Encyclopedia of Environmental Science and Engineering, Volume I and II

public information is also needed. Equally important are the

climate for political cooperation, cost comparison of alterna-

tive solutions, available revenue, aesthetic expectations of the

people, organized community support, and similar factors.

Experience shows that where open dumps have been

operated, there will be opposition to almost any site proposed

for sanitary landfi ll or an incinerator for that matter. However,

local offi cials will have to study all of the facts and make

a decision to fulfi ll their responsibility and exercise their

authority for the public good in spite of any expressed oppo-

sition. Usually the critical factor is convincing the public that

a nuisance-free operation can and will in fact be conducted.

A private contract may make possible regional disposal,

whereas an intergovernmental operation may be politically

impractical.

Planning Local offi cials can make their task easier by plan-

ning ahead together on a county or regional basis for 20–40

years in the future, and by acquisition of adequate sites at

least 5 years prior to anticipated needs and use. The avail-

ability of federal and state funds for planning for collection,

treatment, and disposal of refuse on an area-wide basis such

as a county should be explored. The planning will require

an engineering analysis of alternative sites including popula-

tion projections, volume, and characteristics of all types of

solid wastes to be handled, cost of land and site preparation,

expected life of the site, haul distances from the sources of

refuse to the site, cost of operation, and possible value of the

fi nished sites. Consideration would be given to the climate

of the region, prevailing winds, zoning ordinances, geology,

and topography. Location and drainage to prevent surface

water or ground water pollution, access roads to major high-

ways, and availability of suitable cover material are other

considerations.

Special attention must be given to the diversion of sur-

face water, to the highest ground water level so as to keep the

bottom of the fi ll well above it, and to the soils available. The

type of soil used for cover and its placement should mini-

mize infi ltration. The intervening soil between the bottom

of the landfi ll and maximum ground water level should pre-

vent or control leachate travel, or if this cannot be reasonably

assured, an artifi cial membrane or clay soil barrier with an

underdrain collection system may be needed.

Once a decision is made it should be made common

knowledge and plans developed to show how it is proposed

to reclaim or improve and reuse the site upon completion.

This should include talks, slides, news releases, question and

answer presentations, and inspection of good operations.

Artist’s renderings are very helpful in explaining construc-

tion methods and fi nal use of the land. Figures 13 and 14

show the area and trench sanitary landfi ll methods.

TOTAL

PER CAPITA

INCINERATION

TOTAL

LANDFILL

PER CAPITA

PER

TOTAL CAPITA

ANNUAL COST

$

$

1,895,000

1,500,000

1,125,000

750,000

375,000

(^000100200300400500)
150
300
450
600
750
POPULATION–THOUSANDS
FIGURE 12 General cost comparison of sanitary landfill and incinera-
tion. From Municipal Refuse Collection and Disposal. Office for Local
Government, Albany, NY, 1964. Adjusted to 1970 costs.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 355
C005_009_r03.indd 355C005_009_r03.indd 355 11/18/2005 10:24:51 AM11/18/2005 10:24:51 AM