1' ,:~
~I
f -,
.1
.~
~I
'--.""
il
f'- ~
I .
,
II
r.'--~.
II
~I
.1
iI
II
I
II
[I
l
Population Projections:
The factors affecting population are birth and death rates,
and more important, migration. Migration is dependent upon the
economic opportunities of the area. Most often migration is not
erratic and can also be projected as a trend.
Population projection is a critical factor in determining
future solid waste capacities. The presence of businesses and
industries is dependent on having a stable or growing population.
Consequently, it is important to be able to anticipate the total
development of the cities and county to know the total need.
The method used in this report is the most accurate there is
at present. The Cohort Survival Method takes into account indi-
vidual birth and survival rates for each 5-year age, and a
migration factor calculated from historical migratory factors for
the area.
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
Saline County 46,592 48,184 50,838 54,854 59,304
Salina 37,714 40,671 44,667 48,475 53,328
Assaria 331 346 371 396 421
Brookville 227 229 232 235 238
Gypsum 421 406 381 366 351
New Cambria 155 155 154 154 153
Smolan 188 188 188 188 188
Rural Non-Farm 4,991 3,895 2,765 3,096 2,773
Rur al Farm 2,565 2,294 2,080 1,944 1,852
Note:
Saline County, Salina -- Cohort survival, same migration rates
with Schilling taken out.
Rural Farm -- Cohort survival, with 1960-1970 migration rates'
(Schilling would not affect farm population).
3rd Class Cities -- Historical straight line projection, 1950-72.
Rural Non-Farm -- Total Saline County -- all the above except
Saline County = Rural Non-Farm
Rural Non-Farm includes all persons living outside the incor-
porate limits of Saline County cities and are not farmers.
-11-
~I
I
I
I
t
,...,
I
r
11
If-'
il
II
~';
LI
LI
.1
~I
II
LI
II
1
II
]".:
.;<,.
~.
Land Use.
In general, land use is categorized as residential, commercial,
industrial and public. The major classification of land use rep-
resents to a degree the major generator of solid waste for which
collection and disposal programs must be provided.
The land use patterns in Saline County can further be differ-
entiated as to rural and urban land use. In general the rural
area of Saline County includes all areas outside the corporate
limits of the cities. The County Land Use Map indicates the gen-
eralized land uses which are expected to have a measurable effect
on the size and location of future solid waste disposal facilities.
-12-
:1
I
. '
I
-t--
I
t
~
,I
:f'"
t
il
(--..
,
~I
:1
.1
.1
.~ .~
t
III
I""
tl
LI
[I
LI
TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES
TRANSPORTATION
Airports.
The only airport facility located in Saline County is the
Salina Municipal Airport at an elevation of 1,272 feet; the facil-
ity has three runways, the longest being 17-35/13,300 concrete.
Other facilities and services offered include: hangars, tiedowns,
charter service, 80/87 and 100/130 fuels, kerosene with a -400 F.
freezing point, and ability to repair major airframes and power
plants. The runway load bearing capacity is 75,000 pounds for a
single-wheel type landing gear, 200,000 pounds for dual-wheel
landing gears, and 350,000 pounds capacity for dual-tandem type
landing gears. The airport is equipped with high intensity runway
lighting and high intensity instrument approach. Service also
includes high pressure oxygen replacement bottles.
Railroads.
Saline County is served by three railroads: Atchi~on, Topeka
and Santa Fe; Missouri Pacific; and Union Pacific. A branch of
the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad starts from Salina,
goes northwest through Hedville and Glendale, and exits the
coun ty .
The Missouri Pacific enters the county above the southeastern
corner of the county and below Gypsum. It goes straight to Gypsum,
divides there, one line goes southwest to Bridgeport and McPherson
County, while the other goes northwest through Kipp and Salina.
Once it reaches Salina, it turns south a mile south of town and
then heads southwest, picking up Smolan, Falun and exits to
McPherson County.
The Union Pacific has two branches entering the county. One,
enters at Solomon, then divides there, one line going northwest
at 450 out of the county and the other going southwest through New
Cambria to Salina. The other branch enters the county coming up
from McPherson County through Bridgeport, Assaria, Mentor and
Salina to join the branch from the east on the north edge of
Salina. The line. divides a mile west, one going northwest out of
the county, and the other going southwest through Bavaria and
Brookville and out of the county.
-13-
rf'~"!
I
""-
I
I
I
;1
,I
.--
.1
, -,
:1
II
Ii
:1
;1
.1
lJ
lJ
II
tI
[I
l
All of the incorporated cities in the county are served by
railroads. The unincorporated communities of Falun, Bridgeport,
Kipp, Mentor, Bavaria, Hedville, and Glendale are also served.
Highways.
Saline County is served by an inter-connecting network of
state, county and township roads. The county has four U.S. desig-
nated routes: Interstate 35~v and 70 and U.S. 40 and 81. Interstate
70 enters from Dickinson County at Solomon, proceeds southwest to
Salina, then straight west to Lincoln County. U.S. 40 is congruent
with I-70. Interstate 35W enters the county 1~ miles south of
the unincorporated community of Bridgeport, goes due north connect-
ing Assaria, Mentor, skirts Salina, and enters Ottawa County.
U.S. 81 parallels I-35W.
Five state highways are located in the county: K-4, K-I04,
K-141, K-220, and K-221. K-4 enters the county southwest of
Gypsum, goes to Gypsum, turns due west, goes straight to U.S. 81
and I-35, there turns south as part of U.S. 81 and I-35, passing
Assaria and Bridgeport to reach McPherson County. K-I04 is the
same road as U.S. 81. K-14l enters the county at Solomon, pro-
ceeds southwest to New Cambria, Salina, Brookville and unincor-
porated Bavaria, and exits the county. K-220 st~rts at K-141,
one mile east of New Cambria, heads north, connecting to I-70 and
U.S. 40, then goes out of the county. K-22l starts at Solomon
and follows the- east county boundary north.
UTILITIES . .
Telephone.
Telephone service is provided to Saline County by five tele-
phone companies, utilizing 12 exchanges. These are Southwestern
Bell Telephone Company - Salina, Solomon, Gypsum, Lindsborg, and
Marquettei Twin Valley Telephone, Inc. - Bennington, Beverly and
Tescotti Tri-County Telephone Association, Inc. - Navarre and
Carltoni Wilson Telephone Company, Inc. - Brookvillei Salemsburg
Farmers Telephone Company - Salemsburg.
Electricity.
Electrical power is supplied to the residents of Saline County
by one private power company and four rural electric cooperatives.
-14-
IJ""
"I
l)''''
1
1
i
,-.-
;1
1
.1
.
il
I
[J
:1
1,1
.1
:1
I
II
I
J
[I
The Kansas Power and Light Company and the D.S. & o. Rural Electric
Cooperative Association, Inc. each supply about one-half of the
county. KP&L serves the cities of Salina, Brookville, Smolan,
Gypsum and New Cambria, as well as the unincorporated communities
of Bridgeport, Mentor and Kipp. KP&L also serves rural areas and
narrow corridors along the transmission lines between communities.
The DS&O serves an area that almost completely surrounds that
served by the KP&L company. The DS&O serves the majority of the
rural area as well as the unincorporated communities of Falun,
Hedville and Glendale. .
The remainder of the county is served by the other three elec-
tric cooperatives. The Ark Valley Electric Cooperative Association,
Inc., serves a small area in the southwest corner of the county.
The Smoky Hill Electric Cooperative Association, Inc., serves a
thin strip down the western edge of the county. The remaining area
to the south is served by the Smoky Valley Electric Cooperative
Association.
Gas.
At present, three of the six incorporated cities are served
by natural gas. Salina, Gypsum and Smolan are served by the
Kansas Power and Light Company. Assaria, Brookville and New
Cambria are not served with natural gases.
-15-
.....
'I
T'
I
.
I
F"'!
~. .
~I
.1
I
.1
I
I
r~
II
f--.
~I
.
.1
.1
.
:1
II
/..,.-..,
II
tI
I
II
PART 2
EXISTING PRACTICES
EXISTING SYSTEMS . .
The methods and conditions of the existing solid waste man-
agement systems in Saline County are described in the following
paragraphs. Significant differences exist in the system employed
in Salina compared to the systems in the other cities and the
rural area.
Salina is the only city in the county that operates a regulated
collection and disposal facility. Regulations prohibiting back-
yard trash burning are enforced in Salina. Generally the regula-
tions governing storage, collection and transportation of solid
waste are in compliance with new State regulations. Only the
disposal operation does not totally comply with the new regula-
tions. Specifically, major health and environmental problems
associated with the existing operation are air pollution, water
pollution and litter.
Salina also operates a composting program in Thomas Park for
leaves gathered in' the city. This program is further described
in the Solid Waste Generation section of this report.
Each of the small communities and the rural area employ
various systems of storage, collection, transportation, disposal
and management. Generally the systems are deficient in specific
areas with regard to new State regulations, health and environ-
mental objectives.
The problems associated with the existing systems are clearly
definable. Presently, five authorized disposal areas are being
used in the county. With exception of one site, these are pri-
marily open dumps. During the summer, they are potential breeding
places for vectors such as flies and mosquitoes, are potential
fire hazards, and emit offensive smoke and odor. Generally in
the winter, the sites have no fly, mosquito or odor problems.
Access to three existing sites during inclement weather is
impossible due to the isolated nature of the site and the lack
of an all-weather access road. The condition of the access roads
to dump sites from highways and county roads contributes to the
problem. Individuals who are unable to drive their vehicles to
-16-
'"'"
I
.,.."
I
I
~
~I
. --
.1
.
il
,
,I
I
t
fl
LI
"..
;1
,I
.,-.-..
iI
r'"
tI
1--
r.."".
~
II
[I
1-..-
t.
the site because of mud or snow have a tendency to dump refuse
along the access road or in other unauthorized areas.
Winds are not uncommon in this area during summer and winter,
and in most cases the existing dump sites have a blowing paper
problem. In most cases, paper and refuse may not blow into pop-
ulated areas, but does litter the country-side. This condition
being aesthetically offensive enforces a .negative concept to the
general public adversely affecting the acquirement of future
disposal sites.
Air pollution is a current
the practice of open burning.
burning at disposal sites will
from developing.
problem at the disposal sites with
State regulations prohibiting open
prevent any long-range. problems
Water pollution at many unauthorized sites is a significant
problem in the county and violates State regulations.
Storage and collection of refuse also represents a problem
throughout the county. Infrequent disposal of refuse, coupled
with inadequate storage facilities, produces high potential health
hazard areas. From a health standpoint, these unsanitary refuse
storage areas are more critical than inadequate disposal sites
because they are always located near a dwelling. People are always
in contact with their own storage area and therefore subject to
these unsanitary conditions if they prevail. Storage, collection
and disposal are all important phases of refuse handling and
deficiencies in any phase can represent a hazard.
Salina.
Salina is the largest city in Saline County and does operate a
collection and disposal operation. The city does regulate the
storage, collection, transportation and disposal of solid waste.
Open burning within the city is prohibited. The city operates a
weekly collection service for a $2.00jmonth fee. Approximately
80% of the residential area is served by city collection. Approx~
imately 10% is served by licensed private collectors, and the
remaining 10% by individuals. The city collection service is
totally self-supporting. The collection system employs 24 per-
sons (1 foreman, 8 equipment operators, 14 laborers and 1 typist).
The city operates a landfill northeast of the city. Access to
the site is controlled by chainlink fence and gate. The site is
-17-
.."
I
......
I
-I
,
f...'
11
I
.1
'I
11
C'--,,:,
il
11
.1
.1
t
tI
t.1
I
I
I
open seven days a week from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. A full-time
crew of four operates the site. Refuse is covered daily. The
site is expected to be operated approximately nine more months.
The landfill is financed from the general tax fund with the
exception of $2,400 contributed by the county for rural usage of
the site.
Brookville.
The city of Brookville does not regulate the storage, collec-
tion, transportation or disposal of solid waste. Generally most
residences use 30-S0-gallon barrels for refuse storage and backyard
incineration. Collection is done on an individual basis, and a
private hauler collects refuse and disposes of it at the Salina
landfill.
Assaria.
Assaria does not regulate storage, collection, transportation
or disposal of solid waste. Collection of refuse is on an indi-
vidual contract basis or self-haul basis. Storage containers used
for refuse storage and burning are of the 30-50 gallon barrel type.
Disposal is at the Salina landfill.
Falun.
An open burning dump southwest of Falun along a county road
serves as the disposal site for this unincorporated community.
The site is not fenced or regulated.
Gypsum.
The town of Gypsum is located in southeast Saline County. This
community of 421 persons has no regulations governing the storage,
collection, transportation and disposal of solid waste. Burning
of refuse is not prohibited by regulations. Storage containers
are of the 30-50 gallon barrel type. Collection is performed by
a private hauler and individual, and refuse is disposed of at an
open dump located southeast of the city. Refuse is burned at the
site and periodically covered with earth.
-18-
Smolan.
.T
The city of Smolan, located southwest of Salina, operates an
open dump. The disposal site is operated using a trench-fill pro-
cess using burning to reduce volume and periodically covering the
refuse with earth. Junk autos are not disposed of at the site.
The city has no regulations g~verning the storage, collection,
transportation or disposal of solid waste. The 30-50 gallon barrel
is the typical storage container used in the city. Collection is
on an individual basis.
New Cambria.
Storage, collection, transportation and disposal of solid waste
is not regulated by the city of New Cambria. Generally most resi-
dences use 30-50 gallon barrels for refuse storage and incinera-
tion. Collection is done on an individual basis, with a private
hauler collecting refuse for some of the residents. Refuse dis-
posal is at the Salina landfill.
Schilling.
An open burning dump is. being operated west of the air base at
the west end of the county's mixing strip~ The site is operated
as an open trench for dumping, burning, and periodically covering
the refuse. Usage of the site is primarily by industrial concerns
located at Schilling.
Kansas Wesleyan Reclamation Center.
The Kansas Wesleyan Reclamation Center was initiated in October
of 1971, directed by Mr. Mike Oldfather. The operation is an all-
volunteer center that collects paper, cardboard, egg cartons, and
aluminum. Paper is the primary item collected, averaging approxi-
mately four tons a week.
.1
;1
,J
I
-19-
...
I
...~
I
I
~
,I
y-,
I
,....
I
i
ji
[I
[I
:1
~I
1.1
:1
11
I
I
J
iI
PART 3
REFUSE GENERATION
SOLID WASTE QUANTITIES . .
The appraisal of the quantity of solid waste produced in an
area must include consideration of waste-generating activities in
the area. The quantities of waste generated may vary widely from
area to area as the activities vary. For example, the quantity
of household refuse generated in a densely populated industrial
area may be less than one-third of the total waste for which
disposal must be provided. In less densely settled rural areas,
the household contribution may be two-thirds of the total solid
waste produced.
Many factors affect the quantity of waste generated by an area.
Some of the more important factors are:
1. Economic conditions and standards of living.
2. Industrial, commercial, residential and public development.
3. Frequency of waste collection.
4. Regulations controlling disposal methods and volume
reduction.
5. Individual waste reduction methods such as home and
industrial incinerators.
6. Amount of new construction work.
7. The increased use of disposable packaging materials.
8. The increased use of prepared foods.
9. Salvaging of waste products such as paper, metal, bones,
sawdust, acids, oils and cloth.
10. Development of new products or packaging methods.
The factors are variable and are difficult to predict with any
degree of accuracy. For this reason, broad categories of waste
are used in this .~tudy and present production rates are estimated
based on field data and comparison with other areas for which
studies have been done.
-20-
I
.~.
I
I
~-.""
I
f .
~I
7'--
~I
.~
-I
,-..
il
r-O""
i
II
:1
1,1
,I
,I
jl
,..
il
I
I
~~,
LI
I
WASTE CATEGORIES . .
Solid waste or refuse (the two terms are synonymous) can be
classified in several different ways. The following table groups
solid waste materials by kind, composition and general source.
SOLID WASTE MATERIALS BY KIND, COMPOSITION AND SOURCES
Kind
Garbage
Rubbish
Ashes
Street
Refuse
Dead
Animals
Abandoned
Vehicles
Industrial
Wastes
Demolition
Wastes
Construction
Wastes
Special
Wastes
Sewage
Treatment
Residue
Composition
Sources
Wastes from preparation, cook-
ing and serv~ng of food; market
wastes; wastes from handling,
storage and sale of Droduce.
Combust~ble; paper, cartons, I Households, res-
boxes, barrels, wood, excelsior,ltaurants, insti-
tree branches, yard triwmings, tutions, stores,
wood furniture, bedding, markets
dunnacre. I
Noncombustible: metals, tin
cans, metal furniture, dirt,
qlass, crockerv, minerals.
Residue from fires ~sed for
cooking and heatincr and from
on-site incineration.
Sweepings, dirt, leaves, catch
basin dirt, conterts of litter
receptacles.
Cats, dogs, horses, cows.
Unwanted cars and trucks left
on public propertv.
Food process~ng wastes, boiler
house cinders, lumber scraps,
metal scraps, shavincrs.
Llli~ber, p~pes, brick, masonry
and other construction mate-
rials from razed buildings and
other structures.
Scrap lumber, p~pe, other con-
struction materials.
Hazardous solids and liquids:
explosives, pathological wastes
and radioactive materials
Solids from coarse screening
anq from grit chambers; septic
tank sludge.
-21-
I
I
I
I Streets, sidewalks,
lalleys, vacant lots
I
i
I .
IFactor~es, power
plants
!Demolition sites to
be used for new
buildings, renewal
oroiects, expresswavs
New construction,
remodelinq
Households, hotels,
hospitals, institu-
tions, stores, industrv
Sewage treatment
plants; septic tanks
..."
;1
Y'"
I
I
'i
-I
I
I
I
~I
f_
,I
.1
,I
J
I'
11
[I
[I
J
I
REFUSE PRODUCTION . .
Because of the lack of records, it is difficult to determine
the quantity of refuse produced per person in Saline County. None
of the disposal sites operate a weigh scale to determine the daily
weight of refuse hauled. Also, all of the disposal sites have
used burning as a method of volume reduction, making it difficult
to accurately estimate volume based on completed fill areas.
To arrive at reasonable waste generation factors for Saline
County, local data and data from other studies were compared. The
comparisons are complicated by bona fide variations in local con-
ditions. This is especially true in determining an industrial
waste factor.
The 2.1 pounds/capita/day factor for household refuse genera-
tion used in this study is the result of a weighing program
conducted at Dodge City in March and April of 1972. The 2.1 factor
compares favorably with factors compiled by Dr. McKinney, K.U.,
and other studies (Herkimer-Oneida Counties, Combustion Eng., Inc.,
Omaha-Council Bluffs, Des Moines, and University of California) .
The household factor in these studies ranged from 1.4 to 2.4 with
the predominant number of factors ranging from 2.0 to 2.4 pounds/
capi ta/day.
The industrial and commercial factors used for this study were
developed from local information on quantities hauled by local
private haulers and compared to industrial and commercial employ-
ment generation factors from other studies.
The other factors listed are weighted averages of regional and
local studies. Significant variations were not evident in the
other factor, except the factor used for tree waste varied signif-
icantly for areas with a high Dutch elm problem.
The factors for small city and rural were derived from local
studies, particularly Harvey and McPherson Counties.
It is important to realize that the figures in the following
table apply to production of waste rather than to collection.
Ideally there is no difference, but from a practical standpoint,
the factors for collection are usually lower -- for the simple
reason that not all of the solid waste which is generated receives
proper disposal. The factors may be further decreased (below
collection figures) for specific purposes, such as the situation
in which certain ~ypes of solid wastes are excluded from a specific
disposal site. I? this case, the values should probably be called
disposal factors.
-22-
~I
.'""1
I
I
r;
:.1
f~ "'.
'I
. -
il
il
.1
t
ii
:1
.. ..,~
:.1
.1
'.
(~
1-1
, -,
-I
~. :-.'\11
L..'.... .
~
c<rs
LI
1
SALINE COUNTY SOLID WASTE GENERATION
c
Pounds/Capita/Day
Waste Category Salina Small City Rural
Household 2.10 2.1 2.1
Commercial 2.00 1.2 0.4
Industrial 1.10 0.0 0.0
Institutional 0.20 0.0 0.0
Street Sweepings 0.30 0.0 0.0
Trees 0.70 0.7 0.7
Demolition and
Construction 0.40 0.4 0.4
Catch Basin 0.04 o .j) 0.0
Sewage Treatment Solids 0.40 0.4 0.4
TOTAL 7.24 4..8 4.0
To arrive at a disposal factor, it is necessary to examine
existing disposal practices' and adjust total generation factors
according to condition and anticipated conditions.
Salina, at present, does not dispose of street sweepings at
the sanitary landfill, but uses them for fill material. Leaves
are composed at Thomas Park, and this practice will likely continue.
Demolition material such as concrete, brick, rock, etc., is used
to fill flood control washes; some is used at Camp Webster; some
is scattered in the old river channel; and some is used by the
county as ditch checks on county roads. It is anticipated that
these practices will continue. Catch basin material is used for
the same purpose as street sweepings and is not received at the
landfill. Sewage and water treatment wastes are not presently
being disposed in the landfill. Sludge from drying beds is stored
and hauled by farmers as a soil conditioner. These practices will
significantly lower the quantity of refuse received from Salina at
the disposal site.
The quantity per capita of refuse received at a disposal site
from a small city can vary significantly from the 4.8 pounds/
capita/day. The practice of backyard burning, if continued, can
reduce this quantity from the 4.8 to an estimated 2.5 pounds/
capita/day. It is assumed the sewage solids, demolition wastes,
and trees would not be disposed in a sanitary landfill, but used
as per existing practices.
-23-
I
r"
I
I
,.~
1,.
01
....
~I
#"-.,.
~.I
f'-
11
LI
!j
LI
1"1-'
,
.
,
~I
~I
tl
rr,
LI
1..1
~.I
J
1
Rural refuse production per capita per day is also significantly
affected by the practice of burning. Also, the rural factor for
quantities delivered to a sanitary landfill for disposal would not
include sewage solids, demolition material, or trees. The adjusted
rural factor of 1.7 pounds per capita per day compares with the
local survey carried out in McPherson County which yielded 2.7
pounds per capita per day with the existing practice of open burn-
ing. This factor excluded agriculture wastes such as grain spoil.
The practice of open burning in small communities and rural
areas is the responsibility of local jurisdictions as set out by
the State of Kansas Air Pollution Emission Control Regulation
28-19-8, Section D, Part 4:
"All open burning operations except those operations
being conducted on residential premises containing
five (5) or less dwelling units and carried out inci-
dental to the normal habitation of said dwelling
units are deemed to be the control responsibility of
local jurisdictions and are exempt from the provi-
sions of Regulations 28-19-8 and 28-19-9."
In summary, provided the existing practices and conditions
prevail, the factors for waste received at a disposal site are as
follows:
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACTORS
6.1
.)
..-.:; -I-
Excludes agricultural wgste and
practice of backyard burning.
Salina no-burn regulation.
Disposed of separately.
Waste Category
Household
. Commercial
Industrial
Institutional
Street Sweepings
Trees ***
Demolition
Catch Basin
Sewage Treatment Solids
TOTAL
*
**
***
Pounds/Capita/Day
Salina Small City Rural
** * *
2.1
2.0
1.1
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0 -
0.0 '.
1.3
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.5
1.7
based on continued
-24-
~,'I'
u .......--....__~_______~_."_~_.-. ............_.__~~_..__ . __"....__.___
TOTAL WI\STE GENEIlATION
(Tons/Day)
Tndus- Catch Basin .' D~m. . Sc.....uqc Tons
tt"i<ll S tr~c t Sweep. 7rces Const. 301ids Da:/ "(nilr
,12 .07 .07 .81 295.65
.08 .05 .05 .56 204.40
.15 .08 .08 1. 00 365.00
.05 .01 .03 .36 131. 40
20.74 6.41 13 .20 7.54 7.54 136.01 49.826.1~
.07 .04 .04 .46 167.30
1. 75 1. 00 1. 00 11.98 4.372.70
---:.1.Q. .....:.1l .....:.1l -2.:.ll 1,868.80
20.74 6.41 16.32 9.32 9.32 156.80 57.232.00
I
1970 House- Instit.
PoP. ;"wld . C0r..rn.
Assarld 3H .J5 .20
Brookville 227 .24 .14
Gypsum 421 .44 .25
N~w C.:unb ri a. 155 .16 .09
Salina 37.714 39.60 41. 48
.::i[Uolan 188 .20 .11
Rural Non-Farm 4.991 5.24 2.99
Rural Farm 2,565 2:.i2. -ill
TOTAL COUNTY 46.592 4&.. 92 45.77
I
5""":l
j'.
"I
Small city and rura.l industrial is incluCled with commercial factor.
.- ~o factor gLven for small ~lty'S street sweepings and c~tch basins ~aterial -- included with other factors.
.1
ADJUSTED QUANTITIES RECEIVABLE AT CENTRAL SANITARY LANDFILL
(Tons/Day)
7~
i'l
A;:i3ar.ld JJl .21 :20
JrookvLlle 227 .15 .14
Gypsum 421 .27 .25
New Cambria 155 .10 .09
:;;ialina 37.714 39.60 41.48 20.74
Ssolan L88 .12 .11
Rural :';on-Farm 4.991 3.24 2.99
Rural rarl':l 2,565 1. 67 ----..:..2l
TOTAL COU~TY 46.592 45.36 45.77 20.74
.41
.29
.52
.19
101.82
.23
6.23
-...1..:...!&
149.65
105.85
l89.80
69.35
37.164.OC
33.95
2.273.95
.~
11
7-'1'3.7(: .
111. 87
40.832.55
r.~
LI
,
[I
Projections of Solid Waste Generation.
and
be
solid
year.
I
.1
TOTAL ;';ASTE GE:;OX;'ED
SOLID ~;A=:)TE FROJEC':'ED r RJDL'C"I' IO;;
:5alir.c Count,., ;':a:lS.:l5
197C 19 -:- 3 ~:J80 1983 ':'0-:-<)
Popu- ::J.... ?O?U- ;; . ~'i. PO?\;.- S.;: .... Z"'':'I9U- .:3.;';. P"'.....,,- .:>....
lation (:'ons) lat';"vn (Tons) lat~on :';'0:15) lat~on (T~nsl _.J.t..i.on (':'ons)
Assaria 3Jl 295.65 3-l6 333.41 371 389.99 396 450.96 421 516.32
Brcokville 227 204. -10 229 220.66 232 243.88 235 267.62 238 291. 3S
GytJsur.'l 421 365.00 406 391. 22 381 400.51 366 416. BO 351 .00.47
:;~W Cambria 155 13 L 40 1:35 149.36 154 161. 38 154 L73.J8 153 lS7.bot
Salina 37.714 49.826.15 40.671 61.309.50 44,667 73,447.06 48.475 96.343.67 53,328 103.142.56
Smolan 188 167.90 L88 18L 16 188 197.63 198 214.09 188 230.56
Rural :';on-Farm 4.991 4,372.73 3.895 3.753.22 2,765 2.906.57 3.096 3.525.72 2,773 3,400.31
Rural Farm. -hill. 1.868.80 2.2H 1.888.13 2.060 1,867.63 ~ 1,890.98 ~ 1.940.06
TOTAL COUNTY 46.592 57.232.00 48,184 68,226.66 50.838 79,615.15 54.854 93.285.22 59.304 110.140.30
WASTE RECEIVED AT DISPOSAL SITE
Assaria 331 149.65 346 l73 . 65 371 203.12 396 234.88 421 268.91
Brookville 227 l05.85 229 114. ~3 232 127.02 235 139.38 238 152.02
Gypsum 421 189.80 406 203.76 381 208.60 366 217.08 351 224.20
New Cambria 155 69.35 155 77.79 154 84.32 154 91. 34 153 97.73
Salina 37.714 37;164.30 40.671 49.804.69 44.667 59,670.65 48.475 65,377.02 53.328 83.114.35
Smolan 188 83.95 188 "4.35 188 102.93 188 ilL 51 l88 120.09
Rur al :lon-Farm 4.991 2;273.95 L895 1,954.80 2.765 1.513.84 3.096 1,836.32 2.773 1.771.25
Rural Fa.rm ~ 795.70 2.294 782.88 ~ 774.38 ~ 784.06 ~ 804.42
TOTAL COUNTY 46.592 40,832.55 48.184 53.206.85 50.838 62,684.86 54.854 68.791. 59 59,304 86,552.97
.1
rl
II
1..1.1
L
[I
II
rt
I
-25-
,
"I.
~
~.~
1
1
~
~I
~I
y-
,I
'1'-'
~I
,.,
,I
t.......
LJI
r..~'.
LI
r"~
!I
,
il
~I
'i--"
11
~
[J
11
:I
I
'f
Special Waste.
)
Special waste problems, though common to most communities,
can present unusual collection and disposal problems. These spe-
cial wastes include special tree waste caused by Dutch Elm disease,
automobiles, feed lot waste, and industry waste.
Special Tree Waste:
The American Elm trees are being killed by the Dutch Elm tree
disease in great numbers in recent years. The disease is caused
by a fungus name Ceratocysis ulmi which is carried by the European
Elm Bark Beetle. Fungus spores are spread from diseased trees to
healthy trees by the beetle and enters the healthy trees through
openings in the bark of twigs caused by feeding insects.
The amount of special tree waste was not measured, but it is
anticipated most of the American Elm trees in the study area will
be diseased by 1976. The greatest quantity of these trees for
which disposal must be provided is located in the cities. Rural
areas will probably not remove or will not bring diseased trees
to a waste disposal facility.
Elms killed by Dutch Elm disease can be disposed of economic-
ally. Investigations indicate elm ~':ood has few corr.rnercia1 or
industrial uses, and then only if the user is close to the supply.
Because no potential commercial or industrial user operates in
the study area, this potential source for disposal was not con-
sidered.
Infected trees can be used for fireplace wood as long as the
wood is burned before spring. If not completely used by spring,
the logs must be stripped of bark and sprayed with a suitable
chemical to kill the beetles.
Elms can be disposed of by open burning or by incineration.
It is~possible to burn elm trees in open fires. Although logs are
difficuIt to burn, a proper arrangement could be made to reduce
most of the wood to ash. This type of disposal could not be con-
ducted at the sanitary landfill because of State Board of Health
regulations. A separate site would be necessary. The air pollu-
tion.problem is the limiting factor to this method of disposal.
-26-
",....
11
......
I
I
""'"
~I
. -.
11
.1
J -.
~I
, .
II
I
ri'
II
~I
, -
;1
~I
1
II
I
11
I
..~j
.
Sanitary landfilling, either separately or with other solid
waste of the cOIr'.Inuni ty, can be a proper method of disposal. ~"lhen
disposed of separately in a sanitary landfill, the logs are diffi-
cult to handle, and more earth is required. However, many sites
may be available that might not be available for mixed operations.
When disposed of with other refuse, the other material packs
around the logs making a satisfactory working surface. Only cover
dirt is required and, with other material adding to the vol~~e, the
unit operating cost is reduced. This is the most economical and
acceptable way to dispose of the diseased elm tree waste where open
burning is prohibited.
Automobiles and Scrap Metal:
Abandoned automobiles, auto salvaging and scrap metal opera-
tions do not present a solid waste problem of any significant
magnitude, although they do present many other serious community
problems. In general, the housekeeping practices of the auto
salvage industry are poor. The aesthetic and health conditions
generally associated with the "junk yard" are less than desirable.
The problem confronting all salvage and scrap metal operations
has both technical and economic roots, but neither operation will
contribute substantially to the solid ~aste problem as long as
there is a market for their product.
Inoperable vehicles on private property are considered the
problem of the property owner. If abandoned on a public street
or property, the city ,viII haul it away, impound it, and attempt
to locate the registered owner. If located, the owner must pay
the incurred cost; if not located, the vehicle is sold at auction
and proceeds retained by the city.
It is possible to economically dispose of auto hulks in a
sanitary landfill. They are a bother, but if a community becomes
burdened with auto hulks, the sanitary landfill method can be
used. Normally, the hulks are crushed by driving the landfill
bulldozer over the auto hulks and then mixed with other refuse
for compaction before being covered.
Feed Lot Operations:
The livestock feeding business has evolved into large-scale
operations in which many thousand animals are fed in confinement.
The most acceptabie method of disposal of manure from these
-27-
!I
~ '
I
I
i
I
,~'
~I
, -
;1
,
:'1
i-I
v
F.~.
tl
r----
11
. ..
.1
.1
1
,..,,-
iI
LI
II
!],.",
"
1)'.--
I,
feeding operations is by spreading the material on cropland.
This method is considered adequate for the study area, providing
the manure stockpiles are not allowed to remain on the premises
indefinitely, and that field spreading is followed by discing or
plowing in such a manner that the animal waste is thoroughly in-
corporated into the soil. ,
Feed lot waste can be disposed of in a sanitary landfill;
however, the spreading and incorporating of the manure with the
soil on cropland is recommended for the~tudy area.
Tires:
Discarded tires delivered to the landfill in Salina present a
solid waste problem of significant magnitude. Tires not separated
from other waste are landfilled. This practice is acceptable but
presents operational problems as tires tend to work their way to
the surface and do not compact well. Quantities of tires delivered
void of other waste are stored for recycling. The storage areas
for tires become suitable habitat for fly and mosquito production,
especially when water from rain is collected in the tire. The
economics of recycling tires should be seriously investigated. If
found uneconomical, the tires should be landfilled using proper pro-
cedures.
-28-
~I
I
I
r-~
II
. -.
~I
,- .
'I
.f''''
:1
, .
il
t
i
II
.1
,I
I
,
[I
. -
lJ
I
J
I
PART 4
GENERAL STANDARDS
GENERAL
The technology to store, collect, transport and dispose of
solid waste is available for immediate use. New techniques are
under investigation, and much research and development is being
done. Hopefully, some of this work will produce better methods,
lower costs and refinements to existing methods. We can also hope
that, eventually, processes will be developed which can economic-
ally convert our present wastes into useful products to be
recycled in the economy.
For the present, the monumental task that must be accomplished
is the improvement of many of our existing systems from their
present antiquated status through the use of modern technology
which is currently available.
STORAGE .
The appearance of a city, tOvffi or county depends a great deal
on the storage of solid waste. Good storage techniques are ex-
tremely important for health and sanitation reasons to preven~
vectors from breeding around the storage sites. Efficient col-
lection service depends on uniform and adequate storage facilities.
If refuse is spread allover the storage area and stored in all
types of containers, the collection procedure will not be effic-
ient, and the homeowner will pay more for the service. Sanitary
conditions and economy are obtained through proper refuse storage
practices.
The responsibility for storage is borne by the individual
homeowner, business establishment or industrial plant. Chapter
28, Article 29, Section 8 of the State Board of Health regulations
clearly sets forth the responsibility and minimum standards for .
storage of solid waste.
General.
The owner and/or occupant of any premise, business establish-
ment, or industri~l plant shall provide sanitary storage for all
solid waste produced on his property which meets standards set forth
-29-
I
. '
I
, .
I
r
I
.-
I
'T~
;1
1'"
;1
,
,I
t
r-'
LJ
II
.1
,I
~I
i,
II
[J
fI
11
in these regulations and the Official Solid Waste Management Plan
for the area.
All solid waste shall be stored so that (1) it does not attract
rats, flies, mosquitoes or other vectors; (2) it does not provide
shelter or a breeding place for vectors; (3) it does not create a
health or safety hazard; (4) it is not unsightly; and (5) the pro-
duction of offensive odors is minimized.
Each premise shall be provided with a sufficient number of
acceptable containers to accommodate all solid waste materials
other than bulky wastes that accumulate on the premises between
scheduled removals of these materials.
Specific Storage Standards.
Garbage and putrescible Wastes Shall be Stored in:
1. Rigid containers that are durable, rust-resistant, nonab-
sorbent, water-tight and rodent-proof. The container
shall be easily cleanable; fitted with close-fitting lids,
fly-tight covers; and provided with suitable handles or
bails to facilitate handling; or
2. Rigid containers equipped with disposable liners made of
reinforced kraft pa::::er or polyethylene or other similar
material designed for storage of garbage; or
3. Nonrigid disposable bags constructed of reinforced kraft
paper or polyethylene designed for storage of garbage.
The bag shall be provided with a wall-hung or free-standing
holder which supports and seals the bag; prevents insects,
rodents and dogs from access to the contents; and prevents
rain and snow from falling into the bag; or
4. Other types of containers meeting the general requirements
of "General" of this regulation and acceptable to the col-
lection agency.
Mixed Refuse:
When garbage and putrescible wastes and nonputrescible refuse
are stored together, the container shall meet the standards and
requirements for garbage containers.
On premises where the quantity of refuse generated is large
-30-
"..
".1
.,
;Ie
.. ,~
I
I
1
'f ,.
I
'f-~
~I
l'"
~I
(I
t
r'
II
it
, .
;1
~I
II
iI
I
II
]
I
and where the use of individual storage containers is impractical,
bulk containers may be used for on-premise storage of refuse. The
bulk container may be equipped with compaction equipment and shall
be of such size, design and capacity as to be compatible with the
collection equipment. Containers shall be constructed of durable
metal or plastic material; be easily cleaned, and be equipped with
tight-fitting lids or doors that can be easily closed and opened.
Hazardous Wastes Shall be Stored in:
1. A manner which will prevent spillage, leakage of liquids;
and/or the concentration or generation of harmful or
explosive vapors or offensive odors from the stored
materials.
2. Containers constructed of durable, corrosion-resistant,
water-tight construction; provided with tight-fitting
lids or covers; properly labeled, and kept in a safe
location protected from tampering by unauthorized persons.
3. Other types of storage containers that have written ap-
proval of the Department for use at a specific location
for a specified purpose.
All piping, valves and other appurtenances associated with
the storage and transfer of hazardous wastes shall be constructed
of corrosion-resistant materials and maintained in a leak-proof
condition.
Nonputrescible Bulky Wastes:
These wastes shall be stored temporarily in any manner that
does not c~eate a health hazard, fire hazard, rodent harborage,
or permit any unsightly conditions to develop, and is in accord-
ance with any locally adopted regulations.
Residential Storage Facilities.
In establishing standards on refuse storage for residential
districts, there are several factors which must be considered
that have an impact on the total management system. The plan-
ning process must be cognizant that on collection day the char-
acteristics of the containers with respect to size and physical
property, placement of containers and the amounts of contained
refuse directly a~fect the effectiveness and economy of the.
collection system~
-31-
i
ft'".)
I
I
I
~_...
21
T~
,.1
:'t....,
:1
[I
t
II
~I
.1
.1
J
[I
fI
11
I
I
I
I
]
A variety of storage containers are available in either the
non-disposable or disposable types. Non-disposable containers
are generally either plastic or metal. Disposable containers are
generally plastic or paper bags. The size of the container should
be limited to 20-32 gallons to allow for easy mobility. Large
barrels of 50-55 gallon capacity should not be permitted for re~-
idential use. Containers of the recommended size are normally
handled by one collection employee as opposed to two employees
required to handle the 50-55 gallon container.
A durable galvanized container or durable plastic container
with tight-fitting lids should be required for all residential
services. Plastic or paper bags which meet state specifications
and are provided with a wall-hung or free-standing holder which
supports and seals the bag; prevents insects, rodents and dogs
from access to the contents; and prevents rain and snow from fall-
ing into the bag are acceptable.
Location of storage containers is directly related to the col-
lection method. Containers are normally placed in one of four
places: (1) in an attached garage or basement; (2) at the rear
or side of the house; (3) at the rear of the property by the alley;
or (4) at the curb site on collection day.
The most convenient location for the collectors, w~en alleys
are accessible, is at the rear of the yard by the alley. This
practice is widely used and accepted in the study area. This
practice is not as convenient for the homeowner and this container
isolation often results in littered storage areas and make-shift
containers. In areas where alleys are non-existent in the study
area, the rear property line location substantially increases
collection time.
Commercial and Industrial Storage Facilities.
The storage of refuse at a commercial or industrial operation
is the responsibility of that business or industry. The nature
and quantity of the refuse produced may be unique, requiring spe-
cial handling and disposal. When a commercial or industrial firm
disposes of its waste, the storage containers are usually designed
in accordance with the type of collection vehicle. A variety of
containers is available for storage of commercial and industrial
wastes that are of a shape, volume and construction to meet the
particular np.eds ?f commercial and industrial firms in the study
area. Detachable. containers with or without compaction units are
-32-
~I
.-.,..
I
I
f'
'"I
~-
t
l"
.1
" -,
~I
I
lJ
fI
{-'
[I
.1
,I
11
t
tI
ill
J
1
available with capacities and facilities for end, side and top
loading. Suitable storage containers for individual business and
industry in the planning area must be determined by the business
or industry in cooperation with the collection agency.
ON-SITE VOLUME REDUCTION . .
Backyard burning as a method of volume reduction has the same
advantages as for any type of on-site reduction method in that
volume of refuse is reduced for subsequent collection and disposal.
This practice of home volume reduction has distinct disadvantages
and probably will eventually be prohibited in Kansas. Air pollu-
tion is the primary drawback of open burning, and it results from
low burning temperatures and incomplete combustion. The smolder-
ing ashes in containers can create fire hazards in the collection
vehicle and at the disposal site.
Home compaction units have recently become available, but the
cost is prohibitive to most homeowners. These home units recently
placed on the market are a device in ~vhich home trash of all ~y?es
is deposited in a container through a ram-?rocess, compacted and
reduced in vol~~e to~approximately 60-70~ of loose trash volume.
Consider a co~~unity of 3,000 homes, each purchasing a compacter
for $200.00; this would equal an inves~~ent of $600,000. ~his
inves~~ent contributed to a municipal collection and disposal
system could show much greater dividends in the overall disposal
of solid waste.
Compaction units may be desirable for commercial or industrial
uses in the study area. Again, this determination will have to be
made by the individual business or industry.
Incinerators for commercial and industrial waste at the site
of generation are widely used throughout the country. In many
instances, these present the same problems as backyard burning.
With the advent of rigid air quality controls on air pollution,
the cost of proper incineration by individual business and indus-
try in the study area may be prohibitive.
COLLECTION SYSTEMS AND STANDARDS .
Solid waste collection is a responsibility of the public along
with water supply~ sewage disposal, streets, fire and police pro-
-33-
.-.
"..,
I
,J'--o;.
I
I
if'"'
0,
I
I
-r~
~I
T'"
~I
1"'-:'1
t
t
fI
~I
.1
.1
LI
f~''''\
tJ
I....
tl
LI
J:~-- ..
I
,I
tection. These services are usually provided by local government
and paid for through taxation or a service charge. It is recog-
nized that a government can provide these necessary services for
the public more efficiently and economically than the individual
can provide them for himself. Further and specifically in the
case of collecting solid waste, if the local governmental unit
does not provide for collection services, many citizens do not
adequately provide for their own waste disposal. As a result,
the entire community suffers.
Municipal and Contract Systems.
The municipal and contract systems are similar. Both are
under the control of the municipality. They operate on estab-
lished routes serving the entire residential area on a scheduled
basis. Under these systems, the community receives a regular
collection of its domestic waste. The system is planned, organ-
ized and supervised by the municipal government. The results
are an efficient collection service at a reasonable cost to the
community.
The basic difference between the two svstems is that the mu-
nicipal system operates the service using its own manpower,
equipment and facilities, whereas the contract system uses the
manpower, equipment and facilities of a private contractor to
operate the system under an' agreement between the contractor and
the municipality.
The municipality capable of operating its own system efficiently
usually has a lower unit collection cost than the community con-
tracting with private haulers. The municipality can operate the
system without a required profit, ~vhereas the private contractor
cannot. There are other cost factors in favor of a system owned
and operated by a municipal government. Tax savings in the pur-
chase of equipment and supplies and in the operational cost of
equipment lower collection costs. A municipally controlled col-
lection system, properly planned and supervised, will provide
satisfactory service to the public, whether the system is munic-
ipally owned or contracted with a private hauler. The cost to
the public is the principal consideration.
Private System.
With a private system, the municipality has a minimum involve-
ment with the col~ection of waste, usually limited to controlling
ordinances and th~ licensing or franchising of collectors. Some
-34-
~....
\1
.~
I
I
.-:"'J
I
J
I
T-
I
"1
.
.1
,
r-
.J
f---
:1
.1
,I
1
i
~I
.....
.
:I
J
T
communities do not require any of these items. Private collectors
contract directly with the property owner for an agreed fee.
..
When collections are left entirely to an agreement between
the property owner and the private hauler, the service is gen-
erally not as efficient as the other systems. The private system
places the responsibility for the collection of waste with the
individual property owner who may, or may not, have a conscientious
concern for the problem. Usually several private haulers will
compete within a community to provide service. This competition
will tend to keep the charges uniform; however, it will prevent
anyone private collector from establishing an efficient route
where he can collect from all property owners in a given area.
As a result, the cost to the individual is usually higher than
either the municipal or the contract system.
For small communities, the operation of a municipal system
may not be economical if only the one co~~unity is involved, but
several co~~unities may find it economically feasible to join
together to operate a municipal-type system as a cooperative
venture under the existing authority and as proposed in recommended
legislation.
Collection systems may collect only do~estic waste or may, if
desirable, collect domestic, commercial and industrial ,vastes, or
a combination of the several. Frequently municipalities include
many co~~ercial establishments in ~heir collection systems, par-
ticularly \"here the waste from these establishments is not large
in volume or difficult to handle. This is done as a convenience
and may result in a savings to the establishment. ~Iany industrial
and some commercial waste producers require special service which
a municipality may be unwilling to provide. For this reason, most
industrial and many commercial establishments either provide their
own removal service or engage the services of a private system.
There is no technical or financial reason why this service could
not also be provided by a municipal system. Each case should be
considered on its own merits.
A variety of specialized equipment is available for collection
of waste. The most common item is the packer truck, which also
comes in a variety of sizes and arrangements. Basically, this is
a totally enclosed and water-tight body mounted on a truck chassis.
It has a device which compacts the loose solid waste into a
smaller volume, enabling the truck to carry more material than
it could if place~ in the body in a loose condition. Many packer
-35-
,,'
,.
..~
I
I
,...,.,
~I
-r-
il
,..
"1
,
~I
,--.
:1
t
~
11
~I
.1
~.
~
iI
iI
i.' II"
.
)....
)A
,
I
trucks can carry three or more times as much material as a non-
packer truck of the same size. The advantages of such a truck
are particularly significant when long hauls to a disposal site
are required. In addition to the economy, the truck is totally
enclosed and watertight, providing a significant reduction in
litter.
Containers of various types are also available. Some are
designed to be left at a customer's premises and when filled are
exchanged for an empty container. The filled container is removed
to a disposal facility where it is emptied and available for reuse.
Some containers are designed to be left at a customer's premises
and when filled are simply emptied into a type of packer truck.
After emptying several or many containers, the truck is driven to
a disposal site for emptying.
The train system is available. This system employs a series
of relatively small trailer units pulled by a light-weight truck
along a collection route. From tine to time, a packer truck fitted
with a lifting device is dispatched to meet the train system.
The packer truck lifts each trailer and contents, one at a time,
and dumps the contents into the truck. The train then continues
collection and the packer truck may either proceed to other train
crews or, when filled, proceed to the disposal site.
Packer trucks, containers, trains and other systems or devices
are available in a variety of sizes, shapes and functional arrange-
ments. The best system, size, shape or arrangement depends on many
local factors and must be determined after a careful study. This
equipment is available from many manufacturers. The proper appli-
cation of the proper equipment, together with a carefully planned
and operated system, can be very beneficial to a cOffill1uni ty. \';hen
the total cost to a community is considered, a first-rate system,
frequently is less expensive to a community than a poor system or
no system at all.
Transoortation Svstems.
- -
Solid waste, when collected, must be transported to a place
of final disposal. This is usually accomplished in the vehicle
in which it was collected, but it may be transferred to a special
hauling vehicle suitable for this purpose.
Direct hauling in a collection vehicle presents no special
problems and is the most straight-forward way of accomplishing
-36-
11
<r"
I
T --
I
r'
-I
~-"
II
T-~
~I
T .
~I
I-
II
rl
,
f."
11
ilJ-~
-,I
.1
~'--'
1
II
It
r.~.
LiI
1
:~
~
the task. There are, however, many factors which must be consid-
ered, including in part: the haul distance, in both time and
miles; the lost time for crew members, who are not productive
when their collection vehicle is hauling; and the size of the pay
load for hauling purposes vs. the desirable size of the vehicle
while on route. These factors must be weighed against the alter-
native of transferring the collected load to a special hauling
vehicle.
The most common form of special hauling is the transfer sta-
tion. A transfer station is a facility, usually centrally located,
which is equipped to efficiently receive various loads of waste
from collection vehicles or other vehicles and place them in large
semi-trailers for hauling to a place of disposal. To be economical,
it is necessary that the cost of transfer and haul must be less
than the cost of direct haul. Only a careful study of the exact
local conditions can determine when a transfer station should be
provided. The knowledge of how to design and operate transfer
stations and all of the necessary equipment is available.
Other forms of transfer or transportation are available or
are under study through the United States. Some communities use
barges while others are using or are planning to use railroad facil-
ities. Studies are underway to investigate the transportation
of solid waste in slurry fom in pipeli:ies and in dry form in
vacuum pipes. All of these systems are special conditions which
may be considered on their own merit.
Standards.
The State Board of Health has established minimum criteria
with respect to collection, frequency and collection equipment.
The minimum standards are as follows:
28-29-9. Standards for Collection and Transportation of Solid
Wastes.
A. Frequency of Collection.
Solid waste materials, excluding bulky wastes, shall be removed
from the storage containers on residential premises and dis-
posed of in accordance with these regulations at least once
each week.
Garbage and p~trescible materials shall be removed from commer-
cial or industrial properties as often as necessary to prevent
health and nuisance conditions, but at least once a week.
-37-
51
. .
I
I
~
I
're
il
>..1
..
..~
LI
.- ...,
;1
LJ
[I
,.......
.1
.1
~I
~.I
il
II
':..--.
ill
]
J
Trash and other combustible materials, free of putrescible
material, shall be removed from commercial and industrial
properties as often as is necessary to prevent overfilling of
the storage facilities or the creation of fire hazards.
Bulky wastes, free of putrescible wastes, shall be removed from
properties as often' as necessary to prevent nuisance conditions
from occurring.
Hazardous materials shall be removed from commercial and in-
dustrial properties as often as is necessary to prevent explo-
sions or fire hazards. Whenever hazardous wastes in any
quantity, which could be reasonably expected to be hazardous
to public health or the environment, are to be transported off
"the premises to a disposal site, the producer of such wastes
shall render them harmless, or shall issue a bill of lading to
accompany each shipment of wastes; shall provide such informa-
tion as is necessary to insure safe handling; and the producer
shall make prior arrangement with the management of ~he dis-
posal area, processing facility, or salvage company to ?ermit
the operation of the disposal area to be altered as is neces-
sary for safe handling. Every producer of hazardous wastes
shall provide labels for all containers as required in the
official local salid waste management plan.
B. Collection Equipment.
All vehicles and equipment used for collection and transpor-
tation of solid waste materials shall be designed, construc~ed,
maintained and operated in a manner that will prevent the
escape of any solid, semi-liquid, or liquid wastes from the
vehicle or container onto the ground, street or highway.
(Authorized by K.S.A. 1970 Supp. 65-3406: Effective January
1, 1972)
DISPOSAL SYSTEMS AND FACILITY STANDARDS . .
Solid waste disposal can be accomplished using any of several.
methods. The selection of the most appropriate method depends on
the particular circumstances that prevail at the time and in the
location where the disposal is needed.
The old town dump, where refuse was burned from time to time,
was once acceptab+e when there were fewer people, less intense
land development ~nd little knowledge of air and land pollution.
Today this practice is inappropriate.
-38-
:1
I
I
Ir"""
1.
1-
:1
.,-
AI
ce"
11
~--
.1
t
I-
Ll
11
.1
.1
:1 "
.1
r'
.1.-.
iJI
tI'\.....
~ .
,
11
rt
s.
~
In the large metropolitan regions such as the New York City
area, land, labor and transportation costs present a different
set of circumstances than prevail in the study area. Each com-
munity or region must consider methods which are based on local
conditions.
In the following paragraphs, four basic processes for disposal
are dis~ussed: incineration and landfilling, composting and land-
filling, pulverizing and landfilling, and sanitary landfilling.
Incineration and Landfilling.
This process consists of two parts: i.e., the reduction of
volume of combustible materials through the use of an incinerator;
and the landfilling of incombustible waste and incinerator res-
idue. Much of the total waste of a community is incombustible
and is normally disposed of in a sanitary landfill or some other
land disposal process. The combustible waste can be significantly
reduced in volume in an incinerator. The residue or ash which
remains after incineration can be disposed of in sanitary land-
fills. The incineration process consists or reducing combustible
solid waste to an inert residue by burning, with an enclosure,
under high temperatures and controlled conditions. ~1hen accom-
plished in a large facility for a community with waste transported
to the facility from several sources, it is referred to as cent~al
incineration. Nhen accomplished by individuals or cOI'mnercial,
industrial or institutional concerns for their own locally gener-
ated waste, it is referred to as on-site incineration.
Central and on-site incinerators are used for two purposes:
to reduce large volumes of waste to a small volume or residue; and
to change the rorm or a material ~..;hich may be dangerous or a nui-
sance to one which is safe or nuisance-free.
There are some incinerators in the United States which are
fine examples of industrial architecture. The general public
would be unaware of the function of the facility if it were not
for signs on the building or at the gates.
A major advantage of the central incinerator is the relatively
small land requirement and the ability to locate the plant in an
industrial area within a city. The central location reduces the
hauling cost not only for the city collection crews, but also for
the industrial and commercial users of the facility. This advan-
tage is particulaEly important in large metropolitan areas where
there is a high cost in hauling materials from the place where the
waste is generated to landfill sites in rural areas. It is not
-39-
I
...
I
I
. -
,'I
.
I
r.
wi
. ~
"I
, "~
;1
,
t
n
I'
11
f"~
~I
~I
il
,---
I
i
'II
r""!
t
i
"..".~
I
[I
as important in any location where rural land is available within
a few minutes' driving time from the center of the city.
In the study area under the present circumstances, incineration
is not practical due to reasonably close potential landfill sites.
The major disadvantage is tpe cost of initial construction and
cost of maintenance and operation. These costs usually range upward
from $7.00 per ton of waste delivered.
Certain industries, commercial establisr~ents and institutions
may wish to operate on-site incinerators as a matter of conven-
ience. If they are properly designed and operated, they should be
permitted. The design, however, must include all of the necessary
controls and devices to insure proper burning and safety and air
pollution controls.
Some on-site incinerators may be necessary. For example, the
safe disposal of infectious or otherwise contaminated materials
from hospitals or drug manufacturers requires incineration. Also
highly volatile and infla~~able liquids from other industries
cannot be safely buried in a landfill. In these cases, incinera-
tion is necessarv and an acceotable method of disposal; however,
4 ~ _
it should be licensed and controlled.
In the event a community or industry ~"ould find it to the ir
advantage to construct and operate an incineration facility, the
technology and equipment are available to accomplish the task
without pollution to the water, air and land of the community.
Composting and Landfilling.
This process consists of two points: i.e., the converSlon of
the organic portion of solid waste to compost referred to as "com-
posting"; and the landfilling of the non-compostible material.
Composting is the conversion of the organic portion of the solid
waste through aerobic digestion to a stable and harmless material
which may be used for a soil conditioner.
Micro-organisms which are present in garbage and other organi~
material will cause the waste to decompose. The composting plant
provides the proper environment for these organisms. The plant
receives only those loads of solid waste which can be composted.
Loads not suitable for composting are diverted to sanitary land-
fills. The waste which is accepted is sorted to remove additional
non-compostible materials. Some of these materials have a value
and are salvaged.: After sorting, the remaining material is pul-
verized and moisturized with various processing equipment. The
-40-
jl
.-.
I
I
r;"
"I
. -
.1
'J. '
;1
. -
-I
r-
:1
,
II
II
ri
,I
.1
~I
[J
II
[J
I
I
material is then subjected to a composting period varying from one
to two weeks during which time the temperature, moisture and air
content is carefully controlled, and the material is periodically
mixed. At the end of the composting period, the waste has been
converted to compost, a humus-like material having some value as
a soil conditioner.
Composting has been practiced for many years with little suc-
cess. In recent years, several research and development projects
have been undertaken which have improved the process. The modern
plant of today is a highly mechanized facility u~ilizing quality
equipment designed or specifically adapted for this process.
Several well-known national companies and equipment manufacturers
have built and are or were operating composting plants in Texas,
Arizona, Florida and elsewhere.
Unfortunately, some of these modern plants have had serious
difficulty with odor problems. It is assumed that these problems
can be overcome and within a few years, it ~vill be possible to
process compost in a nuisance-free manner. The cost of composting
is considerably greater than the cost of landfilling.
Whether the comoost material can be sold is a debatable ques-
tion. Attempts to sell soil conditioners in large quantity have
not been successful.. In the event the material cannot be sold,
it must also be landfilled...
It is possible that the composting processes may be practical
some years in the future. Today, in the study area, it is not
recommended as a satisfactory method of solid waste disposal.
However, the practice of composting leaves in Thomas Park should
be continued.
Pulverizing and Landfilling.
Pulverizing and landfilling is a relatively new innovation to
disposal technology in the United States. It has been used for
some time in Europe, but is still in the experimental stage in
the United States. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare
has participated in several demonstration programs to evaluate
milled refuse with respect to:
* Sanitary characteristics of milled refuse
* Influence of milled refuse on sanitary landfill
* Economics
* Aesthetics
Pulverizing and landfilling is a two-step process. Refuse
delivered to a mill undergoes volume reduction by mechanical means.
-41-
. '.
il
.~..
-I
I
r
;1
".
jl
.,......,
.1
't--
-I
,-
II
;:.
~
[J
r-
~I
~I
.1
11
l
il
r.
!.
]
I
The milled refuse then is transported to the landfill area, spread
and compacted. Generally, milled refuse is not covered daily.
Initial evaluation reports indicate milled refuse has the
following advantages:
1. Saves landfill space.
2. Is relatively unattractive to flies and rodents.
3. Requires no cover material, therefore reduces winter prob-
lems associated with cover material.
4. Reduces settlement.
5. Permits trucks to operate on refuse, eliminating trucks
getting mired in mud at a landfill using cover.
The cost of milling is considerably greater than the cost of
landfilling. It is possible in the future that milling way be
practical in the study area. Today, however, with~ufficient
available land in the study area to accommodate the waste generated,
it is not recommended as an economical method of solid waste dis-
posal.
Sanitary Landfilling.
'-
Sanitary landfilling is a process in which solid waste mate-
rials are spread on the ground, crushed and compacted into a dense
mass and covered with earth in a carefully controlled sanitary
manner. This method is a proven system which, when carefully
planned and operated, is economical, nuisance-free, and does not
pollute the water, air or land.
The filling can be on land ranging from level land to gullies
or ravines. In many instances, rough and low value land has been
improved by filling.
The term sanitary landfill has frequently been confused with
open dumps or burning grounds -- this is incorrect. A sanitary
landfill is a specific process requiring careful design and man-
agement, proper equipment and operating techniques to assure that
sanitary conditions are maintained at all times. The compacted
waste is completely covered with earth on a daily schedule. Each
day's waste is therefore enclosed in an earth cell. These cells
preclude rodents and insects, odors, litter, air and water pollu-
tion and-fires. Emphasis is placed on proper location, equipment,
.-
-42-
~-,
I
:.I',....
I
I
.~
.~
-I
.'
-Y'-
t
!T~
II
4~
t
r'~
:1
f,...
I'
fI
~I
~
,I
"I
J '
iI
."~
II
r.
~
r.
~
II
l
compaction and cover, sight screening, landscaping and other san-
itary and aesthetic requirements.
The major disadvantage is that relatively large quantities of
land are required. In certain parts of the country, this require-
ment can be disqualifying. In the study area, adequate land is
available at locations within economic hauling. distances.
Another potential disadvantage is the frequent lack of' public
acceptance of- sanitary landfilling. This is due to the bad repu-
tation of dumps and the public confusion of dumps and sanitary
landfills. A good public relation program and a demonstration of
proper sanitary landfill operations can reduce the public.resis-
tance.
Except for very small or unusual operations, almost all sani-
tary landfills can be owned and operated for approximately $2-$4
per ton. \lhen compared to the cost of incineration and COr:1posting,
this method is usually the least expensive.
Several variations of the sanitary landf~ll method are fre-
quently used. Certain materials such as broken concrete, demoli-
tion waste, ashes, etc., can be used to fill gullies, worked-out
quarries or low land-without requiring iull sanitary landfill
methods. Filling a dry area with such material is referred to as
dry landfilling. Filling areas which could be wet from ground
water or surface overflow with suitable material is referred to
as wet landfilling.
The sanitary landfill method 1S recommended for the study area
for the following reasons:
1. Land is available.
2. The method has been proven satisfactory where properly
operated.
3. The method can meet all health, sanitation and pollution
requireme~ts and be aesthetically pleasing.
4. The method is adaptable to varying quantities and peak or
slack rates.
s. The method is the most economical.
The technology and equipment for sanitary landfilling and var-
iations of the system are now available. The process is reasonably
-43-
I
,. ,
I
I
p
:1
, '
I
"'"'-
I
""
I
,f~ :'"
:1
I
r-
11
:! ....,
:1
,:1
,I
~I
II
[I
I
J
iJ
simple and economical, but it is not sufficiently simple that it
can be designed and managed without attention by knowledgeable
people, and it cannot be done without adequate funds. Landfilling
should be designed by engineers and managed by competent authority.
It must also receive the necessary funds to be operated properly
in accordance with State Board of Health regulations.
28-29-10. Standards for Solid Waste Processing Facilities and
Disposal Areas
A. General.
1. Scope: All solid waste disposal areas and solid waste
processing facilities shall be located, designed, and
operated in conformity with the following standards.
2. Acceptable Methods of Disposal:
a. All nonhazardous solid wastes and residues from solid
waste processing operations may be disposed of in
registered sanitary landfills located on sites approved
by the Depar~~ent and operating under a valid permit.
-.
b. Nonputrescible rubble and demolition waste materials
such as brick, mortar, broken concrete and similar ma-
terials produced in connection with demolition of
buildings and other structures may be disposed of at
approved demolition landfills holding valid permits
from the Department.
3. Acceptable Methods for processinq:
- .
a. Combustible solid wastes may be burned in incinerators
that conform with the provisions of the Air Quality
Control Act, K.S.A. 1970 Supp. 65-3001 through 65-3020
and regulations adopted thereunder, with all local
planning and zoning regulations, and are apprbved by
the Department.
b. Solid wastes may be shredded, separated, and consoli-
dated at shredding, separation, and transfer stations
approved by the Department.
c. Animal manures, sludges, and solid wastes with high
organic content may be processed into compost at ap-
proved composting plants holding valid permits from
the Department.
-44-
11
.'-~
I
I
w:-...
I
-I
, ".
:1
, .
.1
,
<I
~
~
~I
.1
~I
.1
il
II
I
II
J
]
4. Planning and Design: Planning, design, and operation of
any solid waste processing facility or disposal area of a
solid waste management system, including but not limited
to sanitary landfills, incinerators, compost plants,
transfer stations, salvage yards, and other solid waste
operations shall conform with appropriate design and oper-
ation guidelines of the Department.
5. Location: Location of all solid waste disposal areas and
solid waste processing facilities shall conform to appli-
cable state laws, and county or city zoning regulations
and ordinances. All locations for solid waste disposal
sites or processing facilities shall be reviewed by any
local planning and zoning board. Comments and recommen-
dations based on such reviews shall be transmitted to the
Department with the proposed plans. All locations for
solid waste disposal areas and processing facilities shall
be reviewed and approved by the Department before any
site development is started.
6. Access Roads: Access roads to the disposal site or pro-
cessing facility shall be of all-weather constructicn~
negotiable at all tines by trucks and other vehicles.
Load-linits an bridges and access roads shall be suffic-
ient to support all traffic loads which will be generated
by use of the site or facility.
7. Reports Required: Operators of all solid waste disposal
sites and orocessing facilities shall naintain suitable
records of volumes or tonnage of solid wastes received,
land area used, population served, area served, and any
other information required by the conditions of the per-
mit. All information shall be summarized and reDorted to
the Department annually on forms furnished by the Depart-
ment.
8. Air Quality: The operator af every solid waste disposal
site and solid waste processing facility shall conform to
all applicable provisions of K.S.A. 1970 Supp. 65-3001
through 65-3020, any regulation adopted thereunder, and
any local regulations pertaining to air quality.
9. Communication: Communications shall be available to all
solid waste processing or disposal sites.
-45-
......
~I
. .
,I
I
..~1"'1
I
'"
~I
r'
.1
.'
il
,. -.
il
~I
II
II
, -
,I
.1
iI
iI
I
I
I
I
10. Fire Protection: Arrangements shall be made for fire pro-
tection services when a fire protection district or other
public fire protection service is available. When such a
service is not available, practical alternate arrangements
shall be provided at all sites.
11. Limited Access: Access to a solid waste disposal site or
processing facility shall be limited to hours when an
attendant or operating personnel are at the site. A gate
or barrier and approved fencing shall be erected to block
access to the solid waste disposal site or processing
facility during hours when the site or facility is closed.
Access by unauthorized vehicles or pedestrians shall be
prohibited.
12. Hours of Operation: Hours of operation and other limita-
tions shall be prominently posted at the entrance of the
disposal site or facility.
13. Salvage: Salvage or recla~ation of materials shall be
permitted only where facilities specifically designed for
the purpose of salvaging or processing solid wastes are
provided, and when the salvage materials are properly
controlled to prevent interference with prompt sanitary
disposal of solid wastes. All salvage operations shall
be conducted in a manner that will not create a nUlsanC8.
14. Safety: An operational safety program approved by the
Department shall be provided for employees at solid waste
processing and disposal sites.
15. Vector Control: Solid waste processing facilities and
disposal sites shall be operated in a manner which will
not permit the harborage or breeding of insects or rodents.
Whenever supplemental vector control measures are neces-
sary, these measures shall be promptly carried out.
B. Specific Standards for Solid Waste Disposal Areas.
1. Demolition Landfills: Any person may establish and oper-
ate a private landfill for the disposal of construction
and demolition wastes, provided he shall first apply for
and obtain a permit from the Department to operate the
site as a "Landfill for Construction and Demoli tion ~vastes",
and may d~ so as long as the permit shall remain in force,
and the s~te is operated in accordance with the provisions
of these regulations and the specific requirements of the
-46-
il
-
.~
I
I
1
W.
~I
~~
~I
,~
I
r?
il
I
~
I
~I
I
;1
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.
permit. Issuance of such a permit shall be coordinated
with the local governing unit in whose jurisdiction the
demolition landfill is located.
Sanitary Landfills:
.
a. Design Plans and Engineering Reports -- Sanitary land-
fills shall be designed and operated in accordance
with this regulation and with the Department's Solid
Waste Guidelines for Design and Operation of Sanitary
Landfills. All design plans and engineering reports
required by these standards shall bear the signature
and seal of an engineer licensed to practice in Kansas.
b. Land Use Plans -- All applications for a proposed san-
itary landfill shall include an ultimate land use plan
for the site. The plan shall include intermediate
stages and shall identify the total and complete pro-
posed land use upon completion of filling or ter.mina-
tion of use of the site and shall be in accordance
with any local land use plans.
c. Reports and Maps Required -- In addition to the annual
reports required in Section A-7 of this regulation,
the operator of the sanitary landfill shall maintain
a map showing place of deposit of various materials
within the site. Areas used for the disposal of haz-
ardous wastes or substantial quantities of rock, brick,
stone, concrete and other similar materials, and un-
excavated areas shall.be clearly shown and referenced
to the boundaries of the tract or other permanent
markings. This map shall be filed with the Register
of Deeds in the county where the landfill is located
upon completion of the landfill or disposal area.
d. Fire Protection No open burning of solid wastes
shall be permitted at a sanitary landfill. In case
of accidental fires at the site, the operator shall be
responsible for initiating and continuing appropriate'
fire-fighting methods until all smoldering, smoking
and burning ceases. The operator of any landfill shall
seek and obtain additional fire-fighting assistance if
smoldering, smoking, or burning persists for longer
than a twenty-four (24) hour period. The operator
shall:not permit the dumping of combustible materials
withi~ the immediate vicinity of any smoldering,
smoking, or burning conditions and shall not allow
-47-
~I
..-
I
I
.-'':'"(
I
:1
T~
~I
1"''''''
~I
.... ~
,I
f"
t
I
r
il
il
:1
I
;'1""'1
11
,,!.--
)1
~.
...
11
II
PART 5
SOLID ~vASTE PLAN
GENERAL
The existing methods of storing, collecting, transporting,
disposing, and managing solid waste were described in Part 2 of
this report. Salina is the only community that has a landfill
where refuse is covered daily. The remaining communities use
open dump sites for refuse disposal and periodically bury the
refuse.
The general public has become aware of the unsightly and un-
sanitary nature of the existing disposal areas in Saline County
and has a determination to correct the condition. Small commun-
ities are financially unable to purchase a vehicle for use in
collection or a dozer for use at a sanitary landfill. If a com-
munity obtained its own equipment and used it one or two days a
week, the remaining portion of the time the equipment would be
idle. It is possible for several communities to share the same
collection and disposal equipment at a reasonable cost.
Several of the communities and most of the rural area are not
served by community-type water and sewer system, but rely on indi-
vidual wells and septic tanks. These residents usually do not
have an accommodation for utility charges for regular refuse col-
lection service, as many of the farmers and ranchers have trucks
and can provide their own refuse transport. All residents have
a regular or occasional need for use of a refuse disposal site.
DISPOSAL . .
There are cost constrictions in the choice of disposal methods.
The landfill method has the most latitude as to volume of disposal
per hour or day with the least effect on cost. At volumes over
-500 tons/day, a cost of $2.00-$3.00, and at volumes of less than
100 tons/day, the cost is frequently $2.00-$5.00 per ton dependent
to a large degree upon the cost of land for a landfill site.
Incineration costs are quite sensitive to volume of disposal
and has an economic limit of 100 tons/day to yield a cost of $7.00
to $10.00 per ton ,and does not reach $5.00-$8.00 per ton, under
-49-
i
....
I
I
"...,.
"I
~..,
I
I
11
il
I
[I
dumping activities to interfere with fire-fighting
efforts.
All disruption of finished grades, covered or compacted
surfaces, shall be covered and regraded upon completion
of fire-fighting activities.
e. Disposal of Sewage Solids, Liquids, and Hazardous
Wastes Restricted -- No materials of a hazardous na-
ture, including but not limited to, sewage solids, oil
sludge, dye concentrates, waste chemicals, pathological
and biological wastes, radioactive materials or explo-
sives, shall be disposed of in the sanitary landfill
until the location, method of disposal, and site fac-
tors have been evaluated by the Department, and the
specific arrangements for handling the materials have
been approved.
11
~I
]
J
I.
:t.
1....-.
.:1
~
-,
~.:.'...
ill
J
:I
-48-
~I
I
I
rl
1 .
~I
I
:-
:1
~
II
:1
:1
.1
~I
!.I
(
~
L::
)1
........~
....1
I
.....
~I
-
II
usual circumstances, until large volumes are involved. Shredding
or pulverizing has a similar cost experience, with the minimum of
100 tons per day at $5.00-$6.00 per ton and over 300 tons per day,
the costs can be $3.00-$4.00 per ton.
The Saline County refuse production applicable to a disposal
(based on 100% usage of the site by city and rural residents) is
estimated to be 112 tons per day in 1970, and 237 tons per day by
1990. The total quantity now and by 1990 is, under current prac-
tices, considered below the quantity for economical incineration
or shredding as a community disposal program.
The selection of sanitary landfill as the refuse disposal pro-
cedure in Saline County is surely the most efficient and economical
method and is practical in regards to the adequate supply of
sui tab Ie land.
Sanitary Landfill Acreage.
A twenty-year design period has been used for landfill require-
ments. Sanitary landfill acreage requirements for a single
sanitary landfill in Saline County were calculated using an ave-
rage 20-year per capita disposal factor for Salina, small cities,
and the rural area. The 1970 base disposal factors were estimated
to increase an average of 2% per annum for the 20-year design per-
iod. The average refuse produced for disposal would be 62,684.86
tons per year. Generally, a well compacted landfill should have
an initial density of 1,000 pounds per cubic yard for fills of up
to 20 feet. Based on. 1,000 pounds per cubic yard density of com-
pacted fill area, an average of 62,684.86 tons per year and an ave-
rage twenty-year population in Saline County of 50,838, approximately
1,554 acre feet would be required for the twenty-year period. The
area required for refuse disposal is obtained by dividing required
acre feet by fill depth of 20' and multiplying by 1.3 to provide
additional area for roads, buildings, screening, and areas of mis-
cellaneous use.
.
Operating Equipment Necessary for Sanitary Landfill.
A mUlti-purpose piece of equipment is required to operate and
maintain the proposed sanitary landfill. The equipment must be
capable of transporting refuse, spreading and compacting it, and
covering it with soil. In addition, it must be capable of exca-
vation as the trench method or the area method will be used for
-50-
I
11'" -~
I
I
i
"" -~.
I
,/--="
I
"J-~-
I
=- -<1
il
\-
I
I
fl
]1
::1
I
II
[1..0
\
.,
t.....
LII
~.:..
~
I
disposal of solid waste. The crawler tractor is recommended as
the type of equipment to meet the needs of the sanitary landfill
operation. A crawler tractor should be in the range of over
35,000 pounds. Such a unit equipped with a multi-purpose bucket
costs $76,000.
It is probable that auxiliary equipment such as a grader will
be required to help with the earthwork. It is also advisable to
have a piece of stand-by equipment available in case of breakdown.
A smaller piece of equipment in the range of 25,000-35,000 pounds
can be used. Cost of a smaller unit will be $45,000.
Closing Existing Open Dump Sites.
The existing open dump sites which are considered inadequate
should be closed. Closing of these must be accomplished on or
before June 30, 1976, as prescribed by State Statutes. It will
be necessary to schedule closing of the existing sites concurrent
with the operation of the proposed county-wide sanitary landfill
disposal facility. Refuse dumped at the open dumps should be
covered and the area graded for proper drainage. To prevent
further dumping in the area, the access road should be fenced off
and signs installed indicating location of the new site. It may
be necessary to provide periodic cleanup at the abandoned sites
for a short time.
SANITARY LANDFILL COST ESTIMATE . .
Cost estimates for the proposed landfill are itemized in the
following tables. The estimates are based upon current costs, and
these costs will need to be adjusted prior to implementation of
the landfill, when final designs are made and final conditions
known.
The site operation cost is based upon eight hours per day,
seven days per week. One hour per day should be allotted at the
end of the day to permit the refuse to be covered and incidental
clean-up to be accomplished.
Land Cost.
Land costs were estimated based on the value of upland farm-
land surrounding.Salina not having frontage on 1-70 to 1-35.
-51-
:~.I.
.;
ti
.. '
I
I
i
'1-:~
.1 ·
I
1-
;1
[I
r:-
il
~I
r)
~I
I~..
'.
iI
I
J
;1
.....
;1
-
Initial Site Development.
The costs were developed by analyzing the general physical
developments necessary for placing the landfill in operation.
Equipment Purchase.
The heavy equipment recommended for the proposed sanitary
~andfill operation includes one tractor crawler (over 35,000
pounds category), one tractor crawler (25,000-35,000 pounds cate-
gory), and one road grader. Consideration was given to the pur-
chase of a wood chipper, but this item was not included in the
initial equipr.1ent purchase. The prelir.1inary equipr.1ent selection
is based on anticipated conditions at the proposed site. Final
equipment selection can be made only after the actual site is
designed.
Equipment Maintenance, Operation and Amortizing.
Funds for replacement of equipment are provided for in the
operating cost. These costs include maintenance, operation
(excluding labor), and amortization. The costs are based on
operating the primary equipment 75% of the time the site is open.
This amortization will repay the cost of replacement by establish-
ing an equipment escrow fund to be used with trade-in equipment.
Labor.
The labor cost is estimated for three personnel to operate
the site with 10% labor cost attributed to supervision cost and
20% of cost for fringe benefits.
Miscellaneous Expenses and Contingencies.
This cost is included for the normal miscellaneous expenses
and contingencies that will occur in the operation of a sanitary
landfill.
Annual Cost.
The annual cost expenditures are based upon the itemized costs
previously described in which some expenditures are one-time
-52-
I
. '
I.
I
i
I
:or""'"
.1
?'~
I
il
tl
fI-
tl
:1
I
:1
J'.
.;
il
tl
I
II'
I.
I'
,
.:1
,~
'I
-~
i.,;;;;;
initial expenses and the remaining are reoccurring annual expenses.
The one-time expenses are assumed to be financed through the sale
of revenue bonds, repayable at 7% interest over 20 years.
The cost of debt service reserve is not an actual cost, but
is a revenue that must be provided and set aside for the protec-
tion of bond buyers. It is calculated as 40% of the annual debt
expense.
Final cost estimates cannot be made until the site is selected,
designed, and an operational plan prepared. It should also be
pointed out that the estimated cost figures in this section are
1972 cost figures and will need an annual inflation adjustment.
-53-
,...~
I
.":-"
I
I
,.
'I
~."
I
I
II
. ..
II
"
II
[I
ir-
1,,,1
' 1
..
:1
~I
~,l.
~
I
r.
111
ili
{
1
;0::;:
<.1
:i..
~
SANITARY LANDFILL COST
(County-Wide)
20 Years
Fill Depth
Fill Area
1,554 Ac. Ft.
20' 77.70 Acres
x
1.3
Purchase Area
101.02 Acres
A. Iriitial Cost:
Land - 105 Ac. @ $500/Acre $ 52,500.00
Perimeter Fencing -- 8,000
Ft. @ $0.50 4,000.00
Entrance Fencing -- 554' @
$ 2 . 0 0 /F t . 1,108.00
Building -- 1,600 Sq.Ft. @
$10.00/Sq.Ft. 16,000.00
Grading (Est. ) 9,000.00
Gravel Surfacing 2,000.00
Miscellaneous 1,500.00
Landscaping 1,000.00
$ 87,108.00 $ 87,108.00
B. Equipment Purchase:
1 Tractor Crawler, 0-8 $ 76,000.00
1 Tractor Crawler, 0-6 45,000.00
1 Road Grader 10,000.00
1 Pick-Up Truck 4,000.00
Miscellaneous 1,000.00
$136,000.00 $136,000.00
C. Equipment Maintenance, Operation
and Amortization:
1 Tractor Crawler --
Maintenance -- 2,190 Hrs. @
$6.24/Hr.
Operation -- 2,190 Hrs. @ 8
Gal. @ $.18
Amortization -- $76,000 @
7%/5 Years
Total
1 Tractor Crawler
Maintenance -- 2,190 Hrs. @
$3.69/Hr.
Operation -- 2,190 Hrs. @ 4
Gal. @ $.18
Amortization -- $45,000 @
7%/5 Years
Total
-54-
$ 13,666.00
3,154.00
18,536.00
$ 35,356.00
$ 8,081.00
1,577.00
10,975.00
$ 20,633.00
......
I
..."'"
I
'" ..
I
I
I
I
I
:1
I
I
I'.'.'
.i
I
I
I
I
Il.
1
I
I
....
II
~
1 Road Grader
Maintenance 2,190 Hrs. @
$.50/Hr. $ 1,095.00
Operation -- 2,190 Hrs. @ 3
Gal. @ $.18 1,183.00
Amortization -- $10,000 @
7%/5 Years 2,439.00
Total $ 4,717.00
Pick-Up Truck
Maintenance $ 500.00
Operation 500.00
Amortization -- $4,000 @ 7%
/3 Years 1,524.00
Total $ 2,524.00
Miscellaneous $ 1,000.00
$ 64,230.00 $ 64,230.00
D. Labor:
2 @ $3.50/Hr. x 40 x 52 $ 14,560.00
Over-Time, 2 @ $5.25 x 8 x 52 4,368.00
1 @ $3.00/Hr. x 40 x 52 6,240.00
Over-Time, $4.50 x 8 x 52 1,800.00
$ 26,968.00
Supervision -- 10% 2,697.00
Fringe Benefits -- 20% 5,933.00
$ 35,598.00 $ 35,598.00
E. Miscellaneous and Contingency:
10%, C + D $ 9,983.00 $ 9,983.00
Annual Cost Data
A. One-Time Expense: 7% - 20 years - .09439293
Land Cost
Initial Site Development
.09439293
$ 52,500.00
34,608.00
$ 87,108.00
$ 8,222.00
x
B. Reoccurring Annual Expense:
Equipment M~intenance, Oper-
ation and Amortization
Labor
Miscellaneous and Contingency
$ 64,230.00
35,598.00
9,983.00
$109,811.00
$109,811.00
-55-
If.' ~
'~I'
~
.. '.
I
I
p
~I
"
.1
..--
il
~-~
il
ff---O"
1.1
II
fi
tI
II
11
.<
~I
II
iI
I
[I
r.
~
I
C. Total Annual.Cost:
$118,033.00
D. Bond Debt Service Reserve:
Est. 40% = .4 x $8,222.00
Est. 40% = .4 x $13,474 -
Sal. Val. $6,083.00
$ 3,289.00
7,306.00
E. Total Annual Cost:
$128,628.00
Unit Cost
1970 Total Saline County Tonnage ---------------- 40,832.55
Sanitary Landfill Annual Cost ------------------- $128,628.00
Cost Per Ton (Estimated Tonnage for Disposal) --- $3.15
The estimated annual operating cost for Salina to operate a
sanitary landfill without participation from the small cities and
rural areas is essentially the same -- $128,628.00. Land require-
ments would closely equal the 105 acres required for a single
county facility, based on the following calculations:
Salina
(Without Small Cities and Rural)
20 Years
Fill Depth
Fill Area
x 1.3
Area
1,479.43 Ac. Ft.
20'
73.97 Acres
96.16 Acres
The unit costs would increase as follows:
1970 Total Salina Tonnage for Disposal ---------- 37,164.30
1970 Sanitary Landfill Annual Cost -------------- $128,628.00
Cost Per Ton ------------------------------------ $3.46
-56-
"I
~
. .
I
I
";"111
r
,I
o -
~I
~--
II
'T~
I
II
I
~
II
I
,I
I
I
I'
;
I
I
I
SANITARY LANDFILL COST
(Excluding Salina)
20 Years
Fill Depth
Fill Area
X 1.3
Purchase Area
74.7~ Ac. Ft.
20'
3.74 Acres
4.8 Acres
An additional five acres would be required to store demolition and
tree wastes. Total acreage required for a separate operation
would be 10 acres.
A. Initial Cost:
Land -- 5 Ac. @ $500/Acre $ 5,000.00
Perimeter Fencing -- 2,000
Ft. @ $1.50/Ft. 1,000.00
Entrance Fencing -- 640 Ft.
@ $2.00/Ft. 1,280.00
Building -- 800 Sq. Ft. @
$lO.OO/Sq. Ft. 8,000.00
Grading (Est. ) 4,500.00
Gravel Surfacing 1,000.00
Miscellaneous 1,000.00
Landscaping 500.00
$ 22,280.00 $ 22,280.00
B. Equipment Purchase:
1 Trac~or Crawler $ 45,000.00
Road Grader 10,000.00
Pick-Up Truck 4 .' 0 0 0 . 0 0
Miscellaneous 1,000.00
$ 60,000.00 $ 60,000.00
C. Equipment Maintenance, Operation
and Amortization:
1 Tractor Crawler --
Maintenance -- 2,190 Hrs. @
$3.69/Hr. $ 8,081.00
Operation -- 2,190 Hrs. @ 4
Gal./Hr. @ $.18 1,577.00
Amortization 45,000 @ 7%
/ 5 Years 10,975.00
$ 20,633.00
1 Road Grader
Maintenance 2,190 Hrs. @
$.50/Hr. $ 1,095.00
Operation -- 2,190 Hrs. @ 3
Gal. /Hr.. @ $.18 1,183.00
Amortization -- 10,000 @ 7%
/ 5 Years 2,439.00
$ 4,717.00
-57-
I
..-..
I
I
W"~
I
,
I
I
'lU -
.1
.
:1
, '
t
fI
II
,I
I
I
I
11
I
I
[I
Pick-Up Truck
Maintenance $ 500.00
Operation 500.00
Amortization $4,000 @
7% / 3 Years 1,524.00
$ 2,524.00
Miscellaneous 1,000.00
$ 28,874.00
D. Labor:
..
Full-Time 2 @ $3.50/Hr.
x 40 x 52 $ 14,560.00
Over-Time -- 2 $ $5.25/Hr.
x 8 x 52 4,368.00
Supervision -- 10% 1,893.00
Fringe Benefits -- 20% 4,164.00
$ 24,985.00 $ 24,985.00
E. Miscellaneous and Contingency:
10% , C + D $ 8,498.00 $ 8,498.00
Annual Cost Data
A. One-Time Expense: (7% - 20 Yrs. =
Land
Initial Site Development
.09439293 x
.09439293)
$ 5,000.00
17,280.00
$ 22,280.00
$ 2,103.00
B. Reoccurring Annual Expense:
Equipment Maintenance, Oper-
ation and Amortization
Labor
Miscellaneous
$ 28,874.00
24,985.00
8,498.00
$ 62,357.00
$ 62,357.00
C. Total Annual Cost:
$ 64,460.00
D. Bond Debt Service Reserve:
Est. 40% = .4 x $2,103
Est. 40% = .4 x $14,938
(Salvage Value)
$ 841.00
2,575.00
E. Total Annual Cost:
$ 67,876.00
-58-
1.--
I
.-
I
. .
I
i
jI.....
I
. '
"I
T.~
I
11
~
I
I
I
;1
I
11
.
i
I
I
I
I
A sanitary landfill operation excluding Salina is uneconomical
with cost ranging from $9.00 per ton for total disposal of gen-
erated waste, up to $23.00 per ton for waste quantities under the
existing practices.
Economics dictate the recommendation for the cities and the
county to cooperatively develop a single sanitary landfill opera-
tion in Saline County.
FINANCING THE SANITARY LANDFILL . .
There are three methods available for financing the sanitary
landfill. The basic methods include general revenue, service
charges, and special assessments. Each method has advantages and
disadvantages.
General revenue and special assessment are tax levies on prop-
erty and is an easy method of financing the sanitary landfill.
The sanitary landfill operation, when financed this way, becomes
a part of the total governmental package and eliminates monthly
billings.
The disadvantage. to this type of financing is that it places
the cost against property owners and many people are not property
owners, but contribute to the solid waste that is generated. It
can be argued, for example, that this cost can be indirectly
attributed to non-property owners via increased rent or other
indirect cost. The primary disadvantage is that this method of
financing is included within the budget and tax lid.
Service charges as a method of financing sanitary landfill
operations is becoming a popular method. The disadvantages to
this method is that it is more difficult to manage. The advan-
tage of service charge financing is the cost of the service is
directly placed upon the individuals producing solid waste.
Secondly, it frees valuable tax funds for other purposes.
A fourth method not yet available to the county and cities is
the proposed revenue sharing program. Actually, this is a source
of additional revenue rather than a method that will be available.
-59-
,.,..
I
... ..
I
.1
J
'" .,
~I
,- ,
,I
, ~
.1
~. ,
11
I
F"
11
II
I
I
J
II
iI
I
I
II
)
ADMINISTRATION . .
There are several alternative methods of administering the
operation of an area-wide waste disposal facility. There are two
alternatives considered suitable for the study area as follows:
1. Administrative services under inter-municipal - county
contract.
2. Administrative services under a newly created county
Department of Public Works.
Administrative Services under Contract.
This alternative is the recommended method at this time con-
sidering existing operations in the county. It is recommended
that Salina provide administrative services and operate the
proposed sanitary landfill. Saline County and the other commun-
ities through contractual agreements with Salina are proposed to
use the one facility.
This alternative has the advantage of utilizing existing
staff with experience in administration and operation of the
sanitary landfill. This alternative also provides a great deal
of flexibility for individual cities and the county in terms of
the method of financing their respective share of the sanitary
landfill cost.
Administrative Services under Department of Public Works.
This method would require modification of the county organiza-
tion and creation of a Department of Public Works. This method has
the disadvantage of duplicating a city agency capable of the same
function. This method is not recommended at this time.
DISTRIBUTION OF COST . .
Revenue for the sanitary landfill is to be provided by the
communities and the county. There are several methods to distri-
bute the cost to the participating governmental units.
The most equitable and politically acceptable method to dis-
tribute cost of the sanitary landfill operation is a user fee based
on tonnage. This requires a scale at the site and a substantial
amount of administration, management, and cost. Besides being an
-60-
I
.
I
I
r
11
ff.--
,.1
".,
~I
T"..
I
,'-
(I
~
fl.
rl
:-
~I
11
11
LI
I
[I
]
equitable method of distributing cost, the records attainable from
weighing provide significant evaluation data and valuable data
for projection of sanitary landfill needs.
A method to distribute cost of a sanitary landfill without
measuring facilities is on an estimated tonnage basis or a per
capita basis. The following table illustrates cost based on per-
cent of population and cost based on percent of tonnage generated
for disposal.
Assaria
TABLE OF ESTIMATED COST V
% Total Cost Based Cost Based
Popu- County % Total on on
lation POP. Tonnaqe Tonnaqe Population Tonnage
331 .71 149.65 .37 $ 913.26 $ 475.92
227 .49 105.85 .26 630.28 334.43
421 .90 189.80 .46 1,157.65 591069
155 ~33 69.35 .17 424.48 218.68
37,714 80.94 37,164.30 91.01 104,111.50 117,064.34
188 .40 83.95 .21 514.51 270012
Brookville
Gypsum
New Cambria
Salina
Smolan
Rural
Non-Farm
4,991 10.72
2,273.95 5.57
13,788.92 7,164.57
Farm
2,565 5.51
795.70 1.95
7,087.40 2,508.25
TOTAL
46,592 100.00
$128,628.00 $128,628.00
40,832.55 100.00
I
,) '\'[6
.' ,.).6 ," }, \ :. ~
// ~ ..,
/ \l, .!I .
/'7 '? ":>
\ '" v +
,. I
..., ")
\ c:
"
\ \,
-61-
.1
I
I
i
..
I
~"'"
I
"..
I
"",.~
~I
~
iI
'I
I
J
I
7,','.
1I
~I
I
11
]
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL COSTS
Saline County
Prorated Cost* Total Levy
Community (Estimated) Assessed Required
or Area ($/Yr. ) Valuation ($) (Mills)
Assaria 913.26 372,126 2.45
Brookville 630.28 241,737 2.61
Gypsum 1,115.65 403,284 2.77
New Cambria 424.48 135,002 3.14
Salina 104,111.50 67,050,605 1. 55
Smolan 514.51 129,244 3.98
Rural Non-Farm 13,788.92
Rural Farm 7,087.40
Rural Total 20,876.32 34,283,169 0.61
* Based on 1970 populations.
SOLID ~vASTE DISPOSAL COSTS
Saline County
Prorated Cost* Total Levy
Community (Estimated) Assessed Required
or Area ($/Yr. ) Valuation ( $) (Mills)
Assaria 475.92 372,126 1.28
Brookville 334.43 241,737 1.38
Gypsum 591.69 403,284 1.47
New Cambria 218.68 135,002 1.62
Salina 117,064.34 67,050,605 1.75
Smolan 270.12 129,244 2.09
Rural Non-Farm 7,164.57
Rural Farm 2,508.25
Rural Total 9,672.82 34,283,169 0.28
* Based on tonnage and existing burning practices.
-62-
: SALINE
I COUNTY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~ -
I
I
I
I
I
_1__ _d._...-----'.'._ -,.--~~-~~-.-.--.-..~-'~".,-.~-----'---.~----. -'-'-'- --- --"- d__~--~_-~___'_~:-~'-"_:'-'---' ---
-4'1
SOLID
WASTE
MANAGEMENT
PLAN
PRELIMINARY
~972
.-:c::a - -.I PI,PAI.O I'" L- _ '-;-{
:~U(~tR ~ WllU~1
l:-w- _..-&~
INDEX
Page No.
PART 5 - SOLID WASTE PLAN
DISPOSAL. . (Cont.) 63
Sununary. 68
COLLECTION . . 69
Storage Containers. 69
Collection Vehicles. 70
Crew Size. 71
Rural Routing and Scheduling Analysis. 71
Scheduling Analysis for Third-Class Cities. 72
Collection Cost Analysis. 72
PART 6 - ADMINISTRATION 82
Disposal. 82
Collection. 82
IMPLEMENTING THE PROGRAM . . 82
COLLECTION . . 84
ALTERNATIVES . . 84
TIME SCHEDULE FOR ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION . . 85
TABLES
Driving Cost Differences ------------------------------ 66
Total Cost Analysis ----------------------------------- 67
Weekly Rural Collection Schedule ---------------------- 73
Saline County Rural Residential Refuse
Collection Cost Estimates, IIGreen Boxll System ----- 74
Saline County Rural Solid WAste Storage
Cost Estimate, IIGreen Box" System - Residential --- 75
Small City Weekly Collection Schedule ----------------- 76
-Saline County Residential + Commercial
Collection Cost Estimates for Small Cities -------- 78
Saline County Residential Refuse Collection
Cost Estimates for Small Cities ------------------- 80
-i-
t)
_I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PART 5
DISPOSAL (Cont.)
Care and discretion must be used to select potential sites
for sanitary landfill projects. Ideally, a sanitary landfill
should be located at the centroid of all solid waste generated
(or to be disposed of) to minimize haul cost. The centroid of
waste generated in Saline County lies within the corporate limits
of Salina. Ideally, then a single sanitary landfill to serve all
of Saline County should be located near Salina. In addition,
criteria that require special consideration prior to actual site
selection include the following:
1. Relationship to present and projected land development.
2. Potential water pollution (both ground and surface).
3. Availability of suitable cover material.
4. Hauling routes and distances from production centers.
'~
I
.1
.1
-I
-"I
--I
~I
JI
~
.",
..I
5. Site development cost.
6. Future use of site.
Based on these criteria, three potential sanitary landfill
sites have been selected.
21, Township l4S, Range 3W.
4, Township l5S, Range 3W,
l4S, Range 3W. Site #3 is
l5S, Range 3W. Site #1 is
are publically owned.
Site #1 is located in the SW~ Section
Site #2 is located in the NW~ Section
and in the Shr~ Section 33, Township
located in the NE~ Section 7, Township
privately owned, and Sites #2 and #3
1. Relationship to Present and Projected Land Development.
Sites #1, #2 and #3 do not conflict with existing and
projected growth patterns for the city of Salina. The
reader is referred to two reports: one entitled the City
Plan, Salina, Kansas; and one entitled Community Renewal
Program, Salina, Kansas, for existing and projected growth
patterns for Salina and areas adjacent the proposed sites.
2.
Potential Water Pollution:
located in the flood plains
reader is again referred to
report, Salina, Kansas, for
Sites #1, #2 and #3 are not
of any tributaries. The
the Community Renewal Program
flood plain area designation
-63-
J
I
.1
'1
I
I
I
I
in the Salina area. Sanitary landfills can be located
in flood plains when proper protection is provided; how-
ever, the Environmental Protection Agency strongly recom-
mends that sanitary landfills not be located in flood
plains. The use of wet lowlands for sanitary landfills
in the study area would be costly and could cause severe
problems that would endanger public health and safety.
Therefore, potential sites in the flood plain of the study
area were eliminated from consideration. Logs of test
holes in areas adjacent to the proposed site indicate
a sanitary landfill can be developed at the proposed sites
and maintain a minimum of 10' vertical distance between
the fill and water table. Ground water pollution at the
three sites is not likely. However, test borings should
be made on the site selected to determine water table for
that specific site.
3. Availability of Cover Material: Generally the most desir-
able type of cover material recommended for sanitary
landfill operations is a sandy loam soil. From an
operational view point, cover material is important to the
economy of the operation. Soils classifications at all
three sites are suitable for a sanitary landfill operation.
'-1
..1
..1
I"
il
.~
l
.."
~
',"
~
'-:"1
wi
,
Site #1 -- The soil classifications found in this area are
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service, as follows:
Bn --- Berg, silt loam ------------- 2-6% slopes
Lzd Lockhard silt loam ---------- 0-2% slopes
Lzf -- Lockhard, silt loam --------- 2-6% slopes
Lzl -- Longford silt loam ---------- 0-2% slopes
En Edalgo silt loam ------------ 2-6% slopes
Hp --- Hedville loam --------------- 2-6% slopes
Site #2 -- Soil classifications found in this area are:
Bo --- Berg silt loam -------------- 0-2% slopes
Lzd -- Lockhard silt loam ---------- 0-2% slopes
Lzf -- Lockhard silt loam ---------- 2-6% slopes
So --- Srnolan silt loam ------------ 2-6% slopes eroded
Site #3 -- Soil classifications found in this area are:
Br Bonaccord silty clay loam --- 0-2% slopes
BS Bonaccord silty clay loam --- 2-6% slopes
Cc Cloud silty clay loam ------- 2-6% slopes
Cd Cloud silty clay loam ------ 6-12% slopes
-64-
I
I
1
I
-I
I
,I
."
-I
-I
.1
r"
l-I
:-1
l
.J
)
]
)
El ---
Lzh
Lzd
Lzk
Lzl
Lzf
Lh
Lm
Hs
Edalgo silt loam ------------ 2-6% slopes
Lockhard silt loam -- 2-6% slopes severely
Lockhard silt loam ---------- 0-2% slopes
Longford silt loam ---------- 0-2% slopes
Longford silt loam ---------- 2-6% slopes
Lockhard silt loam ---------- 2-6% slopes
Lancaster loam -------------- 2-6% slopes
Lancaster loam shallow phase- 2-6% slopes
Hedville loam -------------- 6-12% slopes
eroded
Subsurface geology of the three proposed sites and ground
water table can only be determined by test hole borings
at the sites. However, logs of test holes in areas ad-
jacent to the proposed sites indicate water table and
geologic conditions are suitable for sanitary landfill
operations.
4.
Hauling Routes and Distances from Production Centers: Each
of the three proposed sites were evaluated with respect to
haul distance and routes. Haul.distances were measured
from the largest production center, Salina, at Santa Fe
and Crawford Streets, to the proposed sites. The follow-
ing tables summarize round-trip mileage differences for
the three sites and estimated haul cost differences.
Site
No. 1
Site
No. 2
Site
No. 3
Distance from center of Salina
(Mi. )
Round trip distance (road mi.)
Annual mileage* (mi./yr.)
Annual driving time between
SLF site and center of
Salina ** (hrs./yr.)
Annual driving cost between
SLF site and center of
Salina #
3.8
7.6
15,679
7.8
15.6
32,183
8.3
16.6
34,246
447.98
919.52
978.47
$5,447
$11,181
$11,898
*
Round trip distance (road mi./load) x 2,063 loads/yr.
(2,063 loads is actual 1971 data for City of Salina.)
** Estimated average speed, 35 mph or 1.7143 min./mile.
(Collection time on the routes is not included.)
Operating cost of $12.16/hour.
#
-65-
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I
-I
I
LI
~
t
~
t
~
~I
~
~
~
~
DRIVING COST DIFFERENCES
Annual
Between Site #2 and Site #1
Between Site #3 and Site #2
Between Site #3 and Site #1
$5,734
717
6,451
5.
Site Development Cost: Each site must be evaluated with
respect to site development. Factors such as access
roads, water supply, clearing and grading, in addition
to haul costs described in previous paragraphs, must be
considered in a total cost analysis. Special cost factors
such as importing cover material are not required at the
proposed sites.
Clearing and gradi~g at the three proposed sites is esti-
mated to be essentially the same. Sites #1 and #2 would
require construction of one mile of all-weather access
road and establishing a water supply. Site #3 is acces-
sible with an all-weather type road and has an existing
water supply. The following tables summarize site cost
differences and total cost analysis.
6.
Future Use of Site: It is anticipated that the proposed
sites will be returned to farmland.
-66-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
-~
~
-I
~
..".,
..-
....
-I
TOTAL COST ANALYSIS
Annual
Site #1
Access Road Improvements, 1 Mi. @ $100,000 @ 7% / 20 Yrs.
Water Supply -- Est. 5,000 @ 7% / 20 Yrs.
* Annual Operating Cost
Trucking Cost
Total Annual Cost
** Reserve for Future Land Purchase
$ 9,439
471
128,624
5,447
$143,981
3,000
$146,981
Site #2
Access Road Improvements, 1 Mi. @ $100,000 @ 7% / 20 Yrs.
Water Supply -- Est. 5,000 @ 7% / 20 Yrs.
*** Annual Operating Cost
Trucking Cost
Total Annual Cost
** Reserve for Future Land Purchase
$ 9,439
471
123,669
11,181
$144,760
3,000
$147,760
Site #3
Access Road Improvements
Water Supply Existing
*** Annual Operating Cost
Trucking Cost
Total Annual Cost
** Reserve for Future Land Purchase
$ 0
o
123,669
11,898
$135,567
3,000
$138,567
*
**
Includes cost of private land.
Reserve fund established to purchase new site at end of 20 years or life
of fill.
Operating cost using existing public land at no initial cost and estab-
lishing a sinking fund to purchase new site at the end of 20 years or
life of fill.
***
-67-
Summary.
I
I
I
I
Each of the three proposed sanitary landfill sites is recom-
mended for consideration. Each site has been evaluated on a
preliminary basis as related in the previous pages. Based on
the preliminary analysis, Site #3 is recommended as the most
feasible for immediate implementation of the sanitary landfill
portion of this plan. The selection of a site with existing all-
weather access road and water supply is considered essential to
provide a new sanitary landfill by Spring, 1973. The use of
public property also is considered advantageous.
The final site selection will necessarily be made by the
agency owning and operating the site. The plan recommends the
city of Salina own and operate the proposed sanitary landfill
with costs proportioned to participating cities and the county.
The city may consider the proposed sites or other sites in the
same general area. However, based on a total cost analysis (haul
cost, site development cost, and annual cost), sites one mile
south of the junction of Burma Road and Crawford Street have
greater total cost than Site #3.
I
-,I
~I
."
"I
.1
::-,
JI
...
.1
"
~I
-68-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I
=I
....
.J
.1
,.,
-I
COLLECTION . .
'It is recommended that the city of Salina continue to operate
its collection service for residential areas inside the city lim-
its, and that private collectors continue to be licensed both for
residential and for commercial and industrial service. Although
dispersal of residential customers affects efficiency of private
haulers, it is believed this is a viable option for residents.
The fraction of household refuse collected by private truckers is
not sufficiently large to affect si~ificantly the efficiency of
the city system.
It is furtherrecornmended that residential collection services
be provided for all other residents of Saline County. Collection
service in the small communities and the rural county area are
recommended to be provided via contract with a private firm. It
is suggested for economic reasons that collection services be
provided by contract or franchise agreement between the cities
and private hauler and the county and private hauler.
The plan calls for individual residence collection services in
the incorporated third-class cities: Assaria, Brookville, Gypsum,
New Cambria, and Smolan. These services would be provided on a
once-a-week basis and would include residential, commercial, and
industrial collection services.
All other areas, designated as "rural," would be provided wi th
strategically placed large containers which would be emptied
weekly by the county service. One route is designed for semi-
weekly collection.
Storage Containers.
In the city of Salina, container types and sizes are regulated
by city ordinance. It is highly recommended that effective and
uniform regulations be set up for incorporated communities to
require all containers to be tightly covered and to establish
32 gallons as the maximum size for residential storage containers.
Part 4 of this report lists further specifications.
Backyard burning on residential premises containing five or
less dwelling units is deemed by State regulations to be the con-
trol responsibility of local jurisdictions (State of Kansas Air
Pollution Emission Control Regulations, January 1, 1972, Sections
28-19-8 and 28-19-9). Therefore, decisions should be made by the
incorporated cities on whether residential refuse burning will
be permitted. It is strongly recommended that backyard burning
be prohibited by ordinance in each of the incorporated cities~
-69-
"
If allowed, it is recommended that it be regulated to minimize
hazards (e.g., spark-arresting screens, etc.). The city of Salina
in 1969 enacted ordinances which prohibit open fires and garbage
burning. These regulations could provide valuable guidance to
other communities in the County.
I
I
I
I
The containers for rural areas (including unincorporated towns) ,
commonly known as "Green Boxes", would be provided by the County.
The basic premise used for box location was that each resident
should be within the 3-mile radius of a container (not over four
road miles). The plan was then modified to make all box sites
accessible by FAS or PAP roads in order to provide all-weather
access and to keep heavy collection trucks off of low-rated bridges.
The number of dwelling units in the domain of each site was ascer-
tained and the volume of collectable residential solid waste was
calculated. Thus, the sizes of containers were determined. The
specified boxes have capacities of 4, 6, and 8 cubic yards, all of
which are compatible with front-loader trucks.
Collection Vehicles.
)
I
I
I
"I
J
]
_I
~I
'"
'11
.
Mechanical packer-type trucks are recommended for the entire
County collection system. Although the initial cost is higher
than for conventional ~rucks, the packer offers the advantages
of efficiency, control of blowing refuse, and ease of loading and
unloading.
Packers are more efficient because they are quicker to load,
and they can accommodate about twice the tonnage for the same volume
in a non-compacting vehicle. Therefore, less driving is required
per ton of waste collected -- a saving in labor time as well as
truck time and truck miles. Control of scattered refuse is
important from both health and aesthetic standpoints.
Considering capacity and routing, it appears that 20 cubic
yard packer trucks are the minimum-sized trucks necessary to min-
imize the number of routes. Experience may indicate a larger
truck is preferable. When amortized over a 5-year period, cost
differences are not great and should not be the basis for decision
on truck size. Economy is primarily due to operating efficiency,
which in turn is greatly affected by coordination of waste quan-
tities, routing, and scheduling. Collection capacity for packer
trucks was computed on the basis of average compacted density of
500 to 600 pounds per cubic yard. The capacity of a 20 cubic
yard truck for loose refuse then is 33 to 40 cubic yards. The
collection vehicle for the rural containerized system must be
of the front-end loader type in order to handle the "Green Boxes."
-70-
Crew Size.
In designing a routing system, it is necessary to determine
the size of crew that will be the most economical for the opera-
tion. With a county-wide collection system, which entails con-
siderable road travel, three-man crews are more costly than two-
man. It is therefore recommended that two-man crews (driver +
1 crewman) be utilized in Saline County for collection in the
small, incorporated cities. For the rural system, a one-man crew
(driver only) is recommended since al"l collection will be mech-
anical.
I
I
I
Rural Routing and Scheduling Analysis.
Calculation of the quantity of refuse generated and the por-
tion which is collectable is. the beginning of route analysis. In
the rural containerized system, this and the collection frequency
determine initially the numbers and sizes of boxes required.
Selection of a theoretical maximum distance a resident need travel
dictates the maximum distance apart and'the geometrical pattern
of containers. As noted above, the arrangement needs to be mod-
ified to conform to improved roads and bridges. Considerable work
is required to coordinate adequate coverage, minimum number of
sites, and road geometry. A 4 cubic yard box is designated as
the minimum for each site. The actual numbers and sizes of boxes
then is determined by the population density or number of occupied
dwelling units in the domain of each container site. Box volumes
and truck capacity then dictate the idealized length of each route.
This is coordinated with the geometry of various county features
and with minimum travel distance.
I
I
:1
t
'"
t
'-"
~I
<
III
~
~I
'"
,
":.'1
:.
II
In some cases, low bridge limits make it necessary to alter
routes. In other places, route direction is chosen to permit
crossing weak bridges with a near-empty truck. Load limits of
all bridges in the county on FAS roads had to be considered. Even
so, there are some bridges which must be crossed whose load
limits (both inventory and operating ratings) are below the
weights of empty collection trucks. It is very important that
liaison with the County Engineer be established in regard to these
bridges. The structures in question are identified on the Rural
Routing Map.
Routing analysis, briefly, is completed by calculating and
totaling driving, collection, and discharge times. Distances to
and from the route and disposal facility need to be included with
the actual route distances. For the sake of calculations, the
city garage at 418 East Ash Street in Salina was used as the start-
ing point for collection trucks. The average driving rate employed
-71-
- ....- -.. ----_._~._... --.'.... .. ...~ .-.- ..- .-. -'-", -
"I
in this study is 35 mph. A period of 5 minutes is allowed at each
collection site because of the need for the drive to view the box
contents prior to dumping. Primarily this is a safety measure to
insure that children are not in the boxes.
-,
As shown on the route maps, a sixth rural route was designed
for the area immediately surrounding Salina to receive twice-weekly
collection service. The purpose was primarily to lower the
initial equipment costs. The plan is regarded as feasible because
of the high population density in the area and the higher waste
generation per capita of rural non-farm compared with farm resi-
dents. Some simplification in routing was also afforded. Eventually
it may be desirable to add containers and employ only once-a-week
service as a small saving in operating cost could be realized.
I
I
I
I
Scheduling Analysis for Third-Class Cities.
Some of the same aspects of the rural analysis are also applic-
able here. The basis for computing actual collection time, however,
is a factor for man-hours per ton of refuse (and, of course, one
for truck-hours per ton). Comparisons were made of factors from
nine solid waste studies plus factors calculated from city of
Salina data for the year 1971. An average value was used.
I
I
I
I
-I
-I
."
JI
...
Wi
...
~I
There are two types of man-hour factors: one for total work
time per ton of waste (which includes driving, unloading, etc.)
and one for collection time only. The comprehensive type factors
were determined for sizable cities, so are not strictly applicable
to this situation. More accurate analysis results from using a
collection-time-only multiplier in conjunction with calculating
actual driving and unloading times for each route individually.
The scope of this study does not include detailed collection
routes within the cities.
Collection Cost Analysis.
On the following pages are shown three cost analyses: one for
the rural collection "Green Box" system, and two for third-class
city collection. It should be noted that the cost of residential
collection in the small cities can be decreased significantly by
combining commercial collection with residential. This likely
will necessitate using a 25-cubic yard truck instead of a 20, but
the difference in annual cost is not significant when compared
with increased efficiency. Bridges on the roads to the small
cities all are rated at least H-15, so the larger-size truck
would not be prohibited as it would on the rural routes.
-72-
- -'-. .~-,.._.-...,,-.- - --,. . ..
.1
I
I
I
.1
.1
.,1
~~I
,'I
~I
",I
I-I
,"I
~I
:1
:1
~I
I
I
WEEKLY RURAL COLLECTION SCHEDULE
Day No. 1 (Monday)
Northeast Rural Route:
Driving Time, Garage to Route to Disposal Site --
50.5 mi. @ 1.714 min./mi.
7 Loading Stops @ 5.0 min.
Unloading
Northwest Rural Route:
Driving Time, Disposal Site to Route to Disposal Site
-- 67.5 mi. @ 1.714 min./mi.
7 Loading Stops @ 5.0 min.
Unloading
Southwest Rural Route:
Driving Time, Disposal Site to Route to Garage --
67.0 mi. @ 1.714 min./mi.
7 Loading Stops @ 5.0 min.
Unloading
Break Time
TOTAL
Day No. 4 (Thursday)
South-Central Rural Route:
Driving Time, Garage to Route to Disposal Site --
65.0 mi. @ 1.714 min./mi.
6 Loading Stops @ 5.0 min.
Unloading
Southeast Rural Route:
Driving Time, Disposal Site to Route to Disposal
Site -- 67.5 mi. @ 1.714 min./mi.
7 Loading Stops @ 5.0 min.
Unloading
Central Route, 2nd Collection:
Driving Time, Disposal Site to Route to Garage --
66.5 mi~ @ 1.714 min./mi.
8 Loading Stops @ 5.0 min.
Unloading
Break Time
TOTAL
-73-
Min.
Hours
87
35
10
132
2.20
116
35
10
161
2.68
115
35
10
160
2.66
7.54
0.50
-
8.04
30
III
30
10
151
2.52
116
35
10
161
2.68
114
40
10
164
2.73
7.93
0.50
-
8.43
30
,.,
jl
I
I A.
-I
~I
c_1
~I C.
<,I
'11
II
.1 A.
.1
-I B.
~I
..,
~I
..
JI
:1
:1
:1
SALINE COUNTY RURAL RE~IDENTIAL REFUSE
COLLECTION COST ESTIMATES
"Green Box" System -- 1 Collection/Week (2 in Central Area)
Factors
..,
Initial Purchase Prices:
1 Front (Top) Loading Packer Truck
( 2 0 Cu. Yd.)
1 Garage -- 800 Sq. Ft. @ $12.00
$20,000.00
9,600.00
$29,600.00
$29,600.00
B. Operating Equipment (Maintenance & Operation):
Packer Truck -- 804 Hrs./Yr. @ $3.80
Miscellaneous
$ 4,422.00
300.00
$ 4,722.00
$ 4,722.00
Operating
Driver
1:i-Time
Fringe
Personnel:
-- 856 Hrs./Yr. @ $3.06
Dispatcher-Maintenanceman
Benefits @ 20%
@ $7,200
$ 2,621.00
1,800.00
884.00
$ 5,305.00
$ 5,305.00
D. Miscellaneous Expense, Overhead, and
Contingency @ 10% of Operating Cost:
$ 1,003.00
$ 1,003.00
Annual Cost
Debt Expense:
Truck (5 Yrs. @ 7% Annuity:
$16,000 x 0.24389
Garage (20 Yrs. @ 7% Annuity:
$ 9,600 x 0.09489
0.24389)
0.09489)
$ 4,878.00
911.00
$ 5,789.00 $ 5,789.00
$ 5,305.00
4,722.00
1,003.00
$11,030.00 $11,030.00
$16,819.00 $16,819.00
$ 6.17 $ 6.17
$ 0.51 $ 0.51
Operating Expense:
Personnel
Equipment
Miscellaneous,
Overhead and Contingency
C. Total Annual Rural Collection Cost:
D. Annual Collection Cost/Dwelling Unit:
$14,341 7 2,725 Dwelling Units
E. Monthly Collection Cost/Dwelling Unit:
NOTE:
1. Cost of disposal will be in addition to collection cost.
2. Cost could be decreased by utilization of truck more than 2 days/
week, e.g., use in another county in addition.
-74-
I
I
I
I
-I
1 B.
I
-I
I
II
!I
tl
B.
~
.J
~
C.
:t D.
E.
,~
.-
~
SALINE COUNTY RURAL SOLID WASTE STORAGE COST ESTIMATE
"Green Box" System -- Residential Only
Factors
A. Initial Purchase Prices:
1 Steam Cleaner, 240 gal./hr.
1 Truck, Stake Body
34 Sites (Pads) for Containers @ $300
18 Containers, 4-cubic yard @ $249
12 Containers, 6-cubic yard @ $336
6 Containers, 8-cubic yard @ $410
Miscellaneous Equipment and Supplies
Garage, 400 Sq. Ft. @ $lO.OO/Sq. Ft.
Equipment Maintenance and Operation
Annual Cost:
Steam Cleaner -- 1 Hr./Container/Mo.
Truck -- 20 Hrs./Wk. @ $2.70/Hr.
Miscellaneous Expense
@ $1.50
C. Labor Annual Cost:
1 Full-Time Drive-Maintenanceman @ $3.20/Hr.
Fringe Benefits @ 20%
D. Miscellaneous Annual Expense, Overhead, and
Contingency: 10%, C + D
Annual Cost
A. Debt Expense:
Steam Cleaner & Truck (5-Yr. Amortization
@ 7%), $ 9,475 x 0.243891
Containers & Sites (lO-Yr. Amortization
@ 7%), $21,174 x 0.142378
Garage (20-Yr. Amortization @ 7%)
'$4,000 x 0.094393
Operating Expense:
Personnel
Equipment
Misc., Overhead
and Contingency
Total Annual Storage Cost:
Annual Storage Cost/Dwelling Unit:
$18,621 ~ 2,725 Dwelling Units
Monthly Storage Cost/Dwelling Unit:
MONTHLY STORAGE + COLLECTION COST/D.U.
-75-
. .--",.- ...~-- -.
$ 1,475.00
8,000.00
10,200.00
4,482.00
4,032.00
2,460.00
500.00
$31,149.00
4,000.00
$35,149.00
$
648.00
2,808.00
300.00
$ 3,756.00
$ 6,656.00
1,331.00
$ 7,987.00
- $ 1,li4.00
$ 2,311.00
3,015.00
378.00
$ 5,704.00
$ 7,987.00
3,756.00
1,174.00
$12,917.00
$18,621.00
$ 6.83
$ 0.57
$ 1.08
$35,149.00
$ 3,756.00
$ 7,987.00
$ 1,174.00
$ 5,704.00
$12,917.00
$18,621.00
$ 6.83
$ 0.57
$ 1. 08
~I
1
I Day No. 1 (Tuesday)
New Cambria-Gypsum City Route:
Driving Time, Garage to New Cambria -- 6.3 mi. @
'I 1.333 min. /mi.
New Cambria Residential Collection -- 1.33 tons
@ 70.95 min./ton
I New Cambria Commercial Collection --- 0.63 tons
@ 44.22 min./ton
Driving Time, New Cambria to Gypsum -- 18.7 mi. @
1 1.333 min./mi.
Gypsum Residential Collection -- 3.65 tons @
70.95 min./ton
_I Gypsum Commercial Collection --- 1.75 tons @
44.22 min./ton
Driving Time, Gypsum to Disposal Site
1 1.333 min./mi.
Unloading
Driving Time, Disposal Site to Garage
1.333 min./mi.
SMALL CITY WEEKLY COLLECTION SCHEDULE
Min. Hours
21.5
mi.
8.4
94.6
27.9
24.9
259.0
77.4
@
28.7
10.0
@
9.2
530.3 8.84
30.0 0.50
9.34
6.9 mi.
Break Time
TOTAL
I
1,,1
--I
I
"~I
-I
~
.J
".",
.J
c,
-I
Day No. 2 (Wednesday)
Assaria-Smolan City Route:
Driving Time, Garage to Assaria -- 13.2 mi. @ 1.333
min./mi.
Assaria Residential Collection -- 2.88 tons @
70.95 min./ton
Assaria Commercial Collection --- 1.40 tons @
44.22 min./ton
Driving Time, Assaria to Smolan -- 8.2 mi. @ 1.333
min./mi.
Smolan Residential Collection -- 1.61 tons @
70.95 min./ton
Smolan Commercial Collection --- 0.77 tons @
44.22 min./ton
Driving Time, Smolan to Disposal Site -- 7.5 mi. @
1.333 min./mi.
Unloading
Driving Time, Disposal Site to Garage -- 6.9 mi. @
1.333 min./mi.
Break Time
TOTAL
17.6
204.2
61.9
19.0
114.5
34.1
10.0
10.0
9.2
462.0 7.70
30.0 0.50
8.20
-76-
I
_I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Min.
Hours
Day No. 3 (Friday)
Brookville City Route:
Driving Time, Garage to Brookville -- 15.3 mi. @
1.333 min./mi.
Brookville Residential Collection -- 2.04 tons @
70.95 min./ton
Brookville Commercial Collection --- 0.98 tons @
44.22 min./ton
Driving Time, Brookville to Disposal Site -- 11.6
mi. @ 1.333 min./mi.
Unloading
Driving Time, Disposal Site to Garage -- 6.9 mi.
@ 1.333 min./mi.
20.4
144.4
43.3
15.5
10.0
Break Time (Half Day)
TOTAL
9.2
233.3
15.0
3.89
0.25
4.14
Ie
~I
'~'I
.-,1
'I
...
MI
"'1
MI
'"
21
'"
-I
.,
JI
-77-
'''---''-~'-'-~'--:-''''-''''''''_. .-- ,~-'. .'.". - "---" -----~-. ~.".. -..-,'.
~I
I
I
'1
B.
.'1
..1
;1
cl
~I
JI
;1
~.I
.,1
~I
...
..I
-I
..I
,.
.1
JI
SALINE COUNTY RESIDENTIAL + COMMERCIAL COLLECTION
COST ESTIMATES FOR SMALL CITIES
1 Collection/Week
House to House
-- 1 Landfill
Factors
A. Initial Purchase Prices:
1 Packer Truck (25 Cu. Yd.)
1 Garage -- 800 Sq. Ft. @ $12.00
$16,000.00
9,600.00
$25,600.00
$25,600.00
Operating Equipment (Maintenance & Operation) :
Packer Truck -- 978 Hrs./Yr. @ $3.80
Miscellaneous
$ 3,716.00
300.00
$ 4,016.00
$ 4,016.00
.-
C. Operating Personnel:
Driver -- 1,043 Hrs./Yr. @ $3.06
Crewman - 1,043 Hrs./Yr. @ $2.65
~-Time Dispatcher-Maintenanceman
Fringe Benefits @ 20%
@ $7,200
$ 3,192.00
2,764.00
1,800.00
1,551.00
$ 9,307.00
$ 9,307.00
D. Miscellaneous Expense, Overhead, and
Contingency @ 10% of Operating Cost:
$ 1,332.00
$ 1,332.00
Annual Cost
A. Debt Expense:
Truck (5 Yrs. @ 7% Annuity:
$16,000 x 0.24389
Garage (20 Yrs. @ 7% Annuity:
$ 9,600 x 0.09489
0.24389)
$ 3,902.00
0.09489)
911.00
$ 4,813.00
$ 4,813.00
B. Operating Expense:
Personnel
Equipment
Miscellaneous,
Overhead and Contingency
$ 9,307.00
4,016.00
1,332.00
$14,655.00
$14,655.00
C. Total Annual Collection Cost for Small Cities~
$19,468.00
$19,468.00
D. Annual Collection Cost for Residential Only:
$19,468 x 0.636 $12,382.00 $12,3~2.00
E. Average Annual Residential Collection Cost/
Dwelling Unit: $12,382 7- 477 D.U. 's $ 25.96 $ 25.96
F. Average Monthly Residential Collection Cost/
Dwelling Unit: $ 2.16 $ 2.16
NOTE:
Cost of disposal will be in addition to collection cost.
-78-
> - --_. .-.- -.,.,-
~I
I
I
I
-I
I
.1
-I
I
~I
-I
!.I
I
-.1
--I
-I
1
JI
~
.1
:1
Residential Collection Cost/CitX
A. Method:
Annual Residential Collection Cost/City =
Total Annual Res. Collection Cost X
Truck Time for the City
Total Truck Time for All Cities
(Total Annual Residential Collection Cost: $12,382)
B. Tabulation:
Truck Annual No. of Annual Monthly
Time Cost/ Dwelling Cost/ Cost/
(Hrs . /Wk. ) City Units D.U. D.U.
Assaria 4.66 $ 3,068 119 $25.78 $2.15
Brookville 3.63 2,390 82 29.14 2.43
Gypsum 6.07 3,996 152 26.29 2.19
New Cambria 2.00 1,317 56 23.51 1.96
Smolan 2.45 1,613 68 23.72 1.98
-
,
TOTAL 18.81 $12,382 477
-79-
.jl
I
I
I
"I
"1
C.
-I
,I
:1
JI
.1
,-I
_I B.
,.1
~
~I
...,
..I
.~
..I
.",
~I
:1
SALINE COUNTY RESIDENTIAL REFUSE COLLECTION
COST ESTIMATES FOR SMALL CITIES
1 Collection/Week -- House to House -- Residential Only -- 1 Landfill
Factors
A. Initial Purchase Prices:
1 Packer Truck (20 cu. yd.)
1 Garage -- 800 Sq. Ft. @ $12.00
$15,000.00
9,600.00
$24,600.00
$24,600.00
B. Operating Equipment (Maintenance & Operation):
Packer Truck -- 767 Hrs./Yr. @ $3.80
Miscellaneous
$ 2,915.00
300.00
$ 3,215.00
$ 3,215.00
Operating Personnel:
Driver -- 832 Hrs./Yr. @ $3.06
Crewman - 832 Hrs./Yr. @ $2.65
~-Time Dispatcher-Maintenanceman
Fringe Benefits @ 20%
$ 2,546.00
2,205.00
@ $7,200 1,800.00
1,310.00
$ 7,861.00 $ 7,861.00
D. Miscellaneous Expense, Overhead, and
Contingency @ 10% of Operating Cost:
$ 1,108.00
$ 1,108.00
Annual Cost
A. Debt Expense:
Truck (5 Yrs. @ 7% Annuity: 0.24389)
$15,000 x 0.24389
Garag& (20 Yrs. @ 7% Annuity: 0.09489)
$ 9,600 x 0.09489
Total Debt Expense
$ 3,658.00
911.00
$ 4,569.00
$ 4,569.00
Operating Expense:
Personnel
Operating Equipment
Miscellaneous, Overhead
and Contingency
$ 7,861.00
3,215.00
1,108.00
$12,184.00
$12,184.00
C. Total Annual Collection Cost for Small
Cities:
$16,753.00
$16,753.00
D. Average Annual Collection Cost / Dwelling
Unit: $16,753; 477 Dwelling Units
$
35.12
$
35.12
E. Average Monthly Collection Cost / Dwelling
Unit:
$
2.93
$
2.93
NOTE:
Cost of disposal will be in addition to collection cost.
-80-
-~~ . _._---...-.-.~.. .....- - .._.,~. -.--
I
I
I
-I
-I
I
"I
-I
.JI
'jl
11
.cl
.1
~I
..1
...,
JI
...,
JI
",
jl
~
JI
Collection Cost/City
A. Method:
Annual Collection Cost/City =
Total Annual Collection Cost
x
Truck Time for the City
Total Truck Time for All Cities
$16,753)
(Total Annual Collection Cost:
B. Tabulation:
Truck Annual No. of Annual Monthly
Time Cost/ Dwelling Cost/ Cost/
(Hrs. /Wk.) City Units D.U. D.U.
Assaria 3.63 $ 4,126 119 $34.67 $2.89
Brookville 2.91 3,307 82 40.33 3.36
Gypsum 4.78 5,433 152 35.74 2.98
New Cambria 1.54 1,750 56 31.26 2.60
Smolan 1.88 2,137 68 31.42 2.62
TOTAL 14.74 $16,753 477
-81-
I
I
I
"'
I
-I
"I
I
--I
,il
t
~I
I
,I
~I
,~I
~I
..I
"'r'll
.1
:1
PART 6
ADMINISTRATION
A Master Plan for disposal of solid waste generated in the
study area is presented in Part 5 of this report. Efficient imple-
mentation of the Plan will not require significant changes in
administrative procedures.
Disposal.
.
Under the proposed plan, the City of Salina would develop,
operate and administer a sanitary landfill for the entire study
area. The purchase of land, capital improvements to the land,
and initial equipment would be paid with proceeds from revenue
bonds or monies from revenue sharing could be used for initial
cost. Each of the incorporated cities and the county would con-
tract with Salina for sanitary landfill service for a proportionate
share of the cost of the sanitary landfill operation.
Each of the incorporated cities and county are to select the
method for financing their proportionate share of the sanitary
landfill cost. Various methods of financing were described in
Part 5 of this report. The proposed inter-municipal contract
agreement gives the various cities and county the greatest flex-
ibility with respect to method of financing.
Collection.
Under the proposed plan, each community would provide for
their own collection system. The small incorporated cities are
recommended to be served by a private contract service. It is
recommended that the small communities collectively negotiate
with a private contractor for collection service and franchise
their respective areas to one contractor. The City of Salina is
recommended to continue the existing collection system.
A proposed rural containerized system is recommended to serve
the rural areas of Saline County. It is suggested that the county
provide the service via contract with a private firm.
IMPLEMENTING THE PROGRAM
Solid waste disposal is the most urgent problem with respect
to Solid Waste Management facing Saline County and the cities
therein. Therefore, immediate implementation of the disposal
portion of the-plan is recommended. It is recommended that the
-82-
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
~
~
I
I
:1
.1
~~
~
~
~
~
,
~
~
~
county initiate negotiations with Salina for disposal services.
Each of the small incorporated cities should also. begin negotiat-
ing with Salina for disposal services.
The Consultant recognizes there will be a time lapse between
negotiation and agreement. Salina, due to the short life expec-
tancy of their existing site, must take immediate steps to select
and develop a new site. The proposed time table for selection
and development of a new sanitary landfill site is as follows:
1. Acceptance of Disposal portion of County Waste Plan and
the selection of a new landfill site ------ February, 1973
2. Design of new landfill facility and acquisition of site
-------------------------------------------- April 1, 1973
3. Approval of new landfill design by State Board of Health
------------------------------------------- April 15, 1973
4. Start construction of new landfill ---------- May 1, 1973
5. New landfill ready for operation ------------ June 1, 1973
It is recommended that Salina establish the sanitary landfill
operation as a utility and finance initial capital investment
with revenue bonds. In lieu of revenue bonds, the city may spend
revenue-sharing monies.
A total bond issue in the amount of $170,608 is the amount of
one-time capital investment required for Site #3. This includes
improvements to land and equipment purchase. Since Salina has
existing equipment that could be used, initial capital cost would
be substantially less than the estimated $170,608.
The amount of revenue to be provided by each of the proposed
agencies participating in the cost of sanitary landfill operation
was described in Part 5 of this report. Costs were distributed
on a population basis and on an estimated tonnage basis. The
final method of cost distribution should be negotiated as a part
of inter-city and city-county contractual agreements.
-83-
"I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
-I
--I
-I
"I
I
I'
~I
.....
1
~I
."
~I
JI
~
jl
COLLECTION . .
Many of the small cities now have collection on a contract
basis. Economy to the existing systems can be provided by
collectively franchising the collection system. T~e study pro-
vides a preliminary cost estimate-to be used in evaluation of
a collection system to serve the small communities.
Rural collection is proposed to be developed county-wide using
the "Green Box" system. Cost estimates were made for such a
system in Saline County. It is recommended that the service be
provided by the county via contract with a private firm.
Method of financing the various collection systems will be a
local decision. Alternatives range from ad valorem tax to ser-
vice charges. Revenue-sharing may also be considered. Under
the proposed plan, cities and county may select the method or
combination of methods available to finance the collection and
disposal of their solid waste.
ALTERNATIVES . .
There are many organizational structures which could be used
for the framework necessary for the safe and sanitary storage,
collection, transportation, disposal and management of solid
waste. Possibilities include the following:
1. County may create a Department of Public Works and provide
collection and disposal facilities.
2. County may provide only disposal facility.
3. Cities may provide own solid waste management system.
4. Cities may provide joint use of facilities.
5. Private systems may be developed.
6. Any combination of the above.
-84-
I
I
I
I
..1
.1
I
I
TIME SCHEDULE FOR ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION . .
1. Salina conduct site selection investigations and select
specific site to purchase or lease by February, 1973.
(Not required for Sites #2 or #3)
2. Solid Waste Management Committee review Plan, make modi-
fications, and recommend Plan to County Commission by
March, 1973.
3. County Commission review Plan and make recommendations.
Adopt Plan by March, 1973.
4. Salina complete design of site by April, 1973.
5. Start construction of new landfill by May, 1973.
6. Sanitary landfill ready for operation by June, 1973.
7. Interim, February to June, 1973 -- County and small in-
corporated cities begin negotiations with Salina for
joint use of the proposed sanitary landfill. County
and cities initiate negotiations with private firms for
collection.
t
"I
.1
I
J
J
]
J
]
J
-85-