Loading...
1980 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 for SOUTHWEST MONTANA 1 SOLID WASTE PLANNING AREA 1 1 Lewis&Clark ' Count} Broadwater Jefferson County County tiL J. • 1 '.h jai FINAL REPORT ' Apr i1 , 1980 1 1 • 1 Robert Peccia & Associates HELENA - HAVRE 1 ROBERT PECCIA& ASSOCIATES Planners - Engineers - Designers 810 HIALEAH COURT HELENA, MONTANA 59601 406/442-8160 tApril 28, 1980 Southwest Montana Solid Waste Technical Committee City-County Building Helena, Monana 59601 Re: Solid Waste Management Plan Committee Members: In accordance with our engineering agreement, we are submitting the final Solid Waste Management Plan for Jefferson, Broadwater,and Lewis and Clark Counties. This study was funded through a grant from the State of Montana, Department of Health and Envir- onmental Sciences. The primary purpose of this study was to inventory the current solid waste man- agement practices in the three counties and to make recommendations as to the most efficient and practical waste management strategies for the area. A summary of the findings and conclusions of the study is included in Part One of this report. The detailed analyses of the various disposal and re- cycling alternatives that were evaluated for each county are included in Parts Four and Five, respec- tively. The finalized solid waste management strategy for each county is included in Part Eight. 1 We appreciate the opportunity to conduct this study for the three-county study area and feel this project would not have been a success without the assistance of the members of the project Tech- nical Committee. If you desire additional information, or if we can be of further assistance to the Committee in imple- menting this plan, please contact us at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, ROBERT PECCIA& ASSOCIATES Batt E Barry E. Damschen, P.E. Vice President BD/gp I 1 1 ' COMPREHENSIVE ' SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR JEFFERSON,BROAD WATER, 1 LEWIS&CLARK COUNTIES April, 1980 FINAL REPORT 1 Prepared by: Robert Peccia &Associates The funding of this project was made possible through a grant obtained from the State of Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences. • 1 I ' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ' The successful completion of this study was made possible through the ' cooperation and assistance of many individuals and agencies. Special recog- nition should be given to the members of the solid waste technical committee that have been invahhad in this project from its conception. The hard work and effort provided by these individuals was a "key" for the success and timely completion of the project. 1 1 1 i SOUTHWEST MONTANA SOLID WASTE TECHNICAL COMMTI ILE MEMBERS 1 Will Selser, Chairman Helena ' Jeannie Knight, Secretary Boulder John Wilkinson, Lewis and Clark County Commissioner . . Helena Bill Duede,Broadwater County Commissioner Townsend Les Sodorff ,Jefferson County Commissioner Clancy James Nybo, City Commissioner Helena 1 Ed Murgle East Helena Ken Trettin Boulder Duane Robertson,State Solid Waste Bureau Helena 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 ' PART ONE- INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY A. Introduction B. Project Summary and Recommendations PART TWO - STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION A. General Characteristics B. Population C. Commercial-Industrial Development PART THREE- EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT CONDITIONS A. General B. Applicable Laws and Regulations ' C. Existing Services and Facilities D. Solid Waste Quantities ' PART FOUR- ALTERNATIVE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS A. Assessment of Available Technology B. System Analysis of Specific Alternatives PART FIVE- RESOURCE RECOVERY AND RECYCLING ANALYSIS ' A. General B. Types and Quantities of Recoverable Materials C. Feasibility Analysis for Secondary Materials D. Feasibility Analysis for Energy Derived Materials PART SIX- SPECIAL WASTE ANALYSIS A. General B. Analysis of Individual Waste Types ' PART SEVEN- ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES ' A. General B. Alternate Organizational Strategies C. Alternate Operational Strategies ' D. Alternate Financial Strategies E. State Assistance Programs F. Federal Assistance Programs ' PART EIGHT- RECOMMENDED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS A. General B. Recommended Management Plan For Jefferson County C. Recommended Management Plan for Broadwater County D. Recommended Management Plan for Lewis and Clark County Appendix "A" - LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION I I LIST OF TABLES IFollowing Table No. Description Page No. III-1 Jefferson County Postal Information 2.5 II-2 Jefferson County Population Estimate 2.6 I II-3 Broadwater County Population Estimate 2.8 114 Lewis and Clark County Postal Information 2.9 II-5 Lewis and Clark County Population Estimate 2.9 II-6 Number of Establishments by Industry 2.10 I III-1 Study Area Disposal Sites 3.21 111-2 City of Helena Waste Generation 3.23 III-3 State of Montana Waste Generation Rates 3.25 1 III-5 Recommended Waste Generation Rates 3.27 111-5 Solid Waste Quantities 3.27 IV-1 Sanitary Landfill Costs 4.9 I IV-2 Class III Disposal Site Costs 4.9 IV-3 Transfer Station Cost 4.10 IV-4 Vehicle Travel Cost 4.14 I IV-5 Jefferson County North Area Cost Analysis 4.17 IV-6 Jefferson County Central Area Cost Analysis 4.18 IV-7 Jefferson County South Area Analysis 4.19 I IV-8 Jefferson County Total Area Cost Analysis 4.20 IV-9 Broadwater County Cost Analysis Summary 4.23 IV-10 Lewis and Clark County North Area Cost Analysis 4.28 I IV-11 Lewis and Clark County West Area Cost Analysis 4.29 IV-12 Lewis and Clark County East Area Cost Analysis 4.29 IV-13 Lewis and Clark County South Area Cost Analysis 4.32 I IV-14 Lewis and Clark County South Area Cost Analysis 4.33 IV-15 City of East Helena Cost Summary 4.33 IV-16 City of Helena Landfill Cost 4.34 I V-1 Solid Waste Composition 5.2 V-2 Ferrous Markets 5.5 V-3 Non-Ferrous Markets 5.7 V-4 Glass Markets 5.8 I V-5 Newsprint Markets 5.11 V-6 Mixed Paper Markets 5.11 V-7 Potential Energy Markets Evaluated 5.15 I V-8 Summary of Energy Market Applications 5.15 V-9 Modular Incineration Facility Capital Costs 5.22 V-10 Modular Incineration Facility Annual Costs 5.22 I V-11 Modular Incineration Facility Economic Analysis 5.23 V-12 Sludge Handling Capital Costs 5.28 V-13 Sludge Handling Annual Costs 5.29 I V-i4 Co-Incineration Alternatives Cost Comparison 5.29 VII-1 Alternate Implementation Strategies 7.1 I I LIST OF TABLES (cont.) I Following Table No. Description Page No. I VII-2 Federal Assistance Programs 7.9 VIII-1 Jefferson County Cost Summary 8.4 VIII-2 Jefferson County Budget Requirements 8.5 I VIII-3 Jefferson County Implementation Schedule 8.5 VIII 4a Broadwater County Cost (Townsend Landfill Option) 8.8 VIII-4b Broadwater County Cost(Helena Landfill Option) 8.9 I VIII-5 Broadwater County Budget Requirements 8.9 VIII-6 Broadwater County Implementation Schedule 8.9 VIII-7 Lewis and Clark County Cost Summary 8.13 VIII S Lewis and Clark County Budget Feyuiieineiits 8.13 VIII-9 Lewis and Clark County Implementation Schedule 8.13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ILIST OF FIGURES IFigure No. DESCRIPTION Following IPage No. II-1 Project Location Map 2.1 11-2 Jefferson County Population Projection 2.5 II-3 Jefferson County Enumeration District 2.6 I II-4 Broadwater County Population Projection 2.7 11-5 Broadwater County Enumeration Districts 2.8 II-6 Lewis and Clark County Population Projection 2.8 I 11-7 City of Helena Population Projection 2.8 II 8 City of East Helena Population Projection 2.8 11-9 Lewis and Clark County Census Divisions 2.9 I III-1 Jefferson County Disposal Sites 3.9 111-2 Broadwater County Disposal Sites 3.13 III-3 Lewis and Clark County Disposal Sites 3.17 I III-5 Typical Solid Waste Seasonal Variation 3.22 _ 111-5 Study Area Waste Quantities 3.29 IV-1 Jefferson County Disposal Sites 4.17 I IV-2 Jefferson County Rural Container System 4.18 IV-3 Jefferson County Rural Transfer System 4.18 IV-4 Broadwater County Disposal Sites 4.23 I IV-5 Broadwater County Rural Container System 4.25 IV-6 Broadwater County Rural Transfer System 4.26 IV-7 Lewis and Clark County Disposal Sites 4.28 I IV-8 Lewis and Clark County Rural Container System 4.28 IV-9 Lewis and Clark County Rural Transfer System 4.28 V-1 Available Energy Supply versus Energy Demand 5.17 ' V-2 Co-Incineration Flow Diagram 5.28 VIII-1 Jefferson County Recommended Plan 8.2 I VIII-2 Broadwater County Recommended Plan 8.6 VIII-3 Lewis and Clark County Recommended Plan 8.10 I I 1 I I i LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No. DESCRIPTION Following Page No. III-1 Jefferson County Disposal Sites 3.9 III-2 Broadwater County Disposal Sites 3.13 IV-3 Lewis and Clark County Disposal Sites 3.17 IV-1 Sanitary Landfill Trench Method 4.8 IV-2 Sanitary Landfill Aren Method 4.8 IV-3 Transfer Station Layout 4.10 IV 4 Rural Container System 4.11 IV-5 Rural Transfer System Costs 4.12 IV-6 Rural Transfer System 4.12 V-1 Solid Waste Heat Recovery Facility 5.21 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I PART ONE I INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY I 1 I I I I I I I I t I I PART ONE INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY I A. INTRODUCTION Within the past three years the U.S. Congress and State of Montana legislature have sub- stantially upgraded the laws and regulations concerning the proper disposal of solid waste. Cur- rent regulations indicate that all disposal sites must either be operated in compliance or be closed by 1982. Current regulations require that the following guidelines e utilized for operating sanitary landfills in the state. 1 1) All disposal sites must be fenced and limited in access to the number of days deemed necessary to adequately meet the needs of the area users. 2) A minimum of six inches of soil must be placed on solid waste the same day the waste is placed at a disposal site. 3) There is to be no open burning at a disposal site at any time without a variance. 4) Disposal sites must be located and operated such that the site does not create a public nuisance or health hazard. Realizing the inability for many local communities and rural areas throughout the state to properly operate current disposal sites due to the high costs,the 1977 State of Montana legis- lature appropriated $300,000 in grant monies to be given to counties in Montana to develop comprehensive solid waste management plans. The primary objective of these plans is to deter- mine the least cost method to properly dispose of the area's waste within the state and federal ' guidelines. In the Spring of 1978 local officials and concerned citizens in Jefferson,Broadwater and Lewis and Clark Counties formed the Southwest Montana Solid Waste Technical Committee. This committee then retained the consulting firm of Robert Peccia and Associates to prepare a comprehensive management plan for the three counties. Grant monies were subsequently obtained and a notice to proceed for the project was issued in June, 1978. For the duration of the project 1 1.1 1 the technical review committee has overseen the work of the consultant and was instrumental in formulating the recommendations of the study. Project Scope of Work Initially a detailed scope of work was developed by the technical review committee and the consultant. The work elements determined applicable were developed such that recommendations could be formulated in an orderly sequence for the proper disposal of solid waste. Included herein is a summary of the work elements that were completed for 1 this project. (a) Identification of current and future demographic conditions in the area including general population and employment characteristics. (b) Identification and evaluation of current solid waste management conditions in the study area including solid waste storage, collection, transfer and disposal operations and facilities and waste generation and composition characteristics. (c) Evaluation of alternate solid waste collection, transfer and disposal systems with special attention placed on the practicability and costs of the specific alternates. 1 (d) Evaluation of current problems and possible alternate solutions for "special" type wastes including tires, demolition debris,used pesticides and containers, used oils, septic tank pumpings and sludges. (e) Evaluation of the feasibility of recycling all or portions of the wastes generated within the study area. I (f) Formulation of recommendations for properly transferring and disposing of I the wastes generated in the study area. (g) Evaluation of alternate strategies and scheduling requirements for implementing the recommended alternatives. , (h) Preparation of a report that summarizes all fmdings, conclusions and recommen- dations of the project. i (i) Development of a public participation and involvement program for effectively informing the public of the findings of the project and to obtain comment and public input. 1.2 I B. PROJECT SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Included in the following narrative is a summary of the findings, conclusions and recom- mendations of the project. 1. Demographic Conditions It was estimated that currently approximately 54,000 people reside in the three- county area, of which 80%live in Lewis and Clark County. Based on the research and anal- ysis conducted herein, it is projected that the population of the three-county area will increase to approximately 85,090 by the year 2,00C. This represents an average annual growth rate of 2.6%. It is also anticipated that all three counties will show a substantial increase with Lewis and Clark County showing the highest potential growth. 2. Existing Solid Waste Management Conditions Currently there are fifteen solid waste disposal sites located in the three counties with three located in Jefferson County, five located in Broadwater County and seven located in Lewis and Clark County. Of the fifteen sites,five have obtained licenses from the State Department of Health and Environmental Sciences. The majority of the ten re- 111 maining sites are not being operated according to state standards primarily due to the lack of daily cover and the unlimited access to the sites. The state regulatory agencies have indicated that the operation of the sites will have to either be improved to meet the current regulations or be closed. 3. Alternate Disposal Systems Analysis For the three counties it was determined that three general disposal concepts warranted an indepth analysis: I) utilization of the current disposal sites operated in compliance with all state and federal criteria, 2) closure of several disposal sites and replace- ment of these closed sites with a rural container system (4-cubic-yard containers strategically placed throughout the area), and 3) closure of several disposal sites and replacement of these closed sites with a rural transfer system (40-cubic-yard container sites strategically located throughout the area). The evaluations indicate that the least cost alternative for each of the three counties is Alternative No. 3 `The use of a rural transfer system with areawide landfills". The most expensive alternative for each county is to upgrade and properly operate the existing disposal sites within the current state and federal guidelines. The implementation of the least cost alternative would cost each equivalent residential unit approximately $20 to $40 per year depending upon the geographic location within the study area. 1.3 I 1 4. Recycling Feasibility Analysis Generally there are two types of recoverable materials found in the solid waste gener- I ated within the study area. These include: I) secondary materials such as ferrous and non- ferrous metals, newsprint. cardboard and glass, and 2) combustible materials that can be used as a fuel source to generate steam, electricity and/or heat. It was determined that cur- rent market conditions do not favor the implementation of an areawide recycling program for the secondary materials found in the solid waste stream at this time. Markets do exist, however, for individuals to recover and sell newsprint, aluminum and glass. The nearest markets for these materials are located in Helena, Bozeman, Butte or Great Falls. The an- alysis conducted for this study also concluded that the economic feasibility of utilizing solid waste as an energy source is potentially cost effective. Of the energy users evaluated, I it was determined that the most appealing potential waste-to-energy recovery situation in- volves the use of solid waste-feed heat recovery boilers to replace the existing natural gas- fired heating system at the Fort Harrison Hospital complex located near Helena. It was rec- ommended that a detailed analysis be conducted for this application. 5. Recommended Solid Waste Management Plans Based on several public meetings and hearings conducted on the alternatives evaluated for this study, formal recommendations were developed by the local officials for the three counties. Summarized herein are these recommendations: (a) Jefferson County The recommended alternative for the county is to institute a rural transfer system with nine 40-cubic-yard transfer sites located throughout the county. The wastes generated in the central and southern sections of the county will be disposed of at landfills located at Boulder and Whitehall, respectively. The wastes generated in the northern section of the county will be transported to the City of Helena landfill with special arrangements made with the City for equitably paying for this disposal. Also, I it is recommended to retain the Class III landfill located at Clancy for disposal of the inert and demolition materials generated in that section of the county. The total an- nual budget for the recommended facilities and services would be approximately $104,000 per year. This represents an average annual fee of approximately $39.62 per family per year. (b) Broadwater County I The recommended alternative for the county is to institute a rural transfer system with three 40-cubic-yard transfer sites strategically located in the county. The wastes generated in the county will then either be disposed of at a central landfill located near 1.4 I t I the community of Townsend or transported to the City of Helena landfill. The total annual cost for the recommended facilities and services would vary from $36.42 to $44.54 per equivalent residential unit, depending on which final disposal option was implemented. (c) Lewis and Clark County The recommended alternatives for the various areas of the county are as follows: 1) For the areas included in the Augusta, Lincoln and Scratch Gravel refuse disposal districts, it is recommended to continue to utilize the existing central sanitary landfill located in each district. However, the recommendations indicate the continued evaluation of the feasibility to utilize a rural container system as conditions in each district change. 2) For the incorporated communities of Helena and East Helena it is recom- mended to continue the existing disposal practices of utilizing the sanitary land- fill located in the City of Helena. The recommendations also indicate the upgrad- ing and continued use of the Class III disposal site located near East Helena. 3) For those areas that are excluded from the three present refuse disposal districts and two incorporated areas,it is recommended to formulate a new refuse disposal district and utilize a rural transfer system to adequately serve the resi- dents in this area. The wastes collected from this system would be disposed of at either the Scratch Gravel District or City of Helena sanitary landfill for an equit- able fee. The total annual budget for the recommended facilities and services would be approximately $35,000 per year.This represents an average annual fee of approximately $37.55 per family unit. I 1 I 1 I 1.5 I I 1 I i I I PART TWO I STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION I I I I I I I I I la \ taa I PART TWO STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION 1 A. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS The study area for this project includes three counties;Jefferson, Broadwater and Lewis and Clark and all incorporated communities within the three-county area. A project location map is shown in Figure II-1. A majority of the land surface in the study area is mountainous. The Continental Divide passes through a portion of the study area and forms a border for the tstudy area on the west. Other major geographical features include the Missouri River and the reservoirs formed by three dams on the river. RThe economic and transportation "hub" of the study area is the City of Helena which is located in the extreme southern portion of Lewis and Clark County. Access to Helena from all parts of the study area is excellent through the use of U.S. Highway No. 12 for east-west travel and I-15 for access to the north and south. Other major trade centers in the study area include the cities of Boulder and Whitehall located in Jefferson County and the City of Townsend located in Broadwater County. According to the 1970 census, the population of the three county area was 41,045. Approximately 80%of the total population in the study area resides in Lewis and Clark County of which approximately 50%reside in the City of Helena and its environs. The population of the study area has increased substantially in the past several years, primarily near the population cen- ters. The largest population increases are being recorded in the immediate Helena area. The land ownership and land use of the study area varies considerably from area to area. Of the 6,408 square miles that encompass the three counties, approximately 50%is either State or Federally owned. In regard to land use approximately 50% of the total land in the study area is utilized for agricultural purposes. Of the remainder, approximately 75%is federally owned forest land. Because the natural features,geology and land use in the three counties vary considerably, a brief narrative discussing the general features and characteristics of each county is included herein. 2.1 I STATE OF MONTANA I firsiorpra I N t i*ria`i je KEY MAP I Illas.--- Augusto 1101 L I EWIS AND ::I. I I ►` . I I • / I BROADWATER CO. 401 • r . i SI-amuck:I I I N C'. I JEFFE ,�,; SO„ , I Illit— ,? .?. 4111°-- r- 1 I PROJECT LOCATION MAP I i Figure II- I I / I I 1. Jefferson County Jefferson County is located in the southwestern section of the study area and encom- passes 1,650 square miles or approximately 26 percent of the total study area land. The topography of the county is primarily mountainous with the exception of the southeastern corner, which is rolling terrain. The Continental Divide forms the western border for the 1 county which divides the county from Powell County. The land use of the county is primarily agricultural. The majority of the remainder of the county is woodland and wilderness. The county has portions of two National Forests included within its boundaries. Consequently, over one-half (53%) of the total land area in the county is federally owned. Of the remainder of the land in the county, approximately 4% is state owned and 43% is privately owned. I Based on historic trends, agriculture has in the past and will in the future be a prin- cipal source of income for the residents of the county. Livestock, poultry and their respec- tive products represent approximately 85% of the total market value of the agricultural pro- ducts; 14.5 %is attributed to crops and 0.5%is directly related to forest products. Also, state and local government earnings contribute a large percentage of the county's total earnings. Wholesale and retail trade and transportation, communications and utilities also contribute a substantial portion of the county's total earnings. IIn regard to trade centers directly affecting the county,the county is split into three distinct divisions. The majority of the residents living in the northern one-third of the county utilize the services and facilities in the City of Helena since many of these residents are employed in or near that city. The residents living in the central section of the county utilize primarily the services and retail outlets located in the City of Boulder. Those residents who live in the southern section of the county primarily utilize the services available in the community of Whitehall. These residents also utilize the retail services available in the Butte area due to its close proximity and larger selection of products. 2. Broadwater County Broadwater County is located in the southeastern one-half of the study area and en- compasses 1,245 square miles or approximately 19% of the total study area land. The eastern portion of the county is covered by the rugged mountains of the Big Belt Range while the Elkhorn Mountains border the county to the west. The Helena National Forest covers the eastern part and also a considerable part of the western section of the county. The remainder of the county is composed of the Missouri River Valley which extends from 1 2.2 1 1 the northwest to southeast through the entire length of the county. Included in the I Missouri River Valley is Canyon Ferry Reservoir whose water surface comprises over 30 square miles of the county. Approximately two-thirds of the total land in the county is privately owned. Thirty percent is Federally owned while three percent is state owned. Broadwater County is primarily an agricultural-oriented county with livestock and crops high on the market list. The county is situated in the Big Belt Mountain Range and twenty-three percent of the land is in forest. Canyon Ferry Reservoir and many rivers, lakes, and streams account for three percent of the area. The remaining small percent is used for such miscellaneous purposes as transportation routes, recreational facilities,townsites,etc. For the past several decades the county's economic conditions have been one of fluc- tuation and uncertainty. In earlier days, mining was the main industry; however, when the gold prospects became less attractive the agricultural potential was explored and found to be quite prosperous. Today, agriculture is the primary source of earnings in the county. Re- tail and wholesale trade is the second largest source of income with services and finance- related industry being the third largest group. The primary trade center for the area is the city of Townsend. Townsend is ideally located in the center of the county to serve the majority of the county's residents. A small percentage of the residents living in the northern section of the county utilize the services available in the Helena area. Also, the residents in the extreme southern section of the county primarily utilize the services available in either Three Forks or Bozeman, both of which are located in Gallatin County. I 3. Lewis and Clark County Lewis and Clark County is located in the northern one-half of the study area and en- compasses 3,513 square miles or approximately 55% of the total study area. Over 70% of the land in the county is mountainous with the remainder either in foothills or inter- mountain basins. Elevations vary from the 9,419 foot Red Mountain located in the west central part of the county to elevations nearing 3,600 feet in the east central portions. There are three main types of landowners in Lewis and Clark County. The two major portions are nearly equally distributed to federal and private ownership. Forty-eight ' percent of the land is federally owned while forty-seven percent is privately owned. The federal land consists mainly of four national forest segments contained within the county. I State land accounts for a little less than five percent of the area. 23 I I Land use in the county is reflected by the physical characteristics of the area. The mountainous areas to the west and north lend themselves to forest products and recreation while the foothills sections from Wolf Creek to Augusta yield range land and help to make beef cattle the major source of agricultural income. The irrigated land along the east and northeast border of the county is used for the production of hay and grain. Both spring and winter wheat are produced with spring wheat being dominant. Water areas are con- fined to the eastern and southern portions of the county. In the county there are several major sources of income. Like the other two counties in the study area,agriculture is a major source of earnings. Livestock and livestock products are the most prominent agricultural activities in the county with approximately 80% of the total cash receipts coming from this source. In addition to agriculture, the earnings related to governmental employment are significant in the county primarily due to the state capital being located in Helena. Finance, real estate,insurance and wholesale and retail trade are also large contributors to the total earnings to the county. The primary trade center for the county is the City of Helena. Approximately 75% of the entire county's population live within ten miles of the city limits. The only other in- corporated community in the county is the City of East Helena which is located less than 5 miles from Helena. Because of the large distance involved in traveling to Helena, the residents living in the extreme northern areas of the county do not extensively trade in 1 Helena but rather travel to Great Falls or Choteau for most of their required supplies and services. B. POPULATION The current and projected population of an area is directly related to several factors. These factors include birth and death rates, employment, economic conditions, housing conditions and net migration trends. For the past several years numerous studies have been conducted by local and state officials and consultants regarding these population related factors for the study area. For this project it was attempted to obtain available population projection data that has been prepared within the past few years. This information was then evaluated relative to past and existing conditions and conclusions were then drawn as to the current and future population of the study area. For each of the three counties included in the study area, three sources of population data was obtained from the Montana Department of Community Affairs, Division of Research and Information Systems (DCA). Each of the three sources projected populations for the three 1 2.4 I counties and all incorporated communities within each county. The three DCA publications ! were released consecutively in 1976, 1977 and 1978. Unlike the publications released in 1976 and 1978 where only one projection was made, the 1977 publication includes three population I projections ranging from low to high. In all cases, the projections made were based on a mathe- matical model and assumptions concerning the future trends of the three major factors affecting population;births, deaths and migration. In addition to the projections published by the DCA, past census data and local planning ' studies were obtained and reviewed for each county, Input from local officials and a review of current postai box rentals and rural postal routes were also reviewed to determine current and I future population trends in the counties and the various communities. Included in the following narrative is a summary of the existing and projected population analysis which was conducted for this study. The analyses are summarized individually for each of the three counties. 1. Jefferson County I For the past several years the population in Jefferson County has increased dramatically. This is primarily due to the increased development in the northern section of the county which has developed into a "bedroom community" for the City of Helena. Past and current housing and postal services also indicate that the communities of Boulder and Whitehall are increasing in population. In 1975 a detailed housing and population study was conducted in conjunction with the preparation of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. That study determined that 7,212 persons were residing in the county in 1975, which represented a 37.6%increase from the 1970 census figures. The Comprehensive Plan also projected a 54% increase in population for the county from the year 1975 to 1990. This population projection, as well as the county's past population history is depicted in Figure II-2. In addition to the population data determined applicable in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, the population projections made by the three DCA publications are depicted in Figure II-2. As shown, the projected county population for the year 2000 varies from 6,824 to 24,361. As also depicted in the figure, the estimated 1978 population ranges from approximately 6,100 to 8,400 for the county. To review further the estimated 1978 Jefferson County population, the current I number of post office accounts(rural & urban) was obtained. A summary of the postal 2.5 t I 24,361 1 Q (Year 2000) I N / 13,000 / I II 12,000 ! �• Projection % I Utilized For) i 11,035 I Project j / �� 1 / ib1Q200 1 10+0• • 9,186N/;,� I i. ' I I.%•Current 1t3�1, 941 I . '1 ' Estimate , 8.000 i' -I 1 7,21 ! / I I ,;----- . .16,824 6,000 • 523 , ." 1 1 1 I I 1 . I I a,p21 I I I I I I 4,000 - I I I 1 I I I I [I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2,000 I I I I I I I I I I ` I I i I I I 1 I . I I • 1950 1960 1970 1975 ,1980 1990 2000 • YEAR 1978 . I . LEGEND POPULATION PROJECTION 1976 D C A Projection FOR - - -1977 JEFFERSON COUNTY ---1978 11 Figure II- 2 1 ---_-Jefferson County Corp. Plan Robert Patch & Associates PrcjecNon I I accounts in the county are summarized in Table II-1. As depicted in the table, the current I number of postal accounts in the county is 2,540, which represents a 25% increase over the previous year. The table also indicates that approximately 2,195 accounts, or 86% of the I total accounts,are for individual residential units. Thus, it can be assumed that currently a minimum of 2,195 residential units are located in the county. TABLE II-1 1 JEFFERSON COUNTY II POST OFFICE BOX AND DELIVERY SUMMARY 197R I (1) (1) (2) Estimated Commercial Estimated Post Office 1977 Total Accounts &Accounts Resid. Location Total Accounts Accounts Outside County Accounts Clancy 263 535 40 495 II Jefferson City 84 90 5 85 Basin 105 105 10 95 Boulder 618 740 70 670 Whitehall 857 938 110 828 Cardwell 125 132 110 22 Total - 2052 2540 345 2195 , Source: (1) U.S. Postal Service (2) Robert Peccia& Associates A review of the various population projections that were obtained and evaluated and j the current postal account information indicates that the population projections included in the 1976 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan are the most accurate projections avail- I able at this time, A comparison of the current number of residential postal accounts in the county with the projected 1978 population of the county (as documented in the 1976 1 Comprehensive Plan) indicates less than a 1% discrepancy in the current number of residen- tial units in the county. Based on this information the projections included in the Compre- hensive Plan will be utilized for this project. Populations for the county by Enumeration District were estimated for 1978 and the I year 2000 utilizing the projections included in the 1976 Comprehensive Plan. This pop- ulation information is summarized in Table 1I-2. The locations of the Enumeration Dis- I tricts are depicted in Figure II-3. 2.6 1 MN PM MI ! EMI NMI 1St all PSI a SI IMP a s SIN i a i a TABLE II-2 JEFFERSON COUNTY POPULATION BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT 1970 CENSUS 1978 i 2000 Number Average Number Number Enumeration Communities Population Households Population Est. Pop. Households Est. Pop. Households District Included Per. Household (1) _ (3) (2) (3) 1 Boulder 1342 317 4.23 1916 453 2967 701 2 Montana City 1115 146 7.63 2342 468 3627 725 3 Clancy,Basin 714 227 3.14 1302 415 2016 642 4 - 179 52 3.44 211 61 328 95 5 & 6 Whitehall 1035 375 2.76 1145 415 1773 642 7 Cardwell 357 115 3.10 472 152 731 236 8 Pipestone 496 128 3.88 1006 259 1558 402 Total - 5,238 1,360 3.85 8,394 2,223 13,000 3,443 (1) Population estimates interpolated from information included in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (1976). (2) Population estimate determined from straight-line projection of information contained in Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (1976). (3) Number of households determined by assuming the average population per household would remain the same as recorded in 1970 census data with the exception of E.D. No. 2 where an average of 5.0 people per household was used. I I Moira thy 1 r ,, i KEY NAP aonu I F ,, De rloepe I 3 oa.rioeoa 1`. .. Notional -- 11:r Forest a i(City Netionot J 4 1 Liiii- .... Of istr - 1 8 Forst 69 . 7 {city of Whtehall) ' -- 58;6) ,' Cate r_ . . 1 O . , m LEGEND SS District Boundary 1 District Number ENUMERATION DISTRICTS FOR II JEFFERSON COUNTY Figure IN 3 1 1 As depicted in the table, it is evident that the most rapid growth areas are in the northern section of the county. This population in this area is expected to increase approx- imately 55% in the next 22 years. Also, it is anticipated that the cities of Boulder and Whitehall will increase substantially in population in the next two decades. Overall, the least population growth areas in the county will be in the rural areas in the central part of the county. 2. Broadwater County According to the U.S. Census Bureau Statistics, the population of Broadwater County showed a decline from 1950 to 1970. Current housing and utility surveys have,however, shown a distinct population increase in the county over the past several years. A similar trend has also been noted in the City of Townsend, the county seat. Past, current and projected populations for the county and the City of Townsend are depicted in Figure II.4. As shown,the populations projected by the DCA for the county for the year 2000 range from 2,977 to 10,776 with a medium projection of 4,844. Like- wise, the projections for the City of Townsend in the year 2000 range from 1,624 to 5,880. In 1977 the Townsend-Broadwater County Planning Board approved a study that evaluated the current housing and population characteristics for the City of Townsend and its immediate area. The study found that the population in the City of Townsend in 1977 was 1,767. This represented a 28.9% increase since the 1970 census data was taken or an average yearly increase of 4.12%. Further study by local officials and Planning Board ' members indicated that the total county population was approximately 3,076 in 1977. Based on the existing population data available at the time of this project,it is assumed that the current population data available from the local planning efforts and surveys most accurate. Utilizing the existing population data available it was possible to estimate the current and project the future population of the county. Based on a straight-line projection utilizing the City of Townsend population in 1977. of 1,767 and the total county pop- ulation of 3,076 and the respective 1970 census populations, current population estimates of 1,840 for the City of Townsend and 3,200 for Broadwater County were obtained. Utilizing the same methodology,the respective year 2000 population projections are 2,950 for the City of Townsend and 5,100 for Broadwater County. This projection is depicted in Figure II-4. A review of these population projections indicate that the assumed projec- tions are quite close to the "medium" DCA projection. 1 2.7 I I 10,776 7,000 O (Year 2000) i ' I i i I I I 6,000 i 1 I I i� i Ii I• 15,100 5,000 �f I 0 4,844 I ; I II i - i / Projection 4,000 / I , Utilized For itCurrent Estimate (3,200)\ !'1 •, 'I Project a i I . �e�\%� I 1 3,100 Broodwater 3,076 •g 3,000 County i 1,-,.,'"^ --- 2,977 1 a e / ' _ i !-•* �2,950 I I I LoM,. I _02,643 - �.-fdr� I I I r- 5,880 1 I I 17 6A'�ne%' (Year 2000) 2,000 I City current Estimate 6•1 *r 1 of (1,840)-: ,• I 1 ( 700, Townsen I 1 •'. -fl- i ` Low -- - - _ - _ 1,624 1 . I . 1,767 1 1 I I,. . 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 19150 1960 1970 11980 1990 2000 1 1978 LEGEND POPULATION PROJECTION I 1976 DCA Projection FOR TOWNSEND AND --- 1977 11 " BROADWATER COUNTY 1978 n Figure II- 4 Present Population Trend Robert Psoda a Associates II Projection 1 1 A breakdown of the past, current and projected populations in the county by Enum- eration Districts is depicted in Table II-3. The location of the enumeration districts is shown on Figure II-5. As the table indicates,it is anticipated that the majority of the growth in the county will be in the immediate City of Townsend area. The rural areas are anticipated to increase, but only a nominal percentage of the total county. 3. Lewis and Clark County The population in Lewis and Clark County has steadily increased for the past 50 years. In addition, the population in the county's two incorporated communities, Helena and East Helena,has shown a moderate increase in the past several decades. A review of the past population trends it the county, however,indicate that the rural population has dropped from one-fourth of the total county population to one-fifth of the total within the past 20 years. This is mainly due to the decline in the number of farms while the size of the communities has increased. Since 1970 the population in the county has increased from 33,281 to approximately 42,000 according to current estimates made by local officials. This represents an increase of approximately 26%since 1970. Likewise,the cities of Helena and East Helena have also increased dramatically. Local officials currently estimate that the population of Helena is 27,500 and East Helena is 1,850,which represent increases of 21%and 12%respectively since 1970. To project the population of the county through the year 2000,available local and state information was reviewed. Figure II-6 depicts the various population projections available. As shown, the projected population of the county for the year 2000 varies from 41,524 to 147,292 with a medium projection of 66,929. Through conversations with local 1 officials and state agencies, it was determined that at this time the "medium" projection of 66,929 appears to be the most reasonable population projection for the county in the year 2000. Therefore this projection was utilized for this project. 1 In regards to projecting the population for the City of Helena and East Helena through the year 2000, several projections were obtained and reviewed. These include projec- tions from the DCA and two projections published by TAP, Inc., a private planning firm that was retained by the Helena Areawide Planning Organization. These projections are graphically summarized in Figures II-7 and Figure II-8. Through conversations with local officials it was determined that the "medium" projection made by DCA is quite representa- tive of the population characteristics in the cities of Helena and East Helena. Thus, for this study the year 2000 "medium projection" made by the DCA was utilized to estimate the future populations of the City of Helena and East Helena. 1 2.8 TABLE II-3 BROADWATER COUNTY POPULATION BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT 1970 CENSUS 1978 2000 Enumeration Communities Number Average Number Number District Included Population Households Population Est. Pop. Households Est. Pop. Households Per. Household (1) (2) (1) (2) 1-2 Townsend 1371 445 3.08 1840 597 2950 958 3 Canyon Ferry 172 54 3.19 203 64 320 100 4 - 473 137 3.45 557 161 880 255 5 Winston ,q 250 89 2.80 294 105 465 166 Radersburg 6 - 260 70 3.71 306 83 485 131 Total - 2,526 795 3.18 3,200 1,010 5,100 1,610 (1) City of Townsend population based on Townsend-Broadwater Co. Comprehensive plan (4.1% / yr.) growth. Remainder of Enumeration District populations are based on utilizing same ratio of population by E.D. as indicated in 1970 census data based on total county population of 3,200 in 1978 and 5,100 in 2000. (2) Based on same average population per household as determined in 1970 census. la a Oil SI MI IS 4t r O r al MI M SO I O r A - I 1 Helena 1 • • 3 Natrona! , 11/4 it • ,I i `♦ KEY NAP I I 111■ •• : wsdM I iz zer Helena s% n r Forest ♦ I National _ J G 4 r -- • if 1 & 2 (City of Townsend) FOrOr f ♦ 1 iiii , '11Mm • ® :r , LEGEND District Boundary I • 1 District Number• I • • / 6 V I re 4. ENUMERATION DISTRICTS 1 FOR BROADWATER COUNTY Figure II- 5 I 147 292 70,000— !I Yser 20001 I N I 66,929 1 �� I 1• 60,000 $. ! i' J Projection i/ I ; ; 4)57,500 Utilized For i i Project / I ii;f 50000-- ' . 4 1• 1 I e./" I I CURRENT / I • / : ESTIMATE (42p00) ;#;-- I .141,524 840,000— % ,.� I I . 1:0~ I I F / .� 33,261 ,i s' " II I I ° I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 11 } I I I I I 1 20.0001 . I I H I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 io,000-1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I .1 1 I ! i I i i I I I i. i I 1 I I 1 I I I 1950 1960 1970 11980 1990 2000 1 1978 LEGEND POPULATION PROJECTION. I _......._.._ 1976 D CA Projection FOR ---- 1977 " " LEWIS & CLARK COUNTY 1978 " ii present Population Trend Figure U - 6 Robert Pectic S Associates I Projection I 98,988 1 70,000 9 (Year 2000) i 1 I /// 1 60,000 ./. I i . t /a ! i �$ 1 50,000 Projection i p48,091 I Utilized For Project / ' ' l/ 44,980 I I •.p4I,179 404100 i / •� • i o / 038,860 ti ' I a �/ 1 j'` .•'M•''' I /: - -I I a 30,000 • Current (27,500) .%.J i . Estimate i' 1 —.027,907 ,. ___•--- . I _0 'I _I_ - --- •— I Loys 22,730 I I I I I 2041°0 I I I I I I 17,581 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I 1001 ' • I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 . I l I l i I I 1 1950 1960 1970 11980 1978 1990 2000 I LEGEND POPULATION PROJECTION --1977 DCA Projection FOR THE ------_1978 ' " CITY OF HELENA I ---- TAP INC. Projections Present Population Trend Figure II- 7 I --RobertPeccia & Associates Projection I p 7,304 7,000 / I . I I 1 / I 6,000 it i I r I r it. 5,000 r= r I r 1 4,000 / I I Z i 1 I QProjection / j t Utilised For) it I 3�I9 3,000 Project �; I 2$50 1 Current j,\ ,. 1 Estimate 50 ! I 2,000 , _ _._ _ - 9 _ - LoM •_ 1 Ij551 � - - - - - � . . . 1I I I . 1,216 I I I I I I 1 h000 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I H I ! I 1950 1960 1970 1 980 1990 2800 1978 LEGEND POPULATION PROJECTION —•—•-1977 DCA Projection FOR THE 1978 " CITY OF EAST HELENA ' Present Population Trend RobertPtcdo IS Associates Figure II - 8 Projection I I The current and projected population estimates were broken down by census division for the county. The estimated distribution of population for the various census divisions was determined by analyzing past population trends and comparing that infor- mation with current postal services within each division. The postal information utilized is included in Table II-4. TABLE 11-4 LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY POST OFFICE SERVICES Post Office Location Total Services (1977) I Augusta 310 Lincoln 360 Wolf Creek 173 Canyon Creek Marysville 100 East Helena 850 Helena • City Delivery 12,279 (includes businesses) Rural Delivery 1,519 Rams L1.12(irteiides out of county) Total - 16,703 Source: Provided by U.S. Postal Service. Included in Table II-5 is a breakdown of the estimated current and projected popu- lation for each census division located within the county. The location of the divisions are shown in Figure I1-9. As the information in the table and figure indicate, the population in the northern division of the county is not expected to increase appreciably in the next 20 years. However, the populations in the southern divisions are expected to increase substan- tially within the next 20 years. As shown in the table, the total population of the county is expected to increase approximately 60% within the next two decades. C. COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT An important factor that must be considered when evaluating the solid waste management system within an area is the impact commercial and industrial establishments have on the existing solid waste collection services and disposal facilities. Naturally, an increased number of establish- ments in an area will have an adverse effect on the solid waste management practices in the area if adequate planning is not done. 2.9 I TABLE 11-5 LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY POPULATION BY CENSUS DIVISION 1970 CENSUS 1978 2000 Included Number Average Number Number Enumeration Census Division Population Households Population Eat. Pop Households Est. Pop. Households Districts Per. (1) (3) (2) (3) Household 1-2-3 Augusta 845 288 2.96 888 300 1330 449 4-5 Lincoln 813 291 2.79 977 350 1470 527 6-7 Wolf Creek 431 164 2.63 447 170 670 255 8-11 Helena West 4,971 1447 3.43 7,020 2Q45 10,570 3,078 12-38 Helena City 22,730 7614 2.99 27,500 9,197 44,980 15,043 39-40 E. Helena City 1,651 511 3.23 1,850 573 3,319 1,028 41-43 , Helena East 1831 510 3.59 - 3,318 924 4,590 1,279 Total - 33,281 10,825 3.07 42,000 13,559 66,929 21,659 (1) Populations of City of Helena, City of East Helena and Lewis and Clark County based on current estimates. Remainder of division populations are based on a comparison of the current number of postal services in each respective division and the current estimated total county population. (2) Populations of the City of Helena, City of East Helena and Lewis & Clark County determined from the State Dept. of Community Affairs publication "Montana Population Projections 1975-2000 (Medium Projection)", released in 1977, Remainder of census division populations are based on same population ratio by division as determined in 1978 estimates. (3) Based on same average population per household as determined in 1970 census. MI 1111. 111111 r — a 111111 INN a al a a r e a r INN' i - I r Ilik --- rm — KEY MAP 1 ,c,i Y 'Aleuts AUI �USTA ( DIVISION r �..,_ .._,IIII ,,, II ,sLIIVC ■ ., ' OL' COtE7 DIVIS ''N ; , � DI I ';.± ti II ,..". ,.,.. ..... iiELE , A ` . ELENA 4. WES ' .t AST I �` - IVISI 0 ` �- � � 'N LEGEND I air-, ICensus Division Boundary '-f t�' - -- 1-; HELENA EAST I - DIVISION HELENA LEWIS a CLARK COUNTY DIVISION 1 CENSUS DIVISIONS IFigure II - 9 I Based on Bureau of Census data there were a total of 1,207 commercial and industrial I establishments located in the three-county area in 1976. These establishments provided employ- ment for 11,528 people. An examination of past census data indicates that the number of establishments in the area has increased at a rate of 6% per year since 1971. Included in the following table is a breakdown of the number of commercial and industrial establishments by type for each of the three counties. As the information in Table II-6 indicates, approximately 87 percent of the total number of establishments in the study area are located in Lewis and Clark County. The information also indicates that Lewis and Clark and Broadwater Counties have had substantial increases in the I number of establishments with average yearly increases of 7% and 6% respectively,whereas Jefferson County only recorded a 2%per year increase. If this trend is to continue it is expected that the number of establishments located in the three county area would double by the year 1992. ' As the table further indicates, the two largest categories of establishments in each of the three counties are "retail trade" and "services". In each county the combined total of these two categories represents in excess of 50% of the total number of establishments. Those categories that represent the least number of establishments in each county are "agricultural services" and , "mining". TABLE II-6 NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS BY INDUSTRY Jefferson Lewis &Clark Broadwater ' Industry 1971 1976 1971 1976 1971 1976 Ag. Services, Forestry and Fisheries 0 0 3 5 0 0 Mining 4 3 3 1 3 1 Contract Construction 8 12 61 85 2 5 Manufacturing 3 5 33 46 4 5 Transportation & Other Public Utilities 5 6 35 34 4 5 Wholesale Trade 2 4 49 73 3 11 Retail Trade 33 31 235 286 25 26 I Finance, Real Estate 5 5 93 102 2 4 Services 17 I9 271 399 8 11 I Nonclassifiable 3 3 15 19 2 2 TOTAL - 80 88 798 1,050 53 69 1 2.10 I I I I I I I PART THREE IEXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT CONDITIONS I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PART THREE ' EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT CONDITIONS 1 A. GENERAL When evaluating the existing solid waste management situation in a specific area, there are three major aspects which must be addressed; (1) the current laws and regulations which regulate ' the various phases of solid waste management, (2) the effectiveness of existing solid waste storage, collection and transportation services and the adequacy of the existing disposal facilities, and (3) the quantities and characteristics of the solid waste generated. Included in the following narrative is a brief summary of these major aspects as they relate to this project. Obviously, there are several other aspects which are directly related to the total solid waste management system in the area. These include;(1) the recovery and recycling of solid waste, (2) the disposal of special and hazardous type wastes and (3) the economic, organizational and financial aspects of the existing and proposed programs and systems. For more clarity and or- ganization of this report, these aspects will be discussed in subsequent chapters tB. APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS ' There are basically three degrees of laws and regulations which directly affect the manage- ment of solid waste in the study area. These include: (1) local ordinances, (2) State of Montana ' Disposal Laws and Rules and (3) Federal Laws and Regulations. Included in the following text is a brief discussion of the various laws and regulations which directly affect the management of solid waste in the study area. 1. Local Ordinances The majority of the incorporated communities located within the study area have adopted local ordinances which requires solid waste to be properly disposed of. These ordinances primarily deal with local conditions such as the solid waste collection and dis- posal procedures and the current rates. I 3.1 1 2. State of Montana Laws and Regulations The Laws and rules set forth by the State of Montana Department of Health and En- vironmental Sciences are the principal regulations in the study area which must be adhered to. The State laws concerning solid waste management were initially adopted by the 1965 1 State Legislature. Since that time the regulations have been amended three times. The laws and regulations set forth by the State of Montana include legal and administrative control over all phases of solid waste management including the following: (I) facility licensing, (2) standards for the operation and maintenance of facilities, (3) facility classification, (4) solid waste transportation and disposal of hazardous wastes, (5)litter control, (6) disposal of dead animals, (7) feeding garbage to animals, (8) nuisances and (9) disposal of junk ' vehicles. Included in the following narrative is a brief summary of the principal rules and reg- 1 ulations which are included in the State Solid Waste Management Act as amended in 1977. A copy of the complete rules and regulations can be obtained from the State Department ' of Health and Environmental Sciences, Solid Waste Management Bureau. (a) Disposal Site Licenses 1 Under the present state laws, all sanitary landfill sites must be licensed by the State Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, Solid Waste Management Bureau. The Department has established three classifications for refuse disposal sites. A summary of the three classifications are included below: ' (1) Class I Class I sites may accept all groups of waste including hazardous wastes. Class I sites shall not discharge these materials or their by-products to ground or surface waters. These sites must either confine the wastes to the disposal site with no likelihood that the wastes will escape or they must be situated in a location where the leachate from the wastes can only percolate into under- lying formations which have no hydraulic continuity with usable waters. 1 1 3.2 ' 1 I (2) Class II Class II sites are suitable for accepting decomposable and organic materials, wood and demolition materials, and digested wastewater sludges. The site must provide for separation of these type materials from underlying or adjacent usable water. The distance of the required separation is established on a case-by-case ' basis, considering factors such as terrain, type of underlying soil formations, and natural quality of the groundwater. (3) Class III Class III sites are suitable for accepting only inert type materials excluding ' potentially hazardous wastes. The site may contain water such as in marshy areas which contain exposed groundwater, or areas which may be periodically flooded, such as along stream flood plains. Class III sites shall not be located on the banks or in a live or ephemeral stream. The department may issue a conditional license for solid waste management systems already in existence or under construction on the effective date of this rule. Such a license if granted will be valid for up to one year. Only when the department determines that the conditional licensee has shown good cause for an extension will ' one be granted. Conditional licenses are to be granted only if the applicant demon- strates steps are being taken to bring the site into compliance. The local health officer must validate all conditional licenses before they are effective. ' The department may deny or revoke a license to operate a solid waste man- agement system after giving the applicant and the local health officer written notice ' and an opportunity for a hearing before the board. The decision to deny or revoke a license may be made only after finding that a solid waste management system cannot be operated or is not being operated in compliance with the state laws and regulations. tThe hearing held before the board on a denial or revocation shall be held pursuant to the provisions of the Montana Administrative Procedure Act. (b) Disposal Site Operation and Maintenance Requirements (1) Class I sites Due to the hazardous nature of the waste that may be processed at these ' sites, strict supervision is required when such sites are open. Sites shall be fenced ' 33 to prevent unauthorized access. All Class I sites using landfilling methods shall cover Group I wastes with a minimum of twelve (12) inches of suitable earth cover material after each operating day and at least four(4) feet of earth cover material within one week after the final deposit of solid waste. These steps must be taken unless the department is satisfied that the licensee has shown good cause for not covering. Where other solid waste management methods are proposed to dispose of Group I wastes, the operation and maintenance plan must demonstrate to the department's satisfaction that such disposal methods pose no danger to man and the environment. Group II wastes disposed at Class I sites shall satisfy all Class II disposal requirements. (2) Class II Sites All Class II sites using landfilling methods shall compact and cover solid waste with a layer of at least six (6) inches of approved earth cover material at the end of each operating day and at least two (2) feet of approved earth cover material within one week after the final deposit of solid waste at any portion of the site. These steps must be taken unless the department is satisfied that the licensee has shown good cause for not covering. EPA's 1972 publication, "Sanitary Landfill Design and Operation," (No. SW- 65ts) shall be used as the general landfill design and operation manual for pur- , poses of this rule. The department may develop or adopt guidelines for other solid waste disposal methods and procedures. Semisolids should be mixed with other solid waste to prevent localized leaching;or separate, specialized disposal areas should be developed. Sites shall be fenced to prevent unauthorized access and shall be supervised when open. Where refuse containers are utilized as part of a management system for Group II solid wastes, all containers shall be maintained and kept in a sanitary manner and emptied at least once a week unless other arrangements are determined acceptable. (3) Class III Sites Although these sites are not required to be covered by earth materials daily, they shall be covered periodically. 3.4 1 1 (4) Open Burning For all classes of sites the open burning of wastes is prohibited unless a permit has been obtained from the department. ' (5) Litter Control Dumping must be confined to the areas within the disposal site that can be effectively maintained. Also, effective means shall be taken to control litter at ' all facilities. (c) Hazardous Waste Management Systems (1) The department may require the maintainance of records, including copies of waste manifests, and the submission of reports from persons who store, treat,or dispose of hazardous wastes. Permanent records must be maintained by the oper- ator of hazardous waste disposal facility, identifying the location of each disposal area and wastes or waste types disposed. Such disposal records shall be made available to the new facility owner or operator if the facility is sold or leased to another person. ' (2) No hazardous waste management system may store, treat, or dispose of hazardous wastes in a manner which is inconsistent with methods approved by the department. (3) All hazardous waste management systems are required to have licenses issued by the department. (4) Hazardous wastes found in household refuse may not be disposed of at Class II disposal sites without written authorization from the department. (5) For areas not served by licensed Class I disposal sites, the department may, upon showing of good cause, authorize the disposal of hazardous wastes at Class II disposal sites if no health hazard or no danger to the environment would be presented. ' (d) Inspection and Enforcement The department has authority to conduct inspections of solid waste management systems at reasonable hours upon presentation of appropriate credentials. If, after an ' 3.5 inspection, the department determines that violation of the act or this rule is occurring, it shall notify the licensee of the nature of the violation. Depending on the severity of the violation(s), the department may seek a compliance schedule from the applicant or initiate proceedings to revoke the license. The department may also, through the attorney general or appropriate county attorney, seek to enjoin the licensee or collect a criminal penalty. (e) Loans and Grants (1) The department shall provide fmancial assistance to local governments for front-end planning activities for a proposed solid waste management system which is compatible with the state plan whenever such financial assistance is available. (2) The department shall provide front-end organizational loans for the imple- ' mentation of an approved solid waste management system whenever funds for such loans are available. (f) Refuse Disposal Districts The state laws give the county commissioners the authority to create solid waste districts for the purpose of collection and/or disposal of refuse. Cities and towns may be included in the district if approved by the city or town councils. (g) Dead Animals , It it unlawful to place all or part of a dead animal in a lake, river, creek, pond, reservoir, road, street, alley, lot or field. Also, it is unlawful to place a dead animal within one mile of the residence of any person unless the dead animal is burned or buried at least two feet underground. If a person refuses or neglects to comply with a written order of a state or local health officer within a reasonable time specified in the order, the state or local health officer may cause the order to be complied with and initiate an action to recover any expenses incurred from the person who refused or neglected to comply with the order. The action to recover expenses shall be brought in the name of the city or county. A person who does not comply with rules adopted by the board will be guilty of a mis- demeanor. 3.6 I (h) On-Site Disposal The state solid waste laws do not prohibit individuals or industry from disposing of solid wastes on his or her own property as long as such disposal does not create a nuisance or health hazard. A nuisance is defined as "anything which is injurious to health or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, or un- lawfully obstructs the free passage or use,in the customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or basin, or any public park, square, street, or highway." (i) Motor Vehicle Wrecking Facility Act Under this act, each county is to establish a county motor vehicle graveyard where any citizen places a junk vehicle free of charge. The county is also responsible to establish a collection program in order to pick up the junk vehicles and place them in the graveyard facility. Other provisions of the law call for licensing and shielding all private motor vehicle wrecking facilities and county motor vehicle graveyards. (j) Penalty for Violations (1) Any person violating the act or regulations prescribed by the Department under the act, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be fined not less than $50 nor more than $500. Each day upon which a violation of this act ' occurs shall be considered a separate offense. (2) A person who stores, treats, transports, or disposes of a hazardous waste in viloation of this chapter, a rule adopted as authorized by this chapter, or an order issued as provided in this chapter is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $25,000. Each day upon which a violation occurs is a separate violation. 3. Federal Regulations The federal regulations concerning the proper management of solid waste is included in the "Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976"(RCRA) which is documented as Public Law 94580. The primary purpose of the law is to suggest guidelines for the proper 1 disposal of solid and hazardous wastes generated in the nation and to also develop guidelines for the proper and safe recovery and reuse of recyclable materials found in the solid waste ' system. 3.7 One primary feature of RCRA is the method in which the new federal act is to be administered by the individual state governments through the assistance of the Environ- mental Protection Agency. Based on this premise, the State of Montana amended its state laws and rules in 1977 to be in conformance with the new federal guidelines. Therefore the State of Montana laws and rules coincide quite closely with the new federal standards regarding solid waste management. C. EXISTING SOLID WASTE SERVICES AND FACILITIES , Fir this study several sources of information concerning the existing solid waste manage- ' ment practices in the study area were identified. The primary sources that were utilized include; 1) interviews and discussions with local, state and federal officials directly responsible for the regulation and administration of the solid waste systems in the area, 2) discussions with local officials and private citizens directly responsible for the operation and/or management of the solid waste collection,transfer or disposal services and facilities, 3) on-site inspections by the consultant of all facilities and equipment pertinent to the management of solid waste, 4) review of current and past reports and materials which have evaluated the existing systems and facilities, and 5) questionnaires sent to the local officials directly responsible for the management of solid waste within the study area. (Enclosed herein is a copy of the questionnaire that was utilized ' for this purpose.) Included herein is a summary of the existing solid waste related services and facilities avail- able in the study area. The information is reported by county for purposes of clarity. 1. Jefferson County (a) Collection ' Currently there are two areas within the county in which door to door solid waste collection services are available. These are located in the Boulder-Basin area and the City of Whitehall. The available services in these areas are briefly discussed herein. In the Town of Boulder and within approximately a 15 mile radius of the community the private hauling firm "Guilio's Garbage Service" is available on an individual contract basis. The private contractor's fees vary depending upon the loca- tion. However, the average residential fee is approximately $3.50 to $4.00 per family unit per month for once per week collection service. Commercial rates vary depend- 1 ing upon the degree of service requested. It is estimated that approximately three- fourths of the residents in the Boulder area utilize the private contractor's service. 3.8 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY ' QUESTIONNAIRE ' Name of Jurisdiction• I. DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ' a) Estimated 1978 population b) Projected 1990 population: c) Current estimated number of households: ' (if applicable, the number of residential solid waste, water or sewer accounts). d) Current estimated number of commercial establishments: ' (if applicable, the number of commercial solid waste, water or sewer accounts). II. EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ' a) Is there a local ordinance regulating solid waste collection and/or disposal? . . . (If yes please enclose a copy.) ' b) Is there a local municipal collection service available? If yes, is the service public or privately operated? If private, who is the private collection contractor? ' c) If a solid waste collection service is available, what is the frequency of col- lection (number of pickups per week)? residential commercial 1 d) Location of local waste disposal site(s): ' e) Size of disposal site(s)- (acres). f) Owner of disposal site-(s) land' Address• ' g) Approximate remaining life of disposal sites) (years). -1- hl Number of days disposal site(s) is open. (per week) it Is the disposal site(s) privately or publically operated , j) Name of individual responsible for disposal site(s) operation: k) Current rates for available solid waste collection and disposal service (per unit per month): residential commercial 1) Axe there any problems with the disposal of special wastes (dead animals, appliances, tires, used oils, construction-demolition debris,etc.)9 (If yes, please describe problems on the reverse side of this page.) m) General comments• 1 1 1 1 Name- Telephone 1 1 1 2 ' The private contractor operating in the area utilizes two rear-loading packer type vehicles with 18-and 16-cubic yard capacities. All solid wastes collected by the contractor are transported to the Boulder landfill. The Town of Whitehall offers a municipal solid waste collection service to the residents and commercial establishments in the community. Each residential unit's waste is collected once per week. The fee for this service is $3.00 per month which is assessed with the individual's water and sewer fees. Commercial establishments are assessed according to the number of times per week the service is rendered. Most commercial accounts are picked up twice per week and are assessed $6.00 per month. The community utilizes a 1975 Ford rear loading packer truck to collect the wastes. City personnel estimate that the vehicle is filled approximately three times per week which represents approximately 48 cubic yards or 12 tons of waste. The city transports the waste to the city operated landfill. (b) Existing Disposal Facilities In the county there are four distinct areas in which solid waste can be disposed of. These include two container systems(one located in the northern portion of the county and one located in the Basin area where a refuse disposal district has been ' created) and two public disposal facilities located near the communities of Boulder and Whitehall. Included in the following narrative is a description of the location and 1 operational procedures of these facilities. The locations of the various disposal facilities are graphically depicted in Figure III-1. Photographs of the various facilities are illustrated in Exhibit III-1. ' 1) Refuse Disposal District Facilities Jefferson County established a refuse disposal district several years ago for the entire county. However,the county has activated the district in only two areas,the area north of the Boulder Hill and the small area that includes the Basin Fire District. Figure III-1 depicts the boundary of these two areas. In each ' of these two areas the residents are provided strategically located containers to deposit their wastes. In all cases each individual family is assessed approximately $40 ' per year to utilize the facilities. Included herein is a brief description of the facilities and services available in these areas: 3.9 1 I , / t C .. HeNno I i Class Ill only) ' KEY MAP 7.0-- . k .t Nat.wit' ' For oat Deer oEpe I -1.__, Basin aI ree.loege ri Nat ors'.':. I Scuider{mil r j I � 1 �.' i I ; r , "W"----'-e-ea" 0 111 ' ! + I `r I. LEGEND r —i \L J t Refuse District • Disposal Site ' A Container Site JEFFERSON COUNTY DISL-OSAL AREAf F !gLrN DI- I ' MN MI MI NM NM • r EN MN MO - I - r MI MN MN MO - JEFFERSON COUNTY DISPOSAL SITES 1 A' ^ I' s ,IBS •ix 1 i ".•••„,, _ fi+'.. �"{* �,,�•t..,• J 'cn v r t .. • r: MONTANA CITY CLANCY DISPOSAL SITE CONTAINER SITE •K p�n-� - _ M 6 ' s (� 1'•'a 3 '1 , " * v �i to ,,, sloe '4;, ":!ise4N " r d ,r?,„ '°o,'a _ 1a r> i e 'Y .- nr., his y _A,: M, .-„,t, Sw,.rrt .„.4,,......* 5.4�U � i4'i y��.° A r',�•,, ., v b b II JEFFERSON CITY BASIN CONTAINER SITE CONTAINER SITE gm MO an MN UM M INN Ell =I ME Mill III ION 1111111 IIMI 1.111 MI I Mill JEFFERSON COUNTY DISPOSAL SITES , _ ,r „ y ' �.W"* "k R.HST"_^++. !• may �V 4 f•_,� i ' • . �� f• y� `� y..'� y, #}lam'/ '� ��«W r;,�j' --0144r, 7n ■ BOULDER LANDFILL WHITEHALL LANDFILL t ' of ...,- DI ;+sip 4,k. C .l b BASIN DUMP SITE W ELK PARK DUMP SITE Q 1 ' North Boulder Hill Area In this area of the district, the county has a contract with an authorized ' private solid waste hauler, Hartley's Garbage Service,to provide and service twice weekly ten six-cubic-yard refuse containers. The private hauler transports the waste to the City of Helena landfill. Three of the containers are located at Jefferson City, five containers are located at the Clancy disposal site and two are located near Montana City. The containers are provided for the use of all residents living within the refuse disposal district.The District also provides a Class III site located one-half mile east of Clancy to deposit inert materials such as con- struction-demolition debris and large bulky materials. This site along with the container system has obtained an operating license from the State Department of ' Health and Environmental Sciences. The Class III site is limited in access to four days per week and is open from the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on each of these four days. The site has a fulltime attendant for monitoring and assistance. It has been estimated by the local officials that the three acre site is rapidly filling up and will reach its capacity within the next few years. In the early stages of the container program several problems were encountered. These problems included: 1) indiscriminate use of the system by individuals not in the district, 2) burning of containers, and 3) overall unsight- liness of the sites due to the lack of care when individuals deposited their wastes. Since that time, however, the local officials have solved several of the major problems by relocating the containers to their present locations. Currently, the major problem of the system is the unsightly condition of the Montana City container site. The county officials are keeping a close eye on the situation in that area. The primary reason for the problems in this area is the increased number of people moving to the area and the illegal use of the container site by ' local contractors. Basin Fire District Area ' The disposal of solid waste is primarily performed within this area of the district through a contract between the county and an authorized private hauler, Guilio's Garbage Service. The contract stipulates that the private hauler must provide seven four-cubic-yard containers to be placed throughout the refuse ' district and collect the waste deposited in the container on a regular basis. The private contractor also, for a fee of$24 per year, collects the wastes generated by ' 3.10 1 local commercial establishments if they so desire. The contractor transports the , wastes he collects to the Boulder landfill. 1 The system in the district has performed quite well since its conception and most individuals are satisfied with the service rendered. Some problems relative to indiscriminate dumping at the old Basin dumpsite have occured in the past. The Bureau of Land Management, which owns the site, is continually monitoring the site for possible littering and indiscriminate dumping. 2) Boulder Disposal Site The Boulder disposal site is located two miles south of the community on the Little Boulder Road. The site obtained a state license in March, 1978 and has been approved to accept all types of wastes with the exception of hazardous wastes. The site is approximately ten acres in size and is owned by the State of Mon- tana. The site has limited access and is open two days per week;Wednesday and Saturday. For the residents of Boulder the fee for utilizing the site is $1.50 per month for families and $3.00 per month for commercial establishments. These fees are assessed with the local water and sewer rates. For residents living outside the City of Boulder, there is an individual user fee varying from $1.25 for a pickup load to $5.00 for a large farm truck. A city employee is in attendance at the site ' when the site is open to monitor dumping and to collect user fees. The landfill is privately operated through a contract with the City of Boulder and Mr. Gordon Guilio. The city and county each contribute a proportionate amount of the contract fee to maintain the site. The operator utilizes a H.D. 5 track loader to maintain the site. Through the review of past state inspection reports and per- sonal field trips it was determined that the site is maintained on a periodic basis, which is not legally in compliance with current state standards which require daily cover. Other than the daily cover requirements, the site appears to be adequately maintained. Currently, the waste at the site is being deposited in trenches that were ex- cavated by Job Corps personnel. City officials have estimated that the current 3.11 ' ' site has sufficient capacity to last for an additional seven to ten years under the current waste generation and disposal conditions. 3) Whitehall Disposal Site The Whitehall disposal site is located one-half mile north of Whitehall and is approximately ten acres in size. The site is owned by the local school district and is leased to the community. The site has not obtained a license from the state as yet. ' The site has limited access and is open four days per week; Saturday, Sunday,Tuesday and Thursday. The site has a gate attendant present at all times ' the site is open. Currently there is a fee at the landfill for all individuals who use the site. The fee basically consists of$3.00 for a pickup load and $1.00 for each additional cubic yard of material. Non-residents of the town of Whitehall must purchase a permit from the City Clerk before waste can be deposited at the site. State and Federal Agencies also utilize the disposal site regularly and pay a lump ' sum per year for the use of the site. The site is maintained by city personnel with the use of a D-7 Catepillar that is kept on-site. As determined through recent inspections the site is generally t operated within all local, state and federal criteria. Currently, the waste at the site is being deposited in a large pit that was excavated by the Job Corps. Accord- ing to local officials the site is becoming full at an alarming rate and will reach its capacity in the near future. 2. Broadwater County (a) Collection There is only one available door-to-door collection service available in the county, a municipal service offered by the Town of Townsend. Each residential unit in the ' community receives the municipal service once per week and is assessed $2.50 per month for the service. Commercial establishments in the community receive as many collections per week as required. These establishments' fees are consequently based on ' the degree of service received. ' The city utilizes an 18-cubic-yard rear loading packer to collect and transport the waste. The city employs one fulltime individual and also a part time C.E.T.A. ' employee to provide the service. All wastes collected are transported to the Town- send landfill for disposal. ' 3.12 (b) Disposal Facilities In order for the residents of Broadwater County to effectively dispose of their solid wastes, a County Refuse Disposal District was formed. The district encom- passes all portions of the county with the exception of the extreme southern section of the county(area included in the Three Forks Fire District). These residents utilize the disposal site located near Logan which is a small community in western Gallatin County. The Broadwater County Refuse Disposal District has set up a disposal program comprised of five landfill sites, one central landfill located near the community of Townsend and four strategically located satellite landfills. Figure III-2 depicts the loca- tion of each disposal site. Each residential unit in the Disposal District(all county residents with the exception of the area comprised of the Three Forks Fire District) is assessed a fee of$15 per year for the operation and maintenance of the disposal sites. Also,each commercial establishment located in the district is assessed a $20 fee for this purpose. To maintain the individual sites the county periodically transports a crawler- tractor to each site by use of a low-boy tractor-trailer. When the crawler-tractor is not being utilized at the satellite sites it is housed and used at the Townsend landfill. The county also utilizes scrapers and earthmovers when necessary to excavate trenches at each site. Currently,the Townsend disposal site is the only one of the five sites in compliance with the state solid waste laws. With the exception of the Townsend site, all sites have unrestricted access with periodic cover rather than daily cover. Included in the following narrative is a brief summary of the location and charac- teristics of each of the five disposal sites. Photographs of the sites are illustrated in Exhibit III-2. 1) Townsend Disposal Site The Townsend disposal site is located approximately 4 miles south of Townsend and is 80 acres in size . The site is BLM owned with a 99 year lease to the community. The site has limited access and is open between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Thursday through Monday. According to local ' officials, the site has approximately seven years remaining at the present rate of solid waste generation. The site is properly maintained and is in general compliance with all local and state laws. 3.13 1 I I Helena I 1 . • • • He1tenet ifitted I ~\� + '\ KEY MA/ I rel.......t 2 217 s I Helene • Canyon s, Ferry lees a Forest , IHetlen& _ s f_ _____€______.__1 st Forest I • -t t I t : t t I 0 tt t Ft /i _0 I CM. i LEGEND I in ® Area Excluded from County Refuse District ! IN 1 Central Disposal Site '\ [n Satelite Disposal Site Prie/74 i 1 v .ree BROADWATER COUNTY DISPOSAL AREAS 4,' Figure III' 2 III NM MI MO - - • NM - • - MI MN r MN MI n NM MI N BROADWATER COUNTY DISPOSAL SITES a e, '°* a.YQ+^ W, ' ...- �_ ;fie`- ►; • ry (,{gfix' til r 'r *.• `• .^.. y f' a F ` . .p • '� '.4 .` .i: -r TOWNSEND DISPOSAL TOWNSEND DISPOSAL SITE SITE ENTRANCE DEMOLITION AREA IIJIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIPIPIII ti • ,,A, .. _ "n`%' .'' '•'- ' r w n y ''• IL';, s k �s. ::47'1','''P'''''`--:':'':. * 'f- :. fi c `: „�+'' a ��k w ^l'�► b _ rr • ..... x v.... - ,.a •.g k ,m �4"1 er b TOWNSEND DISPOSAL DRY GULCH k4 SITE FILL AREA DISPOSAL SITE a IIIM INN OM NMI — — — r 1.111 111111 Will all MI MI M - 111111 • BROADWATER COUNTY DISPOSAL SITES .mac t �. «:a - •.." .,`/: - t:' ., _..fir },-..'' `.;:� + • . ya. t _=� ♦ .�. ♦V�3 '•. r.,4n� s^ ,..�" a 1 4 .,x. .,: .. : ,..:rft,,,„,fr. `� 7 r { :arm-,: ,y t tp_gyy +t 3^.�_a� -!- • , �' ^r• .�,. � :Stew °'-4 zF • a _ '. 1 ar:''-. '. , ~ .�Jay t Yx?,t �V" Y M a WINSTON DISPOSAL SITE RADERSBURG DISPOSAL SITE .13 �w`"y= -/ltd - .y`- .� 1. ` - . �E�1. _ '4. M M1 Y d*h .`a rF .a++ ' n W °l+� �w 7� a`t fig» � t axe ' �,".. ..,,, .f ;,"'�4^+".wJ •c. .fit.. 14 :�t '' S 4 xsq`q5 '�''M.p 1.12 • ',47' E 1 TOSTON DISPOSAL SITE TOSTON DISPOSAL SITE Q 1 ' 2) Dry Gulch Disposal Site This disposal site is located approximately seven miles north of Townsend on Highway 284. The site is owned by the county and has unlimited access. The solid waste is currently being dumped into an excavated trench. On-site inspec- tions by the consultant and representatives of the state indicate that the site is ' covered only periodically. Also, problems with blowing paper are evident. ' 3) Winston Disposal Site The disposal site is located two miles south of Winston. The site is located ' on BLM land and is fenced; however, access is unlimited at the site. A 10' x 6' x 40' pit was recently excavated at the site. Operational procedures similar to those at Dry Gulch are prevalent. 4) Toston Disposal Site ' The disposal site is located two miles southeast of Toston. The site is owned by the county and is fenced;however, access at the site is unlimited. Evidence of ' solid waste burning in the trench at the site is quite prevalent. Also, the site had not been covered with soil for several days at the time the last inspection was made. 5) Radersburg Disposal Site 1 The disposal site is located one mile south of Radersburg on BLM owned property. The site is not fenced and access is not limited. At the time the last ' inspection was made a new trench had been excavated. The site,however, had not been properly covered for some time. 3. Lewis and Clark County (a) Collection Currently,there are five areas of the county where door-to-door solid waste col- lection service is available. Two of the services are municipally operated and three ' are privately owned and operated. Included in the following narrative is a brief dis- cussion of each. 1 1 3.14 1 i 1) City of East Helena ' The City of East Helena offers a municipal collection service to all residents and commercial establishments in the city. The wastes generated in the city are collected every Monday and Friday by a 3-man crew that utilizes a 17—cubic- yard packer vehicle. The wastes collected are currently being transported to the City of Helena Sanitary Landfill. Prior to April, 1978,the City of East Helena disposed of the municipal wastes at their own landfill. The City of Helena currently charges the City of East Helena approximately $6.00 per ton for disposal. 2) City of Helena The City of Helena offers municipal solid waste collection to the residents and commercial establishments in the city. The city collects the wastes generated in the residential areas once per week and in the commercial areas one to six times per week depending upon the degree of service required. For the residential areas the city issues plastic bags periodically at no extra charge. The city owns and maintains 425 bulk containers that are used primarily by commercial , establishments. These containers vary in size from 1 cubic yard to 8 cubic yards. Currently, the city collection rates are $54.00 per family per year for the resi- dential collection and $80 to $1,273 per year for commercial accounts depending upon the service rendered. The city utilizes four two-man crews to collect the waste generated in the city. These crews utilize two 20-cubic-yard and one 25-cubic-yard rear loading packers and one 20-cubic-yard side loading packer. The city has indicated that as the packer vehicles need replacing,more side loading units will be purchased ' due to the lower operating costs of these type vehicles. 3) Hartley's Garbage Service This private refuse collection company has an M.R.C. permit to collect solid waste within a 35-mile radius of the City of Helena. Currently,however, the company is collecting wastes only within approximately a 15-mile radius. The company is available on an individual contract basis to collect residential and commercial wastes and has indicated an interest in expanding their collection services to more outlying areas. Currently, the company has approximately 3,000 total accounts. 3.15 The collection fees assessed by the company vary from $5.00 to $7.00 per ' month per residential unit for once per week service depending upon the pickup location. The fee is increased by $0.75 per month if in-yard service is desired. For ' commercial accounts the fees are basically $20 per month for the collection of a 2-cubic-yard container once per week. This is based on the individual establish- ment owning the container. If a commercial account elects to rent the container the rates increase $20 per month for each container rented. If additional collec- tion is required, the rates increase $20 per month for each additional container which is collected weekly. ' The company utilizes three rear loading packer type vehicles ranging from 16 to 20 cubic yards in size and a 34 ton pickup with a "pup" unit with a 5- cubic-yard capacity to collect and transport the wastes. The wastes that are collected by the company are hauled to two disposal sites;the Scratch Gravel disposal site and the City of Helena Landfill. Currently, there is no charge to the company to transport the wastes that are collected within the Scratch Gravel ' District to the Scratch Gravel site since these residents have already paid a disposal fee through their taxes. The wastes that are collected outside the Scratch Gravel Disposal District are transported to the Helena landfill where a fee is assessed to the company. Currently, the company is hauling approximately 150 tons of waste to this site each month. 4) J& J Garbage Service ' This private waste collection company is based in Great Falls and has an M.R.C. permit to collect wastes within a 60-mile radius of Great Falls. Currently, this company is providing collection service to many residents and commercial establishments in the Wolf Creek and Craig area. The company offers once a week service and charges approximately $5.00 per month for residential units and $10.00 for commercial accounts. The company transports the waste to a disposal site located in the Great Falls area utilizing a rear loading packer vehicle. ' 5) Mr. Herman Hill ' This gentleman operates a private waste collection service in the Lincoln area. The service is provided to primarily commercial establishments. The solid waste is collected in a pickup truck and is transported to the Lincoln disposal site. This gentleman has a relatively small number of accounts and considers his service as a partime job. ' 3.16 i (b) Existing Disposal Facilities , There are seven known locations in the county where solid waste is being landfilled. Four of the sites are in conjunction with refuse disposal districts that have been formed, two are municipally operated and one is an illegal dump. Included herein is a brief description of each. Figure III-3 depicts the location of each of the sites. Also shown is the approximate boundaries of the four refuse disposal districts that have been formed in the county. Photographs of the existing sites are also illustrated in Exhibit III-3. 1 1) East Helena Disposal Site The East Helena site is located one mile south of East Helena and is approx- imately 10 acres in size. The site is owned by the American Smelting and Refining Company and is leased to the city for $50 per year . The site is fenced and has limited access. The use of the site is limited to East Helena residents. When a resident desires to utilize the site,he must obtain a key from the City Clerk's office to open the front gate. The quantity of waste deposited at the site has been reduced dramatically since the community began hauling the municipally collected wastes to the ' Helena landfill. On occasion, the City Street Department will take a rubber- tired front loader to the site to cover waste and maintain the on-site roads. However, through recent on-site inspections it is apparent that the site does not receive the proper maintenance to be in compliance with current state disposal standards. The site also has not received a license from the state. 2) City of Helena Sanitary Landfill 1 The City of Helena landfill is located near the intersection of Lyndale Avenue and North Last Chance Gulch in the central part of the city. The 30 acre site is owned by the Burlington Northern Railroad and is leased to the city. According to local officials the site's remaining life is approximately 20 years if the current waste quantities are received. The site's access is limited and is open six days per week,Monday-Saturday. , The landfill site has a gatehouse equipped with scales and all vehicles are weighed to determine the quantity of waste received at the site. Currently, approximately 1 25,000 tons of waste are received at the site annually. The majority of these ' 3.17 1 1 i IA I , 5 Elk -.� t• KEY MAP " — 1 GUSTA IISTRkT N. is N 1.0 004•01 ._ 1 _ . i LINCOL ' .3 \i CRAIG , �) 1 'IIISTRICT re,s2 Walt frl,• r.t SCRATCH .,, 1 LEGEND GRAVEL sc r'' SVIYB .DISTRICT r./ C Refuse Disposal District 1 III Disposal Site r I LEWIS & CLARK COUNTY ILISPOSAL AREAS IFigure III-3 NM inn 1.11 wR r r NUB an s iiiii NM LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY DISPOSAL SITES Le. . • , :..., ... . .1 ,. . / , ,,...,,.,„_...,.._. ...:. .„ . __... 7t, • . . . ........_ __ ... , , ._, ... .... ,. .. ... , 1 , .,.., -A,,,,,..2-, ii r ,_......,..,- -- -....t.. .,,,,,,...., -, , - 7..":.t•--.*sac,,,, ..< • CITY OF HELENA SCALE HOUSE CITY OF HELENA DISPOSAL SITE VIIii Ylriar . b Wi W CITY OF EAST HELENA SCRATCH GRAVEL 0 DISPOSAL SITE DISPOSAL SITE •. a L a s t" -I I ,. t. Vi , ` * , i Ikv. . . ; , 1 .1 61 I ' - f' ' to� i x i°' l � 1+ ;A N I Z I l A • }i 1 1 rt !-.1'l : '-.11 J- � f , "` k ` {I r •r` 1 � La I 't 4f t I < .O W aQ "o a x J�# p R d J A,..0". f L 'ii-;.1 1„ Is: . ��.� ' ' '� :i rt: .1 ,All. �'!' ti :*7.A,. H �� F • , art t ' 0•Olii 1 1 ,. '4+ ;• .,�r 7 ff g " 4 :/' v: ,f ¢ t rc . 1 I •'c f 4 F„t 4 . r :1' -..'.;' .:7*1.2. :,.I I EXIDIII1::]ITC nun-31) I I wastes were generated within the city limits of Helena. Currently, there is no user fee for city residents to use the site since these residents are charged for its use through their annual collection assessment. However, citizens or commercial establishments that are not assessed monthly collection fees must pay a user fee at the gate. Currently, there are four persons employed at the landfill site including a ' gatekeeper, two equipment operators and a laborer. The site is maintained prim- arily by a Caterpillar and landfill compactor. A scraper is also available for ex- cavating trenches and stockpiling cover material. Through recent inspections it is quite obvious that the site is one of the best maintained sites in the state. The site is in full compliance with all local, state and federal standards. 3) Scratch Gravel Refuse Disposal District ' In 1975 the residents of School Districts 1-A, 2, 3, 6 and 24 passed a resolution forming a refuse disposal district. Basically, the district includes those areas within a 10 mile area of the City of Helena excluding the Cities of Helena and East Helena. ' The landfill site that the district has developed is located two miles north of Helena on Green Meadow Drive. The site is open five days per week,Thursday- IMonday, during the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The use of the site is re- stricted to members of the refuse disposal district. Each household unit pays the district an annual fee of$18.50. If non-members of the district are interested in utilizing the disposal site, a permit from the district can be purchased. No individual user fee assessments are allowed at the site. The site,which includes approximately 36 acres , is owned by the district. ' The site's access is limited with a fulltime gatekeeper in attendance whenever the site is open. To excavate cover material and to compact and cover the waste, a ' 955D crawler-tractor is utilized. A fulltime operator is at the site to maintain the site. According to recent field inspections the site is being operated in compliance with state regulations. Some problems periodically arise concerning daily cover but overall the problems are minimal. Local officials have indicated that the site has a life of at least 10 years. ' 3.18 I 1 4) Lincoln Refuse Disposal District 1 Within the past several years the residents of the immediate Lincoln area have formed a Refuse Disposal District for the purpose of creating and financing a sanitary landfill site. The current site is located approximately six miles east of the town of Lincoln on Highway 200. The site is approximately ten acres in size and is owned by the State of Montana. The site has not obtained a license from the state as yet. The site is fenced and is limited to access on Saturdays, Sundays, Mondays and holidays for eight hours each day. Currently, the Refuse Disposal District 1 has a one-year contract with a local contractor to operate and maintain the site. The major stipulations in the contract are as follows: The contractor must; 1) furnish all necessary equipment, 2) provide personnel at the site for those hours the site is open, 3) cover the refuse with soil each day the site is open, and 4) excavate a trench. The current contract price for the above-referenced services is approximate- ' ly $12,000. To finance the operation and maintenance of the site, the following fee schedule is levied to all district members: 1 $40 per year-commercial establishments $20 per year- full-time residential units $10 per year- summer residential units 5) Augusta Refuse Disposal District In 1977 the residents in the Augusta area formed a Refuse Disposal Dis- 1 trict. Basically, the district includes all residents, commercial establishments and governmental entities in the northern one-third of Lewis and Clark County. 1 Currently, the district has approximately 700 total accounts, which include several non-members of the district who have purchased special permits to util- ize the district's disposal site. In order to finance the operation of the district's disposal site, a fee schedule similar to that of the Lincoln District is assessed to each member. 1 3.19 1 1 I The refuse disposal site is located one mile north of Augusta. The site is fenced and the access is limited to four hours on Saturday and Monday (10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.). The county owns the ten acre site. Local officials have in- dicated that the site will last for approximately 25 years, if properly maintained. iThe district currently has a contract with Mr. Monte Fenner, a local con- tractor, to operate and maintain the site. Generally the agreement states that Mr. Fenner must provide the necessary equipment to excavate the required soil and compact and cover the waste each day the facility is open. He must also ' provide a gate attendant at the site for the eight hours the site is open each week. According to recent field inspections, the site's appearance and operation meet some of the state's operational requirements. The two basic criteria which require improvement are the blowing of paper and daily cover. 1 6) Craig Disposal Facility Within the last few years several residents in the Craig area have formed a ' refuse disposal district. The district was organized in conjunction with the Craig Cemetery Association. Currently, there are approximately 60 members of the ' district. Each of the members is assessed $20 per year. A portion of the fee is utilized to maintain the area's solid waste disposal site, with the remainder being utilized to maintain the association's cemetery. Each paying member of the association is issued a key for access to the site. ' The Craig landfill is located approximately one mile west of the town of Craig and is privately owned. The site is an abandoned gravel pit and encom- 1 passes approximately ten acres. The site is fenced and access is limited by the locked front gate. There is no equipment kept at the site for maintenance. How- , ever, the cemetery association retains an area rancher to periodically cover the solid waste at the site. Basically, the site is in compliance with the state laws and rules with the exception of providing daily cover and limiting access at the site. Also, blowing paper creates a nuisance in the area during extremely windy periods. 7) Marysville Dump Currently, several residents in the Marysville area are disposing of their solid I 3.20 r • 1 wastes in an unacceptable manner at a site located one mile east of the community. The site is located on private property owned by a mining company. 1 The waste is essentially being dumped into a ravine with no proper maintenance or cover. Several attempts have been made by the State Department of Health and Environmental Sciences and Lewis and Clark County Commissioners to stop the illegal dumping. Legal action is currently being considered to alleviate the problem. 4. Summary of Existing Services& Facilities 1 Basically, the door-to-door collection services available in the Boulder, Whitehall, Townsend, Helena, East Helena and Wolf Creek areas are quite adequate and serve the residents effectively for the fees currently being levied. In the remainder of the areas of the three counties it does not appear to be economically feasible to provide a collection service at this time. However, this policy should be continually evaluated as solid waste disposal systems and demographic conditions change. ' In regard to the study area's disposal sites it is apparent that some of the existing sites are operated quite adequately. In other instances the sites are operated below standard and alternate operational strategies and/or disposal systems should be evaluated. Of the 15 disposal sites located in the study area, five are currently operating with State of Montana licenses. The remainder of the sites,according to state and federal regulations, must either be closed or licensed by the early 1980's. Summarized in Table III-1 are the current conditions of the study area disposal sites. D. SOLID WASTE QUANTITIES 1 1. Waste Generation Rates 1 An important and useful tool in the evaluation and design of any existing or proposed solid waste system or facility is the per capita generation, or the pounds per capita per day of solid waste generated in the area. If the quantities of solid waste generated in the past have been weighed and recorded, present and future quantities of waste can reasonably be , projected. From the consultant's experience and from studies completed by various governmental 1 groups,it has been determined that the generation rate per capita varies with population density. Large urban areas generate a high per capita rate because of the industrial and commercial wastes. Rural areas with little or no commercial or industrial activity generate 3.21 1 I ITABLE III-1 ISUMMARY Or, 7TUAY ARRA IDISPOSAL SITES IHYdrogeolosic I Site Location Owner Conditions Open Burning Soil Cover Limited Access Access Road State license • JEFFERSON COUNTY 1 Clancy County Good No Periodically Yes Good Yes Boulder State Good No Good Yes Good Yes IWhitehall School Good No Yes Yes Good Yes IBROADWATER COUNTY Townsend BLM Fair No Periodically No Good No IDry Gulch County Fair Yes Periodically No Fair No Winston BUS Poor Yes Periodically No Poor No I Toam County Fair Yes Periodically No Fah No Radersburg BLM Fair Yes Periodically No Fair No ' LEWIS&CLARK COUNTY I East Helena Private Fair No Seldom Yes Good No Helena qty Good No Good Yes Good Yes Scratch Gravd County Good No Good Yes Good No ICraig Private Fair Oecaa Ocean Yes Good No Lincoln State Poor Yes Fair Yes Good Yes IAugusta County Fair Ocean Fair Yes Good No I I I I 1 relatively low amounts of refuse. Such solid waste usually consists of only household wastes. Small towns generally have some commercial wastes but very little industrial waste. An analysis of the waste generation information that has been compiled for this project as well as for previous solid waste related projects in the state illustrates this point I very well. Summarized in the following text is a brief description of the waste generation data which was determined applicable for the study area. (a) Existing disposal site data An analysis of the records of all disposal sites in the three-county area indicates that only one disposal site maintains accurate slid waste disposal records;this being the City of Helena Sanitary Landfill. The City of Helena landfill is equipped with scales that allows the city to weigh all incoming vehicles and thus record the respective quantities of refuse being disposed of at the site. At the remainder of the disposal sites in the study area no record of the quantities of waste or numbers of vehicles utilizing the site is maintained. Thus, waste generation data at these sites is not available to any appreciable extent. To determine the quantities of waste being generated in the City of Helena, all pertinent waste quantity information concerning the City of Helena Sanitary Land- fill was obtained from the City Sanitation Department. Basically,it was determined that the majority of the wastes disposed at the site are generated in the City of Helena. Recently, however, the City of East Helena and Hartley's Garbage Service, a private ' waste hauling contractor, entered into an agreement with the City of Helena to utilize the City's disposal site. These two collection services began utilizing the site March 1, 1978. For the one year period from June 1, 1977 to May 31, 1978,the Helena Landfill received approximately 24,135 tons of solid waste. Approximately 189 tons of the total were hauled to the site by the City of East Helena Sanitation Department and approximately 431 tons were hauled by Hartley's Garbage Service. The remainder of these wastes were either collected by the Helena Sanitation Department or transported , directly to the site by city residents or commercial establishments. An analysis of the data obtained from the City of Helena indicates that a considerable variance in waste generation from month to month is evident. Figure III-4 depicts the quantity of waste disposed of at the Helena landfill by month for the one-year period. As the figure indicates, the high and low peaks occur, respectively, 3.22 r 1 2,800— 2,400• Total waste deposited in city landfill-, 2,000e Awra ' ! " T o. Mbett deposited by indnidud oeeidentt 8 esetbislnwde III 1,200— in 3 — II0 800— Residential ,-'• 0 - 1 400— `` +- -444111111 Commera' 1 — • a colleatd by City of Frlena Bandahan Department 197E JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 8 FEB MAR APR MAY MONTH NOTES: ' I) Data obtained from Cityot Helene TYPICAL SOLID WASTE 2) Quantities do not include wastes collected Gabon VARIATION by City of East Helena or Hartley's Gabo Service Figure m-4 r 1 in the months of April and January, with the month of April representing a waste generation of 18% above average and the month of January representing a generation of 30% below average. From the consultant's experience in past studies this monthly variance in waste generation is typical throughout the state and nation and can be ex- '' pected in most communities within the study area. Also illustrated in Figure III4 is a breakdown of the quantities of wastes deposited at the Helena landfill by source. 1 As indicated the seasonal fluctuation of the waste collected by city sanitation personnel varies only moderately compared to the wastes deposited at the site by in- dividuals. Utilizing the waste quantity information that has been obtained from the City of Helena,it is possible to determine the average waste generation rate for the City of Helena residents. Illustrated in Table 1II-2 is a breakdown of the waste quantities that were generated in the City of Helena and deposited in the city landfill during the period of June 1, 1977 to May 31, 1978. To determine the waste generation rate for the city an average city population of 27,000 for this period was utilized. As the table indicates the average waste generation rate for the residents of the City of Helena is 4.77 lbs. per capita per day. As further depicted, one-half of the wastes generated by the city were collected by City sanitation crews with the remainder of the wastes being individually hauled to the disposal site. TABLE III-2 1 CITY OF HELENA WASTE GENERATION 1 Waste Quantity Waste Gen. Rate's Waste Source (Tons per Year) lbs/cap/day 1 City collection crews 11,759 2.39 Individually hauled 11,756 2.38 Total - 23,515 4.77 * Based on contributing population of 27,000. 1 3.23 1 1 I I In addition to the waste generation data available for the City of Helena, some pertinent data is available for the City of East Helena since the Cif) of East Helena Sanitation Department initiated hauling waste to the City of Helena Landfill. For the ' three month period of March 1, 1978 to May 31, 1978 the City of East Helena Sanita- tion crews hauled a total of 189 tons of waste to the City of Helena Landfill. Based on an estimated city population of 1,850 this would represent an average waste generation rate for the citizens of East Helena of 2.27 pounds per person per day. It should be I kept in mind that this waste generation rate includes only those wastes collected by City Sanitation crews and does not talc: into account the .,astes that are individually hauled to the East Helena disposal site by the city's residents. According to City of East Helena officials, it is estimated that another 25 to 50 percent of the waste collected by city crews is individually hauled to Ir.a i. t Helena site. Based on this in- formation, an average waste generation rate for trc .Ysidents of East Helena would be in the range of 2.84 to 3.41 pounds per capita per day. (b) Other Available Waste Generation Data I In addition to the generation data available as a result of the weighing program kept at the City of Helena Landfill, detailed waste generation studies were conducted for the state in conjunction with the State of Montana Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Study that was completed in December, 1976. During that study detailed investigations and surveillances were conducted at ten waste disposal sites Ithroughout the state. At each site a one-week surveillance was conducted whereby the types, quantity and origin of the waste were recorded for each vehicle that entered the site. Based on that information, the average waste generation rate for the various communities that utilized each site was determined by dividing the total waste deposited by each community's estimated population. Based on the data accumulated in the surveillances conducted during that study, it was determined that there was a definite correlation between the size of the individual communities and the corresponding waste generation rates. Included below is a summary of the results of that waste generation study. 1 Cities Greater than 10,000: Total waste generation rates of the cities with populations greater than 10,000 ranged from 4.68 lbs./person/day to 6.26 with an average of 5.75. The majority of the variance in generation rates for the cities was due to the large diff- erence in demolition type material. The average percent breakdown by waste type was 41% residential, 41% commercial and industrial and 18% demolition. 3.24 I I Cities 5,000 - 10,000: the generation rates for the cities with populations between 5,000 and 10,000 compared quite closely with those of the larger cities. The percent I breakdown by material type also compared quite closely with the larger cities. Cities 1,000-5,000: For the cities with populations less than 1,000 there was a distinct , reduction in the total waste generated compared to the larger cities. The major reason for this was the reduction in commercial and industrial wastes. The percent breakdown by material type for these size communities was as follows: 79% residen- tial, I 13% commercial-industrial and 9% demolition. Rural Areas: The average waste generation rate for the rural areas was 2.28 I lbs/person/day. This rate was substantially lower than all other population categories. This is expected since primarily only residential type wastes are generated in rural I areas with very little commercial and industrial activity. Based on the data obtained from the surveillances, average waste generation rates were developed for three ranges of population centers in the state. Summarized in Table III-3 are the average waste generation rates that were determined applicable at the time the state-wide study was conducted. I TABLE III-3 STATE OF MONTANA AVERAGE WASTE GENERATION RATES , (lbs./person/day) Commercial- , City Populations Residential Industrial Demolition Total Greater than 5,000 2.30 2.30 1.10 5.70 1,000 to 5,000 2.20 0.50 0.55 3.25 I Less than 1,000& Rural Population 2.00 - 0.25 2.25 Source: "Population, Employment and Waste Generation Report for State of I Montana Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Study", January, 1976. 1 A review of the waste generation data that was developed for the state-wide study ' was compared with waste generation rates that have been developed by other govern- mental entities throughout the state and nation. Basically, it was determined that 3.25 1 ' the average generation information determined applicable in the state compares quite closely with other entities and thus is considered to be quite valid. (c) Summary of Waste Generation Rates Based on the waste generation information that has been compiled for this project, the following recommendations can be made concerning the applicable waste generation rates for this project. A summary of the recommended waste generation rates are depicted in Table 1II-4. I) City of Helena It is apparent that the most accurate waste generation information available for the city is the data that is recorded at the city's landfill since all waste is weighed. Therefore, the waste generation rate of 4.77 lbs. per capita per day that was determined through the analysis of the past one year's records at the site will be utilized for this project. 2) Moderate Size Communities(Populations of 1,000 to 5,000) There are four communities in the study area that fall under this category; Boulder, Whitehall, Townsend and East Helena. Through the investigations conducted for this project it was determined that none of these four communities have accurate waste generation information. The City of East Helena has some relevant waste generation information but the data is not in sufficient detail to develop an accurate waste generation rate. Based on the information available, ' it is recommended to utilize the waste generation rate of 3.25 pounds per capita per day for the wastes generated in the communities with populations ranging ' from 1,000 to 5,000. This rate was determined as an average rate for these size communities as a result of the state-wide study conducted in 1975-1976. 3) Small Communities and Rural Population Because there is no accurate waste generation data available for these Iresidents in the study area, it is recommended to utilize the average waste genera- tion rate of 2.25 pounds per capita per day as determined applicable in the state- wide study conducted in 1975-1976. I ' 3.26 . 1 TABLE III-4 RECOMMENDED WASTE GENERATION RATES Waste Generation Rate Jurisdiction (lbs./cap•/daY) City of Helena 4.77 Communitieswith populations of 3.25 1,000 to 5,000 Communities with populations less than 1,000 and all rural residents 2.25 i 2. Waste Quantities Based on the waste generation rates that were determined to be applicable for this project, quantities of solid wastes currently generated in the study area were estimated. Also, the quantities of solid waste that will be generated in the year 2000 were projected based on the current waste generation rates and the projected population for the year 2000. Obviously, the current population projections and waste generation rates may differ dramat- ically within the next 20 year period which will affect these projections. However, at this time it is felt that the current generation rates and projected populations are the most accurate information available. The current and projected quantities of waste generated in the study area are depicted ' in Table III-5. As shown,the quantities of waste have been determined by Enumeration Districts for Jefferson and Broadwater Counties and by Census Division for Lewis and ' Clark County. For the quantities of solid waste generated in the study area,it was also attempted to estimate that portion of the wastes that would be classified as Group II type wastes and Group III type wastes. Group II type wastes include municipal and domestic wastes such as garbage and putrescible organic materials and general commercial and industrial wastes excluding hazardous materials. Group III wastes basically include all inert materials and wood wastes. This breakdown is depicted for each jurisdictional area in Table III-5. 3.27 , a r - r a a MI EMI r NM Ma OM la Mill - MI MU AM - TABLE I1I-5 SOLID WASTE QUANTITIES ons ..k ar 1978 2000 JURISDICTION Group II Group III Total Group II Group III Total JEFFERSON COUNTY E.D. 1 (Boulder) 943 193 1,136 1,461 299 1,760 2 867 107 974 1326 163 1,489 3 476 59 535 737 91 828 4 77 10 87 120 15 135 5 & 6 (Whitehall) 564 115 679 873 179 1052 7 172 22 194 267 33 300 8 368 45 413 569 71 640 SUB TOTAL- 3,467 551 4,018 5,353 851 6,204 BROADWATER COUNTY E.D. 1 &2 (Townsend) 906 185 1P91 1452 298 1750 3 74 9 83 117 14 131 4 204 25 229 322 39 ( 361 5 107 14 121 170 21 191 6 112 14 126 177 __ 22 199 SUB TOTAL- 1,403 247 1,650 2,238 394 2,632 LEWIS & CLARK COUNTY 60 546 Augusta Division 325 40 365 486 Lincoln Division 357 44 401 537 67 604 163 21 184 245 30 275 Woe a West Division 3,742 462 4,204 Helena West Division 2,485 307 2,792 City of Helena 17,954 5,985 23,939 29,367 9,789 39,156 City of E. Helena 911 186 1,097 1,634 335 1,969 Helena East Division 1,213 149 1,362 1.677 , 208 1,885 SUBTOTAL- 23,408 6,732 30,140 37,688 10,951 48,639 TOTAL THREE COUNTY - 28,278 7,530 35,808 45,279 12,196 57,475 I The primary reason for estimating the breakdown of each of the two waste groups is two-fold: 1) the manner in which the two groups of waste must be disposed of according to state regulations differ. Group II wastes must be disposed of in an environmentally safe ' manner which requires the disposal site to be protected from groundwater sources and the wastes must be covered daily,whereas Group III wastes may be placed in lowland areas and do not require daily cover due to the inert nature of the wastes. Also, Group III wastes are usually bulky in nature and cannot be collected and transported with conventional solid waste collection equipment or procedures. Thus,when evaluating certain solid waste collec- tion and handling alternatives for the wastes generated in an area, special precautions and arrangements must be made to dispose of these type materials. 2) When evaluating the I potential of recovering energy and secondary materials from the wastes generated in an area, Group III wastes usually are not applicable due to the bulky and inert nature of the mat- erials. Thus, when alternatives that include the processing and separation of the various recoverable materials that are found in the solid waste stream are evaluated, alternative dis- posal methods must be evaluated for the Group III wastes. • To estimate the breakdown of the solid waste generated in the study area by the two classes,various sources of information were researched and evaluated. It was determined that the detailed composition studies conducted in conjunction with the state-wide Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Study are most applicable to the study area and were utilized for this project. Basically, the state-wide study determined that the percentage of I the Group II wastes compared with the Group III wastes varies, depending upon the population and consequently the waste generation of an area. Basically,the results of the study in regard to this subject are summarized below: - Percentage of Wastes Size of Community Group II Group III I Greater than 5,000 75 25 1,000 to 5,000 83 17 I Less than 1,000 89 11 Source: "Population,Employment and Waste Generation Report for State of Montana Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Study", January, 1976. 3.28 1 As illustrated in Table III-5, approximately 36,000 tons of solid waste are generated in the three county area annually. Approximately 79% of the wastes are Group II or "dom- estic" type wastes. The total quantity of waste generated in the study area annually will in- crease approximately 60%by the year 2000 to a total of approxomately 58,000 tons. The total quantities of waste generated annually from the present to the year 2000 for each of the three counties are graphically depicted in Figure III-5. As the figure shows, approximately 84%of the waste generated in the study area is generated in Lewis and Clark County. Eleven percent is generated in Jefferson County with five percent generated in Broadwater County. It is not anticipated that those percentages will appreciably change within the next 20 year period. I i 1 1 I I 1 1 3.29 I I I I 60,000— I -57,475 ' 50,000 - . 48,639 III - TOTAL STUDY AREA '/� r I 40,000 'e 1 ¢ 35,80 / W - -Lewis a Cork County , 30,140 W 30,000 a t - - o r ~ 20,000 , - I 10,000 - I Jefferson County��_ — 6,204 1 -4, IS — 1,650 rBroadwotpr County 2,632 1978 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 I YEAR I PROJECTED SOLID , WASTE QUANTITIES Figure M-5 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 PART FOUR 1 ALTERNATIVE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS 1 1 I 1 1 i r 1 i i 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PART FOUR ALTERNATIVE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ' SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ' A. ASSESSMENT OF AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY 1. General The purpose of this section of the plan is to identify those solid waste disposal concepts ' which have been demonstrated and proven effective throughout the state, region and nation and to evaluate in depth those concepts which appear to be applicable for most economically solving the ineffeciencies and deficiencies of the existing disposal methods in the study area. It ' should be noted that this section of the report does not evaluate the potential of recovering or recycling a portion or all of the materials found in the solid waste stream;but rather evaluates exclusively the transfer and fmal disposal of the wastes. The recycling of solid waste is an important element in the management of solid waste and thus, this element is evaluated in detail separately in Part Five of this report. Currently, in the United States and Canada there are a multitude of concepts being ' utilized to transfer and dispose of solid waste. In most instances the local topographic, climatic, sociologic and political conditions dictate which alternatives are most practical and economical for the area. Through a detailed literature search, on-site investigations and the consultant's past experience it was determined that four general concepts have potential applicability in the study area. These include: ' - Sanitary Landfills Intermediates Processes Transfer Stations ' - Rural Disposal Systems ' In the following narrative each concept is discussed and evaluated to determine its specific applicability to this project. 1 ' 4.1 1 1 2. Sanitary Landfill The Sanitary landfill has been since the first federal laws and regulations were admin- 1 istered in the early 1960's, the most widely used waste disposal method in the nation. Gen- erally, a sanitary landfill is a "cut and cover" operation whereby soil is excavated from a side slope or trench and stockpiled. Solid waste is then placed in to the excavated area and compacted to a practical degree. Finally, the cover soil is placed as necessary on the compacted waste. If a sanitary landfill is properly operated and located,it can in most instances be an economical and environmentally sound method for disposing of solid waste. If sanitary landfills are not properly operated and located utilizing sound engineering principals, ' however, several problems can arise. These include: 1) air,noise and/or groundwater pollu- tion, 2) odor problems, 3) health hazards due to the breeding of rodents and flies and, 4) 1 nuisances and aesthetic deficiencies due to blowing paper and liter. To protect the residents in the state and nation, the State of Montana and the United States Congress have promulgated laws, regulations and enforcement programs for the proper location and operation of waste disposal sites. The state and federal laws currently require all disposal sites be either upgraded to standards or closed by 1982. Currently approximately 50 disposal sites in the state have been licensed by the State Solid Waste Management Bureau (SWMB) which indicates general compliance with the regulations. These sites, however, represent less than 25 percent of the total number of public disposal 1 sites located in the state. According to SWMB officials, the number of disposal sites either being closed or upgraded to standards is increasing. A current major problem according to local and state officials in regard to the proper location and operation of waste disposal sites is public acceptance. This is quite common not only in Montana but throughout the nation;primarily because of the relatively short time frame in which stringent waste disposal laws and regulations have been in effect. The common practice for the past several decades has been to utilize unsightly,burning pits located either on private property or near each community. With the increasing volume of waste coupled with the unavailability of land which can be utilized for waste disposal, however, these past practices are no longer environmentally or socially acceptable. Thus,it is the consultant's opinion that as the population in the study area continues to increase, more public demand will be placed on the local officials to provide acceptable waste dis- posal services and facilities. The sanitary landfill is definately one disposal method which if operated properly can provide this service in an environmentally safe manner. 4.2 t 3. Intermediate Processes tCurrently there are numerous types of equipment being marketed which process to a certain degree. The primary purpose for processing waste usually is two-fold; either 1) the topography, climatic conditions or distribution of population is such that it is not prac- tical or economical to locate and/or utilize a sanitary landfill using conventional techniques, ' or 2) the waste's composition or physical conditions must be altered so that all constituents can be recovered and reused. For this section the concerns of item (1) will be addressed. Those concerns of item (2) will be addressed in Part Five of this report. Based on the consultant's experience, it was determined that two major types of ' intermediate processes are technologically proven and warrant investigation for use within the study area;these being shredding and baling solid waste prior to disposal at a ' sanitary landfill. Included in the following narrative is a description of the applicability of these processes to the study area's needs. (a) Shredding ' The primary purpose of shredding solid waste is to obtain a material with more uniform properties. Once shredded, the material is better suited for landfilling, baling or recycling. In conjunction with landfilling the primary purpose of shredding is ' three fold; 1) provides a uniform material which will compact more easily with less possibilities of future settlement, 2) reduces volumes and thus reduces transportation ' costs when large distances are incurred and 3) reduces operational problems by min- imizing rodents, flies,blowing litter and uncontrolled fires. Currently there are several locations in the nation where shred-landfill operations are in existence. One such facility is located in Great Falls, Montana. A review of this existing system by local and state officials as well as the consultant have indicated several negative concerns. Basically, it has been determined that the shred-landfill ' operation is not economical due to high capital and operational costs. In a recently completed study a private consultant retained by the Great Falls area officials recom- mended that the shredding facility be closed and the city operate a conventional land- fill with no preliminary processing. Based on the investigations conducted to date,it is the consultant's feelings that ' the advantages concerning increased operational efficiencies when waste is shredded prior to landfilling do not outweigh the high capital and operational costs of a ' 4.3 1 shredding plant located in the study area. However, it is the consultant's opinion that shredding solid waste is advantagous in certain instances and thus should be evaluated ' on an individual basis for consideration in other areas of the state. (b) Baling 1 The primary purpose of baling solid waste is to considerably reduce the waste's volume. The reduction of the waste volume affords several advantages in the manage- ment of solid wastes. In regard to the transportation of solid waste, baling can signif- icantly reduce the number of trips and correspondingly the cost if large waste quan- tities and long distances are incurred. In regard to operating sanitary landfills in which wastes are baled initially, several advantages are also obtained. These include; 1) elim- , ination of loose blowing paper and rubbish,2) better control of flies and rodents, 3) elimination of expensive landfill compaction equipment, and 4) a decrease in operation ' and capital costs due to less cover material required and higher densities affording the conservation of land. Several types of balers are utilized today throughout the nation. Some balers compress the waste to densities in excess of 1,500 lbs. per cubic yard which do not require any type of binding. Other types of balers compact waste to lower densi - ties necessitating wire or twine ties. In the majority of instances baling facilities require an enclosed building for waste dumping, conveying and processing. Based on the consultant's research and experience, it was determined that the operational advantages obtained from baling do not justify the high costs incurred from owning and operating the equipment. In most instances a modular size baling facility which would accompodate the wastes generated in the study area would range from $500,000 to over $1,000,000 depending upon the design improvements deemed necessary. In addition to the facility's capital cost, the facility's operational costs and a sanitary landfill cost must also be added. In the study area it can be assumed that these costs would be substantially higher then the costs of operating a conventional landfill. 4. Transfer Station In certain circumstances it may be more feasible for a municipality or population center to transport its waste to a larger community than to operate its own sanitary landfill. For this option to be feasible transportation costs must be reduced to a minimum. One method to 4A ' reduce transportation costs is to utilize a facility whereby collection vehicles and individual haulers wastes are deposited and transferred to large capacity vehicles (usually a semi- trailer with the capacity to transport up to 20 tons of waste). These large vehicles in turn transport the wastes to a regional disposal site. For areas where populations exceed 1,000 and transportation distances exceed approx- imately 15 miles, it is in most instances economical and practical to have the transfer station equiped with a compaction unit. This allows for a substantial increase in the quantity of waste which can be transported each trip. Also the facility should include an enclosed tipping area for aesthetic and maintenance purposes. Currently there are two transfer stations of this type in Montana, one located in Columbus and one in Forsyth. The wastes from each site are being transported to the Billings Sanitary Landfill. Based on the consultants experience and the operational history of transfer stations currently in use in the state and nation, it is recommended that these type facilities be evaluated in detail when the proper circumstances and conditions arise. The equipment utilized for this type of facility has been utilized for several years and has a well proven ' operational record. 5. Rural Disposal Systems For rural areas and communities with populations less than approximately 1,000 where ' no individual door-to-door collection service is available, one potentially economical solid waste disposal alternative is the use of containers strategically placed throughout the ser- vice area. By use of specially designed vehicles these containers are emptied periodically, with the waste then transported to a central transfer, recycling or disposal facility. In many instances throughout the state and nation a container system has replaced several small in- discriminate dumps allowing for an economical waste disposal method which is in compliance with all local, state and federal laws. Currently there are two types of container systems which are being utilized throughout the nation. A brief description of each is included herein: (a) Rural Container System This system is commonly referred to as a "Green Box" system and basically con- sists of locating several small containers varying from 4 cubic yards to 10 cubic yards in size throughout a sparsely populated area. These containers are placed in locations 4.5 1 which are readily accessible including intersections of local highways, recreational areas and in or near small communities. These container systems can be designed such that ' the waste in the containers can be emptied into either a front loading or rear loading waste collection vehicle. Currently seven counties in Montana are utilizing this type of system for the disposal of wastes in the less populated areas. The majority of these counties utilize the front-loading collection vehicle arrangement due to its lower labor and operational costs compared to rear-loading systems. (b) Rural Transfer System , This rural disposal system in concept is quite similar to the rural container system (green box) with the exception that a less number of larger containers are utilized. In most instances the size of the containers with this system are approximately 40 cubic yards although containers varying in size from 20 cubic yards to 50 cubic yards do ' function well under certain circumstances. Because of the large size of the containers, a ramp must be built at the container site. Under this system a specially designed vehicle with a truck chassis and tilt-frame bed is utilized to load, unload and transfer the waste from the container site to the disposal site. Unlike the "Green Box" system where the container is emptied on-site, however, this system requires the tilt-frame vehicle to leave an empty container and pickup the full container. Currently five counties in the state are utilizing this system, these being Cascade,.Carbon, Yellowstone, Big Horn and Treasure Counties. 6. Summary ' As discussed in the previous narrative, the use of sanitary landfills, transfer stations and rural disposal systems have been proven both technologically and economically in Montana as well as in other sections of the nation. Thus it is the intent of the consultant to analyze these types of systems and facilities for the individual situations in the study area where they are possibly applicable. In regard to the applicability of utilizing intermediate processing techniques such as shredding and baling, it is not felt that these systems are well suited economically for the ' study area at this time. Thus, these systems will not be evaluated in depth for this project. However, as the conditions in the area change,the applicability of these intermediate pro- cesses should continually be evaluated. 1 4.6 ' It should also be noted that several other solid waste disposal systems that have been demonstrated in the nation were not discussed in this narrative. These include direct incineration with no heat recovery, composting, and methane recovery from landfills to mention a few. It is the consultant's opinion that these methods are not applicable in the study area ' due to the small volumes of waste generated and thelack of a proven "track record" for the installations which have been demonstrated. ' B. SYSTEM ANALYSIS OF SPECIFIC ALTERNATIVES ' 1. General ' The primary purpose of this section of the report is to address and evaluate specific solid waste management alternatives for the study area. It is the consultant's opinion that this section is quite important since recommendations which will be addressed in Part Eight of this report are based primarily on the analyses conducted herein. Thus, a major work effort has been made by the local officials and the consultant to evaluate and review ' all alternatives which are practical and potentially economical for the residents within the study area and to provide sufficient detail in this section such that all calculations and assumptions can be clearly understood by the local citizens and officials. ' To evaluate the various alternatives which were determined applicable for the study area, initially a basis of design and cost estimates were prepared for the various system cost components included for each potentially applicable alternative. Basically the system cost components for each alternative include two major elements; 1) capital and annual costs for major facilities including sanitary landfills and where applicable transfer stations and rural disposal sites including containers and container sites, and 2) transportation costs which include depreciation and operational expenses to operate vehicles that are involved in the 1 transportation of solid wastes from the point of generation to a waste transfer or disposal facility. Included in Section 2 of this chapter is a detailed description of the basis of design and cost estimates for the various system cost components which were prepared for this project. This information was then utilized as the basis for evaluating the specific alternatives which were determined potentially applicable for the various regions located throughout the study area. These specific analyses are included in Section 3 of this chapter. 4.7 1 2. Basis for System Cost Components (a) Conventional Sanitary Landfill To reduce the possibility for aesthetic or health problems arising, the State of Montana and United States Congress have promulgated laws and guidelines for the proper operation of sanitary landfills. The most prominent rules that have been adopted include: 1)no open burning at any disposal site without a burning permit, 2) a minimum of six inches of soil to be placed on all waste the same day as deposited, 3)no placement of waste within six feet of the high groundwater level or stream and 4) limited access to the site to the number of days deemed necessary to adequately serve the facility users. , Through research and practical operating experience for the past two decades, it has been determined that there are a variety of methods for operating a sanitary landfill. The two most prominent methods are the trench and area methods. The trench method basicallyconsists of excavating trenches with a dozer and/or scraper and stockpiling the soil for use as cover material. Solid waste is then placed into the pre-excavated trenches, compacted and covered each operating day with 4 to 6 inches of the stockpiled cover soil. This method is used primarily in areas where the terrain is relatively flat. Exhibit IV-1 depicts a schematic of this type of operation. The area landfill method differs from the trench method in that minimal site pre- paration is required. In this method individual cells are constructed in various areas throughout the site until the entire site is filled. Each cell represents the waste received from one operating day. Cover material is excavated from areas adjacent to the working face of the active fill area and is deposited over the previous compacted re- fuse. Exhibit IV-2 illustrates this type of landfill method. ' For this project it was attempted to estimate the general cost to operate two sizes ' of sanitary landfills which would meet all state and federal criteria. This general cost information was then utilized as the basis for determining the overall system costs of the various specific alternatives which were evaluated for each particular section within the study area (Section 3 of this chapter). The costs of the two general sizes of land- fills which were determined applicable for the study area are summarized in Table IV-1. Basically, the "minimum" size landfill represents an area with a contributing population of approximately 2,500 people or less whereas the "medium"size landfill ' 4.8 ' SANITARY LANDFILL TRENCH METHOD 111 TYPICAL ILLUSTRATION TUMCH INTIICC p"AA"YI4I141 HI w n.v •X::`•:: ss..a•... aMa.e RO.e..a N;.ap.. Cell wul . . 1' w■• • s.«• 1 TYPICAL PLAN VIEW TYPICAL ELEVATION VIEW 1 ' Source: State of Montana and Resource Solid Waste EXHIBIT IV- 1 ' Ma Recovery Study, August, 1976 SANITARY LANDFILL ' AREA METHOD I mar x ♦ Y'y.....____ �1'J� ^^�aYy.A. ^a�Y!•+.v01n. e..,...-• ritaf;.+� Eii.:o. a=... ■ I s.\y\ US,S.1 .. ... r ._ 7 _` race To ' V.. �WVF• N _ �6i @�ra7/y .�•t ,'!°�n3`M'•v ; BAR-�..,,, . G ,L.. I r Leat2easeioL �COVF.I —01•0,,,,.......— ` MMN.I�STf .'- • ' 1 TYPICAL ILLUSTRATION I /T ' , / / ,r. t- � // Ji/i . / 4,9 l i ' / t / i // . / i FINAL COVEN /' / Tai / k eV ON UPPER MOST Uri ,/ / _ / / / 6 �/ / / / V`�/ / / / / ��, / ' /'/ ,/ // 4 „./ ,/ / / [ / / / I �°+"',—�'\t.1\✓ THiCvNESS COVER OF / - \� DAILY COVER i/ s. TN Esr'...'o I TYPICAL PLAN VIEW , I Source: State of Montana Solid Waste EXHIBIT IV-2 , Management and Resource IRecovery Study, August, 1976 I represents sites which can handle the volume of waste generated by populations vary- 1 ing from 2,500 to 10,000. ' For the costs which are depicted in Table IV-1 certain basic assumptions were made. These include: I) a gate attendant would be on-site during the operating hours the site was open to supervise dumping and provide general maintenance, 2) a "used" track type loader would be purchased or leased for moving, compacting and covering the waste with soil, 3) the track type loader would be operated by personnel at the end of each day the site was open for site maintenance and soil cover, 4) the excavation of trenches and/or cover material and road maintenance would be con- tracted as required and 5) no current facilities exist and thus all site improvements required to start a landfill site would be needed. As depicted in the table, the cost to operate a sanitary landfill is expensive. As also demonstrated, the costs increase dramatically as the level of service(number of days the site is open)increases. Obviously, the number of days the site is open is dependent upon the local needs and demands. However, significant cost savings can be obtained through keeping open a disposal site periodically rather then on a daily basis. ' (b) Class III Disposal Site ' For the disposal of inert materials and large bulky materials such as demolition debris, wood products and appliances, the state and federal standards regarding ' disposal are less stringent due to the characteristics of the materials. Current state regulations indicate that disposal sites receiving only these type inert materials do not require daily cover. Also less stringent standards in regard to the location of these type 111 disposal sites are Prevalent due to lessened potential of environmental and health re- lated hazards (pollution of groundwater and rodent problems) and generation of nuisance factors such as blowing paper, odors and aesthetics. Because of the less stringent operation and location standards required for disposal sites accepting only bulky materials, costs were developed for operating a Class III (inert material) disposal site. These costs are depicted in Table IV-2. As in- dicated in the table, a fulitime attendant would be required to monitor the dumping of material. This is due primarily to the need for rejecting all non-inert type materials 4.9 I TABLE IV-1 ' CONVENTIONAL LANDFILL CAPITAL COSTS MINIMUM SIZE MEDIUM SIZE ' LANDFILL LANDFILL ITEM Unit Cost Units Cost Units Cost Land $2,000.00/ac. 4 ac. $ 8,000 10 ac. $20,000 I Fencing $1.60/ft. 1700 ft. 2,700 3000 ft. 4,800 Roads $12.00/ft. 400 ft. 4,800 600 ft. 7,200 Blds. $15.00/sq. ft. 1000 sq.ft. 15,000 1300 sq. ft. 19,500 Misc. Utilities Var. - 1,500 - 6,500 Engineering, ' Legal& Cont. - - 6,000 - 15,000 TOTAL CAPITAL COST - $38,000 $73,000 ' AMORTIZATION (20 yrs. @ 7.5%) - $3,700/yr. $7,160/yr. I ANNUAL OPERATIONAL COSTS MINIMUM SIZE I ANDFILL MFDIUM SIT. I ANDFILL Unit UNITS COST UNITS COST ITEM Cost 2 Days 5 Days 2 Days 5 Days 2 Days 6 Days 2 Days 6 Days ' Site & Road Maint. Var. - - $ 500 S 500 - - $ 800 $ 800 Equip. Depr. $24.00 208 520 5.000 12,500 312 936 7,500 22500 , oper. & maint. /hr (track type loader) Utilities Var. - - 200 300 - - 300 400 Labor: (1) (1) (3) I (3) gate attendent $ 4.75 624 1,560 3,000 7.400 832 2,496 4,000 11,800 /hr. (2) I (2) (4) (4) equip. op. $ 9.50 208 520 2,000 4,900 312 1 936 3,000 8,900 /hr. I - * TOTAL- $10,700 $24,100 $15,600 $44,400 * Costs do not include the periodic excavation of trenches as normally associated with small sanitary II landfill operations nor the amortization of the site improvements. Note: (1) 6 hrs. per each day open. ' (2) 2 Ins per each day open. (3) 8 hrs. per each day open. (4) 3 hrs. per each day open. I ' TABLE IV-2 CLASS HI LANDFILL 1 CAPITAL COSTS ' Item Unit Cost Units Cost ' Land $400.00/ac. 5 $2,000 Fencing $ 1.60/ft. 1700 2,700 Roads $ 12.00/ft. 300 3.600 IContin t ency(10%) - $1,000 TOTAL CAPITAL COST - $9,300 IAMORTIZATION (20 yrs. @ 7.5%) - $910 I ANNUAL OPERATIONAL COSTS I UNITS COST ITEM Unit Cost 1 Day 2 Days 5 Days 1 Day 2 Days 5 Days IUtilities& Site Maint. Var. - - - $ 300 $ 300 $ 400 Equip Op. (1) ' & Maint. $400.00/day 6 6 6 2,400 2,400 2,400 (Rental of D-7 Dozer) Labor: Gate Attend. (2) $ 4.50/hr. 312 624 1,560 1,400 2,800 7,000 Equip. Opel-, $ 9.50/hr. 48 48 48 450 450 450 ITOTAL ANNUAL COST - $4,550 $5,950 $10,250 I (1) Assumes maintenance required one day per each 2 months. (2) 6 hrs. per each day open. I I I from the site. These wastes must be deposited in other disposal facilities. In most instances Class III disposal sites are deemed necessary and are justified economically when a particular area utilizes a transfer station or rural container system for disposal of the conventional portion of the wastes generated in the area. ' (c) Transfer Station As discussed previously the primary function of a transfer station is to reduce the cost of hauling waste from the point of collection to generation or point of collection to the point of final disposal. Practically speaking a transfer station would be utilized in ' communities when the option of hauling waste to a larger metropolitan area's disposal site was evaluated compared to the individual community operating its own landfill. Within the study area this type of facility is potentially applicable for communities with populations in excess of approximately 1,000 which have a current door-to-door collection service. For communities with populations less than 1,000 this type of transfer station is usually not necessary. Rural container programs are usually econ- omical and practical in those instances. These systems are discussed in section (d). The transfer station discussed herein consists of an enclosed dumping area, a ' charging hopper and a transfer vehicle (semi-trailer). The facility is designed such that individual citizens as well as commercial waste haulers can deposit their wastes at the facility. A front-loader or "bobcat" vehicle pushes the deposited waste into a charging hopper. This waste inturn flows by gravity into a large transfer trailer located under the hopper where the waste is compacted utilizing a low density compaction unit mounted on the trailer. When the trailer is filled, it is transported to a regional landfill or recycling plant for disposal. A general site layout and photograph of a similar ' type facility in operation is depicted in Exhibit IV-3. The capital and annual operational costs for the type of facility discussed herein ' are depicted in Table IV-3. It should be noted that these costs do not include the cost to transport the waste from the transfer station to the final disposal. These transpor- tation costs must be determined on an individual situation basis and are included in 1 the analysis conducted in Section 3 of this chapter. (d) Rural Disposal Systems 1 As previously discussed there are two types of container systems which can be utilized to effectively dispose of the wastes generated in the rural areas and small ' 4.10 I ITRANSFER STATION LAYOUT I I • . TRANSFER VEHICLES FM. •• :-...• '.... ENCLOSED TIPPING j AREA J` , ' • •• COLLECTION VEHICLES • ,-,-,-,r) ..•• . : • . ./. • _...... .. .i- TRANSFER STATION SITE LAYOUT I I I 4 . t .� �#' + ' . — ` g ""° 3k'..fi` 1 ��of � • b -' *v.. ) f .f r , A Ar c .4-�" , „ �; I TRANSFER STATION LOCATED IIN COLUMBUS, MONTANA EXHIBIT IV-3 I TABLE IV-3 I ITRANSFER STATION ICAPITAL COSTS I ITEM Unit Cost Units Cost Land $1,000.00/ac. 3 ac. $3,000 ISite Work& Fencing LS - 20,000 Building $ 30.00/sq. ft. 1000 sq. ft. $30,000 I Bobcat $10,000.00 1 10,000 Transfer Trailer Var. 1 30,000 Subtotal - $93,000 Engineering, Legal& Cont. (15%) - 14,000 I TOTAL CAPITAL COST - $107,000 ' AMORTIZATION (20 yrs. @ 7.5%) - $10,490 IANNUAL OPERATIONAL COSTS IITEM 2 Days 3 Days 5 Days Site Maint. & Utilities $ 600 $ 600 $ 800 I Labor: Facility, Equip. Op. (1) 4,400 6,600 10,900 (@ $7.00/hr.) I * TOTAL - $5,000 $7,200 $11,700 * Costs do not include amortization of capital investment nor operation and I maintenance of compaction equipment. Compaction unit operation and mainten- ance is estimated to be an additional $0.80 per ton. I Note: (1) 6 hours per each day open. I I 1 communities in the study area. A brief description of the equipment and facilities and the advantages and disadvantages of each system is discussed herein. (1) Rural Container System This system includes the use of small containers "Green Boxes" strategic- ally located throughout the service area and a specially designed packer vehicle to empty the waste from each container as required and to transport the waste , to a central disposal site. Based on the consultan{s review of existing rural con- tainer systems currently in practice in the state, it was determined that the , systems which utilize 4 or 6 cubic yard containers and a front-loading packer vehicle is most applicable for the area compared to other small container programs currently in use. Thus, this type of system was evaluated for the specific areas within the study area where a rural container system was deemed potentially applicable. Photographs of facilities and equipment which utilize a similar type system are depicted in Exhibit IV-4. For the specific areas in the study area where this type disposal system was evaluated, it was attempted to design the system such that 90 percent of the re- sidents in the service area would be located within five miles of a container. It was also attempted to design the collection routes and include a sufficient number of containers such that the efficiency of the system was maximized. In most in- stances the highest efficiency was obtained by emptying the containers once each week. However, in a few instances it was determined that the collection of the containers twice per week was the most economical. A review of existing rural container systems in operation in the state indicate that the systems are an economical and effective method for disposing of the ' waste and reducing indiscrimate dumping. The biggest drawback to the system is the limitation on the types and size of materials which can be deposited. The opening of these containers are approximately 3 feet by 4 feet. Thus larger items such as demolition debris, tree limbs and appliances must be taken to either a regional landfill or a Class III disposal site. In some instances this is an extreme inconvience to the area residents affording the possibility of indiscrimate dumping of these items. The major advantage of the system is the high level of service , available to the population the system serves. In most cases the system provides a disposal site located within a few miles of their residence. Also, the system ' 4.11 ' as g N EN E 1 ima us Nel g IINI n 11111111 ° aill g 11111 111111 1 RURAL CONTAINER SYSTEM , ,g A r dS . 4 -,. ..- -.-. -Jr -...--., - , • ,,..aii,t:• 7: - . , 3 °`; - _ '4' i;,� ' f*� 4+' +J• _3 ` a - . -0F( ., �., r >, Y :_-� RURAL CONTAINER SITE RURAL CONTAINER SITE PARK COUNTY,MONTANA GARDNER.MONTANA e ►", � r, _ .* . 1 VMS Miiw.. •z � �# s P4 � 1 . - ' Alt Nom. _ ,, �, . .1,, . t:,..,--_ ,..,..-„,....,,,,..,__,, , ,.,,,......„,, ..,,t,,. - , '-',...' .--';''-‘' �,� . "s , . , #' g "` ,. _ .. _ ;., Jam �_, a rti 7f q# :4,41.,." yi 'y'4`°V :.t YaL«' .. "' rri k 5 FRONT-LOADING PACKER VEHICLE FRONT-LOADING PACKER VEHICLE PARK COUNTY,MONTANA PARK COUNTY,MONTANA 4. I provides 24 hour, seven day a week service since the container sites are not re- quired to be monitored. (2) Rural Transfer System This system includes the use of large non-compacted roll-off containers strategic- ally located throughout the service area and a tilt-frame vehicle specifically de- signed to load, transfer and unload the containers. This system is basically similar ' in practice to the rural container system with the exception that fewer and larger containers are used. Because of the large size of the containers,certain site improvements must be made at the location of each container. These improvements include a retaining wall, ramp and a concrete pad for loading and unloading the containers. The estimated capital cost and a site layout of a typical rural transfer site is depicted in Exhibit IV-5. Photographs of a typical site are depicted in Exhibit IV-6. It should be noted that the costs indicated in Exhibit IV-5 assume that the retaining wall would be constructed of railroad ties and not concrete as pictured in Exhibit IV-6. Facilities similar to these constructed with railroad ties in Montana have performed quite adequately and thus the added cost for a concrete retaining wall was not determined to be necessary. For the specific areas in the study area where this type of system warranted detail consideration,it was attempted to design the system such that 90 percent of the area citizens would be located within 10 miles of a container site. Also the analysis conducted for each specific area assumed that 40 cubic yard containers would be utilized and picked up as necessary. In all instances where this system was evaluated, it was assumed that all containers could be collected a minimum of once per week during the fly and rodent breeding months and upto several times per week in areas where waste generation dictated. During non-breeding periods it was assumed that containers would be picked up and emptied as required with a a container being collected at minimum once every three weeks during the winter months. A review of existing rural transfer systems located throughout the state I and nation indicate a wide acceptance and increasing interest in the system. The major advantage of the rural transfer system over the rural container system is the flexibility and limitless types of wastes which the system can handle. Because of 4.12 I t' RURAL TRANSFER SYSTEM CONTAINER CONTAINER TIPPING NG 8 ' AREA UNLOADING AREA RETAINING I WALL SITE LAYOUT 1 1 CAPITAL COSTS ITEM COST Sitework and Ramp (1) $ 3,000 Concrete Slab 2,500 40 Cubic Yard Container 4,500 Contingency 1,000 1 TOTAL CAPITAL COST (2) $11,000 AMORTIZATION (20 yrs. @ 7.5%) $ 1,080 1 (1) Based on ramp constructed of railroad ties or similar type material. (2) Does not include land costs or access road to site. EXHIBIT IV-5 I IRURAL TRANSFER SYSTEM I I I . P.. 3_ ..,.: .--_-_,- ,.:-.....,,-...:,..,,,I, .4,_ , ,..,, sE ;s I/ ._. --__... --it....,....s.— -. .., ',.'„,,,,,:5,,4,,,,,*,' L ..,.. R,... , -dig -e .'tom . "]r.....i._Jk�r i - ..,...� it i•.`.+ - I RURAL TRANSFER SITE WHITMAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON I j _ i �� . . :�:.: RURAL TRANSFER SITE WHITMAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON I EXHIBIT IV-6 the large size of the containers,large bulky materials such as appliances, tires, demolition debris and wood wastes can be deposited. Thus, the need for a Class III disposal site is not necessary where such a site may be required if a smaller container system is utilized. In a rural agricultural area such as the study area, this is an important consideration. The major disadvantage of this type of system compared to the rural container system is the proximity of the total service area 1 to a disposal site. Under the rural transfer system concept,the normal policy is to locate container sites at or near current or old "dump" sites with the addition 1 of possibly one or two sites depending upon the population distribution in the area. This requires a certain percentage of the population to travel a few I additional miles to a deposit site when compared to a rural container system. The applicability of one system over another depends upon the local conditions of the service area. (e) Transportation Costs When evaluating the transportation costs of solid waste management systems, there are two types of haul which warrant consideration. These include: 1) primary haul which represents the cost of transporting waste directly from the point of genera- lion to either a rural container site, transfer station, processing plant, or ultimate 1 disposal facility, and (2) secondary haul which represents the cost of transporting waste from one facility to another. ' In most instances the primary hauling of solid waste is associated with the use of vehicles which initially collect or transport the waste. For wastes generated in urban areas, a packer type collection vehicle is most generally used. For wastes generated in rural areas, the primary haul is usually associated with individuals trans- porting their wastes to either a disposal site or container site utilizing their own vehicles. When analyzing the secondary hauling of wastes,vehicles specifically designed to transport wa forlong distances . utilized are:(1)stes large capacity transfer are trutilizedailers, (2)In vehicles most instances specifically the type designed of to vehicles collect "green box" containers, and (3) vehicles specifically designed to haul large capacity(40 cubic yard) containers. Depending on the type of container system or transfer station implemented, the transfer vehicles may also have the capability to corn- 1 pact and discharge the waste mechanically. 4.13 It is the intent of the scope of services for this project to specifically determine and include in the system cost analysis only the secondary haul costs associated with each alternative evaluated. The reasoning behind not including specific primary haul costs in the system cost analysis are two fold: 1) the intent of the project is to deter- ! mine the most cost effective method to dispose of the wastes generated in the study area, whichexcludes the door-to-door collection and individual transportation of waste ' from each home or business to a central disposal site, and 2) it would he impossible to estimate the cost-for each individual within the study area to transport his or her own wastes to the various disposal sites which were evaluated. In regard to estimating the secondary haul costs associated with each alternative that was evaluated for the study area, unit haul costs were developed for four vehicle types. The sources of information used to derive the unit costs were: (1) equipment ' manufacturers and suppliers, (2) operating records from city, county and private firms presently operating solid waste collection, transportation, and/or disposal practices, I and (3) an analysis of present labor rates and fuel prices throughout the study area. Table 1V-4 summarizes the unit costs for the vehicles that were deemed necessary to transport the wastes for all solid waste transfer and disposal systems determined 111 applicable and warranted an in-depth analysis. As depicted in the table, the cost to operate packer type vehicles(utilized in rural container programs) is approximately $0.82 to $0.85 per mile, the cost to operate tilt frame vehicls (utilized for 40 cubic yard rural transfer systems) is approximately $0.78 per mile, and the cost to operate large transfer trailers(utilized with transfer stations) is approximately 5I .03 per mile. In all cases, the labor cost is not includ,d. Labor costs arc included as a separate item in the total system cost analysis. It should also b., noted that the costs depicted in the table represent costs as of January, 1979 with no inflationary factors added. Also, it was assumed that the vehicles would be owned and operated by a non-taxable en- tity. Thus no overhead, taxes and profit are added to these vehicle costs. According to private firms contacted by the consultant , however, these costs appear to oe reason- able if the services were to be contracted to a private firm. , i 4.14 I ITABLE IV-4 VEHICLE TRAVEL COSTS 1 (Dollars Per Mile) Vehicle Type Operation & Maint. Depreciation Insurance Total II 20 Cubic Yard R.L. Packer $0.41 $0.33 $0.08 $0.82 30 Cubic Yard IF.L. Packer 0.41 0.36 0.08 0.85 40 Cubic Yard IRoll-Off Container 0.39 0.32 0.07 0.78 75 Cubic Yard ITransfer Trailer 0.60 0.31 0.12 1.03 Note: Costs do not include labor. IBASIS FOR HAUL COSTS I 1. It was assumed that all factors affecting vehicle operating cost with the exception of labor would be the same for all road types. This assumption was made because actual fuel and oil consumption and the wear for each road speed cannot be accurately determined. ' 2. Operation and Maintenance Costs a. Packers(Rear Loaded) I Fuel cost;diesel @ $.50/gal. $.10/mile. Oil and lubrication @ .03/mile. Maintenance &Tires @ $.28/mile. ITotal- $0.41/mile b. Packer (Front Loaded) 30 c.y. I Fuel cost;diesel @ $.50/gal. or $.12/mile. Oil and lubrication @ $.03/mile Maintenance& Tires @ $.26/mile Total - $.41/mile. I c. Roll-off Tractor and Container Fuel cost;diesel @ $.50/gal. or $.12/mile I Oil and lubrication @ $.03/mile Maintenance and Tires @ $.24/mile Total - $.39/mile. Id. Transfer Trailer and Tractor Fuel cost;diesel @ $.50 or $.16/mile I Oil and lubrication @ $.04/mile Maintenance and Tires @ $.40/mile Total- $.60/mile I 3. Depreciation Vehicle Type New Price Salvage Price Est. Mileage Cost Per Mile 20 C.Y. I R.L. Packer $46,000 $ 6,900 120,000 $0.33 30 C.Y. I F.L. Packer $64,000 9,600 150,000 0.36 40 C.Y. ' Roll-Off& Cont. $57,000 8,600 150,000 0.32 75 C.Y. I Transfer Trl. $73,000 11,000 200,000 0.31 * Represents 15 percent of new vehicle price. I I 4. Insurance Vehicle Type Insurance Premium Annual Mileage Cost Per Mile I 20 C.Y. 1 R.L. Packer $1,500 20,000 $0.08 30 C.Y. ' F.L. Packer $2,000 25,000 0.08 40 C.Y. ' Roll-Off $1,800 25,000 0.07 75 C.Y. Transfer& Trl. $3,000 25,000 0.12 ' 1 1 I 1 I 1 3. Cost Analysis of Specific Alternatives (a) General Based on the current solid waste management practices in the study area and the assessment of potentially applicable waste disposal systems currently being utilized throughout the state and nation, it was determined that three general waste disposal concepts warranted an in-depth analysis for the study area. These include: 1) utiliza- tion of current or area wide waste disposal sites operated in compliance with all state and federal standards, 2) utilization of a rural container system with disposal at alter- nate regional sanitary landfills and 3) utilization of a rural transfer system with disposal at alternate regional sanitary landfills. To effectively evaluate each of the three general disposal concepts,the analysis was conducted for each county individually. The individual county solutions are sum- marized in Sections (b), (c) and (d) of this chapter. It should be noted that the costs for all alternatives evaluated for each of the ' three counties were broken down and summarized according to five basic cost elements. A description and summary of the assumptions utilized for each of the five cost elements are as follows: Conventional Disposal Cost This element includes the cost to properly operate according to state and federal criteria and regulations all public disposal sites currently in operation in the area. The basis for these costs are summarized in Table IV-1. The cost items included in this element are amortization of capital facilities and equipment, annual operating and maintenance costs and contractual trench excavation costs. For these specific alter- natives in which waste was to be transported to a regional disposal site located outside the area, an equitable drop charge was included. This charge was based on the total cost to operate the regional disposal site and the estimated percentage of waste that the area would be contributing. Class III Disposal Cost For alternatives where this facility was deemed necessary the cost included was based on the capital and annual costs depicted in Table IV-2. Containers For rural container systems that were evaluated,this cost element represents the 4.15 annual depreciation for all four-cubic-yard containers. This cost was calculated by ' multiplying the number of containers deemed necessary by $400/container and de- preciating this out over ten years, assuming a current interest rate of 7.5%. For rural I transfer systems the annual depreciation of each container site was calculated accord- ing to the breakdown in Exhibit IV-5. Basically this equates to multiplying each con- tainer site required by $1,080 to determine the annual depreciation of the sites. Transfer Station For alternates where this facility was deemed necessary, the cost included was based on the capital and annual costs depicted in Table IV-3. ' Transportation Costs The operation and maintenance of the vehicles required to transport the waste from one facility to another were based on the criteria developed in Table IV-4 and the total number of miles required to be driven over a one-year period. Labor costs include the time required for a driver to operate the specific vehicles required. A labor rate of $9.50 per hour was assumed appropriate for this analysis. For each specific alternative evaluated, the total annual system cost as well as I an estimated annual cost per equivalent residential unit were determined. The total number of equivalent units was determined utilizing the following assumptions: 1) each occupied dwelling unit in the area represents one equivalent unit, 2) on the aver- age, each commercial establishment represents four equivalent units, and 3) the num- ber of units for all governmental and private recreation areas is calculated based on one equivalent unit per ton of waste generated. Naturally, the precise assessment for each individual business and the number of equivalent units in the area should be finalized once a particular program has been implemented. The estimated number of equivalent units in each area is depicted on the tables that summarize each particular I area's cost analysis. Based on the criteria discussed herein, the system cost analysis for those alterna- tives determined applicable for each county are summarized in the following narrative, • tables and figures. It should be noted, however, that all costs are based on January, 1979 dollars, and no inflationary adjustments have been included. Also, the costs do not include administrative costs or contingencies. It is the consultant's feelings that these additional costs would be similar for all alternatives evaluated. Naturally, for the recommended alternative, administrative fees and contingencies should be added as required. These additions for the recommended solution are addressed in Part Eight of this report. I 4.16 (b) Jefferson County To effectively evaluate each of the three general disposal concepts, the county was divided into three areas. Figure IV-I depicts the boundaries of these areas. For each area the specific alternatives were evaluated in order that the least-cost solution for each area of the county could he determined. These specific area analyses were then utilized to develop a total county-wide solid waste management strategy. A breakdown of the costs for each alternative evaluated for the three areas individually as well as possible total county-wide solutions are summarized herein. - 1) North Area Currently the northern section of the county has in effect a solid waste district. This district provides three container sites located at Jefferson City, Clancy and Montana City. Also the district provides a Class III site at Clancy for the disposal of demolition debris. The first alternative that was analyzed was ' to discontinue the use of the container system and operate one Class II landfill at Clancy. Annual costs to operate the site both two days per week and five days per week were determined. The annual costs for these options are summarized in Table IV-5. As illustrated, the cost to operate the disposal site in compliance ' varies from $24,000 per year to $37,400 depending upon the number of days the site is open. As further illustrated in Table IV-5, these costs would represent an annual payment of between $30.85 and $48.08 per year for each equivalent residential unit. ' Two other alternatives that were evaluated for the area include the use of either a rural container system (4-cubic-yard containers) or a rural transfer system (40-cubic-yard containers). Under each system,containers would be located at Montana City, Clancy and Jefferson City. Also a Class III disposal site would be located at Clancy. For these two alternatives the option of transporting the wastes deposited in the containers to either the City of Helena or Town of Boulder landfills were evaluated. As shown in Table IV-5 the use of either container system with final disposal at the City of Helena offers the highest degree of service to the residents for the least cost..The cost per unit per year would vary from $28.80 to $33.05 depending upon the system implemented. 1 4.17 I I JEFFERSON •COUNTY VA M °' I r 1 J 1 Gary. 1 ena I .(Class III) dfr. ''' V li NORTH I KEY MAP . ,. I. Not ona AREA . - 1 Foresl • BOSS Of• iofye Notional.._ _. Boulder l I _. l•�, Foresl Nollonol CENTRAL , .',., AREA `� `` , .. •,,1 _.. 1 . * e Forest BB • i •U H }. I __ % Cantwell .L. -`•� I iii I LEGEND • Area Boundary ' LOCATION MAP OF • Existing Disposal Site DISPOSAL AREAS EVALUATED I A Existing Container Site Figure IY' I I i MI .. a is IN a ! r - a i S a MI r. a - IIM TABLE IV-5 JEFFERSON COUNTY NORTH AREA ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS SUMMARY ANNUAL COST Utilize Areawide Direct Transfer Rural Container System Rural Transfer System Site at Clancy To With Disposal At: With Disposal At: DESCRIPTION 2 Days 5 Days Helena Boulder Helena Boulder I. Conventional Amort. $ 3,700 $ 3,700 - - - - Disposal Cost 20,300 33,700 $ 5,610 $16,090 $ 5,610 $16,090 2. Class 111 Amort. - - 910 910 910 910 Disposal Cost Incl. Incl. 4,550 4,550 4,550 4,550 3. Containers Amort. - . 1,050 1,050 3,240 3,240 4. Transfer Station Amort. Depr., Op. & Maint. Op. &Maint. 5. Transportation Op. &Maint. - - 6,400 13,860 7,460 12,980 Costs Labor 3,950 6,420 3,950 5,680 Amort. $ 3,700 $ 3,700 Not Applicable $ 1,960 $ 1,960 $ 4,150 $ 4,150 TOTAL ANNUAL Op. &Maint. 20,300 33,700 - 20,510 40,920 21,570 39,300 COST TOTAL - $24,000 - - $22,470 $42,880 $25,720 $43,450 Amort. $ 2.52 $ 2.52 $ 5.33 $ 5.33 *COST PER UNIT O I. & Maint. - - , , 52 60 2732 50 51 PER YEAR TOTAL - $30.85 $48.08 - - $28.88 $55.11 $33.05 $55.84 QUANTITIES OF WASTE: *BASED ON: Group II 1,122 tons per year Residential Units 718 x 1 = 718 Group III 138 Commercial Units 15 x 4 = 60 Total- 1,260 tons per year Total Equiv.Units 778 I 2) Central Area Currently there is one landfill site operating in the area, this being located at Boulder. The operation of the site is the responsibility of the Town of Boulder. The community contracts the site's daily cover and maintenance to a local individual. Summarized in Table 1V-6 is the estimated annual cost to operate the site in compliance with all state and federal criteria. As depicted in the table the estimated cost to operate the site would vary from $22,800 to $36,200 per year depending upon the number of days the site is open. This represents an equivalent unit cost varying from $26.06 to $41.37 per year. 1 A second alternative that was evaluated for the area includes the replacement of the existing Boulder landfill with a transfer station whereby the wastes would be transported to the City of Helena landfill. Under this alternative a Class III disposal site would also be located in the Boulder area for the disposal of large bulky materials that could not be handled through the transfer station. The cost for this alternative is summarized in Table IV-6 under the column entitled "Direct I Transfer to Helena". As depicted in the table the option of transferring waste to Helena is more expensive than utilizing a landfill located in Boulder. The increase 1 in cost is approximately $12,000 per year when compared with operating the existing disposal in compliance 2 days/week. I The final alternatives evaluated for the area include the use of either a rural container or transfer system with the final disposal at either the City of Helena or Boulder landfill. The location and number of container included in each alter- native are depicted in Figures IV-2 and IV-3. With the rural container system 29 ' 4-cubic-yard containers would be located throughout the area and collected once per week. Under the rural transfer system alternative, 40-cubic-yard containers would be placed at three locations in the area and collected as required. The annual system cost analysis for these two alternatives are summarized in Table 1V-6. As depicted in the table the highest degree of service for the least cost can be obtained by instituting a rural transfer system with final disposal at a central ' landfill site located in the Boulder area. The annual cost for this option is approx- imately $28,390 per year. This represents an equivalent residential unit cost of $32.44 per year. I 3) South Area ' Currently there is one landfill site operating in the area, this being located immediately north of the Town of Whitehall. The operation of the site is the ' 4.18 I a a so a - a la a a a a. as ei a• as a as r a TABLE IV-6 JEFFERSON COUNTY CENTRALAREA ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS SUMMARY ANNUAL COST Present Facility Direct Transfer Rural Container System Rural Transfer System In Compliance To With Disposal At: With Disposal At- DESCRIPTION 2 Days 5 Days Helena Boulder Helena Boulder Helena I. Conventional Amort. $ 3,700 $ 3,700 - $ 3,700 $ 3,700 - Disposal Cost Op. &Maint. 19,100 32,500 6,210 19,100 6,210 19,100 6,210 2. Class 111 Amort. - - 910 - 910 - 910 Disposal Cost Op.& Maint. Incl. Ind. 4,550 Ind. 4,550 Ind. 4,550 1 3 Containers Amort. 1,770 1,770 3,240 3,240 4. Transfer Station Amort. - - 10,490 - 10,490 - 9,470 Depr., Op. &Maint. Op. & Maint. - - 5,990 - 5,990 . 5,990 5.Transportation Op. &Maint. - - 4,790 4,690 9,480 1,540 8,790 Costs Labor 1,770 2,960 4,730 810 4,340 Amort. $ 3,700 $ 3,700 $11,400 $ 5,470 $13,170 $ 6,940 $13,620 TOTAL ANNUAL Op. &Maint. 19,100 32,500 23,310 26,750 30,960 21,450 29,880 COST TOTAL- $22,800 $36,200 $34,710 $32,220 $44,130 $28,390 $43,500 1 Amort. $ 4.23 $ 4.23 $13.03 $ 6.25 $15.05 $ 7.93 $15.57 *COST PER UNIT Op. & Maint. 21 83 37 14 26_44 30 57 '15,48 24 sl 14.15 PER YEAR TOTAL - $26.06 $41.37 $39.67 $36.82 $50.43 $32.44 $49.72 QUANTITIES OF WASTE: *BASED ON: Group II 1,241 tons per year Residential Units 679 x 1 = 679 Group III 231 Commercial Units 49 x 4 = 196 Total- 1,472 tons per year Total Equiv.Units 875 I • TO HELENA k I JEFFERSON �«+orw COUNTY T G" 1 . I Clancy 1 :Olen a (Class III) . 1 alf City 'd I I ,..• GtY KEY MAP 3• . 17 Natwn• F or•V OBaet • I, 111 1 •. i I ' I D••rioag• IAn . _. _ l, •'kw Forest•I. 1 , LL Nahanal • 2 :I 3 LOOP i .A. LOOP y . . Forst 0 'Ct 2 LOOP I . I TO BUTTE • 'P 2 2 3 III: :::; 2 *AN I-all ri �A W LOOP i '� � 11 I LEGEND �(MBnI i ih II Alternate Landfill Site I r • 02 Location & Number of Containers FACILITY LOCATIONS FOR , ••••• Container Collection Route ALTERNATE RURAL CONTAINER SYSTEMS Figure II- 2 I I I 1 IlitTO HELENA I JEFFERSON IF p,, COUNTY ... . .•..0 rMIMa 1 ,v (Class M) / IKEY MAP r , Nee idle Oi I Dlotp f01s\I nu . DNrlodg• .ti I National Irani INotional ,, \r I It ■ IFOIE/1 I TO . / Ca�gll i- BUTTE �- 'ri 1 miipir. • I LEGEND FACILITY LOCATIONS III Alternate Landfill Site - FOR ALTERNATE I A Alternate Transfer Station TRANSFER SYSTEMS • 40 Cubic Yard Container Site Figure IY'3 1 1 responsibility of the Town of Whitehall. Based on the criteria developed in Table IV-1, annual costs for operating the Whitehall landfill in compliance with all ' state and federal criteria were estimated. The estimated cost to operate the site is depicted in Table 1V-7. As shown the annual cost to operate the site varies from approximately $24,200 to $37,600 per year depending upon the number of days the site is open. A second alternative that was evaluated includes the replacement of the existing Whitehall sanitary landfill with a transfer station and Class III disposal , site with the final disposal of the conventional wastes at either the Butte or Boulder landfills. The costs for this alternative are summarized in Table IV-7. I As depicted in the table the option of transferring the waste to either Butte or Boulder is approximately 60% higher than if the wastes are disposed of at an ' areawide landfill located near Whitehall. The final alternative evaluated for the area includes the use of either a rural container or rural transfer system with the final disposal at either the Whitehall, Boulder or Butte disposal sites. The location and number of containers utilized 1 for these alternatives are depicted in Figures IV-2 and IV-3. The annual system cost for these alternatives are summarized in Table IV-7. As depicted in the table, the least-cost alternative for providing a high degree of service to the residents in the area includes the use of three 40-cubic-yard container sites with disposal at an areawide landfill located near Whitehall. The cost for providing this service would be approximately $30,310 per year. This represents an equivalent unit cost of approximately $31.37/yr. 4) Total County Summary 1 Based on the individual area analyses conducted herein, it is apparent that the use of areawide sanitary landfills and either a rural container system or a rural transfer system appear to be the most economical and practical solid waste disposal options for the county. It does not appear, based on the individual area analyses, that the closure of existing landfills and the use of transfer stations and trailers to dispose of the waste at landfills located outside the county is an economical disposal option at this time. Included in this section is a summary of the three disposal options that were determined applicable for the county, The annual and average equivalent unit 4.19 1 a _ En ii S EN INN ME INN ENE NE EIEN NMI INEE NM M MN MN TABLE IV-7 JEFFERSON COUNTY SOUTH AREA ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS SUMMARY ANNUAL COST Present Facility Direct Transfer Rural Container System Rural Transfer System In Compliance To With Disposal At: With Disposal At: DESCRIPTION 2 Days 5 Days Boulder Butte Whitehall Boulder Butte Whitehall Boulder Butte I. Conventional Amort. $ 3,700 $ 3,700 - - $ 3,700 - - $ 3,700 - - Disposal Cost Op. &Maint. 20,500 33,900 15,740 7,730 20,500 15,740 7,730 20,500 15,740 7,730 2, Class III Amort. - - 910 910 - 910 910 - 910 910 Disposal Cost Op. & Maint. Incl. Incl. 4,550 4,550 Incl. 4,550 4,550 Incl. 4,550 4,550 3. Containers Amort. - - - 2,620 2,620 2,620 3,240 3,240 3,240 4. Transfer Station Amort. - - 10,490 10,490 - 10,490 10,490 - 9,470 9,470 Depr., Op. &Maint. Op. &Maint. - - 5,880 5,880 - 5,880 5,880 - 5,880 5,880 5. Transportation Op. & Maint. - - 4,920 3,200 5,350 10,270 8,550 1,440 8,890 6,290 Costs Labor - - 1,860 1,600 3,950 5,810 5,550 1,430 5,130 4,590 Amort. $ 3,700 $ 3,700 $11,400 $11,400 $6,320 $14,020 $14,020 $6,940 $13,620$13,620 TOTAL ANNUAL Op. &Maint. 20,500 33900 32.950 22.960 29,800 42,250 32,260 23.370 40,190 29,040 COST $24,200 $37,600 $44,350 $34,360 $36,120 $56,270 $46,280 $30,310 $53,810$42,660 TOTAL- Amort. $ 3.83 $ 3.83 $11.80 $11.80 $ 6.54 $14.51 $14.51 $ 7.18 $14.10 $14.10 *COST PER UNIT Op. &Maint. 21.22 35.09 34.11 23.77 30.85 43.74 33.40 24.19 41.60 30.06 PER YEAR TOTAL - $25.05 $38.92 $45.91 $35.57 $37.39 $58.25 $47.91 $31.37 $55.70 $44.16 QUANTITIES OF WASTE: *BASED ON: Group II 1,104 tons per year Residential Units 826 x 1 = 826 Group III 182 Commercial Units 35 x 4 = 140 Total- 1,286 tons per year Total Equiv.Units 966 I cost for these countywide alternatives is summarized in Table IV-8. It should be ' noted that these costs are quite significant since it is most probable that if the residents do select to implement one of these alternate concepts, a countywide approach would be most practical. It would also be quite beneficial on a practical , standpoint as well as an economical one for each area of the county to implement a similar type alternate whereby sharing of equipment and facilities would be ' possible. Included in the following narrative is a summary of the three alternate concepts determined applicable based on a total county participation. Utilize Individual Areawide Disposal Sites - This alternative includes the use of three sanitary landfills in the county. These landfills would be located near the communities of Clancy Boulder and Whitehall. Table IV-8 depicts the cost to operate these three sites in compliance with all state and federal criteria. As ' shown, the annual cost to operate the three sites in compliance is approximately $71,000 if the sites are open 2 days/week and $111,200 if the sites are open 5 ' days. An average breakdown of the cost to operate each site individually as well as all three sites is illustrated below. A detailed breakdown of the cost to operate a small sanitary landfill site is depicted in Table IV-1. Average Cost To Maintain Total Cost to Maintain I Small Sanitary Landfill Site 3 Sites in County Item 2 Days 5 Days 2 Days 5 Days 1. Amort of Capital $ 3,700 $ 3,700 $11,100 $11,100 2. Oper. & Maint. 10,700 24,100 32,100 72,300 1 3. Trench Exc. 9,265 9,265 27,800 27,800 Total - $23,665 $37,065 $71,000 $111,200 ' I Rural Container System - For this system a total of 92,4-cubic-yard containers ' would be placed throughout the county. The location of the containers is depicted in Figure IV-2. The containers would be serviced once each week in the ' central and southern areas of the county and three times per week in the northern portion of the county by use of a 30-cubic-yard front-loading packer truck. 4.20 I I TABLE IV-8 JEFFERSON COUNTY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS SUMMARY ' ANNUAL COST Utilize Areawide Utilize Rural Container Utilize Rural Transfer Landfills in Corn- System w/Disposal At: System w/Disposal At: JURISDICTION pliance 2 Days 5 Days Helena, Boulder&Whitehall Helena, Boulder&Whitehall North $24,000 $37,400 $22,470 $25,720 ' Central 22,800 36,200 32,220 28,390 South 24,200 37,600 36,120 30,310 Total County - $71,000 $111,200 $90,810 84,420 ' Average(1) Cost/Unit/yr. $27.11 $42.40 $34.67 $32.23 ' (1)Cost based on 2,619 units. 1 1 I 1 Summarized in Table IV-8 is the annual cost for implementing this system. The cost for this system includes the amortization and servicing of the containers as well as the owning and operation of Class II sanitary landfills in the Whitehall and Boulder areas and a Class III disposal site in the Clancy area. It should be ' noted that the costs reflect the two Class II sanitary landfills would each be open 2 days per week. The costs also reflect a drop charge of$5 per ton($22,470 per year) to be paid to the City of Helena for the right to dispose of the northern portion of the county's waste at the city landfill. It should also be noted that the costs reflect on the average a driver spending 3 days per week to empty the 92 containers and transport the wastes to one of the three final disposal locations. Summarized below is a more detailed cost summary of this alternate. Item Annual Cost; , 1. Sanitary Landfilling Costs $52,610 2. Class III Disposal Site Costs (Clancy) 5,460 ' 3. Depreciation of Containers 5,440 4. Operation of 30•cu.-yd. Packer: a) Vehicle Depr., Oper. &Maint. ($0.85 x 19,340 miles/yr.) 16,440 b) Labor (1143 hrs x 9.50/hr) 10,860 ' TOTAL - $90,810 A more detailed breakdown of these costs are depicted in Tables IV-5, 6,& 7. Rural Transfer System - For this system a total of nine,40cubic-yard container sites would be located throughout the county. The waste in each container would be transported and disposed of as required at one of the three alternate disposal sites(City of Helena, Boulder or Whitehall) utilizing a tilt-frame transfer vehicle. The location of the container sites are depicted in Figure IV-3. Summarized in Table IV-8 is the annual cost to implement this disposal option. As depicted in Table IV-8, this alternate is the least-cost solution for 1 4.21 ' 1 ' Jefferson County to effectively and properly solve their solid waste disposal needs. As the table indicates the annual cost to operate the equipment and ' facilities needed under this alternate is approximately $84,420. This represents an annual cost to each equivalent residential unit of$32.29. A breakdown of the amortization and operating costs of the necessary equipment and facilities for this alternate are depicted below. The costs again assume that the two sanitary landfills would be open 2 days/wk. Also it is estimated that it would ' require on the average one person approximately 2 days per week to collect and service the nine container sites. Item Annual Cost* 1 1. Sanitary Landfill Cost $52,610 2. Class III Disposal Site (Clancy) 5,460 ' 3. Depreciation of Transfer Sites 9,720 4. Operation of Tilt Frame Vehicle a) Vehicle Depr.,Oper.& Maint ($0.78/mi. x 13,380 miles/yr.) 10,440 b) Labor(659 hrs. x $9.50/hr.) 6,190 TOTAL- $84,420 * A more detailed breakdown of these costs are depicted in Tables ' IV-5, 6and 7. 1 1 1 1 1 1 4.22 1 I (c) Broadwater County Currently, Broadwater County has five disposal sites located throughout the , county. Figure IV-4 depicts the location of each site. To administer and operate the sites, the County Commissioners created a refuse disposal district several years ago. ' All residents within the county with the exception of approximately 15 families located in the extreme southern portion of the county are members of the district. The current ' practice of the district is to periodically transport a dozer to each disposal site and pro- vide cover and maintenance. The sites in most instances have unrestricted access. I After a thorough review of the current disposal system and needs of the county, it was determined by the local officials and the consultant that five disposal alternatives ' are available to the residents of the county. These include: 1) the proper operation of the five current disposal sites, 2) closure of four of the existing disposal sites, retaining , only the Townsend site, 3) closure of all landfills in the county, utilization of a transfer station located near Townsend and transport of the waste to the City of Helena, 4) util- ization of a rural container system to replace the four satellite disposal sites, and 5) util- ization of a rural transfer system to replace the four satellite disposal sites. Included in the following narrative, figures and table is an economic comparison of these five dis- ' posal alternatives evaluated. 1) Present Facilities in Compliance , The cost to operate five of the disposal sites in the county in compliance with ' all state and federal regulations is summarized in Table IV-9. The cost to operate each site both two days and five days per week was estimated. A breakdown of the ' average cost to operate each site individually as well as all five sites is illustrated be- low. The basis for the costs to operate a small landfill in the county is illustrated in Table IV-1. As illustrated in Table IV-9, the average cost per residential unit would ' vary from $65.02 to $116.64 per year if all five sites were operated under strict conformance with current state and federal regulations. , Average Cost To Maintain Total Cost To Maintain a Sanitary Landfill Site Five Sites in County ' Item 2 Days 5 Days 2 Days 5 Days 1. Amort. of Capital $ 3,700 $ 3,700 $18,500 $18,500 2. Oper. & Maint. 10,700 24,100 53,500 120,500 ' 3. Trench Excavation 2,480 2,480 12,400 12,400 • Total — $16,880 $30,280 $84,400 $151,400 ' 4.23 1 I I I ' 1Nlane 1 \ Illt,fre ' •\ KEY MAP • BROADWATER I "—I COUNTY Z I Helena • Canyon • Fury • • Laee al Farnt INat l oft ei ■.. __ i r•__ 1 1 ForHl I 1 hi 1 1 1 • 1 1 I LEGEND is f. Area Excluded from County 0,' Refuse District 1 t I Existing Disposal Site rere,/,/, 4, 1 % %� CURRENT COUNTY I DISPOSAL SITES Figure ]Y- 4 TABLE rvA BROADWATER COUNTY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS SUMMARY ANNUAL COST Present Facilities In Utilize Central Disposal Direct Rural Container System Rural Transfer System Rural Transfer System Compliance Site at Townsend Transfer To With Disposal At: With Disposal At (1) With Disposal At:(2) DESCRIPTION 2 Days 5 Days 2 Days 5 Days HELENA TOWNSEND HELENA TOWNSENC HELENA TOWNSEND'HELENA 1. Conventional Amort. $18,500 $ 18,500 $3,700 3,700 - $ 3,700 - $ 3,700 - $ 3,700 Disposal Cost Op.&Maint. 65,900 132,900 23,100 36,500 $7,000 23,100 7,000 23,100 $7,000 23,100 $7,000 I 2. Class HI Amort. - - - - 910 910 1,820 - 910 - 910 Disposal Cost Op.&Maint. r Inc). Ind. - - 4,550 4,550 9,100 - 4,550 - 4,550 3. Containers Amort. - - - - - 2,450 2,450 5,400 5,400 3,240 3,240 4. Transfer Station Amort. - - - 10,490 - 10,490 - 9,470 - 9,470 Depr.,Op.&Maint. Op.&Maint. - - - 6,120 - 6,120 - 6,120 - 6,120 5. Transportation Op.&Maint. - - - 5,770 7,960 13,730 4,220 11,960 2,270 10,010 Costs Labor - - - 2,000 4,940 6,940 2,770 6,450 1,540 5,220 , Amort. 18,500 18,500 3,700 3,700 17,170 7,060 14,760 9,100 15,780 6,940 13,620 Op.&Maint. 65,900 132,900 1 23,100 36,500 19,670 40,550 42,890 30,090 36,080 26,910 32,900 TOTAL ANNUAL COST TOTAL - $84,400 $151,400 $26,800 $40,200 $36,840 $47,610 $57,650 $39,190 $51,860 $33,850 $46,520 e Amort. 14.25 14.25 2.85 2.85 13.23 5,44 11.37 7.01 12.16 5.35 10.49 • Op.&Maint. ' 50.77 , 102.39 17.80 27.52 15.15 31.24 33.04 23.18 27.80 20.73 25.35 COST PER UNIT/YEAR TOTAL - $65.02 $116.64 $20.65 53037 $28.38 $36.68 $44.41 $30.19 $39.96 $26.08 $35.84 • QUANTITIES OF WASTE: 'BASED ON: Group II 1400 tons per year Residential Units 998 x I = 998 Group Ill 240 Commercial Units 75 x 4= 300 Total- 1640 tons per year Total Equiv.Units 1298 NOTE : (1) Represents five container sites. (2) Represents three container sites. I I 2) One Central Landfill This alternative involves the closure of the four satellite landfills in the I county with only the site near Townsend in existence for use to dispose of the county's solid waste. The cost to keep the Townsend disposal site open two days and five days per week according to state regulations was calculated. These Iestimated costs are summarized in Table IV-9. As noted in the table the cost for this option varies from $20.65 per residential unit per year to $30.37 depending Iupon the number of days the site is open. It should be noted that this alternative is the least-cost solution to the county residents. However,this option gives the I county residents the lowest level of service since all residents in the county would be required to transport their wastes to the Townsend site. Summarized below is a more detailed breakdown of the cost for this alternative. Again the Ibases for these costs are depicted in Table IV-1. • I Annual Cost Item 2 Days 5 Days ' 1. Amort. of Capital $ 3,700 $ 3,700 2. Oper.& Maint. 10,700 24,100 3. Trench Excavation 12,400 12,400 ITotal - $26,800 $40,200 I 3) Transfer Station This option is quite comparable to option No. 2 in that all satellite disposal I sites would be closed and all waste would be required to be transported to Townsend for disposal. However, under this option a transfer station would replace the existing Townsend landfill. All wastes placed at the transfer station Iwould be loaded in transfer trailers and transported to the City of Helena landfill for disposal. Also under this alternative a Class III disposal site would be located Iin the Townsend area for the disposal of large bulky materials that could not be handled through the transfer station. The cost for this alternative is summarized I in Table IV-9 under the column entitled "Direct Transfer to Helena". As depicted in the table the option of transferring waste to Helena is more expensive Ithan utilizing a landfill located in Townsend. The increase in cost is 4.24 approximately $10,000 per year when compared with operating the existing disposal site in compliance two days per week. , 4) Rural Container System 1 For this system a total of 42 4-cubic-yard containers located throughout the county would replace the current four satellite landfills.The location of the containers is depicted in Figure IV-5. The containers would be serviced once per week by use of a 30-cubic-yard front-loading packer truck. Summarized in Table IV-9 is the annual cost for implementing this system with two alternate final disposal options: 1) utilize a central landfill at Townsend open 2 days/week, and Z)utilize a transfer station and Class III disposal site located near Townsend with final disposal of the conventional wastes at Helena. As the table indicates the least-cost solution for this concept is Alternate No. 1 whereby all wastes would be disposed of at the Townsend landfill. Under this alternate it would require a laborer to spend an average of 10 hours per week to empty the 42 containers and transport the wastes to the Townsend site. Summarized below is a more detailed cost estimate of this least cost alternate utilizing the rural container system. Item Annual Cost ' 1. Sanitary Landfilling Costs $26,800 2. Class III Disposal Site Costs(Toston) 5,460 3. Depreciation of Containers 2,450 4. Operation of 30-cu.-yd. Packer: a) Vehicle Depr. Oper.&Maint. 1 ($0.85 x 9,360 miles/yr.) 7,960 b) Labor (520 hrs. x 9.50/hr.) 4,940 Total - $47,610 4.25 ' 1 I I IN!I!n! I2 ■ TO HELENA """"" N` i + eitit, 1 I KEY MAP i BROADWATER is —' re.r� 2 ...._ ....... ' COUNTY • 1 Z d� 1 NNens Canyon LOOP f!"r LOOP swy M... ...AI+/ LOU • or Forest I N.bl . .I Y I 2 -- it ! W 1 i 2 Finest 4O s I A 2 iki 1 '� ' 3 ® OMNI LEGEND 1 c I, 2 Alternate Landfill Site I .b Location & Number of 1 F's Containers Container Collection Route I * Demolition Debris Site (Class III) • I FACILITY LOCATIONS FOR RURAL CONTAINER SYSTEM I Figure El- 5 1 I 1 5) Rural Transfer System For this system the four satellite landfills would be replaced with several 40- cubic-yard transfer sites. The waste deposited in each container would be trans- ported to a central disposal site located in the Townsend area. As was the case with the rural container system, two final disposal options were evaluated for the wastes transported to Townsend (use of a landfill site near Townsend versus utilizing a transfer station with final disposal in Helena). For this analysis the cost of placing either three or five 40-cubic-yard con- , tainers throughout the county were evaluated. The locations of the container sites for the two options are depicted in Figure IV-6. The cost to implement these various options are summarized in Table IV-9. As depicted in the table the least cost solution for these options is to utilize three 40ccubic yard container sites and transport the wastes to a central landfill located near Townsend. The annual cost to operate the equipment and facilities required under this alternate is approximately $33,850. This represents an annual cost to each equivalent residential unit of$26.08. A breakdown of the amortization and operating costs of the necessary equipment and facilities for this alternate is depicted below. The costs assume that the Townsend sanitary landfill would be open 2 days/wk. Also it is estimated that it would require on the average one person approximately ' 162 hours per year to collect and service the three container sites as they become full. Item Annual Cost 1. Sanitary Landfill Cost $26,800 2. Depreciation of Transfer Sites 3,240 3. Operation of Tilt-Frame Vehicle a. Vehicle Depr.Oper.& Maint. ($0.78/mi. x 2,910 miles/yr.) 2,270 b. Labor(162 hrs. x $9.50/hr.) 1,540 Total - $33,850 , 1 4.26 ' I I iN.I•na 1 • ■ TO HELENA . mho* 4 1 N, I `N KEY MAP • BROADWATER L-- 7�1'' w run COUNTY I Hi i41 aT c Th \ 1 HMSO* ♦♦ Conlon • Ferry • La.. • Forffl - 1 Notional • * I ` _ • r ■ -_L - . 1 e' 1 orHl • 11 ' 1 i di • 1 1in 1 ''f LEGEND , II Alternate Landfill Sites IA Alternate Transfer Station I • 40-Cubic Yard Container • Transfer Site (5 Sites) • • 1 / * 40-Cubic Yard Container !, Transfer Site (3 Sites) • I FACILITY LOCATIONS FOR COUNTY I , TRANSFER SYSTEM Figure IY - 6 I 1 1 6) Summary As depicted in Table IV-9 and summarized in the previous narrative, the least- cost solution for the county is to close all four satellite landfills and operate one central disposal site two days per week. This alternative, however, offers the county residents the lowest level of service and most inconvenience. The highest level of service can be obtained by retaining the current five disposal sites and operating each site 5 days per week. This alternative is ,however,very expensive to each county resident if the sites are operated in compliance with all state and federal criteria. It appears that a compromise in service and cost can be obtained through the use of either a rural container or rural transfer system with the opera- tion of one central landfill site. These alternatives appear to give the county 1 residents a high degree of service(containers are available 24 hrs.a day,seven days a week) for a reasonable cost ($26.08 to $36.68 per residential unit per year, depending on the alternative). It also appears that the alternative of transporting the county's waste to the Helena Landfill rather than to operate a central landfill in Townsend is approximately 38 percent higher. 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4.27 1 ' (d) Lewis and Clark County To effectively evaluate the potentially applicable disposal alternatives the county was divided into four areas. Figure IV-7 depicts the boundaries of these areas. For ' each area specific alternatives were evaluated in order that the least-cost solution for each particular area of the county could be determined. A description as well as the estimated annual costs of each alternative evaluated for the four areas in the county are discussed in the following narrative. 1 1) North Area ' Currently the northern area of the county has in effect a refuse disposal district. The district provides a sanitary landfill located one mile north of the community of Augusta. The landfill is open 4 hours per day, 2 days per week. 1 The district currently has a contract with a local resident to provide the necessary maintenance at the site. For this area it was determined that three disposal alternatives are potentially applicable and thus warranted an in-depth analysis. These include: 1) the use of the current disposal site operated 2 to 5 days per week, 2) the use ' of a rural container system with disposal at either Helena or Great Falls and 3) the use of a rural transfer system with disposal at either Helena or Great Falls. Figures IV-7, 8 and 9 depict the locations of the various facilities for each ' alternate. The annual cost analysis conducted for the alternatives is summarized in Table IV-10. The annual cost analysis indicates that the least-cost solution for the area is ' to institute a rural transfer system with fmal disposal at Great Falls. This alter- native provides the area residents with a higher level of service than the existing facilities due to the increased number of disposal sites(2 container sites versus the one current landfill site) and a higher degree of availability to a drop site (container sites would have unrestricted access). As depicted in the cost summary, the user fee to implement this alternative would be approximately $25.68 per residential unit per year. This compares to an annual user fee of ' $31.46 to $55.82 per residential unit if the present sanitary landfill were operated in compliance with all regulations two or five days per week. 2) West Area Currently this area of the county has in effect a refuse disposal district. The district provides a sanitary landfill located four miles west of the community of 4.28 TABLE W-10 LEWIS& CLARK COUNTY NORTH AREA ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS SUMMARY ANNU I.COST I Present Facility Direct Transfer Rural Container System Rural Transfer System In Compliance To With Disposal At: With Disposal At: DESCRIPTION 2 Days 5 Days Helena Gt.Falls Helena Gt.Falls 1. Conventional Amort. $ 3,700 $ 3,700 - - - - Disposal Cost Op. &Maint. 13,600 27,000 1,700 2,720 1,700 2,720 2. Class III Amort. Incl. Ind. 910 910 - - Disposal Cost Op. &Maint. 4,550 4,550 - - 3. Containers Amort. - - 1,980 1,980 2,160 2,160 4. Transfer Station Amort. - - - - - Depr.,Op. &Maint. Op. &Maint. 5, Transportation Op. &Maint. - - 7,910 7,200 9,020 6,700 Costs Labor - - 3,460 2,960 3,160 2,540 Amort. 3,700 3,700 Not Applicable 2,890 2,890 2,160 2,160 TOTAL ANNUAL Op. &Maint. 13,600 27A00 17,620 17.430 13,880 11,960 COST TOTAL- $17,300 $30,700 $20,510 $20,320 $16,040 $14,120 Amort. 6.73 6.73 5.25 5.25 3.93 3.93 *COST PER UNIT Op. &Maint. 7473 4' 1. - 37 03 3L69 I /424 71 7C PER YEAR TOTAL - $31.46 $55.82 $37.28 $36.94 $29.17 $25.68 QUANTITIES OF WASTE: *BASED ON: Group II 340 tons per year Residential Units 300 x 1 =300 Group III 40 Commercial Units 44 x 4=176 Total- 380 tons per year Summer Units 148 x1= 74 Total Equiv.Units 550 M a a in in a a In i n a in a a a ie I I 1 A LEWIS a CLARK I � COUNTY I r'' t> , I K . . KEY MAP , \. NORTH, A READ __ . ,\ WEST/L..... ,a.. I ARE ~� tiZ. s , AST — »k ' REA III " o .. t s I ' _ ■■••■• - SOUTH ' - • AR I. LEGEND • Area Boundary a % • Existing Area Disposal Sites i .•,' I _ .£01 aj 1 ' LOCATION MAP OF DISPOSAL AREAS EVALUATED Figure 71- 7 I I LEWIS & CLARK ,- --e ° ° — - COUNTY I I (Classic I 3• - - 7- KEY MAP ' - 1 S TO I GREAT FALLS �� _ ,. NORTH ,_____ROUTE 1 . nelf)... WEST I 3 Waif 5 EAST ..,..� CM* . I ROUTE 1 J (CIoss fl _ I — SOU RN* ",.' ,..LOOP SID° -`; TES LEGEND (pa Cont.) IN Alternate Landfill Sites �` -BOOR "e" I . ern (30 et t) - 1 •3 Location a Number of Containers we W. , Container Collection Route is ,__ t ,___tograt....... I LOOP "A" (3T Cont.) ' LOOP E FACILITY LOCATIONS FOR (23 Cont.) ALTERNATE RURAL 1 CONTAINER SYSTEMS Figure W 8 I I F,,' I LEWIS & CLARK COUNTY I I KEY MAP• \ �. Augusta TO GREAT FALLS 1 i -_ - .•:.. in: .1 Wdt i_ _ CrNX' ■ LEGEND ms,µ 0'' ■ 10 Alternate Landfill Sites • 40 Cubic Yard Container Site . ei A Li_ I ; F I FACILITY LOCATIONS FOR ALTERNATE TRANSFER SYSTEMS I Figure 13Z-9 1 Lincoln. The landfill is open two days per week. The district currently has under contract a local resident to provide the necessary maintenance at the site. For the area it was determined that three disposal alternatives are poten- 1 tially applicable and thus warranted an in-depth analysis. These include: 1) use of the current disposal site operated 2 to 5 days per week,2) use of a rural container system with final disposal at Helena and 3) the use of a rural transfer system with final disposal at Helena. Figures IV-7, 8, and 9 depict the locations of the various facilities for each alternate. The annual cost analysis conducted for the alternatives is summarized in Table IV-11. The annual cost analysis indicates that the least cost solution for the area is to implement a rural transfer system with final disposal at Helena. This 1 alternative provides the area residents with a higher level of service than the existing facility due to unrestricted access to the 40-cubic-yard container. As de- picted in the cost summary, the user fee to implement this alternative would be approximately $19.14 per residential unit per year. 3) East Area Currently the majority of the residents in this area utilize a dump site 1 located near the community of Craig for disposal of their wastes. The site is privately owned and operated. Funds for the site's maintenance are obtained 1 through a fee levied by the private cemetery association in the area. Each par- ticipating member is issued a key for access to the site. For the area it was determined that three disposal alternatives are potentially applicable and thus warranted an in-depth analysis. These include: I)the use of the current disposal site operated 2 to 5 days per week, 2) the use of a rural con- tainer system with disposal at either Helena or Great Falls and 3) the use of a rural transfer system with disposal at either Helena or Great Falls. Figures IV-7, 8 and 9 depict the locations of the various facilities for each alternate. The annual cost analysis conducted for the alternatives is summarized in Table IV-12. The annual cost analysis indicates that the least cost solution is to implement a rural transfer system with final disposal at the City of Helena landfill. The 1 4.29 1 e 1 i i r ii i in i an i i i i a r i a i i TABLE IV-11 LEWIS&CLARK COUNTY WEST AREA ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS SUMMARY ANNUAL COST Present Facility Direct Transfer Rural Container System Rural Transfer System In Compliance To With Disposal At: With Disposal At: DESCRIPTION 2 Days 5 Days Helena Helena 1. Conventional Amort. $ 3,700 $ 3,700 - Disposal Cost Op. &Maint. 13,960 27,360 $1,920 1,920 2. Class III Amort. Ind. Ind. 910 - Disposal Cost Op.&Maint. 4,550 3. Containers Amort. - - 2,390 1,080 -- •r 4. Transfer Station Amort. Depr., Op. &Maint. Op. &Maint. Not Applicable - 5. Transportation Op. &Maint. _ _ 4,860 7,800 Costs Labor - - 2,960 3,270 --- - - --- r Amort. $ 3,700 $ 3,700 $3,300 $ 1,080 TOTAL ANNUAL Op. &Maint. 13,960 27,360 ______ ___ __ 14,290 12,990 COST TOTAL- $17,660 $31,060 $17,590 $14,070 Anton. $ 5.03 $ 5.03 $ 4.49 $ 1.47 *COST PER UNIT Op. & Maint. $18.99 37.22 19.44 17.67 PER YEAR TOTAL - $24.02 $42.25 $23.93 $19.14 QUANTITIES OF WASTE: *BASED ON: Group I1 384 tons per year Residential Units 350 x 1 =350 Group HI 44_ Commercial Units 55 x 4=220 Total- 428 tons per year Summer Units 330 x Va= 165 Total Equiv.Units 735 TABLE IV-12 LEWIS&CLARK COUNTY EAST AREA ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS SUMMARY ANNUAL COST Present Facility Direct Transfer Rural Container System Rural Transfer System In Compliance To With Disposal At: With Disposal At: DESCRIPTION 2 Days 5 Days Helena Gt.Falls Helena Gt.Falls 1. Conventional Amort. $ 3,700 $ 3,700 - - - Disposal Cost Op. &Maint. 12,100 25,500 $920 1,470 920 1,470 2. Class III Amort. bid. Ind. - - Disposal Cost Op. &Maint. 3. Containers Amort. 1,040 1040 1,080 1,080 4. Transfer Station Amort. - - - - - - Depr., Op. &Maint. Op.&Maint. 5. Transportation Op. &Maint. - 3,840 6,820 2,190 3,170 Costs Labs - - Not Applicable 1,980 2,950 1,050 1,410 Amort. $ 3,700 $ 3,700 $1,040 $1,040 $1,080 $1,080 TOTAL ANNUAL Op.&Maint. 12,100 25,500 6,740 11,240 4,160 6,050 COST TOTAL- $15,800 $29,200 $7,780 $12,280 5,240 $7,130 Amort. $13.70 $ 13,70 $ 3.85 $ 3.85 $ 4.00 $ 4.00 *COST PER UNIT Op.&Maint. 44.81 94.44 24.96 41.63 15.41 22.41 PER YEAR TOTAL - $58.51 $108.14 $28.81 545.48 $19.41 $26.41 QUANTITIES OF WASTE: *BASED ON: Group II 163 tons per year Residential Units 170 x 1 =170 Group III 1 Commercial Units 25 x 4=100 Total- 184 tons per year Total Equiv.Units 270 MI M a i r a a a - l i■a a s - in MN ® NO a a 1 average cost per residential unit for this alternative is approximately $19.41 per year. This compares to an annual cost of$59.51 to $108.14 per residential unit for the continued use of a sanitary landfill operated in accordance with all state and federal regulations. 1 4) South Area Currently in the southern portion of the county there are two sanitary land- fills being operated in compliance with state and federal criteria. One is operated s by the City of Helena and is located within the city limits. The other site is located approximately two miles north of the City of Helena and is owned and operated by the Scratch Gravel Refuse Disposal District. Other known disposal sites in operation in the area include an illegal dump located in the Marysville area and a Class III disposal site located near the community of East Helena. Included in the following narrative is a summary of the cost analysis that was conducted for the various alternatives determined applicable for the area. Included are total area alternatives as well as individual jurisdictional area solutions. Annual system costs for the alternatives evaluated are included in Tables IV-13 through IV-16. 1 a) Total Area Solution In regard to a total area solution,four basic alternatives were determined to be applicable and warranted a cost evaluation. These include ' 1) use of two sanitary landfills for the area(sites located at Scratch Gravel and City of Helena landfills), 2) use of only one central disposal site located ' at the City of Helena landfill, 3) use of a rural container system with either one or two landfills located in the area and 4) the use of a rural transfer system with either one or two landfills located in the area. For all alternatives it was deemed necessary that a Class III disposal site be available to the residents of East Helena and open at least two days per week. A summary of the costs for each alternative is included in Table IV-13. Summarized in the following narrative is a brief description of each alter- ! nate. ' Use Two Disposal Sites - It was assumed for this alternative that all wastes in the southern area would be disposed of at one of these two disposal sites. 1 4.30 1 i . For this analysis it was assumed that the Scratch Gravel site would be open four days a week and the City of Helena site would be open six days a week. I Summarized below is the estimated breakdown of the cost to operate each site. These costs are based on current budgets and estimates. I Scratch City of Item Gravel Helena Total 1. Site Depreciation 7,160 20,000 27,160 I 2. Equipment, O& M 1 and Site Maint. 29,290 89,800 119,090 3. Labor 24,500 48,200 72,700 Total - $60,950 158,000 218,950 ' Use One Disposal Site - It was assumed for this alternative that all waste ' would be disposed of at the City of Helena landfill. This would assume 1 that all wastes currently being generated in the Scratch Gravel refuse district would be disposed of at the City of Helena's landfill rather than at the current Scratch Gravel landfill. Summarized below is the estimated cost to 1 operate the City of Helena's disposal site if all wastes were brought to this site. I Item Annual Cost(1) Labor $48,200 ' Repair &Maint. 13,000 Fuel 9,500 Equip Depr. 33,800 1 Overhead 36,800 • Equip. Rental 10,000 1 Site Improvements 20,000 Total - $171,300 1 f (1) Based on City of Helena estimates. I 4.31 1 I I Use Rural Container System - For this alternative approximately 140 four-cubic-yard containers would be strategically located throughout the I area. Each container would be emptied twice per week with the waste hauled to ether the Scratch Gravel or City of Helena landfill utilizing a 30- cubicyardfront -loading packer truck. The location of the container routes for this alternative are depicted in Figure IV-8, The total system cost for this alternative with the options of either utilizing one or two landfill sites in 1 the area is summarized in Table IV-13. It should be noted that it would require one driver on the average approximately 36 hours per week to collect and empty the containers. Use Rural Transfer System - This alternative includes the use of twelve 40-cubic-yard containers strategically located throughout the area. The con- tainers would be picked up and transported to either the Scratch Gravel or ICity of Helena landfill (depending upon if two landfills or one landfill is utilized)by use of a tilt-frame vehicle. The locations of the container sites are depicted in Figure IV-9. The total system cost for this alternative is summarized in Table IV-13. For this alternative it would require a driver, on the average, approximately 25 hours per week to pick up and transport the containers to the alternate disposal site (s). Cost Summary - Based on the cost estimates depicted in Tables IV-13, it is apparent that the least-cost solution for all residents in the Southern por- tion of the county is to utilize one sanitary landfill located in the Helena area. However, this alternative also provides the lowest level of service since all wastes must individually be transported to this site. The highest level of service can be achieved by implementing either a rural container or rural transfer system. With either of these systems 90 percent of the area residents are within 5 miles of either a landfill or container . In regard to the number of landfills in the area,the least-cost solution is clearly to utilize one central site rather than two landfills. Regardless of the system implemented, the additional cost to utilize two landfills versus one is approximately $45,000 per year. Also the increased level of service in using two landfills versus one is quite low, especially if a rural container or transfer system is implemented due to the fact that containers would be placed at the current Scratch Gravel disposal site. It should be noted that 4.32 I TABLE IV-13 LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY SOUTH AREA ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS SUMMARY ANNUAL COST Rural Container System Rural Transfer System Use Scratch Gravel Use City of Helena With Disposal At: With Disposal At: DESCRIPTION &City of Helena Sites Site Only Scratch Gravel Helena Scratch Gravel Helena &Helena Only &Helena Only 1, Conventional T Disposal Cost Op. &Maint $218,950 $171,300 $218,950 $171,300 $218,950 $171,300 2, Class III Disposal Cost Op. &Maint. 5,950 5,950 5,950 5,950 5,950 5,950 (East Helena) _ 3. Containers Amort. - - 7,360 8,230 11,880 12,960 4. Transfer Station Amort. - - - - - - Depr., Op.&Maint Op. &Maint. - - - -' 5. Transportation Op. &Maint. - - 15,380 16,090 10,740 11,310 Costs Labor - - 17,290 17,780 12,140 13,820 Amort. - - 7,360 8,230 11,880 202,380 TOTAL ANNUAL Op, &Maint. 224,900 $177,250 257,570 211,120 247,780 12,960 COST TOTAL - $224,900 i $177,250 $264,930 $219,350 $259,650 $215,340 I. Amort. - - 0.37 0.42 0.60 0.66 * COST PER UNIT Op.&Maint. 11.44 9.02 13.11 10.74 12.61 10.30 PER YEAR , TOTAL - $11.44 $9.02 $13.48 $11.16 $13.21 $10.96 QUANTmES OF WASTE: 'BASED ON: Group II 22,563 tons per year Residential Units 12,890 x 1= 12,890 Group III 6.628 Commercial Unite 1,690 x 4= 6,760 Total - 29,191 tons.pN yes Total Equiv.Units _19,650 a On 1.11 In UM a an - a Oa IMO a MN al i n a r a 1 the highest level of service for the least cost can be attained by utilizing one sanitary landfill and a rural transfer system. The average annual cost per household for this system would be $10.96. b) South Area Less Incorporated Communities A second analysis that was conducted for the south area includes the evaluation of the same alternatives that were previously discussed for the en- tire area with the exception that the incorporated communities of Helena and East Helena would not participate in the program. The system cost anal- ysis for these alternatives are summarized in Table IV-14. As depicted in the table, the least-cost solution for the residents in the area is to utilize a rural transfer system with the final disposal at the City of Helena landfill. This alternative includes the use of twelve 40-cubic-yard transfer sites(locations same as total area alternative, see Figure IV-9) with one container located at the site of the current Scratch Gravel landfill(Scratch Gravel site would be closed). In addition to being the least cost, this alternative also provides the residents in the area the highest degree of service since 90 percent of the residents would be within 5 miles of a disposal site. It should also be noted that the alternative that provides the lowest level of service to the area residents is to utilize no container program and to continue the use of the Scratch Gravel landfill. The cost for this alternative is approximately 5% 1 higher than the alternative of using a container program with disposal at the City of Helena landfill site. Ac) City of East Helena A separate analysis was conducted for the City of East Helena to deter- mine the most economical method of disposal for the community. The two primary alternatives that are available to the city are: 1) to operate the city's own sanitary landfill in compliance with all state and federal regulations and 2) the use of the city's disposal site as a Class III (demolition debris) site and haul the conventional wastes to the City of Helena for disposal. The system costs comparing these two options are summarized in Table IV-15. As depicted in the table, the least-cost solution is for the city to use option No. 2 (use of City of Helena's landfill). It should be noted that the ' City of East Helena has in fact already implemented this option. It is also interesting to note that if a total area disposal plan is formulated with the least-cost solution(as depicted in Table IV-13) implemented, it would be cost effective for the community to participate in the areawide program. 1 4.33 TABLE 1V-14 LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY SOUTH AREA ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS SUMMARY (Excluding City of Helena and City of East Helena) ANNUAL COST Use Scratch Gravel , Rural Container System Rural Transfer System Site (1) With Disposal At: With Disposal At: DESCRIPTION Scratch Gravel Helena Scratch Gravel Helena 1. Conventional Amort $ 7,160 $ 7,160 - $ 7,160 - Disposal Cost Op. &Maint. 53,760 53,760 $20,770 53,760 $20,770 2. Class III .- - - Disposal Cost Op. &Maint 3. Containers Amort.. - 7,360 8,230 11,880 12,960 i - - - 4. Transfer Station Amort. - - - - Depr., Op. &Maint Op.& Maint - - 5. Transportation Op. &Maint. - 15,380 16,090 10,740 11,310 Costs Labor - 17,290 17,780 12,140 13,820 Amort. 7,160 14,520 8,230 190 12,960 TOTAL ANNUAL Op. &Maint 53,760 86,430 54,640 76,640 45,900 COST TOTAL - $60,920 $100,950 $62,870 $95,680 559,860 Amort. 1.92 3.90 2.21 5.10 3.48 *COST PER UNIT Op. & Maint. 14.46 23.23 14.69 20.60 1234 PER YEAR TOTAL - $16.38 $27.13 $16.90 $25.70 $15.82 * BASED ON (1) Site open 4 days a week. QUANTITIES OF WASTE: Residential Units 3,120 x I = 3,120 Group II 3,698 tons per year Commercial Units 150 x 4 = .-6011 Group III 456 Total Equiv.Units 3,720 Total - 4,154 tons per year a a a - In al UM ar r a r n Oa Si a in r a IIITABLE IV-15 ICITY OF EAST HELENA ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS SUMMARY I IANNUAL COST I Utilize Present Disposal Site Utilize City In Compliance Of Helena DESCRIPTION 2 Days 5 Days • Site I1. Conventional Amort. $ 3,700 $ 3,700 IDisposal Cost Oper. &Maint. 19,060 32,460 $ 4,560 2 Class III Amort. Incl. Intl 910 IDisposal Cost Oper. &Maint. 5,950(1) I 3. Additional Cost: Transportation 2,130 Labor - - 5,200 Amort. $ 3,700 $ 3,700 $ 910 TOTAL Oper. &Maint. 19,060 32,460 17,840 II ANNUAL COST Total- $22,760 $36,160 $18,750 I *COST/ Amort. $ 5.04 $ 5.04 $ 1.24 UNIT/ Oper. &Maint. 26.00 44.28 24.34 IYEAR Total - $31.04 $49.32 $25.58 * Cost Based On: (1) Site open 2 days per week. Residential Units 573 x 1 = 573 Commercial Units 40 x 4= 160 ITotal Equiv. Units 733 Quantities of Waste I Group II 911 Group III 186 1 Total - 1097 I 1 The community's cost could be reduced from $25.58 per residential unit, per year to approximately $10 per unit per year. d) City of Helena I In order that the City of Helena can determine the economic feasibility of participating in an areawide solid waste program,it was attempted to es- 1 timate the city's current disposal cost. Table IV-16 summarizes the estimated current sanitary landfilling cost. As depicted in table the estimated annual equivalent residential unit cost is approximately $10.40. If this cost is compared to the annual cost for the areawide alternatives that were evaluated (see Table IV-13), it is apparent that it is relatively cost I effective for the city to participate in an areawide program only if a system is implemented whereby all wastes are deposited at the Helena landfill. I The comparison in costs indicate that if more than one landfill is utilized in the area the average equivalent costs incurred by the City of Helena would be substantially higher than their current costs. e) Scratch Gravel Refuse Disposal District I Currently the Scratch Gravel Refuse District operates one landfill located two miles north of the City of Helena. The site is open for the dis- 1 trict members'use four days per week. Currently the average equivalent residential unit assessment for the use of the landfill is approximately $18 I per year. To evaluate the economic feasibility of the Scratch Gravel District 1 participating in an areawide disposal program, it is necessary to compare the current assessment of$18 per year to the estimated assessments of the al- ternate areawide programs that were evaluated. In making these comparisons it is apparent that all areawide solutions that were evaluated indicate a lower cost to the district members if the Cities of Helena and East Helena participate (costs depicted in Table IV-13). If the incorporated I communities do not participate, only the alternatives of utilizing either a rural container or rural transfer system with disposal at the Helena (See Table IV-14) would indicate lower fees for the district members. It should be noted that in addition to lower fees, either of these two alternatives 4.34 1 1 1 I TABLE IY-16 CITY OF HELENA SANITARY LANDFILL COSTS Description Annual Cost (1) 1. Labor $48,200 2. Repair and Maintenance 10,400 3. Fuel 7,600 4. Equipment Depreciation 27,000 5. Overhead 36,800 6. Equipment Rental 8,000 1 7. Site Improvements 20,000 Total Annual Cost $158,000 Cost/Unit/Year(2) $10.40 (1) Cost obtained from City of Helena Dept. of Sanitation (3/79) (2) Cost based on 15,197 equivalent units. I 1 1 I t I would increase the level of service to the district members by providing several more deposit areas. - 1 Summary It is apparent from the analysis summarized herein that the most cost- effective and efficient waste disposal solution for the southern area of the county is to implement an areawide disposal system. The analysis summarized herein indicates that if one central landfill site augmented with either a rural container orrural transfer system is implemented, the annual cost for each jurisdictional area can remain relatively the same or be reduced over present costs. Also a system such as this would increase the current I level of service significantly due to the unlimited availability and access to a substantially increased number of deposit locations. The cost analysis further indicates that if each jurisdictional entity utilizes individual disposal systems, the unit cost increases while the degree of service substantially decreases. 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 4.35 1 I I I 1 I PART FIVE RESOURCE RECOVERY AND RECYCLING ANALYSIS I I I I I I I I I I I I ..fad, .%