United States Region VIII
Environmental Protection 186C Lincoln Street
Agency Denver, Colorado 30295
Sotia Waste
&EPA SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN:
MILLARD COUNTY,
A TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
PANELS PROGRAM REPORT
-------
United States Region VJII
Environmental Protection 1860 Lincoln Street
Agency Denver, Colorado 30295
Solid Waste
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN:
MILLARD COUNTY, UTAH
A TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
PANELS PROGRAM REPORT
-------
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN:
MILLARD COUNTY, UTAH
A TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PANELS PROGRAM REPORT
Prepared for:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIII
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80295
Prepared by:
Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc,
Market Center
1320 17th Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
August, 1982
Report No. 908/6-82-008
-------
SOLID WASTE IWIAGBWT PLAN:
MILLARD COUNTY, UTAH
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VIII
MILLARD 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 State and local govern-
ments upon request with technical assistance on solid waste management, resource
recovery, and resource conservation. Such teams shall include technical, mar-
keting, 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
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
This report is available to the public through the National Technical
Information Service, U. S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia, 22161.
- 11 -
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
' . PAGE
LIST OF TABLES . v
LIST OF FIGURES vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background 4
B. Scope of the Study 5
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA
A. General Characteristics 7
B. Future Growth and Population Projections 12
C. Implications of Projected Growth 18
III. EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT CONDITIONS
A. Applicable Regulations 20
B. Existing Services and Facilities 23
C. Solid Waste Types and Quantities 28
IV. SANITARY LANDFILL SITE SELECTION
A. Introduction 37
B. Selection Criteria 41
C. Site Descriptions 49
V. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
A. General Collection and Transportation Alternatives 57
B. General Disposal Alternatives 65
C. Mi Hard County Alternatives 68
VI. RECOMMENDED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
A. Introduction 79
B. Collection Procedures 81
C. Disposal Procedures 92
D. Open Dump Closure Procedures 101
E. Alternative Management Structures 104
F. Alternative Financing Strategies 109
G. Implementation Schedule 115
REFERENCES 119
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
APPENDIX A: State of Utah, Code of Solid Waste Disposal
Regulations
APPENDIX B: Utah State Division of Health, Solid Waste Disposal
Site Sample Inspection Form
APPENDIX C: Potential Landfill Site Location and Evaluation
APPENDIX D: Glossary
APPENDIX E: Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Cost Summaries
APPENDIX F: Sample Calculations
APPENDIX G: Solid Waste Facility Financing Options
APPENDIX H: Solid Waste Ordinance
PAGE
120
128
133
137
143
165
170
177
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NUMBER TITLE PAGE
1 Population Projections, 16
Mil lard County, Utah
2 Annual Animal Deaths 31
3 Waste Generation Rates 32
4 Waste Densities 34
5 Current and Projected Annual Solid 35
Waste Volumes
6 Projected Annual Solid Waste 36
Volumes
7 Climatological Summary, Fillmore, 39
Utah
8 Climatological Summary, Delta, Utah 40
9 Available Ground Water Information, 44
Mi Hard County, Utah
10 Solid Waste Management Alternatives, Annual 72
Cost Summary
11 Weekly Collection Routes 84
12 Annual Roll-Off Collection Summary 89
13 Collection Cost Summary 90
14 Disposal Cost Summary 98
15 Open Dump Closure Cost Summary 105
16 Implementation Costs 112
17 Total Annual Cost Summary 114
- v -
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NUMBER TITLE PAGE
1 Mil lard County Study Area 8
1-A Historical and Projected Population,
Mil lard County, Utah 17
2 Waste Generation Zones, Mil lard
County, Utah 24
3 Existing Disposal Sites, Mi Hard
County, Utah 26
4 Suitability of Soils for Landfill
Operation 45
5 Potential Sanitary Landfill Sites,
Mil lard County, Utah 51
6 Front, Side and Rear-Loading Greenbox
Collection Vehicles 58
7 Greenboxes 60
8 Tilt Frame/Roll-off Transfer Vehicle 62
9 Transfer Trailer Vehicle 63
10 Trench and Area Methods of Sanitary
Landfill 66
11 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal,
Mil lard County, Utah, Option 1 73
- vi -
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont.)
FIGURE NUMBER TITLE PAGE
12 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal,
Mil lard County, Utah, Option 2 74
13 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal,
Mi Hard County, Utah, Option 3 76
14 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal,
Millard County, Utah, Option 4 77
15 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal,
Millard County, Utah, Option 5 78
16 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal, Millard
County, Utah, Recommended Plan 80
17 Elements of the Recommended Solid Waste
Management Plan 87
V
18 Regional Landfill (Southeast Delta) Site
Plan 94
19 Bulky Waste (Fillmore) Site Plan 96
20 Implementation Schedule 116
- vi i -
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Mil lard County and the City of Delta requested assistance from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to develop a solid waste management plan which
would promote cost-effective and environmentally sound waste collection and dis-
posal practices. The project addressed the specific effects on solid waste
caused by a projected 60 to 140 percent total population growth by 1987, due to
the Inter-mountain Power Project and the proposed MX missile system. Aspects of
particular concern to Mil lard County were rapid growth, the lack of an existing
organized collection and disposal system, the existence of a large number of
uncontrolled disposal sites, and the presence of special wastes. In addition,
the report is intended for use as a model for other rural areas experiencing
"boom town" growth.
The County requested that several potential landfill sites be located.
Criteria utilized in choosing sites were; the potential for adverse groundwater
impacts, the potential for adverse surface water impacts, availability of cover
material, area (size) of the site, land availability, zoning, impact on prime
agricultural land, haul distance, access, and compatibility with city and County
master plans. Topographic and land ownership maps, well data, and soil informa-
tion were used to identify 19 sites. Field investigation of these sites
resulted in the selection of the five most suitable sites, and two of these
sites were recommended for use in the final plan.
Several collection and disposal options were analyzed, and a recommended
plan was developed. Initially, cost estimates were generated for five specific
options, which involved such collection methods as the use of greenboxes, trans-
fer trailers (with compactors), and/or rol1-off containers (with or without com-
pactors). Disposal costs were determined by developing costs for one full-
service landfill and one bulky waste landfill and for two full-service land-
fills. Costs were estimated for both base (IPP-related) and high (IPP- and
MX-related) growth scenarios for 1982 and 1987 (the peak growth year).
All five options established a higher level of service for County residents
than is presently available, provided the flexibility required to accomodate the
-------
anticipated population growth and fluctuations, and eliminated the environmen-
tal, public health, and safety problems associated with open dumps.
The recommended alternative was developed after receiving input from County
Commissioners and officials, the mayors and/or representatives of each of the
incorporated areas, the Utah State Division of Health, and the Region VIII U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, at meetings in Mil lard County. Greenbox
collection was proposed for compactable waste, while rol1-off containers, placed
near each incorporated area, were proposed for bulky wastes. This option maxi-
mizes flexibility, as greenboxes can be added or removed more easily and econom-
ically from a collection system than can other containers. This feature is
vital in Millard County, where the extent and timing of growth is uncertain.
The greenboxes will be serviced by two side-loading collection vehicles,
while roll-off containers will be transported by a tilt-frame truck. A single,
regional sanitary landfill, located southeast of Delta, will receive all com-
pactable waste produced in the County, as we*l 1 as the bulky wastes generated in
West Millard County. This site will be supplemented by a bulky waste disposal
site at the present Fillmore site, which will service East Millard County. Each
disposal site will require a track dozer for spreading, compacting, and covering
waste.
Specific recommendations for closure of the 14 open dump sites are
detailed in a three-year plan which is estimated to cost approximately
$213,000. Equipment required for this task includes a crawler loader, a dump
truck, and a tractor.
The staff required to operate the collection and disposal system and
perform open dump closure include; two side-load vehicle drivers, (one full-time
and one half-time), one half-time roll-off vehicle driver, a bulky waste site
operator (half-time), a full-time regional landfill operator, and two staff
members conducting open dump closure (one full-time and one half-time
employee). In addition to the five full-time staff memebers described above, it
was recommended that a general manager and secretary be hired to oversee admin-
istrative and billing duties, respectively.
- 2 -
-------
The total yearly cost of the system was estimated at $429,800. The amor-
tized capital cost (10 percent over 10 years) was $161,400, while operating
costs were estimated to be $268,400. It was suggested that capital costs would
be finarori through the use of general furies or bonding. User fees could be
'-itiTiZ'-o r>, -;,ver capital and operating expenses, resulting in a residential
hou30r.c"M ,c:-r fee of S6.20 per month.
The formation of a County-wide Solid Waste Advisory Board was recommended
to manage the system. The Board, consisting of representatives from each Incor-
porated area, would oe responsible for financial, operational, and planning
decisions regarding solid waste. An Implementation schedule v/as provided, which
lists the approximate time periods required to complete the steps necessary for
system initiation. The evolution of the system, from 1982 to the year 2000, was
described. The solid waste management system has been designed to accomodate
peak year (1987) requirements for equipment and labor needs. After open dump
closure 1s complete (two to three years after Initiation) the extra labor and
equipment capacity will be needed to accommodate the 1987 collection and dispo-
sal needs. Efficient operation, possible with some overtime, will be necessary
1n 1987. The operating cost of the system should Increase by 51 per cent from
1982 to 1987, while population grows by 56 per cent. Capital costs will remain
constant, until equipment requires replacement around 1990.
In the early summer, 1982, the Intermountain Power Agency announced the
possibility of reducing the planned size of Its 3,000 megawatt plant to 2,225 MW
or less. Some of the entitles which are part of the IPA consortium Indicated
that their future demand for electricity might be significantly less than origi-
nally predicted. If the power plant 1s constructed on a smaller scale, the
population and the resultant solid waste generated associated with the construc-
tion and operational phases of the plant will be less than predicted 1n this
report. If the recommended collection and disposal system has to be scaled
downward, Appendix F of this report details the calculations which were used to
develop the Individual components of the system. In many cases, the recommended
system is linear 1n that size of the landfills, the number of greenboxes, re-
quired labor hours, etc. can be reduced by the ratio of actual population to
predicted population. One of the first responsibilities of the County's solid
waste manager will be to reevaluate the population and the recommended solid
waste system. Background calculations and notes used, in developing the system
will be provided to MUlard County upon request.
- 3 -
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
Mil lard County, Utah is experiencing solid waste disposal problems that are
typical of many rural areas. These problems include a large number of uncon-
trolled disposal sites, characterized by a lack of daily cover of waste, open
burning, and 1nd1scr1m1nant dumping. In addition to aesthetic problems, tnese
conditions may cause ground or surface water pollution, and present potential
public health and safety hazards.
This situation will be exacerbated, as Mil lard County is expected to exper-
ience rapid growth. Thus, 1t is similar to many other "boom towns" in the west-
ern United States. Population is Increasing due to the present construction of
the Intermountaln Power Project (IPP), which 1s an electric power generating
• *
station. The MX missile system may also affect County population. Projections
of total County population growth for the period from 1982 to 1987 have been
estimated to range from 60 to 140 percent, depending upon which growth scenario
1s utilized. This influx of population can be expected to present a number of
difficulties in providing necessary additional public services such as solid
waste management.
In an attempt to resolve the existing situation and avoid future problems,
officials from the City of Delta and Mi Hard County have requested assistance
from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in developing a solid waste man-
agement plan. This request 1s submitted through the Technical Assistance Panels
(TA Panels) program, which makes expertise available to State and local govern-
ments 1n accordance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of
1976, Section 2003. This expertise may Include technical, marketing, financial
and Institutional specialists who aid in the development and implementation of
plans which manage hazardous wastes, assure proper disposal of solid wastes, and
conserve resources through waste reduction and recovery.
EPA Region VIII has approved the Delta/Mil lard request for assistance, and
has directed Fred C. Hart Associates, the primary Region VIII Panels contractor,
- 4 -
-------
to conduct this study. The study will provide a recommended solid waste manage-
ment plan for Mi Hard County which best accomodates the current and future needs
of the County, taking into account projected growth and other local conditions.
In addition to serving as a direct aid to Mil lard County, however, this study is
also intended to serve as a model and provide discussion of solid waste issues
for other rapidly growing rural areas.
Before examining the Millard County solid waste situation, the scope of the
study and a brief discussion of general characteristics of the County are pre-
sented. These characteristics (including land use, issues and trends, popula-
tion, etc.) will play a major role in determining the substance of the recom-
mended solid waste management system.
B. Scope of the Study
The objective of the study is to aid Millard County in developing an envi-
ronmentally sound and cost effective waste" collection and disposal system. A
generalized outline of the scope of the study follows. Initially, the County's
population will be projected, through the year 2000, for each city, town, and
unincorporated area. The quantities, characteristics, and variations of solid
waste generated throughout the study period will be projected. Several alterna-
tive disposal sites will be evaluated and collection and disposal alternatives,
and associated costs shall be developed. Various methods for financing solid
waste expenditures, including the collection of fees from users, will be discus-
sed.
Types and quantities of special wastes generated in the study area will be
identified, and existing disposal practices evaluated. Recommendations for pro-
per special waste disposal will be made. A glossary defining solid waste tech-
nical terms will accompany the report.
Based on the comments received from Millard County officials, the State,
and EPA, a recommended solid waste management plan will be selected. The plan
will include: recommended landfill sites, practices, and a site plan; a land-
fill operation plan, including scheduling of equipment and staff, and hours of
operation; a waste collection staffing plan; a list of equipment required for
- 5 -
-------
collection and disposal of waste; recommendations for approximate locations of
greenbox and roll-off containers; site-specific disposal plans for special
wastes; and costs (capital, operating and maintenance) associated with the sys-
tem. Site-specific plans for closure and clean up of existing disposal sites
will also be developed.
An institutional (management) plan and system of financing the selected
alternative will be recommended, based on input from local elected officials.
Finally, a schedule for implementing the plan, and draft solid waste regulations
will be provided.
- 6 -
-------
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA
A. General Characteristics
Definition of the Study Area
The study area for this analysis consists of Millard County, Utah. The
County contains ten incorporated cities/towns,which may be divided into West and
East Mil lard County:
West East
Delta Fillmore
Lynndyl Hoi den
Leamington Scipio
Oak City Meadow
Hi nek ley Kanosh
The locations of these cities, along with several unincorporated settlements,
are shown in Figure 1. The incorporated cities are all located in the eastern
section of the County. In local terms, "West Millard" means the area consisting
of the first group of five communities listed above, while "East Millard" con-
sists of the second group of five cities. These terms, then, do not refer to
the entire County, but rather to the populated area located in the eastern part
of the County. The western part of the County (e.g., everything west of Hinck-
ley) is a very dry, undeveloped and low density area. The town of Garrison, not
shown in Figure 1, is located on the extreme western edge of the County.
Historic
Millard County is located in the west-central part of the State. The area
has undergone several economic/social development phases after initial coloniza-
tion by the Mormons in the 1850's. Mormon settlement followed a definite orga-
nized pattern based on religious concepts, with water availability determining
- 7 -
-------
FIGURE
MILLARD COUNTY STUDY AREA
EAMINQION
Mil lard County, Utah
SOURCE: FRED C. HART ASSOCIATES. IMP.
-------
the location and size of every settlement. Irrigation efforts begun time al-
lowed much '.it the dry desert l.md to function is agricultural land.
With the onset of railroads Into the an»a 1n the 1870's, markets for re-
gional ly-pr^ciucrid sugar beets, grain and stock were developed. Later 1n the
century Mi Hard County experienced growth and development from regional mining
activities. After mining activities died down, many of the residents remained
1n the area as agricultural activities expanded. Growth 1n the County continued
unfit approximately 1930 when the population reached approximately 10,000.
Population steadily declined until around 1970, when Increased activity 1n min-
ing, transportation and other sectors created a healthier, more diverse economy.
The 1981 population 1s estimated to be about 9,200.
Land Use
A 1978 land use Inventory shows that the primary land use within the County
1s agricultural. The vast majority of the land, however, 1s undeveloped. Much
of this land 1s owned and managed by the Federal government, as shown 1n the
land ownership survey of the County (In acres):
Percentage
of Total
Bureau of Land Management 3,016,403 71%
Forest Service 361,707 8.5
Bureau of Reclamation 599
Indian Reservations 37,683
Total Federal 3,416,390 80
State 402,659 9
Private 473.951 11
Total 4,254,720 100*
- 9 -
-------
Issues and Trends
Through a comparison or the County's history, current ^tatir,, and ijOdK fur
the future, several Important issues ,md trends become remJily apparent. Thf.c
Include urbanization, Inflation, recognition of the barriers to development and
the need for planning, and changes 1n the quality and/or style of life. Each I •.
briefly discussed below.
Urbanization. Signs of Increasing urbanization are very evident. While
there are no traffic Jams or similar symptoms of an urban society, If one exam-
ines the shortage of hotel/motel space, the presence of new residents and visi-
tors arriving from urban areas expecting the comforts and services offered by a
city, and Increasing local and regional economic activity, the conclusion 1s
reached that Mlllard County's traditional rural lifestyle 1s undergoing signifi-
cant changes. As discussed further below, the Intermountaln Power Project and
Missile X (MX) development will be the major future determinant of the pace,
scope, and magnitude of urbanization. *
Inflation. Although a problem throughout the world, Inflation tends to hit
fast-growing areas much harder than other, more stable areas. General signs of
Inflation 1n Mlllard County Include Increasing land values, competition for
scarce resources, Increasing consumer prices, etc. These Impacts affect every-
one, but are especially significant to economic sectors which pay lower wages
and generate a smaller margin of profit (such as agriculture), retirees, and
governments whose fiscal tax revenues lag behind cash outlay for public facili-
ties and services.
Barriers to Development. Generally, Mlllard County communities and Indivi-
dual citizens have expressed a strong support for future growth and develop-
ment. It 1s clear, however, that there exist several Important barriers to
encouraging and managing this development. For example, the County Commis-
sioners Organization (a voluntary cooperative association consisting of repre-
sentatives of Mlllard, Juab, P1ute, Sanpete, Sevler and Wayne Counties) has
recognized the following physical, social/cultural, and economic barriers to
development:
- 10 -
-------
o lack of water resources management;
o poor medical and social service delivery systems;
o insufficient transportation systems;
o poor community image;
o lack of community facilities;
o lack of tax base;
o continued un- and under-employment;
o ineffective tax structure; and
o an unattractive economic base for business development.
Importance of Planning. As a corollary to the above discussion, the impor-
tance and necessity of planning has been realized by most communities and decis-
ion-makers. In this regard, the Millard Intergovernmental Cooperative Alliance
(MICA) has been formed. MICA, consisting of representatives from all incorpora-
ted taxing entities and districts in the County, is an attempt to solve existing
deficiencies and lessen or avoid future disruptions. Additionally, comprehen-
sive planning efforts are underway for all incorporated and unincorporated por-
tions of the County in an attempt to define and understand problems and issues,
and to formulate strategies and policies to reach desired goals.
Decision-Making Structure
Generally, the decision-making structures of Millard County and communities
within the County are typical of other rural western areas. There are three
County commissioners, one of whom is chosen to be chairman of the Commission.
The Commissioners generally determine County priorities, and must officially ap-
prove all facets of County plans, policies, procedures and other business. A
group of several elected officials (e.g., Sheriff, County Clerk, Recorder) and
appointed staff (e.g., County Administrator, Road Department crew, Nurse, Indus-
trial Development staff) reports directly to the Commissioners through both for-
mal and informal procedures. Cities and towns in the region have a mayor and
may, depending upon size and resources, also have a small staff and/or trust-
ees. Local political support, especially from the County government, will be a
necessary prerequisite to the successful implementation of any solid waste plan.
- 11 -
-------
B. Future Growth and Population Projections
Major Future Industrial Development
Although still a rural county with a low population density, two major
projects planned for the area, the Intermountain Power Project (IPP) and Missile
X (MX) deployment, will play a major role in determining the future of the
County. A description of these projects is presented below, while a discussion
of their potential significance to the County's future growth and development
pattern is presented in the next section.
Inter-mountain Power Project. The IPP is a proposed 3,000 Megawatt coal -
fired electric power facility. Its planned location is approximately ten miles
north of Delta in Mil lard County. The site will occupy about 4,640 acres. IPP
is proposed and owned by the Intermountain Power Agency, a consortium of 23 Utah
municipalities. The agency, as a subdivision of Utah State government, will
finance the project with several issues of tax-exempt revenue bonds. Much of
the power, however, will be exported for electrical needs to Southern Califor-
nia. Site preparation began October, 1981, with construction of the generating
station scheduled to start approximately one year later. Indications are that
the IPP will definitely be developed.
MX Development. The MX mobile missile system has been proposed as a major
element of the U.S. strategic deterrent. It is designed to maintain the surviv-
ability of the U.S. land-based strategic missile force through the multiple pro-
tective shelter system. This concept requires relatively few (200) mobile MX
missiles moved among a relatively large number (4,600) of shelters. The pro-
posed deployment alternative, prior to recent Federal decisions, was the loca-
tion of all 200 missiles in the Nevada/Utah area, which includes Mil lard
County. Mi Hard County had been considered as a primary potential site for an
operating base and/or missile locations which would require extensive amounts of
land, labor, and other resources. Although MX development does not appear
likely to occur at this time (March, 1982), the high growth scenario (IPP and
MX-related growth) has been included in this report. The use of the high growth
scenario is still valuable if MX development does not occur in the County, as
this scenario provides an upper limit of population growth.
- 12 -
-------
Data Constraints
There exists a variety of information concerning potential growth and set-
tlement patterns in Millard county. Sources include:
o personal communications with MICA;
o the MX draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS);
o IPP reports;
o Bureau of Economic Research Reports by the University of Utah; and
o personal communications with the MX Policy Board.
In examining these projections, problems with the direct application of
this material to solid waste planning became clear. Studies prepared during
approximately the same period in time show strikingly different results. Even
1981 population estimates by individual community are in substantial disagree-
ment. While some of these discrepancies can be attributed to differences in
methodologies and assumptions, it is clear that no population projections exist
which are directly transferable to the needs of a solid waste management plan.
For example, year-by-year projections are desirable, although they will have to
be altered on a continual basis as growth conditions change. Ideally, these
year-by-year projections should be broken down by community so that collection
routes and schedules (a direct impact on efficiency and costs) can be evaluated
and compared. Additionally, under the major planning problem of uncertainty, a
scenario approach is highly desirable in order to understand the implications of
the occurance of certain actions. The scenarios for this study consist of base
growth (IPP-related growth) and high growth (IPP- plus MX-related growth). At
this time, the base growth scenario appears most probable. Under ideal circum-
stances, a set of reliable, up-to-date, year-by-year, town-by-town, scenario-
by-scenario population projections are needed to fully understand the existing
and potential future solid waste quantities and distribution. Such a set of
projections was not available for this analysis.
Under these circumstances, there were two basic options for obtaining the
required solid waste plan population inputs. They involved mixing and matching
- 13 -
-------
projections from the variety of sources, or choosing one source as a starting
point and modifying these estimates as necessary after discussions with knowl-
edgeable observers.
Because of the obvious problems caused by mixing conflicting and inconsist-
ent data, the latter alternative was chosen. Population estimates for 1981 and
projections for five year increments (1985, 1990, 1995, and 2000) were obtained
from MICA in May, 1981. They were chosen as the starting point for preparing
the required estimates, because they were based on direct contact with IPP and
MX planners as these projects evolved during 1981, and because they were devel-
oped for each town for both the base and high growth scenarios. Information
from the U.S. Census Bureau was not used, as detailed MICA data were considered
more accurate. Obvious discrepancies and inconsistencies which could not be
verified by planners and consultants to IPP and MX were eliminated. The deci-
sion was made to use straightline interpolation with the five-year points to
obtain rough estimates of year-by-year population. While growth will certainly
not take place in such a constant manner, it isvadequate for this analysis. The
one remaining piece of missing information concerned the population estimate
for, and year of, peak growth. It was determined from IPP and MX reports that
the peak year for the base growth scenario would be 1986, while for the high
growth scenario the peak would occur in 1988. For the purpose of this study,
1987 was chosen as the peak growth year. Additional County-wide population
(beyond the 1985 estimate) for the peak year for each scenario was estimated,
and this population was allocated to specific communities in the same propor-
tions as 1985 estimates. This methodology resulted in a set of population esti-
mates for solid waste planning.
While these estimates are reasonable, based on existing information, they
are still estimates. With plans changing at a rapid pace throughout the County,
projections prepared six months from now may be significantly different than
those presented here. However, actual quantitative estimates presented here or
elsewhere are not as important as examining trends. A solid waste management
system that will provide flexibility to accomodate rapid and unforeseen changes
in population must be developed. Changes will have to be monitored as they
occur, so that solid waste management plans can be updated on a continual basis.
- 14 -
-------
County Population Projections
Ba-:e<1 on the Assumptions outlined In the previous section, MUlard County's
population has been projected for the years 19^2 through 1990, 1995 anrj 2000.
Table 1 presents data for 1982, 1987 ^nd c>-jf-nr * nrrc^^nt-•-. _ TV--;^ population
projections were used to determine present and future waste generation. Figure
1-A Illustrates historic and projected population estimates.
Two Important observations can be made from the data. First, under the
base growth scenario, total population could be more than one and a half times
the present population by 1987. This scenario consists of a 9.3 percent average
annual compounded growth rate for the five years between 1982 and 1987. Under
the high growth scenario, total County population could be two and a half times
the present population, with a 14.6 percent average annual compounded growth
rate.
The second observation relates to the cyclic nature of the growth, 1n which
population actually declines after the nrld-late 1980's. This decline 1s primar-
ily due to a switch from the IPP/MX construction phases to the operational
phases, which are less labor Intensive. Population continues to Increase after
1990, 1n the base growth scenario, and generally declines 1n the high growth
scenario.
Settlement Patterns
Settlement patterns of 1n-m1grants will depend upon a number of variables,
Including proximity to employment, level of services and public facilities pro-
vided by a given community, and available transportation routes.
Recent boom-town case studies Indicate that the organization responsible
for the growth plays a major role 1n settlement patterns, either directly or
Indirectly. For example, both the IPP and MX planners have Indicated a desire
to provide housing arrangements (single family, multi-family, construction
camps, etc.) 1n specified areas to Influence where workers settle, and therefore
alleviate some of the public service and facility pressures which are likely to
occur.
- 15 -
-------
THL£ 1
POPILATION PRD>KTION5
MD1ARD COKTY. UTAH
1982
1986
1987
1990
'3 'J5
2000
KST MILLAR)
Delta
Hlnckley
Lynndyl
Leamington
QBk City
Unincorporated
EAST MILLAR)
FHImore
Meadow
Kancsh
Hoi «n
Sdplo
Ihlncorporated
TOTAL cam
Base1 High2
3,185 4,350
710 750
165 175
135 190
470 470
1330 1,850
2,300 3,190
315 315
395 400
500 525
245 245
570 590
10,820 13,050
Base High
5,725 10,300
1,200 1,300
350 350
300 300
825 825
2,150 2,280
3,000 6,500
350 350
425 425
600 675
325 325
680 720
15,930 24,350
Base High
5,950 10,900
1,250 1,365
355 365
325 325
850 875
2,320 2,400
3,290 6,900
385 335
455 460
650 710
355 355
730 760
16,915 25,775
Base High
4,400 9,600
925 1,025
275 275
250 250
625 625
2,090 2,280
\
3,050 7,000
375 375
425 475
600 825
325 325
660 720
14,000 23,775
Base High
4,875 6,500
1,025 1,125
325 325
275 275
700 700
2.450 2.450
3,475 4,000
42 42
525 525
625 625
350 350
775 775
15,825 18,075
Base High
5,425 5,750
1,150 1,250
400 400
32 32
775 775
2370 2,870
3.975 4,150
475 475
550 550
725 725
375 375
905 905
17,950 £.550
\ Base growth scenario, as defined In text (IPP - related growth)
1 High growth scenario, as defined 1n text (PP and MX - related g*owth)
- 16 -
-------
FIGURE 1-A
HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED POPULATION
MILLARD COUNTY, UTAH
30.000 _
z
o
1 I-
Q,
O
0.
25.000 .
20.000 .
16.000 _
10.000 .
6.000
1860
s/
£l
/
1870
1880
9
\
1880
2OOO
-------
C. Implications of Projected Growth
Planning Constraints
Growth of the magnitude described in the above population analysis places
tremendous pressure on existing public systems, facilities, and services.
Effects of these pressures are well documented from case history studies of
western boom-towns such as Rock Springs and Gillette, Wyoming and Craig,
Colorado. The traditional planning mechanisms from which to prepare for growth
are typically not in place in these low-density, rural western areas. This sit-
uation is generally due to a lack of three very important resources:
o money for front-end financing of needed facilities and services;
o accurate, reliable, up-to-date information which would be used as a
basis for planning and decision-making; and
o management and planning expertise.
Lack of these resources, combined with an incomplete recognition and comprehen-
sion of the problems which must be faced and the difficulty of changing citizen
habits, perceptions and attitudes, make planning a very difficult task.
Due to the underlying uncertainty over the extent of development and popu-
lation growth and because of the potential for cyclic or inconsistent growth,
planning efforts need to incorporate flexibility to the greatest degree possi-
ble. While this is certainly not practical in providing some services which
require long lead times for development (e.g., a water treatment facility),
flexibility is possible in other areas. This is true in many instances of solid
waste planning. A modular approach to solid waste management, in which systems
designed for a specified number of individuals can be grouped together in tandem
to serve a larger population as new growth actually occurs, can save time and
money. However, this approach does have its limits, and it would not be effi-
cient to provide a system of many small parts when a system with a smaller
number of larger parts provides immediate benefits through economies of scale.
- 18 -
-------
Boom-Town Solid Waste Management
One of the biggest problems facing communities undergoing rao^d growth is
the lack of front-end capital to finance needed improvements. During the ini-
tial planning process, priorities must be made which place immediate human needs
(e.g., shelter, water, etc.) on a higher level than other needs.
Therefore, solid waste management, as a historical "out-of-site, out-of-
mind" concern, is typically given a low budget and planning priority. This is
obviously an example of short-sighted planning, but given the resource con-
straints, the lack of attention to solid waste is a reality which can only be
modified through a change in priorities or the acquisition of additional funds
and expertise.
In the case of Mil lard County, which is already faced with the difficult
task of solid waste cleanup resulting from years of inadequate management (as
discussed in the next Chapter), a situation of additional rapid growth and
urbanization would create solid waste management problems which would be diffi-
cult to resolve physically or financially, unless actions are taken now to pre-
vent their occurrence.
- 19 -
-------
III. EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT CONDITIONS
A. Applicable Regulations
Federal Regulations
On the Federal level, solid waste management is regulated under the orovi-
sions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976. The non-
hazardous solid waste provisions of RCRA clearly provide for solid waste plan-
ning and management functions to remain with State and local governments. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has provided guidance and funding for the
development of State Solid Waste Management Plans and regulatory activities to
carry out the plans. The EPA has established minimum criteria for solid waste
disposal. Disposal facilities that do not meet these criteria are classified as
"open dumps" and may be subject to enforcement action from the State Department
of Health or to lawsuits from citizens that ane adversely affected by disposal
practices. The criteria (40 CFR Part 257) state that:
o Open burning of waste in a landfill is prohibited.
o Waste must be covered with soil or other suitable material at the end
of each operating day in order to reduce the risk of fire and to impede
the access of disease vectors to the waste.
o Disposal facilities cannot be located within a 100-year floodplain if
they will restrict flows, reduce temporary water storage capacity, or
result in a washout of solid waste.
o Disposal facilities or practices should not cause or contribute to the
destruction of endangered species of plants, fish or wildlife.
o Disposal facilities cannot cause pollution of surface waters unless
discharges are permitted under the provisions of the Clean Water Act.
- 20 -
-------
o The disposal facilities should not cause the contamination of a ground
water source or potential ground water source beyond the boundaries of
the disposal site.
o The disposal facility should not cause high levels of explosive land-
fill gas in facility structures or permit high levels of the gas to
migrate beyond the property boundary.
o Due to the potential for bird hazards to aircraft, facilities that dis-
pose of putrescible waste cannot be located within 10,000 feet of any
airport runway used by turbojet aircraft or within 5,000 feet of any
airport runway used by only piston-type aircraft.
o Access to disposal sites must be controlled.
The guidelines described above are to be followed by State and local governments
in order to be in compliance with RCRA. No Federal permit is required to open
or operate a solid waste landfill facility.
State Regulations
The State of Utah has developed a Code of Solid Waste Disposal Regulations
based on statutory authority and responsibility conferred by Section 26-15-5,
UCA, 1953 as amended in 1974. These regulations, enforceable throughout the
State, are designed for adoption and enforcement by local Health Departments in
cooperation with the State Division of Health. The regulations, presented in
Appendix A, specify that it is unlawful for any person to deposit any solid
waste in any place except at a site that has been designated by a city, county,
district, or other properly designated agency, and approved by the Utah State
Division of Health. This requirement does not include the deposition of inert
construction debris used as fill material or mine tailings and overburden, pro-
vided such deposition does not cause a public nuisance or hazard or contribute
to air or water pollution. No solid waste disposal site may be operated without
the approval of the Division.
- 21 -
-------
Landfill design plans must be submitted to the State for site approval, and
must include: exact location of the site, current land use, zoning within 1/4
mile of the site, surface drainage .and general topography; population and area
to be served; size of the site; provisions for special waste handling; esti nates
of waste types, quantities and sources; soil descriptions; availability of cover
material; equipment to be used; provisions for fire control and year-round ac-
cessibility (including an all-weather road); proposed fencing (for access and
wind); evidence of land ownership or lease agreement; and any other information
requested by the Division.
After approval by the State, sites must be operated such that: waste is
compacted to the smallest practical volume and covered with at least six inches
of cover each operating day; a minimum of two feet of final cover is applied;
adequate equipment is available for operations; open burning does not occur;
adequate fire protection is provided; and litter, dust, insect and rodent con-
trol is provided. Provisions for hazardous and special wastes and open dump
closure are also specified. *
Although the State has the final authority for landfill site approval, the
Central Utah District Health Department is also involved in solid waste deci-
sions in Mil lard County. This six-county agency administers several environmen-
tal health programs, including solid waste. The governing body for the Health
Department is the six-county Local Board of Health. The District Health Depart-
ment has the authority to establish and enforce solid waste regulations, but to
date, State regulations have been followed.
Prior to 1977, when Federal RCRA regulations came into effect, the State of
Utah performed periodic inspections in Mil lard County. At present, the State
does not inspect sites unless complaints or requests are received. The District
Health Department will be increasingly responsible for disposal site inspections
and enforcement of regulations.
- 22 -
-------
Local Regulations
Neither Mil lard County nor any of the incorporated areas within the County
have developed a specific solid waste disposal ordinance. However, the County
is in the process of planning for the future through the preparation of a series
of municipal and County-wide comprehensive plans prepared by Paul Nelson Associ-
ates. Once the plans are adopted by the Board of County Commissioners and indi-
vidual communities, ordinances for public services will be developed as a strat-
egy to attain the desired goals contained within tne plan. Much of the informa-
tion generated within this County-wide solid waste management plan will be used
as a basis for a solid waste ordinance, as further discussed in Chapter VI.
B. Existing Services and Facilities
1. Haste Generation Zones
For the purpose of solid waste planning, the County has been divided into
East Millard and West Mil lard waste generation zones (see Figure 2). Both zones
are located in the eastern one third of the County. The western two thirds of
the County, which includes the town of Garrison, is not included in these waste
generation zones. Collection and disposal service for this area will be discus-
sed in Chapter VI.
The East and West Millard zones were delineated due to geography and road
access. East Millard consists of Fillmore, Meadow, Kanosh, Hoi den, Scipio, and
24 percent of the total County unincorporated population. This figure was
derived from 1980 population data provided by Paul Nelson Associates. The West
Millard waste generation zone includes Delta, Hinckley, Lynndyl, Leamington, Oak
City, and 76 per cent of the total unincorporated population in the County.
2. Waste Collection Services
East Millard Zone
Fillmore residents and businesses are charged a mandatory solid waste col-
lection fee of $2.00 per month, by the City. The City pays Mr. Lloyd Keel
- 23 -
-------
Figure* 2
WASTE GENERATION ZONES
Millard County, Utah
TI5S
U^? '
IQ/x \ a
T.-,.
$1 t^lf ^ DMCTgT
WESTM
LLARD
'
• - >* ' >..•.* I .,.(. 7 \
MILLARD ZONE
LEGEND
-24-
NATMNM. Fo»t»T SOUNOJMT
COUNTY SOUNOAMY
, , Our
LAKES MO
l«eoi»»o(»*Teo COMMUNITIES
* UNINCONPOMATeD COMMtMITieS
^- (NTllfSTATf HtONwar
UJ US HI«M««T
**' STATC HIWHWIY
ALL We*TH«n ROAD
0»Y WeATMtW ROAO
ANNUAL STUCAMS
-------
$1,100 per month for weekly collection of approximately 900 residential and com-
mercial accounts. A flatbed truck is used for collection, and waste is disposed
of at the local Fillmore dump site (.see Figure 3). Other incorporsted and unin-
corporated areas in the East Mi Hard zone have no collection services, .vast a is
transported by individuals to local disposal sites.
West Nil lard Zone
The City of Delta is not involved in waste collection. Don's Sanitary
Service provides weekly collection for approximately 20 businesses and 80 resi-
dences in the Delta area, for a monthly fee of $6.00 . Equipment in use is a
pickup truck. Disposal takes place at the Delta disposal site (see Figure 3).
No collection service is available to residents in the remainder of the West
Mil lard zone. Waste is hauled by individuals to local disposal sites.
Federal Collection
Fishlake National Forest provides a five cubic-yard trailer in six camp
grounds in eastern Mil lard County. Waste is collected by Forest Service person-
nel and transported to an approved landfill site in Sevier County. Forest
Service personnel estimated that approximately twenty five cubic yards of waste
are collected weekly, for the service period of May through November. Communi-
cation with local Forest Service waste authorities indicates that the agency is
interested in contracting a private business to collect waste. Currently, a fee
of $.75 per cubic yard is paid for disposal in Sevier County. If an approved
site were available in Mil lard County which was more convenient than the pres-
ently used site, the agency would dispose of waste at that site. No other
Federal or State collection service is in operation in the County.
3. Waste Disposal Sites
Currently, at least 14 waste disposal sites exist in the County (see Figure
3). Appendix B contains an example of a 1977 Utah State Division of Health
inspection report for the Hinckley site. This sample form has been included to
illustrate environmental problems at County disposal sites. Inspection forms
for other sites may be obtained from the Utah State Division of Health. A copy
- 25 -
-------
Figure" 3
EXISTING DISPOSAL SITES
Millard County, Utah
TI3S
LEGEND
KALE: 1 INCH* 0 MILIS
DISPOSAL SITE
-26-
NATIONAL FOREST BOUNDARY
COUNTY BOUNDARY
DRY LAKES AND MARSHES
LAKES AND RESERVOIR
INCORPORATED COMMUNITIES
UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES
INTERSTATE HIOHWAY
US HIOHVAY
**' STATE HIOHWAY
ALL WEATHER ROAD
DR» WEATHER ROAD
ANNUAL STREAMS
150
-------
of the forms for each of the sites will be sent to the County under separate
cover as a supplement to this report. All sites exhibited evidence of open
burning, and some sites were burning, at the time of the survey. The presence of
vectors, odors, dead animals and blowing litter, inadequate protection of water
resources, unsightly appearance, and infrequent or no application of cover
material were noted by the Division of Health as some of the problems evident at
the sites. The Utah State Code of Solid Waste Disposal Regulations (amended
1974, Appendix A), states that waste must be compacted and covered each oper-
ating day, that open burning shall not be permitted, and that the sites must be
operated in a manner that controls blowing litter, dust, odor and vector pro-
blems.
Each open dump site has been classified as one of three basic types,
according to size, topography, and potential for ground or surface water pollu-
tion, for the purpose of developing specific closure and cleanup plans. Type I
sites are located in large, flat areas with no defined drainage. A high season-
al groundwater table exists at the West Millard sites of this type. This site
type includes the Sutherland, Deseret, Deseret-Oasis, Hinckley, Hoi den, Meadow,
and Flowell sites. Type II sites are smaller than Type I sites, are moderately
sloping, and may present surface water pollution problems. Type II sites
include the Oak City, Scipio, Kanosh, and Fillmore disposal sites. The third
OPEN DUMP SITE CLASSIFICATION
TYPE I
Site
Sutherland
Deseret
Deseret-Oasis
Hinckley
Hoi den
Meadow
Flowel 1
Size
(acres)
50
100
1,000
70
40
3
10
TYPE
Site
Oak City
Scipio
Kanosh
Fil Imore
II
Size
(acres)
30
5
10
40
TYPE
Site
Leamington
Lynndyl
Delta
III
Size
(acres)
10
4
10
- 27 -
-------
site type is located at least partially in a natural drainage. These sites are
the smallest of the three types, and slopes are moderate to severe. Surface
water problems are more likely at .these sites, as they are generally located
less than 1/4 mile from perennial streams, and may be located in intermittent
drainages. Type III sites include Leamington, Lynndyl, and Delta disposal
sites. Recommendations for closure of each site are included in Chapter VI.
The site types and estimated size of each site are presented below. Approxi-
mately 1,400 total acres have been disturbed, according to field appraisal.
The Utah State Code of Solid Waste Disposal Regulations states that open
dumps must be phased out in accordance with the following requirements: the
absence of rats and vermin must be established; all fires must be extinguished
before final cover is applied; all solid waste must be consolidated, compacted
and covered with at least two feet of suitable cover material; final grading of
the site must provide proper drainage; and, if feasible, the area should be
revegetated.
V
4. Solid Haste Budget
Mil lard County has no designated solid waste budget. The County's total
budget for 1981 was $3,529,210, and is projected to increase by 15-20 percent in
1982. The City of Delta currently pays $800/month to have the Delta disposal
site covered once weekly, and the County contributes $300 of that fee out of the
general fund. The City of Fillmore has a private contract for maintenance of
the Fillmore site for a fee of $450 per month. Waste is moved to designated
areas, spread, and partially covered. Fillmore collects a solid waste fee and
pays $1,100 per month for weekly collection service, as mentioned previously.
C. Solid Waste Types and Quantities
In formulating an efficient solid waste management plan for Mil lard County,
current and projected solid waste volumes must be developed. Because detailed
data concerning existing waste generation sources, rates, and waste composition
are not available, standard assumptions (modified by field observations and con-
siderations specific to Mil lard County) will be used to compute waste generation
- 28 -
-------
rates. These rates will be applied to population estimates to determine yearly
and total waste volumes for the twenty year study period. This volume informa-
tion is needed for: the determination of minimum landfill size and presence of
sufficient cover; proper sizing of collection and landfill equipment; and formu-
lation of the proper method, operational plan, and cost of disposing of the
waste.
The waste types (commercial, residential, demolition and construction, and
special wastes) relevant to Mil lard County are described and further classified
as compactable and non-compactable, because compaction greatly reduces the
volume needed for disposal or transfer facilities.
1. Haste Types
Residential compactable waste consists of discarded food, paper, cans, bot-
tles, textiles, small appliances, grass and shrub clippings and garden waste.
This waste is the highest volume generated, with peaks in the first six items
occurring on holidays, particularly Christmas. The last three items are season-
al components of the waste stream. Nearly all generation will occur during the
growing season, with peaks in early spring and early fall when pruning takes
place.
Residential non-compactable waste includes furniture, white goods (refrig-
erators, stoves, etc.), tree limbs, trunks and stumps, and home demolition and
construction waste. These bulky wastes cannot be serviced through a compactable
waste collection system.
Commercial compactable waste is primarily paper, cardboard, packaging mate-
rial, and food waste. Non-compactable commercial waste is included in demoli-
tion and construction debris.
Demolition and construction waste consists of wood, concrete, roofing mate-
rials, bricks, ashpalt, etc., and is generated from housing or commercial
building development or demolition. This waste type will be significant for
Mi Hard County.
- 29 -
-------
Industrial waste generated by IPP will be disposed of on-site, according to
the facility's proposed plan, and will not be discussed in this study. No other
industrial waste is proceed in the C:unty.
Mil lard County is agriculturally oriented, and this is reflected in the
County's waste stream. Sucn special wastes as baling wire, concrete headgates,
dead animals, and pesticide containers are present. Other special wastes are
septage, car bodies, and hospital waste.
Baling wire is a non-compactable bulky waste generated throughout the
County. Approximately 74 percent of the total land in crop production (about
135,400 acres) is used to produce hay. Each bale of hay which remains in the
County will add three wires to the waste stream. About 7-8 pounds of wire are
produced per ton of baled hay. County authorities report that seven tons per
acre, per year of hay is produced. Assuming that 25 percent remains in the
County, and one half of that waste is disposed of at disposal sites, about 400
tons per year of baling wire is added to the waste^stream.
Another agriculture-related waste is concrete headgates, in evidence at
existing dumps. As earthen irrigation canals are replaced by concrete canals,
primarily in the Delta area, headgates must be discarded. The quantity of waste
has not been estimated.
A third type of special waste is dead animals, contributed from dairy and
ranching operation throughout the county. The summary presented in Table 2 was
the basis for determining a daily average animal death rate of 4.5 in Mil lard
County.
A higher percentage of animal deaths occurs in the winter and springs.
Yearly animal deaths have been decreased since 1950 and the rate will probably
continue to drop. This portion of the waste stream is significant from a public
health viewpoint, as animals are currently disposed of at existing disposal
sites, and are usually not covered.
Pesticide containers are generated primarily at the Delta Airport, and are
disposed of at existing disposal sites. Recommendations for special waste
handling are included in Chapter VI.
- 30 -
-------
TABLE 2
ANNUAL ANIMAL DEATHS1
Animal Type
Cattle
Sheep
Swine
Average Death Rate
Per 1,000/year
24
44
9
Number of Animals
18,767
26,570
1,894
Total Deaths
Per Year
450
1,169
17
TOTAL
1,636
1 Utah State University Extension Service, Fillmore, Utah, 1981.
2. Haste Generation Rates
A daily per capita waste generation rate has been developed for each waste
type and applied to population figures. Because no data on actual waste genera-
tion in the County were available, it was necessary to develop rates. Special
conditions in Mil lard County, particularly the high .projected population growth
rate, led to modification of the rates from the standard (generally, 3.5 to 5
pounds per capita, per day). An estimate of waste volumes currently produced
was made by field observation of Mil lard County disposal sites. The rates
listed in Table 3 also reflect information gathered by Fred C. Hart's subcon-
tractor, Mr. L. Barnes, in a three year study of waste generation in Montrose
County, Co. This area is similar to Mil lard County in its extreme population
growth rate, its agriculturally-based (irrigated farming and ranching) economy
and its presence in a high desert, rural location. Waste weights and volumes
were measured, according to waste type.
- 31 -
-------
TABLE 3
WASTE GENERATION RATES1
Waste Type
Commercial
Residential
Demolition and Construction
(includes special waste)
Compactable Non-Compactable Total
2.0
2.3
4.3
.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
2.8
1.5
6.3
Pounds per person per day.
- 32 -
-------
Population data have been applied to waste volumes to obtain waste genera-
tion rates. A generation rate of 6.3 Ib. per capita per day was used for Delta
and Flllmore residents, and a 4.3 Ib. per capita per day rate was applied to the
remainder of the County. This reflects the absence of commercial compactable
waste outside of the trade centers. These rates are projected to remain con-
stant throughout the study period. It is likely that MX-related demolition/
construction waste could be less than IPP-related demolition/construction
waste. THis could be caused by more prefabricated home building associated with
the MX growth scenario. Also, less waste will be produced from the modification
of existing housing units, as the supply of these units will be depleted.
3. Current and Projected Haste Yoluaes
Volumes may be projected by assigning a certain weight per cubic yard of
waste to each waste type. Waste volume is more significant than poundage, as
volume determines landfill size, collection and disposal equipment size, and
associated costs. The waste densities used in this study are summarized in
Table 4.
Table 5 summarizes the County's waste volume in a town-by-town, scenario-
by-scenario approach for the years 1982 and 1987. Because 1986 has been pro-
jected as the peak year for IPP-related growth, and 1988 1s projected as the
peak year for MX-related growth, 1987 waste volumes were used for peak waste
volume estimates. Figures for 1982 were used for current waste volumes. These
estimates are the basis for cost estimates in Chapter V. Table 6 summarizes
projected waste volumes in five year increments for East and West Mil lard waste
generation zones.
- 33 -
-------
TABLE 4
WASTE DENSITIES
Waste Type
Residential
Compactable
Non-compactable
Lb/yd3
(Before
compaction)
175
750
Lb/yd3
(After compaction
in collection vehicles,
transfer vehicles, or
stationary compactors)
500 - 700
750
Lb/yd3
(In place
in the
landfim
iOOO
750
Commercial
Compactable
175
5*00 -
700
1000
Demolition and
Construction
Non-compactable
750
750
750
- 34 -
-------
TABLE 5
CURRENT AND PROJECTED ANNUAL SOLID HASTE VOLUMES1
WEST MILLARD
Delta
Hinckley
Lynndyl
Leamington
Oak City
Unincorporated
Total West Area
EAST MILLARD
Fill more
Meadow
Kanosh
Hoi den
Scipio
Unincorporated
Total East Area
TOTAL COUNTY
(Cubic
Base
31,660
4,100
950
780
2,710
10,560
a 50,760
22,870
1,820
2,270
2,890
1,420
3,280
a 34,550
85,310
Yards, Unccmpacted)
1982
High
43,240
4,330
1,010
1,100
2,710
10,670
63,060
31,710
1,820
2,310
3,030
1,420
3,400
43,690
106,750
1987
Base
59,150
7,220
2,045
1,880
4,910
13,390
88,600
32,710
2,220
2,620
3,750
2,050
4,210
47,560
136,160
High
108,370
7,880
2,110
1,880
5,050
13,850
139,140
68,610
2,230
2,660
4,100
2,050
4,390
84,040
223,180
1 By incorporated and unincorporated area (present and peak years), ccmpactable
and non-compactable waste.
- 35 -
-------
TABLE 6
PROJECTED ANNUAL SOLID WASTE VOLUMES1
(Cubic Yards, Unconpacted)
Waste
Generation
Zone
East Millard
West Mi Hard
1985
Base High Base
1990 1995 2000
High Base High Base High
43,570 131,580 44,090 85,290 50,130 55,350 57,000 58,740
84,770 79.030 67.780 121.150 76.020 92,760 85.790 89.600
Total County 128,340 210,610 111,870 206,440 126,150 148,110 142,790 148,340
By waste generation zone (five-year increments) for both compactable and
non-compactable waste.
- 36 -
-------
IV. SANITARY LANDFILL SITE SELECTION
A. Introduction
As directed by the scope of the study, several alternative disposal sites
have been evaluated. The selection process utilized in locating potential land-
fill sites in Mi Hard County involved three phases. The objective was the loca-
tion of several alternative sites, which offer favorable environmental condi-
tions and economic benefits. In the initial phase of the process, topographic,
land ownership, and soils maps were used to determine such factors as terrain,
road access, land availability, and soil conditions in the County. Terrain was
considered because areas with a slope greater than 15 percent (e.g., along the
Pavant or Canyon Mountains) are more subject to erosion problems and equipment
operation difficulties. Topographic maps were also used to determine road
access. Areas located more than 1/2 mile from an existing improved dirt road
were deemed unsuitable, due to the expenses involved in road building. Immedi-
ate proximity to surface water bodies (e.g., intermittent streams, canals, or
reservoirs) was also ascertained from these maps.
Land ownership was a significant factor in this initial selection stage.
Because 80 percent of the land in the County is publicly owned, a high priority
was assigned to obtaining public land. In addition to curtailing land availa-
bility problems, public land may be leased for a modest fee, thereby reducing
capital costs. Private land use in the County includes commercial, residential
and agricultural utilization. Employment of public land for waste disposal pur-
poses would optimize usage of the limited amount of private land for the previ-
ously mentioned purposes. Soil maps were used to eliminate areas with soils
unsuitable for landfilling (e.g., clay, clean sand). When the initial phase was
complete, 19 potential areas had been chosen.
The second phase of the selection procedure consisted of evaluation of the
19 potential sites according to the selection criteria outlined below, and a
surface field investigation of the sites, resulting in designation of the five
most suitable sites. Field investigation of the 19 sites allowed verification
of the depth and general type of soil and determination of conflicting land use
(e.g., proximity of residences), topographic constraints not-evident from maps,
- 37 -
-------
and evidence of surface or groundwater problems at the sites. The five most
suitable sites are described in a following section. Appendix C contains a map
locating the 19 original sites, and lists a brief rationale for the elimination
of 14 of the sites. The third phase of'the selection process involves determi-
nation of soil type and suitability, and ground water depth, at the prospective
site or sites. This will require soil borings and the drilling of test wells.
Prior to discussing the factors related to site selection, a general description
of Mil lard County's physiography and climate is presented.
Physiographic Setting
Mil lard County is located in the Great Basin section of the Basin and Range
physiographic province, which consists of steep mountains bounded by northerly
trending normal faults and separated by alluvium-filled basins. Alluvial fans
generally coalesce and extend from the foot of the mountains to the alluvial
flood plains or playas in the center of thev valley. Surface water from the
County drains into Sevier Lake.
Climate
The climate is temperate and arid to semi-arid. Precipitation is fairly
well distributed throughout the year but is relatively low in summer. Annual
precipitation is greatest near the mountains bordering the area on the east,
decreasing steadily with distance from the mountains. Precipitation is predomi-
nantly in the form of snow from October through April. Spring and fall rains
are gentle while summer rainfall consists largely of sudden short downpours.
Winds are generally from the southwest.
The Utah State Climatologist provided monthly normals of temperature, pre-
cipitation and evaporation for the Fillmore area and the Delta area (see Tables
7 and 8). Local sources report that precipitation varies widely from year to
year. Precipitation is significant in determining potential leachate production
in a landfill. The relatively low amount of precipitation County-wide indicates
that precipitation-induced leachate production should be minimal. The high
evaporation rate further decreases the potential for leachate production.
- 38 -
-------
TABLE 7
CLIMATOLOGICAL SUMMARY
FILLMORE. UTAH1
Month
Mean Temperature
Mean Precipitation
(Inches)
Mean Evaporation
(Inches)
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
29.0
34.2
40.4
49.3
58.4
66.8
76.2
74.3
65.8
53.8
40.1
31.3
1.36
1.52
1.74
1.76
.78
.93
.62
.99
.80
1.14
1.34
1.46
-
-
-
9.8
11.4
12.8
11.4
8.5
5.2
-
-
Mean Annual
51.6
14.78
75.12
1 Unpublished monthly normals, 1941-1970.
2 Estimated total annual evaporation, supplied by the State Climatologist,
- 39 -
-------
TABLE 8
CLIMATOLOGICAL SUMMARY
DELTA, UTAH1
Month
Mean Annual
Mean Temperature
Mean Precipitation
(Inches)
Mean Evaporation
(Inches^
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
25.5
32.1
39.4
48.3
58.2
67.0
76.3
74.1
63.9
51.6
37.2
28.4
.53
.83
.76
.83
.87
V .56
.46
.46
.48
.74
.55
.70
-
-
-
8.3
9.5
10.9
10.0
6.7
3.9
-
_
50.1
7.77
61.62
1 Unpublished monthly normals, 1941-1970.
2 Estimated total annual evaporation, supplied by the State Climatologist.
- 40 -
-------
B. Selection Criteria
Factors to be considered in evaluating the five potential sites, as direc-
ted by the scope of work of this study, include ground water impacts, surface
water impacts, availability of cover material (soils), area (size) of the site,
availability of land, land use compatibility (zoning), impact on prime agricul-
tural land, haul distance, access, and compatibility with city and County master
plans.
Groundwater Impact
In order to accurately assess the risk of ground water contamination by
landfill-produced leachate, the depth to groundwater, as well as its flow rate
and direction, must be determined. Utah State solid waste regulations recommend
that a sanitary landfill should be located at least five feet above the seasonal
high water table. For example, if a fifteen foot trench is excavated for land-
filling waste, the seasonal high water table will have to be five feet or more
below the bottom of this trench (in this case, the seasonal high water table
should be no higher than 20 feet from the ground surface). Specific ground
water information does not exist for the potential sites, and a detailed engi-
neering analysis will have to be performed (including the drilling of test
wells) before a specific site is chosen.
The hydrologic conditions in Mil lard County have been described in two
U.S. Geological Survey water supply papers1 and the hydrologic section of the
M-X Environmental Technical report. The area under consideration for this
report is composed of the Sevier Desert (roughly West Mi Hard) and Pavant Valley
(roughly East Mil lard).
1 Source: References 11 and 13.
-------
Sevier Desert
The Sevier Desert area's groundwater reservoir is composed of clay,' silt
and sand, creating a ^jltiaqui fer system in the valley fill deposits. This
system is more than 1,000 feet thick and extends from the Canyon Mountains to
the east to Sevier Lake. Two artesian aquifers are present, separated by 300 to
500 feet of relatively impermeable clay, silt and fine sand.
Large alluvial fans extend from the mountain front to the basin. Most re-
charge to groundwater is from water entering these fans as percolation from
streams, irrigation ditches, irrigated fields and the Central Utah Canal. Due
to heavy withdrawal, water levels in the area have declined 4 to 7 feet since
1950, and the area of artesian flow has decreased. As mentioned previously, a
shallow water table exists, primarily in the Delta area where depth to ground-
water is less than 10 feet. Shallow groundwater movement is controlled by local
topography and soil cover, while the deep groundwater gradient slopes to the
southwest (toward Sevier Lake). Culinary water is obtained from the artesian
aquifers.
Pavant Valley
The principle aquifers of the Pavant Valley are sand and gravel deposits of
the valley fill, similar to the Sevier Desert area to the northwest. These
deposits are coarser, more extensive and more permeable near the mountains,
where recharge occurs. Clay confining beds cause artesian conditions to exist
in the lower part of the valley. As many as 12 saturated beds of sand and
gravel have been encountered to a depth of 800 feet, but the beds constitute a
single aquifer. Recharge occurs on alluvial fans from streams, irrigation
ditches and irrigated fields. In the northern one half of the valley the Cen-
tral Utah Canal is a major source of recharge. Water from this aquifer which is
not drawn through wells is discharged at the land surface (in springs and seeps
in the lowest part of the valley) or into basalt flows along the western portion
of the valley. The basalt aquifers are relatively thin (30 to 60 feet) and,
when fractured, are capable of storing large quantities of water.
Increased ground water use for irrigation purposes has caused a general
decline in water levels. In the bottomlands of the valley, the water table is
- 42 -
-------
at or near the land surface. Springs in nearby canyons are tapped as a source
of municipal drinking water. Artesian wells are used for municipal, domestic,
stock and irrigation water.
Ground water data for wells within a two-mile radius or c.ne potential sites
are summarized in Table 9, and can be used for comparison. These data do not
represent the groundwater conditions at each of the sites, and were not used to
evaluate the ground water impact at the sites. Depth to the seasonal high water
table (a shallow aquifer present in some parts of the County, which has been
created by irrigation) is not incorporated in well data. Soils information for
part of the County mentions the presence of the shallow water table, and lists
soils which are not suitable for landfill purposes due to the shallow seasonal
water table depth. These areas were avoided when choosing potential sites.
In locating a sanitary landfill site, areas of ground water recharge should
be avoided if sufficient precipitation exists to create landfill leachate, which
could cause ground water contamination. Areas of discharge (e.g., the bottom-
lands of Pavant Valley) must be avoided, as the landfill should not come into
contact with ground water or surface water.
Surface Hater Impact
Leachate production could lead to the pollution of surface water bodies,
and landfills must be located such that direct contact with surface water does
not occur. If sites are located in or near ephemeral or intermittent drainages,
protection measures such as diversion ditches, berms or holding ponds may be
necessary.
son
Soil depth is an important consideration in selecting appropriate landfill-
ing techniques and determining whether an adequate amount of cover material
exists for the operation. Soil type is also a factor, although a wide range of
soil types is useable for daily cover. Figure 4 depicts in general terms the
suitability of various types of soil for cover material, illustrating the lesser
suitability of clean sand or gravel, or clay, for landfill cover material.
Fine, dune sand, abundant in the County, was avoided when choosing sites. Cover
- 43 -
-------
TRBLE9
AYULABLE GROJN) WATER Iff QRWTION
MULARD COUNTY, UTAH1
Potential
Site
1
1
1
2
3
Nearest Well
Location2
T. 21 S., R. 4 W.,
Sec. 17, NOW
Sec. 17, SES4
Sec. 15, NWSW
T. 20 S., R. 4W.,
Sec. 11, NENW
Sec. 11, SEW
T. 18 S., R. 6W.,
Well
Depth
(ft)
140
222
150
110
80
246
Depth
to
Water
(ft)
-70
-71.2
Dry
Well
-35
-40
+11.4
Well
Elevation
(ft)
5,010
5,058
5,340
5,069
5,070
4,593
Site
Elevation
(ft)
5,280
5,20
5,230
5,]60
5,160
4,650
Proximity
of Well
to Site
1 mi.
1 mi.
1/4 mi .
2 mi.
2 mi.
2 mi.
Sec. 2, NWNW
T. 17 S., R. 6 W., Unknown 46.6
Sec. 22, SWSE
Sec. 26, NESE 35 -18.5
Sec. 26, NESE 720 -14.0
T. 16 S., R. 5W.,
Sec. 18, NE3rf 935 -11.4
Sec. 19, NWSW 830 -14.7
4,607
4,634
4,634
4,672
4,672
4,660
4,660
4,660
4,720
4,720
1 mi.
1 mi.
Imi.
3/4 mi.
1/4 mi.
1 Source: References 9 and 11.
2 Well locations are described by township (T), Range (R), Section (1-36), and qiarter-quarter section (NWSW).
- 44 -
-------
FIGURE 4
SUITABILITY OF SOILS FOR LANDFILL OPERATION
100
90
Acceptable soils
//„ xvvv
Percent Sand
Suitability of General Soil Types as Cover Material.*
Function
Prevent rodents from burrowing or tunneling
Keep flies from emerging
Minimize moisture entering fill
Minimize landfill gas venting through cover
Provide pleasing appearance and control
blowing paper
Crow vegetation
Be permeable for venting decomposition gas
Clean
gravel
G
P
P
P
E
P
E
Gayey-silty
gravel
F-G
F
F-G
F-G
E
G
P
Oean
sand
G
P
P
P
E
P-F
G
Qayey-silty
sand
P
G
G-E
G-E
E
E
P
Silt
P
G
G-E
G-E
E
G-E
P
day
P
Eb
Eb
Eb
E
F-G
P
aE-exce!lent;G-good; F-fair; P-poor.
bExcept when cracks extend through the entire cover.
cOnly if well drained.
Source: Brunner, Dirk R. and Danial J. Keller,
Sanitary Landfill Design and Operation.
U.S. Environmental Agency, Report, SW-65ts, 1971.
-45-
-------
material can be transported to the site if inadequate cover material is present,
but this alternative is more costly. In this discussion, the term soil refers
not only to the actual surficial soil horizons, but to any unconsolidated -rip-
pable weathered rock or bedrock material.
It is estimated that approximately three feet of soil will be needed for
landfill operations; six inches per landfill cell for daily soil cover (for
vector, fire, litter, and moisture control), and two feet for final cover.
Final cover serves basically the same functions as intermediate cover, but it
must also support vegetative growth. Before a specific site is selected, a site
specific soil survey, including soil borings, will be necessary. The regional
SCS office will drill to a depth of five feet, if requested by the County or a
municipality, and SCS personnel would be present to look at cores if deeper
water wells are drilled on prospective sites to determine the water table
depth. Also, the Bureau of Land Management will drill soil samples to a depth
of 10 feet, when evaluating potential landfill sites on land it administers.
Soil surveys have been performed for the East Millard and Delta Areas1.
Soil descriptions for the Delta Area indicate depth to the seasonal high water
table, and were used to choose areas where ground water depth was not extremely
shallow. Engineering suitability properties for sanitary landfilling are also
listed in the Delta survey, and areas with a severe limitation for landfill use,
due to cobbly or clayey texture or extremely rapid permeability, could be detec-
ted. This information was not available for the East Millard Area soil survey,
published in 1959. The East Millard Area is currently being resurveyed by the
SCS. Specific soil properties will be detailed in the site description section.
Availability
Land use in Millard County has been summarized in Chapter I. The high per-
centage of land controlled by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) makes the
1 Source: References 15 and 16.
- 46 -
-------
option of using Federal land feasible. Land may be leased for 20 to 30 years at
a very low annual rate per acre, or for no charge, through the Recreation and
Public Purposes Act (RPPA). Applicants must identify sites, and an Environmen-
tal Analysis must be performed by the Federal government, which usually requires
about 6 months. The applicant (e.g., Milla.rd County) must submit all the infor-
mation that EPA regulations specify, including an operational plan and compli-
ance plan. The area and district offices of the BLM were contacted regarding
the use of public land in Millard County for landfill purposes, and the response
was positive.
The State of Utah also manages public land in Millard County. Communica-
tion with the Utah State Board of Lands and Forestry in Salt Lake City and in
Richfield indicate that, due to the availability of Federal and private land in
the County, the potential for use or acquisition of State land is minimal.
Similarly, the U.S. Forest Service discourages the use of land under its
administration for landfill purposes when private land is available. National
Forest land in the County is almost exclusively located on the extreme topo-
graphy of the Canyon mountains and the Pavant Range.
In summary, State and Forest Service land will be assigned a low priority
when selecting landfill sites, due to the difficulty of obtaining it. Land
management by the BLM is the optimum choice due to the cost savings in leasing
public land rather than buying private land.
Haul Distance
A separate facility for each incorporated area in Millard County, which
meets Federal and State standards, would be extremely expensive. Transportation
of waste to regional landfills is therefore a necessity. If one regional land-
fill is used, the optimal choice is a site which minimizes total haul distance.
If two landfills are utilized, the greatest cost savings will be realized if
each landfill is located closest to the major centroids of waste generation (the
Cities of Delta and Fillmore).
- 47 -
-------
Area
Sizing of landfill sites will depend upon how many disposal sites are
used. If more than one site is used, each site can be smaller than if one
County-wide site is implemented. In general, larger sites lend more flexibility
to landfill operations by including room for a buffer zone and future expan-
sion. A larger size also increases the generation for on-site cover procurement
and allows for a more shallow fill depth (if, e.g., the water table is relative-
ly high). Average County-wide waste generation until the year 2000 will require
approximately 3 acres per year for disposal for the base growth scenario, and
4 acres per year for the high growth scenario, assuming a trench-type opera-
tion1. Theoretically, 55 or 75 total acres would be necessary for waste dis-
posal for the 19-year study period.
Access
Areas which are located less than one mile from an improved, all-weather
road will be considered exclusively, due to the prohibitive cost of road con-
struction. Currently, it costs approximately $60,000 per mile2 to build an
improved dirt road in the study area.
Compatibility with Master Plans
City comprehensive development plans for most incorporated areas have been
issued in draft form at present. The County-wide plan for unincorporated areas
is currently being prepared. These plans address land use planning, zoning
powers, and such public services as law enforcement, fire protection, and solid
waste management. Generally, the plans establish the goal of providing facili-
ties and services for solid waste disposal, including periodic waste
A 15-foot deep trench with a 22-foot base and 1:1 sidewalls was assumed for
this calculation.
Source: Reference 9.
- 48 -
-------
collection. The city comprehensive plans expressed municipal interest in
discussing the feasibility of developing joint solid waste disposal sites to be
cooperatively managed and utilized by Millard County, other .municipalities, the
BLM, etc.
Zoning
Millard County issued a zoning map in 1969 which zoned unincorporated areas
only. Zones are either agricultural (A-l) or open range and forest (RF-1).
Both of these zones may be used for landfilling. A conditional use permit must
be approved for use of land zoned agricultural . Open Range and Forest land use
must be approved by the Planning Commission. A new zoning map for the County
will be available in the near future.
Other Environmental Constraints
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act states that waste management
practices should not have an adverse impact on prime agricultural land, critical
habitat for threatened or endangered species, archeological or historic arti-
facts or geothermal resources. Before choosing a particular site, Millard
County should perform a more detailed analysis of these factors. However, the
five potential sites do not appear to adversely affect these parameters.
Another concern is location of a site outside of a 5,000 to 10,000-foot
radius of nearby airports. Landfills present a dust and bird hazard to air-
crafts utilizing the airport. The 10,000-foot limit is a recommended Federal
guideline for airports used by turbo-jet aircraft. A 5,000-foot limit is recom-
mended for airports used only by piston-type aircraft. A public airport, which
currently serves only piston-type aircraft, is located 4-1/2 miles northeast of
Delta.
C. Site Descriptions
The following descriptions summarize each of the five sites according to
the criteria previously discussed. A summary of each site's advantages and
- 49 -
-------
disadvantages for landfill development accompany the general description.
Conclusions are made regarding the two most suitable sites.
Site fl (Fillmore). The present Fillmore disposal site is located 1/2
mile north of Fillmore on Highway 91, and one mile east on an improved dirt road
(see Figure 5). The area presently in use is approximately ten acres in size,
and 30 additional acres are available to the west. The total of 40 acres is
owned by the City of Fillmore.
The predominant soil type is Pavant stony sandy loam, which occurs on allu-
vial fans adjacent to the Pavant Mountains, and on steep slopes between en-
trenched drainageways. According to the East Mil lard County Soil Survey1, the
soil is not suited for cultivation, due to the presence of stones, and is poor
for grazing. A thick layer of lime hardpan may be present below the surface
layer, which would make excavation difficult. Internal drainage through hardpan
is very slow, except through cracks. It must be, emphasized that soil borings
will be necessary before engineering decisions can be made regarding the depth
and suitability of the soils. However, surface soils appear to be usable for
daily cover. The slope of the site averages about five percent.
Located in an intermittent drainage, the site would require ditches to
divert runoff from reaching the waste and causing possible leachate production.
Ground water data are displayed in Table 9. The nearest wells, located west of
the site, indicate a water depth 60-70 feet. Water wells must be drilled on the
chosen site or sites in order to determine the depth to groundwater.
Vegetation at the site is primarily bunchgrasses, with some trees. No
homes are in close proximity. The disposal site is highly visible from the dirt
road which services it, but is not visible from Highway 91.
A major advantage of using this site is its current status as a disposal
site, which should cause a lesser land use conflict than designation of a new
site. It also minimizes haul distance to Fillmore and is the most centrally
1 Source: Reference 16.
- 50 -
-------
Figure'5
POTENTIAL SANITARY LANDFILL SITES
Mil lard County, Utah
R4 W
TI5S
LEGEND
KALI: 1 INCM» • MILIS
POTCHTUL SITC
"^ NATIONAL Fount
COUNTY BoUNOAftV
Oirv LAKCI AND MAIWM«»
LAMS AMO RISCWVOIII
f—I iNCOMOHATfO
* UNMCOftMHAtlD
-51-
UJ US
M> STATC
ACL WfATHtd
0*Y WCATMCD ROAO
AMMUAL
-------
located site in relation to incorporated areas in East Millard County. One pos-
sible constraint to consider is future land use and zoning. The site currently
has a one-half-mile radius of land zoned as agricultural around it. T'm's agri-
cultural land serves as a buffer zone to the land one half ^"e :c the west.
which has been zoned as residential.
Communication with Fillmore authorities and County sources indicates that
residential and business growth is projected to occur north of Fillnt>re, near
Interstate 15, and growth in that area should not present a conflict with opera-
tion of a landfill at the present site. It should be noted that previous opera-
tion of the site has been perceived as a nuisance by Fillmore residents, due to
burning of waste. However, proper sanitary landfill operation would eliminate
burning.
Site #2 (Hoiden). Located approximately one mile north of Hoi den on an
improved gravel road off of Highway 26, this 8Q acre parcel of public land
administered by the BLM is just north of the present town disposal site (see
Figure 5). The site is about 11 miles north of Fillmore, and about 28 miles
southeast of Delta.
The soil type is Pharo loam, which is located on old alluvial fans and lake
terraces. The East Millard County Soil Survey notes that this soil is general-
ly excessively well drained, which would present problems if precipitation were
high enough to cause leachate production. Ditches and berms could be used to
contain precipitation and divert runoff. The soil is typified by medium amounts
of organics, calcium carbonate, and gravel. On the eastern and northeastern
edges of the area, Ebbs loam (a silty loam) is present. These soils have been
examined to a depth of five to six feet, and more soil information would be
necessary if the site were to be used. The slope of the area is 0-2 percent.
An intermittent drainage transects the northwest corner of the parcel. The
nearest perennial drainage, Church Spring, is one mile to the north. Ground-
water data near the site are not available. Wells located two miles to the
south indicate a ground water depth of 35-40 feet (see Table 9).
- 52 -
-------
Vegetation is primarily sagebrush and scattered bunchgrasses. A residence
is located about one mile to the north. Adjacent land is used for farming,
while the potential site is currently used for grazing. The site is very visi-
ble from the improved gravel road bisecting it. The area is currently zoned as
agricultural.
This site is relatively large and could serve as an East Mil lard landfill
site, as it is fairly centrally located. Ground water contamination could be a
problem at the site, due to the combination of a possible high water table and
excessivley well drained soils. Use of the site would depend on ground water
and soil testing.
Site f3 (Harding). Another 80 acre plot of land administered by the Bureau
of Land Management, this site is southwest of the junction of highways 140 and
26, at Harding (see Figure 5). Delta is nine miles to the northwest, while
Fillmore is 30 miles southeast. This site could serve as a single county land-
fill site, if that disposal option is chosen.
Soils at the site are Escalante loam and Escalante sandy loam, which occur
on former lake terraces. Below a depth of 40 inches, the substratum contains a
white, calcareous lake deposit which is fairly impermeable unless cracks are
present. Wind erosion may be a problem, due to the low percentage of organics
in the loams. The slope of the area is 0-2 percent.
Surface water contamination does not appear likely. An intermittent drain-
age is located 3/4 mile to the north, and the Central Utah Canal is 2 1/2 miles
to the east. The closest perennial drainage is 2 miles to the west.
Very little ground water data exist for the area. The nearest well is a
246-foot deep flowing artesian well located two miles northeast of the site,
recording a water depth of + 11.4 feet. This water level indicates that the
aquifer is confined and under a positive hydrostatic pressure.
Vegetation at the site is sagebrush, scattered greasewood, shadscale and
Russian thistle. The area is visible from Highways 140 and 26. No residences
are located within a mile. Utility lines follow Highway 140 south of the site,
but do not appear to cross the potential landfill site. The site is zoned for
open range and forest and is currently used for grazing.
- 53 -
-------
This site could rost optimally be utilized as a regional (County-wide)
site, due to its location between Delta and Fillmore. However, it is 80 acres
in size, and averane County-wide '-/aste generation for the twenty year study
-re^'cd, would require 3 5: - 75 ac^e :".?, deoending on which growth scenario is
assumed.
Site #4 (Southeast Delta). This potential landfill site is located
approximately six miles southeast of Delta along Highway 26 (See Figure 5). The
area under consideration is about 80 acres of public (BLM) land adjacent to the
west side of the highway. Additional land should be available to the west,
south, and east.
The Delta Area Soil Survey! describes soils at the site as Uvada silt loam,
which is silty loam, silty clay, and silty clay loam to a depth of five feet.
Permeability is very slow. Runoff is slow, and erosion hazards are slight. The
slope is 0-2 percent.
The area drains into a perennial drainage one mile to the southeast.
Diversion ditches would prevent runoff from reaching waste disposal areas.
Available well data are listed in Table 9. The ground water table in this area
could be as high as 20 to 40 feet below the land surface. Test wells would be
necessary to determine this.
Shadscale and greasewood are the primary vegetative types. This site is
very visible from Highway 26, although the slope is to the southwest. A resi-
dence is located about one mile south of the area. The land is presently used
for grazing purposes, and is zoned as open range and forest.
This site is the largest of the sites reviewed. Although 80 initial acres
have been designated for use, additional public land is adjacent. This site is
one of the two sites which could contain the total County waste for the high
growth scenario. A further advantage, in use of the site as a regional land-
fill, is its relatively central location. Soils appear to be favorable, but
ground water level may be high.
Site #5 (Northeast Delta). The final site under consideration is approxi-
mately 6 1/2 miles northeast of Delta on Highway 6, and about one mile east on
an improved gravel road. The area contains numerous excavated pits, due to
- 54 -
-------
gravel mining by the Utah State Road Commission and Millard county. The
property is managed by the BLM. At least 80 acres would be useable for
landfilling, although only five to ten acres have been excavated (to a depth
5-10 feet).
The Delta Area Soil Survey indicates that the soil in the area is Venrab
fine sand, which is a well-sorted, dune-producing sand. This soil would be
unusable for cover, as it is easily windblown. It is also extremely permeable,
which contributes to contamination of groundwater, if leachate is formed. How-
ever, "included with this soil in mapping are small areas of Uvada silt loam and
Yenrab sand loam... Also included is a soil that is similar to this Yenrab
soil, but it has a strong lime layer, and in places it contains a little
gravel." Field investigation revealed that the soils present at the site appear
to match this description, the East Millard Areas Soil Survey, an older report
which overlaps the Delta Area Survey in coverage, mapped the soils at the site
as Lynndyl loam and Oasis loam. The two loams are quite similar, except that
the Lynndyl loam has a porous gravelly substratum beginning at about two feet,
and lime carbonate is present in the subsoil. Field investigations determined
that the soil below the gravel layer, at a depth of 5-10 feet, appears to be a
silty clay loam. This silt is workable for trenching and suitable for daily
cover, particularly if the loam is mixed with gravel. If the loam is continu-
ous, and gravel is not present below the site, infiltration of precipitation,
production of leachate, and contamination of groundwater or the Sevier River
would be less likely. Again, soil borings would be necessary. This site would
make use of the extensive amount of earthwork already performed by gravel exca-
vation. Waste could be disposed of in the worked-out pits, and gravel mining
and landfilling could occur cooperatively. Slope at the site is 0-5 per cent
where the land if undisturbed, and 0-2 percent in the excavated areas.
The site is only 1/8 to 1/4 mile from the Sevier River. Although the river
flows in a fairly deep channel and several irrigation dams are located upstream,
the site could be located in the river's flood plain. No flood plain areas have
been designated in Millard County. The area drains into the river, and diver-
sion ditches and a holding pond for runoff control would be needed. Depth to
the water table in the area is unknown, and water wells at the site would be
needed to make that determination. The nearest wells are very deep artesian
wells, recording depths of 15 to 25 feet (see Table 9). The ground water table
- 55 -
-------
near the river could be mounded. This would increase the potential for
groundwater contamination because leachate, if produced, would be closer to
contact with the water table.
Vegetation at the site is sagebrush, Russian thistle, and shadscale. The
area would be partially visible from Highway 6. This area is also zoned as open
range and forest land.
Site #5 would serve as a convenient West Mil lard site, due to its loca-
tion. It is a large site, which could contain the total County waste for the
next 20 years, but its extreme northern location in the County makes it less
convenient for use as a regional site. Prior excavations at the site resulting
from the gravel mining might provide cost savings in landfilling. However, pos-
sible surface and ground water impacts associated with the site's lateral prox-
imity to the Sevier River and possible permeable underlying soils (gravel and
sand) appear to outweigh the economic advantages of using this site.
In conclusion, the sites which appear to offer ^he most benefits and least
constraints for landfill use are site #1 (Fillmore) and #4 (Southeast Delta).
Site #1 will be considered for use as an East Millard site only, while site #4
could be used as a County-wide or West Millard landfill. These sites were used
in developing cost estimates in Chapter V. Sites #2, #3, and #5 can serve as
alternate sites, in the event that the recommended sites are unsuitable due to
currently unidentified soil or ground water problems.
- 56 -
-------
V. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
Basic collection and moos^l alternatives will be outlined, in order to
develop a solij -/aste -isnace-ie^t: ,:l:n. Initially, collection alternatives will
be compared, with a description of each system's general costs, equipment needs,
= nj suitability for Mil lard County. The type of waste disposal to be employed
in Millard County is landfilling. Therefore, the disposal alternatives are
established by the number of landfills and/or bulky waste disposal sites to be
used. The conclusions regarding potential landfill sites, developed in Chapter
I1/, serve as a basis for identifying disposal alternatives. Collection and dis-
posal alternatives are interdependent, and the recommended waste management plan
will encompass the most appropriate combination.
A. General Collection and Transportation Alternatives
The principle types of collection in use are house-to-house service, small
containerized systems, and transfer stations.
House-to-House Service. This type of collection in rural areas or small
communities usually involves the servicing of storage containers once weekly, in
the alley, back yard, curbside, or next to the mailbox.
The most commonly used vehicles for house-to-house collection are side-
loading and rear-loading compaction trucks (see Figure 6) with capacities of 10-
to 30 yd3. The type and size of vehicle needed depends on terrain, road and
bridge conditions, haul distance, and the amount and type of waste to be col-
lected. The advantage of house-to-house collection is that it provides a high
level of scheduled service to rural and city residents. However, costs are usu-
ally higher than those for small container systems or transfer stations. A
small, dispersed population often cannot support such a method. Estimates of
the number of collections needed to support this type of service range from 200
to 250 per dayl. Service may be difficult for isolated areas, or during bad
Source: Reference 7.
- 57 -
-------
FIGURE 6
FRONT-, REAR-, AND SIDE-LOADING
GREENBOX COLLECTION VEHICLES
FRONT-LOADING
REAR-LOADING
44—-
SIDE-LOADING
-58-
-------
weather. Also, only limited types and amounts of bulky wastes can be collected
without a special collection crew.
Due to the relatively small, dispersed population of Millard County, the
house-to-house collection alternative for both rural and incorporated areas does
not appear to be economically feasible. It is assumed that private house-to-
house collection in the incorporated areas presently serviced (Delta and Fill-
more) will continue, and this type of collection will not be analyzed further.
Small Containerized System. In rural areas and communities with popula-
tions less than approximately 1,000, where no individual house-to-house collec-
tion service is available, a potentially economical alternative is the use of
containers strategically placed throughout the service area. The containers,
often called "greenboxes", range from one to ten cubic yards in size (see
Figure 7) and are emptied into front, side, or rear-loading compacting vehi-
cles. Waste may then be disposed of at the nearest landfill, or at a central
transfer station to await final transportation and disposal at a regional dis-
posal site. Containers are located at convenient locations where suitable land
is available. An objective is to site containers no further from consumers than
the previous drive to a dump site. Examples of locations would be in or near
small communities, at major road intersections, at previous dump sites, schools,
commercial establishments, and parks and recreation areas.
A major advantage of this system is the flexibility of the containers to
adjust to changes in population size and distribution by changing the number of
containers and moving site locations. This is vital in Millard County, which
will experience large population fluctuations. In addition, containers may
replace many small indiscriminant open dumps, allowing for economical waste dis-
posal at a regional site which is in compliance with all local, State, and
Federal laws. The expenses involved in developing container sites are relative-
ly low. This type of system would provide an equal or higher level of service
than the present predominant disposal method in Millard County (private indivi-
duals hauling to local disposal sites).
A disadvantage of the system is the initial high equipment investment.
Maintenance of sites is necessary, and containers are often abused, lowering
- 59 -
-------
FIGURE 7. GREENBOXES
SOURCE: GEORGE SWANSON & SON, INC., ARVADA, COLORADO
-60-
-------
their effective life. User charges cannot be utilized, except for commercial
services, unless an attendant is present to collect fees. Residents with no
means of transportation have difficulty using the containers. Also, existing
house-to-house collection in the area of container sites could be decreased. A
major consideration concerning small containers is that limited types and
amounts of bulky wastes can be collected. Containers cannot accept burned or
burning materials, industrial waste, bulky waste (appliances, furniture, demoli-
tion and construction debris, tree trunks, etc.) or dead animals.
As mentioned previously, the types of vehicles used in small container col-
lection are front, side and rear-loading compaction trucks. Front-loading vehi-
cles utilize the minimum crew size (one person) and have the fastest servicing
time. However, front-loaders can rarely be used for house-to-house collection,
due to space restrictions in alleys. Side and rear-loaders are more versatile
in performing house-to-house as well as small container collection. The side-
loading system is the most recent innovation of the three types, and it affords
the best compaction and is generally lighter in weight than the other vehicles.
It also requires a one-person crew. These advantages led to the assumption of
use of the side-loading system, in costing waste collection options.
Transfer Stations. Another collection alternative for Mil lard County is
the use of roll-off containers (16 to 60 yd.3) or transfer trailers (50 to 75
yd.3) at centrally located sites. Figures 8 and 9 illustrate these systems,
respectively. Transfer stations, utilizing roll-off containers or a transfer
trailer, are used to provide shorter haul distances for commercial waste collec-
tion vehicles, or serve as central locations for rural residents who haul their
own waste to the site. Waste is then transported to a regional disposal site.
Transfer stations are commonly designed to function in one of two ways.
One method is direct transfer (direct dump) of the wastes from the collection
vehicles to the large capacity transfer containers. The second method (stock-
pile/front -end-load) consists of stockpiling the wastes from the collection
vehicles and periodically moving the stockpiled wastes into the transfer vehi-
cle. Generally, in cases involving small daily waste loads on the order of 50
tons per day (TPD) or less, direct transfer of the wastes is the most cost-
effective alternative. Mil lard County currently generates a total of 40 tons of
- 61 -
-------
RGURE 8.
TILT FRAME/ROLL-OFF TRANSFER VEHICLE
1.
1. Refuse is inserted into the compactor hopper by
various methods. Loading procedure can be selected to
best suit each installation.
2. Simply activate pushbutton control and your trash is
compacted and stored in a sanitary, dosed system.
3.
3. High compaction forces allow large volumes of refuse
:o 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
-62-
-------
FIGURE 9. TRANSFER TRAILER VEHICLE
sEss o 1 o o X o
SOURCE: DEMPSTER DUMPSTER SYSTEMS, KNOXVILLE , TENNESSEE
-63-
-------
waste per day, and subsequent cost estimates reflect the use of the direct dump
transfer method. In 1987, that figure is projected to reach 60 to 100 tons per
day, depending on the growth scenario assumed. Larger vclure transfer stations
(50 to 250 TPD) usually utilize the stockpile method plus 100^1Gticated transfer
equipment. Additionally, transfer stations of this size heve the potential to
implement limited resource recovery operations (e.g. paper and aluminum can
separation and recycling) to offset capital and operating costs. Transfer sta-
tions with various arrangements of optional equipment are commercially available
from a number of nationwide manufacturers, some of whom offer turn-key ser/ices.
Compaction Unit. In general, for areas where populations exceed 1,000 or
where transportation distances exceed approximately 15 miles, it is most econom-
ical 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. As mentioned previously, there are two types of trans-
fer vehicles which can be used with compaction equipment. These are the tilt
frame/roll-off container vehicle, and the transfer trailer.
The tilt frame/roll-off is so named because of the moveable rail structure
which is mounted directly on the truck chassis or separately on a trailer bed
(see Figure 8). A roll-off container is collected by "tilting" the rails and
winching the entire container onto the structure. When the container is to be
emptied, the rear doors of the container are opened and the entire package is
tilted so that the compacted refuse falls out. Commercially available tilt
frame/roll-off transfer vehicles may be equipped with a separate refuse com-
pactor. Refuse is deposited in a hopper feeding the compactor which forces the
waste into the roll-off container. There is little compaction of refuse until
the container is nearly full, since only then does the compactor exert a signif-
icant pressure. A typical ratio of compacted to loose refuse density achievable
by this type of system is 1.9 to 1 by weight.
In contrast to the external compactor associated with the tilt frame/roll-
off type of trailer, the transfer trailer has a hydraulic ejection ram mounted
inside the trailer compartment (see Figure 9). When emptying the trailer, the
- 64 -
-------
rear doors are opened and refuse is pushed out by the ram. This ram provides a
significant advantage for the transfer trailer to achieve a much higher density
of wastes in one of two ways. If a separate compactor is utilized, it can work
against the ejection ram which is extended at first and gradually retracted as
the volume of contained wastes increases. Alternatively, the ejection ram can
be used as a compaction device. In this system, wastes are introduced via a
hopper into a "top dumping" trailer just behind the face of the ram. When a
certain volume has been deposited, the operator can use the ram to compact the
wastes against the rear door of the trailer. The advantage of this method is
that no separate piece of compaction equipment is required. The trailer
requires 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 elec-
tric). A typical ratio of compacted to loose refuse density achievable by this
type of system is 3 to 1 by weight.
Transfer stations have an advantage in their flexibility in handling large
fluctuations of generated waste. Bulky wastes can be serviced, but compactable
waste should be separated from bulky waste prior to disposal. Disposal fees can
be collected, as an operator is usually employed. Some disadvantages are that
users often must travel longer distances than small container systems require,
and are less convenient. Sites are larger than small container sites, and thus
generally more expensive to obtain and maintain. The use of either roll-off
containers (with or without stationary compactors) or transfer trailers was
determined to be operationally feasible in Millard County. Costs for these
collection systems are analyzed in the following sections.
B. General Disposal Alternatives
By definition, sanitary landfilling is an engineered method of disposing of
solid waste on land by spreading the waste in thin layers, compacting it to the
smallest practical volume and covering the waste each working day*. Burning is
not allowed at a properly operated sanitary landfill. Appendix D contains a
glossary defining sanitary landfilling and other solid waste terms.
The two basic landfilling methods are the trench method and the area fill
method; other approaches are essentially modifications to these two methods (see
Figure 10). Basically, the trench method is used in areas where the seasonal
- 65 -
-------
FIGURE 10
TRENCH AND AREA METHODS
OF SANITARY -LANDFILLING
ATM Method
Source: Reference 2
-66-
-------
high water table is relatively low and the soil is more than six feet deep. It
is best employed on flat or gently rolling land. The area method can be follow-
ed on most topographies and is often used if large quantities of solid waste
must be disposed of, or if the size of the site is a constraining factor.
Trench Method. Waste is spread and compacted in an excavated trench and
cover material, taken from the spoil of the excavation, is spread and compacted
over the waste. This method generates a large amount of excess fill, which can
be stockpiled on-site, used to improve access roads or to build berms, or used
as cover if an area fill is later placed over the trench fill.
Area Method. The area fill method of landfilling, in which waste is
applied directly onto the land surface either with or without cover pre-strip-
ping, is a somewhat more difficult methodology to operate efficiently. Larger
volumes of trash and daily cover are usually associated with an area landfill.
In an area fill, uncovered and exposed trash is more susceptible to being scat-
tered by the wind, which might present a problem in Mil lard County. Waste sit-
ting on top of the ground is also certainly more visible than waste deposited in
a trench. Because of these reasons, the area method will not be recommended
unless the life of a site must be extended (e.g., if the high growth scenario
occurs.)
Combinations of these two methods are possible, and one common variation is
the progressive ramp method, in which waste is spread and compacted on a slope.
Cover material is obtained directly in front of the working face. This techni-
que allows for more efficient use of a disposal site than the area method,
because a portion of the waste is deposited below ground. As mentioned previ-
ously, another combination is the use of an area fill over a site previously
trenched.
1 Source: Reference 1.
- 67 -
-------
C. Mil lard County Alternatives
Solid waste management systems ape composed of a combination of collection
and disposal alternatives. The recommended system will be determined by the
level of service desired by the public,- adequate protection of the environment
and public health, a minimization of initial capital costs and annual operating
costs, and the system's ability to accommodate changes in population and waste
generation rates. In Mil lard County, the controlling factor in designing a
solid waste system was the disposal alternatives available.
Disposal alternatives consist of determining the optimum number of sites
which will provide adequate service, protect the environment, and minimize costs
for residents. The options outlined below include use of:
1. Separate disposal sites servicing each incorporated area;
2. Two disposal sites, with one location ^in East Millard County and one
in West Millard County, and;
3. One regional site serving the entire county, located between Fillmore
and Delta.
The advantages, disadvantages, and general costs for each option are dis-
cussed.
The first alternative appears to provide the highest level of service to
the public, and would be most compatible with past disposal habits. However,
the costs involved in operating a sanitary landfill are much greater than the
expenses associated with the existing disposal areas. If each incorporated area
were to operate individual sites, no economies of scale would be realized.
Equipment, labor, and land costs would be extremely high. Landfills are gener-
ally more cost-efficient when larger quantities of waste are handled. An addi-
tional problem in recommending individual community sites is the lack of many
small, suitable sites in the County. In summary, this option is economically
unfeasible, and will not be considered further.
- 68 -
-------
The second disposal alternative 1s based on the use of two sites, with one
landfill in East Mlllard County and one 1n West Mlllard County. The two-land-
fill option would be most reasonable 1f the high growth scenario occurs (IPP and
MX-related growth), n E.ast Mil lard County's waste generation would be approxi-
mately double that of od-^e growth (IPP only) for that portion of the County.
A third alternative 1s the use of a single large, regional sanitary land-
fill, 1n order to consolidate operations and make full use of landfill economies
of scale. This site would most reasonably be ' jcatsd 1n the Delta area (the
major waste generation center), or between Delta and Fillmore, along Highway 26.
Transportation costs are minimized by reducing haul distance for the greatest
amount of waste possible. A thorough analysis of the cost benefits realized by
operating only one site, versus the transportation costs Involved 1n transpor-
ting waste a greater distance, has been performed and 1s presented in the fol-
lowing section.
The landfills determined to be most suitable for Mlllard County are discus-
sed in detail 1n Chapter IV. Site #1 1s recommended as an East Mlllard site
(for use as a landfill or as a bulky waste disposal site), while site #4 could
serve as a regional or as a West Mlllard sanitary landfill site. Site #1 would
utilize the progressive ramp method 1n order to extend the life of the site and
allow for the most efficient disposal of waste 1n the valley. Site #4 would
utilize the trench method, and an area fill could later be used on top of the
trench fill. These two methods have been recommended, rather than use of an
area fill, to promote more efficient operation of the sites, to control blowing
litter, and to minimize aesthetic Impacts.
Five specific solid waste options, Involving different combinations of
collection and disposal, were Identified. Costs were developed for each of the
five options. The best option for Mlllard County can then be chosen by com-
paring both costs and level of service. Options 1, 2, and 3 call for the use of
a single, regional sanitary landfill near Delta (potential Site #4) and a bulky
waste disposal area at the present Fillmore disposal site (potential Site #1).
Options 4 and 5 recommend that both sites (#4 and #1) be used as sanitary land-
fills, serving West and East Mlllard, respectively.
- 69 -
-------
A description of each option, Its advantages and disadvantages, and compo-
nent cost summaries are provided 1n Appendix D (Tables D-l through 0-20). Capi-
tal and operating costs* have been determined for 1982 ind 1987 (assumed to be
the peak growth year) for both base and high growth sc;nar'o;. Yearly costs
should range between these estimates. Initially, 1982 cos's were developed.
Incremental costs were then developed for 1987 costs, and the two were combined
to determine 1987 total costs. Capital costs were amortized at 10 per cent over
10 years, the approximate life of the equipment. Equipment operating costs in-
clude maintenance, overhaul, fuel and parts.
Option 1. This option consists of dispersing approximately 600 greenbox
containers (Table D-9) throughout the County for collection of all compactable
municipal and residential solid waste. A side-loading compactor truck collects
the waste at least weekly. Following greenbox pickup, the waste 1s hauled to a
transfer station located at the Flllmore bulky waste disposal site (at the pre-
sent Flllmore disposal site) or directly to the West Mlllard landfill. The
transfer station consists of a transfer trailer^ (Table D-ll) which compacts
solid waste before final transportation of the waste to the West Mlllard site.
A skid loader 1s required at the transfer station to load the trailer.
Under this option, bulky wastes are collected separately 1n open-top roll-
off containers (Table D-13) located near each of the incorporated communities
except Flllmore. Bulky Items are privately hauled to these transfer locations.
Roll-off containers are hauled weekly, or as necessary, directly to the nearest
bulky waste disposal site, either Site #4 and Site #1. In West Mlllard, Site #4
(Table D-3) will be utilized, while 1n East Mlllard, the bulky waste disposal
area, Site #1 (Table D-7) will be utilized.
Advantages of this system are the relatively high level of service pro-
vided, and the efficiencies achieved by using large, sophisticated equipment.
By using the same tractor with the transfer trailer and the roll-off containers,
capital costs are reduced. However, this option exhibits high capital and
1 Source: References 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9.
- 70 -
-------
operating costs, and additional capital expenditures will be required when
equipment capacity is exceeded. Table 10 presents the costs associated with the
system, and Figure 11 illustrates the components. Table 10 breaks down the
costs by base growth scenario (IPP-related growth) and high growth (IPP and
MX-related growth) for 1982 and 1987.
Option 2. The second option is very similar to the first. The greenbox/
side-loader collection system is utilized, and Site #4 functions as the sole
sanitary landfill facility, with Site #1 operating as a bulky waste disposal
area and transfer station. However, instead of using a transfer trailer at the
transfer station, a roll-off container with a stationary compactor (Table D-19)
is used to handle compactable waste from East Mil lard. The roll-off container
is then transported to Site #4 for disposal, at least weekly.
This system also offers a high level of service, but the efficiency of the
roll-off transfer station is less than that of the transfer trailer, resulting
in higher operating costs. Total cost for the system (see Table 10) is higher
than that of the first option. Figure 12 illustrates this option.
Option 3. This option also utilizes Site #4 as a sanitary landfill while
Site #1 operates as a bulky waste disposal site. This system deletes the green-
box and side-load collection operation for compactable waste. Alternatively,
ten roll-off containers (essentially, transfer stations) with stationary com-
pactors (Table D-15), are placed near each incorporated area and also at Site
#1. County residents haul wastes to one of the ten sites, and a roll-off truck
transports the containers weekly, or as necessary to the West Millard landfill
for disposal.
Bulky wastes are handled by nine roll-off containers located with the com-
pactable roll-off containers (no container is necessary at the Fillmore site),
and serviced by the same truck. Bulky waste is disposed of at the nearest bulky
waste disposal site (Site #1 or Site #4).
The advantage of this system is its lower capital costs and much lower
operating costs, primarily due to the elimination of the greenbox side-loading
collection subsystem. The corresponding disadvantage is the reduced level of
- 71 -
-------
TAELE ID
SOLID HASTE WHAEMNT ALTERNATIVES
COST SlfWRY
1982
COLlfCTION AN) TRANSFER
DISPOSAL
Cost
Cost
Base
Base
Total Cost
JBaseHT3T
Option 1
Option 2
Options
Option 4
Option 5
Greenbox Collection
Transfer Trailer
Roll-off Transfer (BulKy Waste)
Greenbox Collection
Roll-off Transfer (Compaction)
Roll-off Transfer (Bulky Waste)
Roll-off Transfer (Compaction)
Roll-off Transfer (Bulky Waste)
Greenbox Collection
Roll-off Transfer (Bulky Waste)
Roll-off Transfer (Conpaction)
Roll-off Transfer (Bulky Waste)
93,400
32,200
57,500
93,400
43,900
57,500
87,000
57,500
93,400
57,500
68,100
57,500
105,800
33,800
62,600
105,800
48,700
62,600
95,400
62,600
105,800
62,600
75,800
62,600
Regional Landfill -West Mi Hard
Bulky Waste Dispsal Site-East Mil lard
Regional Landfill-West Mil lard
Bulky Waste Disposal Site-East Mil lard
Regional Landfill-West Mil lard
Bulky Waste Disposal Site-East Mil lard
Local Landfill-West Mil lard
Local Landfill-East Mil lard
Local Landfill-West Mil lard
Local Landfill-East Mil lard
123,500
29,100
123,500
29,100
123,500
29,100
94,200
62,100
94,200
62,100
133,200
29,700
133,200
29,700
133,200
29,700
101,700
70,200
101,700
70,200
$335,700 1365,100
$347,400 $380,000
$297,100 $320,900
$307,200 $340,300
$281,900 $310,300
1967
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5
138,600
35,500
74,400
138,600
53,900
74,400
120,500
74,400
138,600
74,400
98,200
209,800
43,300
99,100
209,800
84,900
99,100
163,800
99,100
209,800
99,100
128,500
164,400
30,200
164,400
30,200
164,400
30,200
130,400
80,400
130,400
on Am
210,800
33,100
210,800
33,100
210,800
33,100
168,000
102,000
168,000
i/\o nr\t\
$443,100 $596,100
$461,500 $637,700
$389,500 $506,800
$423;800 $578,900
$383,400 $497,600
-------
Figure' 1 1
SOLID WASTE COLLECT ION & DISPOSAL
Millard County, Utah
Option'1
R4 W
TI5S
•CAtt ' "*CM" • MIL"
LEGEND
SANfTARY LANDFILL SrTB
BUIXY WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
TRANSFER TRAILER
ROLL-OFFCONTAINERIWuorwMTll
^QREENBOX COLLECTION ROUTE
A BOU-OrFCONTAMgR I WITH tUMPOCIUH I
-73-
-------
Figure' 1 2
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION & DISPOSAL
Millard County, Utah
Option'2
R4 W
TI3S
LEGEND ac*tls' mCM'' Mlt"
n SANITARY LANOFIU-Sm
• BULKY WASTE DISPOSAL STTE
A TRANSFERTRAILER
O ROLL-OFFCONTAINERlMJuerwASTCl
Q ROLL-OFFCONTAINERICOMMCTJULCAMNJCrvwaret
^GREENBOX COLLECTION ROUTE
A ROLL-OFFCONTAINER Iwrm COMMWTONI
I
-74-
-------
service and possible safety problems, as County residents would operate the com-
paction unit at the rol1-off site. Extensive public education would be neces-
sary for safe and efficient operation of this system. Costs are presented in
Table 10, and the system is illustrated in Figure 13.
Option 4. The last two options differ from the first three in functions of
the landfills in use. Because there are two landfills, near Delta and Fillmore,
the transfer subsystem can be eliminated. Costs for operation of Sites #4 and
#1 are presented in Tables 0-3 and D-5, respectively. A greenbox collection
system (with waste hauled to the nearest landfill) is combined with a bulky
waste collection system (Table D-13), as in Option 1.
This system provides a high level of service, and operating costs are re-
duced for waste collection and transportation, due to a shorter haul distance to
the nearest landfill. However, relatively high additional capital expenditures
are required in future years. The cost assocated with this option are displayed
in Table 10 (see Figure 14 for illustration).
Option 5. The final system to be analyzed approximates Option 3, with the
following exceptions. Two landfills are in use (Sites #1 and #4,) and nine
rather than ten roll-off containers (with compactors) are in use (Table D-17).
One roll-off unit can be eliminated because the Fillmore disposal site is con-
venient for Fillmore residents. Bulky wastes are serviced by nine rol 1-off con-
tainers, located with the compactable waste roll-off containers. Waste (com-
pactable and bulky) is hauled to the nearest landfill.
The advantage of this system is its low capital and operating costs, due to
the use of two landfills and the corresponding decrease in waste transportation
costs. As in Option 3, a disadvantage of this system is potential public safety
problems. Table 10 summarizes the corresponding costs, and Figure 15 illus-
trates the system.
The next chapter identifies the solid waste management system recommended
for Mil lard County. Detailed information necessary for the successful implemen-
tation and operation of the system is provided.
- 75 -
-------
Figure" 1 3
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION & DISPOSAL
Millard County, Utah
Option * 3
R4 W
TI5S
70
LEGEND 8CALI:'IMCM' •MIL"
D SANITARY LANDFILL SITE
• BULKY WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
A TRANSFERTRAILER
O ROLL-OFF CONTAINERlBuuorwMTel
Q ROLL-OFFCONTAINERlCOMMCr*Bte«MIUCYWMTel
^GREENBOX COLLECTION ROUTE
A ROLL-OFF COffTAINER I WITH COMPOCTOBI
-76-
-------
^ Figure* 1 4
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION & DISPOSAL
Mil lard County, Utah
Option* 4
R4 W
TI5S
LEGEND
SANITARY LANDFILL SITE
BULKY WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
TRANSFER-TRAILER
ROLL-OFF CONTAINER I*JUCYW»ST«
8C*L€: ' IMCH" ' MIL18
^UHUNSOX COLLECTION ROUTE
A ROLL-OFFCONTAINERIwmicOMMkCTOMl
-77-
-------
Figure* 1 5
SOLID WASTE COLLECT ION & DISPOSAL
Mil lard County, Utah
Option' 5
R4 W
TI5S
LEGEND 90ALI:'IMCH'9 MIL"
SANITARY LANDFILL SITE
BULKY WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
TRANSFERTRAILER
O fWLL-OFFCONTAINEBlBUUCvwAsrel
IL
•"GflEENBOX COLLECTION ROUTE
A ROLL-OFFCONTAMERIwrmcoMMCTOHl
-78-
-------
VI. RECOMMENDED SOLID HASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Introduction
This chapter details specific solid waste management recommendations for
the County. Input was received from town, County, State and Federal officials,
regarding the collection and disposal options discussed in Chapter V, and was
utilized in developing the recommendations. The collection and disposal costs
for the 1982 base growth scenario are also presented. Recommendations con-
cerning the closure and cleanup of existing open dump sites are made, and
related costs are established. In addition, management and financing plans are
presented. An estimate of the waste management system's total annual cost is
made, and general trends in waste collection and disposal from 1982 to 2000 are
discussed. Finally, an implementation schedule for the recommended plan is
introduced.
The recommended collection and disposal system determined to be optimal for
the County is a combination of Options 2 and 4. Greenbox collection is employed
for compactable waste, and roll-off containers, located near each incorporated
area, service bulky wastes. Greenbox containers are recommended for compactable
waste collection, rather than rol1-off containers with stationary compactors,
due to potential safety and maintenance problems related to the compactors.
Smaller containers also maximize flexibility, as changes in waste capacity can
be managed by adding or removing greenboxes. One regional landfill, located
southeast of Delta, is proposed for disposal of the entire County's compactable
waste, and West Mil lard's bulky waste. The recommended plan also includes the
use of the existing Fillmore disposal site as a bulky waste facility servicing
East Mil lard County. The development of one, rather than two, full-scale land-
fill sites entails fewer administrative and operational difficulties for the
County. The bulky waste site near Fillmore could be converted to a sanitary
landfill in the future, if necessary. Figure 16 illustrates the recommended
option.
- 79 -
-------
Figure * 16
SOLE) WASTE COLLECTION & DISPOSAL
Millard County, Utah
RECOMMENDED PLAN
RIOW - R9W
TI3S
LEGEND
SANfTMTr LANDFILL SITE
BULKY VWkSTC DISPOSAL STTC
"UHMMWJX COLLECTION ROUTE
A BOLL-OfFCONTAJNgR I wtrx COM»«CTq« I
-80-
SCALE 1"- 9 Miles
-------
B. Collection Procedures
Greenbox System
This component of the collection system is comprised of 535 three-cubic
yard containers conveniently located throughout the populated areas of the
County, serviced by two 30-cubic yard packer trucks. The containers will
receive residential and commercial compactable waste. Examples of residential
waste handled by these containers are food waste, cans, bottles, paper,
clothing, small appliances, yard waste, and bagged or bundled twigs or small
limbs. Commercial waste consists primarily of food waste and packaging and
shipping materials. Burning materials will not be permitted in greenboxes.
Ashes from fireplaces or stoves should be stored outside by residents in metal
containers for several days before disposal to decrease the potential for fire
in the containers.
Greenboxes used by the residential sector in Delta and Fill more will be
serviced twice weekly, to reduce the number of containers that would be required
to provide service once per week. Fewer containers are utilized due to space
considerations. Residential containers in the remainder of the County will be
serviced once weekly. It was determined (through use of waste generation rates
presented in Chapter III) that rural residential users, and customers in all
towns exluding Delta and Fillmore, would require one 3-cubic yard container per
21 persons in the service area, with weekly service. Delta and Fillmore resi-
dential users require one container per 30 persons, with service twice per
week. This is due to the greater daily variation in waste generation in larger
towns, with most waste produced on weekends, requiring more container capacity.
The estimated number of containers needed for residential use are presented
below. Appendix F presents sample calculations for the County's greenbox
requirements.
Commercial account requirements will vary from one container serviced
weekly, to multiple containers serviced several times per week. For the purpose
of cost estimation, an assumption of tri-weekly service of each commercial
container was used. West Mil lard County currently requires 58 commercial con-
tainers, while East Mil lard requires 38, based on the waste generation rates
developed in Chapter III.
- 81 -
-------
REQUIRED GREENBOX CONTAINERS
West Mil lard
East Mi Hard
Residential
Delta 106
Hi nekley 34
Lynndyl 8
Leamington 7
Oak City 23
Unincorporated 87
Subtotal 265
Commercial 58
TOTAL 323
Residential
Fillmore 77
Meadow 15
Kanosh 19
Hoi den 24
Scipio 12
Unincorporated 27
Subtotal 174
Commercial 38
TOTAL 212
Container Locations and Routing
\
The location of greenbox sites will be determined by individual communi-
ties, and will be a function of public convenience, available land and the most
efficient routing. General criteria for siting exist, including accessibility
in all weather conditions. This may require grading for drainage and gravel-
ling. Sites must be large enough to permit waste unloading, container serv-
icing, and vehicle maneuvering without creating traffic hazards. When green-
boxes are clustered, a pull-off and turn-around area are necesssary. When
roll-off containers are used, greenboxes should be located at the site to pre-
vent dumping of compactable waste in the bulky waste system. Mixing wastes
decreases efficiency, as waste is not compacted. Also, roll-off containers are
not serviced frequently enough to receive wastes which decompose. If sites are
located on a state highway right-of-way, approval from the State Highway Depart-
ment is needed. Private property owners may allow free use of their land, for
the convenience of nearby containers. City, County or state land may also be
available for use.
The decision to cluster or distribute individual greenboxes should be made
by each community. Advantages inherent in clustering residential greenboxes
include a decrease in container servicing time and the amount of locations
required for greenbox siting, resulting in less expense but reduced convenience
- 82 -
-------
for customers. If the decision to cluster greenboxes is made, it is recommended
that Lynndyl, Leamington, Oak City, Meadow, Kanosh, Holden, and Scipio locate
all their greenboxes at their individual roll-off container site. Delta,
'-ii nek ley, and Fillmore should locate some greenboxes at their individual commu-
nity roll-off sites, in addition to establishing other greenbox sites, due to
the large number of required greenboxes. Unincorporated areas should cluster
greenboxes in groups of five or more, in convenient locations. An example of a
potential greenbox site for the Delta area is near the junction of the railroad
tracks and Highway 6/50 in west Delta. A possible location for the Deseret-
Oasis area is the junction of Highway 140 and the railroad tracks. Commercial
containers will be located adjacent to the facility serviced. It is suggested
that the sites allow room for expansion. One hundred square feet would allow
ample area for one greenbox.
In determining greenbox collection routes and associated costs, the
following assumptions were used:
Residential containers in Fillmore and Delta are serviced twice
weekly. All other residential containers are serviced once
weekly;
Service time per container averages 1.5 minutes;
Travel speed for East and West Mi Hard routes is 30 miles per
hour, excluding Route W-2 (45 mph). Travel speed between the
east area and the regional landfill would be higher;
The average number of containers per vehicle load is 40 (assumes
a 4:1 compaction ratio).
Table 11 describes the East (E) and West (W) Millard routes, and the type
of waste collected and area covered on each route. A daily breakdown of routes
and the required miles and hours is provided. The two compaction trucks are
numbered Units I and II.
- 83 -
-------
TABLE 11
WEEKLY COLLECTION ROUTES
Route
W-l
W-2
W-3
W-4
W-5
E-l
E-2
E-3
E-4
E-5
Day
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
TOTAL
Service Area
Delta
Oak City-Leamington-Lynndyl
Hinckley-Unincorporated South Delta Area
Unincorporated North Delta Area
Delta
Fill more
Fil Imore
Fil Imore
Kanosh-Meadow-Unincorporated
Sci pi o-Hol den-Uni ncorporated
Unit Route
I W-l
II E-l
I W-2
I W-3
II E-3
I W-5
I E-5
II E-2
I W-4
I E-4
II E-4
I W-l
II E-l
V
Containers
164
80
38
40
80
58
40
38
40
72
164
80
894
Waste Type
Residential and
Commercial
Residential
Residential
Residential
Commercial
Residential and
Conmerci al
Commercial
Residential
Residential
Residential
Miles Hours
60 6.1
190 5.0
50 2.1
22 1.8
190 5.0
30 2.5
90 3.2
100 3.8
30 2.0
220 6.7
60 6.1
190 5.0
1,232 49.3
- 84 -
-------
Staffing Requirements
A full-time collection vehicle driver will be responsible for greenbox col-
lection routes, and will be assisted on a half-time basis by a member of the
open dump closure crew. The full-time employee will be responsible for preven-
tive maintenance of the collection vehicles, and maintaining daily mileage and
waste volume records.
Equipment Requirements
Two side-loading compaction vehicles will be needed to service the 535
3-cubic yard greenboxes. Specifications for the chassis include:
A standard cab with a minimum 200 HP diesel engine and a six-
speed transmission;
A minimum 30,000 pound Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) Tandem
4.5-1 ratio rear axle;
A minimum 10,000 pound GVW front axle;
Air brakes and a parking brake;
An extra heavy duty cooling and lighting system (D.O.T.
lighting);
10 x 20 inch 12-ply rating steel belted tires (11) and disc-type
wheels (11);
A diesel fuel system with a minimum 75 gallon on-board capacity;
and
A full heating system with a 110 volt A.C. overnight heater.
The side-loading compaction body should be a heavy duty, 30-cubic yard
capacity system, with a minimum 2,000 pound lifting capacity. It should be
- 85 -
-------
equipped with: a rear door which opens hydraulically and locks; a front-
mounted, crankshaft-powered, air-actuated power take-off; and approved clearance
lights, a rotary beacon, rear lights for unloading, and side lights.
Figure 17 outlines the equipment and labor requirements for collection as
well as disposal and open dump closure.
Roll-off System
This component of the collection system involves the use of ten 40-cubic
yard roll-off containers, located near each incorporated area. The containers
will be serviced as required by a tilt frame vehicle. Residential and commer-
cial non-compactable waste will be disposed of in the roll-offs, including such
wastes as lumber, masonry, large appliances (stoves, refrigerators), furniture,
auto tires, tree limbs or trunks (shorter than five feet in length), and fencing
material. Large quantities of such wastes should be disposed of at the nearest
landfill or bulky waste disposal site, to conserve space in the roll-off contai-
ners. If a commercial or industrial establishment generates large quantities of
bulky waste consistently, the facility may arrange to buy a roll-off container
through the County system.
Container Locations and Routing
The decision to locate roll-off containers near each incorporated area
reflects the cost savings inherent in shorter haul distances, and the associa-
tion of community identity with individual container sites. As in greenbox
siting, each community will be responsible for the final location of a site.
Some major considerations are road conditions and land use. Adequate area is
necessary for waste unloading and container servicing. Approximately one quar-
ter of an acre would be required for a roll-off site. More area is required
than for a greenbox station, as containers are larger, more maneuvering space is
necessary, and a retaining wall or ramp is necessary to provide public access to
the container.
Suggested locations for roll-off containers are at major road intersec-
tions, along heavily traveled roads, or immediately adjacent to population
centers. In the Millard County system, nine sites would be utilized (the tenth
- 86 -
-------
FIGURE 17
ELEMENTS OF THE RECOMMENDED SOLID HASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN
MILLARD COUNTY, UTAH
COLLECTION
1
Greenbox
1 1
Staff Equipment
1 Full-time 535 Greenboxes
Driver
1 Half-time 2 Collection
Driver Vehicles
1
Staff
1 Hal
Dri
1
Roll -off
1
Equipment
f-time 10 Roll -off
ver Container
1 Tilt-fram
Vehicle
DISPOSAL
OPEN DUMP
CLOSURE
Regional Landfill
Staff
1 Full-time
Operator
(Foreman)
Equipment
1 Track Dozer
Bulky Uaste Site
I
Staff
1 Half-time
Operator
Equipment
1 Track Dozer
Staff
1 Ful I -1, nne
Ope ca r.o i
1 Hair-I. ime
Opera: or
I
Equipment
1 Front-loader
1 Dump Truck
1 Tractor
-------
container travels with the truck). Individual sites will be required at Oak
City, Scipio, Holden, and Fillmore. A single container will service Leamington
and Lynndyl, and should be located midway between the towns. Meadow and Kanosh
will also share a container, and a possible location is the Hatton exit off of
Highway 91. The Delta incorporated area will utilize one container. A poten-
tial site is the junction of Highway 6/50 and the two rail lines. The
Hinckley-Deseret-Oasis users could locate another roll-off site at the junction
of Highway 6/50 and Highway 257. The Sutherland-Sugarvil le-Abr^Ti area will
require another site.
In determining roll-off collection requirements, the following assumptions
were made:
Containers will be serviced as necessary, depending on the waste
quantity received. Containers are assumed to be 80 percent full
(32 cy) when serviced;
V
Service time per container, for loading and unloading with the
tilt frame truck, is a total of 30 minutes;
Travel speed varies from 30 to 50 mph (see Table 12);
One third of the total demolition/construction waste produced in
the County (.5 pounds out of 1.5 total pounds) will be placed in
the roll-off containers.
The assumption of one third of the total demolition/construction waste
being serviced in the roll-off system is a result of the expectation of produc-
tion of large quantities of such waste by building contractors. If dumping of
truck load quantities of such waste into roll-off containers is not allowed (as
recommended), the bulk of this waste will be transported to rubble dumps by the
contractor.
Table 12 presents the annual number of trips required to service each area
in the County. The total mileage and hours required were used to develop costs
presented in Table 13. An example of the procedure used to determine servicing
time for the Oak City container follows:
- 88 -
-------
TABLE 12
ANNUAL ROLL-OFF COLLECTION SUMMARY
Service Area
West Mil lard
Delta-Hinckley-
Sutherland
Oak City
Lynndyl -Leamington
WEST TOTAL
East Mi Hard
Fil1more--50%
Unincorporated
Hoi den
Scipio
Meadow-Kanosh-50%
Unincorporated
EAST TOTAL
WEST to EAST1
TOTAL
Trips
87
8
b
100
40
8
4
15
67
40
167
Miles per
Trip
30
30
4U
10
25
bO
25
70
Miles per
Hour
3C
50
50
30
50
50
30
50
Miles
2,610
24U
2UO
3,050
400
200
200
375
1,175
2,800
7,025
Hours
130.5
8.8
6.b
145.8
33.3
8.0
6.0
2U.O
67.3
56.0
269.1
1 Roundtrips required from the regional landfill to the East Mi Hard bulky waste
site.
- 89 -
-------
Item
Equipment
Compactor Trucks
(30 cy, side-loading)
Containers (3 cy)
Equipment Operation
Compactor Trucks
Labor
Drivers/
Mechanics
TABLE 13
COLLECTION COST SUMMARY
GREENBOX SYSTEM
1982 CAPITAL COSTS
Unit Cost Units
$70,000/unit
$300/unit
535
TOTAL
AMORTIZED
1982 OPERATING COSTS
$13.80/hr.
3,070
ROLL-OFF SYSTEM
1982 CAPITAL COSTS
Total Cost
$140,000
$160,500
$300,500
$ 48,900
$ 42,400
$10/hr.
$10/hr.
3,070
420
S TOTAL
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
$ 30,700
$ 4,200
$ 77,300
$126,200
Item
Equipment
Roll-off Truck
Roll-off Containers
(40-cy, open-top)
Equipment Operation
Roll-off Truck
Labor
Dri ver/
Mechanic
Unit Cost
$50,000/unit
$5,500/unit
Units
1
10
TOTAL
AMORTIZED
1982 OPERATING COSTS
$13.80/hr.
325
$10/hr. 325
$10/hr. 210
TOTAL
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
TOTAL COLLECTION COST
Total Cost
$ 50,000
$ 55,000
$105,000
$ 17,100
$ 4,500
$ 3,300
$ 2,100
$ 9,900
$ 27,000
$153,200
- 90 -
-------
(470 people)x(l Ib/person/day)lx(365 days/year)4(750 Ib/yd3)=229 yd3/year
(229 yd3/year)*(32 yd3/trip)=7.15 trips/year
(8 trips/year)x(30 miles/trip)=240 miles
(240 miles)-r(50 miles/hour)=4.8 hours .
4.8 hours+[(8 trips)x(30 minutes per trip for loading and unloading)]
=8.8 hours/year
The total number of hours could then be applied to the hourly equipment
operation and labor costs to determine roll-off collection expenses.
Staffing Requirements
This segment of the solid waste plan requires a full-time roll-off collec-
tion vehicle driver. The employee is responsible for all bulky waste collection
routes, operation of the bulky waste site at Fillmore, preventive maintenance of
collection vehicle and bulky waste disposal site equipment, and maintenance of
daily vehicle mileage and waste volume records. The packer truck and roll-off
vehicle drivers should be experienced heavy equipment operators with good
driving records, basic mechanical skills, and the ability to maintain good cus-
tomer relations.
Equipment Requirements
A tilt-frame rol1-off collection vehicle and ten 40-cubic yard containers
are needed to operate the system. The collection vehicle chassis specifications
are the same as the side-loading vehicle specifications. Additional require-
ments are: a 40,000 pound minimum line-pull drum hoist; a transmission-mounted
power take-off, and lighting as required by the Department of Transportation.
Collection Costs
Collection costs, based on 1982 waste generation rates and prices, are pre-
sented in Table 13, for a full year of operation. These costs are effective
1 Includes .5 Ib/person/day each of residential and demolition/construction
waste (see Table 3).
- 91 -
-------
after the implementation period has occurred (approximately six months in dura-
tion), during which landfills and container sites are prepared. Table 13 does
not include all collection-related costs, as costs incurred by site development
have been itemized in Table 16, Implementation Costs.
Capital costs have been amortized at 10 per cent interest over 10 years (a
Capital Recovery Factor of .16275). Labor and equipment operating hours include
an 80 per cent efficiency factor. This factor was not used in developing the
costs in Tables D-l through D-20 and Table 10. However, these tables are con-
sistent as a group for comparison of option costs. 4ourly labor rates include a
35% fringe benefits package, which is provided by the County. Four hours per
week per machine has been allowed for preventive maintenance.
C. Disposal Procedures
Regional Landfill
V
The Southeast Delta site is recommended for use as a regional, trench-type
landfill, which will receive the entire County's compactable waste stream via
packer trucks. This site will not initially receive bulky wastes, as these
wastes will be disposed of at the proposed Fillmore bulky waste site, or the
present Delta disposal site. Bulky wastes produced in West Mil lard will be used
to close the Delta site as described in the Open Dump Closure section of this
report. This procedure will be utilized until the present Delta site is proper-
ly closed. Subsequent to that, bulky wastes produced in West Millard will be
disposed of at the Southeast Delta site.
The landfill will be a limited access operation, allowing truckload quanti-
ties of residential, commercial, or industrial bulky wastes to be disposed.
Contractors producing demolition/construction waste in large quantities should
have access to the bulky waste disposal areas. The public will not have open
access to the facility. Proposed hours of operation are from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., five days per week.
When the landfill reaches the detailed design stage, an engineer should be
hired to develop a specific site plan. At this point, additional soil and
- 92 -
-------
groundwater information will be available because testing will have been per-
formed. In developing the preliminary cost estimates presented in this report,
these design parameters were followed. Trenches are 15 feet deep, with a 22
foot base, 52 foot upper width, and 1:1 sidewalls. The area between trenches is
10 feet wide. Using the current County compacted waste production estimate of
24,300 yd3/year (excluding bulky wastes produced in East Millard), and a cover
to waste ratio of 1:4 by volume, approximately 1,200 feet of trench will be
-equired for 1982 for disposal at the Southeast Delta site (see Appendix F for
calculations). This corresponds to approximately two acres per year. Trenches
should be excavated perpendicular to the prevailing wind direction, which is
westerly in Millard County. This site will require stock fencing, where not
presently in place, and litter fencing downwind from the compactable waste
trenches. A diversion ditch running east/west along the northeast boundary of
the site will also be necessary. A separate, fenced dead animal pit will be
available on the southeast corner of the site, with full-time access to the
public. A plan view of the site is presented in Figure 18.
Staffing Requirements
The primary staff member employed at the site is the foreman, who super-
vises the collection vehicle drivers and Open Dump Closure personnel. This
employee is responsible for landfill operation, scheduling of staffing and
equipment maintenance, accounting of waste volume and vehicle mileage, and
advancement of good public relations through coordination of customer service
requirements. The foreman operates the track dozer and loader, and is assisted
by the Open Dump Closure staff or collection vehicle drivers when necessary.
Equipment Requirements
A track dozer with a 140 HP engine is recommended. It should be equipped
with a roll over prevention (R.O.P.) enclosed cab, hot water heat, and a heavy-
duty undercarriage. Accessories needed include a ripper bar, a landfill blade,
front and rear lights, and a radio with a public address system (in order to
communicate with truck drivers). The dozer can be used for trench excavation,
and will be used for compacting and covering waste at the end of each operating
day.
- 93 -
-------
FIGURE 18
REGIONAL LANDFILL (SOUTHEAST DELTA)
SITE PLAN
MILLARD COUNTY, UTAH
DRAINAGE DITCH
1 INCH-APPROXIMATELY 440 FEET
I
FUTURE
COMPACTABLE
WASTE TRENCHES
BULKY
WASTE TRENCHES
u
QRAVEL ROAD
N
/N
DRAINAGE
DIRECTION
GATE
COMPACTABLE
WASTE TRENCHES
UU
ANIMAL PITS
DD
STOCK FENCING
-94-
-------
Bulky Waste Disposal Site
The present Fillmore disposal area should be used as a disposal site for
bulky wastes produced in East Mil lard County. The area can potentially be oper-
ated as a full-service landfill, and serves as a back-up system for the regional
landfill in case of poor road conditions, collection equipment failure, future
waste volume increases, or population shifts. The site requires some clean up
work, which is described in the Closure and Clean Up section of this chapter.
This site will receive the contents of the roll-off containers located in
East Millard, and truck-load quantities of bulky wastes transported by private
interests. A dead animal pit will be maintained at the facility, with full-time
public access. This site will also be a limited access operation, which is not
generally open to the public. The proposed hours of operation are from 9:00
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., five days per week.
Using the current East Millard waste generation figures for bulky wastes,
about 5,300 yd3 will be produced in 1982. With a cover to waste ratio of 1:4,
approximately .5 acres will be required for 1982. This corresponds to approxi-
mately 300 feet of trench (see Appendix F for calculations). Diversion ditches
and partial fencing will be necessary. Figure 19 presents a site plan. This
site will also be operated as a trench landfill, with trenches running north to
south from the present lift. The excess fill generated by trench excavation
will be used as cover when the ramp method is employed on top of the trenched
area.
Staffing Requirements
The bulky waste site will be operated by the roll-off collection vehicle
driver, who will be assisted by the Open Dump Closure crew when necessary.
Daily waste cover is not required at bulky waste sites. Weekly cover was
assumed for cost estimation purposes.
Equipment Requirements
A track dozer, with the same specifications as noted for the regional land-
fill site dozer, will be used at this site. The loader described in the Open
- 95 -
-------
FIGURE 19
09
UJ
_l
i
IO
UJ
cc
o
5
J I
GARAGE
n
BULKY WASTE DISPOSAL (FILLMORE)
SITE PLAN
MILLARD COUNTY, UTAH
N
/N
STOCK FENCE
—* *
1 INCH - APPROXIMATELY 170 FEET
GRAVEL ROAD
1 MILE ->
0 -I.
2
z
dfl
en
GATE
PRESENT
DISPOSAL AREA
£ DRAINAGE DITCH
v
vo
CJl
I
FUTURE COMPACTABLE
WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
DRAINAGE
DIRECTION
-------
Dump Closure section can be driven between all disposal sites and used to exca-
vate trenches or diversion ditches.
Disposal Costs
Table 14 presents costs associated with the regional landfill and bulky
waste site. These costs reflect a full year of operation, beginning after the
system has been implemented. Again, site development costs have been itemized
in Table 15, Implementation Costs, so Table 14 does not represent total
disposal-related costs. Assumptions regarding amortization, efficiency, fringe
benefits, and machinery maintenance are identical to those made in determining
collection costs.
Special Waste Disposal
Several wastes require specific disposal methods. For example, baling wire
and fencing materials are hard-to-handle wastes which can damage landfill equip-
ment. These materials should be condensed (by rolling, etc.) by the user, dis-
posed of in the roll-off system (if condensed to one cubic yard or less), and
deposited at the bottom of the bulky waste trenches. Then, construction and
demolition material can be placed over the waste, and it can be compacted and
covered with the dozer.
Concrete headgates, in small quantities, can be disposed of in roll-off
containers. Otherwise, truckloads can be hauled to the nearest disposal site,
and placed on the toe of the working face of the landfill. Concrete or asphalt
waste is excellent rip-rap and could be used to stabilize slopes at landfill or
open dump sites.
Dead animals can be transported to the nearest rendering plant, placed in a
landfill with other wastes, disposed of in a separate pit at a landfill, or
buried by an individual on private property. The nearest rendering plant for
Mil lard County use is located in Provo, and the transportation expense makes
this option impractical. The recommended method for the County is disposal in
separate pits located at the regional landfill and the bulky waste disposal site
in Fillmore. The animals would be covered daily with six inches of cover, and
- 97 -
-------
TABLE 14
DISPOSAL COST SUMMARY
REGIONAL (SOUTHEAST DETfAT SITE
1982 CAPITAL COSTS
Item
Equipment
Track Dozer (D-6)
Equipment Operation*
Dozer
Loader
Labor
Operator
Mechanic
Revegetation
Unit Cost
$101,OOO/ unit
1982 OPERATING COSTS
$15/hour
$15.30/hour
$12/hour
$12/hour
$2,640/acre
Units
1
Total Cost
$101,000
TOTAL $101,000
AMORTIZED $ 16,400
1,370
160
1,530
210
1.7
$ 20,600
$ 2,500
$ 18,400
$ 2,500
$ 4,500
TOTAL $ 48,500
TOTAL ANNUAL COST $ 64,900
- 98 -
-------
Item
Equipment
Track Dozer (D-6)
Equipment Operation*
Dozer
Labor
Operator
Mechanic
Revegetation
TABLE 14 (cont.)
DISPOSAL COST SUMMARY
BULKY WASTE SITE (FILLMORE)
1982 CAPITAL COSTS
Unit Cost
$101,000/unit
Units
1
Total Cost
$101,000
TOTAL $101,000
AMORTIZED $ 16,400
1982 OPERATING COSTS
$15/hour
$10/hour
$10/hour
$2,640/acre
310
310
210
$ 4,700
$ 3,100
$ 2,100
0.5 $ 1.500
TOTAL $ 11,400
TOTAL ANNUAL COST $ 27,800
TOTAL DISPOSAL COST $ 92,700
Includes trenching, compacting, and covering
- 99 -
-------
two feet of final cover. Disposal by individuals on private property is accept-
able if the owner can ensure that ground or surface water contamination is not
likely to occur.
Spray services based at the Delta Airport are the primary source of pesti-
cide containers, another special waste. Certain pesticide and container resi-
dues should be treated as a hazardous waste. The recommended method of disposal
is to return the material and/or empty containers to the manufacturer, distribu-
tor, or another party capable of using it. Otherwise, Federal regulations
(which are generally printed directly on approved pesticide containers) must be
followed for disposal. Empty containers (tanks, barrels, etc.) can be buried on
farm premises, if no threat to ground or surface water exists. The preferred
disposal method is triple rinsing, as described in Federal EPA regulations
(explained in EPA publication SW-519). The collected rinsate should be utilized
to dilute new batches of pesticide. Containers can be crushed at the landfill
and disposed of with other compactable waste or recycled at a scrap metal yard.
\
Currently, one septic sludge pumper operates in the study area. This
waste is primarily disposed of at existing sewage treatment facilities in Delta
or Fillmore, or less frequently, spread on the pumper's land. Currently, the
sewage treatment facilities can handle the quantity of septic pumpings pro-
duced. However, as the County grows, this method may not remain practical. If
so, landspreading may be used. If landfilling is utilized, a separate area can
be designated as a septage pit.
Scrap automobiles are another special waste. Landfills often do not accept
automobiles, due to the large amount of space required for storage, and problems
encountered with burial. The ideal procedure would be would be scrap metal
reclamation. However, transportation costs to distant markets make this option
impractical, unless large quantities of vehicles are accumulated. Then, an auto
crushing unit from Salt Lake City could be contracted, and the compacted vehi-
cles transported via Salt Lake City to scrap metal markets. Scrap vehicles can
be stored at the Delta or Fillmore bulky waste disposal sites, prior to
crushing. Storage of vehicles at these sites will allow cost efficient crushing
and subsequent transportation.
- 100 -
-------
Hospital wastes are the final type of special waste to be discussed. The
hospital in Delta produces pathological and bacteriological wastes. Patholog-
ical wastes, such as tissues, should- be incinerated at the hospital or trans-
ported to another hospital equipped with an incinerator. Ash may be landfil-
led. Bacteriological waste should be autoclaved or disinfected by other means,
prior to disposal at the regional landfill.
The solid waste ordinance suggested in a following section should include
explicit provisions for handling special wastes.
D. Open Dump Closure Procedures
The purpose of the clean up and closure of the existing open dump sites is
to consolidate, compact, and cover the waste, in order to protect public health
and surface and ground water resources and restore the land. A closure method
was developed for each site type, and the associated costs are estimated. Site
types have been discussed in Chapter III. It must be emphasized that present
open dumps should not be closed to public use until the waste collection system
is operable, in order to prevent the creation of more open dumps or roadside
disposal.
Staffing Requirements
The open dump closure crew will consist of two full-time employees, respon-
sible for closure and maintenance of dump sites. The basic skills required are
truck and heavy equipment operating experience, and knowledge of preventive
maintenance for equipment. These employees will work approximately four days
per week on site clean up and closure, for approximately two and one-half
years. They will also serve as a back-up crew for the roll-off driver, side-
load driver and landfill operator (foreman). They should be trained to operate
all landfill equipment and drive the collection routes. As open dump closure
ends, these employees will shift their activities to waste collection and dis-
posal in order to service the growing population. The crew will also provide
flexibility during periods of high volume, inclement weather conditions, vaca-
tions etc.
- 101 -
-------
Equipment Requirements
The required equipment includes:-
- A front loader (rubber-tired, with a 3-cubic yard bucket);
- A used farm tractor (equipped with a front loader with hay forks); and
- A large tandem dump truck.
Closure Methods
Type I Sites
This procedure is applicable to the Sutherland, Deseret, Deseret-Oasis,
Hinckley, and Holden dump sites. Closure involves the construction of two
parallel berms, two to three feet high, and 50 to 60 feet apart, on the highest
ground available on the site. This may require removal of waste from the berm
construction area. Berms must be long enough to contain all waste at the site.
Waste will be disposed of on the ground surface due to the high seasonal ground
water table at these sites. The next step involves separating the bulky wastes;
auto bodies, farm equipment, and white goods should be placed together near the
bermed area. Wire should be deposited between the berms, and covered first with
compactable waste, and then demolition and construction waste, which can be com-
pacted with a crawler dozer. Concrete and asphalt waste can be used to cover
the compacted material, or to fill onsite trenches, if present. The deposited
waste should be covered with two feet of final cover. The final grade of the
site should be such that surface water will not collect at the base of the dis-
posal site.
The Meadow and Flowell sites have on-site trenches used for waste dispos-
al. Closure for these sites includes the placing of waste (excluding auto
bodies) into available trenches, and application of final cover. Additional
trenches must be excavated if necessary.
Concrete and asphalt debris can be used to cover the compacted material , or to
fill onsite trenches, if present. The deposited waste should be covered with
two feet of final cover. The final grade of the site should be such that sur-
face water will not collect at the base of the disposal site.
- 102 -
-------
Type II Sites
The Oak City, Scipio, Kanosh and Fillmore sites have been designated as
this type. For the Oak City and Kanosh sites, a trench 10 feet aeep, thirty
feet wide, and the required length should be excavated in a central part of the
site. Waste (excluding auto bodies, white goods, farm equipment, etc.) can be
placed in the trenches, compacted, and covered with soil excavated from the
trenches. Finally, the area should be contoured to divert surface water around
the trench site.
Scipio and Fillmore sites may be closed by pushing all waste (excluding car
bodies, etc.) to the foot of the present lift, compacting it, and contouring the
waste to a moderate grade. Two feet of final cover should be applied. Off-site
cover procurement may be necessary at the Scipio site.
Type III Sites
V
The third type of closure applies to the Leamington, Lynndyl, and Delta
sites. The Leamington and Lynndyl sites have natural drainages into which waste
has been disposed. It is recommended that all waste (excluding auto bodies,
etc.) be pushed into the drainage in use. The waste should then be compacted,
covered with a minimum of two feet of soil, and the area contoured to prevent
erosion. Ditches will be necessary to divert runoff around the disposal area so
that surface water does not contact the disposal area. Waste concrete and
asphalt from other sites may be used as riprap to aid in erosion control. Off-
site cover procurement will be necessary. Clean up at the Delta site involves
pushing all waste (excluding car bodies and white goods) to the northwest end of
the site, and into the drainage. Trenches may be excavated at the east end of
the site (for a rubble dump) and the excess soil can be used to cover waste in
the northwest drainage. The covered waste should be compacted and contoured,
and broken concrete and asphalt should be used as riprap, to prevent erosion.
Costs
The cost associated with closure of the open dump sites discussed above is
estimated to be $212,700, or approximately $150 per acre. Capital costs are
- 103 -
-------
itemized in Table 15, which presents the estimated open dump closure cost for
the first operating year. Capital costs have been amortized at 10% over 10
years. Although the estimated time required to close all sites is three years,
it was assumed that the County will retain the loader, dump truck, and tractor
for landfill use or alternate County projects.
Following field investigation of all open dump sites, it was estimated
that, on the average, 1.5 acres of open dump could be closed in one working
day. This figure includes travel time, equipment operation at the site, and an
80 per cent efficiency factor for labor and equipment operation. If 1.5 acres
per day can be closed, a total of 933 working days (or 7,465 hours) is required
for the entire task.
An hourly equipment operating cost of $11.20 per hour was applied to the
7,465 hours, resulting in a cost of $83,600. This $11.20/hour figure reflects
equal use of the loader and dump truck, with half-time use of the tractor. The
labor cost of $74,700 is based on a $10/hour rate for equipment operators.
Table 15 illustrates capital and operating costs for the first year. Oper-
ating costs are based on the labor and equipment operation hours available after
waste collection and disposal and equipment maintenance are performed. An
assumption of four and one half available workers was made, as the foreman will
spend approximately one half of his time performing administrative duties.
After deleting vacation hours, 3,075 hours were available for the first opera-
ting year for dump closure. As open dump closure phases out, the available
labor hours will be needed to accomodate the County's increasing waste load due
to population growth.
E. Alternative Management Structures
Three basic institutional alternatives exist for implementing and managing
the recommended solid waste managment plan: 1) sole responsibility resting with
the County Commissioners; 2) formation of a Solid Waste Advisory Committee,
reporting to the County Commissioners; and 3) formation of a special solid waste
district. The first alternative would focus all solid waste decision-making
authority on the County Commissioners and County administrative personnel. The
- 104 -
-------
TABLE 15
OPEN DUMP CLOSURE COST SUMMARY
1982 CAPITAL COSTS
Item
Unit Cost
Units
Total Cost
Equipment
Loader
Dump Truck
(8-cy)
Tractor (with
front-loader)
$45,000/unit
$lb,OUO/unit
unit 1
nit 1
nit 1
TOTAL
AMORIZEDl
1982 OPERATING COSTS
$100,000
$45,000
$15,000
$160,000
$26,000
Equipment Operation
Loader $15/hour
Dump Truck $10/hour
Tractor $6/hour
1060
1060
530
$15,yuu
$!0,faUU
$j,200
Labor
Operators
Mechanic
$10/hour
$10/hour
2,655 $26,buO
420 $ 4.200
TOTAL $60,500
TOTAL ANNUAL COST $86,500
1 Capital costs are amortized at 10 per cent interest over 10 years
- 105 -
-------
Commissioners would be responsible for financial and budget considerations,
ensuring that the system operates properly, and planning for future modifica-
tions and expansions.
The second alternative consists of the formation of a Solid Waste Advisory
Board which would be responsible for developing recommendations for financial,
operational , and planning needs for solid waste. This Board would consist of
members from each of the incorporated and unincorporated areas within the
County; representation would be determined on an equitable basis. The Board
would meet periodically (on the order of once per month), oversee the solid
waste management system, and would report to the County Commissioners on a
quarterly or more frequent basis. The County Commissioners would retain ulti-
mate decision-making authority over solid waste management operations in the
County.
Establishing a formalized special solid waste district under Article XLV,
Section 8 of the Utah Constitution, would be the third institutional alterna-
tive. Voter approval would be necessary to establish the district. The dis-
trict would be administered by a Board of Directors whose members would either
be elected by the District populace or appointed by the County Commissioners.
The District would have taxation powers, bond-issuing authority, and the power
to collect fees. Although the district would be accountable for all aspects of
solid waste management, ultimate decision-making authority would remain with the
County Commissioners (See Appendix E for a more detailed discussion of Solid
Waste Districts). Any of the three management systems described above could be
used in conjunction with either public or private operation.
Sole responsibility of the County Commissioners for solid waste management
has a major advantage in that County-wide governmental services are consoli-
dated. However, the County Commissioners' responsibilities are presently exten-
sive and are increasing rapidly as a result of the growth occurring in the
County. The formation of a Solid Waste Advisory Board would delegate some of
the County Commissioners' workload to the Board. The Board's membership struc-
ture would ensure that each town/area within the County has input into the solid
waste management sytem. Additionally, the Board's members would acquire experi-
ence in solid waste issues, resulting in a well-managed County-wide system.
- 106 -
-------
Districts have the advantage of establishing financial autonomy for the
solid waste management system from other competing County demands for funds.
Theoretically, a district would be the'most efficient institutional system, as
the sole purpose of the district is to manage solid waste operations. The dis-
advantages of a district would include: uncertainity regarding the formation of
a district, as voter approval is required; need for significant time to imple-
ment a district (usually ranging from 6 months to two years or greater); and
addition of another distinct level of taxing authority to the County.
The second alternative, the formation of a Solid Waste Advisory Board, is
the recommended institutional method, as it combines most of the positive
features associated with the direct County Commissioner and district alterna-
tives, and alleviates many of the problems. It eliminates the uncertainity
associated with voter approval, expedites implementation of the County's solid
waste management system, and offers a sound management resource to the County
Commissioners. Furthermore, this alternative is flexible, as the Solid Waste
Advisory Board could provide the nucleus of a solid waste district if a decision
is made to choose that option in the future.
One of the first actions of the Solid Waste Advisory Board should be the
hiring of a full-time, professional General Manager. The General Manager will
manage the day-to-day operations of the system, be responsible for the budget,
and be an expert in collection and disposal techniques. The General Manager
would be responsible to, and report directly to, the Solid Waste Advisory
Board. The following schematic illustrates the proposed institutional
structure:
County Commissioners
Solid Waste Advisory Board - County Administrator
I
General Manager
Collection and Disposal Personnel
- 107 -
-------
The General Manager would preferably have experience in an administrative/
supervisory capacity in a comparable position. Technical expertise in solid
.vaste collection and disposal and working knowledge of state and federal solid
waste regulations is preferred, but administrative, organizational, and super-
visory skills are more important. Specific duties of the General Manager are
outlined below:
Overall system administration and operation;
Work scheduling;
Facility inspections;
Hiring, supervision, and training of employees;
Public relations;
Record keeping;
Budgeting/cost accounting;
Safety considerations.
The General Manager should be hired at the initiation of the implementation
phase as this employee is the focal point for all solid waste activities.
It is recommended that the system be operated by the County rather than
through a lease or contractual agreement with a private operator. Historical-
ly, public solid waste operations have been regarded as being less expensive
than private operations (due to a tax free and non-profit status) and more
responsive to public demands. Private operations, particularly in the collec-
tion area, have increased significantly in the last few years. In many cases,
private operations are considered to be more efficient.
Millard County's solid waste system, if implemented, managed, and operated
properly, should be less expensive operated publically rather than privately.
No private operators currently exist in the area with the size and expertise to
handle Millard County's system. Additionally, implementing a new system such as
Millard County's would entail a high risk on the part of a private operator. A
County-run operation would provide more flexibility, better public relations
(eductional and awareness programs), and better enforcement of solid waste ordi-
nances through the County Sheriff's office. Flexibility is available within the
- 108 -
-------
recommended plan for contracting out portions of the solid waste operations if
the Solid Waste Advisory Board and General Manager determine that it is appro-
priate.
One very necessary element of a solid waste management system is a solid
waste ordinance which provides a mechanism for controlling the collection and
disposal of all solid wastes within the County. Consequently, the ordinance
must be carefully drafted to include all the essential ingredients for Millard
County's system. The Sheriff's office should be responsible for enforcement of
the ordinance.
The ordinance should address such items as the powers and duties of the
Solid Waste Advisory Board and the General Manager, time and frequency of col-
lection for various types of wastes, wastes allowed and prohibited from certain
containers, fees, etc. A model ordinance which can be utilized by Millard
County as a guideline for developing its own specific ordinance is included as
Appendix G. The provisions regarding special wastes detailed previously in this
Chapter should be incorporated into the County's ordinance.
F. Alternative Financing Strategies
The general financing alternatives available to the County are described in
Appendix E. These methods include the use of current revenue, long-term bor-
rowing, leasing, or obtaining state or Federal assistance. When the Solid Waste
Plan is near the implementation stage, a financial consultant may be required to
provide detailed financial planning assistance. However, some observations and
recommendations can be made at this time. The sources of funding will be
discussed according to applicability to capital and operating expenditures.
Capital Costs
Potential sources for capital expenditures are current County revenue (a
sales tax, property tax, special assessment tax, or IPP impact funds), or reve-
nue or general obligation bonds. Property taxes will be utilized to some
extent, as current County general funds will probably be necessary to assist in
covering initial capital costs.
- 109 -
-------
An increase in property taxes is felt by County officials to be an inequit-
able method of financing solid waste, as property owners pay a disproportionate
share of the expense. A special assessment tax is possible, if a solid waste
district is established. However, at this time, a district is not recommended
for the County. In the future, the County may wish to organize a district and
obtain taxing authority.
Funds may be available through receipt of IPP "impact funds," which are
derived from a use tax levied on the facility. The County estimates that it
will receive $150,000 to $200,000 for 1982, which is designated for a County
jail project. Future impact funds may be available for solid waste financing,
as the County has indicated that it is a high priority.
Long-term borrowing may be necessary. At the present time, the County has
nearly reached its limit for general obligation bonding, as bonding has occurred
for the proposed jail and courthouse. However, the County's assessed valuation
will increase in 1983. County officials feel that bonding to finance a solid
waste project might not receive public support at this time. A revenue bond,
pledging user fees for repayment, could also be used, although this type of bond
has historically been more difficult to market.
State or Federal funding assistance is not available for solid waste pro-
jects currently, or in the near future, as both Federal and State governments
have directed all funds to hazardous waste management efforts. Leasing equip-
ment is one means to reduce initial capital outlays, and is currently quite
advantageous for the public sector, due to the Economic Recovery Tax Act of
1981. This option should be explored by the County.
Operating Costs
The most probable source of funds for these expenses is current revenues
from the County's general fund. It is recommended that user fees be collected,
enabling a fairly equitable distribution of charges. Residential users would be
charged a household fee based on the percentage of collection and disposal costs
associated with residential waste (both compactable and bulky). Commercial
accounts could be charged an equivalent fee per greenbox, based upon the fre-
quency of service. The rate structure will be established by the general
- 110 -
-------
manager and Solid Waste Advisory Board. However, the rate should be increased
by the current inflation rate, yearly. It is necessary to charge generators of
large quantities of bulky wastes a disposal fee for rubble dump use. One method
would be the addition of a Solid Waste fee to the current building permits which
are required in the County.
Residential users should be billed quarterly or yearly, in order to mini-
mize billing costs. Incorporated areas could utilize each city or town's cur-
rent billing system. For example, a solid waste fee could be added to the sewer
and water bill. This would involve the city governments in the solid waste
system and consolidate billing duties, which should decrease expenses. Residen-
tial users living in unincorporated areas of the County would be billed yearly,
possibly by including a bill with tax notices.
Commercial accounts would be billed monthly or quarterly by the County.
The secretary included in the staff requirements would be responsible for this
task. This County billing system may be used far all residential users, if the
previously described billing methods are not practical. The user fee could be
adjusted to a rate higher than the actual collection and disposal costs, in
order to generate excess revenue for future capital expenditures. These reve-
nues should be maintained separately from the general fund, if this occurs.
In conclusion, the system's initial capital costs would be most optimally
financed through IPP impact funds, supplemented by other revenues in the
County's general fund. As the assessed valuation in the County is increasing,
these sources may prove adequate. If not, a general obligation bond is probably
the most practical additional source. User fees should be charged to generate
funds for amortized capital and operating expenses.
Cost Summary
The costs incurred by the County to operate the recommended system consist
of collection, disposal, and open dump closure expenditures. However, for
approximately six months before the system is in full operation (and generating
revenue through user fees), certain expenditures related to plan implementation
will be required. These costs, summarized in Table 16, include site development
- Ill -
-------
TABLE 16
IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
Item
Site Development
Roll -off System
Land (.25 acre/site)
Grading, Gravelling,
Ramp Construction
Regional Landfi 1 1
Road Grading, Gravel lingl
Drainage Ditches2
Shelter3
Fencing
Stock
Litter4
Gates
Wells (monitoring)
Bulky Waste Site
Road Grading,
Gravelling
Drainage Ditches
Shelter (400 sq. ft.)
Fencing (stock)
Gate
Wells
Engineering Feesb
Administrative Costs
General Manager
Foreman
Secretary
Unit Cost
-
$l,000/acre
$5,000/site
$10,000/mile
$.25/yd3
$75,000/unit
52.30/ft.
$ll/ft.
$500/unit
$500/unit
$10,000/mile
$.25/yd3
$8,500/unit
$2.30/ft.
$500/unit
$500/unit
-
$14.50/hr.
$12/hr.
$8/hr.
Units
2.25
9
0.3
800
1
9250
150
2
2
0.3
1,200
1
3,300
1
2
SUBTOTAL
Lump Sum
1,040
1,040
1,040
TOTAL
AMORTIZED6
Total Cost
$2,301)
$45,OOU
$3,UOO
$200
$75,000
$21,300
$1,700
$1,OUO
$1,000
$3,000
$300
$8,bUO
$7,600
$500
$1,000
$1/1,400
$17,100
$15,100
$12,t)OU
$8,300
$224,400
$ 36,500
1 30 feet wide, one foot depth of gravel.
2 Ditches are two feet deep.
3 Garage and Office, 3,000 sq. ft.
4 Ten feet high, 30 foot sections.
5 10% site development costs.
6 Amortized at 10 per cent interest over 10 years.
- 112 -
-------
expenses and administrative salaries. These costs have been displayed separate-
ly to emphasize their significance, as they are large enough to delay operation
of the system. These costs have been, amortized at 10 per cent interest over 10
years.
Table 17 summarizes the capital and operating expenses for the first opera-
ting year, after collection and disposal systems are in place. The total cost
of $429,900 can be used to estimate user fees.
In determining a fee for residential users, a total County household quan-
tity of 2,475 was used. This incorporates the 1980 census figure of 2,255
housing units, and reflects a 30 per cent increase in housing units in Delta and
Hinckley from 1980 to 1982 (as indicated by County officials). No growth esti-
mates for the remainder of the County was made. In Chapter III, it was assumed
that 44 per cent (by weight) of the total County waste stream was contributed by
residential users. The approximate cost per year per household would then be:
V
($429,800) (.44)
= $76/year or about $6.30/month
(2,475 households)
This cost assumes payment of both capital and operating costs by user
fees. If operating costs alone are used to estimate a residential user fee, the
rate is $48 per year, or $4 per month. This cost will decrease as the number of
residents increases. An annual commercial rate can be established by dividing
the commercial fraction of the total annual cost (32 per cent) by the total
number of establishments requiring service, when this information becomes avail-
able. As mentioned previously, private contractors should be charged for col-
lection and/or disposal of demolition/construction debris, possibly by adding a
solid waste fee to the building permit.
The solid waste management system has been designed to meet both 1982 and
1987 (peak year) requirements for equipment and labor, with a minimum of excess
capacity or additional capital expenditures. The total County population is
estimated to increase by 56 per cent from 1982 to 1987, then decline by 17 per
cent from 1987 to 1990, and increase by 28 per cent from 1990 to the year 2000
- 113 -
-------
Item
Implementation
Collection
Disposal
Open Dump Closure
TABLE 17
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
' MILLARD COUNTY, UTAJT
TOTAL ANNUAL CGST SUMMARY
1982 CAPITAL COSTS
Total
$224,400
$405,500
$202,000
SUBTOTAL $831,900
$160,000
TOTAL $991,900
Collection
Disposal
Open Dump Closure
Administrative Costs
Labor
General Manager
Foreman^
Secretary
Billing
OPERATING COSTS
TOTAL
Amortized*
$36,500
366,000
$32,900
$135,400
$26.000
$161,400
TOTAL
$87,200
$59,900
$60,500
$30,200
$12,500
$16,600
$1,500
$268,400
$429,800
1 Amortized at 10 per cent interest over 10 years.
2 Remainder of salary is included in disposal costs.
- 114 -
-------
(see Figure 1-A). The total population increase from 1987 to 2000 is estimated
at six per cent.
Some general projections may be -nade concerning the expected cash *1 ow
during the 20-year study period. After the initial capital investment in 1982,
the amortized capital cost will remain constant for ten years, the estimated
average life of the equipment. It will be necessary to purchase additional
greenbox and roll-off containers during this time period. A relatively high
amount of maintenance time has been built into the system to maximize equipment
life. In approximately ten years, the tilt-frame vehicle and one side-loading
vehicle will need to be replaced, as well as most landfill equipment.
The operating costs involved in collection and disposal are estimated to
increase by 51 per cent from 1982 to 1987. An operating cost increase was
derived from averaging the operating cost increases in Options 2 and 4 described
in Chapter V, which are most similar to the recommended plan. (Appendix E
contains cost estimates for greenbox and roll-off collection, landfill opera-
tion, etc., for Options 1 through 5.) From 1982 to approximately 1985, the
available man and equipment hours will be utilized in waste collection and dis-
posal, and open dump closure. When open dump closure is complete, the extra
capacity in the system will shift to collection and disposal. The peak year,
1987, will require efficient operation, with some overtime. After 1987, the
labor and equipment needs will decrease, and one less full-time employee will be
needed from approximately 1988 to 1995. By the year 2000, equipment and labor
needs, and the corresponding operating costs, should build up to beyond the
"peak" year requirements. However, the cost per capita will decrease as popula-
tion increases.
6. Implementation Schedule
The steps required to reach full operating capacity are outlined below. An
approximate timetable is provided, which lists starting and finishing dates.
Figure 20 illustrates the steps, which may overlap or coincide.
- 115 -
-------
FIGLRE 20
IMPUMN1ATIGN SOiffiUlE
SCLID HISTE MWAGBCNT PLAN
MILLAR) COUNTY, UTW
1. Adoption of System
2. Formation of Advisory Board, determination of financing methods
3. Hiring of General Manager and system personnel, purchasing of
equipment
4. Formation of solid waste regulations
5. Development of container and landfill sites
6. Planning of "Public Clean-up
Day"
I—>
7. Dispersal of
containers, "Clean-up"
takes place
8. Full
opera-
tion of
system
9. Closure
of open
dumps
June 1, 1982
10
12
Time (Months)
August 1, 1983
- 116-
-------
Time
(Months)
Start Finish
1. The County and municipalities make a collective decision 0 2
at a public meeting on adoption of the system (participa-
tion, city and County roles, etc.)
2. The Solid Waste Advisory Board is established and fi- 2 6
nancing methods are determined.
3. A General Manager is hired. The Manager hires additional 6 12
personnel and purchases collection and landfill equipment.
4. County-wide solid waste regulations are established and 6 12
adopted.
\
5. Container and disposal sites are located, and preparatory 8 12
work performed by personnel. Engineering work is done on
landfill sites, and a contract negotiated for building
construction. Present Fillmore and Delta disposal sites
are upgraded to receive bulky waste.
6. A "Public Clean Up" day is planned, in order to remove 11 12
in-place bulky waste from residences before the system
is fully implemented.
7. Collection containers (greenboxes and roll-offs) are 12 14
dispersed first in West Mi Hard, then in East Mi Hard.
The clean up day takes place and waste is disposed of at
the Delta and Fillmore bulky waste sites.
8. The system is in full operation, with disposal at the 14
Southeast Delta site, Fillmore site, and present Delta
disposal site.
- 117 -
-------
Time
(Months)
Start Finish
9. Present open dumps are closed for public use. Clean up 14 50
of remaining open dump sites occurs, in the following
order; Hinckley, Lynndyl, Oak City, Scipio, Holden,
Kanosh, Meadow, Flowell, Sutherland-Sugarville, Deseret-
Oasis, Deseret, Delta.
- 118 -
-------
REFERENCES
1. Baum and Parker. Solid Waste Disposal. Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Science
Publishers, Inc., 1974.
2. Brunner, D.R., and-Keller, O.J. Sanitary Landfill Design and Operation.
Washington: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs, EPA SW-65ts., 1972.
3. Caterpillar Performance Handbook. Peoria: Caterpillar Tractor Company,
1980.
4. Cost Reference Guide for Construction Equipment. Palo Alto, California:
Equipment Guidebook Co., 1981.
5. Englesman, C. 1981 Heavy Construction Cost File. New York: Van
Nostrand-Rheinhold Company, 1981.
6. Godfrey, J.A., editor-in-chief. Building Construction Cost Data 1981.
39th ed., Kingston, MA: Robert Snow Means Company, Inc., 1980.
7. Goldberg, T.L. Improving Solid Waste Management Practices. Washington:
U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency,OfficeofSolidWaste Management
Programs, EPA SW-107, 1973. v
8. Hegdahl, Solid Waste Transfer Stations. Washington: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Report (SW-99), 1973.
9. McMahon, L.A. 1981 Dodge Guide to Public Works and Heavy Construction
Costs. 13th Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Information Systems Company, 1980.
10. Mower, R.W. Basic Data Report #5, Selected Hydro!ogic Data, Pavant Valley,
Mi Hard County. Utah. U.S. Geological Survey, 1963.
11. Mower, R.W. "Ground Water Resources, Pavant Valley, Utah." U.S.6.S. Water
Supply Paper #1794. U.S. Geological Survey, 1965.
12. Mower, R.W., and Feltis, R.D. Basic Data Report #9. Sevier Desert. Utah.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1965.
13. Mower, R.W., and Feltis, R.D. "Ground Water Hydrology of the Sevier
Desert." U.S.G.S. Water Supply Paper 11854. U.S. Geological Survey, 1968.
14. Richardson, A. Utah State Climatologist, Salt Lake City, Utah. Personal
Communication, September, 1981.
15. Stott, L.H. Soil Survey of Delta Area, Utah, Part of Millard County.
National Cooperative Soil Survey, 1977.
16. Wilson, LeMoyne. Soil Survey, East Millard Area, Utah. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1958.
- 119 -
-------
APPENDIX A
STATE OF UTAH
CODE OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
REGULATIONS
-------
UTAH STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
DIVISION OF HEALTH
CODE OF
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL REGULATIONS
Adopted by
Utah State Board of Health
Under Authority of
26-15-5, U.C.A., 1953, As Amended,
July 17, 1974
CERTIFIED OFFICIAL COPY
UTAH STATE BOARD OF HEALTH
Effective Date August 14. 1974
- 121 -
-------
FOREWORD
These regulations are for the purpose of establishing
minimum requirements for the disposal of solid wastes in Utah.
The term "solid wastes" means garbage, trash and other wastes
generated by daily living processes and also includes those
produced in commercial, industrial and agricultural operations.
The growing volume of these wastes and the often haphazard
methods of getting rid of them have resulted in rapid multipli-
cation of the associated problems through the years, until it
became obvious in Utah, as across the nation, that a positive
management program would be essential.
Open dumping and intermittent burning of solid wastes,
particularly those of municipal origin, has been the pattern
in the past, leading to the increasingly undesirable effects
of fly and rodent breeding, air pollution, water pollution,
and aesthetic blight. This undesirable method of disposal
has resulted partly from lack of specific controls and partly
because of a relatively low cost.
While it is acknowledged that compliance with these regula-
tions will result in added expense to local government and others
involved, it is considered essential to proceed without delay in
correcting the obvious problems which now exist in many areas of
the State. An added benefit will be the opportunity of conserv-
ing the nations natural resources through recycling of useable
materials.
The regulations are based on Statutory Authority and responsi-
bility conferred by Section 26-15-5, UCA, 1953, as amended, and
are enforceable throughout the State. They are designed for
adoption and enforcement by local health departments in cooperation
with the State Division of Health.
In adopting these regulations, the State Board of Health
acknowledges a need for time to bring existing facilities up to
standard and has instructed the staff to work cooperatively in
development of reasonable construction schedules, with limits
which assure elimination of existing hazards and environmental
blights without undue delay, but which also recognize the diffi-
culties faced by local governments in raisina funds and develop-
ing regional solutions to problems.
- 122 -
-------
CODE OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL REGULATIONS
DEFINITIONS
The following definitions shall apply 1n the Interpretation and
enforcement of this code.
Board means the Utah State Board of Health
Division means the Utah State Division of Health
Hazardous Wastes means all waste materials considered to be excessively
toxic or poisonous, corrosive, irritating or sensitizing, radioactive,
biologically Infectious, explosive or flammable, or other materials
as determined by the Board.
Person includes bodies politic and corporate, partnerships, associa-
tions and companies.
Shall is used to indicate mandatory requirements.
Solid Wastes includes hazardous wastes and means any discarded organic
matter, garbage, refuse, trash, and other solid materials resulting
from industrial, commercial, recreational ahd agricultural operations
and from community activities, and shall include liquid or semi-liquid
wastes accumulated in vehicle waste tanks or transported by tank truck
or other similar means.
INDISCRIMINATE DUMPING '
1. It shall be unlawful for any person to deposit any solid waste 1n
any place except at a site which has been designated by a city,
county, district or other properly designated agency, and approved
by the Utah State Division of Health. This requirement does not
include the deposition of inert construction debris used as fill
material or mine tailings and overburden, provided such deposition
does not cause a public nuisance or hazard or contribute to air or
water pollution.
APPROVAL REQUIRED
2. No solid waste disposal site shall be constructed or operated
without the approval of the Division.
SUBMISSION OF PLANS
3. Design plans and related Information shall be submitted to the
Division for review and approval prior to the construction of any
solid waste disposal site. Such plans shall include the following:
- 123 -
-------
(a) A plat, map or aerial photograph upon which 1s accurately
shown the exact location of the proposed disposal site,
current land use, zoning within 1/4 mile of the site,
any homes, Industrial buildings, wells, watercourses,
surface drainage channels, rock outcropplngs, roads and
general topography.
(b) A report Including the following details:
(1) Population and area to be served by the proposed
rite.
(2) Total area of the proposed site.
(3) Special provisions for handling special and/or
hazardous wastes.
(4) Anticipated type, quantity and source of solid
waste to be deposited 1n the site.
(5) Soil description to a depth of at least five feet
below the proposed excavations, maximum ground water
elevations throughout the site and a general descrip-
tion of geology of the area. Such data shall be
obtained by soil borings, trenching or other appro-
priate means.
(6) Availability, source and characteristics of cover
material.
(7) Type and availability of equipment for efficient
excavating, earth moving, spreading, compaction and
other needs.
(8) Provisions for fire control, which may Include
arrangements made with the nearest fire department
to control any fires which may occur at the site.
(9) Evidence of year-round accessibility to the site,
to Include an all-weather road.
(10) Proposed fencing for control of access as well as
prevention of scattering of waste material by wind.
(11) Evidence of land ownership or lease agreement.
(12) Any other Information specifically requested by the
Division.
- 124 -
-------
PLAN APPROVAL
4. Upon approval of the plans and supporting Information, persons
concerned will be notified 1n writing by the Division. Approval
will Include appropriate limitations on types of waste to be
accepted. Construction shall not he started prior to receipt
of the written approval.
5. Plan approval will depend, 1n part, upon adequate Isolation,
avoidance of excessively Irregular topography, groundwater
elevations, extremely pervious soil formations, surface rock
formations and outcropplngs, and close proximity to natural
drainage channels. At least five feet of separation between
the bottom of disposal trenches and the highest groundwater
- elevation 1s deslreable. Exceptions to this rule will be
considered on Individual merit but only where the site can be
so modified as to demonstrably preclude any wetting of deposited
waste by groundwater.
SITE OPERATION
6. Each disposal site shall be operated as follows:
(a) At least six Inches of earth shall be placed after each
operating day over all waste material after compaction to
the smallest practical volume. A minimum of two feet of
earth shall be placed over any completed segment of the
site. Final grading shall provide effective surface drainage.
(b) The working face shall be limited to the smallest area
practical to confine the amount of exposed waste without
Interfering with effective operation procedure.
(c) Adequate equipment for trenching, compacting and covering
shall be available and 1n operating condition.
(d) Qualified personnel shall be at the site to supervise
activities during all hours of scheduled operation.
(e) Open burning shall not be permitted.
(f) Adequate fire protection shall be provided. This may Include
arrangements made with the nearest fire department to control
any fires which may occur at the site.
(g) Litter control along access roads and at the site shall be
accomplished by clean-up of the areas as often as necessary
to prevent unsightly conditions caused by blowing paper and
other misplaced refuse.
(h) Provisions for dust control at the site and along access
roads shall be Implemented as necessary.
- 125 -
-------
(1) The supervisor OP other appropriate person shall keep records
of the amounts of solid wastes accepted. This nay be done by
estimating area filled at the site, by measuring the volume of
waste deposited, or by weighing material brought to the site.
The amount and location of area completed shall be recorded
and kept on file.
(j) Appropriate rodent and insect control procedures stall be
Implemented as necessary.
HAZARDOUS AND SPECIAL WASTES -
7. If hazardous or special wastes are accepted at the site, proper
provisions shall be made for handling them. These provisions
shall include, where necessary, a separate area for disposal of
the wastes, designated by appropriate signs.
8. Hazardous wastes shall be covered immediately after dumping 1n
the designated area, with a minimum of six inches of cover material
to avoid danger to persons permitted in the area.
9. Certain bulky wastes, such as automobile bodies,'furniture and.
appliances should be crushed and then pushed onto the working
face near the bottom of the cell or into a separate disposal
area. Other bulky items, such as demolition and construction
debris, tree trunks or stumps and large timbers, should be pushed
onto the working face near the bottom of the cell or Into a
.separate disposal area.
10. Dead animals received at the site should be deposited onto the
working face at or near the bottom of the cell with other solid
wastes, or into a separate disposal area provided they are covered
immediately with six inches of earth to prevent odors and the
propagation and harborage of rodents and insects.
11. Water treatment plant and digested wastewater treatment .plant .
sludges containing no free moisture should be placed on the
working face and covered with municipal solid wastes. Raw
wastewater treatment plant sludges shall be classed as hazardous
wastes and shall be handled accordingly.
PHASING OUT OPEN DUMPS
12. Abandoned open dumps shall be closed in accordance with the
following requirements:
(a) Absence of rats and other vermin shall be positively
established. When rats or other vermin are present, an
extermination procedure shall be established and carried
out by qualified individuals prior to closing.
(b) All fires shall be extinguished before final cover of earth
is applied.
- 126 -
-------
(c) All solid waste shall be consolidated, compacted and covered
with at least two feet of-suitable cover material.
(d) The final grading shall be accomplished to provide proper
surface drainage and to avoid ponding.
(e) If feasible, the area should be planted with grass or other
vegetation.
OTHER PROCESSES, METHODS. AND EQUIPMENT
13. Processes, methods, and equipment other than those specifically
addressed in this Code will be considered on an individual basis
by the Division of Health upon submission of evidence of adequacy
to sset environmental quality criteria.
- 127 -
-------
APPENDIX B
UTAH STATE DIVISION OF HEALTH
SAMPLE
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
INSPECTION FORM
-------
Utah State Division of Health
Solid Waste Disposal Site Inspection Form
Day Month Year
Oats: [j] H,] [/] P] [7] |
Name o* Person Completing Form:
General Characteristics
Na.Tie of Site: _
Location of Site:
L=°.d Owner:
Ccerator of Site:
Local Health Jurisdiction
Communities or Industries Served:
ated Population Served: [][][][][][]
Type of Disposal Site: Land J?\l Incinerator [ ]
Other [ ]
Total Acreage of Disposal Site [][][]
Area Remaining: [][][] Acres
Topography of Site: Quarry or Borrow Pit [ ] Gully-Canyon \/\
Level Areas jj[f Hillside [ ]
Marsh or Floodplain [ J Other [ ]
Predominant type of Soil: Rock [ ] Gravel [ ]
Clay jA Sand
Loam [ ]
- 129 -
-------
Hazardous Waste
Hazardous Wastes Accepted at the Site:
Site Approved for Hazardous Waste Disposal:
Hazardous Waste Properly Handled and Covered:
Adequate Records Kept:
Separate Hazardous Disposal Area:
Access Controlled:
Quantities of Hazardous Wastes Received:
Operation
Days and Hours of Operation
Material Disposed:
Yes
[ ]
C ]
C ]
[ ]
[ 1
Mo
•" i
i- 1
C]
[]
C]
[]
C]
Garbage
Trees
Auto Bodies
Septic Tank
Sludge
Milled or Baled
Refuse
Industrial Waste [ ]
V]
Daily Cover:
Frequency of Cover:
[ ]
Yes
[ ]
Rubbish
Dead Animals
Construction Debri
Incinerator Ash
x
Other [ ]
&(
is^]
*i/L
Refuse Compacted Before Covering:
Type of Equipment Available: Tractor Crawler
Compactor
Other Type
Yes
C ]
[ ]
[']
C ]
•Nc
Grader
Dragline
- 130 -
-------
Access Roads Maintained in Good Condition:
Litter Absent On Approach Road:
Litter Absent On-Site:
Directional Signs Adequate: On-Site
To Site
Personnel Present During Hours of Operation:
Facilities Available for Personnel:
Salvaging Not Permitted:
Salvaged Materials Not Accumulated:
Site Adequately Fenced:
Adequate Gate:
Environmental Protection
Vector Problems Evident: Rats [ ] Flies j
Other [ ]
Other Problems Evident: Dust K/] Odors
No
C ]
C 1
[3
Mosquitoes [ ] Birds [ ]
Blowing Paper
Improperly Covered Dead Animals
Open Burning Prohibited:
Fire Protection:
Yes
[ ]
None
fj Water [ ] Firebreak [ ] Other [ ]
Yes
[ ]
Water Sources Adequately Protected:
Water Sources Which Are Not Adequately Protected:
Surface Water ,£\]
Intermittant Drainage JM Spring [ ]
No
C ]
Ground Water [ ]
Well [ ] Other
[ ]
- 131 -
-------
Distance in Feet to Nearest: Surface Water [ J [ ] [\]
Intermittant Drainage [][]'[] CQ) Spring [][][][]
Well [][][][] Other [][][][]
General Appearance: Sightly [ ] Unsightly [\
/\Yes No,
Site Location and Design Approved by State Division of Health [ ] [X\
Remarks
- 132 -
-------
APPENDIX C
POTENTIAL LANDFILL
SITE LOCATION AND EVALUATION
-------
POTENTIAL LANDFILL SITE LOCATION AND EVALUATION1
Site Location Eliminating Factor
1 T.21S., R.4W., S.16, S 1/2, SW 1/4, SE 1/4 None
2 T.19S., R.4W., S.35, N 1/2, NW 1/4 None
3 T.18S., R.6W., S.I, NE 1/4, NE 1/4 None
and SE 1/4, NE 1/4
4 T.17S., R.6W., S.23, NW 1/4, NE 1/4 None
and SW 1/4, NE 1/4
5 T.16S., R.6W., S.13, SE 1/4 None
6 T.16S., R.5W., S.7, SE 1/4 Soil
7 T.16S., R.5W., S.5, E 1/2 Haul Distance
8 T.15S., R.6W., S.35, N 1/2 Soil
9 T.15S., R.6W., S.29, N 1/2 Soil
10 T.15S., R.5W., S.33. NE 1/4 Haul Distance
11 T.17S., R.5W., S.7, W 1/2 Soil
12 T.17S., R.6W., S.12 Soil
13 T.19S., R.5W., S.25, N 1/4 Soil
14 T.17S., R.5W., S.12, SW 1/4 Haul Distance
15 T.18S., R.5W., S.3, E 1/2 Soil
16 T.17S., R.5W., S.23, NE 1/4 Soil
17 T.16S., R.4W., S.8, SE 1/4, SE 1/4 Topography
18 T.16S., R.4W., S.9, NW 1/4 Topography
19 T.22S., R.4W., S.13, E 1/2 Access
The accompanying map shows the approximate location of the sites
investigated. Eliminating factors are discussed in Chapter IV of the text.
- 134 -
-------
For example, soils were unsuitable in many locations due to their clean
sandy texture, which is conducive to leachate migration and is not satisfactory
cover material. Poor access (road conditions) and long haul distances led to
lower economic feasibility for other sites. Excessively steep topography, only
evident after field investigation, was also prohibitive in some areas. Although
these sites may demonstrate several other limiting factors, the primary factor
has been noted in the evaluation table.
- 135 -
-------
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL SITES
Millard County, Utah
R4 W
TI3S
LEGEND
KALI: 1 INCH* » KK.E3
DISPOSAL 3ITH
*"•
NATWMM. Fansr BOUNDARY
Coinrrr 9euna««r
.^0^
£7
•
fin
LA*** uie Rfs«i»vo««
- 136 -
l«rrt»fT»Tf
US Hl
ST»T»
Au.
OI»T
Ro«o
ROM
-------
APPENDIX D
GLOSSARY
-------
GLOSSARY
1
Abandoned Motor Vehicle—A motor vehicle that applicable laws deem to have been
abandoned.
Aerobic—The biological state of living and growing in the presence of oxygen.
Aggregate—Crushed rock or gravel screened to size for use in road surfaces, concrete,
or bituminous mixes.
Alkalinity—The measurable ability of solutions or aqueously suspended solids to neutralize
an acid.
Anaerobic—The biological state of living and growing in the absence of oxygen.
Angle of Repose—The maximum acute angle that the inclined surface of a pile of loosely
divided material can make with the horizontal.
Aquifer—Geologic formation that has a structure that permits appreciable water to move
through it under ordinary field conditions.
Backfill—The material used to refill a ditch or other excavation, or the process of doing
so.
Baler—A machine used to compress and bind solid waste or other materials.
Bearing Capacity—The maximum load that a material can support before failing.
Biodegradable—Capable of being decomposed by microorganisms.
Blade
Earth—A heavy broad plate that is connected to the front of a tractor and is used
to push and spread soil or other material.
Landfill—A U-blade with an extension on top which increases the volume of solid
wastes that can be pushed and spread by the tractor and protects the operator from
any debris thrown out of the solid waste.
{J-Blade—A dozer blade that protrudes forward at an obtuse angle to the blade, enabling
it to handle a larger volume of solid waste than a regular blade.
Bucket—An open container affixed to the movable arms of a wheeled or tracked vehicle
to spread solid waste and cover material, and to excavate soil (bucket loader).
Bull Clam—A hinged curved bowl on the top of the front of the blade of a tracked
vehicle.
Bulldozer—A tracked vehicle equipped with a blade.
Capillary Water—Underground water that is held above the water table by capillary
attraction.
Carbon Dioxide (CO,)—A colorless, odorless, and nonpoisonous gas that is produced
during the thermal degradation and microbial decomposition of the organic fraction of
solid wastes.
Cell—Compacted solid wastes that are enclosed by natural soil or cover material in a
sanitary landfill.
Cell Height—The vertical distance between the top and bottom of the compacted solid
waste enclosed by natural soil or cover material in a sanitary landfill.
Cell Thickness—The perpendicular distance between the cover materials placed over the
last working face of two successive cells in a sanitary landfill.
Chipper—A size-reduction device having sharp blades attached to a rotating shaft (mandrel)
that shave or chip off pieces of certain objects, such as tree branches or brush.
Clay—A fine-grained soil having liquid limits and plasticity indexes that plot above the
A-line on the Unified Soil Classification System plasticity chart.
Compactor—A vehicle with a blade and with steel wheels that have load concentrators
to provide compaction and a crushing effect.
Compost—Relatively stable decomposed organic material used to fertilize and condition
soil.
Cover Material—Soil that is used to cover compacted solid waste in a sanitary landfill.
Cut—Portion of a land surface or an area from which earth or rock has been or will
be excavated; the distance between an original ground surface and an excavated surface.
Cutoff Trench—A trench that is filled with material that is impermeable or very permeable
to the flow of gas or water. The barrier is used to prevent the movement of gas or
1 American Society of Civil Engineers. Sanitary Landfill. New York: ASCE
Solid Waste Management Committee of the Environmental Engineering Oiv-ision,
1976. " 138 "
-------
water or to intercept them and to direct them to another location (see Cos Barrier).
Demolition Waste—See Waste, Construction and Demolition.
Density (Sanitary Landfill)
Actual Refuse Density = weight of solid waste /volume of solid waste.
Apparent Refuse Density = weight of solid waste/volume of solid waste and soil.
Ftll Density or Combined = weight of solid waste and soil/volume of solid waste
and soil.
Dragline—A revolving shovel with a bucket attached only by cables that digs by pulling
the bucket toward itseif.
Drainage—Provision for directing the runoff that occurs from precipitation or overland
flow in such a way as to prevent contact with refuse or interference with landfill operations.
Dumping—An indiscriminate method of disposing of solid waste. To indicate unloading
or emptying of a container, use discharging.
Ecology—The science that deals with the interrelationships of organisms and their living
and nonliving surroundings.
Effluent—The substances that flow out of a designated source.
Effluent Seepage—Diffuse discharge onto the ground of liquids that have percolated through
solid waste or another medium; contains dissolved or suspended materials.
Engine Sldescreen—A rugged screen that fits on the engine housing of a vehicle used
at a sanitary landfill to keep paper and other objects from accumulating and damaging
the engine.
Environment—The conditions, circumstances, and influences surrounding and affecting
the development of an organism or group of organisms.
Face—See Working Face. 4
Field Capacity (of Solid Waste)—The amount of water retained in solid waste after it
has been saturated and has drained freely. Also known as moisture-holding capacity.
Fill—See Sanitary Landfill.
Fly Ash—All solids, including ash, charred paper, cinders, dust, soot, or other partially
incinerated matter, that are carried in a gas stream.
Food Processing Waste—Waste resulting from operations that alter the form or composition
of agricultural products for marketing purposes.
Food Waste—Animal and vegetable waste resulting from the handling, storage, sale,
preparation, cooking, and serving of foods; commonly called garbage.
Front End Loader—See Bucket.
Garbage—See Food Waste.
Gas Barrier—Any device or material used to divert the flow of gases produced in a
sanitary landfill or by other land disposal techniques (see Cutoff Trench).
Grader—A gas or diesei-powered pneumatic-wheeled machine equipped with a centrally
located blade that can be angled to case to either side.
Gradient—The degree of slope or a rate of change.
Gravel—Rock fragments from 2 mm-64 mm (0.08 in.-2.5 in.) in diameter; gravel mixed
with sand, cobbles, boulders, and containing no more than 15% of fines.
Grinding—The mechanical pulverization of solid waste (see Shredding).
Ground Water—Water that occupies the voids within a geologic stratum.
Ground-Water Runoff—That part of the ground water which is discharged into a stream
channel as spring or seepage water.
Grouser—A ridge or cleat that extends across a crawler tractor track to improve its
traction.
Grout—A cementing or sealing mixture of cement and water to which sand, sawdust.
or other fillers may be added.
HammermUl—A broad category of high-speed equipment that uses pivoted or fixed hammers
or cutters to crush, grind, chip, or shred solid wastes.
Hardpan—A hardened, compacted, or cemented soil layer.
Haul Distance—The distance that cover material must be transported from an excavation
or stockpile to the working face of a sanitary landfill.
Household Solid Waste—See Solid Waste, Residential.
Humus—Decomposed organic material.
Hydrogen Sulfide (H,S)—A poisonous gas with the odor of rotten eggs that is produced
from the reduction of sulfates in and the putrefaction of a sulfur-containing organic material.
- 139 -
-------
Hydrology—Science dealing with the properties, distribution, and flow of water on or
in the earth.
Impervious—Resistant to penetration by fluids or gases.
Infiltration—The process whereby some precipitation flows through the surface of the
ground.
Interflow—That portion of precipitation which infiltrates into the soil and moves laterally
under its surface until intercepted by a stream channel or until it resurfaces downslope
from its point of infiltration.
Intermittent Stream—A channel in which water sometimes flows.
Leachaie—That liquid which may migrate from within a land disposal site and which
has come in contact with the solid waste.
Lift—In a sanitary landfill, a compacted layer of solid wastes and the top layer of cover
material. A lift is usually composed of several cells.
Liner—Wantonly discarded material.
Loam—A soft easily worked soil containing sand, silt, and clay.
Lysimeter—A device used to measure the quantity or rate of water movement through
or from a block of soil or other material, such as solid waste, or used to collect percolated
water for quality analysis.
Manure—Primarily the excreta of animals; may contain some spilled feed or bedding.
Membrane Barrier—Thin layer of material that is impermeable to the flow of gas or
water.
Methane (CH4>—An odorless, colorless, and asphyxiating gas that can explode at a
concentration of 5%-15% by volume; can be produced by solid waste undergoing anaerobic
decomposition.
Milled Refuse—See Shredded Refuse.
Moisture Content (Solid Waste)—The weight loss (expressed as a percentage) when a
sample of solid waste is dried to a constant weight at a temperature of 100° C-1050 C.
Moisture Holding Capacity—See Field Capacity.
Moisture Penetration—The depth to which irrigation water or rain penetrates soil before
the rate of downward movement become negligible.
Offal—Intestines and discarded pans, including paunch manure, of slaughtered animals.
Open Burning—Uncontrolled burning of wastes in the open or in an open dump.
Open Dump—See Dumping.
Organic Content—Synonymous with volatile solids, except for small traces of some
inorganic materials such as calcium carbonate that lose weight at temperatures used in
determining volatile solids.
Percentage of Moisture Content (Solid Waste)—The percentage of moisture contained
in solid waste; it can be calculated on a dry or wet basis.
Wet = 100 x (water content of sample)/dry weight of sample -t- water content of
sample.
Dry = 100 x (water content of sample)/dry weight of sample.
Percolation—A qualitative term that refers to the downward movement of water through
soil, solid waste, or other porous medium.
Permeability—The capacity of a porous medium to conduct or transmit fluids.
pH—Negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration; related to acidity and alkalinity.
Processing—An operation such as shredding, compaction, composting, incineration, or
other treatment designed to change the physical form or chemical content of solid waste.
Pulverization—The crushing or grinding of material into small pieces (see Shredding).
Putrescible—Organic matter capable of being decomposed anaerobically by microorganisms.
Reclamation—The restoration to a better or more useful state, such as land reclamation
by sanitary landfilling, or the obtaining of useful materials from solid waste.
Recovery—The process of obtaining materials or energy resources from solid waste.
Synonyms: Extraction, Reclamation, Salvaging.
Recycling—The process by which waste materials are transformed into new products.
Refuse—See Solid Waste.
Rendering—A process of recovering fatty substances from animal pans by heat treatment.
extraction, and distillation.
Reuse—The reintroduction of a commodity into the economic stream without any change.
Roll-On /Roll-Off Container—A. large container [15 m3-30 m3 (20 cu yd-40 cu yd)] that
- 140 -
-------
can be pulled onto a service vehicle mechanically and carried to a disposal site for emptying.
Rubbish—A general term for solid waste, excluding food waste and ashes, taken from
residences, commercial establishments, and institutions.
Rubble—Broken pieces of masonry and concrete*.
Runoff—That portion of precipitation or irrigation water that drains from an area as
surface flow.
Salvaging—The controlled removal of waste materials for utilization.
Sand—A course-grained soil, the greater portion of which passes through a No. 4 sieve,
according to the Unified Soil Gassitication System.
Sandy Loam—Asoft easily worked soil containing 09&-20% clay, 0%-50% silt, and 43%-85%
sand, according to the United States Department of Agriculture classification code.
Sanitary Landfill—A site where solid waste is disposed of using sanitary landfilling
techniques.
Sanitary Landfilling—An engineered method of disposing of solid waste on land in a
manner that protects the environment, by spreading the waste in thin layers, compacting
it to the smallest practical volume, and covering it with compacted soil by the end of
each working day or at more frequent intervals as may be necessary.
Sanitary Landfilling Methods
Area—A method in which the wastes are spread and compacted on the surface of
the ground and cover material is spread and compacted over them.
Trench—A method in which the waste is spread and compacted in a trench. The excavated
sofl is spread and compacted over the waste to form the basic cell structure.
Scavenging—The uncontrolled removal of materials at any point in the solid waste stream.
Seepage—Movement of water or gas through soil without forming definite channels.
Separation—The systematic division of solid waste into designated categories.
Settlement—A gradual subsidence of material. v
Differential—The nonuniform subsidence of material from a fixed horizontal reference
plane.
Sewage Sludge—A semiliquid solid waste consisting of settled sewage solids combined
with varying amounts of water and dissolved materials.
Sewage Treatment Residues—Coarse screenings, grit, or sludge from wastewater treatment
units.
Shredder—A machine that reduces the size of solid waste in a continuous operation.
Silt—A fine-grained soil having liquid limits and plasticity indexes that plot below the
"A" line on the Unified Soil Classification System plasticity chart.
Slope—The deviation of a surface from the horizontal expressed as a percentage, by
a ratio, or in degrees.
Sludge—A semiliquid sediment.
Soil—The unconsolidated natural surface material present above bedrock: it is either
residual in origin (formed by the in-place weathering of bedrock) or has been transported
by wind, water, or gravity.
Soil Cohesion—The mutual attraction exerted on soil particles by molecular forces and
moisture films.
Soil Plasticity—The property of a soil that allows it to be deformed or molded in a
moist condition without cracking or falling apart.
Solid Waste—Useless, unwanted, or discarded material with insufficient liquid content
to be free-flowing.
Agricultural—The solid waste that results from the rearing and slaughtering of animals
and the processing of animal products and orchard and field crops.
Commercial—Solid waste generated by stores, offices, and other activities that do
not actually turn out a product.
Industrial—Solid waste that results from industrial processes and manufacturing
Institutional—Solid wastes originating from educational, health care, and research
facilities.
Municipal—Residential and commercial solid waste generated within a community.
Pesticide—The residue resulting from the manufacturing, handling, or use of chemicals
for killing plant and animal pests.
Residential—AH solid waste that normally originates in a residential environment;
sometimes called domestic solid waste.
- 141 -
-------
Solid Waste Management—The purposeful systematic control of the generation, storage,
collection, transport, separation, processing, recycling, recovery, and disposal of solid
wastes.
Subsidence—Settling or sinking of the land surface due to many factors, such as the
Surface Cracking—Discontinuities that develop in the cover material at a sanitary landfill
due to the surface drying or settlement of the solid waste. (These discontinuities may
result in the exposure of solid waste, entrance or egress of vectors, intrusion of water,
and venting of decomposition gases).
Toe—The bottom of the working face at a sanitary landfill.
Topsail—The topmost layer of soil; usually refers to soil that contains humus and is
capable of supporting good plant growth.
Topographic Map—A. map indicating surface elevations and slopes.
Trash—See Rubbish.
Vector—A carrier, usually an arthropod, that is capable of transmitting a pathogen from
one organism to another.
Volatile Solids—Material of organic nature which converts easily to gases when heated.
Waste—See also Solid Waste.
Bulky Waste—Items whose large size precludes or complicates their handling by normal
collection, processing, or disposal methods.
Construction and Demolition Waste—Building materials and rubble resulting from
construction, remodeling, repair, and demolition operations.
Hazardous Waste—Those wastes that require special handling to avoid illness or injury
to persons or damage to property.
Special Waste—Those wastes that require extraordinary management.
Wood Pulp Waste—Wood or paper fiber residue resulting from a manufacturing process.
Yard Waste—Plant clippings, primings, and other discarded material from yards and
gardens. Also known as yard rubbish.
Watershed—Total land area above a given point on a stream or waterway that contributes
runoff to that point.
Water Table—The upper limit of the pan of the soil or underlying rock material that
is wholly saturated with water.
Perched Water—A water table, usually of limited area, maintained above the normal
free-water elevation by the presence of an intervening, relatively impervious stratum.
Working Face—That portion of a sanitary landfill where waste is discharged by collection
trucks and is compacted prior to placement of cover material.
Zone of Aeration—The area above a water table where the interstices (pores) are not
completely filled with water.
Zone of Capillarity—The area above a water table where some or all of the interstices
(pores) are fflled with water that is held by capillarity (see Capillary Water).
decomposition of organic material, consolidation, drainage, and underground failures.
Subsoil—That pan of the soil beneath the topsoil usually without an appreciable organic
matter content.
- 142 -
-------
APPENDIX E
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
AND
DISPOSAL COST SUMMARIES
-------
NOTE: The following tables summarize capital and operating costs for solid
waste collection, transfer and disposal alternatives in Millard County,
Utah. Sources for the tables are references 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9. Amortiza-
tion of capital costs assumes'a capital recovery factor of .16275 (10
years at 10 percent interest). Equipment operation costs include main-
tenance, overhaul, fuel, and parts. Incremental costs were developed for
1987, and added to 1982 costs to determine 1987 total annual costs.
- 144 -
-------
TRELE E-l
SANITARY LANDFILL COST
. 1982
Itan
Land2
Site Development (includes labor)
Road Construction (all-weather
road)
Shelter
Fencing (stock)
Gate
Diversion Ditches
Wells (monitoring)
Equipment
Dozer (D-6)
Crawler Loader (951)
Miscellaneous (utilities, insurance,
tools)
Engineering, Design (10% of site
development cost)
Contingency (5 % of capital costs)
Equipment Operation4
Trenching
Spreading and Compacting
Covering
Maintenance (roads, ditches,
grounds)
Labor, Ope rater (full-time)
Revegetation
REGIONAL SITE
CAPITAL COSTS
Unit Cost
$ 60,000/nile
3,600/init
4.10/ft.
500/unit
4/ft.
500/urit
116,000/init
88,000/init
-
\
-
DERATING COSTS
$l/cy
.li/cy
ley
-
9/tr.
1,500/acre
Units
l^se High
-
0.20
1
1,320
1
1,320
2
1
1
Lump Sum (L.S.)
L.S.
TOTAL
AMORTIZED3
42,490 49,390
39,640 46,380
8,500 9,880
L.S. L.S.
2,080 2,080
3.0 3.4
Total
Ease
-
$ 12,000
3,600
5,400
500
5, SO
1,000
116,000
88,000
5,000
3,000
12,000
$250,780
$ 40,980
$42,490
4,360
8,500
4,000
18,720
4,500
Cost
Hi en
-
Same as
base cost,
#9,390
5,100
9,880
4,000
18,720
5,100
TOTAL
TOT/1 WNUAL COST
$82,570$ 92,190
$123,500 $133,200
1 Source: References 3, 4, 5, 6, 9
2 Land costs should be negligible as site is located on BLM land.
3 Amortized at 10& interest over 10 years
4 Includes overhaul, fuel, parts, and maintenance.
- 145 -
-------
I?!BLE E-2
SANITARY LAMTILL COST SlfWRY. 1987
REGIONAL SITE
Item
CAPITAL COSTS
Unit Cost
Units
Total Cost
Base High Base High
TOTAL1 $250,780
Sane as
AMORTIZED 40,980 base cost.
Equipment Operation
Trenching
Spreading and Compacting
Covering
Revegetation
OrtRATlNS COSTS
$1 cy
.11 qy
Icy
28,080 53,570
38,920 69,580
5,620 10,710
$l,500/acre 1.9 3.8
1987 MCRBCNTW. COST
1982 OPERATING COST
1987 TOM. OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANMJAL COST
28,080 53,570
4,230 7,650
5,620 10,710
2.850 5,700
40,830 77,630
82,570 92,190
123.400 169.820
$164,400 $210,800
1 Equal to 1982 base capital cost.
- 146 -
-------
TABLE E-3
SANITARY LANDFILL COST SUWRY. 1982
Itan
Site Development (includes labor)
Road Construction (all-weather road)
Shelter
Fencing
Gate
Diversion Ditches
Wells (monitoring)
Equipment
Crawler Loader (951)
Miscellaneous (utilities, insurance,
tools)
Engineering, Design (10% of site
development cost)
Contingency (34 of capital cost)
Equipment Operation
Trenching
Spreading and Compacting
Covering
Maintenance (roads, ditches,
grounds)
Labor, Operator (full-time)
Revegetation
WEST MILLARD SITE
CAPITAL COSTS
Units
Unit Cost Base High
$60,000/hri . 0.20
3,600/init 1
4.10/ft. 1,320
500/init 1
4/ft. 1,320
500/well 2
88,000/unit 1
L.S.
V
TOTAL
AMORTIZED
DERATING COSTS
$l/cy 35,430 40,790
.11/cy 36,700 42,340
1 cy 7,085 8,160
L.S. L.S.
$9/hr. 2,080 2,080
$l,500/acre 2.5 2.8
TOTAL
TOTAL ANNJAL COST
Total
Base
$12,000
3,600
5,400
500
5,280
1,000
88,000
5,000
3,000
6,200
130,000
$21,200
$35,430
4,040
7,090
4,000
18,700
3,750
73,000
$94,200
Cost
High
Same as
base cost
#0,790
4,660
8,160
4,000
18,700
4,200
80,500
$101,700
- 147 -
-------
Item
TWLEE-4
SANITARY LATOFILL COST SuWlflRY. 1987
WEST MILLED SITE
CAPITA. COSTS
Unit Cost
Units
Base High
Total Cost
Base
High
Equipment Operation
Trenching
Spreading and Compacting
Covering
Revegetation
OPERATING COSTS
$1 cy
.11 cy
ley
TOT/JL
ATCRTIZED1
130,000
Sane as
$21,200 base cost.
25,570 46,650 $25,570 #6,650
26,530 48,780 2,920 5,370
5,120 9,330 5,120 9,330
$l,500/acre 1.7 3.3
1987 IKRBIENTAL COST
1982 OPERATIC COST
1987 TOTBL OPERATING COST
TOTAL WNJAL COST
2.550 4,950
36,160 66,300
73,000 80,500
109,160 146,800
$130,400 $168,000
1
Equal to 1982 base capital cost
- 148 -
-------
TfflLEE-5
SANITARY LANDFILL COST SltfWRY, 1982
Item
Land1
Site Development (includes Labor)
Road Construction
Shelter
Fencing
Gate
Diversion Ditches
Wells
Equipment
Crawler Loader (951)
Miscellaneous (utilities, insurance,
tools)
Engineering, Design (10% of site
development cost)
Contingency (SK of capital cost)
Equipment Operation
Excavation
Spreading and Compacting
Covering
Maintenance (roads, ditches
grounds)
Labor, Operator (half-time)
Revegetation
EAST MILLARD SITE
CAPITAL COSTS
Unit Cost
-
$ 60,000/mile
3,500/unit
4.10/ft.
500/init
4/ft.
500/well
88,000/unit
-
V
-
OPERATING COSTS
$ ley
.llcy
ley
-
$9/hr.
$l,500/acre
Units
Base High
-
.06
1
1,980
1
2,640
2
1
L.S.
L.S.
TOT/iL
AMORTIZED
19,020 23,150
20370 25,390
3,800 4,630
L.S. L.S.
1,040
2 2
TOTAL
TOTAL ANNJAL COST
Total Cost
Base
-
$ 3,800
3,600
8,100
500
10,600
1,000
88,000
5,000
3,000
6,200
$129,800
$ 21,100
$19,000
2,300
3,800
3,500
9,400
3,000
41,000
$ 62,100
High
-
$25,800
2,800
4,600
3,500
9,400
3,000
49,100
$70,200
1 Land costs should be negligible, as site is owied by the City of Fillnore.
- 149 -
-------
Item
TABLE E-6
SANITARY LANDFILL COST SUWRY, 1987
EAST MILLARD SHE
CAPITAL COSTS
Unit Cost
Uhits
Base
Hi eft
Total Cost
Base Hi eft
Equipment Operation
Excavation
Spreading and Compacting
Covering
Labor, Operator (full-time)
OURATINS COSTS
TOTA.
AMORTIZED
129,800
Same as
$21,100 base cost.
$l/yd 3 6,740 16,875 $ 6,700 $16,900
.11/yd 3 7,400 19,050 800 2,100
1 yd 3 1,350 3,370 1,400 3,400
9/tour 1,040 1,040 9.400 9,400
1987 IO&CNTAL COST 18,300 31,800
1982 CPERATIN3 COST 41,000 49,100
1987 TOTAL OPERATING COST 59,300 80,900
TOTAL ANNJAL COST $ 80,400 $102,000
- 150 -
-------
TABLE E-7
BULKY WASTE DISPOSAL SITE COST SUWARY, 1982
Item
Site Development (incluctes labor)
Fencing
Equipment
Crawler loader (951)
Equipment Operation
Spreading and Compacting
Covering
Labor, Operator
Revegetation
CAPITAL COSTS
Unit Cost
$4.10/ft.
88,000/init
TOTAL
AMORTIZED
OPERATING COSTS
Units
High
Total Cost
Base
hi en
1,320
1
5,400
88,000
93,400
Same as
$15,200 base cost.
$lcy
Icy
9/hr.
1,500/acre
9,570
1,910
» 1,040
1
11,650
2,320
1,040
1
$ 1,100
1,900
9,400
1,500
$1,300
2,300
9,400
1,500
TOTAL
TOTAL WNUAL COST
13,900 14,500
$ 29,100 $ 29,700
- 151 -
-------
TflBLEE-8
BULKY WASTE DISPOSAL SHE COST SUWRY, 1987
Item
CAPITAL COSTS
Unit Cost
Units
Base
High
Total Cost
Base High
Equipment Operation
Spreading and Conpacting
Covering
Revegetation
DERATING COSTS
$l/cy
1/cy
TOTAL1 93,400
Sane as
AMORTIZED $15,200 base cost.
3,380 7,950 $ 400 $ 900
680 1,600 700 1,600
1,500/acre - .6
1987 irCRENENTAL COST
1982 DERATING COST
1987 TOTAL DERATING COST
TOTAL WNUAL COST
900
1,100 3,400
13,900 14,500
15,000 17,900
$30,200 $33,100
1 Equal to 1982 base capital cost.
- 152 -
-------
TMLE E-9
GREETCOX CONTAINER COST SUWARY 1982
CAPITAL COSTS
Units
Itern
Unit Cost
Buildings (garage and maintenance facility)
Equipment
Conpactor truck (30-cubic yard, side-
loading) $70,000/init
Containers (3-cubic yard) 300/container
Miscellaneous (tools, equipment, etc.)
Base
L.S.
1
573
L.S.
TOTAL
AMORTIZED
High
L.S.
.675
L.S.
DERATING COSTS
Equipment Operation1
Conpactor truck
Labor, Driver/Mechanic
Miscellaneous (utilities, etc.)
$18/tour k 1,600 1,870
9/hour 2,080 2,290
L.S. L.S.
TOTAL
TOTAL ANNJAL COST
Total Cost
Base High
$35,600 $35,600
70,000 70,000
171,000 202,500
5.000 5.000
281,600 313,100
#5,870 $51,000
$28,830 $33,700
18,720 21,500
600 600
47,520 54,800
$93,400 $105,800
1 Includes overhaul, fuel, parts and maintenance.
- 153 -
-------
1M£ E-10
GREEfCOX COMTAIfCR COST SUMMARY, 1987
Item
Equi pment
Compactor truck (30-cubic yard, side-
1 cadi ng)
Containers (3-cubic yard)
Equipment Oparation
Conpactor truck
1 Driver/Mechanic
CAPITAL COSTS
Unit Cost
$70,000/iriit
Units
Total Cost
327
Hi eft
1
695
Base
Hich
300/cortainer
1987 ircREjera. COST
1987 AMCRTIZED ItCRENENTAL COST 15,980
1982 AMORTIZED COST
1987 TOTAL CAPITAL COST
OPERATING COSTS
$70,000
98.100 208,500
$18/hr. 950 1,980
9/hr. 1,340 2,540
1987 IOS€NTAL COST
1982 OPERATING COST
1987 TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
98,100 278,500
45,370
45,870 51,000
$61,850 $96,400
$17,100 $35,640
12,100 22,900
29,200 58,540
47,520 54,830
76,720 113,370
$138,600 $209,800
- 154 -
-------
TABLE E-ll
TRANSFER TRAILER COST SUWRY, 1982
Item
Buildings (transfer station, enclosed)
Equipment
Transfer trailer (85 cy)
Tractor
Skid steerloacfer (.5 cy)
CAPITAL COSTS
Unit Cost
$24,000/i/iit
40,000/init
40,000/init
12,000/init
Uhits
Base
1
1
1
1
High
Miscellaneous (tools, etc.)
Equipment Operation
Tractor
Labor, Driver/Station operator
Miscellaneous (utilities)
TOTA.
AMORTIZED
OPERATING COSTS
L.S.
TOTAL
TOTAL MNJAL COST
Total Post
Base
$24,000
40,000
40,000
12,000
4,000
120,000
Sane as
$19,500 base cost.
$19.50/hr. *
9/hr.
-
260
730
L.S.
312
780
L.S.
$ 5,100
6,600
1,000
12,700 14,300
$32,200 $33,800
- 155 -
-------
item
TWBLE E-12
TRANSFER TRAILER COST SUWRY, 1987
CAPITAL COSTS
Unit Cost
Units
Base
High
Total Cost
Base
Equipment Operation
Tractor
Labor, Driver/Station operator
Miscellaneous (utilities)
DERATING COSTS
TOT/1
AMORTIZED
$19.50/hr. 100 255
9/hr. 100 365
L.S. L.S.
1987 IOB1ENTAL COST
1982 OPERATING COST
1987 TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNJAL COST
120,000
$19,500
$ 2,000 $ 5,000
900 3,300
400 1,200
3,300 9,500
12,700 14,300
16,000 23,800
$35,500 $43,300
- 156 -
-------
TRBLE E-13
RCLL-OFF CONTAIN (BULKY WASTE) COST SltWRY, 1982
CAPITAL COSTS
Units Total Cost
Item Unit Cost Base High nas
OPERATING COSTS
Equipment Operation
Roll-off truck $22.25/hr. 9*0 1,100 $20,800 $24,500
Labor, Operator 9/hr. 1,040 1,200 9,400 10,800
TOTAL 30,200 35,300
TOTAL ANNJAL COST $57,500 $62,600
- 157 -
-------
TWE E-14
ROLL-OFF CONTAirER (BULKY HASTE) COST SUWRY. 1987
Item
CAPITAL COSTS
Unit Cost
Uhits
Total Cost
Base High Base High
Equipment Operation
Rol 1-of f truck
Labor, Operator
OPERATING COSTS
TOTAL*
AMORTIZED
167,300
Same as
$27,200 base cost.
$22.25/hr. 550 1,120 $12,200 $25,000
9/hr. 522 1,280 4,700 11,500
1987 IICRBCim COST 16,900 36,500
1982 OPERATING COST 30,200 35,300
1987 TOTAL OPERATIN3 COST 47,100 71,800
TOTAL ANNJAL COST $ 74,400 $ 99,100
Equal to 1982 base capital costs.
- 158 -
-------
TWBJE E-15
ROLL-OFF (SINGLE LAMFIL1) COST SUWRY, 1982
Item
Equipment
Conpactors (1-cy hopper)
Roll-off containers (40 cy, closed)
Miscellaneous (tools, etc.)
Equipment Operation
Rol 1-of f truck*
Labor, driver (full-time)
Miscellaneous (utilities)
CAPITAL COSTS
Unit Cost
Uhits
Base
Total Cost
Base High
$10,000/init
7,100/unit
DERATING COSTS
$22.25/hr.
9/hr. 4
10
11
L.S.
TOTAL
AMORTIZED
30 36
2,080 2,080
L.S.
$100,000
78,100
1,700
179,800
$29,300
$34,200
18,700
4,800
Same as
base cost.
#1,700
18,700
5,700
TOTAL
TOTAL ANMJAL COST
57,700 66.100
$ 87,000 $ 95,400
1 Capital cost of truck accounted for in bulky roll-off cost sumrary.
- 159 -
-------
Item
Equi pment
Rol 1 -off truck
Equipment Operation
Roll-off truck
Labor, Driver
Miscellaneous (utilities)
TABLE E-16
(SINGLE LANDFILL) COST SUWARY, iss?
CAPITAL COSTS
Unit Cost
Uhits
Base
$50,000/init 1
1987 AMORTIZED COST
1982 AMORTIZED COST
TOTAL AMORTIZED COST
OPERATING COSTS
$22.25/hr. 805
9/hr. 520
L.S. L.S.
1987 lOEMENTAL COST
1982 CPERATirG COST
1987 TOTAL CPERATirG COST
TOTAL ANNJAL COST
Total Ccsi
BaseHigh
$ 50,000
8,100
29,300
Same as
$37,400 base cost.
1,710 $17,900 $38,100
1,820 4,700 16,400
2.800 5.800
25,400 60,300
57,700 66,100
83,100 126,400
$120,500 $163,800
- 160 -
-------
TW£ E-17
RO1-OFF (TWO LMCFILL) COST SUWRY, 1982
Item
Equipment
Compactors (1 cy hopper)
Roll-off containers (40 cy, closed)
Miscellaneous (tools, etc.)
Equipment Operation
Roll-off truck
Labor, Driver
Miscellaneous (utilities)
CAPITAL COSTS
Unit Cost
Units
Base High Base
TOTAL
TOTAL AMORTIZED COST
DERATING COSTS
$22.25/hr.
9/hr.
Total Cost
High
$10,000/iriit
7,100/init
_
9
10
L.S.
$ 90,000
71,000
L.S. 2,000
l,050hr. 1,250
l,560hr. 1,820
L.S. L.S.
TOTAL
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
163,000
Same as
$26,500 base cost.
$23,300 $27,800
14,000 16,400
4.300 5.100
41,600 49,300
$68,100 $75,800
- 161 -
-------
TOLE E-18
ROLL-OFF (TWO LATOFILL) COST SUWARY, 1987
Item
Equipment
Roll-off truck
Equipment Operation
Roll-off truck
Labor, Driver
Miscellaneous (utilities)
CAPITAL COSTS
Unn: Cost
$50,000/init
Base High Base High
1
1987 MORTIZED COST
1982 /iMORTIZED COST
TOTAL /WORTIZED COST
OPERATING COSTS
$22.25/hr. 615
9/hr. 680
L.S. L.S.
1987 IfCRBCNTft. COST
1982 OPERATIC COST
1987 TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
$50,000
8,100
26,500
Same as
$34,600 base cost.
1,245 $13,700 $27,700
1,300 6,100 11,700
2.200 5,200
22,000 44,600
41,600 49,300
63,600 93,900
$98,200 $128,500
- 162 -
-------
TSEUE E-19
ROL-OF TRANSFER COST SWVRY, 1982
Item
CAPITA COSTS
Unit Cost
Units
Building (two-story)
Equipment
Roll-off containers
Rol 1-off truck!
Skid steer loader (.5-cy bucket)
iase
L.S.
High
$ 9,000/unit
12,000/i/iit
Stationary conpactor (5-cy with hopper) 25,000/unit
Miscellaneous (tools, equipment)
TOTAL
TOTAL AMORTIZED COST
Equipment Operation
Rol 1-off truck
Labor, Driver/Station Operator
Miscellaneous (utilities)
OPERATING COSTS
Total Cost
Base
men
1,000
18,000
1
1
..s.
12,000
25,000
4,000
83,000
Same as
$13,500 base cost.
$22.25/hr.
9/hr.
_
V
680
1,560
L.S.
780
1,820
L.S.
$15,000
14,000
1,400
$17,400
16,400
1,400
TOTAL
TOTAL ANNUAL OOST
30,400 35,200
$ 43,900 $ 48,700
Truck fron bulky waste system used
- 163 -
-------
TOBLEE-20
ROLL-OFF TRANSFER COST SUWRY, 1987
Item
CAPITAL COSTS
Unit Cost
Units
Base
High
Total Cost
Base +High*
Equipment Operation
Rol 1-of f truck
Labor, Driver/Station Operator
Miscellaneous (utilities)
TOTAL $83,000 $133,000
TOTAL AMORTIZED COST $13,500 $21,600
OPERATING COSTS
$22.25/hr. 210
9/hr. 630
L.S. L.S.
1987 IICRMNTW. COST
1982 OPERATIC COST
1987 TOTAL OPERATIC COST
TOTAL ANNJAL COST
670 $ 4,700 $15,000
1,300 4,700 11,700
500 1,400
9,900 28,100
30,400 35,200
40,400 63,300
$ 53,900 $ 84,900
1 Equal to 1982 capital costs.
2 Includes cost of new roll-off truck.
- 164 -
-------
APPENDIX F »
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
-------
WASTE VOLUME CALCULATIONS
ANNUAL WASTE GENERATION
Compactable Waste
Entire County
Area Rate (Ibs/person/day) Population Waste Quantity (Ibs/day)
Delta and
Fillmore 4.3 5,485 23,585
Remainder of
County 2.3 5,335 12.270
Total 10,820 35,855 Ibs/day
Total Annual Volume = (35,855 Ibs) x (365 days) * (175 Ibs) = 74,780 cy
"357 year cy year
Compacted Volume (at 1,000 Ibs/cy in place, in the landfill) =
(74,780 cy/year) x (175 Ib/cy) = 13,090 cy/year
(1,000 Ib/cy
Volume of Waste and Cover (with a 1:4 cover to waste ratio) =
(13,090 cy/year) x (1.25) = 16,360 cy/year
Non-Compactable Waste
West Mi Hard County"
Area Rate (Ibs/person/day) (Population) Waste Quantity (Ibs/day)
West Mil lard 2.0 6,495 12,990
Total Annual Volume =
(12,990 Ib) x (365 days) * (750 Ibs) = 6,320 cy
day year cy year
Volume of Waste and Cover (with a 1:4 cover to waste ratio) =
(6,320 cy/year) x (1.25) = 7,900 cy/year
- 166 -
-------
East Mi Hard County
Area Rate (Ibs/person/day) Population Waste Quantity (Ibs/day)
East Millard 2.0 4,325 8,650
Total Annual Volume = (8,650 Ibs/day) x (365 days) f (750 lbs/cy)=4,210cy/year
Volume of Waste and Cover (with a 1:4 cover to waste ratio) =
(4,210 cy/year) X (1.25) = 5,260 cy/year
- 167 -
-------
LANDFILL CALCULATIONS
Regional Landfill
Annual Trench Length Required
The trench dimensions are:
a 22-foot base,
15 foot depth, and
1:1 sidewalls
The corresponding volume per linear foot of trench is 555 cubic feet, or
20.6 cy/foot of trench.
Compactable Waste Trench Length = (16,360 cy) f (20.6 cy) = 794 ft
year footyear
Bulky Waste Trench Length = (7,900 cy_) f (20.6 cy) = 383/ft
yr foot year
Annual Area Required
(20.6 cy) * 62ft (width of trench + 10') = (.33 cy) x (43,560 ft?) = 14,375 cy
feet ft^ acre acre
Total acres affected
= 16,360 cy + 7,900 cy = 1.7 acres
14,375 cy/acre
Bulky Waste Site
Annual Trench Length Required
Trench Volume = 20.6 cy
foot of trench
Bulky Waste Trench Length =
(5,260 cy) *• 20.6 cy = 255 ft
year footyr
Annual Area Required
(20.6 cy) * 62 ft = (.33 cy) x (43,560 ft2! = 14,375 cy_
ft ft^ acre acre
Total acres affected
= 5,260 cy
14,375 cy/acre = .4 acres
- 168 -
-------
GREENBOX CALCULATIONS
Residential Compactable Waste
Each resident of Mil lard County produces
.092 cy of residential compactable VMS re ;;er /.eek
(2.3 Ib/person/day) x (1 person) x (7 days/week) 4 (175 Ib/cy)
= .092 cy/week
Each greenbox has a capacity of 3 cubic yards, so that each greenbox could
service 32.6 persons
(3 cy) 4 (.092 yd3/person/wk) = 32.6 persons
greenbox greenbox
Rounding this to 30 persons/greenbox it was assumed that greenboxes woula oe 50%
full when serviced in Delta and Fillmore, and 70% full in all other areas of the
County.
For Delta, 106 greenboxes are required for biweekly service.
(3,185 persons) 4 [(30 persons/greenbox/service/week) x (50% full)] x
(2 services/week) = 106 greenboxes
V
For Hinckley, 34 residential greenboxes are required.
(710 persons) 4 [30 persons/greenbox/service/week) x (70% full)]
x (1 service/week)= 34 greenboxes
Commercial Compactable Waste
Each resident of West Mi Hard County generates 2.0 Ib/person/day of
commercial compactable waste. The resulting waste volume per week is:
(2.0 Ib/person/day) x (6,495 persons) x (7 days/week) 4 (175 Ib/cy)
= 520 cy/week
The number of greenboxes required for service three times per week is:
(520 cy/week) 4 3 (cy/greenbox) 4 (3 services) = 58 greenboxes
week
- 169 -
-------
APPENDIX G
SOLID WASTE FACILITY
FINANCING OPTIONS
-------
APPENDIX G
SOLID WASTE FACILITY FINANCING OPTIONS
Solid waste collection and disposal includes such capital costs as land,
equipment, and site improvements. Operating costs include salaries, utilities,
fuel, site and equipment maintenance, and administrative costs. Several methods
of funding solid waste systems are available, and the following discussion con-
siders the advantages and disadvantages of current revenue ("pay-as-you-go")
financing, long-term borrowing, leasing, and government grant and loan utiliza-
tion, especially for small communities.
CURRENT REVENUE FINANCING
Current revenue financing employs a sales tax, property tax, special asses-
sment tax, or a combination of the above, and is based on the "pay-as-you-go"
V
philosophy. The advantage of using current revenues is its simplicity -- few
informational, analytical, institutional, or legal arrangements are required.
The general tax fund often cannot provide enough money to meet capital costs,
but it is frequently used to help meet operating costs. An advantage in using
the general fund for supplying operating expenses is that administrative proce-
dures and the extra cost of billing and collecting are eliminated.
Solid waste management is commonly regarded as a low priority when general
funds are apportioned, resulting in an insufficient budget and inadequate admin-
istration. Due to the lack of large amounts of available money in the general
fund, another source of financing, such as long-term borrowing, is often neces-
sary for financing capital costs. A disadvantage in using current revenues for
capital expenditures is that tax revenues lag behind needed public services.
For areas experiencing rapid growth, this places an inequitable burden on the
present population.
Charges levied on the users of the collection and disposal system are
another source of funds for the "pay-as-you-go" method of financing. User fees
- 171 -
-------
are a means of obtaining operating revenue, but they may also be used to
generate funds for future capital expenditures. Fees must be periodically
updated, to provide a fair and viable, source of income.
For small communities experiencing -acid increases in population, the
"pay-as-you-go" method forces present citizens to pay for future demands. A
straight user fee would place too large a burden on the present population. If
waste generation surges, Zauser^ suggests using general fund contributions or
another form of financing to pay for initial costs. Future user charges can
then be used to cover annual operating expenses and debt amortization.
LONG-TERM BORROWING
Long-term borrowing is a common method of financing the capital costs of
solid waste systems. Typical instruments are the revenue bond and the general
obligation bond.
Revenue bonds are tax-exempt obligations that pledge user fees to guarantee
repayment of the debt's principal and interest. In this case, fees must be
charged to landfill users in amounts necessary to cover all capital and operat-
ing expenses. Revenue bonds and associated user fees are attractive because the
producer of solid waste pays the true costs of its disposal. Also, voter appro-
val is not necessary.
A possible disadvantage to consider is that a feasibility study of the pro-
ject to be financed is required, which may be expensive. Revenue bonds are
generally used to finance a single project, and the effective minimum size
offering is normally greater than that of a general obligation bond. For a
small, single community, revenue bond financing is often uneconomical.
General obligation bonds are the most commonly used instrument for financ-
ing capital outlays. They are tax-exempt obligations secured by the full faith
and credit of a political jurisdiction which has the ability to levy taxes.
1 See Source 1.
- 172 -
-------
Because the real estate taxes of the jurisdiction are usually pledged, the bond
is less risky and more marketable than a revenue bond. General obligation bonds
also do not require a detailed feasibility study of the proposed project, and
offer the lowest interest rates of any financial instrument.
LEASING
Another option to consider is leasing. The local government rents the use
of an asset (land, mobile equipment, etc.) which has been purchased by a third
party. The government in turn can lease it to a private operator. The Economic
Recovery Act of 1981 provides special provisions for lease-back arrangements
where a public body can purchase an asset, sell it to a private party, and then
lease the equipment back. Such arrangements should be explored carefully.
An advantage to leasing is the postponement and spreading out of cash pay-
ments, therefore lessening the demand on initial capital outlays. In this
regard, leasing may be a useful option for financing systems to be used by areas
experiencing high population growth. Less leg^l work is usually involved than
for other types of financing, and generally voter approval is not required.
Traditional leasing is generally more expensive than long-term, tax-exempt
bonds. At the expiration of the lease, the local government will not own or
control the machinery or land leased, unless the contract specifies leasing with
an option to buy. If municipal credit is poor or bonds can't be issued, leasing
may be the most viable option. Leasing is available to both public and private
entities, but is to date more commonly used by private enterprise. However, use
of leasing is increasing due mostly to high interest rates and resultant advan-
tageous cash flows. In addition, several forms specialize in providing lease
arrangements for solid waste equipment and can custom tailor leases for almost
any situation.
Leasing arrangements can be devised to transfer tax credits, defer or sche-
dule payments, provide conversion or trade-up plans, cover several item pur-
chases under an umbrella arrangement, or simply to act as an installment sales
contract with no down payment.
- 173 -
-------
GRANTS AND LOANS
Cinanc1al assistance through federal, state and regional entities is a
met-ori of suoolementing other types of financing. The Farmer's Home Administra-
tion (FiiiHA) is authorized to provide financial assistance to public entities, in
the form of grants and loans, for waste disposal facilities in rural areas and
towns with a population less than 10,000. To be eligible, the applicant must be
unable to obtain credit or financing from other sources. Priority is placed on
areas with a population of less than 5,000.
According to FmHA authorities, however, grants and loans have not been pro-
vided for solid waste disposal. Funds are not expected to become available in
the near future. Additional information may be obtained by contacting the
county or district office of FmHA.
The Environmental Protection Agency is another potential source of
funding. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act authorizes funding through
the Solid and Hazardous Uaste branch, for technical assistance in state level
planning studies for solid waste management. The act also authorizes funding of
regional and local government projects. However, funds for solid waste assist-
ance are not currently available, and no immediate change is expected in that
status.
SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICTS
The State of Utah allows the formation and operation of special service
districts (including solid waste) by counties, cities and towns. Article XLV,
Section 8 of the Constitution of Utah discusses in detail the powers of these
districts, such as the services to be performed, levying of taxes, issuance of
bonds payable from taxes after an election, the limitations on bonds payable
from taxes, the issuance of revenue and guaranteed bonds, and the levying and
collection of fees and charges.
In establishing such a district, the initial resolution must describe the
bounds and services of the district. A petition and public hearing are
necessary. If the resolution is adopted, the district becomes a quasi-municipal
- 174 -
-------
public corporation distinct from the County or municipality. The government
authority of the County which established the district has supervisory ajtnority
and may delegate power to an appointed or elected administrative cont.-o1 jo.j-c.
In regards to district funds, County laws aopiy. Funds are acmmstered in
the same manner as other County funds, but are segregated. The district may
borrow money and issue bonds and notes. Bonds may be payable from property
taxes, revenue bonds, general obligation bonds, or a combination. The limita-
tion for bonds payable from property taxes states that borrowing cannot exceed
12 percent of 100 percent of the reasonable *air cash value of the taxable pro-
perty in the service district. General obligation bonds may be issued in excess
of the 12 percent limit, but only under certain conditions. Tax levies and
bonds must be authorized by a majority of the voters in the special service
district.
The previously discussed methods of financing are intended to provide a
broad overview of techniques available. This (Jescription is not comprehensive,
as other less common methods, and creative combinations of the described
methods, may result in viable financing alternatives. It is recommended that
professional financial consultants be utilized to model a financial plan, when
the solid waste system is ready to be implemented.
- 175 -
-------
SOURCES
1. Financial Solid Waste Management in Small Communities by Eric Zausner,
Report (SW-57ts), USEPA, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, 1972.
2. Federal Financial Assistance for Pollution Prevention and Control, prepared
by the USEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality.
3. Resource-Recovery Plant Implementation: Guide for Municipal Officials
Financing, conpiled by Robert Randall, Guide No. 471, USEPA, 1975.
4. Sanitary Landfill Design and Operation by D.R. Brunner and D.J. Keller,
Report (SW-65ts), USEPA, 1971.
- 176 -
-------
APPENDIX H
SOLID WASTE ORDINANCE
-------
SUGGESTED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
This document (SW-73d) was completed under grant S802768-01-1
for the Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
by the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES RESEARCH FOUNDATION
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1974
- 178 -
-------
Foreword
This suggested ordinance for local government usage was compiled from many sources
and consists of the best sections, in the opinion of the writer, of over 100 ordinances
reviewed. It should be enacted only after careful consideration of local conditions and
existing state and local constitutional and statuatoiy requirements.
This ordinance is applicable to any local political subdivisions and could be used, with
modifications, in a multijurisdictional area.
The ordinance has been prepared for guidance under the authorities of Sec 209 (b) (1)
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended. Many sections will not be applicable to
particular situations. These, of course, should be deleted. Applicable sections should be
revised, renumbered and/or otherwise modified to conform to local practices.
The assembly of this document was initiated under contract PH-86-27-290, between
the National Association of Counties Research Foundation and The Public Health Service
of Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and completed under grant S802768-
01-1, between National Association of Counties Research Foundation and the Office of
Solid Waste Management Programs of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
- 179 -
-------
Table Of Contents
'•I'BJLVT , PAGE
1. >!UM i 1 iik 1
-. Otvl.uanon >M IVlk-y 1
-v Definitions . 1
->. Admirustrative Department 3
5. Enforcement Agency 3
o. Powers and Duties of the Administrative Department 3
o.Ol Solid Waste Management Plan 3
0.02 Solid Waste Management System 4
0.0." Rules and Regulations 4
0.04 Penruts 4
o.05 Bulky Waste Collection 6
o.0t> Dead Animals 6
o.O" Contracts 6
o.OS Solid Waste Management Districts o
o.CW Private Contractor Regulation 7
o.lO Service Charges, N on -Residential Solid Waste 7
o. 11 Exclusive Service 7
'. Permits for the Management of Solid Waste 7
".01 Permit for the Storage, Transport, Processing and Disposal of Solid Waste by the Generator thereof 7
~.0_ Storage Permit • &
".05 Permit for Solid Waste Collection &
".04 Permit to Locate and Operate a Transfer Station 9
".05 Permit to Transport Solid Waste : 10
~.0o Permit to Locate and Operate an Incinerator 10
"0" Permit to Locate and Operate a Sanitary Landfill 10
"OS Permit to Locate and Operate a Resource Recovery Facility 11
~.0° Permits to Issue 11
~.10 Permits Denial \2
".11 Permit Number, Display 12
$. Powers and Dunes of the Enforcement Agency 12
$.01 Rules and Regulations 12
$.02 Inspections 12
S.03 Nonces \2
$.04 Citations 13
$.04.1 Hearings 13
$.04.2 Opinion 14
$.05 Injunction 14
°. Solid Waste Management Advisory Board 14
9.01 Appointment 14
9.02 Terms 14
9.03 Organization-Meetings 14
9.04 Dunes IS
10. Time and Frequency of Collection 15
10.01 Residential 15
10.02 Non-Residential 15
11. Storage 15
11.01 Residential 15
11.02 Non-Residential 16
12. Containers 16
12.01 Sanitation 16
12.02 Defective Containers 16
12.03 Residential Container Location Prior to Collection 16
13. Non-Containerized Waste 16
- 180 -
-------
14. Bulky Waste IT
15. Dead Animals 1 ~
16. Collection • Residential 1"
17. Fees 17
17.01 Establishment and Payment P
17.02 Delinquency 1-.
17.03 Collection is
17.04 UncoUected 16
17.05 Increase 18
17.06 Hearings 18
18. Insurance 19
18.01 Performance Bonds 19
18.02 Payment Bonds 19
18.03 Liability Insurance 19
19. Permit Renewal 19
20. Permit Fees 19
21. Appeals 20
22. Appeals, Alternative 20
23. Computation of Time 20
24. Title to Waste 21
25. Prohibited Activities 21
25.01 Dead Animals 21
25.02 Littering 21
25.03 Acts Contrary to Ordinance > .21
25.04 Vehicle Construction 21
25.05 No Interference with Authorized Solid Waste Management 21
25.06 Scavenging Prohibited •. 22
25.07 False Information 22
25.08 Dumps Prohibited 22
25.09 Burning Prohibited 22
25.10 Animal Feeding 22
25.11 Illegal Use of Permit Number 22
25.12 Hazardous Waste 22
26. Penalties 22
27. Repealer 23
28. Savings Clause 23
29. Severability Clause .23
30. Effective Date 23
- 181 -
-------
Suggested Solid Waste Management Ordinance for Local Government
An Ordinance authorizing and directing the planning, establishment, maintenance and operation of a comprehensive
solid waste management system; the establishment and enforcement of necessary and proper regulations for the
management of solid waste; the establishment and collection of residential solid waste management service charges: and
for other purposes.
COMMENT: The preamble is a means of indicating legislative intent, or the problems which led to the
enactment of the law. It is not a part of the law itself.
1. Short Title
This ordinance shall be known any may be cited as the Solid Waste Management Ordinance of ( ).
COMMENT: This ordinance would be applicable to any political subdivision of the State and could be used,
with modification, in a multi-jurisdictional agency where appropriate legislative authority has been given.
2. Declaration of Policy
It is hereby declared to be the purpose of this ordinance to regulate the storage, collection, transport, processing,
recovery, and disposal of solid waste in order to protect the public safety, health, and welfare and to enhance the
environment of the people of ( ).
COMMENT: This is the official expression of the intent of the legislative body enacting the ordinance. A court
interpreting the ordinance, in whole or in pan, would be obligated to arrive at the intent of the legislature, in this
case, the protection of public safety, health, and welfare, and environment.
3. Definitions
For the purposes of this ordinance, the following words and phrases shall have the meaning given herein unless their
use in the text of the ordinance clearly demonstrates a different meaning.
Abandoned Vehicle - A. vehicle that applicable State laws deem to have been abandoned.
Administrative Department - The Department of this municipality charged with the administrative management of
this ordinance.
Agricultural Solid Waste - The solid waste that results from the rearing and slaughtering of animals and the
processing of animal products and orchard and field crops.
Bulky Waste - Items whose large size precludes or complicates their handling by normal collection, processing, or
disposal methods.
Collection - The act of removing solid waste from the central storage point at the source of generation.
Commercial Solid Waste — Solid waste generated by stores, offices, and other activities that do not actually turn out
a product.
Commissioner - The duly qualified and appointed person in charge of the Agency which is responsible for the
enforcement of those aspects of this ordinance related to the protection of the public safety, health, welfare, and
environment.
Dead Animals — Animals that have died from any cause except those slaughtered for human consumption.
Director — The duly qualified and appointed person in charge, of the department which is responsible for the
administrative management of this ordinance.
Disposal — The orderly process of discarding useless or unwanted material.
Dump — A land site where solid waste is disposed of in a manner that does not protect the environment.
Enforcement Agency - The Agency of this municipality charged with the enforcement of those aspects of this
ordinance related to the protection of the public safety, health, welfare and environment.
Generation — The act or process of producing solid waste.
Hazardous Waste - , Those wastes such as toxic, radioactive or pathogenic substances which require special handling
j'toj avoid illness or injury to persons or damage to property.
- 182 -
-------
Incineration — The controlled process by which solid, liquid, or gaseous combustible waste are burned and changed
into gases, and the residue produced contains little or no combustible material.
Industrial Solid Waste — Solid waste that results from industrial processes and manufacturing.
Institutional Solid Waste - Solid waste originating from educational, health care, and research facilities.
Local Government — A public corporation, created by Government for political purposes, and having subordinate
and local powers of legislation: e.g., a county, town, city, etc., or combination thereof.
Natural Resources - Materials which have useful physical or chemical properties which exist, unused, in nature.
Non-Residential Solid Waste - Solid waste from agricultural, commercial, industrial, or institutional activities or a
building or group of buildings consisting of five or more dwelling units.
Incinerator - An engineered apparatus used to bum waste substances and in which all the factors of combustion -
temperature, retention time, turbulence, and combustion air - can be controlled.
Person — Any individual, partnership, co-partnership, firm, company, public or private corporation, association,
joint stock company, trust, estate or any other legal representative, agent or assigns.
Pollution - The condition caused by the presence in the environment of substances of such character and in such
quantities that the quality of the environment is impaired or rendered offensive to life.
Processing -Any method, system, or other treatment designed to change the physical form or chemical content of
solid waste.
Recovered Resources - Materials which still have useful physical or chemical properties after serving a specific
purpose and can, therefore, be reused or recycled for the same or other purposes.
Recovery — The process of obtaining material or energy resources from solid waste. Synonyms: extraction,
reclamation, salvage.
Energy Recovery — The obtaining of energy available from the heat generated when solid waste is incinerated.
Recycling — The process by which recovered resources are transformed into new products in such a manner that the
original products lose their identity.
Rendering — A process of recovering fatty substances from animal parts by heat treatment, extraction, and
distillation.
Residential Solid Waste - All solid waste that normally originates in a residential environment. This definition is
applicable to the solid waste from a building of four or less separate units.
Reprocessing — The action of changing the condition of a secondary material.
Reuse - the reintroduction of a commodity into an economic stream without any change in its physical
characteristics.
Salvage - The utilization of waste materials.
Salvaging - The controlled removal of waste materials for utilization.
Sanitary Landfill — A site where solid waste is disposed using sanitary landfilling techniques.
Sanitary Landfilling - An engineered method of disposing of solid waste on land in a manner that protects the
environment by spreading the waste in thin layers, compacting it to the smallest practical volume, and covering it with
soil by the end of each working day.
Scavenging — The uncontrolled removal of materials at any point in solid waste management.
Scrap - Discarded or rejected material or parts of material that result from manufacturing operations and are
suitable for reprocessing or recycling.
Home Scrap - Scrap that never leaves the manufacturing operation and is routinely reprocessed. (Also referred to as
revert scrap, millbroke, or turn-around scrap).
(Prompt) Industrial Scrap - Scrap that is generated during the manufacture of a product.
Secondary Material — A material that is utilized in place of a primary or raw material in manufacturing a product.
Separation — The systematic division of solid waste into designated components.
Solid Waste - Useless, unwanted, or discarded material with insufficient liquid content to be free flowing.
Solid Waste Management - The purposeful, systematic control of the generation, storage, collection, transport,
separation, processing, recovery and disposal of solid waste.
Storage — The interim containment of solid waste, in an approved manner, after generation and prior to ultimate
disposal.
Transport - The movement of solid waste subsequent to collection.
Transfer Station - A site at which solid waste is concentrated after collection and before processing or disposal.
COMMENT: Definitions are important to clarify the meaning of terms which are not self-explanatory. A
definition section is an integral part of a solid waste management ordinance. This section is important to the
- 183 -
-------
administration and interpretation of the ordinance. Unduly restrictive or vague definitions should be avoided.
Another purpose of a section of definitions is to assist anyone interpreting the ordinance or section, in arriving at
legislative intent. In the absence of definitions, the ordinary meaning of the language under scrutiny would be
used. State legislation will control collection, storage and disposal of abandoned vehicles including their
definition, and must be the source of local authority for action. Some States have recently enacted enabling
legislation for municipal action in this field.
4. Administrative Department
The Department of ( ) shall be responsible for the administrative management of this ordinance
and the rules and regulations authorized in Section 6.03.
COMMENT: Solid Waste Management is normally the responsibility of the Department of Public Works, or a
similar agency, which may be headed by an executive called the Director. Depending upon the local government
organization or the services to be rendered, the responsibility for solid waste management may be assigned to an
organizational unit within the Department of Public Works, or may be a separate function of local government.
There are advantages and disadvantages to having a separate organizational unit. The advantages include a
separate budget, more visibility to the public and elected officials, total attention devoted to the problem, no
sharing of equipment and personnel, direct responsibility to the elected officials, and a higher priority status. The
disadvantages include further fragmentation of local government, lack of coordination with related programs and
duplication of certain types of personnel (e.g. budget, research, accounting).
5. Enforcement Agency
The ( ) Agency shall be responsible for the enforcement of those aspects related to the protection
of the public safety, health, welfare, and environment of this ordinance and the rules and regulations authorized in
Section 8.01.
COMMENT: This is a responsibility that may be assigned to the agency in charge of health related activity,
usually the Department or Board of Health, under the direction of a Commissioner. The trend at the State level
and in large population areas is to create a separate agency charged with the responsibility of environmental
protection. The development and enforcement of rules and regulations pertaining to safety, health, welfare and
the environment would be a function of that agency.
Administrative management and enforcement responsibility may be combined in one agency where permitted
by law.
6. Powers and Duties of the Administrative Department
6.01 Solid Waste Management Plan. The Director, in co-operation with the Commissioner or the Enforcement
Agency, and with the advice of the Solid Waste Advisory Board, shall survey the solid waste management practices
within the locality and prepare a Solid Waste Management Plan to be compatible with the State plan, showing therein
all present management activities and recommended management activities for future use, taking into consideration
population growth, solid waste generation, land development regulations and overall system management including
organizational, financing, and regulatory capabilities. The plan shall consider the qualitative and quantitative increases
in the solid waste expected to be generated within the area governed from residential, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural sources, and shall be submitted to the State for review and approval. The plan developed should not only
consider area wide approaches, but must be designed to be operational and when implemented must be an
environmentally acceptable and economically efficient solid waste management system.
COMMENT: The primary sources of authority for local government activity are the State Constitution and
enabling legislation, which sets out the areas where local activity can take place. A further restraint is in State
laws setting standards which must be met by all inferior units of government. Before any legislative action is
- 184 -
-------
taken, these areas must be studied carefully to assure that it is authorized. Otherwise, the legislation enacted will
be null and void, which will cause problems, including legal action against the local government.
The use of the word "shall" in legislation usually'imposes a mandatory duty upon the official involved. Here.
the Director of the Administrative Department has the duty to prepare a plan for solid waste management. In
cases where a discretionary duty is given by legislation "may" is used. No time limit is set here for
implementation because each governing body will have unique problems which must be solved and it will be the
best judge of any time restraints, subject to those set forth by the State on the preparation and implementation
of the Solid Waste Management Plan, which must not conflict with that of any higher authority.
Although the Director is responsible for the Solid Waste Management Plan, its development and
implementation must be co-ordinated with all governmental units with a responsibility or interest in solid waste
management. The plan for solid waste management must serve five functions: 11) provide a technical and policy
guideline for effective solid waste management; (2) provide a public-directed framework of standards for solid
waste management planning and implementation; (3) provide for an integrated management system covering all
elements from generation through disposal either through direct operations or regulated performance; 14)
establish methods and procedures for translating the plan into system design and direct operations; (5) serve as a
legislative support document for furthering the improved management of solid waste within the jurisdiction.
6.02 Solid Waste Management System. The Director shall provide for a solid waste management system consistent
with the Solid Waste Management Plan, consisting of storage, collection, transport, processing, separation, recovery, and
disposal through public ownership, or through exclusive agreements with one or more persons for a part or all of such
solid waste system, or he may, through the permits in Sections 6.04 and 7.01 authorize any person to manage the solid
waste which he generates pursuant to the terms of this ordinance.
COMMENT: In arriving at the decision to use public or private ttesources, or any combination of the two, local
government must consider such factors as capital investment, personnel resources, service to be rendered,
operating and maintenance costs, and the revenue required to support the solid waste management system.
In any event, control must always be retained by local government which can be accomplished by the use of
permits, the establishment of fees, rules and regulations and the use of inspection powers.
For example, the local government could process or dispose of solid waste while the collection could be
provided by private enterprise.
This suggested ordinance is designed to permit the local government to select either a public or private solid
waste management system or combination thereof and still operate within its provisions.
6.03 Rules and Regulations. The Director may adopt, revise, revoke and enforce rules and regulations governing the
administration of this ordinance.
COMMENT: The authority given here is limited to those rules and regulations applicable to administration and
does not include the rules and regulations governing safety, health, welfare and environment which are the
responsibility of the Enforcement Agency. These rules and regulations must be compatible with state law and
applicable rules and regulations of the state.
6.04 Permits. The Director is hereby authorized to issue permits for all elements of solid waste management
including alteration of existing facilities or systems. All such permits shall be non-transferable, shall be for a term of one
year and shall be subject to the fees set forth in Section 20. All permits so issued shall be conditioned upon observance
of the laws of this State, the ordinances of this governing body and the rules and regulations authorized herein.
COMMENT: Permits are needed even in a publicly operated solid waste management system. By their use,
regulation is achieved from identification of waste at the point of generation through disposal. This ordinance
provides that all persons, other than those storing their own residential solid waste must possess a valid permit for
each step through disposal, with issuing authority being vested in the Director of the Administrative Department.
Permits have a long history of use in the regulation of business or professions. When used in a solid waste
management system they identify all persons involved in solid waste management, the type of waste being
managed and to control its movement through disposal by approved methods.
The permits authorized in an ordinance are supplemental to permits required by either State or local law. A
- 185 -
-------
permit to operate an incinerator would not excuse the holder from receiving clearance from the State Air Quality
Act. as well as the Water Quality Act where quench waters are involved. Local building permits and building
codes would be prerequisites to the issuance of the permits authorized here.
The permits are expressly conditioned upon observance of all applicable laws and the rules and regulations
authorized herein. Therefore, failure to observe either would be a valid ground for suspension or revocation. Such
action may be a drastic step, and should be used only when alternative solid waste management systems or
methods are available. For example, if there is only one sanitary landfill, revocation of that permit might create
more problems than it solves.
Ttie Director of the Administrative Deparrmen: is authorized to prepare application forms which must include
all information required by Section 7, with an omnibus clause to use for any special information required by the
local government.
Since fraud vitiates a legal document, a false statement (see Section 25.07) in the application would be
grounds for revocation. In such case, good judgement would dictate weighing the falsity and, if of a minor nature,
taking no action.
Since the permit is not transferable, the purchaser of an activity controlled by a permit would be required to
apply for and receive the authorization prior to continuing the regulated activity.
There are fields of activity in solid waste management where the number of permits should be limited in order
to insure efficient and economical operation. In those areas, the Director would have the right to refuse to
entertain new applications. An illustration of this is in collection, where the area served will generate sufficient
revenues to attract a limited number of qualified applicants. In other words, if a large number of permit holders
are in a limited area, there will be a duplication of routes resulting in short cuts in service, which are not
compatible with proper solid waste management.
The governing body should establish the time period the permit should be in force. Many localities are on a
one-year time frame corresponding to the budget period while others have various periods up to five years. In a
smaller locality where little paperwork is involved in renewing permits, one year might be a good time period. For
a large locality with many permits in force the work load may be too great for annual renewal; therefore a longer
interval might be preferred. A permit term of one year is set forth here and would give an added control tool to
the Director, who could refuse to renew the permit where a long history of minor substandard performance is
involved.
Application and permit fees are the rule rather than the exception. An application fee would have to
accompany each application and would aid in meeting administrative costs; therefore it should not be returned. It
will also determine the sincerity of the applicant. Application for the renewal of an existing permit need not
require a fee.
Initial or renewal permit fees should be realistic. A fee which exceeds the cost of issuance and supervision
should be avoided, as well as one of a nominal amount. The desirable, figure would be one which would make the
permit system self-supporting.
The Director should evaluate the information given in each application. In doing this they can inspect physical
facilities to assure compliance with the applicable standards and, at the same time, weigh intangibles, such as
personnel qualifications, operational- plan, financial responsibility, etc.
Once the inspection is completed the Director has open three courses of action. He can issue the permit; he
can deny the permit, in writing, stating the reasons therein or; he can inform the applicant of the changes needed
to allow the permit to issue.
Any substantial.alteration\, modification or enlargement must be by permit, a matter which can be covered by
the omnibus clause in each section setting forth application form contents. The same clause can be used for other
needs peculiar to the user municipality, such as performance bonds.
In any denial of application, the action of the Director must not be arbitrary.
The rules and regulations for the administration of the ordinance should set out administrative procedures for
the processing of applications, including the time period between receipt of the application and the action
authorized in Section 7. The Director should have an interval which will allow a careful review, keeping in mind
that there will be other applications and duties which must receive attention. To allow inaction to replace a
positive approval or disapproval within a time frame should be avoided. When an application is refected, the
applicant has the right to utilize the appeals procedures set forth in Section 21.
- 186 -
-------
6.05 Bulky Waste Collection. The Director shall establish the necessary procedures to collect and dispose of bulky
waste from residential units within this locality.
COMMENT: Bulky Waste is defined in Section 3 and would include any solid waste which could not be picked
up during routine collection. If a packer truck is used, the r:r? ?f;hs opening would be the limit on bulky waste.
The usual bulky waste would include "white goods," [hat is stoves, refrigerators or washers, or such items js
furniture or hot water tanks. Interior storage prior to pick-up is needed to avoid unsightly accumulations at
residences. The size of the locality will determine schedule. A small locality could make one collection per
month, with larger localities needing a more sophisticated approach. The owner of such waste items in a small
locality would not be prohibited from taking bulky items to an approved processing or disposal facility. Under
the powers in Section 6.02 this could be either a public operation or it could be done by contract.
6.06 Dead Animals. The Director shall provide the necessary equipment and personnel to remove dead animals
within this locality and shall schedule such collections to provide pick-up with a minimum delay. This Section shall not
apply to dead animals, or parts thereof, from any commercial or agricultural activity within this locality.
COMMENT: This Section is designed to provide the sanitary collection and disposal of dead animals within the
locality and to prevent the use of normal solid waste collection service for dead animal disposition. Such service
would include animals kitted in traffic. Disposal would be through existing facilities, such as an incinerator or a
sanitary landfill.
6.07 Contracts. All contracts entered into by the Director under this ordinance shall meet the following minimum
requirements:
a. Be with the consent of the Legislative Body of this locality, v
b. Prior approval of the chief legal officer of this locality.
c. Be for a term of not less than years, nor more than years.
d. Meet the insurance requirements of this ordinance.
e. Be awarded to the lowest and best bidder.
f. Show full details of ownership of the successful bidder, including the names and addresses of all principals, or
officers and majority stockholders, if a corporation.
g. Such other conditions as may be set forth in instructions to bidders or other necessary qualifications, as required
by the contemplated work.
COMMENT: All contracts entered into by the Director of the Administrative Department shall be with the
consent of the local governing body. It should be approved by the chief legal officer, who will have been active in
its drafting. A contract for a one-year period will be too short to attract bidders where large financial
commitments for facilities and equipment are involved. Present economic conditions do not encourage a long
term contract unless it contains provisions for adjustment to meet increased costs brought about by inflation. In
drafting such clauses it should be kept in mind that changes in techniques mayresult in lower costs; therefore, a
change in the contract prices should include this factor, which can also be invoked in a deflationary period.
Insurance bonds are required by Section 18 and are limited to performance and payment bonds and liability
insurance. The payment bond would include premium liability and equipment liability. In those States where
private insurance companies handle workmen's compensation, that requirement would be included in the
ordinance.
Price alone is not a goodcriterionfor the award of a contract since high standards may be expensive. Another
factor to be considered is that the lowest bidder may be forced to reduce services in order to make a profit.
6.08 Solid Waste Management Districts. The Director is hereby authorized to create one or more solid waste
management districts within the boundaries of this locality in order
-------
Regulation, through permits, of the optimum number of private persons will eliminate inefficiency, such as
duplication of routes.
6.09 Private Contractor Regulation. The Director shall determine the number of contractors needed to efficiently
serve the locality orall districts created under Section 6.08 and shall issue permits to the contractor or contractors who
are found to be qualified until the needs of the locality are met. Nothing in this ordinance shall prevent one contractor
from serving the locality or all districts created under Section 6.08.
COMMENT: This will give the Director the needed authority to exercise control over private contractors who
are managing solid waste within the locality. The goal to be achieved is efficient and economical service to all
generators of solid waste and it may be achieved through the use of one or more contractors. This section would
also allow the use of one or more contractors for collection and one or more contractors for disposal, or both
collection and disposal could be combined under one contract. If the system used involves other activity, such as
processing or resource recovery, that could be included in each district authorized by this section.
6.10 Service Charges, Non-Residential Solid Waste. The Director shall not set or regulate any service charges for
non-residential waste management by private contractors.
COMMENT: This section is directed to contractors serving non-residential solid waste sources, who are left
free to negotiate for the fees charged their customers. This section would not be used in any area where a local
government monopolizes solid waste management. This suggested ordinance is designed for use in a locality where
non-residential solid waste may be managed by private industry under the control of local government; therefore,
all non-residential waste is classified as commercial. A building or group of buildings consisting of five or more
dwelling units is classified as a commercial enterprise and will not be served as a part of the residential solid waste
management system. If solid waste management is regulated as a utility, this section would not apply.
6.11 Exclusive Service. All generators of solid waste, other than those operating under permits as authorized in
Section 7.01, shall use the services of the local government or contractor for the district in which the solid waste is
generated.
COMMENT: The restriction on the number of contractors servicing a district, coupled with the requirement
that all generators, residential or otherwise, use the services of the local government or contractor will allow
economical and efficient service.
Section 7.01 would exempt non-residential waste generators from this requirement as they would provide for
their own total solid waste management. In such cases, the applicant would have to meet all the provisions
regulating the activity of permit holders and would have to pay such fees as are set for that activity. Renewals, as
in all other permits, would be required also.
1. Permits for the Management of Solid Waste
7.07 Permit for the Storage, Transport, Processing, and Disposal of Solid Waste by the Generator thereof. The
Director shall prepare application forms for all such permits, requiring the following information:
a. The name and address of the applicant, showing its legal identity (corporation, partnership, association, etc.);
b. The business address of the applicant:
c. The types of waste to be covered by the permit;
d. The methods of storage, transport, processing and disposal;
e. Proof of all insurance required by this ordinance (State financial responsibility limits for motor vehicles, etc);
f. The route or routes to be used in transporting and schedules used;
g. The location and type of processing and/or disposal contemplated;
h. Information as required to indicate compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health, and Environmental
Protection Laws of the federal and/or state governments.
COMMENT: Consideration of safety and the environment are of prime importance. A permittee should be
required to indicate what kind of safety measures would be taken in his operations, and how he intends to
- 188 -
-------
comply with the law. Consideration should be given to the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement by
the agency; the permittee would be required to respond with measures toward mitigating any impacts.
7.02 Storage Permit. The Director is hereby authorized to prepare application forms for permits for the storage, on
premises, ol all solid waste generated and retained thereon for more than twenty-four continuous hours: Provided,
however, this section shall not apply to a resident of a building of four or less separate dwelling units. Such application
shall require:
a. The name and address of the applicant, showing its legal identity (individual, partnership, corporation, etc.); and
the business address of the applicant;
b. The classification, anticipated volume and weight of all solid waste to be stored;
c. The location, description and owner of all storage containers and ancillary equipment;
d. Frequency of collection, processing or disposal, showing all permit numbers thereof;
e. All other information reasonably required by me biiecior to fulfill the intent of this ordinance.
COMMENT: Effective solid waste management begins at the point of generation. Since the act of producing
solid waste cannot be totally controlled, the first element of management to be placed under a permit is storage.
The 24-hour time limit is arbitrary and may be varied to suit the solid waste management plan of the local
government. Such a time limit serves to stimulate the movement of solid waste between the point of storage and
further management.
The applicability of this section of 5 or more residences generally is the division between residential and
commercial activities. Efficient storage at such facilities would result in the use of bulk containers which must be
controlled.
The exemption of normal household waste from a building of four or less dwelling units can be used to
prevent the accumulation of waste such as inoperative vehicles and bulky waste on such premises.
As part of the solid waste management plan, the Director will classify the waste by its component parts. The
sophistication of classification will depend upon the activity conducted within the locality. Estimated volume and
weight are necessary for comprehensive management of all solid waste from the locality.
The requirement of the location of storage containers will allow pre-permit inspection. If exterior locations are
involved, sanitation and aesthetics must be evaluated. If interior locations are involved, fire hazards must also be
considered. In describing the containers the applicant need only specify the number and type, such as bulk
container or plastic bags. Auxiliary equipment, such as compactors, shredders and balers should be listed by
manufacturer, model number and the operational plan for each.
The requirements of subsection (d) will enable the Director to evaluate adequacy of present collection
practices and to cross-check other activity requiring a permit.
The omnibus provisions of (e) can be utilized to obtain compliance with the health, safety and environmental
requirements of the local governing body.
7.03 Permit for Solid Waste Collection. The Director shall prepare application forms for all such permits, requiring
the following information:
a. Name and address of the applicant, showing its legal identity (individual, partnership, corporation, etc.);
b. The business address of the applicant;
c. The identity of the non-residential customers using the collection service and all storage permit numbers of same;
If residential collection, the area served, hours of collection and type of collection service to be provided;
d. The routes used for the movement of solid waste between collection and further management;
e. An inventory of all motorized equipment to be used in such collection, including all permits required by law;
f. Proof of all insurance required by this ordinance. (State Financial responsibility limits for motor vehicles, etc.);
g. All other information reasonably required by the Director to fulfill the intent of this ordinance.
COMMENT: This is another step in the permit process of identifying and regulating solid waste management.
It would apply where private industry is engaged in collection of solid waste, ranging from a contract operation
for an entire city or county downward to a collector who may serve a particular type of industry.
The type of waste being collected is important since it will enable intelligent regulation by the enforcing arm
of the local government. Waste, such as brick, stone and mortar, would need little control, whereas waste from a
health care facility or food service establishment would require close regulation to minimize health problems. The
- 189 -
-------
identity of the user of the collection system would allow a crosscheck for observances of other requirements of
the law.
Supplying the Director with the names of customers will allow an evaluation of the scope of the contract and
will allow a crosscheck of storage permits. It would be impracrical to list all residential users of a collection
service but the area served should be described so that maximum efficiency and economy can be obtained
through the authority to limit the number of contractors in a given area. Existing contracts would not be affected
but could be controlled by permit issuances as contracts expire.
Any contractor will have a plan of operation, including routes, which will enable the Director to see that
collection will not interfere with core area traffic and to prevent heavy traffic on residential streets. The type of
service would range from curbside bags to taking the filled container to the collection vehicle and returning the
empty container to its proper location.
Once a collection vehicle has been filled, the Director should know the route or routes to be used in further
management, such as delivery to a transfer station, an incinerator, a recovery1 station or a disposal site, thereby
providing another tool in planning solid waste management, such as alternative routes to provide efficient traffic
flow and the location needs for transfer stations.
The equipment inventory will enable the Director to evaluate the ability of the applicant to fulfill his
commitments as outlined to this point. Authority under this ordinance does not excuse compliance with state or
other licensing laws or permits, such as a public utilities commission.
Insurance requirements are twofold in nature; protection of property and person and protection of the local
government. The former is achieved through liability policies, including those on motor vehicles and the latter
through performance bonds.
The last subsection could be used to require the applicant to file copies of existing contracts so that
overlapping contracts can be eliminated.
7.04 Permit to Locate and Operate a Transfer Station. The Director is hereby authorized to prepare application
forms for permits to locate and operate transfer stations in this locality when applicable, requiring the following
information.
a. The name and business address of the applicant;
b. A full legal description of each site, including the name and address of each owner of record. If not owned by the
applicant, documentary proof of the right to use each site, with appropriate site plans;
c. Clear evidence of approval by all other regulatory agencies;
d. Operational plan including classification, anticipated volume and weights of solid waste, hours of operation, and
resource recovery activity or potential;
e. Applicable permit numbers of persons using each facility;
f. Inventory of all fixed equipment;
g. The method or methods of transporting the solid waste from the transfer station for further management, the
destination, route, and identity of the carriers involved;
h. Certificates of all insurance required by this ordinance;
i. All other information reasonably required by the Director to fulfill the intent of this ordinance.
COMMENT: Generally, two factors determine the use of transfer stations. Volume and distance to the next
step of management make it inefficient and uneconomical to use collection vehicles. There may be circumstances
peculiar to a locality where a factor or factors other than distance make a transfer station desirable. The.need for
transfer stations is a matter which will be resolved in the planning stage authorized in Section 6.01.
The legal description will locate the site. Ownership need not be in the applicant, who may have leased the
premise or who may have an option to buy or lease the property. The details of the site plans would depend upon
the requirements of other regulatory bodies, which would include approval by a zoning board. As mentioned
earlier, the user of this ordinance should look to State statutes for his authority to act. Permit numbers of users
can be used by the authorities as a cross-check for full compliance with the ordinance. Fixed equipment, such as a
compactor or scales, would be used to evaluate the performance of the unit. Movement from the transfer station
may be by truck, barge or railhaul and must have the capacity to assure prompt movement from the transfer
station.
If the user wishes to include alteration modification of a transfer station such requirements could be under the
omnibus section.
- 190 -
-------
Sanitation, including periodic removal of all solid waste for cleaning the facility, would be set out in the rules
and regulations of the enforcement agency,
7.05 Permit to Transport Solid Waste. The Director is hereby authorized to prepare application forms to transport
solid waste, originating in this locality, by any method not covered by any other provision of this ordinance, requiring
the following information:
a. The name and business address of the applicant (individual, partnership, corporation).
b. The methods of transport, unit volume, schedule of movement routes used and the identity of the persons in the
next management step.
c. All other information reasonably required by the Director to fulfill the intent of this ordinance.
COMMENT: The primary thrust of this section is devoted to the movement of solid waste other than by the
collection vehicle. This would include movement from the transfer station, residue for incinerators or
nonrecoverable residue from resource recovery activities. When a contract operation is involved a local
government may regulate transportation beyond its borders. In a railhaul situation the contract could require the
right of way to be kept free of solid waste spillage.
7.06 Permit to Locate and Operate an Incinerator. The Director is hereby authorized to prepare application forms
for permits to locate and operate incinerators or to operate existing incinerators in this locality, requiring the following
information:
a. The name and addressuf the applicant, showing its legal identity (individual, partnership, corporation, etc.);
b. The business address of the applicant;
c. A full legal description of each site, including the name and address of each owner of record. If not owned by the
applicant, documentary proof of the right to use the site, with the appropriate site plans;
d. Clear evidence of approval by all other regulatory agencies;
e. Operational plan, including classification, anticipated volume and weight of solid waste to be incinerated, hours
of operation, anticipated volume and weight of residue, and resource recovery activity;
f. The method of transporting the residue from the incinerator, the destination and identity of the carriers involved;
g. Certificates of all insurance required by this ordinance;
h. All other information reasonably required by the Director to fulfill the intent of this ordinance.
COMMENT: Under the definitions in Section 3. this section regulates all solid waste incineration within the
locality, including backyard burners and on site activity by businesses, therefore each user must have the prior
approval of air pollution control authority before the permit will be issued. The two positive steps authorized are
in resource recovery activity and residue disposal.
The user of this suggested ordinance may wish to include design and performance standards for the
incineration process and the handling of waste, including the residue, in all facilities constructed after its effective
date. This could also be required in increasing the quality of performance of existing facilities.
7.07 Permit to Locate and Operate a Sanitary Landfill. The Director is hereby authorized to prepare application
forms for permits to locate and operate a sanitary landfill in this locality, requiring the following information:
a. The name and address of the applicant, showing its legal identity (individual, partnership, corporation, etc.);
b. The business address of the applicant.
c. A full legal description of each site, including the name and address of each owner of record.If not owned by
the applicant, documentary proof of the right to the site, with the site plans which conform to the requirements of
this ordinance.
d. Clear evidence of approval by all other regulatory agencies.
e. The engineering design report, prepared by an engineer licensed to practice that profession in this State, including
but not limited to the following:
1. Hydrology and climatology
2. Soils and geology
3. Site improvements
4. Volume requirements
5. Control of leaching and gas movement
- 191 -
-------
6. Surface and groundwater protection
7. Completed use
8. Location of residences and structures
9. Access streets, roads and highways
f. Operational plan which shall include, but not be limited to:
1. Hours of operation
2. Classification of waste
3. Anticipated volume and weight of waste
4. Hazardous waste handling
5. Equipment to be utilized
6. Landfilling methods
7. Availability of cover material
8. Anticipated life of the site
g. All other information reasonably required by the Director to fulfill the intent of this ordinance.
COMMENT: In designing the permit form, the user will have to act within the constraints of applicable State
law and the rules and regulations authorized therein. Thorough planning and the application of sound engineering
principles to all stages of site selection, design, operation and completed use will result in a successful and
efficient sanitary landfill. In order to meet this objective, it is essential that the rules and regulations be
comprehensive so that the director can evaluate the applicant's design and operation plans.
7.08 Permit to Locate and Operate a Resource Recovery Facility. The Director is hereby authorized to prepare
application forms for permits to locate and operate facilities to recover material or energy resources from solid waste
within the locality, requiring the following information:
a. The name and business of the applicant;
b. Clear evidence of approval by all other regulatory agencies;
c. A full legal description of each site, including the owner .of record or, if non-owned, documentary proof of the
right to each site, with appropriate site plans;
d. An operational plan, including the classification, volume and weight of solid waste to be delivered, the materials
to be recovered, anticipated volume and weight of nonrecoverable residue and hours of operation;
e. The method of transporting the residue from the recovery facility, the destination and identity of the carriers
involved;
f. Certificates of all insurance required by this ordinance;
g. All other information reasonably required by the Director to fulfill the intent of this ordinance.
COMMENT: The need to preserve natural resources has been apparent for some time and has resulted in the
passage of the Resource Recovery Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-512). This section is another step in identifying solid
waste management and is intended to regulate an activity primarily engaged in resource recovery from solid
waste. It would not apply to a paperstock dealer, can manufacturer, or similar activities buying recovered
resources to be recycled or reused. Nor would it apply to a retail outlet operated by a charity, since the stock
there is donated.
Two points must be kept in mind by the user of this suggested ordinance. The permits which are authorized in
Section 7.01 to 7.08 will not excuse requirements of other regulatory bodies within the locality or higher level
within the State. All permit provisions here would apply to both public and private activity, therefore those users
who want a public activity excluded must do so.
7.09 Permits to Issue. If the application for any permit required herein shows that the applicant will perform the
services or operate the facility, or both, for which the permit is sought, in conformity with the laws of this State,
locality and the provisions of this ordinance, including all rules and regulations authorized herein, the permit or permits
shall issue. If, in the opinion of the Director of the Administrative Department, modifications can be made which will
bring the application within the intent and purpose of this ordinance, he shall notify the applicant or applicants, in
writing, setting forth the corrections to be made and the time in which such corrections shall be completed.
COMMENT: In all instances where all legal requirements are met, the Director is obligated to issue the permits
for which application is made. If there are corrections which would bring about full compliance then this should
- 192 -
-------
be brought to the attention of the applicant and a specific rime limit set for compliance. The desirable course to
follow here would be one which would encourage applicants to upgrade their application to meet the standards
set out in the ordinance. The rime limit should be realistic. No provision has been made for an extension <->/' the
original time period because this could lead to procrastination. .\'o permit should be issued until full compliance
has been assured.
7.10 Permits, Denial. If the applicant fails to make the corrections pursuant to the notice given under Section ".10
within the time limit specified therein, or, if the application does not clearly show that the applicant will render services
or operate the facility without health hazard or adverse effects on the environment, the application shall be denied and
the applicant notified, in writing, stating therein the reasons for the denial. Nothing in this section shall prevent any
applicant from reapplying after the rejection of his application, provided the requirements of this ordinance are met.
COMMENT: The intent of the ordinance includes the identity of all solid waste sources and assurance ihai
total management will enhance the environment and protect the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants.
therefore an application which does not assure full compliance with those requirements must be denied, even
though it may eliminate a business. Few businesses will refuse to meet any reasonable requirement and will be in
a position to find other successful applicants for temporary waste management.
7.11 Permit Number, Display. All motor vehicles operating under any permit required by this ordinance shall display
the permit number or numbers on each side, in colors which contrast with that of the vehicle, such numbers to be
clearly legible and not less than 12 inches high.
COMMENT: This section will enable the enforcement agency to check on all motor vehicles used in solid
waste management as a means of enforcing permit requirements^ and to prevent the unauthorized use of permit
numbers.
8. Powers and Duties of the Enforcement Agency
8.01 Rules and Regulations. The enforcement agency shall adopt, revise, revoke and enforce rules and regulations
governing the health, safety, welfare and environmental aspects of solid waste management within this locality. These
rules and regulations must be compatible with state law and applicable state rules and regulations.
COMMENT: The success of effective solid waste management will depend upon the rules and regulations
authorized here. The intent is to allow flexibility in drafting rules by the enforcement agency rather than having
legislative action for this purpose. It is anticipated that some users of this suggested ordinance will also be areas
where waste win be managed, but not generated, therefore a broad authority is given and includes storage,
collection, transport, transfer, processing, recovery, and disposal
8.02 Inspections. In order to insure compliance with the laws of this State, the ordinances of this locality and the
rules and regulations authorized herein, the Enforcement Agency is authorized to inspect at reasonable times, all phases
of solid waste management within this locality.
COMMENT: As shown in Section 7, permits are issued conditioned upon observance of State and local law,
this ordinance and rules and regulations authorized by Sections 6.03 and 8.01. Inspection is the best way to
insure compliance with all the above. Conscientious inspection would allow early detection of violations and their
correction.
Amendment IV, United States Constitution provides: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers and effects against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated, but no warrants shall
issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the person or thing to be seized. "All State Constitutions have the same provision in some form. In
the event of a refusal of entry, a search warrant will be the source of entry.
8.03 Notices. In all instances where such inspections reveal violations of this ordinance, the rules and regulations
governing solid waste management, or the laws of this State, the Enforcement Agency shall issue written notice for each
- 193 -
-------
such violation, stating therein the violation or violations found, the date and time of such violation and the corrective
measures to be taken, together with the time in which such corrections shall be made. All such notices shall be kept in a
clearly marked file and shall be available for public inspection.during regular business hours.
COMMENT: This section is limited to violations found as the result of inspections and will not apply to any
littering violations; the latter would fall into the class of law which is generally enforced by the uniformed police.
8.04 Citations. In all notices involving permit holders where the corrective measures have not been taken within the
time specified, the Enforcement Agency shall cite the violator to appear before the Director of the Administrative
Department provided, however, in those cases where an extension of time will permit correction and where there is no
public health hazard created by the delay, one extension of time, not to exceed the original period, may be given.
In all instances other than Section 12.01 where the inspections authorized in £»c"on 8.02 reveal violations of the
laws of this State, the ordinances of this locality, the rules and regulations in Section 8.01 or when the Enforcement
Agency is aware of any such violation, the violator shall be cited to appear in the Court at a day and
time shown in the citation.
COMMENT: This provides a dual enforcement tool. The rules and regulations authorized to the Administrative
Department governing permit holders are primarily to ensure economical and efficient solid waste management.
Such violations can be handled through appearances before the Director of the Administrative Department. Other
provisions established by State law, ordinance, or rules and regulations are designed to protect the safety, health,
welfare, and the environment should carry a heavier penalty for violations. A violator of a rule involving a permit
holder would be penalized by a suspension of a permit, or by a revocation. A person operating a disposal facility
contrary to the ordinance would be cited to a formal court-, where the sentence could be both penal and
pecuniary. In the case of a defective reusable container (Section 12.01) the only penalty is the loss of the
unacceptable container.
The surrounding circumstances will include the nature of the violation, its duration and whether it was
intentional or inadvertant. All these must be considered by the Commissioner in deciding what action to take.
Due process requires that the permittee receives a detailed list of the alleged violations. After receiving the list,
the permittee may decide whether to appeal, correct the violations, or do nothing.
The notice, by including the corrections necessary to avoid permit revocation gives the permittee the
opportunity to correct the violations. Ten days is a suggested time, and is reasonable for the alleged violator to
decide if he wants to appeal, and if he so decides, to do so.
With the notice, the permittee knows exactly what the alleged violations are and what must be done to correct
them. The permittee can then make an intelligent decision as to whether he feels the citation is correct, and thus
the permittee will make the corrections; or whether he feels the citation is incorrect, and he will appeal the
decision by first requesting a hearing.
Reasonable time will depend on the nature, extent and number of violations. The time must be sufficient to
allow the permittee to decide whether to correct the violations or to_appeal. If the violations are extensive, the
Enforcement Agency may extend the deadline for correcting the violations if the permittee has commenced the
corrections, continues to process satisfactorily, and the Enforcement Agency is satisfied that the permittee is
acting in good faith, and no health hazard is present, and will complete the corrections as soon as possible.
If the time limit elapses, and the permittee has not filed a request for a hearing or corrected the violations (or
at least begun corrections and received an extension from the Director) then the permit is automatically revoked.
Since the permittee did not request a hearing within provided, he has waived his rights. Thus the revocation is
final, and the only possible recourse left to the permittee is the courts.
After the revocation of the permit, the ex-permittee is liable for the penalties. The revocation and penalty
provisions of this ordinance are not mutually exclusive. The Director has the option of invoking either or both
provisions.
8.04.1 Hearings. The Enforcement Agency shall appear, through its authorized personnel, and present its evidence,
through the Chief Legal Officer, of the violations charged. The permit holder cited may appear in person or through his
attorney and may cross-examine the Enforcement Agency witnesses prior to presenting evidence on his behalf.
- 194 -
-------
COMMENT: This is a simplified procedural matter in which the Enforcement Agency is required to bring its
evidence in support of the charge set forth in the notice. This will allow the cited permit holder an opportunity to
cross-examine prior to presenting his evidence. The usual administrative hearing will follow judicial procedures
but will be on a less formal basis.
8.04.2 Opinion. The Director of the Administrative Department shall decide the issue and shall, within days
of the conclusion of the hearing, render an opinion in writing, in which opinion he may suspend or revoke the permit or
permits involved in the hearing.
COMMENT: A realistic time limit should be set, so that the appeal can be considered prior to the decision. A
long time interval should be avoided as it would encourage procrastination.
8.05 Injunction. In all cases where the violation of this ordinance or the rules and regulations authorized herein, or
the laws of this State create an immediate threat to the safety, health, welfare or environment of the residents of this
locality, the Enforcement Agency shall cite the violator, stating therein the necessary corrective measures to be taken,
and shall order same to begin forthwith. If such corrective measures are not taken forth, the Enforcement Agency shall
notify the Chief Legal Officer of this locality who shall immediately apply to the Court for an injunction
prohibiting further violation as shown in the notice authorized in Section 8.03. The provision of this section shall be in
addition to and not in substitution of any other section or sections.
COMMENT: This is intended as an added safeguard where action or inaction may create an immediate threat
to the safety, health, welfare, or environment of the population. An injunction may be obtained to compel action
where corrections are not undertaken immediately. This section would not preclude citation to a court where
penal and/or pecuniary penalties could be assessed.
9. Solid Waste Management Advisory Board
9.01 Appointment. The majority of the Legislative Body of the locality shall appoint residents of this
municipality to a board, to be known as the Solid Waste Management Advisory Board, and shall fill all vacancies,
however created. Any such appointee shall serve out the unexpired term of the person who is replaced.
COMMENT: The use of an odd number is desirable to avoid a tie in voting. The ideal board would be made up
of a combination of professional and 'lay people, drawing upon such professions as medicine, engineering,
planning and law. Lay members could come from industry, solid waste management, etc. Both the Director of the
Administrative Department and the Commissioner of the Enforcement Agency could be made members without
voting rights. All appointments could be by the Chief Executive with the consent of the Legislative Body.
9.02 Terms. The Solid Waste Management Advisory Board shall serve for a term of four years, provided, however, in
the initial term, the first named shall serve for two years, the next named shall serve for three years and
the last named shall serve for four years.
COMMENT: The term should correspond with the term of the appointing body or person where possible. In
the latter case, the ordinance could authorize the executive to appoint members, with the consent of the
Legislative Body. Staggered initial terms will avoid a too cooperative board. In a nine man board, the first two
would serve two years, the next three named would serve for three years and the last four named would serve
four years. All terms illustrated are initial.
9.03 Organization - Meetings. The Advisory Board shall, within thirty days after its full appointment, hold a
meeting at which it shall elect its officers and adopt by-laws governing the conduct of its business. The Board shall meet
not less than one time in each quarter year. The Chief Executive or a majority of the Legislative Body or a quorum of
the board may call an emergency meeting at any time:
COMMENT: Once all members of the Advisory Board have been appointed there is a mandatory thirty-day
period in which to hold the first meeting. By-laws are important in that they spell out such terms as a quorum.
- 195 -
-------
emergency meeting, etc. Added emergency meetings are provided for on the initiative of theChief Executive, or a
majority of the Legislative Body, or a quorum of the Advisory Board.
9.04 Duties. The Advisory Board:
a. shall advise the Director in the preparation of the solid waste management plan, including the selection of solid
waste management sites within this locality.
b. may review permit application forms and recommend revisions thereof, which shall be consistent with the terms
of this ordinance.
c. shall attend all hearings called under this ordinance for the adoption, revision or revocation of rules and
regulations authorized herein. It may make such recommendations to the Director as are authorized by its by-laws.
d. shall attend all public hearings called by the Director for establishing or altering rates, charges or fees required by
this ordinance. It may make such recommendations to the Director as are authorized by its by-laws.
e. may attend any hearings held by the Director regarding complaints arising from the administration of this
ordinance. The Advisory Board may make recommendations to the Director which, in its opinion, would alleviate
the cause of such complaints.
• In all such hearings, the Advisory Board shall participate through the Director only and all recommendations shall be
in writing.
COMMENT: The Advisory Board is designed to do just what the title implies. It is as valuable as it is permitted
to be and should represent a cross section of the locality which it serves. No provision has been made for
compensation so that anyone using the sample would be free to set out their own schedule. Usually, a board of
this type will get either a nominal salary for each day served or the members will be paid all actual expenses
incurred and paid.
10. Time and Frequency of Collection
10.01 Residential. All residential solid waste shall be collected times each week. No less than hours
shall lapse between each such collection. All collections shall be made between a.m. and p.m.
COMMENT: Population density, waste generation and season will determine the frequency of collection.
Dense population and heavy waste generation require frequent collection. Summer months may produce added
waste in grass clippings, fruit and vegetable wastes, etc. This section could require two collections per week.
Minimum collection frequency of twice within 7 days is recognized as disrupting the common house fly life cycle.
The time of collection is designed to prevent noise or other annoyances at times when the majority of the
population will be resting.
10.02 Non-Residential. All non-residential solid waste shall be collected at sufficient intervals to protect the
environment as set forth in the rules and regulations authorized herein. All such collections shall be scheduled so that
collection vehicles do not interfere with rush-hour traffic.
COMMENT: The variety of non-residential waste prevents detailed regulation as to frequency of collection.
Environmental hazards would be the main concern here. Organic wastes subject to decomposition and vector
attraction should be removed daily. Other wastes, such as paper from office buildings, need not be collected that
often. All business area collections should be set, and efficiency and economy would dictate setting them, at
times other than the morning and evening rush hours.
11. Storage
11.01 Residential. The owners of all residential units shall provide approved containers with sufficient volume to
store all^ residential solid waste generated in each such unit between collections. All residential solid waste shall be
securely stored in an approved container, except as herein below provided.
COMMENT: This provision fixes responsibility for providing an adequate number of containers with sufficient
volume for residential waste storage.
- 196 -
-------
"Approved containers" are left open for definition by rules and regulations. Such containers could be of the
conventional size, rustproof, and durable material, with two handles to facilitate emptying, etc., and should
include durable plastic or paper bags. Bags are particularly valuable during the summer months. "Securely " would
require tight closure at all times other than when placing waste in or emptying waste from a container.
11.02 Non-Residential. All occupants of non-residential premises shall provide a sufficient number of approved
containers for the storage of solid waste which they generate and shall place all such solid waste therein, other than
those wastes which do not require containerized storage which shall be stored as authorized by the rules and regulations
authorized in Section 8.
COMMENT: In regulating containers for non-residential solid waste, care must be taken to avoid requiring
storage of wastes which can be stored in the open. These two sections illustrate methods affixing responsibility
to provide approved containers for storage prior to collection and leave to the one responsible therefore, such as
purchase or lease.
12. Containers
12.01 Sanitation. The owners of all reusable approved containers shall maintain them and the adjacent area in a
nuisance and odor free condition.
COMMENT: The ordinance requires the use of approved containers for all wastes requiring such storage.
Routine housekeeping should result in clean containers used for storage of solid waste. This section would be
available as an enforcement tool for those few who will be careless in their housekeeping and also to institute
effective insect and rodent control procedures.
12.02 Defective Containers. All reusable containers incapable of meeting the definition of approved containers shall
be considered waste and shall be placed in the collection vehicle by the collectors.
COMMENT: Many localities have tried a tag method of control of container condition with little success. The
usual way is to use a warning tag, which is attached to the container. If the container is reused, then a red tag is
attached, informing the homeowner that it is illegal to use the container at any time after the tag da:a. The
system here simplifies the entire process and is intended to safeguard the collection crew. This is a type of action
which must be properly used in order to maintain resident cooperation.
12.03 Residential Container Location Prior to Collection. All residential solid waste containers shall be placed at the
curb (or alley) not more than hours before collection. All reusable containers shall be removed from the curb (or
alley) hours after collection.
COMMENT: This section serves two purposes. It requires set-out by the homeowner and also serves to regulate
placement of full containers and the removal of empties within a reasonable time so that full containers will be
less likely to be upset by animals or vandals and.empty containers will be removed promptly by the residents,
thereby eliminating an unsightly row of cans before each house.
Set-out and removal by the resident is the most economical process. The availability of funds and distance to
the collection point would determine the use of this system. If used, some consideration must be given the
handicapped and elderly. Some cities will provide a set-out service for that category. Others may leave it to each
individual to make his own arrangement. If bulk containers are in use there may be a need for some variation,
particularly where the collection truck enters the property for pick up.
13. Non-Containerized Waste
Non-bulky wastes which do not provide food or harborage for insects and rodents may be placed at the curb for
collection provided they are secured to prevent littering and do not exceed Ibs. in weight.
- 197 -
-------
COMMENT: This Section It sufficiently broad to include such Items as newspapers, magazines, treellmbs,
etc. Size would be within limits set by collection trucks. Weight limits should be set so that the collection crew
will not be injured in lifting the bundles. Rules and regulations could be used for added detail, if needed.
14. Bulky Waste
All bulky items shall be stored within the residence of the owner The Director shall be notified by each resident of
the type and location of items of bulky waste* to be collected and shall make same available for pick-up on the date
schedules by the Director.
COMMENT: The usualy bulky items will include "white goods", that is, refrigerators, washers, dryers, etc.,
and would include furniture, televisions and hot water tanks. "Available for pick-up " would be determined by the
community and could Include carry-out from within the residence. The requirement of storage within the
residence would keep bulky items out of sight.
15. Dead Animals
Any resident who has, or finds, a dead animal on his premises shall promptly notify the Director of its location and
type and shall make such remains immediately available for collection as provided in Section 6.06,
COMMENT: The purpose here li to prevent the use of the normal collection service for the dispostion of dead
animals, primarily for sanitation purposes. Rules and regulations could be used to provide for storage prior to
pick up. Enclosure in a plastic bag would be an example of such a requirement. Needless to say, pick up should be
made as soon as possible after notice it received from the resident by the Director.
The street department would remove dead animals from the streets.
16, Collection - Residential
All residential solid waste shall be collected by the locality or the collector under contract with the locality.
COMMENT: This section is for use in local collection as no other section coven residential collection other
than the permit requirements for a generator who wttl dispose of his own waste.
If private contractors are used then the contract between the locality and the contractor would set out In
detail the duties and rights of the parties. In such case, the permit sections and rate regulation would apply.
17, Fees
/ 7.01 Establishment and Payment. The Director shall establish such fees for residential solid waste collection as are
necessary to meet all costs of operating and maintaining the residential solid waste management system. All such fees,
including subsequent revisions thereof, shall be paid by the resident or owner of record of the property served, and shall
be paid to the order of the applicable agency on a quarterly basis, not more than thirty days after the expiration of
each quarter.
COMMENT: In establishing feet it is essential that accurate cost figures be used. Of these figures, labor and
equipment will represent the greater percentage, with overhead such as office space, supervisory salaries, vacation
and sick pay and retirement benefits being representative of the balance. The quarterly bitting system is used as It
follows most water supply and waste water bitting procedures. These fees could be added to those already in
force.
The feet could be paid into the general fund or Into a specific account limited to solid watte management.
If general tax funds are the source of revenue for solid waste management, this section should be eliminated.
- 198 -
-------
17.02 Delinquency. All unpaid fees shall become deliquent upon the expiration of the time specified in Section
17.01 and ihall bear interest at % per annum until paid.
COMMENT: Thlt It a $tep in the proceu of forced collection feet for wild watte management. The f&t are
deemed delinquent after the expiration of the thirty day period given in the preceding tectton and collection /;
required in the tubuquent action.
The provition for intereit li Intended to bring to the attention of the delinquent account the fact that late
payment addi to the cott of hit individual tolld watte management and to encourage prompt payment. Current
lawful Interett ratet could be uted at a guide here and, in no cote, ihould the legal rate be exceeded,
17.03 Collection, The Director shall notify the Chief Legal Officer of all delinquent accounts not more than _____
days after the end of each quarter and the Chief Legal Officer shall take the necessary action tocollectsame. Each
delinquent account shall be liable to the governing body for court costs and all cost items involved in its collection.
COMMENT: Thlt tectton would allow tome time for out of court collection activities within the rime limit set
here. Section 17,01 createt a delinquency 30 dayt after the expiration of a quarter, thereby automatically
limiting the time for tutt. An additional thirty day period would not be too long to allow the Director to prepare
hit delinquency lift. Pretent terminology placet a mandatory duty upon theChiefLegaLOfflcer to collect,
Thlt provition l» the only one In the tample relative to delinquency of payment!. Health comiderationt make
it mandatory that toUd watte management be continued even though uter feet are not paid. Added provitiont
could be considered, Including forced tale of real or penonal property.
Welfare pay menu may have to be adfutted to Include thetefeet.
17,04 Uneollected. All uncollected feet, after judgement, shall be placed on record in the locality where the
property served is located, as any other judgement lien, and shall be released as paid,
COMMENT: Property ownen, at a rule, are a liable and reliable group. They, in turn, can protect themtelvet
by adding the cott oftottd watte management to the rental charge to their tenantt.
There It utually a debt limitation Impoted on local governmental unitt which prevent! the ute of tax fund
unleu the debt limit ha not been reached. The ute of a fee win prevent rettrictiont Impoted by the debt ceiling.
There wOl be Inttancet where a judgement may be obtained and collection may be delayed or it may be
impouible. By recording the judgement the pouibiltty of payment will be increaied.
17.05 Increate, No fees authorized in this ordinance shall be increased until the Director has held one public hearing
thereon. No hearing shall be held before one notice thereof has been published in a newspaper of general circulation
within this locality. There shall be not less than days nor more than days lapse between such publication
and hearing,
COMMENT: At pretently ttatet, no hearing would berequired in the event that a decreate In feet would be
pottfble,
A notice it required to advite the uteri of the tyttem and permit holdert that a rate Increate it promoted to
mat any interetted penon can appear and be heard. The time interval between publication and hearing thould be
oftufflcient duration to allow futt participation.
A wide publication of the propoted rate change It deifrable. Added media coverage could be uted to nature a
fully Informed public.
17.06 Hearing!, The Director shall preside at an hearings concerning fee increases and shall open and close the
hearing. Any system user or permit holder present and wishing to be heard shall be recognized by the Director, who
shall give the user or permit holder the opportunity to make a consise statement presenting his views.
COMMENT: Thlt tection It intended to provide tome order to the hearing by authorizing the Director to open
and clote the teuton. He would alto be authorized to recognize thote who with to be heard and to regulate the
time allocated for a conctte ttatement.
- 199 -
-------
18. Insurance
18.01 Performance Bonds. All persons who contract with this governing body to manage solid waste shall furnish
performance bonds conditioned upon the faithful performance of their agreements. All such bonds shall be written by
an insurance company licensed to transact business in this State and shall be for a sum of not less than one half of the
annual sum paid to each such contractor. No such bond shall exceed 100% of the annual contract payment to each
contractor. Each performance bond shall be for a period equal to the initial contract term, or any extension thereof.
COMMENT: Performance bonds are usually required by State law to protect the governing body in the event a
contractor defaults. Each performance bond will have a time limit set out in which a claim must be reported to the
company. Failure to notify the company in that time will void the policy. All insurance policies should be
reviewed periodically so that the rights of the locality can be protected.
This section could be expanded to require a performance bond of all permit holders who discontinue their
activities before the expiration date of the permit, thereby assuring continuance of the activities covered thereby.
18.02 Payment Bonds. Each contractor referred to above shall, not less than ten (10) days after the execution of
each contract, deliver to the governing body proof of a payment bond executed by a surety company licensed to
transact business in this State, guaranteeing payment of wages to all employees of the contractor and the cost of all
supplies, materials and insurance premiums required in fulfilling each contract.
COMMENT: This section is intended to safeguard all wages due employees of a contractor, as well as the
payment of materials and supplies used in the performance of the contract.
18.03 Liability Insurance. All contractors and permit holders under the provisions of this ordinance shall furnish
proof to the governing body of liability insurance covering all aspects of their activities under this ordinance. No
personal injury policy shall be for less than S per person or S per accident. No property damage
policy shall be for less than S per accident. All policies required by this ordinance shall have a minimum
cancellation period of not less than _____ days after receipt in writing of the notice of cancellation by the governing
body.
COMMENT: Care should be exercised in setting policy limit requirements which will protect the general
public. State financial responsibility limits for motor vehicles should not be considered as guides as they are
regarded as too low. Workmen's Compensation by a private carrier would not be covered by this section as it is
now written.
19. Permit Renewal
Any permit holder desiring to renew an existing permit shall complete and submit to the Director of the
Administrative Department an application therefor not more than _____ days nor less than _____ days before the
expiration date thereof and shall tender with each application form such permit fees as are herein below required.
COMMENT: Sufficient time should be allowed to process a renewal application to provide another source for
the activity, if the renewal is denied. It will also give the Director time to inspect equipment and sites.
20. Permit Fees
Each application for a permit, or renewal application, shall be accompanied by a certified check or money order in
the following amounts:
a. 7.01 $ (Self-Management)
b. 7.02 $ (Storage)
c. 7.03 S (Collection)
d. 7.04 S (Transfer)
e. 7.05 S (Transport)
- 200 -
-------
f. 7.06 S
g. 7.07 S"
h. 7.08 S"
_(Incineration)
_(Sanitary Landfill)
(Resource Recovery)
All fees required by this section shall be placed in the
fund of this governmental agency.
COMMENT: Fees should be realistic and should bear a reasonable relation to the expenses incurred by the
governmental agency for processing applications. It may be desirable to provide an added clause making all such
fees non-returnable.
21. Appeals
Any person who feels aggrieved by any action of the Director of the Administrative Department or the Commissioner
of the Enforcement Agency may within days of the act for whiuh redress is sought, appeal to the Advisory
Board, in writing, setting forth in a concise statement rJie act being appealed and the ground for its reversal.
The Advisory Board shall, within days following the receipt of each written appeal schedule a hearing date
and notify the appellant and the Director 67 the Administrative Department or Commissioner of the Enforcement
Agency in writing of the date and time of the scheduled hearing. The appellant may appear on his own behalf, or
through counsel, and may present his witnesses. The Director of the Administrative Department or Commissioner of
the Enforcement Agency may present rebuttal testimony and witnesses.
The Advisory Board shall within days after the hearing notify the Director of the Administrative Department
or Commissioner of the Enforcement Group of its decision and recommendations and shall forward one copy to the
appellant.
The Director of the Administrative Department or Commissioner of the Enforcement Agency shall within
days of the receipt of the decision of the Advisory Board, either approve or disapprove the decision and
recommendation of the Advisory Board and shall forward a copy to the appellant.
COMMENT: Appeals to an Advisory Board should be encouraged as this could help relieve congested courts of
their case loads and provide for rapid resolution of the question. It should be emphasized, however, that any
decision of the Board is binding upon the governmental agency. In the proceeding, the Administrative
Department makes the final decision. Disadvantages of such appeals are the absence of power of a board to
compel the attendnace of witnesses or the production of evidence.
22. Appeals, Alternative
Any person who feels aggrieved by any act of the Administrative Department or Enforcement Agency may waive the
provision of Section 21, and within the time limit specified therein, appeal directly to the Court of
During all appeals authorized herein, the opinion of the Director shall remain in full force and effect.
COMMENT: The Administrative Procedures Act of the State should be consulted and followed for the details
of appeals procedures, including time restraints. Each State will have a court of broad initial jurisdiction which
should be authorized to hear appeals from administrative action.
23. Computation of Time
The time within which an act is required by law to be done shall be computed by excluding the first and including
the last day; except that when the last day falls on Sunday or a legal holiday, then the Act may be done on the next
succeedingday which is not Sunday or a legal holiday.
When a public office in which an act, required by law, is to be performed is closed to the public for the entire day
which constitutes the last day for doing such act, or before its usual closing time on such day, then such act may be
performed on the next succeeding day which is not a Sunday or a legal holiday.
COMMENT: This section will set a standard for actual time intervals as all notices to correct deficiencies will
have to carry a definite time limit. Other provisions, as in permit applications require a definite time period for
action.
- 201 -
-------
24. Title to Waste
In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, title to the solid waste shall vest in the owner of each management
activity or facility in which the solid waste is placed.
COMMENT: This section is intended to pass title to waste from the generator to an identifiable person
throughout its management. This will help fix responsibility for management and will avoid confusion as to
ownership of recovered items. It will also avoid conflicting claims in the event a resident inadvertently includes an
item of value in his waste, as such item would be neither unwanted, discarded or useless. Resource recovery will
give added emphasis to the need for legal title to solid waste, particularly where large volumes are involved,
therefore this section clearly fixes ownership at any management step.
25. Prohibited Activities
25.01 Dead Animals. It shall be unlawful to place any dead animal, or parts thereof, in a container for collection
without the consent of the Director, provided, however, this section shall not apply to animal parts from food
preparation for human consumption.
COMMENT: This section is to encourage the use of the dead animal collection required in Sections 6.06 and
15. The exclusion includes all food preparation, including residential and commercial activity, such as restaurants.
25.02 Littering. It shall be unlawful to place, or allow to be placed, any solid waste upon the roads, streets, public or
private property within this municipality contrary to the provisions of this ordinance.
COMMENT: Proper solid waste management requires regulated disposal. This section and Section 25.08,
prohibiting dumps, are intended to eliminate litter and promiscuous dumping. The penalties provided in Section
26 can be used to discourage either practice. "Allow" is included for the protection of a property owner whose
consent is not given to a person dumping or littering.
25.03 Acts Contrary to Ordinance. It shall be unlawful to store, collect, transport, transfer, recover, incinerate, or
dispose of any solid waste within the boundaries of this locality contrary to the provisions of this ordinance.
COMMENT: This Section declares all aspects of solid waste management illegal unless done in conformity with
the provisions of the ordinance. Any person who stores, collects, transports, transfers, recovers, incinerates, or
disposes of solid waste must have the required permits and must conform to State and local laws and the rules
and regulations authorized in this ordinance. Although residential solid waste has minimal regulation here,
legislative bodies may want to go into greater detail.
In the event that a process or activity for solid waste management is introduced in the locality, the user will
have to set up a permit application and include it in this and other applicable sections.
25.04 Vehicle Construction. It shall be unlawful to transport any solid waste in any vehicle which permits the
contents to blow, sift, leak or fall therefrom.
COMMENT: This is the only provision which sets standards for vehicle construction and is a requirement
usually found in State laws.
25.05 No Interference with AuthorizedSolid Waste Management. It shall be unlawful for any person to interfere with
any employee of this locality or any employee of a contractor whfle in the performance of their duties as authorized by
this ordinance.
COMMENT: Inspections before and after issuance of permit are necessary to insure compliance with the
ordinance. This Section is the basis for penalizing interference with any person acting under the authority of the
ordinance.
- 202 -
-------
25.06 Scavenging Prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to scavenge any solid waste within the boundaries of
this locality.
COMMENT: Solid waste management cannot be effective if casual pickers are permitted in any step in the
process, whether pre-collection activity from containers at the curb or at an incinerator or sanitary landfill.
Controlled recovery should be encouraged at any logical step of proper solid waste management.
25.07 False Information. It shall be unlawful for any person to make any false statement in any application required
by this ordinance.
COMMENT: This section provides a penalty for false information given on any application required by the
ordinance. Conviction would require a showing that the false information was provided deliberately but would
not include innocent or erroneous information. The Administrative Department would also have the inherent
right to revoke any permit or permits involved in the applications, as a false statement vitiates such matters.
25.08 Dumps Prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to use or operate a dump.
COMMENT: The intent of the ordinance is set forth in Section 2 and will be defeated unless all dumps are
converted to sanitary landfills or are eliminated.
25.09 Burning Prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to bum solid waste in any manner other than in a duly
authorized incinerator.
COMMENT: Air pollution control can not be effective unless open burning is eliminated. The ordinance
requires a permit for all incinerators, thereby insuring the installation and use of pollution control measures,
including the disposal of incinerator residue and proper treatment of quench waters. The ban here would include
leaf burning, therefore the added waste volume will have to be considered in the plan requirements of Section
6,01. This section does not prohibit the use of a fireplace or outdoor grill of residences, unless barred by a
separate law.
25.10 Animal Feeding. It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in the feeding of food waste to animals for
commercial purposes.
COMMENT: State law usually regulates food waste (garbage) feeding to animals, usually swine, under
controlled conditions. If such feeding is permitted, those regulations shall be followed.
25.11 Illegal Use of Permit Number. It shall be unlawful to display any permit number unless the person displaying
such number or numbers holds a valid permit or permits therefor.
COMMENT: A duly issued permit may be suspended or revoked by the Director of the Administrative
Department. This Section would make it illegal either to use a fictitious permit number or to continue the display
of permit number after suspension or revocation. Permit numbers are needed to identify and regulate solid waste
management.
25.12 Hazardous Waste. No person shall place any hazardous waste in any container for collection, transport,
processing or disposal until the Enforcement Agency has approved the method of storage, transport, processing, or
disposal.
COMMENT: This section is intended to identify and regulate hazardous waste to protect the health of the
community and to protect people engaged in solid waste management. Experience wiU allow some
standardization in proper management of hazardous wastes.
26. Penalties
Any person convicted of a violation of this ordinance, or the rules and regulations authorized herein, shall be subject
to a fine of not more than S or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than months, or both.
- 203 -
-------
COMMENT: The Court enforcing an ordinance wHl have limits in pecuniary and penal punishment, therefore
that limitation must be considered in setting forth sums and sentences. Penal institutions may be a county jatt, a
municipal jail or a workhouse. The maximum range should be high enough to discourage violation and a penalty
section should allow some discretion ro the judge.
27. Repealer
The following ordinances of this locality are hereby repealed: .
COMMENT: All ordinance* which are to be replaced by thv ordinance should be specifically tilted, based upon
careful evaluation of each to be repealed. The use of an omntbusrepealer should be avoided as it may prove too
broad.
28. Savings Clause
Nothing in this ordinance shall be deemed to affect, modify, amend or repeal any provisions of an ordinance
administered by the Administrative Department or Enforcement Agency or any other department, board, commission
or agency of this locality.
COMMENT: If no existing ordinances are to be repealed and if the Solid Watte Management Ordinance if not
to affect any existing ordirumces or authority created by existing ordinances, the above provision would be useful
in showing such intent.
29. Severabflity Clause
The provisions of mis ordinance are sererable, and if any provision or part thereof shall be held invalid or
unconstitutional or inapplicable to any person or circumstance,, such invalidity, unconstitutionalty or inapplicability
shall not affect or impair the remaining provisions of this ordinance.
COMMENT: If a court strikes out a pan of the ordinance prompt legislative action should be taken to enact
provisions to fill the void.
30. Effective Date
This Act is hereby declared an emergency provision to protect the health and welfare of the inhabitants of this
locality and shall take effect immediately upon its passage, provided, however, those sections requiring permits shall not
apply to existing facilities for a period of months after said effective date.
COMMENT: In establishing an effective date for the ordinance sufficient time must be given so that existing
facilities can be brought within the terms set form. Dumps could be closed in a short time but would require a
longer period for conversion to a sanitary landfitt.
Iiol0l4
- 204 -
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
'Please read Instructions on the revene before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
908/6-82-008
|3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE ANO SUBTITLE
Solid Waste Management Plan: Mil lard County,
A Technical Assistance Panels Proaram Pe
Jtai? -
5. REPORT 3ATE
August, 15 £2
)6. PSRFC°MING ORGANIZATION COOS
7. AUTHOR(S)
T. Barnes, D. Campbell, S. Orzynski, M. Stanwood
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION R = ?Ofl"~ '< -
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO ADDRESS
Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.
1320 17th Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
T NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
13. TYPE OF REPORT ANO PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
18. ABSTRACT
Mil lard County, Utah is expected to experience a 6,0 to 140 % increase in population
by 1987 due to the construction of a 3,000 MW coal-fired power plant and impacts of
the proposed MX missile system. The" rural, agricultural County lacks an organized
solid waste collection and disposal system and has a large number of uncontrolled
disposal sites. This report analyzes 5 collection and disposal options and a
recommended plan is developed. All options reduce the environmental and public
health and safety problems associated with the County's open dumps, establish a
higher level of service for residents, and provide the flexibility required to
accomodate the anticipated population growth and fluctuations. The recommended plan
includes greenbox collection for compactable wastes and roll-off containers for bulky
wastes. One regional sanitary landfill will receive all of the County's compactable
waste as well as bulky wastes generated in the western portion of the County. A
bulky waste site is recommended for the eastern portion of the County as transporting
bulky wastes long distances to the regional landfill is not cost-effective. Details
for closing each of the County's 14 open dump sites are provided. Staffing
requirements and duties for the system are included. Capital and operational costs
are developed for 5-year increments. Financing and management options available
are outlined with recommendations for the optimal techniques. A solid waste
ordinance which can be utilized as a model to the County is presented.
17.
KEY WORDS ANO DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Sanitary Landfill, Solid Waste Disposal,
Solid Waste Transfer Systems, Solid
Waste Management Plan
Millard County, Utah
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Released to public
19. SECURITY CLASS (Tha Repon)
Jnclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
204
2O. SECURITY CLASS ITha page/
Jnclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (R«v. 4-77) Previous COITION is OBSOLETE
------- |