EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region v
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80295
808/6-82-01
FEBRUARY 1882
Solid Waste
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
ALTERNATIVES FOR
TELLER COUNTY, COLORADO
A TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM REPORT
-------
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR TELLER COUNTY, COLORADO:
A TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PANELS PROGRAM REPORT
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIII
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80295
Prepared by:
Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.
Market Center
1320 17th Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
February, 1982
Report No. 908/6-82-001
-------
Public Law 94-580 - October 21, 1976
Technical assistance by personnel teams. 42 USC 6913
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND CONSERVATION PANELS
SEC. 2003. The Administrator shall provide teams of personnel, including
Federal, State, and Local Employees or contractors (hereinafter referred to as
"Resource Conservation and Recovery Panels") to provide technical assistance on
solid waste management, resource recovery, and resource conservation. Such
teams shall include technical, marketing, financial, and institutional special-
ists, and the services of such teams shall be provided without charge to States
or local governments.
This report has been reviewed by the Project Officer,
EPA, and approved for publication. Approval does not
signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial
products constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use.
Project Officer: William Rothenmeyer, EPA Region VIII
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
The report is available to the public through the National Technical Infor-
mation Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia, 22161.
-------
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR
TELLER COUNTY, COLORADO
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VIII
TELLER COUNTY
• Pueblo
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Tables vi
List of Figures viii
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
II. INTRODUCTION 3
A. Project Background 3
B. Scope of the Study 4
C. Description of the Study Area 6
III. POPULATION AND WASTE GENERATION 9
A. Population 9
B. Current Waste Volumes 12
C. Projected Waste Volumes 18
IV. EXISTING SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS 20
A. Collection and Transportation of Waste 20
B. Greenbox Transfer Stations 21
C. Disposal Sites Presently in Use 22
D. Cost of the Present System 23
E. Solid Waste Operations in Park County 23
F. Applicable Laws and Regulation 25
V. SANITARY LANDFILL SITE SELECTION PROCESS 26
A. Initial Selection Criteria 26
B. Site Descriptions 27
C. Quantitative Review Methodology 29
VI. EVALUATION OF SANITARY LANDFILL ALTERNATIVES 39
A. Potential Landfill Sites: Costs and
Operational Plans 39
B. The Cripple Creek Disposal Site 51
VII. EVALUATION OF TRANSFER ALTERNATIVES 56
A. General Review of Solid Waste Transfer
Options 56
B. .Collection Vehicle Transfer System 64
C. Transfer Station System 67
iv
-------
VIII. EVALUATION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY 73
IX. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 76
A. Landfill ing 76
B. Transfer 79
X. REFERENCES 81
APPENDIX A: State of Colorado Solid Waste Disposal
Sites and Facilities Regulations 82
APPENDIX B: Colorado Department of Health Guidelines
for the Review of Solid Waste Disposal
Faci 1 i ti es 97
APPENDIX C: Potential Landfill Site Evaluation Map 102
APPENDIX D: Sanitary Landfill Safety 110
APPENDIX E: Solid Waste Facility Financing Options 114
APPENDIX F: Landfill Calculations 120
APPENDIX G: Colorado Department of Health Recommendations
for the Upgrading of the Cripple Creek Disposal Site 123
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
1 Climatologic Data Summary for Teller County 7
2 Current and Projected Population,
Teller County Colorado 11
3 Current Annual Solid Waste Volumes by
Service Area, Teller County, Colorado 17
4 Projected Annual Waste Generation Tonnages
for Teller County, 1981-90 19
5 Available Ground Water Information, Teller
County Study Area 33
6 Landfill Siting Factors and Ratings Assigned
to Factor Categories 35
7 Rating System: Potential Sanitary Landfill
Sites 36
8 Trench Landfill Annual Operating Costs,
Teller County 43
9 Area Landfill Annual Operating Costs,
Teller County 45
10 Teller County Site 12: Capital and
Annual Operating Costs 46
11 Teller County Site 14: Capital and
Annual Operating Costs , 47
12 Teller County Site 17: Capital and
Annual Operating Costs 48
13 Teller County Site 35: Capital and
Annual Operating Costs 49
14 Supplementary Greenbox System Cost Summary
(Southern Teller County) 52
15 Cripple Creek Landfill: Capital and
Annual Operating Costs 54
16 Collection Vehicle Transfer System Cost
Summary (Entire County) 68
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES (cont.)
Table Title . Page
17 Collection Vehicle Transfer System Cost
Summary (Northern Teller County) 69
18 Transfer Station System Cost Summary
(Entire County) 70
19 Transfer Station System Cost Summary
(Northern Teller County) 71
20 Gross Value of Recyclable Materials, Teller
County (1981) 74
21 Cost Summary of Solid Waste Management
Alternatives, Teller County 77
vn
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page
1 Teller County Study Area 5
2 Teller County Census and Waste Collection
Service Areas 10
3 El Paso County Disposal Sites 24
4 Teller County Potential Landfill Sites 28
5 Trench and Area Methods of Sanitary
Landfilling 40
6 Cross-Section of Landfill Trench,
Teller County 41
7 Transfer Stations 57
8 Tilt Frame/Roll-Off Transfer Vehicle 59
9 Transfer Trailer Vehicle 60
10 Greenboxes 62
i
11 Front and Rear-Loading Greenbox Collection
Vehicles 63
12 Summary of Collection Vehicle and Transfer
Options for Teller County 65
vi n
-------
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Teller County requested assistance from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency to establish a solid waste management program. The development of such a
program would help the County promote cost effective and environmentally sound
solid waste collection and disposal practices. For Teller County, the following
alternatives were analyzed: utilizing a single County landfill, using two
County landfills (one in the north and one in the south), hauling waste out of
the County in collection vehicles, and transferring waste out of the County fol-
lowing compaction at a transfer station. The role of the County's two existing
private solid waste collection services was closely examined in the analyses of
the above mentioned alternatives.
Cost estimates developed for the various collection and disposal alterna-
tives indicated that the annual cost of a single County landfill compared favor-
ably to the annual costs of the two solid waste "transfer" options analyzed
(collection vehicle and transfer station). The cost involved with the operation
of a single County landfill .would range from $52,100, to $75,900 a year depend-
ing on the site and landfilling method chosen. In this report, four potential
County landfill sites were identified in addition to the Cripple Creek disposal
site (currently operating). In comparison to the annual cost of a single County
landfill, the annual costs for the collection vehicle and transfer station
options would be $73,400 and $70,000, respectively. The operation of two County
landfills was the most expensive alternative studied with anticipated costs
ranging from $80,600 to $92,700 a year. All of the above mentioned options
would provide residents of the County with nearly equal levels of service.
The study further determined that the continued transfer of waste out of
the County will remain a viable alternative contingent upon the continued avail-
ability of landfill sites in El Paso County to the east. The advantage of such
a system is particularly evident for the northern half of the County where haul
distances to disposal sites in El Paso County are relatively short, a collection
vehicle "transfer" system presently operates, and no landfill currently exists.
The Cripple Creek disposal site in southern Teller County can be upgraded
for use as a sanitary landfill for the residents in that area. Burning prac-
tices should be discontinued and existing and future waste should be properly
spread, compacted, and covered at the Cripple Creek site if the site is to be
operated efficiently and safely. The future operation of the Victor disposal
site was not recommended due to the serious potential for surface water pollu-
tion, and the safety hazards associated with inadequate cover and fencing, and
burning and blowing trash.
-------
It was additionally recommended that the most suitable of the four poten-
tial landfill sites be purchased for future use. Because of the rapid consump-
tion of land for development purposes, areas in the County that might be suit-
able for a landfill will become unavailable if not set aside in the near
future. The acquisition of this land will reduce the dependency on disposal
sites outside the County and will in general preserve the Teller County landfill
option for the future when other disposal alternatives (like transfer) become
much more limited in feasibility.
-------
II. INTRODUCTION
A. Project Background
Teller County, Colorado, has experienced recurring difficulty in its
efforts to establish a long-term, environmentally sound solid waste management
plan. Several of the factors affecting the County's solid waste system are a
relatively small, dispersed, but rapidly growing population, a large seasonal
influx of tourists and summer residents, rapid land development, mountainous
topography, and a severe winter climate.
Currently, waste is collected by private haulers or transported by private
individuals, and is disposed of at the two existing Teller County disposal
sites, or is transferred to El Paso County for disposal. According to a 1980
inspection performed by the Colorado Department of Health (CDH), the existing
disposal sites at Cripple Creek and Victor display hazards to public health and
the environment. Such problems as the potential for serious surface or ground
water pollution, the presence of safety hazards, odors, and vectors, a lack of
adequate fencing and cover, and the practice of uncontrolled burning are cited
as the basis for recommendation of closure of the sites.
The problems mentioned above must be solved if the County is to institute a
solid waste management system which will serve the public safety and the envi-
ronment and comply with CDH and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stan-
dards (see Appendix A for CDH regulations). If use of the Cripple Creek site is
to continue, extensive measures, including surface water diversion, adequate
cover, and fire control, must be taken to mitigate negative impacts. The Victor
site does not appear to be operable as a sanitary landfill because of the physi-
cal layout of the site which has contributed to the serious problems cited
above. Other options include the siting and development of new landfill sites,
and/or the siting and development of transfer stations, for accumulation of
waste prior to its transportation to a landfill site inside or outside of the
County.
Teller County requested technical assistance for a solid waste disposal
study from the Region VIII Office of the EPA in Denver, Co., in the early part
of 1981. The County's request was granted, and the EPA regional office author-
ized its technical assistance consultant, Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc., to pro-
vide specific solid waste management services. The consultant was directed to
evaluate and develop cost estimates for various disposal and transfer alterna-
tives, and to provide detailed recommendations as to the most appropriate method
of implementation.
-------
B. Scope of the Study
Several key issues will be evaluated in this study to aid Teller County in
promoting cost effective and environmentally sound solid waste collection and
disposal practices. Initially, present and future population and waste genera-
tion estimates will be prepared, including estimates of seasonal changes in the
amount of waste produced. Existing solid waste practices and their costs are to
be surveyed. The long-range changes, affecting solid waste management in Teller
County will be considered, including such possibilities as the closure of sites
in Colorado Springs presently used by County residents, the effect of rising
energy costs, the potential for operation of joint facilities with Park County,
and the special problems caused by rapid population growth.
•&
Another phase of the study is the identification of three to five potential
sanitary landfill sites in the County, which will comply with Federal and State
regulations. The suitability of the sites is to be evaluated, considering such
factors as the potential for surface and ground water contamination, availabili-
ty of cover material, area (size) of the site, fire danger, compatibility with
adjacent land uses, slope, haul distance, accessibility, and the necessity of
screening. A cost estimate for each site, including purchase of the land, site
development, and landfill operational expenses will be prepared.
An additional task is the completion of an itemized cost analysis, compar-
ing the option of landfilling the wastes in the County with the options of mov-
ing waste out of the County in individual collection vehicles, or removal out of
the County in roll-off containers after compaction at a transfer station. The
comparison will determine the difference in cost if the total county is involv-
ed, or if the northern part of Teller County (basically encompassing the Wood-
land Park, Florissant and Divide areas), is considered exclusively (see Figure
1). The majority of the County's waste is generated in the northern part of the
County.
Specific suggestions for improving collection and disposal practices in
Teller County are to be provided, as well as recommendations concerning the
future utilization of the present Cripple Creek and Victor disposal sites. The
potential for recycling, including waste oil and white goods, is also to be
analyzed.
Detailed guidance for the implementation of a transfer station and of a
sanitary landfill will be prepared. Equipment requirements, operational pro-
cedures, staffing requirements, and proposed rules for operation for both alter-
natives shall be included.
Finally, the options available for financing solid waste improvements will
be summarized, incorporating an investigation of the availability of Federal or
State aid.
4
-------
FIGURE 1
TELLER COUNTY STUDY AREA
CRIPPLE CREEK
CRIPPLED
DISPOSAL SITE
QREENBOX STATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS -STATE OF COLORADO
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
-------
C. Description of the Study Area
Teller County is located in central Colorado, in the Front Range of the
Rocky Mountains. Pikes Peak dominates the area topographically, on the County's
west central border. Park, Jefferson, Douglas, El Paso, and Fremont counties
are adjacent, and Colorado Springs, 18 miles to the east, is the nearest metro-
politan area. The study area encompasses a total of 554 square miles, with a
maximum north-south dimension of approximately 34 miles, and a maximum east-west
dimension of 22 miles. The Platte-Arkansas Divide results in the drainage of
the northern portion of the County into the South Platte River, while the south-
ern portion drains into the Arkansas River.
The U.S. Forest Service and, to a lesser extent, the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment, administer the 43 percent of federal land in the County. Municipal and
County governments control 2 percent, the State of Colorado owns 2 percent, and
53 percent of the land is privately owned.
The County's economy is based on tourism, mining, and land development.
Privately held land is primarily used for grazing or light agricultural prac-
tices, and the building of second homes. Mining development (cyanide leaching
of gold) is occuring, with approximately 20 mining permits issued in the past
year. The newly constructed Texas-Gulf cyanide leaching facility, located near
Cripple Creek, will contribute to the County's mining industry.
County governmental services are located in Cripple Creek, the County seat,
and in Woodland Park. Three elected commissioners oversee the funding and man-
agement of County services.
Climate. The climate of the area is typified by low precipitation and low
mean temperatures. Specific microclimates are caused by wind patterns, relief,
and elevation (modified by gradient and slope aspect). A climatological data
summary, from a Cripple Creek weather station (no longer in operation) for the
years 1951-1960, indicates a mean annual temperature of 39°F and a mean annual
precipitation of 14.2 inches (see Table 1). Summer precipitation may be 6 to 8
times more than the total amount of winter precipitation. It is estimated that
approximately 75 percent of the precipitation occurs from April through October,
and June is the driest summer month. Many areas in Teller County experience
snowfall with wind-driven snow drifts up to 15 feet deep. Average annual
snowfall is approximately 71 inches for Teller County.
Local wind patterns at the ground level are the result of differences in
topography and temperature over the land surface. Wind speeds are relatively
high. Winds generally blow from the north-northwest, or from the south-
southeast.
-------
TABLE 1
CLIMATOLOGIC DATA SUMMARY FOR TELLER COUNTY*
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
CRIPPLE CREEK WEATHER STATION,
Mean Temperature (°F)
22.4
22.2
26.5
35.3
43.7
52.2
58.2
58.0
51.7
41.7
31.5
24.9
1951-1960
Total Precipitation (Inches)
.34
.48
.89
1.52
1.82
.90
3.63
1.95
.92
.75
.59
.41
MEAN ANNUAL
39.0
14.20
* Source: U.S. Weather Bureau (1).
-------
Geology. Teller County is almost entirely underlain by the crystalline
igneous rocks of the Pikes Peak Batholith. The predominant rock unit is Pikes
Peak granite, composed primarily of feldspar and quartz, with minor amounts of
biotite mica and/or hornblende. It is a massive, pink to reddish, medium to
coarse-grained rock mass that weathers readily to a gravelly sand. Some Quater-
nary alluvium and colluvium and older conglomeritic sandstone deposits are also
present.
Geologic hazards such as landslides, rockfalls and soil erosion may be
encountered, due to steep slopes. The area surrounding Cripple Creek has exper-
ienced moderate to intense mining disturbances, due to underground gold mining
near the surface. Innumerable prospect pits, dozens of small shafts, and
approximately a dozen large mines (some still in operation) are located
throughout the area.
SoiIs. The nature of soils in Teller County is primarily determined by the
parent material and local topography (slope gradient and aspect). The predomi-
nant parent material (85-90 percent) is Pikes Peak granite in place, and alluvi-
al and colluvial materials from the weathering of the granite. Pikes Peak
granite has a coarse, granular texture, which causes it to weather easily. How-
ever, due to steep topography in Teller County, and the low ability of the soil
to hold water, chemical weathering has been minimal, and the resulting soils are
thin or poorly developed. The soils are very gravelly and susceptible to gully
erosion. Recent roadcuts expose up to several feet of coarse-textured, disinte-
grated granite.
On less steeply sloping areas, and on finer-textured sediments, soils are
moderately deep to deep. When slope aspect is north or west-facing, the result-
ing heavy forest and understory growth have led to the development of moderately
deep forest soils. Specific soils will be discussed further in Section IV, con-
cerning potential sanitary landfill site evaluation.
The climate, soils, and geology of an area directly affect solid waste
collection and disposal operations. The proper operation of a sanitary landfill
can be curtailed by freezing temperatures (causing cover material to be
unworkable), deep snows, and high winds. Insufficient supplies of cover
material, due to shallow soil depth or an unsuitable soil type, can also hinder
landfill operations. The proper siting of a landfill is limited by a shallow
depth to ground water and bedrock (to be discussed in Chapter IV) and topography
(e.g., steep slopes), as well as other factors.
-------
III. POPULATION AND WASTE GENERATION
A. Population
Permanent Population. Table 2 lists the current and projected population
figures for Teller County. The U.S. Bureau of the Census separates Teller Coun-
ty's population into two separate census divisions, Tract/Block Numbering Areas
101 and 102 (see Figure 2). Tract/Block Numbering Area 101 encompasses roughly
the northern half of the County including Woodland Park and Florissant (unincor-
porated) and Tract/Block Numbering Area 102 contains the southern half of the
County, including Cripple Creek and Victor.
The 1980 Census estimated a population of 8,034 people (see Table 2). This
represents a total increase of 142 percent over the 1970 population of 3,316
people. According to figures calculated by the Demographic Section of the
Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Teller County was the second fastest grow-
ing county in the Colorado Front Range over the previous decade (Douglas County
was the fastest). Population projections developed by the Department of Local
Affairs for a high population growth scenario point to a 58 percent increase in
the 1980 population over the next ten years. By the year 1990, projections
suggest a Teller County population of 12,700. The annual rate of population
increase is expected to slow to 4.7 percent which is nearly half the
9.2 percent annual growth rate experienced during the period between 1970 and
1980.
Over the next ten years, projections indicate a 51 percent increase in the
population of Woodland Park, a 38 percent increase for Cripple Creek, and a 30
percent increase for Victor. In Teller County, the largest expansion will occur
in the unincorporated areas, especially around Woodland Park and Florissant.
Seasonal Population. Seasonal residents, defined as persons who make Tel-
ler County their home for six months or less each year (and therefore are not
included in the Census figures for Teller County), constitute a large percentage
of the. County's summer population. However, no exact count has been taken of
their numbers.
Therefore, the estimate of the seasonal population must be derived from
data which does exist; namely, the number of seasonal housing units in the
County and the average number of people per housing unit (data supplied by the
U.S. Bureau of the Census). In 1970, approximately 17 percent of all County
housing units were listed as seasonal and migratory. A similar but slightly
increased percentage of 20 percent for 1980 was used for estimations, as local
sources indicate that the percentage of seasonal and migratory units has
increased slightly. Out of 5,100 total housing units, approximately 1,020 can
be considered seasonal. Using the 1980 Teller County average of 2.8 people per
housing unit, it is estimated that there are approximately 2,900 seasonal
-------
TABLE 2
CURRENT AND PROJECTED POPULATION
TELLER COUNTY. COLORADO*
1980 Projected Percent
Area Population 1990 Population Increase
Tract 101
Woodland Park (city) 2,634 3,980 50%
Green Mountain Falls (town) 18 18 0%
Unincorporated Areas 4,161 6,949+ 67%
Subtotal 6,813 10,947 61%
Tract 102
Cripple Creek (city) 655 905 38%
Victor (city) ' 265 345 30%
Unincorporated Areas 301 503+ 67%
Subtotal 1,221 1,753 44%
Total County 8,034 12,700 58%
* Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census (2)
+ The Colorado Department of Local Affairs did not provide 1990 population
projections for the unincorporated areas of Teller County. However, the
Department projected a 58 percent increase in population for the entire
county, with the majority of the increase occurring in the unincorporated
areas. Therefore, the 1990 projected populations for the unincorporated
areas of Tracts 101 and 102 were developed by ratioing the unincorporated
areas populations upwards based on the 1980 percentage of population in the
unincorporated areas.
10
-------
FIGURE 2
TELLER COUNTY CENSUS AND WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE AREAS
SERVICE AREAS
WOODLAND TRA3H SERVICE. INC
TELLER DISPOSAL, INC
"VJJj CENSUS NUMBERING AREA 101
CENSUS NUMBERING AREA 102
EESUJ
MtMMI n tm
STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
DIVISION Of HIGHWAYS-STATE Of COLORADO
MO *t)I»»C>
U.S. ocnurrucNT or
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
11
-------
residents. Most summer homes in Teller County are distributed in the broad
unincorporated areas around Woodland Park and the Florissant Fossil Beds
National Monument. Conversations with County officials and private citizens in
Teller County indicate that the total number of seasonal housing units can be
divided equally between these two areas.
B. Current Waste Volumes
To formulate an efficient solid waste management plan for Teller County,
current solid waste volumes must be estimated for the ten-year study period.
Because detailed data on existing waste generation sources, rates, and composi-
tion are not available, a per capita waste generation rate was derived to define
the current and projected municipal waste volumes for the permanent and seasonal
population . The volume of tourist-produced waste (by seasonal visitors to the
Cripple Creek/Victor area and the Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument) and
bulky waste was estimated using previously developed waste generation rates.
The amount of waste generated on U.S. Forest Service facilities north of Wood-
land Park was approximated using figures provided by the U.S. Forest Service.
Information on the volume of waste generated is needed for, among other things,
the proper sizing of landfill and transfer equipment, determining the amount of
land and cover necessary for a landfill, and for formulating the proper method,
operational plan, and cost of disposing of the waste.
Municipal (non-bulky) waste volumes were analyzed for the service areas of
the County's two private waste haulers, Woodland Trash Service (serving the
northern half of the County, excluding the Florissant area), and Teller Dispo-
sal, Inc. (serving the southern half of the County including the Florissant
area) (see Figure 2). Waste volumes generated outside of Teller County but
within the service areas of these two haulers were not analyzed. Yardage
figures were supplied by Woodland Trash Service for its service area and were
used to derive a per capita waste generation rate that could be applied to
permanent and seasonal residents of the entire County.
Waste Volumes in the Woodland Trash Service Area. Woodland Trash Service
was able to provide waste yardage (compacted) figures for its service area for
1980 and the first five months of 1981. The information supplied contained the
amount of municipal waste generated by both the area's permanent and seasonal
residents. These figures included the residential and commercial wastes col-
lected from door-to-door pick-up by Woodland Trash and wastes collected by
Woodland Trash at the Divide greenbox stations.
These initially reported compacted waste yardage figures were converted to
uncompacted figures through a simple multiplication process based on the compac-
tion ratios of the collection vehicles. Woodland Trash operates two such
12
-------
vehicles with each truck handling approximately fifty percent of the service
area. The older of the two trucks compacts waste to a 4:1 ratio whereas the
newer truck compacts to a 7:1 ratio. As an example of this transformation, a 40
cubic yard volume of uncompacted waste can be compressed into 10 cubic yards of
compacted waste if the collection vehicle operates at a 4:1 compaction ratio.
For the 515- day period of record, approximately 53,300 cubic yards of
uncompacted waste were generated in the Woodland Trash service area in northern
Teller County.
Twenty percent of the waste collected was excluded from northern Teller
County's waste production because Woodland Trash collects approximately this
percentage out of the County, primarily in El Paso County to the east. Only ten
percent of the waste was eliminated from the Teller County figure for the months
between August, 1980 and May, 1981. This is a result of the loss of ten percent
of Woodland Trash's customers in El Paso County in August, 1980. Due to the de-
regulation of the waste hauling industry by the Colorado Public Utilities Com-
mission at that time, competition from a private hauler in El Paso County
resulted in the loss of customers in that portion of Woodland Trash's operating
area.
Approximately 800 people in northern Teller County are not utilizing the
services of the Woodland Trash or the Divide greenbox station (collected by
Woodland Trash). These people are located in and around Florissant and use the
Florissant greenbox station. These 800 people were subtracted from the total
population figure for northern Teller County (Tract/Block Numbering Area 101) to
obtain the 6,000 population figure used below.
Data supplied by Woodland Trash Service indicate that approximately three
pounds per person per day are currently being produced by the permanent and
seasonal residents in Woodland Trash's service area in Teller County. This
waste generation rate is comparable to the national average per capita waste
generation figures for rural areas.
With a permanent population of 6,000, a 120-day seasonal population of
1,500 (which converts to 490 a year), a waste density of 175 pounds per cubic
yard (uncompacted), and a 53,300 cubic yard waste production for a 515-day
period of record, the per capita waste generation calculation is as follows:
53,300 yd.3 x 175 lbs./yd.3
4 515 days
6,490 persons
= 2.8 Ibs./person/day
13
-------
For the purpose of this report this figure was rounded to three pounds per
person per day.
The northern Teller County generation rate can be used in conjunction with
census figures to calculate waste volumes County-wide. Using this three pounds
per person, per day rate, approximately 3,290 tons per year are currently pro-
duced by the permanent population in the Woodland Trash service area. The
calculation follows:
6,000 persons x 3 Ibs./person/day x 365 days
2,000 Ibs./ton
= 3,290 tons/year
As discussed previously, approximately half of the seasonal Teller County
population, or about 1,500 people, are located in Woodland Trash's service
area. Using the three pound per day generation rate over a seasonal 120-day
period, an estimated 270 tons of waste are produced by this population group per
year. The derivation of this figure follows:
1,500 persons x 3 1bs./person/day x 120 days
2,000 Ibs./ton
= 270 tons (in 120 days)
Concerning bulky wastes (i.e., stoves, refrigerators, construction debris,
tree trunks, auto parts, etc.), a U.S. EPA study reported that in the U.S. bulky
wastes comprise aproximately seven percent by weight of the municipal waste
stream (3). In Teller County this rate was inflated to ten percent to take into
account the large amount of construction debris associated with the rapid popu-
lation growth. Ten percent of the municipal wastes tonnage (3,560 tons) equals
approximately 360 tons/year. This is, therefore, the approximate amount of
bulky waste produced by the permanent and seasonal population in the Woodland
Trash service area.
The waste yardage collected by Woodland Trash does not include the wastes
generated on U.S. Forest Service lands and collected by that agency. In north-
ern Teller County, the U.S. Forest Service collects from its five campground and
one picnic area approximately 320 compacted cubic yards over its 120-day tourist
season (mid-May to mid-September). Assuming a compaction ratio of 4 to 1
compacted to loose refuse density by weight, and a loose refuse density of 175
14
-------
pounds per cubic yard, there are currently 110 tons of trash being produced on
Forest Service lands annually. The calculation follows:
20 yd.3 yd x 175 lbs./yd.3 uncompacted waste weeks
x 4 x 16
2,000 Ibs./ton compacted waste year
= 110 tons
Therefore, in the service area of Woodland Trash Service in Teller County,
there are currently 3,560 tons of municipal waste and 360 tons of bulky waste
being generated by the permanent and seasonal residents of the Woodland Park
area, and 110 tons of waste being produced by visitors to the National Forest
lands. This totals a current annual waste volume for northern Teller County,
excluding Florissant, of 4,030 tons.
Waste Volumes in the Teller Disposal, Inc. Service Area. The service
area of Teller Disposal, Inc. (see Figure 2) includes the southern half of the
County including Cripple Creek and Victor (Victor residents use the Victor
dump); the Florissant area (Florissant area residents utilize the Florissant
greenbox station), and the Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument. Using the
resident waste generation rate calculated for the Woodland Trash service area
and the previously developed bulky waste generation rate, the waste volumes
produced by the permanent and seasonal residents in Teller Disposal's service
area can also be computed. Waste generated by tourist visitors to the Cripple
Creek/Victor historic district, and the Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument
will be calculated.
According to 1980 census enumeration district figures, 1,221 people inhabit
southern Teller County (Tract/Block Numbering Area 102) and approximately 800
people live in the northwestern part of the County around Florissant. Using
this total population figure of 2,021 and the waste generation rate of three
pounds per person, per day derived above, approximately 1,110 tons of trash are
currently produced annually by these permanent residents. This tonnage figure
can be calculated as follows:
2,021 persons x 3.0 Ibs./person/day x 365 days/yr.
2,000 Ibs./ton
= 1,110 tons/yr.
As discussed previously, the seasonal population is assumed to be divided
equally between the two service area. The seasonal population can again be
expected to generate waste at three pounds per persons per day. With 1,500 such
15
-------
residents in the Teller Disposal service area, their contribution to the waste
stream would be 270 tons and is calculated as before in the Woodland Trash
service area discussion.
Ten percent by weight of the waste stream in the Teller Disposal service
area again represents the estimated quantity of bulky wastes in this area. With
a municipal waste stream volume of 1,380 tons, the contribution from bulky
wastes equals approximately 140 tons.
The volume of waste generated by tourists in this area is a somewhat more
elusive figure, due to the lack of reliable data concerning their numbers.
Tourism in Teller County is more heavily promoted in, and occurs predominantly
in the Cripple Creek/Victor area. Visitor figures were supplied by the Imperial
Hotel in Cripple Creek and were obtained from the Cripple Creek Museum, which
until 1979 operated with free admission and kept accurate visitor records. The
records indicate that approximately 150,000 people visited this area during
June, July, and August of 1979. The Imperial Hotel management estimates that
another 50,000 visitors come to the area during May and September, and on week-
ends during the fall foliage season. Many of these people come from the
Colorado Springs area and are day visitors only. Waste generation studies of
recreational visitors to U.S. Forest Service lands indicate that day use
picnickers generated roughly 1.1 Ib. of waste per day (4). This figure can
reliably be applied to tourists in this area to calculate their current annual
waste volume production of 110 tons. The calculation follows:
200,000 persons/year x 1.1. Ibs./person
2,000 Ibs./ton
= 110 tons/year (over 120 days)
In addition, some wastes are generated by visitors to the Florissant Fossil
Beds National Monument. According to National Park Service officials, 66,652
people visited the Monument in 1980 and of this figure, approximately 50 percent
used the picnic area located there. Using the 1.1. pound per person per day
waste generation rate developed by the Forest Service, there were approximately
20 tons of waste generated at the Fossil Beds in 1980. The calculation follows:
33,326 picnickers/year x 1.1 pound/person/day
2,000 Ibs./ton
= 20 tons/year
Table 3 summarizes the waste volumes produced in Teller County's two
private waste hauler service areas. As can be seen from the Table, approxi-
16
-------
TABLE 3
CURRENT ANNUAL SOLID WASTE VOLUMES BY
SERVICE AREA, TELLER COUNTY, COLORADO
Woodland Trash Service Area
Persons
Time (Days)
Lbs./Daj
Tons/Year
Permanent Population Waste Generation
Non-Bulky 6,000
Bulky 6,000
Seasonal Population Waste Generation
Non-Bulky 1,500
Bulky 1,500
Forest Service Visitors
Teller County Disposal Service Area
Permanent Population Waste Generation
Non-Bulky 2,021
Bulky 2,021
Seasonal Population Waste Generation
Non-Bulky 1,500
Bulky 1,500
365
365
120
120
3.0
0.3
3.0
0.3
3,290
330
270
30
120
Subtotal
Cripple Creek/Victor Tourists
Florissant Fossil Bed Visitors
200,000 (total visitation over 1.1
a 120-day period)
33,326 (total picnickers over 1.1
a 365-day period)
Subtotal
110
4,030
365
365
120
120
3.0
0.3
3.0
0.3
1,110
110
270
30
110
20
1,650
TOTAL
5,680
-------
mately tons are currently being produced annually, 71 percent of which is being
collected by the Woodland Trash Service. Approximately 29 percent is being
collected by Teller County Disposal.
C. Projected Waste Volumes
According to Census data, the permanent resident population of Teller
County will increase by about 58 percent over the next ten years. The number of
seasonal residents can be expected to rise at a similar rate according to local
County sources. Tourism in the State of Colorado, according to estimates pro-
vided by the Colorado Office of Economic Planning, is likely to increase by 18
percent over the next ten years. Because Teller County is a popular point
destination vacation area (as opposed to a drive-through area where tourists
would "drive-through" on their way to another vacation area) and because of the
increasing national trend toward these point destination areas, tourism in
Teller County is likely to escalate as much as 20 percent over the next ten
years.
Based on these assumptions, the projected total waste volume for Teller
County during the ten-year study period beginning in 1981 is 72,800 tons (see
Table 4). This figure is equal to the sum of the projected annual waste volumes
for the ten-year study period based on a linear increase in waste volume of
approximately 360 tons/year. A constant rise in population and tourism is
assumed as well as a constant rate of waste generation over the study period for
each resident population and visitor population segment. Overall, annual waste
generation would increase by 56 percent (3,200 tons) by the year 1990.
18
-------
TABLE 4
PROJECTED ANNUAL WASTE GENERATION TONNAGES FOR
TELLER COUNTY, 1981-1990
Projected
Study Year Annual Waste Tonnages*
1981 5,680
1982 6,040
1983 6,390
1984 6,750
1985 7,100
1986 7,460
1987 7,810
1988 8,170
1989 8,520
1990 8,880
TOTAL 72,800 Tons
* Based on a 58 percent straight-line increase in permanent and seasonal
residents and a 20 percent straight-line increase in tourism, both over the
ten-year study period.
19
-------
IV. EXISTING SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS
In order to characterize the current solid waste management system in Tel-
ler County, existing disposal sites, greenbox stations, and collection practices
are described. An estimate of the costs incurred by the County in supporting
the present system is included. Solid waste operations in Park County are sum-
marized, and the potential for a cooperative effort between Park and Teller
Counties is discussed.
A. Collection and Transportation of Waste
Private Collection. Woodland Trash Service, owned and operated by Phil
Bosma, supplies waste collection and transportation services for the northeast
section of Teller County (see Figure 2 for description of service area), as well
as for portions of El Paso and Douglas Counties. Approximately 60 percent of
the residents and nearly 100 percent of the businesses in the area utilize the
service. In operation six days per week, weekly or more frequent collection is
provided. Ultimate disposal of compacted trash is at the Twenty-sixth Street
Landfill near Colorado Springs. As mentioned previously, the greenbox station
in Divide is serviced by Woodland Trash.
Weekly collection service of 1 and 1/2 to 2-cubic yard containers for
commerical accounts ranges from $21.50 to $26.50 per month. Residents pay a fee
of $10.00 per month for weekly collection of two garbage cans, or four bags, of
waste.
The mobile equipment presently is use (owned by Woodland Trash Service,
Inc.) is a 1980 International cab equipped with a 20-cubic yard packer, a 1971
White cab equipped witha 17-cubic yard packer (cab and chassis to be replaced in
mid-summer with a 1981 International), and a spare 1974 White cab equiped with a
17-cubic yard Sanicruiser. Other equipment includes four six-cubic yard con-
tainers in use at the Divide greenbox site, 78 1 and 1/2-cubic yard containers
and 234 two-cubic yard containers for commercial accounts.
Teller Disposal, Inc. is owned and operated by Norbie Larson, and services
the southern and northwest portions of the County (see Figure 2). Approximately
40-50 percent of the residents and a high percentage of the businesses in the
area utilize the collection service. The company is in operation seven days per
week, and provides weekly collection for residences, mines, and other businesses
throughout the County. Ultimate disposal of compacted trash is at the Cripple
Creek disposal site.
Teller Disposal collects waste from the Florissant greenbox station, and
provides collection for a single six-cubic yard greenbox at Florissant Fossil
Beds National Monument (financed by the National Park Service). Both residences
20
-------
and businesses utilize the collection service in the Cripple Creek area, while
primarily mines are serviced in the Victor area. Victor residents dispose of
their waste directly at the Victor disposal site. Weekly collection of commer-
cial accounts is performed for a monthly fee of $20.00 to $40.00, depending on
waste quantities. Residences are serviced weekly for a monthly fee of $4.00.
Teller Disposal also transports bulky items (such as automobile bodies) to
Pueblo once per year, for metals reclamation.
Equipment currently owned and used by Teller Disposal, for collection and
disposal of waste, includes: a four-wheel-drive loader with a three-cubic yard
bucket, a D-8 Cat tractor, a track loader with a three-cubic yard bucket, an
Austin motor grader, a 25-cubic yard capacity Packmore on a 1966 10-wheel White
tractor, a 20-cubic yard capacity packer on a single axle tractor, two tractor
trucks, each with a 30-cubic yard trailer, numerous flat trailers, a ten ton,
six-wheel-drive crane, 14 six-cubic yard containers, and 21 two-cubic yard
containers.
Federal Collection. The U.S. Forest Service collects waste from greenboxes
in five campgrounds and one picnic area in Pike National Forest, in northern
Teller County. Waste is transported by the Forest Service to disposal sites
near Colorado Springs.
B. Greenbox Transfer Stations
Divide Greenbox Station. The Divide greenbox station, located in Figure 1,
is operated by the County. Four 6-cubic yard greenboxes, owned by Woodland
Trash Service Inc., are present in a locked, fenced enclosure. The site is
located on County-owned land and is open three days per week, from 10 am to 4
pm. A user fee of 50
-------
C. Disposal Sites Presently in Use
Teller County Disposal Sites. Two disposal sites are currently in use.
The Cripple Creek site (see Figure 1), located approximately one mile north of
the city limits, is owned and operated by Norbie Larson of Teller Disposal,
Inc. It services roughly the southern and northwest portions of the County,
excluding the Victor area. The 10 acre site, part of a 120 acre parcel, has
been in operation for nine years. At the current usage rate, the owner
estimates that the site has more than twenty years of life remaining. A land
use fee of $2,333.33 per month is currently paid to Teller Disposal by the
County for use of the site and to subsidize operations at the site. The site is
located in a drainage emptying into Barnard Creek, and some surface water
diversion ditches are present. Burning takes place intermittently, and waste is
covered on an irregular basis. White goods (appliances) and auto bodies are
accepted at the site. There is no sign of the presence of industrial waste,
septic sludge, or dead animals. An attendant is not present, and no fee is
charged to individuals disposing of waste. The Colorado Department of Health
(CDH) has recommended closure of the site as it is currently operated, due to
potential surface and ground water pollution, inadequate diversion of surface
water, the presence of vectors and odors, the lack of adequate cover, and
uncontrolled burning. An additional discussion of continued use of the Cripple
Creek site as a sanitary landfill, following substantial upgrading, may be found
in Chapter VI.
The Victor site is located approximately 3/4 of a mile west of Victor (see
Figure 1), and is owned by the City. The dumping area is approximately 2 and
1/4 acres in size and has extended to surrounding land owned by Jim Chapman.
The facility has no operational management, and no fee is charged for disposal.
The site has been in use by Victor residents since 1904. Use of the area
consists of dumping waste into a steep ravine, which drains directly into a
tributary of Wilson Creek. The Colorado Department of Health has recommended
closure of this site, due to lack of surface water diversion facilities, lack of
cover material and fencing, and frequent uncontrolled burning. Department of
Health authorities report that "cover material is not readily available at the
site and operations would have to be changed drastically to allow for proper
maintenance". The site will not be considered as a potential sanitary landfill
site in this study.
Another landfill, located 1/2 mile northwest of Woodland Park, was operated
by Woodland Trash Service Inc. until 1979. The land is owned by the local
government and was leased for waste disposal use. After a fire occured, the
site was covered and closed. Due to the site's proximity to residences, it will
not be considered as a candidate sanitary landfill site in this study.
22
-------
El Paso County Disposal Sites. According to the El Paso County Land Use
Department, four private landfills are currently in use in the Colorado Springs
area (see Figure 3). All four sites have Colorado Department of Health (CDH)
Certificates of Designation and are in compliance with CDH regulations.
The Twenty-sixth Street Landfill, operated by Nick Pinello of Solid Waste
Management, receives the most use in El Paso County, and is the landfill uti-
lized by Woodland Trash Service Inc. Present rates are $1.10 per cubic yard of
waste disposed. It is estimated that 40 total acres are available for use. The
landfill may be closed in four years, as the lease on the land is not expected
to be extended.
The Pinello East Landfill, operated by Nick Pinello, is reportedly nearing
capacity, although 14 acres of additional area may be available to lease.
A third site, the Templeton Gap Landfill (operated by Cole Shacklette), is
a 40 acre tract which is approximately 60 percent full. Its estimated future
life is five years. Another 40 acre parcel is adjacent, and an attempt will be
made to have the area certified for sanitary landfill use.
Finally, the Fountain Valley Landfill, operated by Jerry Schramek, is an
approximately 40 acre site, estimated to be about 20 percent full. It is not a
highly used facility, and has many years of life remaining, although it would
reach capacity much more quickly if the other three landfill sites were not
available. Recommendations concerning the future use of El Paso County sites by
Teller County are summarized in Chapter VII.
D. Cost of the Present System
Teller County's solid waste budget for 1980 was $78,810, about 2.85 percent
of the total County budget ($2,763,987). The cost included $46,545 for collec-
tion and disposal of waste from greenbox stations in Divide and Florissant, paid
to Woodland Trash Service Inc. and Teller Disposal, Inc., respectively.
Salaries for greenbox station attendants at the two sites amounted to $7,269. A
fee of $2,083 per month (or $24,996 for the year) was paid to Norbie Larson of
Teller Disposal in 1980, for use of his land in Cripple Creek for waste disposal
purposes and for operation of the landfill.
A total of $11,167 was generated through greenbox user fees (25
-------
FIGURE 3
EL PASO COUNTY DISPOSAL SITES
WOODLAND PARK
COLORADO SPRINGS
1. 26th Street Landfill
2. Pinello East Landfill
3. Templeton Gap Landfill
4. Fountain Valley Landfill
SOURCE: PIKES PEAK AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (5).
-------
County collection system includes two 25-cubic yard packers, 10 eight-cubic yard
greenboxes (located throughout the County), and two greenbox stations (at Lake
George and Bailey) consisting of a total of 18 eight-cubic yard greenboxes.
Disposal takes place at Fairplay, where 15 acres of BLM land are being utilized
for a trench-type landfill. County sources estimate the life of the present
landfill at five years. An additional 15 acres of land has been deeded to the
County for landfill use, and its estimated life is also five years.
No previous communication has occured between Park and Teller Counties,
regarding a joint effort in solid waste planning according to the Park County
commissioner contacted during this study. Park County Commissioners are willing
to discuss the possibility of a future joint effort, if a cost savings would be
realized. Generally, solid waste disposal becomes more cost effective when a
larger number of users are involved, due to economies of scale. Because the
life expectancy of the Park County landfill appears to be about ten years, it
does not seem probable that Park County would assist in supporting a joint ef-
fort at this time. However, beyond that period a joint effort might be the most
reasonable alternative for cost savings. It is recommended that the Counties
initiate a discussion of alternatives (e.g., joint financing of a centralized
landfill site) at this time to anticipate a potential cooperative venture in the
future.
F. Applicable Laws and Regulations
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 requires individual
states to formulate a solid waste management plan. Current federal regulations
are not, however, mandatory at the county level. Currently, in Colorado, all
solid waste disposal sites and facilities are regulated by the Colorado Depart-
ment of Health under directives adopted in 1972.
The current State of Colorado solid waste disposal sites and facilities
regulations are included in Appendix A and guidelines used by the Colorado
Department of Health to review solid waste disposal sites and facilities are
listed in Appendix B. The Colorado Department of Health reviews sites and
facilities in order to recommend approval or disapproval of an application for a
Certificate of Designation which is needed before an applicant can dispose of
any solid waste. The CDH makes its recommendations to the County Commissioners
who then issue the Certificate of Designation to the facility.
25
-------
V. SANITARY LANDFILL SITE SELECTION PROCESS
A. Initial Selection Criteria
The sanitary landfill site selection process in Teller County was based on
a systematic, integrated study and evaluation of relevant physical conditions,
as well as economic and social/political constraints. The technique employed in
site selection is outlined below. By definition, sanitary landfilling is an
engineered method of disposing of solid waste on land by spreading the waste in
thin layers, compacting it to the smallest practical volume, and covering the
waste (ideally, each working day) in a manner which protects the environment
(6). No burning of solid waste occurs at a wel1-operated sanitary landfill.
Teller County participated in the landfill site selection process in the
past, and numerous potential sites were identified and rejected due to various
environmental and political problems. Records of previous work were generally
unavailable, although certain areas were identified with the aid of County
officials. Three sites, of the 35 total sites considered in this study, had
been identified previously. None of the five final candidate sites have been
evaluated in the past.
The general selection process involved the initial elimination of unsuitable
areas of the County, resulting in 35 possible sites. After extensive field
investigation, the five most suitable sites were selected. These sites were
then rated according to a quantitave review process. The steps involved in each
phase of the selection process are detailed below.
When initially choosing potentially suitable areas in the County, the
primary constraint was conflicting land use. Teller County's Master Plan maps
were used to delineate all areas zoned as agricultural. This zone was consid-
ered exclusively for landfill locations, on the recommendation of the County
Planner, thus eliminating significant areas of the County. Land committed to
present and planned State parks and wildlife areas, and national monuments, was
excluded. In addition, land managed by the U.S. Forest Service was exempted
from consideration, after communication with District Forest Service authorities
indicated that the land would be unavailable for landfill use, due to the high
percentage of private land in the County. Land administered by the Bureau of
Land Management and the State of Colorado was actively considered.
Other criteria used in the initial phase of selection were environmental
and economic constraints. Topographic maps (7 and 1/2 minute) were used to
choose areas with a slope less than 15 percent, as steep slopes are subject to
accelerated soil erosion, increased surface water runoff problems, and cause
difficulty in the operation of equipment. Flpodplain maps, obtained from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (7), were used to delineate areas located in
26
-------
the 100-year floodplain. Direct proximity to underground pipelines or utility
power easements, was determined from topographic maps. No sites were located in
the 100-year floodplain, or adjacent to pipelines or easements. Areas located
less than 1/2 mile from an existing improved road were considered most prefer-
able because of ease of access. Sites which would affect critical wildlife
habitat, endangered species, geothermal resources or archeological artifacts
were not considered. When this process was completed, a total of 35 sites had
been chosen.
Following a detailed field investigation of the sites and utilizing soils
information supplied by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), the number of
potentially suitable sites was reduced to five. Although no published soil
survey was available for the study area, SCS authorities assisted in a site by
site review of soil types. Areas with deep soil with a suitable texture were
determined to be appropriate for landfilling. Sites were removed from consider-
ation after field investigation revealed the presence of one or more of the
following constraining factors: the immediate proximity of the site to resi-
dences, inadequate screening potential (from wind and visibility), lack of suf-
ficient soil depth, and severe topographical limitations not detectable from the
topographic maps. Appendix C contains a series of maps illustrating where the
35 sites are located and a brief summary of why most of the sites were elimin-
ated from further consideration.
B. Site Descriptions
The following section describes four of the sites according to location,
haul distance, access, size, surface and groundwater impacts, topography, soil
depth, screening (for wind and visibility) and vegetation. The fifth site (the
present Cripple Creek disposal site), has been described in Chapter III.
Site #12. Owned by Gordon Mahoney, this site is located approximately 3/4
miles northeast of Divide (see Figure 4), with access from Highway 24 and North
Road. At least 40 acres in size, the site lies at the head of an intermittent
stream drainage which empties into Rule Creek approximately one mile down-
stream. Diversion ditches would be necessary to divert upslope runoff. Slope
averages about 10 percent, and the site is partially screened by trees. Several
springs are located about 1/2 mile down the drainage, but the site is 80-120
feet higher in elevation than the springs. Stream cuts indicate a soil depth of
at least six feet. The site is situated on open grassland, and is very exposed
to wind, particularly from the southwest. Due to the wind problems and visibil-
ity from houses to the north, screening and berms will be needed. Vegetation at
the site is primarily open grassland.
Site #35. Located about 2 and 1/2 miles north of Divide, the site is
easily accessible from both North and Ridge Roads. It is owned by Lewis and
27
-------
FIGURE 4
TELLER COUNTY POTENTIAL LANDFILL SITES
28
-------
Leila Larson, and the availabile area is 15-20 acres, with approximately 10
acres usable for landfill operation. This site is partially screened by trees
to the east and south, and is fenced on three sides. Two ephemeral drainages
are present, and the average slope is 10-15 percent. Diversion ditches would be
necessary. A well is located 1/4 mile to the northwest, but no data concerning
it is available from the State Engineer's well records.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) information indicates a soil depth of about
five feet, but no road or stream cuts were present to verify this information.
Vegetation at the site is open grassland and mixed conifer and aspen forest.
Site #17. This potential site, owned by Lewis and Leila Larson, is about 2
and 3/4 miles north of Divide, and 1/4-1/2 east of North Road. A gravel access
road to the site already exists. About 40 acres in size, the site drains into
an intermittent stream 1/4 mile to the east, which empties into Rule Creek.
Diversion ditches would have to be constructed to mitigate possible surface
water contamination problems. Well screened from North Road, this site requires
less wind fencing than the other potential sites. Slope averages 8-10 percent,
and soils are five feet in depth, according to the SCS soil description. The
site is situated partially on open grassland and partially on mixed conifer and
aspen forest.
Site #14. Owned by Geraldine Shoemaker, this site is 1 and 1/4 miles north
of Divide on North Road, and about 1/2 mile east, located along an intermittent
stream drainage. Surface water diversion ditches would be necessary. Approxi-
mately 40-60 acres appear to be usable for landfilling. Slope is about 10
percent, and the soil is at least six feet deep, as verified by intermittent
drainage cuts. Located on open grassland, the site is susceptible to blowing
litter problems, and more screening and wind fencing would be required than for
any of the other sites.
C. Quantitative Review Methodology
In evaluating the five sites, a quantitative scoring system was utilized,
as recommended by the American Society of Civil Engineers (8). An advantage of
this method is its organized approach to the quantification of engineering and
environmental judgements, and to economic, social, and political considera-
tions. The results of this methodology can be used in conjunction with the
specific capital and operating cost estimates of each alternative (developed in
Chapter VI) and the availability of the land in order to select the most readily
useable cost-effective site. The scoring system ranks sites by assigning scores
to relevant factors. For example, consider surface water impacts as a factor.
If a site is located less than 1 and 1/2 miles (along drainage) from the peren-
nial stream into which it drains, that site would receive a score of 1 (on a
scale of 1 to 2), while a site located more than 1 and 1/2 miles from the stream
29
-------
would receive a more favorable score of 2. A total of four sites (see Figure
4), and the present Cripple Creek disposal site, have been evaluated using this
system. The siting factors and quantitative review system are discussed in the
following sections.
Siting Factors. In this study, the factors considered relevant were soil
depth and type, slope, area (size of site), impact on groundwater, impact on
surface water, haul distance, road access, necessity of screening (due to wind
or visibility), and adjacent land use. These factors, and the rationale for
their selection, are discussed below.
Soil Depth and Type
Soil depth is an important consideraton in selecting appropriate land-
filling techniques and determining whether an adequate amount of cover material
(particularly daily cover) exists for the operation. Soil type is also a
factor, although a wide range of soil types is usuable for daily cover. Cover
material can be transported to the site if inadequate cover material is present,
but this alternative is more costly. In this discussion, the term soil refers
not only to the actual surficial soil horizons, but to any unconsolidated rip-
pable weathered rock or bedrock material.-
A detailed soil survey has not been published for Teller County but
district Soil Conservation Service personnel provided assistance in determining
soil types for sites which have been mapped, and used interpolation to predict
the most likely soil compositions for areas not yet mapped. The soil type at
the Cripple Creek site is the Fourmile Series, according to the SCS. The series
consists of deep, well to excessively drained soils formed from material wea-
thered from granite. Typically the surface layer is gravelly to very gravelly
coarse sandy loam. The subsoil is very gravelly coarse sandy loam, overlying
very gravelly coarse sand or loamy sand, extending to a depth of five feet or
more. The land use section of the soil description provided by the SCS suggests
that seepage may be a problem in using the soil for landfill purposes.
The predominant soil type present at the other four sites is Brinkert Loam,
a deep, well-drained soil formed in alluvial fan material derived from granite.
It is typically 5 feet or more in thickness. The surface layer is typically
loam. The subsoil is a heavy clay loam or clay, and the substratum is clay loam
or sandy clay loam. In some places, shale occurs within 25 inches of the soil
surface. The soil types present at the five candidate sites appear to be suit-
able for landfilling. Therefore, sites will be scored on soil depth only.
Three feet of soil will be needed for all the landfill site operations; one foot
for intermediate soil cover (for operational vector, fire, litter, and moisture
control), and two feet for final cover. Final cover serves basically the same
functions as intermediate cover, but it must also support vegetative growth. A
30
-------
more favorable score will be assigned to sites with a soil depth of at least
three feet. Before a specific site is selected, a site specific soil survey,
including soil borings, will be necessary. The regional SCS office will perform
the survey if requested. According to the district SCS, it will take about six
months to have the survey done.
Slope
Slope serves as an important factor in determining the method of land-
filling, selection of equipment, design of drainage controls, etc. A more
favorable score is assigned to the flatter slopes, which, in this study, were
chosen to be less than 8 percent. Slopes greater than 8 percent can require
substantial grading to mitigate erosion and surface water runoff problems, and
can present equipment operational difficulties.
Area
Sites which are larger than 20 acres in size will receive a higher score
than smaller sites. Current County waste production will require approximately
one acre per year for a trench landfill and three-quarters of an acre for an
area landfill (see Appendix F for the calculation). Theoretically only 9 (area
landfill) to 12 (trench landfill) acres would be necessary to accommodate waste
for the scope of the ten year study period, using projected waste yardages.
However, larger sites lend more flexibility to landfill operation by including
room for a buffer zone and future expansion. A larger size also increases the
potential for on-site cover procurement and allows for a more shallow fill
depth, if a thin soil makes shallow fill depth necessary.
Ground Water Impact
To assess the risk of ground water contamination by landfil1-produced
leachate, the location of the zone of saturation must be determined, as well as
the direction and rate of flow of the ground water. Because of the relative
importance of this parameter, it is included as a siting factor even though site
specific ground water data does not exist for the five sites. It should be
emphasized that a detailed engineering analysis (including the drilling of test
wells) must be performed at the chosen potential site, before the site can be
determined to be suitable for landfilling. When such information does become
available, following a detailed engineering analysis, it can be assimilated into
the scoring system matrix. As a rule of thumb, a sanitary landfill should be
located at least five feet above the seasonal high water table. Therefore, if a
fifteen-foot trench is excavated, the high water table will have to be at least
five feet below the bottom of this trench. A landfill less than five feet above
the seasonal high water table is unacceptable in practice unless costly modifi-
cations, such as liners, are constructed. In this study a fifteen-foot
31
-------
separation has been designated as the ranking criterium. Sites having more than
fifteen feet of separation will receive a higher ranking. If fifteen-foot
trenches are used, groundwater test borings (which will also indicate the direc-
tion of ground water flow) will need to be drilled to a depth of thirty feet.
This fifteen-foot depth guideline will be useful in scoring a site when site
specific data is available.
Very limited relevant ground water information is available for wells that
are in proximity to the landfill sites. What information is available is listed
in Table 5. The wells listed are located within a half mile radius of each
site. The data supplied in Table 5 is not intended to represent the exact
ground water conditions at each of the sites and was not applied to the evalua-
tion of ground water at the sites. Data is available for three of the sites and
indicates that the risk of ground water contamination at those sites is low.
Surface Water Impact
Leachate production might also result in the pollution of surface water
bodies, and landfills should not be located in direct contact with the surface
water system. Although all five sites are located in ephemeral or intermittent
drainages, the potential surface water impact will be rated according to dis-
tance to the perennial drainage into which runoff from the sites would flow
(Rule Creek or Barnard Creek). Sites which are more than 1 and 1/2 miles from
these creeks (along drainage) receive a more favorable score. Sites close to
perennial drainages will require more costly surface drainage diversion struc-
tures to mitigate possible surface water pollution problems.
Haul Distance
The distance of the landfill site from the Woodland Park area, the princi-
pal area of waste generation in the County, represents the haul distance. Given
the increased cost of a longer haul, a more favorable score is assigned to a
site that is within 9 miles of Woodland Park. The Cripple Creek site was
assigned a favorable score due to its proximity to Cripple Creek and Victor,
major waste generation centers in southern Teller County. The Cripple Creek
site will not be considered for use as a County-wide landfill, due to the long
haul distance from northern Teller County.
Access
Each site is ranked for access because of the great expense involved with
road construcion. Currently, it costs approximately $120,000 per mile to
construct an unpaved road, and up to $200,000 per mile to build a paved road
(9). In the initial phase of site selection, all sites located more than 1/2
32
-------
THLE5
AVAILAOf GROIN) WATER irFORMATTON, TELLER COUNTY STUDY AREA*
Well Location*
T. 13 S., R. 70 W., Sec. 36,
NESW
T. 13 S., R. 70 W., Sec. 36,
SESW
T. 13. S., R. 70 W., Sec. 36,
SENW
T. 13. S., R. 69 W., Sec. 30,
SWSW
T. 12 S., R. 69 W., Sec. 30,
NWNW
T. 12 S., R. 69 W., Sec. 30,
NWNW
T 12 S., R. 69 W., Sec. 30
SWSW
No Wei Is
No Wei Is
Closest Potential Owier Well
Depth to Proximity
Landfill Site Year Completed Depth (ft.) Water (ft.) to Site
56, 14 William Bolingsr 145
1972
16, 14 Robert Christian 145
1972
36, 14 Wolfgang Heinze 200
1972
30, 14 Jack Previtt 65
1974
10, 17 Bill Ha^er 86
1962
10, 17 Jimmie Hileman 250
1969
I 35 D.A. Roberts 95
1979
12
Cripple Creek
103 adj. 1/4 1/4 sec
97 adj. 1/4 1/4 sec
110 adj. 1/4 1/4 sec
65 adj. 1/4 1/4 sec
78 adj. 1/4 1/4 sec
89 same 1/4 1/4 sec
27 adj. 1/4 1/4 sec
~
__ __
* Source: Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Office of the State Engineer (10).
+ Well locations are listed by township (T), range (R), section (1-36), and quarter-quarter section. A list-
ing such as Section 1, SE 1/4, NE 1/4 indicates a 40 acre parcel located in the southeast 1/4 of the north-
east 1/4 section of section 1. Most well are located in quarter-quarter sections adjacent to potential
landfill sites. ,
-------
mile from an improved all-weather road were eliminated. Sites located on an
improved all-weather road or with close access (1/4 mile or less) to one via
existing roads are scored higher than sites with no access or more distant
(greater than 1/4 mile) existing access to an improved road surface.
Screening
Sites which require screening or fencing to mitigate visibility problems or
control blowing litter have been assigned less favorable scores. Fencing,
earthen berms, trees, or hedges may be needed to screen the landfill operation.
Peripheral fences may be used to control or limit access, and movable litter
fences are used to control blowing paper in the immediate vicinity of the work-
ing face of the landfill.
Adjacent Land Use
Although the five candidate sites are not located on lands which are unac-
ceptable for landfill use, conflicting adjacent land use may present barriers to
acceptability. Proximity to municipal areas or residential development may be
objectionable due to noise, odors, dust and vector problems occassionally
associated with sanitary landfills. In a rapidly developing County such as
Teller, the most difficult part of siting a landfill is finding suitable land
which is not adjacent to a conflicting use. The high growth rate of subdi-
visions and private home building dictate that landfill development take into
consideration present and planned development. Sites which are more than 1/4
mile from a residential zone or city limits will receive a more favorable
score.
Quantitative Review System. Each of the above factors has been divided
into two categores and assigned scores of either 1 or 2, with a score of 2
indicating a more favorable condition. Table 6 lists the siting factor, the two
relevant categories, and the scores assigned to each category. Because at the
present time there is no accurate ground water data for the sites in question,
this siting factor was not included in the scoring analysis.
Table 7 summarizes the site-specific data with respect to the eight remain-
ing siting factors described above for each of the five potential landfill
sites. For each site in Table 7, the score assigned for each siting factor is
also listed.
The site selection system used for Teller County in this study represents
the case in which all eight siting factors are perceived as being equally
important and receive equal weights. However, it is possible to use different
assumptions regarding the importance (weight) given to each of the eight siting
factors.
34
-------
TABLE 6
LANDFILL SITING FACTORS AND RATINGS ASSIGNED TO FACTOR CATEGORIES
Siting Factor
1. Soil Depth
2. Slope
3. Area
4. Ground Water Impact
5. Surface Water Impact
6. Haul Distance
7. Access
8. Adjacent Land Use
Factor Scaling Categories* Ratings
> 3 feet depth 2
< 3 feet depth 1
< 8 percent 2
> 8 percent 1
> 20 acres 2
< 20 acres 1
GW depth > 15 feet below landfill 2
GW depth < 15 feet below landfill 1
> 1 1/2 miles from perennial
stream 2
< 1 1/2 miles from perennial
stream 1
9. Screening
0 - 9 miles
> 9 miles
< 1/5 mile to existing all-
weather road
> 1/5 mile to existing all-
weather road
> 1/4 mile from conflicting land
use
< 1/4 mile from conflicting land
use
Screening not required
Screening required
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
* > - greater than
< - less than
35
-------
TABLE 7
RATING SYSTEM:
POTENTIAL SANITORY LWBFILL SITES
Site Nunber
Ownership
Location
#12
Gordon Mahoney
T. 13 S., R. 69 W.,
Sec. 6, NENW& SENW
SCORE
#35
Lewis & Leila Larson
T. 12 S., R. 70 W.,
Sec. 25, NESE
SCORE
#17
Lewis & Leila Larson
T. 12 S., R. 69 W.,
Sec. 30, SENW
SCORE
Soil Depth
(Feet)
6*
2
5t
2
5t
2
Area
(Acres)
40
2
15
1
40
2
Slope
(Percent)
5-10
1
10-15
1
8-10
1
Access
(Miles fron existing
improved road)
.6
1
.06
2
.2
1
Haul Distance
(Miles fron
Woodland Park)
8 1/2
2
9 1/2
1
10
1
Surf. Water Im-
pacts (Miles fron
paren. stean)
1 1/4
1
1 3/4
2
1 1/4
1
Screening
Necessary
1
Not
Necessary
2
Not
Necessary
2
Adjacent Lard
Use
1/4 mile fron
Divide City
Limits
1
No Apparent
Conflict
2
1/4 - 1/2 rrrile
fron Residen-
tial Zone
2
Total
Score
11
13
12
CO
CD
-------
TRBLE 7
RATING SYSTEM:
POTENTiyU. SflNITfflY LAMFIIL SITES (Contirued)
Site Number
Ownership
Location
#14
Qeraldine Shoemaker
T. 12 S., R. 70 W.,
Sec. 36, SWNE, SENE,
NWSE, NESE
SCORE
Cripple Creek Site
Norbie Larson
T. 15 S., R. 70 W.,
Sec. 12, SklNW
SCORE
Soil Depth
(Feet)
6*
2
6*
2
Area
(Acres)
40
2
10-20
1
Slope
(Percent)
10
1
15
1
Access
(Miles fron existing
improved road)
.2
1
Located on an exist-
ing IT improved road
2
Haul Distance
(Miles fron
Woodland Park)
8 3/4
2
1**
2
Surf. Water Im-
pacts(Miles fron
peren. stean)
2 3/4
2
3/4
1
Screening
Necessary
1
Not
Necessary
2
Adjacent Lard
Use
1/4 - 1/2 mile
fron Residen-
tial Zone
2
1/2 mile fron
residential
zone
2
Total
Score
13
13
* Field Observation
t Soil Description
** Miles from Cripple Creek
-------
For example, a greater significance could be assigned to the economic factors,
e.g., area (i.e., site life), haul distance, and access, if they are perceived
to be the most important. The sites would then receive different scores.
Regardless of the weighting used, with proper site modifications any of the five
sites could be operated in a manner that would not prove detrimental to public
safety or the environment. The scoring system used results in a possible range
of scores from 8 to 16. All five sites evaluated range from 11 to 13, indica-
ting their similarity. In comparison, the Victor disposal site would receive a
score of 9 in this system (with 8 being the lowest possible score), due to its
excessive slope, lack of soils, and proximity to surface water. Because of
these problems, the continued operation of the Victor disposal site cannot be
recommended. In conclusion, the site selection process provides the County with
five good quality potential sites from which to choose, based on availability
and other factors.
38
-------
VI. EVALUATION OF SANITARY LANDFILL ALTERNATIVES
A. Potential Landfill Sites: Costs and Operational Plans
The best designed disposal facility will be of little value unless it is
constructed and operated as prescribed. This is especially true of a sanitary
landfill because it is under construction up to the day the last pound of solid
waste is disposed of.
The two basic landfilling methods are the trench method and the area fill
method; other approaches are essentially modifications to these two methods (see
Figure 5). Basically, the trench method is used in areas where the seasonal
high water table is relatively low and the soil is more than six feet deep. It
is best employed on flat or gently rolling land. The area method can be fol-
lowed on most topographies and is often used if large quantities of solid waste
must be disposed of or if the size of the site is a constraining factor. Of the
five most suitable potential landfill sites in Teller County, two require the
area method (site 35 and the Cripple Creek site), another requires the trench
method (site 14), and at the two remaining sites a combination of the two
methods can be used (sites 12 and 17). A combination of the two methods will
effectively double the useable life of the landfill site.
The operational plan and the cost for a trench landfill will be the same
for each site no matter which of the potential sites is chosen. The same is
true for an area landfill at each site. As mentioned previously, soil borings
and test wells will be necessary before a final site is chosen. The four sites
are quite similar physically and will receive the same volume of wastes and,
because of this, they will have comparable costs and operational plans. Barring
any unusual circumstances, the amount of waste received is the major factor
governing the design and cost of a landfill.
With either landfilling method, it was assumed that the site will be open
to the public 6 days a week with a fulltime operator on duty. The landfill
should remain open for this amount of time in order to provide a disposal facil-
ity that is compatible with the County's private waste haulers who currently
collect waste 6 days a week. The site could remain open 4 hours in the after-
noon on Mondays and Wednesdays and 7 hours on Tuesdays, Thursdays, Fridays, and
Saturdays. An extra hour will be needed each day (after the landfill is closed
to the public) to compact and cover the trash, and to provide general site main-
tenance. The operator should be well versed in all aspects of landfill safety;
safety aspects are reviewed in Appendix D.
39
-------
FIGURE 5
TRENCH AND AREA METHODS OF SANITARY LANDFILLING
Trvncn
ATM Method
SOURCE: BRUNNER AND KELLER (6).
40
-------
Seasonal changes in the amount of waste received (there will be less in the
winter) should not affect these hours of operation. Although less time will be
needed to supervise public waste disposal at the site during the winter, more
time will be required to attend to the increased operating requirements brought
on by inclement winter weather. During the winter, additional time will be
needed for snow removal and the working of frozen cover material. During the
spring thaw, wet and slushy roads will required increased maintenance.
The operation of the site could be contracted out to a private concern who
would then supply the needed landfill equipment. A Caterpillar D-7 crawler-
dozer (with landfill blades and a ripper) or a Caterpillar 955 crawler-loader or
equivalent will be needed for both the area and the trench landfill method-
ologies. If operating costs are incurred by a private operator, the costs in
Tables 8 and 9 would not be direct costs for the County.
Trench Method. Using the current annual County waste production figure of
5,680 tons/year (11,360 yd.3) and a cover to solid waste ratio of 1:4 by volume,
approximately 930 feet of trench will be required each year for the entire
County (see Appendix F for landfill calculations). Figure 6 shows the cross-
sectional dimensions of this trench which would contain 15.3 cubic yards of com-
pacted waste for each linear foot of trench.
FIGURE 6
CROSS-SECTION OF LANDFILL TRENCH, TELLER COUNTY
36' |- 10' -|
«— ORIGINAL LAND SURFACE
These trenches would be 20 feet wide across the bottom and approximately 15 feet
deep, with sidewall slopes at a 60 degree angle (depending on stability
considerations). Because of the trench configuration, a minimum amount of cover
material would be required each year (about 20 percent of the excavated spoil
would be needed), resulting in the production of a large amount of excess fill
each year. Using the current waste production figures, there will be approxi-
mately 11,400 yd.^ of excess cover produced annually. This material could be
41
-------
stockpiled on-site, used to improve the access road or to build berms, or sold
as fill for local construction projects. In order to minimize wind-produced
impacts (including drifting snow), trenches should be oriented perpendicular to
the prevailing wind direction at the site. Also, stockpiled cover material
should be located downwind from and parallel to the trenches to further lessen
the problems associated with windblown snow.
Assuming in time a series of trenches spaced ten feet apart, roughly 0.96
acres will be required for landfilling purposes each year for the entire County
(see Appendix F for calculation). Because waste generation is increasing each
year, however, by 1990 approximately 1,450 linear feet of trench and 1.5 acres
of land will be required annually for landfilling purposes.
Table 8 presents a summary of the annual operating costs for a trench
landfill in Teller County. The costs here represent total costs for a landfill
serving the entire County. The capital costs for both trench and area fill
methodologies vary at each site and will be listed in the specific cost summary
tables for the four landfill sites. It has been assumed that equipment will be
provided by a private operator. The equipment purchase price depreciation, or
what it would cost to capitalize the purchase of the necessary landfill equip-
ment, is figured into the hourly operating costs in Table 8. Profit is not
included in this table.
Area Method. The area fill method of landfilling, where waste is applied
directly onto the land surface, either with or without cover pre-stripping, is a
somewhat more difficult methodology to operate efficiently. Larger volumes of
trash and daily cover are usually associated with an area landfill. In an area
fill, uncovered and exposed trash is more susceptible to being scattered by the
wind which might present a relatively serious problem in a county as windy and
exposed as Teller County. Waste sitting on top of the ground is also certainly
more visible than waste deposited in a trench. Because of these reasons, the
area method, although less expensive than the trench method, will not be recom-
mended unless the small size of a site precludes the use of trenches (as at site
35). In time, as the operation becomes more efficient and as waste volume
increases making daily cover more feasible, the area fill method can be used at
a site previously using trenches in order to extend the life of the site.
Wastes could be spread out directly on top of the previously filled trenches.
Cover material stockpiled during the trenching operation could be utilized for
intermediate and final cover for the area fill. Berms, constructed from the
excess cover material produced during the trenching phase, used with permanent
and moveable litter fences would mitigate the blowing litter problems inherent
in the area fill method.
42
-------
TABLE 8
TRENCH LANDFILL ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS, TELLER COUNTY *
Item
Trenching
Spreading and
Compacting
(equipment)
Covering
Maintenance,
Roads and
Ditches
(equipment)
Labor, Operator
Revegetation
Utilities (electricity)
Unit Cost
Units
$60/hr.
312 hr.
$1.00/yd.3 2,800 yd.3
$60/hr.
$5.20 hr.
52 hr.
2,080 hr.
$l,100/acre .96 acres
Lump Sum
Total Cost
$1.00/yd.3 14,200 yd.3 $14,200
18,700
2,800
3,100
10,800
1,100
500
TOTAL $51,200
* Sources: Caterpillar (11), Engelsman (12), McMahon (9), and Rental Rate Blue
Book (13).
43
-------
If the equipment is available, it is recommended that cover material be
stripped from the area to be landfilled and stockpiled. Approximately 2,800
yd.^ of cover will be required annually (at current waste generation rates).
Labor and equipment type requirements would be the same as with the trench oper-
ation.
Table 9 presents, without including profit, a summary of the annual oper-
ating costs for an area type landfill for Teller County. This table summarizes
costs for a landfill serving the entire County. The capital costs for this
landfill will be listed in the specific cost summary tables for the four land-
fill sites.
Again, using the current annual County waste production figure of 5,680
tons/year and a cover to solid waste ratio of 1:4 by volume, approximately .73
acres of land will be needed for area landfilling in the County each year (see
Appendix F for calculation). This acreage figure assumes a 12-foot cell depth.
The projected 1990 waste production volume will require 1.2 acres at a 12-foot
cell depth.
Potential Landfill Site Capital Costs. Tables 10 through 13 present the
capital and annual operation costs necessary for landfill operations at each of
the four selected sites. Again, sites 12 and 17 can be operated as either
trench or area landfills, site 14 as a trench landfill only, and site 35 only as
an area landfill. The cost tables for sites 12 and 17 contain both trench and
area costs. Wind and visibility problems at site 14 preempt consideration of an
area fill there. Site 35 can only be considered for an area landfill because of
its small size. If either site 12 or site 17 is chosen, it is recommended that
trenching be carried out until the suitable land area is used up at which time
the area method could be employed.
Wind or litter fencing is recommended for three of the sites in order to
mitigate problems with windblown debris. The three sites using the area fill
landfill method (sites 12, 17, and 35) will require litter fencing. As a gen-
eral rule, trench operations require less litter fencing because the solid waste
tends to be confined within the walls of the trench. Since the location of the
working face shifts frequently, litter fences should be movable. Fences such as
this should be situated downwind from the working face in order to catch any
blowing litter. A 10-foot high fence is advisable and costs approximately $1
for each foot of height (at a one foot fence length). The operator must clean
the fence of blown litter periodically.
A shelter should be provided for the operator and for the landfill equip-
ment. The cost cited in the tables provides for a concrete block structure with
a wood truss roof and continuous shallow footing.
44
-------
TABLE 9
AREA LANDFILL ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS, TELLER COUNTY *
Item
Cover Prestripping
Spreading and Com-
pacting (eq
Covering
Maintenance, Roads
and Ditches (e
ment)
Labor, Operator
Revegetation
Unit Cost
ing $1.00/yd3
om-
ment) $60/hr.
$1.00/yd3
ads
quip-
$60/hr.
$5.20/hr.
$l,100/acre
tricity) • Lump
Units
3,400 yd3
. 312 hr.
2,800 yd3
52 hr.
2,080 hr.
.73 acre
Sum
TOTAL
Total Cost
$ 3,400
18,700
2,800
3,100
10,800
800
500
$40,100
* Sources: Caterpillar (11), Engelsman (12), McMahon (9), and Rental Rate Blue
Book (13).
45
-------
TABLE 10
TELLER COUNTY SITE 12: CAPITAL AND ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS *
Capital Costs (Trench and Area Methods)
Item
Land
Road Construction
Shelter (equipment
and operator)
Util Hies
Fencing
Stock (4 ft.)
Litter Fencing
(10 ft.)
Drainage Diversion
Ditches
Mi seel 1aneous
Engineering and
Design (10% of
site development
cost)
Unit Cost
$2 ,000/acre
60,000/mile
8,200/each
$5.00/ft.
$4.10/ft.
$10.00/ft.
$4.00/ft.
Units
40 acres
.6 mile
1
600 ft.
1,450 ft.
400 ft.
1,500 ft.
Total Cost
$80,000
36,000
8,200
3,000
6,000
4,000
6,000
2,000
6,500
TOTAL
AMORTIZED
$151,700 +
$ 24,700 +
Annual Operating Costs
Trench Method
Area Method
Trench Method
Area Method
Total Annual Cost
$51,200*
$40,100*
$75,900
$64,800
* Sources: Caterpillar (11), Godfrey (14), McMahon (9), and
Rental Rate Blue Book (13).
+ Using an annual capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.16275 to
determine the uniform annual debt payment at an interest rate
of 10 percent over a 10 year period.
* The total annual operating cost for a landfill utilized by the
entire county (see Tables 8 and 9).
46
-------
TABLE 11
TELLER COUNTY SITE 14: CAPITAL AND ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS*
Capital Costs (Trench Method)
Item
Land
Road Construction
Shelter (for equipment
and operator)
Utilities
Fenci ng
Stock (4 ft.)
Drainage Diversion
Ditches
Miscellaneous
Engineering and Design
(10% of site develop-
ment cost)
Annual Operating Costs
Trench Method
Trench Method
Unit Cost
Unit
Total Cost
$2,000/acre
$60,000/mi le
$ 8,200/each
$5.00/ft..
$4.10/ft.
$4.00/ft.
40 acres
.2 mile
1
800 ft.
2,000 ft.
2,500 ft.
$80,000
12,000
8,200
4,000
8,200
10,000
2,000
TOTAL
AMORTIZED
Total Annual Cost
4,400
$128,800
$ 21,000+
$51,200*
$72,200
* Sources: Caterpillar (11), Godfrey (14), McMahon (9), and
Rental Rate Blue Book (13).
+ Using an annual capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.16275 to
determine the uniform annual debt payment at an interest rate
of 10 percent over a 10 year period.
* The total annual operating cost for a landfill utilized by the
entire county (see Tables 8 and 9).
47
-------
TABLE 12
TELLER COUNTY SITE 17: CAPITAL AND ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS*
Capital Costs (Trench and Area Methods)
Item
Land
Road Construction
Shelter (for equipment
and operator)
Utilities
Fencing
Stock (4 ft.)
Litter Fencing
(10 ft.)
Drainage Diversion
Ditches
Mi seel 1aneous
Engineering and Design
(10% of site develop'
ment cost)
Annual Operating Costs
Trench Method
Area Method
Trench Method
Area Method
Unit Cost
$2 ,000/acre
$60,000/mile
$8,200/each
$5.00/ft.
$4.10/ft.
$10.00/ft.
$4.00/ft.
Units
40 acres
.2 mile
1
1,200/ft.
1,500 ft.
300 ft.
2,000 ft.
Total Cost
$80,000
12,000
8,200
6,000
6,200
3,000
8,000
2,000
4,500
Total Annual Cost
TOTAL $129,900
AMORTIZED $ 21,100+
$51 ,200*
$40,100*
$72,300
$61 ,200
* Sources: Caterpillar (11), Godfrey (14), McMahon (9), and
Rental Rate Blue Book (13).
+ Using an annual capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.16275 to
determine the uniform annual debt payment at an interest rate
of 10 percent over a 10 year period.
* The total annual operating cost for a landfill utilized by the
entire county (see Tables 8 and 9).
48
-------
TABLE 13
TELLER COUNTY SITE 35: CAPITAL AND ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS*
Capital Costs (Area Method)
Item
Unit Cost
$2,000/acre
$60,000/mile
8,200/each
$5.00/ft.
$4.10/ft.
$10.00/ft.
Land
Road Construction
Shelter (for
equipment and
operator)
Uti1ities
Fenci ng
Stock (4 ft.)
Litter Fencing
(10 ft.)
Drainage Diversion,
Ditches $4.00/ft.
Mi seel 1aneous
Engineering and Design
(10% of site develop-
ment cost)
Annual Operating Costs
Area Method
Area Method
Units
20 acres
.06 mile
1
100 ft.
1,000 ft.
800 ft.
1,100 ft.
TOTAL
AMORTIZED
Total Annual Cost
Total Cost
$40,000
3,600
8,200
500
4,100
8,000
4,400
2,000
3,100
$73,900
$12,000+
$40,100*
$52,100
* Sources: Caterpillar (11), Godfrey (14), McMahon (9), and
Rental Rate Blue Book (13).
+ Using an annual capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.16275 to
determine the uniform annual debt payment at an interest rate
of 10 percent over a 10 year period.
* The total annual operating cost for a landfill utilized by the
entire county (see Tables 8 and 9).
49
-------
Drainage diversion ditches will be required at all the sites to eliminate
the possibility of generating contaminated run-off which might mix with nearby
creeks, streams, or other surface waters. In order to improve surface water
diversion, ditches should be dug and located slightly upslope from and along the
edges of the area pre-stripped for the landfill. In this way, the ditches
prevent water from running onto the landfill and mixing with the refuse. Rip-
rap should be layed down (to prevent erosion) where the ditches empty into the
existing drainage channel. Surface water impoundment structures, which further
reduce the potential for surface water contamination by collecting water falling
directly onto the landfill, will not be needed if the drainage ditches are
properly located, constructed and maintained.
The miscellaneous capital cost covers such items as signs and posts, a fire
extinguisher, portable sanitation, office equipment, etc.
Even though the life of the sites will vary, capital costs have all been
amortized at a 10 percent interest rate over a 10-year period. Most of the
sites, however, will last much longer than 10 years if operated efficiently.
Site 12, for example, can be trenched for at least 30 years based upon current
waste generation volumes and a trench fill at sites 14 and 17 will similarly
contain around 30 years of waste. Again, at current waste volumes, an area fill
over these previously trenched land surfaces will double the life of the sites.
An area fill at site 17 is good for approximately 40 years while an area land-
fill at site 35 will last roughly 14 years at a 12-foot cell depth. It is
recommended that all sites be returned to agricultural use as rangeland follow-
ing landfill closure. Final cover application and revegetation are part of the
closure plan and will make the land suitable for agricultural use.
The operational plan for a landfill (trench or area) in Teller County
assumes that all wastes will be delivered to the landfill by services provided
by the County's two private waste haulers or by the residents themselves. An
operation such as this will enable the private haulers to expand their collec-
tion services and further free the County from managing and providing expendi-
tures for solid waste collection.
If the County wishes to assume the additional financial burden of providing
County residents with a more convenient and perhaps less costly (to the resi-
dents) municipal (non-bulky) waste collection service, greenbox stations can be
provided at Florissant, Cripple Creek, and Victor. The additional costs associ-
ated with providing this service involve the current greenbox acquisition costs,
and the truck or transportation costs involved with moving the municipal wastes
from the greenboxes to the Teller County landfill. Sixteen greenboxes will need
to be purchased and added to the six already existing at the' Florissant greenbox
station. It is assumed that collection will occur in 20-cubic yard packer
50
-------
trucks which will compact the waste to a 4:1 ratio. All mileages were calcu-
lated assuming a Cripple Creek based greenbox collection service. Greenbox
collection in Cripple Creek and Florissant is currently performed by Teller
Disposal located in Cripple Creek. Table 14 breaks down the costs included in
this supplementary system. If the Florissant greenbox station is closed and the
residents of that area haul directly to the landfill, the total annual cost of
this system would be reduced to $6,600.
Cost Comparison: Northern Teller County Landfill vs. Entire County Land-
fill. If a landfill is to be operated only for northern Teller County (includ-
ing Woodland Park, Divide, and Florissant) and does not take in wastes generated
in the south, the annual operating costs will decrease by approximately 15
percent. The annual operating cost could thus be reduced from $52,100 to
$44,300 for a trench landfill and from $40,100 to $34,100 for an area landfill.
The capital costs should not vary from those presented in Tables 10 through 13
for landfills serving the entire County. The decreases in annual operating
costs assumes that the hours of the site is open each week will remain the same;
a reduction in the number of days the site is open will only slightly further
reduce operating costs for a northern Teller County landfill* Because of the
large percentage of trash produced in northern Teller County, there will not be
a significant cost reduction in operating a landfill for only that portion of
the County. The added financial burden that would be imposed by operating two
landfills (one in the north and one in the south) greatly reduces the desira-
bility of this alternative.
B. The Cripple Creek Landfill Disposal Site
Located approximately one mile north of the town of Cripple Creek, the
Cripple Creek disposal site currently handles waste from the town and surround-
ing environs, the Florissant greenbox station, and the Florissant Fossil Beds
National Monument. The site was inspected by the Colorado Department of Health
(CDH) in February of 1980 and, at that time, was found to be in non-compliance
with CDH regulations. Public health and environmental hazards including
evidence of potential surface water or ground water pollution, inadequate sur-
face diversion/containment facilities, and safety hazards resulting from inade-
quate cover, fencing, and burning, were cited in the CDH inspection report.
Therefore, the site cannot receive a Certificate of Designation in its present
condition. Disposal of waste at the site, at this time, is technically
illegal. Meetings with CDH personnel and recent inspections of the site, how-
ever, indicate that this site could be upgraded and to comply with State regula-
tions and could then be issued a Certificate of Designation. In a recent letter
to the County (see Appendix G), the CDH recommended specific actions, including
a cessation of burning and regular cover application that would be necessary to
bring the landfill into compliance. If the site undergoes upgrading and is
51
-------
TABLE 14
SUPPLEMENTARY GREENBOX SYSTEM COST SUMMARY
(SOUTHERN TELLER COUNTY]"
Capital Costs
Item
Greenboxes (6 yd.3.)*
Annual Operating Costs
Truck Cost (includes fuel,
labor, maintenance,
insurance, etc.)
Unit Cost
$600/each
Units
$1.00/mile
16
SUBTOTAL
AMORTIZED
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL ANNUAL
Total Cost
$ 9,600
$ 9,600
1,600+
9,600 miles* $ 9,600
9,600
$11,200
* 6 greenboxes in Victor, 8 greenboxes each in Florissant and Cripple Creek.
+ Using a Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) of 0.16275 to determine the uniform annual
debt payment at an interest rate of 10 percent over a 10-year period.
* 4,000 annual truck miles for Cripple Creek, 1,200 miles for Victor, and 4,400 for
Florissant.
52
-------
properly operated, it could adequately serve the residents of southern Teller
County as a sanitary landfill facility over the ten-year study period and
longer.
Assuming the site will continue to be leased by the County, the current
capital cost necessary to upgrade the site totals approximately $28,600
amortized annual cost of $4,600 (see Table 15). Approximately 1,000 feet of
road into the site should be graded and have gravel applied. Fencing needs to
be constructed to control access and should be strung along the southern boun-
dary of the site. A gatehouse should be set up for the site operator along the
road inside this fence. Because of exposure problems, 300 feet of 10 foot high
litter fencing will also be needed. Drainage diversion ditches will again be
needed and should be situated as described previously (p. 50). A clay core dam
approximately three feet high built in the drainage just downs! ope from the
landfill will contain any run-off from the landfill itself. The runoff water
collected in this impoundment will be lost by evaporation leaving any
deleterious constituents trapped in the impoundment (and thus out of nearby
strems and surface waters). Design parameters include sizing the impoundment
for run-off volume of the 10-year, 24-hour storm event, and the potential for
flooding during the spring snow melt.. The surface water diversion ditches
should empty below this impoundment and rip-rap again layed down where the
ditches empty into the drainage channel. Finally, the refuse pile should be
levelled off and pushed into the existing trench (directly up the drainage from
the present location of the refuse pile) and covered. The car bodies (if they
cannot be sold as scrap metal), white goods, and other bulky material should
also be flattened and disposed of in this trench. Possible scrap metal markets
in the Pueblo and Colorado Springs areas should be explored in order to dispose
of these car bodies. It is assumed that the flattening and burial of white
goods and other bulky material will only require the time of the bulldozer and
operator to run the dozer over this material and cover it. It is expected that
little or no revenue will be generated as a result of the sale of the scrapped
car bodies due to the transportation costs to the scrap metal markets. The sale
of these car bodies will, however, eliminate the cost of landfilling them.
The capital (or upgrading) and annual operating costs for the Cripple Creek
disposal site are listed in Table 15. In the annual operating costs, it is
assumed that adequate cover material will be available on-site. Observing the
white goods trench at the landfill indicates that rippable cover material may be
present at a depth of six feet or more. If a sufficient amount of cover
material is not present, it can be purchased for approximately $2.15 a cubic
yard (includes labor and equipment costs). With a current annual cover mater-
ial requirement (intermediate and final) of 700 yd^ (see Appendix F for calcula-
tions), the added cost of transporting cover to the site would be around $1,500
a year (not included in cost table). An operator will be needed to maintain the
site and collect user fees. The operator will have to be present at all times
53
-------
TABLE 15
CRIPPLE CREEK LANDFILL: CAPITAL AND ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS*
Capital Costs
Item
Road Improvement+
Fenci ng
4 ft. Stock+
Litter Fencing+
Drainage Diversion
Ditches+
Impoundment
She!ter+
U t i 1 i t i e s +
Site Improvement
(leveli ng refuse
pile, white goods,
etc.)
Mi seel 1aneous +
Annual Operating Costs
Land, Lease
Cover Prestripping
Spreading and Compacting
(equip, and labor)
Covering
Mai ntenance , Roads
and Di tches (equi p.
and labor)
Labor (in addition to
equi p . operati on )
Revegetati on
Unit Cost
$11.40/ft.
Units
1,000 ft.
Total Cost
$11,400
$4.10/ft.
$10.00/ft.
$1.00/ft.
$1.00/yd.3
$2,000/each
$5.00/ft.
$65/hr.
1,000 ft.
300 ft.
1,000 ft.
1,000 yd. 3
1
400 ft.
32 hr.
4,100
3,000
1,000
1,000
2,000
2,000
2,100
SUBTOTAL
AMORTIZED
$1,500/acre
$1.00/yd.3
$65/hr.
$1.00/yd3
$65/hr.
$5.20/hr.
$1,100/acre
10 acres
1,000 yd.3
52 hr.
700 yd.3
52 hr.
1,200 hr.
. 2 acre
2,000
$28,600
$ 4,600*
$15,000
1,000
3,400
700
3,400
6,200
200
TOTAL $29,900
TOTAL ANNUAL $34,500
* Sources: Caterpillar (11), Engelsman (12), McMahon (9), and
Rental Rate Blue Book (13).
+ Not required by the CDH to upgrade the site.
* Using an annual capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.16275 to
determine the annual debt payment at an interest rate of 10
percent over 10 years.
54
-------
when the site is open for use. At the end of each working day the operator will
move the waste, compact it and apply cover material. Considering the relatively
small amount of waste being generated, the landfill will only need to be open
five afternoons each week. The landfill should be open on Saturday in order to
be more accessible to area residents.
55
-------
VII. EVALUATION OF TRANSFER ALTERNATIVES
If land in Teller County is unavailable due to owner disapproval, pro-
hibitive costs, or incompatibility with adjacent land uses, then it would be
advantageous to transport or transfer wastes out of the County for ultimate
disposal. For this option to be most economically implemented, transportation
costs must be reduced to a minimum. One method to reduce transportation costs
is to utilize a transfer station where solid wastes are temporarily deposited
and then transferred to large capacity vehicles (usually a semi-trailer with the
capacity to transport up to 20 tons of waste). These large vehicles, in turn,
transport the waste to a regional disposal site.
There are advantages and disadvantages in the utilization of a solid waste
transfer system as compared to a landfill operation. Waste transfer would
eliminate the cost and difficulty of acquiring valuable land in the County, pro-
vide an immediate solid waste disposal facility, and lessen public opposition to
the initiation of a new landfill site. On the other hand, a transfer station in
Teller County would require a dependence on waste disposal facilities in El Paso
County which might be exhausted in the near future.
As outlined in the scope of work, two different systems will be analyzed:
1) directly hauling waste out of the County in packer-type collection vehicles
without the use of transfer stations (essentially the present system for north-
ern Teller County); and 2) hauling waste out of the County after it has been
compacted in a County transfer station. The first system, although technically
not a transfer option because no tranfer station is involved, will nevertheless
be discussed in this chapter. These two options will be compared using both the
total volume of waste generated in the entire County and for the total amount of
waste that is produced in northern Teller County only (i.e. - in Woodland Park,
Divide, and Florissant). A general review of transfer methodologies will
preceed that discussion.
A. General Review of Solid Waste Transfer Options
Transfer Stations. Transfer stations are commonly designed to function in
one of two ways (see Figure 7). One method is direct transfer (direct dump) of
the wastes from the collection vehicles to the larger capacity transfer trucks.
The second method (stockpile/front end load) consists of stockpiling the wastes
from the collection vehicles and periodically moving the stockpiled wastes into
the transfer vehicle. Generally in cases involving small daily waste loads on
the order of 50 tons per day (TPD) or less, direct transfer of the wastes is the
most cost-effective alternative. Larger volume transfer stations—50 to 250
TPD—usually utilize the stockpile method plus sophisticated transfer equipment
56
-------
FIGURE 7. TRANSFER STATIONS*
' DIRECT DUMP TRANSFER STATION
STOCKPILE/ FRONT END LOAQ THANSFSP STATION
*SOURCE: HEGDAHL (15).
57
-------
Additionally, transfer stations of this size have the potential to implement
limited resource recovery operations (e.g. paper and aluminum can separation and
recycling) to offset capital and operating costs. Transfer stations with
various arrangements of optional equipment are commercially available from a
number of nationwide manufacturers, some of whom offer turn-key services.
Compaction Unit. In general, areas where populations exceed 1,000 or where
transportation distances exceed approximately 15 miles, it is most economical
and practical to have the transfer station equipped with a compaction unit to
reduce the volume of the waste. This allows for a substantial increase in the
quantity of waste which can be transported each trip and thus decreases the num-
ber of vehicle trips taken to the ultimate disposal site.
Transfer Vehicles. There are two types of transfer vehicles which can be
used with compaction equipment. These are the tilt frame/roll-off container
vehicle, and the transfer trailer.
The tilt frame/roll-off is so named because of the moveable rail structure
which is mounted directly on the truck chassis or separately on a trailer bed
(see Figure 8). A roll-off container is. collected by "tilting" the rails and
winching the entire container onto the structure. When the container is to be
emptied, the rear doors of the container are opened and the entire package is
tilted so that the compacted refuse falls out. Commercially available tilt
frame/roll-off transfer vehicles must be equipped with a separate refuse compac-
tor. Refuse is deposited in a hopper feeding the compactor which forces the
waste into the roll-off container. There is little compaction of refuse until
the container is nearly full since, only then does the compactor exert a signfi-
cant pressure. A typical ratio of compacted to loose refuse density achieveable
by this type of system is 1.9 to 1 by weight.
In contrast to the external compactor associated with the tilt frame/roll-
off type of trailer, the transfer trailer has a hydraulic ejection ram mounted
inside the trailer compartment (see Figure 9). When emptying the trailer, the
rear doors are opened and refuse is pushed out by the ram. This ram provides a
signficant advantage for the transfer trailer as opposed to the roll-off sys-
tem. The ram allows the transfer trailer to achieve a much higher density of
wastes in one of two ways. If a separate compactor is utilized, it can work
against the ejection ram which is extended at first and gradually retracted as
the volume of contained wastes increases. Alternatively, the ejection ram can
be used as a compaction device. In this system, wastes are introduced via a
hopper into a "top dumping" trailer just behind the face of the ram. When a
certain volume has been deposited, the operator can use the ram to compact the
wastes against the rear door of the trailer. The advantage of this method is
58
-------
RGURE 8.
TILT FRAME/ROLL-OFF TRANSFER VEHICLE*
1.
1. Refuse is inserted into the compactor hopper by
various methods. Loading procedure can be selected to
best suit each installation.
2. Simply activate pushbutton control and your trash is
compacted and stored in a sanitary, dosed system.
3.
3. High compaction forces allow large volumes of refuse
to be stored in the smallest space.
4. Your trash-is removed by a roll-off truck when your
receiving container is full and your system is ready for
work again.
*SOURCE: DEMPSTER DUMPSTER SYSTEMS, KNOXVILLE. TENNESSEE
59
-------
FIGURE 9. TRANSFER TRAILER VEHICLE*
'SOURCE: DEMPSTER OUMPSTER SYSTEMS. KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE
60
-------
that no separate piece of compaction equipment is required. All that the
trailer requires is a source of hydraulic pressure which can be provided through
a "wet-pack" hookup from the tractor rig or a stationary hydraulic pump (gas or
electric). A typical ratio of compacted to loose refuse density achievable by
this type of system is 3 to 1 by weight.
"Greenbox" System. One type of system that is often used effectively in
conjunction with a transfer station is a rural disposal or "greenbox" collection
system. For rural areas and communities with populations less than approximate-
ly 1,000 where no individual door-to-door collection service is available, a
potentially economical solid waste collection alternative is the use of contain-
ers strategically placed throughout the service area. Through the use of
specially-equipped vehicles, these containers, referred to as greenboxes, are
emptied periodically and the waste is then transported to a landfill, or a cen-
tral transfer facility to await final transportation and disposal at a regional
disposal site. In many rural areas, a container system has replaced several
small indiscriminate dumps allowing for an economical waste disposal method
which is in compliance with all local, State, and Federal laws.
The "greenbox" system consists of locating several small containers (see
Figure 10) varying from 3 to 8 cubic yards in size throughout a sparsely popu-
lated area. These containers are placed in locations which are readily accessi-
ble including intersections of local highways, recreational areas, previous
dumpsites, and in or near small communities. These container systems can be
designed such that the waste in the containers can be emptied into either a
front loading or rear loading waste collection vehicle (see Figure 11).
The greenbox system would require special County-wide ordinances to control
the type of waste being deposited in these greenboxes. Such ordinances would
have to address the fact that:
a) Containers can accept:
- residential and household waste
- light commercial waste
- yard trimmings
b) Containers cannot accept:
- burned or burning materials
- industrial waste
- bulky waste; i.e., stoves, refrigerators, construction debris, tree
trunks, auto parts, etc.
- dead animals.
61
-------
FIGURE 10. GREENBOXES*
•SOURCE: GEORGE SWANSON AND SON. INC.. ARVAOA. COLORADO
62
-------
FIGURE 11 .
FRONT'AND REAR-LOADINGfGREEN BOX
COLLECTION VEHICLES
SOURCE: PERFECTION - COBEY CO.. GALION. OHIO
SOURCE: DEPSTER DUMPSTER SYSTEMS. KNOXVILLE. TENNESSEE
63
-------
Collection vehicle and transfer station systems will be analyzed and com-
pared in the discussion that follows. In the collection vehicle option, compac-
tor trucks will collect municipal non-bulky wastes from greenbox stations and
bulky wastes will be transported in a tilt-frame roll-off container. The trans-
fer station option involves direct dumping into tilt-frame roll-off containers
(for municipal and bulky wastes) with the municipal waste roll-off being
attached to a compactor unit. In the second option, the municipal wastes will
again be collected from a satellite system of greenbox stations. Tilt-frame
roll-off containers are recommended over transfer trailers because of the
increased capital investment associated with the latter equipment. Additio-
nally, most private solid waste disposal companies in the region utilize tilt-
frame roll-off trucks and containers.
B. Collection Vehicle System
The first system analyzed involves the direct transfer of waste to El Paso
County via packer-type collection vehicles and approximates current waste man-
agement practices in the northern Teller County. The analysis of this system
for the entire County, however, assumes that the Cripple Creek and Victor land-
fills would be closed and replaced with greenbox stations. The Divide and
Florissant greenbox stations would continue their current operations. Figure 12
utilizes a matrix arrangement to illustrate the collection vehicle and transfer
options. It is assumed that waste collection services will continue to be based
in the Woodland Park and Cripple Creek areas.
In the analysis for northern Teller County only, it is assumed that the
Cripple Creek landfill would be upgraded and the Victor disposal site closed and
replaced with greenboxes (which would be hauled to the Cripple Creek landfill).
Waste collection in the Florissant area is, however, figured into the analysis
for northern Teller County and the disposal of these wastes would occur in an El
Paso County landfill rather than in the Cripple Creek landfill. The waste from
the greenbox stations in Divide and Florissant, as well as the commercial and
residential wastes already collected by the Woodland Trash Service and Teller
Disposal, Inc. in northern Teller County would be hauled directly to a landfill
in El Paso County without the benefit of compaction in a centrally located
transfer station. Solid waste disposal costs incurred in southern Teller County
are not included in the cost summary table for northern Teller County only. The
dispersion of greenbox stations near the population centers would make waste
disposal more accessible to County residents. In these transfer analyses, it is
assumed that waste generated on U.S. Forest Service (USFS) lands would continue
to be collected and disposed of by that agency. It should be pointed out, how-
ever, that USFS wastes collected at a Teller County transfer station would gen-
erate additional revenue for Teller County.
64
-------
FIGURE 12
SUWARY OF COLLHTION VEHIOf AM) TRANSFER OPTIONS FOR TELLER COUNTY
Collection Vehicle Option
Entire County
Sanitary Landfill
Greenboxes
Transfer Station
Municipal Waste Roll -Off
Rubble Roll -Off*
X
X
X
X
Northern Teller County
Sanitary Landfill
Greenbcxes
Transfer Station
Minicipal Waste Roll-Off
Rubble Roll-Off*
Transfer Station Option
Entire County
Sanitary Landfill
Greenboxes
Transfer Station
Municipal Waste Roll-Off
Rubble Roll-Off*
Northern Teller County
Sanitary Landfill
Greenboxes
Transfer Station
Minicipal Waste Roll-Off
Rubble Roll-Off*
* The rubble roll-off container would only be at the site for 3 months a year for the entire county
system and 2 months for the northern county system.
65
-------
Knowing the approximate cubic yardage of waste produced each week at each
site, one can juggle the number of greenboxes against the frequency of
collection to ensure adequate collection coverage. It is assumed that most
residential customers in the Cripple Creek area will utilize the greenbox
station located there.
Two more 6-cubic yard greenboxes would be added to the four 6-cubic yard
greenboxes already located at the Divide greenbox station and two more 6-cubic
yard boxes would be added to the six located at Florissant. Greenbox stations
at Cripple Creek (eight 6-cubic yard boxes) and Victor (six 6-cubic yard boxes)
would replace the landfills there. Collection frequency currently runs at about
3 collections per week at Divide and 3 per week at Florissant. Approximately 3
collections per week will be needed at the Cripple Creek station and 1 weekly
collection at Victor.
The capital costs included in this option are the greenbox, fencing, and
miscellaneous costs. Approximately 800 feet of fencing would be required at
three of the sites (the Divide site is already fenced). The miscellaneous
capital cost covers signs, portable sanitation, a fire extinguisher, office
equipment, etc.
Annual operating costs include truck costs, landfill tipping fees, and site
maintenance. Truck costs include ownership costs, fuel, labor, maintenance,
insurance, etc. on the collection vehicles utilized (20-cubic yard packer trucks
with a 4:1 compaction ratio). Although the current landfill tipping fee in
Colorado Springs is $1.10/yd.3, the cost summary quotes a $1.50/yd.^ figure in
order to anticipate expected rate increases and to account for the dumping of
partial loads. Partial truck loads of waste are charged as full loads because
rates apply to the capacity of the collection vehicle. Site maintenance costs
refer to the cost of hiring someone to open and close the greenbox station gate
daily and to periodically collect windblown and misplaced debris. No additional
supervision of the sites during the 'day is necessary. In a system designed for
the entire County, 87 percent of the total cost (capital and annual operating.)
will involve truck costs and landfill tipping fees. With a system operating
only in the north, 89 percent of the total cost will involve truck costs and
landfill tipping fees.
Bulky wastes (i.e., stoves, refrigerators, construction debris, tree
trunks, auto parts, etc.) cannot be placed into the boxes and therefore a
special provision must be formulated for their collection. It is recommended
that a well-publicized bi-annual collection program be instituted. The County
could lease a 60-cubic yard open-top rol1-off container into which residents
could deposit their bulky wastes for ultimate disposal in El Paso County. Leas-
ing is usually arranged on a monthly basis. It is recommended that this collec-
tion program be operated during the spring and late summer/early fall season
when most of the rubble accumulates.
66
-------
In the calculation of truck mileage figures (incorporated into the truck
costs), it was assumed that private hauling operations would continue to be
based in Woodland Park and Cripple Creek and would maintain the collection
routes currently serviced. The truck mileage figures include both the miles
involved with driving collection vehicles to the greenbox stations to collect
the wastes, and transporting the municipal wastes (in collection vehicles) and
bulky material (roll-off containers) to a landfill in El Paso County. Door-to-
door collection by the private haulers and the transporting wastes by residents
to the greenbox stations are not included.
The fuel costs involved in operating the collection vehicles represent
roughly 22 percent of the truck costs or 12 percent of the total cost of this
alternative. If fuel costs were to double, this would increase the total system
cost by approximately 10 percent.
The costs associated with this transfer arrangement are itemized in Tables
16 and 17. Total site development costs and annual operating costs ware subdi-
vided into the costs for such a system for the entire County (Table 16), and for
only the northern part of the County including Woodland Park, Florissant, and
Divide (Table 17).
C. Transfer Station System
In Teller County, a transfer station can be located in Woodland Park to
service the entire County population. From an operational standpoint, the
County's two private haulers would continue to operate as before, only with this
system they would deposit their collected trash at the Woodland Park transfer
station rather than at landfills in Colorado Springs (Woodland Trash Service)
and Cripple Creek (Teller Disposal, Inc.). Again the establishment of a satel-
lite system of greenbox stations one each at Florissant (existing), Cripple
Creek, and Victor would be necessary to make waste collection more accessible to
County residents. Residents in and around Divide and Woodland Park could haul
their wastes directly to the transfer station.
Tables 18 and 19 present cost analyses for the transfer station discussed
above, for the entire County, and for northern Teller County only, respective-
ly. As presented here, the County would purchase one 40-cubic yard open-top
roll-off container for bulky wastes, and one 60-cubic closed container to handle
municipal wastes. The municipal waste roll-off container would be outfitted
with a compactor (20-cubic yard hopper) to reduce waste volume and reduce the
number of transfer hauls. The compactor would have to be covered to protect it
from the elements. In order to provide a stable base for this container and its
compactor, a concrete pad (15 ft. X 35 ft.) would be constructed. The concrete
pad is necessary for the compaction operation and therefore would not be
67
-------
Capital Costs
TABLE 16
COLLECTION VEHICLE TRANSFER SYSTEM COST SUMMARY
(ENTIRE COUNT?!*
Item
Greenboxes+
(6-yd.3)
Fencing
4 ft. Stock
Gate
Miscellaneous
Unit Cost
$600/each
$4.10/ft.
$350/each
Unit
18
2,400 ft.
3
Total Cost
$10,800
9,900
1,100
2,000
SUBTOTAL
AMORTIZED
$23,800
3,900*
Annual Operating Costs
Truck Costs (includes
ownership cost,
fuel, labor,
maintenance,
insurance, etc.) $1.00/mile
Roll-Off Container
(60 yd.3)
Leasing $200/month
Transport $100/trip
Landfill Tipping Fees
(municipal and
bulky wastes) $1.50/yd.3
Site Maintenance $3.50/hr.
39,000 miles
3 months
33 trips
16,400 yd.3
143 hrs./site
w/4 sites
$39,000
600
3,300
24,600
2,000
SUBTOTAL $ 69,500
TOTAL ANNUAL $ 73,400
* Sources: McMahon (9) and Rental Rate Blue Book (13).
+ 8 greenboxes at Cripple Creek, 6 greenboxes at Victor, and 2 greenboxes added
to each of the existing greenbox stations located at Divide and Florissant.
* Using a Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) of 0.16275.
68
-------
TABLE 17
COLLECTION VEHICLE SYSTEM COST SUMMARY
(NORTHERN TELLER COUNTY)*
Capital Costs
Item
Greenboxes (6-yd.3)+
Fencing
$4.10/ft. Stock
Gate
Miscellaneous
Unit Cost
$600/each
Unit
Total Cost
$2,400
$4.10/ft.
$350/each
800 ft.
1
SUBTOTAL
AMORTIZED
3,300
350
2,000
$8,100
$1,300*
Annual Operating Costs
Truck costs (includes
ownership cost
fuel, labor,
maintenance,
insurance, etc. $1.00/mile
Roll-off container
(60-yd.3)
Leasing $200/month
Transport $100/trip
Landfill Tipping Fees
(Municipal and bulky
wastes) $1.50/yd.3
Site Maintenance $3.50/hour
24,700 miles $24,700
2 months 400
24 trips 2,400
12,200 yd.3 18,300
143 hrs./site 1,000
w/2 sites
SUBTOTAL $46,800
TOTAL ANNUAL $48,100
* Sources: McMahon (9) and Rental Rate Blue Book (13).
+ 2 greenboxes added to each of the existing greenbox stations at Divide and
Florissant.
* Using Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) of 0.16275.
68
-------
TABLE 18
TRANSFER STATIONS SYSTEM COST SUMMARY
(ENTIRE COUNTYT*
Capital Costs
Item
Greenboxes (6-yd.3)+
Roll-off Containers
(60-yd.3)
(40-yd.3)
Unit Cost
$ 600/each
$ 5,500/each
$ 3,800/each
Compactor (20-yd.3 hopper) $10,000/each
Skid Loader $10,000/each
Site Development (in-
cludes shelter, concrete
pad, ramp and retaining
wal 1, fencing, etc.)
Miscellaneous
Unit
16
1
1
1
1
SUBTOTAL
AMORTIZED
Total Cost
9,600
5,500
3,800
10,000
10,000
30,000
3.500
72,400
11,800*
Annual Operating Cost
Labor, Operator $5.20/hour
Truck Costs (includes
fuel, labor
maintenance, insurance,
etc.) $1.00 /mile
Landfill Tipping Fees $1.50/yd.3
2,080 hours
22,800 miles
16,400 yd.
10,800
22,800
24,600
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL ANNUAL
$ 58,200
$ 70,000
* Sources: McMahon (9) and Rental Rate Blue Book (13).
+ 8 greenboxes at Cripple Creek, 6 greenboxes at Victor, and 2 greenboxes added
to the existing Florissant greenbox station.
* Using a Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) of 0.16275.
70
-------
TABLE 19
TRANSFER STATION SYSTEM COST SUMMARY
(NORTHERN TELLER COUNTYp
Capital Costs
Item
Greenboxes (6-yd.3)n
Roll-off Containers
(60-yd.3)
(40-yd.3)
Unit Cost
$ 600/each
$ 5,500/each
$ 3,800/each
Compactor (20-yd.3 hopper) $10,000/each
Skid Loader $10,000/each
Site Development (in-
cludes shelter, concrete
pad, ramp and retaining
wall, fencing, etc.)
Miscellaneous
Annual Operating Costs
Labor, Operator
Truck Costs (includes fuel
labor, maintenance, in-
surance, etc.)
Landfill Tipping Fees
$5.20/hr.
Unit
SUBTOTAL
AMORTIZED
2,080 hrs.
Total Cost
1,200
5,500
3,800
10,000
10,000
30,000
2,000
62,500
10,200*
10,800
$1.00/mile
$1.50/yd.3
14,100 mi.
13,300 yd.
14,100
20,000
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL ANNUAL
$44,900
$55,100
* Sources: McMahon (9) and Rental Rate Blue Book (13).
+ 2 greenboxes added to the existing Florissant greenbox station,
* Using a Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) of 0.16275
71
-------
required as a base for the rubble container in which wastes are not compacted.
A bermed roadway with a curb would have to be constructed to allow waste collec-
tion vehicles to dump directly into the top of the roll-off containers. A
retaining wall would support the roadway. Additionally, a skid loader would
have to be purchased to facilitate the loading of wastes into the roll-off con-
tainers. This piece of machinery if skillfully operated could also be used for
site maintenance and snow removal. The waste transfer would again be con-
tracted out to a private hauler.
It is more advantageous for the County to purchase rather than lease the
required transfer equipment. Leasing the equipment is not' possible for a 10
year span due to equipment depreciation (leases usually run much shorter).
Also, if equipment is leased, the County would not own the equipment at the end
of the lease term.
The fuel costs associated with this transfer station system (for the entire
County) represent approximately 22 percent of the truck costs or 7 percent of
the total cost of this alternative. As mentioned previously, 12 percent of the
total cost of the Teller County collection vehicle system would be fuel costs.
If fuel costs were to double, this would only increase the total system cost by
roughly 7 percent.
As can be observed from these analyses, it is only slightly less expensive
to utilize a transfer station system (total annual cost $70,000) than a collec-
tion vehicle transfer system (total annual cost $73,400) for the entire County.
The reduction in truck costs resulting from the use of large capacity roll-off
containers at the transfer station is offset by the increased capital outlay,
primarily site development and equipment costs, involved with this option.
72
-------
VIII. EVALUATION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY
Resource recovery such as separation and sale of paper products and aluminum
cans can and should be implemented for certain domestic wastes within the
County. However, the nature of the composition of wastes generated by the
County does not indicate that large scale resource recovery systems will com-
pletely solve the immediate or long-term disposal of solid waste within Teller
County.
A materials recovery program based on source separation could, however,
divert as much as thirty per cent of the waste stream from the transfer system
or landfill disposal in the County. The County should carefully evaluate the
technical and economical aspects of a resource recovery program in Teller
County. The following is presented as a starting point for that analysis.
The market value of all recyclable materials in the Teller County waste
stream, based on the percentages and prices shown in Table 20, is estimated at
$103,900. Historically, a high resource recovery rate is not achievable, and a
more reasonable estimate, of gross value, based on recovering 10 to 20 percent
of the waste stream, would be twelve to twenty-four thousand dollars. From this
value, the debt service, operation and maintenance costs, and operator's over-
head and profit (if any) must be subtracted to calculate a net value. Frequent-
ly, source separation programs operate at a loss, and must be subsidized by the
sponsoring entity to some extent. However, in Teller County, a subsidy might be
acceptable if it was less than or equal to the cost of disposing a similar pro-
portion of waste via transfer or landfilling.
There are four common types of source separation programs (16). The first
and most popular, although least effective, is the paper drive. This kind of
program, because of its infrequent occurrence and the fluctuating paper market,
will normally divert less than 1 percent of the total waste stream.
Drop-off centers, the second type of source separation program, are gaining
popularity, and can divert between two and five percent of the wastes in an
extensive well-run program. It will normally be less effective than this
because of the so called inconvenience factor—the reluctance of people to
transport recyclable materials from their homes to a drop-off center.
The buy-back program, a variant of the drop-off center, is the third
approach. The most common buy-back material is aluminum, because of its high
market value. This alternative partially mitigates the inconvenience factor in
the drop-off center; however, it introduces a cash flow problem.
73
-------
TABLE 20
GROSS VALUE OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS, TELLER COUNTY (1981)*
Percent
of Waste
Stream
Tons
Per Year
Current
Market
Price
Gross
Value
Paper and Glass
Ferrous Metal
Aluminum
41
7
1
2,330
400
60
$30/ton
$10/ton
$ 69,900
$ 4,000
$500/ton $ 30,000
TOTAL
$103,900
* Based on a total annual waste stream in Teller County of 5,680 tons.
74
-------
The fourth and most effective approach is curb-side collection. A news-
print collection system can recover as much as five to eight percent of the
total waste, and multi-material collection as much as ten to fifteen percent.
However, curb-side collection requires specialized equipment, additional collec-
tion labor, and community participation for successful implementation.
In addition, a combination of two or more of the above approaches can
provide still- further options to the County. For instance, the buy-back of
aluminum cans at a drop-off center might be paired with newsprint collection for
more optimal resource recovery.
Another factor to consider is the division of operational responsibility
among public and private organizations. In Teller County, the private col-
lectors might be reluctant to invest in the equipment required for curb side
collection or may be reluctant to expand operation without sufficient financial
guarantee. One method of dealing with this problem is the governmental fran-
chise in which collection is provided by private entity under contract to a city
or county government, which then sells the recovered materials, under contract,
to a buyer. In this manner, the government agency can encourage recovery
activities without incurring too much liability.
In summary, the best potential for materials recovery in the County appears
to be multi-material source separation of paper (probably newsprint), glass, and
aluminum. Transportation is the biggest unknown cost and could reduce or elimi-
nate revenue from the sale of materials. Coordination with any El Paso County
recycling programs might reduce this to a manageable cost. For the successful
implementation of any recycling program, an extensive effort must be made to
increase public awareness and involvement in the program. For at least the
first year, the County should expect to subsidize the program to some extent.
The personal involvement of county officials and careful monitoring of costs are
mandatory for the implementation of a successful program.
75
-------
IX. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
In previous sections, alternative waste management systems for Teller Coun-
ty have been evaluated in terms of their cost and efficiency in resolving the
County's immediate waste management needs. Landfilling, either by trench or
area fill methods, and transfer, involving direct collection vehicle hauling or
transfer station compaction and hauling, were analyzed for both the entire
County and for northern Teller County only. The alternatives previously dis-
cussed provide nearly equal levels of service to County residents. However, the
costs and effectiveness of the systems will vary greatly (see Table 21). It
should be emphasized that the operating costs presented in Table 21 are not
necessarily direct cost to the County. If a.private operator runs the collec-
tion and/or disposal system, this operator would incur part of these costs.
Resource recovery should be evaluated in tandem with the previously mentioned
alternatives in order to create a cost-effective and environmentally sound solid
waste management system in Teller County.
A. Landfill ing
Following a detailed investigation of the County's lands, it was determined
that there are five potentially suitable landfill sites in the County; the fifth
site was the current Cripple Creek disposal site which can only contain the
volume of wastes produced in the present service area of Teller Disposal, Inc.
(Cripple Creek, Victor, Florissant). Of the four potential new landfill
locations, sites 14 and 35 scored highest in the quantitative review process.
Although more expensive from a capital investment and operational standpoint,
site 14 is the more desirable of the two based on the larger land area of this
site (40 acres). A larger land area will increase the useful life of the site
and provide flexibility to the landfill operation (greater buffer zone,
increased potential for on-site cover procurement, etc.).
Historically, landfilling has been the most inexpensive and widely used
solid waste disposal alternative in the West. In Teller County, it will cost
between $9.20 and $13.40 a ton to dispose of landfilled waste at a single county
landfill depending on the size, management, and operation of the landfill. The
total annual cost for a Teller County landfill (for the entire County) varies
from a $52,100 a year for an area landfill at site 35 to $75,900 a year for a
trench landfill at site 12.
A single County landfill located near Divide compares favorably to an
entire County transfer system as being the most cost-effective solid waste man-
agement option in Teller County. The high waste volume operation present in a
single County landfill, versus the operation of two smaller County landfills,
76
-------
TABLE 21
COST SUMMARY OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES, TELLER COUNTY
I. One Landfill (Serving the Entire County)
Total
Site Amortized Capital* Annual Operating Cost Annual Cost+
12 $24,700 $51,200 (Trench) $ 75,900
40,100 (Area) 64,800
14 21,000 51,200 (Trench) 72,200
17 21,000 51,200 (Trench) 72,300
40,100 (Area) 61,200
35 12,000 40,100 (Area) 52,100
II. Two Landfills (Serving the Entire County)
Sites
12 & Cripple Creek $29,300 $73,400 (Trench at 12) $102,700
64,000 (Area at 12) 93,300
14 & Cripple Creek 25,600 73,400 (Trench at 14) 99,000
17 & Cripple Creek 25,700 73,400 (Trench at 17) 99,100
64,000 (Area at 17) 89,700
35 & Cripple Creek 16,600 . 64,000 (Area at 35) 80,600
III. Transfer of Waste to El Paso County (Entire County System)
Method
Collection Vehicle $ 3,900 $ 69,500 $ 73,400
Transfer Station 11,800 58,200 70,000
IV. Transfer of Waste to El Paso County (Northern Teller County)
and Landfill (Southern Teller County)
Method
Collection Vehicle
and Cripple Creek
Landfill $ 5,900 $ 76,700 $ 82,600
Transfer Station
and Cripple Creek
Landfill 14,800 74,800 89,600
* Using an annual capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.16275 to determine the
uniform annual debt payment at an interest rate of 10 percent over 10 years.
+ Add $11,200 if the supplementary greenbox system (see Table 14) is used.
77
-------
demonstrates an economy of scale. A single landfill would therefore be less
expensive than two smaller landfills in both capital and operational costs. The
15 percent reduction in annual operating costs obtainable in operating a land-
fill for northern Teller County will not offset the added financial burden of
operating a second landfill in Cripple Creek. If a northern Teller County land-
fill is operated, the County will have to spend an additional $26,800 to $28,500
(depending on the operation) each year to operate a landfill at Cripple Creek.
If a single landfill is operated, however, waste transportation costs will
increase, due to the longer haul distances involved.
To provide service to those residents in southern Teller County inconvienc-
ed by the closure of the Victor and Cripple Creek disposal sites, the County
could provide greenbox stations in those areas and contract out the operation of
the greenbox waste collection. The current added cost of providing this green-
box service would be approximately $6,600 a year (truck and greenbox costs).
The expense of providing supplementary greenbox service to Cripple Creek,
Victor, and Florissant would be $11,200 a year. This compared to the $34,500
required to operate an additional landfill at Cripple Creek.
The County could, at the added cost, continue to provide for operation of
a landfill at Cripple Creek to supply service to the residents in that area.
The upgrading and continued operation of the Victor disposal site however, does
not at this time appear feasible. This site should be closed and waste disposal
diverted to either the Cripple Creek landfill or to the future Divide landfill,
depending upon the option chosen.
It should be emphasized that the County needs to purchase a piece of ground
for solid waste purposes as soon as possible. This future planning decision
applies no matter which alternative is chosen, landfilling or solid waste trans-
fer. Because of the rapid consumption of land for development purposes (pri-
marily second home development), areas in the County that might be suitable for
a landfill will become unavailable if not set aside in the near future. The
purchase of this land will also preserve the Teller County landfill option for
the future when other disposal alternatives (like transfer) become much more
limited in feasibility than they are at present.
At this time, regulations promulgated by the Colorado Department of Health
(CDH) do not permit open burning at any landfill site in the State of Colorado.
The incineration of solid waste can be approved only if the burning occurs in an
"approved enclosure", or incinerator and is in compliance with ambient air
quality standards set by the Air Pollution Control Division of the CDH. Towns
and counties with small populations cannot receive variances from the State in
order to burn solid waste.
78
-------
It is apparent that the Victor disposal site presents real obstacles to the
proper operation of a sanitary landfill. The further operation of a landfill at
this site is not recommended due to the serious potential for surface water
pollution, and the safety hazards associated with inadequate cover and fencing,
and burning and blowing trash. Closure of this site will be difficult from an
operational standpoint. Because trash is strewn down the side slope of a
ravine, it will be difficult to apply final cover material to it. It is recom-
mended that a trench be dug at the foot of the slope and the trash be bulldozed
into it and covered. The angle of the ravine side slope should be reduced to at
least 45 degrees so that any waste present on this land surface (which does not
fit into the trench) can be covered.
B. Transfer
The collection vehicle and transfer station transfer options (serving the
entire County) rank with a single County landfill as being the least costly
waste management systems in Teller County. Over the long-term, the transfer
option poses somewhat of a disadvantage since it forces the County to remain
dependent on the availability of other waste disposal operations within a
reasonable proximity to the County. For Teller County, the transfer alter-
natives imply dependence on projected waste disposal capacity in the Colorado
Springs region. Because of the depletion of landfill space in El Paso County,
Teller County should closely examine any long-term decision involving transport
of wastes to El Paso County. If additional long-term landfill space is located
in El Paso County within a reasonable distance from Teller County, solid waste
transfer will remain viable.
Solid waste transfer represents an option which would provide an equal
level of service (as compared to landfilling) to area residents. For alterna-
tives which serve the entire County,it would cost approximately $12.90 per ton
of waste disposed for the collection vehicle system and $12.30 per ton of waste
disposed for the roll-off container/transfer station system. Rising fuel costs
would make either alternative, particularly the former, even more expensive,
The total annual costs for the collection vehicle option and the roll-off/
transfer station option would be $73,400 and $70,000 a year, respectively, for
the entire County. If a northern Teller County transfer system is operated
along with the Cripple Creek landfill, the annual costs translate to $82,600
(collection vehicle option) and $89,600 (transfer station option).
Vehement opposition to the extension of a permit for the major landfill
(26th Street Landfill) in Colorado Springs prompted City and El Paso County
officials to recently organize a task force to study solid waste disposal
options other than landfilling. This joint City/County Task Force on Hazardous
Materials and Resource Recovery has explored recycling and the incineration of
79
-------
waste. Although no decisions have been made at this time, El Paso County
officials implementing future programs like incineration might welcome, for
reasons of economic feasibility, the additional waste stream from Teller
County. Although this option is not now available nor promises to be in the
immediate future, Teller County officials should initiate a dialogue with El
Paso County in order to keep this opportunity open. An incinerator in El Paso
County could accept a portion of Teller County's waste and extend the useable
life of a landfill in Teller County.
80
-------
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Weather Bureau. Climatic Summary of the U.S., Supplement for 1951
through 1960, Colorado.
2. U. S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Population and Housing, Teller
County. Colorado, 1980.
3. Smith, F. A. Comparative Estimate of Post-Consumer Solid Waste. Washington:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management
Programs, EPA SW-148, 1975.
4. Spooner, C.S. Solid Waste Management in Recreational Forest Areas. Wash-
ington: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1971.
5. Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments. Industrial and Hazardous Waste in
the Pikes Peak Region, Colorado Springs, CO: 1981.
6. Brunner, D.R., and Keller, D.J. Sanitary Landfill Design and Operation.
Washington U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste Man-
agement Programs, EPA SW-65ts., 1972.
7. U. S. Department of Housing and Urban- Development, Federal Insurance
Administration. Flood Hazard Boundary Maps, Teller County, Colorado, 1977.
8. American Society of Civil Engineers. Sanitary Landfill. New York: ASCE
Solid Waste Management Committee of the Environmental Engineering Division,
1976.
9. McMahon, L.A. 1981 Dodge Guide to Public Works and Heavy Construction
Costs. 13th Ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Information Systems Company,
1980.
10. Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Office of the State Engineer,
Records Department. Master List of Registered Wells. 1979.
11. Caterpillar Performance Handbook. Peoria, IL: Caterpillar Tractor Company,
1980.
12. Engelsman, C. 1981 Heavy Construction Cost File. New York: Van Nostrand-
Rheinhold Company, 1981.
13. Rental Rate Blue Book. Palo Alto, CA: Neilson/Dataquest, Inc., 1981.
14. Godfrey, J.A., editor-in-chief. Building Construction Cost Data 1981. 39th
ed., Kingston, MA: Robert Snow Means Company, Inc., 1980.
15. Hegdahl, T. Solid Waste Transfer Stations. Washington: U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA SW-99, 1973.
16. Miller, C. "Source Separation Program." NCRR Bulletin, December, 1980.
81
-------
APPENDIX - A
STATE OF COLORADO SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL SITES AND
FACILITIES REGULATIONS
82
-------
COLORADO DEPARTS!! OF HEALTH
4210 East Llch Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
REGULATIONS: SOLID WASTES DISPOSAL SITES AND FACILITIES
AUTHORITY: Chapter 36, Article 23, CSS 1963 (1967 Perm. Cum. Supp.) as
amended by Chapter 103, Colorado Session Laws 1971.*
The following regulations were adopted by The Colorado State
Board of Health pursuant to Colorado ?.evised Statutes 1963,
Section 3-16-2 as amended**, and Chapter 36, Article 23, CRS
1963 (1967 Perm. Cum. Supp.) as amended by Chapter 103, Colorado
Session Laws 1971, for the designation, operation, maintenance,
and design of Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities.
Adopted February 16, 1972
Effective Date April 1. 1972
Section 1. SCOPE These regulations shall be applicable to all solid waste
disposal sites and facilities, whether designated by ordinance within the
corporate limits of any city, city and county, or incorporated town or by
the Board of County Commissioners in unincorporated areas.
Section 2. DEFINITIONS (1) The following definitions extracted from Section
36-23-1, CRS 1963, as amended***, shall apply when appearing in these
regulations:
a. "Solid waste" means garbage, refuse, sludge .of sewage disposal
plants, and other discarded solid materials, including solid
waste materials resulting from industrial, commercial and from
community activities,' but shall not include agricultural waste.
fa. "Department" means the Department of Health.
c. "Approval site or facility" means a site or facility for which
a "Certificate of Designation" has been obtained, as provided
* Title 30, Article 20. CRS
** 24-4-102, CRS 1973
*** 30-20-101',; CRS 1973
83
-------
in this act.
d. "Person" means an individual, partnership, private or municipal
corporation, firm, or other association of persons.
e. "Solid waste disposal" means the collection, storage, treatment,
utilization, processing, or final disposal of solid wastes.
f. "Solid waste disposal site and facility" means the location and
facility at which the deposit and fina. treatment of solid
wastes occur.
g. "Transfer station" means a facility at which refuse, awaiting
transportation to a disposal site, as transferred from one type
of collection vehicle and placed into another.
h. "Hecyclable materials" means a type of material that is subject
to reuse or recycling.
\
i. "Recycling operation" means that part of a solid waste disposal
facility or a part of general disposal facility at which
recyclable materials may be separated from other materials for
future processing.
Definitions. (2) Other terms used in che statute or regulations are defined
as follows:
a. "Certificate of Designation" means a document issued under
authority of the Board of County Commissioners to a person
operating a solid waste disposal site and facility of a
certain type and at a certain location.
b. "Hilling-tailings" are that refuse material resulting from the
processing of ore in a mill.
. c. "Metallurgical slag" is che cinder or dross waste product "' '
resulting in the refining of metal bearing ores.
84
-------
d. "Mining wastes" are either aill-cailings or metallurgical slag
or both.
e. A "Junk automobile" is defined to be the hulk or body of a motor
vehicle essentially suitable only for one use as scrap metal.
Junk automobile parts constitute the normally recyclable materials
obtainable from a motor vehicle.
f. "Suspended solids" are finely divided mineral and organic sub-
stances contained in the sewage existing in a sewage system.
g. "Engineering data" shall mean information describing the area of
disposal sites in acres, a description of the access roads and
roads within the site, a description of fencing enclosing the
disposal site, and overall plan listing the method or methods by
which the disposal site will be filled with refuse and che use to
which it will be placed once the site is filled and closed.
h. "Geological data" shall mean classes of soil to a reasonable
depth from the ground surface, the location and thickness of
the significant soil classifications throughout the area of the
site and to extend some distance beyond the boundaries of the
site, to include information on groundwater elevations, seepage
quantities and water wells 1,000 feet beyond the boundary of
the disposal site.
i. "Hydrological data" shall include average, maximum, and minimum
amounts of precipitation for each month of the year, surface
drainage facilities, streams and lakes adjacent to the disposal
site, irrigation water ditches adjacent co the site, wells,
streams and lakes.
j. "Operational data" shall include a plan for overall supervision
of the disposal site co include supervisory personnel and Labor
85 '
-------
personnel, equipment and machinery consisting of all items
needed for satisfactory landfill operation, traffic control,
fire control, cover material, working face, moisture content.,
compaction control, and rodent and insect control.
k. "Sanitary landfill" is the final disposal of solid vaste on the
land by a method employing compaction of the refuse and covering
with earth or other inert material.
1. A "Composting plant" is a solid waste disposal facility utilizing
biochemical degradation to change decomposable portions of solid
waste to a humus-like material.
m. "Incineration" is the controlled combustion of solid, liquid or
gaseous waste changing them to gases and to a residue containing
little combustible material.
n. "Hazardous material and toxic substances" are liquid or solids
which can be dangerous to man, animal and plantlife unless
properly neutralized.
o. "Minimum Standards" (See Section 3) shall mean the requirements
which shall be applied to all solid waste disposal sites and
facilities.
p. "Engineering Report Design Criteria" (See Section 4) shall mean
the minimum requirements which shall be applied to new facilities
proposed for designation as a solid waste disposal site and
facility.
Section 3. MINIMUM STANDARDS (1) (a) the following minimum standards are
hereby adopted and incorporated herein as directed by Section 36-23-10 CS.S
L963, as amended*:
(b) Such sites and facilities shall be located, operated, and nain-
,86 *30-20-L10, CRS 1973
-------
Gained in a manner so as to control obnoxious odors, prevent rodent and
insect breeding and infestation, and shall be kept adequately covered
during cheir use.
(c) Such sites and facilities shall comply with the health laws,
standards, rules and regulations of the Department, the Air Pollution
Control Commission, the Water Pollution Control Commission, and all appli-
cable zoning laws and ordinances.
(d) No radioactive material or materials contaminated by radio-
active substances shall be disposed of in sites or facilities not speci-
fically designated for that purpose.
(e) A. site and facility operated as a sanitary landfill shall
provide means of finally disposing of solid wastes on land in a 'manner to
minimize nuisance conditions such as odors, windblown debris, insects, rodents,
smoke, and shall provide compacted fill material, adequate cover with suit-
able material and surface drainage designed to prevent ponding and water and
wind erosion; prevent water and air pollution and, upon being filled, shall
be left in a condition of orderliness, good esthetic appearance and capable
of blending with the surrounding area. In the operation of such a site and
facility, the solid wastes shall be distributed in the smallest area consistent
with handling traffic to be unloaded, shall be placed in the most dense volume
practicable using moisture and compaction or other method approved by the
Department, shall be fire, insect and rodent resistent through the appli-
cation of an adequate layer on inert material at regular intervals and shall
have a minimum of windblown debris which shall be collected regularly and
placed into the fill.
(f) Sites and facilities shall be adequately fenced so as co prevent
waste material and debris from escaping therefrom, and material and debris
87
-------
shall not be allowed Co accumulate along the fence line.
(g). Soli i wastes deposited at any site or facility shall not be
burned, provided, however, that in extreme emergencies resulting in the
generation of large quantities of combustible materials, authorization for
burning under controlled conditions may be given by the Department.
Section 4. CTGTSESaiSrG REPORT DESIGN CRITERIA
a. The design of a solid waste disposal facility hereinafter
desingatad shall be such as to protect, surface and subsurface
waters from contamination. Surface water from outside the
immediate working area of the disposal site shall not be
allowed to flow into or through the active disposal area. The
design shall provide for-the deflection of rain or melting snow
away from the active area where wastes are being deposited.
As filling continues to completion, the surface shall be sloped
so that water is diverted away from the area where refuse has
been or is being deposited. The design shall include methods
of keeping groundwater out of the area where refuse is deposited.
b. The site shall be designed to protect the quality of water
available in nearby wells. The necessary distance from the
wells is dependent, in part on the direction of flow of groundwater
under the site and the means used in the design to prevent
precipitation falling on the site from reaching the aquifer
i
in question. Soil characteristics. The soil used for covering
of landfill type operations shall have enough adhesive character-
istics to permit a workable earth cover. •
c. The location of the solid waste site and facility should provide
for convenient access from solid waste generation centers.
88
-------
d. The access routes shall be designed so as to permit the orderly
and efficient flow of traffic to and from the site as well as on
the site.
Traffic control routes on the site shall permit orderly, efficient
and safe ingress, unloading and egress.
e. The design of the facility shall provide for effective compaction
and cover of refuse materials in such a program as will prevent
the emergence or attraction of insects and rodents.
f. Solid waste deposited at disposal, sites and facilities shall be
compacted prior to covering. Use of moisture or change of
particle size to aid in compaction is recommended.
g. The design shall contemplate the location and construction of
the disposal site and facility in such a manner as will
eliminate the scattering of windblown debris. All solid wastes
discharged at the site shall be confined to the site and any
material escaping from the active discharge area shall be
promptly retrieved and placed in che active discharge area.
h. Recyling operations may be designed to operate at solid waste
disposal sites and facilities, provided such recycling operations
do not interfere with the disposal of other wastes and provided
that such recycle operations are carried out without creation
of a nuisance and rodent and insect breeding.
i. The design shall include such equipment and operational methods
to prevent the burning of solid wastes at the site and to
extinguish any fires.
89
-------
j. Final Closure. Prior to closing a solid waste disposal site
except for cause as set forth in Section 36-23-13 CRS as
amended*, the final cover of the deposited solid wastes shall be
graded to the elevations which shall be shown in the initial
design. • The cover shall be of such thickness and material as
will prevent the entrance or emergence of insects, rodents, or
odors. Such closure elevations shall be such as will provide for
the diversion of rainfall and runoff away from the fill area.
k. A plan and method for protecting solid wastes disposal sites and
facilities against damage from floods shall be a part'of the
engineering design.
Section 5. THE REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT to County Commissioners or municipal
officials, recommending approval or disapproval of the application, shall consist
of a written and signed document made in accordance with criteria established
by the Board of Health, Water Pollution Control Commission and Air Pollution
Control Commission.
Section 6. OPERATION OF A SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY
An operational plan for placing into operation the engineering design
for the disposal site and facility is required.
Such a plan shall include the following information:
a. The name or titles of the person or persons who will be in charge
of the disposal site and facility. Such name(s) shall be of
person(s) having the responsibility for the operation as well
as the authority to take all corrective action necessary to
comply with the requirements of this Department.
b. The list of equipment to be used at the disposal site.
c. The hours of operation of the site.
- 90
MO-20-L12, CSS 1973
-------
d. The fire fighting equipment or department available for
extinguishing fires.
a. The' frequency of cover of the deposited wastes.
f. The frequency of retrieval of windblown debris.
g. A contingency plan for eradication of rodents and insects.
h. Procedures for implementing other aspects of the design.
Section 7. RESTRICTIONS OF OPERATIONS. CLOSING SITES
a. In the event a person applying for a Certificate of Designation
does not wish to receive at his site all items defined in the
statute as solid wastes, his application to the county commissioners
for approval of designation shall set forth the limitations as to
materials to be accepted at the site. If such site is thereafter
designated, the owner shall erect at the entrance to such a site
an appropriate design setting forth the items not receivable at
such site.
b. If a person having a site officially designated wishes to close
the site for any reason, he shall inform the county commissioners
at least 60 days in advance of such closing and shall post a sign,
readable from the seat of an entering motor vehicle, informing
the public of his intent to close such site. Such sice shall be
considered officially closed upon receipt of an official notice
from the county commissioners, provided such closing date shall
be at least 60 days after 'the notice to the county commissioners
and the posting as above set forth. Upon closing of the site,
the owner shall post a notice that the site is closed and shall
take reasonable precautions to prevent the further use of such site.
91
-------
Add Section 3. Notification of Violations of an Approved Engineering Design
Report
(a) vfaenever che Department determines that a solid waste disposal
site is not being operated substantially in accordance with the
criteria provided in the Engineering Design Report or these
regulations, the operator shall be informed of the nature of
the alleged violation by certified mail and within ten days
from and after receipt of the letter of citation, he may
request a variance from the Engineering Design Report by making
Written application to the Department stating the grounds for
such request.
(b) The Department shall either approve such request or schedule
the matter for an administrative hearing. If the operator
fails to request a variance, or the Department refuses to
grant a variance after the hearing, the operator shall be
deemed to be in violation of the law and these regulations and
the "Certificate of Designation" shall be subject to suspension,
revocation or injunction as provided in Sections 36-23-L3 and
14, CSS 1963, as amended by Chapter 103, Colorado Session Laws
1971*. The Department shall pomptly report the action taken to
the Board of County Commissioners.
(c) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Department may
.request a hearing before the State Board of Health and shall be
afforded his rights to judicial review as provided in Section
66-1-13, Colorado Revised Statutes 1963**.
Note: These regulations rescind and supersede soild waste regulations
and standards adopted November 21, 1967. Effective January 1, 1963.
*30-20-112 and 113, CRS 1973
-92
• **25-l-113, CRS 1973
-------
PART 4
GENERAL REGULATIONS
30-15-401. General regulations. (1) In addition to those powers granted
by section 30-11-107 and by parts 1, 2, and 3 of this article, the board of
county commissioners has the power to adopt ordinances for control or licensing
of those matters of purely local concern which are described in the following
enumerated powers:
(a) (I) To provide for and compel the removal of rubbish, including trash
and garbage but not including weeds, brush, or other growing things in place,
from lots and tracts of land within the county, except industrial tracts of
ten or more acres and agricultural lands currently in agricultural use as that
term is defined in section 39-1-103 (6) (a) (I), C.R.S. 1973, and from the alleys
behind and from the sidewalk areas in front of such property at such time, upon
such notice, and in such manner as the board of county commissioners may prescribe
by ordinance and to assess the whole cost_thereof, including five percent for
inspection and other incidental costs in connection therewith, upon the lots and
tracts from which such rubbish has been removed. The assessment shall be a lien
against such lot or tract of land until paid and shall have priority over all
other liens except general taxes and prior special assessments.
(II) To inspect vehicles proposed to be operated in the conduct of the
business of transporting ashes, trash, waste, rubbish, garbage, or industrial
waste products or any other discarded materials and to determine, among other
things, that any such vehicle has the following:
(A) A permanent cover of canvas or equally suitable or superior material
designed to cover the entire open area of the body of such vehicle;
(B) A body so constructed as to be permanently leakproof as to such
discarded materials;
(C) Extensions of sideboards and tailgate, if any, constructed of permanent
materials;
93
-------
(Ill) To contract with persons in the business of transporting and disposing
of ashes, trash, waste, rubbish, garbage, or industrial waste products or any other
discarded materials to provide such services, but in no event on an exclusive
territorial basis, to every lot and tract of land requiring such services within
the unincorporated area of the county or in conjunction with the county on such
terms as shall be agreed to by the board of county commissioners. Nothing in
this subparagraph (III) shall be deemed to preclude the owner or tenant of any
such lot or tract from removing discarded materials from his lot, so long as .
appropriate standards of safety and health are observed.
(IV) To regulate the activities of persons in the business of transporting
ashes, trash, waste, rubbish, garbage, or industrial waste products or any other
discarded materials within the unincorporated area by requiring each such person
to secure a license from the county and charging a fee therefor to cover the cost
of administration and enforcement and by requiring adherence to such reasonable
standards of health and safety as may be prescribed by the board of county
commissioners and to prohibit any person from commercially collecting or disposing
of ashes, trash, waste, rubbish, garbage, or industrial waste products or any
other discarded materials within the unincorporated area without a license and
when not in compliance with such standards of health and safety as may be
prescribed by the board;
(V) To do all acts and make all regulations which may be necessary or
expedient for the promotion of health or the suppression of disease;
(VI) To require every person in the business of transporting ashes, trash,
waste, rubbish, garbage, or industrial waste products or any other discarded
materials to and from disposal sites to have, before commencing such operations,
in such motor vehicle a motor vehicle liability insurance policy or evidence
of such policy issued by an insurance carrier or insurer authorized to do
business in the state of Colorado in the sum of not less than one hundred fifty
thousand dollars for the damages for or on account of any bodily injury to or
the death of each person as the result of any one accident, in the sum of not
less than one hundred fifty thousand dollars for damages to the property of
94
-------
others as the result of any one accident, and in the total sum of not less than
four hundred thousand dollars for damages for or on account of any bodily
injury to or the death of all persons and for damages to the property of others.
Any liability for failure to comply with the requirements of this subparagraph (VI)
shall be borne by the individual, partnership, or corporation who owns such
vehicle.
(4) Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to
the transporting of ashes, trash, waste, rubbish, garbage, or industrial waste
products or any other discarded materials which are collected by a city, county,
city and county, town, or other local subdivision within its jurisdictional
limits, provided every vehicle so engaged in transporting the discarded materials
has conformed to vehicle standards at least as strict as those prescribed in
subparagraph (II) of paragraph (a) of subsection (1). Such governing body shall
not grant an exclusive territory or regulate rates for the collection and
transportation of ashes, trash, waste, rubbish, garbage, or industrial waste
products or any other discarded materials.
(5) Any provision of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section to
the contrary notwithstanding, the governing body of a city and county shall not
be precluded from adopting ordinances, regulations, codes, or standards or
granting permits issued pursuant to home rule authority; except that such
governing body shall not grant an exclusive territory or regulate rates for the
collection and transportation of ashes, trash, waste, rubbish, garbage, or
industrial waste products or any other discarded materials.
(6) The board of county commissioners, or the governing body of any
other local governmental entity, shall not issue or enter into a contractual
agreement for the collection and transportation of ashes, trash, waste, rubbish,
garbage, or industrial waste products or any other discarded materials in
any area where a hauler or haulers are then providing service without first
giving a six-month public notice to said hauler or haulers advising- them of the-
intent to enter into said proposed contractual agreement. Said public notice
shall be given in a local newspaper of general circulation in the area served
95
-------
by said haulers.
(7) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, nothing in this section
shall prohibit the providing of waste services by a private person, provided such
person is in compliance with applicable rules and regulations, within the limits
of any^city, county, city and county, town, or other local subdivision if such
service is also provided by a governmental body within the limits of such
governmental unit. Such governmental body may not compel industrial or
commercial establishments or multifamily residences of eight or more units to
use or pay user charges for waste services provided by the governmental body
in preference to those services provided by a private person.
Source: Added, L. 79, p. 1144, § 1; (l)(a) amended and (l)(i) and (3) to (7)
added, L. 80, pp. 744, 479, 746, £-§ 7, 2, 7
96
-------
APPENDIX - B
COLORADO- DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
GUIDELINES FOR THE REVIEW OF
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
97
-------
GUIDELINES FOR THE REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 requires individual states
to form a solid waste management plan. The plan must encourage long-term
regional disposal sites which promote resource recovery and minimize environ-
mental impacts that endanger public health and safety.
The Solid Waste Act, Title 30, Article 20, Part 1, delegates regulatory
authority between state and local agencies. A Certificate of Designation is
required before an applicant can dispose of any solid waste [as defined in the
Solid Waste Act: 30-20-101 (6)] on any site. The following guidelines suggest
the minimum technical information usually required for review by the Division
of Radiation and Hazardous Waste Control.
I. Alternative sites' feasibility
II. Size and expected life of site
III. Feasibility of resource recovery - technical and economic
IV. Describe projected site use after closure
V. Engineering geologic data (requires exploratory borings or trenches)
A. It is recommended that the following data be evaluated to a depth
of ten feet beneath the deepest natural or excavated surface on site.
i
B. Unconsolidated overburden materials
1. Soils classification - Unified Soils Classification System
2. Soil thickness and areal extent
3.- Pertinent engineering properties: grain size distribution,
atterfaurg limits, moisture density and compaction characteristics,
permeability, etc.
98
-------
4. Estimated volumes available for cover or liner material
C. Bedrock Materials
1. Rock type, strike, dip and thickness of bedding, joint or
fracture size and spacing, fracture filling material,
permeability, rippability, etc.
2. Estimated volumes available for liner or cover material
0. Geologic hazards on or adjacent to the site such as:
1. Rockfall, landslide or debris and mudflow hazards
2. Slope stability
3. Faulting and folding
4. Erosion potential
5. Mine subsidence
VI. Engineering Hydro!ogic Data
A. Surface waters
1. Proximate lakes, rivers, streams, springs or bogs
2. Site location in relation to 100 year floodplain
3. Size and slope of contributing drainage basins
4. Design of diversion and catchment structures for a 25 year,
24 hour precipitation event
5. Impoundment of contaminated runoff
6. Background surface water samples
B. Groundwaters
1. Depth to groundwater - seasonal variations
2. Wells within one mile radius of site: depth of well, depth
to water, yield, use, casing intervals
3. Nearest points of groundwater discharge
4. Background groundwater samples, as necessary
5. Major aquifers beneath site
99
-------
C. Surface and groundwater monitoring; plans for leachate collection
and treatment.
VII. Operational Data for Solid Waste Disposal
A. Landfills
1. Location and construction details for access roads
2. Plans for waste recycling, as applicable
3. Names of persons in charge of site; having authority to take
corrective action
4. Slope of fill surface must divert runoff from working face
5. . Refuse cell size, type of construction, location and arrangement
6. Amount of cover and frequency of application to working face
7. Direction of prevailing winds: maximum and average velocities
8. Provisions for retrieval of windblown debris, on and off the
site
9. Equipment and manpower retained on site
10. Compactive effort to be applied to refuse and cover material
11. Types of waste received and their segregation
12. Provisions to ventilate methane gas from completed landfill
13. Measures to prevent or contain insect and rodent infestations
14. Measures and equipment to extinguish or prevent fires
15. Hours of operation
16. Final fill surface contours
17. Thickness and compaction of final cover
18. Provisions for maintenance after closure
19. Program of records keeping
t
B. Potentially toxic industrial or mining solid waste disposal sites
1. All previously listed criteria, as applicable
2. Chemical concentrations of processing and waste solvents
3. Chemical concentrations of solid waste
4. Engineering designs for diversion structures, dams, liners,
dikes, tailings or dump sites
100
-------
5. Engineering designs for holding ponds containing solvents and
solutions
6. Plans for ground and surface water monitoring and long-term
site maintenance
7. Ultimate disposal of solid waste recycling plans, if applicable
These criteria are applied on a site-to-site basis in the review process.
Applications containing this information will be reviewed more quickly and
efficiently. Four copies should be provided to this Division for review.
101
-------
APPENDIX - C
POTENTIAL LANDFILL
SITE EVALUATION MAP
102
-------
POTENTIAL LANDFILL SITE EVALUATION*
Site Eliminating Factor
1 Visibility
2 Soils
3 Visibility
4 Access, size
5 Access
6 Soils
7 Haul distance, visibility
8 Availability
9 Adjacent land use
10 Availability
11 Visibility
12 NONE
13 Adjacent land use
14 . NONE
15 Utility easement
16 Adjacent land use
17 NONE (Consolidated with site 18)
18
19 Forest Service land
20 Adjacent land use
21 * Visibility
22 Availability
23 Access, slope
24 Visibility
25 Adjacent land use
26 Forest Service land
27 Forest Service land
28 Adjacent land use
29 Adjacent land use,
30 Adjacent land use, visibility
31 Adjacent land use
32 Adjacent land use
33 Adjacent land use, access
34 Access
35 NONE
Cripple Creek Site NONE
The accompanying maps show the approximate location of the sites investigat-
ed. Eliminating factors are discussed in Section IV of the text, or are
self-explanatory.
103
-------
INDEX TO POTENTIAL SANITARY LANDFILL SITE MAPS
TELLER COUNTY
COLORADO
i-i w^b'-sw^ -
G .:K • -i • !-• ;-NJ "J
' ' ! '""'" • -—-
STATE OCnUTTMCNT OF HIGHWAY?
Of MtGMWAYS - JTATt OT COUMAOO
•LAMM** MO •Ct«**CH
U.S. OCMffTMCNT Qf TKANS
HMJHWAT AOMNlSTRftTTON
104
-------
^mmsUMf-
MAP 1
TELLER COUNTY
POTENTIAL SANITARY
LANDFILL SITES
105
-------
MAP 2
POTENTIAL SANITARY LANDFILL SITES
TELLER COUNTY, COLORADO
-------
MAP 3
POTENTIAL SANITARY LANDFILL SITES
TELLER COUNTY, COLORADO
107
-------
MAP 4
POTENTIAL SANITARY LANDFILL SITES
TELLER COUNTY,COLORADO
M^m^m
N?* \.C.7 < , /- . 7<^
=M^k§=^c5^^ ^ ' "oxV
te^ Cri-^ i Vtt ^ fX?> t
4(T<
n -. 11
108
/^0ft"<3A^
ISS
-------
MAP 5
POTENTIAL SANITARY LANDFILL SITES
TELLER COUNTY,COLORADO
-------
APPENDIX -• D
SANITARY LANDFILL
SAFETY
110
-------
SANITARY LANDFILL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS
The nature of operations at landfill sites are such that the risk of
accident/injuries, fires and health hazards are significant. The reduction of
accident/injuries on the job means savings in time, money and equipment, not to
mention reducing suffering, and disability to members of the work force. the
development and enforcement of a continuing safety program will help reduce the
accident/injury potential at the landfill operation, thereby reducing the over-
all cost of the operation. Areas of concern should include but are not limited
to:
Individual Safety. Personnel working at landfill sites should be familiar
with the nature and hazards of the operation they are performing. Proper
safety clothing and equipment should be used at all times. Examples of safety
equipment are: safety shoes, shatter-proof glasses, heavy work gloves, chemical-
ly resistant work clothes, and hard hats.
Fire. Burning of wastes is not permitted at a sanitary landfill, but fires
occur occasionally when there is careless handling of open flames and smoldering
waste materials. The use of daily cover should keep fire in a cell that is
under construction from spreading laterally to other cells. All equipment
operators should keep a fire extinguisher on the their machines at all times
since it may be necessary to put out a small fire. If the fire is too large,
waste in the burning area should be spread out so that water can be applied.
This is an extremely hazardous chore, and water should be sprayed on those parts
of the machine that comes in contact with the hot wastes, A fire plan, for the
landfill should spell out fire-fighting procedures and sources of water. All
landfill personnel should be thoroughly familiar with these procedures. In the
event a collection truck arrives carrying burning wastes, it should not be
allowed near the working face of the fill but be routed as quickly as possible
to a safe area away from buildings, where its load can be dumped and the fire
extinguished.
Traffic Control. Traffic flow on the landfill site can effect the
efficiency of daily operations. Haphazard routing in the area can lead to
indiscriminate dumping and cause accidents. Pylons, barricades, guardrails, and
traffic signs can be used to direct traffic. All vehicles hauling waste to the
landfill should be of a closed type or have the means to properly secure the
load to prevent the blowing or falling off of waste matter en route to the land-
fill. This requirement should apply to private vehicles delivering waste to the
landfill site.
Ill
-------
First Aid. First aid kits should be installed on all landfill vehicles
and in the landfill office. All landfill operating personnel should be
familiar with first aid procedures.
Salvage and Scavenging. Salvaging usable material from solid waste is
laudable in concept, but it should be allowed only if a landfill has been
designed to permit this operation and appropriate processing and storage facili-
ties have been provided.
Scavenging, sorting through waste- to recover salvageable items, must be
strictly prohibited at the working face. Scavengers are too intent on searching
to notice the approach of spreading and compacting equipment, and they risk
being injured. Moreover, some of the items collected may be harmful, such as
food waste, canned or otherwise, which may be contaminated.
Firearms Control. Landfill sites are usually located in areas wherein pop-
ulation density is light and areas surrounding or adjacent to the landfill are
open country or farm land. These areas and the landfill site are likely to
attract people interested in target shooting or small game hunting. Signs
should be posted, outside the landfill boundaries, in all directions warning
that hunting, target practice, or shooting of any type is not permitted within
300 feet of the landfill perimeter or on the landfill proper.
Bird/Aircraft Hazards. Birds that are sometimes attracted to landfill
sites can be a nuisance, a health hazard, and a danger to low-flying aircraft.
The primary method to reduce the problem is to make each working face as small
as possible and to cover all wastes as soon as possible.
Decomposition Gas. Gas is produced naturally when solid wastes decom-
pose. The quantity generated in a landfill and its composition depend on the
types of solid wastes that are decomposing. Methane and carbon dioxide are the
major constituents of landfill decomposition gas, but other gases are also
present and some may impart a repugnant odor.
Landfill gas is important to consider when evaluating the effect a land-
fill may have on the environment, because methane can explode when present in
air at concentrations between 5 and 15 percent. Since there is no oxygen
present in a landfill when methane concentrations in it reach this critical
level, there is no danger of the fill exploding. If, however, methane vents
into the atmosphere (its specific gravity is less than that or air) it may
accumulate in buildings or other enclosed spaced at dangerous levels close to a
sanitary landfill.
The potential movement of gas is, therefore, an essential element to con-
sider when selecting a site. It is particularly important if enclosed struc-
112
-------
tures are build on or adjacent to the sanitary landfill or if it is to be
located near existing industrial, commercial, and residential areas. Periodic
checks of buildings on or adjacent to the landfill should be made.
Landfill gas movement can be controlled if sound engineering principles
are applied. Permeable vents and impermeable barriers are the two most widely
used methodologies.
Communications. Telephone or radio communication should be provided so
that landfill operating personnel will be able to report fires or injuries.
The use of a radio which can be tied into the Police network or the highway
department should be satisfactory.
Fencing. Peripheral and litter fences are commonly needed at sanitary
landfills. The first type is used to control or limit access, keep out
children, dogs, and other large animals, screen the landfill, and delineate the
property line. Litter fences are used to control blowing paper in the immedi-
ate vicinity of the working face. As a general rule, trench operations require
less litter fencing because the solid waste tends to be confined within the
walls of the trench. At a very windy trench site, a 4 foot snow fence will
usually suffice. Since the location of the working face shifts frequently,
litter fences should be movable.
113
-------
APPENDIX - E
SOLID WASTE FACILITY
FINANCING OPTIONS
114
-------
APPENDIX E
SOLID WASTE FACILITY FINANCING OPTIONS
Solid waste collection and disposal entails such capital costs as land,
equipment, and site improvements. Operating costs include salaries, utilities,
fuel, site and equipment maintenance, and administrative costs. Several methods
of funding solid waste systems are available, and the following discussion con-
siders the advantages and disadvantages of current revenue ("pay-as-you-go")
financing, long-term borrowing, leasing, and government grant and loan utiliza-
tion. The applicability of the methods to the small community will be examined.
CURRENT REVENUE FINANCING
Current revenue financing employs a sales tax, property tax, special as-
sessment tax, or a combination of the above, and is based on the "pay-as-you-go"
philosophy. The advantage of using current revenues is its simplicity—few in-
formational, analytical, institutional, or legal arrangements are required. The
general tax fund often cannot provide enough money to meet capital costs, but it
is frequently used to help meet operating costs. An advantage in using the
general fund for supplying operating expenses is that administrative procedures
and the extra cost of billing and'collecting are eliminated.
Solid waste management is commonly regarded as a low priority when general
funds are apportioned, resulting in an insufficient budget and inadequate admin-
istration. Due to the lack of large amounts of available money in the general
fund, another source of financing, such as long-term borrowing, is often neces-
sary for financing capital costs. A disadvantage in using current revenues for
capital expenditures is that tax revenues lag behind needed public services.
For areas experiencing rapid growth, this places an inequitable burden on the
present population.
In regard to special assessments, some states (including Colorado) have
enacted legislation enabling the Board of County Commissioners to levy a special
property tax to be deposited in a County fund for use in operating a solid waste
system. This funding mechanism is provided by Title 30, Article 20 - Part 1,
Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities, Section 30-20-115. The legislation
states :
"Any county is authorized to establish a county solid waste
disposal site and facility fund. The board of county commissioners
of such county may levy a solid waste disposal site and facility
tax, in addition to any other tax authorized by law, on any of the
taxable property within said county, the proceeds of which shall be
115
-------
deposited to the credit of said fund and appropriated to pay the
cost of land, labor, equipment, and services needed in the operation
of solid wastes disposal sites and facilities. Any county is also
authorized, after a public hearing, to fix, modify, and collect ser-
vice charges from users of solid wastes disposal sites and facil-
ities for the purpose of financing the operations at those sites and
facilities."
Certain states also permit the formation of solid waste disposal districts,
for the purpose of property taxation. No solid waste disposal districts have
yet been formed in Colorado. Presently, there is an effort in Yuma County,
Colorado to establish a solid waste disposal district. A 1953 Colorado statute
provides for setting up solid waste disposal districts. County and municipal
officials in Yuma County have, however, found problems with this statute since
districts can be formed that cover only the unincorporated areas within a
County. The formation of districts in unincorporated areas is somewhat imprac-
tical because waste generation is concentrated in the incorporated areas. Also,
the statute limits taxing to 1/2 mill, an amount that is thought to be too
small. An effort is underway to determine if a solid waste disposal district
can be set up under other statutes for special purpose districts or to change
the Colorado law.
Charges levied on the users of the collection and disposal system are ano-
ther source of funds for the "pay-as-you-go" method of financing. User fees are
a means of obtaining operating revenue, but they may also be used to generate
funds for future capital expenditures. Fees must be periodically updated, to
provide a fair and viable source of income.
For small communities experiencing rapid increases in population, the "pay-
as-you-go" method forces present citizens to pay for future demands. A straight
user fee would place too large a burden on the present population. If waste
generation surges general fund contributions or another form of financing can be
used to pay for initial costs. Future user charges can then be used to cover
annual operating expenses and debt amortization.
LONG-TERM BORROWING
Long-term borrowing is a common method of financing the capital costs of
solid waste systems. Typical instruments are the revenue bond and the general
obligation bond.
Revenue bonds are tax-exempt obligations that pledge user fees to guarantee
repayment of the debt's principal and interest. In this case, fees must be
charged to landfill users in amounts necessary to cover all capital and operat-
ing expenses. Revenue bonds and associated user fees are attractive because the
producer of solid waste pays the true cost of its disposal. Also, voter appro-
val is not necessary.
116
-------
A possible disadvantage to consider is that a feasibility study of the pro-
ject to be financed is required, which may be expensive. Revenue bonds are gen-
erally used to finance a single project, and the effective minimum size offering
is normally greater than that of a general obligation bond. For a small, single
community, revenue bond financing is often uneconomical.
General obligation bonds are the most commonly used instrument for financ-
ing capital outlays. They are tax-exempt obligations secured by the full faith
and credit of a political jurisdiction which has the ability to levy taxes.
Because the real estate taxes of the jurisdication are usually pledged, the bond
is less risky and more marketable than a revenue bond. General obligation bonds
also do not require a detailed feasibility study of the proposed project, and
offer the lowest interest rates of any financial instrument.
However, state legislation usually limits the amounts of debt a community
can incur. This could restrict or rule out the use of a general obligation
bond, if a community is already liable for a substantial debt. If the bond is
retired with revenues generated by the landfill operation, the amount of ad
valorem taxes necessary for bond retirement is minimized.
LEASING
Another option to consider is leasing. The local government rents the use
of an asset (land, mobile equipment, etc.) which has been purchased by a third
party. The government can in turn lease to a private operator.
An advantage to leasing is the postponement and spreading out of cash pay-
ments, therefore lessening the demand on initial capital outlays. In this re-
gard, leasing may be a useful option for financing systems to be used by areas
experiencing high population growth. Less legal work is usually involved than
for other types of financing, and generally voter approval is not required.
Leasing is more expensive than long-term, tax-exempt bonds. At the expira-
tion of the lease, the local government will not own or control the machinery or
land leased, unless the contract specifies leasing with an option to buy. If
municipal credit is poor or bonds can't be issued, leasing may be the most
viable option.
GRANTS AND LOANS
Financial assistance through federal, state, and regional entities is a
method of supplementing other types of financing. The Farmer's Home Administra-
tion (FmHA) is authorized to provide financial assistance to public entities, in
the form of grants and loans, for waste disposal facilities in rural areas and
117
-------
towns with a population less than 10,000. To be eligible, the applicant must be
unable to obtain credit or financing from other sources. Priority is placed on
areas with a population less than 5,500.
According to FmHA authorities, however, grants and loans have not been pro-
vided for solid waste disposal in Colorado in the past ten years. Funds are not
expected to become available in the near future. Additional information may be
obtained by contacting the county or district office of the FmHA.
The Environmental Protection Agency is another potential source of fund-
ing. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act authorizes funding through the
Solid and Hazardous Waste branch, for technical assistance in state level plann-
ing studies for solid waste management. The act also authorizes funding of
regional and local government projects. However, funds have not been provided
at the state or local level. The EPA has indicated that funds for solid waste
assistance are not currently available, and no immediate change is expected in
that status.
At the state level, Colorado Health Department authorities have stated that
no grants or loans are presently available for planning or operating solid waste
projects. For public entities which qualify, socio-economic impact funds, pro-
vided by the State of Colorado, may be available. The state monies, generated
by federal lease royalties and severence taxes, are delegated to counties and
municipalities for use on designated projects. Further information may be
obtained by contacting the Socio-Economic Impact Office of the Colorado State
Department of Local Affairs. In general, the probability of receiving state or
federal aid for financing solid waste systems appears to be extremely low.
The previously described methods of financing are intended to provide a
broad overview of techniques available. This description is not comprehensive,
as other less common methods, and creative combinations of the described
methods, may result in viable financing alternatives. It is recommended that
professional financial consultants be utilized to model a financial plan, when
the solid waste system is ready to be implemented.
118
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Brunner, D. R., and Keller, D. J. Sanitary Landfill Design and Operation.
Washington: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs, EPA SW-65ts., 1971.
2. Randall, R. Resource Recovery Plant Implementation: Guide for Municipal
Officials Financing. Washington: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Guide No. 471, 1975.
3. Zausner, E. Financing Solid Waste Management in Small Communities.
Washington: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs, EPA SW-57ts., 1972.
119
-------
APPENDIX - F
LANDFILL CALCULATIONS
120
-------
LANDFILL CALCULATIONS
1. Compacted Waste Density
= 1,000 lb./yd.3
2. Trench Volume
1 ft. x .5 x (20 ft. + 35 Ft.) x 15 ft.
= 412.5 ft.3
ORK3MAL LAND SURFACE
3. Trench Volume Per Linear Foot
412.5 ft.3 * 27 ft.3/yd.3
= 15.3 yd.3/ft.
4. Annual Required Trench Length
5,680 tons x 2 yd.3/ton (or 1,000 lb./yd.3)
= 11,400 yd.3 (Volume of Waste Per Year)
at 1:4 cover to refuse ratio:
11,400 yd.3 x 1.25
= 14,200 yd.3 (Volume of Waste and Cover Per Year)
14,200 yd.3 f 15.3 yd.3/ft.
= 930 ft./year of trench
121
-------
5. Annual Required Landfill Acreage (Trench Method)
Width = 35 ft. (trench) + 10 ft. (space) = 45 ft.
Length = 930 ft.
Area = 45 ft. x 930 ft./year = 41,900 ft.2/year
Conversion (ft.2 to acres) = 41,900 ft.2/43,560 ft.2/acre
= .96 acre/year
6. Annual Required Landfill Acreage (Area Method)
(12 ft. cell depth x 43,560 ft.2/acre x 0.8 cover requirement)
* 27 ft.3/yd.3
= 15,500 yd.3/acre
11,400 (waste) f 15,500 yd.3/acre = .73 acre/year
7. Annual Cover Requirement (Cripple Creek Landfill)
3,300 yd.3/year (waste) x .20 (cover)
= 660 yd.3/year
122
-------
APPENDIX G
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE
UPGRADING OF THE CRIPPLE CREEK
LANDFILL
123
-------
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Richard D. Lamm ^j^^j^x^V Frank A. Traylor, M.D.
Governor ^sw'ST^x' Executive Director
January 11, 1982
Teller County Health Services
P.O. Box 118
Woodland Park, Colorado 80803
Attention: Mr. Lane Wyatt
Gentlemen:
As requested by Mr. Wyatt, we have attempted to summarize our concerns
and recommendations regarding the operation of the Victor and Cripple Creek
Landfills, in Teller County, Colorado. This information is intended to en-
able the Teller County Health Services Department and the Teller County
Commissioners to revise the operation of these facilities such that they
conform to the regulations of the Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities
Act, C.R.S. 1973, 30-20 Part 1, as amended.
A. Victor Landfill
Recent inspections performed on the Victor landfill have shown many
problems with this facility. The major areas of non-compliance are:
1. Inadequate and irregular cover has been placed.
2. There is inadequate fencing to control access and windblown
debris.
3. Burning was occurring during each inspection.
4. Not designated in accordance with the Solid Waste Act.
5. Potential safety hazards may exist due to burning and
subsidence.
Many of the items listed above would be prohibitively expensive to
correct in order for this facility to comply with the State's rules and reg-
ulations. Therefore, in our opinion the continued operation of this landfill
does not seem feasible and it should be closed. A collection box transfer
station which is h ;uled to the Cripple Creek landfill is an alternative which
nuiy be feasible.
4210 EAST 11TH AVENUE DENVERCOLORADO 80220 PHONE (303) 320-8333
124
-------
Teller County Health Services
January 11, 1982
Page 2
B. Cripple Creek Landfill
1. Solid waste is being burned at this facility in
violation of the Solid Waste Regulations.
2. Solid waste is not being covered on a regular basis.
3. There are no provisions to either direct runoff away
from the landfill and/or contain liquids which may be
emitted from the landfill.
In our opinion relatively minor modifications are necessary to upgrade
this facility so that it can be designed and operated in accordance with the
State's Rules and Regulations. The nodifications are:
1. The burning of solid waste must be stopped.
2. The existing solid waste must be spread and covered. Any
future waste should be compacted and covered so as to
minimize the amount of windblown debris. A monthly
application of cover material should suffice for this
facility. However, if litter problems become evident,
weekly cover should be considered.
3. Rather than attempting to divert the minimal surface water
flow from entering the landfill, the County may want to
construct a small catchment basin in the drainage below the
fill. The basin should be located and constructed such that
it could collect and evaporate any liquids which flowed from
the fill.
4. Due to the fractured nature of the bedrock strata beneath
this facility it should not be allowed to accepr. liquids of
any kind.
We regret any delays on these projects which may be attributed to mis-
communication with this office. It has been and still remains our intent to.
provide Teller County with as much clear, concise, technical assistance and
guidance as possible. If this letter does not meet your requirements please
contact us so that we may try again.
Sincerely,
' . -7 ^7 "-? C
Dennis C. Hotovec
Project Geologist
Kenneth L. Waesche
Acting Director
WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION
DCH:KLW:pb
cc: Teller County Commissioners
125
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
908/6-82-001
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Solid Waste Management Alternatives: Teller
County, Colorado - A Technical Assistance Panels
Program Report .
5. REPORT DATE
February , 1982
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOH(S)
Raymond Buyce, Darcy Campbell, Scott Daniels, Burke
Lokey, Stephen Orzynski
S. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND AOORESS
Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.
1320 17th Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
EPA 68-01-6008
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND AOORESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIII
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80293
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Teller County exhibits solid waste management problems similar to many rural moun-
tainous areas in the western United States. The County experiences relatively rapid
population growth, a large seasonal influx of summer residents and tourists, and a
severe winter climate.
The County requested an analysis of alternative solid waste management systems,
including the use of one or more sanitary landfills in the County, hauling waste out of
the County in collection vehicles, and transfering waste out of the County after com-
paction in a transfer station. Cost estimates were developed for the various waste
collection, transfer, and disposal alternatives.
Potential landfill sites were located and rated using a quantative review method-
ology. Such siting factors as soil depth and type, ground and surface water impacts,
haul distance, access, size of the site, slope, visibility, and adjacent land use were
incorporated into the evaluation system.
The report recommends upgrading of a present County disposal site (Cripple Creek)
for use as a sanitary landfill, and closure of the second County disposal site (Victor).
It is also recommended that the most suitable of the potential landfill sites be
purchased for future development. Continued transfer of some waste out of the County
remains a viable alternative contingent upon the continued availabitity of landfill
sites in a neighboring county to the east.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Croup
Landfills
Rural Areas
Solid Waste Disposal
Waste Transfer Stations
Teller County, Colorado
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Released to public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report!
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
125
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page I
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (R«». 4-77) previous EDITION is OBSOLETE
------- |