PLANNING FOR SOLID WASTES MANAGEMENT IN COCHISE COUNTY, ARIZONA
Item Type text; Internship Report-Reproduction (electronic)
Authors Wentworth, Douglas Loyd
Publisher The University of Arizona.
Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
Download date 28/09/2021 10:36:00
Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/555341 PLAimiHG FOR SOLID WASTES MANAGEMENT
IN COCHISE COUITTY, ARIZONA
by Douglas Loyd Wentworth
An Internship Report Submitted to the Faculty of the
GRADUATE PROGRAM IN URBAN PLANNING
In Partial Fulfillm ent of the Requirements For the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE In the Graduate College
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
1 9 7 3 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR
This internship report has been submitted in partial fulfillm ent of requirements for the degree of Master of Science, with a major in Urban Planning, and is deposited in the Architectural Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library.
Brief quotations from this internship report are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the graduate program in Urban Planning when in his judgment the proposed use of the m aterial is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.
SIGNED: y
APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR
This internship report has been approved on the date shown b e lo w : PREFACE AND ACEIIOWLEDGMENT
Along with such concerns as safety and fire pre vention, solid waste management suffers from the neglect of most Americans. It is an "out of sight, out of mind" problem unless the- garbage men strike or unless the local government decides to locate a disposal facility across the way. At the same time, solid waste management is a very vital planning issue and should definitely be a part of every community or county plan.
It was thus with mixed feelings that I undertook the task of writing the Solid Wastes Management Plan for
Cochise County, Arizona, during the summer of 1972. As a planning intern with one year of graduate course work behind me, I was uncertain how such a project would be received in the County. To my surprise, it was received very well by both the citizens and the County leaders.
Many were unaware of the extent of solid waste problems, but virtually everyone was w illing to listen and offer information and suggestions.
The County Planning D irector, Mr. James D. Alten- stadter, was also helpful in providing guidance on the scope and content of the Plan. His only restriction was that the Solid Wastes Management Plan be commensurate with the Cochise County General Plan that he was developing. i i i iv Adhering to this requirement was facilitated by the fact
that solid waste collection and disposal is neither a con
trolling nor a lim iting factor on future land development,
at least at the levels of development intensity predicted
for Cochise County through the next twenty years. However,
this fact in no way implies that provisions for handling
solid waste should be ignored in establishing development policy. The question of determining solid waste management
goals with respect to other County goals was fully con
s i d e r e d .
Final acknowledgment goes to the late Professor W.
D. Kelley for his patient reviews of the draft manuscripts.
Much of the coherence and readability of this report are
due to his efforts. TABLE OP COUTSETS
Page
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS...... v i i
ABSTRACT...... v i i i
CHAPTER
I . INTRODUCTION ...... 1
I I . CHARACTERISTICS OF THE COUNTY...... b Physical Resources ...... C lim a te ...... Recreational Resources ...... Other Physical Resources ......
P u b lic S e r v i c e s ...... CD-0 OvFr-F*
Population D istribution ...... 8
Econom y...... 11 A g r i c u l t u r e ...... 12 M ining ...... 12 T o u ris m ...... Federal Employment ...... H
Planning and Government...... IS
I I I . THE NEED FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT...... 17 Existing Inadequacies ...... E x te r n a l I n f l u e n c e ...... i? IV . METHODS OF STUDY...... G o a ls ...... I n v e n t o r y ...... Research on the State of the Art . . . . A l t e r n a t i v e s ......
V VI
Page
V. EVALUATION ...... 30
Convenience ...... 30 Low C ost ...... 30 H e a lth ...... 31 N u isa n c e F r e e ...... 31 Environmental Compatibility. . . 32 Flexible Scope of Service. . . . 32
V I. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTION AND CONCLUSIONS......
U p d a tin g ...... Population ...... Technology ...... C o s t ...... Governmental Policy ......
Refinement ......
C o n c lu s io n s ......
REFERENCES
APPENDIX. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1. Map - Population C enters ...... 9
2. Flowchart - Solid Waste Management Refinement M o d e l...... ip.
v n ABSTRACT
This report describes and evaluates the eight-year
Solid Waste Management Plan for Cochise County, Arizona.
Cochise County has a mild clim ate, numerous outdoor recreational resources, and a specialized economy. The total
County area of 6,256 square miles contains only 69,600 resi
dents (1972 estim ate), and 51,700 of these people live in
one of the seven incorporated cities. Most of these urban
residents have satisfactory refuse collection and disposal
service while most of the rural residents do not.
Situations necessitating County action on solid waste management are the continuous uncontrolled refuse dumping
in the rural areas, and the increasing pressure for high
disposal standards which state and federal agencies have
pressed on the County.
The Plan was developed in four stages: (1) establish
ment of goals; (2) inventory of existing collection and dis
posal conditions; (3 ) research on acceptable standards and
methods; (ij.) generation of alternative plans. Evaluation of
the alternatives reveals that they" do achieve a well-balanced
compromise between resources and goals.
This Plan may be kept viable through updating and
refinement. Updating is accomplished periodically to reflect
changes in population, technology, cost, and government v i i i ix policy. Plan refinement involves making detailed cost estimates, schedules, sitings, and operating standards in preparing the Plan for implementation. Both of these pro cedures preserve and improve the Plan during the future
development of Cochise County. CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The people of Cochise County share with the rest of the nation the task of disposing of their solid wastes in a manner which is economical, environmentally compatible, socially acceptable, and convenient. Moreover, as their county develops, these citizens are realizing that the man ner in which they as individuals and communities dispose of
their solid wastes affects other people in other localities.
Although the conversion of this realization of solid wastes
disposal problems to action is occurring slowly, progress is
definitely being made. The Cochise County Solid Wastes
Management Plan (presented in the Appendix) was drafted to
guide and coordinate these local efforts in providing the best possible solid wastes disposal services. This report
evaluates that plan in light of the County’s resources and
n e e d s .
The setting of the Plan is all of Cochise County. The
Plan is directed toward solid waste management in the rural
areas outside the incorporated communities and outside the
federally controlled areas. There are two reasons for this
emphasis. First, it is in these rural areas that the solid
waste disposal standards are the lowest. Second, most of 1 2 the incorporated and federal areas have the resources to establish their own solid waste control program, whereas the rural areas do not. Therefore, the first section of this report, Characteristics of the County, concentrates on the rural Cochise County and its relationship to solid waste disposal, although the rural-urban interface is certainly recognized.
The second section focuses on the general descrip tion of the County-needs for solid waste management.
Although specific deficiencies of each local area are covered in the Plan itself, this report relates these prob lems to the external requirement of the state and nation.
Having established the characteristics and solid waste needs of the County, the report next discusses in the third section the methods of study used in developing the Plan. The procedures used in deriving goals, condi tion inventories, techniques research, and plan alterna tives are examined. These four parts of the plan are then evaluated in the fourth section.
The fifth and final section of the report outlines future methods for updating and refining the Plan. This discussion is of particular importance because the timing of plan implementation is uncertain in Cochise County. Imple mentation within the eight-year period (1972-1980) called
for in the Plan is reasonable due to the modest scope of the solid waste program; however, a certain amount of flexibility is expedient whenever a new operation such
a county-wide solid waste program is initiated. CHAPTER I I
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE COUNTY
In order to properly evaluate the. Cochise County
Solid Wastes Management Plan, it is first necessary to under stand the setting in which the Plan was made. Where is
Cochise County? Who lives there? What do they do? Why do they need a solid wastes plan? This section w ill discuss these County characteristics from several perspectives — physical resources, population distribution, economic bases, and governmental organization w ithin the County.
Physical Resources
Cochise County encompasses 6,256 square miles in the southwest comer of Arizona. It is a sparsely populated area endowed with sunny skies, varied terrain, and a wealth of western history. These attractions are certain to increase development in the County, and with more development w ill come problems in disposing of the by-products of progress.
Although many of the County's physical resources are rela tively undeveloped, it is important to examine these re sources in the light of their potential relationship to future solid waste generation in the County. This relationship is twofold. On the one hand the resources attract and support
4 5 solid waste generators. Yet on the other hand, the Coun ty's resources, especially the natural resources, are them selves affected by the solid waste that is disposed of throughout the County. These physical resources are vital, and proper solid waste management is an essential part of their effective management.
C lim a te
Throughout Arizona, climate is a valuable resource, as verified by the large influx of winter visitors. The climate of Cochise County is generally arid; however, since the elevation of the County is from 1,000 to 2,000 feet higher than Tucson, Cochise County has a milder and slightly wetter climate than Tucson. The average July temperature ranges from 65° to 80° Fahrenheit, and the average January temperature ranges from l].0o to 45° Fahrenheit (Wilsey and
Ham: II4.). The mean annual rainfall ranges from 10 to l \ J 0 inches per year, with 12 inches per year being the norm for non-mountainous areas (Wilsey and Ham: If?).
Although climate probably does have some effect on solid waste generation (it appears to be higher in warmer climates), no studies have isolated this effect. But another and more important influence of climate on solid waste management is that rubbish decomposes very slowly in dry climates characteristic of areas such as Cochise County. 6 This fact places even more importance on controlling refuse
d i s p o s a l .
Improper solid waste disposal can have some adverse
effect on climate because burning the dumped waste creates
odors and smoke. The Plan briefly discusses the impacts
and extent of this problem (Appendix: 1^, 19, 20).
Recreational Resources
Cochise County abounds in natural resources for
recreation. The Coronado Rational Forest covers 780 s q u a re
miles within the County and contains over 200 miles of
scenic hiking trails, numerous picnic areas and campgrounds.
The Chiricahua Rational Monument also offers many miles of
hiking trails and camping facilities in the "Wonderland of
Rocks". Parker Lake, the County’s only water recreation
site, offers lim ited boating and fishing all year round.
The proposed Charleston Dam on the San Pedro River promises
to greatly increase recreation and tourist potential.
As with other measures of growth and prosperity,
recreation and tourism w ill also exact a toll in further
increases and wider distribution of solid waste. If left
unchecked, this process is to some extent self-controlling,
but only at high cost to the environment. Thus as the recre
ation areas become more polluted, they also become less
attractive to the solid waste generating public. As pointed
out in the Plan (Appendix: 8), the County is certainly in no 7 immediate danger of an environmental crisis; however, the potential for unchecked environmental deterioration in the non-federally owned portions of the County certainly exists.
Other Physical Features
Cochise County boasts a great variety of land fea tures ranging from cool, forested mountains to alkali flats.
Topography, soils, drainage patterns, and vegetation all play a significant role in solid waste management. These features of the land determine how much solid waste pollu tion the land can absorb before it becomes visually unpleasing, hazardous to health, or a danger to w ildlife.
However, the Plan makes no attempt to compute a "solid waste absorption factor" for various parts of the County.
All areas are considered to be equally sensitive to solid waste pollution. This is not to say that such pollution w ill not affect different areas in different ways, but that
the magnitude of the impacts is assumed to vary consistently with the volume of waste disposed on a unit area of land.
This assumption is probably quite valid over most of the
County. However, where there exist certain natural or historic areas the people wish to preserve, special solid waste management measures should be implemented over and
above those outlined in the Plan. 8
Public Services
Cochise County does not have an abundance of u tili ties and transportation facilities, and in many of the rural areas, these public services are barely adequate for the residents’ needs. In the past few years progress on con structing non-state secondary roads has been slow. Water distribution systems and sewage treatment facilities are inadequate in many of the non-incorporated communities.
Only two of the seventeen non-incorporated population cen ters have refuse collection services. Host of the rural residents manage without these services, but if population densities and demands should increase, the County w ill be hard pressed to provide refuse collection. Furthermore, in the face of more essential services such as roads, water, and sewer, solid waste services are likely to command a low priority. Although the County is now requiring developers to provide refuse disposal facilities, future residents w ill be on their own for collection services. Most of the existing 7^,000 subdivided lots are without even adequate disposal facilities.
Population D istribution
The most important resource of any area is its people.
The people of Cochise County have varied needs for public services such as solid waste collection and disposal accord ing to where and how they live. Figure 1 shows the ^ — ( * 7 WINCHESTER 1 (520X / MTJSyxx^ ® 0 5v> FIGURE 1 ^ i ' r r y o n ^ - r <^r ~ \ COCHISE COUNTY POPULATION CENTERS
H LEGEND
o BENSON Incorporated Cities Rural Communities • BOWIE Over 100 Population
(5 *0 ) Projected I960 Population $ \H17 S p o r t a l ! ' ^ (170) A
aadttcomar 1 5 V, r \ T ^hiricahua^Y 1 ^ ftramoi ilCral SCALE 1:500,000 SIERRA VISTA . Adapted from U. S. Geological Survey ^ l | - f Base Map of Arizona 1959 w , „ ICKSV LLE H" Fp
CO /
^ ------7 COF^ONAito " J NT ER NATIONAL J E ^ % - t e p g 10 population distribution of the County. In 1972, ^1,700 of
the County’s estimated 69,600 residents lived within one
of the incorporated cities—Benson, Bisbee, Douglas, Huachu-
ca City, Sierra Vista (which includes Port Huachuca), Tomb
stone, and Willcox. Over half of the remaining 17,860
people live in one of the unincorporated towns or subdivi
sions. If these people living outside the incorporated
cities are considered to be rural, the above figures give
an urban-rural ratio of 2.9:1 in 1972 as compared with a
ration of 1.1).: 1 in I960. Thus the national trend toward
more people living in higher densities appears applicable
to Cochise County. The pattern of population distribution
is important in computing solid waste generation because of
the greater per capita production of solid waste in densely
populated areas. Also, urban residents require more fre
quent refuse collection due to the greater problems of
nuisance and health that stored refuse creates in populated
environments. These aspects of solid waste production w ill
be discussed further in the later section on the need for
solid waste management.
What of future population? Appendix C of the Plan
explains the methodology used in projecting the population
of the County through 1980. As explained in the Plan, these
projected figures are subject to considerable error because
at the present time there are more unoccupied subdivided 11 lots than people in Cochise County. Ho one knows what the in-migration w ill be in the next decade. Therefore, unless there is a major reduction in either Phelps-Dodge or Port
Huachuca activities, the projected populations and quanti ties of refuse generation shown on page 31 of the Plan are probably low. Even so, the estimated population increase o f o v e r 1 0 ,0 0 0 people between 1972 and 1980 w ill generate
1 2 ,0 0 0 additional tons of refuse per year that must be dis p o se d o f .
Economy
The types of economic base for most parts of Cochise
County have not changed for several decades. The County residents still rely chiefly on agriculture, mining, tourism,
and federal employment for their livelihood. However, the
level of economic activity has not remained constant. A
few economic indicators over the past ten years demonstrate
recent economic growth in Cochise County. Median family
income has risen from $£,107 in i 960 to $8 ,3 3 3 i n 1 9 7 0 . The
area under cultivation has gone up from 7 7 ,£ 0 0 a c r e s i n 1962
to 127,000 acres in 1971• Retail sales have risen from
$61,882,000 in I960 to $120,683,000 in 1971 (Valley National
Bank 1972, 1964).-”- Economic activities directly relate to
-”*A11 figures are in current dollars of the appropriate year. 12
solid waste management in that they determine population
growth, industrial development, and commercial trade. All
of these factors in turn produce solid waste as a by-product.
However, each major economic activity must be considered for
its contribution to solid waste problems.
Agriculture
With the exception of two commercial feed lots and a
few orchards, Cochise County agriculture produces few solid
waste problems (Appendix: 27). ITor is this economic activity
likely to greatly increase in the future due to ground water
lim itations. However, if a reclamation project should prove
feasible in the County, the Plan's assumption of stabilized
agricultural activity would have to be discarded and provi
sions drawn up for managing the increased tons of manure,
packing-house wastes, and vegetable residues which would
result from such a project. There exist in Cochise County
thousands of acres of private, state, and federal land which
are presently being used only for cattle grazing (at 10 to
f>0 acres per animal) because no water is available. Although
there are no signs of this situation changing in the near
future, it is a contingency which should be kept in mind.
M in in g
Mining activity has fluctuated from boom to bust
throughout the history of the County. Like agriculture, 13 mining depends upon a lim ited physical resource. The p ri mary mining activity in the County is copper mining at the
Lavender Pit in Bisbee. This operation is rapidly exhaust ing the low-grade ores in the vicinity, and unless other ore-rich lands are acquired, the Phelps-Dodge Corporation w ill be obliged to reduce, or possibly even terminate, its
Bisbee operations by 1980. There appear to.be relatively few problems with solid wastes from mining activities either now or in the near future. Both the copper and the nearby limestone mining operations produce mountains of inert mineral residue. The residues are an inevitable by-product of the mining operation and it appears that this form of
solid wastes is being handled as well as possible.
T o u rism
Although Cochise County contains no city over 20,000
population, all of the County population centers are within
two hours driving time of Tucson, Arizona, with a population
of 281}.,000. The larger m etropolitan areas of Phoenix, Ari
zona, and El Paso, Texas, are within four to five hours driv
ing time. The close proximity of these large urban centers
to the recreation and scenic attractions in the County
accounts for many of the weekend and vacation visitors.
Although these tourists produce only about one pound of re
fuse per day, their litte r can be the most detrimental form
of solid waste if it is not properly controlled. Unlike domestic refuse, which is usually dumped in one place, lit ter is often scattered about. This dispersion expands the unsightly effects and compounds the cleanup costs. Thus if the tourist industry is to be preserved, the County must concentrate its efforts on providing collection and disposal
facilities in tourist areas outside cities and federal areas.
Federal Employment
The Federal Government has jurisdiction over 23.9
percent of the land in Cochise County (Valley National Bank
1972: 29). Of the federal lands in the County, approxi mately 25 percent are controlled by the Bureau of Land
Management. Most of these BLM lands are located along the
San Pedro Valley and in the northeast corner of the County
above San Simon. As explained in the Plan, the BLM has a
very liberal policy regarding lease or purchase of its land
for sanitary landfills. The remaining federal lands belong
to the United States Army, the Forest Service, and the
National Park Service. Solid waste management on these
areas is closely supervised by the Federal Government and
is, therefore, not usually a problem to the County. How
ever, there are opportunities for federal-county coopera
tion in solid waste disposal in these areas. Some of these
possibilities are examined in the Plan. 12 Planning and Government
Cochise County is governed by a Board of Supervisors.
Each of the three elected supervisors on the Board repre sents approximately one-third of the County’s residents.
Traditionally, the Arizona State Legislature has granted the
Board of Supervisors only very lim ited authority in the areas of public works and social services. A further lim itation is the reluctance of the Arizona Supreme Court to extend those statutory powers that the County does have. Even today the
County has no authority to establish a sanitation department, parks and recreation department, building inspector, or numerous other agencies necessary to implement county-wide p l a n s .
The Cochise County Planning and Zoning Commission was established in 1970. Since that time the Commission, through its one-man professional staff hired in early 1971, has com piled an impressive record of planning accomplishments.
With the assistance of a consulting firm, the County has com pleted a general inventory of existing physical resources and certain population characteristics. A set of land use suitability maps has been completed. The Commission has also established development goals for the County. From these goals and the inventory, it has formed a general con cept plan. To guide future development according to the concept plan, the staff and Commission have completed both 16 a subdivision regulation and a zoning ordinance. The staff and Commission frequently meet with citizens throughout the
County. In a continuing effort to keep citizens informed on planning activities, the Commission has published a news paper supplement outlining the preliminary County Compre hensive Plan. In addition to the Solid Waste Management
Plan, the staff is preparing a recreation and a transporta tion plan for the County. CHAPTER I I I
THE NEED FOR SOLID HASTE MANAGEMENT
The general characteristics of Cochise County have been outlined. This section w ill now describe how these
characteristics, combined with certain external influ
ences, brought about the need for County involvement in
solid waste management. As a result of this combination
of factors, development of the Solid Waste Management
Plan was deemed necessary.
Existing Inadequacies
Almost 13,000 County residents are without - refuse
collection service (Appendix: l£ ). Unfortunately, most
of these people are not even residing within six miles
of a landfill receiving earth cover at least weekly.
Over 12,000 people in the County, then, are annually
depositing their 8,000 tons of refuse in open dumps scat
tered throughout the County. Probably most of the refuse
is being deposited in established dumps and disposal areas
such as those near Bowie, St. David and Naco. In accord
ance with the Solid Waste Management Plan assumption
that established disposal sites are used by most people
living within a six-mile radius, there w ill be about
28,000 tons of "loose refuse" plus a dozen or more
17 18 inadequately maintained disposal sites as exclusive County responsibilities between 1972 and 1980. Add to these figures the loose refuse and new dumps resulting from any subdivision activity beyond that projected in the Plan.
A number of questions arise at this point. How much of this solid waste pollution can the environment absorb?
What is the social cost of pollution and who is responsible for abating it? The Plan discusses various aspects of this problem in terms of health, aesthetics, and lost tourism; but it does not attempt to measure the "goodnessn or "bad ness" of the situation. These qualities cannot be quanti fied. There is definitely a cost associated with the management of a clean solid waste management system, but this cost can only be justified according to the values of the people it serves. It becomes the County’s responsibil ity to set the minimum standard for solid waste disposal, because it is the County residents living outside the incorporated cities who presently sustain the lowest s t a n d a r d s .
External Influences
Solid waste pollution, like all forms of pollution,
affects people beyond local boundaries. Debris dumped into
Cochise County can easily be blown or carried by water into
other counties or into Mexico. Smoke from burning rubbish pollutes the air we all must breathe. While inter county 19 and interstate solid waste pollution is not yet a serious problem in the Southwest, there is the potential for future c o n c e rn . The nation’s leaders have recognized the potential interarea problems, and in 1965 Congress passed the Solid
Waste Disposal Act (Public Law 89-272). The provisions of this Act are as follows: (1) initiate a national research program, (2) provide technical assistance to the states,
(3) provide financial assistance to the states for planning studies and demonstration grants, (Ij.) provide for the train ing of personnel (Library of Congress Legislative Reference
Service 1965: E-66). In 1970, Congress took a further step in the control of solid wastes disposal through passage of the Rational
Resource Recovery Act (Public Law 91-512). In addition to extending many of the financial aid programs initiated by
the Solid Waste Disposal Act, this 1970 Act provides for the
establishment of federal guidelines for solid waste recovery,
collection, separation, and disposal systems. This legis
lation stresses solid waste planning as a part of regional
environmental protection systems. Recycling and recovery of
solid wastes is also emphasized (Library of Congress Legis
lative Reference Service 1970: 168).
In 1971, the Arizona State Legislature enacted ARS
36-132.01 in accordance with the Rational Resource Recovery 20
Act. This legislation explicitly required the State Depart ment of Health to prepare within two years "a comprehensive statewide solid waste management plan for the collection, storage, transportation, processing, reclamation, and dis posal of solid wastes" (ARS 36-132.01 A). This same Act also required counties and incorporated cities to prepare w ithin one year (of August 1971) a solid wastes management plan for their respective areas of jurisdiction. Unfortu nately, the legislators neglected to enact any complementary enabling legislation which would give these local governments the authority to implement their plans.
For its part, the State Department of Health has established numerous rules and regulations concerning solid waste disposal in Arizona. Two of these regulations are reproduced in Appendices K and L in the Plan. The first is entitled "Rules and Regulations for Subdivisions" (Article
2, Part 10). Of particular interest here is the stipulation that all developers must obtain w ritten Department approval of their plans for garbage disposal before they can sell or lease subdivision lots. In addition, this regulation requires that subdividers w ill either make arrangements for
joint usage of nearby community facilities or notify lot purchasers that such service is not available. In the latter instance, the developer must provide a new disposal area, although it apparently need not be a sanitary landfill. The second Health Department regulation is "Storage, Collec tion, Transportation and Disposal of Refuse and Other
Ob jectional Wastes" (Article 2, Part Ij.). This article out lines numerous detailed stipulations on the handling of solid wastes. CHAPTER IV
METHODS OF STUDY
The United States has only recently focused its attention on solid waste disposal in low density rural areas such as Cochise County. Consequently, there were few formal guidelines available for developing a solid waste management plan. While this paucity of precedence necessitated more research, it also afforded more flexibility in method and approach in planning for the solid waste disposal needs of the County. This flexibility is reflected in several unique aspects of the five phases of plan development dis cussed below.
G o a ls
The most difficult aspect of the Solid Waste Manage ment Plan was setting the foundation or goals for the Plan.
This difficulty arises because most County residents under stand neither the impacts of poor solid waste disposal practices nor what would be involved in implementing a safe, nuisance-free, solid waste program. Indeed, the idea of solid waste management in a predominantly rural area is still foreign to many Arizona residents. State law still authorizes counties in Arizona only to provide "public dumping grounds" (ARS 9-l|ljJL, 9-1^2). Wo mention is made 22 23 of transfer stations, hydraulic compaction, sanitary land fills, or any other modern methods of collection and disposal o f r e f u s e .
Although the County has conducted no formal public
opinion poll on the subject of solid waste management, im pli
cations from other attitude surveys and discussions with numerous County residents and their public representatives
indicates that while these people are aware of some of the
local and regional solid waste problems, they do not usually
consider solid waste to be a high priority item and would
probably be unwilling to commit large sums of money to
improve solid waste management in the near future. The
prevalence of this attitude is understandable. The County
now spends only a few hundred dollars annually on solid waste
disposal. The latent problems caused by inadequate disposal
methods are not usually prominent unless one incurs the
unpleasant task of hauling a load out to the local dump.
Cochise County is a large area with relatively few people,
and the capacity of the County to "absorb" refuse is seeming
ly enormous. Moreover, it is easy to procrastinate improving
solid waste collection and disposal facilities. Tomorrow's
cleanup of today's wastes may be costly and w ill probably
never be effected, but it is possible. Nevertheless, local
interest in solid waste management is increasing and w ill
certainly continue to increase if the County sustains its
public contact on this and other planning issues. Although the local public attitudes and interests with respect to solid wastes are only lukewarm, certain federal agencies and the Arizona State Health Department have become zealous campaigners against solid waste pollu tion. In addition to the various legislative actions men tioned in the previous section, this zeal has been manifested in special efforts such as "Mission 5,000", an Environmental
Protection Agency campaign since July, 1970, to close 5,000 open dumps across the United States. This emphasis has put increasing pressures on local government to do something about their inadequate collection and disposal methods.
In the face of this dichotomy of attitudes, the task of articulating County goals on solid waste management was formidable. It was inappropriate to adopt goals with im plied standards which, although in keeping with federal and state agency specifications, were beyond the means and w ill of the County residents. Yet the goals had to recognize current national and state solid waste management require ments to the extent that they could be reasonably applied within County resources. At the same time, these solid waste goals had to be compatible with the emerging general
County Land Use Plan.
The goals adopted in the Plan, and the resulting
approach taken in developing the Plan, represent to some extent a compromise among all of the factions involved.
Yet it is not a meaningless compromise. Each aspect is 22 followed through to the alternatives and implementation rec amnendations. The goals adopted for the Solid Waste
Management Plan are presented below:
The purpose of this planning study is to provide standards and guidelines for realizing safe, sani tary, and economical means of solid waste disposal for all residents of Cochise County in the years ahead. In order to achieve this end, this plan recognizes that.any site or facility utilized for solid waste disposal should be convenient, effect minimal long run costs, present no adverse effect to health, be unoffensive to the senses, preserve and enhance the environment, and retain a flexible scope of service which w ill accommodate future needs. It is further recognized that the solid waste program must sustain sound management and operation in the storage, transportation, processing, reclamation and disposal of all solid waste m aterials generated within its area of responsibility (Appendix: 1 )
I n v e n to r y
Having established the goals for the Plan, the author next made an inventory of solid waste collection and disposal practices. Accompanying this basic inventory was a comple mentary survey of local resources available to control, col lect, and dispose of solid waste.
Information on solid waste disposal practices and community resources was collected during June and July, 1972, from a myriad of sources. The best sources were personal interviews and on-the-spot inspections of local conditions.
The interviews with those officials in some way responsible for solid waste operations are listed in the bibliography 26 of the Plan. The members of the County staff, Board of
Supervisors, and Planning and Zoning Commission were also h e l p f u l .
The results of these interviews and inspections are thoroughly summarized in the third section of the Plan entitled "Existing Conditions". In general, refuse col lection practices are adequate, and door-to-door collection
is being implemented wherever residential densities make
such collection economically feasible. Since only the
cities of Douglas, Huachuca City, W illcox, and now Bisbee,
are operating sanitary landfills, there is much improvement needed in the operation of the remaining eighteen or more
disposal sites throughout the County. Of particular concern
are those small disposal sites receiving little or no peri
odic maintenance and cover. Another major concern discussed
in this section of the Plan is the lack of community resources
for handling solid waste. Since even the smallest full-tim e
sanitary landfill operation can easily handle all the refuse
from a population of 10,000 to 20,000, the smaller cities
of Benson and Tombstone could not hope to establish a sani
tary landfill with optimum efficiency. The unincorporated
communities such as Bowie, San Simon, Naco, Sunsites, E lfrida,
McHeal, and Cochise College not only do not have the finan
cial resources to operate a sanitary landfill, but also lack
the government to administer a disposal operation. It is 27 clear that County support is needed if these disposal sites are to be upgraded.
Research on the State of the Art
In addition to goals and the inventory of existing conditions, some knowledge of modern solid waste handling practices was necessary before the goals could be converted to alternatives for action. Almost one-third of the Plan was devoted to this end in order to give the County officials a solid basis for future solid waste management decisions.
Several collection and disposal methods such as door-to-door collection, high temperature incineration, and certain sal vage operations were briefly described and then rejected as being completely infeasible for Cochise County. Of the remaining feasible methods, the Plan examined these in detail and presented a number of cost estimates for each. Although there is always some danger of error in making" general cost estim ates, it would be impossible to compare alternatives without them. Thus the three sections of the Plan (pp. 32-
8 3 ), present a complete summary of all methods of solid waste collection and disposal which are applicable to Co chise County.
Alternatives
Having established the solid waste management goals, existing resources, and applicable methods, the next step in developing the Solid Wastes Management Plan was to develop 28 alternatives for action. These alternatives were set in two time phases. Implementation of the first phase (1972-
1 9 7 5 ) is within existing legal and financial resources of the County and could be initiated immediately. The second p h a se (1 9 7 6 - 1 9 8 0 ) w ill require new state-enabling legisla tion as well as financing for capital expenditures.
Phase I of the Plan calls for upgrading all existing disposal sites to at least landfill status by 1975. Full implementation of this phase would require the County to con tinue periodically maintaining landfills in rural communi ties. However, the efforts in this operation would be inten sified to include seventeen landfills instead of the four or five that Cochise County now maintains. Also, landfill maintenance would be provided at least twice per month instead of sporadically as is now the case. Although no specific alternatives are outlined under Phase I, a number of alterna tives are implied in the location of new landfills and in the frequency of service provided (Appendix: 8I4.).
Phase II of the Plan calls for providing convenient, we1 1 -maintained disposal facilities to all population cen ters by 1980. Three distinct alternatives are presented which w ill all provide about the same high standard of service (Appendix: 8 6 ). Under Alternative 1 the County would provide rural convenience stations for refuse disposal at each population center. This refuse would then be collected weekly and hauled to an existing sanitary landfill. Altern ative 2 would also require the County to provide rural con venience stations at the population centers. In addition, the County would operate part-time sanitary landfills in strategic locations to reduce hauling times. Under Alterna tive 3 the County would do no hauling but would establish and operate fifteen sanitary landfills on a daily time sharing basis. As with Phase I, the County would have some latitude in locating the convenience stations and sanitary landfills, and these minor changes might well compensate for the small 6 percent cost difference between the two lowest cost alternatives (1 an d 2 ). CHAPTER V
EVALUATION
It is important to evaluate the Solid Waste Manage ment Plan alternatives in light of the established goals, existing conditions, and resources of the County.
Convenience
The first goal to be evaluated is that of providing waste disposal facilities which are convenient to the pub lic. This goal is. to some extent compromised in that none of the final alternatives include door-to-door refuse col lection. However, to provide this convenience would compro mise the next goal, minimum cost, to an unacceptable extent.
The author firmly believes that providing sanitary disposal facilities within a few miles of rural residents who have
always hauled their own refuse w ill more than meet their expectations of convenience.
Low C o s t
The important goal of providing solid waste disposal
at minimum, long-run costs was carefully monitored in devel
oping all alternatives of the Plan. As previously discussed
in the section concerning goals, there are some residents of
the County who would consider even one dollar of their county
30 31 tax funds spent for solid wastes management as exorbitant.
However, the alternatives presented meet all standards at
a minimum expenditure of the taxpayer's money.
H e a lth /
It is an unfortunate fact that most people have very
vague goals on community health until an epidemic hreales out.
It is even more unfortunate that public health authorities
are not entirely certain as to what public health goals on
solid waste management should be. However, most people and
authorities agree that uncovered refuse is detrimental to
health, and therefore all alternatives provide covered con
tainers for refuse storage and compaction with earth cover
for refuse disposal. The alternatives further specify a
maximum one-week storage period for containerized refuse.
Iluisance Free
All alternatives in the Plan provide the framework
for a solid waste program that can be free of odors, dust,
or visual abominations. But the realization of this goal
w ill depend more upon implementation of alternatives than
upon actual alternatives used. A well run sanitary land
fill can be a good neighbor to almost any other land use,
but many neglected disposal sites labeled "sanitary land
fills" have given the term an unfavorable connotation.
Therefore, when the time for implementation of Phase II 32
'arrives, it w ill be paramount to site the sanitary landfills
according to the standard of operation to be actually sus
tained. The convenience stations can also be sited, fenced,
and landscaped so as to present a pleasing appearance to nearby residents. But as with sanitary landfills, the goal
of nuisance-free collection and transfer depends largely upon
quality of operation. The grounds must be policed and the
containers must be washed and sanitized periodically.
Environmental Com patibility
The main detrim ental effects on the environment caused
by solid waste are the result either of uncontrolled and
scattered refuse, or of water seeping through the deposited waste (leachate). The solid waste handling systems developed
in all three alternatives w ill provide containment and con
trol of refuse from the time it is deposited by the generator
until it is laid to rest. Even though leachate problems are
virtually unknown in Arizona, a few simple precautions in
sanitary landfill design w ill head off any potential d iffi
culties (McGauhey: 6 9 ).
Flexible Scope of Service
This goal is clearly reflected in the Plan's alterna
tives. The convenience stations for refuse collection can
easily be expanded, reduced, or even relocated. The routing
of collection trucks is likewise flexible. The sanitary 33 landfills themselves may easily be designed with excess capacity. The actual capital investment in any one piece of equipment or facility is relatively small, so, unless the entire concept of convenience stations and sanitary land fills is altered, the Solid Waste Management Plan is flex ible in scope as well as in time. CHAPTER V I
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTION
AND CONCLUSIONS
In order to be used as a guide for decisions and
future action, a plan must lend itself to change. This
change may come in the form of unanticipated characteristics
in the population to be served. The population could grow
faster or slower.than anticipated, or life styles might shift
over the next few years. Changes could come in applied solid waste technology for implementation. The fiscal resources of
the local governmental agency might increase or decrease
unexpectedly. Certainly some forms of change w ill come to
Cochise Comity, and the Solid Waste Management Plan w ill have
to assimilate them in order to remain viable. This assimi
lation may be accomplished in two ways -—updating and refine
ment. These two terms are discussed below.
U p d a tin g
As the comprehensive plan for Cochise County is devel
oped, the Solid Waste Management Plan w ill become a part of
this larger plan. Many of the changes in the County that
affect the overall plan w ill also cause the Solid Waste
Management Plan to go out of date. Therefore, it is hoped
that this plan w ill be updated according to the schedule the 34 35 County adopts for its continuing comprehensive planning pro cess. The most important aspects to consider in this up dating are discussed in this section.
P o p u la tio n
The alternatives for action were based on estimates of present and future population distribution. This popula tion distribution affects not only the quantities of refuse generated in each area, but also the economical level of col lection and disposal service for the area. Both the conveni ence stations and sanitary landfills could easily be designed to accommodate up to a 100 percent increase in refuse handling capacity. Since this 100 percent expansion allowance would cost less than 20 percent of the original capital costs, the
Plan need not be updated for small changes in magnitude of local population. However, if the population density of a rural area increases beyond 100 persons per square mile, then the Plan should be updated to reflect the requirement for door-to-door collection service in that area. Increases in density w ill also cause proportionate increases in per capita refuse generation. The planner updating the plan should also check the predicted population levels for the entire County against any reliable estimates he has available. Variations over about 10 percent w ill require a slight change in scope or timing of implementation, but again, no major changes in 36 alternative plans are warranted unless local population densities change radically.
T e c h n o lo g y
It is unlikely (although certainly not impossible) that changes in waste disposal technology w ill have much effect on the methods of solid waste disposal planned for
Cochise County through 1980. Most of the recent advance ments in the field are aimed toward reducing volumes of refuse prior to disposal. These methods of incineration, shredding, pulping, baling, etc., are all expensive and can be justified only in areas where land for sanitary landfills is at a premium. Even the urban areas of the
County w ill have large undeveloped land areas which could be used as sanitary landfills for several years to come.
Another more subtle effect of technology on solid wastes management is that of changes in packaging and marketing of retail goods. V irtually everything purchased today comes in a disposable box, can, bottle, wrapper, or bag. To make matters worse, once the packaging is dis posed of, the product itself w ill probably be disposed of shortly. No one knows exactly how much these aspects of producer-consumer technology have increased solid waste production, and the figures that are available are not directly applicable to Cochise County. Therefore, the assumed solid waste "affluencey factor" increase of 2 37 percent per year should be scrutinized in all future Plan updatings. Environmentalists are making a strong case for
more durable products in recyclable containers. To date
their influence has hardly been felt on the American market,
but the right combination of laws and incentives might alter
this trend. One recent example is an Oregon state law pro
hibiting the sale of any type of non-returnable beverage
container. A sim ilar Arizona law would reduce refuse pro
duction by 5 to 10 percent.
C o st
A third important consideration in periodically up
dating the Plan is that of cost. All cost estimates used
in the Plan were based on approximate 1972 costs of labor,
equipment, and m aterial. Using 1972 estimates for a 1980
plan is perhaps a valid criticism of the Plan, but since
these cost estimates are "ballpark figures" to be used
primarily for comparison of alternatives, the deficiency is
not serious. This aspect of cost increase w ill be discussed
further in the next section on plan refinement. In updating
the Plan it is more important to consider increases accord
ing to types of costs. For example, if labor costs continue
to increase faster than equipment costs. Alternative 2,
which requires an expensive heavy equipment operator that
Alternative 1 does not require, might become the less
attractive alternative with respect to cost. 38
Government Policy
Changes in governmental policy are potentially the most important aspects to consider when updating the Plan.
The underlying assumption behind the Phase II alternatives was that the Board of Supervisors would be given authority to establish a sanitation department, adopt and enforce a solid waste disposal ordinance, and finance solid waste management. If this enabling legislation is not forthcom ing, the Plan strategy must either be revised or else Phase
II w ill have to be postponed indefinitely. Other exogenous government policy changes which should be examined in up dating the Plan are revised federal standards for solid waste disposal, state and local laws on recycling waste, and revised provisions for aid to local solid waste pro g ra m s.
Local government policy changes must also be con sidered in Plan updating. The present Board of Supervisors has in general been favorably disposed toward county-wide solid waste management as outlined in the Plan. However, this attitude could certainly change toward either more intensive or less intensive County involvement, and the
Plan would have to be revised accordingly. Another local government policy change might occur in the willingness of the incorporated communities to support city-county agree ments in sharing municipal sanitary landfills. Since 39 Alternatives 1 and 2 are dependent on joint usage of estab lished sanitary landfills, lack of city government support would require that these alternatives be modified or aban
doned in favor of Alternative 3.
R e fin e m e n t
The authors, of any plan must determine the proper
balance between specifity and generality. If the plan is
too specific, it w ill rapidly become outdated, and its
flexibility to revisions w ill be diminished. On the other
hand, a plan that is too general is of little value in
guiding future decisions. This dilemma may be partially
resolved by structuring the specific elements of a plan so
that they may be refined to increase the plan’s usefulness
without altering the effect of the major alternatives. In
this sense, refinement may be thought of as preliminary
design. The Cochise County Solid Waste Management Plan
w ill lend itself well to these future refinements.
Before any selected alternative is applied, it should
be refined to insure that the County residents receive a
consistently high level of service at minimum cost to tax
payers, governments, and the environment. This refinement
can be accomplished through operational simulation. The
simulation model used need not be a highly sophisticated
computerized model. The analyst need only define the
existing conditions, establish the operating standards, lt.0 outline details of the system, then compute an estimate of the total system costs. By changing the routing schedule, capital effects, site locations, operating standards, and even existing conditions through subsequent iteration levels, the analyst can eventually refine the solid waste management system to provide the best service at close to minimum cost. The flow chart shown in Figure 2 shows how this model might be used to analyze a selected alternative.
Several levels of input are shown in the preceding flow diagram. The first of these is public goals on solid waste management. As previously discussed, these general goals are reflected in the subsequent standards and cri teria developed in the Plan and also in the Refinement
Model. The second level of input is that of existing con ditions. This input establishes the boundaries within which the Plan must function. Here existing conditions would include population densities, laws pertaining to solid waste management, government policies, the County transportation network, and revenue available for the solid waste handling system. The third level of input—operating standards—establishes the level of service to be adminis tered. These standards would include frequency of collec tion, distance from population served, nuisance abatement measures, sanitary landfill standards, and other criteria necessary to achieve the County-goals. The fourth level of 41
FIGURE 2 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN REFINEMENT PROCESS
PUBLIC GOALS ON SOLID WASTE IS ^ ROUTINE SCHEDULE NEAR OPTIMUM?^
DEVELOP SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES PUBLIC POLICY DEPARTMENT ORGANIZATION ^ CAN ^ SITE LOCATIONS .BE IMPROVED? EXISTING CONDITIONS
DETERMINE POPULATION PROJECTIONS CAN SOLID WASTE GENERATED OPERATING STANDARDS; TECHNOLOGY AVAILABLE BE ALTERED?
\ OPERATING STANDARDS /
ARE EXISTING CONDITIONS/ ESTABLISH PROJECTIONS ORDINANCES, X CORRECT? FREQUENCY OF SERVICE, MAXIMUM HAULING DISTANCE
MODIFY GOALS SELECT ' SITE LOCATIONS
COMPUTE CONVENIENCE STATION LEGEND SANITARY LANDFILL COSTS Operation
ASSUME ROUTING SCHEDULE Terminal Decision Process
COMPUTE EQUIPMENT, LABOR On-page Connector OPERATING, MAINTENANCE COSTS
/ ARE X , ARE IMPLEMENT MINIMUM STANDARDS TRADEOFFS STAGE OF PLAN X SATISFIED? / ACCEPTABLE? UNDER CONSIDERATION input involves selecting site locations for the necessary
convenience stations and/or sanitary landfills. The fifth
level of input—selecting labor and equipment—must closely
follow the fourth. The final input requires the analyst to
determine a routing schedule for the collection trucks and
roving sanitary landfill equipment, if any. Each level of
input, and each subsequent iteration, is more detailed than
the preceding level. The model can be used at any level
of input as long as more detailed levels of input are also
o m itte d .
Beginning with the lowest level of input, the model
is adjusted at each level until an acceptable "tradeoff"
among the magnitude of applied goals is reached. For
example, a tradeoff might involve sacrificing some con
venience of service in order to achieve a lower cost. Of
course, certain goals, such as health, w ill have certain
minimum criteria which w ill be reflected in the existing
conditions and operating standards. Notice that while the
magnitude of the goals can be adjusted by changing stan
dards or even existing conditions, the goals themselves
are not changed unless all other lower level changes fail
to produce an "acceptable" system.
When a solid waste management system is developed
that passes through the refinement model, the system is
ready either for implementation or further refinement. Conclusions
The Cochise County Solid Wastes Management Plan provides the County adm inistrators with another important element of the total planning effort. It is a thorough, detailed, and realistic plan. It is responsive to the goals, needs, and characteristics of the County. It recog nizes federal and state solid waste management requirements.
And most important, the Plan lends itself well to updating and refinement. But this solid wastes management plan is only a guide for improvement. It is only one instrument of change. To say, "Yes, we have a solid waste management plan" implies nothing. To say, "Yes, we are using our solid waste management plan in basic policy decisions and in integrating other elements of our County Comprehensive
Plan" is to truly justify the Plan. Preparing and evalu ating this Plan is only the first step. Keeping the Plan viable and on the forefront during future development is the greater task ahead. REFERENCES
County of Cochise, Planning and Zoning Commission. A Presentation to All the People of the County of Cochise - Development Policies and General Plan. Bisbee, Arizona, February 1973.
Library of Congress Legislative Reference Service. Digest of Public General B ills and Resolutions. Washing ton, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 19of>, 1 970.
McGauhey, P. H ., E. A. Glyson, and Robert K. Ham. "Sani tary Landfills: The Latest Thinking," Civil Engineering, March 1973, PP. 69-71. Valley National Bank. Arizona Statistical Review. 28th Annual Edition, September 1972.
W ilsey & Ham. Cochise County Comprehensive Planning Program: Phase I Summary Report. Tucson, A riz.: Wilsey & Ham, June 197^. APPENDIX
The following document is the Solid Wastes Manage m ent P la n f o r Cochise County, Arizona. It was completed during the summer of 1972 and submitted to the Cochise
County Planning and Zoning Commission in September of t h a t y e a r . SOLID WASTES MANAGEMENT PLAN
Cochise County, Arizona SOLID WASTES MANAGEMENT PLAIT
Cochise County, Arizona
Cochise County Planning Department
Douglas L. Wentworth
August 3%, 1972 TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
Summary and Conclusions...... i
Introduction ...... 1
Potential Solid Waste Disposal Problems ...... 2
Problems of H e a l t h ...... 2 Environmental Concerns • ...... U ' Cochise County Refuse Generation ...... 6 Refuse Problem in Perspective ...... 8
Existing Conditions...... 10
Current Refuse Production ...... 10 Current Refuse Disposal Practices ...... 1U Agricultural Wastes ...... 26 Industrial Wastes ...... 27 Other Solid W a s t e s ...... 28
Future Projections ...... 29
General Disposal Alternatives...... 32
'Methods of Collection ...... 32 Methods of Disposal...... ’ ...... 35 Conclusions...... Wi
Specific Aspects of Storage, Collection and Haul . . . U7
Equipment ...... i|7 Support Facilities ...... 53 Operations 63
Specific Aspects of Sanitary Landfills ...... 65
Types of Sanitary Landfills ...... 65 Site S e l e c t i o n ...... 69 Equipment ...... 72 Facilities ...... 76 Site Preparation ...... 79 Site Operations...... 79 Sanitary Landfill Costs ...... 80
The Plan ...... 8U
Timetable for Implementation ...... 8U Alternatives ...... 86 TABLE OF CONTENTS (co n tin u ed ) *
SECTION PAGE
Evaluation Considerations ...... 101 Organization ...... 101
Legal Considerations...... IOI4.
Board of Supervisors' Authority...... 101* Solid Waste Regulations...... lOJ?
Financing Solid Wastes Management ...... 108
Resources ...... 108 Capital Expenditures ...... 109 Conclusions...... 112
Appendix...... Ill;
A. Bibliography ...... B. Definitions ...... C. Population Projections ...... D. Refuse Production Projections ...... E. Weight - Volume Relationships ...... F. Economic Level of Refuse Collection Service . . . . G. Letter: County Attorney ...... H. Example, Enabling Legislation...... I. Example, County Solid Waste Ordinance ...... J. Proposed Solid Waste Subdivision Regulations . . . K. State Department of Health, Subdivision Regulations L. State Department of Health, Refuse Regulations . .
Tables:
1 . Methods of Refuse Collection ...... 1$ 2. Solid Waste Disposal Site Inventory ...... 19 3. Solid Waste Management Resources ...... 2 5 4. Refuse Generation (Future Years) ...... 31 5. Compsucison of Collection Methods ...... 3U 6. Comparison of Refuse Disposal Methods ...... 7. Refuse Collection Equipment ...... $2 8. Cost Estimate, Rural Convenience S t a t i o n ...... 55 9- Cost Estimate, Community Convenience Station . . . 59 10. Cost Estimate, Maintenance Garage ...... 62 11. Annual Vehicle Costs ...... 6I4. 12. Cost Estimate, Five Acre Sanitary Landfill . . . . 81 13. Costs of Phase I Plan ...... 90 14. Alternative No. 1, Collection Schedule 1980 . . . . 91 15. Annual Costs of Phase II, Alternative 1 ...... 94 TABLE OF CONTENTS (co n tin u ed )
Tables: PAGE
16. Alternative No. 2, Collection Schedule...... 95 17. Annual Costs of Phase II, Alternative 2 ..... 98 18. Alternative No. 3> Daily Schedule I960 ...... 99 19. ' Annual Costs of Phase II, Alternative 3 ...... 100 20. Comparison of Methods of Financing...... 113
Figures: „
1. Population and Refuse Generation ...... 7 2. Population Centers (1970 Census) ...... 12 3 . Population Centers - 1972 ...... 13 It. Dump at B o w i e ...... 17 5>. Dump at St.. David ...... 17 6 . Dump at San Simon ...... 17 7 . Refuse Disposal Site Inventory, June, 1972 . . . . 21 8 . Sanitary Landfill at Douglas ...... 22 9 . Landfill at Tombstone ...... 22 10. Landfill at Benson ...... 22 11. Dump at Bisbee ...... 2I4. 12. 3 0 , 13. Costs Per Ton of Landfill Operation according to Population Range ...... '...... 37 1l|. Sanitary Landfill Operating Costs ...... 37 15. Refuse Containers ...... it8 16. Stationary Non-Compacting Container Hoisted onto Truck ...... 1*9 17. Stationary Compacting Container Hoisted onto Truck 1*9 18. Rural Convenience Station ...... $U 19. Community Convenience Station ...... 58 20. Sanitary Landfill, Area Method ...... 67 21. Sanitary Landfill, Trench Method ...... 68 22. Track-Type Tractor ...... 73 23. Track-Type Loader ...... 73 21*. Wheel Loader ...... 75 25. Refuse Compactor ...... 75 26. Other Sanitary Landfill Equipment ...... 77 27. Required County Landfill Sites by 1975 ...... 81* 28. Lowboy Hydraulic Tilting Trailer ...... 89 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This solid wastes management plain has "been "undertaken in order to determine convenient, economical, sanitary, and flexible means of solid wastes disposal for the residents of Cochise County. The numerous dumps and inadequate landfill disposal sites presently used throughout the rural areas of the county are a potential health hazard and an environmental
"blight which will only get worse unless action is taken. Therefore, some form of improved refuse disposal service is needed for the 13*000 County residents who must personally dispose of their 8,J>00 tons of refuse every year. In addition, the smaller municipalities will find it extremely difficult to upgrade their disposal sites to sanitary landfills without
County assistance.
There are generally three alternative methods of refuse collection:
(l) individual haul to a disposal site; (2) individual haul to a transfer point; (3) house-to-house collection. Furthermore, there are at least eight alternative methods of refuse disposal: (1) open dump; (2) landfill;
(3) sanitary landfill; (U) composting; (5) incineration; (6) salvage;
(7) "baling; (8) shredding. Of these alternatives, it appears that individual haul to either disposal sites or transfer points coupled with the sanitary landfill disposal method is the best combination for Cochise County. The transfer points, or "convenience stations", would be centrally located areas where people could go to deposit their refuse into large, metal, box-type
continers. Specially designed hydraulic trucks would then empty the con tainers at least weekly and haul the refuse to a sanitary landfill. The best type of sanitary landfill in Cochise County would be a 5 to 20 acre
site with fence, access road, and.utility building. The small, track-type
i loader would be the most versitile piece of sanitary landfill equipment.
The Solid Wastes Management Plan can best be implemented in two phases. Phase I would involve upgrading 17 rural disposal sites to at least landfills (receiving some compaction and cover) by 1975* The imple mentation cost for this phase would be about $80,000 amounting to a total annual cost of about $35*000. Phase II would involve establishing up to
21 convenience stations serviced by one or two collection vehicles by 1980.
The County would either use municipal sanitary landfills or operate part time sanitary landfills in conjunction with the collection operation. The implementation costs for Phase II would be about $300,000 amounting to a total annual cost of about $125,000.
Phase I of the Solid Wastes Management Plan can be implemented with relatively minor difficulty under the existing County organization.
However, effective implementation of Phase II would require a separate department for which no legal authority presently exists. To date, the
Board of Supervisors also lack State authority to: (l) adopt and enforce regulations on refuse handling; (2) issue refuse collection/disposal con
tracts; (3) finance a solid wastes system. However, this legal authority will not be long in coming, and the lack of such authority should not be used as an excuse for doing nothing.
Because of the difficulty in collecting special taxes or service
fees, the revenue for solid wastes management would almost certainly have
to come from the general fund. With this revenue, there are several methods
of financing the necessary capital expenditures. Of these, the pay-as-you-go
method appears favorable, although low interest loans (from FHA or HUB) and
general obligation bonds may be used to supplement large initial expenditures.
Some state and federal land is also available for disposal sites on a low
cost purchase or lease basis. • »*
i i INTRODUCTION
The purpose 0f this planning study is to provide standards and guidelines for realizing safe, sanitary, and economical means of solid waste disposal for all residents of Cochise County in the years ahead. In order to achieve this end, this plan recognizes that any site or facility utilized for solid waste disposal should he convenient, effect minimal long run costs, present no adverse effects to health, he unoffensive to the senses, preserve and enhance the envi ronment, and retain a flexible scope of service which will accommodate future needs. It is further recognized that the solid waste program must sustain , * * sound management and operation in the storage, transportation, processing, reclamation and disposal of all solid waste materials generated within its area of responsibility.
These general goals for solid waste disposal in Cochise County,are com mensurate with the intent of the 1971 -&RS 36-132.01, which was enacted partially
in accordance with the National Resource Recovery Act of 1970 and the resulting
Environmental Protection Agency requirements. The subsequent portions of this
study follow the guidelines outlined by these agencies. Accordingly, although
this study undertakes a general investigation of all solid wastes (except human body wastes) within the County, the detailed study and" plan concerns only muni
cipal and household refuse.
This solid waste disposal plan will be incorporated into existing and
future county comprehensive planning programs. In this regard, the relatively
strong, direct interrelationship of solid waste disposal programs to the goals
within four particular areas is recognized. These areas include: (l) medical
and health services; (2) economic base; (3) population growth; (U) pollution
control POTENTIAL SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL PROBLEMS .
Before it can properly gain the attention of the public and their elected officials, a report such as this must identify real areas of concern as well as answer that all important question: "What happens if we don't do anything about solid waste disposal?"
Problems of Health
To date, public health scientists have not established direct relation ships between improper refuse disposal and disease. Due to lack of controlled conditions and the complexity of such a study, these relationships may not be quantified for years. Unfortunately, there are always a few people who must have infallible scientific proof that a problem exists before they will take positive corrective action. More unfortunately, many people will use the lack of such evidence as an excuse to do nothing if they find inaction convenient.
However, rather than lament upon the unknown, let us examine what is known about refuse disposal and health. It.is definite that improperly stored refuse and open dumps are an impediment to public health. In addition to obvious dangers of fire and safety hazards, exposed refuse is known to be an ideal breeding grounds for many disease vectors.
House Flies. This ubiquitous disease vector breeds in decomposing organic matter of any kind. The larval (maggot) stage of the fly's life cycle lasts only from four to seven days. The adult fly lives an average of about one month, and breeds several times during that period laying hundreds of eggs each time. (Gen. Ref. 8). Studies conducted in Phoenix by Dr. Robert J.
Anderson found that as many as 70,000 flies were produced per cubic foot of exposed gargage. (Gen. Ref. 7:9) • Thus, the fly breeding potential of even a
small rural dump is enormous!
- 2 - Plies are known to carry such diseases as typhoid fever, dysentery, tuberculosis, urinary myiasis, and cholera. They transmit disease through regurgitation and excretion during feeding as well as through bacteria trapped in the fine hairs on their legs and bodies.
Mosquitos. These insects require standing water for breeding, and be
cause Cochise County is a relatively dry area, mosquitos are not as prevalent here as in some other areas of the county. However, they are by no means non
existent in this area. An old tire or discarded can filled with rain or irrigation
water for a few days is quite sufficient for breeding hundreds of mosquitos. If
the water has leached through refuse, it will support even more mosquitos due
to the high concentration of organic nutrients. Once hatched, mosquitos have
a maximum flight range of about two miles. (Gen. Ref. 8)
Mosquitos transmit malaria and encephalitis. They convey disease to
humans primarily through salivation while "biting" their human host.
Cockroach. All three common species of this vector (American, Oriental,
and German) are found throughout the county. As scavangers, they too find ideal
food and shelter in refuse dumps. They frequently migrate considerable distances
to invade farms and residences. They are potential transmitters of most of the
diseases that houseflys are capable of transmitting.
Rats. These vectors are a relatively minor problem in Cochise County,
although there is no reason why they should not become more of a problem as the
population densities increase. They build their nests in rubbish piles as well
as in abandoned autos and buildings. They are prolific breeders, as each female
weans an average bf 20 young rats per year. Depending on food supplies, they
will migrate freely from dumps to farms.
Rats are the most destructive animals in the world, costing the U.S. over
$500,000,000 per year. And this amount only accounts for damage to food and
-3- structures. Rats also transmit disease. Plague, murine typhus fever, and rocky mountain spotted fever are transmitted indirectly by rats through their fleas. Rats also transmit rat-bite fever and rabies through their bite. Food poisoning (salmonellosis) is transmitted through rat excreta.
Environmental Concerns
In addition to creating human health problems, uncontrolled refuse dis posal also invariably results in an unhealthy environment. As noted in the next section, refuse scattered by wind and water is already much in evidence in certain parts of the county. Dense black smoke daily spews forth from a dozen community dumps as well as innumerable backyard incinerators. Thus environmental pollution, although not yet acute, is definitely with Cochise County.
Air Pollution. When compared to the magnitude of emmissions from autos and industry, the air pollution from burning refuse may at first seem insig nificant; however, the composition of refuse coupled with the common methods of burning results in very inefficient combustion. This combustion then produces smoke heavy in fly ash, particulates, and odors— all of which present nuisances to nearby residents. In addition, the smoldering fires present a hazard due to flying sparks, frequent explosions (bottles, light bulbs, and aerosol cans) and dangers to children.
As a result of these detrimental effects, most large TT.S. cities now prohibit backyard burnings. The populated areas within Cochise County will
soon be obliged to do likewise. State law (ARS 36-789) presently prohibits
"open outdoor fires" for burning refuse; however, enforcement is difficult and
often ineffective.
Water Pollution. Uncovered refuse continues to contaminate surface waters with every rain. This water-borne refuse is particularly prevalent in
-U~ the areas of the County where refuse is frequently dumped into "dry washes".
The most obvious effect of this refuse-laden water is the scattered deposits of refuse down the watershed. A more insidious effect is the suspended and dissolved organic material, commonly known as "leachate", which offers ideal breeding grounds for bacteria, mosquitos and other insects wherever it flows.
Pollution of ground waters will usually not occur in the immediate vicinity of a refuse disposal site unless it is located near an aquifer or area with high water table. However, many surface water streams eventually find their way into ground water sources. The contamination of ground water with leachate from surface water will depend upon the amount of natural fil tration it undergoes. However, this contamination is potentially very serious because the suspended organic nutrients cannot easily decompose underground with out the presence of oxygen. The anerobic decomposition that does take place is slow and produces obnoxious gases. Usually, the organic solids will eventually be filtered out; however, the chemical salts dissolved in the leachate will never decompose nor can they be filtered out. To date no contamination of ground water has been traced to refuse disposal sites in Cochise County. Still, this fact should be no cause for complacency, because if ground water contamination does occur, it will take years to dissipate even after the source is removed.
Aesthetics. Even if the County residents would come to accept the degradation of a landscape strewn with refuse blown and washed about, tourists would not accept such blight. Cochise County has a tremendous tourist potential even beyond its existing recreational facilities. The undeveloped historic
sites, scenic highways, and future Charleston Lake all represent a resource that could easily be diminished by blighted countrysides.
- 5- Cochise County Refuse Generation
During 1972, the 69,600 residents of Cochise County and their visitors will generate almost 58,000 tons of refuse. Of this quantity, about lt5>500 tons (80$) are generated in incorporated city/federal areas and disposed of in city/federal sites. However, only 38,500 tons per year (66$) are disposed of in the three major sanitary landfills
Thus the County is directly responsible for providing disposal facilities for about 12,500 tons of refuse per year. However, it must be remembered that the County is indirectly responsible for insuring the adequate quality of all
solid waste disposal facilities. Of the 12,500 tons per year of County generated refuse, an estimated 4,500 tons are disposed of in several community dumps and landfills. The remaining 8,000 tons per year are disposed of throughout the
County, either in private dumps or indiscriminately throughout the countryside.
In future years, the total amount of county refuse is expected to increase
to 65,112 and 77,857 tons per year in the years 1975 and 1980, respectively (see
Figure 1 and Appendices C and D) . This rapid increase is due primarily to three
factors: (l) increased population, (2) higher population densities, (3) greater
affluence. Thus, by 1980, each Cochise County resident will be producing an
average of almost one ton of refuse per year.
Note that the above figures on annual refuse generation are cummulative.
Refuse improperly disposed of this year will not go away by itself. It will
continue to be a problem in 1980 along with the refuse accumulated during the
intervening seven years. In effect, this accumulated refuse is represented by
the increasing area under the total refuse curve in Figure 1.
- 6- 10O .
POPULATION AND REFUSE GENERATION COCHISE COUNTY
90 V / z
TO
1970 :
FIGURE: I Refuse Problem in Perspective
Up to this point we still have not answered the original question posed at the beginning of this section: "What happens if we don't . . Realistically, even as all of the above mentioned tonnages of refuse accumulate, the solid waste problem is by no means critical, but it is chronic and very persistent. Further more, the problem is not likely to become critical in the next few years, but it will get bigger.
About 95$ of the County's refuse is being disposed of in some established community site, and of that probably only a few tons per year is washed and blown about the countryside. Even that leaves about 28,000 tons of "loose refuse" to worry, about between 1972 and 1980. Now while Cochise County is a big County with relatively few people, it still has only a fixed amount of land with a fixed capacity for absorbing loose refuse within the tolerances of the County residents, as well as the tolerances of prospective industries and tourists.
Without solid waste management improvement, County residents can also expect to see a few more flies, cockroaches, mosquitos, rodents and other miscel laneous vermin. Admittedly, a few more flies, etc. probably won't kill anyone, although more people will be sick more of the time. But the potential for starting and sustaining an epidemic is greatly increased as long as we provide breeding grounds and free lunches for these disease vectors.
And in the next few years, those areas without proper disposal facilities will find the State Department of Health becoming increasingly difficult to get along with. Although no deadline has been established for the closure of all open dumps and poorly operated landfills (employing burning and providing only infrequent cover), the ultimatum is virtually certain to be set before 1975•
Already new land developers are being required by the State to provide for proper solid waste disposal. Since the County has no sanitary landfills, these
- 8- 4
developers must haul refuse to either Douglas, Sierra Vista or Villcox-— a very expensive operation.
It is obvious that sooner or later Cochise County will be forced to take action to upgrade its solid waste situation. The longer we wait, the more ex pensive the cleanup becomes. One sanitary landfill today is far less expensive
than hiring 1,000 men with 1,000 pointed sticks ten years hence. Yet even under
a good public relations program, it is difficult to motivate most people toward improved solid waste management. In the face of more "pressing problems" it is
all too easy to let solid waste improvements go until next year. Consequently,
the impetus for action will have to come from a few farsighted individuals who
realize that a little money spent each year on solid waste disposal improvements
will avoid large crash expenditures later on.
- 9- I EXISTING CONDITIONS
: n This section presents an in-depth look at sources of waste as well as j existing means of disposal. This information will then fdrm the basis for the ensuing plan to improve solid waste management.
5 Current Refuse Production ■i
Figure 2 is a map showing all of the population centers in Cochise
County. A population center is defined as an area of less than 100 square | miles containing at least 100 people. The 100 square mile limit is chosen I " because, throughout the county, five to ten miles appears* to be the maximum j distance that most people are willing to haul their refuse. Thus a refuse I disposal facility placed within an area of miles radius (100 square miles) . I can reasonably be expected to serve all residents withinjthat area. Of course the disposal facility should be as centrally located as possible with respect to population and travel times. The figure of 100 persons is chosen as a minimum number for which it would be economically feasible to provide refuse i disposal services. At the present Cochise County rural area refuse generationare rate of 3.6 pounds per person per day, 100 people wouldj produce 2,550 pounds of uncompacted refuse per week or about eight cubic yards. This quantity is enough to fill either a medium sized box-type container once per week or a small sized container twice per week. ! •
There is yet another reason for the adoption of jthe 100 square mile/
100 person minimum population center. Any plan to alleviate open dumping by either more collection or improved disposal sites must lie based upon some deter mination of how much improperly stored and indiscriminately dumped refuse man V and his environment can reasonably tolerate. This determination Can never be
- 10- r exact due to the different values of health and environmental standards. Certainly it is not practical to expend vast sums to provide a proper means of disposal for
every County resident. However, when the population density increases to the point that a random distrihution will leave the majority of residents close
enough together that one man's flies, roaches, odors, and pollution can readily
affect his neighbors— that is the minimum density of concern. The minimum density
of concern used in this report would be that density where the average distance
between houses (using a County average of 3*5 persons per house) is £ mile. This
is well within the contact range of most refuse-borne nuisance and disease.
Also shown in Figure 2 is the relative densities within each population
center as of 1970. This parameter dipicts the degree of population concentration,
and thus is important in determining the quantity of refuse generated within
each population center (Figure 3)• A detailed explanation of how refuse quantity
is determined as a function of population, population density, and time is given
in Appendix D. Refuse weight-volume relationships are computed in Appendix E.
- 11- « l
COCH/SE COUNT/
POPUJL AT/O N CEN TER 5 ( if 70CE N S U S ) \ G R E E N L E E \ C O U N T Y
KfNCIIKSTER
f. 12 S. -3 o POPULATION CENTERS 1972
I Z P - 9 ,9 9 9 POPULATION V d S - 9,999 REFUSE (TONS/YR)
£L 16 M • LAT. F x i - K-ZWAI-l-S— / I S \ FIGURE: 3
■oquilles Courtlen SAN JUAN DE l+AS \ NORTH B O ^ L L ^ g Y NOGALES GWA EL] RIDA WebbT ^Tb^b.t6n. _ $CA II s-4a95 0 0*o Ad» Hay Mtn STATUTE MILES ^MXJ DECEMBER, 1971 LY 7 l " “ 0 «' L :hirk»hue v. BASE MAP t - f . UBLH B WILSKY A HAM C o>n TUCSON AllZON A n t m w*tiqH»l j j i ------L , N« THE PREPARATION OF THIS MAP WAS FINANCIALLY AIDED THROUGH A GRANT MIRACLE VALLEY FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING ft URBAN DEVELOPMENT,UNDER THE O W C H j q E .'Rl.LEGti URBAN PLANNING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 701 OF X P-415 I / c THE HOUSING ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED. O-Trfn REVISED FROM US6S BASE MAP FOR ARIZONA Current Refuse Disposal Practices After determining how much refuse is being generated in the various localities of the County, the next question arises: "What is happening to all of this refuse?" This paramount question must he answered before Cochise County can determine the location, the magnitude, and the best rectification of its refuse disposal problems. Methods of Refuse Collection. Table 1 presents a summary of the various ^refuse collection practices in the County*s 25 population centers. In addition to the four municipalities which operate a refuse collection system, at least five contractors are known to be regularly collecting refuse on a wide scale. As expected, only the larger and denser population centers are able to support gome form of collection service, leaving If? population centers with no collection service. Therefore, 12,981 County residents must personally dispose of 8,542 tons of refuse every year. There are two particularly unfortunate aspects of this situation. (The first is that people who "haul their own" tend to store the refuse too long, thus creating a health hazard. The second problem is that often the liauled refuse does not quite make it to even an established disposal site, aiuch less to a sanitary landfill. Although there have probably been no studies -to determine how much refuse ends up on the open land, a good "guesstimate" might be that the amount of generated refuse that reaches an established dis posal site decreases by 10$ of the original quantity for each mile of haul. Population centers of particular concern are Bowie, Double Adobe, Naco, St. David, and San Simon. These areas are fairly heavily populated and, with 'fcjie exception of Naco, do not even have a landfill disposed, site within eight tu fle s. -14- mm&JfMf O** KMVLih' COU^XJViON COCHISK COUNTY - 1972 POPULATION nRFUSE QUANTITY COLLECTION SERVICE POPULATION CENTER (T/wk - eo t.) RESPONSIBLE SERVICE CHAUCKS Rl’KARKS CKNTMl NUKUKH TOTAL AMOUNT URBAN URBAN RURAL AGENCY (monthly rates) TOTAL SKKVICUI) PUODUCEIJ COM.I-yTED RES. COMM. COUNTY Benson 3,liU 7 2,969 5 0 .6 44.4 2/wk . City S 2.00 5/wk ...... City 2.00 + . 2 5 /ca n None . . . Individual NA Bisbee 9.063 8,720 153.1 148,8 2/vk . City None Contractor*0 revenue from 60 2 - 6 /w k ...... City None subscribers is insufficient for 2/wk . . . Contractor $ 2.00 equipment maintenance. Bowie 551 0 8.1 0 None . Individual I! A Refuse collection has been N o n e ...... Individual HA undertaken interm ittently by None . • • Individual NA various private concerns. Cochise 20? 0 2.6 0 NA . . NA NA N A ...... NA . NA NA . . . . NA NA Cochise College U15 MS 7.1 7.1 5/vk . College NA All collection is assumed to 5 / w k ...... College NA be made by College personnel. NA . . . . NA NA Double Adobe 570 o 7.3 . 0 NA . . NA NA NA ...... NA NA None . . . Individual NA Douglaa/fcirtleville 15,016 1 4 ,6 0 0 253.1 246.5 2/wk . Cont./City S 2.00 3/wk ...... Cont./City varies 2/wk . . . Contractor 3.00 Dragoon 207 o 2.6 0 NA . . NA NA NA ...... NA NA None . . . Individual NA Elfrida 67k 0 9.5 0 None . Individual NA N o n e ...... Individual i NA None • . . Individual NA Hereford 207 0 v 2.6 0 NA . . NA NA NA ...... NA NA None . . . Individual NA Huachuca City 1,l»23 1,375 23-7 23.1 2/wk . City 8 2.00 3 / w k ...... City 5 . 0 0 - 2 5 .0 0 '• 1/wk . . . City None Kansas Settlement 363 0 lt>6 0 NA . . NA NA NA ...... NA NA None • • . Individual NA - 15- j m w j m N T i T x COLLECTION VICE ( .o a t) RKSPONSIBLE SERVICE CHARGES CENTER NUMBER RWARKS TOTAL AMOUNT URBAN URBAN ; RURAL AGENCY (monthy ratoc) TOTAL SERVICED PRODUCED COLLtiGTED REli. COm. ' COUNTY McNeal 311 0 W . . . . . \ NA NA IIA NA NA None . • Individual NA Miracle Valley 155 o 2.0 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA None . . • Individual NA Haco • 995 o 11*.5 0 None Individual NA None Individual NA None . . Individual NA N icksville 627 600 8.9 8.5 2/vk . . . Contractor Sit. 00 2/wk .' Contractor U.oo l/wk . . Contractor 24.00 Portal NA NA NA NA None , . Individual NA St. David 622 0 8 .0 0 None Individual NA None Individual NA None , . Individual NA San Simon 1*67 . 0 6 .0 .0 None Individual NA None Individual NA None . . Individual NA Sierra Vista 23,652 2 3 ,6 0 0 1*0 2 .1* 1*0 1 .6 2/wk Contractor 2/wk Contractor $2.2$ 2/wk * . Contractor 2.2$ & up 2.25 Sun S ites 700 350 10.5 5.3 2/wk Contractor 2/wk Contractor $3.00 Contractor ic experiencing difficulty 2/wk . . Contractor 3«00 in securing subscribers. Neighbors 3«00 often "double up" on refuse containers Sunizona 207 0 2.6 Q NA . NA NA...... NA NA None . . Individual NA i* NA jfombatone 1,1*05 •1,390 2 0 .7 20.5 2/wk Cont./City 3/wk . . . . . Cont./City $2.00 1/wk . . Contractor 5.00 - 1 5 .0 0 3 .5 0 illc o x 3,198 2 ,6 0 0 5 1 .9 !*!*.2 2/wk City y 2-6/wk .V. . . City 12.50 None . . Individual 3.00 - 10.00 NA v incheater 1,66 0 6 .0 0 NA . NA NA...... NA NA None . . Individual NA NA 6 5 , 10] 5^f^i9 l, 061*.l* 9 5 0 .0 -1 6 - Disposal Sites Inventory, Table 2 outlines the characteristics of the major disposal sites within the County. A brief tally shows four sani tary landfills, eight landfills (receiving some cover), eight open dumps, and three unknowns. The actu al p ic tu re i s somewhat b e tte r than i t f i r s t appears, however, because even though, only 13$ of the disposal sites are sanitary landfills, they receive 66$ of the total refuse. Locations of the disposal- sites are shown in Figure 7* In comparing the disposal site locations with the populations centers in Figure 3, we may note that six population centers contain no central dis- ' posal site (at.least no site that this author was able to locate). In certain instances, some of the people in these population centers are using a disposal site in an adjacent area (Nicksville, Portal, Kansas Settlement). In other cases they are probably dumping where they can (Hereford, Double Adobe, McNeal). These centers deserve special consideration. Some of the special problems are noted for various disposal sites. Benson and Tombstone require engineering assistance with their landfill operations. Douglas and Huachuca City are running out of land, and are attempting to negotiate for additonal sanitary landfill sites. The Forest Service and National Park Service are planning long-distance hauling to dispose of their refuse to Douglas and Villcox. And of course all of the open dumps require either upgrading or abandonment. - 18- fcMUwMTW AS. *4 ^ ****** COCHIUK COUNTr - n n ? IWULATION REFUSE APPROX. RES PONS UU.E SITE LOCATION USING DEPOSITED AREA TYPE OPERATION AGENCY SPECIAL PROBLEMS TeotT) (T/wk- eat,) (acrea) CITY* COUNTY CITY* COUtfTY Benson T.17S R.20E 2,969 U78 UI4.I4 6.1 00 trench lan d fill with Contractor for Large drain through site S.3 Qtr.SW 15^ uaed burning, covered 3 times City of Benson is being blocked ' weekly l Bisbee » T.23S R,2liE 8 ,5 2 2 51*1 11*6 .2 6.9 60 open dump with burning, City of Bisbee Continuous burning is in ' S.13 Qtr.NE 2CT/> used top of pile covered and violation of State Health leveled, slope uncovered Dept, regulations. * Bowie T.13S R.28E 551 - 8 .1 ’ 2 open dump with burning, County Dump is within 0.5 miles S.t* Qtr.NE 35% used refuse dumped into 2 of populated area. p its Cave Creek/ T.17S R.31E 3 7 ,0 0 0 v isito r 1 .8 1 pit landfill Forest Service Site is to be deactivated Rustler Park S.3U Qtr.NE days / year in 1973 leaving Portal with 155 2 .0 no disposal site. Chiricahua Mon, T.16S R.29E 3 5 ,0 0 0 v isito r 1.7 1 pit landfill Natl. Park Service Site is uneconomical and S.22 Qtr.NW days / year will be deactivated within one year. Cochise College T.23S R.26E I4I5 (equiv.) - 7 .1 1 open dump with burning, None Land in privately owned. S.3U Qtr.SE refuse dumped Into 30 f t . Potential surface water wide arroyo contamination exists. Cochise 207 - 2 .6 Disposal site was not inspected. Douglas T.2US R.27E 12,956 2,060 222.3 . 3 0 .8 10 trench sanitary landfill, City of Douglas Only about ?. month's use S.II4 Qtr.NE 95% used refuse covered and of trench remains on this compacted daily P.D. property. Dragoon 207 2 .6 Disposal site was not inspected. 1 trench landfill with County Extensive scavenging is Elfrida T.20S R.26E 2 - 9 .5 10 S.IO Qtr.NW 5% used burning, refuse covered practiced by adjacent periodically resident. Huachuca City T.21S R.20E 2 3 , 1*00 2 ,3 0 2 U01.U 33.6 12 canyon sanitary la n d fill, Contractor for Only about 5 month's use S.5 Qtr.NE 90% used refuse covered and Huachuca City of area remains. City is compacted daily negotiating for adjacent land. Disposal site was not Miracle Valley T.2ltS R.22E 155 - 2.0 S.6 Qtr.NW . inspected. 1 trench landfill with Naco * T.2US R.23E $ 11*.5 County None S.13 Qtr.NW 20% used burning, refuse covered r. • - periodically * Designates incorporated city and/or federal area. RNSPONSIBLN SITE LOCATION W: TYTK OPERATION AOKNCY tiPHCIAL PROBLEMS (T/wk - eat*) (acres) CITY* COUNTY CITY* COUNTY Pearce T.17S R.25E 6 ,5 0 0 v isito r 0.3 ■ . 5 trench sanitary Contractor Site is not available for S.32 Qtr.SW days / year 5/o used landfill, refuse public refuse disposal. 350 5.2 covered daily Richland T.16S R.2I4E 100 - 1.5 1 open dump with burning, Developer Health hazard w ill increase Ranchettes S.28 Qtr.W 20^ used refuse dumped into as area develops. pit Rucker Canyon/ T.19S R.29E I47.OOO v isito r 2 .3 1 pit landfill Forest Service None - site is to be Turkey Creek G.2l| Qtr.SE days / year deactivated in 1973. St. David T.17S R.21E - 622 - 8 .0 1 open dump with burning, None Potential surface water S.30 Qtr.SE refuse dumped down contamination exists. Dump steep slope i s extending onto private land San Simon T.13S R.31E - U67 - 6 .0 9 open dump with burning, None Widely scattered refuse is S.3 2 Qtr.NE, NW part of refuse dumped prevalent. Potential surface into old barrow pit water contamination ex ists. Sun S ites T.17S R.25E 250 - - 5.0 1 trench landfill with Developer Developer w ill probably be S.5 Qtr.SE burning, refuse covered unwilling to continue landfill periodically operation after construction. Sunizona T.18S R.27E 207 - 2 .6 None Health hazard w ill increase S.10 Qtr.SW 10# used open dump with burning as area develops. refuse dumped into large pit Tombstone T.19S R.22E 1,21,0 165 18.6 2 .1 8 area la n d fill with Contractor for Dumping is not controlled. S.3U Qtr.NE 35# used burning, refuse mixed City of Tombstone with earth, covered daily Willcox T.II4S R.25E City of Willcox None - city to use new 80 S.5 Qtr.SE 2,61,7 551 6.1, trench sanitary landfill, acre barrow s ite . 95# used refuse covered and compacted daily Winchester T.12S R.25E - 1,66 - 6.0 5 open dump with l i t t l e None Site is privately owned as S.12 Qtr.NE garbage and no burning part of Winchester Ranch Estates. TOTALS 52,11,9 11,503 m 3 1 6 0 219 2 0 - °«'L SANTA (L 16 I / ' h fonts I W T C W N A T I Q N A L V ' w i r o t j B tt « o .t.to h W 5 R.I9E x ^LL Q O B CORONAOO A JA D LAS DE JUAN ^AN — t ^ j i j j S*0 v ^ Y NOGALES NOGALES Y ^ V ^ a tme, e m vt ^ Boquillas % GFA> '-*nyon^ < X\v ^ l i l ^ c 5 y ^ • , HATtOlUtl^^o \ > M ^ r \ ^ 2 " : _ -LL.L _ _ : -LL.L " 2 ^ Douglas ------0 \ l 3 30 ----- ' SSi-'i . J E E L N E E R G \ V T N U O C \ ------ P J ^ ) i ( ^ 1^ f ! - (u) UNLOCATED DISPOSAL SITE DISPOSAL UNLOCATED (u) - ! W r REFUSE DISPOSAL INVENTORY SITE — ...... ^ C\S DUMP OPEN ACTIVE (5} > A INACTIVE DISPOSAL SITE DISPOSAL INACTIVE A > ACTIVE LANDFILL ACTIVE -ACTIVELANDFILL SANITARY OHS COUNTY COCHISE POSSIBLE FUTURE SANITARY LAND? SANITARY FUTURE POSSIBLE LEGEND IUE 7 FIGURE: UE 1972 JUNE, TUCSON IST HA* 4 WILSIT AE MAP BASE m : i n TTT WILIS STATUTE EEBR 1971 DECEMBER, NORTH a * • ZON A SI r * m s m Resources for Refuse. Table 3 gives a rough breakout of last year's fiscal and physical resources for handling solid waste. It should be noted that this table does not dipict true resources for solid waste disposal. These true resources are what people would actually be willing to pay for sanitary refuse collection and disposal. Indeed, without public education and information programs, these true resources might well be less than the ‘ existing expenditures! However, for now these are the figures we have to utilize. Because they are relatively small, the communities of Benson and Tombstone are finding it difficult to finance a sanitary landfill. While it is possible that higher service fees or tighter management might alleviate these difficulties to some extent, these communities will always have dif ficulty in the sanitary landfill business without some external support (see page 81 for sanitary landfill cost" figures). The City of Bisbee is financially impeded by its inability to collect fees for its municipal refuse collection * and disposal services. Having defeated the levying of such fees in a recent referendum, the voters are now reluctant to begin paying for a service that they have been getting "free" all along. This revenue starvation makes it financially difficult for Bisbee to establish a sanitary landfill along with all of the other municipal services voters demand. Thus Bisbee too, is in need of some external support. Having established their sanitary landfills, Willcox, Douglas, and Huachuca City appear to be having no insurmountable difficulties in sustaining their operation.. All three sites are used by other agencies, and these cities are receiving a modest reimbursement for their use. One potential problem is that some of the expensive trucks and tractors are nearing the end of their -23- economically useful life and will require replacement within the next few years. Cochise County neither operates nor franchises refuse collection operations of any type. The road crews do maintain a few landfill sites as they happen to be in the area. Also, the County reimburses Douglas and Huachuca City at a rate of $200 per month each in order to allow County residents living outside the incorporated areas the use of these two sanitary landfill sites. This then is the extent of the County's involvement in solid waste management. However, this involvement is in accord with the existing Arizona Statutes even if it is not in accord with either the State Health Department Regulations or with sound solid waste management practices. In addition to lacking financial and organizational resources to provide adequate refuse disposal facilities for County residents, the Cochise County government lacks even the authority to obtain such resources. This problem will be dis cussed in Section 9 . COCIUSK COUNTY - ip/C POPULATION SERVED COST RKVKIUIE SHIPMENT rKUliONKKli GOVBTOMEarif AGENCY (eo t.) (1971 -7 2 ) (1971-72 oat.) nmAiiKu COLLECTION DISPOSAL SERVICE SITK(S) COLLECTION DISPOSAL COLLECTION DISPOSAL TYPE ' QTY. RISK AGE SKILL NO. City of Benson 2,969 3,1+1*7 $1+6,558 $1 6 ,0 0 0 Packer 1 17 CY 1972 Collector 2 Dump Truck 1 2 TN 1962 Trash P.U. 1 Packer 1 13 CY 1966 H.E. Op. 1 Bulldozer 1 - old City of Blsbee 8,552 9,063 $71,075 none Packer 2 10 CY 1971 Collector 8 Packer 1 15 CY 1966 H.E. Op. .2 Pickup 1 3A TN 1966 Mech. 2 Loader 1 City of Douglas 12,956 1 5 ,0 1 6 $79,999 $9 1 ,0 0 0 Dump Truck 1 5 TN H.E. Op. 1 City collects service fees. Track Loader 1 90 IIP Caretaker 1 Contractor is responsible for refuse collection & disposal. Huachuca City 1 ,2 5 0 25,700 $7,919 $1+1+, 356 $12,852 $1+1+,356 Packer 1 13 CY 1956 Scale Op. 1 Packer 1 16 CY 1953 Foreman 1 Dump Truck 1 i& tn 195*4 Collector 3 Bulldozer 1 270 HP Shed/Scale City of 2 2 ,1 5 0 0 80 $1 3 ,2 0 0 $6 ,6 0 0 $0 None Contractor is responsible for Sierra Vista refuse collection and disposal and service fee collection. City of Tombstone 1 , 21+0 1,1+05 $11,1+92 $2 ,0 0 0 $15,827 None City collects service fees. Contractor is responsible for refuse collection and disposal. City of Willcox 2,61+7 3,198 $36,368 $38,385 Packer 3 10 CY 1965 Collector I4 Dump Truck 2 6 CY 1965 H.E. Op. .5 Track Loader 1 150 IIP 1966 Foreman .2 Cochise County 0 • 2 ,2 2 0 $0 $l+,800 $0 $0 The County Hoad Dept, maintains a few la n d fill site s throughout L the County. Cochise County pays $200/mo. to both Douglas and Huachuca City for County TOTALS 4l,7&+ 60,01+9 $320,767 $2 2 5 ,0 2 0 residents* use of their disposal sites. 1 Airricultural Wastes About 58$ of the nation’s solid waste is produced as a result of agricultural operations. Most of these wastes are organic and so are dis posed of on the land where they readily decompose. This practice of disposal upon the land works out nicely as long as the agricultural activities are sufficiently dispersed to allow the land time and space to assimilate the ynste without detrimental environmental effects. Most of the solid waste produced on the 118,000 cultivated acres in Cochise County is sufficiently dispersed to cause no disposal problems. However, there are certain farming pnd agriculture-related activities which do represent a potential health and nuisance threat to county residents. Animal Wastes. There are few agricultural operations in Cochise County in which large numbers of animals are confined in a relatively small area. Only two commercial cattle feedlots are established in the county, fh e re are fewer than ten hog farms containing more than 100 head. Only four dairly farms in the county contain over 100 head. And there are no large commercial poultry operations, (int. 13) These operations are monitered by five representatives of the State Livestock Sanitary Board as well as the County Extension Agent. There appear to be no solid waste handling problems at the moment; however, neither are there any elaborate provisions to control water pollution, land pollution, flies, and odors should these operations expand or change location. Since hauling of manure, even for fertilizer, is not economical, large operations could pile up hundreds of pounds of manure per day. Therefore, it is para mount that the county establish and enforce ordinances regulating both the location and method of solid waste disposal for all agricultural operations - 26- niiich confine large numbers of animals (see Appendix l). Crop Wastes. As with animal wastes, crop wastes are usually returned to the land. The stalks and leaves of harvested plants are plowed under to provide humus for future crops. Some crop residues are burned in accordance with State law in order to control weeds, insects, or disease. Although this ■burning does contribute briefly to air pollution, it is regarded as the lesser of two evils. Certain other crop residues, such as tree trimmings, are burned simply because of expediency. Even though this latter form of burning is not in accordance with State law, the magnitude of any problems created^ does not justify vast expenditures of funds for control and enforcement. Processing and Packing Plants. There are 18 agricultural processing plants in Cochise County, including two meat packing plants and two fertilizer/ •insecticide mixing plants. The remaining 16 plants process vegetables, grain, . and cotton. Although sanitation standards of those plants are rigidly con trolled by State law, the quantities of solid waste and waste disposal methods were not investigated. There are only about lljOO acres of deciduous orchard crops. -27- Tn^natrial Wastes Cochise County has only two large industries — Phelps Dodge Company 2 and the Apache Powder Company. Both industries dispose of large volumes of relatively, inert waste on their own property. Because these methods of solid waste disposal are not in violation of any existing code, and because there appears to be no pollution, health, or aesthetics problem connected with the disposal, a detailed investigation was not undertaken. 2 These two industries are singled out because they do not dispose of their waste through public disposal systems. - 28- FUTURE PROJECTIONS like the cost of living, refuse quantities are sure to increase. As mentioned in Section 2, Cochise County residents can expect to discard 77,857 tons of refuse by 1980, due to more people and more disposables. Figure 12 shows the magnitude of refuse generation at the various population centers in 1975 and 1980. Increases in refuse generation over the eight year period from 1972 to 1980 can be found by comparing Figure 12 with Figure 3 on page 13. In general, every population center will need nore land, more equipment, and more money to handle its refuse. For those areas without adequate disposal facilities today, the problem will intensify by about 1,500 pounds of refuse each year for every person living in the area. A summary of future generation rates is presented in Table k> From Table U we may note that if the county could assist the population centers to upgrade their disposal sites to at least landfills by 1975, 62,049 tons of refuse (96$) could be controlled. - - 29 , o R A H A M C O U N T Y \ O R E IlNLEE • \ C O U N T Y r *19 E 21 4.22 23 ‘ 25 26 r - — - \ W - - 7 T -----T------p E r ^ y y r ; T.I2 S •r I JWIE Jo' p -5 l ! / 1 * a« d m v . i r i _ POPULATION CENTERS I S i* ^ - E 1975 ic c A~, v _ % c « L 8 ( ^ : -485? , yj 1980 r5c X ■34 . 'iltco* _L E 4 \ p - > -l4( % "^yvi ^ IS V’ o # b * w # 0 o X- [cftia F - r -V: '/ w, h u o° A iy> L.tte Dm \ A CocNi ,?-380 P- 9 ,9 9 9 POPULATION S-268 175 1 „ *80 S - 9,999 REFUSE (TONS/YR) TT "Comet 4 5 2 l % Ademe r - i s ^ p i SUE / kom w en e i s P-r3i< v - n h 0 T S —60 6 ^ % SwIpAur t> WWl it | y I ?• X S- ZO^A . 7 0 : C i Q»* / 4 7 4 - T?1 T u f r e v ['80 FIGURE: 12 16 k C " >29 N?s- J ! x n S . / r r < vi. j Baquiiies % l\Court»«n<4 noitm SAN JUAN DE U>S ' ^,W 3: , Jr\ t CT 4>1 LL^g' Y NOGALES GFA> ELJRII eirbenk I ° kNebb - a t: | , . . Q \ 3 “* ' X [ 8 o:*. o X Elfride S ' l w - ” - r , ( x y s | , 8 ^ ## ^ > - ^ L STATUTE MILES v ^ ',8\l1V ^ DECEMBER, 1971 MrlestOn- 0 r fl^occ'rrxr' •- J - r n " t > sitifli; vi3 — ' 4 4 ; S £ ARIZONA A>%, < » I .tssr? 4 v A y 1 if l towgj , 1 h FOREST r ,'80 t Z>.1 2 ' - S-1^68)] ^ WIISIY A HAM i yon S p r in g < XL/ " ' N o cowoNjreo fy ^uiSguT'f* ^ ------z L a TUCSON ARIZONA INTERNATIONAL _MEJ ^ C iF 'C . j y X . y 4 I / San BEWNARDINPkZL * J ------— ___ 2£a n t _____ L 7 X ^ THE PREPARATION OF THIS MAP WAS FINANCIALLY AIDED THROUGH A GRANT TCSScl ” 7 n Z $ f “ ^ 8 0 FROM*"THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING 6 URBAN DEVELOPMENT,UNDER THE s o "n ~ ' “ a URBAN PLANNING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 701 OF l - ^ h s p-i72T'r8r s M’0^6i THE HOUSING ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED. REVISED FROM US9S BASE MAR FOR ARIZONA isTi-oiot.ee COGHIS# COUNTY 12§0 1970 1212 . . 221s 1280 1220 TOTAL COUNTY POPULATION $$,039 61,910 69,600 [ 73.700 79,820 98,000 INCORPORATED CITY POPULATION • 35,358* 51,734 54,987 49,036 RURAL AREA POPULATION 26,552 17,866 18,713 19,784 POPULATION CENTER POPULATION 56,^00 65,103 68,988 73,855 REMAINING COUNTY POPULATION 5,i|10 4,497 4,712 5,965 TOTAL COUNTY REFUSE (T/1YR) 36,171 49,537 57,942 65,112 77,857 116,435 TOTAL INC. CITY REFUSE 37,174 44,667 51,261 61,085 RURAL AREA REFUSE 12,363 12,275 13,851 16,772 TOTAL POP. CENTER REFUSE 45.765 45,340 62,049 73,697 REMAINING COUNTY REFUSE 3,772 2,602 3,063 4,i6o AVERAGE REFUSE GENERATION 3.60 4.38 4.56 4.84 5.34 6.51 RATE r-lb/cap/day (x=2fo) * Excludes Fort Huachuca - 31- GENERAL DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES Until space flight becomes more economical, man will be obliged to dispose of that waste which he cannot reuse in any of three media — water, land, and air. Cochise County is practically limited to dispose of its refuse in the latter two of these media. But because the land and air are precious limited resources as well as waste disposal media, it is vital that the disposal methods selected are ecologically as well as economically sound. Methods of Collection In general, refuse collection methods used will depend upon the size and population density of an area. Even though Cochise County does not have a large potential source of revenue to finance an elaborate house-to-house collection system, there are still attractive options open for providing convenient, sanitary refuse collection service for most of the County1s residents. A summary comparison of three refuse collection methods is given •in Table 5>. Individual Haul to Disposal Site. This method is the most widely used means of refuse disposal in the unincorporated areas of the County. It is the least expensive method to the government in the short run, but is probably the most expensive to the individual resident. Assuming that he has access to a disposal site two or three miles away, a resident would require about 30 minutes to load, drive to the site, dump his refuse, then return. If he does this four times a month, he has used two hours of his time; he has incurred $1.50 in vehicle operating costs, and he has probably been inconvenienced. This cost and inconvenience is usually less than the -32- cost of paying a commercial collector in areas of less than. 100 people per square mile. However, a problem will arise as the inconvenience increases, because then the resident will either store the refuse too long, or he will dispose of it improperly. Individual Haul to Transfer Point. Here, some type of refuse collec tion container is located between disposal sites to fill in the distance'gaps. The convenience to rural residents living more than a few miles from a disposal site is thus improved, and their personal disposal costs are reduced. Hence, improper refuse storage and collection is decreased. However, the government nust incur a considerable cost to provide such service (see Section 9 )"• Urban Collection. In areas where frequent refuse pickup is provided to every residence, problems of improper dumping virtually disappear, and health problems .due to long refuse storage are greatly reduced. However, this improvement is even more costly; consequently, it is not economically feasible in areas with less than 30 services per mile. (Gen. Ref. 2:1;78) This is a density of about $00 persons per square mile in a slightly clustered population distribution. - 33- TABLE $ COMPARISON OF COLLECTION METHODS COLLECTION METHOD ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Individual Haul to Disposal 1. There is no cost to the 1. Individual incurs high Site local government. cost. 2. Improper disposal is common. 3. Refuse is stored too long. Individual Haul to Transfer 1. Disposal point is more 1. Local government incurs moderate Point convenient to resident. cost for equipment and labor. 2. People tend to store refuse 2. Organization and support a shorter time, reducing facilities must be provided. health hazards. 3. Indiscriminate dumping is reduced. Municipal/Contractor Door- 1. Resident incurs maximum 1. Government incurs high cost to-Door Collection. convenience and least cost. for entire system. 2. Refuse storage time is 2. Either a separate department minimized. or an extensive contract is required. 3. Indiscriminate dumping is minimized. 1 - 3 k - Methods of Disposal As with refuse collection methods, refuse disposal methods will vary with the characteristics of each area. In selecting a disposal method for an area, such factors as public health features, weather, costs, collection procedures, salvage capabilities, public opinion, and future conditions should be taken into account. Many of these conditions are relatively similar for all areas within the County, nevertheless, they should all be considered. Table 6 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of the methods discussed below: Open Dump. Most of the undesirable affects of open dumping have been examined in previous sections. It is, of course, the least expensive disposal method in the short run. However, because dumped refuse accumulates even faster than the population, sooner or later man must pay for his neglect. Landfill. A landfill disposal site may be classified somewhere between an open dump and a sanitary landfill in terms of cost and health standards. Refuse disposed of in a landfill is periodically consolidated, compacted, and covered. The .frequency of compaction and cover may vary from two or three times per week to two or three times per year, but unless the refuse is properly covered and compacted daily or as it is deposited, the operation cannot be termed a sanitary landfill. Sanitary Landfill. The most frequently used definition of a sanitary landfill was prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers* Committee on Sanitary Landfill Practice: Sanitary landfill is a method of disposing of refuse on land without creating nuisances or hazards to public health or safety, by utilizing the principles of engineering to confine the refuse to the smallest practical area, to reduce it to the smallest volume, and to cover it with a layer of earth at the conclusion of each day*s operation or at such more frequent intervals as may be necessary. (Gen. Ref. 11:1) - 35- As with any sanitary method of disposal, a sanitary- landfill does cost money to operate, but in areas such as Cochise County where land is available and groundwater tables are low, this method is generally superior to any other. Figures 13 and ll* show sanitary landfill costs versus popu lation compiled from two independent surveys. Although the curves differ slightly in magnitudes, it can readily be seen that there are significant economies of scale in operating the larger sanitary landfills. -36- 1.75 ISO L25 WO .75 FIGURE 13 ao .25 !0 20 40 60 80 100 200 400 600 800000 POPULATION (IN THOUSANDS) i Costs per ton of landfill operation according to population range. (Per. 10:89) V i . SANITARY LANDFILL OPERATING COSTS 2.00 FIGURE 14 TONS PER YEAR 100,000 200,000 300.000 TONS PER DAY' 400.000 500.000 320 640 960 1280 POPULATION» 122,000 1600 244,000 366.000 488.000 610.000 Based on 6-day work week. * Based on national average of 4.5 lbs per person per calendar day. (Gen. Ref. 15:23) ■37- Central Incineration. A central incineration plant reduces refuse to ash through high-temperature burning. The high temperatures are attained through careful control of drafts and through agitation of the refuse to expose pin burning surfaces. A well operated, high temperature incinerator produces complete, smokeless combustion. Incineration is not a complete disposal method. The process reduces the weight of incoming refuse by 2/3 and reduces its volume by l*/5. However, the ash must then be .disposed of in a landfill site. The main advantages of a refuse incineration plant is that it requires a small amount of land and so can be centrally located more easily than can a sanitary landfill. However, this advantage must be paid for by the high capital and operating costs of the incinerator. A well operated incinerator, like a well operated sanitary landfill, is clean and nuisance-free. However, if proper equipment and procedures are not used, the incinerator can become a gross polluter. Economies of scale are also an important factor with incinerators. The total annual cost of a central incinerator processing 100 tons per day is about $7.00 per ton, while one processing 1*00 tons per day would cost only about $2.50 per ton (Sp. Rep. 7 0 1 ) • Since even a "small" 100 ton per day unit would serve a population of 1|0,000 people, Cochise County would be unable to take advantage of any economies of scale afforded by the larger units. Although using the heat from burned refuse as an energy source for beat and power is an attractive possibility, it has generally been found impractical. However, experiments are currently being conducted in St. Louis in which an amount of fossil fuel is used in the combustion process to stabilize combustion and temperature. Preliminary results are encouraging, but complete -38- disposal costs still run about $3«70 per ton for a 98O ton per day unit, even assuming a $3.00 per ton value of refuse as a heat source. (Per. lU:58) Composting. A commercial composting operation usually involves several steps: receipt of the raw refuse; separation (usually by hand) of the noncompost able and salvageable materials; disposal and/or sale of these materials; grinding of remaining refuse; aerobic digestion in a chamber under controlled moisture and temperature conditions; curing; and disposal of compost by sale or landfill. The process up to the curing stage requires only a few days. The curing takes place in a large field where the compost is laid in •windrows and turned periodically for several weeks. The end product, compost, is a dark, sanitary, humus-like material Tffr-t r>b is useful as a soil conditioner. It is similar to peat moss or mulch. ■While compost is not nutritionally deficient, it is not sufficiently rich •in elements to be used as a plant fertilizer. However, as a soil conditioner, compost added to the soil improves it in a number of ways: 1. Compost in the soil improves its workability. Composted soil is easier to till, more porous, and better aerated. 2. Soil with compost holds more water and holds it longer than soil containing little organic material. Although no studies have been made on the reduced irrigation requirements, it is known that compost will retain 300 percent moisture by weight. (Gen. Ref. 1:300) 3. Composted soils have much greater resistance to erosion. This is because the soil structural strength is increased and the "spongy" compost material absorbs the energy of the falling raindrops. U. Compost in the soil greatly aids the microbes' ability to break down essential mineral compounds and gradually release them for plant assimi lation. This action prevents leaching of these chemicals and produces crops with a four to nine percent higher nutritional value. (Per. 11:237) In this age of environmental concern, the concept of producing a beneficial soil conditioner from household and commercial waste is appealing. Pew people who are familiar with the soils in Cochise County would deny that -39- such a soil conditioner is sorely needed in many area. Yet- most of the com posting plants in the U.S. have closed due to poor market demand for the end product. This situation at first seems paradoxical until the economics of the situation are examined in more detail. The farmer has always had a natural form of compost available to him as either animal manure or a green crop plowed under. And he has always known that the addition of this natural compost to his soil would eventually increase crop yields. However, when $0 pounds per acre of chemical fertilizer vill increase crop yields as much as 1+0 tons per acre of manure or compost, vhy should he spend several times as much to purchase, haul, spread, and plow the organic material? Now it is true that the action of compost to increase crop yields is different from the beneficial action of chemical fertilizer. In fact, adding compost with chemical fertilizer will increase — potato crop yields by 11 percent over increased yields produced by chemicals alone. (Per. 11:276) But the economic justification for compost in agricul ture is still lacking. Even if the farmer did demand compost, he would use it only intermittently, creating a highly elastic and fluctuating market. A high quality compost is packaged and sold to gardeners in some areas, but it is expensive to produce because of the meticulous separation required. This market for compost is definitely limited. Until agriculture places a higher value on conditioned soil, the most promising future for compost appears to be in environmental concerns. Producing compost causes no pollution, and the product can be used to reclaim waste land. Today in the U.S. there are 800,000 acres of land rendered useless by strip mining. The Four Comers area in Arizona is eucumming. In Cochise County there are hundreds of square miles of unused arid lands. The reclamation of these lands with compost should definitely he studied further, hut it is not a short-term solution to the County* s solid waste problem. Salvage and Reclamation. This is usually only a partial disposal method, at best. To be salvageable, refuse must be sorted and separated either at its generation source or upon receipt at the disposal facility. Since separation and special handling are costly, a favorable market must exist for the salvaged materials if the operation is to be sustained. Like composting, the concept of salvage and reuse of solid waste is appealing. Wastes which are buried in a landfill or burned in an incinerator are resources that have very little chance of ever being used again. Re claiming these resources is only sound management. Yet as with compost, the market for rags, paper, glass, rubber, metals, and garbage fluctuates greatly among different localities and over time. These fluctuations are partially due to the small size of most salvage operations, and partly due to the fact that salvaged materials represent only a secondary raw materials source for most industries. Probably the refuse material with the most salvage potential is paper. To be useful to industry, salvaged paper must be cleaned and sorted according to grade. Prices of paper delivered to the mill range from $28 per ton for haled newsprint to $130 per ton for bleached kraft pulp. (Gen. Ref. 9:110) At present, no paper is being salvaged in Cochise County on a regular basis due to high shipping costs to distant markets. Iron, especially in the form of cans, is a more lucrative form of salvage in the County. The Phelps Dodge Company uses almost 1,000 tons of scrap iron and steel every month in extracting copper from a leached acid solution. Half of the scrap iron used in the copper plant is in the form of steel cans. The cans are first ‘burned and cleaned to take off the labels the tin coating. They are then baled or shredded and shipped to the leaching plant in Bisbee for a delivered price of about $65 per ton. The other half of the scrap iron is comprised of bulk iron such as stripped junk autos, old appliances, and machinery. This heavy scrap is worth about $20 per ton delivered. Unfortunately, local agencies supply only about 10 - 15 percent of the scrap iron used by Phelps Dodge. About 90 percent of the tin cans used are shipped from Los Angeles. Those cans supplied locally are salvaged from the disposal sites at Benson and Bisbee. Junk auto dealers in Douglas and Bisbee do supply some heavy scrap to Phelps Doge, but most of the required . tonnage comes from the National Metals Company in Tucson. While it is * doubtful that a profitable iron salvage operation could be effected at the jaany small disposal sites in the County, there would seem to be no reason •why profitable metals salvage could not be conducted at the large sanitary landfills at Douglas and Huachuca City. The average quantity of tin cans by weight is 8 percent of the total refuse. Thus Douglas and Huachuca City would theoretically be able to salvage 20 and 35 tons of cans per week, res pectively. The operation would require an electromagnetic separater, plus periodic burning, cleaning, smashing and hauling to Bisbee. A possible pro blem would be establishing an area for spreading and separating the refuse, then collecting and disposing of the residual. At any rate, Cochise County is one of the few areas of the U.S. where an active, stable market for sal vaged cans exists, and these two cities should further explore this opportunity. The markets for non-ferrous metals are consistently good. Examples of 1970 prices are as follows: aluminum scrap, $0.10 to SO,12/lb; copper scrap, SO.25 to S0.1i0/lb; brass scrap, $0.2$ to $0.1t0/lb (Gen. Ref. 9:108). Presently, small scale continuing efforts are being male in some areas of the County to salvage aluminum cans. Beyond this, attempted salvage of non- ferrous metals would probably not be profitable due to the small quantities found in refuse. A considerable quantity of salvaged glass is used in the glass mak ing process as cullet. However, in order to be useful to glass makers, this salvaged glass must be completely cleaned and carefully sorted as to type and color. The high costs of sorting coupled with expensive shipping costs make the $10 to $1$ per ton paid for delivered salvaged glass uneconom ical for most small operations, including those in Cochise County. As a result, most cullet is obtained either from the glass makers* own waste, or - •' from manufacturers who generate large quantities of homogeneous glass scrap incidental to their operations. The rubber industry annually obtains reclaimed rubber tires. In 1970, processors were paying about $7.$0 per ton for rubber tires. (Gen. Ref. 9:11U) • This price would definitely not justify an old tire reclamation operation in Cochise County. This low economic incentive is especially rmfortunate, because tires will tend to work their way to the surface of sanitary landfills, unless they are first sliced, which is a nuisance. There are other materials in refuse such as rags and plastics which have a potential market value. However, the salvage of those materials requires much hand sorting and expensive shipment to distant markets, render ing the process uneconomical in Cochise County. Specific information on solid waste recycling may be obtained by writing to the National Association of Secondary Material Industries (NASMl), 33O Madison Ave., New York, 10017* Supplemental Disposal Methods♦ In recent years, processes have "been developed for grinding, shredding, pulping, and baling refuse. All of these processes are designed to reduce the volume of refuse, and all require ex pensive machinery. Until the price of the land area saved more nearly approaches the cost of the volume reduction that can be realized through use of these methods, they will not be applicable for Cochise County. Conclusions From the preceding discussion and Table 5> it would appear that the individual haul to transfer points coupled with the sanitary landfill appears to be the best combination of collection and disposal methods for Cochise County. Municipal and contractor refuse collection should definitely be sustained in those areas where it is presently operated. While it would be impractical for the County to conduct door-to-door refuse collection, a system of refuse collection and haul from large, centrally located containers at convenience stations to sanitary landfills is feasible and would provide proper refuse disposal for 93 percent of the County residents by 1980. The economics and locations of this system will be discussed further in Section VII. COMPARISON OK REFUSE DISPOSAL METHODS AVERAGE DISPOSAL METHOD ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES SEPARATION REQUIRED COST / TON Open Dump 1. has negligible short-run cost. ' 1. provides breeding grounds for None 0 insect and rodent vectors of disease 2. pollutes air and water. 3. ruins aesthetics of the \ landscape. 1*. harbors numerous fire and safety hazards. Landfill 1. has low capital and operating 1. still incurs most of the None $ .50 - 2.00 costs. disadvantages of the open dump to a lesser degree. 2. partially controls disease vectors. 3. partially controls scattered refuse. Sanitary Landfill 1• usually requires moderate 1. requires large amounts of land Large, bulky items such as 8 1.50 - 5.00 capital investment. which may be available only at old refrigerators, oil considerable distances. drums, etc. should be 2. has moderate operating costs. buried in a separate 2. must have daily operation, which trench. 3* ia a complete disposal method. is expensive for small sanitary la n d fills. 1|. can handle virtually any kind of solid waste. 3. decomposition of waste in completed la n d fills results in 5. is flexible. A sanitary land settlement and production of f i l l can readily accommodate / methane gas. increased quantities of refuse with little additional personnel 1*. when completed, only limited or equipment. construction is possible on sanitary landfills. 6. provides means of reclaiming submarginal laqd. 5. may incur public opposition if located near residential areas. Composting 1. recycles organic waste other 1. capital and operating costs are Host inorganic materials $ 5.00 - 10.00 wise buried or burned. high. such as glass, metals, and stones must be / 2. process easily salvages metal, 2. marketing of end prbduct is removed. glass, paper. uncertain. 3 . product has beneficial use as 3. extensive separation is required. soil conditioner. I*, unsalvage able material must be I4. operation is pollution free. disposed of. AVER APR DISPOSAL MBTHOD ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGKO SKPARATION REQUIRED COST/TOW Incineration 1 . requires a small amount of land. 1 • has high capital and operating Although only large or I 2.50 - 7.00 costs. hazardous items have to be 2 . can be centrally located, separated, salvage of necessitating shorter hauls. 2 . requires skilled operators and reusable materials may repair men. readily be accomplished at 3 . residue is less nuisance an incinerator plant. than raw refuse. 3. equipment may be damaged by wire, f usable metals, explosives, .1 L. operation is unaffected by or plastics. climate or inclement weather. h. may incur public opposition if 5 . operation is flexible. located in residential areas. 5 . ash and residue must be disposed of elsewhere. Salvage 1. reclaims resources from waste. 1. separating and shipping costs All salvaged materials Varies often render operation must be separated. 2 . may, in certain instances, be unecomical. profitable enough to offset disposal costs. Baling 1. reduces volume of refuse. 1. is not a complete disposal Only very large items. I 1.72 + method. Baled refuse must s t i l l landfill costs 2 . eliminates subsequent settlement be hauled and deposited. and gas in landfill. 2 . requires large volumes of refuse 3 . eliminates many sanitary and to ju stify equipment purchase. aesthetic objections to refuse. 1*. facilitates refuse handling. Shredding 1• eliminates public health 1. is not a complete disposal Large, bulky items must $ 0.50 + nuisances of refuse due to method. Shredded refuse must be separated. Also, any landfill costs dispersion of organic components. still be hauled and deposited. items such as cable which might foul the 2 . reduces volume of refuse. hammermill muet be separated. 3 . reduces subsequent settlement of la n d fill. Z4. facilitates refuse decomposition. * Includes ammortization of capital costs. The low figures are costs for a large scale operation and 1 the high figures are costs for small scale operation. • Cochise County disposal operations w ill tend toward the high figures. SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF STORAGE, COLLECTION, AND HALL Once it has been decided to provide refuse storage and collection service to certain county population centers, the collection system must be designed and organized. As with sanitary landfills, there are many aspects to such a system that are not readily apparent. The capital requirements for a refuse collection system may be classified into two basic categories: equipment and support facilities. Equipment includes all mobile or semi-mobile items such as trucks and refuse containers. Support facilities include convenience stations, administrative offices, and a maintenance yard. Equipment The two equipment requirem ents fo r a storage, c o lle c tio n , and haul system are the containers to store the refuse and the vehicles to haul^it. A summary of this refuse handling equipment is presented in Table 7« Refuse C ontainers. The two b asic types of box-type refu se containers on the market today are the compacting and the non-compacting types. These containers range in size from 1* cubic yards to 1|0 cubic yards (see Figure 1 $ ). Host sizes over 8 cubic yards are designed to be hoisted onto a trailer and hauled to the disposal site as a single unit; on the other hand, the smaller containers can be lifted up over the truck bed and emptied through the use of a hydraulic arm mechanism on the truck (see Figure 16). The difference between the compacting and non-compacting models is that the compacting con tainers contain a small motorized hydraulic unit connected to a ram inside the container. Compaction ratios of three to one are claimed by the manu facturers, although compactions of two to one (about 1|00 pounds per cubic yard) are probably more realistic. Small - non compacting &j ■1 • f- Small Compacting Large - Compacting FIGURE 15 Refuse Containers - . _ J Dumping forks engage container sleeves. Container is lifted. Container is rotated and contents oumped into packer body. Stationary Non-Compacting Container Hoisted onto Truck FIGURE 16 Stationary Compacting Container Hoisted onto Truck FIGURE 17 -1*9- Although these refuse containers come in a variety of sizes and shapes, there are several important criteria which should be considered in their selection. The capacity of the container should exceed the expected volume of refuse in order to allow for both temporary surges in refuse generation and future growth. This excess capacity might range from SO-lQOfo for units under 10 cubic yards to only 25% for larger units. The containers should be easy to open and close to encourage maximum useage. Harrow doors, -tricky latches, and high openings should be avoided. Spring loaded top doors are best. The containers should be of sturdy construction (12 gage steel) and as "tight" as possible. Reinforcement of floor and bumpers is a must. The containers should have some type of built-in pallet or feet to keep the bottom plate off the ground. Finally, the container should have a drain with a plug in order to allow for drainage after cleaning. - The compactor type containers should not be located in an unattended area for three reasons: (l) They require a three phase 208/220 volt power connection; (2) the hydraulic unit is susceptible to vandalism; (3) even with safety interlock, there is some risk in allowing the public to operate the compactor. The compactor containers will generally hold about twice the volume of refuse per cubic yard capacity as the non-compacting units. Collection Vehicles. The type of truck selected will depend in large measure upon the type of container selected. There are basically two types of trucks. One style features a hydraulic arm assembly for lifting refuse containers over the cab and into the body where they are tilted and emptied. Trucks can handle containers as large as eight cubic yards in this manner (see Figure 16). The loaded refuse is then compacted inside the truck body by a hydraulic ram. Containers larger than 20 cubic yards are transported by another type of truck which hydraulically loads the container onto the truck chassis from the rear -50- 1 (see Figure 17). Once loaded, the entire refuse container may he tilted for unloading in a manner similar to that of a dump truck. An important aspect in selecting a refuse truck is insuring that it has the capability and reliability to do the job. Equally important is total annual cost which includes not only initial cost amortization, but also annual maintenance, repair and operating costs. It is essential that the driver be able to control all operations - loading, unloading and dumping - from the cab. The truck body should be completely enclosed when not loading to eliminate blowing refuse. A mounted pressurized container washout system is also essential to allow the driver to wish out the containers with deodorant-disinfectant on a monthly basis. -$ 1 - TABU? 7 REFUSE COLLECTION EQUIPMENT COMPACTION APPROX. EQUIPMENT TYPE CAPABILITY CAPACITY STYLE ' COST * Refuse Container no 2 cu. yd. Top li d $ 185 Refuse Container no 1* cu. yd. Top li d $ 285 Refuse Container no 6 cu. yd. Spring loaded top lid, side door S 370 Refuse Container no 8 cu. yd. Spring loaded top lid, side door S 45o Refuse Container yes 5 cu. yd. Front hopper $ 1,945 Rufuse Container yes 2i| cu. yd. Front hopper « 3,663 Refuse Container yes • 31* cu. yd: Front hopper $ 4,656 Collection Truck yes 25 cu. yd. Single axle hydraulic front loading $27,000 ** Collection Truck yes 35 cu. yd. Tandum axle hydraulic front loading $30,500 ** Truck with Container NA • 21* cu. yd. Single axle hydraulic Loading Chassis rear loading $17,5 oo Truck with Container NA 31* cu. yd. Tandum axle hydraulic Loading Chassis rear loading $20,500 * Does not include taxes or shipping costs. > ** Includes 70 gallon washout tank. -52- Support Facilities Until it ‘becomes economically feasible to provide house-to-house refuse collection, some centrally located refuse collection facility must be provided. In those population centers where sanitary landfills are located, the sanitary landfill will serve as a collection facility. In all other areas, a special collection facility must be provided. This collection facility in its simplest form could be no more than a wide spot in the road with a litter barrel at one end. However, the slightly more elaborate con venience station appears to provide the most efficient, convenient, and sanitary means of handling quantities of refuse within the rural population centers in the county. Two possible configurations of convenience stations are shown in Figures 18 and 19. Rural Convenience Station. Figure 18 depicts a rural convenience • * station requiring no electric power or attendant. This station would employ two or three small box-type refuse containers for household rubbish and garbage. A large open container is provided for bulky items such as appliances, three trimmings, etc. All containers would be recessed to allow unloading cars and pickups to be emptied without lifting the refuse. Rear access is provided for the collection trucks. Guide signs should be posted outside and inside the area to direct dumping. Also, a fence is required to catch blowing paper and limit access. A summary of estimated costs for a typical rural convenience station is given in Table 8 . - 53-. c&rwarfiftKNGM: jtTAT-r&w 25 '"tO CY OPEN TRASH RECEPTICAL x — X y — h - CONCRETE X ,: V W 4 -8 CY VC* REFUSE CorflflitJek \ concrete / x y , RETAINS WALLVjZ (4 FT ABOVE GRADE) MANEUVER AREA Ce a e v a t e .0 a / ud gravelled) GATE TRUCK ACCESS PUBLIC ACCESS DITCH CULVERT/ I TABLE 8 COST ESTIMATE RURAL CONVENIENCE STATION ITEM UNITSRATEAMOUNT 1. Clear Site 1 acre $375 $375 $400 2. Install Culvert Trench 45 CY $2.20 $ 99 Corregated 18" Culvert 150 LF 5.00 750 Place Culvert 150 LF 1.20 180 $1,200 3. Install Retaining Wall U* Concrete 90 LF • $25 $2,250 $2,800 4. Place Fill Material Excavate Fill 400 CY $0.50 $200 Haul Fill 81 HR 14.00 1,130 Equipment Move In 180 Doze, Grade, Compact 400 CY 0.75 300 Hand Backfill 5 CY • 3.50 20 1,838 $2,300 5. Construct Concrete Steps 48" Stairs, 5 Risers 3 EA • $165 $495 $600 6. Spread Gravel Gravel Material 60 CY $2.50 $150 Haul (10 loads at 2$ mi) 16 HR 14.00 225 Spread, Compact 60 CY 0.75 45 $420 $900 7. Place Bumper Guards Creosote R.R. Ties 40 LF $0.82 $330 $400 8. Install Chain Link Fence Fence, #9 Wire 6 1 120 LF $3.60 $430 $540 9. Widen Highway- Base Preparation 109 SY $0.40 $ 43 Base Course 109 SY 1.35 147 Surface Course 109 SY 2.00 208 Restrip Lines 10 200 LF 0.10 20 $418 $520 10. Install Guide Signs Highway Signs (2 EA) 8 SF $13 $104 Site Signs (2 EA) 12 SF 13 156 $260 " 55- TABLE 8 (continued) SITE TOTAL $9,680 Uniform Annual Cost Si, 21*0 (10 year amortization at 5$) LAND COST S 800 Equivalent Annual Lease S 50 EQUIPMENT COST (3 EA 6 CY) $1,100 1 EA 30 CY) 2,000 $3,100 Uniform Annual Cost $ 716 (5 year amortization) SITE MAINTENANCE COST Annual Average Cost S 500 t o t a l INITIAL COST $13,1*80 Total Uniform Annual Cost $2,506 BOTES: 1. The figures shown in the far right column include 25$ for profit and overhead. 2. A 5$ mimimum attractive rate of return is used for amortizing all County expenditures. 3. No salvage value is assumed at the end of the - amortization periods. 1|. Appropriate share of vehicle costs (Table ) should be added to above figures. XJBITS l e g e n d SY Square Yards CY Cubic Yards LF Linear Foot HR Hours EA Each -56- Community Convenience Station. Figure 19 depicts a-community con venience station with stationary packer type refuse containers. Since this type of container does require a part-time attendant, the community convenience station should be located near a commercial establishment so that a part-time attendant can periodically operate the compactor unit. The refuse containers need not be recessed since the hopper unit on this packer type container does have a relatively low loading height. As with the rural convenience station, guide signs and perimeter fence are required. A summary of estimated costs for a typical community convenience station is given in Table 9. -57- S G / \ L Is I " - 2 2 0 2*0 V POWER UNDERGROUND CONDUIT -X— X— X—X— X— X— X—#—X— X eo-4o c.v. compacting REFUSE CONTAINERS ■X—X— X— x— x—-X-- X—X DRAINAGE PAVED ^ y W ^ N o u i X highway LEFT TURN I COMMUNITY COf/YEIVlE NCE St a t i c tv FIGURE 19 TABLE 9 COST ESTIMATE COMMUNITY CONVENIENCE STATION . ITEM UNITS RATE AMOUNT 1. Clear Site i- Acre $375 $ 9h $100 2. Excavate Drainage Doze and Grade 200 CY $0.50 $100 $120 3. Place Fill Material Excavate Fill 100 CY $0.50 $ 50 Haul Fill 20 HR ih .o o 280 Equipment Move In 180 Doze, Grade, Compact 100 CY 0.75 l i f t m It. Spread Gravel Gravel Material ho CY $2.50 $100 . Haul (5 loads at 25 mi) 10 HR ih .o o ih o Spread, Compact 1 HR 20.00 20 $260 *120 5. Place Bumper Guards Creosote R.R. Ties 20 LF $0.82 $ 16, * 20 6. Pave Turnouts Base Preparation 135 SY $0.h0 $ 5h Base Course 135 SY 1.35 181 Bituminous Surface 135 SY 2.00 270 # 5 H j o 7. Connect Electric Power #8 3-wire cable 100 LF $0.50 $ 50 Trench 100 CY 2.20 220 Electrical Connections ——— 100 $370 * m 8. Widen Highway Base Preparation 109 SY So. ho $ h3 Base Course 109 SY 1.35 lh7 Bituminous Surface 109 SY 2.00 208 Stripping 200 LF 0.10 20 $h!8 j S 2 9. Install Chain Link Fence Fence, #9 Wire 6* 300 LF $3.60 $1,080 Gates (2 EA) 10 hO LF 15.50 620 $1,700 *2,120 10. Install Guide Signs Highway Signs (2 EA) 8 SF $13 $ioh Site Signs (2 EA) 12 SF 13 _ i5 £ $260 TABLE 9 (continued) SITE TOTAL $5,31+0 Uniform Annual Cost $690 (10 year amortization) LAND COST $ 300 Equivalent Annual Lease $ 25 EQUIPMENT COST (2 EA 30 CY) $8,300 Uniform Annual Cost $1,917 SITE MAINTENANCE COST —— Annual Average Cost SUoo TOTAL INITIAL COST $13,91+0 Total Uniform Annual Cost $3,032 NOTES: 1. A 5$ minimum attractive rate of return is used for ammortizing all County expenditures. A 2. No salvage value is assumed at the end of the amortization periods. 3. Appropriate share of vehicle costs (Table 11) should he added to the above figures. U. The figures in the far right column include 25% for profit and overhead. UNITS LEGEND SY Square Yards CY Cubic Yards LF Linear Feet HR Hours EA Each -60- Maintenance Garage. A garage is necessary in order, to provide a place to park, repair, and clean the collection vehicles. Typical cost estimates for this facility are shown in Table 10. -6 1 - TABLE 10 COST ESTIMATE MAINTENANCE GABAGE FUNCTION AREA RATEAMOUNT Parking Stalls - Two Trucks 720 SF $7.50 $5,400 Shop 360 SF 12.80 4,600 Administrative Office 120 SF 25.75 3,100 Ground Slab 8 CY 34.00 300 Tools and Equipment 3,000 Land 0.25 Acre 300 $16,700 USE Uniform Annual Cost (20 year amortization) 11,364: Operations The storage, collection and haul operations for Cochise County would thus involve a number of convenience stations, at least one collection vehicle, and a maintenance/parking garage. If only one truck were used, two men must be employed to allow for sick and annual leave plus supervisory arWl administrative duties. If two trucks were used, three men would be required. A summary of annual vehicle costs is presented in Table 11. Standards of operation will depend, to a large extent, upon the type of organization under which the collection and haul operations are conducted. Organization will be discussed further in Section 9; however, some general standards for collection and haul operations are given below: 1. Refuse should be collected at least once per week. 2. Refuse containers and truck containers should be washed with disinfectant at least once per month. A 3. Specific collection routes should be established and schedules adhered to. U. Operation and maintenance records should be kept on all equipment. -63- TABLE 11 ANNUAL VEHICLE COSTS Collection Truck (Cap.30 CY) Initial Cost $27,000 Uniform Annual Cost 85,750 * (5 YR amortization at 5%) Operating Costs 6,750 ($4.50/fcR at l t3>00 HR) Labor 16,000 (l.5 men at $10,600) Garage amortized cost) 680 $ 29,180 Container Hoist Truck Initial Cost $18,000 Uniform Annual Cost $3,830 (5 YR amortization at $%) Operating Costs 6,750 ($4.50/4m at 1,500 HR) Labor 16,000 (l.5 men at $10,600) Garage amortized cost) 680 $27,260 * Assume 10^ salvage value SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF SANITARY LANDFILLS . Certainly one of the advantages to the sanitary landfill method of dis- posal is that it is relatively simple to establish and operate. Even so, there are a number of important aspects in selecting and maintaining a sanitary landfill which, if ignored, will result in a landfill disposal site little better than an open dump. fypes of Sanitary Landfills There are two basic methods of sanitary landfill operation — the area method and the trench method. However, many localities find it expedient either to modify these two methods, or to employ a combination of methods. Area Method. This method is well adapted for filling depressions in the terrain such as inactive quarries, gravel or barrow pits, ravines, or land (with diking), as it requires minimum excavation. After several truckloads of refuse have been deposited, the refuse is spread, compacted and covered with at least six inches of earth (see Figure 20). This pile of covered refuse forms a '•cell". The size of these cells may vary, jmd in small sanitary landfills, one cell per day is sufficient. The cells are constructed progressively adjacent to each other. Every few days, these cells are covered with at least two feet of earth which is then compacted and leveled. This top cover discourages rats from burrowing, prevents flies from emerging, and helps control fires. Cover material must either be excavated from another area of the landfill or imported from another site. Trench Method. Where flat or gently sloping lands are available, the trench method may be used to advantage. This type of sanitary landfill usually accepts greater quantities of refuse per acre and also affords beter control of -65- deposited refuse. A trench from 10 to 30 feet wide is first excavated along one side of the landfill. The excavated earth is used to form a berm from which dumping is done a few feet above" ground level. As refuse is deposited into the trench, it is compacted and covered daily with six inches of earth. As with the area method, these daily cells are topped with two feet of compacted earth every few days. The earth cover is obtained from material excavated from a second adjacent and parallel trench being dug as the first one fills (see Figure 21-). In this way the refuse can be piled a few feet above the original ground level. The exact dimensions of the trench and depth of fill will depend upon the size of equipment and amount of land available. Although trenches 12 feet to 2^ feet deep are not uncommon, they require expensive excavation with large A equipment. For Cochise County, trenches 3 feet to 10 feet in depth should be adequate. Provisions for drainage of these trenches should be made during the rainy months. Progressive Slope Method. This method is a modification of both the area method and the trench method, and may be used advantageously to convert and extend an existing sloped dump to a sanitary landfill. The progressive slope method is operated by depositing refuse down the face of a slope. After compaction, the refuse is covered at least daily with six inches of earth. Cover material is continuously excavated just ahead of the slope leaving a shallow trench or swale. Every few days, the compacted cells are covered with two feet of earth. Canyon Fill Method. In areas where arroyos are common, they may be converted to sanitary landfills in a manner similar to the trench method. - 66- Figure 2 0 Area Method. The bulldozer spreads and compacts solid wastes. The scraper (foreground) is used to haul the cover material at the end of the day's operations. Note the portable fence that catches blowing debris. This is used with any landfill method. Source: Thomas J. Sorg and H. Lanier Hickman, Jr. Sanitary Landfill Facts. 2nd ed. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970). Figure 21 Trench Method. The waste collection truck deposits its load into the trench where the bulldozer spreads and compacts it. At the end of the day the drag line excavates soil from the future trench; this soil is used as the daily cover material. Trenches can also be excavated with a front-end loader, bulldozer, or scraper. Source: Thomas J. Sorg and H. Lanier Hickman, Jr. Sanitary Landfill Facts. 2nd ed. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970). Some excavating is still required to shape the fill and also to provide cover m a t e r i a l . Since an arroyo will usually take up only a small portion of a given land area, this method can he used only in conjunction with one of the above methods. Furthermore, special drainage diversions must be excavated around the fill area. Site Selection .. The choice of a sanitary landfill site is of utmost importance. Although a sanitary landfill operation can be adapted to almost any parcel of land, such adaptation may be very costly and create considerable public protest if the site is poorly conceived. Certainly the selection of a sani tary landfill site will depend upon land availability. However, virtually every parcel of land has its price and terms, and that price should be evaluated in relation to the costs of several other important factors." ' location. A sanitary landfill site should be situated as close as possible to the center of the population it serves. Thus if a municipal collection service is provided, refuse haul costs will be at a minimum. A central location will also afford better service to individuals hauling their own refuse. Since people will seldom haul their refuse beyond six miles, this distance should define the limits of the rural population directly using a sanitary landfill site. While central location is desirable, such location s h o u ld not be in proximity to conflicting uses. While most well operated sanitary landfills have proven themselves as good, clean neighbors, occasional noise, dust and bits of blowing paper are inevitable. Consequently, sanitary l a n d f i l l s should not be located in densely populated residential areas if other suitable sites are available. - 69- Physiography. Sites having steep slopes and large natural drains must he engineered so as to compensate for the potential erosion and flooding dim* n g rainy weather. Such facilities as dikes, terraces, and diversion ditches may he required and, if so, initial costs will rise accordingly. I f the groundwater table is high, it is virtually impossible to prevent con tamination. Consequently, the very few areas in Cochise County which have a high groundwater table should never he considered as potential landfill sites. Sites containing much rock should also he avoided. Excavation of cover material will he difficult, and earth fill may have to he imported from other areas. Furthermore, the impervious rock strata can promote undesirable lateral drainage of leachate. Similarly, soils with a high clay content provide poor cover material. The clay is hard to excavate when wet, and tends to crack when dry, thus exposing the refuse to flies, rats and fire. The "cliche" material found in southern Cochise County has a high clay content, hut also has much conglomerate material which acts as a hinder. Thus "cliche" is fairly suitable for cover on moderate slopes, hut will tend to erode on steep slopes. The silty sand found throughout Cochise County provides the best cover material. Orientation to the wind is another physiographic factor to he con sidered. If possible, the working slope of the landfill should face into the wind. This positioning will minimize blowing debris during the operation, and will minimize wind erosion after the daily covering of each cell. Size. A sanitary landfill site should he large enough to accommodate disposal needs for at least 10 years. Moving a sanitary landfill operation is expensive due to the facilities required and rising land costs. —70— The residents of Cochise County require an average Of 0.0191 acres of sanitary landfill per 100 persons per year in 1972 and 0.0222 acres per 100 persons per year in 1980.1 Thus a two acre site will serve a population center of 1,000 for about 10 years. Access Road. A sanitary landfill site should be as close as possible to an all-weather access road. This provision not only permits faster hauling, hut also insures minimum delays due to weather. Access roads over bridges with load limits below 10 tons should be avoided. Also, the site should be suitable for construction of a road on the site to all dumping points. Utilities. If possible, a sanitary landfill site should have access to telephone lines, electricity, and water. Electric power is desirable for lighting, heating, cooling, and field maintenance. Water is required for drinking, washing, and fire control. X- Future Use Potential. One of the most overlooked factors in selection of sanitary landfill sites is the future use of the site after filling opera tions are completed. Even though a sanitary landfill may be initiated to reclaim an arroyo or barrow pit, the completion of fill need not be an end in itself. Many completed sanitary landfills have been used for golf courses, parks, parking lots, airports, and runway extensions. Completed sanitary landfills may even be used for structures, but pilings must be used in order to protect the foundations from the differential settlement which continues for several years after site completion. Also, buildings erected over sanitary landfills must be mechanically ventilated to eliminate buildup of hazardous concentrations of explosive methane gas, which is a product of the slow but continuous decomposition of refuse. For these reasons, the construction of 1 The above figures assume a sanitary landfill with a six foot lift plus cover, a 10^ loss of land area due to terrain and separation berms, and a final compaction of 900 pounds per cubic yard. -71- residential dwellings over sanitary landfill sites is not recommended. Equipment . Selection of proper equipment is a key factor in effecting a sound sanitary landfill operation. To be effective, sanitary landfill machines must be versatile in being able to excavate cover material; move and spread cover material; move and compact refuse; and handle large, bulky items that may be deposited. It is also important that the machines be of adequate size to handle present and future refuse. Track-Type Tractors. Commonly known as bulldozers, these machines work well in area landfills (see Figure 22). They are well suited for exca vating wide areas and moving the earth up to about 300 feet. They are also good machines to use for site clearing and grading as well as construction of access roads. Although the track-type tractor is a heavy machine, it achieves only a moderate degree of compaction (800 - 1,000 pounds per cubic yard) due to the relatively large area of track which distributes the machine's weight. If another machine is available for excavating, the track-type tractor may be equippped with a large landfill blade which will enable it to move and spread large volumes of refuse. Other attachments available are reversible fans (for blowing refuse out of radiators), radiator and engine guards, rippers, and enclosed engine cabs. Track-Type Loaders. This machine is similar to the bulldozer, except that instead of a front blade, it is equipped with a loading bucket (see Figure 23) • It therefore has the traction and power of the bulldozer with the added versatility of the bucket. The track-type loader is perhaps best suited to a trench type of sanitary landfill, or for landfills on steep, rough terrain. This is because the track-type loader is a better excavator -72- t 1 - L FIGURE 23 Track-Type Loader -73- than the bulldozer, but it is not able to spread the refuse as efficiently. Like the track-type tractor, it provides a moderate degree of compaction. Also, this machine cannot economically haul cover material much beyond 300 feet. Attachments available for the track-type loader include reversible fans, radiator and engine guards, rippers, multipurpose buckets (for excavating, dozing, and grabbing large objects), and enclosed cabs. Wheel Loaders. The wheel loader is the most maneuverable of any type of landfill equipment (see Figure 21+). These machines can excavate and load in "tighter" places, and their relatively rapid speed enables economical haul of cover material from distances up to 600 feet. The wheel loaders will provide approximately 10$ greater compaction them track loaders. They can easily be moved to other jobs during the day if the sanitary landfill operation is small. However, wheel loaders do not have the traction to per form heavy excavating or dozing. They lose effectiveness in spreading and compacting refuse on steep terrain or on wet ground. Landfill attachments available for wheel loaders include the multi purpose bucket, heavy duty landfill tires, steel demolition wheels with cleats, reversible fans, radiator and engine guards, and enclosed cabs.- Refuse Compactors. Several manufacturers now offer a special com pactor specifically designed for sanitary landfill use. The machines weigh from 15 to 30 tons and feature large steel wheels with cleats for compaction and traction (see Figure 25) • They are usually equipped with an oversized blade enabling them to move, spread, and compact large volumes of refuse. Manufacturers claim refuse compaction from 1,000 to 1,1+00 pounds per cubic yard using these vehicles. These machines are best suited for area sanitary -7l+- FIG. 2l|. Wheel Loader FIG. 25 Refuse Compactor landfills where large volumes of refuse axe handled daily, and where the savings in land area afforded by the extra compaction is significant. They cannot be used to perform excavation work; therefore, another piece of heavy equipment is periodically required to excavate and stockpile cover material. Other Equipment. In operating large sanitary landfills handling hundreds of tons per day, other types of equipment such as draglines, water trucks and earth scrapers axe often employed (see Figure 26). However, the .relatively small volumes of refuse handled by even the largest waste disposal sites in Cochise County would not justify the use of this equipment. Facilities In addition to equipment, there are a number of facilities which will greatly enhance the sanitary landfill operation. Maintenance Facilities. Regardless of what equipment is utilized, some on site provisions must be made for fueling, lubrication and minor routine maintenance. In Cochise County, a simple "canopy with a few basic tools and > supplies (properly secured) will suffice. Beyond this, a service contract should contain provisions for the prompt repair of any landfill equipment. In addition, special provisions should be made for replacement of vital equip ment which is down for more than one or two days. • Personnel Building. Some type of small, temporary building is a highly desirable asset to a sanitary landfill site. Such a building provides a secure area for the storage of tools and supplies. It also furnishes a shelter under which the operating crew can change clothing and eat meals. If possible, the building should be equipped with water for drinking and washing, a telephone, a chemical or pit toilet, and a first aid kit. In Cochise County, some minimal provisions for heating and cooling are also desirable, but not -76- — 1 A 4k, X 'Vf \ ■ ■•a, - - v *. , . w . x '■• 7 ■ ^jss .. g " -i^E===r-&=— - . 5wv 9 v ' /...; . 3 Earth Scraper #' FIG. 26 Other Sanitary Landfill Equipment k. absolutely necessary, especially if the heavy equipment has an enclosed cab with air conditioning. Scale. A scale for weighing refuse vehicles is probably an unnecessary expense for small sanitary landfills used only by one municipality plus the ^people in the immediate surrounding area. However, the larger sanitary land fills used by more than one major collection agency, the operation of a set of scales is the only means of keeping track of refuse generation rates by locality. Without such information, disputes over who pays what to operate the sanitary landfill are bound to arise. Also, knowing the amount of refuse generated by the people in the area will facilitate operational efficiency studies as well as planning for future disposal. Fence. Some type of mesh fence is necessary to control blowing paper. If the sanitary landfill is located in a densely populated area, two fences are recommended: one around the perimeter, and a temporary fence on the lee side of the refuse deposit points. A fence will also tend to discourage children and scavangers from encroaching on the site. Access Road. An all-weather access road will minimize interruptions in disposal service. The road to the site should be graded and drained. The road within the site should be built up above the level of operations commen surate with the drainage pattern of the landfill. Signs. Large, clearly painted signs should be conspicuously posted outside the site telling the public the location of the sanitary landfill, the hours of its operation, and disposal fees, if any. Within the site, the signs should clearly show where refuse may be dumped and the traffic pattern to use while driving on the premises. —78— Site Preparation The various steps involved in the preparation of a sanitary landfill site for operation are listed below. 1. Throught the media and community organizations, inform the public as to the location of the site, what it is for, and how it will be operated. This step should actually be initiated prior to final site selection. 2. Construct an all-weather access road to the site if one is not already available. 3. Clear that portion of the site which will be required during the next year. Leave as much ground cover as possible to control dust and erosion, and store the topsoil from cleared areas for use as final cover. ll. Divert drainage around or through the site as necessary. 5. Construct a semi-permanent, all-weather access road on the site. 6. Erect a wire mesh fence around the site. 7. Move in a temporary storage/personnel building. Connect utilities and scales as necessary. * 8. Excavate a separate trench for large, bulky items. 9. Install directional signs. Begin operations. Site Operations 1. The Sanitary landfill should be designed as an engineering project. 2. The face of the working fill should be kept as small as possible to expose minimum area to wind and vermin. 3 . Exposed surfaces should be compacted and covered with earth as promptly as is consistent with the disposal operation. 1|. Provisions should be made for standby equipment. 5. Large, bulky items such as old appliances, oil drums, and tires should be disposed of in separate deep trench. 6. A final earth cover of two feet should be provided. 7. Drainage ditches must be kept open. 8. Dust control measures are necessary. -79- 9. Each lift or cell should he no deeper than 8-10 feet. 10. Movable snow or mesh fencing should he used to control blowing paper. 11. Equipment maintenance program should he established. 12. Records of maintenance and operation should he kept. 13. Lime can he spread to control odors. Sanitary Landfill Costs A summary of cost estimates for sanitary landfills serving various sized populations is presented in Table 12. Note that these are average costs for sanitary landfill operation in Cochise County. These estimates are based on purchase of new equipment and purchase of land. In actual implementation a small long term savings might he realized through purchase of used equipment. Also, there is a considerable amount of land available for sanitary landfill use in Cochise County for a nominal lease or as a grant (see Section 10 ). Minimum attractive rate of return used is per year. -8 0 - TABLE 12 COST ESTIMATE FIVE ACRE SAHTARY LANDFILL ITEMUNITS RATEAMOUNT 1. Clear Site 5 acre $200 $1,000 $1,200 2. Channel Drainage 500 CY $2.20 $1,100 $1,300 3. Construct Access Road Base Preparation (.25 mi) 2,500 SY $0.l|0 $1,000 Base Course (gravel) 2,500 SY 1.35 3,350 4,350 $5,400 . 1*. Personnel Building Pre-Engineered Bldg. 100 SF $10 $1,000 $1,200 5. Install Chain Link Fence Fence, #9 Wire 2,000LF $3,60 $7,200 Gate 20 LF 15.50 310 $7,500 - $9,400 6. Install Guide Signs *- Highway Signs (2 ea) 8 SF $13 $104 Site Signs (2 ea) 12 SF 13 156 $260 $ 320 7. Utilities (misc.) $1,000 SITE TOTAL $18,920 Uniform Annual Cost $2,300 (10 year ammortization at 5$) LAND COST $ 3,000 Equivalent Annual Lease $ 200 EQUIPMENT COST 90 HP Track-Type Loader $30,000 . Annual Operating & Ownership Cost $U,870 (1,000 hr/yr for 10 yrs.) *LAB0R COST 1.5 men at $ll,000/yr. $16,000 TOTAL INITIAL COST $51,920 Total Uniform Annual Cost $23,370 *Includea vacation, sick leave, retirement, administration, supervision —8l — NOTES 1. A £ $ mini mum attractive rate of return is used for amortizing all County expenditures. 2. A IQffo salvage value is assumed for the site. This accounts for reuse of fencing and personnel building plus resale of land. Salvage value of track loader is reflected in its annual costs. 3. If a part-time sanitary landfill concept is used, equipment and labor costs may be divided by the number of landfills covered. However, one loboy trailer ($3,^00) and one pickup truck ($i|,000) must be added to each track loader. •. UNITS LEGEND • SY Square Yards CY Cubic Yards LF Linear Feet HR Hours EA Each —82— Conclusions Although time did not permit a detailed investigation of suitable sanitary landfill sites, the lack of such a survey presents no real problem because there exist a considerable number of suitable sites within each population center. With respect to equipment, the small track-type loaders appear to offer the best compromise among initial cost, operating cost, and versatility. Although the wheel loaders compare favorably with the track-type loaders with respect to performance and versitility per unit cost, they are not as rugged as the track machines for sanitary landfill work. The other machines dis cussed above are designed for specialized tasks and would require other com plementary machines in the landfill operation. None of the facilities mentioned are absolutely essential; however, with the exception of the scales their inclusion in improvements to the sanitary landfill operation are far beyond their small initial cost. -83** The general course of action for the Cochise County Solid Waste Management Program has been set - provide sanitary landfills as a principle means of disposal augmented with refuse collection and transfer at convenience stations throughout the County. However, a number of questions remain to be answered: when is this plan to be implemented, where are the facilities to be located, which agency within the county will be responsible, and how will they operate. Timetable for Implementation The plan is to be effected in two phases. Phase I calls for improving all existing disposal sites to at least a landfill status by 1975*. Phase II calls for making sanitary landfills accessible to all population centers (96% of all refuse) by 1980. This will be done by either providing a sanitary landfill disposal site within the population center, or else providing a collection and transfer service (convenience station) from the population center to a remote sanitary landfill. Phase I. With the exception of Bisbee, all of the six municipalities having refuse disposal sites are at least providing periodic compaction and cover. The County periodically compacts and covers refuse at the Elfrida and Naco Landfills. The County also services the dumps at Bowie and St. David, but these sites could hardly even be called landfills. In addition, there are five other dumps that are receiving no service, and there are five popu lation centers which apparently have no disposal site at all. Figure 27 shows the locations of the required landfills. Under Phase I, the County will be maintaining 17 landfills by 1975• Annual operating costs will depend upon the frequency of service and upon SANTA ' i 'C ^ ENLE • LEE N EE R G A ; Y\ T N U O C \ Y T N U O C W ~ r— RQIE CUT LANDFILL COUNTY REQUIRED —I ~r IE B 1975 BY SITES e h t from URBAN PLANNING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AUTHORIZED AUTHORIZED PROGRAM ASSISTANCE PLANNING URBAN H HUIG C O 94 A AMENDED. AS OF1954, ACT HOUSING THE © on io t a r a p e r p e h t OHS COMITY COCHISE t n e m t r a p e d ONY OPERATED COUNTY of EIE FO UR BS MP O ARIZONA FOR MAP BASE USRS FROM REVISED is h t f o TUCSON p a m ng in s u o h LANDFILL E S U WILSIY A HAM ARIZONA as w TTT WILES STATUTE EEBR 1971 DECEMBER, IUE %7 FIGURE north ARIZONA SCALE nanci y l l ia c n a in f a a n a b r u o r i M t n e m p o l e v e d ded e id a BY hrough g u o r th SECTION , r e d n u a 701 t n a r g e h t OF landfill site improvements. Some "average" costs have "been.summarized in Table 13, assuming twice per month service with minimum site improvements of a barbed wire fence and short access road. Operation will involve periodically visiting each landfill with the track-type loader. The crawler operator will then push all refuse either against the face of the landfill, or into the trench. He will then compact, cover, and recompact the refuse in the same manner as a sanitary landfill operation. One additional man will be needed, at least part time, to clean up the site, assist with loading and unloading, and serve as a back-up equip ment operator. Phase II. The criteria used for minimum levels of service are given in Appendix F. From this criteria, 17 rural area population centers were chosen to receive convenience station/sanitary landfill service. With 17 population centers in the County to be served, there are a vast number of possible combinations of convenience stations and sanitary landfills which could be employed. Knowing the relatively fixed costs of both convenience sta tions and sanitary landfills from Sections 6 and 7, and knowing the operating haul costs per mile, it would be possible, by extensive computing with a mathematical simulation model, to find the lowest cost combination of convenience stations and sanitary landfills. This rather involved mathe matical procedure was not used here due to lack of time and computer facilities. However, the proposed three combinations shown on the following pages present a good picture of the.methods of operations and approximate costs involved. -85- Alternatives In developing the three alternative methods of refuse collection/ disposal, the following guidelines were used: 1. Municipal disposal sites are to he utilized whenever possible. The user fees be less than the cost of operating a separate sanitary landfill, and the revenues will assist the cities (Benson, Tombstone, Bisbee) to upgrade their disposal sites. 2. Each population center is to have available either a sanitary land fill or a convenience station to which they may go daily to deposit their refuse. 3. Those areas served by a well-run contractor collection service will receive no additional service from the County (incorporated cities, Sun Sites, Nicksville). I4. All collection and/or disposal is carried out on a ItO-day work week. The following times are assumed: a. 6 hours per day driving truck or tractor. b. 1 hour per day for maintenance and cleaning. c. 1 hour per day commuting and administration. d. Average unloading time - 15 minutes. ' * e. Average loading time - 10 minutes. f . Average speed between sites - 25 mph for short hauls (under 10 miles), 35 mph for long hauls. 5. One extra man is required in each alternative to compensate for sick leave, annual leave, supervision, etc. 6 . All vehicles would be based somewhere near Pearce in the center of the County. The drivers would be required to reside as close to Pearce as possible. 7. No differentiation is made between rural convenience stations and community convenience stations. Although a certain type of convenience sta tion might be better suited to a particular locality, the convenience station can be constructed to adapt to either the front loading or the rear hoist trucks. 8 8 . Operating costs (minus labor) for the collection trucks is assumed to be constant. Actually, operating costs would vary according to the number of miles traveled due to the variable costs involved such as fuel, oil, and maintenance. However, the fixed portion of the operating costs remains con stant (insurance, amortization, etc.) regardless of the number of miles traveled. Thus, even if the variable operating costs amounted to $.10 per mile, an annual difference of about 10,000 miles would change the estimates by only about $1 ,000. -86- Alternative No. 1. The County will use two collection vehicles sta tioned near Pearce. These collection vehicles will haul from as many 21 convenience stations to the six municipal (sanitary landfill) disposal sites. The County will he required to pay these cities for the use of their sanitary landfills. Special revenues can he collected from the Forest Service and National Park Service for hauling from Turkey Creek, Portal, Coronado National Monument, and Chirichua National Monument. Two collection vehicles will pro vide. once per week pickup from all stations. One vehicle will he a frontloading packer and the other vehicle will he a rear-loading hoist type for the large containers. Actually hoth vehicles could he of the same type, hut this combination would probably allow the most flexibility. Capacity of each vehicle is assumed to he 30-35 cubic yards. Collection would he on a five day per week basis using three men. i + Table 11+ on the following pages shows how a collection schedule might look. Costs are shown in Table 15 on page 9U« Alternative No. ,2. The County will use one collection vehicle and one roving track type loader hauled on a lowboy trailer (Figure 28). The track loader would be stationed at various sanitary landfill sites to handle all refuse brought in by the collection vehicle. As with Alternative No. 1, the collection vehicle could be either the front loading or the rear hoist type, but the convenience stations would have to be adapted for its use. Since the sanitary landfills would be operated only on certain days, the sites would have to be locked on the off days, requiring a convenience station in every rural population center. Table 16 shows an example schedule. Table 17 gives costs for this alternative. -8 7 - Alternative No. 3. The County would use no collection vehicles and maintain no convenience stations. Instead, each of several roving track loaders would maintain up to three sanitary landfills apiece on a daily basis. Table 18 presents an example schedule. Table 19 gives costs for this alternative. -88- Trailer n G . 28 LowW Hydraulic Tilths I TABLE 13 COSTS OF PHASE I ANNUAL * INITIAL QUANTITY COST COST Lowboy Trailer $3,500 (5 year amortization) 1 $ 750 Pickup Truck 1+, 000 (5 year amortization) 1 1,800 Track Loader 30,000 (10 year amortization) 1 U, 900 Equipment Operator 1 .5 (Salary, benefits, administration) 16,500 Landfill Sites . 17 8,500 Equivalent Annual Lease Improvements 3l+,ooo (5 year ammortization *• plus maintenance) 11,500 TOTALS ' •$35,i+5o $80,000 * Annual costs include amortization at 5% m-i n-im-nm attractive rate of return with 10$ salvage value plus average operating costs. - 9 0 - t a b l e iL ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 COLLECTION SCHEDULE 1980 TRUCK END , QUANTITY * QUANTITY * DISTANCE TIME NO. ROUTE ACTIVITY LOADED (lb) UNLOADED (miles) (minutes) 1 Pearce - Turkey Creek Load 6,000 25 34 Turkey Creek - Bowie Load 6,000 ——— 44 85 Bowie - Willcox Unload mm mm mm 12,000 24 36 Willcox - Portal Load 10,700 — — 68 125 Portal - San Simon Load 1,300 mmmmmm 29 59 San Simon - Willcox Unload 12,000 40 83 Willcox - Pearce Return 260 i l r 2 Pearce - Sunizona Load 6,800 10 34 Sunizona - Chiricahua Mon. Load 4,000 mmmmmm 26 54 Chiricahua Mon. - Willcox Unload . — — — 10,800 36 77 Willcox - San Simon Load 12,000 mmmmmm 40 78 San Simon - Willcox Unload . 12,000 40 83 Willcox - Pearce Return . 30 51 182 377 1 Pearce - San Simon Load 2,200 69 128 San Simon - Bowie Load 10,000 mmmmmm 16 36 Bowie - Willcox Unload 12,200 24 56 Willcox - Bowie Load 3,300 24 5i Bowie - Winchester Load 8,000 mmmmmm 29 60 . Winchester - Willcox Unload •»*»«» 11,300 10 32 Willcox - Pearce Return _jQ_ 51 202 414 2 Pearce - Winchester Load 7,500 41 80 Winchester - Willcox Unload 7,500 10 32 Willcox - Dragoon Load 6,800 26 55 Dragoon - Cochise Load 5,000 mmmmmm 10 27 Cochise - Willcox Unload mmmmmm 11,800 16 43 Willcox - Pearce Return 3 0 SL 133 288 Loaded refuse is compacted to 350 Ib/cu.yd 1 -91- TABLE lit (continuedJ TRUCK END QUANTITY * QUANTITY * DISTANCE ‘ TIME DAY NO. ROUTE ACTIVITY LOADED (lb) UNLOADED (miles) (minul 3 Pearce - Richland Load 5,000 8 29 Richland - Cochise Load 1,800 mmmmmm 9 32 Cochise - Villcox Unload 6,800 16 42 Willcox - Kansas Settlement Load 12,000 • w e e w 17 39 Kansas Settlement - Willcox Unload 12,000 17 44 Willcox - Pearce Return 30 JL. 97 237 2 Pearce - St. David Load 10,300 m m ^ m m 37 73 St. David - Benson Unload — — — 10,300 7 32 Benson - St. David Load 10,300 7 27 St. David - Benson Unload — — — 10,300 7 32 Benson - Pomerene Load 8,000 — — — 7 27 Pomerene - Benson Unload — — —■ 8,000 7 32 Benson - Pomerene Load 8,000 7 27 Pomerene - Benson Unload — — — 8,000 7 32 Benson - Pearce Return _IL 123 # b Pearce - Coronado Mon. Load 5,000 75 138 Coronado Mon. - Miracle Valley ■ Load 5,100 — — — 10 27 Miracle Valley - Bisbee Unload 10,000 18 46 Bisbee - Hereford Load 6,800 ■ ■■■ 18 41 Hereford - Naco Load 5,200 — 15 36 Naco - Bisbee Unload mmmmmm 12,000 8 34 Bisbee - Pearce Return 86 i i " 408 Pearce - Elfrida Load 12,400 23 49 Elfrida - Bisbee Unload — — — 12,400 28 63 Bisbee - Naco Load 12,000 — — — 8 29 Naco - Bisbee Unload mmmmmm 12,000 8 34 Bisbee - Naco Load 12,000 mmmmmm 8 29 Naco - Bisbee Unload mmmmmm 12,000 8 34 Bisbee - Naco Load 11,000 8 29 Naco - Bisbee Unload 11,000 8 34 Bisbee - Pearce Return 86 ... . ' 387 i i -92 ' TABLE L ( i TRUCK ' END QUANTITY .* QUANTITY * DISTANCE TIME M NO. ROUTE ACTIVITY LOADED (lb) UNLOADED (miles) (minutes) 5 1 Pearce - Elfrida Load 12,300 m u m m m m 23 49 Elfrida - Douglas Unload — — — 12,300 29 65 Douglas - McNeal Load 10,300 ——— 22 48 McNeal - Douglas Unload 10,300 22 53 Douglas - Pearce Return 49 84 145 299 2 Pearce - Double Adobe Load 9,5oo mm «■ mm 37 73 ' Double Adobe - Douglas Unload ——— 9,500 17 44 Douglas - Double Adobe Load 9 A oo — 17 39 Double Adobe - Douglas Unload 9,400 17 44 Douglas - Cochise C. Load 9,200 ——— 7 27 Cochise C. - Douglas Unload 9,200 7 32 Douglas - Cochise C. Load 9,300 ——— 7 27 Cochise C. - Douglas Unload 9,300 7 32 Douglas - Pearce Return 84 i # - 402 TOTAL TRUCK NO. 1 111,000 111,000 898 1,850 TOTAL TRUCK NO. 2 163,500 163,500 752 1,799 GRAND TOTALS 274,500 CY 274,500 CY 1,650 MI 3,649 MIN. 60.8 HR * -93- TABLE 15 ANNUAL COSTS OF PHASE I I , ALTERNATIVE 1 Annual Vehicle Costs (Table 11) Collection (Front Lift) Truck $29,180 Container Hoist Truck 27,260 17 Convenience Stations (Table 9) 91,000 10 Part-time Convenience Station Caretakers 6,000 Use of Municipal Sanitary Landfills lU. 300 ($2 per ton) $127,71*0 ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 COLLECTION SCHEDULE I98O TRACTOR END QUANTITY * QUANTITY * DISTANCE TIME DAY LOCATION TRUCK ROUTE ACTIVITY LOADED (lb) UNLOADED (miles) (minul 1 San Simon Pearce - Turkey Creek Load 6,000 mm mmm mm 25 53 Sanitary Landfill Turkey Creek - Chiricahua Mon. Load b.ooo 11 34 (SLF) Chiricahua Mon. - San Simon SLF Unload ——— 10,000 49 99 San Simon SLF - San Simon Load 12,000 ——— 1 10 San Simon - San Simon SLF Unload 12,000 1 15 San Simon SLF - Bowie Load 8,500 — — — 16 36 Bowie - San Simon Load 3,500 — — — 16 36 San Simon - San Simon SLF Unload 12,000 1 15 San Simon SLF - Portal Load 10,700 — — — 29 60 Portal - San Simon SLF Unload — — — 10,700 29 65 San Simon SLF - Bowie Load 11,000 16 36 Bowie - Willcox Unload — —— 11,000 24 36 Willcox - Pearce Return — — — — — — 30 _iL. 248 546 Pearce Pearce - Richland Load 5,000 mm mm mm 8 28 Sanitary Landfill Richland - Sunizona Load 6,800 m m m m m m 18 41 Sunizona - Pearce SLF Unload ——— 11,800 10 32 Pearce SLF - Kansas Settlement Load 12,000 11 29 Kansas Settlement - Willcox Unload ——— 12,000 17 . 44 Willcox - Winchester Load 8,000 — — — 10 27 Winchester - Willcox Unload ——— 8,000 10 32 Willcox - Winchester Load 7,5oo —— — 10 27 Winchester - Willcox Unload ——— 7,500 10 32 Willcox - Dragoon Load 6,500 — —— 26 5U Dragoon - Cochise Load 6,500 — — — 10 27 Cochise - Pearce SLF Unload — —— 13,000 16 43 Pearce SLF - Pearce Return mm mm mmm mmmmmm 1 5 W 1*21 * Loaded refuse is compacted to 350 Ib/cu. yd. -95- TRACTOR END QUANTITY * quantity * DISTANCE TIME DAY LOCATION TRUCK ROUTE ACTIVITY LOADED Qb^ unloaded (m ile s)- (minutes) 3 Elfrida Pearce - Elfrida Load 12.300 23 50 Sanitary Landfill Elfrida - Elfrida SLF Unload 12.300 1 15 Elfrida SLF - Elfrida Load 12.400 1 10 Elfrida - Elfrida SLF Unload 12,400 1 15 E lfrid a SLF - McNeal Load 10.300 7 27 McNeal - E lfrid a SLF Unload 10.300 7 32 Elfrida SLF - Double Adobe Load 9.400 16 37 Double Adobe - Elfrida SLF Unload 9,400 16 42 Elfrida SLF — Cochise C. Load 9,500 32 65 Cochise C - Douglas Unload 9,500 7 32 Douglas - Cochise C. Load 9.200 7 27 Cochise C. - Douglas Unload 9.200 7 32 Douglas - Double Adobe Load 9.300 17 39 Double Adobe - Elfrida SLF Unload 9,300 16 44 Elfrida SLF - Pearce Return 23 40 181 507 I4. Naco Sanitary Landfill Pearce - Naco Load 12,000 58 n o Naco - Naco SLF Unload 12,000 1 15 Naco SLF - Naco Load 12,000 1 10 Naco - Naco SLF Unload 12,000 1 15 Naco SLF - Naco Load 12,000 1 10 Naco - Naco SLF Unload 12,000 1 15 Naco SLF - Naco Load 4.200 1 10 Naco - Naco SLF Unload 4.200 1 15 Naco SLF - Coronado Mem. Load 5,000 25 53 Coronado Mem. - M iracle V alley Load 5,100 10 27 M iracle V alley - Naco SLF Unload 10,000 15 41 Naco SLF - Hereford Load 6,800 14 33 Hereford - Naco SLF Unload 6,800 14 38 Naco SLF - Pearce Return 100 201 W I 96- TABLE 16 (continued) TRACTOR END QUANTITY * QUANTITY * DISTANCETIME DAY LOCATION TRUCK ROUTE ACTIVITY LOADED (lb) UNLOADED (miles) (minutes) ■ — — — $ As Required Pearce - St. David Load 10,300 37 73 St. David - Benson. unload ——— 10,300 7 32 Benson - St. David Load 10,300 — 7 27 St. David - Benson Unload ——— 10,300 7 32 Benson - Pomerene Load 8,000 7 27 Pomerene - Benson Unload ——— 8,000 7 32 Benson - Pomerene Load 8,000 ——— 7 27 Pomerene - Benson Unload ——— 8,000 7 32 Benson - Pearce Return JSL 123 a - TOTALS 27k,100 CY 27U.100 CY 910 MI 2,311 MIN 38.5 h r -97- TABLE 17 AMUAL COSTS OF PHASE I I , ALTERNATIVE 2 Container hoist Truck (Table 11) $27,260 Lowboy Trailer (5 year amortization) 75>0 Track Loader (Table 12) U,8?0 Labor for Track Loader 16,5>00 Four Part-time Sanitary Landfill Sites (Table 12) 9,200 17 Convenience Stations (Table 9) $1,000 10 Part-time Convenience Station Caretakers 6,000 Use of 3 Municipal Sanitary Landfills U,000 ($2 per Ton) $119,500 -9 8 - TABLE 18 ALTERNATIVE NO. 3 DAILY SCHEDULE - I98O TRACK SANITARY REFUSE QUANTITY LOADER LANDFILLS (Ib/day - 5 day wk.) 1 Dragoon 1,360 Cochise 1,360 St. David L. 120 6,840 2 Kansas S . 2,400 Richland 1,000 Sunizona 2,360 5,760 3 Elfrida 4,940 McNeal 2,060 Double Adobe 3,780 10,780 1+ Naco 8,040 Hereford/to-racle Valley 3,380 11,420 5 Winchester 3,100 Bowie 3,860 6,960 6 San Simon 3,100 Portal 2,140 5,240 NOTE: Certain areas would be required to haul their refuse: Cochise College, Pomerene, Chiricahua Mon. , Coronado Mem., Turkey Creek -9 9 - TABLE 19 ANNUAL COSTS OF PHASE I I , ALTERNATIVE 3 6 Track Loaders (Table 12) $29,200 6 Lowboy Trailers U,5oo 6 Pickup Trucks 10,800 9 Equipment Operators 99,000 17 Sanitary Landfill Sites (Table 12) li0,000 TOTAL $183,500 -1 0 0 - Evaluation Considerations Alternative 3 is obviously the most expensive of the three possibilities. This excessive expense may be explained in part by the fact that this alterna tive underutilizes equipment and labor. A small track-type loader can easily handle $0,000 pounds of refuse per day, yet in this alternative these loaders are handling only about one-fifth of this capacity. The equipment could certainly be better utilized by going to a two or three-shift operation, but even this operation would not make Alternative 3 attractive due to high labor costs. Thus it appears that the convenience station will always be more economical than a full-time sanitary landfill in the rural population centers. Alternative 2 appears to have the lowest cost of the first two alternatives, but we note from Table 16 that the collection vehicle is used 39 hours per week compared with only 31 hours per week per vehicle in Alterna tive 1. Although l.$ men per vehicle is assumed, it could prove difficult to get 39 hours per week of on-the-road time without adding an extra half man. With this consideration taken into account, Alternatives 1 and 2 will probably have about the same annual cost. As previously mentioned, it is likely that either revised scheduling or revised part-time sanitary landfill location could favor one alternative. Organization In order to implement any of the alternatives discussed above, some county organization must be given the responsibility for solid wastes manage ment. A number of factors will determine which agency will ultimately assume this responsibility: flexibility of the organization; compatibility with present responsibilities; existing equipment and facilities. Another important -1 0 1 - factor - organizational legal authority - is discussed in a .later section. Special District. The voters of the County, or any portion of the County, could elect to form a special district to manage their solid wastes program. The elected officials for the district would then form an autonomous legal entity specifically charged with conducting the solid wastes operations for their area. The district officials would then have the authority to tax, assess special fees, issue bonds, grant contract franchises, and purchase equipment and labor for solid wastes operations. The State of Arizona permits the following types of special districts which could be formed to deal with refuse collection and disposal. 1. Air, Water and Other Pollution Control Authority. 2. General Improvement District. 3. County Improvement District. * l*. Special Assessment District. 5. Sanitary District. In considering the special district as a means of implementing rural solid wastes management, several admonitions should be noted. First, the geographical boundaries of the district must not overlap areas already pro viding refuse service, nor should the boundaries leave county rural areas without service. Second, unless virtually all of the people within the special district support it, bitter feelings are likely to emerge. It would be extremely difficult for a county-wide solid wastes special district to gain this necessary universal support. Much of the difficulty would come in justifying the necessary financial assessments. A final admonition is the difficulty in dissolving or altering a special district. The special district, like any governmental organization, is not easy for the voters to control. —102— County Road Department. This agency is presently managing at least three landfills on an incidental basis. In order for the Road Department to successfully manage a county solid wastes program, it would probably have to establish a department within the department. Otherwise, any solid wastes management would continue to be an incidental function. The only advantage to this organization would be that the Road Department is set up to handle equipment maintenance. County Health Department. This agency is the sole responsible body for solid wastes operations in many counties throughout the U.S. Since improper solid wastes disposal creates a health hazard, the County Health Department must be concerned. However, its concern is primarily with moni toring and regulating solid wastes disposal, and if the Health Department did find itself operating a solid wastes collection and disposal system, it too would be obliged to establish a department within the department. The only way that the Health Department could avoid such an organizational extension would be to find a contractor willing to undertake refuse collection, transfer, and disposal for very large areas. Although no cost estimates have been made for this possibility, it almost certainly would be more expensive in the long run than an in-house operation. A contract operation would also be relatively inflexible once the terms of the contract had been set. Separate Department. If legal authority can be obtained for it, a separate county sanitation department would probably prove to be the most efficient and flexible means of managing a solid wastes system. A separate department would be explicitly concerned with the solid wastes program, and it would be under the direct authority of the County Board of Supervisors. A definite organizational structure with established duties and lines of authority would be important, however. -1 0 3 - LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS In order to effect management of its solid wastes, a county must have the proper legal authority. Without this authority, all plans, good intentions, and resources are negated. Unfortunately, the State of Arizona has "been remiss in assigning solid wastes control authority to the Arizona Counties. The result has "been a steady deterioration in matters of refuse disposal and junk autos in the unincorporated localities throughout the state. Much work needs to be done at all levels of government to rectify this legal deficiency. As a minimum, it is the responsibility of the Cochise County Officials to bring to the attention of the State Legislature the requirement for solid waste management authority. *■ Board of Supervisors1 Authority On July 7 1 1972, the County Planning Department sent a letter to Mr. Richard J. Riley, Cochise County Attorney, requesting his interpretation of the Arizona Revised Statutes in authorizing the Board of Supervisors to: 1. establish.a county-wide solid wastes management system including collection, transfer, and disposal of refuse in the unincorporated areas as well as operation of a disposal facility. 2. adopt regulations concerning storage, transportation, and disposal of solid wastes. 3. establish a separate department to regulate and/or operate solid wastes management systems. U« contract with municipal corporations, individuals, or private corporations; grant franchises for collection services. 5. acquire land, be eminent domain if necessary, for solid waste facilities. 1 A noteable exception is Pima County. The Pima County Sanitation Department has for years operated sanitary landfills, granted franchises to refuse collectors, and administered its own budget, although their authority for doing so is unclear. 6. finance a solid wastes management system by: a. collecting taxes or service fees. b. issuing general obligation or revenue bonds. c. refinancing bonds at lower interest rates. d. accepting grants-in-aid. e. licensing private refuse operators. Mr. Riley's reply (see Appendix g ) was to the effect that with the exception of eminent domain, expressed authority for the County to do these things was indeed lacking, and implied authority could not be assumed in light of the fact that the courts traditionally have construed the powers of the counties in an extremely narrow fashion. Thus a paradoxical situation exists in that the same State Government which specifically required their counties to submit a solid waste management plan (ARS 36-132.01B) apparently gave those counties no authority to implement such a plan. Certainly this lack of legal authority is an impediment, but it should definitely not be used as an excuse for the County to wash its hands of all responsibility for improving existing solid wastes disposal facilities. The 8,000 tons of refuse which is annually being openly dumped upon the spacious lands of the County will not go away just because the State has not passed a law; it will only accumulate. Although a county sanitation department could best implement Phase I of this plan, there is certainly no reason why the up grading of existing disposal sites could not be carried out by augmentated forces of the County Road Department. Moreover, the missing enabling legisla tion is certain to come. Since the passage of the Solid Wastes Disposal Act (P.L. 89-272) in October, 1965, many states have enacted solid wastes statutes. As its solid wastes problems multiply, Arizona will soon follow. An example enabling act is presented in Appendix H. Solid Waste Regulations All of the incorporated cities within Cochise County have adopted some - 105- form of ordinance regulating the storage, collection, and disposal of refuse. The County has no similar ordinance, nor has one ever been needed to date. However, future regulations will have to be adopted commensurate with the County's responsibility in management of its solid wastes. Subdivision Regulations. The existing County Subdivision Regulations contain no requirements for developers to provide sanitary solid waste facilities for their subdivisions. The revised subdivision regulations draft does stipu late solid waste disposal facility requirements for future subdivisions in order to insure that future residents will have an approved disposal facility within a reasonable distance. This draft will be presented for adoption within six months (see Appendix J). In addition to the County Subdivision Regulations, the State Department of Health requires that approved community or private refuse collection service be utilized where available. If such service is unavailable, the regulations require that the subdivider provide a disposal site subject to approval of the Department (see Appendix K). One point of concern here is that the sub divider could in turn require the County to provide a refuse disposal site under the provisions of ARS 9 - W A B. Although this point has not yet been contested, the County very likely will become legally involved as the State Department of Health continues to tighten its restrictions on sub dividers. This is yet another reason for the prompt implementation of a sound county solid wastes management system. County Ordinances. Regardless of which County Department ultimately assumes the responsibility for solid wastes administration, it is paramount that an ordinance be adopted in order to provide a means of establishing and enforcing operating standards. An example ordinance is presented in Appendix I. —106— In "brief, the section headings are as follows: 1. Definitions 2. Refuse Storage 3. Refuse Collection and Haul a. Responsible Agency b. Operating Regulations U. Refuse Disposal a. Responsible Agency b. Operating Regulations 5. Service Fees 6. Penalties 7« Conflicting Regulations Repealed -107- FINANCING SOLID WASTES MANAGEMENT Phase I of this plan can be implemented within existing budgets. However, implementation of Phase II will place a significant burden on both the capital improvements budget and the operating budget of the County. Consequently, special provisions for financing the increased costs must be considered. ' - > Resources There are a few grants available from various federal agencies. The Bureau of Solid Wastes Management has grants availalbe for solid wastes research, graduate training, investigations, planning, and demonstration of new methods. Similarly, the Bureau of Mines and the Department of the Interior have grants available for planning and research in their respective areas. But it"appears that there are no grants available for direct financial assistance in purchasing equipment, facilities, and labor for the solid wastes system proposed for the County. However, the County may well qualify for low cost land and low cost loans under the Bureau of Land Management and the Farmers * Home Administration programs. These possibilities will be explored in detail later. Unless the County should be fortunate enough to receive a grant, the solid wastes system must ultimately be paid for from one of three revenue sources: (l) service fees; (2) special assessments; (3) the general fund. Service fees are not practical under the proposed refuse collection, haul and disposal system. The costs of stationing a fee collector at each of the convenience stations and sanitary landfills would be greater than any fees which could be reasonably collected. Yet aside from service fees, there is no other equitable means of collecting revenue for this service. Special -1 0 8 - assessment taxes on payroll or property, even if they were authorized, would not be equitable because quantities of refuse generated are only slightly correlated with level of income and value of property owned. Since general fund revenues are derived directly from property taxes and indirectly from sales taxes, financing a solid wastes system from this source is also somewhat inequitable; however, the general fund appears to be the most practical means of paying for the solid wastes system. Capital Expenditures The methods of financing capital expenditures of the Cochise County solid wastes management system will depend largely upon the timetable for implementation. If the County completes all necessary construction and pur chases all required equipment within a one year period, it will provide more service per' dollar. This is because facilities and equipment can be most efficiently utilized when handling the maximum amount of refuse from all areas. However, lump sum financing does sacrifice some flexibility in that it is not as easy to "feel out" public reaction or to "play it by ear". This difficulty could be partially overcome by initiating a pilot program for selected areas. For this discussion we shall assume lump sum financing for initial requirements, although most of the methods of financing would apply to capital expenditures spread over more than one year. It is also assumed that legal authority for employing one or more of these methods will be made available. A comparison summary of the methods discussed below is presented in Table 20. Pay-As-You-Go. This method of financing incurs no public debt, but it requires that capital be accumulated in advance in order to pay for new equipment and facilities. Often, a sinking fund is established to insure the regular accumulation of capital. Pay-as-you-go financing is sometimes - 109- criticized on the grounds that it is unfair to today's taxpayer, who will he sustaining a disproportionate share of capital and equipment costs, which should he a county liability over an extended period of time. There are two counters to this allegation. The first is that many of today's taxpayers have been incurring a social debt by indiscriminately dumping their refuse upon the land for many years. The other counter is that there are very few facilities and items of equipment in the proposed system which will not have to be completely replaced at least once within each generation. In general then, the pay-as-you-go method appears to be a desirable and economical method of financing the solid waste system if the County can sufficiently expand the budget. Leasing and Contracting. This method requires little or no capital expenditures. If the County were to employ leasing and contracting in the operation of its solid waste system, it would rent equipment, facilities, land, and perhaps even contract labor to collect, haul, and dispose of refuse on private, land. In the long run, leasing would be the most expensive means of providing a solid waste service, because payment must provide intermediate profits to property owners and contractors. Also, no equity is accumulated using this method. Therefore, leasing should be considered only as a temporary measure with one exception. That exception is the.leasing of either federal or state land for use as a sanitary landfill or as a convenience station. The Bureau of Land Management, under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act (U3 CFR 27li.0,2912) does make its land available for refuse disposal operations. The land is leased for a period of 25 years (renewable) for a very small fee. The following conditions apply: 1. The land must be suitable for the intended purpose. 2. The proposed project must be approved by BLM. - n o - 3. The intended use must he publically announced. 4. The amount of land per project is limited to 6I4.O acres.' 5. The project must he completed and operating within a reasonable period of time. 6 . The operation must he conducted in accordance with approved standards. The State Land Department also has special provisions for the lease or sale of its lands for public purposes such as disposal sites. Sales and leases are made periodically in each county according to the number of applications. General Obligation Bonds. This is the most common means of financing public capital improvements. These bonds are repaid from tax revenues of the County. In Arizona, general obligation bonds require a majority voter approval in a referendum election. Bond indebtedness is limited to four percent of the total assessed valuation. Although general obligation bonds represent a potential low interest source of funds, they incur other costs: (1) public information publicity; (2) election costs; (3) preparation of bond sale brochures; (i|) printing and notorizing; (5) bond sales; (6) servicing bonds. Revenue Bonds. Unlike general obligation bonds, revenue bonds are repaid from revenue derived from the capital improvements — in this case the disposal site user fees. Revenue bonds also must be approved by the voters and they incur the same additional costs as general obligation bonds. It is not feasible to utilize this method to finance the County* s solid waste system, because there is not enough potential revenue from refuse collection, haul, and disposal to even begin to repay revenue bonds. Only in a densely populated area such as the Sierra Tista - Fort Huachuca - Huachuca City area would revenue bond financing be possible. In that area, -1 11- the municipalities and contractors find it profitable to pay Huachuca City for the use of its sanitary landfill. Loans. Because of their high interest rates, commercial loans should generally be considered only as a last resort in financing a solid waste system. However, low interest loans are available from both the Department of Housing and Urban Development (communities over £,500) and the Farmer's Home Administration (communities under 5>500). Although the Planning Department has contacted these agencies, no specific information is available at this time. If the interest rates prove to be less than the interest rates of general obligation bonds, this method of financing solid waste capital expenditures appears to be ideal. Conclusions In light of the above discussion, the best method of financing the Cochise County solid wastes program would be, in order of preference: (l) pay-a-you-go; (2) low interest loans; (3) general obligation bonds. Also, low cost federal or state land should be obtained whenever possible. -1 1 2 - TABLE 20 COMPARISON SUMMARY METHODS OF FINANCING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS METHODEXPLANATION ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES GUIDELINES Grants 1. Direct financing, usually "by 1a. Little or no direct 1a. Requires extensive 1. Grants should be consid- • the Federal Government, for execut cost to local taxpayers, justification. ered as a potential extension ing a demonstration project, for b. Often allows a more b. Timing and amount of or improvement of proposed conducting research, for planning, extensive or sophisticated funds is uncertain. projects, not as the justifi or for purchase of land, facilities, means of managing solid c. Attached stipulations cation for initiating those equipment. wastes. may result in loss of projects. flexibility. ••••• • Pay-As-‘ 2. Appropriations from annual 2a. Least expensive in 2a. Taxes may increase 2. Pay-As-You-Go is generally Tou-Go '/Of-’M- budget pay for operations and the long run. sooner under this method the best method of financing v.: ''2-,' maintenance. Money for capital b. Avoids uncertainties than under others, whenever fiscal resources and • expenditures is usually accumu of bonding referendums. b. Program is difficult budgetary requirements permit. lated in advance. c. Allows more flexibil to initiate due to temp This method can be used in ity in administration of tation to appropriate conjunction with any of the solid waste program funds to more "pressing" other methods described below. because funds are not needs. "tied up." Leases/ 3« Rental or payment to con- 3a. Requires little or 3a. Most expensive in the 3. This method should be used Contracts tractor for use of equipment no capital expenditures. long run. only as a temporary measure and services. b. Provides long-term b. Some short-term flexi either to allow time to build flexibility in changing bility of service is lost up permanent program or to pro modes of operation with due to rigid contract vide service until permanent out costly changes in specifications. decisions are made. equipment and facilities. General 1|. Issued by the County and l*a. Represents a ready l^a. Will probably cause I4. General Obligation Bonds Obligation repaid from tax revenues at and dependable source temporary increase in should be used whenever exist Bonds a fixed interest rate. of capital funds, taxes. ing capital is inadequate and b. Solicits public in b. Interst rates may loans at lower interest are volvement in solid waste cost over 50$ of princi unavailable. programs. pal depending on amount borrowed and repayment schedule. c. Incurs substantial administration costs. d. Voter approval un- : —113” certain. TABLE 20 (continued) METHOD EXPLANATION ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGESGUIDELINES l |% Revenue 5. Issued by the County and 5a. Repayment is not a 5a. Revenue from completed 5. Revenue bonds should be Bonds repaid from a specific revenue legal liability to the facilities may not be enough employed whenever a revenue ’ source. general fund, to support bond payments. producing activity is to be b. Solicits public in b. Incurs substantial ad financed if existing capital volvement in solid waste ministration costs. is inadequate and low interest program. c. Voter approval is loans are unavailable. uncertain. lv Loans 6. Direct borrowing from a 6a. Avoids a costly 6a. Interest rates are 6. Loans should be used as lending agency (bank, federal election. high if borrowing from a a source of capital if advan government, etc.) b. May be cheaper than commercial institution, tageous interest rates can be bonds if low interest b. Repayment will pro obtained. loans are available. bably cause a raise in taxes. APPENDIX — 1 1 ll— APPENDIX A BIBLIOGRAPHY General References 1. American Pulic Works Association. Municipal Refuse Disposal. Chicago, Illinois: Public Administration Service, 1970 2. American Public Works Association. Refuse Collection Practice. 3d. ed. Chicago, Illinois: Public Administration Service, 1966 3 . Animal Waste Management, Proceedings of the National Symposium on Animal Waste Management. Warrenton, Virginia: Airlie House, 1971. 1|. Caterpillar Tractor Co. Caterpillar Performance Handbook. Peoria, Illinois, 1970. 5. Dodge. Estimating Guide for Public Works Construction. New York: McGraw Hill Co., 1969. 6. Earth Resources Observation Satellite Data Center, U.S. Geological Survey. %0 Millimeter U-2 Flight, Mission l5S, Roll 39. Sioux Falls, South Dakota: U.S.G.S., January, 1971* 7. Environmental Sciences and Engineering Study Section of the U.S. Public Health Service, Sponsor. Proceedings: National Confer ence on Solid Waste Research. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Center for Continuing Education, 1963. 8. Freedman, Ben, M.D. Sanitarian's Handbook. • New Orleans, Louisiana: Peerless Publishing Co., 1957• 9 . Golueke, C.G., and P.H. McGauhey. Comprehensive Studies of Solid Waste Management. 1st and 2d Annual Reports. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970. 10. Golueke, C.G. and Staff. Solid Waste Management: Abstracts from the Literature. Volumes 1 and 2. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970. 11. Mitchell, Desso, Joseph Bant a, P.H. McGauley, Jean L. Vincenz, and Leo Weaver. Sanitary Landfill. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers, 1959. 12. Muhich, Anton J., Albert J. Klee, and Paul W. Britton. Preliminary Data Analysis, 1968 National Survey of Community Solid Waste Practices. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968. . • -1 1 2 - 13. Robert Snow Means Co. Building Construction Cost Bata. Buxbury, Mass., 1971. lit. Schultz, George Park. Managerial Becision Making in local Govern ment Facility Planning for Solid Waste Collection. Ithaca, New York: Bept. of City and Regional Planning, Cornell University, 1968. 1$. Sorg, Thomas J. and H. Lanier Hickman. Sanitary Landfill Facts. Washington, B.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968. Special Reports 1. Aerojet-General Corp. California Waste Mangement Study. Report No. 3056. California: Aero j et-General Corp., 196$. 2. Caterpillar Tractor Co., Sales Training Bivision. The Sanitary Landfill. Report TEGO 7038-OI. Peoria, Illinois, 1971. 3 . Bepartment of Water Resources, State of California. Sanitary Land fill Studies, Appendix A: Summary of Previous Investigations. Bulletin No. 1U7-5* Sacramento, California: Office of Pro curement, Bocuments Section, 1969. A It. Be Spain and Associates. Comprehensive Plan for the City of Willcox, Arizona. Provo, Utah, 1971. $. Ferguson, Morris, and Associates. Comprehensive Plan for the City of Bishee, Arizona. Phoenix, Arizona, 1972. 6. Gliege, John. "Special Bistricts as a Voluntary Community Associa tion for Community Bevelopment.11 Phoenix, Arizona: Community Bevelopment Section, Arizona Bepartment of Economic Planning and Bevelopment, 1971. 7. Jones & Henry Engineers Limited. Proposals for a Refuse Bisposal System in Okland County, Michigan. Washington, B.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970. 8. McLean, Mary. Planning for Solid Waste Management. Chicago, Illinois: American Society of Planning Officials, 1971. 9« Page, Canny G. Cochise County Agriculture - 1972. Willcox, Arizona: Arizona Agricultural Extension Service, 1972.10 * 10. Planning Bivision, Bepartment of Economic Planning and Bevelopment , State of Arizona. Arizona Population Projections: The Current State of the Art. Phoenix, Arizona, 1971. 11 . Planning Division, Department of Economic Planning and. Development, State of Arizona. Environmental Services Needs Study, Cochise County. Phoenix, Arizona, 1971• 12. Sanitary Engineering Division, North Carolina State Board of Health. Survey Data and Proposed Management Program for Solid Waste Disposal in Cumberland County. Raleigh, North Carolina, 1968. 13. Thomas, Dean & Hoskins, Inc. Comprehensive Study of Solid Waste Disposal in Cascade County, Montana. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970. li|. Toftner, Richard 0. Developing a State Solid Waste Management Plan. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970. 15. Bureau of Solid Waste Management, TJ.'S. Department of Health, Educa tion, and Welfare. Grant Programs Under the Solid Waste Disposal Act. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969. . • • * 16. National Association of Counties Research Foundation. Solid Waste Management. Washington, D.C.: NACO, 1970. Periodicals 1. Creisler, Joe. "California*s Abandoned Vehicle Law." Public Works, 100 (October, 1969), 103-107. 2. "From Pickups and Dumps to Clean and Green." Public Works, 103 (May, 1972), 89=90. 3 . Helms, Billy and Robert M. Clark. "Locational Models for Solid Waste Management." Journal of the Urban Planning and Develop ment Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 97 (April, 1971)> 1-12. It. Helms, Billy P. and Robert M. Clark. "Selecting Solid Waste Dis posal Facilities." Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 97 (August, 1971), 14*3-451. 5. Karr, Richmond K. "Vermont Shows the Way With Junk Vehicle Program." Public Works, 103 (May, 1972), 10lt-105. ‘ 6. Loehr, Raymond C. "Animal Wastes - A National Problem." Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division, 95 (April, 1969), 189-218. 7. Pennsylvania Department of Health. "Definitions of Solid Waste Terms." Public Works, 101 (March, 1970), 126-127. 8. "Salvaging Obsolete Autos." Civil Engineering, Ul (April, 1971)» 52-54. 9. Salvato, Joseph P. "Sanitary Landfill Planning, Design and Operation.1! Public Works, 101 (February, 1970) 63-65. 10. Stone, Ralph and Helen Friedland. "A National Survey of Sanitary Land fill Practices." Public Works, 100 (August, 1969)1 88-89. 11. Tietjen, Lord and Samuel A. Hart. "Compost for Agricultural Land?" Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 95 (April, 1969), 269-286. 12. Westerhoff, Garret P. "A Current Review of Composting." Public Works, 100 (November, 1969)1 87-90. 13. Westerhoff, Garret P. and Robert M. Gruninger. "Population Density vs. Per Capita Solid Waste Production." Public Works, 101 February, 1970), 86-87. 111. Wisley, F.F., G. Wayne Sutterfield, and David L. Klumb. "St. Louis to Bum City Refuse." Civil Engineering, 111 (January, 1971) 1 56-59. Letters 1. Letter from Mr. John M. Little, Director of Resource Programs, Arizona State Land Department, Phoenix, Arizona. August 2li, 1972. 2. Letter from Mr. Andrew B. Mayberry, State Director, Farmers Home Administration, Phoenix, Arizona. August 2li, 1972. 3. Letter from Mr. Joseph Patti, Jr., Area Manager, Bureau of Land Management, Safford, Arizona. August 2, 1972. It. Letter from Mr. Richard J. Riley, County Attorney, Cochise County. July 25, 1972. Interviews 1. Interview with Mrs. Sondra Burroughs, City Clerk, Bisbee, Arizona. June 7i 1972. 2. Interview with Mr. Ellis Foote, City Manager, Willcox, Arizona. June 8, 1972. 3 . Interview with Mr. Lonnie Bright, Cochise County Health Department, Bisbee, Arizona. June 9i 1972. • It. Interview with Mr. Angel Salas, Public Works Director, Bisbee, Arizona. June 9i 1972. 5. Interview with Mr. Harry Huber, City Clerk, Tombstone, Arizona. June 12, 1972. 6. Interview with Mr. Edward McGill, Refuse Disposal Contractor, Tombstone, Arizona. June 12, 1972. 7. Interview tith Mr. Dave Martin, Asst. Public Works Director, Douglas, Arizona. June lj>, 1972. 8. Telephone conversation with Mr. Harvey Ayrs, Sanitarian, Sierra Vista, Arizona. June 16, 1972. 9. Interview with Mr. Lee Gonzales, Public Works Director, Huachuca City, Arizona. June 16, 1972. 10. Interview with Mrs. Amy Lowry, City Clerk, Benson, Arizona. June 19, 1972. . 11. Telephone conversation with Mr. Joe Ruterman, Public Works Director, Douglas, Arizona. June 19, 1972. 12. Interview with Mrs. Jonnie Bethal and Mr. James Dilton, Agricul tural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Willcox, Arizona. June 20, 1972. 13. Interview with Mr. Carmey Page, Arizona Agricultural Extension Agent, Willcox, Arizona. June 20, 1972. ll+. Interview with Mrs. Evelyn Hanson, part owner of Bker and Hanson Garbage Service, Bisbee, Arizona. June 21, 1972. 15. Interview with Mr. Richard Albert, District Forest Ranger, Douglas, Arizona. June 29, 1972. 16. Interview with Mr. Manuel Hernandez, owner H & K Disposal Service, Pearce, Arizona. July 11, 1972. 17. Interview with Mr. Harry Little, District Forest Ranger, Willcox, Arizona. July 11, 1972. 18. Interview with Mr. William Lukens, Superintendent, Chiricahua National Monument, Arizona. July 11, 1972. 19. Interview with Mr. Robert Munari, Public Health Engineer, Arizona State Department of Health, Bisbee, Arizona. July 13, 1972. 20. Interview with Mr. William Jenney, Manager, Cochise County Sanitary Services, Inc., Sierra Vista, Arizona. July 2l*, 1972. 21. Interview with Mr. Darrell K. Buechler of Arizona Tractor Co., Tucson, Arizona. Bisbee, Arizona. August 1, 1972. 22. Telephone conversation with Mr. Bill Joplin, Chief Engineer, Pima County Sanitation.Department, Tucson, Arizona. August 1, 1972. 23. Telephone conversation with Mr. George Hart, Leaching and Precipita tion Office, Phelps Dodge Corporation, Naco, Arizona. August 7> 1972. - 119- 2li. Interview with Mr. T. V. Hosier of Empire Machinery Company, Tucson. Bisfcee, Arizona. August 8, 1972. Manufacturer1 s Brochures 1. Allis-Chalmers, Springfield, Illinois. 2. American Hoist & Derrick, St. Paul, Minnesota. 3. Atlan Hoist & Body, Montreal 376, Quebec, Canada. 1*. Athey Products Corp., Raleigh, North Carolina. 5>. Caterpillar Tractor Company, Peoria, Illinois. 6. Cobey Co., Gallon, Ohio. 7. Deere & Company, Moline, Illinois. 8. Dempster Brothers, Inc., Knoxville, Tennessee. 9. E-Z Pack Company, Gallon, Ohio. 10. Mack Trucks Inc., Allentown, Pennsylvania. 11. Mid Equipment Co., Grundy Center, Iowa. 12. Universal Handling Equipment Co., Hamilton 27, Ontario, Canada. 13. LoDal Co., Kingsford Michigan. 111. International Harvester Co., Chicago,. Illinois. -1 2 0 - APPENDIX B DEFINITIONS Abandoned or Non-operable automobiles, trucks, and trailers that Junk Vehicles are beyond economical repair and. have been disclaimed by their owners. Agricultural The solid waste produced as a result of farming or Waste ranching process. Garbage Animal and vegetable waste resulting from the hand ling, preparation, cooking and consumption of foot. Groundwater Water beneath the surface which is in a zone of saturation. Manure Animal excreta. Refuse All materials (garbage, rubbish, trash) which are discarded by man as useless. Commercial All solid wastes produced by establishments engaged Refuse in business such as stores, markets, office buildings, hotels, and restaurants. Domestic All of the discarded solid waste which normally Refuse originates from residential households or apart ment buildings. Industrial All solid wastes resulting from manufacturing oper Refuse ations and industrial processes in factories, processing plants, refineries, slaughter houses and mills. Rubbish Solid wastes excluding garbage and other decomposible matter. This category includes paper, ashes, rags, plastic, cans, glass and wood. Surface Water All water whose surface is exposed to the atmosphere. Trash Large bulky items such as tree trimmings and old appliances discarded only infrequently. Vector (of disease) An animal or insect which transmits pathogenic organisms from one person, animal, or location to another. -1 2 1 - APPENDIX C POPULATION PROJECTIONS The population projections used in this report were derived and modi fied from the population figures in the two DEPAD reports: (l) Arizona Population Projections, The Current State of the Art; (2) Environmental Services Needs Study, Cochise County. DEPAD used what might be called the "ratio method" for projecting the County's population. Cochise County's proportion of the total State population was computed for previous years. The projections were then made according to the rate of increase or decrease of this ratio. Since the DEPAD figures were the only population projections which incorporated the 1970 census figures, they must be considered the most accurate predictions available. However, the DEPAD methodology has certain possible deficiencies which sould be recognized. The first of these deficiencies is that DEPAD did not break down the population by age and sex components in computing the future County population. Thus DEPAD did not- account for popu lation charges due to variations in either birth rates (fertility ratios and numbers of women of childbearing ages) or death rates. A second deficiency in DEPAD's population forecasts lies in its failure to account for the dif ference between County and State migration rates. This factor is especially significant because there are presently 75»332 subdivided residential lots in the County of which only three percent are occupied. Thus, there are more vacant lots in the county than residents, and the future occupancy rate of these lots is unknown. It should also be noted, however, that correction of the two above mentioned deficiencies in order to improve the accuracy of the projections -122- for both population and solid waste would involve extensive reasearch and calculations. This effort is probably not warranted for this relatively short term plan, because an established solid wastes management system will be fairly flexible in handling moderate unexpected population changes in the County. One modification was made to the DEPAD population projections for the County. Although DEPAD did account for the sudden recent increase in population of Port Huachuca when estimating population increases for that area, it did not include this increase in the projections for the entire County. This increase amounted to an addition of between 4>000 to $,000 military personnel. To account for the increase, this writer added a con stant factor of 5>000 to the DEPAD estimates for 1975 and 1930. The reason for using a constant factor is that this particular population segment is relatively static. That is, the increase is comprised primarily of soldiers without their families attending the Army Intelligence School for only a few months. Consequently, they will not beget children to increase their numbers in this area. Of course, these soldiers will cause some increase in the local population due to the "multiplier effect" (i.e. more local businessmen, administrative personnel, and their families), but this latter increase would not justify increasing the Army Intelligence School population at the same rate as the rest of the County population in future years. • DEPAD's population projections for the seven incorporated cities and the two unincorporated communities of Bowie and Naco were used unmodified. The 1970 population of the remaining rural areas was distributed by population center using the 1970 census enumerating district data plus high altitude photographs showing building locations. This 1970 distribution of population - 123- was then held in constant proportion for each population center for 1975 and 1980 in determining its share of the DEPAD rural County population increase. This method of projecting the County population distribution is also subject to error because of variations in local conditions. However, any local deviations from predicted populations can. also be accommodated by a flexible solid wastes management system through inexpensive expanding of convenience stations and rerouting of collection vehicles. —12l^— APPENDIX D REFUSE PRODUCTION PROJECTIONS The determination of guantities of refuse generated by the residents of Cochise County presents a somewhat difficult problem due to lack of adequate records. Apparently, Cochise County is not alone in this difficulty, because -very little information on refuse quantities has been compiled for any rural county. However, the following guidelines do provide a fairly reliable indi- cation of how much refuse we could expect to be generated within the county. 1. The 1968 National Survey conducted by the American Public Works Association shows a daily average for household plus commercial refuse to be U.05 Ib/cap/day. (Gen. Ref. 1:36) 2. Records from Huachuca City (the only disposal site in the county keeping records) show two year averages of 5.2 Ib/cap/day and 1+.6 Ib/cap/day for Sierra Vista and Huachuca City, respectively. These are urban areas. 3. In a recent solid wastes study for Cascade County, Montana, engin eers estimated an average of U«5 Ib/cap/day. (Sp. Rep. 13) In light of the above figures^ the DEPAD estimate of 4-38 Ib/cap/day in 1970 appears to be quite realistic and will be here utilized as an overall average of refuse generated per capita In Cochise County in 1970. (Sp. Rep. 11) In addition to this overall average rate, some determination is needed as to how refuse generation might be expected to vary among different locations in the county and as to how refuse generation might be expected to change overtime. In this regard, it is recognized that a number of variables affect refuse production: (1) population and housing densities; (2) standards of living; (3) frequency of refuse collection; (4) geographic locations; (5) domestic energy sources; (6) individual waste reduction methods (garbage grinders 1 The figures used are for solid wastes normally disposed of in a community disposal site. They do not include large industry, agri culture , and mining, which combined produce over 10 times the amount of solid waste (on a national scale) than ever reaches community disposal sites. (Spec. Rep. 8:12) -125- and compactors); (?) salvage practices; (8) climate; (9) the increased usi of disposable packaging materials. Of the above factors, domestic energy sources, salvage practices, and climate may be safely assumed to be constant throughout time. Individual waste reduction methods would be difficult to measure, and by assuming this factor to be either constant or varying with population density, we may account for it with minimum error. The other variables are at least approximately proportional to population density, and combined will account for increased refuse generation as population densities increase. In addition, the improving economic conditions (affluency) wi'.l cause a gradual increase in refuse production overtime. Thus only two para meters will be applied in computing variations and changes in refuse genera tion — population density and an "affluency factor". The relationship between waste production and population density has been established in a 1970 study done in two rural counties in New York. (Per. 13:87) . The graphic relationship is shown below. -126- 10,000 O cc WASTE PRODUCTION POUNDS PER CAPITA PER DAY H FIGURE 1. Data from 78 communities in two rural New York State counties show the relationship between per capita waste production and. density of the population. Although, the relative magnitudes of refuse generation in Cochise County are higher, the proportion of refuse generated with respect to population density may he assumed to he as shown: From this relationship, - 0.6 = rg r1 - 1-2 = r3 -127- where r-j, rg, rj, are the component refuse generation rates, in Ib/cap/day for areas of population density greater than 1,000 persons per square mile, areas between 100 and 1,000 persons per square mile, and areas less than 100 persons per square mile, respectively. In Cochise County during 1970, there were 142,920 persons living in areas of the highest density, there were 6,519 persons living in areas between 100 and 1,000 persons per square mile, and there were 12,1471 persons living in. areas of the lowest density. It is estimated that there was a total of 271,436 Ib/day of refuse being generated in Cochise County in 1970. Equating this total to the component rates multiplied by the respective component populations produces the following equation: 12,l471r3 + 6,5l9r2 + 42,920^ = 271,436 Applying the previously established relationships among r-j, rg, r^, yields: 12,471^ - 1.2(32,471) + 6,519^ - 0.6(6,519) + 42,930^ = 271,436 Solving: = 4.6893 Thus we shall use the following derived component refuse generation rate values for 1970. r.-| = 4.7 Ib/cap/day rg = 4.1 Ib/cap/day r3 = 3*5 Ib/cap/day The "affluency factor" is the second paramenter that must be considered in predicting refuse generation rates. It is well known that the steadily increasing use of packaging materials on retail items is causing a significant increase in the household and commercial production of rubbish. Unfortunately, the only comparison studies available which might give an indication of the rate of increase due to this af fluency have been done for large urban areas. (Gen. Ref. 1:33) Even these aren't much help. For instance, the annual rates -128- of increase in Ib/cap/yr over the 1957 - 19&7 period range from -1$ in Atlanta, Georgia to in Los Angeles, California. The Cascade County, Montana study used an affluency factor annual rate of increase of 2$>, (Sp. Rep. 13) DEPAD used an af fluency factor of jfo for the period 1970 - 1975 and only 2^> for the period 1975 - 1980. These latter figures appear to he slightly high for a rural county such as Cochise County. Therefore, this report will use an affluency factor annual rate of increase in refuse generation of 2$. This increase will result in the following values of refuse generation rates (r in lb/cap/day). 1210 1972 1215 1980 U.70 4.89 5.19 5.73 U.io 4.27 4-53 5.00 3.50 3.64 3.86 4.27 These values, when multiplied by the appropriate population figures, will give the total refuse production for any given area within the county.* - 129- APPENDIX E WEIGHT - VOLUME RELATIONSHIPS Even though the weight of refuse generated by a certain population center is known, it is often necessary to convert this weight to volume in order to compute landfill volumes, truck capacities, etc. Since refuse is a dissimilar, inconsistent mixture of materials of various sizes and densities, no absolute ratio of weight to volume can be established. However, the average range of density for uncompacted refuse is from 100 to 300 pounds per cubic yard. A vehicle with a compacting mechanism will compact the refuse to a density of from 300 to 800 pounds per cubic yard. (Gen. Ref. 1:100) Thus the density of 3f)0 pounds per cubic yard used in Table 11+ is probably conserva tive. Once deposited in a sanitary landfill, densities of 800 to 1,1+00 pounds per cubic yard can be attained depending upon the equipment available. - Pre shredding the refuse will facilitate achieving densities at the upper end of this range. If even higher densities are desired, special high-compression balers are available which will compress refuse into relatively inert bales with a density of 2,100 pounds per cubic yard. -1 3 0 - AREA (SQ Ml) l 0 0 iO 1,0 100,000 10,000 ipOO 100 10 l _ CNMC EES F REFUSE OF LEVELS ECONOMIC .IPSL SERVICE ..DISPOSAL on io t a l u p o p AREA „ (SO Ml) 10,000 1,000 100 CNMC EE O REFUSE OF LEVEL ECONOMIC CLETO SRIE 1. SERVICE -COLLECTION 0 10 pO 000 100,000 10,000 IpOO .100 10 POPULATION PEDX P APPENDIX APPENDIX G Letter from Mr. Richard J. Riley County Attorney Cochise County, Arizona RICHARD J. RILEY DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEYS C O C H IS E COUNTY ATTORNEY PATRICK M. ELL1STON BOX 79 0 BEVERLY H. JENHEY W1LLCOX. ARIZONA 85643 EF DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE OF THE ROY B. SKAGGS II PHONE 432-2291 BOX 728 p . O. DRAWER CA BENSON, ARIZONA 85602 BISBEE. ARIZONA 85603 (Emmtg (Attmmeg COCHISE COUNTY PUSHAH S . VLAHOVICH CHIEF-JUVENILE DIVISION Bisbee, Arizona 85*03 P. O. BOX 4307 July 25, 1972 BISBEE. ARIZONA 85603 Douglas L. Wentworth Planning Intern .. Cochise County Planning Department P. 0. Drawer AC Bisbee, Arizona 85603 Dear Mr. Wentworth: I'm afraid this letter will be disappointing to you. The Arizona Supreme Court has been loath to extend the express statutory powers granted to the counties by the legislature. In other words the employed powers of the counties are con strued in an extremely narrow fashion while the employed powers of the cities are construed in extremely broad fashion. Conse quently I am going to have to say no to most of your questions. In my opinion, a county does not have the authority to estab lish a county-wide solid wastes management system. In my opinion, a county does not have the authority to adopt requirements concerning the storage, transportation, process ing and disposal of solid wastes. The county has no authority to do these things* It would follow that it would have no authority to establish a separate depart ment to regulate and/or operate solid wastes management systems. The county may contract with municipal corporations, individual or private corporations for the operation of a dump but cannot grant franchises for the collection and disposal of garbage, refuse, rubbish and trash. I do believe that the county has the power to acquire a dump site by eminent domain. A dump site is a "public use" author ized by the legislature, and I believe that paragraphs 2, 3 and 6 of A.R.S. § 12-1111 would authorize the acquisition of a dump site by condemnation. Douglas L. Wentworth July 25, 1972 ' Page 2 I do not believe that a county has the authority to finance a solid wastes management system since this authority is lim ited to furnishing public dumping grounds nor do I believe that a county has the authority to license private solid waste opera tors. I am enclosing copies of some Attorney General Opinions which have been issued in the past of the powers of counties which I believe will give you a pretty good insight into the awkward position counties are in, in this day and age of the public demanding ever increasing services. They are opinions No. 57- GO, 57-43, 57-22, 57-23 and 68-14. I am totally in accord with what you are attempting to do, and I've always been extremely frustrated by the restrictions that have been placed upon county government. I •fear however, that the remedy lies with the legislature. Cochise County Attorney R JR :lm enclosures. APPENDIX H AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE COUNTIES TO REGULATE THE COLLECTION OF GARBAGE Garbage Collection and Disposal Control of Private Collectors. — The board of county commissioners of any county is hereby empowered to regulate the collection and disposal of garbage by private persons, firms, or corporations outside of the incorpor ated cities and towns of the county for the purpose of encouraging and attempt ing to insure an adequate and continuing service of garbage collection and disposal where the board deems it to be desirable. In the exercise of such power, the board may issue a license to any private person, firm, or corporation to collect and/or dispose of garbage; may prohibit the collection and/or disposal of garbage by unlicensed persons, firms, or corporations; may grant to licensed persons, firms or corporations the exclusive right to collect and/or dispose of garbage for compensation within a specified area and prohibit unauthorized persons, firms, or corporations from collecting and/or disposing of garbage within said area; and may regulate the fees charged by licensed persons, firs, and corporations for the collection and/or disposal of garbage to the end that reasonable compensation may be provided for such services. The board may adopt regulations pursuant to the power herein granted, and the . violation of any such regulation shall be a misdemeanor, subject to a fine not exceeding fifty dollars, or imprisonment not exceeding thirty days; each week that any such violation continues to exist shall be a separate offense. County collection and disposal. — The board of county commissioners of any county is hereby empowered to establish and operate garbage collection and/or disposal facilities in areas outside of incorporated cities and towns where, in its opinion, the need for such facilities exists. The board may contract with any city or town to collect and /or dispose of garbage in any such area. In the disposal of garbage, the board may use any vacant land owned by the county, or it may acquire suitable sites for such purpose. The board may make appropriations to carry out the activities herein authorized The board may impose fees for the use of disposal facilities, and in the event it shall provide for the collection of garbage, it shall charge fees for such collection service sufficient in its opinion to defray the expense of collec tion. Powers of local boards of health unaffected. — Nothing in this article shall affect the powers of local boards of health to control the keeping, removal, collection, and disposal of garbage, insofar as the exer cise of any such power is necessary to protect and advance the public health Powers granted herein sup-piementary. — The powers granted to counties by this .article shall be deemed supplementary to any powers hereto fore or hereafter granted by any other law, either general, special, or local, for the same or a similar purpose, and in any case where the provisions of this article conflict with or are different from the provisions of such other law, the board of county commissioners may in its discretion proceed in accordance with the provisions of such other law, or, as an alternative method, in accordance with the provisions of this article. (Sp. Ref. 12) APPENDIX I EXAMPLE COUNTY SOLID WASTE ORDINANCE The following example ordinance is presented here in summary outline form. A complete and detailed county solid waste ordinance can be made only after determination of the county scope of operation and responsibility. A r t ic le 1 Title and Purpose Sec. -101 Short Title The provisions of this Chapter of the Cochise County Ordinances may be cited as the Cochise County Solid Waste Regulations Sec. -102 Purpose (1) To protect public health, safety, convenience and general wellfare (2) To provide standards for safe, sanitary, and economical means of refuse storage, collection, and disposal (3) To ensure sound management and operation in the storage transportation, processing, reclamation, and disposal of all solid waste materials Article 2 Definitions (See Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1967, P.L. 89-272) Article 3 Refuse Storage Sec. -301 Garbage Containers (1) Specify types and sizes of garbage containers permitted on residences, commercial establishments, and community collection stations (2) Specify cleaning frequencies and/or sanitation standards Sec. -302 Rubbish Containers (1) Specify types and sizes of rubbish containers (2) Specify sanitation standards - 139- Sec. -303 Open Storage (1) Agricultural solid wastes - what type permitted to he stored, how long, under what conditions (2) Storage and removal of junk autos (3) Industrial solid wastes - what type permitted to he stored, how long, under what conditions Article k Solid Waste Collection and Haul Sec. -Ii01 Administration (1) Indentify regulating agency or agencies and its functions and powers (a) Require operations schedule (h) Issue and revoke permits and licenses. (c) Monitor solid waste transfer operations (d) Institute proceedings to prosecute violators. (e) Operate the service. (2) Appoint an advisory hoard (if required) (3) Coordinate efforts with municipal, (other) county, and state governments Sec. -1*02 Operating Regulations (1) Specify owner/occupant responsibilities in removing refuse from his premises . (2) Specify for refuse collectors the types of vehicles, sanitary conditions, frequency of pickup (3) Specify for agricultural and industrial waste collectors the type of vehicles, sanitary conditions, provisions for special circumstances / A r t ic le 5> Solid Waste Disposal -$02 Administration (1) Identify regulating agency or agencies and its functions and powers (a) Require submission of site and operating plans ("b) Monitor solid waste disposal operations. (c) Institute proceedings to prosecute violators (d) Operate disposal services (2) Coordinate intergovernmental disposal operations -502 Operating Regulations (1) Specify solid waste disposal restrictions on burning, burying, washing (2) Specify sanitary landfill standards of operation and re quired facilities (3) Specify standards of operation for other approved disposal methods - incineration, composting, agriculture solid waste pits Article 6 Finances -601 Collection of Fees (1) Specify who (contractor and/or government) may collect fees for collection and disposal of solid wastes (2) Establish monitary limits on fees -602 Capital Expenditures Financing (1) Specify means of financing solid waste capital expenditures bonds, loans, operating budget (2) Establish monitary limits on bonds and loans A r t ic le 7 Enforcement Sec. -701 Inspection (1) Identify regulating and inspecting agency, powers and res ponsibilities (2) Specify all agencies and operations to be inspected (3) Specify manner and frequency of inspection Sec. -702 Penalties (1) Specify legal classification of violations - misdemeanor (2) Specify maximum fines and imprisonment and authority for issuance. Article 8 Validity * Sec. -801 Severability Invalidity of any one provision of this ordinance does not affect validity of any other provisions Sec -802 Conflicting Provisions Repealed All regulations or parts of regulations in conflict herewith are repealed only to the extent necessary to give these regulations full force and effect Sec. -803 Effective Date Specify date of Board of Supervisors' approval • —1lj.2— APPENDIX J PROPOSED SOLID WASTE SUBDIVISION REGULATION Sec. U-612J Solid Waste Disposal A facility for sanitary disposal of solid wastes shall be provided in strict accordance with the provisions and requirements of the General Development Plan, Zoning Regulations, and standards of the Cochise County Health Department. Where an approved disposal facility exists within six miles of all lots, permission from the responsible operating agency must be obtained for use by future residents. Provisions for future payment of required user fees, if any, must also be made. Where no solid waste disposal facility exists, the subdivider shall plan, construct, and provide for operation and maintenance of a sanitary landfill, incinerator, composting plant, or other community disposal facility. Plans for this facility shall be approved by the Cochise County Health Department prior to final plat approval. -1U3- APPENDIX K State Department of Health 2.10-1.1 Phoenix, Arizona_____ RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR SUBDIVISIONS Article 2 Part 10 SEC. 2-10-1. GENERAL PROVISIONS REG. 2-10-1.1 DEFINITIONS A. The term “ subdivision” as used in these regulations means any tract of land which is hereafter divided into five or more parcels along an existing or proposed street, highway, easement or right-of-way, for sale, for lease or rent as residential, industrial or commercial lots, or residential,industrial or commercial building plots, regardless of whether the lots or plots are described by metes and bounds or by reference to a map or survey of the property or by any other method. B. “ Department” means the State Department of Health or its designated representative. C. “ Approved” means acceptable to the Department. D. “ Acreage Tracts” means subdivisions containing parcels or lots having a usable area of 1 acre or more. E. “ Usable Area” means total land area exclusive of easements. F. “ Refuse” means all putrescible and nonputrescible solid wastes (except body wastes), including garbage, rubbish, ashes, street cleanings, dead animals, abandoned automobiles, and solid market and industrial wastes. G. “ Garbage” means putrescible animal and vegetable wastes resulting from the handling, preparation, cooking and consumption of food. H. ” Ashes” means the residue from the burning of wood, coal, coke or other combustible materials. I. “ Rubbish” means nonputrescible solid wastes (excluding ashes), consisting of both combustible and noncombustible wastes, such as paper, cardboard, tin cans, yard clippings, wood, glass, bedding, crockery and similar materials. (Added Reg. 1-24»61) REG. 2-10-1.2 APPROVAL OF' PLANS REQUIRED A. No subdivision or portion thereof shall be sold, offered for sale, leased or rented by any corpora- I tion, company or person, or offered to the public in any manner, and no permanent building shall be erected ) thereon until plans and specifications for the water supply, sewage disposal and method of garbage disposal _ to be provided in or to serve such subdivision shall have been submitted to and approved by the Department. B, The plans of any proposed water supply and sewage disposal system shall be submitted in quadruplicate on a plat of the subdivision as recorded, or as will be recorded, in the office of the county recorder. (Added Reg. 1-24-61) REG. 2-10-1.3 APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL A. An Application for Approval, prepared in duplicate on forms furnished by the Department, shall be filed at the time the plans are submitted for approval. The form shall be completely filled out unless indicated otherwise. B, The distance to the nearest public water supply main and to a sewer main of a municipal or community system shall be given. . (Added Reg. 1-24-61) 2-10-3.1 D. Proposed sewage disposal facilities shall comply with the Arizona State Department of Health Regulations governing the design, construction, and operation of sewerage systems and waste treatment works. Part 2-3., of this Article and shall be designed in conformance with Engineering Bulletin No. 11 of the Arizona State Department of Health. (Added Reg. 1-24-61) REG. 2-10-3.2 INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL A. Individual sewage disposal systems will not be approved where connection to a public sewer system is practical. B. Where individual septic tank and disposal systems are to be used, they shall be installed in accordance with the requirements outlined in Engineering Bulletin No. 12 of the Arizona State Department of Health and such additional requirements as may be provided by local county health departments. C. A sufficient number of borings and percolation tests shall be made in accordance with recommenda tions of the local county health department to obtain an accurate picture of soil conditions. Where borings are required by the local county health department, such borings shall be made to a depth of at least 10 feet where sub-surface tile fields are proposed, or to a depth of at least 30 feet when seepage pits are proposed. Borings and percomticn tests shall be made by an engineer, sanitarian or other qualified personnel at the subdivider’s expense and results of all tests shall be submitted to the local county health department for review and approval of the site for use of individual septic tank disposal systems. Such approval must be obtained in writing from the local county health department and a copy of the approval shall be submitted to the Department with the subdivision application for approval. D. If any portion of the subdivision contains steep slopes, low or wet areas, or if the ground is rocky in nature, a contour map shall be provided. All streams or water courses, bodies of water, low, wet or marshy land, rock outcrops and lots on which fill is to be made, shall be indicated clearly. E. Where soil conditions and terrain features in any area are such that individual sewage disposal systems cannot be expected to function properly, construction of buildings for residential or commercial use will be prohibited unless some alternate method of sewage disposal acceptable to the Department is provided. F. The use of cesspools is prohibited. (Added Reg. 1-24*61) SEC. 2-10-4. REFUSE DISPOSAL REG. 2-10-4.1 GENERAL The storage, collection, transportation and disposal of refuse and other objectionable wastes shall be governed by Part 2-4 of these regulations. (Amended Reg. November 1971) REG. 2-10-4.2 COLLECTION SERVICE ORDISPOSAL AREA A. Where an approved community or private refuse collection service is available, arrangements \ shall be made to have this service furnished to the subdivision., A letter, from the community or private collection company, stating that the collection service will be made available to the subdivision, is required. B. Where refuse collection service is not available, it will be the responsibility of the subdivider to notify each purchaser or tenant that the hauling of all refuse is an individual responsibility and that all refuse must be properly stored pending removal and disposed of at disposal areas specified in the plan approved by the Deportment. C. Where a collection service or an existing approved disposal area is not available to the sub division, a plan approval will not be granted unless a separate disposal area is provided by the subdivider or arrangements are made to utilize a new, conveniently located disposal area. Such arrangements shall include, but not be limited to, the written permission of the person responsible for the operation of the new - site. (Added Reg. November 1971) 1U5- RULES AND REGULATIONS of the Arizona State Department of Health STORAGE, COLLECTION, TRANSPORTATION AND DISPOSAL OF REFUSE AND OTHER OBJECTIONABLE WASTES Arizona Revised Statutes Title 36 Chapter 1, Section 36-105 ARTICLE 2, PART IV August 17, 1962 SECTION I GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS REGULATION 1. DEFINITIONS a. Refuse means all putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semisolid wastes, except human excreta, but including garbage, rubbish, ashes, manure, street cleanings, dead animals, abandoned automobiles, and indus trial wastes. b. Garbage means all animal and vegetable wastes resulting from the processing, handling, preparation, cooking, and serving of food or food materials. c. Ashes means residue from the burning of any combustible material. d. Rubbish means nonputrescible solid wastes, excluding ashes, consisting of both combustible and noncombustible wastes, such as paper, cardboard, waste metal, tin cans, yard clippings, wood, glass, bedding, crockery and similar materials. e. Manure means animal excreta, including cleanings from barns, stables, corrals, pens, or conveyances used for stabling, transporting, or penning of animals or fowls. f. Person means the State, a municipality, district or other political sub division, a cooperative, institution, corporation, company, firm, partner ship or individual. g. Department means the State Department of Health or a local health department designated by the State Department of Health. h. Approved means acceptable to the Department. REGULATION 2. GENERAL CONDITIONS All refuse shall be stored, collected, transported, and disposed of or re claimed in a manner consistent with the minimum requirements of these regulations. REGULATION 3. RESPONSIBILITY a. The owner, agent, or. the occupant of any premises, business establish ment, or industry shall be responsible for the sanitary condition of said premises, business establishment, or industry. No person shall place, deposit, or allow to be placed or deposited on his premises or on any public street, road, or alley any refuse or other objectionable waste, except in a manner described in these regulations. b. The owner, agent, or the occupant of any premises, business establish ment, or industry shall be responsible for the storage and disposal of all refuse accumulated, by a method or methods described in these regulations. REGULATION 4. INSPECTION Representatives of the Department shall make such inspections of any premises, container, process, equipment, or vehicle used for collection, stor age, transportation, disposal, or reclamation of refuse as are necessary to insure compliance with these regulations. REGULATION 5. REFUSE REQUIRED TO BE COLLECTED Where refuse collection service is available, the following refuse shall be required to be collected: a. Garbage, ashes, rubbish, and small dead animals which do not exceed 75 pounds in weight. REGULATION .6. REFUSE NOT REQUIRED TO BE COLLECTED a. The following refuse is not considered acceptable for collection but may be collected at the discretion of the collection agency where special facilities or equipment required for the collection and disposal of such wastes are provided: 1. Dangerous materials or substances, such as poisons, acids, caustics, infected materials, radioactive materials, and explosives. 2. Materials resulting from the repair, excavation, or construction of buildings and structures. 3. Solid wastes resulting from industrial processes. 4. Animals exceeding 75 pounds in weight, condemned animals, ani mals from a slaughterhouse, or other animals normally considered industrial waste. 5. Manure. b. Responsibility for disposal. 1. The collection and disposal of all refuse not acceptable for collection by a collection agency is the responsibility of each occupant, busi ness establishment, or industry where such refuse accumulates, and all such refuse shall be stored, collected, and disposed of in a man- . ner approved by the Department. 2. All dangerous materials and substances shall, where necessary, be rendered harmless prior to collection and disposal. * REGULATION 7. NOTICES a. All collection agencies shall provide each householder, or business establishment served, with a copy of the requirements governing the stor age and collection of refuse which shall cover at least the following items: 1. Definitions. 2. Places to be served. 3. Places not to be served. 4. Scheduled day or days of collection. 5. Materials acceptable for collection. 6. Materials not acceptable for collection. 7. Preparation of refuse for collection. 8. Types and sizes of containers permitted. 9. Points from which collections will be made. 10. Necessary safeguards for collectors. b. All such notices governing storage and collection shall conform to these regulations. SECTION n REFUSE STORAGE REGULATION 1. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS All refuse shall be stored in accordance with the requirements of this section. The owner, agent, or occupant of every dwelling, business establish ment, or other premises where refuse accumulates shall provide a sufficient number of suitable and approved containers for receiving and storing of refuse, and shall keep all refuse therein, except as otherwise provided by these regulations. REGULATION 2. METHOD OF STORAGE a. Garbage shall be stored in durable, rust resistant, nonabsorbent, watertight, and easily cleanable containers, with close fitting covers and having adequate handles or bails to facilitate handling. The size of the container shall be determined by the collection agency. b. Rubbish and ashes shall be stored in durable containers. Bulky rub bish such as tree trimmings, newspapers, weeds, and large cardboard boxes shall be handled as directed by the collection agency. Where garbage sepa ration is not required, containers for the storage of mixed rubbish and garbage shall meet the requirements specified in “a” above. c. Manure and droppings shall be removed from pens, stables, yards, cages, conveyances, and other enclosures as often as necessary to prevent a health hazard or the creation of a nuisance. All material removed shall be handled and stored in a manner that will maintain the premises nuisance free. REGULATION 3. LOCATION AND MAINTENANCE OF CONTAINERS Containers for the storage of refuse shall be maintained in such a manner as to prevent the creation of a nuisance or a menace to public health. Con tainers that are broken or otherwise fail to meet the requirements of these regulations shall be replaced, by the owner of said containers, with approved containers. ~ SECTION m COLLECTION AND TRANSPORTATION OF REFUSE REGULATION 1. FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION a. The frequency of collection shall be in accordance with regulations of the collection agency but not less than that shown in the following schedules: 1. Garbage only — twice weekly. 2. Refuse with garbage — twice weekly. 3. Rubbish and ashes — as often as necessary to prevent nuisances and fly breeding. REGULATION 2. PLACE OF COLLECTION a. All refuse shall be properly placed on the premises for convenient collection as designated by the collection agency. b. Where alleys are provided, collections shall be made on the alley side of the premises. REGULATION 3. VEHICLES a. Vehicles used for collection and transportation of garbage, or refuse containing garbage, shall have covered, watertight, metal bodies of easily cleanable construction, shall be cleaned frequently to prevent a nuisance or insect breeding, and shall be maintained in good repair. b. Vehicles used for collection and transportation of refuse shall be loaded and moved in such a manner that the contents, including ashes, will not fall, leak, or spill therefrom. Where spillage docs occur, it shall be picked up immediately by the collector and returned to the vehicle or container. c. Vehicles used for collection and transportation of rubbish or manure shall be of such construction as to prevent leakage or spillage, and shall provide a cover to prevent blowing of materials or creating a nuisance. SECTION IV REFUSE DISPOSAL REGULATION 1. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS a. All refuse shall be disposed of by a method or methods included in these regulations and shall include rodent, insect, and nuisance control at the place or places of disposal. Approval must be obtained from the Depart ment for all new disposal sites and any change in the method of disposal prior to use. b. Carcasses of large dead animals shall be buried or cremated, unless satisfactory arrangements have been made for disposal by rendering or other approved methods. c. All public “dumping grounds”, provided in compliance with ARS 9-441, shall be maintained and operated in accordance with the requirements of these regulations. REGULATION 2. METHODS OF DISPOSAL met! shall be accomplished by a. Sanitary Landfill — Consists of the disposal of refuse on land and the daily compaction arid covering of the refuse with 6 to 12 inches of earth so as to prevent a health hazard or nuisance. The final compacted earth cover shall be a minimum of 2 feet in depth. Where sanitary landfill oper ations are proposed, the Department will require the following:. 1. The landfill shall be located so that seepage will not create a health hazard, nuisance, or cause pollution of any watercourse or water bearing strata. 2. Adequate and proper surface drainage shall be provided to prevent ponding or erosion by rainwater of the finished fill. 3. Provision shall be made for the control of insects, rodents, wind blown refuse, and accidental fire. 4. Burning of refuse is prohibited. 5. An all weather access road is required. 6. Suitable equipment and operating personnel shall be provided. 7. Salvaging, if permitted, shall be rigidly controlled. 7. Where the Department determines that such temporary open dump is no longer satisfactory, other methods of disposal shall be used. g. Manure Disposal — Manure shall be disposed of by sanitary landfill, composting, incineration, or used as fertilizer in such a manner as not to create insect breeding or a nuisance. SECTION V VIOLATION OF REGULATIONS THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE 36, CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 36-601 SHALL APPLY. SECTION VI UNCONSTITUTIONALITY CLAUSE SHOULD ANY SECTION, PARAGRAPH, SENTENCE, CLAUSE, OR PHRASE OF THESE REGULATIONS BE DECLARED UNCONSTITU TIONAL, OR INVALID FOR ANY REASON, THE REMAINDER OF SAID REGULATIONS SHALL NOT BE AFFECTED THEREBY. SECTION vn REPEAL PART V, REGULATION 39, DATED MAY 14, 1953, RELATING TO DISPOSAL OF GARBAGE, TRASH, RUBBISH, OFFAL, DEAD ANIMALS, MANURE, AND OBJECTIONABLE WASTES IS HEREBY REPEALED.