United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region VIII
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80295
Solid Waste
£EPA A TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM REPORT
ANALYSIS OF WASTE TRANSFER ALTERNATIVES
FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY, COLORADO
-------
A TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PANELS PROGRAM REPORT;
ANALYSIS OF WASTE TRANSFER ALTERNATIVES
FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY, COLORADO
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
July, 1981
-------
ANALYSIS OF WASTE TRANSFER ALTERNATIVES
FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY, COLORADO
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VIII
CLEAR CREEK 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 provide States and local gov-
ernments upon request with technical assistance on solid waste management,
resource recovery, and resource conservation. Such teams shall include techni-
cal, marketing, financial, and institutional specialists, and the services of
such teams shall be provided without charge to States or local governments.
This report has been reviewed by the Project
Officer, EPA, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of
the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use.
Project Officer: William Rothenmeyer
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Tables iv
List of Figures v
Section I: Executive Summary 1
Section II: Introduction 3
Section III: Description of the Study Area 7
Section IV: Existing Solid Waste Operations in
Clear Creek County 12
Section V: Evaluation and Cost Analysis of
Transfer 36
Section VI: Long-Term Disposal Alternatives for
Clear Creek County 58
References 67
Personal Communications 69
Appendix A List of Solid Waste Equipment
Manufacturers and Distributors A-l
Appendix B Colorado Department of Health Letter
RE: Western Clear Creek County Solid
Waste Disposal Options B-l
Appendix C Colorado Department of Health Letter
RE: Notice of Violation for Clear Creek
County's Solid Waste Disposal Sites C-l
Appendix D Clear Creek County Letter RE: Compliance
Plan D-l
Appendix E State of Colorado Solid Waste Disposal
Sites and Facilities Regulations E-l
Appendix F Colorado Department of Health Guidelines
for the Review of Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities - F-l
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Number Title Page
1 Breakdown of Population in Clear
Creek County 11
2 Projected Annual Waste Generation Volumes for
Clear Creek County, September, 1980 -
August, 1990 16
3 Utilization of Collection Services 22
4 Utilization of Disposal Facilities 23
5 Major Equipment Requirements for Alter-
native 2 42
6 Alternative 2 - Capital and Operating
Costs 44
7 Major Equipment Requirements for
Alternative 3 46
8 Alternatiave 3 - Capital and Operating
Costs 48
9 Alternative 4 - Capital and Operating
Costs 51
10 Alternative 5 - Capital and Operating
Costs 56
i
11 Summary of Costs, Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 57
12 Gross Value of Recyclable Materials, 1981 ... 63
IV
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Number Title Page
1 Project Location Map 8
2 Clear Creek County Census Enumeration
Districts 10
3 Transfer Stations 27
4 Tilt Frame/Roll-Off Transfer Vehicle 29
5 Transfer Trailer Vehicle 31
6 Green Boxes 33
7 Front and Rear Loading Collection
Vehicles 34
8 Summary of Solid Waste Disposal Alternatives
for Clear Creek County 37
9 Colorado Planning and Management Region 3 .... 60
-------
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Clear Creek County, a rural and somewhat sparsely populated
county located 25 miles west of Denver, soon will fill to capaci-
ty its only municipal waste disposal site (the Empire Landfill)
and, as a result, will need to assess the various solid waste
disposal options available to it. In addition to the Empire
Landfill site, the County also operates a transfer station for
municipal wastes and a rubble dump both at Idaho Springs.
Population projections indicate that the County's 1980 popu-
lation of 7,500 will increase to 10,100 by 1990; as a conse-
quence, the waste volumes generated within the County are expect-
ed to escalate also. The daily per capita waste generation rate
for Clear Creek County, as estimated in this study, is 4.1 pounds
of waste per capita per day. Using this rate, the total annual
waste volume in Clear Creek County for 1980 is 5,612 tons and for
1990 (projected) it will be 7,652 tons.
Five possible solid waste disposal alternatives have been
identified in this study — two in the initial scope of work
(alternatives 1 and 2) and three later on in the study
(alternatives 3-5). The five alternatives are listed below:
o Alternative 1; development of a dual-containerization
transfer station at the existing Empire Landfill site to
handle both municipal and bulky wastes.
o Alternative 2; development of a transfer station at the
existing Empire site for municipal wastes only, in con-
junction with development of the adjacent land as a rub-
ble dump.
o Alternative 3; expansion of the single transfer station
and rubble dump at Idaho Springs to consolidate disposal
services for the entire County.
-------
o Alternative 4; expansion of the single transfer station
and rubble dump at Idaho Springs with green boxes for
the western part of the County.
o Alternative 5; development of a sanitary landfill at
the Idaho Springs site for the entire County.
Alternative 1, the dual-containerization transfer station at
Empire was later made obsolete and was not analyzed in detail be-
cause of the inclusion of the Idaho Springs site into the study
and because of the possibility of using the Empire site as a rub-
ble dump. Of the remaining four alternatives, Alternative 5, the
landfill alternative, was deemed to be the least cost system both
in the short and long terms. The most expensive alternative, the
two roll-off transfer stations (Alternative 2), is 78 percent
more costly than the landfill system.
Over the long run, the development of a landfill site within
Clear Creek County offers the potential of significantly reducing
County waste disposal costs. The County could close the present
Empire Landfill and consolidate all waste disposal operations at
Idaho Springs. An out-of-county transfer operation could also be
maintained in order to preserve long-term flexibility.
-------
II. INTRODUCTION
Project Background
Until early 1980, the solid waste disposal needs in Clear
Creek County were predominantly met by a sanitary landfill
located near the Town of Empire servicing the entire western por-
tion and some eastern sections of the County, and a transfer sta-
tion in Idaho Springs where wastes from the remaining eastern
parts of the County were collected to be ultimately transported
and disposed of at a landfill in nearby Jefferson County.
In the spring of 1980, the County Commissioners of Clear
Creek County, having determined that the County's only municipal
waste disposal site (the Empire Landfill) was nearing capacity,
investigated the possibility of leasing or purchasing additional
land adjacent to the landfill. Negotiations on this land were
initiated by the County for the purpose of developing a new sani-
tary landfill 100 yards above the site of the existing fill. The
proposed new landfill was intended to continue to meet the solid
waste disposal needs of those parts of the County served by the
Empire Landfill.
In February 1980, the Colorado Department of Health (CDH)
was contacted and steps were initiated for designating the new
site as appropriate for sanitary landfill operations." After
inspecting existing operations at the Empire Landfill and evalu-
ating the area targeted for future sanitary landfill operations,
the CDH recommended that the County should either explore the use
of alternative solid waste disposal technologies (such as incin-
eration or development of an additional transfer station within
the County) or attempt to identify a more suitable location for
future landfilling operations in Clear Creek County.
In a letter to the Board of County Commissioners, dated
August 8, 1980, the CDH further clarified its recommendations
(see Appendix B). The site of the proposed new sanitary landfill
-------
was rejected for use in disposing of municipal wastes, due to the
lack of available cover material for such wastes and because the
site was felt to be too small to meet the County's municipal
waste needs for an appreciable length of time. The CDH recom-
mended that a better option for long-term disposal of municipal
wastes would be to develop a transfer station (similar to the one
in use at Idaho Springs) on the surface of the existing land-
fill. If such a system could not be in place before the landfill
reached capacity, the CDH further recommended that the County in-
itiate use of a rural disposal or "green box" system to meet the
temporary needs of the area until a more permanent solution could
be developed.
The Department did not rule out using the proposed new site
as a dump for rubble materials such as wood or construction
wastes. Because smaller amounts of such wastes would be gener-
ated, it was estimated that the life of the site could extend
over a greater period of time. However, it was emphasized by CDH
that if the new site were to be developed for such a purpose,
difficult engineering and construction problems would have to be
overcome, in order to provide the area with adequate drainage.
Consequently, the CDH recommended that the County should
explore the possibility of developing a dual-containerization
transfer station at the existing site for both rubble and munici-
pal wastes which would ultimately be transported for permanent
disposal out of the county. Such an alternative was believed to
present significant advantages from the standpoints of capital
investment, operating costs, and operational control of the site.
The CDH further recommended that cost estimates for the var-
ious disposal alternatives be quantified and suggested that the
County seek federally funded technical assistance from the Region
VIII Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
located in Denver, Colorado. The County adopted this recommenda-
tion and in September, 1980 EPA authorized its designated techni-
-------
cal assistance contractor, Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc., to pro-
vide specific solid waste management service to the County. The
contractor was instructed to develop cost estimates for various
transfer alternatives and provide recommendations as to the most
appropriate method of implementation.
Scope of the Study
Several tasks were initially identified for this project.
These tasks included the development of waste generation esti-
mates on a county-wide basis and for the part of the County now
being served by the Empire Landfill. These estimates were to be
developed for a ten-year planning period beginning September
1980.
As identified in the initial scope of work, two waste trans-
fer alternatives for the Empire area were also to be evaluated:
(1) development of a transfer station at the Empire disposal site
providing a dual-containerization system for municipal and rubble
wastes; and (2) development of a transfer station at the Empire
Landfill for municipal wastes only, with disposal of rubble/con-
struction wastes occurring at the new site adjacent to the exist-
ing fill. The existing transfer station/rubble dump site at
Idaho Springs was not considered in the original scope of work.
In addition to these two transfer alternatives identified in
the initial scope of work, the decision was made later on to
examine three additional alternatives involving the consolidation
of the County's waste management facilities at Idaho Springs.
This was done because of the apparent inefficiency and unneces-
sary incremental cost of operating two facilities in a county the
size of Clear Creek County. The relatively short distance be-
tween the two potential rubble dump sites and the small amount of
bulky wastes generated within the County tended to reduce the
necessity of operating both facilities. These three new alterna-
tives were: 1) a single transfer station and rubble dump at Idaho
-------
Springs; 2) the single transfer station and rubble dump at Idaho
Springs with a "green box" system for the western part of the
County; and 3) a sanitary landfill which would serve the entire
County and would be used to dispose of municipal garbage as well
as bulky waste. A recommended course of action for the collec-
tion and disposal of Clear Creek County's solid waste was devel-
oped from among these alternatives.
The original scope of work also stated that various contrac-
tual arrangements which could be used by the County to implement
a solid waste management plan be described. Additionally, the
scope of work called for the development of a Request-For-Prppos-
al (RFP) to solicit solid waste equipment and services.However,
the county, EPA, and the contractor mutually agreed to examine
three additional alternatives and to substitute this additional
workload in lieu of both analyzing the various contractual
arrangements and a RFP.
In developing the different alternatives, a comparison of
different types of transfer equipment (such as self-contained
trailer vs. stationary compactors) will be evaluated. Factors
affecting sizing of equipment will also be examined, as well as
the compatibility of new equipment with existing equipment. This
study will also identify the types of equipment required and pro-
vide a list of available manufacturers. Capital and annual costs
will be quantified and operational requirements will be identi-
fied. Cost scenarios will only be projected for a five-year
planning period instead of the ten-year period originally identi-
fied. This is due in part to the uncertain future availability
of landfill space outside the County and the difficulty in esti-
mating future equipment costs (it is expected that the equipment
will have to be replaced after five years).
In addition, alternative waste disposal methods will be
evaluated and long-range waste management options for the County
will be identified based on such factors as land value, popula-
tion growth, rising energy costs and the projected availability
of disposal sites outside the County.
-------
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA
Clear Creek County is located 25 miles west of Denver in
northern central Colorado, totally within the South Platte River
Basin (see Figure 1). The County is bounded on the east by Jef-
ferson County and on the west by the Continental Divide. The
County has a total area of 395 square miles, with an extreme
length of 25 miles and an extreme width of 20 miles.
Governmental services„ are located in the County seat in
Georgetown. Three elected commissioners oversee the funding of
all county services.
Clear Creek County is characterized by high mountains and
deep narrow canyons, making transportation in the harsh winter
months somewhat difficult. U.S. Interstate 70, built in 1968-69,
is the County's primary access route, particularly between the
Towns of Empire (which is located two miles off Interstate 70 on
U.S. Route 40) and Idaho Springs where the County's two waste
handling facilities are located.
Of the total land area in the County, 83 percent of the land
is either Federally or State-owned. Little industry exists in
the County, although a major molybdenum mine is in operation in
the western part of the County. In addition to mining, the Coun-
ty's economy is primarily based on such tourist attractions as
Mount Evans, the Georgetown loop railroad, and two major ski
areas.
The total county population is small. In 1970, Clear Creek
County's population was estimated to be 4,819. The current 1980
population for the County, as estimated by the Denver Regional
Council of Governments (DRCOG), is about 7,500 persons.1 Major
population and employment centers are located in Idaho Springs,
Georgetown, and Empire, with estimated 1980 populations of 2,300,
1,300 and 670, respectively. Since 1960, the County is estimated
-------
FIGURE 1. PROJECT LOCATION MAP
CO
<(> EXISTING SOLID WASTE HANDLING SITES IN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY
-------
to be growing at a rate of approximately 3 to 4.5 percent annual-
ly. According to DRCOG, the County population is projected to
increase to 10,100 in 1990 and 12,800 by the year 2000. The Cen-
sus Enumeration Districts for Clear Creek County are identified
in Figure 2. Based on the Census' Enumeration Districts and the
total County population as estimated by DRCOG, Table 1 provides
adjusted estimations of current County population figures for
each of the four County districts, and each of the district's
percent of total County population. Additionally, the population
for incorporated areas and rural areas within each district are
provided.
preliminary Federal Census count for 1980 indicates a
population of 7,264.
-------
FIGURE 2. CLEAR CREEK COUNTY CENSUS ENUMERATION DISTRICTS
-------
TABLE 1
BREAKDOWN OF POPULATION IN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY1
Census Percent Population In
Enumeration Total Area Of Total Incorporated Population In
Area District Population Population Areas Rural Areas
Idaho Springs,
St. Mary's Glacier
Evergreen,
Bergen Park
Empire,
Silver Plume
Georgetown
679
680
685
686
3,713
1,137
1,036
1,614
49.5%
15.2%
13.8%
21.5%
2,300
0
670
1,300
1,413
1,137
366
314
TOTAL: 7,500 100.0% 4,270 3,230
Source: Clear Creek County Planning Department
11
-------
IV. EXISTING SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS IN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY
Background
In order to develop specific solid waste alternatives for
the County, it is first necessary to examine a number of para-
meters affecting the County's current and projected disposal
needs. These parameters include: population estimates (both cur-
rent and projected for the ten-year study period beginning Sep-
tember, 1980); population distribution County-wide; the current
total annual waste volume for the County; the projected County
waste volumes for the study period; waste types; waste collection
services; existing waste handling facilities servicing the Coun-
ty; the proportion of the population served by each of these
facilities; and the current and projected ten-year waste volumes
for the area now served by the Empire Landfill. Other important
factors to be considered include the County's annual solid waste
budget and the existing equipment owned or leased by the County.
Both current and projected population figures for the County
were examined previously in Section II and will not be discussed
in this section. A general discussion of population distribution
was also provided in the previous section. In this section, an
extended discussion of population distribution is included since
it affects the estimates of the number of persons utilizing spe-
cific waste handling facilities within the County. All of the
remaining parameters identified above will be examined in this
section in order to provide an overall profile of solid waste
management operations in the County.
In addition, this section will also briefly examine current
state-of-the art transfer technology. Various types of transfer
equipment and factors affecting sizing of equipment will also be
discussed to the extent they relate to the five transfer alter-
natives to be evaluated in the next section.
12
-------
Current and Projected Total Waste Volumes in Clear Creek County
Per Capita Waste Generation. In developing total waste gen-
eration rates for an area, the roost commonly employed method is
to first derive a per capita waste generation rate and then apply
this rate to the estimated population in the area.
The daily per capita waste generation rate for Clear Creek
County, as estimated in this study, is 4.1 pounds of waste per
capita per day. In developing a per capita waste generation rate
for the County, it was first assumed that residents within incor-
porated areas would generate 5 pounds of waste per capita per
day, while residents of rural areas would generate only 3 pounds
i
of waste per day. These estimates reflect national and regional
averages and the presumption that per capita waste generation
increases with population density, due to the increase in
commercial and industrial activities associated with urbaniza-
tion. These daily per capita waste generation estimates were
weighted on the basis of population distribution in order to
obtain the per capita waste generation rate for the County. As
previously noted, there are 4,270 persons residing in. the
incorporated areas of the County and 3,230 persons in the rural
areas. The waste generation estimate can be calculated as
follows:
(4,270 persons (5 Ibs/per day) + 3,230 persons (3 Ibs/per day)
7,500 persons
= 4.13 Ibs per capita per day.
While the resulting estimate of 4.1 pounds per capita per
day is consistent with the results reported for other Western
rural areas, the accuracy of the estimate was crosschecked by
developing an additional per capita waste generation rate for the
Idaho Springs station in Clear Creek County. This transfer
station is the only waste handling facility in the County for
13
-------
which reliable data on waste volume exists. This waste
generation estimate was based on the size of the compaction
container at Idaho Springs and trip records of the out-of-County
hauler contracted by the transfer facility to remove the waste
for ultimate disposal in Jefferson County. Two trips are made
weekly, plus an additional trip for peak Labor Day and Memorial
Day loads, or a total of 106 trips per year. The density of
compacted waste hauled per trip was estimated to be 475 Ibs/yd3
with 60-cubic yards (compaction container size) hauled per trip.
The density of compacted waste can be estimated by assuming a
loose refuse density of 250 Ibs/yd^ and a standard compaction
ratio of 1.9 to 1 (compacted to loose refuse density). In addi-
tion, the local hauler's estimation of the percent of people in
that part of the County employing the collection service to Em-
pire and the district's percent of total County population were
used to estimate the percent of total County population utilizing
the Idaho Springs facility. It was estimated that 27.2 percent
of the total County population of 7,500 used this facility, or a
total of 2,040 persons. Based on this information for the Idaho
Springs transfer station, an average of 4.05 pounds of waste per
capita per day was calculated as follows:
106 trips/yr x 60 yd3/trip x 475 lbs/yd3
2,040 persons x 365 days/yr.
= 4.05 Ibs. per capita per day.
This waste generation estimate is within one percent of the
weighted per capita generation rate of 4.13 pounds per .capita per
day estimated earlier.
Current Annual Waste Volume. Using the waste generation
rate of 4.1 pounds per capita per day the total annual waste vol-
ume in Clear Creek County for 1980 is estimated to be 5,612 tons
and was calculated as follows:
14
-------
7,500 persons x 4.1 Ibs/person/day x 365 days/yr.
2,000 Ibs/ton
= 5,612 tons/yr.
Projected Total Waste Volume for the Study Period. The
projected total waste volume for Clear Creek County during the
ten-year study period beginning September, 1980 is 66,193 tons.
This figure is equal to the sum of the projected annual waste
volumes for the ten-year study period based on a linear increase
in waste volume of 194.5 tons/yr. This is for a 1990 population
of 10,100 and assumes a constant increase in population of 260
persons per year and a constant waste generation rate of 4.1
pounds per capita per day over the study period. With these
assumptions, annual waste generation would increase by 35 percent
(1,950 tons) by the year 1990 (see Table 2).
Waste Type
Municipal Waste. According to County sources, over 90
percent of the waste generated in Clear Creek County is municipal
waste, that is, waste produced by residences and commercial
establishments. A significant characteristic of this type of
waste is that it is easily compactible. The resulting volume
reduction through compaction can result in considerable savings
in solid waste collection and transportation costs.
Bulky Wastes. Due to the non-industrial economic base of
the area, only a very small percentage of the waste generated in
Clear Creek County is rubble or bulky wastes. These wastes in-
clude industrial wastes, construction wastes, woody debris, and
oversized waste items such as discarded appliances. It should be
noted, however, that while only approximately 10 percent of the
County's waste is classified as rubble or bulky debris, the total
percentage of wastes currently disposed as rubble is somewhat
higher, due to inefficiencies in waste disposal operations at
15
-------
TABLE 2
PROJECTED ANNUAL WASTE GENERATION VOLUMES FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY,
SEPTEMBER, 1980 - AUGUST, 1990
Projected Annual Waste
Study Year Volume (Tons)£
1980 (Sept. - Dec.) 1,869
1981 5,807
1982 6,002
1983 6,197
1984 6,392
1985 6,587
1986 6,782
1987 6,977
1988 7,172
1989 7,367
1990 (Jan. -Aug.) 5,041
TOTAL 66,193 Tons
1 Based on a linear increase of 195 tons/year beginning with a total pro-
jected 1980 volurre of 5,612 tons.
16
-------
both the Empire and Idaho Springs facilities and poor disposal
practices which occur during the hours when the sites are unsu-
pervised. Consequently, much municipal waste fails to be separ-
ated from the bulkier wastes and instead is disposed of as rub-
ble.
Estimations of municipal and bulky waste percentages county-
wide do not reflect mining wastes generated by the Henderson
Mine, a major molybdenum mine located in the western end of the
County. These wastes are privately disposed out of the county
and do not effect either the County's present or future waste
management operations. The Henderson Mine complex, however, is
the largest single producer of solid wastes in the County, gener-
ating approximately 720 cubic yards of solid waste monthly. The
mine's solid waste is placed in a 60-cubic yard compactor unit
and then privately hauled to a disposal site in the Denver metro-
politan area.
Waste Collection Services
Currently, no public collection services are available in
the County other than numerous one-cubic yard containers provided
by the U.S. Forest Service in high use areas for visitors. These
containers are only in service during the summer months (June
through August). The U.S. Forest Service uses a 12-cubic yard
rear load compactor unit and collects about 30 to 36 cubic yards
of compacted waste over this three month period. These wastes
are ultimately hauled to the Empire Landfill for disposal.
A large number of households in both the eastern and western
portions of the County elect to use the Clear Creek Disposal Ser-
vice, a private collection service which hauls their waste out of
the County. The remaining County residents independently trans-
port their waste either to the Empire Landfill, the Idaho Springs
site or to the Evergreen transfer station in Jefferson County,
depending on their proximity to the site.
17
-------
Clear Creek Disposal Service. Clear Creek Disposal Service
is a local business offering solid waste collection service to
residences and businesses in Clear Creek County. The company is
equipped with three rear load collection units, at 13, 16, and 20
cubic yards. Containers are available to service commercial ac-
counts. The company estimates that it is currently serving 60
percent of the population west of the Town of Dumont or 21.2 per-
cent of the County's total population. East of Dumont, the com-
pany estimates it serves about 45 percent of the population or
22.3 percent of the total County population (for an extended
discussion see the Proportionate Use Section which follows).
Waste collected by the Clear Creek Disposal Service is currently
disposed at the Empire Landfill.
Evergreen Disposal. Evergreen Disposal is a private collec-
tion service located in Jefferson County with operations extend-
ing into the southeastern portion of Clear Creek County. The
company estimates it serves about 80 percent of the population
within the southeastern portion of the County or about 12 percent
of the total Clear Creek County population. Wastes are hauled
out of the County to the Leyden Landfill in Jefferson County.
Existing Waste Handling Facilities for Clear Creek County
Two waste handling facilities are located in Clear Creek
County: the Empire Landfill where the majority of County waste
is transported and disposed; and the Idaho Springs transfer sta-
tion where some of the County's rubble is permanently disposed
and much of the County's remaining municipal waste is temporarily
collected for utlimate disposal at a landfill in Jefferson Coun-
ty.
The Empire Landfill. The Empire Landfill is located approx-
imately one mile north of the Town of Empire. The landfill has
been in operation for the past ten years and currently handles
about 60 percent of the waste generated in Clear Creek County.
18
-------
Both municipal and rubble wastes are now disposed on-site. It is
estimated that 75 percent of the wastes disposed at this landfill
are privately hauled to the landfill by the Clear Creek Disposal
Service Company. The remainder of the waste disposed at this
site is hauled separately by individuals residing in the western
part of the County.
The Empire Landfill is open to the public 24 hours a day, 7
days a week. The site is manned by a County employee 5 days per
week, 8 hours each day. However, because a great deal of the
residential household wastes are deposited after hours and on
weekends, control of the site is a problem during unsupervised
periods.
The landfill consists of a valley-fill operation progressing
up a steepwalled mountain ravine. The site may have access prob-
lems due to the steep, narrow unimproved roads that lead to the
site. A number of other problems have occured at the landfill
including inadequate surface drainage, a lack of readily avail-
able cover material and insufficient fencing material. Deficien-
cies in cover and fencing material have resulted in windblown
debris problems at the site. Numerous small fires have also been
caused by the uncovered trash. Cover material is currently being
supplied by a gold mine adjacent to the landfill, however, the
mine is not always able to provide a sufficient amount of materi-
al. The Colorado Department of Health has already cited the
landfill for insufficient cover material and perimeter fencing.
The site, which is currently nearing or at capacity, has al-
ready begun to encroach upon private land near the upper end of
the landfill. An option is presently held on this land by the
County which is contemplating using the additional acreage for a
rubble dump. As previously mentioned, the CDH rejected the Coun-
ty's original request to develop the new land into an extension
of the site's current sanitary landfill.
19
-------
Idaho Springs. The Idaho Springs transfer station is loca-
ted approximately one mile south of Idaho Springs. Until 1975,
the Idaho Springs site was operated as a landfill and was fre-
quently cited for non-compliance with State landfill standards.
Since 1975, the facility has been operated both as a transfer
station for municipal wastes and a permanent rubble dump. The
site is estimated to serve about 27.2 percent of the total County
population (see Proportionate Use Section which follows). All
waste transported to the Idaho Springs site is hauled there by
individual residents within the County. However, municipal
wastes collected at the site are ultimately transported by
Colorado Disposal Inc. (GDI), a private hauler, for disposal in
the Leyden Landfill located in Jefferson County. Rubble is dis-
posed on-site in a dump located in the eastern portion of the
grounds.
The transfer station is open to the public six days a week
from 7:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. in the summer and 7:00 a.m. until
4:00 p.m. in the winter. The site is currently utilizing a small
stationary compactor roll-off transfer system. Non-bulky wastes
are disposed in .a 60 cubic yard compaction container which is
operated during site hours by an attendant. Bulky items and rub-
ble are not placed in the compactor because of size limitations
in the receiving opening of the compactor. Bulky wastes in gen-
eral bypass the compactor and are disposed at the rubble site.
The attendant is also responsible for operating the International
crawler loader used at the rubble dump.
The Idaho Springs rubble dump was recently cited by the CDH
for surface drainage problems and inadequate cover and fencing
materials, however, measures have already been initiated by the
County to remedy these problems.
Recently, an additional 40 acres near the site was purchased
by the County for expansion of the rubble dump and the possible
future inclusion of a sanitary landfill.
20
-------
Proportionate Use of the Empire Landfill and Idaho Springs Trans-
fer Station
In order to better understand the role played by the Empire
landfill and Idaho Springs transfer station in the County's waste
management plan, it is necessary to examine the patterns of use
at each of these sites.
In estimating the proportionate use of the facilities for
this study, the Town of Dumont (located approximately equidistant
from the two facilities see Figure 2) was used as an arbitrary
boundary to define the approximate service areas for the Empire
and Idaho Springs facilities. Thus, persons in Enumeration Dis-
tricts 685 and 686 to the west of Dumont, not employing the local
collection service, presumably haul their wastes to the Empire
site, as this site is closer to their homes. The residents in
the northeast sector (District 679) to the east of Dumont, not
employing the Clear Creek Disposal Service, are assumed to haul
their wastes to the Idaho Springs facility. It was further as-
sumed that the few residents in the extreme southeastern portion
of the County (District 680) not using the Evergreen Disposal
Service, would probably haul their wastes to the Evergreen trans-
fer station.
In order to calculate proportionate use rates for the study
area, the Clear Creek Disposal Service and the Evergreen Disposal
Companies provided estimates of the percentage of people they
serve in each of the County's four Enumeration Districts.
From this information, it is possible to estimate the number
of persons utilizing the Empire Landfill and Idaho Springs trans-
fer station for each section of the County (see Table 3). This
information is summarized in Table 4 to reflect the total per-
centage of County residents electing either to use private col-
lection services or to haul independently to each site, and the
total population served by each site on a county-wide basis.
21
-------
TABLE 3
UTILIZATION OF CDLLECTION SERVICES
riumeration
[strict # Area
Location
In County
Percent
Of Total
County
Population
Estimated Percent
Population In
District Using
Collection Service
Collection
Service
Used1
680
679
685
686
Evergreen
Brooks Forest
Idaho Springs
Empire,
Silver Plume
Georgetown
Southeast of 15.2%
Dunont
East of Dunont 49.5%
West of Duitont 13.8%
West of Dunont 21.5%
80%
45%
60%
60%
EDS
CCD
CCD
CCD
|DS = Evergreen Disposal Service. CDD = Clear Creek Disposal Service,
22
-------
TABLE 4
UTILIZATION OF DISPOSAL FACILITIES
Site
Jefferson County
(out-of-county)
Idaho Springs1
Empire
Percent Of County Using Site Via:
Collection Service/Individual Hauling
12.1%
0 %
43.5%
3.1%
27.2%
14.1%
Total County Use
15.2%
27.2%
57.6%
TOTALS
55.6%
44.4%
100.0%
Municipal wastes delivered to the Idaho Springs transfer station are ultimately
disposed of in Jefferson County.
23
-------
As can be seen in Table 4, 14.1 percent of the citizens west
of Dumont currently haul their own trash to the Empire Landfill.
If a waste handling facility is not continued at the Empire site,
it is this group of people representing about 1,060 residents or
approximately 350 households (assuming three persons per house)
that would need to transport wastes to a more distant site and
would probably be inconvenienced by the longer trip.
Current and Projected Waste Volume for the Empire Area
Once the population served by the Empire Landfill has been
calculated, it is possible to compute the current and projected
ten-year waste volumes for the part of the County now served by
the Empire Landfill.
Current Annual Waste Volume at Empire. As shown in Table 4,
approximately 57.6 percent of the total County population of
7,500, or 4,320 persons, currently disposes their waste at Em-
pire. This corresponds to 3,232 tons of waste a year.
4,320 persons x 4.1 Ibs/person/day x 365 days/yr
2,000 Ibs/ton
= 3,232 tons/yr.
Projected Ten-Year Waste Volume for the Area Now Served by
Empire. Earlier in this section, the projected total waste vol-
ume for Clear Creek County during the ten-year study period was
estimated to be 66,193 tons. According to County sources, the
County's population distribution should remain constant over the
study period. If this assumption holds true, an estimated 38,127
tons of waste (57.6 percent of the total County waste volume)
would be disposed at the Empire site.
24
-------
County Solid Waste Budget
In 1979, the County budget for solid waste disposal was
approximately $84,000. The projected budget for 1980 is estimat-
ed at $138,000, approximately 3.5 percent of the total County
budget. This increase of $54,000 over the past year is primarily
due to the purchase of additional land adjacent to the Idaho
Springs facility to extend the useful life of the site by several
years. According to data supplied by the County Road and Bridge
Department, the cost of disposing waste at the Empire landfill
is approximately $11 per ton and the cost of transferring waste
from the Idaho Springs facility to an ultimate disposal site in
Jefferson County (including tipping fees) is $31 per ton.
Over the last five years, the County has budgeted almost
$500,000 for solid waste management. In addition to this allot-
ment, the County Road and Bridge Department's crew has provided
both labor and equipment for related waste management operations,
such as road clearing near the two sites. Road and Bridge De-
partment expenditures for such services over the same five-year
period total about $200,000 above the monies budgeted directly
for waste management.
Existing Equipment
Site equipment at the Empire Landfill consists of a crawler
loader with a three-cubic yard bucket. The loader is ten years
old and is owned by the County. Also located on site is a small
metal building, which is used as a shelter for the loader.
Equipment at the Idaho Springs transfer station includes: a
crawler loader (5 years old) with a 2-3/4 cubic yard bucket, a
top-opening hydraulic compaction unit, a 60-cubic yard roll-off
container, a concrete pad, and a 20-cubic yard holding hopper.
The Idaho Springs site also contains a small personnel shelter
which is lighted and heated and contains a telephone.
25
-------
It should be noted that the compaction and transfer equip-
ment used at the Idaho Springs facility, other than the facili-
ty's concrete pad and hopper, is completely owned by the private
hauler. The County currently rents this equipment on a month to
month basis. Consequently, any future waste management options
considered by the County should be based on the absence of any
compactor or roll-off equipment for the site. Thus, if the Coun-
ty decides to continue compaction operations at this location, it
would be necessary to start over again from the perspective of
purchasing or leasing the necessary compaction equipment.
Other equipment available for'" solid waste management on an
intermittent basis through the Road and Bridge Department includ-
!
es 11 dump trucks, 2 loaders, 2 bulldozers, a Diamond-Reo 10
wheel tractor rig and miscellaneous shop facilities.
General Review of Solid Waste Transfer Options
Rural, sparsely populated areas are often faced with col-
lecting solid wastes from a very large area. Additionally, in
these areas, land is either unsuitable for sanitary landfill
operations or suitable land is unavailable due to either prohibi-
tive costs or imcompatibility with adjacent land use patterns.
The combination of these factors often make it advantageous to
transport wastes out of the area for ultimate disposal. For this
option to be feasible, transportation costs must be reduced to a
minimum. One method to reduce transportation costs is to utilize
a transfer station where solid wastes are temporarily deposited
and then transferred to large capacity vehicles (usually a semi-
trailer with the capacity to transport up to 20 tons of waste).
These large vehicles, in turn, transport the wastes to a regional
disposal site.
Transfer Stations. Transfer stations are commonly designed
to function in one of two ways (see Figure 3). One method is
direct transfer (Direct Dump) of the wastes from the collection
26
-------
FIGURE 3. TRANSFER STATIONS
DIRECT DUMP TRANSFER STATION
STOCKPILE/FRONT END LOAD TRANSFER STATION
Source: Hegdahl, Tobias. Solid Waste Transfer Stations,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report
(SW-99), 1973.
27
-------
vehicles to the larger capacity transfer trucks. The second
method (Stockpile/Front End Load) consists of stockpiling the
wastes from the collection vehicles and periodically moving the
stockpiled wastes into the transfer vehicle. Generally in cases
involving small daily waste loads on the order of 50 tons per day
(TPD) or less, direct transfer of the wastes is the most cost-ef-
fective alternative. Larger volume transfer stations - 50 to 250
TPD - usually utilize the stockpile method plus sophisticated
transfer equipment. Additionally, transfer stations of this size
have the potential to implement limited resource recovery opera-
tions (e.g. paper and aluminum can separation and recycling) to
offset capital and operating costs. Transfer stations with vari-
ous arrangements of optional equipment are commercially available
from a number of nationwide manufacturers, some of whom offer
turn-key services.
Compaction Unit. In general, areas where populations exceed
1,000 and transportation distances exceed approximately 15 miles,
it is most economical and practical to have the transfer station
equipped with a compaction unit to reduce the volume of the
waste. This allows for a substantial increase in the quantity of
waste which can be transported each trip and thus decreases the
number of vehicle trips taken to the ultimate disposal site.
Transfer Vehicles. There are two types of transfer vehicles
which can be used with compaction equipment. These are "the tilt
frame/roll-off container vehicle, such as the one currently used
at the Idaho Springs facility, and the transfer trailer.
The tilt frame/roll-off is so named because of the moveable
rail structure which is mounted directly on the truck chassis or
separately on a trailer bed (see Figure 4). A roll-off container
is collected by "tilting" the rails and winching the entire con-
tainer onto the structure. When the container is to be emptied,
the rear doors of the container are opened and the entire package
is tilted so that the compacted refuse falls out. Commercially
28
-------
RGURE 4.
TILT FRAME/ROLL-OFF TRANSFER VEHICLE
1.
2.
1. Refuse is inserted into the compactor hopper by
various methods. Loading procedure can be selected to
best suit each installation.
2. Simply activate pushbutton control and your trash is
compacted and stored in a sanitary, closed system.
3.
3. High compaction forces allow large volumes of refuse
to be stored in the smallest space.
4. Your trash-is removed by a roll-off truck when your
receiving container is full and your system is ready for
work again.
SOURCE: DEMPSTER DUMPSTER SYSTEMS, KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE
29
-------
available tilt frame/roll-off transfer vehicles must be equipped
with a separate refuse compactor. Refuse is deposited in a hop-
per feeding the compactor which forces the waste into the roll-
off container. There is little compaction of refuse until the
container is nearly full since, only then does the compactor
exert a signficant pressure. A typical ratio of compacted to
loose refuse density achieveable by this type of system is 1.9 to
1 by weight.
In contrast to the external compactor associated with the
tilt frame/roll-off type of trailer, the transfer trailer has a
hydraulic ejection ram mounted inside the trailer compartment
(see Figure 5). When emptying the trailer, the rear doors are
opened and refuse is pushed out by the ram. This ram provides a
signficant advantage for the transfer trailer as opposed to the
roll-off system. The ram allows the transfer trailer to achieve
a much higher density of wastes in one of two ways. If a separ-
ate compactor is utilized, it can work against the ejection ram
which is extended at first and gradually retracted as the volume
of contained wastes increases. Alternatively, the ejection ram
can be used as a compaction device. In this system, wastes are
introduced via a hopper into a "top dumping" trailer just behind
the face of the ram. When a certain volume has been deposited,
the operator can use the ram to compact the wastes against the
rear door of the trailer. The advantage of this method is that
no separate piece of compaction equipment is required. All that
the trailer requires is a source of hydraulic pressure which can
be provided through a "wet-pack" hookup from the tractor rig or a
stationary hydraulic pump (gas or electric). A typical ratio of
compacted to loose refuse density achievable by this type of
system is 3 to 1 by weight.
"Green Box" System. One type of transfer system that is of-
ten used effectively in conjunction with a transfer station is a
rural disposal or "green box" system. For rural areas and commu-
nities with populations less than approximately 1 ,000 where no
30
-------
FIGURE 5. TRANSFER TRAILER VEHICLE
SOURCE: DEMPSTER DUMPSTER SYSTEMS, KNOXVILLE , TENNESSEE
31
-------
individual door-to-door collection service is available, a poten-
tially economical solid waste collection alternative is the use
of containers strategically placed throughout the service area.
Through the use of specially-equipped vehicles, these containers,
referred to as green boxes, are emptied periodically and the
waste is then transported to a central transfer facility to await
final transportation and disposal at a regional disposal site.
In many rural areas, a container system has replaced several
small indiscriminate dumps allowing for an economical waste
disposal method which is in compliance with all local, State, and
Federal laws.
The "green box" system consists of locating several small
containers (see Figure 6) varying from 3 to 8 cubic yards in size
throughout a sparsely populated area. These containers are
placed in locations which are readily accessible including inter-
sections of local highways, recreational areas, previous dump
sites, and in or near small communities. These container systems
can be designed such that the waste in the containers can be emp-
tied into either a front loading or rear loading waste collection
vehicle (see Figure 7). Both private haulers in Clear Creek
County are equipped to service this type of system.
The "green box" system would require special County-wide or-
dinances to control the type of waste being deposited in these
green boxes. Such ordinances would have to address the fact
that:
a) Containers can accept:
residential and household waste
light commercial waste
- yard trimmings
32
-------
FIGURE 6. GREEN BOXES
SOURCE: GEORGE SWANSON & SON, INC., ARVADA, COLORADO
33
-------
FIGURE 7.
FRONT AND REAR-LOADING GREEN BOX
COLLECTION VEHICLES
SOURCE: PERFECTION - COBEY CO., GALION, OHIO
SOURCE: DEMPSTER DUMPSTER SYSTEMS. KNOXVILLE-, TENNESSEE
34
-------
b) Containers cannot accept:
burned or burning materials
industrial waste
- bulky waste; i.e., stoves, refrigerators, construc-
tion debris, tree trunks, auto parts, etc.
dead animals.
35
-------
V. EVALUATION AND COST ANALYSIS OF TRANSFER ALTERNATIVES
Summarily, the five solid waste disposal options so far dis-
cussed (the two identified for Empire in the initial scope of
work and the three additional alternatives involving the consoli-
dation of services at Idaho Springs) will now become known as
Alternatives 1 through 5. Figure 8 utilizes a matrix system to
facilitate a better understanding of the five systems.
Alternatives 1 and 2 were identified to be evaluated in the
initial scope of work. Both alternatives involved a modification
of services for only the western part of the county which had
previously utilized the Empire landfill. The two alternatives
were: Alternative 1: development of a dual-containerization
transfer station at the existing Empire site to handle both muni-
cipal and bulky wastes; and Alternative 2: development of a
transfer station at the existing Empire site for municipal wastes
only, in conjunction with development of the adjacent land now
held by option by the County as a rubble dump for the permanent
disposal of bulky wastes.
Alternative 1, the dual-containerization transfer station at
Empire, was deleted early in the course of the study. Although
opposed to the continued utilization of the Empire site as a san-
itary landfill, the Colorado Department of Health (CDHj had no
apparent disagreement with retaining Empire as a rubble disposal
site. Additionally, the rubble disposal site at Idaho Springs
was not considered in the original scope of work. The inclusion
of the Idaho Springs site into the study coupled with apparent
ability of the County to retain the Empire site as a rubble dump
made the dual-containerization concept obsolete, and this altern-
ative was therefore replaced with the three new alternatives in-
volving Idaho Springs.
36
-------
FIGURE 8
SUMMARY OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Sanitary Landfill
Rubble Dump
Transfer Station
Dual Transfer
Station
Alternative 3
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
Sanitary Landfill
Rubble Dump
Transfer Station
Dual Transfer
Station
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
Alternative 41
Sanitary Landfill
Rubble Dump
Transfer Station
Dual Transfer
Station
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
Sanitary Landfill
Rubble Dump
Transfer Station
Dual Transfer
Station
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
1 Utilizes "Green Box" System for the
western part of the County.
Alternative 5
Sanitary Landfill
Rubble Dump
Transfer Station
Dual Transfer
Station
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
37
-------
The three new alternate waste management schemes identified
for the County were: Alternative 3: an expanded single transfer
station and rubble dump at Idaho Springs to consolidate disposal
services for the entire county, Alternative 4: this expanded
single transfer station and rubble dump at Idaho Springs with a
"green box" system for the western part of the County, and Al-
ternative 5: a sanitary landfill at the Idaho Springs site serv-
ing the entire County. These three alternatives reduce the un-
necessary and duplicative costs, and eliminate the inherent inef-
ficiency of running two facilities in a county the size of Clear
Creek County. Alternative 4 was analyzed to show the incremental
cost of providing service to the approximately 350 housholds
inconvenienced by eliminating the Empire facility. This system
would provide three cubic yard containers ("green boxes") in the
Georgetown/Empire area for the convenience of those residents in
the area not electing to employ the private collection service or
to directly haul their wastes to the expanded Idaho Springs
station. These containers would be purchased and installed by
the County and serviced and maintained by the local hauler at the
County's expense. Alternative 5 was developed after a field
inspection of the Idaho Springs facility revealed that sufficient
area is available to operate a sanitary landfill.
In developing cost estimates for the remaining four alterna-
tives, an attempt was made to develop basic, or minimum costs for
each. For each alternative, equipment already owned by the Coun-
ty was utilized where feasible to minimize capital outlay. This
equipment was billed at the hourly rate provided by the County
Road and Bridge Department, which includes depreciation and oper-
ating costs exclusive of fuel and labor. Equipment selection and
sizing is discussed within the analysis of each alternative. A
list of landfill equipment manufacturers and suppliers is
supplied in Appendix A.
Additional costs associated with difficult site access and
environmental requirements are not included in the cost analy-
ses. The problems of site access were such that no one site
38
-------
demonstrated a clear-cut cost advantage or a greater likelihood
of feasibility over another site. For instance, the cost and
feasibility of rebuilding the unpaved road at the Empire site
might be matched by the improvements required at the Idaho
Springs site to accommodate the additional traffic associated
with a County transfer or disposal site there. Environmental re-
quirements that might adversely impact the cost analyses (i.e., -
cover requirements, drainage modifications, etc.) were again
similar enough to even out any such additional cost differentials
between the alternatives. Given the fact that no alternative
exhibited a distinct advantage by including these costs, both
access improvement costs, and environmentally related costs were
omitted in order to obtain more realistic cost comparisons.
For each alternative, costs are broken down into two cate-
gories: capital and annual operating and maintenance costs. Cap-
ital costs were annualized using a straight line amortization
method assuming no interest and zero salvage value at the end of
the stated depreciation period. Interest was assumed to be zero,
and therefore excluded from consideration, because it doesn't
affect the validity of the comparisons and, perhaps more import-
antly, because the County, through various financing arrange-
ments, might be able to avoid interest charges altogether. Amor-
tization periods were chosen to fit the existing situation or the
approximate reasonable payback periods. In particular, land
costs were amortized over three years because the County is pay-
ing for the land over that period of time. A five year lifetime
for mobile equipment is in the low end of the normal range given,
and was chosen because the site conditions are likely to be
severe, resulting in a more rapid deterioration of the equipment.
Capital improvements to the sites were discounted over 10 years.
To complete the analysis, equipment replacement costs should be
considered after five years, however, for reasons to be discus-
sed, the alternatives were only costed for five years. Capital
costs include such items as:
39
-------
1. Site construction including planning and design, site
preparation and grading, and construction of facilities
and roads;
2. Stationary equipment, such as the compactor unit, hop-
pers, etc.; and
3. Vehicular equipment, such as roll-off or transfer
trailers, containers, etc.
For each of the alternatives, contingency plans should be
identified for those times when equipment is broken down or in
need of repair or maintenance. Alternative 2 has a built-in
equipment redundancy because two transfer station/rubble dumps
will exist. If equipment failure forces the closure of one site,
the other could conceivably handle the increased waste load tem-
porarily. If the stationary compactors (Alternative 2), or com-
pacting transfer trailers (Alternatives 3 and 4) become inoper-
able temporarily, the County could purchase or perhaps lease a
trailer with a removable top into which wastes could be top-
dumped. Because no compaction is involved with this interim sys-
tem, more transfer trips would be required thus increasing the
operational costs. Alternative 5 offers sufficient built-in
equipment redundancy because the only equipment needed is one
crawler-loader and the County already owns two.
For any of the transfer alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, and
4), a problem could occur if the County-owned tractor rig breaks
down. The County owns only one and is not required to purchase
any additional such equipment for any of the alternatives. A
proper maintenance program will, however, as it will with all of
the equipment, reduce equipment downtime. The rubble dumps in
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 could also be utilized to temporarily
store municipal wastes until such time as the faulty transfer
equipment could be placed back on line.
40
-------
Annual operating costs were estimated based on the estimated
tonnage of wastes to be handled in 1980. Operating costs include
such items as labor and fringe benefits, equipment maintenance,
fuel costs, and tipping charges. For each alternative, operating
costs were assumed to increase at a 12 percent annual rate based
primarily upon inflation and the approximate annual 3 percent
increase of waste tonnage attributable to population growth.
Finally, cost scenarios have only been projected for five
years. The most important reason for not costing transfer sys-
tems for the ten-year period, as was originally recommended, is
that the availability of landfills that are within a reasonable
haul distance from Clear Creek County cannot be projected. This
problem is discussed in Section V. Also equipment replacement
should be considered after five years, and the difficulty of
estimating future equipment costs was such that, given increases
in equipment costs which far outpace inflation, a better compari-
son of alternatives could be made over a five-year planning per-
iod rather than the original ten-year period.
Detailed descriptions and complete cost breakdowns for
alternatives 2 through 5 follow:
Alternative 2
For this system, a transfer station and a rubble dump would
be established at both the Idaho Springs and Empire sites. This
transfer system would haul 54 tons per week 40 miles from each
site. For economical operation the number of trips required per
year should be reduced to a minimum. Therefore, a hydraulic com-
paction unit should be used at both sites. The compaction ratio
achievable by this equipment is approximately 1.9 to 1 (compacted
to loose refuse density). Based on the current waste volume gen-
41
-------
erated in Clear Creek County, approximately 8 trips per week di-
vided between the two sites, would be required. Since each trip
requires three hours, twenty four hours per week of driving time
are required. Peak loads during holiday seasons can be handled
by temporarily increasing the number of trips per.week.
•> •
The largest roll-off containers commercially available
should be used since the additional capital cost of $6,300 or 16%
over the next smallest container is minimal compared to the cost
of additional trips over the life of the system.• Three contain-
ers are required for flexibility and efficiency of operations.
Equipment:
•j
Major equipment requirements are listed in Table 5. Where
County owned equipment is specified, that fact is noted with an
asterisk. No capital costs are included for County equipment,
although the billing rate presumably covers those costs.
TABLE 5
MAJOR EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTERNATIVE 2
1 Diesel Tractor Rig, 10 Wheel;*
1 Tilt-frame, Roll-off Trailer with dual axle
3 Covered Roll-off Containers (60 yd-^ capacity)
2 Stationary Compactors with 3 yd^ hopper
2 Crawler Loaders*
42
-------
Labor:
A foreman, a part-time driver, and three operators are re-
quired to keep both facilities open seven days per week, nine
hours per day with one operator at each site. This includes a
staggered schedule for the operators, with each getting four
hours per week overtime. A foreman is required to provide good
management, ensure that system expenses do not exceed the budget-
ed amount, and perform various administrative and planning func-
tions.
Fuel:
Fuel costs are estimated for both the transfer and rubble
dump operations. At the 1980 cost of $1.07 per gallon, fuel
costs are about 4% of the total cost. If fuel costs were to
double, this would increase the system cost by less than 4%.
Tipping Fees:
Tipping fees at the ultimate disposal site are assessed on
the basis of cubic yardage. Rates vary from $1 to $3 per cubic
yard at the landfills in close proximity to Clear Creek County.
Partial loads are charged as full loads. Since the container
capacity is 60-cubic yards and the fee at the nearest landfill
(near Golden) is $1.50 per cubic yard, this equals $90 per trip,
or approximately $35,500 per year.
A complete breakdown of capital and operating costs for
Alternative 2 is provided in Table 6.
Alternative 3
A single transfer station at Idaho Springs is the heart of
this system. Because the entire waste stream would be handled at
this one site, the greater expense of a transfer trailer, versus
a smaller capacity tilt frame/roll-off trailer, can be justified.
43
-------
TABLE 6
Alternative 2 - Two Roll-off type transfer stations with rubble dumps, one
at Empire, and one at Idaho Springs.
Assumed Design Parameters
o 14.24 tons per trip (60 yd3)
o 394 trips per year
o 75 miles average roundtrip distance to landfill
o 3 hours per trip
o 4.6 miles per gallon (county tractor)
o $1.07 per gallon - fuel costs
o $1.50 per cubic yard - tipping fee at landfill
Capital Costs
Total Period Annual
Cost (Years) Cost
o Land - 40 acres at Idaho Springs $ 50,000 3 $16,700
20 acres at Empire 50,000 3 16,700
o Site Preparation, Construction 1-2 12,000 10 1,200
o Fencing 5,000 10 500
o Miscellaneous 3,000 10 300
o Equipment - 2 stationary compactors 17,000 5 3,400
3 60-cubic yard containers 19,500 5 3,900
1 tilt frame trailer 26,000 5 5,200
Subtotal 1 $182,500 $47,900
o Engineering and Design (7% of
total capital cost) 13,000 10 1,300
Subtotal 2 (First three years) $195,500 $49,200
Annual Operating Costs
o Labor, including fringes (county rates)
foreman - 40 hrs/week @ $7.70/hr. ' 16,000
driver - 24 hrs/week @ $6.75/hr. 8,400
operators 132 hrs/week @ $5.13/hr. 35,200
o Tractor Trailer Costs
County rate - 394 trips/yr x 3 hrs/trip
x $41.60/hr. 49,200
fuel - 394 x 75 miles/trip x ($1.07/gal t
4.6 mpg) 6,900
o Tipping Fees
394 trips/yr. x 60 yd3/trip x $1.50/yd3 35,500
44
-------
o Rubble Dump (Equipment)
County ownership and operating cost -
4 hrs/week per site @ $44.55/hr. 18,500
Fuel - 8 hrs/week, 4 gal/hr. @ $1.07/gal 1,800
Subtotal 1 $171,500
o Site and Equipment Maintenance (5% of total
capital cost) 9,100
Subtotal 2 $180,600
Summary
o Annualized Capital Costs (First three years) $ 49,200
o Annual Operating Costs 180,600
TOTAL $ 229,800
o Fifth Year Cost $ 300,100
o Five Year Operation Cost $1,326,400
o Cost per ton of waste disposed $ 40.95
1 Does not include improvements to access or electric hookup.
2 Construction required at Empire site only.
45
-------
Achievable compaction ratios with this type of equipment are on
the order of 3 to 1. Approximately four trips per week would be
required with a .75-yd3 trailer, and at 2 1/2 hours per trip,
approximately 30 additional hours per week would be available to
handle peak loads.
Site construction at Idaho Springs involves building a
transfer trailer station in place of the existing roll-off
station. The site preparation and construction costs are higher
than the cost of building a roll-off facility at Empire, primari-
ly because more earthwork materials and labor are required.
Equipment:
Major equipment items are listed in Table 7. Existing coun-
ty equipment is noted with an asterisk. No capital costs are in-
cluded for county equipment, as the hourly billing rate presum-
ably covers that cost.
Labor:
A foreman, a part-time driver, and three operators are re-
quired to keep the facility open seven days per week, nine hours
per day, with two operators on duty at all times. A foreman is
required to ensure that operations are as efficient as possible,
to control expenditures, and to perform various administrative
and planning functions.
TABLE 7
MAJOR EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTERNATIVE 3
Tractor Rig, 10 Wheel*
Transfer Trailer 75 yd3 capacity
Crawler Loader*
46
-------
Fuel:
Fuel costs are less than 3% of the total system cost at a
unit cost of $1.07 per gallon. Doubling the cost of fuel there-
fore would increase the total system cost by less than 3%, or
approximately $4,000 out of $173,000.
Tipping Fees:
Since the transfer trailer has a greater compaction ratio,
more refuse is carried per cubic yard than with the roll-off sys-
tem, the resulting total tipping fee is smaller for alternative 3
than for alternative 2. It should be noted that if the tipping
fees at local landfills were based on weight, this advantage of
the transfer trailer over the roll-off trailer would not exist,
although the transfer trailer would still require fewer trips per
year and thus would incur less travel time expense. A complete
breakdown of capital and operation costs for atlernative 3 is
included in Table 8.
Alternative 4
This alternative is identical to alternative 3 except that
capital costs for container ("green box") acquisition and opera-
ting costs for contract collection of those containers is includ-
ed. At an incremental cost of $16,000, a total of about 350
households would be served via this option. Effectively, those
residents in the western portion of the County who elect not to
use the private hauler, for whatever reason, are provided this
service so as to reduce the inconvenience caused by consolidating
the waste management facilities in Idaho Springs. This is about
$46 for each of the 350 households paid by the County compaired
to the $72 to $96 per household paid for a private collection
service by each household. The choice between alternatives 2 and
3 is not so much an economic decision as a decision by the County
47
-------
TART.F 8
Alternative 3 - One trailer type transfer station with rubble dump located
at Idaho Springs.
Assumed Design Parameters
o 26.25 tons per trip (75 yds3)
o 214 trips per year
o 60 miles average roundtrip distance to landfill
o 2.5 hours per trip
o 4.6 miles per gallon (county tractor)
o $1.07 per gallon - fuel costs
o $1.50 per cubic yard - tipping fee at landfill
Capital Costs
First
Total Period Year
Cost (Years) Cost
o Land - 40 acres at Idaho Springs $ 50,000 3 $16,700
20 acres at Empire 50,000 3 16,700
o Site Preparation, Constructionl 20,000 10 2,000
o Fencing 5,000 10 500
o Miscellaneous 3,000 10 300
o Equipment - 1 transfer trailer 45,000 5 9,000
Subtotal 1 $173,000 $45,200
o Engineering and Design (7% of
total capital cost) 12,000 10 1,200
Subtotal 2 (First Three Years) $185,000 $46,400
Annual Operating Costs
o Labor, including fringes (county rates)
foreman - 40 hrs/week @ $7.70/hr. 16,000
driver - 12 hrs/week @ $6.75/hr. 4,200
operators 132 hrs/week @ $5.13/hr. 35,200
o Tractor Trailer Costs
County rate - 214 trips/yr x 2.5 hrs/trip
x $41.60/hr. 22,300
fuel - 214 x 66 miles/trip x ($1.07/gal ?
4.6 mpg) 3,300
o Tipping Fees
214 trips/yr. x 75 yd3/trip x $1.50/yd3 24,100
48
-------
o Rubble Dump (Equipment)
County ownership and operating cost -
4 hrs/week per site @ $57.85/hr. 12,000
Fuel - 4 hrs/week, 4 gal/hr. @ $1.07/gal 900
.Subtotal 1 $118,000
o Site and Equipment Maintenance (5% of total
capital cost 8,700
Subtotal 2 $126,700
Summary
o Annualized Capital Costs (First three years) $ 46,400
o Annual Operating Costs 126,700
TOTAL • $173,100
o Fifth Year Cost $212,400
o Five Year Operation Cost $969,900
o Cost per ton of waste disposed $ 30.84
Construction at Idaho Springs site only.
49
-------
on the degree of service to be provided. A complete breakdown of
capital and operating costs for Alternative 4 is included in
Table 9.
If implemented by the County, the green box collection ser-
vice may initially experience overloading problems as a result of
those residents who will drop the private collection service in
favor of the "free" green box service. If this situation does
develop, the County will have to either increase the green box
collection frequency or the number of boxes collected. Either
consequence will increase County expenses. This situation may
also have some effect on the private haulers, either by increas-
ing their efficiency (less house to house service) or decreasing
their revenues, or both. Politically, it is unfair to those
residents who still pay for the private collection service. The
political ramifications of this situation, all beyond the scope
of this report, must be evaluated before this alternative's prac-
ticality can be determined.
Alternative 5
A single, sanitary landfill located in Idaho Springs is pro-
vided in Alternative 5. The proposed landfill site, which is
adjacent to the Idaho Springs transfer station/rubble dump site,
is similar to many mountain community landfills. Located in a
ravine approximately 150 to 200 feet wide, the site slopes at an
average grade of between 10 to 20 percent. Although the site is
situated near the head of a drainage basin, there is only inter-
mittent drainage out of the ravine and there are no springs in
the area.
Soda Creek runs along the access road to the Idaho Springs
.site and is an alternate, although unused, water supply for the
town of Idaho Springs. A landfill at this site should therefore
be carefully managed to ensure that the quality of water in Soda
50
-------
TABLE 9
Alternative 4 - Same as Alternative 3 with green boxes for area west of
Dumont.
Assumed Design Parameters
o (See Alternative 3)
o 36 persons per 3-cubic yard box (pick-up once weekly).
Total
Cost
$128,000
Capital Costs
o Land, Site Preparation and
Construction, Fencing and
Miscellaneous same as Alternative 3
o Equipment
Transfer Trailer - 1
Green Boxes - 30, 3 cubic
yard containers @ $400 each
Subtotal 1
o Engineering and Design (7% of
total capital cost)
Subtotal 2 (First three years)
Annual Operating Costs
o Labor, Tractor Trailer Costs,
tipping fees, and rubble dump
same as Alternative 3
o Contract Collection of Green Boxes -
30 boxes @ $36/month each
Subtotal 1
o Site and Equipment Maintenance (5% of
total capital costs)
Subtotal 2
Summary
o Annualized Capital Costs (First three years)
o Annual Operating Costs
TOTAL
o Fifth Year Cost
o Fifth Year Operation Cost
o Cost per ton of waste disposed
Period
(Years)
Annual
Cost
$ 36,200
$ 45,000
12,000
$185,000
13,000
$198,000
5
5
10
9,000
2,400
$47,600
1,300
$48,900
118,000
13,000
131,000
«f
9,300
140,300
48,900
140,300
$189,200
$236,300
$1,068,800
$ 33.71
51
-------
Creek will not be degraded. A potential problem with access
could develop if this light duty road leading to the site were to
be heavily traveled by refuse collection vehicles, particularly
in inclement weather. Neither problem, however, appears to be
significant enough to effectively prohibit the development of a
landfill at this site.
Conceptually, the landfill would be operated in the follow-
ing manner. An access road would be constructed to the highest
point to be filled in the ravine, and the clearing, grubbing, and
drainage diversion structures required for the first year's oper-
ation would be completed. At the same time, cover material
stripping could be started, with stripping operations occurring
approximately 6 months ahead of filling operations. Cover should
be stockpiled above the fill area initially, and then later on
the landfill mass. The landfill body would be constructed in one
lift approximately 25 to 30 feet high, with a final grade equal
to that of the original land surface, 'and a working face slope of
about 3 horizontal to 1 vertical. Daily cover of six inches and
a final cover of two feet are recommended. The landfill body
should be crowned in the center to promote drainage towards the
edges of the fill, where diversion ditches could carry the water
away. A temporary berm at the crest of the working face would
divert drainage away from that face.
Wastes would be deposited at the toe of the fill by resi-
dents or by the commercial hauler. The wastes would then be
spread, compacted, and covered up the working face by the
operator using one of the County-owned crawler loaders.
Cutter wheel or steel-wheeled compactors have been demon-
strated to achieve up to a 30% higher compaction density than a
standard tracked dozer and can thus extend the life of a landfill
while minimizing settlement and leachate problems. The use of
this special purpose compactor at the Idaho Springs landfill
site, however, is not believed to be cost effective.
52
-------
Although the cutter wheel compator can achieve a fill density of
1,300 pounds per cubic yard (as compared to 1,000 pounds per
cubic yard potentially achievable with a standard tracked dozer),
it will increase equipment operating costs by at least 100 per-
cent. Also, a new landfill compactor such as this can cost up to
$500,000 and is not generally cost-effective at landfills which
receive less than 60 to 90 tons per day (TPD). The Idaho Springs
landfill would receive approximately 15 TPD.
Cover material at the site consists of weathered bedrock and
silt. The bedrock in the area is generally a biotitic gneiss and
schist of pre-Cambrian age which decomposes to a clayey silt.
This material, if present to a sufficient depth of approximately
four feet, is suitable for daily and final cover. A well pre-
pared revegetation plan for the final cover would mitigate any
erosion problems.
Slope stability and rockslide/rockfall problems could be
experienced at the site, and should be considered when developing
the landfill design. A well conceived drainage plan should help
alleviate the problem. Subsidence problems should not be encoun-
tered as there are no records of underground workings beneath the
site.
In summary, development of the site appears to be technical-
ly feasible and should be approved by the State Health Department
after a detailed engineering design report and operations plan is
submitted. Appendix E, which contains the State regulations per-
taining to solid waste, and Appendix F, containing the guidelines
for review, will be useful in discerning and preparing such a
report.
Forty acres of land have been acquired by the County at the
Idaho Springs transfer station/rubble dump site. Of this area,
approximately 15 acres, encompassing the ravine and access road,
will be required to provide the County with a long-term
(approximately 40 years) disposal site.
53
-------
Volume requirements were determined by calculating the as
delivered waste volume and adding approximately 20% cover materi-
al (by volume) as per standard specifications. Cover material
was assumed to be available from site development after a field
inspection was completed.
Equipment:
No major equipment acquisitions are required for this
alternative. The County-owned crawler loader, presumably the
only equipment needed, can be utilized at the billing rate
provided by the County Road and Bridge Department.
Labor:
A foreman and three operators are required to keep this
facility open seven days per week, nine hours per day, with two
operators on duty all the time. One operator would serve as gate
attendant while the other operated the crawler loader. A foreman
is required to provide careful management, making sure that
landfill space is not wasted, and to perform various
administrative and planning functions.
Fuel:
Fuel costs are approximately 3% of the total. An increase
of 100% in fuel costs would equal an increase of less than 3% in
the total system costs.
Tipping Fees:
Since a landfill outside the county is not required in this
alternative, no tipping fees are experienced. In fact, the Coun-
ty could obtain revenue from this system by charging private
collection services a moderate tipping fee to cover the costs of
54
-------
the landfill. This possibility is not included in the cost
analysis. A complete breakdown of capital and operating costs is
included in Table 10.
Cost Summary
,f
Table 11 summarizes the cost information developed in each
of the detailed system analyses. This table shows the first and
fifth year expenditures, and the total cost over five years for
each alternative. No increase in system capacity is included for
this comparison, although the landfill alternative would require
the least additional expense if additional capacity became neces-
sary.
i
The landfill alternative is the least cost system, both -in
the short and long terms. The most expensive alternative, the
two roll-off transfer stations (Alternative 2), is 78% more than
the landfill system and 24% more than the next most expensive
option,Alternative 4.
It is interesting to compare the first year costs of these
alternatives with previous County solid waste disposal expendi-
tures. As mentioned in Section 3, the projected 1980 County
budget for waste disposal was estimated at $138,000. First year
costs for Alternatives 2 through 4 are noticably higher than the
projected 1980 County expenditures, however, the first year cost
of Alternative 5, the landfill alternative, is lower.
55
-------
TABLE 10
Alternative 5 - Sanitary landfill at Idaho Springs Site.
Assumed Design Parameters
o 2,700 yds3 per month of waste
o 190 yds3 per month of cover required
o Spread, compact and cover-Productivity of crawler loader @
50% efficieny - 45 yd3/hr
o Rip and Stockpile cover material - Productivity of crawler
loader at 89% efficiency - 32 yd3/hr
Capital Costs
Total Period Annual
Cost (Years) Cost
o Land - 40 acres at Idaho Springs $ 50,000 3 $16,700
20 acres at Empire 50,000 3 16,700
o Fencing (both sides) 5,000 10 500
o Miscellaneous 3,000 10 300
Subtotal 1 $108,000 $34,200
o Engineering and Design (7% of
total capital cost) 10,000 10 1,000
Subtotal 2 (First three years) $118,000 $35,200
Annual Operating Costs
o Labor, including fringes (county rates)
foreman - 40 hrs/week @ $7.70/hr. 16,000
operators 120 hrs/week @ $5.13/hr. 32,000
o Crawler loader
64 hrs/month - spread and cover
6 hrs/month - rip and stockpile
County billing rate -
70 hrs/month @ $57.85/hr 48,600
fuel-70 hrs/month, 4 gal/hr ($1.07/gal) 3,600
Subtotal $100,200
Summary
o Annualized Capital Costs (First three years) 35,200
o Annual Operating Costs 100,200
TOTAL $135,400
o Fifth year cost $159,500
o Five Year Operation Cost $745,600
o Cost per ton of waste disposed $ 24.13
56
-------
TABLE 11
SUMMARY OF COSTS, ALTERNATIVES 2, 3, 4, 5
CUMULATIVE
ALTERNATIVE ft FIRST YEAR FIFTH YEAR TOTAL
2 $229,800 $300,100 $1,326,400
3 . $173,100 $212,400 $ 969,900
4 $189,200 $236,300 $1,068,800
5 $135,400 $159,500 $ 745,600
57
-------
VI. LONG-TERM DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY
The previous section examined five alternative systems that
could be implemented in Clear Creek County to meet the County's
waste disposal needs over a five-year study period. These alter-
natives were evaluated in terms of their cost, practicality, and
efficacy in resolving the County's immediate waste management
needs arising from the imminent closure of the Empire Landfill.
In a situation requiring immediate resolution, utilization of a
transfer system is a particularly attractive waste disposal al-
ternative. As compared with a more common alternative, such as
landfilling (an alternative which must first undergo a permitting
process and then meet extensive Federal and State regulations), a
transfer system can be readily implemented, often on existing
land. A landfill, however, requires relatively low capital and
operating expenditures.
Over the long-term, when a transfer system is adopted as the
sole means of waste management for an area, transfer poses a sig-
nificant disadvantage, since it forces the County to remain
dependent on the availability of other waste disposal operations
within a reasonable proximity to the transfer station. For Clear
Creek County, the transfer alternatives imply dependency on pro-
jected waste disposal capacity in the Denver region. When this
capacity is examined, it becomes apparent that the long-term dis-
•,
posal needs of the County may not be met through a transfer sys-
tem alternative for the following reasons:
1. Section 4002 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) emphasizes a regionalized approach to solid
waste management and encourages the States to develop
solid waste management plans through Federal funding
incentives. Each State which chooses to prepare a plan
will divide the State into regional planning districts.
58
-------
It is likely that the same districts formulated for
other State-wide regional plans will also be used in
developing Colorado's solid waste management plan.
Colorado is currently developing a State solid waste
management plan and has designated the eight county
Denver metropolitan area as one of its regional waste
planning districts. This area has been designated as
State Planning and Management Region 3 (see Figure 9)
and the five counties in this region who have chosen to
participate collectively make up the Denver Regional
Council of Governments (DRCOG).
2. At present, there are five major disposal sites in the
Denver region. Two of these, the Leyden Landfill in
Jefferson County, currently handling the wastes col-
lected at Idaho Springs, and the Landfill Inc. land-
fill in Adams County are expected to close within a
year. The Colorado Disposal Inc. landfill in Douglas
County is projected to close within three to four
years. A fourth site, the Marshall Landfill in Boulder
County, will close within a year. Finally, the Lowry
Landfill, which has a life expectancy of up to 20
years, has recently been the focus of considerable
concern as a result of past chemical waste disposal
operations at the site. Consequently, the possibility
of this site for long-term disposal of Clear Creek
County wastes is questionable.
3. Potential future capacity in the Denver region involves
two sites. One is a scheduled new landfill in Jeffer-
son County, north of Golden, with a first phase life-
time of four years and possible expansion that would
increase life expectancy by ten years. The second, a
regional waste disposal site east of the Rocky Mountain
Arsenal, is currently under consideration. In view of
the Region's projected growth over the next ten years
59
-------
FIGURE 9. COLORADO PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT REGION 3
en
o'
X' •;•;•
BOULDER
DENVER ADAMS
AURORA
ARAPAHOE
ws^^
AREA CURRENTLY REPRESENTING THE DENVER REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (DRCOG)
-------
and the diminishing existing disposal space, the sup-
plemental capacity that these sites could provide is
not likely to accommodate demand.
4. While it is impossible to predict what future planning
may take place in regards to the waste disposal needs
of the Denver region, it is clear that any new siting
efforts must heed the requirements and guidelines of
RCRA. Both the terrain and demography of the region
suggest that new sites will probably be located to the
east of Denver where soils, topography, land use, and
population density are more conductive to the siting of
a disposal facility than areas in closer proximity to
Clear Creek County.
In summary, the combination of the predicted growth of the
Denver region with its concommitant waste burden, diminshing dis-
posal capacity, and current and future regulatory and environ-
mental factors do not provide Clear Creek County with good reason
to rely upon ultimate waste disposal outside of the County.
Three options remain as potentially viable alternatives which
could be implemented within the next ten years:
1. incineration of wastes;
2. resource recovery; and
3. development of a landfill site within the County.
Incineration. Incineration is generally a costly means of
disposal, though economically feasible under certain circum-
stances. These include locations in which substantial volumes of
hazardous industrial wastes are generated, urbanized areas in
which land values are at a premium, and smaller communities where
"modular incinerators" may be installed economically due to the
potential utilization of waste heat by energy users. At present
and in the foreseeable future, Clear Creek County's industrial
and economic base seems to preclude selection of waste incinera-
tion option on a large scale.
61
-------
Resource Recovery. Resource recovery such as separation and
sale of paper products and aluminum cans can and should be imple-
mented for certain domestic wastes within the County. Again,
however, the nature of the composition of wastes generated by the
County do not indicate that large scale resource recovery systems
will completely solve the immediate or long-term disposal needs.
A materials recovery program based on source separation
could, however, divert as much as thirty per cent of the waste
stream from the transfer system or landfill disposal in the
County. The County should carefully evaluate the technical and
economical aspects of a resource recovery program in Clear Creek
County. The following is presented as a starting point for that
analysis.
The market value of all recycable materials in the Clear
Creek County waste stream, based on the percentages and prices
shown in Table 12, is estimated at $101,000. Historically, a
high resource recovery rate is not achievable, and a more reason-
able estimate of gross value, based on recovering 10 to 15 per-
cent of the waste stream, would be twenty to thirty thousand
dollars. From this value, the debt service, operation and main-
tenance costs, and operator's overhead and profit (if any) must
be subtracted to calculate a net value. Frequently, source
separation programs operate at a loss, and must be subsidized by
the sponsoring entity to some extent. However, in Clear Creek
County, a subsidy might be acceptable if it was less than or
equal to the cost of disposing a similar proportion of waste via
transfer or landfilling.
There are four common types of source separation programs.
The first and most popular, although least effective, is the
paper drive. This kind of program, because of its infrequent
occurrence and the fluctuating paper market, will normally divert
less than 1% of the total waste stream.
62
-------
TABLE 12
GROSS VALUE OF RECYCABLE MATERIALS, 19811
% of Waste
Stream
Current
Market
Price
Gross
Value
Paper and Glass
Ferrous Metal
Aluminum
41
7
1
$30/ton $ 69,000
$10/ton $ 3,900
$500/ton $ 28,100
TOTAL
$101 ,000
"I Based on a total annual waste stream in Clear Creek County of
5,610 tons.
Source: C. Miller, "Source Separation Programs." NCRR
Bulletin, December, 1980.
63
-------
Drop-off centers, the second type of source separation pro-
gram, are gaining .popularity, and can divert between two and five
percent of the wastes in an extensive well-run program. It will
normally be less effective than this because of the so called
inconvenience factor - the reluctance of people to transport
recyclable materials from their homes to a drop-off center.
The buy-back program, a variant of the drop-off center, is
the third approach. The most common buy-back material is alumi-
num, because of its high market value. This alternative partial-
ly mitigates the inconvenience factor in the drop-off center,
however, it introduces a cash flow problem.
The fourth and most effective approach is curb side collec-
tion. A newsprint collection system can recover as much as five
to eight percent of the total waste, and multi-material collec-
tion as much as ten to fifteen percent. However, curb side col-
lection requires specialized equipment, additional collection
labor, and community participation for successful implementation.
In addition, a combination of two or more of the above
approaches can provide still further options to the County. For
instance, the buy-back of aluminum cans at a drop-off center
might be paired with newsprint collection for more optimal
resource recovery.
Another factor to consider is the division of operational
responsibility among public and private organizations. In Clear
Creek County, the private collector might be reluctant to invest
in the equipment required for curb side - collection or he may be
reluctant to expand his operation without sufficient financial
guarantee. One method of dealing with this problem is the
governmental franchise in which collection is provided by private
entity under contract to a city or county government, which then
sells the recovered materials, under contract, to a buyer. In
this manner, the government agency can encourage recovery activi-
ties without incurring too much liability.
64
-------
In summary, the best potential for materials recovery in the
County appears to be multi-material source separation of paper
(probably newsprint), glass, and aluminum. Transportation is the
biggest unknown cost and could reduce or eliminate revenue from
the sale of materials. Coordination with the Summit County
recycling program might reduce this to a manageable cost. For
the successful implementation of any recycling program, an
extensive effort must be made to increase public awareness and
involvement in the program. For at least the first year, the
County should expect to subsidize the program to some extent.
The personal involvement of county officials and careful
monitoring of costs are mandatory for the implementation of a
successful program.
Landfilling Within the County. During the last ten years,
an extensive search for a new sanitary landfill site was conduct-
ed by the County Commissioners. Their recent proposal to develop
land adjacent to the Empire Landfill for this purpose proved un-
successful, since the Colorado Department of Health determined
the site to be inappropriate for use in this capacity. However,
as a result of the recent acquisition of 40 additional acres at
the Idaho Springs transfer station, the potential may exist in
the near future for development of that site for use as a sani-
tary landfill. A preliminary evaluation of the land at this site
indicates that at projected total County waste volumes, this site
could serve the County as a sanitary landfill for 40 years, if
*•
operated with modern equipment and techniques. This is an option
the County should explore in greater detail.
Conclusions. Historically, landfilling has been the most
inexpensive and widely used solid waste disposal alternative in
the West. Available information from private landfill operators
in the Denver area indicates that landfilling, depending on
scale, management, and operation, costs anywhere from $4 to $17
per ton of waste disposed. These figures assume that the tipping
fees reflect the actual operation cost of the landfill. High
65
-------
waste volume operations demonstrating an economy of scale, are
generally less expensive from an operational and maintenance cost
standpoint. A landfill offers the potential of. significantly
reducing County waste disposal costs.
However, a County landfill is a long term commitment and
uses the limited available land in Clear Creek County now without
preserving the landfill option for the future when other disposal
options are expected to be much more limited than they are at
present.
To preserve maximum flexibility and cost effectiveness for
both the short and long term the County could close the present
Empire landfill and consolidate all waste disposal operations at
Idaho Springs. The existing Idaho Springs landfill could be ex-
panded and permitted for a solid waste disposal facility accept-
ing all solid waste generated in the County. Initially the site
would be used for rubble and construction debris. In order to
preserve its long term flexibility the County should continue to
have an out-of-county transfer operation at Idaho Springs. This
should be a lease arrangement for five or ten years. The evolv-
ing waste management situation in the metropolitan area should be
closely monitored and if disposal sites, transportation costs, or
fuel availability make out-of-county disposal untenable, then all
County wastes could be directed to the Clear Creek County land-
fill.
Whether or not the rural disposal ("green box") system is
implemented in either the short or long term should be carefully
evaluated by the County after appropriate public review and com-
ment.
66
-------
REFERENCES
1. ASCE Solid Waste Management Committee, Environmental Engi-
neering Division. Sanitary Landfill. Manual and Report on
Engineering Practice, No. 39. New York, American Society of
Civil Engineering. 1976.
2. Booz-Allen and Hamilton, Inc. Cost Estimating Handbook for
Transfer, Shredding, and Sanitary Landfilling of Solid
Waste. Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1976.
3. Bruner, D.R., and Keller, D.J. Sanitary Landfill Design
and Operation. Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1972.
4. Caterpiller Tractor Company. Caterpillar Performance Hand-
book, Edition 11. Peoria, Caterpiller Tractor Co., 1980.
5. Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc., Resource Recovery Options for
Boulder, Colorado (Draft), 1981.
6. Henningson, Durham and Richardson. Region IV Solid Waste
Management Strategy, Helena, State of Montana Department of
Health and Environmental Services, 1976.
7. Miller, C. "Source Separation Programs". NCRR Bulletin,
Volume 10, No. 4, p. 82, December, 1980.
8. Municipal Environmental Research Lab. Energy Conservation
Through Source Reduction. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1978.
9. Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. A National
Survey Agency of Separate Collection Programs.
Environmental Protection Publication SW-776. Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979.
10. Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Comparative
Estimates of Post - Consumer Solid Waste. Environmental
Protection Agency Publication SW148. Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1975.
11. Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Decision -
Makers Guide in Solid Waste Management. Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1976.
12. Office of Technology Assessment. Materials and Energy from
Municipal Waste. Washington, Government Printing Office,
1979.
13. Ralph M. Parsons Company. Feasibility Analysis of Resource
Recovery from Solid Waste. Denver, Denver Regional Council
of Governments, 1976.
67
-------
14. Robert Peccia and Associates. Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan for Madison and Lower Gallatin Counties,
Final Report. Helena, Madison County Solid Waste Technical
Committee, 1979.
15. Robert Peccia and Associates. Park County, Montana, Solid
Waste Systems Analysis. Helena, Park County Refuse
District, 1980.
68
-------
PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
Cooper, K.; Bestway Equipment Co.; Division of U.S. Disposal
Systems; September, 1980.
Kois; Kois Brothers Equipment Co.; September, 1980.
Campbell, J.; George Swanson and Son, Inc.; November, 1980.?
Kolig, A.; Stanton Equipment Co.; September, 1980.
69
-------
APPENDIX A
LIST OF SOLID WASTE EQUIPMENT
MANUFACTURERS AND DISTRIBUTORS
-------
Landfill Equipment
ATI is Chalmers
Banderet Equipment Inc. - 289-5793
4500 E. 60 Ave.
Denver
Case Power Equipment - 288-1551
5775 Eudora
Commerce City
Caterpillar
Wagner Equipment Co. - 289-6111
6000 Dahlia
Commerce City
International
H. W. Moore Equipment Co. - 288-0771
' 5990 Dahlia
Commerce City
John Deere
Pete Honnen Equipment - 287-7506
5055 E. 72nd Avenue
Commerce City
Rexnord
Booth-Rouse Equipment - 288-6625
5700 Eudora Street
Commerce City
Local Manufacturers and Distributors of Waste Handling Equipment
American Transportation & Equipment - 922-3636
2225 So. Kalamath Jay Weitz, Distributor
Denver
Jacobs Equipment Company - 292-3580
1950 31st Chip Spratlen, Distributor
Denver, 80216
Kois Brothers - 399-7370
4950 Jackson Street George Kois, Manufacturer and distributor
Denver, 80216
Swanson and Sons - 423-6200
400 So. Marshall Al Whiddley, Manufacturer and distributor
Denver, Co. 80226
A-l
-------
APPENDIX B
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH LETTER
RE: WESTERN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY SOLID
WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS
-------
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH - 4210 East llth Avenue - Denver, CO. 80220
File Copy
Transmittal .1.0.C.
August 8, 1980
Board of County Commissioners
Clear Creek County
Box 265
Georgetown, Colorado 80444
Attention: Byron Guanella, Chairman
Subject: Empire Landfill Closure and Future Transfer Station and/or
Landfill Plans
Gentlemen:
This letter is to document our recent conversations and to clarify our
recommendations in handling western Clear Creek County's solid waste disposal.
Closure of the existing Empire landfill necessitates another location for disposal
of both municipal solid waste and "rubble" or wood and construction waste,
appliances, tires, furniture, etc.- (Closure requirements are noted in the
separate inspection report.)
We believe that a roll-off trailer box and' ram compacter transfer station
similar to the one in use at the Idaho Springs site is the best long-term disposal
option for municipal waste. The proposed landfill above the existing site is too
small to use for an appreciable length of time, as well as having too little
available cover material to be used for municipal waste. The closed fill surface
seems to be the best transfer station location, since the public is used to this
location, the owner is willing -:o sell the property, and no other-feasible sites
are available. If the compacter/transfer station cannot be set up before the
landfill is completely full sometime this fall, a "green-box" system with a snail
(10 cubic yard) compacter truck making frequent pickups may be needed to get through
the winter.
The possible use of the site 100 yard* above the existing fill as a "rubble" dump
has been seriously considered. The small amount of material expected for disposal
means that the area would be useable for a fairly long time period. Daily cover
would not be required, and the site is "shielded" visually and from wind by numerous
trees and steep surrounding slopes. Difficult engineering design and construction.
problems in providing protected, adequate (100 yr. runoff event) drainage underneath
or beside the proposed landfill could be overcome. Erosion and sloughing of the
vertical-faced colluvial masses on the east side of the gulch should not present
great problems or danger, although the effects of heavy truck traffic to the gold
B-l
-------
Board of County Commissioners
Clear Creek County
Georgetown, Co.
August 11, 1980
Page 2
sine above this site (if that mine is reopened, as rumored) have not been
fully evaluated.
However, a transfer station for rubble may be an even better solution. An open
roll-off trailer box located next to the municipal refuse compacter box could
be used to collect nibble to be hauled to Idaho Springs (or elsewhere). We see
several probable advantages in:this alternative, as follows:
(1) Capital investment; a) The new site will have to be purchased outright,
as the owner apparently doesn't wish to remain liable for any problems
during operation and after closure, b) Costs for developing a design
report and operations plan, required by state law before this department
may approve the new site, c) Costs for constructing a road, drainage
protection, and access control (gate), as veil as equipment and operator's
time for earthmoving work, needed to prepare the site to accept rubble.
d) Costs for staff and commission time, public notice, etc..involved in
designating the new site, a) Costs for the open-box transfer station
would involve only a concrete pad, access ramp and purchase or lease of
the trailer box. No engineering report or re-designation of the site would
be necessary.
(2) Operating costs (a) Earthmoving equipment, operator and maintenance
time needed to provide "adequate" compaction and cover: "Adequate"
cover is defined by statute as that amount required to minimize windblown
"debris, prevent fire and rodent and insect infestation. We expect that this
would require at least weekly covering of all trash, b) Costs for acquiring
cover material. Cover must be provided mainly from off-site, since
excavating loose material from the slope below the vertical faces on the
east side of the gulch will destabilize the slope and greatly increase the
chances for mass wastage (landslides), c) Operating costs for the rubble
transfer station would involve only the fee (if contracted) or personnel and
equipment tine (if equipment is county-owned) for picking up, hauling and
dumping the box.
(3) Operational control of site. Assuming only one person on duty, whether the
landfill or a transfer station is installed: a) Dumping at the landfill
would be out of sight of the operator, who will probably be required to
remain at the municipal refuse compacter station to operate the ram. Haulers
headed to the landfill could be required to stop to have their loads checked
at the compactor, so this is not a major complication, b) Dumping at the
double transfer station with the operator present- would minimize improperly
sorted refuse, and potential traffic tangles or accidents (on the road to
the landfill) would be eliminated.
These concerns are clearly complex and should be quantified, the costs carefully
estimated and studied.
If it is shown that the usable life of the (properly designed and operated) landfill
will be long enough to justify preferring it over a transfer-trailer box, we see no
reason to disapprove.
We have recommended that the county commissioners request (free) technical assistance
from the EPA to get those costs mentioned estimated and compiled in order that a
B-2
-------
ccard of County Corliss loners
Clear Creek County
Georgetown, Co.
August 11, 1980
Page 3
firm decision can be made. The EPA Technical Assistance Officer, William Rothen-
meyer, has indicated his interest and willingness to provide this assistance in
the person(3) of Fred C. Hart Associates, who are engineers and designers experienced
iii the field. Within the next two months they will be able to supply the concrete,
quantative.. information and dollar estimates on which to base a decision. Further
design work will be necessary if the landfill site is developed. The county will
need to hire a consulting engineer to do that work. An expanded second phase of
the study can also be undertaken to evaluate the entire county's solid waste disposal
situation and analyze future waste volumes, landfill needs, and possible alternatives
to increasingly expensive transfer of wastes to landfills out of the county.
This summary has attempted to reflect the concerns of Clear Creek County as well.
as those of this Department. We look forward to working with you to devise
economical, workable solutions to the difficult problems of waste disposal. Please
feel free to advise us of further concerns of questions.
Sincerely,
Greg St«rkebaum, Public Health Engineer
Radiation and Hazardous
Wastes Control Division
GSrer
B-3
-------
APPENDIX C
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH LETTER
RE: NOTICE OF VIOLATION FOR CLEAR CREEK
COUNTY'S SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
-------
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Richard 0. Lamm "' VJ^SCBg^V Frank A.Traylor. M.D.
Governor X^Tj 7^X Executive Director
August 18, 1980
Clear Creek County Commissioners
P.O. Box 265
Georgetown, Colorado 80444
Attention: Mr. Byron Guanella, Chairman
Subject: Notice of Violation
Solid Waste Disposal Act
Clear Creek County, Colorado
Gentlemen:
This letter is to inform'the County Commissioners of the solid waste disposal
sites in Clear Creek County which are not being operated in accordance with the
minimum standards presented in 30-20-Part 1, C.R.S. 1973 as amended,, the Solid
Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act. A copy of the Act and Regulations is
enclosed for your reference.
Please find attached a description of the Empire and Idaho Springs sites in Clear
Creek County, which are not in compliance wich the Solid Waste Disposal Sices and
Facilities Act. The name of the District; Engineer, the date of inspection and the
items of noncompliance are also presented.
Your attention is directed to Section 112 of the State Act which states chat "The
Board of County Commissioners, after reasonable notice and public hearing, shall
temporarily suspend or revoke a certificate of designation that has been granted
by it for failure of a site and facility to comply with all applicable laws,
resolutions, ordinances or to comply with the provisions of this Part 1 or any
rule or regulation adopted pursuant thereto".
This division is well aware of your efforts to plan for the closure of the Empire
landfill, to install a municipal waste transfer station, and to decide on the best
method for disposal of rubble at that site.
Your written reply describing a plan of action and/or a compliance schedule to
upgrade the Idaho Springs site must be sent .to this office within 30 days of the
date of this letter, to receive appropriate attention in the evaluation of that
site's noncompliance status. It is in the interest of the public health and safety
that corrective measures be implemented as soon as possible.
C-l
-------
C-Ltar Creek County Commissioners
Georgetown, Colorado 80444
Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. If there are any questions
regarding this letter, please contact this Department or Mr. John Blair, the
District Engineer of this Department serving Clear Creek County.
Sincerely,
Albert J. Hazle, Director
Radiation and Hazardous Wastes
Control Division
AJH:GS:er
Enclosure
C-2
-------
Non Complying Sites
Clear Creek County
Facility Name: Empire Landfill
Inspection Date: 7/10/80
District Engineer: John Blair
Inspecting Engineer: Greg Starkebaum
Non Complying Items:
1) Surface drainage provisions inadequate. 30-20-110 (1)(d) of C.R.S. 1973
as amended and section 3-e of the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities
Regulations requires that..."A site and facility operated as a sanitary landfill
...shall provide adequate cover with suitable material and surface drainage
designed to prevent ponding and water and wind erosion..." The existing 24 inch
concrete pipe under the fill is subject to blockage by debris, resulting in water
flow across the top of the fill which would saturate and erode the fill, polluting
waters of the state and carrying partially decomposed garbage into the Town of
Empire. An engineered, protected flood channel over or around the fill, sized to
carry a 100 year storm flow, must be installed as part of the site closure.
2) Inadequate cover. 30-20-110(1) (d) of C.R.S. 1973 as amended and section 3(e)
of the Solid.Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Regulations require that "...
in the operation of such a site and facility, the solid wastes...shall be fire,
insect and rodent resistant through the application of an adequate layer of inert
material at regular intervals and-shall have a minimum of windblown debris which
shall be collected regularly and placed into the fill." Inspection of the site
revealed approximately 2000 square feet of uncovered, uncompacted trash. Windblown
debris is spread several hundred feet in all directions from the site. A represen-
tative of the Empire Town Council stated that the town volunteer Fire Department
has spent many hours extinguishing fires in the uncovered trash. A minimum thickness
of 2 feet of compacted earth is required as final cover over the fill for closure.
A thicker cover should be considered for the face of the fill due to probable erosion
problems on the steep (approximately 1 1/2:1) slope.
3) Failure to adequately fence site, as required pursuant to 30-20-110 (1) (e) of
C.R.S. 1973 as amended which states that "sites and facilities shall be adequately
fenced so as to prevent waste material and debris from escaping therefrom ..."
The complete lack of fencing of the site also means that there is no control over
•hours of operation, location of dumping on the site, or other activities such as
target shooting-.' If the present site is used as a transfer station location in
the future, fencing should be installed for all the above reasons and to (partially)
protect any equipment from theft and vandalism.
C-3
-------
Non Complying Sites
Clear Creek County
Facility Name: Idaho Springs Transfer Station/Rubble fill
Inspection Date: 7/25/80
District Engineer: John Blair
Inspector: Barbara Bogema
Non Complying Items:
1) Surface Drainage provisions inadequate, potential for surface water pollution
evident. 20-20-110 (1) (d) of C.R.S. 1973, as amended, requires that "A site
and facility operated as a sanitary landfill shall provide ... surface drainage
designed to prevent ponding and water and wind erosion and prevent water and air
pollution... "
The North end of the fill is.now completely blocking a natural drainage channel
with a wall of waste approximately ten feet high. This causes ponding of water,
saturation of the fill, and consequent backing of any soluble pollutants from the
fill, further polluting the nearby stream and possibly destabilizing the face of the
fill.
Adequate measures required to correct the situation include either removing the
in-place fill, or construction of a drainage system to route runoff from the
natural channel over or around the fill, with provisions for preventing erosion
of the fill face. - -'
2) Inadequate cover and fencing. 30-20-110 (1) (d), CRS 1973, as amended, requires
in part that "...the solid wastes... shall be fire, insect and rodent resistant
through the application of an adequate layer of inert material at regular intervals;
and shall have a minimum of windblown debris which shall be collected regularly and
placed in the fill."
The. lack of daily cover and portable screens at the working area of the fill has
resulted in a large amount of windblown debris scattered across and below the
completed fill face and in the stream below. Much of this material, as well as numerou
tires, appliances, etc. has obviously not been collected and placed in the fill
for at least a year.
Closer inspection and control of the material dumped at this "rubble" fill, more
frequent cover of "blowable" debris and cleanup of the scattered trash must be
accomplished for this site to become acceptable, according to the law's minimum
standards .
C-4
-------
APPENDIX D
CLEAR CREEK COUNTY LETTER
RE: COMPLIANCE PLAN
-------
Oounly of Olear Greek
®
GEORGETOWN, COLORADO
September 19, 1980
Mr. Albert J. Hazle, Director
Radiation § Hazardous Wastes
Control Division
Colorado Department of Health
4210 East Eleventh Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
Dear Mr. Hazle:
This is to confirm our recent on-site inspections of the Idaho
Springs and Empire Landfill sites with Health Department per-
sonnel including Mr. Starkebaum, and is written in response to
your letter of August 18, 1980.
Our Plan of Action for the Idaho Springs site includes clearing
or unplugging both ends of the 30 inch culvert that runs through
the center of the rubble fill area ("north end of the fill"
referred to in the 7/25/80 inspection report). Due to the
current blockage of the culvert, the inspectors have been unaware
of this provision for surface'drainage.
Also, County work crews will fill the area at the northwestern
corner of the fill area which currently provides an opportunity
for ponding and saturation of the fill, and will extend the cul-
vert to a point where a grate or vertical bar screen can be in-
stalled at an angle of approximately 30 degrees from horizontal
in order to allow any debris which might otherwise clog the
opening of the culvert to override the inlet and to rest_against
the 10 foot high berm to be constructed. This berm'will*serve
as a dam and further limit tiie possibility of storm.runoff ponding
which could saturate the fill area.
Finally, landfill personnel have been instructed to more frequently
clean up windblown debris and to maintain adequate cover. Such
"adequate cover" will be easier to accomplish in the future given
the County's recent purchase of land to the northwest of the site.
We believe Mr. Starkebaum has agreed to this overall Plan of
Action at our site visit on September 12. •
-------
Mr, Albert J. Hazle
September 19, 1980
Page 2
The Empire site unfortunately requires longer-term solutions.
There, our Plan of Action includes the installation of a double-
transfer station which will include a compactor for household
wastes similar to the facility at Idaho Springs, and a second
container for waste products neither suitable for compaction nor
for on-site disposal. Some on-site disposal of non-hazardous
(even if saturated with storm runoff) rubble is proposed to occur
north of the existing site on land currently under contract for
purchase. Adequate provision for surface drainage at this site
will be maintained.
Such long term plans may necessitate the ensure or partial
closure of the Empire site until the transfer facility and re-
lated enclosure, control over hours of operation, etc. can be
accomplished. Such closure will include adequate cover and pro-.
visions for storm runoff. This overall Plan, too, we believe to •
be in conformace with direction agreed upon by Health Department
personnel.
Please call if we can be erf further assistance.
Berten R. Weaver
County Planning Director
ps
D-2
-------
APPENDIX E
STATE OF COLORADO SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
SITES AND FACILITIES REGULATIONS
-------
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
4210 East lith Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
REGULATIONS: SOLID WASTES DISPOSAL SITES AND FACILITIES
AUTHORITY: Chapter 36, Article 23, CRS 1963 (1967 Perm. Cum. Supp.) as
amended by Chapter 103, Colorado Session Laws 1971.*
The following regulations 'were adopted by The Colorado State
Board of Health pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes 1963,
Section 3-16-2 as amended**, and Chapter 36, Article 23, CRS
1963 (1967 Perm. Cum. Supp.) as amended by Chapter 103, Colorado
Session Laws 1971, for the designation, operation, maintenance,
and design of Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities.
Adopted February 16, 1972
Effective Date April 1, 1972
Section 1. SCOPE These regulations shall be applicable to all solid waste
disposal sites and facilities, whether designated by ordinance within the
corporate limits of any city, city and county, or incorporated town or by
the Board of County Commissioners in unincorporated areas.
Section 2. DEFINITIONS (1) The following definitions extracted from Section
36-23-1, CRS 1963, as amended***, shall apply when appearing in these
regulations:
a. "Solid waste" means garbage, refuse, sludge of sewage disposal
plants, and other discarded solid materials, including solid
waste materials resulting from industrial, commercial and from
community activities, but shall not include agricultural waste.
b. "Department" means the Department of Health.
c. "Approval site or facility" means a site or facility for which
a "Certificate of Designation" has been obtained, as provided
* Title 30, Article 20. CRS
** 24-4-102, CRS 1973
*** 30-20-101, CRS 1973
E-l
-------
-2-
in this act.
d. "Person" means an individual, partnership, private or municipal
corporation, firm, or other association of persons.
e. "Solid waste disposal" means the collection, storage, treatment,
utilization, processing, or final disposal of solid wastes.
f. "Solid waste disposal site and facility" means the location and
facility at which the deposit and final treatment of solid
wastes occur.
g. "Transfer station" means a facility at which refuse, awaiting
transportation to a disposal site, as transferred from one type
of collection vehicle and placed into another.
h. "Recyclable materials" means a type of material that is subject
to reuse or recycling.
i. "Recycling operation" means that part of a solid waste disposal
facility or a part of general disposal facility at which
recyclable materials may be separated from other materials for
future processing.
Definitions. (2) Other terms used in the statute or regulations are defined
as follows:
a. "Certificate of Designation" means a document issued under
authority of the Board of County Commissioners to a person
operating a solid waste disposal site and facility of a
certain type and at a certain location.
b. "Milling-tailings" are that refuse material resulting from the
processing of ore in a mill.
c. "Metallurgical slag" is the cinder or dross waste product
resulting in the refining of metal bearing ores.
E-2
-------
-3-
d. "Mining wastes" are either mill-tailings or metallurgical slag
or both.
e. A "Junk automobile" is defined to be the hulk or body of a motor
vehicle essentially suitable only for one use as scrap metal.
Junk automobile parts constitute,, the normally recyclable materials
obtainable from a motor vehicle.
f. "Suspended solids" are finely divided mineral and organic sub-
stances contained in the sewage existing in a sewage system.
g. "Engineering data" shall mean information describing the area of
disposal sites in acres, a description of the access roads and
i
roads within the site, a description of fencing enclosing'the
disposal site, and overall plan listing the method or methods by
which the disposal site will be filled with refuse and the use to
which it will be placed once the 'site is filled and closed.
h. "Geological data" shall mean classes of soil to a reasonable
depth from the ground surface, the location and thickness of
the significant soil classifications throughout the area of the
site and to extend some distance beyond the boundaries of the
site, to include information on groundwater elevations, seepage
quantities and water wells 1,000 feet beyond the boundary of
the disposal site.
i. "Hydrological data" shall include average, maximum, and minimum
amounts of precipitation for each month of the year, surface
drainage facilities, streams and lakes adjacent to the disposal
site, irrigation water ditches adjacent to the site, wells,
streams and lakes.
j. "Operational data" shall include a plan for overall supervision
of the disposal site to include supervisory personnel and labor
E-3
-------
personnel, equipment and machinery consisting of all items
needed for satisfactory landfill operation, traffic control,
fire control, cover material, working face, moisture content.,
compaction control, and rodent and insect control.
k. "Sanitary landfill" is the final disposal of solid waste on the
land by a method employing compaction of the refuse and covering
with earth or other inert material.
1. A "Composting plant" is a solid waste disposal facility utilizing
biochemical degradation to change decomposable portions of solid
waste to a humus-like material.
m. "Incineration" is the controlled combustion of solid, liquid or
gaseous waste changing them to gases and to a residue containing
little combustible material.
n. "Hazardous material and toxic substances" are liquid or solids
which can be dangerous to man, animal and plantlife unless
properly neutralized.
o. "Minimum Standards" (See Section 3) shall mean the requirements
which shall be applied to all solid waste disposal sites and
facilities.
p. "Engineering Report Design Criteria" (See Section 4) shall mean
the minimum requirements which shall be applied to new facilities
proposed for designation as a solid waste disposal site and
facility.
Section 3. MINIMUM STANDARDS (1) (a)•the following minimum standards are
hereby adopted and incorporated herein as directed by Section 36-23-10 CRS
1963, as amended*:
(b) Such sites and facilities shall be located, operated, and main-
*30-20-110, CRS 1973
-------
tained in a manner so as to control obnoxious odors, prevent rodent and
insect breeding and infestation, and shall be kept adequately covered
during their use.
(c) Such sites and facilities shall comply with the health laws,
standards, rules and regulations of the Department, the Air Pollution
Control Commission, the Water Pollution Control Commission, and all appli-
cable zoning laws and ordinances.
(d) No radioactive material or materials contaminated by radio-
active substances shall be disposed of in sites or facilities not speci-
fically designated for that purpose.
(e) A site and facility operated as a sanitary landfill shall
provide means of finally disposing of solid wastes on land in a manner to
minimize nuisance conditions such as odors, windblown debris, insects, rodents,
smoke, and shall provide compacted fill material, adequate cover with suit-
able material and surface drainage designed to prevent ponding and water and
wind erosion; prevent water and air pollution and, upon being filled, shall
be left in a condition of orderliness, good esthetic appearance and capable
of blending with the surrounding area. In the operation of such a site and
facility, the solid wastes shall be distributed in the smallest area consistent
with handling traffic to be unloaded, shall be placed in the most dense volume
practicable using moisture and compaction or other method approved by the
Department, shall be fire, insect and rodent resistent through the appli-
cation of an adequate layer on inert material at regular intervals and shall
have a minimum of windblown debris which shall be collected regularly and
placed into the fill.
(f) Sites and facilities shall be adequately fenced so as to prevent
waste material and debris from escaping therefrom, and material and debris
E-5
-------
-6-
shall not be allowed to accumulate along the fence line.
(g) Solid wastes deposited at any site or facility shall not be
burned, provided, however, that in extreme emergencies resulting in the
generation of large quantities of combustible materials, authorization for
burning under controlled conditions may be given by the Department.
Section 4. ENGINEERING REPORT DESIGN CRITERIA
a. The design of a solid waste disposal facility hereinafter
desingated shall be such as to protect., surface and subsurface
waters from contamination. Surface water from outside the
immediate working area of the disposal site shall not be
allowed to flow into or through the active disposal area. The
design shall provide for the deflection of rain or melting snow
away from the active area where wastes are being deposited.
As filling continues Co completion, the surface shall be sloped
so that water is diverted away from the area where refuse has
been or is being deposited. The design shall include methods
of keeping groundwater out of the area where refuse is deposited.
b. The site shall be designed to protect the quality of water
available in nearby wells. The necessary distance from the
wells is dependent in part on the direction of flow of groundwater
under the site and the means used in the design to prevent
precipitation falling on the site from reaching the aquifer
in question. Soil characteristics. The soil used for covering
of landfill type operations shall have enough adhesive character-
istics to permit a workable earth cover.
c. The location of the solid waste site and facility should provide
for convenient access from solid waste generation centers.
E-6
-------
-7-
d. The access routes shall be designed so as -to permit the orderly
and efficient flow of traffic to and from the site as well as on
the site.
Traffic control routes on the site shall permit orderly, efficient
and safe ingress, unloading and egress.
e. The design of the facility shall provide for effective compaction
and cover of refuse materials in such a program as will prevent
the emergence or attraction of insects and rodents.
f. Solid waste deposited at disposal sites and facilities shall be
compacted prior to covering. Use of moisture or change of
particle size to aid in compaction is recommended.
g. The design shall contemplate the location and construction of
the disposal site and facility in such a manner as will
eliminate the scattering of windblown debris. All solid wastes
discharged at the site shall be confined to the site and any
material escaping from the active discharge area shall be
promptly retrieved and placed in the active discharge area.
h. Recyling operations may be designed to operate at solid waste
disposal sites and facilities, provided such recycling operations
do not interfere with the disposal of other wastes and provided
that such recycle operations are carried out without creation
of a nuisance and rodent and insect breeding.
i. The design shall include such equipment and operational methods
to prevent the burning of solid wastes at the site and to
extinguish any fires.
E-7
-------
-8-
j. Final Closure. Prior to closing a solid waste disposal site
except for cause as set forth in Section 36-23-13 CRS as
amended*, the final cover of the deposited solid wastes shall be
graded to the elevations which shall be shown in the initial
design. The cover shall be of such thickness and material as
will prevent the entrance or emergence of insects, rodents, or
odors. Such closure elevations shall be such as will provide for
the diversion of rainfall and runoff away from the fill area.
k. A plan and method for protecting solid wastes disposal sites and
facilities against damage from floods shall be a part of the
engineering design.
Section 5. THE REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT to County Commissioners or municipal
officials, recommending approval or disapproval of the application, shall consist
of a written and signed document made in accordance with criteria established
by the Board of Health, Water Pollution Control Commission and Air Pollution
Control Commission.
Section 6. OPERATION OF A SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY
An operational plan for placing into operation the engineering design
for the disposal site and facility is required.
Such a plan shall include the following information:
a. The name or titles of the person or persons who will be in charge
of the disposal site and facility. Such name(s) shall be of
person(s) having the responsibility for the operation as well
as the authority to take all corrective action necessary to
comply with the requirements of this Department.
b. The list of equipment to be used at the disposal site.
c. The hours of• operation of the site.
E-8 *10-20-112, CRS 1973
-------
-9-
d. The fire fighting equipment or department available for
extinguishing fires.
e. The frequency of cover of the deposited wastes.
f. The frequency of retrieval of windblown debris.
g. A contingency plan for eradication of rodents and insects.
h. Procedures for implementing other aspects of the design.
Section 7. RESTRICTIONS OF OPERATIONS. CLOSING SITES
a. In the event a person applying for a Certificate of Designation
does not wish to receive at his site all items defined in the
statute as solid wastes, his application to the county commissioners
for approval of designation shall set forth the limitations as to
materials to be accepted at the site. If such site is thereafter
designated, the owner shall erect at the entrance to such a site
an appropriate design setting forth the items not receivable at
such site.
b. If a person having a site officially designated wishes to close
the site for any reason, he shall inform the county commissioners
at least 60 days in advance of such closing and shall post a sign,
readable from the seat of an entering motor vehicle, informing
the public of his intent to close such site. Such site shall be
considered officially closed upon receipt of an official notice
from the county commissioners, provided such closing date shall
be at least 60 days after the notice to the county commissioners
and the posting as above set forth. Upon closing of the site,
the owner shall post a notice that the site is closed and shall
take reasonable precautions to prevent the further use of such site.
E-9
-------
-10-
Add Section 8. Notification of Violations of an Approved Engineering Design
Report
(a) Whenever the Department determines that a solid waste disposal
site is not being operated substantially in accordance with the
criteria provided in the Engineering Design Report or these
regulations, the operator shall be informed of the nature of
the alleged violation by certified mail and within ten days
from and after receipt of the letter of citation, he may
request a variance from the Engineering Design Report by making
Written application to the Department stating the grounds for
such request.
(b) The Department shall either approve such request or schedule
the matter for an administrative hearing. If the operator
fails to request a variance, or the Department refuses to
grant a variance after the hearing, the operator shall be
deemed to be in violation of the law and these regulations and
the "Certificate of Designation" shall be subject to suspension,
revocation or injunction as provided in Sections 36-23-13 and
14, CRS 1963, as amended by Chapter 103, Colorado Session Laws
1971*. The Department shall pomptly report the action taken to
the Board of County Commissioners.
(c) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Department may
request a hearing before the State Board of Health and shall be
afforded his rights to judicial review as provided in Section
66-1-13, Colorado Revised Statutes 1963**.
Note: These regulations rescind and supersede soild waste regulations
and standards adopted November 21, 1967. Effective January 1, 1968.
E-10
*30-20-112 and 113, CRS 1973
**25-l-113, CRS 1973
-------
PART 4
GENERAL REGULATIONS
30-15-401. General regulations. (1) In addition to those powers granted
by section 30-11-107 and by parts 1, 2, and 3 of this article, the board of
county commissioners has the power to adopt ordinances for control or licensing
of those matters of purely local concern which are described in the following
enumerated powers:
(a) (I) To provide for and compel the removal of rubbish, including trash
and garbage but not including weeds, brush, or other growing things in place,
from lots and tracts of land within the county, except industrial tracts of
ten or more acres and agricultural lands currently in agricultural use as that
term is defined in section 39-1-103 (6) (a) (I), C.R.S. 1973, and from the alleys
behind and from the sidewalk areas in front of such property at such time, upon
such notice, and in such manner as the board of county commissioners may.prescribe
by ordinance and to assess the whole cost_thereof, including five percent for
inspection and other incidental costs in connection therewith, upon the lots and
tracts from which such rubbish has been removed. The assessment shall be a lien
against such lot or tract of land until paid and shall have priority over all
other liens except general taxes and prior special assessments.
(II) To inspect vehicles proposed to be operated in the conduct of the
business of transporting ashes, trash, waste, rubbish, garbage, or industrial
waste products or any other discarded materials and to determine, among other
things, that any such vehicle has the following:
(A) A permanent cover of canvas or equally suitable or superior material
designed to cover the entire open area of the body of such vehicle;
(B) A body so constructed as to be permanently leakproof as to such
discarded materials;
(C) Extensions of sideboards and tailgate, if any, constructed of permanent
materials;
E-ll
-------
(Ill) To contract with persons in the business of transporting and disposing
of ashes, trash, waste, rubbish, garbage, or industrial waste products or any other
discarded materials to provide such services, but in no event on an exclusive
territorial basis, to every lot and tract of land requiring such services within
the unincorporated area of the county or in conjunction with the county on such
terms as shall be agreed to by the board of county commissioners. Nothing in
this subparagraph (III) shall be deemed to preclude the owner or tenant of any
such lot or tract from removing discarded materials from his lot, so long as
appropriate standards of safety and health are observed.
(IV) To regulate the activities of persons in the business of transporting
ashes, trash, waste, rubbish, garbage, or industrial waste products or any other
discarded materials within the unincorporated area by requiring each such person
to secure a license from the county and charging a fee therefor to cover the cost
of administration and enforcement and by requiring adherence to such reasonable
standards of health and safety as may be prescribed by the board of county
commissioners and to prohibit any person from commercially collecting or disposing
of ashes, trash, waste, rubbish, garbage, or industrial waste products or any
other discarded materials within the unincorporated area without a license and
when not in compliance with such standards of health and safety as may be
prescribed by the board;
(V) To do all acts and make all regulations which may be necessary or
expedient for the promotion of health or the suppression of disease;
(VI) To require every person in the business of transporting ashes, trash,
waste, rubbish, garbage, or industrial waste products or any other discarded
materials to and from disposal sites to have, before commencing such operations,
i
in such motor vehicle a motor vehicle liability insurance policy or evidence
of such policy issued by an insurance carrier or insurer authorized to do
business in the state of Colorado in the sum of not less than one hundred fifty
thousand dollars for the damages for or on account of any bodily injury to or
the death of each person as the result of any one accident, in the sum of not
less than one hundred fifty thousand dollars for damages to the property of
E-12
-------
others as the result of any one accident, and in the total sum of not less than
four hundred thousand dollars for damages for or on account of any bodily
injury to or the death of all persons and for damages to the property of others.
Any liability for failure to comply with the requirements of this subparagraph (VI)
shall be borne by the individual, partnership, or corporation who owns such
vehicle.
(4) Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to
the transporting of ashes, trash, waste, rubbish, garbage, or industrial waste
products or any other discarded materials which are collected by a city, county,
city and county, town, or other local subdivision within its jurisdictional
limits, provided every vehicle so engaged in transporting the discarded materials
has conformed to vehicle standards at least as strict as those prescribed in
subparagraph (II) of paragraph (a) of subsection (1). Such governing body shall
not grant an exclusive territory or regulate rates for the collection and
transportation of ashes, trash, waste, rubbish, garbage, or industrial waste
products or any other discarded materials~
(5) Any provision of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section to
the contrary notwithstanding, the governing body of a city and county shall not
be precluded from adopting ordinances, regulations, codes, or standards or
granting permits issued pursuant to home rule authority; except that such
governing body shall not grant an exclusive territory or regulate rates for the
collection and transportation of ashes, trash, waste, rubbish, garbage, or
.%
industrial waste products or any other discarded materials.
(6) The board of county commissioners, or the governing body of any
other local governmental entity, shall not issue or enter into a contractual
agreement for the collection and transportation of ashes, trash, waste, rubbish,
garbage, or industrial waste products or any other discarded materials in
any area where a hauler or haulers are then providing service without first
giving a six-month public notice to said hauler or haulers advising- them'-of the- *
intent to enter into said proposed contractual agreement. Said public-notice
shall be given in a local newspaper of general circulation in the area served
E-13
-------
by said haulers.
(7) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, nothing in this section
shall prohibit the providing of waste services by a private person, provided such
person is in compliance with applicable rules and regulations, within the limits
of any_ city, county, city and county, town, or other local subdivision if such
service is also provided by a governmental body within the limits of such
governmental unit. Such governmental body may not compel industrial or
commercial establishments or multifamily residences of eight or more units to
use or pay user charges for waste services provided by the governmental body
in preference to those services provided by a private person.
Source: Added, L. 79, p. 1144, § 1; (l)(a) amended and (l)(i) and (3) to (7)
added, L. 80, pp. 744, 479, 746, § § 7, 2, 7
E-14
-------
APPENDIX F
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH GUIDELINES
FOR THE REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
-------
GUIDELINES FOR THE REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 requires individual states
to form a solid waste management plan. The plan must,,encourage long-term
regional disposal sites which promote resource recovery and minimize environ-
mental impacts that endanger public health and safety.
The Solid Waste Act, Title 30, Article 20, Part 1, delegates regulatory
authority between state and local agencies. A Certificate of Designation is
required before an applicant can dispose of any soTid waste [as defined in the
Solid Waste Act: 30-20-101 (6)] on any site. The following guidelines suggest
the minimum technical information usually required for review by the Division
of Radiation and Hazardous Waste Control.
I. Alternative sites' feasibility
I
II. Size and expected life of site
III. Feasibility of resource recovery - technical and economic
t
IV. Describe projected site use after closure
V. Engineering geologic data (requires exploratory borings or trenches)
A. It is recommended that the following data be evaluated to a depth
of ten feet beneath the deepest natural or excavated surface on site.
•
B. Unconsolidated overburden materials
1. Soils classification - Unified Soils Classification System
2. Soil thickness and areal extent
3.- Pertinent engineering properties: grain size distribution,
atterburg limits, moisture density and compaction characteristics,
permeability, etc.
F-l
-------
4. Estimated volumes available for cover or liner material
C. Bedrock Materials
1. Rock type, strike, dip and thickness of bedding, joint or
fracture size and spacing, fracture filling material,
permeability, rippability, etc.
2. Estimated volumes available for liner or cover material
D. Geologic hazards on or adjacent to the site such as:
1. Rockfall, landslide or debris and mudflow hazards
2. Slope stability
3. Faulting and folding
4. Erosion potential
5. Mine subsidence
VI. Engineering Hydro!ogic Data
A. Surface waters
1. Proximate lakes, rivers, streams, springs or bogs
2. Site location in relation to 100 year floodplain
3. Size and slope of contributing drainage basins
4. Design of diversion and catchment structures for a 25 year,
24 hour precipitation event
5. Impoundment of contaminated runoff
6. Background surface water samples
B. Groundwaters
1. Depth to groundwater - seasonal variations
2. Wells within one mile radius of site: depth of well, depth
to water, yield, use, casing intervals
3. Nearest points of groundwater discharge
4. Background groundwater samples, as necessary
5. Major aquifers beneath site
F-2
-------
C. Surface and groundwater monitoring; plans for leachate collection
and treatment.
VII. Operational Data for Solid Waste Disposal
A. Landfills
1. Location and construction details for access roads
2. Plans for waste recycling, as applicable
3. Names of persons in charge of site; having authority to take
corrective action
4. Slope of fill surface must divert runoff from working face
5. . Refuse cell size, type of construction, location and arrangement
6. Amount of cover and frequency of application to working face
7. Direction of prevailing winds: maximum and average velocities
8. Provisions for retrieval of windblown debris, on and off the
site
9. Equipment and manpower retained .on site
10. Compactive effort to be applied to refuse and cover material
11. Types of waste received and their segregation
12. Provisions to ventilate methane gas from completed landfill
13. Measures to prevent or contain insect and rodent infestations
14. Measures and equipment to extinguish or prevent fires
15. Hours of operation
16. Final fill surface contours
17. Thickness and compaction of final cover
18. Provisions for maintenance after closure
19. Program of records keeping
•
B. Potentially toxic industrial or mining solid waste disposal sites
1. All previously listed criteria, as applicable
2. Chemical concentrations of processing and waste solvents
3. Chemical concentrations of solid waste
4. Engineering designs for diversion structures, dams, liners,
dikes, tailings or dump sites
F-3
-------
5. Engineering designs for holding ponds containing solvents and
solutions
6. Plans for ground and surface water monitoring and long-term
site maintenance
7. Ultimate disposal of solid waste recycling plans, if applicable
These criteria are applied on a site-to-site basis in the review process.
Applications containing this information will be reviewed more quickly and
efficiently. Four copies should be provided to this Division for review.
F-4
------- |