nq or '«V
' 860 !_incoir 5tre^i
Denver Coioraoo 3C295
A TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM REPORT
WYOMING RURAL SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT STUDIES:
BIG HORN COUNTY, CARBON COUNTY
-------
A TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PANELS PROGRAM REPORT
WYOMING RURAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDIES:
BIG HORN COUNTY, CARBON COUNTY
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
May, 1981
-------
WYOMING RURAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VIII
BIG HORN COUNTY
CARBON COUNTY
-------
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 assist on solid waste manage-
ment, resource recovery, and resource conservation. Such teams shall include
technical, marketing, financial, and institutional specialists, and the ser-
vices of such teams shall be provided without charge to States or local govern-
ments .
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
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
List of Tables iv
List of Figures v
Acknowledgements vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
I. BACKGROUND TO THE STUDIES 4
A. Rural Solid Waste Management 4
B. Factors Affecting Rural Solid Waste Management in Wyoming ... 7
C. Study Goals 10
II. STUDY APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 11
A. Literature Review 11
B. Data Requirements and Sources 17
C. The Choice of Big Horn and Carbon Counties
as Representative Models 19
III. BIG HORN COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 20
A. Background and Introduction 20
B. The Existing Solid Waste Management System 23
C. Alternative Solid Waste Management Systems 28
D. Implementation of the Recommended System 40
IV. CARBON COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 47
A. Background and Introduction 47
B. The Existing Solid Waste Management System 52
C. Alternative Solid Waste Management Systems 56
D. Implementation of the Preferred System 62
V. APPLICABILITY OF THIS STUDY TO OTHER SITUATIONS 68
A. Differences Between the Two Solid Waste Management Plans ... 68
B. Use of This Information by Other Counties 68
VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 72
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Population and Solid Waste Generation (1979),
Big Horn County 25
2. Annual Cost Projections (1980-1985), Big Horn County 29
3. Costs to Upgrade Rural Satellite Sites, Big Horn County 31
4. Annual Cost Projections .(1980-1985), Upgrading of
Rural Sites, Big Horn County 32
5. Proposed Solid Waste Management System, Big Horn County 34
6. Route Schedule and Collection Activity, Big Horn County 45
7. Population and Waste Generation in Carbon County 50
8. Estimated Landfill Operation Costs, Carbon County 57
9. Solid Waste Management Alternatives, Cost Estimates for
for Carbon County (1980-1985) 60
10. Recommended Solid Waste Management System, Carbon County .... 66
IV
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Economies of Scale in Landfills 13
2. Solid Waste Disposal Sites, Big Horn County, Wyoming 24
3. Roll-off System 36
4. Side-load System . . . 37
5. Regional Landfill Sites, Big Horn County, Wyoming 43
6. Carbon County, Wyoming , . . . . 48
7. Solid Waste Disposal Sites, Carbon County, Wyoming 53
8. Regional Landfill Sites, Carbon County, Wyoming 64
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project was funded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under
the Technical Assistance Panels Program (Section 2003) of the Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act of 1976. Technical assistance was requested by the
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Solid Waste Management Pro-
gram. The EPA Project Officer was William Rothenmeyer, who provided substan-
tial project direction and assistance. Charles A. Porter of the Wyoming DEQ
provided valuable expertise and perceptions based upon his knowledge of solid
waste management activities and issues within Wyoming. This report was com-
pleted by Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc., the EPA Region VIII Technical Assist-
ance Panels Contractor, and by Contract Municipal Services, Inc.
VI
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Solid waste management has become an increasingly complex problem for rural
areas. Such limitations as siting, costs, capital availability, environmental
impacts, and the availability of qualified personnel make the goal of efficient
and effective waste management in these regions very difficult to attain. The
rapid growth occurring in many areas within Region VIII compounds these solid
waste management problems, and traditional management practices must be
replaced by safe, convenient/ prompt and economical waste collection and
disposal in the near future to meet the requirements of the Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976.
This study addresses some of the problems confronting rural areas of
Wyoming. Waste management in Wyoming is affected by characteristics and condi-
tions over which any solid waste management approach has little or no control.
These factors include climatic conditions (severity of weather, lack of precip-
itation, high winds, etc.); a low-density population which generates wastes
spread over a very large area; and land use, social and political characteris-
tics which include wide-scale Federal governmental land ownership and local
political processes which are not fully capable of addressing the complex waste
management issues.
In order to evaluate these issues, problems, and uncertainties facing most
rural communities in Wyoming, Big Horn and Carbon Counties were analyzed. The
evaluation of Big Horn County can serve as a model for other rural, agri-
cultural counties in the State, while Carbon County serves as a model for other
rural, energy-impacted counties. The analyses included examinations of:
o baseline solid waste management costs;
o total volume of wastes generated and the annual and
daily rates of generation;
o the origin of the wastes;
-------
o the seasonal cycles of waste generation;
o the composition of the waste and relative contribution
made by each waste category;
o the number of private waste haulers, if any, and their
individual volumes hauled;
o the collection systems and equipment used by haulers;
o the location, operation and life of all disposal sites;
and;
o outside influences on waste generation, collection and
disposal.
The necessary data was obtained through personal interviews and field investi-
gations. The data served as the basis for formulation of recommended solid
waste management plans for each county, as summarized below.
The recommended management plan for Big Horn County would begin with the
creation of a county-wide solid waste management district. The district would
then close all but the two county operated disposal sites. Uncompacted roll-
off transfer stations would be established at the locations of closed disposal
sites for the first year of the plan to collect both household and bulky
wastes. For the second year a side-loader collection system (compatible with
an existing system in Greybull) consisting of smaller, dispersed containers
would be introduced to handle all household refuse, with the roll-off system
then handling bulky wastes exclusively.
Similarly, in Carbon County, the formation of a countywide solid waste man-
agement district is the first step of the recommended plan. The district would
close most of the existing disposal sites and install an uncompacted roll-off
transfer system at these sites. During the second year the district would com-
plete the regionalization of landfills and fully establish the roll-off trans-
fer system.
-------
Although both of the counties studied in this report can accurately be
thought of as rural, low-density areas with many similar problems and charac-
teristics, the recommended solid waste management plans for these counties are
very different. Therefore, it is important to keep in mind that character-
istics and trends must be analyzed in detail before a workable solid waste man-
agement plan can be formulated and implemented within a county. There are no
"typical" situations nor is there one standardized solution for solid waste
problems.
However, central to the success of solid waste management plans for both
counties is the formation of a centralized solid waste management district.
Formation of such a district would help to increase waste management efficiency
and effectiveness through:
o sharing of risk among communities;
o sharing of equipment and landfill costs among communities;
o expansion of available management options;
o elimination of duplication; and
o establishment of a sound county-wide financial base.
-------
I. BACKGROUND TO THE STUDIES
A. Rural Solid Waste Management
1. Recognizing the Problem
Rural American States such as Wyoming are very slowly becoming aware of
the need for integrated solid waste disposal practices, both as a matter of
economics and to comply with the emerging State and Federal regulations for
solid waste disposal. The traditional business-as-usual approach to solid
waste management fails to accommodate community growth and the nation's commit-
V
ment to effective environmental control. There has been widespread public apa-
thy with respect to the real and potential environmental problems associated
with inadequate solid waste management. This has resulted in:
o difficulty in convincing the public that a problem exists;
o a lack of adequate planning; and
o inadequate financing for solid waste management.
This problem is most apparent in the lack of adequate planning for the
setting aside of suitable areas for land disposal operations in anticipation of
community growth. In the rural areas of the U.S., especially within Region
VIII, rapid growth is very common. Consequently, it is becoming increasingly
difficult to provide suitable sites for solid waste disposal. This limits
operational flexibility and increases disposal costs. This also creates polit-
ical and technical problems affecting both short and long-term planning. More
specifically, limited or poor planning and inadequate operations leads to high
costs in the present, which in turn limits flexibility in planning for the
future.
The aesthetic degradation of open dumps is difficult to assess in any but
abstract terms; it is, nevertheless, very real. No accurate appraisal has been
made of the impact a dump has on the value of neighboring or overlying prop-
-------
erty; however, one fact is clear: nobody wants one near his home. When most
people think of solid waste disposal, they have "a dump" in mind. This associ-
ation of wastes and dumps is so well established that it is the major stumbling
block to the siting, construction, and operation of new sanitary landfills.
Comprehensive solid waste management should provide for the safe, conven-
ient, prompt and economical collection, transportation, and disposal of waste
materials, while recycling and conserving valuable resources. Additionally, in
Region VIII and Wyoming, where ties to the land and its value are so strong,
the sensitive management and conservation of land resources, as well as dis-
posed materials, is a goal of an integrated waste collection and disposal oper-
ation. The hazards and problems associated with traditional methods of waste
disposal have brought about a new emphasis directed toward the resolution of
these problems. The time for this emphasis on upgrading present systems and
planning for the future is now.
With the passage in 1968 of the Wyoming law prohibiting the open burning of
trash, local governments were forced to collect and dispose of materials which
previously had been burned. Consequently the volume of wastes to be landfilled
increased. Proper disposal of these wastes was further confronted by the fact
that the different methods of waste disposal and collection available in 1968
were more costly, less efficient, and more labor intensive than systems which
have been recently developed. Additional demands on traditional methods of
waste disposal are caused by the steadily increasing (about two percent per
year) waste volume per capita. Furthermore, population increases caused by
energy and mineral development and by tourism have compounded waste disposal
problems in the Rocky Mountain region. These impacts are especially pronounced
in rural counties.
The problems listed above will generally stimulate costly and complex prob-
lems such as the political delicacy of financing, siting and implementation of
improved solid waste management systems. In most cases, the necessary
resources and skills to resolve these problems are beyond the economic and
technical ability of local governments.
-------
2. Goals of Improved Rural Management
The source of difficulties in solid waste collection and disposal in rural
areas is the reliance upon traditional practice and the conflict created by
legislated change in those practices. Current practice usually implies indi-
vidual hauling to a traditional dumpsite, dumping on that site, burning the
trash disposed at the site, limited maintenance of the site, limited environ-
mental protection, and little or no provision for closure. The Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act of 1976 was enacted to change these practices. The
implementation of RCRA includes:
o a listing of open dumps by the States;
o closings of those dumps which cannot be upgraded;
o setting criteria and guidelines for landfill disposal applicable to
those sites which can be improved; and
o insuring that those upgraded landfills are operated, maintained and
eventually closed with continuing environmental safeguards.
State programs and laws must be equivalent to the Federal regulations. Small
communities in "rural areas however, often do not possess the resources or
expertise to upgrade their solid waste disposal systems to comply with the
regulations. It is often necessary for these small communities to consolidate
their waste disposal services in order to improve existing practices.
The need for improved solid waste management in rural areas may be less
apparent than in more urban areas, but the problems of solid waste management
in rural areas are equally important. Improved and efficient solid waste man-
agement can be economically acceptable, especially for small communities which
are plagued by low waste volumes and subsequent high disposal costs per ton of
refuse. However, this may require significant capital expenditures to achieve
the long-term operating economies. This short-term financial requirement may
place solid waste management in direct competition with other public service
requirements.
-------
'In addition to improved economic efficiency and lower costs, improved solid
waste management practices provide greater protection to public health and the
environment in rural areas. Current practice often encourages vector
habitation. The danger of range fires from burning waste on-site and blowing
embers is increased. Leachate from poorly managed or unprotected disposal
sites poses the threat of contamination of local water supplies. Existing
management practices many times present nuisances from blowing trash and
noxious odors, causing land values to plummet should a dump be located nearby.
B. Factors Affecting Rural Solid Waste Management in Wyoming
1. Environmental Factors
-. '
Weather factors affect solid waste management practices. Generally, the
average climate of Wyoming is cold and arid. January temperatures average
20°F and range from -39"F to 64°F but summer temperatures climb above 90°F only
twenty times a year. There are roughly 200 to 210 days per year in Wyoming
when temperatures drop below freezing; the mean length of the freeze free per-
iod is about 90 to 120 days long. Precipitation ranges from eight to twelve
inches per year, with.highest precipitation occurring in April and May. Mean
relative humidity is roughly 50 percent; evapotranspiration losses can be sixty
inches and winds generally blow consistently from the southwest. Implications
of these factors include:
o. due to the lack of moisture, there is little decomposition and leach-
rate '-'generation in landfills;
if .'
»
: *
b - problems with fire "and blowing trash and freezing conditions affect
cover and equipment selection; and
o high winds make efficient and effective collection and transportation
difficult.
While the climate of Wyoming may be generally adverse to effective solid
waste management, the soil and geohydrological conditions are usually favorable
for solid waste disposal. For example:
-------
o the depth of the soil profile, the type of soil and the depth to
groundwater are appropriate for sanitary landfill siting and opera-
tion; (
\
o because the soils generally are so deep, cover material (ji,s readily
available;
o the soils are comprised of clays, silts and sands; they compact well
and can serve as impermeable liners if handled correctly; and
o groundwater aquifers are deep except in those areas of fluvial
deposits near rivers or creeks.
i
2. Demographic and Economic Factors . p
Wyoming has a population of 350,000 spread over almost 98,000 square
miles. The density of 3.6 persons per square mile is among the lowest in the
United States. Fifty percent of the counties have less than 10,000 persons and
only four of the twenty-four counties have more than 20,000 residents. This
dispersal of population means that any solid waste collection and disposal sys-
tem will have to be more cost effective and efficient per person served and per
ton of waste processed relative to more dense areas. This dispersal of popula-
s
tion increases transportation costs and limits the advantage of economies of
scale. Any solid waste management system operating in this situation must be
kept simple and flexible.
The economic structure in the State has long been dominated by agriculture
and ranching. The pattern of widely spaced settlements was encouraged by the
development of farm production communities which required a large land base for
production. In recent years, energy developments, service, and public sector
growth have encouraged settlements to cluster and the population to live in
if
towns where trade routes cross or services exist. Overall development, how-
ever, still reflects the dispersed patterns of historic agricultural and ranch-
ing influences.
-------
The sophisticated solid waste management systems and technology in use in
more urban areas are not appropriate for Wyoming. Waste generation rates are
lower in Wyoming, and the waste that is generated is spread over a much larger
area than in eastern and west coast States. Any system in Wyoming must
overcome the disadvantage of smaller volumes on a per capita basis and the
higher transportation costs. These economic factors point to a simple, low
cost solid waste management system.
Additionally, resistance to a major investment in solid waste disposal may
arise from the fact that for rural residents, waste disposal costs have con-
sisted primarily of transportation expenses. Only in some cases have municipal
or county taxes been used to marginally maintain sites. Essentially, then,
solid waste control for many citizens within Wyoming has traditionally been
provided at very little or no cost. As discussed previously, this situation
generally leads to difficulty in convincing the public that a problem does, in
fact, exist. Education of rural users is going to be the key to the success of
any new or modified solid waste management system.
3. Land Use, Social and Political Factors
The use and conservation of the land as a heritage and resource are serious
issues in Wyoming. The land is the source of wealth and any disturbances of
that relationship are resisted vigorously. Outside interference in the local
political process, especially from the Federal level, is generally opposed by
the towns and County Commissioners. Planning for resource use must originate
from the traditional values and the political process already established, and
can be enforced from the outside only with great difficulty. In Wyoming, the
owner's right to the use of his land is sacrosanct, and laws, traditions and
social forces support this right. Proper solid waste collection and disposal
need not be in conflict with these values. For example, RCRA places the States
in the role of the solid waste regulatory authority if the State solid waste
plan is approved by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Federal government is the major land owner in the Western States. This
dominant ownership concentrates development on limited private holdings among
larger Federal parcels. The quantity and pattern of Federal ownership of land
-------
by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the National Forest Service (NFS) and
other U.S. governmental agencies is repeated throughout the States in
Region VIII and is a serious concern and point of conflict among states and the
Federal government. The Federal agencies responsible for land management have
begun to recognize their operating responsibilities under RCRA. The local
political process considers the management of solid waste disposal on Federal
lands as a Federal responsibility.
C. Study Goals
The goals of this study and the subsequent waste management plans developed
within it are defined by the mandate of EPA, the needs of the state, and the
constraints and resources of the counties and towns involved. They include:
o to review the literature on rural disposal and approaches by other
areas;
o to develop a technical approach for evaluating rural solid waste dis-
posal;
o to assist the State of Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
Solid Waste Management Program in the development of its Comprehensive
State Plan; and
o to develop low-cost, flexible and implementable solid waste management
plans for Carbon County and Big Horn County, Wyoming.
10
-------
II. STUDY APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
A. Literature Review
The literature addressing rural solid waste management in the context of
Wyoming is limited. The experience with eastern rural systems has limited rel-
evance to Wyoming. However, most of the waste management plans described in
the literature provide a perspective on the general issues that any solid waste
management plan must address.. This general perspective was most useful in
refining the scope of the "study and defining issues and concerns to be
addressed during the field visits. Issues which are critical to the formula-
tion of solid waste management plans and districts in rural areas include:
o economics and financing;
o politics;
o public participation and education;
o technical recommendations; and
o centralization.
Each item is discussed below.
1. Economics and Financing
Generally, rural budgets are frugal. There is limited ability to expand an
existing program or establish a new program without an accompanying reduction
in service somewhere else or an unpopular increase in taxes. "What does the
system cost?" and "How are we going to pay for it?" are two questions that must
be answered by a solid waste management plan. The economics and supposed bene-
fits of systems vary and must be carefully analyzed. "Is there a cost sav-
ings?" "Are we spending existing revenues correctly?" "We need a fire protec-
tion system but we're paying for garbage disposal." These are the types of
concerns that will be raised. Additionally, the creation of a solid waste man-
agement district with its own taxing authority can be very controversial. In
smaller communities there are no narrow economic issues; every issue is inter-
related. Each is affected by the limited total budget for public expenditures.
11
-------
Any economic analysis must begin with the establishment of the baseline
(current) costs of the system, and the estimation of the costs for any proposed
changes. Many of the theoretical models of solid waste management assume that
baseline cost data are accurate and readily available. This is seldom the case
in rural areas. In many areas equipment and personnel are shared among several
programs and it is difficult to establish a cost allocation plan that can esti-
mate the cost of each function. In rural areas, practical experience and com-
parisons with other areas may be the best cost estimation techniques.
Centralized solid waste disposal normally provides a major opportunity for
significant cost savings since there are major economies of scale in solid
waste disposal. A ten fold increase in waste volume is estimated to achieve a
reduction in unit costs by almost seventy percent . Figure 1 illustrates gen-
eral economies of scale, but it is not a basis for cost estimates in this
study. The balancing of the cost savings of centralizing disposal with the
apparent increased transportation and collection costs is a major economic
issue. Many times, increasing the efficiency of collection through centraliza-
tion can also decrease overall transportation costs. Any analysis must be
balanced by the uncertainty inherent in cost estimates in rural areas.
A financial analysis ties anticipated costs into a package with the appro-
priate revenues, sources and contractual arrangements. This process presents
management and administrative problems in rural areas. Additionally, solid"
waste management must compete for funds with other local priorities. Financing
options include pay-as-(or before)-you-go; leasing; and long-term borrowing,
including revenue bonds and general obligation bonds (Zausner, 1972). The
choice of financing technique depends on the specific situation and the statu-
tory authority of the governmental unit.
Kunes, et.al. (1973) present an excellent outline of a range of alterna-
tives for administering and financing management systems, including taxes and
user fees, and contractual approaches, agreements and ordinances. With regard
to the equitable sharing of costs, Kruth (1973) strongly recommend a formal
contractual arrangement for allocating costs. An informal agreement nearly
invalidated all effort accomplished in establishing a waste management district
12
-------
FidUli
ECONOMIES OF SCALE IN LANDFILLS
$/meter3
Capacity 1000's
MVyear ;
Tons per day ;
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
8
I
12
16
I I
20 24
28 32 36 40
T
44
48
I
52
56
12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 160 172
.\ Note: Tons per day figure assumes that the waste has the same density as water
Source: Arthur D. Little, Inc. Integrated Economic Impact Assessment of Hazardous
Waste Regulations: Preliminary Draft Report Washington, D.C.; U.S.E.P.A.; May 1978
-------
in Tennessee. The benefits and costs should be clarified and relationships and
responsibilities written into a contract among the involved jurisdictions so
that no one participant obtains an advantage or a benefit at less than a fair
share of the costs.
2. Politics
Politics is, in many cases, the dominant factor affecting the development
of solid waste management plans and districts in rural areas. Plans must
address the solid waste problems as perceived by local and county governments.
Many times this requires an intensive information and education process. In
rural areas the active support of local and county governments is essential
before any plan can be implemented. A discussion of the political process is a
common thread through each study examined during the literature review. The
political situation is reported more often as the limiting variable in imple-
mentation than is cost or technical feasibility (Johnson, Fermalia and Crank,
1978; Toftner, 1973; Winfrey, 1972; and Kunes, et al, 1973).
The decision-makers are different in each political jurisdiction. Whoever
they are, they must be involved to insure the success of any rural operation.
For instance, in Klamath County, Oregon, the County Engineer's Office, initi-
ated a program to clean up abandoned vehicles in the county (W.T. Dehn, 1974).
\ The collection and disposal of junked cars by the County was provided as a
service to community, although there was a per-vehicle charge for vehicles
taken from private property to defray the costs of the portable baler. In
Humphreys County, Tennessee, the County Court (similar to County Comissioners)
was the advocate for the establishment of a solid waste management district
(Kruth, et al, 1973). In Montana (Hennington, Durham and Richardson, 1976),
the state government worked closely with the legislators and the counties in
the different State Districts to formulate feasible plans. The towns and
counties were responsible for waste management and the state assisted by
providing technical assistance through EPA grants to fund planning at the local
level.
14
-------
3. Public Participation and Education
From the inception of any effort which may change existing solid waste
operations, the public must be involved. Any program for improved solid waste
management must recognize that dramatic changes in traditional methods of waste
disposal may be required. Frequently these changes have very significant cost
and the benefits are not readily apparent to the general public. Individual
citizens are the basis of support for change and the effectiveness of any
change relies on their cooperation. The plan must respond to their needs and
must be explained in their terms. The involvement of the citizens throughout
the plan development process is a necessity.
Many studies recommend public information campaigns and public participa-
tion in plan development. Toftner (1973) develops an excellent theoretical
model for developing solid waste management plans in the context of computing
public priorities. This approach is more applicable to areas more urbanized
than Wyoming, but it does a provide a useful framework for understanding the
diverse and complex forces acting within a community.
In Humphreys County, Tennessee, the county fair served as a vehicle for
public education. The EPA Source Separation Report outlining a community
awareness program in two Massachusetts towns serves as an excellent source of
ideas for developing a public participation program. The study suggests the
presentation of data through the media, the schools, community groups and work-
shops and also provides guidelines for developing a community awareness pro-
gram. In Newcastle, Wyoming, community volunteer activity, sponsored by the
Junior Chamber of Commerce, was the key to removing junk autos and cleaning up
neighborhood debris (Dehn, 1974).
' In planning for rural solid waste management, other rural planning experi-
ences are helpful. For example, in Big Horn County, Wyoming in 1974, (Nellis,
1980), there was public opposition to land-use planning; however, by mid-1975
the comprehensive land-use plan was underway. The major turnabout in public
attitudes was accomplished through attention to the local problems and sensiti-
vities, an emphasis on local and not national priorities; and the utilization
of appropriate rural, not urban, planning tools and methods. The requirement
15
-------
that any planning, including solid waste, must have an empathy for rural value
and needs and must be tied to public participation was made abundantly clear by
the success of land-use planning in Big Horn County.
In many smaller communities the local dump is a community gathering place
(Goldberg, 1974). Any "improved" solid waste management plan must carefully
consider the existing patterns and practices and how any change will disrupt
the public. This highlights the need for an extensive public participation
program to educate the public and inform decision-makers of local concerns.
4. Technical Recommendations
In rural areas, technical sophistication dooms many a cost-effective solu-
tion to failure. As mentioned previously, systems with a high initial capital
cost may be beyond the financing means of a community. Sophisticated systems
with major requirements for constant maintenance by specially trained mechanics
may also be doomed to failure. The technology must be appropriate to the prob-
lem and to the financing and operational constraints of the community.
There exists a large body of literature on landfilling techniques, collec-
tion and disposal systems and resource recovery options. The small population
and waste stream in Big Horn and Carbon Counties make many of the disposal
techniques inappropriate. The population density and dispersal, the limited
collection options and operational arrangements and the dearth of resource
recovery markets all but eliminates the potential for materials reclamation and
energy recovery. Hart (1979) outlines landfill technologies appropriate to a
broad range of waste volumes and economies; the techniques are related to Sec-
tion 1008 of RCRA and some are feasible for rural areas. Goldberg (1973) dis-
cusses a variety of small-scale collection systems including the two proposed
within this report. Resource recovery in rural areas comparable to Big Horn
and Carbon Counties has been determined to have limited feasibility (Henning-
ton, Durham and Richardson, 1976). However, a resource recovery survey of
North Dakota completed under the Region VIII Technical Assistance Panels
Program outlines a variety of options which may prove feasible for rural areas
in the future. At present, resource recovery in rural areas is limited in most
cases to aluminum recycling and abandoned vehicle reclamation.
16
-------
5. Centralization
The benefits of consolidation landfills and the centralization, or region-
alization, of collection and disposal systems are widely discussed in the lit-
erature. As discussed previously, there are significant, and very apparent,
economies of scale in solid waste management. To be most efficient, equipment
must be fully utilized. Centralization can group the demands of individual
communities together so that they can support an appropriate level of capital
inves tment.
B. Data Requirements and Sources
The primary data needs of an analysis of solid waste management alterna-
tives include existing and projected costs, waste characteristics, and documen-
tation of existing management practices.
For this study, the establishment of baseline costs relied on existing
data, the literature and the experience of the study team. Prior experience
with Colorado counties and information from County files provided the basis to
develop cost estimates for solid waste operations in Wyoming. Many times,
especially in rural areas, the actual costs of solid waste collection, hauling
and disposal are only partly accounted for by the budgeted line items for solid
waste management. Communities often transfer operating funds or share costs
with other budget areas, e.g., equipment and personnel may be shared with the
highway department. These problems make the estimation of the costs of collec-
tion and disposal difficult. Specific assumptions in this regard are discussed
in the text.
In order to plan an integrated solid waste disposal system and insure its
technical feasibility, a planner or engineer must establish the following fac-
tors:
o total volume of wastes generated and the annual and daily rates of
generation.
o the origin of the wastes;
17
-------
o the seasonal cycles of waste generation;
o the composition of the waste and relative contribution made by each
waste category; '
' \
«:'
o the number of private waste haulers, if any, and their individual vol-
umes hauled;
o the collection system and equipment used by haulers;
o the location, operation and life of all disposal sites; and
o outside influences on waste generation, collection and disposal.
i
Personal interviews and field investigations established the technical and
operational nature of current practices. Many times, secondary sources or per-
sonal observation had to substitute for comprehensive data collection and
analysis. Verbal rather than written exchanges dominate the rural experience,
and more can be determined by asking a few, well-defined questions than by
reviewing the small volume of literature focused on Wyoming Solid Waste
Management. The general literature available on rural solid waste problems
assisted in defining the scope of the questions asked.
The following methodology was used in modeling and describing the existing
solid waste situation:
o The boundaries of the area to be studied were selected and all commu-
nities or population centers within those boundaries were identified.
Population data, including a measure of the "relative dispersement"
(which is used to allocate resources for incorporated areas), growth
trends, and seasonal cycles were gathered from the best available
sources such as the local Chamber of Commerce, the Regional Councils
of Governments, telephone company and post office, or State Economic
and Planning Agency.
18
-------
o Estimates of waste quantities were made for each community using the
population data and an appropriate regional average for daily per cap-
ita waste generation. Special attention was given to commercial and
industrial waste generators. For the purpose of waste generation
quantity calculations, a figure of 3.5 pounds per capita per day, with
a density of 350 pounds per cubic yard was used for the rural areas;
5.0 pounds per capita per day, with a density of 250 pounds per cubic
yard was used for the towns. A figure of 4.3 pounds per capita per
day is an average waste generation rate. The quantities estimated
were substantiated or revised, where possible, with field data
obtained from local haulers or disposal site operators. This step
serves to correlate the "model" with actual conditions.
o Estimates of waste quality were also made using the above information
sources as a basis. Combining data on waste quantity and quality
gave an indication of overall demands on the existing system. In
order to estimate the different equipment needs of the rural and town
areas, the generation factors of the various waste streams were ana-
lyzed separately.
C. The Choice of Big Horn and Carbon Counties as Representative Models
Big Horn County, Wyoming, was chosen for this solid waste management study
and plan as representative of rural counties in Wyoming which are predominantly
farming and ranching areas with low population densitites and moderate rates of
growth. The county has grown slowly in the past ten years with no significant
development impacts to spur uncontrolled growth. Additionally, the State DEQ
determined that the county could not comply with Federal and State solid waste
regulations without some degree of outside help. This study examines the solid
waste management system in Big Horn County, and the plan can serve as a model
for other rural, agricultural counties in Wyoming.
Contrasting the situation in Big Horn County, Carbon County is heavily im-
pacted by energy development and experiencing a relatively high growth rate.
This growth places significant burdens on public services such as solid waste
management, and there is an immediate need for analysis and planning to prevent
or lessen impacts. Carbon County, then, serves as a model for other rural,
energy-impacted counties in Wyoming.
19
-------
III. BIG HORN COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
A. Background and Introduction
1. Specific County Problems and Goals in Solid Waste Management
Big Horn County is divided into North and South Bridge and Road Department
districts. Each district has the responsibility for the operation of a
landfill; the landfills are about thirty miles apart. Despite indiscriminate
dumping at local sites, the County government has not initiated any efforts to
modify individual hauling and dumping practices or to close the local
landfills. The County does, however, provide some assistance in operations by
covering particularly offensive indiscriminate sites on an irregular basis.
**
The problems with the existing solid waste management system begin with the
dispersed population, which has settled along the corridors of roads and
irrigation canals. This pattern influences the creation of roadside dumps and
hinders the existing system from coping with wastes. Population growth is
currently two percent annually and the county is growing again«after reaching a
low point in 1970. The population growth will make the existing solid waste
system inadequate very soon. 'The population is generally older0 and less able
to support the investment in infrastructure which mil be-x required for solid
waste and other public services.
Furthermore, revenues generated by taxation and assessment have reached
. . t ;;
their economic and -constitutional limits." Mining activity and minerals
production reached peak output decades ago while the mill levy tax has reached
its peak limit of. twelve mills per dollar assessed valuation. The limited
revenue base makes it .impossible to upgrade existing disposal sites to meet
State standards or repair equipment at the southern site without reducing
services in other areas.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) owns 62 percent of the land within the
County border and the National Forest Service (NFS) owns 18 percent. Their
ownership reduces the land-use flexibility for solid waste disposal. This
situation constrains development while encouraging indiscriminate dumping on
20
-------
Federal land. The parcels which BLM leases to towns for waste disposal have no
stipulations which would require environmentally-sound disposal operation
practices. The rural population has become accustomed to individual hauling
and indiscriminate dumping and has resisted any improvement in the system if it
restricts current practice. This occurs despite the local values placed on
conservation of land.
The goals of a solid waste management plan in Big Horn County are to
establish a cost-effective system which can meet State standards and handle all
the wastes generated in the county.
2. Population and Trends
As the railroad laid tracks along the Big Horn River in the second half of
the last century, construction camps were set up to follow the progress of the
road bed. Several of these camps became water and fuel stops for trains; some
became trading posts. Many of these original camps are now settlements and
towns. People settled in these towns due to the transportation afforded by the
railroad and the river. Irrigation systems developed in the early 1900's were
another significant influence on settlement patterns. The irrigation system
served farming areas; thus, farming areas were focused along the irrigation
canals, creeks and rivers.
The lowest population in Big Horn County in the past fifty years occurred
in 1970. This population decline has reversed. From 1970 to 1976, the county
grew by approximately 760 persons; from 1976 through 1979 the population grew
by 1,384 persons. Sixty-one percent of this growth has occurred in rural
areas.
This study defines Lovell, Greybull, and Basin as towns; all other areas
r
will be considered rural. A constant population estimate of 12,349 for the
county is used in figuring per capita waste generation and disposal costs
through 1985.
Sources for present and projected population data are the "Big Horn County
Population Estimate", and the "Final Population Matrix", published by the
Wyoming Department of Economic Planning and Development.
\
21
-------
3. Waste Generation
The northern portion of the county, which includes the town of Lovell, has
a population of 5,804 or forty-seven percent of the county population. The
southern portion of the county has a population of 6,545 or fifty-three per-
cent of the county residents. The waste generation is distributed along the
routes of trade and along the irrigation system.
The volume of household solid waste remains nearly constant throughout the
year. Yard and farm wastes increase during the frost free season and expand
the total waste stream by as much as fifteen percent above the average annual
volume in the rural areas. Waste volume increases during the summer months as
much as thirty percent due to local trade activities, tourism, and late spring
or early fall cleanup.
Of the 9,656 tons of waste generated in Big Horn County, sixty-one percent
is collected and disposed of in the two regional landfills. The remaining
thirty-nine percent is disposed of in other landfill locations. These sites
are located as near as possible to rural populated areas. However, the
distance which most residents must travel to dump their trash encourages the
search and use of alternative disposal sites which are scattered throughout the
perimeter of the populated areas.
4. Waste Composition
There is a difference in the waste generated by rural and settled areas.
Town-generated solid waste consists of general household refuse, commercial
trash, industrial waste and waste generated by tourists. Town solid waste is
less dense per cubic yard than rural farm waste. The commercial fraction of
solid waste is generally of low density and includes corrugated containers,
packing material and crating. Bush and shrub trimmings from residential yards
also reduce density.
Farm waste consists of general household waste, trees, stumps, demolition
debris, and worn-out farm machinery. This type of waste, excluding household
waste, is termed "bulky waste" and must be handled in a manner different from
that of household refuse. Two types of waste generated by farming activities
22
-------
must be treated with special care. These wastes include pesticide containers
and septic tank pumpings. Empty pesticide containers should be triple-rinsed
and punctured prior to disposal in a sanitary landfill. Pumpings from septic
tanks are a type of waste common to rural areas. Currently, pumpings are dis-
posed of by tank truck operators on their own or at local wastewater treatment
lagoons. Wastewater and sewage treatment sludge is generated in small quanti-
ties and is not a disposal problem.
B. The Existing Solid Waste Management System
1. Solid Waste Collection System
In Big Horn County, Wyoming, solid waste collection and disposal are
decentralized. The towns of Lovell, Greybull and Basin, and the rural
community of Byron, each have a waste collection service. These communities
account for fifty-seven percent of the county population of 12,349. The
remaining households provide their own transportaton to a disposal site.
The typical charge for household collection ranges from $2.50 to $3.75 per
month. The collection of solid waste is partially subsidized, so the actual
cost of collection is greater than these figures. For this analysis the house-
hold cost is assumed to be $3.50 and the annual cost of solid waste collection
is estimated to be greater than $120,000. This assumes that there is no cost
to households transporting their own wastes.
2. Solid Waste Disposal System
Disposal of solid wastes in Big Horn County takes place at two county dumps
and seven community dumps. It is estimated that almost 10,000 tons of solid
V
waste are generated and disposed of annually (see Table 1). Each disposal site
is discussed below and is shown in Figure 2.
County Landfills. Big Horn County operates two landfills which are cen-
trally located within the more populated zones of the County. The northern
landfill is near Lovell and the southern landfill is between Basin and Grey-
bull. The County does not have a county solid waste management district. The
23
-------
FIGURE 2
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
BIG HORN COUNTY, WYOMING
EXISTING SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
SITES WITHIN BIG HORN COUNTY
EXISTING SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
SITES WITHIN PARK COUNTY
24
-------
COMMUNITY
TOWNS
Lovell
Greybull
to
Basin
TOTAL
Town
Rural
TABLE 1
POPULATION AND SOLID WASTE GENERATION (1979)
BIG HORN COUNTY
RURAL
Byron
Cowley
Frannle
Deaver
Remaining North
Section
Burlington
Otto
Shell, Greybull
Heights
Remaining Central
Section
Manderson
Hyattvllle. Paint
Rock
Remaining South
Section
ANNUAL (1979) SOLID
WASTE GENERATION
rurui.ni iun
2729
540
470
171
198
1656
2400
165
58
775
395
1325
193
218
1056
12,349
6,454
5,895
Tons
2490
345
300
105
126
1058
2190
105
37
495
252
1209
125
140
a
675
9,656
5,889
3,767
Cubic Yards (yd.3)
19,920
1,967
1,710
621
718
6,031
17,520
599
211
2,822
1,436
9.672
713
798
3,848
68,586
47.112
21.474
-------
Road and Bridge Department has the responsiblity for the dump operation. The
department is unable to keep up with landfill maintenance tasks due to its pri-
mary responsibilities which include road and bridge repairs in good weather and
snow plowing in the winter. The operational problem of transferring equipment
from jobs to the landfill site is cumbersome and expensive.
The County operates the regional sites five days per week but the dumping
grounds are open to the public for disposal seven days per week. This practice
accommodates those rural residents who can only haul and dump their wastes.on
the weekend. However, the practice of a seven day per week dumping privilege
causes several operational problems in waste control. These include the dis-
posal of wastes at inappropriate places; the disposal of inappropriate wastes;
e.g., still glowing embers, and pesticide containers; blowing litter and trash;
and the burning of wastes, either by carelessness or by design. Rural wastes,
disposed of on weekends, are usually loose and uncompacted. These materials
scatter much more readily in the wind than do compacted wastes hauled and dis-
posed during the week by local collection services.
The northern district has only recently begun to employ the trench method
of landfill disposal at their site. An intermittent stream flows along the
southern boundary of the landfill. Disposal is within a relatively impermeable
bentonite shale layer, and leachate migration into the stream has not been
observed. Diversion ditches are present at the landfill to contain runoff,
which evaporates. Blowing debris is occasionally a problem which could be
mitigated through the use of windscreens. The usable life of the landfill is
estimated at ten years, if disposal continues at the present rate.
The southern landfill is located in an ideal geological area west of High- ,,
ways 16 and 20. There is land adjacent to the present site which is available ._""
for future landfill expansion. This would enable the site to serve the land-
fill requirements of the southern district for at least twenty more years. By
dumping in an organized manner and by consistently compacting trash, available
landfill area would be more efficiently managed. These improvements would
extend the useful life of the site.
26
-------
Deaver. The Deaver site serves Big Horn County but is located west of town
in Park County on BLM land. Cover is not applied to the wastes and the site is
poorly maintained.
Frannie. The disposal site near Frannie is located near the junction of
State Highways 310 and 789, to the west of town in Park County. The wastes
have been pushed into piles by a small Park County bulldozer around the
perimeter of the site. At this location, very large steel oil tanks and parts
have been deposited. No evidence of waste cover has been noted and it was
obvious that some waste piles had been sitting uncovered for many years.
Burlington-Emblem. The disposal site near Burlington and Emblem is located
»
between the two communities in a non-populated area west of Route 30. Wastes
are disposed in a trench recently excavated by a local contractor. Problems
'£*3
with this site include infrequent cover, frequent burning, blowing litter, and
dead animals.
Manderson. The disposal site at Manderson is located south of town in a
drainage area. The site currently has the potential for pollution of surface
water supplies. It has problems with blowing litter, dead animals, and uncon-
trolled burning. ' "A new site has been planned south and east of the present
site, which will be opened with State approval.
->''" \
Hyattville. The disposal site used by Hyattville is located in a gully.
Problems include uncontrolled burning, dead animals, blowing waste and the
potential for surface water pollution.
Shell. The town of Shell runs a five acre site located east-southeast of
town. This site services the local residents and a Girl Scout camp. Problems
include uncontrolled burning, blowing waste, and dead animal disposal.
Otto. The Otto site is located north of town. This site is periodically
covered by a local resident as a public service. Problems at this site include
uncontrolled burning, blowing wastes and drainage into the trench from surface
runoff.
27
-------
For 1979, the total costs of solid waste disposal in Big Horn County are
estimated at $68,000 by the County government. There are obviously some costs
of operation of the non-County disposal sites which are not included in this
estimate. These costs are difficult to estimate since many of the operations
are. on a casual or informal basis.
C. Alternative Solid Waste Management Systems
There exists three basic alternatives for future solid waste management in
Big Horn County:
o maintenance of the status quo;
o upgrade the existing system to minimum legal requirements; and
o development and implementation of a regional integrated solid waste
management system.
Each alternative is discussed below.
1. Continued Use of the Existing (Baseline) System
The total costs of solid waste management in Big Horn County can be con-
servatively estimated to be over $188,000 annually. This includes $120,000 for
collection and $68,000 for disposal. Realistically the annual costs are proba-
bly closer to $200,000. This higher figure does not include depreciation of
capital equipment or the cost of land. Thus a "true cost" would probably be
closer to $250,000. This corresponds to a annual cost per capita of $16.20 to
$20.25. For the purposes of this analysis an annual cost of $200,000 was
used. Table 2 projects county-wide collection and disposal costs through 1985
escalated by an inflation rate of 12 percent per year. Table 2 also includes
planned capital expenditures necessary to maintain the present County waste
handling operation in its current status through 1985.
}7
Several of the communities in the county are planning to purchase equipment
in the next five years. Greybull has recently ordered a side-loading
collection system which will be installed in 1980. Byron has established a
local solid waste management district and will install a new collection system
28
-------
TABLE 2
ANNUAL COST PROJECTIONS 1980-1985
BIG HORN COUNTY
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
Present Method of Waste $200,000 $224,000 $251,000 $281,000 $315,000 $352,000 $395,000
Management
No change 1n county
operations
12% annual Inflation
factor
Greybull New Sldeload System 12,300 12,300 12,300 12,300 12,300 ,12,300
-k-
Byron New System 22,900 22,900 22,900 22,900 22",900
* Lovell New Collection Truck .4,900 4,900 4,900 4,900 4,900
Basin New Collection Truck 4,900 4,900 4,900
Greybull New Collection Truck 7,300
Annual Cost - Business As Usual $200,000 $236,300 $291,100 $321,100 $360,000 $397,000 $447,300
Annual Cost Per Capita $16.20 $19.14 $23.57 $26.00 $29.15 $32.15 $36.22
-------
including new trucks in 1980-81. Lovell is purchasing a new collection truck
next year. Basin and Greybull should purchase new collection vehicles by 1985
to serve as front line vehicles so that older equipment can be utilized as
spares for down-time or overload capacity. These capital costs were included
in the baseline scenario and were annualized assuming a ten-year life and a
discount rate of ten percent.
The costs outlined in Table 2 assume a business-as-usual approach to solid
waste management and include annualized capital costs, for all new equipment.
This scenario assumes that, the operations of the County would remain stable
and that no new equipment would be purchased by the County.
2. Upgraded Systems
Present and pending State and Federal regulations will increase the annual
costs of solid waste management in Big Horn County. To meet State requirements
for the existing rural satellite disposal sites, the County must upgrade its
operations. The County would be required to dig trenches at those sites which
do not have trenches for disposal; cover the wastes disposed at each site on at
least a monthly basis; fence the sites; and construct wind screens at each
site. The major capital cost would be for a dozer to dig the trenches, compact
and cover the wastes. One dozer could serve the County and could be transported
on a rotating basis to each satellite.
The capital cost for the necessary equipment and facilities is estimated
$318,000. This corresponds to an annualized cost of $51,750 over ten years at
ten percent interest. Annual operating expenses are estimated at $25,000
(Table 3). Total costs to the County at large for the business-as-usual scena-
rio and the satellite system upgrading scenario are displayed in Table 4.
The upgraded, unmanned sites would have several operational shortcomings,
including:
o open burning dumps;
o multiple sources of air and water pollution;
o disposal of dead animals and bulky wastes;
o indiscriminate dumping.
30
-------
TABLE 3
COSTS TO UPGRADE RURAL SATELLITE SITES, BIG HORN COUNTY
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES (1980 Dollars)
- Dozer with ripper $230,000
- Wind Screen and Fencing
7 Sites @ $4,000 28,000
- Truck and "Lo-Boye" Trailer 60,000
- TOTAL $318,000
- ANNUALIZED CAPITAL COST
(10 years @ 10%) $ 51,750
OPERATING COSTS (1980 Dollars)
- Labor:
Part-time help $ 10,400
- Maintenance 2,000
- Fuel 10,000
- Miscellaneous 2,600
- TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COST $ 25,000
TOTAL ANNUAL COST $ 76,750
31
-------
TABLE 4
ANNUAL COST PROJECTIONS 1980-1985
UPGRADING OF RURAL SITES
BIG HORN COUNTY
1980-1985
Basel ine
Upgrading
o Annualized Capital
Cost
o Operating. Cost
(1980 Dollars
w Inflated @ 12%)
Si
Total Annual Cost
Annual Cost Per Capita
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 TOTAL
$200,000
-
-
$200,000
$ 16.20
$236,300
-
-
$236,300
$ 19.14
$291,100
51,750
28,000
$370,850
$ 30.03
$321 ,100
51 ,750
31 ,360
$404,210
$ 32.73
$360,000
51 ,750
35,120
$446,870
$ 36.19
$397,000
51,750
39,340
$488,090
$ 39.52
$447,300
51 ,750
44,060
$543,110
$ 43.98
$2 ,052 .800
258,750
177 ,880
$2,489,430
-------
3. A Regional Integrated System
In order to resolve the solid waste management problems associated with
even an upgraded system, Big Horn County must consider a comprehensive program
including the following:
o Establish a county-wide Solid Waste Management
District (SWMD).
o Install a Bulky Waste Management System.
o Close all local open solid waste disposal sites.
o Implement a county-wide waste collection system.
**
o Upgrade the existing county disposal sites.
The establishment of a SWMD provides for the centralized management and
secure financing necessary to obtain a cost-effective 'solid waste management
system that has the flexibility to accommodate long-term demands on the
system. 7 ,
*
This proposed integrated system consists of two separate sub-systems which
work together to manage residential and commercial wastes and bulky waste
items. Bulky waste items will be handled with a large container system, or
roll-off system. Components of this roll-off system include a diesel truck, a
tilt frame and 14 containers. . - :'..'. -./'
* . '
.V
The capital cost of ro-ll-^off system is estimated to be $120,200. The
annualized capital cost is $19,600; operations costs are $32,500 (Table 5).
The roll-off system is illustrated in Figure 3.
Residential wastes and any commercial wastes will be collected from the
towns and rural areas by a side-load system operated by one person. This
system is on order for Greybull. The components of this system include two
side-loader collection units and 600 three cubic yard containers. This system
is illustrated in Figure 4.
33
-------
TABLE 5
PROPOSED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
BIG HORN COUNTY
Capital Expenditures
o Roll-off System
Truck Tilt Frame
14 Containers @ $3,300
13 Site Preparation @ $2,000
TOTAL
$48,000
46,200
26,000
$120,200
o Side-load System
2 Collection Trucks @ $48,000
3 cu. yd. Containers 600 @ $240
TOTAL
o Landfill Upgrade
Total Capital Expenditure
Annualized Capital Cost
$ 96,000
144,000
240,000
20,000
380,200
61,875
Operating Costs
o Roll-off System
Labor
Maintenance
Fuel
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
o Side-load System
Labor
Maintenance
Fuel
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
$20,800
2,500
6,600
2,600
$41,600
3,500
27,300
3,600
32,500
76,000
34
-------
o Landfill Costs
Labor (shared with Roll-off)
Fuel
Maintenance
Misce1laneous
TOTAL
$31,200
4,600
3,500
2.000
$ 41,300
Administrative Costs
Total Operating Costs
Total Annual Cost
25,000
174,800
236,675
35
-------
FIGURE 3
ROLL-OFF SYSTEM
A) TILT-FRAME TRUCK
(Source: Perfection-Cobey, Co.)
B) TILT-FRAME TRUCK AND CONTAINER
(Source: Accurate Industries, Inc.)
36
-------
FIGURE 4
SIDE-LOAD SYSTEM
(AUTOMATED COLLECTION TRUCK AND CONTAINERS)
(Source: Perfection-Cobey, Co.)
37
-------
The capital costs of the side-load system are estimated at $240,000. The
annualized cost is $39,100. Operating costs are $76,000 (Table 5).
In estimating expenses for waste collection, and transfer and disposal,
direct district management was assumed. If private and County-run systems were
equally efficient, a County-run operation should have lower capital costs and
operating expenses. The County would be exempt from sales, fuel and road
taxes, and might receive a discount on equipment. A County-run system would
not be economically obligated to produce a profit, although that motive would
encourage a private contractor to operate more efficiently.
4. Conclusions
The first alternative discussed above, that of maintaining the status quo
with the continued operation of the existing (baseline) system, must be consid-
ered an unrealistic and undesirable alternative due to the facts that:
o it would generally not meet existing and pending solid waste manage-
ment rules, regulations and guidelines; and
o would further entrench existing inefficiencies while ignoring long-
term goals.
Cost information obtained from analysis of this alternative, however, can serve
to provide a basis of comparison with the other two alternatives.
The second alternative, upgrading the existing system, consists essentially
of the minimum steps which need to be taken to comply with the rules,
regulations and guidelines referred to above. The operational shortcomings for
this alternative (listed previously) point out the fact that while such a
system would be legal, it would also be somewhat inefficient, provide only for
short-term needs, and leave unsolved several environmental problems.
However, the third alternative provides for a far-sighted efficient manage-
ment system. If implemented, this regional integrated approach would allow the
following goals to be met:
38
-------
o cost effectiveness;
o compatibility with existing or recently planned systems;
o capability to handle all solid waste generated within
the Management District;
o capability to handle seasonal volume and composition
variations;
o flexibility to expand to meet future needs;
o accessibility and convenience to all residents;
o long-term management of solid waste;
o compliance with local, State, and Federal laws; and
o protection of public health, safety and the environment.
The proposed system will eliminate the need for rural satellite disposal
sites and limit disposal to existing upgraded county sites. The system will be
able to collect commercial and residential waste from the towns and rural areas
on a weekly basis and to collect and dispose bulky items on a county-wide
basis.
The annual per capita cost comparisons through 1985 for the three
alternative management scenarios are summarized below:
Systems Cost (per capita)
Year Business Present Plus Proposed
As Usual Rural Upgrade Integrated
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
$19.14
$23.57
$26.00
$29.15
$32.15
$36.22
$19.14
$29.44
$32.14
$35.52
$38.79
$43.18
$19.14
$23.16
$17.95
$16.38
$17.82
$19.42
39
-------
These estimates conservatively assumed a constant population rather than
growing population. If population increases, the advantage of the proposed
system will be greater.
For the above-stated reasons, it is recommended that the regional
integrated system be implemented, as discussed below.
D. Implementation of the Recommended System
A very critical requirement for success of the proposed integrated system
is that its component systems be implemented in the proper phases. The exist-
ing disposal methods and operations are to be phased out during 1980 and 1981
while the SWMD is being assembled administratively. The plan then requires that
the roll-off system be installed in 1981 prior to any other capital or con-
struction activity. The roll-off system will replace the present rural disposal
sites in Big Horn County.
V
1. Establishment of a Solid Waste Management District
a
9
The establishment of a" county-wide solid waste management district entails
a tremendous amount of political front-end work, public education and public
participation. I>rior to the formation of the SWMD, the County should approach
the towns and rural landowners with the plan and cost figures. Time should be
spent explaining the goals, operation, and economics of an improved system.
Next, the commissioners should formally establish, by resolution, a SWMD under
Section 18-11-101 of the Wyoming State Statutes. The commissioners should then
appoint a three member governing board to head the district; the board would
then assume any further responsibility for political, financial, and technical
matters. The Board would continue to meet with the towns and rural areas to
enlist their support and involvement in the district. A special effort should
be made to win over town support and to demonstrate the benefits of an inte-
grated system. Six more board members could be appointed to the district from
the towns if and when all entities reach agreement. The nine governing board
members would evaluate the feasibility of the proposed plan, its implementation
40
-------
strategy, the existing and proposed costs and alternative sources of revenue.
The plan proposed by this study provides a starting point for consideration by
the Board.
2. Phase I
Containers will be located in thirteen strategic locations, inluding those
of the present disposal sites, which will be closed and covered during contain-
er site preparation. Clean up costs for present sites were included in Site
Preparation expenditures, Table 5. The locations should be selected close to
rural centers and on paved, all-weather roads. Five containers will be placed
in the northern portion of the county and eight containers will be located in
the southern portion. One container shall always be used for replacement of
full containers when loading occurs.
The landfill closure and site construction would enable rural haulers to
dump wastes into the roll-off containers just as they would have dumped onto
the existing sites. The roll-off containers take the place of the rural
landfills. During the first year of roll-off operations, the towns would be
collecting and disposing their wastes in the same manner as they do now. Only
the rural residential/commercial and rural bulky wastes will be collected in
the roll-off containers in 1981.
The following materials would be forbidden for the roll-off system to
insure optimal operation:
o dead animals;
o burning or smoldering material;
/
o tree limbs greater than four feet in length;
\f
o construction and demolition debris and tree stumps; and
o car bodies.
41
-------
Car bodies, tree stumps and large tree limbs will be collected by the
roll-off driver, using the tilt frame truck and a flatbed attachment, and dis-
posed of at a regional landfill. County residents will contact the landfill
operators when the service is required. Dead animals may be removed for use at
a rendering plant in Worland, Wyoming. If the animals cannot be taken by the
rendering plant, they can be picked up by the roll-off driver at the request' of
county residents. The dead animals should be disposed of in a separate pit at
the landfills and should be given an immediate cover of two to three feet of
soil. Expenses were incorporated into Table 5. Generators of construction or
demolition debris will need to negotiate a contract with landfill operators, to
obtain use of a roll-off container, or pay a user fee at the landfill and deli-
ver their materials personally.
The roll-off containers should be emptied once a week when they are col-
lecting both the rural residential/commercial wastes and the rural, bulky
wastes in 1981. The roll-off truck will carry the empty container to a site,
exchange empty for full, haul to the nearest regional landfill (Figure 5), dump
and return the emptied container to the site of the next full container. Oper-
ations change, in 1982 when the side-load system comes on-line.
3. Phase II ; -
The second phase of the integrated system will be implemented in 1982 when
the side-loader collection and container (3 yd^) system is installed. The
side-loader system will collect all town and rural residential and commercial
wastes beginning in 1982. This will allow the roll-off system to, be redirected
to collection and disposal of non-putrescible, bulky wast'essuch as refriger-
* :'.' '
ators, stoves, furniture and other large items only. » ... "
r *
.'" "s
In 1981, two landfill operators and a roll-off driver, will be employed by
the system. The landfill operators will upgrade present disposal sites in the
morning and compact and cover wastes in the afternoon. The roll-off operator
will be working full time hauling containers. In 1982, the roll-off operator
could run the side-load system while the landfill operators are part-time on
the landfill in the afternoon and run the roll-off system in the morning. The
-------
FIGURE 5
REGIONAL LANDFILL SITES
BIG HORN COUNTY, WYOMING
REGIONAL SITES
43
-------
roll-off system, since it would collect only bulky wastes in 1982, would haul
each container only once every two weeks; thus, costs for the roll-off system
will decrease. The specialization of each system in 1982 would reduce the
costs of operation by 1983 for the roll-off system to 31% of those of 1981.
The side-load system will be installed in towns, along alley ways, at
commercial docksides, in recreational areas and at town facilities. In rural
areas, the side-load containers will be located along well traveled paved
roads, at the roll-off sites and near rural centers. Household garbage, paper,
cardboard and other household waste items will be placed by residents, in the 3
cubic yard containers which will be emptied at a minimum of once per week.
Table 6 shows the proposed route schedule and collection activity of the
integrated system.
Long-term upkeep of the roll-off and side-load containers and sites will be
necessary, due to anticipated vandalism and dumping outside of containers.
Costs for these factors were covered under labor and maintenance in Table 5.
An option to control vandalism and encourage dumping in containers is to fence
roll-off sites. Fencing costs for a 40 foot by 60 foot area would reach about
$2700, an expense which has not been included in cost estimates.
This system is consistent with existing local practices and the proposed
town systems. The town of Greybull has ordered a side-loading system to upgrade
its collection operation. Also, Byron was planning to purchase a similar
one-man system by 1985. Since these systems are compatible with the proposed
system, the process of phasing in the proposed system will be simplified.
4. Financing the System
If all areas of the county are working towards common goals with a common
governing board, then options for financing become broader based and more
likely to succeed. There are two potential methods of funding a sales tax
or an valorem levy. The County Commissioners and other elected officials are
those persons best qualified to make these decisions.
44
-------
TABLE 6
ROUTE SCHEDULE AND COLLECTION ACTIVITY, BIG HORN COUNTY
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Notes
Location and Waste Type
Northern Portion
Lovell commercials plus half
of residential containers
Remainder,of Lovell residential,
Byron plus rural SW of Lovell
Frannle/Deaver and rural
area northwest of Lovell
Remaining rural area .east
of Lovell. Lovell commercials
as required.
Possible rural route south
on Highway 32 and back north
on 310. Survey must be made
for weekly and semi-monthly
generation rates
Landfill Is located northwest
of Lovell, north of Route US 14
alternate.
Location and Haste Type
Southern Portion
Greybull commercials plus half
Greybull residential
Shell Valley rural plus balance of
residents In Greybull
Half Basin residential plus
commercial. Hyattvllle, Manderson
plus south rural
Remainder of Basin residential plus
Barllngton/Emblem and Otto
Greybull. and Basin commercial
Landfill located between Greybull
and Basin, west of Route 26 Wyoming.
Only a limited number of commercials
need to be collected twice per week,
but they are large generators.
-------
A solid waste district with a sound financial base would provide the
funding necessary for the independent operation of the solid waste management
district. This predictable funding would enable the District to plan a capital
development program and the necessary operating requirements.
This independent method of financing would free those portions of the
County and Town budgets which subsidized solid waste handling. This provides
towns with the incentive to become affiliated with the District.
>>
5. Resource Recovery Potential
A centralized county-wide system, where waste is collected and disposed in
one or two locations will offer greater opportunities for resource recovery.
However, the only items currently offering an opportunity are various metals.
Junked automobiles, farm machinery and household appliances, if accumulated at
each landfill, would serve as a stored resource base. When sufficient quanti-
ties are collected, reclamation activities could be put out for bid to compa-
nies in the recycling, reuse, or reclamation business. For instance, companies
with portable car crushers would be able to separate valuable materials from
useless parts, compact the iron and steel car bodies and, finally, haul them to
a scrap iron market. The markets closest to Big Horn County include Billings,
Montana for scrap dealers and Denver, Colorado for shredders. Since there is
such a large national market for recycled aluminum cans, the efforts of
citizens to reclaim scrap aluminum and cans constitute an initial phase of
resource recovery.
46
-------
IV. CARBON COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
A. Background and Introduction
1. Specific County Problems and Goals in Solid Waste Management
Carbon County can be divided into six distinct population centers. These
centers encompass eighteen .cities, towns or communities, and approximately
fifteen separate solid waste disposal sites (see Figure 6).
The County government at present has no responsibility for operation of
the disposal sites and wants to continue that position. Towns generally main-
tain their own disposal sites to some extent with the exception of Hanna/Elmo
which uses a nearby abandoned coal mine. The County has recently begun to
provide some assistance in covering disposal sites on an irregular basis.
The current situation of many, poorly maintained disposal sites reflects
the County's growth pattern and dependence on energy development. The Hanna
coal field has been mined extensively for many years and was the major suppli-
er of coal for the Union Pacific Railroad. Residential development grew in
clusters around the mines and along the railroad lines rather than the typical
agrarian/ranching pattern following irrigation ditches, typical of Big Horn
County.
Carbon County is currently at its ad valorem tax limit of twelve mills
and must depend on increases in property values, mineral severance taxes and
royalties, and sales taxes for real revenue growth. This financial constraint
insures that new or expanded County programs will be examined critically.
The towns are also facing budgetary constraints due to infrastructure in-
vestments required by the high growth rate. Rawlins is planning to build a
new water distribution line. Other public facilities and roads throughout the
County will need upgrading, repair, or replacement to serve the increased
population. The basic services of water, sewerage, and roads will have a high
priority on any available capital or operating funds. Solid waste management
competes with these other needs for limited public funds.
47
-------
CARBON COUNTY
WYOMING
FIGURE 6
48
-------
Federal agencies and the State of Wyoming own or control 62 per cent of
Carbon County. The Bureau of Land Management controls 41 percent of the
land. BLM has a policy of providing leased land to communities for landfill
purposes for a token fee. Thus, the towns are accustomed to having cheap land
and low operating costs for their disposal operations.
2. Population and Trends
Since 1869, Carbon County, named for the extensive coal deposits which
underlay it, has been supported by the railroads, which mined the coal for
their own use. Today, energy related mineral extraction and ranching form the
economic base of the county. Population has grown rapidly in spurts, due to
the resurgence of coal and the influx of workers associated with the approval
and startup of new mines.
There are eighteen communities considered as distinct in this study. For
six of these (Lament, Savery, Shirley Basin, Arlington, McFadden, and Walcott)
population data were not available. For the purposes of this study, Shirley
Basin is assumed to have 650 people; Arlington, McFadden and Laraont are
assumed to have 150 each, and Savery and Wolcott are assumed to have 50 each
for a total of 1,200. This is about 5 per cent of the total county popula-
tion.
This study treats Rawlins, Hanna/Elmo, Medicine Bow, and Saratoga as
urban communities or towns. The rest are treated as rural communities. The
total population is estimated to be 25,699 and this is used to estimate waste
generation rates. Table 7 summarizes the population estimates for each commu-
nity.
Population data for communities was obtained from the "Wyoming Council of
Governments Planning Projections," 1979, and county-wide population is based
on the "Final Population Matrix," published by the Wyoming Department of
Economic Planning and Development. An annual growth rate of 1% was used in
population projections, as derived from the "1970 Census of Population," by
the U.S. Department of Commerce.
49
-------
TABLE 7
POPULATION AND WASTE GENERATION
IN CARBON COUNTY
Community
Town
Raw! ins
Hanna/Elmo
Medicine Bow
Saratoga
Rural .
Sinclair
Baggs/Dixon
Elk Mtn.
Encampment/
Riverside
Population Yards
14,500 , 2
488
463
2,699
1,440
231 ,.
2,725
797
«i
Weekly
,030
34
33
378
202
16
382
56
Tons Annual! v
' 13,231
311
301
2,457
1,310
147
2,480
507
Other Rural
2,339
164
1,490
TOTAL
25,682
3,295
22,233
Average per capita waste generation
(Source: Carbon County Planner)
- 4.7 Ibs/person/day
50
-------
3. Waste Generation
The population in Carbon County is generally located near established
community centers with relatively little dispersion. The communities pre-
sented in Table 7 are considered as the solid waste generation centroids (ex-
cluding construction and industrial wastes). The solid waste generation is
relatively constant throughout the year. Based on the number of hotel/motel
beds and the campground spaces, the tourist population in Carbon County is
less than one per cent of the total county population.
4. Waste Composition
The composition of wastes must be considered in the design of any system
to manage those wastes. Residential, commercial, and institutional wastes are
the primary concern of the study. In general, there is no reason to believe
that national averages for the composition of residential wastes are not app-
licable. However, a large proportion of the waste stream in Carbon County is
generated by the construction industry attempting to meet the demands from the
high growth rate in the county. These wastes impose special requirements on
waste collection and disposal and on the financial management of the waste
disposal system. Traditionally, in many rural areas, the construction indust-
ry has not paid a proportionate share of the total disposal costs due to the
lack of user charges at landfills, and the fact that most of the disposal
costs (e.g. Rawlins) are covered by utility assessments. Any integrated waste
management system should require individually negotiated contracts with major
construction companies to insure that companies pay an equitable cost for dis-
posal of their wastes.
Other types of waste categories of special interest are abandoned cars
and bulky wastes such as stoves, refrigerators, and miscellaneous iron, steel,
and other metal items. These categories present difficulties in conventional
disposal systems because they are hard to handle and compact. Efficient man-
agement of these wastes must be provided in an integrated plan. No county-
wide data on the volume of these wastes are available; however, a preliminary
estimate is that the management of these wastes require less than 10 per cent
of the resources required for total waste management.
51
-------
Industrial wastes are not included in this study. Generally, the Sin-
clair Refinery is the only generator of industrial wastes, and separate nego-
tiations should be conducted to address their special requirements. Problems
which must be considered include whether or not refinery wastes will be sub-
ject to hazardous waste program requirements, and how liability for disposal
should be shared.
Septic pumpings in the County are mostly taken to wastewater treatment
plants for disposal. Some illegal dumping on land probably occurs, but the
volume of pumpings is so low it does not support even one full time pumper in
the County. None of the existing wastewater or sewage treatment plants
generate sludge in large enough volumes to cause disposal problems.
B. The Existing Solid Waste Management System
1. Solid Waste Collection System
The two existing private haulers currently serve the two largest communi-
ties, Rawlins and Saratoga, in addition to segments of other communities.
Collection service is contracted for by individuals and billed by the company
directly to that individual. The largest hauler operates out of Rawlins and
charges $5 to $8 monthly for once a week residential service in or near Raw-
lins. For a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of private vs.
county-run collection and disposal systems, see Chapter 3, Section II A.
2. Solid Waste Disposal System
Disposal in Carbon County is currently the responsibility of municipal
governments, and occurs at ten disposal sites. Some of these sites are cur-
rently operated in compliance with State requirements. It is estimated that
more than 22,000 tons annually of solid waste are disposed at these sites.
These sites are described in more detail below and are shown in Figure 7.
52
-------
FIGURE 7
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING
O
Existing Sites
53
-------
Rawlins. This recently expanded disposal site is located approximately
two miles north of town on BLM land, and has at least twenty years of capacity
left. Environmental problems are few and are limited to operational difficul-
ties in winter and spring; no environmental or health hazards are apparent
except for blowing litter. The operation is an area fill and has severe prob-
lems with the lack of stockpiled cover material. The system is being
converted to a trench and cover operation. This is expected to solve these
problems. The landfill operation budget was $154,000 for fiscal year 1980.
New buildings and extensive earthwork will increase the 1981 budget to
$350,000, about 50 to 60 per cent of which will be operational costs. There
are two dozers, a scraper, and a landfill compactor dedicated to the landfill
operation. Rawlins is currently receiving about thirty-seven tons per day and
could probably handle up to fifty tons per day without increasing personnel or
equipment. No problems are anticipated with respect to regulatory
compliance. However, the operating cost seems high compared to similar
systems.
Baggs/Dixon. The town of Baggs has already formed a limited solid waste
district, the Snake River Solid Waste District, and is operating a trench and
cover landfill in compliance with State regulations. Operation is contracted
out and funded by ad valorem taxes within the district. Daily tonnage is
estimated to be one ton per day. Dixon did not participate in the Snake River
Solid Waste District and has a separate disposal site consisting of an
extremely deep trench licensed by the state. The trench is covered
infrequently. Residents of Savery also dump at this site. Operation costs
are assumed to be negligible, and, because of the depth of the trench, no
environmental problems have been encountered.
Saratoga. Saratoga has franchised operation of a small landfill to a
private party. The original operator recently sold his interest in the fran-
chise to a third party, who has requested the town purchase additional equip-
ment for the landfill operation. The site is on forty acres of BIM land.
Operation consists of trench and cover, and the site was originally projected
to last twenty-five years. Environmental problems are mainly related to blow-
ing litter and fire hazards.
54
-------
Encampment/Riverside. These towns run a small burning trench operation
just outside Encampment which is covered infrequently. There appears to be
capacity for several years at the site, but town officials are concerned that
dumping by non-residents of the towns is using up trench space too fast. Wind
and blowing debris are problems here, as elsewhere, but some fencing has been
installed around the trench. The State DEQ will probably require more fencing
and cessation of burning. In this case the towns will deplete their available
space more rapidly.
Hanna/Elmo. These towns utilize an uncontrolled open dump east of
Hanna. Dumping currently occurs on private property and no equipment or man-
power is dedicated either for cleanup or proper disposal operations. The
major environmental and public health hazards involve open burning, blowing
debris, insect and rodent vectors, and general public nuisances.
Medicine Bow. The town operates a small disposal site on BLM land quite
close to the Medicine Bow River. The town has looked for another site in con-
junction with BLM but is constrained by a lack of financial resources and the
fact that most of the accessible land nearby is privately owned. The town has
also considered instituting a collection service and hauling to another land-
fill, but cannot afford the capital investment. This site has the most seri-
ous potential for water pollution in the county by virtue of its proximity to
water. The site would probably require major capital intensive improvements,
such as a groundwater monitoring system and impervious cover material, to
bring it into compliance with State Department of Environmental Quality
regulations.
Elk Mountain. This town's disposal site is located in an abandoned
gravel pit east of town. The site is covered infrequently by the Highway
Department and is often burning. There appears to be some potential for water
pollution if large quantities of liquid wastes are dumped therein, and fire
hazards and blowing debris are also problems. Availability of suitable cover
might be a problem in upgrading this site.
Rural communities other than those previously listed and rural residents
account for approximately 2,700 people and about 2,000 tons per year of solid
waste. These communities, such as Sinclair, Shirley Basin, Lament, McFadden,
55
-------
Arlington, Savery, and Wolcott must be provided for in a comprehensive plan.
Currently, Sinclair, Shirley Basin, and Lament have readily accessible dispos-
al sites, of which Shirley Basin is the only one currently in compliance with
State requirements.
The present annual cost of disposal in Carbon County is estimated to be
at least $200,000 and possibly as much as $250,000. More accurate estimates
are difficult to arrive at, due to the problem of evaluating so many separate
operations. However, Rawlins, .with the largest single landfill, is spending
about $165,000 annually.
The disposal sites at Rawlins, Saratoga, Shirley Basin, Baggs, and Dixon
are all licensed by the State. Costs at these sites would be expected to rise
as fast as the rate of inflation. Sites at Lamont, Encampment and Sinclair
must be improved to receive State approval. The Elk Mountain and Medicine Bow
sites may require extensive costly improvements due to potential water pollu-
tion, and the Hanna/Elmo site will have to be cleaned up and operated at great
expense. Table 8 shows estimates of costs required to run a sanitary landfill
operation at these sites,, assuming no other changes in the system. The esti-
mates are based on a study for Carbon County prepared by Johnson, Fermelia and
Crank (JFC), and two different estimating procedures prepared by Booz-Allen
(BA) and Fred C. Hart Associates (FCH) using population data. A cost estimate
for a county-wide system based on a North Dakota study recently completed by
Fred C. Hart, Assoc. is also included. The JFC method was chosen as the basis
for further analysis later in this chapter because this study was conducted
specifically for Carbon County, while the other methods are general estimating
techniques. As the individual towns comply with State requirements," many will
be forced to contract out operations and can be expected to have coats 'on the
same order of magnitude as presented in the study for Carbon County. '-\
C. Solid Waste Management Systems
1. Rationale for a Centralized Regional Management System
The towns and County have three basic solid waste management alterna-
tives:
56
-------
TABLE 8
ESTIMATED LANDFILL OPERATION COSTS, CARBON COUNTY
JFC1
$162,900
75,250
37,050
32,850
19,800
39,100
19,600
BA2
$64,224
11,803
11,575
6,175
3,418
1,986
991
FCH3
$76,448
23,758
23,758
12,544
6,948
4,037
2,014
% County Pop
58.3
10.6
10.5
. 5.6
3.1
1.9
0.9
Town
4
Raw!ins/Sinclair _
Saratoga
Hanna/Elmo
Medicine Bow
Encampment/Riverside
Baggs/Dixon
Elk Mountain
Total $386,550 $100,172 $149,517 90.9
Total for County 386,550 110,20of 164,485^
Cost for County based on North Dakota Resource Recovery study - $156,420._
1. Based on the Johnson,Fermelia and Crank study, 1978, describing a two
year plan of operation for a proposed solid waste district, and setting
forth cost estimates. No basis for the estimates is given. Costs shown
do not include engineering and management fees shown in the original
study.
2. Based on the 1975 Booz-Allen report on unit costs for transfer, .shredding,
and landfilling. Costs are 1975 dollars adjusted to 1980 dollars at an
annual inflation rate of 10%. Expenses are reported on an annual cost
per ton basis. The smallest landfill in this study received 99 tons per
day, more than 2 1/2 times as much as the largest landfill in Carbon
County, i.e., Rawlins. Therefore, the effect of economies of scale is
magnified when using these figures for cost estimates in Carbon County.
57
-------
TABLE 8 (Cont.)
3. Based on a Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc. study on the economics of land-
fill disposal, including the effects of RCRA sanitary landfill criteria.
Costs are reported in 1978 dollars which have been adjusted to 1980
dollars at an annual inflation rate of 11 1/2%. This study presents
costs versus tons per day for 10, 100, and 300 TPD facilities. Rawlins/
Sinclair, at approximately 37 TPD, was calculated by straight line inter-
polation. Saratoga and Hanna/Elmo costs were assumed equal to that of a
10 TPD facility, with approximately 6.8 TPD each and the rest are esti-
mates based on a population ratio of the town in question to Saratoga.
4. Rawlins was grouped with Sinclair because of geographic proximity and the
fact that there is currently a private hauler in the area. Geographic
proximity resulted in the grouping of Hanna with Elmo, and of Encampment
with Riverside. Baggs was grouped with Dixon because of geographic prox-
imity and relative isolation from other communities. Note that JFC costs
are based on two landfills for the Baggs/Dixon area, whereas BA & FCH
costs assume one landfill.
5. Total county costs for the BA and FCH studies are arrived at by dividing
total community costs by 90.9%, the percentage of county population liv-
ing in communities.
6. Based on a Fred C. Hart study on Resource Recovery in North Dakota, in
which an estimate of costs per ton for landfilling was calculated in
three ways, for comparison with resource recovery costs. The average
cost portion was $6.67, which, when applied to the county population of
25,708 people generating 5# per person, per day, yields an estimate of
$156,420.00. This is given as a comparison of experienced landfill costs
in Region VIII.
58
-------
1) continuation of the status quo;
2) upgrading the existing system; or
3) formation and implementation of a centralized regional management
system.
Similary to the situation described in the Big Horn County analysis in Chapter
3, the first two options represent short-sighted planning. The first alterna-
tive will not be sufficient for complete compliance with rules, regulations,
and guidelines, while the second alternative solves some immediate problems,
but leaves open the probability for further changes to be needed within a few
years due to the continued existence of environmental concerns and operating
inefficiences.
The third, or preferred alternative, formation of a solid waste manage-
ment district and the centralization of disposal, allows the County to take
advantage of economies of scale in landfill operation costs. Savings in the
disposal operation can be greater than the cost of transfer, thereby realizing
a cost savings for the total solid waste management system. Table 9 presents
a comparison of the costs of the second and third alternative and adds a new
alternative, the direct haul option. The direct haul option provides a higher
level of service as compared to the other alternatives and involves the col-
lection and direct haul of wastes from the rural communities to the existing
landfill sites.
The following steps are recommended for the establishment of a county-
wide system to resolve solid waste problems in Carbon County.
o create a county-wide Solid Waste Management District (SWMD);
o appoint a Board of Directors representative of the county;
o take over and upgrade the operation of selected disposal sites
(i.e., Banna/Elmo, Saratoga, Baggs, Dixon) as funding and equipment
become available; and
o close other disposal sites and implement a collection or transfer
service for the affected areas as funding and equipment become
available.
59
-------
TABLE 9
SOLID HASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
COST ESTIMATES FOR CARBON COUNTY
1980-1985
Existing Disposal System, Upgraded
Annualized Capital Costs
Operating Costs
Total Annual Costs
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
$ 85,100 $ 85,100 $ 85,100 $ 85,100 $ 85,100 $ 85,100
301,600 337,800 378,300 423,700 474,500 531,500
^$386,700 $422,900 $463,400 $508,800 $559,600 $616,600
8
Recommended System
Annualized Capital Costs
Operating Costs
Total Annual Costs
$ 47,200 $ 64,100 $ 67,400 $ 67,400 $ 67,400 $ 67,400
56,200 86,800 108,700 120,500 133,700 148,200
$103,400 $150,900 $176,100 $187,900 $201,100 $215,600
Direct Haul Option
Annualized Capital Costs
Operating Costs
Total Annual Costs
$ 52,400 $ 56,900 $ 56,900 $ 56,900 $ 56,900 $ 56,900
54,100 137,900 154,400 173,000 193,700 217.000
$106,500 $194,800 $211,300 $229,900 $250,600 $273,900
Annual Savings of the Recommended
System over the Existing System
$283,300 $272,000 $287,300 $320,900 $358,500 $401,000
-------
The establishment of a district offers several advantages not otherwise
available to individual communities. Management can be centralized for
optimum efficiency and responsiveness to the community. A secure financial
base can be obtained which would allow greater flexibility and ensure system
ji '
\S,'stability. Equipment can be standardized, leading to reduced maintenance
costs. A district could work with other entities such as coal mines to form
working agreements which would be difficult if not impossible for individual
communities.
The proposed centralized system consists of two (possibly three) regional
landfills to handle the entire county in place of the ten or more sites
currently in use. A 40 cubic yard uncompacted roll-off container system,
illustrated in Figure 3, would take the place of the disposal sites which were
closed. Alternatively, a twenty yard rear-loading compactor truck, with a
two-man crew could serve Shirley Basin, Medicine Bow, Elk Mountain, Sinclair,
Encampment/Riverside, Baggs, Dixon and Lament. The provision of publicly
supported door-to-door collection service for these commmunities must also
consider that Rawlins, Saratoga and Hanna presently pay a private hauler for
waste collection. The District must obtain a track dozer with ripper, and a
Lo-Boye trailer and tractor rig for use at the landfill during its first
operational year.
2. Benefits of the Proposed System
Should the recommended or a similar plan be implemented, the following
positive accomplishments will be achieved:
o optimum efficiency;
o capability to handle all residential and commercial waste generated
in the county;
o flexibility to accommodate growth and changing needs;
o convenience for all residential users;
61
-------
o regulatory compliance; and
o protection of public health and the environment.
Cost savings resulting from the implementation of the recommended plan
versus the costs of keeping an upgraded version of the existing situation are
shown in Table 9.
D. Implementation of the Preferred System
1. Creation of a Waste Management District
The creation of a SWMD is not a simple undertaking. In Carbon County,
much of the groundwork has been completed. The critical steps would be the
choice of a Board of Directors representative of and responsive to the commu-
nities, and a choice of funding mechanisms. Hiring experienced staff familar
with solid waste operations is crucial to the success of the effort.
The Board, assisted by the District staff, should take the recommended
plan, evaluate its feasibility and costs, and modify it as appropriate. This
plan should be a starting point for consideration by the Board. Our analysis
indicates that the plan proposed by this study would provide an equitable
level of service for the entire county, and be much less costly in the long
run than upgrading the existing system.
2. A Phased Approach
A phased timetable, providing for consolidation of the landfills over a
period of two to three years, would allow for orderly acquisition of manpower
and equipment. A phased approach allows the responsible agency to grow into
full implementation. A phased implementation would allow any legal or admini-
strative problems with existing contracts to be resolved before the system
becomes fully operational.
62
-------
A two person District staff would be appropriate for initial operations.
The District manager would be responsible for all District operations includ-
ing public relations, liaison between the Board, towns and the County, and
other administrative functions such as budget preparation. The second staff
member would be an equipment operator, trained in landfill operations. Event-
ually this person could serve as' foreman and manager of all other District
employees.
After the initial phase, the District can assume responsibility for dis-
posal site operations, start to purchase transfer equipment and phase out cer-
tain landfills. Phasing out includes final clean-up of each site and instal-
lation of a 40 cubic yard roll-off container. The first priority for phasing
out disposal sites would be to phase out Encampment/Riverside and haul to
Saratoga; phase out McFadden, Elk Mountain, and Medicine Bow, and haul to
r>
Hanna; and phase out Dixon and haul to Baggs. Alternatively, Baggs and Dixon
could be grouped together and both hauled to-Rawlins. This, however, is not a
first priority and should depend on local needs and requirements. The Dis-
trict should explore the use of a coal mine pit near Hanna for waste disposal.
New equipment to be purchased during the second Operational phase in-
cluded one tilt-frame truck, at $48,000, and twelve 40 yard roll-off contain-
ers., at $3,300 each, for a total of $88,000.
''''" \
Site preparation includes closing and covering former sites, and building
container dumping stations. Cost is estimated at about $2,000 per site, for a
total of $16,000. Total capital outlay should be approximately $104,000, or
an amortized, annual payment of $16,000" per year.
* . *
* o
LandftlP costs are assumed equivalent to equipment, fuel, and maintenance
costs incurred in the first year, with fuel and maintenance costs increased by
12% due to inflation.
During the third operational phase, the District would complete the pro-
cess of consolidation and phasing out of landfills other than two regional
landfills at Rawlins and Hanna (see Figure 8). Additional equipment required
would include at least six 40 yard roll-off containers (assuming no compac-
tion).
63
-------
FIGURE 8
REGIONAL LANDFILL SITES
CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING
if REGIONAL SITES
L.I C :; A I R|\B
64
-------
Five, containers would be stationed at Saratoga and serviced twice weekly for
10 more trips per week. One container would be stationed at Baggs and
serviced every other week. Additional fuel costs due to these stations are
estimated at $12,480, more than doubling the transfer costs for the second
year. Because of the long haul from Baggs to Rawlins, and the waste volume at
Saratoga, District staff would carefully evaluate the relative economics of
uncompacted transfer, compacted transfer, and maintaining sanitary landfills
at Baggs and Saratoga. Based on estimates of sanitary landfill costs,
uncompacted transfer would be marginally less expensive in this case, and
transfer with compaction would probably be even less expensive. Continuing
costs for the District through 1985 are shown in Table 10, assuming 12%
inflation annually, and no equipment, such as stationary compacters, used to
reduce haul costs. Expenditures for upkeep of roll-off sites and containers
were included in operating expenses in Table 10. Fencing of sites might be
considered as a means of reducing vandalism and confining disposal to
containers.
Annual capital costs would be $47,200, the first year, rising to $67,400
in two years. Operating costs would increase from $56,200 to $148,200 in
five years. The change in costs for a direct haul system for rural communi-
ties would be an additional $45,000.
Rawlins1 landfill costs were not included in Table 10, due to the dis-
crepancy between reported costs and estimates for landfills of that site. The
estimating procedures show costs of approximately $85,000 for 1980, or roughly
half of reported costs. At $85,000 per year adjusted for 12 per cent annual
inflation, 1980 and 1984 costs are, respectively, $213,190 and $356,490.
These costs should still be feasible for District operation.
Throughout the entire implementation period, the District must place
special emphasis on planned, constructive, and intensive public education.
This dialogue should include town governments, local haulers, coal companies,
other industries, and as many other elected, appointed, or volunteer civic or
municipal organizations as possible. The District must be especially respons-
ive to community concerns about operation economics, to individual require-
ments and problems, and to the political climate in order to build a strong
base of support throughout the community.
65
-------
TABLE 10
01
Capital Costs1
Tracked Dozer with Ripper
Lo-Boye Trailer 6 Tractor Rig
Tilt-frame Truck
12-40 yd. containers 3 $3300 ea.
6-40 yd. containers @ $3400 ea.
Site preparation and container in-
stallation, 8 sites @ $2000 ea.
Total Capital Costs
Operating Costs^
Labor
Manager
Equipment Opeartor/Foreman
Transfer Driver
Fuel
Landfill maintenance
Transfer
Maintenance ,
Sites, Containers
Miscellaneous
District Office Expenses
Total Operating Costs
Total Annual Cost-'
NDED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
CARBON COUNTY
1980
$ 37,
9,
-
$ 47,
$ 20,
18,
$ 4,
$ 5,
$ 4,
5,
$ 56,
400
800
200
000
000
000
200
000
000
200
1
$ 37
9
7
6
2
$ 64
$ 22
19
16
$ 4
8
$ 5
$ 4
5
$ 86
981
,400
,800
,800
,500
,600
,100
,000
,600
,000
,500
,800
,800
,500
,600
,800
1982
$ 37
9
7
6
3
2
$ 67
$ 24
21
17
$ 5
22
$ 6
$ 5
6
$108
,400
,800
,800
,500
,300
,600
,400
,200
,800
,600
,000
,300
,500
,000
,300
r700
1983
$ 37,
9,
7,
6,
3,
2,
$ 67,
$ 26,
24,
19,
$ 5,
25,
$ 7,
$ 5,
7,
$120,
400
800
800
500
300
600
400
600
000
400
600
000
300
600
000
500
1984
$ 37
9
7
6
3
2
$ 67
$ 29
26
21
$ 6
28
$ 8
$ 6
7
$133
,400
,800
,800
,500
,300
,600
,400
,300
,400
,300
,300
,000
,200
,300
,900
,700
1
$ 37
9
7
6
3
2
$ 67
$ 32
29
23
$ 7
31
$ 9
$ 7
8
$148
985
,400
,800
,800
,500
,300
,600
,400
,200
,000
,400
,100
,400
,200
,100
,800
,200
$103,400 $150,900 $176,100 $187,900 $201,100 $215,600
'capital Costs have been amortized at 10% over a 10 year period. Years remaining on the capital
investment: tracked dozer and Lo-Boye trailer and tractor - 5 years; tilt-frame truck, 12-40 yd.
containers, and site preparation - 6 years; 6-40 yd. containers - 7 years.
2Operating Costs have been estimated using an annual 10% increase for labor, and a 12% inflation factor
for all other categories.
^Rawlins landfill costs are not included. See page 52.
-------
The recommended system is compatible with existing social customs in
Carbon County. With some cooperation, the system can also be made compatible
with existing haulers.
3. Financing
Financing options include user fees and charges, ad valorem taxation, or
a sales tax. Of the three, the first is politically and socially impractical
at this time (not only in Carbon County but throughout the rural West). Based
on 1978 revenues, a one mill property tax would yield about $188,600. A half
percent sales tax would be $375,470. The decision as to which funding method
is best is more political than technical and thus should be left to the County
Commissioners and the Board of Directors of the SWMD. It should be noted that
the three mills statutory limit for a SWMD as statutorily authorized is
apparently independent of and in addition to the 12 mill limit for which the
County government is authorized. Thus, both the property tax (for a SWMD
only) and the sales tax do not reduce operating funds of the County or the
towns, although they do add slightly to the tax burden of the citizens.
4. Resource Recovery Potential
Depending on the degree of centralization of waste management obtained by
the District, and improvements in waste processing/resource recovery technolo-
gy, the District should investigate the potential for reducing total costs of
the waste management system through some type of resource recovery project
(probably energy recovery). This investigation should begin with surveys of
potential markets, notably the Sinclair Refinery, and should be updated every
one or two years in the case of negative initial results.
67
-------
V. APPLICABILITY OF THIS STUDY TO OTHER SITUATIONS
I
A. Differences Between the Two Solid Waste Management Plans
Although both of the counties studied in this report can accurately be
thought of as rural, low-density areas with many similar problems and charact-
eristics, the recommended solid waste management plans for these counties are
different. Therefore, it is important to keep in mind that characteristics
and trends must be analyzed in detail before a workable solid waste management
plan can be formulated and implemented within a county. Counties which on the
surface appear similar may in reality require totally different solutions to
their respective waste management problems. There are no "typical" situations
nor is there on standardized solution for solid waste problems. 5
For example, Big Horn County can be characterized as primarily agrarian
in nature, with some impact from increased tourism in recent years. The popu-
lation is settled generally outside of incorporated areas, and is widely dis-
persed throughout the county. The solid waste system is characterized by many
small disposal sites which are convenient to the majority of the dispersed
population. In this situation, a collection system designed to continue this
convenience is a necessity. Otherwise, those used to this convenience will
dump their solid waste illegally into undesignated sites. On the other hand,
Carbon County's population, heavily impacted by energy development, is
primarily concentrated into population centers. This population is dependent
upon several regional landfills for solid waste disposal, and has developed a
habit of transporting their waste to these landfills. In this situation,
residents in the county don't need a far-ranging elaborate collection system.
They instead require upgraded (to RCRA specifications) landfills so that they
can continue their current practices.
B. Use of This Information by Other Counties
Community solid waste management is a complicated science requiring
experience, training, and knowledge of the area. With the enactment of RCRA
in 1976 and the promulgation of subsequent solid waste management rules and
68
-------
regulations in 1979 and 1980, waste management must become efficient and envi-
ronmentally sound. However, there are no easy solutions to most management
problems.
Individual communities are finding it extremely difficult to handle solid
waste management duties by themselves. With the strict landfill upgrading
requirements of RCRA, equipment needs, and rising landfill costs, rural, low-
density communities within a specific geographic area are finding that it
makes sense to band together into a regionalized waste management system. In
the case of Wyoming, the formation of a county-wide district to manage solid
waste functions should solve many of the problems facing individual communi-
ties. It should be pointed out once more, however, that different situations
will require different solutions after the formation of a solid waste dis-
trict. What is appropriate for one county may not be appropriate for another.
The formation of a district accomplishes several important goals in in-
creasing waste management efficiency and effectiveness. These include:
o sharing of risk among communities;
o sharing of equipment and landfill costs among communities;
o expansion of available management options;
o elimination of duplication; and
o establishment of a sound county-wide financial base. . -"
* - 'V
These are further discussed below. ..' ^
Risk can be thought of as the chance for encountering loss. In solid
waste management, risk can be thought of the uncertain capability of a munici-
pality or other level of government to successfully collect and/or dispose
wastes. Through combining the resources of several municipalities into a
joint venture, the degree of risk to any single municipality is reduced.
69
-------
The equipment necessary for convenient and efficient waste management may
be inappropriate for any individual community for reasons such as initial
cost, lack of waste volume, or unavailability of trained personnel. By join-
ing forces, municipalities can share the money, personnel and other resources
to buy, operate and maintain the proper equipment. In this way , the signifi-
cant economies of scale enjoyed by larger operations can also be taken advan-
tage of by individual smaller communities.
The combined resources of several communities allows for consideration of
an expanded number of waste management technological and policy options. For
example, a wider range of collection frequency, storage, transportation, pro-
cessing, and resource recovery options may be applicable to a group of munici-
palities than to any one individual location. It may also allow for more
efficient handling of special (hazardous, hospital, sludge, tires, waste oil,
bulky items, etc.) wastes. These options can then be analyzed to determine
the best alternative based on local and regional conditions and characterist-
ics .
Without regionalization of waste- management systems, several individual
communities may be duplicating efforts which would best be accomplished in a
joint manner." In addition to the duplication of equipment and personnel pre-
viously discussed in this section, a common form of unnecessary duplication in
many rural, low-density areas is maintenance of local landfills. The problems
of increasing operating costs, environmental concerns, low volumes of waste
(no economies of scale), and a complex set of rules and regulations facing
many small local landfills may best be solved by the development and
designation of regional landfills.
Finally, regionalization allows for an expanded tax base from which to
acquire revenues. Additionally, the financing options and credibility of a
district are increased through local authority and control and specialization
of services.
In summary, the first step to be taken by rural Wyoming communities is
the consideration of a county-wide solid waste management district. The dis-
trict if deemed appropriate would specialize in and be solely responsible for
70
-------
waste management. This initial step will increase efficiency and effective-
ness through the advantages described above. Once the district is estab-
lished, individual waste management alternatives can be evaluated so that the
best option is chosen based on local and regional conditions and characterist-
ics. While there are few universal rules of thumb to aid in the evaluation of
these collection and disposal options, the benefits derived from regionaliza-
tion of solid waste management organization, administration, and implementa-
tion should be taken advantage of by Wyoming communities.
71
-------
VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Act Systems, Inc. Residential Collection Systems, Vol. 1 Report Summary, USEPA,
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, March, 1975, EPA/530/SW-97C. 1.
Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc., Cost Estimating Handbook for Transfer, Shredding,
and Sanitary Landfilling of Solid Waste, USEPA, OSWMP, PB-256-444, August,
1976.
Dehn, William T. , Solving the Abandoned Car Problem in Small Communities,
USEPA, OSWMP, EPA/SW-70 ts. 1, 1974.
Fred C. Hart Associates, Analysis of the Technology, Prevalence and Economics
of Landfill Disposal of Solid Waste in the United States, Volume I & II, USEPA,
Office of Solid Waste, Land Protection Branch, February, 1979.
Hennington, Durham & Richardson, Region IV Solid Waste Management Strategy
(Southwest Montana), State of Montana Department of Health & Environmental Ser-
vices, December, 1976.
Goldberg, Theodore L., Improving Rural Solid Waste Management Practices, USEPA
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, EPA SW-107, 1973.
Johnson, Fermelia & Crank, Inc., Report on the Proposed Creation and Implemen-
tation of a Carbon County Solid Waste District, Carbon County Board of Commis-
sioners, August, 1978.
Kerr, F. F. & Durland, G. R. , Costs and Returns of Solid Waste Disposal in San-
itary Landfills, USDA Cooperative Extension Service, South Dakota State Univer-
sity, Brookings, South Dakota, 1975.
Kruth, M. A., Booth, D. H. & Yates, D. L. , Creating a Countywide Solid Waste
Management System: The Case Study of Humphreys County, Tennessee, USEPA, SW-
110, 1973, Second Printing.
Kunes, T. P., Barrows, R. L. & Yangen, D. A., Planning for Cooperative Solid
Waste Management in Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension
Service G2426, June, 1973.
Kunes, T. P., Barrows, R. L. & Yangen, D. A., Implementing Cooperative Solid
Waste Management in Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension
Service G2622, July, 1974.
Little, Harry R. , Design Criteria for Solid Waste Management in Recreational
Areas, USEPA, OSWMP, EPA, SW-91 ts, 1972.
Nellis, Lee, "Planning with Rural Values", Journal of Soil Water Conservation,
March-April, 1980, pp. 67-81.
Porter, W. F., Yangen, D. A., et al, Technical Guide for Solid Waste
Management, University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension Programs, June 1973,
G2427.
72
-------
Resource Planning Associates, Source Separation - The Community Awareness Prob-
lem in Somerville and Marblehead, Massachusetts, USEPA Office of Water & Waste
Management, November, 1976, EPA, SW-551.
Russell, Jesse R., Solid Waste Management Systems in the Rural Southeast, USDA,
Economic Research Service Agroc. Econ. Report No. 333, May, 1976.
Shuster, Kenneth A. , A Five Stage Improvement Process for Solid Waste Collec-
tion Systems, USEPA Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, EPA, SW-131,
1974.
Spindletop Research, Inc., Solid Waste Service System Administration Guide-
lines, USPHS, Bureau of Solid Waste Management and Kentucky State Department of
Health, Division of Solid Waste Disposal, Lexington, Kentucky, February, 1972.
Toftner, Richard 0., Developing Local and Regional Solid Waste Management Plan,
USEPA, 1973.
Winfrey, Andrew J., Developing Local Solid Waste Service Systems, Kentucky
State Department of Health, Division of Solid Waste Disposal, June, 1972.
Zausner, Eric R., Financing Solid Waste Management in Rural Communities, USEPA,
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, EPA, SW-57 ts, 1971, 2nd Printing,
1972.
Opportunities for Improving Productivity in Solid Waste Collection, National
Commission on Productivity, Report of the Solid Waste Management Advisory
Group, 1973.
A Handbook for Initiating or Improving Commerical Refuse Collection; USEPA,
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, EPA, SW-85d, August, 1975.
Climatic Atlas of the United States, U.S. Department of Commerce, Environmental
Science Services Administration, Environmental Data Service, June 1968,
Reprinted by NOAA, 1974.
73
------- |