Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
R-72-0171
RESOLUTION NO. 72-171 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE REPORT SUBMITTED THIS DATE BY LEONARD S. WEGMAN, INC. AND GREENLEAF-TELESCA FOR CITY OF MIAMI SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: That the report submitted this date by Leonard S. Wegman, Inc. and Greenleaf-Telesca for a City of Miami solid waste management study be, and it is, hereby accepted. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of May, 1972. "DOCUMENT INDEX FILM NO. a !P, CITY COMMISSION UF WIRY i 91972 RESOLUTION NO. •• ••••• CITY CLERK Fie* 33o VOLUME No. 1 SUMMARY REPORT SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY CITY OF MIAMI , FLORIDA DAVID T. KENNEDY Mayor Rev. EDWARD T. GRAHAM IRWIN G. CHRISTIE ROSE GORDON J. L. PLUMMER, JR. Vice Mayor Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner M. L. REESE City Manager LEONARD S. WEGMAN CO. INC. ENGINEERS NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017 GREENLEAF / TELESCA 81 ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS MIAMI . FLORIDA 33131 March. 1972 LEONARD S. WEGMAN CO. INC. ENGINEERS NEW YORK NEW YORK GREENLEAF ! TELESCA PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS MIAMI FLORIDA CONSULTING ENGINEERS CITY OF MIAMI SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY March 1972 Mr. M. L. Reese, City Manager P. O. Box 708 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33133 Dear Mr. Reese: Our joint venture is pleased to present the Solid Waste Management Study in accordance with our agreement with the City. The report of the study is in two volumes for convenience. Volume 1, the Summary, contains the Conclusions and Recommendations and Volume 2 contains the Detailed Report. Your staff and all City personnel with whom we conferred were uniformly cooperative. We trust you will find the Study useful and in the public interest. Sincerely, GREENLEAWTELESCA LEONARD S. WEGMAN CO. INC. Leonarc! S. Wegman John W. Greenleaf, Jr. • MAILING ADDRESS : WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA 14S1 BRICKELL AVE. MIAMI • FLORIDA 1311E • 30S i 37744II PREFACE As population continues to increase, urban areas become larger, society grows more affluent and the ecologist in- creases pressure to protect the environment, the quantities of waste continue to increase agai nst decreasing avai labi I- ity of disposal faci lities, rising cost, and restraints. Claims of breakthroughs and systems need to be carefully judged. Today's solutions must not foreclose adoption of later im- provements, as the day-to-day needs of the City and its people must always be kept paramount. In evaluating sys- tem capability, performance generally outweighs promise. PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this Report is to present an in-depth study of present collection and disposal practices in the City of Miami and to recom- mend a program for improvements taking into account future growth and development as well as changing practices in the art. The collection study includes the effect on efficiency and cost in res- idential accounts due to type and placement of containers as well as by combining garbage, rubbish and trash. It analyzes the cost and efficiency of collection of commercial accounts both in outlying areas and in the Central Business District and recommends improvements.. The disposal study includes an analysis of present facilities and work involved to upgrade them to meet present and future standards. Four- teen systems of disposal ranging from open dumping to the most ad- vanced reduction and conversion systems have bee n anal yzed, result- ing in the selection of that system best suited to the needs of the City of Miami. The prime criteria were that the selected system be ef- fective, that it avoid air, land and water pollution, and that it have the lowest cost consistent with protection of the environment. The steps to accomplish the Recommended Program are developed along with a schedule of the time and finances required. In order to facilitate the review and analysis of this Report it is pre- sented in two volumes; Volume No. 1 includes the Summary, Con- clusions, and Recommendations, and was prepared by the joint ven- ture of Wegman-Greenleaf/lelesca; Volume No. 2 presents the back - up data upon which the Summary, Conclusions, and Recommenda- tions presented in Volume No. 1 were based. Volume No. 2 was prepared in three parts: Part A Part B Part C Background Data prepared by Greenleaf/ relesca Collection System prepared by Greenleaf/Telesca Disposal System prepared by Leonard S.Wegman Co. Inc. W EGMA N • GREENLEAF / T E L E SCA ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are particularly indebted to the many city, county, state, and federal officials who kindly gave their views and data during the study. The cooperation of these men and their associates is gratefully acknowledged. CITY OF MIAMI Melvin L. Reese Paul Andrews Charles R. Jones Donald H. Moss, Jr. George Bitar Clifford Larson Vincent E. Grimm Carlos Si Ivestre Anthony Garavaglia Edw. Connor Wendell P. Bailey Garrett Sloane Robert Wi I lets Alan H. Rothstein Jack R. Rice, Jr. David Simpson George Acton John Bergocker Peter Ballet Edw. Cahill Robert L. Quick Robert Cook Roy O. Borden Paul Kelman Harry Stern John Suarez Edward Underwood City Manager Assistant City Manager Dept. of Sanitation, Director Dept. of Sanitation, Assistant Director Dept. of Sanitation, Incinerator Superintendent Dept. of Sanitation Dept. of Public Works, Director Dept. of Public Works Dept. of Public Works Dept. of Public Works Dept. of Finance, Director Water & Sewer Board, Executive Dir. Dept. of Water and Sewers, Chief Engineer City Attorney Assistant Director of Law Planning & Zoning Board, Executive Director Planning Dept., Director CITY OF MIAMI BEACH Dept. of Public Works, Director DADE COUNTY Dept. of Air & Water Pollution Control, Pollution Control Officer Dept. of Air & Water Pollution Control Dept. of Public Health, Engineering Section Dept. of Building and Zoning, Director Planning Dept., Chief of Comprehensive Planning Division Planning Dept. Dept. of Public Works, Water Control Div. Dept. of Public Works, Water Control Div. Dept. of Public Works ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are particularly indebted to the many city, county, state, and federal officials who kindly gave their views .and data during the study. The cooperation of these men and their associates is gratefully acknowledged. CITY OF MIAMI Melvin L. Reese Paul Andrews Charles R. Jones Donald H. Moss, Jr. George Bitar Clifford Larson Vincent E. Grimm Carlos Si lvestre Anthony Garavaglia Edw. Connor Wendell P. Bailey Garrett Sloane Robert Willets Alan H. Rothstein Jack R. Rice, Jr. David Simpson George Acton City Manager Assistant City Manager Dept. of Sanitation, Director Dept. of Sanitation, Assistant Director Dept. of Sanitation, Incinerator Superintendent Dept. of Sanitation Dept. of Public Works, Director Dept. of Public Works Dept. of Public Works Dept. of Public Works Dept. of Finance, Director Water & Sewer Board, Executive Dir. Dept. of Water and Sewers, Chief Engineer City Attorney Assistant Director of Law Planning & Zoning Board, Executive Director Planning Dept., Director CITY OF MIAMI BEACH John Bergacker Dept. of Public Works, Director Peter Ballet Edw. Cahill Robert L. Quick Robert Cook Roy O. Barden Paul Kelman Harry Stern John Suarez Edward Underwood DADE COUNTY Dept. of Air & Water Pollution Control, Pollution Control Officer Dept. of Air & Water Pollution Control Dept. of Public Health, Engineering Section Dept. of Building and Zoning, Director Planning Dept., Chief of Comprehensive Planning Division Planning Dept. Dept. of Public Works, Water Control Div. Dept. of Public Works, Water Control Div. Dept. of Public Works J. Benton Druse J. A. Mulrennan G. Maurielio Frank S. Kleeman Dr. Vernon William Yon Bruce Johnson William Carlton William Storch Mr. Spirnock Robert irons Mr. Schmertman Elmer Cleveland James Garland Gordon Holmes Mr. Lancaster Mr. Cooper Mr. Sutton Howard Kline Joe Carroll STATE OF FLORIDA Dept. of Health & Rehabilitative Services, Director of Solid Waste Planning Dept. of Health & Rehabilitative Services, Bureau of Entomology, Chief Dept. of Air & Water Pollution Control, Operations Div., Director Dept. of Air & Water Pollution Control Regional Engineer Dept. of Natural Resources Div. of Interior Resources, Director Dept. of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology Dept. of Natural Resources, Coastal Coordinating Council Dept. of Natural Resources, Bureau of Beaches and Shores Central & Southern Flood Control, District Chief Engineer Central & Southern Flood Control, Miami Field Station, Chief Central and Southern Flood Control Dept. of Community Affairs, Planning Div. • UNITED STATES Environmental Protection Agency, Regional Representative Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District Office, Engineering Division, Chief Corps of Engineers, Engineering Div., Levees & Waterways Corps of Engineers, Permits Section, Assistant Chief Corps of Engineers Corps of Engineers, Miami Beach Office Dept. of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Miami Dept. of interior, U.S. Fisheries & Wi Idl i fe Dept. TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY REPORT PREFACE PURPOSE AND SCOPE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS CONCLUSIONS fat 1. Population SR-1 2. Highway System SR-1 3. Department of Sanitation SR-1 4. Waste Collection Division SR-1 5. Miami Refuse Quantities SR-1 6. Miami and Miami Beach Quantities SR-1 7. Daily Refuse Quantities SR-1 8. Garbage Collection SR-2 9. Rubbish Collection SR-2 10. Collection Cost SR-2 11. Oversize Waste SR-2 12. Collection Fleet SR-2 13. Department of Sanitation Financial Considerations SR-3 14. Central Business District SR-4 15. Future Collection Considerations SR-4 16. Twentieth Street Incinerator SR-5 17. Coconut Grove Incinerator SR-5 18. Virginia Key Disposal Area SR-6 19. Other Disposal of Miami Refuse SR-6 20. Need for Action SR-6 21. Disposal Criteria SR-6 22. Disposal System Analysis SR-6 23. Acceptable Disposal Methods SR-7 24. Shredding with Controlled Landfill SR-7 oar CABLEOF_ CONTENTS SUMMARY REPORT (Cont'd) 25. Incineration 26. Comparative Costs 27. Land Resources 28. Virginia Key Land Restrictions 29. Need for Additional Land 30. Miami Beach Participation 31. Capital Investment Components 32. Sources of Revenue 33. Present Federal and State Financial Aid 34. Potential Financial Aid 35. Rising Quantity of Solid Wastes RECOMMENDATIONS Collection Central Business District Disposal Supplemental Data Token From Detailed Report - Volume No. 2 tat SR-7 SR..7 SR-8 SR-8 SR-8 SR-8 SR-9 SR-9 SR-9 SR-9 SR-9 SR-10 SR-10 SR-11 SR-13 101 to to SUMMARY REPORT CONCLUSIONS 1. Population The City of Miami had 334,859 residents and the City of Miami Beach had 87,072 residents according to the 1970 U.S. Census. • 2. Highway System Improved highways and expressways have significantly reduced the time required to travel between collection and disposal locations. 3. Department of Sanitation The City lists 668 positions in its Department of Sanitation with a current budget of $7,209,929. In common with other departments in the area, it is plagued with absenteeism reaching 20-30% among its waste collectors, in spite of its generous working conditions and fringe benefits. 4. Waste Collection Division The Waste Collection Division is subdivided into nine collection districts serving a total of 107,566 accounts, of which 7,952 are non-residential. The average City residential account is a family unit averaging 2.7 persons (2.9 persons on a countywide basis). 5. Miami Refuse Quantities Refuse generated within the City of Miami in 1972 will amount to 235,000 tons of garbage and trash and 140,000 tons of rubbish and bulk. By 1980 these are expected to total 295,000 tons and 180,000 tons respectively. 6. Miami and Miami Beach Quantities if Miami Beach is included the totals are 310,000 tons and 170,000 tons for 1972 and 395,000 and 220,000 tons for 1980. Miami Beach percentages of the gross input are 22% and 23% respectively for 1972 and 1980. Detailed production is shown in Tables A-1-3 and C-II-2. 7. Daily Refuse Quantities Total refuse generation per day in Miami now stands at 1,030 tons (7 days per week). WEGMAN • GREENLEAFSR-al ,TELESCA •eio With Miami Beach included the daily total is 1,285 tons (7 days per week). Anticipated quantities for 1980 are 1,330 tons daily for Miami and 1,680 tons with Miami Beach. 8. Garbage Collection Generally twice -a -week collection of garbage is provided for residential accounts, ex- cept in some of the more densely populated areas where service is provided three times a week. This compares favorably with other southern cities and with general practice in the area. These accounts are served by 54 collection routes while seven routes serve some 971 commercial accounts which contribute 75 tons per day. Commercial routes are generally served on a six -day week schedule except in the downtown business district where seven-day per week service is provided. 9. Rubbish Collection Rubbish is required to be placed at curbside for collection, which by Ordinance is picked up at least every three weeks by special crews using a crane and open body brucks. In- dividual items are limited to four feet in length and 50 pounds. Periods between collec- tions vary greatly with rubbish production but have been reduced considerably by the recent introduction of an incentive plan for the collection crews. 10. Collection Cost An estimate of the collection costs to reflect equipment amortization and replacement, administration, and all other operational and hidden costs, indicate the pro rata cost share per residential account for this service is: Garbage (backyard) $29.95 Rubbish 15.95 TOTAL. Collection $45.90 per year 1i. Oversize Waste Regular collections of oversized waste are not provided by the City of Miami, whereas the City of Miami Beach picks up oversize waste upon request by the home owner. It is the responsibility of the resident of the City of Miami to dispose of oversize or bulky waste. 12. Collection Fleet The Department of Sanitation operates seventy-six 20-cubic yard and four 25-cubic yard rear loading packer trucks for garbage collection; 41 open single unit trucks; 27 open trailers and tractors; and 25 truck mounted cranes for rubbish collection. These together with trucks and other equipment required for incinerator residue, operation of the land- fill, and street cleaning, are furnished, serviced, and maintained by the Motor Vehicle Division of the Department of Public Property. W EGMAN • GRE E NLEAFSR[2TELESCA The practice of amortizing garbage collection vehicles over an eight -year period results in what is generally considered an overage fleet with higher maintenance, less reliability, and greater overall collection costs. A five-year life for this type of equipment is gen- erally used in the industry while some of the more progressive private collectors consider three years to be the economic life of this type of equipment. The present method of purchase of new equipment and the requirement of performance bonds should be continued, however, where possible the largest practical number of similar type units should be secured. By increasing the number of units to be purchased and the resulting larger contract, more bidders will be attracted offering the ad- vantage of reducing the number of dissimilar vehicles and required spare parts inventory. 13. Department of Sanitation's Financial Considerations Based on a recent legislative decree, the City of Miami must adjust downward the exist- ing millage on assessed real estate holdings, which could require a budget reduction of from $4 to $7 million. The $7.2 million current budget of the Department of Sanitation, the third largest item of expenditure of the City, has more than doubled during the past ten years due to mounting labor and other costs. Of this, 70% is attributable to the collection of gar- bage and rubbish. The increased cost of operating the recommended plan for waste disposal is estimated at approximately $1,000,000 per year. This would increase the budget of the Depart- ment of Sanitation by 15% above the present level without considering any further in- crease in collection cost. The City of Miami is the only major City in the area still supporting its waste manage- ment without making a service charge to its residents and the twice -a -week rear yard pick up it provides for all residential accounts is the most convenient to the resident and the most expensive type of service to the City. A curtailment in collection service, the institution of a service charge, or a combina- tion of the two may be necessary to meet the rapidly rising costs of collection, the in- creased cost of waste disposal to meet more stringent controls, and at the same time reduce the budget as required by recent legislative action. A service charge of $60 per year would be needed to cover the entire cost of waste col- lection and disposal for each residential account together with a 100% increase in com- mercial rates in order to maintain present service and frequency of collection. A change from rear of lot pick up to curbside pick up would effect an annual savings of $9.15 per residential account and a total annual savings of approximately $1 million per year. SR-3 WEGMAN • G R E E N L E A F / TELESGA Nor 1111 A further savings in curbside pick up would be realized by the use of disposable con- tainers and the restructuring of the routes. Such a savings could amount to $3.60 per residential account or $400, 000 per year to the Department. While the .'isposable container is an added cost to the householder, many are already using it because of convenience, better appearance, and sanitary conditions. The City should encourage the use of disposable containers by purchasing a good quality bag which would minimize spillage through tearing and making it available at something over cost. Such a bag can be sold at about half the present retail market price. The general use of garbage grinders to handle all putrescible wastes would eliminate the principal reason for twice -a -week pick up. While once a week pick up would not cut collection costs in half, it would result in a substantial reduction and at the same time reduce odors and the nuisance associated with garbage collection. With the adoption of curbside pick up of garbage, simultaneous collection of bagged rubbish would reduce the cost of this service. However, because of the difficulties of separating refuse after collection and the inability of the Twentieth Street Incin- erator to handle the volumes of refuse, combined collection of rubbish and trash would not be desirable at this time. In addition to some 7,600 commercial accounts that are collected as part of the 107,566 residential accounts, there are 971 accounts for which special collection is provided by seven collection routes. Two of these routes pick up special two cubic yard containers provided by the Owner and one route serves the downtown business area with an evening pick up. Commercial routes, with the exception of the down- town route, which operates on a 7-day schedule, operate on o 6-day per week basis. City collection accounts for somewhat less than 25% of the 98,800 tons of commercially generated waste, the remainder being served by private refuse contractors. In the downtown business district the City collects 107 accounts or about one third of the total. The collection of special commercial accounts costs the City an estimated $513,000 per year with no allowance for disposal costs, while revenues from fees charged for this service amount to about $300,000. An increase in fees charged for this service would further reduce the number of accounts. 14. Central Business District Collection The present practice of placing garbage cans and rubbish on the street at 5:00 p.m. for evening pick up by the City collection crew accounts for much of the shoddy appearance of the area in early evening before the collection crew makes its pick up. Dirty garbage cans left at curbside after pick up are offensive. 15. Future Collection Considerations The population is projected to increase about one third by the year 2000 within SR-4 WEGIVAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA r so the present municipal limits and will result in greater densities of population from which double the present quantities of solid waste must be collected and handled. As the projections of population growth and business growth are achieved, land use patterns and population density must keep pace. Multi -family housing will replace the single family unit. High-rise structures are bringing greater concentrations of refuse to single accounts. These accounts will also require service far more frequently than is required for a residential community. Changes in the very nature of refuse itself are being felt. Pre-packaging and disposables are being utilized to o far greater extent today than just a few years ago. The method of packaging itself, by converting to non -returnable and non -refillable containers, has already had its effect on collection and disposal of refuse. Methods of collecting refuse, in use since the turn of the century, will be unable to meet the requirements of the City. Most progress has been in equipment and systems for multistory buildings and groups of buildings where the relatively large in- vestments required could be justified. Various systems available for use in multi -unit buildings and multi -building complexes are shown in Table B-II-3. These have been developed because of the need to reduce the complications of waste handling and thereby reduce labor cost, or to reduce the complications of waste handling prior to collection. 16. Twentieth Street Incinerator On an annual basis, Miami's 17 year old Twentieth Street Incinerator operates at about 50% of its original rated capacity of 900 tons per day because of changes in refuse character and absence of mechanization. The heat from incineration is recovered to generate steam, which in turn is used to drive plant machinery and also for sale to ad- jacent Jackson Memorial Hospital. In fiscal year 1969-70 the City received $80,828 for steam sales, plus the value of electric energy conserved by use of steam power in the plant. This plant is under mandate to cease noncompliance with the Dade County Air Pollution Control Code and is to report to the County Board in May 1972 on how compliance will be achieved by 1975. Interim measures, costing $15,000, can be employed to reduce visible stack emissions until the new reduction facility is in operation. 17. Coconut Grove incinerator This incinerator was built for a daily capacity of 300 tons in 1960 but its stack emissions were cited by the Court, after trial, as objectionable and the plant was ordered closed in August 1970. It will cost $2,000,000 to correct the fly ash emissions to within Code limits. Development in the plant vicinity has resulted in poor highway access. These and other adverse factors make it economically and environmentally undesirable to resume refuse operations. SR-5 WEGMAN • G R E E N L E A F / TELESCA Aim 18. Virginia Key Disposal Area_ The other maior refuse facility for Miami is the 120 acre disposal area on City -owned property on Virginia Key, an island in Biscayne Bay approximately 2 miles from main- land Miami, reached by a toll causeway. This disposal pit receives all Miami incinerator residue and municipally collected rubbish. At present filling rates the grade of the City's 120 acres will be raised about 13 ft. by 1975 over the present 10 ft. level, as- suming the Twentieth Street Incinerator is kept in operation. Recent operational im- provements at the site have reduced the area of the exposed working face which in the past has been vulnerable to the outbreak of fires. Greater emphasis is placed on cover- ing the landfill with incinerator residue, thereby restricting the passage of air. 19. Other Disposal of Miami Refuse Some private refuse collectors operate their own landfill areas outside Miami and presently siphon off about 200 tons per day. Most of these landfill areas are near exhaustion and the site dollar value is increasing to the point where the land will become more attractive for other uses and hence decreasingly available for refuse service. 20. Need for Action Because the 20th St. Incinerator's noncompliance with air pollution control standards must be corrected by 1975 and at best the plant can only cope with less than 50% of the present daily refuse load, and because Virginia Key will have raw refuse piled to a height of 23 ft by 1975, Miami must move quickly on a program to acquire adequate and environmentally sound refuse disposal facilities. 21. Disposal Criteria Economy, effectiveness and environmental acceptability are the three essential criteria which a new refuse disposal system for Miami must meet. 22. Disposal System Analysis For the three governing criteria some fourteen different methods of meeting Miami's looming refuse problem were analyzed: a. Ocean Disposal b. Open Dumping c. Sanitary Landfill d . Composting e. Shredding with Controlled Landfill f. Incineration without Heat Recovery g. Incineration with Heat Recovery SR-6 WEGNIAN • G R E E N L E A F / T E L E SCA h. Compaction and Baling i. Rail Haul to Remote Sites j. High Temperature Incineration k. Wet Fiber Extraction 1. Pyrolysis m. Resource Recovery and Recycling n. Oxygen Refuse Conversion 23. Acceptable Disposal Methods Only three methods, namely, Shredding with Controlled Landfill, and Incineration with or without Heat Recovery have reached a stage of development which assures effectiveness and environmental acceptability. All the other methods foil to meet one or more of these essential criteria. 24. Shredding with Controlled Landfill This method consists of processing all refuse through an electrically driven grinder mill, transporting in compacted loads and deposition on a previously prepared site to form a controlled landfill . The shredded refuse is two to four times more dense than raw refuse and thereby overcomes nuisance potential . The site preparation includes regrading to above the water table, application of a membrane leachate barrier and operation of a drainage treatment system. More advanced reduction methods, still under development, can be readily integrated later with the shredding concept for Miami, when such methods prove suitable and desirable. Land requirements for receiving shredded waste through the year 2000 for both Miami and Miami Beach are 815 acres (a plot about 7000 ft long by 5000 ft wide) filled to a height of 54 ft. This is the Recommended Plan. It is out- lined in Figures C-V-1, C-V-2, C-V-4, and Table C-V-1. 25. Incineration Two alternate plans have also been developed, each involving incineration using the best state-of-the-art mechanized continuous feed furnaces equipped with air pollution control systems which meet all current emission criteria. These plants have higher costs but possess the advantage of requiring less land. The use of heat recovery equipment will depend on the economics of the probable revenue and other benefits of steam production against the capital and operating costs of such adjuncts. Alternate Plan No. 2 has minimum land requirements so that from 1976 through the year 2000 only 89 acres, filled to a height of 54 ft, are required to serve both cities for which the existing site at Virginia Key is adequate. 26. Comparative Costs Shredding with Controlled Landfill will have a cost of $7.52 per ton for debt service and operations compared with a cost of $9.07 to $10.76 per ton for the incineration plans. Capital requirements through 1980 are $14,910,000 for Shredding with Controlled Landfill compared with $28,962,000 minimum for an SR-7 W EGMAN • G R E E N L E A F / TELESCA elm irt; NIP incineration system. All costs include provision for Miami Beach but do not include the present worth of Miami -owned land and facilities which will be incorporated in the system. 27. Land Resources Before a disposal method can be successfully pursued the City must have an ade- quate area of land under its ownership and control . 28. Virginia Key Land Restrictions The only land now under City control and ownership, available for refuse service, is the existing 120 acre site on Virginia Key. Other vacant City -owned land on the Key, amounting to about 530 acres, is subject to demands, both latent and asserted, which are adverse to use for refuse service. These demands include open space for recreation, a new golf course, mangrove swamp preservation, enlargement of the sewage plant, and the aesthetic aspect for Biscayne Bay gener- ally and for the nearby booming Dodge Island Cruise terminal . A recent effort to enlarge Virginia Key by using spoil from the Corps of Engineers' channel project to fill to the long established bulkhead line was not successful, and the Corps instead will use the spoil to raise the level of the island's north end. If this area could be made available for refuse service after the dredging project, it would offer some alleviation of the City's land problem, possibly by reducing the land area needed outside the City for the Recommended Plan. However, continued filling of Virginia Key with material containing increasing quantities of raw refuse, and entirely so after 1975, poses a major potential for nuisance and health hazard. Virginia Key would only have significant value to the City if Alternate Plan No. 2, Incineration, is implemented. Land depletion of the existing site is shown in Figure C-V-15. 29. Need for Additional Land Selection of the Recommended Plan, which excludes incineration after 1975, prudently requires the acquisition of a new site of 815 acres. Such a site is available in the area west of Krome Avenue and south of U.S. Highway 41, the Tamiami Trail. Land here is largely unoccupied, lies in Dade County, and is outside of any designated park or wildlife refuge. Flood and water pollution con- trol requirements are readily complied with, and the City Attorney's office advises there are no present legal obstacles to such acquisition. Possible future use of the site of a completed landfill is shown in Figures C-V-7 and C-V-8. 30. Miami Beach Participation Both Miami and Miami Beach would benefit by the latter's participation in the system. A larger plant will be more efficient and economical, the financial base for bonding is stronger and there are other major advantages for both commu- nities. SR-8 WEGMAN • G R E E N L E A F / TELESCA 1.0 kor 31. Capital Investment Components Miami's capital investment will include the present worth of land and facilities now owned by the City at 20th Street and Virginia Key. Miami also has available ap- proximately $6,500,000 in authorized funds for investment in refuse disposal facili- ties. Miami Beach has $2,500,000 available for such purpose. If Miami Beach participates its capital investment would appropriately bear the same relationship to Miami's capital investment as do the respective refuse inputs, between 22 and 23% for Miami Beach and 77 to 78% provided by Miami. 32. Sources of Revenue Additional funds needed by Miami to pay for new debt service and expenses of operation will best come from a combination of ad valorem taxes and direct tonnage charges. Such charges will be paid by all who use the facilities —except City of Miami collection vehicles delivering City collected solid wastes. 33. Present Federal and State Financial Aid Congress has not yet established a clear line of meaningful financial aid for municipal solid waste needs. Recent grants have been limited to research studies and demonstra- tion of experimental techniques, which require the municipality to bear 25% or more of the financial risk. Further, appropriations for such programs have been considerably less than the limited amounts authorized by Congress. There are no state financial aid programs. . Potential Financial Aid One bill now pending in Congress, Senate 3058, holds the promise of significant financial aid to cities for solid waste services. This is the penny -a -pound concept geared to return $20 per capita annually to cities. Miami and Miami Beach would received a $8,440,000 each year without impact on the federal, state or local tax structures. Hearings on this bill are now under way before the Senate Commerce Committee. 35. Rising Quantity of Solid Wastes Refuse quantities will continue to increase because the public gives no indication that it intends to curtail its enjoyment of the sanitation and conveniences of single service products and the higher standard of living represented by time saving applian- ces, new furniture and new consumer goods generally. Efforts to reduce the volume of discards by recycling and resource recovery cannot be relied upon to make anything more than a 3% impact on refuse volumes. Consequently, the municipal government responsible for sanitary and effective disposal of the public's garbage and other solid waste must base its actions on the forecast that refuse quantities will continue to rise. SR-9 WEGMAN • G R E E N L E A F / TELESCA RECOMMENDATIONS Collection 1. Based on the assumption that the City must reduce its budget due to the millage limitation imposed by the State, and that the Department of Sanitation has the third largest portion of this budget, the following are recommended as possible methods or procedures for reducing departmental costs. a. Elimination of the backyard tote method presently used and replacing it with con- tainerized curbside collection. b. Begin a phased program leading to the ultimate use of disposable plastic bags as the only acceptable curbside container. c. Purchase and supply the residents of the City with these disposable plastic bags at cost or at a slight premium. d. Institute a service charge for residential refuse collection, beginning with a nominal charge with phased increases to eventually cover total collection and disposal costs. e. Increase the present rate to commercial accounts to cover actual collection cost. 2. Upon completion of the recommended disposal facility, combined collection of garbage and rubbish should be instituted as presently practiced by the County. 3. Private service should be encouraged for those commercial accounts now serviced by the City that require more than twice -a -week, odd hour or special collections or equipment. 4. Upon establishment of a service fee to residents the City should provide free pick-up of bulky or oversize waste, with pick-up to be pre -arranged by a telephone call. The cost for this service should be included in the service fee. 5. Installation and general use of garbage grinders should be encouraged both in residential and commercial establishments. 6. Collection vehicles should be placed on a five-year retirement schedule, and all col- lection equipment should be provided with two-way radios. Central Business District 1. All refuse placed at curbside for collection should be in disposable containers, baled, or in tied bundles. 2. All refuse containing putrescible matter should be in sealed watertight disposable con- tainers. SR-14 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA 1111• 1114111*441411411411 3. Adequate on -site storage for refuse should be provided by all commercial accounts and the use of balers and compactors encouraged to reduce possible fire hazards and improve col- lection practices. 4. Areas allocated to solid waste storage within buildings should be established in the Zoning Ordinance based on proposed building use and on waste handling and processing methods to be employed. The locations, access, and special requirements needed to ensure san- itary conditions, minimize fire hazards, and to avoid creating a nuisance to either tenants or general public should be included. Disposal 1. The City should adopt Shredding and Milling, with Controlled Landfill as its method of refuse disposal. That method has the lowest cost for an effective and environmentally satisfactory disposal system. The shredding and milling plant should be built on existing City -owned land at 20th Street. 2. The City should acquire land west of Krome Avenue in an unincorporated area of Dade County (or equivalent) for the controlled landfill, adequate to the year 2000. For Miami alone 610 acres will be adequate. With Miami Beach 815 acres are needed. 3. The City should abandon existing incinerator operations on the following schedule: a. 20th Street should be terminated when either the first phase of the Shredder System or Alternate Plan No. 2 are in operation, expected in March 1975. b. Coconut Grove Incinerator should be abandoned, and the land and facilities should be used for other than refuse processing purposes. c. Air pollution control improvements should be made at 20th Street as an interim measure for use between August 1972 and March 1975. 4. Virginia Key land should remain in refuse service to the maximum extent, consistent with environmental needs. Efforts should be made to also reserve for refuse service the area over the proposed Corps of Engineers dredge spoil surface, at the northern end of Virginia Key. • 5. The City should encourage Miami Beach to participate in the recommended refuse disposal system. Miami Beach should pay its proportionate share of capital and operating costs, so that economy of scale will benefit both cities. 6. If acquisition of land for refuse service exterior to the boundaries of Miami and Miami Beach cannot be accomplished, as required for the Recommended Plan, the City should adopt Alternate Plan No. 2, Complete Incineration. The new incinerator should be built in phases on the existing City -owned site at 20th Street. Alternate Plan No. 2 permits confining land use to the City -owned site at Virginia Key. SR-11 WEGMAN • G R E E N LEAF / TELESCA 1111 1111 110 110 10 110 6.1 IMF 110 1101 7. The City should implement the recommended progam by doing the following: a. Take the necessary legislative, administrative, legal, financial, jurisdictional, and engineering steps needed to acquire suitable land outside City boundaries. b. Proceed similarly to negotiate an agreement with Miami Beach, and determine system size. c. Proceed with design and modifications for minor interim air pollution control improvements at the 20th Street plant. d. Proceed with site investigation, preliminary design, and authorizations for the Recommended Plan, reserving the option of going to Alternate Plan No. 2, until the availability of land exterior to City boundaries has been determined. e. Proceed on final design, appropriate to the selected method and system size when exterior land availability and acquisition has been determined. f . Determine sources, amounts and scheduling of required funds from taxes and fees. g. Proceed with steps needed to permit the use of the northern end of Virginia Key as a controlled landfill for refuse service. h. Maintain operations at existing Virginia Key refuse site. i . Consider other uses for the Coconut Grove plant and site. 8. The City should promptly program the three-year lead time for achieving the required new disposal system, and prepare to respond during May 1972 to the charge of air pollution at the 20th Street Incinerator. SR-12 W EGINAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA 11141444411444.11,8411111 SUPPLEMENTAL DATA TAKEN FROM DETAILED REPORT VOLUME NO. 2 A. City of Miami and Miami Beach - Pet Capita Refuse Generation and Annual Tonnage Generation Projections (Chapter A -I, Tole A-I-3, Page A-I-12). B. Garbage and Trash, Rubbish and Bulk (Chapter C-II, Figure C-II-3, Page C-11-4). C. Solid Waste Systems for Multi -Unit Buildings and Multi -Building Complexes (Chapter B-II, Table B-II-3, Page B-II-6). D. Recommended Plan - Outline for Phased Solid Waste Management Plan Serving Miami and Miami Beach Shredding Rubbish and Bulk, Garbage and Trash (Chapter C-V, Table C-V-1, Pages C-V-7 and C-V-8). E. Recommended Plan - Planning Diagram - Phased Installation of Shredders (Chapter C-V, Figure C-V-1, Page C-V-6). F. Recommended Plan - Shredder Facilities (Chapter C-V, Figure C-V-2, Page C-V-10). G. Recommended Plan - Shredder Facilities (Chapter C-V, Figure C-V-4, Page C-V-13). H. Development of Open Space and Recreation Area by Means of Controlled Landfill (Chapter C-V, Figure C-V-7, Page C-V-16). I. Development of Open Space and Recreation Area by Means of Controlled Landfi I I (Chapter C-V, Figure C-V-8, Page C-V-17). J. Virginia Key Area of Biscayne Bay (Chapter C-V, Figure C-V-14, Page C-V-30). K. Virginia Key Landfill Site - Depletion Rate (Chapter C-V, Figure C-V-15, Page C-V-31). SR-13 INEGNAN • G R E E N LE A F / TELESCA YEAR UNITS II *11-111141-41-111-44M11111-411 Resident Garbage Commercial Rubbish Total Tourist Garbage TONS/YEAR MIAMI Resident Garbage Tourist Garbage Commercial Garbage Sob -Idol Rubbish MIAMI BEACH Garbage Commercial Garbage Rubbish 1970 • lbs/Cop/boy 1.84 1.62 2.05 5.51 1.50 Tore/Cop/Yr. .335 .295 .373 1.003 .274 112,177 8,576 98,7133 ' 219.536 124,902 344.438 • 46,589 25,686 32,477 1975 Lbs/Cop/boy 1.99 1.76 2.22 5.97 1.63 TABLE A.-1-3 CITY OF MIAMI A ND MIAMI BEACH PER CAPITA REFUSE GENERATION AND ANNUAL TONNAGE GENERATION PROJECTIONS Toro/Cop/Yr. .363 .320 .404 •1.087 132,142 9,428 116,489 258,059 147,213 54,078 30,108 38,019 .297 1980 Lbs/Cap/Day 1985 Tons/Cop/Yr. Lbs/Cop/bay Tons/Cap/Yr. 2.16 .394 1.91 .347 2.41 .438 6.48 1.179 1.76 .322 154,724 10,365 136,440 301,529 172,378 62,511 35,081 14,322 2.34 2.07 2.61 7.02 1.91 ?.427 .376 .423 1.278 .349 173,775 10,923 153,163 337,861 193,491 71,768 40,495 51,157 1990 Lbq/Cap/boy 2.53 2.24 2.82 7.59 2.07 Tom/Cop/Yr. .462 .408 .515 1.385 .378 194,943 11,507 171, 803 378,253 • 217,072 82,151 46,580 58.864 1995 Lb,/Cap/bay 2.74 2 43 3.06 8.23 2.24 Tons/Cap/Yr. .501 .442 .558 1.501 .410 216,758' 12,255 191,231• 420,244 241,418 111,463 . 32,144 65,956 Lbs/Cop/bay 2 97 2.63 3.3 8.91 2.43 .544 .479 .605 1.628 .444: • 241,427 . 12,725 212.580 466.732 268. 499E 124,9012 35.254 73. eft 3300 3000 2700 2•00 200 2 11200 •00 400 700 0 1 V*0'1' 0U �`0ln I o'** i 'go,`�` 11011 070 075 040 D!B 010 YEAR • MIAMI M MIAMI BEACH MIAMI ALONE GARBAGE 8 TRASH 015 2000 3200 3000 2700 2400 900 400 1100 0 6 a+ VIOL►t;M vWS 6g'W. Ina i �M11M� 1170 1175 0110 ON 0110 010 YEAR MIAMI & MIAMI BEACH MIAMI ALONE RUBBISH a BULK 2010 3300 2700 2400 a00 i 0 r 4 C00 2 b- 1200 900 400 300 4 41+ ♦gyp' .IIV% 6061/, pd / H an Of 111211. MIMS SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUOt 0 REFUSE GENERATION 070 075 MO OM 090 0110 2000 YEAR GARBAGE DTRASILR131I91 S IM MIAMI & MIAMI BEACH MIAMI ALONE �A s Maw s s (Y/11100 COMBINED GARBAGE $TRASH. RUBBISH & BUL* 11GUR6 C-i ' i111• !liltiiii1111i1111441 Individual Unit Preparation Waste Waste - Segregate Garbage Grinder Une line Segregate Shredding Manual Manual, None Req. Bag, Bale, None Req. Manual Gravity or Bin, or Bag Pneuma- Chute or Compaction Container tic Tube Pneumatic Tube TABLE B Il-3 SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS FOR MULTI -UNIT BUILDINGS AND MULTI -BUILDING COMPLEXES Mutts -Unit Buiidi Compactor Bag OD .10 None Req. or Bag Dry Grinding None Req. or Or Shredding Container Wet Grinding Slurry or - Pipe Una Pulping Nl��ltt-Bvi!din• Com•taxes Col action Sanitary - Sanitary Sewer Vehicle or Cone Pneumatic and/or Tub* Storage Area • None Req. Vehicle or • Pneumatic or Compaction Tube egrinder requires support from additional system for non-putrascibies. (1i In -sink �°= bagged refuse and size. (2) Transport by chute or pneumatic tube limited to bogg Dswatsring Year 1971 72 TABLE C=V-I RECOMMENDED PLAN OUTLINE FOR PHASED SOL1D WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN SERVING MIAMI AND MIAMI BEACH SHREDDING RUBBISH & BULK, GARBAGE & TRASH Phase 1 1972 - 76 2 2 Cost $ 85,000 15,000 500,000 $6,800,000* 3,670,000 2 1,920, 000* • 1976 - 80 - $I, 920, 000* Prepare Second Block .of Land for Controlled • Landfill 1980 - 83 3 & 4 $2, 000, 000* Description Solid Waste Management Study Air Pollution Control Improvements at 20th Street Incinerator Option to Purchase Land for Controlled landfill Design and Construct New 2-Unit Shredder Facility in New 20th Street (West) Building Complete Purchase of Land for Controlled Landfill 1983 - 86 • Prepare First Block of Land for Controlled Landfill Install I Shredder and Renew I Crane in Existing 20th Street (East) Building after removal of 1/2 of Existing Incinerator Plant 1,920,000* Prepare Third Block of land for Controlled landfill 5 $2, 500, 000* Install 2nd Shredder, Renew 2nd Crane and enlarge Existing Bin in Existing 20th Street (East) Building after Removal of Remaining half of Existing Incinerator Plant 1,920,000* Prepare Fourth Block of Land for Controlled landfill SR-17 Year 1986 - 91 1991 -99 Phase Oa Total - TABLE C4' I (coned) Cost Description $1,920,000* Prepare Fifth Block of Land for Controlled Landfill 1, 920, 000* Prepare Sixth Block of Land for Controlled Landfill $1, 920, 000* 1, 920, 000* 1, 920, 000* $32, 850, 000 Prepare Seventh Block of Land for Controlled Landfill Prepare Eighth Block of Land for Controlled Landfill Prepare Ninth Block of Land for Controlled Landfi l I *Engineering Costs included in Cost Given for Construction SR-18 3300 3000 2T00• 2400 2100 MOO 1500 0 tC a 1200 0- 900 600 300 0 1/ f 9 1970 1975 1980 1985 YEAR MIAMI $ M1AMI BEACH 1990 1905 2000 0 AOD OVERFIRE AIR JET SYSTEMS TO EXISTING FURNACES AT2ol h INCINERATOR PLANT MATED AT 600 TON/DAY) AS IMMEDIATE ACTION INTERIM MEASURE FOR IMPROVED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL. PERFORMANCE. PROCEED WtTlt ENGINEERING 0* NEW SHREDDER PACIUTY 1* NEW 20th3T (WEST) BUILDING. ()AOD 2-000TON/I$HR. SHREDDER FACILITY IN NEW 20th ST. (WEST) BUILDING. OPERATE 1 SHREDDER AT 1200TO 24 HR. 8 THE OTHER AT BOO TON/ 16 HR. FOR COMBINED OUTPUT OP 2000 TOWOAY. CEASE OPERATIONS EXISTING INCINERATOR PLANT AT 20th ST. MAST) BUILDING. ()REMOVE ONE-HALF OF EXISTING INCINERATOR PLANT; ADD 1800 TON/ 16 HR. SHREDDER & RENEW t CRANE IN EXIST. 20TM ST (EAST) BUILDING. OPERATE ALL SHREDDERS AT SOO TON/16HR. ()REMOVE REMAINING HALF OF EXISTING INCINERATOR PLANT A A00 1-400 TON/G NR. SHREDDER AT 20th ST. (EAST) BUILDING. RENEW 2ND .CRANE a ENLARGE EXISTING BIN. ()OPERATE ALL 4• SHREDDERS AT B00 TON/I6 HR. FOR COMBINE* THROUON•PUT OF 3200 TONS/OA% CITY OF MIAMI I FLORIDA SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY RECOMMENDED PLAN PLANNING DIAGRAM' PHASED INSTALLATION OF SHREDDERS U10IIAI10 S WOMAN CA JIR t111ROh.IIAISTILStlCIR COMBINED GARBAGE 8 TRASH. RUBBISH 8 QULK MGM C •!• I 1 1 • .s. TOMO TOMS* RAW SdT000 TTOfeOL mtw MOO Mtw ZMTfMffR 11040 L NO K. STOUT "'di' 106004 .NOON Of0*1 WORM SPOON WKS -i__ .n .ET000M TOMSPOOT TRAILIJIO MEW wits ors KALE NOOSE 0t* IMW 1 MOST MOM % 004101 tatE MO.TN am axe Mgt KTTUNO MOM MOMS rem 1101110/01 —�T 'r r ( fi - • NEW 3 REQoER • 1 • TRANSPORT • •;; 11411.1TIES li INCINERATOR Y NVtaira Y pnipaa* FAgmr 1 TOYOO T MOWN sO.Yf. L r — • r- —I fa ; I ---1--L— '— MU SOWN 1111411 t 4T KOLES 0 KALE NOSE TO OO .[MOTS° 70 N O SITE PLAN (F :• •\ KYZ aft 1111' SNOW.. IOVTh 1011101101 .DLO CITY OF MIAM I. RO1MA SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY RECOMMENDED PLAN SHREDDER FACILITIES fMw 00100111 ILWIZ **ow* TO twT 40w112 TWO' OS1TS.Tw TKO 110011OI* V*1fY N srTE PLAN UMW f.wt°164116 Nl6 I U W ltV. 0 orran OMMVO•+.wPi T • - 1 L 1 `ti '-- 1 , 1 i--�► r I v =.i<_ _L_ mot.-----LL-----�il_4 r. __1 SECTION 1-1 f 1I— 1 �- 1---it-- 1 I ♦ ��— - — 1 ♦ / 1----z1.---- ri _._ 11 t 4�ka N-M fCOL igsrtraa /QT , rtAIIINUTY £w row MOM** VAMP ZSMUMMAMS ter 70 N TOM O ROOM Ot10M0 `0 R PM MUNN moms • L 111...11 MOW" t.r II maleiror ;I III" II 1r-alu„yer.. II . CITY OF MIA K /im a SOUD WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY SHREDDER FACILITIES .....00101 nawt 1618RONR 10* MAID MLM► COPARRIO IRRINMOR NOWT SECTIONS t�oMrwswwM►CO,Me OMOOWRITROOA Omw.aw ww•.wwnf SECTION 2 — 2 FIGURE C • '- 4 4 tit it 11-11411-411,114411- AREA "C" AREA "B" -�� STOCKPILE: I AREA " 0" A A" I CESS R0 ARKIND I OPERATING PROCEDURE 1. STRIP SUCK AND EXCAVATE BORROW PIT, STOCKPILE BORROW MATERIAL. 2. PLACE BOANOW MATERIAL IN FILL AREA "A LANDSCAPE FOR PICNIC AREA AND LAKE, CONSTRUCT PARKING AREA, POOL AND FENCE. 3. STRIP MUCK, STOCKPILE, PLACE BORROW MATERIAL FOR AREA "87 CONSTRUCT SPORTS AREA, PARKING AREA, LANDSCAPE ARO FENCE. REMOVE FENCING BETWEEN AREAS "A AND 87 4. STRIP CONSTRUCT MUCK, GOLF STOCKCOUNREPLAND PBOR ROW MATERIAL FOR AREA "C7 5, STRIP MUCK, STOCKPILE, PLACE BORROW MATERIAL FOR AREA "07 DEVELOPMENT OF OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION AREA ENS LANDSCAPE, PLANT TREES, CREATE NATURE AREA. BY MEANS OF CONTROLLED LANDFILL I,EONAIOSWEOMAN COOK °REENLTE(A�F/TELEXA '. FIGURE FAKE - 2S DEEP (PADDLE BOATS, FOUNTAINS, ETC.) E2I FILL AREA TTPICAL PLAN COMPLETED CONTROLLED LANDFILL, APROXIMATE AREA, I SQUARE MILE OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION AREAS TO CONFORM TO STANDARDS RECOMMENDED 8Y METROPOLITAN 00,0E COUNTY PLANNINS DEPARTMENT AND METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT . COMPACTED SOLID WASTE EXISTING 6NOUND EMOTE COVER SACKPILL WITH SORROW PROM LAKE AREA (SORROW PIT I sVATE UNSUIT4ILE MATERIAL SELECT IOIRROW (►OROUS MATERUL ) SEDANS POOL. PICNIC AND PARKING ANEAS DETOID GOLF COURSE COMPLETED LANDPI TYPICAL CELL SECTION DURING OPERATION TYPICAL SECTION OF COMPLETED LANDFILL, NOTE• ABOVE ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY. NOT DRAWN TO SCALE pEVELOPMENMEAOPENAND RECREATION AREA OF CONTROLLED LANDFILL BY Miami River ISLAND ME MARINE STAB10N LEGEND EXISTING SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT EXISTING DISPOSAL AREA PROPOSED DREDGE SPOIL AREA MANGROVE AREA I� OCEANOGRAPHIC SCIENCES PARK crag F IN FEET 1000 0 t000 2000 3000 \ \, \ Tidal Floss TROPICAL ATLANTIC BIOLOGICAL LABORATORIES KEY LI BISCAYN MIAMI BEACH LIMITS_OF^MIA CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY VIRGINIA KEY AREA OF BISCAYNE BAY ARO L NI/MAN CO. INC. ORIENLIAP/ TOLUCA NM� 70' fill N-fl4NT� ■ A■■. iiiiii ^r• 1 aO�fllLp eO:IN NM 11111111111 NMn1� Ensn�W011111111111111111 W a zooa MOM y llllli1.■■I WM ■ 1970 01975 1980 985 1990 1995 2000 YEAR MIAMI ALONE 5500 5000 4500 400 3500 3000 150 1000 500 MU I 5500 500 4500 4000 3500 3000 r 2500 u 2000 4 1500 1000 500 0 1985 1990 1995 1970 1975 1980 YEAR MIAMI B MIAMI BEACH PROJECTED LAND USE FOR INCORPORATION OF MIAMI BEACH IN ALTERNATE PLAN NO. 2 CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA SCUD WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY O VIRGINIA KEY LANDFILL SITE DEPLETION RATE Mama* a go. ma. 01v11.aa./mtlW II�III1�IIr Q;- F ���.��il��/ VOLUME No. 2 CLERK DETAILED REPORT Sr- WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY CITYOLID OF MIAMI, FLORIDA DAVID T. KENNEDY Mayor Rev. EDWARD T. GRAHAM Vice Mayor IRWIN G. CHRISTIE Commissioner ROSE GORDON Commissioner J. L. PLUMMER, JR. Commissioner M. L. REESE City Manager LEONARD S. WEGMAN CO. INC. ENGINEERS NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017 GREENLEAF / TELESCA ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS MIAMI , FLORIDA 33131 March. 1972 LEONARD S. WEGMAN CO. INC. G R E E N L E A F / t E L E S C A ENGINEERS PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHItECtS NEW YORK NEW YORK MIAMI FLORIDA CONSULTING ENGINEERS CITY OF MIAMI SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY March 1972 Mr. M. L. Reese, City Manager P. O. Box 708 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33133 Dear Mr. Reese: Our joint venture is pleased to present the Solid Waste Management Study in accordance with our agreement with the City. The report of the study is in two volumes for convenience. Volume 1, the Summary, contains the Conclusions and Recommendations and Volume 2 contains the Detailed Report. Your staff and all City personnel with whom we conferred were uniformly cooperative. We trust you will find the Study useful and in the public interest. Sincerely, GREENLEELESCA LEONARD S. WEGMAN CO. INC. Leonard S. Wegman John W. Greenleaf, Jr. • MAILING ADDRESS : :WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA 1451 ORICKELL AVE. MIAMI , FLORIDA 33131 305 1 377•$411 r PREFACE As population continues to 'affluent/a d theurban aecolog st reas i�ne larger, society grows more -creases pressure to protect the environment, the quantities of waste continue to increase against decreasing avai labil- ity ofdisposalfacilities,rising,and t bercarefully judgeds of breakthroughs and systems need Today's solutions must not foreclose adoption of later im- provements, as the day-to-day needs of the City and its people must always be kept paramount. In evaluating sys- tem capability, performance generally outweighs promise. WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / T E L E S CA PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this Report is to present an in-depth study of present collection and disposal practices in the City of Miami and to recom- mend a program for improvements taking into account future growth and development as well as changing practices in the art. The collection study includes the effect on efficiency and cost in res- idential accounts due to type and placement of containers as well as by combining garbage, rubbish and trash. It analyzes the cost and efficiency of collection of commercial accounts both in outlying areas and in the Central Business District and recommends improvements. The disposal study includes an analysis of present facilities and work involved to upgrade them to meet present and future standards. Four- teen systems of disposal ranging from open dumping to the most ad- vanced reduction and conversion systems have been anal yzed, result- ing in the selection of that system best suited to the needs of the City of Miami. The prime criteria were that the selected system be ef- fective, that itavoid air, land and water pollution, and that it have the lowest cost consistent with protection of the environment. The steps to accomplish the Recommended Program are developed along with a schedule of the time and finances required. In order to facilitate the review and analysis of this Report it is pre- sented in two volumes; Volume No. 1 includes the Summary, Con- clusions, and Recommendations, and was prepared by the joint ven- ture of Wegman-Greenleaf/Telesca; Volume No. 2 presents the back- up data upon which the Summary, Conclusions, and Recommenda- tions presented in Volume No. 1 were based. Volume No. 2 was prepared in three parts: Part A Part 8 Part C Background Data prepared by Greenleaf/Telesca Collection System prepared by Greenleaf/Telesca Disposal System prepared by Leonard S.Wegman Co. Inc. INEGAIAN • GREENLEAF / T E L E S CA ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We ate particularly indebted to the many city, county, state, and federal officials who kindly gave their views and data during the study. The cooperation of these men and their associates is gratefully acknowledged. Melvin L. Reese Paul Andrews Charles R. Jones Donald H. Moss, George Biter Jr. Clifford Larson Vincent E. Grimm Carlos Si lvestre Anthony Garavaglia Edw. Connor Wendell P. Bailey Garrett Sloane Robert Wi I lets Alan H. Rothstein Jack R. Rice, Jr. David Simpson George Acton John Bergacker Peter Ballet Edw. Cahill Robert L. Quick Robert Cook Roy O. Barden Paul Kalman Harry Stern John Suarez Edward Underwood CITY OF MiAMI City Manager Assistant City Manager Dept. of Sanitation, Director Dept. of Sanitation, Assistant Director Dept. of Sanitation, Incinerator Superintendent Dept. of Sanitation Dept. of Public Works, Director Dept. of Public Works Dept. of Public Works Dept. of Public Works Dept. of Finance, Director Water & Sewer Board, Executive Dir. Dept. of Water and Sewers, Chief Engineer City Attorney Assistant Director of Law Planning & Zoning Board, Executive Director Planning Dept., Director CITY OF MIAMi BEACH Dept. of Public Works, Director DADE COUNTY Dept. of Pollution Dept. of Dept. of Dept. of Planning Planning Planning Dept. Dept. of Public Works, Water Control Div. Dept. of' Public Works, Water Control Div. Dept. of Public Works Air & Water Pollution Control, Control Officer Air & Water Pollution Control Public Health, Engineering Section Building and Zoning, Director Dept., Chief of Comprehensive Division WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESGA J. Benton Druse J. A. Mulrennan G. Mauriello Frank S. Kleeman Dr. Vernon William Yon Bruce Johnson William Carlton William Storch Mr. Spirnock Robert Irons Mr. Schmertman Elmer Cleveland James Garland Gordon Holmes Mr. Lancaster Mr. Cooper Mr. Sutton Howard Kline Joe Carroll STATE OF FLORIDA Dept, of Health & Rehabilitative Services, Director of Solid Waste Planning Dept. of Health & Rehabilitative Services, Bureau of Entomology, Chief Dept, of Air & Water Pollution Control, Operations Div., Director Dept. of Air & Water Pollution Control Regional Engineer Dept. of Natural Resources Div. of Interior Resources, Director Dept. of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology Dept. of Natural Resources, Coastal Coordinating Council Dept. of Natural Resources, Bureau of Beaches and Shores Central & Southern Flood Control, District Chief Engineer Central & Southern Flood Control, Miami Field Station, Chief Central and Southern Flood Control Dept.. of Community Affairs, Planning Div. UNITED STATES Environmental Protection Agency, Regional Representative Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District Office, Engineering Division, Chief Corps of Engineers, Engineering Div., Levees & Waterways Corps of Engineers, Permits Section, Assistant Chief Corps of Engineers Corps of Engineers, Miami Beach Office Dept. of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Miami Dept. of Interior, U.S. Fisheries & Wildlife Dept. WEGMAN • G R E E N L E A F / TELESCA TABLE OF CO.4TENTS PREFACE PURPOSE AND SCOPE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS PART A - RELATED BACKGROUND DMA CHAPTER I BACKGROUND A. Introduction B. Definitions C. Land Use and Zoning D. Population with Projections to 2000 E. Tourism F. Industry and Commerce G. Highway Systems H. Overview of Solid Waste Management CHAPTER It REGULATIONS AFFECTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT A_Ij_1 A. Federal A-II-2 B. State of Florida A_11_2 C. Metropolitan Dade County q-II-3 D. City of Miami, Florida CHAPTER 111 ORGANIZATION, PERSONNEL, BUDGET AND REVENUES A-ill-1 A. Organization q-111-3 B. Personnel � A-111-5 1. Vacation � A-111-5 2. Sick Leave A-III-S 3, Holidays 5 - 4. Pension Plan A- A-111 U5 5. Credit Union A-111-7 6. Group Insurance A-I11-7 7. Other Benefits A-111-7 8. Cost of Benefits A-III-8 C. Budget and Revenues i VIEGNIAN • GREENLEAF / T E L E S CA A-1-1 A-i-.1 A-1-3 A-I-3 A-1-8 A-1-8 A-1-8 A-I-9 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART B COLLECTION SYSTEM CHAPTER I ANALYSIS OF EXISTING COLLECTION PRACTICES A. Characteristics of the Municipal Collection System B-1-i 1. Residential Route Collection B-1w1 2. Commercial Route Collection B-I4 3. Rubbish Collection B-I-7 4. Oversize Wastes 8-1-13 5. Abandoned Vehicles 8-1-13 B. Municipal Collection Equipment B-I-15 1. Collection Equipment 13-1-16 2. Equipment Maintenance B-1-21 C. Analysis of Municipal Collection Cost 13-1-21 1. Residential Garbage Collection 13-1-23 2. Residential Rubbish Collection 13-1-24 3. Summary of Residential Collection Cost B-I-25 4. Commercial Accounts B-1-26 D. Significance of Private Refuse Contractors B-I-28 CHAPTER II FUTURE ALTERNATIVES FOR THE COLLECTION SYSTEM A. Effect of Future Growth on Collection Practices B-11-1 B. Innovations in Solid Waste Management Systems B-11-4 1. Processing, Packaging and Handling Prior to Collection 13-11-4 2. Transport of Refuse Materials 8-11-10 • 3. Collection of Combined Refuse Materials B-11-10 C. Corntraints on Municipal Solid Waste System B-II-11 D. Modifications Considered for the Collection System B-I1-12 1. Residential Route Collection 8-11-12 2. Commercial Route Collection 8-11-18 3. Rubbish Collection 8-11-21 4. Fee Schedule 8-11-21 APPENDIX Collection Districts and Routes Polyethylene Bags ii W EG1MA N • G RE E NLEAF / TE LESCA B-AP-1 B-AP-36 TABLE OP CONTENTS PART C - DISPOSAL SYSTEM CHAPTER 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS C+1-1 A. Reduction and Disposal Facilities B. 1. 20th Street Incinerator 0-1-1 C-1- 2. Coconut Grove Incinerator -8 6 3. Virginia Key Disposal Site C-1C-1 -10 B. Units Served by Municipal Collection C-1-10 C. Zoning and Use of Land Near Disposal Facilities C-I-10 D. Waste Quantities C-1-10 1. General C-1-11 2. Disposal Quantities C-1-11 3. Other Disposal Facilities C-1-11 E. General Management C-I-11 1. Present Departmental Structure C-1-11 2. Incinerator Status C-1-12 3. Revenue Losses C-1-12 4, Disposal Fees C-1-12 F . Operating Costs and Amortization C-1-12 1. incinerator C-i-13 2. Disposal Pit C-I-13 G. Revenues C-1-13 1. Sources and Amounts C-I-14 2, Revenue Impact C-1-14 H. • Tax Support CHAPTER 11 FUTURE CONDITIONS and Per Capita Generation of Refuse C-I1-1 A. Increases in Population C-i1-1 B . Decrease in Land Availability C-II-1 C. Public Attitudes 1. Environmental Protection C-il-1 C 11-1 2. Resource Recovery and Recyling C-11-5 3. Neighborhood Acceptance C-II-5 4, Cost Impact W EGNIAN • GREENLEAF / TELESGA 'NW of Co...... Con't D. Possibilities for Pollution Control at Existing Incinerators C`114 C-Ii�6 1. Interim Improvement at 20th Street C-114 2. Mr Pollution Control at Coconut Grove 0-114 E . New Methods of Volume Reduction 0- 1 14 P F. Future Jurisdiction C-11-8 G. Private Collectors CHAPTER III POLLUTION SOURCES IN SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL C_I11-1 A. Mr Pollution Inventory C_I11_4 B. Water Pollution CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATE DISPOSAL METHODS C-IV-1 A. Processing and Disposal Alternatives C-IV-1 1. Open Dumping C-IV-1 2. Ocean Disposal C-IV-1 3. Sanitary Landfill C-IV-4 4. Shredding and Milling C-IV-7 5. Compaction and Bal i ng 6. Composting C- C- I7 V-7 7. Wet Fiber Extraction C-IV-11 8. Conventional High Quality Incineration C-IV-14 9. Incineration with Heat Recovery C-I�/-15 10. Fluidized Bed Reactor C-IV-15 11. Slagging Incinerator C-IV-16 12. Pyrolysis or Rail C-IV-19 13. Shipment to Remote Locations via Barge C-IV-19 14. Union Carbide Refuse Converter System C-IV-21 B. Resource Recovery C-IV-21 1. Source Separation • C-IV-21 2, Paper C-IV-22 3. Non -Ferrous Metals C-IV-23 4. Ferrous Metals C-IV-23 5. Plastics C-IV-23 6, Gloss C-IV-24 7. U.S. Bureau of Mines Technique C_IV-IV 8. Conclusions iv INEGNIAN • GREENLEAF / TELESGA 'fable of Contents, i Part C Can't Page C•IV-27 C. Analysis of Alternate Systems i1V-�1 D. Volume Reduction and Land Depletion C-IV••31 1. Reduction Methods 2. Refuse Materials C-1V-3C-1V-31 3. Reduction Factors C-IV-33 4. Depletion of Land 5 E . Incinerator Layouts C- IV-35 C-IV-38 Arrangement I CwIV-39 Arrangement it C-IV-40 Arrangement III C-IV-40 Arrangement IV C-IV-40 Arrangement V C-IV-42 VI V-42 Arrangement VII C-C-IV-42 Arrangement VIU C-IV-43 Arrangement IX C-IV-43 Arrangement X C-IV-43 Arrangement XI C-IV-43 Arrangement XII C-IV-44 Arrangement XIU C-IV-44 Arrangement XIV F, Coconut Grove Incinerator Alternates C-IV-45 CHAPTER V RECOMMENDED AND SUITABLE ALTERNATE DISPOSAL PLANS C-V-1 A. Plan Base and Outline 1. Miami and Miami Beach C-V-1C-V-1 2. The Recommended Plan and Alternates 'B . Landfill Site C-V-2 1. General C-V-2 2. Virginia Key C-V-2 3. Other Sites C-V-4 C. Recommended Plan Features and Costs C-V-5 1. General C-V-5 2. The Shredder Plant C-V-9 3. The Controlled Landfill C-V-11 C-V-11 Alternate Plan No. 1 v WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA liable df C�rttents , Part Con't Page C..V.-18 E. Alternate Plan No. 2 F. possible Modifications to Recommended and Alternate C-V-27 Disposal Plans C-V-27 1. limiting Initial Capitol Cost C-V-28 2. Minimum Measures C..V..28 G. Regulatory Jurisdiction 1. Jurisdictions and Other Go ernmental Functions C-V-28 Affecting the Recommended 2. Jurisdictional and OtherGovernmentalFunctions C_V-33 Affecting Alternatein No 3. Jurisdictional and Other Governmental vernmental Functions C-V-34 Affecting AlternatePlan CHAPTER VI ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ASPECTS C-VI-1 A, General C-VI-1 B. Capita) Requirements C-VI-1 1. Introduction C-VI-1 2. Reduction and Disposal Sequence C-VI-5 C. Economics of Refuse Disposal C-VI-5 1. Cost Elements C-VI-9 2. Cost Analysis C_VI _9 3. Collection Cost Economy C_VI-10 4. Basis for Unit Cost ($/Ton) Computations C-VI-11 5. Through -put Rates C_VI-VI 6. Uniform Accounting Procedure for Incinerators C-VI-12 7. Operating Costs C-VI-12 8. Unit Cost for Shredder Facilities C-VI-12 9. Incinerator Flexibility C-VI-12 10. Haul to Landfill 11. The Control led Landfi I I C_VI-VI C-VI-17 12. Land Costs C-VI-17 13. Manpower Considerations C-VI-19 14, Operating Cost Forecast C-VI-23 D. Steam Market Survey C-VI-23 1. Scope C-VI-23 2. Base for Sales C-VI-24 3. Impact on City Costs vi WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA I f 1 1 1 1 i t 1 1 A A A Table of Contonts Part C Con't Financing the Disposal System CiVl�25 G-VIy25 1, Obtaining Capital Funds 5 r -VI2 • 2. Debt Service CC VI 25 3. Sources of Revenue C-VI-25 4. Federal Aid vii WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA CITY OF MIAMI SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY PART A - RELATED BACKGROUND DATA Prepared by Greenleaf/Telesca IN EGMA N • GRE ENLEAF TELESCA TABLE OF CONTENTS PART A - RELATED BACKGROUND DATA CHAPTER I BACKGROUND A. Introduction B. Definitions C. Land Use and Zoning D. Population with Projections to 2000 E. Tourism F. Industry and Commerce G. Highway Systems H. Overview of Solid Waste Management CHAPTER II REGULATIONS AFFECTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT A-II-1 A. Federal A-II-2 B. State of Florida -II-2 C. Metropolitan Dade County A--II-2 D. City of Miami, Florida CHAPTER 111 ORGANIZATION, PERSONNEL, BUDGET AND REVENUES A-III-1 A. Organization A-III-3 B. Personnel A-III-5 1, Vocation A-III-S 2. Sick Leave 3. Holidays A-III-S A-III- 4. Pension Plan A -III 5 5. Credit Union q-III-6 7 6. Group Insurance 11-7 7. Other Benefits A-A-1I-7 $, Cost of Benefits A-111-8 C. Budget and Revenues a-i WEGNIAN • GREENLEAF / T E L E S CA q-I-1 A-I-1 q-I-3 A-1-3 A-I-8 A-I-8 A-I-8 A-1-9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A LIST OF TABLES - PART A Net y2I A+ A-I-1 Classification of Refuse Materials - AA-2 population Figures and Projections A-I-4 A-I-3 City of Miami and Miami Beach Per Capita AI Refuse Generation " "12 and Annual Tonnage Generation Projections A-II{-4 A-III-1 Department of Sanitation Average Monthly Earnings _III_ A-111-2 City of Miami Department of Sanitation - Budget History A Il 9 (1960-1972) UST OF FIGURES - PART A A-I-S A_I_1 1970 Population Distribution A-I-2 1985 population Distribution 6 q-I-q-I- A-I-3 2000 Population Distribution A-I-10 A-I-4 Proposed Transportation Master Plan and Projected Land Use for 1985 A-I-14 A-I-S Travel Time - Disposal Sites A-I-15 A-I-6 Travel Time - Incinerators A-III-1 Department of Sanitation - Organization Chart A-III-2 a-ii W E G MA N • GREENLEAF / TELESCA CHAPTER I - BACKGROUND A. Introduction The City of Miami currently owns three solid waste disposal facilities for the garbage and rubbish collected from its nine collection districts, the collections made by the City of Miami Beach, and private haulers. The three disposal facilities are: 1) the Twentieth Street Incinerator, 2) the Coconut Grove Incinerator, and 3) the Virginia Key Dump. The Twentieth Street Incinerator was completed in 1955 and has a rated capac- ity of 900 tons per 24 hours, and is currently the only one in operation. The Coconut Grove Incinerator was built in 1960, and closed in 1970 by Court Order. The Virginia Key Dump has been in use for over 20 years for the disposal of rubbish and incinerator residue. The Twentieth Street Incinerator and the Virginia Key Dump have had pollu- tion citations issued against them, but are still in operation. Because of these problems with the disposal facilities, the City of Miami held a special bond election with one of the proposals being a $7 million bond issue to pay the cost of pollution control and incinerator facilities. The bond issue was approved by the voters on 30 June 1970 and $3 million worth of these bonds were sold on 22 Oc- tober 1970. On 28 January 1971 the City Commission passed a resolution to retain the joint venture firm of Wegman-Greenleaf/Telesca to conduct a Solid Waste Management Study. The contract for this study was subsequently signed on 18 August 1971. This study reviews the solid waste collection practices, the existing dis- posal facilities, and makes recommendations for improvements and/or changes in these practices and facilities. B. Definitions The various terms used to describe solid waste materials by municipalities and other agencies have created confusion as to definition. A term used to describe a specific material could, in neighboring communities, refer to quite different items. For this report the refuse nomenclature as defined in the contract between the City of Miami and Wegman - Greenleaf/Telesca has been used. Standardization of such nomen- clature must be achieved to assist interagency work in solid waste management and the protection of the environment. The classifications of solid waste materials shown in Table A-1-1, prepared by the American Public Works Association (APWA), have been edited to be more descriptive of local conditions and practices. It is recommended that the City adopt these definitions of refuse as given in Table A-1-1. A-I-1 W EGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA Garbage TABLE A-1-1 Classification of Refuse Materials Wastes from the preparation, cook;ng, and serving of food. Market refuse, waste from the handling, storage, and sale of produce and meats. Rubbish Combustible (primarily organic) Paper, cardboard, cartons Wood, boxes, excelsior Plastics Rags, cloth, bedding Leather, rubber Grass, leaves, yard trimmings Food waste Noncombustible (primarily inorganic) Metals, tin cons, metal foils Dirt Stones, bricks, ceramics, crockery Glass, bottles Other mineral refuse From: households, institutions and commercial concerns such as: hotels, stores, restaurants, markets Trash Bulky Wastes Large auto parts, tires Stoves, refrigerators, other large appliances Furniture, large crates Parkway and Street Refuse Street sweepings, dirt Leaves Catch basin dirt Contents of litter receptacles Trees, branches, palm fronds, stumps, flotage Other Refuse Dead Animals Small animals: cats, dogs, poultry, etc. Large animals: horses, cows Abandoned Vehicles Automobiles, trucks Construction & Demolition Wastes Lumber, roofing, and sheathing scraps Rubble, broken concrete, plaster, etc. Conduit, pipe, wire, insulation From: streets, sidewalks, alleys, vacant lots Industrial Refuse Solid wastes resulting from indus- trial processes and manufacturing operations such as: food process- ing wastes, boiler house cinders, wood, plastic, and metal scraps and shavings From: factories, power plants Special Wastes Hazardous wastes: pathological wostes, explosives, radio- active materials Security wastes: confidential documents, negotiable papers Households, hospitals, institutions, stores, industry Animal and Agricultural Wastes Manures, crop residues Farms, feed lots Sewage Treatment Residues Coarse screenings, grit, septic. tank sludge, dewatered sludge A —I —2 Sewage treat- ment plants, septic tanks M M • M M M • • C. Land Use and Zoning Dade County was the first urban area in the United States to adopt a mod- ern metropolitan form of government. In 1963 the Metro Dade Planning Department prepared a land use survey map as part of their overall research for the General Land Use Master Plan that was approved by the County Commissioners in 1965. The same year that the Master Plan was approved, the City of Miami updated the Land Use Survey Map as part of the Community Renewal Program. Perhaps the most significant findings of this updating by the City of Miami Planning Department were that: 1) most of the 34 square miles within the City limits are fully developed; 2) the areas of most intensive residential density are those closest to the downtown area; and 3) any new development of any size must take place on land from which older structures have been removed. The Planning Department also made some recommendations for a 10-year development program. Of these, the Down- town Campus of the Junior College is under construction and Burlingame Island is under development. In 1966, the firm of Doxiades Associates was retained by the Downtown Development Authority of the City of Miami to prepare a Comprehensive Plan for the Central Business District. This plan was presented to the City in 1967 and was re- ceived with mixed reviews from the County's and City's Planning Departments, par- ticularly in the area of priorities. The Doxiades report proposed for the year 2000: 1) a centralized government office center, 2) two sections of retail activity, 3) hotel development adjacent to open park areas along the bayfront, 4) definite areas for residential and industrial development, and 5) a transportation center. At this writing, of the major elements recommended, the government office center and the transportation center are being implemented. D. Population with Projections to 2000 The population of the City of Miami, as compiled by the 1970 census, was 334,859 and the City of Miami Beach was 87, 072 people. The population of Miami Beach is included in this study for purposes of waste production as the City of Miami incinerator is currently used by the City of Miami Beach when capacity is available, and it is expected that this use will continue. The projected populations for the years 1980, 1990, and 2000 were prepared by the Metropolitan Dade County Planning De- partment using the 1970 census figure as a base. Analysis of the solid waste problems requires 5-year increments rather than 10-year increments, consequently, interpolations were made for the years 1975, 1985, and 1995, by taking half of the total increase of the 10-year period. The resulting figures are shown in Table A-1-2. Figure A-1-1 shows the population density based on the 1970 census; Figure A-1-2 shows the population density based on the projected 1985 population; and Figure A-1-3 shows the population density based on the projected 2000 population. A-I-3 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA Ns • ori TABLE A-1-2 POPULATION FIGURES AND PROJECTIONS Miami Miami Beach • 1960 Census 291,688 63,145 87,072 1970 Resident (Census) 334,85963, 850 Tourist 31,300 364,030 94,090 1975 Resident 67, 085 Tourist 31,745 393,200 101,100 1980 Resident 70, 590 Tourist 32,190 407,350 107,700 1985 Resident 73,995 Tourist 31,300 421, 500 114,300 1990 Resident 77,400 Tourist 30,410 432,650 118,200 1995 Resident 78,400 Tourist 29,890 443,800 122,100 2000 Resident 79,400 Tourist 28,660 NOTE: Current population figures and projections received from Metropolitan Dade County Planning Department. A-I-4 WEGNIAN • GREENLEAF / T E L E SCA 011 - MI -- 1111 1-- I- M t t t AGING 40.111111011•11.1•11.11/, CITY LIMITS • s 21M NGVIO 1970 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION CITY IIMITi 230 •00IL0 0 ' R S W 51111111Mill • • • litanum .-losumm • M•1••i .�..� •• : iii•� •�•• 7:7 i ••� �•• • • •• • • • •.• • 2 •••a se Aii- �•'••�•• 0 W Q 0 SCALE IN MILES WAY L[G<ND 1 A 3 CITY LIMIT* 250 PIIOPLI E. Tourism Tourism is a year round business in the Miami area with an estimated 9,260, 000 tourists visiting the area in 1970. Of the 936 hotels or motels in Metropolitan Dade County, 388 are located either in the City of Miami or just beyond the City limits. The peak occupancy rate of these hotel or motel units occurs in March of each year. Table A-I-2 shows the estimated tourist population for Miami and Miami Beach averaged out on a yearly bash for purposes of calculating the solid waste that these tourists generate. As may be expected, the City of Miami Beach receives the largest share of visitors. F. Industry and Commerce The Greater Miami Area has become one of the leading industrial centers in the South, and, in fact, has lead the nation for the last five years in the rate of increase in manufacturing employment and in actual number of new plant locations. The type of industry that is being attracted to this area is generally com- patible with tourism. It is classified as light industry and includes manufacturers of style fashion and clothing, electronics, aviation, optics, nucleonics products, etc. The style fashion and clothing industry is one of the larger manufacturing employers located in the City of Miami; The major retail and commercial sector of Miami is primarily situated in the central business district or the downtown area. Commercial strips run along Biscayne Boulevard, S. W. 8th Street, West Flagler Street, N. W. 7th Avenue, and other ar- terial roads. The solid waste generated from the industrial and commercial communities has not created a severe collection problem for the Deportment of Sanitation, which presently services approximately 8,600 commercial or industrial accounts. Commercial or industrial accounts that cannot be handled by the Department of Sanitation contract with private haulers that are available to meet their particular needs. This type of account is not being actively solicited by the Department of Sanitation at the present time. G. Highway Systems The influence of haul distances and time on transporting refuse from collec- tion routes to disposal sites and the return of collection vehicles to the route area is a A-I-8 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA 1 1 1 1 1 i A t i 1 t 1 1 1 1 prime factor in cost and equipment selection. With the development of an expressway system in Dade County and the continued construction of divided arterial highways, the actual haul distance becomes less significant as faster haul speeds are possible. A comprehensive transportation master plan was prepared in 1969 for Dade County by the Miami Urban Area Transportation Study (MUATS), a joint planning interest of Metropolitan Dade County and the State of Florida, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation. This plan proposes 158 miles of new expressway and recommends the conversion of 42 miles of existing arterial streets to "express streets" plus an estimated 175 miles of new major arterial streets. (Refer to Figure A-I-4) While most of these changes will occur beyond the city limits of Miami and Miami Beach, portions of several will pass through Miami such as the LeJeune- Douglas Expressway and the Northeast Expressway. Upon completion of these and other roadway changes, haul practices should be reexamined to take advantage of the higher speeds and shorter haul times from areas adjacent to these new streets and ex- pressways. The 1967 report prepared by Doxiades Associates, Inc. recommended several major arterial changes to relieve some of the congestion of the central busi- ness district. One of these was a proposed North -South arterial for the purpose of downgrading the function of Biscayne Boulevard by intercepting and diverting the heavy traffic flow of U.S. 1 by realignment of U.S. 1 between N. E. 54th Street and S. E. 22nd Street. As with many other recommendations made in the Doxiades report, this one is still to be implemented. H. Overview of Solid Waste Management An overview of the magnitude of solid waste production and disposal in the City of Miami indicates that a total of 344,438 tons of solid waste were produced in 1970 by the 334,859 residents and 31,300 tourists; and that the City of Miami Beach had a total of 104,752 tons from 87,072 residents and 63,580 tourists, ex- cluding direct salvage of those materials that do not appear at the disposal facilities. In addition to the above mentioned quantities of solid waste, there are 45 companies in Dade County involved in salvaging or recycling. This secondary materials industry is primarily in the ferrous and non-ferrous metals, paper, glass, and new wool cloth. These firms absorb approximately 150,000 tons of solid waste per year. During the fiscal year 1970-1971 the City of Miami incinerated 141,400 tons from City trucks, 14,000 tons from the City of Miami Beach trucks, and 8,600 tons from private haulers, for a total of 164,000 tons of garbage. A survey of the nine residential collection districts reveals that the average collection was 570 tons per day (4-day basis) or 118,682 tons a year. A-1-9 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA r r M L►NS US! O.I'.,t 02.1... INNq•w• 0t01••• sal 040 000, , t0•.t.t.•a wpYt••.6a •L.,%. pry. t•.<I SR►AtPOR'►TIOk •I•ryn••rt pp` 1646.4 •.O .1111 .•O.OLa ..�.R tt.P•.Ct ••H0110 ••tts•Mi •n.an CbYt K.•a ® CO.WI.C.I.•O.B.t.•a 311M11•a C.ut.p.. TO �ROYRpt�A0111 mob ate ti�RY •MIiiAira1 r»• .WN• uru•t WISPY '5.••.•a1 J ••.a ••115Ku1 .608 cN.p I.6O.BN• C.. rt H'. tB •W •IN.4tH U •N.M' ••IM.C•H 'Buts (..CO 11 ••Mr1 ® .I••a'0•...•i 7 •utSt la'.•at VAUNT LAMO PROPOORD Z TIT IaYa11SSAO AIRPORT L_ 0,• .a.,• I •� D • • .66 41. .16 • GP •` ♦ • • • 0 Li/EAO Ill AIRVORCE 60.1.E 1 / I souY•. PetT PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN . and PROJECTED LAND USE for 1985 11,1 Per f,N•.••• Population Motr•pll!•• Bodo &potato PI.rlo• MOO • • PDR • • O 1 0 M 1•A 0t AWN •M1 t 1.. ti r.15 Fig. A-I-4 Page A-I-10 Commercial or container accounts averaged another 23,016 tons, for a total average garbage collection of 141,698 tons a year by City trucks. Actual col- lection records kept by the City of Miami show that 139,215 tons of garbage were collected in 1970. A survey of private haulers indicates they handled approximately 75,700 tons during 1970. Scale records at the Virginia Key Dump show that the total amount of rubbish deposited there in 1970 was 124,902 tons. For the purposes of making the projections through the year 2000, the commercial garbage collected by the City of Miami has been added to the private haulers tonnage. Using 1970 refuse figures as a basis including all garbage, the per capita refuse production was obtained, showing that the average resident produces 3.45 pounds of garbage, 2.05 pounds of rubbish per day, and that the average tourist generates 1.50 pounds of garbage per day. With the estimated number of tourists for the year 1970 added to the resident population, a recomputation results in a refuse production of 5.15 pounds per capita per day. TI�}}'s 5.15 pounds is comparable to the projected national overage of 4.9 pounds per day`) for the year 1970. The American Public Works Association estimates that the national annual increase in solid waste production will be 0.07 pounds per capita per day. Applying this 0.07 pounds to the City of Miami, a 10% increment has been added since the 1970 tourist estimate is approximately 10% of the resident population. An additional 10% has been added to reflect the rapid growth of industry and commerce in the Miami area. This brings the projected increase in solid waste to 0.0847 pounds per capita per day. The 0.0847 pounds reflect an approximate increase of 1.5% per capita per year. Using this 1.5% increase compounded in 5-year increments, the garbage and rubbish projections shown in Table A-i-3 were made. inasmuch as the City of Miami Beach uses the City of Miami incinerator to dispose of part of its garbage, Table A-1-3 also includes waste projections for the City of Miami Beach through the year 2000, based on the same per capita production rate as used for the City of Miami. The APWA projection for 1980 was for 5.5 pounds per capita per day. The calculation per capita per day shown in Table A-I-3 indicates 6.48 pounds per capita per day (resident population only). This figure appears to be conservative when compared to the 1968 National Survey of Community Solid Waste Practices Interim Report prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency. This report projected a 4% annual increase, with solid waste being 8 pounds per capita per day by 1980. With ever increasing quantities of solid waste to be disposed of, the haul time from the collection route to the disposal facilities becomes highly significant in determining the number of accounts that can best be served on any particular route. Based on presently operating disposal facilities, driving time isochrones were developed with the aid of the Dade County Traffic and Transportation Departments computerized (i) Taken from Figure 2-1, American Public Works Association "Refuse Collection Practice." A-I-11 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / T E L E S CA 1111 III -to; lamp iosi -liar -a.' -gime -Irian -ems YEAR UNITS Resident Garbage Commercial Rubbish Total Tourist Garbage TONS/YEAR MIAMI Resider* Garbage Tourist Garbage Commercial Gorbog Sub -Tool 1970 Lbb/ ../D 1.84 1.62 2.06 5.51 1.50 .335 .295 .373 1.003 .274 112,177 8,576 98,7783 • 219,536 1.99 1.76 2.22 5.97 1.63 1975 .363 .320 .404 1.087 132,142 9,428 116,489 .297 Rubbish 12449902 147,213 344,438 111,463 124,908 Garbage MIAMI BEACH 71,768 82,151 32,144 35,254 62,511 82,74,81 46,589 30,E 35,081 40,495 32,144 25,686 38, 38,049 51,157 58, 866 Commercial Gab... 44,322 Rubbish 32, 477 104,752 TABLE A-I-3 CITY OF MIAMI AND MIAMI BEACH PER CAPITA REFUSE GENERATION AND ANNUAL TONNAGE GENERATION PROJECTIONS 1980 1985 0 1990EOM E2S11001 2.16 1.91 2.41 6.48 1.76 .394 .347 .439 1.179 .322 154,724 10,365 136,440 2.34 2.07 2.61 7.02 1.91 .427 .376 .425 1.278 .349 173,775 10,923 153,163 337,861 2.53 2.24 2.82 7.59 2.07 .462 .408 .515 1.385 .378 194,943 11,507 171,803 378,253 2.74 243 3.08 8.23 2.24 1995 .501 .442 .558 1.501 .410 216,758 12.255 191,231 420,244 2 97 2.63 3.34 8.91 2.43 2000 Tors/ /Y1 .544 479 .605 1.628 241,427 12,725 212.580 466,732 268,499 258,059 301,529 217, 072 241,418 172,378 193,491 1 1 M N 1 1 data on travel time. This development utilizes the proposed 1975 arterial roads and 5-minute intervals and is shown in Figure A-I-5. The maximum travel time for a garbage collection vehicle from a point within the City of Miami to the Twentieth Street incinerator is 20 minutes. The max- imum time to the Virginia Key Dump for a rubbish collection vehicle is found to be 35 minutes. Allowing 20 minutes at the disposal sites for unloading, the following max- imum haul times are required: Garbage- 20 minutes travel to incinerator 20 minutes unloading 20 minutes travel from incinerator 60 minutes - Total haul time Rubbish - 35 minutes travel to dump 20 minutes unloading 35 minutes travel from dump 90 minutes - Total haul time As mentioned above, the City of Miami presently has only the Twentieth Street Incinerator and the Virginia Key Dump in operation as the Coconut Grove Incin- erator was closed in late 1970. The Coconut Grove Incinerator was designed in 1958 and placed in opera- tion in 1960. This incinerator is located in a densely built neighborhood of Coconut Grove on the site of an earlier incinerator which it replaced. The adjacent land uses, such as elementary and junior high schools and residences con be compatible with in- cinerator plants; however, considering the relatively small site occupied by this plant and the limited buffer areas that might be further developed, this site is at best marginal by today's standards. Future plans for continued use of this plant should con- sider improvements of access, routing and control of area traffic and pedestrian safety, as well as possible acquisition of additional buffer areas. The fact that the Coconut Grove Incinerator was closed and remains closed was not significantly detrimental to the municipal Waste Collection Division. Figure A-I-6 illustrates driving time isochrones for both the Twentieth Street and the Coconut Grove Incinerator facilities. Computation of route tonnages generated within equal driving time isochrones from the two incinerators indicates that the Coconut Grove facility provided services for 19 routes generating 195 tons per day (approximately 66% of the facility capacity). To utilize this plant's rated capacity, additional garbage would have to be brought from routes located closer to the Twentieth Street Incinerator A- i-13 WEGINAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA 1 CITY LIMITS INCINSRRTOR DRIVING TIME ISOCRRONtS ?ROM DRIVING TIME I9OCNRONtS FROM MUMS DISPOSAL SITES ee I1 x 3 low,/ COCONUT GROVE 7rnuRMoR 10 1 A 'ORS 111.1 AM1 011'17 �1Mt TO SCALE IN MILER LEGENDI ��.• 10 maimi. MGM.-1O--r o"N° 1 CITY LIMITS DRIVING TIME ISOCNRS FROM 20 St. INCINERATOR DRIVING TIME ISOCIRRON IES FROM C.G. INCINERATOR and consequently increase haul costs of these routes. Comprehensive haul cost com- parisons will be made in the detailed analysis of the collection system presented later In this report. The Twentieth Street plant is located centrally within the City of Miami and is presently the only incinerator being operated by the City. The plant is rated at 900 tons per 24 hours. The City of Miami Dump is located on the property adjacent to the City of Miami sewage treatment plant on Virginia Key. It is used for the disposal of inciner- ator residue and garden trash generated by the City of Miami. Future waste production in the City of Miami is anticipated to increase over the 1970 level of total production by 110o in 1975, 38% in 1980, 54% in 1985, 73% in 1990, 92% in 1995, and 113% in 2000. Future waste production in the City of Miami Beach is anticipated to in- crease over the 1970 level of total production by 171/0 in 1975, 35% in 1980, 56% in 1985, 79% in 1990, 100'k in 1995, and 124% in 2000. A solid waste program providing construction of new disposal facilities or modifications, expansion, and upgrading of existing facilities will require disposal capacities of about 2,800 tons per day (5-day basis) to accommodate 2000 waste pro- duction for the City of Miami and 3,700 tons per day if the City of Miami disposes of all of the refuse generated by the City of Miami Beach. A-I-16 WEGPAAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA CHAPTERII REGULATIONS AFFECTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Selection of a collection, processing, or disposal means for any given geographic area from available methods must be made after an appraisal has been made comparing these respective methods with all governing policy, regulations, and local conditions. Identification of policy and regulations applicable to the local area is considered herein. A. Federal The following is a list of Federal Legislation and Executive Orders concern- ing the environment and natural resources: Executive Order No. 11574 (12-23-70) Executive Order No. 11507 (2-5-70) Executive Order No. 11282 (5-26-66) Solid Waste Disposal Act Clean Air Act Refuse Act of 1899 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Broadly, these instruments establish policy, guidelines, and means of imple- menting the resultant programs. Financial and technical assistance to state and local agencies is authorized. Federal and state, interstate, and inter -municipal cooperation is authorized and encouraged in the development of plans and criteria to meet their specific needs. These Acts, in many instances, authorize the establishment of new (or the empowering of existing) agencies to issue specific criteria to be utilized as minimum standards and enforce adherence thereto. These standards are applicable to and subject to enforcement within those areas: 1. which lie outside local jurisdictional limits; 2. which lack specific criteria; 3. whose criteria are less stringent than federal 4. where interstate effects might result. criteria; Executive Order No. 11574 establishes specific agency control; Orders No. 11507 and No. 11282 establish mandatory adherence to the several acts within all federal facilities. A-Il-1 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA No attempt has been made to include, within the scope of this review, specific federal criteria because of their great length and detail. These criteria are completely set forth within the "Code of Federal Regulations". B. State of Florida The regulations of the State of Florida governing Solid Waste Management and concerned with protecting the environment and natural resources are: Rules of the Department of Air and Water Pollution Control: Chapter 17-2 - Pollution of Air Chapter 17-3 - Pollution of Waters Rules of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Division of Health: Chapter 10 D-12 - Garbage and Rubbish Rules of the Department of Transportation: The Florida Junkyard Control Law Florida Statutes - Section 317.781 Collectively, these instruments: 1. Prohibit the disposal of wastes in a manner that will adversely affect the quality of the fresh water resources and the coastal waters. 2. Prohibit the discharge of emissions from stationary or moving sources that would adversely affect the atmosphere. 3. Define responsibility and establish operational procedures relative to the sanitary storage, collection, and disposal of garbage and rubbish. 4. Establish control over the location of, the fencing, and the screen- ing of garbage dumps and sanitary landfills. ment. 5. Control transport to prevent spillage and thus despoil the environ- C. Metropolitan Dade County The Code of Metropolitan Dade County (amended) in its several parts regulates the collection and disposal of garbage, rubbish, trash, and other refuse. It further controls and regulates all activities which cause or may cause pollution A-il-2 W EGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA Air or contamination of air, water, soil and are detrimental to the protection and preserva- tion of the public health, safety, and welfare. The following are portions of Part III Code of Ordinances. Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter 2 - Article VIII - Public Health Department 2 - Article XIV - Public Works Department 118 - Dumps and Landfill Sites 14 - Fire Protection 15 - Garbage and Trash 17 - Housing Standards 24 - Pollution Control 26 - Sanitary Nuisance These specific chapters regulate and stipulate: 1. Storage containers - their number, condition, and storage location. 2. The responsibility of citizens towards disposal and accumulation of garbage, rubbish, trash, and other refuse. 3. The disposal of refuse materials in unauthorized locations. 4. The manner and means for collection of refuse materials by public agencies or private means. 5. The disposal and/or destruction of refuse materials by public agencies or private means. D. City of Miami, Florida The Code of the City of Miami, Florida (amended) in its various parts regulates the collection and disposal of garbage, rubbish, trash and other refuse. The following portions of Part land Part 11 are of specific interest to the report: Part I - The Charter Section 3 - Powers Part II - The Code Chapter 2 - Chapter 17 Chapter 18 Chapter 20 Chapter 21 Chapter 24 Administration - Fire Code - Foods and Food Establishments - Garbage, Trash and Rubbish - Health - Housing Standards A-11-3 WEGNIAN • G R E E N LEAF / TELESCA M M Chapter 26 Junk and Secondhand Dealers Chapter 38 - Offenses - Miscellaneous Chapter 48 i Rodent Control Chapter 50 - Shipping, Vessels and Docks Chapter 54 - Streets and Sidewalks These portions of the Code empower, define, establish penalty and direct enforcement of regulations covering the accumulation, collection and disposal of gar- bage, trash, rubbish, and other refuse within the limits of the City of Miami. 1. They regulate storage containers as to number, size, condition, and storage location. 2. They establish the responsibilities of citizens and businesses within the City as to the accumulation and disposal of garbage, rubbish, trash, and other refuse. 3. They regulate the disposal of refuse materials in unauthorized loca- tions. 4. They regulate the manner and means for collection of refuse ma- terials by public or private agencies. 5. They regulate the manner and means for disposal of refuse materials by public or private agencies. e Certain of these ordinances are reviewed elsewhere with attention given to those items of specific interest to this study. Collectively, the instruments issued by all agencies —federal, state or local prohibit disposal of untreated wastes whereby they will adversely affect: -Fresh water resources or coastal waters. -Air quality. -The public health and welfare. -The natural resources of the land, renewable and non-renewable. They further identify minimum standards of: -Operation. -Quality in gaseous, liquid and solid effluents. A-11-4 WEGNIAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA M M • r r M CHAPTER 111 - ORGANIZATION, PERSONNEL, BUDGET AND REVENUES A. Organization The Department of Sanitation of the City of Miami is organized to pro- vide services to residents in the following categories: garbage collection, rubbish col- lection, enforcement of the lot clearing ordinance, street sweeping, and disposal of solid wastes. Figure A-III-1 illustrates the organizational structure of the Department. The functions of certain divisions are such that they fall outside of the scope of this report and only a portion of the activities of others are in support of the collection and disposal of refuse. Street cleaning and lot clearing are functions that will not be covered in detail in this report. Administrative Division and Enfor- cement Division functions in support of the Waste Division are included in detail. The Administrative Division of the Department is charged with the duty of record keeping for the Waste Division. The Director of Sanitation coordinates and supervises this activity. Administrative functions include timekeeping, payrolls, correspondence, personnel records, and preparation of the annual Sanitation budget. The Enforcement Division of Sanitation supports waste collection and disposal as only a small portion of its daily activities. It is charged with the investi- gation of complaints and enforcement of all ordinances as they relate to the collection and disposal of refuse. The Enforcement Division is responsible for the issuing of notices to landowners whose property must be cleared of debris and overgrowth to prevent it from becoming an "eyesore" and public health menace. In case of non- compliance, it then requisitions for clearing of same and requests temporary lien placements. The actual work of clearing lots is performed by private contractors. The Division also supervises land clearing done by private contractors for the City and is responsible for the sale of "No Dumping" signs to individuals and furnishes these signs to other departments upon request. They also supervise the filling of prop- erty under 10,000 square feet. The Waste Collection Division is charged with the collection of all garbage and rubbish within the corporate limits of the City and the transport of these wastes to the dumps or the incinerator. The Street Cleaning Division is charged with the responsibility of roadway cleanliness. The Division utilizes mechanical street sweepers and street flushers to clean all curbed streets in the City. Additionally, a force of men equipped with two - wheeled carts, brooms, and shovels are employed in maintaining the downtown and outlying business districts. A truck and crew are occupied, full time, in the collec- tion of waste from street -litter baskets throughout the City. A-III-1 WEGMAN • G R E E N L E A F / TELESCA -11.11111111 DIRECTOR'S STAFF Personnel & Safety Administration Fiscal DE PARTMENT OF SANITATION ENFORCEMENT Lot Clearing and Abandoned Auto Field Inspection ASS'T. DIRECTOR WASTE COLLECTION District No. 1 District No. 2 District No. 3 District No. 4 District No. 5 District No. 6 District No. 7 District No. 8 District No. 9 Daily Service Bin Routes Special Service and Reserves WASTE DISPOSAL Incinerator No. 1 Incinerators Maintenance Disposal Pit STREET SWEEPING Hand Sweeping Mechanical Sweeping The Waste Disposal Division is charged with operation and maintenance of dumps and incinerators as discussed in detail later in the report. B. Personnel The staff of Sanitation during the fiscal year of 1970-71 was made up of 668 employees under the management of the Director who is responsible to the Director of Public Service, Employment by Division was as follows: Administration 12 Sanitation Enforcement 19 Waste Collection 450 Street Cleaning 38 Dumps 18 incineration 131 Total 668 All positions within the Department of Sanitation fall under civil service and are basically divided into three categories —competitive, non-competitive, and labor. Employment in the competitive class requires a civil service examination. Non-competitive classifications require exceptional qualifications of a scientific, managerial, or professional character, and are determined by the Civil Service Board. The labor classification is filled by personnel who have registered for such employment and who must wait for a vacancy before being hired. Salary levels are based on skills and position classification; each clas- sification carries a minimum and a maximum with added compensation for longevity. These classifications and their salary levels are shown in Table A-ill-1. The City of Miami Department of Sanitation has its share of labor problems which are common among municipal collection systems. These primarily consist of shortages and rapid turnover of laborers (waste collectors Classes i, ii, III, and IV, incinerator stokers, and utility men). The City compensates for these shortages by hiring temporary employees for standby crews. These employees are hired on a day- to-day basis. The standby crews are used to fill vacancies created by absenteeism and lack of permanent personnel. Absenteeism is most prevalent on the heaviest collection days, Mondays and Thursdays. Department records show that the greatest number of vacancies for permanent personnel are waste collectors Class I1. For the fiscal year 1970-71 overall personnel shortages averaged 20 to 30%. To help overcome these shortages the City offers a number of incentives to attract and keep personnel. Pay schedules for collection crew personnel are based A-iiI-3 WEGAIAN • G R E E N L E A F / TELESCA TABLE A-III-1 DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION AVERAGE MONTHLY EARNINGS Code Classification 1,186.00 $1,266.50 3026 Waste Collection Supt. $955.00 80 $1,087.00 1,160.50 3025 Waste Collection Supt. Ass't. 478.40 492.80 513.60 3017 Waste Collector I - Trash 529.60 564.80 591.22 3018 Waste Collector II - Garbage 536.00 552.00 578.00 3019 Incinerator Stroker 478.40 492.80 515.00 3020 Incinerator Utility Man I 520.00 536.00 562.00 3021 Incinerator Utility Man II 698.00 842.00 897.00 3022 Sanitation Foreman I 842.00 1,041.00 1,113.00 3023 Sanitation Foreman II 635.00 748.07 792.00 3225 San. Plant Operator t 698.00 842.00 897.00 3226 San. Plant Operator II 808.00 997.00 1►06b•� 3227 San. Plant Supervisor 914.00 1,135.00 1 ,214.00 3228 San. Plant Superintendent 581.00 676.00 712.00 3445 San. Plant Mech. Helper 676.00 808.00 861.00 3446 San. Plant Mechanic 748.00 914.00 978.00 3447 San. Plant Maint. Foreman 3108 Waste Collector III - Trash 581.00 635.00 668.00 Truck Driver 3109 Waste Collector IV 616.00 676.00 712.00 Garbage Truck Driver 3110 Waste Equipment Operator 676.00 76 • 748.00 792.00 Hydrocrane 548.00 635.00 bb8.00 5512 Incinerator Weigh Master Salary Level Per Month Min. Max. Longev i Avera e A-III-4 VIEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA on a 40-hour week, composed of four ten-hour days. If they finish their route before the end of the ten-hour period, no other work is required. They are permitted to go home for the day once their assigned tasks have been completed. In addition, per- sonnel are eligible for all civil service fringe benefits such as holiday pay, annual leave, retirement program, group insurance, credit union, and sick leave. 1. Vacation Employees are allowed vacation with pay after six months of con- tinuous service. Vacation with pay is computed at the rate of 10/12 days for each month of service, or 10 working days per year. Additional vacation days are alloted for longevity. 2. Sick Leave Sick leave with pay is granted at the rate of 1 day per month of service, with a maximum accumulated leave of 60 days. Employees who terminate their service with the City after 10 years are compensated for their unused sick leave. Leave with pay is also granted for employees on jury duty or death in the family. 3. Holidays The following ten days are designated by the City as paid legal holidays for City employees. If the holiday fails on a Saturday, it is observed on the preceding Friday; if the holiday falls on Sunday, it is observed on the following Monday. New Year's Day Washington's Birthday Memorial Day Independence Day Labor Day Columbus Day Veteran's Day Thanksgiving Day Christmas Day Employee's Birthday During such holidays, collections are continued on all routes where daily collection is furnished and personnel are compensated with time off on their regular working days. 4. Pension Plan The general employee's retirement program or pension plan is ad- ministered by the Retirement Board, consisting of the City Manager, City Director of Finances, two members elected by the City Commission, and three members elected by the employees. A-III-5 W EGNIAN • G R E E N LEAF / TELESCA A A All general employees hired after 1 July 1956 are automatically members of the plan, except those classified as laborers, watchmen, and custodial workers, who may waive their right to membership. General employees entering civil service are assigned to retire- ment plans, Groups 1 and 2, Class B1. These plans require an employee's contribu- tion of 6.5% of his salary with a minimum service retirement age of 60, and a com- pulsory retirement age of 70. After 30 years service this plan will provide a final compensation which is fixed by formula, utilizing such factors as maximum pay rate, etc. No minimum number of years service is required, age is the only determining factor. After six months of service, employees in Class B1 may transfer to Class Al at their option. Class Al requires an employee's contribution of 7.5% of his salary with a minimum service retirement age of 55, and a compulsory retire- ment age of 70. After 25 years service this plan will provide a final compensation, which is fixed by formula utilizing such factors as maximum pay rate, etc. No min- imum service is required, age is the only determining factor. Under both of these plans an employee may retire with any number of years service with the pension being prorated on the number of years employed. In addition to regular retirement benefits, the pension plan pro- vides for accidental disability, service -incurred disability, and ordinary disability retirement, as well as death and accidental death benefits. Any member of the pension plan who resigns from City service prior to becoming eligible for retirement will have personal contributions refunded. An employee, depending on his Group and Class, can achieve vested rights after a certain number of years of service that will entitle him to a prorated pension upon achieving the required age. 5. Credit Union Membership in one of the City's five credit unions is available to members of the Department of Sanitation. The credit unions are under employee ad- ministration and chartered by the federal government. Credit unions offer the fol- lowing advantages: Excellent saving plan with liberal dividends on all shares Loans made at low interest rates Unpaid balance of loans paid off in the event of employee's death or disability Loan repayments and savings deposits can be made by payroll de- duction A-iII-6 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / T E L E SCA A b. Group insurance The City also provides group insurance for all employees, with the City paying approximately 75% of the cost for a single employee and approximately 50% of the cost for a married employee with dependents. The policy provides life insurance, disability accident, hospital, surgical, and medical coverage for the employee; and hospital, surgical, and medical for the employee's dependents. 7. Other Benefits The City also provides for its employees the following: Seventeen days per year for military leave Free medical examination upon entering City service 8. Cost of Benefits The aforementioned fringe benefits for City employees represents a sizable expenditure to the City. During fiscal year 1970-71 these costs were as follows: Benefit Percent of Payroll Pensions 9.31 Group insurance 3.0 Vacation Sick Leave Holidays 1 1 12.0 Social Security 5.2 Total 29.51% Although the City offers its employees liberal vacations, holidays, sick leave plan, and an established pension plan, the Department of Sanitation still ex- periences a high rate of turnover and absenteeism as previously mentioned. A com- parison with other major refuse divisions in Dade County shows similar trends, with turnover and absenteeism rate for Dade County and the City of Miami Beach being higher. The more favorable rate for the City of Miami is, in part, a factor of Loca- tion and transportation in that many of the Department of Sanitation employees live near points where they report to work and in some instances can even walk to work. The Dade County Sanitation workers and those of the City of Miami Beach travel con- siderable distances from their place of residence to report to work. A-111-7 WEGNIAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA M M Emphasis on the basic dignity of the individual in recent years and the fact that garbage collection has always been considered as being at the bottom of the social scale, together with competition from better paying and more desirable jobs has made recruitment of personnel for this type of work progressively more difficult. This trend can be expected to continue and public officials in charge of this important service are faced with a serious problem. increasing wages to compete with those paid by other industries in the area would probably alleviate part of the problem. Means for improving the status of this type of employment along with a greater sense of respon- sibility and improved morale of the worker are needed to assure the City of the high quality uninterrupted service that is required to meet its needs. C. Budget and Revenues The annual budget for Sanitation is prepared by the Administrative Division. The budget is submitted, reviewed and when accepted, becomes a portion of the general budget for the City. Budgets are prepared for a fiscal year beginning on 1 October and ending on 30 September. Table A-Iii-2 has been prepared from data provided by the Administrative Division and from budget records. It presents in tabular form a 10-year financial history of Sanitation. In fiscal year 1970-71 certain adjustments were made in the organizational structure of Sanitation that are reflected within Table A-III-2 and are worthy of clarifi- cation: -Costs formerly entered under the heading of Rubbish Collection are now presented under the heading of Garbage Collection (Retitled in 1970-71 as Waste Collection Division). -Costs formerly entered under the heading of Lot Clearing are entered under the new departmental heading Sanitary Enforcement. -Costs formerly entered under the heading of Plant Expense are now en- tered under the heading Garbage Collection (Waste Collection Division). Until fiscal year 1970-71 revenues were returned to the general fund of the City. Beginning this funding year, revenues derived from the operation of the Department of Sanitation will be retained to help defray the cost of operation. Primary Sources of Revenue are: -Steam produced by the operation of Incinerator No. 1 is sold to Jackson Memorial Hospital. Steam has been sold intermittently to the Department of Waters and Sewers. -Waste fees represent those funds obtained by the Waste Collection Divi- sion through its Commercial Waste Collection operation. A-Ili-B WIEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA D TA11LE'/C-11l-2 CITY OF MIAMI DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION - BUDGET HISTORY 1960-1972 1960-81 1961-62 1962-63 1963-64 1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1 REVENUE Al Steen+ Soles $ 28,396 8) Wmte Fees 16,119 Cl Solver, 238 D) Miscellaneous 2,268 Sub -Total 47,021 Gen. Fund Contribution 769,779 TOTAL $ 816,800 11 EXPENDITURES A) Administration 1) Personal Services 2) Contractual Serv. 3) Commodities 4) Debt Service 5) Capital Outlay TOTAL 8) Garbage Collection 1) Personal Services 2) Contractual Sere. 3) Commodities 4) Fixed and Sundry 5) Debt Service TOTAL C) Rubbish Collection 1) Personal Services 2) Contractual Serv. 3) Commodities 4) Fixed and Sundry 5) Debt Service TOTAL 0) Incineration 1) Personal Services 2) Contractual Serv. 3) Commodities 4) fixed and Sundry 5) Capitol Outlay 6) Debt Service TOTAL $ 37,777 2,225 664 $ 114,260 66,114 830 181,049 362,253 688,712 S1,050,965 S 36,723 2,025 695 $ 127,961 70,101 869 173,790 372,639 725,637 $ 725,637 S 47,088 1,175 600 259 155 $ 40,666 $ 39,702 51,223,972 51,185,114 224,289 215,683 3,075 4,150 $ 49,018 $1,188,936 184,106 10,150 S 122,042 $ • 101,416 72,578 84,628 940 524 180,759 202,262 376,319 388,830 741.627 772,207 $1,117,946 $1,161,030 $ 52,217 3,310 775 S 56,302 $ 56,277 3,360 775 441 $ 86,425 102,771 376 251,371 440,943 754,351 $1,195,294 5 59,796 2,813 • • 810 $ 85.595 106,999 300 248,531 441,425 817,276 $1,258,701 $ 65,176 3,494 810 $ 60,853 $ 63,419 $ 69,480 51,258,123 $1,344,098 232,815 236,481 10,575 16,017 51,329,345 $1,323,717 177,845 240,379 16,916 17,485 S 85.029 115,380 132 259,198 459;662 880,195 $1,339,857 $ 72,644 6,054 975 420 $ 80,093 $1,499,346 251,312 17,618 S 79,558 113,063 336 310,975 503,932 909,335 $1,413,267 S 75,079 5,329 975 $ 81,383 $1, 599,107 300,783 17,894 S 85.000 126,050 326 155,265 366,641 1,251,685 $1,618,376 f 92,959 7,605 975 $ 100,434 156,064 159 90,454 347,111 5 347,111 S 106.305 10.215 21,570 379 S 101,539 S 138,514 S 119,444 2.128 14,041 9,028 805 5 145,446 51,956,615 53,098,440 53,928,499 336,407 17,907 898,256 90 48,430 30,010 16.000 13.200 970,929 $1,451,336 $1,404,947 $1,383,192 $1,501,513 $1,596,596 $1,524,106 $1,581,581 S1,768,276 $1,917,784 S2,310,929 $4,061,120 $4,942,728 $ 506,153 S 596,464 S 600,846 S 656,103 155,993 225,034 235,058 278,982 1,100 2,525 2,825 2,872 3,600 5,900 16,600 16,600 S 666,846 $ 829,923 $ 855,329 $ 954,560 $ 552,872 144,830 76,175 41,803 14,860 193,650 $ 556,863 $ 562,785 S 585,914 129,050 149,691 149,051 87,300 86,850 81,150 52,358 57,815 74,534 14,317 10,060 11,028 200,275 196,525 192,775 S1,024,190 S1,040,193 $1,063,735 $1,094,452 $ 701,913 $ 714,791 $ 706,482 309,717 263,339 328,150 5,951 5,951 6,833 16,000 16,000 16,000 31,500 $ 805,992 367,112 7,758 13,850 51,033,581 $1,000,081 $1,088,965 $1,194,712 S 628,749 159,350 90,050 56,743 199,025 $1,133,917 $ 633,540 $ 644,632 149,598 183,790 90.631 92,535 89,415 101,127 11,124 387 194,900 191,100 S 810,131 378,165 8.530 13,600 S 973,473 418,609 . 9,003 16,000 $1.210,426 $1,417,085 $ 714,479 S 733,948 195,021 192,638 94,478 94,640 112,465 139,965 11,777 1,976 196,975 192,525 f 852,520 S 976,315 S 94.737 198,847 195,203 64,930 103,409 84,205 80,740 158,317 4,750 3,900 6.242 7,356 624 188,000 140.306 $1,169,208 $1,213,571 $1,325,195 $1,354,712 $1,507,335 51,267,829 S1,265,237 A OMNI ..r O TABLE A-I11-2 CITY OF MIAMI - DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION BUDGET HISTORY - 1960.1972 (Continued) E) Rubbish °)spool Pit 1) Personal Services 21 Contractual Services 3) Commodities 4) Fixed and Sundry 5) Capitol Outlay 6) Debt Service TOTAL f) Piarit &perms 1) Personal Services 2) Contractual Serv. 3) Commodities 4) Fixed and Sundry 5) Debt Service 6) Capital Outlay TOTAL GI Sheet Cieoning Pcnanol Services 2) Contractual Serv. 3) Commodities 41 Fixed and Sundry 51 CapitolOuflay TOTAL HI Lot Clearing 1) 'erscnol Services 2) Co..troctuol Sere. 3) Commodities 41 Fixed and Sundry 5) Debt Service 1960- 61 1961-62 1962-63 1963-64 1964- 63 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 • $ 47,776 S 50,064 $ 50,428 $ 48,222 $ 47,921 $ 44,999 $ 43,289 $ 441,678 S 48,425 $ 58.178 12,932 12,957 10,997 12,999 • 11,900 9,366 12,161 12,849 15,187 10,901 2,200 2,350 2,350 2,300 2,400 2,250 1,975 1,775 1,840 1,840 1,530 128 190 474 3,000 $ 64,438 $ 65,499 S 63,775 $ 63,711 $ 62,695 $ 56,615 $ 57,425 S 61,302 $ 65,452 S 73,919 $ 141,513 30,676 4,675 $ 148,025 $ 147,484 $ 155,292 $ 170,719 $ 172,829 39,814 58,861 60,560 63,070 45,879 5,17S 6,121 8,321 10,106 7,505 7,110 S 176,844 S 193,014 $ 212,466 $ 231,283 $ 243,895 1 226,213 S 150,169 S 176,926 76,649 38S 480 1, 492 90.946 S 227.290 $ 269.751 $ 173,869 $ 196,507 $ 194,485 $ 209,688 $ 239.460 $ 266,763 56.758 60,884 65,624 66.884 74,513 7,083 6,375 6,485 7,825 21,825 6,155 200 84.240 $ 237,710 $ 263,766 $ 266.594 $ 284,377 $ 335.798 5 357.378 $ 13,883 $ 14,411 $ 15,018 $ 15,805 $ 14,718 $ 17,730 S 18,003 $ 23,450 $ 23.851 $ 25,944 4,515 4,480 7,815 7,815 7,965 7,733 8,152 11,907 10,097 9,850 135 110 110 575 575 1,C05 655 190 255 255 TOTAL $ 18,533 $ 19,001 $ 22,953 $ 24,205 $ 25,907 $ 26,518 $ 26,810 $ 35,547 $ 34,203 $ 36,049 11 Sanitary Enforcement 1) Personal Services 21 Contractual Serv. 3) Commodities 4) Fixed and Sundry TOTAL Total Dept. of Sanitation 53,442,873 • $3,492,279 53,650,468 53,926,026 S4,157,494 $4,066,160 NOTE: Division activities are shown as listed as presented by Department records. • tsb changes in nomenclature have been mode in accordance with Table 1-1. $4,275,541 $4,728,891 S 112,334 24,138 2,176 S 138,648 $4,930,554 $5,731,233 $6,199,966 5 169.599 16.458 3,143 20.189 5 209.384 $7, 209.929 -Salvage represents those funds obtained by the sale of equipment (other than vehicles) no longer required for the operation of the Department. A-I11-11 W EGNIAN • GRE ENLEAF TELESCA CITY OF MIAMI SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY PART B - COLLECTION SYSTEM Prepared by Greenleaf/Telesca W CONAN • GREENIEAF / TELESGA M M r TABLE OF CONTENTS PART B i COLLECTION SYSTEM Page CHAPTER 1 ANALYSIS OF EXISTING COLLECTION PRACTICES A. Characteristics of the Municipal Collection System B-1-1 1. Residential Route Collection B-I-1 2. Commercial Route Collection B-I-7 3. Rubbish Collection 8-1-7 4. Oversize Wastes 8-1-13 5. Abandoned Vehicles B-1-13 B-1-15 B. Municipal Collection Equipment 1. Collection Equipment 2. Equipment Maintenance C. Analysis of Municipal Collection Cost 1. Residential Garbage Collection 2. Residential Rubbish Collection 3. Summary of Residential Collection Cost 4. Commercial Accounts D. Significance of Private Refuse Contractors CHAPTER II FUTURE ALTERNATIVES FOR THE COLLECTION SYSTEM APPENDIX B-I-16 13-1-21 B-1-21 B-I-23 B- 1-24 B- I-25 B-1-26 B- I-28 A. Effect of Future Growth on Collection Practices B-11-1 B. Innovations in Solid Waste Management Systems B-II-4 1. Processing, Packaging and Handling Prior to Collection B-II-4 2. Transport of Refuse Materials B-II-10 3. Collection of Combined Refuse Materials 8-11-10 C. Constraints on Municipal Solid Waste System B-II-11 D. Modifications Considered for the Collection System B-11-12 1. Residential Route Collection B-II-12 2. Commercial Route Collection B-II-18 3. Rubbish Collection B-11-21 4. Fee Schedule B-11-21 Collection Districts and Routes Polyethylene Bags b-i WEGFAAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA B-AP-1 B-AP-36 LIST OF TABLES - PART B , Pam. 8.4.1 Collection - Residential Districts 8-1-2 Frequency of Refuse Collection in Selected Sites B-1-►3 Garbage Collection - Commercial Routes 8-1-4 Summary of Rubbish Collection 84-11 8-1-5 Oversize Waste Disposal B-1-13 8-1-6 City of Miami Rubbish Collection Records B-I-14 8-1-7 Sanitation Division - City of Miami - Heavy Equipment 8-1-17,18, 19 & 20 8-1-8 Adjusted Monthly Equipment Charges B-1-22 B-11-1 Population Growth 1950-2000 B-11-1 8-11-2 Refuse Handling in Single Dwelling Units 13-11-4 B-II-3 Solid Waste Systems for Multi -Unit Buildings and Multi - Building Complexes 13-II-6 8-I1-4 Suitability of Processed Wastes for Various Disposal Methods B-11-9 B-11-5 Cost Comparison of Collection Methods B-11-13 B-11-6 Equipment Required by Various Collection Methods B-11-17 B-11-7 Partial Survey of Commercial Building and Business in the Central Business District B-11-20 b-i i WEGFAAN • G R E E N L E A F / TELESCA LIST OF FIGURES - PART B City of Miami Garbage Collections - Monthly Tonnage Deviations from the Mean Garbage Collection Routes Commercial Collection Routes Rubbish Collection Districts City of Miami Rubbish Collections - Monthly Tonnage Deviations from the Mean CHAPTER i - ANALYSIS OF EXISTING COLLECTION PRACTICES As in most tourist -oriented areas of Florida, the quantities of refuse collected within the City of Miami is affected by the great number of visitors throughout the year. The peak tourist months generate refuse quantities as much as 20% greater than the "off-season" months (refer to Figure B-1-1). This variable must be considered in collection capabilities (of both the public and private sector) and disposal. A. Characteristics of the Municipal Collection System The Department of Sanitation of the City of Miami is charged with the re- sponsibility for the collection and disposal of all garbage, rubbish, trash, and other refuse generated within its corporate limits, and for the cleaning of City streets. This portion of the study reviews existing refuse collection practices in- cluding service to residential and commercial accounts. 1. Residential Route Collection The Waste Collection Division has subdivided the City into nine residential collection districts composed of six routes each (Figure B-I-2). Each district is supervised by an assigned foreman. A total of 107,566 accounts (of which 7,952 are non-residential) are serviced in these nine districts and contribute some 570 tons of garbage on an average collection day (refer to Table B-I-1). A residential account may be defined as a living unit, such as a one -family residence or apartment. Information derived from the 1970 Census of Population and Housing indicates that there are 2.7 persons per average living unit in the City of Miami as opposed to 2.9 persons per average living unit countywide. This smaller average living unit and the greater density of multi -family buildings indicate a slightly greater system capability of servicing more accounts with fewer stops than is normally experienced. a. Frequency of Collection The majority of route accounts are serviced twice weekly, either on a Monday -Thursday or Tuesday -Friday collection schedule. However, four routes which serve the more densely populated areas of the City are provided collec- tion services three times weekly. The frequency of municipal collection of household refuse varies in different communities, depending on the amount, characteristics of the waste produced, climate, mode of payment, and to a certain extent, on the demand of the citizens. It follows that the more frequent the collection, the more convenient it is for the residents and naturally more expensive for the Department to provide. B-1-1 W E G M A N • G R E E N LEAF / TELESCA Sept. Oct. CITY OF MIAMI GARBAGE COLLECTIONS MONTHLY TONNAGE DEVIATIONS FROM THE MEAN Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar, April May June July Aug. LLOLND t CITY LIMITS DISTRICT BOUNDARY POUTL BOUNDARY C4.410 Qwcr1911 St.51.Deus pyM.er A/w9•er•e9 T..tl... 'pooh Sub -Teel 1Mc. weak 479 709 ,447 181 6,009 4,297 4,297 4,664 951 1,097 2.1,4 1,255 6,097 293 2,046 994 968 - - ,447 759 759 1 998 111 - ,861 13,660 A.6..9. Tons 6in..loy 71.6T Tuesday 72.36 11,•," 4T 51.41 FidoT 9.19 62.12 246.47 tb/Sra91'Mk 56.08 Ile/Acc/M/k 31.73 6,446 9. 61.00 67.88 55.47 42.72 58.53 234.07 72.62 50.36 -1111.._ TABLE B-I-1 COLLECTION- RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS 1 5 6 Amor 7,663 7,427 7,427 4,474 4,474 4,527 4,527 44,378 44,778 864 2, N9 !63 894 1,7M 6,ee2 13.766 1D 236 1,786 1,517 3,031 210 14,219 38,857 75 706 r.S84 664 4,567 s 4 6,149 41 65 4,066 6,403 - 293 79 1,315 1 74' 64739bb 623 642 442 542 342 7, 7,524 139 139 _S3S 533 10 '. 10 13 4,6M 2,149 1,510 4,339 466 1,998 460 8,9151 12,511 73.61 58.70 58.05 50.23 4, 13 968 4,960 7, 9127 1,654 403 309 2,892 181 460 647 8,873 6,570 9,960 9,333 1 11,595 97.83 87.9 70.83 62.39 60.02 79.46 240.09 399.62 53.86 38.38 •p4..rl..16..61.1 Accesses serviced m Rsl 0IlI Collodion Rados 72.80 71.97 56.47 46.02 61.82 247.26 209.07 72.9 71.91 49.55 39.04 45.82 66.31 47.01 46.37 0,589 16,049 5,840 11,477 72.62 72.76 56.80 49.94 56.58 63.03 226.31 252.12 80.92 70.10 26.43 49.64 64.77 259.09 48.50 47.62 m.ro 31.42 44.38 6,028 10, 69.70 76.05 62.55 48.02 64.08 256.32 63.06 46.93 ,630 107.566 673.17 663.20 517.12 448.16 570.60 2,282,35 69.55 42.86 6 1, 12.47 11.91 9.59 9.30 10.57 42.27 The manual on refuse collection practices published by the American Public Works Association (APWA, 3rd Edition), sets forth the following criteria: "The maximum period between collections should not be greater than: "a. A normal time for the accumulation of the amount of refuse that can be placed in a container of reasonable size. "b. The time it takes fresh garbage to putrify and to give off odors, under average conditions of storage. "c. The length of the fly -breeding cycle. Unwrapped garbage should be removed from the premises at reg- ular intervals based according to the minimum time required for the development of flies from eggs to mature larvae. During the hot summer months this is frequently less than 7 days." It is the consensus that most municipal agencies complied with the above criteria as found in a survey carried out by the APWA in 1964 on the frequency of the collection for residential areas by municipal forces covering 956 communities across the United States. This survey revealed that 46.7% of the cities provided pick-up service once a week, 48.5% twice a week, and 3.6% three times per week. Table B-I-2shows the frequency of collection and other pertinent data for several selected sites located in the southern sections of the United States as prepared by the APWA. Of the 18 sites selected, two provide one collection per week, twelve provide two collections per week, and the remain- ing four show three collections per week. The prevailing two collections per week presently provided for residential accounts are, therefore, well within normally accepted practice for southern cities. b. Container Requirements Container size has been limited by ordinance to a maximum of 25 gallons. By ordinance, the containers must remain in easily accessible above ground locations. The number of containers have also been established as follows: B-1-5 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / T E L E S CA Household - 2 Containers Duplexes - 2 containers each unit Apartments, Trailer Homes - 1 container each unit Commercial Establishments - 4 containers Additional containers will be serviced, but a charge of 35 per container, each collection is levied for this service TABLE 13-1-2 FREQUENCY OF REFUSE COLLECTION IN SELECTED SITES (From "Refuse Collection Practice" - APWA, Third Edition) City Pop. In Thousands 1, System Used 2. Area Served 3. Celkction Points F equency of Collection (Pick-up Per Week) 4 Mashed of F."o"4." hp Combined Refuse Garbage Rubbish Summer Winter Sumner Winter Sommer Winter Res. Cons. Res. Con,. Ra. Co,,. Res. Com. Res. Cam. Res. Cam. Las Angeles, California 2,479 M.P. R.C.I. A.C. 1 1 2 2 T. E. Son Diego, California 523 M All A.C. 1 5 1 5 G.T. Son Diego County, Col. 225 P All C 2 5 2 5 Phoenix, Aritono 439 M.P. R A 2 2 4 G.T. Tucson, Arizona 213 M.C. R.C.I. A.C. 2 R 2 R O.T. Corpus Osristl, Texas 168 M.P. MI C.R. 3 6 3 6 S. C. Dolle. Texas 673 M.P. Ail A. C.R.O. 2 R 2 R G.T. Fat Worth, Texas 366 M.P. R.C.M. A.C.R.O. 2 R 2 R beaumes, Texas 119 M All 3 R 3 R 1. C. Austin, Texas 167 M.P. All S. C. , Sovonnoh, Georgia 140 M Alt V 2 It 2 R 1 1 1 1 G.T. Miami, Florida 292 M.P. All 1 R R R 2 2 1 1 1 1 G.T. ' Dade County, Florida 500 M.P. All R R R 2 2 6 6 S. C. Tampa, Florida 276 M Ail A.G.R. 2 R 2 R 6 S. C. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 100 M All R 2 R 2 R G.T. Muni &each. Florida 100 M All A.R. 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 0 n Call T _C. _ baton Rouge, lauisiono 153 M R.C.I. A.C. 2 6 2 0 1 1 1 1 G.T. NawOrkorss,lauisiona 657 M.P. All V 3 3 3 3 G.T. CODING: 1. Systems Used: Ms Municipal; C : Contract; P : Private 2. Area Served: R c Raider*(&; C e Canmerciel; M s Monufoctwing & Indus►►iol; 1 s Institutional i Public 3. Collection Points: A : Alley; C: Curb; F - Front of house; R : Rea of house; V - All four collection points used; O: Othp 4. Method of Financing: GT: Genets! Tan; SC: Service Charge; TC: General Tax ii Sorviat Chores ' Sines changed to subside c. Type of Service The residential accounts are collected by the "backyard carry" type of service, wherein the collection crew travels with the truck, walks to the side or rear yard, transfers the refuse to a"tote barrel" and, then carries it to the street where it is loaded directly into the collection vehicle. The garbage is transported to the incinerator within the original collection vehicle. The driver and crew remain with the same vehicle throughout the day and are usually assigned to the same vehicle each work day. When their normally assigned vehicle is undergoing maintenance or repair, a standby vehicle is issued to them. 8-1-6 W EGNIAN • G R E E N L E A F / TELESCA 2. Commercial Route Collection The Waste Collection Division has subdivided the City into seven routes for the purpose of commercial collection (Figure B-I-3). There are presently 971 commercial accounts contributing a daily average of 75 tons of garbage (Table B-I-3). Establishments generating large quantities of garbage or requiring more frequent collection than provided in residential service pay the fee charged for this special service. These routes generally are serviced on a Monday through Saturday schedule. Two areas of the City are not serviced by a commercial account route. These areas can generally be described as residential routes 105, 106, 207, 211, 212, and 313 in the N.W. section of the City and routes 527, 528, 529, and 634 in the westerly portion of the City. At the present time there are insufficient numbers of commercial establishments in these areas to require special service in this manner. Two routes, 55 and 56 service the central business district and operate on a 7-day pick up schedule and do their collection at night. Collection from the central business district is generally from curbside, but where alleys are available, it is required that containers be placed there. The size of containers used by commercial accounts is the same as those used by residential accounts and must meet the same requirements, with the exception of privately owned two -cubic yard containers that are serviced only by route 62. The special two -cubic yard containers are required to meet Department specifications so that they may be mechanically emptied into collection vehicles especially equipped for this service. 3. Rubbish Collection The area serviced by the Waste Collection Division is divided into nine districts for the purpose of rubbish collection. (Refer to Figure B-1-4). Each district is serviced by two crews, each equipped with a crane and three trucks, and one ground waste collector. The collection of rubbish is also accomplished by the employment of hand crews, consisting of two men and a truck who assist the regular trash crews in their chore. Collection on these routes is accomplished in a 5-day, 40-hour week. An average day's rubbish collection for all districts amounts to some 375 tons. The amounts collected are subject to seasonal fluctuations with the spring months producing the largest volume and the late fall months the least volume, Table B-1-4. Figure B-1-5 shows monthly deviations from the mean in the collection of rubbish for a two-year period. By ordinance, rubbish is required to be placed on the parkway between the sidewalk and street pavement or along the curbline when it is adjacent to the sidewalk; in front of the property where it originates. Citizens are asked to reduce the size of any rubbish item (tree trunk, etc. ) to 4 feet and the weight to 50 lbs. B-I-7 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA -los -INN vig --ggs- -118 --mg --aig -mg -11111 ILICZNO *Nal....0.11001•=.110. CITY LIMIT* POUTS BOUNDARY TABLE B-I-3 GARBAGE COLLECTION - COMMERCIAL ROUTES 59 b2�) Total Number of Accounts 4'40 ,_ _-.__. __ ___ _. Average Tons 13 11 22.36 11.89 9.40 9.24 10.94 Monday 7.56 8.13 7.89 17.40 8.61 6.09 Tuesday 9.12 5.84 7.43 8.70 20.818.37 Wednesday7.3b 7.04 6.05 Thursday 19.74 9.19 5.89 Friday 19.55 7.81 6.26 7.73 6.60 9.35 9.64 7.61 7.57 8.43 9.50 Saturday 20.80 Sunday 17.67 - 19.76 9.38 6.91 7.97 8.18 9.10 13.86 Per Day y1_60 55.45 Per Week 138.33 56.26 41.09 47.83 49.07 Lb/Acc/Week 628.8 1,071.6 1,027.3 1,087.0 1,044.0 1,213.3 1,498.E NOTES: (1) CoHected at night. (2) City-wide route - 2 c.y. container service. * 74 accounts = 2,850 living units. 93.80 70.77 60.77 68.47 67.60 63.55 17.67 (38.9/Unit) Route Number Number of Accounts Average Tons Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Per Day Per Week Lb/Acc/Week TABLE B-1-3 GARBAGE COLLECTION - COMMERCIAL ROUTES (1) 57 58 59 60 61 62(2) Total 55-56 94 74* 971 440 105 80 88 22.36 17.40 20.81 19.74 19.55 20.80 17.67 19.76 138.33 628.8 11.89 9.40 8.61 6.09 9.12 5.84 9.19 5.89 7.81 6.26 9.64 7.61 9.38 56.26 1,071.6 NOTES: (1) Collected at night. (2) City-wide route - 2 c.y. container service. *74 accounts = 2,850 living units. 6.91 41.09 1,027.3 9.24 7.56 8.37 7.36 7.73 7.57 7.97 47.83 1,087.0 10.94 8.13 7.93 7.04 6.60 8.43 00 8.18 49.07 1,044.0 13.11 7.89 8.70 6.05 9.35 9.50 9.10 54.60 1,213.3 16.86 15.09 13.20 10.30 13.86 55.45 1,498.6 93.80 70.77 60.77 68.47 67.60 63.55 17.67 75.16 442.63, 911.7 (38.9/Unit) os No 3 MIMY41110ra114111D CITY LIMIT. OI.TIIICT BOUNDARY TABLE B-t-4 SUMMARY OF RUBBISH COLLECTION Average Average No. Days Bet. No. Days Bet. Coll. Since Coll. Before Description II No. Loads f No. Tons Tons/Load Man Uays I Worked Incentive Program Incentive Program Reporting Month Aug. 1970 1,674 7,893 4.72 3,060 19 27 Sept.1970 1,624 8,763 5.40 3,213 18 27 Oct. 1970 1,628 7,843 4.82 3,213 19 30 Nov.1970 1,381 6,491 4.70 3,060 18 30 Dec.1970 1,856 7,664 4.13 3,213 8 29 Jan. 1971 1,754 7,455 4.25 3,060 6 27 Feb. 1971 1,526 6,996 4.58 2,920 4 21 Mar. 1971 1,915 8,891 4.64 3,619 4 26 Apr. 1971 1,793 7,643 4.26 3,213 4 24 May 1971 1,544 8,404 5.44 3,060 7 28 June 1971 1,696 10,045 5.92 3,060 7 28 July 1971 1,622 9,775 6.03 3,060 7 27 iota! - 12 mos. 20,013 97,863 4.89 37,751 AVG/DAY 77 375 145 Avg/Mo. 1,667.75 8,155.25 3,146 12 (Mar) (June) (Mar) Max. Mo. 1,915 10,045 3,619 (Nov) (Nov) (Feb) Min. Mo. 1.381 6.491 9 o/n 25% 20% 1 0% -15% 1111F '1111111--1111111 A. NIA ril ammo goo wi6E111111111 IMO 111110, II sinwsisins a ___ 1969-70 8682 Toro/Montlt Ave. 1970-71 8155 Toos/Mooth Ave. Oct. Nov. Feb.June July Aug. Dec. Jen. Mar. Apr. May CITY OF MIAMI RUBBISH COLLECTIONS - MONTHLY TONNAGE DEVIATIONS -FROM THE MEAN 9 -20% 7, Aug. 7 7 Soot. By ordinance each account is required to be serviced at a 21-day maximum interval. In an effort to increase the frequency of service, an employee incentive program was instituted by Sanitation in December of 1970. The program is based on a collection crew being permitted to work only 1/2 day on Wednesday and Friday providing that their 5-day rubbish collection task is maintained. The success of this program is evident by comparing the average days between collections before and after the institution of the program. (Table B-1-4). A detailed analysis of tonnage by district appears in Table B-I-6. Housing density and size of Tots are two of the most influencing properties of a district affecting the efficiency of the crews that service them. Construction debris, discarded building material, etc., are not re- moved by the City. It is the responsibility of the homeowner or persons generating such refuse to have it removed and disposed of. 4. Oversize Wastes Wastes such as household furniture, stoves, refrigerators, and like articles are not collected by the City, but are the responsibility of the homeowner to dispose of properly. It is recommended that the City adopt a program similar to Dade County in that the resident can obtain two free pick-ups a year by prearrangement. Table 8-1-5 shows a history of oversize or bulk wastes disposal over a seven-year period. TABLE B- i-5 OVERSIZE WASTE DISPOSAL Year Estimated Bulk Tonnages 1964-65 43,000 1965-66 33,300 1966-67 31,800 1967-68 37,000 1968-69 37,000 1969-70 38,000 1970-71 38,000 5. Abandoned Vehicles Abandoned vehicles are tagged by the Police Department and after the lapsed time limit are removed by the County Agent who has contracted for this service. WEGMAN B-1-13 • GREENLEAF / T E L E S CA District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL TABLE B-I-6 CITY OE MIAMI RUBBISH COLLECTION RECORDS* Total Tonnage (118 Days) 5,342.40 7,080.05 6,558.10 4,428.90 5,670.00 6,724.85 6,224.15 5,130.15 6,231.55 53, 390.15 i Ave. Tons/Day i Total Truck Loads (118 Days) Ave./Tons Load 45.27 60.00 55.58 37.53 48.05 56.99 52.75 43.48 52.81 452.46 888 1,041 1,061 854 845 989 1,244 958 1,213 9,093 *Records between June 1 and November 18, 1971 = 118 work days. 6.02 6.80 6.18 5.19 6.72 6.80 5.00 5.36 5.14 5.87 M M B. Municipal Collection Equipment All equipment operated by the Department of Sanitation, in the per- formance of their collection and disposal duties, is provided, serviced, and main- tained for them by the Motor Vehicle Division of the Department of Public Properties. Funds to defray all costs connected with the operation of Sanitation's vehicular fleet are provided in the annual budget of the City of Miami from the general tax revenue of the City. Procedures for the preparation of the yearly budget are based on a very complete record kept by Public Properties on each item of equipment. Labor is charged at a flat rate per hour, and reflects not only labor cost but overhead, indirect and direct. At the end of each fiscal year, the charges on each vehicle for the preceding 12-month period are compiled and averaged with all other equip- ment of the same type. This charge, multiplied by the number of vehicles re- quested by Sanitation for the forthcoming year is the sum requested for the operation of the fleet. Additional funds that may be required for the operation such as rising costs in payroll, material, and equipment, must be obtained from the general operat- ing fund of the City. An additional sum is requested in the budget for the replacement of equipment. This figure is determined by dividing current replacement value of each specific equipment type by the number of years of economical life (estimated by the Department as eight years for collection vehicles, five years for ash trailers, and ten years for all others). This sum is placed in an equipment replacement reserve. Although the equipment replacement reserve was established some ten years ago, it has only been in the last two or three years (since supplementary funds were added) that a realistic retirement program could be started. Previously only that equipment that could no longer perform its required task, was retired. Now the replacement program is rapidly eliminating overaged equipment before breakdown, thus reducing operating costs and delays in collection. It should be noted that the City still retains equipment 50% longer than is economically advisable. A blanket 5-year retirement schedule combined with the present excellent maintenance program would be more in line with recommended practices. An important part of an efficient equipment control plan is the orderly and systematic retirement of each vehicle when it has served an economically useful life. It is a great temptation to try to extend the use of old equipment and thus delay the purchase of replacements, but such a policy results in usually higher rather than in lower equipment costs. B-I-15 W EGNIAN • GREENLAF / TELESCA It should be the objective to secure the lowest possible unit costs of oper- ation --not just low depreciation or outlay expenditures, or even the lowest mainte- nance expenses. One of the most important tasks is to determine when the point of diminishing returns is reached, or in other words, when a piece of equipment reaches a condition in which the unit cost of operation is higher than that of a new vehicle. When equipment is sold, the proceeds are added to the Equipment Replace- ment Reserve. 1. Collection Equipment The vehicles used by Sanitation are almost entirely of standard manufacture, generally designed for the specific operation to which they are assigned. The garbage collection fleet consists of seventy-six 20-cubic yard and four 25-cubic yard rear loading compactor trucks. There are forty-one open, single unit trash trucks; twenty-seven open trailers and tractors; and twenty-five cranes servicing rubbish collection. Only a few pieces of equipment have required special modifications or manufacture. Although varied in their manufacture, they are all similar in operation and are interchanged with others of similar type with minimum difficulty. In Table B-I-7 we have shown a complete listing of all equipment assigned to Sanitation for use in its various functions. The number of vehicles assigned to Sanitation vary only slightly from year to year. As the magnitude of the collection problem changes due to popula- tion growth, etc., the collection routes are periodically restudied by the Department of Sanitation and adjustments made to effect the most efficient use of manpower and equipment. if it is found necessary to expand the collection fleet, the purchase of additional equipment is anticipated in the preparation of the following year's budget. Periodically, it is found that the quantity of a specific type of ve- hicle is inadequate due to a pressing but temporary need. Public Properties will then lease the equipment required from commercial sources and assigned them to Sanitation. Funds for this are provided by the general fund of the City. The acquisition of new vehicles is a function of Public Properties. Specifications on equipment to be purchased are written cooperatively by Sanitation and Public Properties. Bids are requested by public announcement and purchase is based on the lowest acceptable bid. Although the present method of purchase through competitive bidding is based upon sound principles and does affect some savings in purchase cost, there are certain problems that require recognition. Approximately two years ago, a performance bond requirement was added as a standard part of the equipment specifications. This became necessary because of the inability or unwillingness of certain equipment suppliers to fulfill bid delivery schedules. Since the bond requirement was added, the number of bidders has B-1-16 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA w`1..... `�1/ `11i■fr•1 _....1818Ir� ...->ri"- .. -.1m -1.. TABLE B-1-7 SANITATION DIVISION - CITY OF MIAMI HEAVY EQUIPMENT Body Present Yr. Oper. Charge to Repi. Amt. to Repl. Theo. Year Chassis Mfgr. and/or Purchase Retirement Mo. Oper. Cost Reserve/Month/ Reserve/Yr. Replacement No. of Unib Purchased Mfgr. Type Cost (ea.) Age (Years) Charge/Unit Total Unit Total Year WASTE COLLECTION Garbage Trucks 9 eo. 1971 Int. Packmoor $16,097.85 8 $285.00 $170.00 1979 (20 yd.) 3 ea. 1970 Int. Garwood 16.114.00 8 285.00 170.00 1978 4 ea. 1970 • Int. Garwood 15,264.00 8 285.00 170.00 1978 260. 1969 Int. Heil 14,618.60 8 285.00 170.00 1977 21 ea. 1969 G.M.C. Garwood 15,734.00 8 285.00 170.00 1977 4 ea. 1968 G.M.C. Garwood 14,629.00 8 285.00 170.00 1976 1 eo. 1967 Int. Heil 13,235.17 8 285.00 170.00 1975 3 ea. 1967 Int. Heil 11,077.77 8 285.00 170.00 1975 3 eo. 1967 G. M.C. Garwood 11,022.00 8 285.00 170.00 1975 2 ea. 1967 G.M.C. Garwood 10,197.00 8 285.00 170.00 1975 6 ea. 1966 G.M.C. Pok Mot 10,570.00 8 285.00 170.00 1974- T eo. 1965 Int. Heil 10,434.15 8 285.00 170.00 1973 2 ea. 1965 Int. Garwood 9,483.54 8 285.00 170.00 1973 2 ea. 1965 Dodge Heil 10,052.74 8 285.00 170.00 1973 6 ea. 1964 Fad Hell 10,098.27 8 285.00 170.00 1972 3 ea. 1963 Int. Garwood 10,208.32 8 285.00 170.00 1971 2 so. 1960 Int. Hell 10,638.07 8 285.00 170.00 1968 1 ea. 1956 W. Garwood 8,994.09 8 285.00 170.00 1964 Total 76 ea. $285.00 $265,467.00 $170.00 $153.040.00 (25 ydl) 3 eo. 1971 Int. Packmoor $19,845.85 8 $295.00 $220.00 1979 1 eo. 1970 Int. Leach 23,915.00 8 295.00 220.00 1978 4 ea. $295.00 $ 14,160.00 $220.00 $ 10.560.00 Open Rubbish Trucks 12 ea. 1970 Int. Callahan $ 7,255.00 10 $165.00 $ 70.00 1980 4 ea. 1968 Int. 4,241.42 10 165.00 70.00 1978 3 eo. 1968 Int. Remke 5,042.87 10 165.00 70.00 197$ Sea. 1967 Int. - 5,008.26 TO 165.00 70.00 1977 2 eo. 1966 G.M.C. Remke 4,587.00 10 165.00 70.00 1976 3 ea. 1963 Dodge Remke 4,120.00 10 165.00 70.00 1973 2 ea. 1963 Dodge Remke 4,318.00 10 165.00 70.00 19T3 2 ea. 1962 Dodge Tom Wood 4,392.26 10 165.00 70.00 1972 6 ea. 1961 Int. Hardee. 4,256.15 10 165.00 70.00 197T 2 ea. 1959 Int. Hardee 4,516.00 10 165.00 70.00 1969 TONI 41e0. $165.00 $ 81,180.00 $ 34,440.00 1 TABU $4.7 SANITATION DIVISION - CITY OF MIAMI HEAVY EQUIPMENT (Continued) Rubbish Craws Total No. of Units 9 ea. 5ea. 1ea. 1 ea. 1ea. 1ea. 2 ea. 1ea. 1 ea. lea. 2ea. 25 ea. Open Rubbish Trailers 10 ea. 2eo. Sea. 1 ea. Sea. 1 eo. tea. tea. Sea. Total Truck Tractors Total Dump Trucks (10 Al.) (4yd.) Total 1' T Miscellaneous 0 27ea. 4 ea. 11 ea. 1ea. 1 ea. 3 ea. 2 ea. 1 ea. tea. 2eo. 27 ea. 1ea. 1ea. tea. Body Year Chassis Mfg. and/or Purchased Mfg. Type 1970 Ford Hydrocrane 1969 Ford Hydrocrane 1967. Ford Hydrocrone 1967 Ford Hydrocrane 1967 G.M.C. Hydrocrane 1966 G.M.C. Hydrocrone 1965 G.M. C. Hydrocrone 1965 G.M.C. Hydrocrane 1964 G.M.C. Hydrocrane 1963 Ford Hydrocrone 1959 G.M.C. Hydrocrane 1969 1969 1967 1966 1965 1965 1963 1962 1961 1970 1969 1967 1966 1965 1965 1964 1962 1962 1971 1967 Int. Int. Int. Int. • Int. Dodge Int. Dodge Int. Int. Ford Hardee Hardee Callahan Hardee Remke Remke Hardee Hardee Hardee 4111, NO CO OW Present Purchase Retirement Mo. Oper. Cost (ea.) Age (Years) Charge/Unit S28,240.00 26,775.00 22,609.00 24,094.00 22,307.10 21,441.50 20,399.20 19,055.40 17,729.00 19,500.00 14,606.90 10 S455.00 10 455.00 10 455.00 10 455.00 10 455.00 10 455.00 10 455.00 10 455.00 10 455.00 10 455.00 10 455.00 $ 4,823.00 10 5,995.00 10 4,500.00 10 4,674.00 10 4,290.00 10 4,200.00 10 4,125.00 10 4,154.00 10 3,789.87 10 $ 8,200.00 10 7,982.91 10 6,224.96 10 6,299.91 10 5,810.85 10 5,813.23 10 5,898.82 10 5,453.75 10 5,619.60 10 $14,850.00 10 5,382.00 10 $110.00 110.00 110.00 110.00 110.00 110.00 110.00 110.00 110.00 $225.00 225.00 225.00 225.00 225.00 225.00 225.00 225.00 225.00 5285.00 85.00 Sub -Total Operation Yr. Oper. Coe Total $136,500.00 $ 35,640.00 $ 72,900.00 $ 3,420.00 1,020.00 $ 4,440.00 1,000.00 $611,287.00 -mow -limmor 'VOW Charge to Repl. Reserve/Months/ Unit $265.00 265.00 265.00 265.00 265.00 265.00 265.00 265.00 265.00 265.00 265.00 S 65.00 65.00 65.00 65.00 65.00 65.00 65.00 65.00 65.00 S 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 $125.00 55.00 Amt. to Rapt. Reserve/Yr. Tatof $ 79,500.00 $ 21,060.00 S 25,920.00 S T,500,00 660.00 S 2,160.00 S328.680.00 Theo. Replacement Year 1980. 1979 1977 1977 1977 1976 1975 1975 1974 1973 1965 1979 1979 1977 1976 1975 197E 1973 1972 1971 1980 1979 1977 1976 1975 1975 1974 1972 1972' 1981 1977 TABLE b1-7 SANITATION DIVISION - CITY OF MIAMI HEAVY EQUIPMENT (Continued) *STREET CLEANING Dump Trucks (4 yd. ) Total Body Present Yr. Oper. Charge to Repl. Amt. to Rapt. Theo. Year Chassis Mfgr. and/or Purchase Retirement Mo. Oper. Cat Reserve/Month/ Reserve/Yr. Replacement No. of Units Purchased Mfgr. Type Cost (ea.) Ape (Years) Charge/Unit Total Unit Total Year 1ea. 1 ea. 2eo. 1967 - Ford 4 Yd. Loader $10,500.00 1963 G.M.C. 4 Yd. Louder 9,244.00 10 $ 85.00 $100.00 1977 10 85.00 100.00 1973 $ 2,040.00 $ 2,400.00 Street Sweepers 1 ea. 1971 Wayne - $15,760.00 10 $490.00 $125.00 1981 1 ea. 1971 Wayne - 14,965.00 10 490.00 125.00 1981 2 ea. 1969 Wayne - 10,793.00 10 490.00 125.00 1979 1 ea. 1967 Elgin - 10,820.00 10 490.00 125.00 1977 1 ea. 1966 Elgin - 8,907.25 10 490.00 125.00 1976 2 ea. 1963 Elgin 11,598.70 10 490.00 125.00 1973 Total 8 ea. $47,040.00 $12,000.00 Street Flusher 1 so. 1962 So. Bend Water Tank $ 9,952.10 10 S185.00 $ 2,220.00 $100.00 $ 1,200.00 1972 Garbage Trucks 2 ea. 1961 Int. Garwood $ 9,698.48 8 S285.00 $ 6,840.00 $170.00 $ 4,080.00 1969 Miscellaneous 500.00 Sub -Total Operation S58,640.00 $19,680.00 •RUBBISH DISPOSAL PIT Mach. Tractors Total Pull -Off Trucks Total Msdr. Trot ion Total 1 ea. 1959 Int. - $ 5,872.30 10 $100.00 1 ea. 1958 Int. - 11,308.01 TO 100.00 2 so. 1 ea. 1969 Int. - $ 9,337.21 10 $270.00 1 es. 1956 Int. - 5,569.66 10 270.00 1 e0. 1955 Int. - 9,679.18 10 270.00 3es. 1 es. 1959 - Dorsey $ 6,651.00 10 $ 40.00 1 eo. 1948 - Empire 3,330.00 10 40.00 2 ea. $ 2,400.00 5 9,720.00 $ 960.00 $ 80.00 19�69 80.00 1968 $ 1,920.00 $ 70.00 1979 70.00 1966 70.00 1965 5 2,520.00 $ 60.00 1969 60.00 1958 $ 1,440.00 w 0 TAKE II-14 SANITATION DIVISION - CITY OF MIAMI HEAVY EQUIPMENT (Continued) Widows Total Trailer Fin Pump Miscellaneous Boil Present Yr. Oper. Osage to Rept. And. to Rpl. Theo. Y Cost Reserve/Marsh/ Raerv/Yr. Replacement Yea Chassis MfR. and/a Pachese Retirement Mo. Oper. Unit Tarot Year No. of Units Purchased MfQ. Type Cost (ea.) Ape (Years) Orage/Unit Total 10 S860.00 $350.00 1979 1 w. 1968 Ins. Caterpillar 932,149.00 350.00 1978 1 w. 1968 Cat - 20, U9.00 10 860.00 350.00 1976 1 eo. 1966 . Caterpilla - 20,580.00 10 860.00 350.00 1969 1 w. 1959 Int. Caterpillar - 20,605.00 10 860.00 350.00 1968 1 w. 1958 Int. - 20,975.00 10 860.00 551,600.00 S21,000.00 S ea. 1 ea. 1955 Int. Ton Wood Tank $ 9,679.18 10 $ 30.00 $ 360.00 S 30.00 f 360.00 1965 4,500.00 Sub -Total Operation fb 9,540.00 S27,240.00 •INCINERATORS _ 100.00 $140.00 1964;• Open Ash Trailers1 A. 1959 Vasa $ 9, 0344.00 5 100.00 140.00 1962 1 ea. 1957 Vulcan 7, 100.00 140.00 1 ea. 1957Vulcan 7,067.32 5 100,00 140.00 1961 t w. 1956 - Vulcan 7,067.32 5 s 4,800.00 $ d,no.ao Total 4 ea.Pok Mor 1976 $14,800.00 5 9360.00 5250.00 1976 Pecker Ash Trd lore 2 ea. 1971 Pak(LaMoe 12,600.00 5 360.00 250.00 ea. 1%9 - 518,000.00 125, 920.00 Total 6 ea.360.00 1 %9 Stake Body Truck 1eo. 1959 int. $ 2,683.48 10 $ 75.00 $ 900.00 $ 30.00 $ $120.00 1977 Fars End Load•n 1 ea. 1967 Cale- S11,316.32 10 $195.00 120.00 1965 1 ea. 1955 Hough 10,074.00 10 195.00 $ 4,680.00 $ 2,880.00 Total 2 A. Congre+saee 1 ea. 1967 Shromm - $ 3,998.20 10 $ 35.00 S 420.00 $ 35.00 S 420.00 1977 S 60.00 198E Fork Ufts 1 ea. 1971 Yale - $ 7,100.00 10 $ 40.00 00 60.00 1912 81 1 ea. 1962 Pettibone - 5,420.46 10 S. 1,440.00 $ 960.00 Total 2 ea. Mercury 1, 250.00 MAalisssran Sub -Total Operation 538,930.00 $29,820.00 Divlseon Totals Although unrelated to the collection portion at this report, vehicles operated in three operation_ of Sanitation ore Included 10 Illustrate the .cape and size of the eMire vehicular fleet. $778,397.00 $405.420.00 S1 ,817.00 M A been decidedly reduced. if the bonding requirement is responsible for this, it cannot be truly assessed, but the current reduced number of responses does not produce the "competitive spirit" necessary to reduce the price to the theoretically lowest possible level. Competitive bidding has resulted over the years in a rather large variety of manufacturers' equipment being represented in the fleet. This obviously requires the stock of a larger number and/or variety of replacement parts than would be required in a fleet standardized to one manufacturer. The $75,000 (average value of the parts inventory kept on hand by Public Properties could be reduced to a $50,000 maximum, if equipment were standardized to one manufacturer. An effort to reduce this investment is practiced by reducing inventory to the lowest safe level and purchasing in a manner that would gain the greatest quantity purchase discount. 2. Equipment Maintenance This work is performed in a manner and with a frequency that results in efficient vehicle operation. Equipment records show that a large amount of First and Second Echelon maintenance is due to the improper operation of equipment. Public Properties have started a program in which all work performed that falls in this category is charged against Sanitation as an item separate from their regular charges. First Echelon Maintenance - Fueling, lubrication, safety check, and regular preventive maintenance is provided by Public Properties. These services are performed either at the vehicle storage yard (adjacent to Incinerator No. 1) or the City Garage (1000 N. W. 20th Street). if the equipment is assigned to one of the several remotely located facilities of the Department of Sanitation, refueling is accom- plished at the facility. Second Echelon Maintenance - Major repairs and maintenance are provided by Public Properties at the City Garage. All equipment is safety checked, lubricated, and inspected on a 28-day schedule. Equipment is seldom washed. During the month of November 1971, for example, practically no work was done in this regard due to the lack of available help to perform the duty. An effort was made by Public Properties to correct this because of the health hazard involved. The request was made that the drivers of the equipment when returning to the vehicle storage yard, on scheduled days, to bring the trucks to the wash rack and then pork them in their regular spaces after cleaning. Sanitation and Public Properties were unable to put this program into operation. C. Analysis of Municipal Collection Cost A history of the Department of Sanitation's operating budgets and revenues has been presented previously. This section presents total operational costs incidental B 4-21 W E G MA N• G R E E N LEAF / TELESCA to collection. These costs represent the value of this service to each recipient and the commercial fee requirements that would be required if the collection function of the Department of Sanitation were to be supported solely by revenues derived from service charges. Portions of the following cost presentation have been estimated to reflect operating costs that are not detailed in the Department's present cost account- ing practices but are required for this analysis. Equipment Charges - In projecting reasonable equipment costs for the de- velopment of the Department's collection costs, Table B-I-8 (Adjusted Monthly Equip- ment Charges) has been prepared. It is based on a 5-year vehicle retirement schedule with each vehicle being radio equipped and a monthly rental charge which includes the cost of maintaining a 25% standby fleet. Based on this adjusted monthly equipment charge, it would appear that present equipment rental fees being assessed to the De- partment are insufficient. Radio equipment (not presently used by the City) has been included as an adjunct to obtain better control of the routes, and minimize lost time when a vehicle breaks down on its route. TABLE B-I-8 ADJUSTED MONTHLY EQUIPMENT CHARGES Description DprecioHon 20 C.Y. Packer . Replacement Cat $18,000 Resole Value (Est.) - 2,000 Depreciation 116,O0Q $16,000/60 Mos. 25 C.Y. Packer Replacement Cat 524,000 Resole Value (Est.) - 3,000 Depreciation 519,000/60 Mos. Trash Truck Replacement Cat Resale Value (Est.) Depndafon $7,000/60 Mos. $ 8,000 Packer Trudo Trucks 20 C.Y. 25 C.Y. Trash lyydrocrone $267.00 5317.00 $117.00 Replacement Cat $31,000 Raab Value (Est.) - 4,000 Depreciation Tar S27,000/60 Mos. n 5450.00 Maintenance (Inc1. Fuel & Oil) $222.00 $222.00 8205.00 5205.00 Tina 67.00 67.00 203.00 203.00 Insurance 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 Radio Equipment (Incl. Maintenance) 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 Sub -Total $597.00 $647.00 $566.00 $899.00 Plus 25% for Stand-by Equipment 149.00 162.00 142.00 225.00 Suggested Monthly Charge 5746.00 $809.00 $706.00 51,124.00 B-I-22 W EGNIAN • G R E E N L E A F / TELESCA 1 t A Administrative Costs - In order to estimate an average crew cost per day, the Administration Section expenditures as well as other supervision, expendable tools and equipment, and other direct task costs must be computed. Because of Division adjustments, the budget figures for fiscal year 1969-70 were used to develop the per- centage of each Division's pro-rata share of administrative costs, but the daily costs have been computed using fiscal year 1971-72 budget figures. The administration ex- penditures have been distributed on a percentage bash to the various operations in the following manner: Operation (Budgeted dollars) x 100 = (Total Budgeted Dollar less Adm.) % Using this formula the Administration Budget is distributed as follows: Garbage Collection : 2,310, 929 x 100 Rubbish Collection 5,629,694 - 4i% . 1,417,085 x 100 5,629,694 = 25.2% 1. Residential Garbage Collection From various Department records it has been determined that approxi- mately 4% of the section budget is used in task supervision, expendable tools and equipment, and other direct costs. Garbage Collection Crew Costs Per Day (Backyard collection with one driver and 4 collectors) Administration Costs $145,446x41% =$5.32 54 routes x 208 wk day/yr. Crew Supervision and Expendables $2, 310, 929 x 4% 54 x 208 = $8.25 Equipment Charges (20 C.Y. compactor) $746/Mo. 17.3 wkg. days per mo. B-I-23 = $43.30 WIEGMAN • GREENLEAF / T E L E S CA Garbage Collection Labor Costs One driver @ $712.00 17.3 wkg. days per mo. Four Collectors @ $591.22 x 4 17.3 wkg. days/rno. Collection Labor Sub -Total Fringe Benefits @ 29.5% Total Collection Labor 2. Residential Rubbish Collection Rubbish Collection Crew..Cost Per Day Administration Costs $145,446 x 25.2% _ 18 crews x 260 wkg.�days/yr. Crew Supervision and Expendables $1,417,085 x 4% _ 18 x 260 Equipment Charges Hydrocrane $1,124.00/Mo . 21.7 wkg. days/Mo. $ 41.10 136.50 $177.60 52.40 $230.00 $ 7.84 12.10 3 Open Rubbish $708.00/Mo. x 3 = Trucks 21.7 wkg. days/Mo. Rubbish Collection Labor Cost 1 crane operator @ $792/Mo. _ 21.7 days 3 rubbish truck @ $668/Mo. x 3 drivers 21.7 days 1 waste collector @ $513.60/Mo. _ 23.60 21.7 days Sub -Total Labor $152.60 Fringe Benefits @ 29.5% 45.00 Total Collection Crew Labor $197.60 B-1-24 WEGMAN • GRE ENLEAF / TELESCA 51.80 97.70 $149.50 $36.50 = 92.50 3. Summary of Residential Collection Cost Garbage (54 crews) Rubbish (18 crews) Administration $ 5.32 Supervision and Expendables 8.25 Equipment 43.30 Collection Labor 230.00 Total Costs Per Day $286.87 $ 7.84 12.10 149.50 197.60 $367.04 In the analysis of the collection task, a summary of collection route data was prepared (Table 8-1-4.1) from information furnished by the Department. From this data, a profile of a typical collection route was established indicating a crew collects an average of 10.57 tons per day from 993 accounts on what is clas- sified as a residential route. The refuse generation per typical account is as follows: Garbage Production per Account 10.57 tons/day x 104 collections days/yr. = 1.10 tons/yr. 993 accounts Rubbish Production per Account (8,155 tons/mo. x 12) + 40, 000 tons oversize_ 1.2$ tons/yr. 107,566 accounts Collection Costs Garbage - Backyard Collection (2 pick-ups/week) $286.87/day 993 accounts = $0.288/collection or $0.238 x 2 colt/week x 52 = $29.95/year or $29.95 j- 1.10 tons = $27.23/ton Rubbish - Curbside Collection 18 crews x $367.04 x 260 days 107,566 res. accounts or $15.95 : 1.28 tons _ $15.95/yr. $12.46/ton Therefore, the cost of the present collection service for a typical resi- dential account is: Garbage @ $29.95/yr. +rubbish@$15.95/yr. = .90 SAY $46$45.00 8-1-25 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA 4. Commercial Accounts The City of Miami presently serves 971 commercial accounts dis- tributed ever seven collection routes. These are commercial accounts that because of various factors cannot be served by the residential routes as are approximately 7,600 smaller commercial accounts. Route data previously presented (Table B-1-2) was used in this cost analysis with the following added factors: Administration, supervision, and equipment premises as estab- lished for residential routes as appropriate. Crew sizes are the same as residential routes. Salary rates of personnel have been computed on a straight time basis except for crews working after 5:00 P.M.,to which a premium of 10% has been added. Commercial Account Cost (6-Day Accounts) Administration = $5.32 Supervision and Expendables = $8.25 Equipment Charges $746.00/Mo. = $28.70/Day 26 wkg. days/Mo. Commercial Collection Labor 1 driver @ $712.00/Mo. _ 173 hr. 4 collectors @ $591.22/Mo. 173 hrs. B'I-26 $4.12/hr. x 48 hr. $198.00/wk. _ $3.42/hr. x 48 hrs. x 4 $657.00/wk. Sub -Total $855.00 Fringe Benefit @ 29.5% 252.00 Total Labor (6-day wk.) $1,107.00 WEGFAAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA Commercial Account Cost (7-Day Accounts) Evening, Central Business District Route Commercial Collection Labor (10% pay differential) 1 driver $712.00/Mo. 173 hrs. - $4.12/hr. x 56 hrs. x 1.10 = $ 254.00 4 collectors $591.22/Mo. _ 173 hrs. $3.42/hr. x56x 1.10x4= 842.00 Sub -Total $1, 096.00 Fringe Benefit @ 29.5% 323.00 Total Labor (7-day week) $1,419.00 Total number of commercial crew collection days per year (6 crews x 6 days x 52 wk) + (1 crew x 7 days x 52 wks) - 2,236 days Administration @ $5.32/crew day 2,236 days x $5.32 = Crew supervision and expandables @ $8.25/crew day 2,236 days x $8.25 = Collection equipment @ $28.7%rew day 2,236 days x $28.70 = Collection Labor $11,895 $18, 447 $64,173 6-days crews - 6 crews x 52 weeks = 312 crew wks. 312 crew wks x$1,107.00/wk = $345,384 7-day crews - 1 crew x 52 wks. = 52 crew wk. 52 crew wks x $1,418/wk = $ 73,788 Total Commercial Collection $513,687 Annual Cost B-1-27 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA From Table B-I-2 the 971 commercial accounts generate 22,984 tons of rubbish per year (442 tons/week x 52 weeks) or an average of 23.7 tons per year per account with a collection cost per ton of $513,687 = $22.30/ton 22,984 tons and an average collection cost per account of $513,687 971 accounts $297,247.68 of revenues are generated from the commercial accounts indicating a deficit in this collection activity of ($513,687 - $297,247) $216,440 excluding disposal costs. D. Significance of Private Refuse Contractors = $529.00/year Private refuse contractors are those individuals or companies whose ser- vices have been contracted for by the owner or occupant of private properties for the collection of refuse materials from these properties. The need for such service is normally required because of the inability of the municipal system to provide adequate collection due to the unique requirements of the individual account. These require- ments can be categorized as follows: 1) excessive bulk; 2) abnormal quantities; and 3) refuse requiring more frequent collection or collection by special means. A license to operate as a refuse contractor is issued by the City of Miami upon: 1) identification of the firm's officers and employees; 2) proof that equipment and methods of collection to be used will result in a safe, sanitary, and efficient ser- vice to the community and to those who conthoct their service; 3) proof of compliance with the Workman's Compensation and Occupational Licenses Statutes of the State of Florida; 4) proof of adequate General Liability Insurance; 5) proof of adequate Auto- mobile Comprehensive Liability Insurance; 6) marking of vehicles as required by ordinances; 7) indication, in writing, of the incinerator or dump to be utilized. To date there are 17 licensed contractors operating within the City, with 10 applications being reviewed. Approximately 75% of all commercially generated refuse collected within the City (98,783 tons in the fiscal year of 1970-71) is collected by private firms. This service is provided to the following types of accounts in the indicated proportions (percentages of the total tonnage collected): Apartments and condominiums 23% Restaurants and hotels 17 Industrial 39 Oversize wastes 2 Shopping centers, Office buildings, Department stores, etc. 19 100% B'F-28 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF/ TELESCA In the Central Business District service is predominantly to office build► ings, department stores, and hotels. Service in the areas outside of the Central Business District is predominantly to industries and shopping centers and with col- lection in all areas normally performed during the daytime hours. In discussing the role of the private refuse collector, it should be noted that his share of the collection picture has shown rapid growth. Quantity projections in this area, where there is limited past history, is difficult because of many con- tingent factors. A survey of private contractor activities in the Metropolitan Dade County area in 1961 showed these contractors collected approximately 75,000 tons per year. Current investigations indicate that they now collect 375,000 tons per year, an increase of 500% in the past ten years. Costs of collection from commercial accounts by the Department, when compared to the revenues received, indicate that the City has been operating at a deficit, and the operation, in fact, has been subsidized by other areas. It has been the experience of most municipalities that when these charges are increased to cover their total cost of operation of the commercial service offered, it then places them in favorable competition with the private collector. The private hauler offers a more customized collection service that can be tailored to the particular commercial account requirements, resulting in the municipality losing the account to the private sector. Based on the additional complication of servicing commercial accounts, such as the purchase of bulk containers and their maintenance, special collection equipment, salary compensation for evening collection, plus overtime pay, it is recommended that all commercial accounts requiring more than the normal twice -a - week collection as performed by the residential crews, or special bulk collection containers, or need special hours of collection, be dropped from the City's rubbish collection service. B- i-29 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA i i i CHAPTER iI - FUTURE ALTERNATIVES FOR THE COLLECTION SYSTEM Most areas of urban life have felt the impact of change and development. Ad- vances in technology have been made, labor is demanding greater recognition, and population has exploded. Little has been done, however, to lessen the arduous task of the refuse collector. He is still required to carry heavy loads for long distances, and work long hours under all weather conditions. Recently he has begun to rebel and de- mand better conditions, a lessening of this work load, and a higher position on the social scale. As urban areas have grown, so have these demands. The development of programs to provide refuse collection within the City of Miami in the year 2000 must consider these problems of today and more. There are projects currently being planned and under way that indicate the nature of growth that can be anticipated. Equipment and systems currently being used or developed for upgrading and modifying refuse handling (including on -site preparations, storage, and transport) must be reviewed and evaluated in view of this anticipated growth and development, to ensure that the planners in their preparations to meet tomorrow's re- quirements for adequate service include this most important element. Such modifica- tions which may be considered in the municipal collection system, together with regulatory measures to aid in implementing changes are discussed in this Chapter. A. Effect of Future Growth on Collection Practices The City is at the threshold of new growth in population and business. Figures received from the City Planning Department show that the City of Miami has experienced a rapid and uniform growth in population over the years and projections made by the Department indicate additional population growth will be experienced at an even accelerated rate in the near future before saturation forces growth beyond its geographical limits. (Table B-II-1) Year TABLE B-11-1 POPULATION GROWTH 1950-2000 Population 1950 249,276 U.S. Census 1960 291,688 U.S. Census 1970 334,859 U.S. Census 1985 422,000 Planning Dept. Projections 2000 444,000 Planning Dept. Projections The efforts of the City and private investment to solve the problems of the Central Business District, as it presently exists, with its "inner-city" ghettos WIEGMAN • G R E E N L E A F / TELESCA and the exodus of businesses to the suburban areas, if successful, will bring about an increase of current growth trends which will create new areas of concern in refuse collection. That the success of these efforts is inevitable is becoming more apparent daily: The confidence of the business community in solving these prob- lems is evident in the many "high-rise" buildings presently planned or under construc- tion in the central business district. The establishment of a branch of the Dade County Junior College in the downtown area will bring new life to the district and restore a "depressed" area of the City. The current planning of a new government center for the central area that may soon be reaching the construction stage will add new life to the central area. The "Port of Miami" is now handling a volume of tourist traffic that will soon make it one of the largest in the United States. In recent years, the number of firms establishing themselves in "close -in" areas has grown steadily. One only has to drive along such roadways as Biscayne Boulevard, Brickell Avenue, and Coral Way to witness the growth of the business com- munity of the City in formerly residential areas. Multistoried office buildings, apart- ments, and retail establishments give visual evidence of a changing and growing com- munity. Community action in support of the efforts of the City and the business com- munity has been continuing. Activities such as the Model Cities program have barely made an impact, but their work will soon be fruitful and the "inner-city" no longer will be an area of despair but one of pride and growth. The City of Miami could soon find itself with not even the barest resem- blance to the quiet, semi -tropical community of the past. At present, only a small portion of the land area outside of the central business district is being utilized for high-rise structures. As indicated previously, it is evident that this is rapidly chang- ing as the business community reaches outward to accommodate its needs. The needs of the residential community, closely associated with the downtown business district, are requiring ever increasing numbers of multistoried structures, as evidenced in the current high-rise solutions to housing for the elderly, the poor, and even the more af- fluent society. If the projections of population growth and business growth are to be achieved within the City, land use patterns and population density controls must B-II-2 WEGPAAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA M I 1 1 1 A keep pace. Multi -family housing will replace the single family unit. Since land areas within the corporate boundaries are limited, housing will continue its reach upward to meet its future needs. The City of Miami and other communities of its size and changing growth patterns are finding themselves unable to cope with the demands upon them for ser- vice within the limitations of environmental protection. The evolution of "high-rise" structures has already brought about new requirements in refuse collection that only commercial collection firms could meet. The City and its collection facilities are oriented toward the residential community. "High-rise" structures are bringing greater and greater concentrations of refuse to single accounts. These accounts are also requiring service far more fre- quently than is required for a residential community. Land values increase, yet it is becoming more imperative to allocate adequate holding areas for refuse on in- dividual properties as refuse production on a per capita basis continues to soar. Changes in the very nature of refuse itself are being felt. Pre- packaging and disposables are being utilized to a far greater extent today than just a few years ago. The method of packaging itself, by converti ng to non -returnable and non -refillable containers, has already had its effect on collection and disposal of refuse. The development of the high speed expressway system in Metropolitan Dade County has brought about an influx of automobiles to the central business dis- trict that has made it almost impossible for service vehicles of all kinds to perform their daily tasks within normal work schedules. Presently the City and private refuse contractors are finding it expedient to collect in the distrct after business hours. As the business district expands, the probability exists that the area served in this manner will expand. The implementation of the many plans for urban renewal and develop- ment that among other suggestions propose the creation of pedestrian ways and the closing of traffic arteries, will only increase the challenge to those concerned with refuse collection. Present methods of collecting refuse in the urban community utilizing concepts established since the turn of the century (and perhaps earlier) will be unable to meet the requirements of the city of tomorrow. Some of the methods presently under development must be adopted to meet the needs. in the following paragraphs there is described briefly some of the newer equipment available, together with some of' the advantages claimed for their use. Most of this progress has been in equipment and systems for multistory buildings and groups of buildings where savings are perhaps more readily apparent to the investor and where the relatively large investments re- quired could be justified. The extension of these systems to cover central business districts and other building groups must be programmed into the planning, and the funding required must be provided. B-I i-3 W EGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA B. Innovations in Solid Waste Management Systems 1. Processing, Packaging and Handling Prior to Collection There are no provisions mode within present ordinances to require or control special processing and/or packaging prior to collection. Ordinance re- quirements limit the collection of refuse to 25-gallon containers (of varying numbers according to the type of account to be collected by the City). Any account, whose requirements do not fit within the scope of the ordinance, must apply for special service as a commercial account of the City or a private refuse collector. In recent years technological advancements in this area have been made that must be considered during an analysis of the collection system. a. Available Methods (1) Table B-11-2 has been prepared to indicate the various methods available for use in the single dwelling unit. TABLE B-II-2 REFUSE HANDLING IN SINGLE DWELLING UNITS Transport to System Preparation Processing Storage Collection Collection 1 Segregate In sink gar- - Sanitary - bage grinder sewer 2 - Compactor Compac- Manual Vehicle tor bag 3 - - Plastic or Manual Vehicle kraft paper bag Notes: System 1 requires support from 2 or 3 for segregated non-putrescibles. Manual denotes either hand carry, wheeled container, or cart. The continued use of the home compactor with its containment of garbage within a bag enclosure plus its reduction in volume can materially reduce the work load on both the householder and the collector. The ability of these units to reduce several days wastes into one small, inoffensive package could conceivably eliminate the need for any further containerization prior to collection. These units are worthy of further consideration and such usage should be encouraged. B-II-4 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA 1 1 1 A 1 I The elimination of putrescible wastes from conventional refuse collection by utilizing garbage grinders has become a widely accepted practice in California where, in certain areas, their use is mandatory. This type of equipment hers been in use for a number of years and a number of reliable models are available for commercial as well as residential use. The immediate removal of the putrescible portion from the refuse reduces the possibility of odors, promotes sanitation, eliminates rodent and animal interest, and permits the remaining dry portions to be collected at less frequent intervals. While the general use of this disposal method in the City would increase the total solids to be handled at the liquid waste treatment plant, it should have no adverse effect on the sewerage system. The development of plastic and paper bags (available with high wet strength and the capability of holding wet garbage without leaking), designed to hold household garbage, with capacities from 20 to 55 gallon size, has permitted more sanitary storage of refuse by the resident and increased collection ef- ficiency by the City. Present practices of the City do not take full advantage of these products. Refuse contained in such disposable containers, placed at points directly accessible by collection vehicles, (as has been proven by the many areas requiring this sytem) will reduce collection time and the size of the crew working with each truck. Covered wheeled containers especially designed for mechanical unloading directly in the collection vehicle have recently been placed on the market to assist the householder in placing refuse at curbside while permitting the reduction in collection time and crew size. Although not yet in wide spread use, several pilot programs have been tried with some success, including such programs in Dade County. To take advantage of these containers, collection vehicles must be equipped with special mechanical devices. (2) Table Br-II-3 indicates various systems (or sub -systems) available for use in multi -unit buildings and multi -building complexes. These have been developed because of the need to reduce the complications of waste handling and thereby reduce labor cost, or to reduce the size of areas assigned to refuse handl- ing prior to collection. Frequently, the installation of the system is required by the refuse collector to permit economical service compatible with his equipment. Extensive developments have been made in the area of containerization. As indicated in Table B-I1-3,advantage has been taken of this by the owner and collector. These containers are sized to the refuse produced and fre- quency of collection required and generally are provided under contract with private collectors. These containers although varied in manufacture are not dissimilar in de- sign and are capable of being unloaded directly into the collection vehicle. Speed of service, reduction of crew size ore the advantages to be attained by this development. B-11-5 WEGMAN • G R E E N LEAF / TELESCA Preparation "INN _ 111111111 _.. ..1111111111r ... . - ividual Unit Processing TABLE B-II-3 SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS FOR MULTI -UNIT BUILDINGS AND MULTI -BUILDING COMPLEXES Storage V ort Horiz. 1 Vert. Trans Multi -Unit Building Processing I Storage Segregate Segregate Garbage Grinder Shredding Compactor None Req. or Bog Bog None Req. or Bag Waste Waste Line Line Manual Manual, or Gravity Pneumo- Chute ot tic Tube Pneumatic Tube None Req. or Compaction Dry Grinding or Shredding Wet Grinding or Pulping (1) In -sink garbage grinder requires support from additional system for non-putrescibies. (t) Transport by chute ar pneumatic tube limited to bagged refuse and size. Bag, Bale, Bin, ar Container None Req. or Container Multi -Building Complexes Transport 1 Processing I Storage Sanitary Sewer Vehicle or Pneumatic Tube Slurry Pipe Line None Req. or Compaction Dewatering Collection Container and/or Swage Area Sanitwy Sewer Vehicle or Pneumatic Tube The smaller container, which by ordinance the citizen has been limited to (without special fee), is rapidly disappearing in the newer multi -family and commercial areas of the urban community. The efforts of the owner -developer to utilize innovative handling methods has many possibilities in assisting the City in solving its problems in waste collection. One of the more interesting is the adaptation of the pneumatic tube for the transport of refuse materials. Although limited presently in the size and shape of the material being transported, pilot projects have been successful and indicate a much broader utilization in the future. Walt Disney World has installed a system of this kind and is a good example of its use in the multi -building complex. This speci- fic design had its origins in Sweden and the manufacturer is now offering its use as an integral port of the refuse collection system in numerous large building complexes. By discharging wastes collected into compactor containers, areas formerly used only as storage areas become transfer stations where truck tractors merely pull compactor trailers that have been filled automatically to the disposal site. The system has been further automated by the development of a mechanical means of moving empty trailer units into place, at the discharge points, as soon as the unit preceding it is filled. Another innovative system of solid waste processing - conveyance of growing importance utilizes pulpers as the principal means of reduction and transports the waste in the form of a water based slurry. There are several de- signs on the market that use this concept. Generally, this system consists of a pulp- ing mechanism, a "junk" ejector, a transport pipeline and a dewatering press. One or more pulping mechanisms may be attached to a common pipeline. A "junk" ejector is used to remove large particles of metal, glass and other non-pulpable materials prior to processing. Water is added, as the material is pulped, and the resultant slurry pumped to a receiving-dewatering station. The resultant moist residue or sludge can be disposed of in a sanitary landfill, however, in a conventional on -site incinerator without addi- tional drying, it is not suitable for incinerator destruction. This system is particularly adaptable to the multi -building complex and has been used in large single -building installations. The University of Miami has installed one of these systems in its new dormitory complex. b. Effect on Disposal Practices Although this portion of the study is not directly concerned with ultimate disposal methods employed in the community, it is concerned with the effect and compatibility of pre -collection processing and packaging with local dis- posal practices. Discussions herein will be limited to these aspects. Conditions of solid wastes, subsequent to removal for off -site disposal, are broadly classifed as fol lows: Uncompacted, loose, or bagged wastes B-II-7 WEGPAAN • G R E E N LE A F / TELESCA Compacted or baled wastes Dry, shredded wastes Wet, pulped, and dewatered wastes The general suitability of each kind of processed material can be related (Cable B-11-4)to the respective disposal methods previously mentioned; however, some qualifications are necessary. It will be noted that open dumping and burning of wastes have been listed. Although not acceptable by today's standards, it should be recognized that these methods are presently practiced. it must also be emphasized that the purpose of this discussion is not the evaluation of acceptable dis- posal methods but that of the compatibility of the processed waste material with all types of disposal practiced. Whether the physical conditions of raw waste materials are uncompacted or compacted, little effect is made upon any of the methods of dis- posal. This observation is based upon the effects of normal "working" of material at any disposal site. In each method of disposal, a series of activities occurs which conditions material before the final process is undertaken. Compacted material nor- mally will be broken up into a loose state in the unloading process and/or by site or plant equipment. Waste materials processed by shredding or pulping have re- ceived a pre -conditioning with either process, that offers certain advantages to various disposal systems. Both these processes reduce raw wastes to a state whereby conven- tional scavenging is eliminated. Shredded wastes are compatible with nearly all types of disposal, being a workable homogeneous material. Decomposition will be accele- rated in sanitary landfill, composting, or open dump operations. Combustion will be improved by the more uniform fuel for incineration, pyrolysis, and the condition of the material lends itself well to mechanical separation in reclamation proces- ses. Dewatered pulped waste, in some respects, has similar qualities as shredded materials; however, it is initially not as suitable for the combustion processes. Pulped material is more suitable for sanitary landfill and open dump operations, but can also be handled in composting and reclamation processes. In effect, regardless of the known methods of processing used, the end product will not be incompatible with local disposal methods. In extreme cases where pre -collection compaction of wastes is accomplished using a B-11-8 W EGMAN • GRE E N LE A F / TELESCA 11111111_ 'UMW _"l _t1► TABLE B-11-4 SUITABILITY OF PROCESSED WASTES FOR VARIOUS DISPOSAL METHODS Final Processing and Compacted Shredded Pulped Incinerated Method of Disposal Uncompacted Reclamation 0 0 + 0 0 Sanitary Landf i I I 0 0 Incineration 0 0 + - NA + 0 NA Composting 0 0 Pyrolysis 0 0 + - NA Open Dumping 0 0 Open Burning 0 0 + - NA Notes: + more suitable 0 suitable - less suitable NA not applicable I A A 1 baling system with positive ties, possible problems may arise. In such cases where dis- posal site equipment is not capable of breaking up baled material in normal handling operation, baling straps must be cut before deposit at the site or the bales individually placed to obtain required landfill densities. 2. Transport of Refuse Materials In recent years there have been few developments that could be con- sidered of significant value in the transport of refuse materials. Most efforts have been concentrated upon modifications to the transport vehicle. Vehicles can now be equipped with compaction mechanisms to provide more efficient loading. They are available with top, side, or rear loading capabilities and mechanical devices for unloading contain- erized refuse may be attached. Refuse collection vehicles are available today in many sizes. They range in size from motor scooters (designed to work as satellite collections delivering to a "mother" truck or central transfer stations) to large compactor trailer trucks of 70 cu. yd. capacity (designed for use in transporting refuse from transfer sta- tions to disposal sites). Collection and transport of refuse is still dependent upon the over -crowded road system of the urban community. The introduction of refuse containers designed for mechanical empty- ing into the collection vehicles was of major importance. Although few modifications to the original concept have been made since its first introduction, most indications are towards a continued and perhaps increased reliance upon this method. Until re- cently this equipment has been limited mainly to the "commercial account". The use of smaller, wheeled, covered containers for use in residential communities is now being tested in a number of pilot installations. The results of these tests will be of great interest to operators of municipal systems. Transport of refuse materials by means of the pneumatic tube has developed into a major prospect for use in (or as a component of) the municipal collec- tion system. its utilization in publicly owned building complexes should be considered as perhaps the first steps towards a community -wide system. The downtown complexes (Dade Junior College, Jackson Memorial Hospital, and the planned government complex) should all be considered for installation. Twenty-four hour service, reduction of man- power requirements to that required for only maintenance and supervision, and lowered operational costs are only a few of the advantages to be seen. 3. Collection of Combined Refuse Materials The combined collection of all the items generally classified as refuse with the exception of oversized wastes may be a practical solution of some of the problems experienced in solid waste collection. The duplication of effort needed to separately collect different types of refuse materials has added drastically to the problems of any municipal system so involved. Since all types of refuse ma- terial can be disposed of by any of the currently available methods, the segregation of these wastes for collection cannot be considered as beneficial. 13-11-10 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA M A 1 A Metropolitan Dade County has recently initiated a program of com- bined collection (including curbside service). Although it is too soon to make a final evaluation of the program, it has been successful to date. The City has been successful (by various means) in increasing the frequency of garden trash collection to a point where accumulation of this type of refuse is not overly obnoxious. One of the prime factors in the success of combined waste collection in any system is the total elimination of any accumulation of garden trash from the City streets. Garden trash or other outsized wastes not suitable for enclosure in bags or containers is normally made the responsibility of the citizen for transport to the point of disposal or central collection points. Since no practical, mechanical method of separation of the various types of refuse is currently available once these materiels have been combined for col- lection, "recycling" of salvageable materials is possible only if these materials are separated at the point of origination. The separation of these "recyclable" materials and their delivery to collection centers should be encouraged by the City, since it gives the citizen a sense of participation in improving the environment and will in- crease his support in public projects needed for this purpose. C. Constraints on Municipal Solid Waste System The City of Miami has always provided its citizens with a top quality refuse collection service with twice a week backyard pick-up of all residential ac- counts, a practice which although highly desirable is generally limited to this area as shown in Table B-II-2. Miami is the only major city in the area still funding its residential service from general taxes. Fort Lauderdale, having commenced a service charge about three years ago, is now considering placing its Sanitation Division on the basis where it will be completely supported from service charges. The limitation of ten mills per thousand of real property assessed value imposed by the state legislature on municipal taxes will substantially curtail funds available to cities to support all budgetary needs. In the City of Miami the Department of Sanitation's annual operating budget in 1970-71 was 7.2 million dollars (about 17% of the total City budget of 42.6 million dollars). The operating cost of this department ranks third in magnitude of the budgetary requirements of the City departments, exceeded only by fire and police divisions of the Department of Public Safety. Economies required in the City budget due to the ten mill limit will likely require mandatory reduction in budgets of the major departments. The effect of this upon the Department of Sanitation would necessarily impose a reduction in cost by (1) changing the frequency of collection; (2) increasing the charge to commercial accounts; or (3) changing from backyard to curbside collection. Any of these programs must be preceded by extensive publicity B-II- 11 WEGMAN • G R E E N L E A F / T E L E S CA campaigns to solicit the cooperation of the residents. Considering that about 75% of the total budget requirements of the Department are required for the operation of the Collection Division, it is obvious that principal economies in operation could only be expected from this source. This is further emphasized later in Part C of this report which indicates substantial increases in costs of disposal will be experienced with required upgrading of disposal facilities. in the following, several cost analyses and comparisons are presented which in combination give a wide range of choice for reducing budget and at the same time lessening some of the problems inherent in the present systems. D. Modifications Considered for the Collection System Possible modifications of the collection system have been considered for residential and commercial route collections to increase efficiency and achieve re- ductions in costs of operation. Residential Route Collection The cost analysis for the existing "backyard carryout" residential route collections indicated that the twice weekly garbage collection cost is $29.95 per year per account. Changing the collection method to curbside, using disposable containers, the Department can achieve a substantial reduction in costs. Using for example in this comparison the same size collection route task of 993 accounts per day, curbside pick-up collection costs can be reduced by some 31 percent (Table B-Il-5). Other advantages to be derived from adopting curbside collection could be assistance in the solution of the Department's labor problem. Even though the City offers its waste division employees one of the highest salaries scales in the area, as well as a liberal fringe benefits program, filling positions in this work cate- gory is becoming progressively more difficult. Curbside collection will do much to improve the desirability of this type of employment by reducing the hard manual labor and the fatigue factors involved. Using this method, new collection employees will not need to learn the details of specific routes (such as to where the garbage can is hidden, how to work the fence gate, or face the problems of overprotective watch- dogs). Neither will he need the physical strength required to enable him to lift and carry the heavy loads characteristic of backyard collection. His mission is straight- forward, collect any containerized rubbish set out at the curbline. The simplification of the collector's duty allows the Department considerably more flexibility in collec- tion task assignments, and will enable the Department to better meet emergencies, such as strikes, hurricanes, etc. Temporary collection employees can be recruited from other City divisions or even from the private sector. Also, with curbside collec- tion the work task now becomes attractive to private haulers and offers still another solution to residential collection. Should the Department have difficulty in perform- ing their service because of conditions not of their making —obstacles in raising capital B-II-12 WEGMAN • G R E E N L E A F / TELESCA TABLE B-11-5 COST COMPARISON OF COLLECTION METHODS Curbside Collection Crew Costs 1 Driver L $712 �7. wfcg. days/no. 2 Collectors L $591.22 x 2 1 .3 w cg. ays mo. Collection Labor Sub -Total Fringe Benefits @ $29.5% Total Curbside Collection Labor Administrative Supervision and Expendables Equipment Collection Crew Total Crew Costs Per Day Costs Per Residential Account: $ 41.10 68.25 $109.35 32.30 $141.65/Day Backyard Curbside $ 5.32 $ 5.32 8.25 8.25 43.30 43.30 230.00 141.65 $286.87 $198.52 Backyard Pick -Up (1 Driver and 4 Collectors) $286.87 per day :993 accounts $0.288/Pick-Up or $0.288 x 2 Coll./Wk. x 52 Weeks $29.95/Year or $29.95 : 1.10 Tons $27.2V/Ton Curbside Pick -Up (1 Driver and 2 Collectors) $198.52 per day 993 accounts or $0.200 x 2 Coll./Wk. x 52 Weeks or $20.80 Jr 1.10 Tons B-II-13 $0.200/Pick-Up $20.80/Year $18.90/Ton for equipment anc1or facilities, direct labor problems, etc. — the City can investigate the possibility of the private haulers taking over this function entirely, and through competitive bidding contract for all rubbish collection. A program of containerized curbside collection would require a substantial educational program toensure citizen cooperation. However, the relative ease with which this has been accomplished by Metropolitan Dade County this past year should be helpful. To implement such a program, an ordinance directing the citizenry of Miami to place their containerized rubbish on the curbline on their normal collec- tion days would be required. If adopted, the program would permit reducing the regular crew of four collectors for the collection task to two with the driver. This re- duction in personnel should reflect in lower labor costs immediately. Even with such a reduction in personnel, the rate of collection will be increased permitting an in- crease in the accounts served per crew without increasing the work day. Therefore, collection routes can be gradually enlarged as conditions permit. Other South Florida communities that use or have adopted containerized curbside collection indicate a possible increase by as much as 50% per day in the number of accounts served. This increase in work load is made possible by eliminating the long walk to the backyard garbage can and the toting of refuse back to the collection vehicle. With the curbside method two collectors not only can perform the work of the four -man collection crew, but can accomplish it much faster. The con- current Dade County Solid Waste Study has shown smaller curbside crews to be not only 21% faster than the previous four -man backyard collection crews, but the two men are now collecting an additional 4.2 tons of refuse during a shorter working day The increased tonnage is due to the fact that under the new County's collection program, they allow the inclusion of any garden trash that is containerized and/or bundled to be collected along with the regular twice weekly rubbish collection. The assigned collection work task or number of accounts that can be served under the "curbside" collection method now becomes a function of collec- tion vehicle capacity and the total elapsed haul time of the vehicle between collec- tion route and disposal site. This change in both composition and quantities of refuse generated by residential accounts has to be closely considered. Again, referring to the County study investigations, there was an increase of 21 lbs. of rubbish per account per week, which represents a 30% increase over backyard collection. This additional waste, which must be attributed to the inclusion of containerized garden trash and other bulky wastes, is of little consequence unless the disposal method for the area collected is by incineration. This quantity increase will, of course, affect the sizing of incinerator facilities as separation of mixed rubbish at the disposal site would not be practical. Observations of the County's collection routes showed a predomi- nant use of metal containers which after being emptied must be returned to the curb 8-11-14 WEGNIAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA for retrieval by the householder. While curbside containerized collection does result in a substantial saving in cost of the service, it still requires the householder to tran- sport the loaded cans to the curb and return them after collection. Cans along the street are unsightly and detract from the appearance of the neighborhood. The es- thetics of this collection method can be improved as well as collection costs decreased by adopting the use of disposal plastic bags. Using disposable plastic bags in a curbside collection of both gar- bage and rubbish, the operation of replacing the can on the curb after emptying would be eliminated and the number of accounts serviced by a collection crew could be sub- stantially increased. An analysis of cost based on the use of disposal bags is shown in Table B-II-6. Residential Curbside Collection: 3-Man Crew (Driver and 2 Collectors) Conditions: •Disposable plastic bags. Based on past experience, assume crew productivity of 1200 accounts per day. Daily Cost Per Route Curbside Collection Crew = $198.52 Account Cost Per Pick -Up $198.52 4 1200 accounts = $0.165 Annual Costs Per Account $0.165 x 2/Wk. x 52 Wks. _ $17.20 Comparing this cost with present backyard collection experience, the anticipated route cost savings is: $29.95 17.20 $12 , 75 Per Account Per Year There is, of course, the added expense of the disposable bags which will be further explored later in this Chapter, but also consider that the total number of collection routes can be significantly reduced with an attended savings in equip- ment requirement and vehicle maintenance. B-II-15 WEGNIAN • GRE E N LE A F / TELESGA 1 1 1 1 I 1 A 1 Present Practice - Backyard Number of Residential Accounts Existing Number of Residential Routes 107,566 108 (54 crews) Average Accounts Per Crew 107,566 Accounts = 993 Accounts/Day 168 Routes Potential Route Reduction Assume collection at 1200 accounts per day 107,566 Accounts = Say 44 Crews 1200 Accounts/Crew x 2/Wk . or a total crew/vehicle reduction of 22.8% Each type of residential collection discussed requires a different number of collection crews with different requirements for collection equipment. A comparison between the number of packer trucks required for the pick up of container- ized refuse at curbside and the number needed if curbside pick-up of disposable con- tainers is used, is shown in Table B-11-6, Equipment Required by Various Collection Methods (between 1970 and 2000). The cost of purchasing, operating, and maintaining this equipment will vary directly with the number of units needed, as will personnel required to man the equipment and service the routes. If the 54 crews required for containerized curbside pick-up in 1971 can be reduced to 44 crews using disposable containers and curbside pick-up, personnel will be reduced by 23% and the tabor activities will be less arduous, cleaner, and more desirable. With labor costs skyrocketing and per- sonnel becoming increasingly difficult to hire, the change to this system becomes extremely desirable. B-11-16 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / T E L E S CA I Year TABLE 11-6 EQUIPMENT REQUIRED BY VARIOUS COLLECTION METHODS (Residential Routes 20 Cu.Yd. Compactors) Curbside Collection 3-Man Crew (using cans) 993 Accounts No. of Crews Equipment Required Incl. Stand -By No. of Crews 3-Mon Crew (using disp.bogs) 1200 Accounts Equipment Required Incl. Stand -By and Additional Capacity 1970 54 67 44 55 1975 64 80 52 65 1980 74 92 60 75 1990 93 106 76 95 2000 105 131 85 106 The quality of the disposable bags selected is in direct proportion to the bag cost, with quality generally being determined by the bag wall thickness. In Plantation, plastic bogs having a wall thickness of 2.25 mils are being used at a cost of $0.061 per bag including the cost of printing. Fort Worth, Texas, uses plastic bags with a wall thickness of 1.8 mils and a cost of$0.0378 each, while Plant City uses bags of 1.5 mils thickness which are reported to cost $0.0297 each. For computation purposes a bag of 2 mil wall thickness @ $0.04 each has been adopted as being a satisfactory product. It is assumed that each resi- dential account will use 5 bags per week or 260 bags per year. At the cost of $0.04 per unit, an additional annual cost of $10.40 (260 x $0.04) per account will be ex- perienced. This would make the total collection cost per residential account Garbage (curbside with disposable bags) $17.20 Rubbish 15.95 Disposable plastic bag $33. 15 10.40 Total Cost $43.55 Therefore, it is possible for reduction of collection costs from $46 per account per year to $33.15 excluding the costs of a suitable disposable container. In regards to this container, there would be advantages to the City in purchasing and distributing the disposable bags at cost for thefollowing reasons: B-11-17 W EGMA N • G R E E N L E A F / TELESCA -A good quality, identifiable plastic bag can be purchased in quanity at much less cost than if individually purchased by the public. -Esthetic value - after the collection crew has passed through a neighborhood nothing is left behind. Empty containers do not hove to be returned by the resident. -A cleaner more sanitary task for the collector as well as for the collection vehicle. The public will use the less expensive bags for all garbage/rubbish, helping to eliminate the temptation of saving bag cost by clandes- tine dumping. The quantity of disposable bags required by the City would be: 107,566 Accounts x 5 Bags/Wk. x 52 Wks. = 28, 000, 000 per year. This volume would be a very attractive contract to manufacturers of this product that should result in a highly competitive bidding situation. Included in the Appendix B is a model disposable plastic bag specification. This specification is based on a 2.0 mil material thickness. The heavier bag selection being predicated on the thought that it would be easier to lower rather than raise the quality of the bag in seeking the most satisfactory and economical product. 2. Commercial Route Collection It was established in earlier sections of this report that total costs of commercial route service provided by the City substantially exceed revenues gene- rated from those accounts served. The commercial surcharge rote structure if adjusted to cover total collection costs as well as disposal costs, would be at comparable cost levels to rates of private collectors. While during a more affluent era, the City could justify subsidizing refuse collection of commercial accounts from the Department's budget on the basis that they also paid property tax, the specialized nature of many of these accounts is adequate reason to increase the rates to cover the cost. Should the basis of funding the Department of Sanitation be changed from the present tax base to a direct service charge base, then the private collector's rates would be significantly more competitive. in the concurrent Dade County Study it was found that the private collector offers a more customized collection service that is better tailored to the needs of commercial account requirements than the public system. Based on the additional complication of servicing commercial ac- counts, such as the 7-day, 6-day a week routes, special collection equipment for B-II-18 W E G M* N • G R E E N L E A F / TELESCA M 1 bulk container, and salary compensation for evening collection, it is recommended that the rotes charged for all commercial accounts requiring more than the normal twice a week collection as provided by the residential route crews, or special bulk collection containers, or need special hours of collection be revised to reflect the full cost of the City's rubbish collection service. a. Central Business District The evening collection route in downtown Miami with the present practice of collecting the daily garbage at curbside has been an annoyance to the City mainly because the unattractiveness of garbage containers left on the sidewalk before and after collection detract from the appearance of the area. In the survey made of the Central Business District (the area between South 2nd Street and North 3rd Street and between the F. E.C. R/R tracks and Biscayne Boulevard) it was found that the City collects some 107 accounts or ap- proximately 1/3 of the total accounts within this area. The balance of accounts are serviced by private haulers. Table B•II-7 is presented to show a representative cross- section of 34 major commercial buildings and businesses and their solid waste practices. Note that only 10 of these are serviced by City's crews. Conclusions drawn from this field survey suggest that besides not developing sufficient direct revenues from the commercial accounts to cover service costs, the City collects only a minor fraction of the available commercial business, therefore, the accounts presently served could be readily accommodated by the private sector during their present downtown collec- tion schedules. b. Improvements Recommended Certain changes in refuse collection practices in the Central Business District are needed to improve the general appearance of the area and upgrade refuse handling. (1) All refuse placed at curbside for collection should be in disposable containers, baled, or in tied bundles. (2) All refuse containing putrescible matter should be in sealed watertight disposable containers. (3) The use of garbage grinders should be encouraged in all commercial establishments generating putrescible materials. (4) Adequate on -site storage area for refuse should be provided by all commercial accounts and the use of balers and compactors encouraged to reduce possible fire hazards and to improve collection practices. B-II-19 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA TABLE B=I1=7 PARTIAL SURVEY OF COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND BUSINESSES IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT Name of Business (Major Bus.) Type of Container Ainsley Bldg. A. Dupont Bldg. Biscayne Bldg. Burdines City Nat') Bank Columbus Hotel Concord Bldg. Congress Bldg. Dade S & I Bldg. Drug City Pharm. Everglades Hotel First Federal S 8, L Flagler S & L Franklin Federal Greater Miami Fed. Ingraham Bldg. Longford Bldg. McAllister Hotel Mc Crory's Dept .St. N.E. Air. Bldg. Pan Am. Bank Bldg. Ponce Hotel Richards Dept . St . Roberts Bldg. Royalton Hotel Seybold Arc. Ofc. Seybold Bldg. Southern Bell United Nat') Bank Urmey Hotel Bus. Woolworth Walgreen Drugs Jackson/Byrons Kress Dept. Store Frequency of Collection Collected By (Per Week) Private Private Drum Private Cans Private Hampers Private Bags City of Miami Bags City of Miami Pr; vote City of Miami Bin Private Private Bags City of Miami Private Bags Private Pr ivate Bins Private Bags City of Miami Bags Private Bins Private Private Bags Private Bags City of Miami Bogs -Bailing City of Miami City of Miami Cans -Plastic City of Miami Bales Private Private Bins Private City of Miami Cans -Plastic City of Miami Cans Private Bins Private Private Cans Private City Collection: 10Accounts Private Collection: 24Accounts 7/Wk. 6/Wk. 6/Wk. 6/Wk. 6/Wk. (Night) 5/Wk. (Night) 5/Wk. 5/Wk. 5/Wk. 5/Wk 2/Wk. 6/Wk. 7/Wk . 6/Wk. 7/Wk . 6/Wk 7/Wk 6/Wk . 2/Wk . 6/Wk . 6/Wk . 6/Wk . 1/Wk 6/Wk . 7/Wk . 5/Wk . 6/Wk M A (5) Areas allocated to solid waste storage within buildings should be established in the Zoning Ordinance based on proposed building use and on waste handling and processing methods to be employed. The locations, access, special requirements needed to ensure sanitary conditions, minimize fire hazards, and avoid creating a nuisance to either tenants or general public should be included. 3. Rubbish Collection The present methods being used for rubbish collection appear quite satisfactory. The average frequency of once a week pick-up is adequate and the projected costs of $15.95 per account per year for this service is reasonable and indicate an efficient collection system. Should the City elect to change the twice a week garbage collec- tion from backyard to containerized curbside it would likely reduce the present col- lected rubbish volume. Based upon recent Dade County experience, this reduction may be as great as 30'lo by including containerized rubbish in the garbage collection. This in turn could reflect in fewer required rubbish crews reducing total rubbish costs with only nominal increases in garbage collection costs. However, this modification in collection practices could not be adopted until disposal plant capabilities ore modified to handle this additional refuse volume. 4. Fee Schedule Collection cost of $29.95 for garbage and $15.95 for rubbish, per residential account added to a disposal cost of $7.52 to $10.76 (Table C-Vl-5) for a total of $53.42 to $56.66 (dependent on disposal system selected) would indicate that a service charge of $60.00 per year would be needed to cover the cost of waste col- lection and disposal. The fee charged to commercial accounts should be increased 100% to offset the present deficit that these accounts incur. Both of these fees would provide a revenue in excess of present indicated cost. This surplus in revenues could be used to establish bulky waste pick- up, which is presently not provided, or as a reserve against increased collection and disposal cost. B-11-21 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA CITY OF MIAMI SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY PART B - APPENDIX W EGNIAN • GRENLEAFE/ TELESCA ' - • Il3rd TIJL Orrii Isom DISTRICT 1 ROUTE 2 Single Units 890 Duplex 75 Apt ./Units 110/726 Motels/Units 6/72 Businesses 306 Total Number Stops/2 Days: 1387 Ave.Tonnage Collected Route Time Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday 10.80 10.37 8.03 8.11 516 507 442 466 Ave.Ton/Day: 9.32 Lbs/Acc/VVk: 53.80 B-AP-1 DISTRICT 1 ROUTE 1 Single Units 1385 Duplex 100 Apt./Units 75/830 Motels/Units 5/137 Businesses 108 Total Number Stops/2 Days: 1673 Ave.Tonnage Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday Ave.Ton/Day: 7.85 4 r; 11.11 Collected Route Time 9.67 8.86 6.72 6.16 519 502 461 467 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 37.55 I [ILE !^, t— --1— r� 7-p7�� rW f l711_iI�Si N n' ~ V th c� I 'I E� J �(__ J. i 'I r r Z riR . r1 Nd I�„ "�� 7J r�� _--, S T I F-Li 1 1;_91 °LLB DISTRICT 1 ROUTE 3 Single Units Duplex Apt ./Units Motels/Units Businesses 641 80 125/976 7/247 423 Total Number Stops/2 Days: 1276 Ave . Tonnage Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday Collected 10.90 9.59 8.47 7.29 Ave.Ton/Day: 9.06 7-1 Route Time 519 515 453 469 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 56.82 v W ITER. -'i -1-j N E L6 d i .ST —1 Jr' "•1 \VA 7,_"3. S4th1t_� $L. 1 �1I ; it :s fl 11._:2` . - r -Ili `___ _ 1 , 1IM ST 11 y—'fa n1Q _ _ r--- • 2nd O Z Q zT. s IIi DISTRICT 1 Single Units Duplex Apt ./Units Motels/Units Businesses Trailers ROUTE 4 886 90 106/461 18/512 196 181 Total Number Stops/2 Days: 1477 Ave.Tonnage Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday CoI lected 8.59 9.69 6.33 8.45 Route Time 532 515 420 490 Ave.Ton/Day: 8.27 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 44.76 B-AP-2 DISTRICT 1 Single Units Duplex Apt ./Units Motels/Units Businesses was Tom- r` � ;? -- ROUTE 5 1367 70 143/1250 246 L_6Q_n t_.._ JE �r L F--1 L 'Tiara 1 f ( r- ` ---1 r--- 1' n _Z.0ld__ nth \; I ;! V 1:-1 ,;CITY JMITs Total Number Stops/2 Days: 1828 Ave. Tonnage Collected Route Time Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday 11.95 13.04 8.96 8.21 580 540 514 480 r- Ave. Ton/Day: 10.54 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 46.12 NW clew Z �i ■ e it- DISTRICT 1 ROUTE 6 H � Single Units 840 Duplex 64 Apt ./Units 150/1854 Motels/Units --- Businesses 168 Total Number Stops/2 Days: 1222 Ave. Tonnage Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday Collected 19.96 20.81 12.90 14.61 Route Time 571 540 487 521 Ave . Ton/Day: 17.07 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 111.75 EEL Klits2J.1 n LJLi -JNw ST 1 ant ST- ? (--1 r DISTRICT 2 ROUTE 8 Single Units 343 Duplex 189 Apt./Units 45/798 Motels/Units Businesses 84 Total Number Stops 2/Days: 661 l to Li Ave . Tonnage Collected Route Time Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday 10.97 11.86 9.16 8.38 576 552 489 475 4 Ave. Tonnage Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday DISTRICT 2 ROUTE 7 Single Units Duplex Apt ./Units Motels/Units Businesses 1145 177 11/111 NMI II IS Mt 163 Total Number Stops/2 Days: 1496 Collected Route Time 11.31 584 11.48 565 10.61 526 6.40 470 Ave. Ton/Day: 9.95 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 53.20 iattif ST_ ST. J�49th l r ►4 Ate Ave . Ton/Day: 10. 09 Lbs/Acc/Wk: ! 22.14 B-A P-4 2TEII"� Ams TFR �,4a J I r l ST Jk L.�k:J1 • S� L E_ ! !l.SLL_. 47 F s^t� YA4t1 ST s T. sT sT tilik 1I Single Units Duplex Apt ./Units Motels/Units Businesses 920 138 70/320 segos do 48 Total Number Stops 2/Days: 1176 Ave . Tonnage Collected Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday 10.70 8.78 9.01 5.35 .11 • 1 Route Time 475 482 448 514 Ave. Ton/Day: 9.46 DISTRICT 2 ROUTE 9 lbs/Acc/Wk: 57.55 r—..mnr.ar rd . �_� g St II o c= 1 sZnn �_ti. 4, Zal atr. a _ SG1R�j TEI� J o i s E :4a St - M 4tl t r---� (�� t- -- �I 7 , t t.4ZndJ L�_ `—� firm_ .1 tl2IId_ i 4! �t ...St 41. � ,41si: �llst�� .__` lierfro o - Cry C. ,r . r -- J tER. l1 1 I g� I� eb n:. f r-- h B-AP-5 14- II DISTRICT 2 Single Units Duplex Apt ./Units Motels/Units Businesses ROUTE 10 635 230 130/497 ODOM MP 153 Total Number Stops 2/Days: 1148 Ave. Tonnage Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday Collected 9.76 11.11 8.19 6.78 Route Time 557 603 492 501 Ave. Ton/Day: 11.63 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 81.08 1.3 err a^ • LAM .i' = �s gate . S .r.. MAMOR PARK u EJ=E77 Total Number Stops/2Days: 637 Ave.Tonnage Collected Route Time Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday 14.63 14.11 9.67 8.01 534 510 396 469 Ave.Ton/Day: 11.60 Lbs/Acc/Wk: .4_ v • --- s r 1--! J t- DISTRICT 2 ROUTE 11 Single Units 998 Duplex 253 Apt./Units 1/30 Motels/Units Businesses 76 i1111- Total Number Stops/2 Days: 1328 Ave. Tonnage Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday Collected 10.63 10.54 8..83 7.80 Route Time 545 561 476 478 Ave./ion/Day: 9.45 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 56.92 145.74 _rr -3[s?HT :T Alta DISTRICT 2 ROUTE 12 Single Units 256 Duplex 110 Apt./Units 36/290 Motels/Units Businesses 235 a -A P-6 of ,,- .• or- t• 0 N A- *Mid. -17 ...�-J� _nth_ Alit_il �r 3 VIA DISTRICT 3 ROUTE 13 Single Units Duplex Apt./Units Motels/Units Businesses 108 896 273 79/228 Oa ONO de Total Number Stops/2 Days: 1356 Ave.Tonnage Collected Route Time Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday 10.71 554 11.29 549 8.17 485 6.53 567 Ave. Ton/Day: 9.18 Lbs/Acc/Wit: 54.12 DISTRICT 3 ROUTE 14 I `4 � L. J I Lam. !ICJ L:=4 WC- 1LasJ Cr.-� ►.� C� Single Units Duplex Apt ./Units Motels/Units Businesses 747 173 183/704 372 Ave.Tonnage Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday :sti L_ Collected Route Time 12.26 516 11.22 473 10.33 479 6.65 456 Total Number Stops/2 Days: 1475 Ave. Ton/Day: 10.12 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 54.86 B-AP-7 I 1 I I 1 A 1 I 1 L L ' - St. }1 _S l- d Lat-2 r it 4 �L_f Lam= � St -` L 00nil 1I TEII_, Single Units 602 Duplex 133 Apt./Units 186/635 Motels/Units --- Businesses 642 DISTRICT 3 ROUTE 15 '^ f Ave . Tonnage Collected Route Time Monday 12.40 540 Tuesday 11.90 503 Thursday 9.60 459 Friday 8.87 474 Total Number Stops/2 Days: 1563 Ave.Ton/Day: 10.69 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 54.72 J 2 �r�, -c s7_, 1 SEEU [ AT if] 1 3nthl Single Units 654 Duplex 114 Apt ./Units 259/1170 Motels/Units Businesses 283 L S T_ ------^-44 At 1 lit I.= DISTRICT 3 ROUTE 16 Ave . Tonnage Collected Route Time Monday 12.95 491 Tuesday 11.00 477 Thursday 9.28 425 Friday 8.12 460 Total Number Stops/2 Days: 1310 Ave. Ton/Day: 10.34 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 63.12 B-A P-8 M M car *Gc*t oAr. 7n,, DISTRICT 3 ROUTE 17 Single Units 979 Duplex 203 Apt ./Units 132/434 Motels/Units --- Businesses 301 =L Total Number Stops/2 Days: 1615 Ave . Tonnage Collected Route Time Monday 12.00 500 Tuesday 11.89 493 Thursday 10.80 447 Friday 10.40 479 Ave.Ton/Day: 11.27 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 55.83 DISTRICT 3 ROUTE 18 Al VA J17t.l CITY r . LIMITS Single Units 786 Duplex 359 Apt./Units 159/1168 Motels/Units --- Businesses 292 Total Number Stops/2 Days: 1596 I kJ pasi- Ave. Tonnage Col Iected Route Time Monday 13.29 484 Tuesday 12.19 499 Thursday 9.87 421 Friday 9.70 471 Ave. Ton/Day: 11.26 • • W •T • U 1JLMaJ L LYE L t� sir r- ter— • ' N W L_ �! L_-! i I4th� I'�W IL it ,r ,�- _T •. . J Lbs/Acc/Wk: 56.45 B-AP-9 _ 'LAI ] L i rN--- jjrr,I, LUG _a 6T DISTRICT 4 ROUTE 19 tF _IL J •T dr.._;ltli t J tL 4 A* 1st L-,1* Er �ri. Rj �l l t -�r -S4 LA 19 ill t 5-4 ( EA La h ' lL 11 i a I - _ oi L _ .art._ AL • ku► c Single Units Dup) ex Apt ./Units Motels/Units Businesses 175 Ib1Yl.i 65/620 136 Total Number Stops/2 Days: 376 Ave .Tonnage Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday Co) lected 12.24 9.30 10.34 7.75 Ave.Ton/Day: 9.91 oo� to__ ?1F• • 17 I/ S T. or :- _ _5T. IEa_ • Route Time 531 473 413 533 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 194.84 DISTRICT 4 ROUTE 20 Single Units 623 Duplex Apt./Units 82/655 Motels/Units --- Businesses 88 Total Number Stops/2 Days: 793 Ave. Tonnage Collected Route Time Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday 14.49 12.11 8.84 9.77 600 569 499 486 Ave. Ton/Day: 11.30 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 114.02 7`' i B-AP-10 DISTRICT 4 ROUTE 21 Single Units 186 Hotels 13 Apt ./Units 85/1800 Churches 11 Businesses 10 Total Number Stops/2 Days: 305 Ave. Tonnage Collected Route Time Monday 22.31 544 Tuesday 19.22 549 Thursday 15.13 428 Friday 13.30 538 Ave . Ton/Day: 17.49 Lbs/A cc/Wk: 458.75 -- -J . - - L AO WY• f DISTRICT 4 ROUTE 22 Single Units 493 Duplex Apt./Units 94/688 Motels/Units Busi newes 77 Total Number Stops/2 Days: 664 Ave .Tonnage Collected Route Time Monday 12.23 478 Tuesday 12.61 510 Thursday 9.33 410 Friday 9.55 456 Ave .Ton/Day: 10.93 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 131.68 B-A P-11 I 1 1 20 DISTRICT 4 ROUTE 21 Single Units Hotels Apt ./Units Churches Businesses 186 13 85/1800 11 10 Total Number Stops/2 Days: 305 Ave. Tonnage Collected Route Time Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday 22.31 19.22 15.13 13.30 544 549 428 538 Ave . Ton/Day: 17.49 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 458.75 L -= ST I r l ,! 2nd ; i r 1L_�,- . SA 41 17-7 , -1 j�_� Llti� j ; ST J ' DISTRICT 4 Single Units Duplex Apt ./Units Motels/Units LA --_,rw Businesses Total Number Stops/ Days: 664 Ave. Tonnage Collected Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday 12.23 12.61 9.33 9.55 Ave . Ton/Day: 10.93 B-A P-11 Route Time 478 510 410 456 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 131.68 ROUTE 22 493 94/688 77 3a1L.L m' owItir' n .2iii. � 'l__iit:jstb GJ , ALL__ tr. I -1 r -.-4[110[11L11 E111 Jr�.° - I,-. 6:1 itnif mite DISTRICT 4 Single Units Duplex Apt ./Units Motels/Units Businesses ROUTE 23 200 121/2220 r-r 50 Total Number Stops/2 Days: 371 Ave .Tonnage Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday CoI lected 24.63 21.24 16.96 12.40 Route Time 532 493 425 472 Ave . Ton/Day:18.80 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 405.55 it DISTRICT 4 ROUTE 24 Single Units 472 Duplex Apt ./Units Motels/Units Businesses 39/330 39 Total Number Stops/2 Days: 550 Ave .Tonnage Collected Route Time Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday 11.93 13.09 10.27 9.62 Ave .Ton/Day: 11.23 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 163.30 549 515 444 482 :afA B-A P-12 J CIVIC CENTER ARE! ORANGE BOWL STADIUIMI JACKSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL 1( l M W t Single Units Duplex Apt ./Units Motels/Units Businesses 779 68 178/1202 151 Total Number Stops/2 Days: Ave . Tonnage Collected Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday 14.31 14.92 11.62 8.85 Ave . Ton/Day: 12.43 1176 Route Time 534 524 470 475 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 84.52 B-A P-13 u DISTRICT 5 ROUTE 25 Single Units 571 Duplex 100 Apt./Units 12/119 Motels/Units Businesses 107 Total Number Stops/2 Days: 790 Ave. Tonnage Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday Collected Route Time 11.20 468 10.19 483 8.65 449 6.74 454 Ave. Ton/Day: 9.20 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 93.11 DISTRICT 5 ROUTE 26 SI._J� - TER. r - -- 1 •�_� - .t res Sli J ORANGE - ; --, *�" _ BOWL _� • �� STADIUM .sra-- L L. t T r MIC 7 1 1 1 1 DISTRICT 5 ROUTE 27 Single Units Duplex Apt ./Units Motels/Units Businesses Total Number Ave. Tonnage Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday 959 114 35/239 73 Stops/2 Days: 1181 Col Iected 14.57 12.94 10.94 8.40 Route Time 566 565 512 469 Ave. Ton/Day: 11.71 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 79.33 Single Units Duplex Apt ./Units Motels/Units Businesses O 1213 108 18/298 MD INN. IMIN 30 DISTRICT 5 i s. u 41D. M'� ROUTE 28 • w Alb TCl1.; tin f T 0 IL'.1t1� _TCd._ . _ ,i �T 11 '°��. Tt`l _ . _ .17 - TIC - - - ``ET i -; TER- > .J1�+ .1-r ^y w 44r it I1ft r 11* Total Number Stops/2 Days: 1369 Ave . Tonnage Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday Collected Route Time 11.86 523 12.94 508 8.37 431 8.68 459 Ave. Ton/Day: 10.46 B-AP-14 1 T ' T • Lbs/Acc/Wk: 61.13 W JUL •1 i <' {4 r t2M TR. 1` - — 121ttui ST. 2 . � 2 M 1 4N.*. . i - w w N A . ::1L .� ;te,�fir- -, Ir,! 'r .L. 4id 4L 1I 1.,� i i s -- -J , - _ L__, I_ Ft.? thi _1 IA Li , _ 44- ALNALIIL 1A-1 ...—...- _ if;if- T.:- - r•r • —n i `� f yi: i rta: Ili-- 11. 1 t n : d.rc.%ii (nd si :1,vI .1 :12n b --- —'till. ' �_. 1 l_!'; II* Li K • --47 .__)Cr sae . L� r -- .11 ♦ . Stlf tFR, f �� f 0 ►d• DISTRICT 5 Single Units Duplex Apt ./Units Motels/Units Businesses ROUTE 29 911 86 27/313 70 Total Number Stops/2 Days: 1094 Ave . Tonnage Collected Route Time Monday 10.97 Tuesday 10.29 Thursday 8.99 Friday 6.27 544 471 526 457 Ave . Ton/Day: 9.13 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 66.76 DISTRICT 5 ROUTE 30 Single Units 535 Duplex 351 Apt./Units 39/721 Motels/Units --- Businesses 35 Total Number Stops/2 Days: 960 Ave . Tonnage Collected Route Time Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday 9.89 10.69 7.90 7.08 522 553 455 553 Ave . Ton/Day: 8.89 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 74.08 B-A P-15 DISTRICT 6 ROUTE 31 uutr At _ ` _ s. 7 n r__ (SihikLLl s1 �+lI (Slhi J 1L- :dJ L t ST-Jrl T [ .2.h,( st ' ' ! I 1 Jimi1sr, � ..�t�'+,J , Single Units 1425 Duplex 27 Apt./Units 29/150 Motels/Units 5/77 Businesses 121 Total Number Stops/2 Days: 1607 DISTRICT 6 11 I���a ' p L a�_Q���Lam..ArW� 1,i N N�� c � --� � l l a o I__ t Sig ! t ST _ 3s Vt.1 s*, J l L1... "4 ;_s.w, i [--'C L= i s.w_ 1 r t, 1�7 C5.1M� t g 1 fa ri r# i tti' JI Single Units Duplex Apt./Units Motels/Units Businesses t7 r-- 1710 32 26/261 1/18 172 IsA Ave. Tonnage Collected Route Time Monday 10.14 469 Tuesday 11.74 565 Thursday 8.09 432 Friday 8.18 480 Ave. Ton/Day: 9.54 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 47.47 ROUTE 32 railikmaiyalkakuj(. I j1:a L L� Total Number Stops/2 Days: 1941 B-A P-16 Ave .Tonnage Collected Route Time Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday 10.93 10.70 9.30 6.66 610 580 584 522 Ave . Ton/Day: 8.90 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 38.73 Total Number Stops/2 Days: 1432 a,r�-.�'4 t►� _ _ 11 --,- IEe. Lid A A A! r TY Single Units Duplex Apt./Units Motels/Units Businesses LIMITS Gr.c,1sM i 1143 101 23/226 6/178 112 Total Number Stops/2 Days: Single Units Duplex Apt./Units Motels/Units Businesses DISTRICT 6 1090 204 36/263 1/20 101 1M aske it air • DISTRICT 6 .ier[ci"Alli-11 "11 �1pc";;-..1 00" ROUTE 33 Ave.Tonnage Collected Route Time Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday 10.31 451 9.00 517 6.20 370 7.30 461 4 1385 Ave .Ton/Day: 8.20 Lbs/Acc/Wk: ROUTE 34 o- >' 'n.lr. 44 .0 Ih LT L_ 1L- IIIZi4St r 1;W Ave . Tonnage Collected Route Time Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday 11.37 10.29 7.66 6.67 482 503 431 456 Ave . Ton/Day: 9.00 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 50.26 B-AP-17 47.37 s, s ra Ity �I . - 4 t h Ii8 - 117 J' [WIC -Zia ` sT =LJr Gil DISTRICT 6 ROUTE 35 Single Units 1023 Duplex 151 Apt./Units 30/397 Motels/Units Businesses 76 Total Number Stops/2 Days: 1280 Ave . Tonnage Col Iected Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday 11.21 13.71 8.06 10.40 Route Time 577 578 498 523 Ave . Ton/Day: 10.85 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 67.78 Single Units Duplex Apt./Units Motels/Units Businesses 1472 88 37/289 65 Total Number Stops/2 Days: 1662 DISTRICT 6 • . fi 7 ROUTE 36 Ave. Tonnage Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday • • Collected Route Time 11.86 10.87 8.50 7.16 Ave.Ton/Day: 9.60 r r F al.#•; I�'j �a fB! ✓ i 551 556 485 474 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 46.19 A Q I�M�TS_ - '1 i r r—'r Int 1 6th J' I _ ftLon r r- Li! u, � a M+ .EBO au r LRY ;-'- -.NAL511 „I.r-,�dr�� - P Lzn-� O ( i wr t l reel 'v M.W. _ t� _,uiL s• � JILT% L1-1" Ai 1 4/9 .+ WI 411 flfl fl rim9I~--1►,fly B-A P-18 A 1 tiYM�Miil f e.,e - - - 2 4 lb r i. — 7 i ' �, r'— _. __11 (� rr cc 11 - - / r vi I I= - AII_ . . _ fit Ark i _J is: --mil _ . ____ it DISTRICT 7 Single Units Duplex Apt./Units Motels/Units Businesses Total Number Stops/2 Days: 2098 Ave .Tonnage Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday Collected 11.16 11.17 9.34 6.80 ROUTE 37 1568 164 213/873 ma MINIM* 153 Route Time 529 537 480 457 Ave. Ton/Day: 9.62 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 36.67 Single Units 403 Duplex 205 Apt./Units 212/2220 Motels/Units 3/34 Businesses 162 Total Number Stops/2 Days: 4506 Ave . Tonnage Collected Route Time Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday 9.31 12.67 11.51 10.16 488 494 446 480 Ave.Ton/Day: 10.91 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 19.37 B-A P-19 1-7 sue;--�L.-�,, • DISTRICT 7 ROUTE 38 s :? = l�n 1214 6 4 M 1 M I Bl®®I SG; sE -- 1 1i� it--- Wit_ ._2.If.1L DISTRICT 7 L r- J'- '-'-"'- }°�i` f Total Number Stops/2 Days: 2405 IL DISTRICT 7 ROUTE 40 Single Units Duplex Apt./Units Motels/Units Businesses 1272 60 31/628 1/20 25 Total Number Stops/2 Days: 1389 Ave. Tonnage Collected Route Time Monday 12.36 Tuesday 11.91 Thursday 9.04 Friday 8.91 476 472 421 457 ROUTE 39 Single Units Duplex Apt ./Units Trailers Businesses Ave . Tonnage Collected Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday 10.39 11.77 8.74 6.43 1375 445 121/400 354 110 Route Time 511 581 494 461 Ave .Ton/Day: 9.33 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 31.04 Ave.Ton/Day: 10.56 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 60.79 B-AP-20 :Rate t —1 r------) ►- — — f 469 524 423 441 Lbs/A c c/Wk : 46.32 _— lL_'--_ i s r 1 a 4w ;14•1� I�,� - r _1_14 — ii r E n 'I� .___ r----2 ' I ' si —,.-- - DISTRICT 7 Single Units Duplex Apt ./Units Motels/Units Businesses Total Number Ave. Tonnage Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday ROUTE 42 1469 203 40/294 47 Stops/2 Days: 1759 Collected Route Time 14.10 606 12.57 524 9.69 483 8.85 454 Ave . Ton/Day: 11.30 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 51.40 B-A P-21 DISTRICT 7 ROUTE 41 Single Units Duplex Apt./Units Motels/Units Businesses 1340 440 47/142 lab N. ON 126 Total Number Stops/2 Days: 1953 Ave. Tonnage Collected Route Time Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday 11.94 13.83 9.83 9.64 Ave . Ton/Day: 11.31 1 [Tire r'_ DISTRICT 8 ROUTE 43 Single Units 343 Duplex 18 Apt ./Units 86/1708 Motels/Units --- Businesses 130 Total Number Stops/2 Days: 577 Ave .Tonnage Collected Route Time Monday 11.24 438 Tuesday 9.80 457 Thursday 9.26 435 Friday 5.84 461 Ave. Ton/Day: 9.03 Lbs/AccJWk: 49.62 DISTRICT 8 ROUTE 44 tsa_ lr.-4 Single Units 1481 Duplex 52 Apt./Units 19/510 Motels/Units --- Businesses 33 Total Number Stops/2 Days: 1585 Ave.Tonnoge Collected Route Time may 12.67 461 Tuesday 10.21 462 Thursday 9.01 447 Friday 7.44 485 Ave. Ton/Day: 9.83 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 49.62 B-AP-22 Single Units Duplex Apt ./Units Motels/Units Businesses Total Number Single Units Duplex Apt ./Units Motels/Units Businesses 11C _ , _ _ , 3L s S.A. , S.nt. _ i _ ..god_ ., _J . ST J i _ISM DISTRICT 8 462 22 123/1038 0 153 Stops/2 Days: 760 �61.11 W DISTRICT 8 284 15 209/2400 140 s* - ROUTE 45 Ave. Tonnage Collected Route Time Monday 15.11 464 Tuesday 13.57 556 Thursday 11.29 404 Friday 10.68 471 Ave. Ton/Day: 12.66 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 133,28 ROUTE 46 Ave. Tonnage Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday Collected Route Time 16.06 14.40 12.60 10.05 541 490 460 468 Total Number Stops/2 Days: 13.28 Ave. Ton/Day: 13.28 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 163.91 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I A 1 1. et :it NAIL. t*- .._.__i t- it ---pr- t_ tit t_ Tij -r DISTRIC1 8 Single Units Duplex Apt ./Units Motels/Units BusI nesses ROUTE 47 1444 25 36/240 10E1 Total Number Stops/12 Days. 1613 Ave . Tonnage Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday Collected Route Time 14.84 562 11.60 484 10.06 442 8.40 453 Ave . Ton/Day: 11.23 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 55.67 r- 4_ � _ .� ; sit. !- #:—_ 3 a B-AP-24 DISTRICT 8 ROUTE 48 Single Units 460 Duplex 78 Apt./Units 41/245 Motels/Units Businesses 78 Total Number Stops/2 Days: 657 Ave . Tonnage Collected Route Time Monday Tuesday Thursday Fri 11.00 10.52 6.21 7.23 458 503 446 477 Ave . Ton/Day: 8.74 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 106.42 J to 6 th DISTRICT 9 ROUTE 49 Single Units 236 Duplex 120 Apt./Units 24/1746 Motels/Units --- Businesses 184 Total Number Stops/2 Days: 3434 Ave .Tonnage Collected Route Time Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday 10.44 473 9.66 499 8.17 443 7.53 497 Ave.Ton/Day: 8.95 Lbs/Acc/Wk : 44.12 2 r 6!4 B-A P-25 J 1 2 r Total Number Ave. Tonnage Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday • /' DISTRICT 9 ROUTE 50 Single Units 1407 Duplex 9 Apt./Units 6/292 Motels/Units --- Businesses 24 Stops/2 Days: 1446 Collected Route Time 9.67 8.63 7.69 5.91 542 526 472 443 Ave . Ton/Day: 7.98 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 44.12 DISTRICT 9 ROUTE 51 Single Units Duplex Apt./Units Motels/Units Businesses 154 1085 480 17/982 Total Number Stops/2 Days: Ave . Tonnage Col Iected Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday 11.39 12.44 10.11 6.42 Ave. Ton/Day: 10.09 1736 Route Time 546 566 483 471 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 46.49 2 1MCMAS Wit MA a . L J tylin LAT Ira0C 1 712 r AVEwi _\ 44—t B-AP-26 .4 f AVE. I ( ` 1,�3i1�Jr AYE�7 !�!A" 1 1 iZ i ( vE _ 111 L A Gti7a' t-:-7C3,:.IC�G.J U[�*1 DISTRICT 9 ROUTE 52 Single Units Duplex Apt./Units Motels/Units Businesses 948 249 12/803 98 Total Number Stops/2 Days: 1307 Ave. Tonnage Collected Route Time Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday 14.93 14.19 16.25 9.17 456 488 448 443 Ave . Ton/Day: 13.64 Lbs/A c c/Wk : 83.45 DISTRICT 9 ROUTE 53 Single Units 603 Duplex 3 Apt ./Units --- Motels/Units Businesses 82-• Total Number Stops/2 Days: 688 w w l: AM& AVE / reewr ma t l Ave. Tonnage Collected Route Time Monday 10.10 483 Tuesday 9.94 476 Thursday 7.00 368 Friday 5.93 474 Ave. Ton/Day: 8.24 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 95.84 B-A P-27 DISTRICT 9 Single Units Duplex Apt ./Units Motels/Units Businesses ROUTE 54 248 33 6/243 IMIMIIIM Total Number Stops/2 Days: 287 Ave . Tonnage Collected Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday 13.17 21.19 13.33 13.06 Route Time 547 549 482 495 Ave. Ton/Day: 15.28 Lbs/Acc/Wk: 426.13 B—AP-28 COMMERCIAL RCUTES NO. 55 and 56 (Combined) Number of Accounts: 440 Seven -Day Collection (At Night) Ave. Tonnage Collected Route Time Monday 22.36 N/A Tuesday 17.40 N/A Wednesday N/A N/A Thursday 19.74 N/A Friday 19.55 N/A Saturday N/A N/A Sunday N/A N/A Ave . Tons/Day: 19.76 Lbs/Acc/Day: 89.8 8-A P-29 nw• - --1 n.IMJ st N - •, lath - — sillnt- o I . It t W . •• n ,y 4 tt_ 6et�_. _ 3 Cttt6ez] c . � I ~ - � "t E • ) I. h.l..' - ' _ �L-_ b.E,-.. r.. .... 9 ..,:...1L - ',i. , N : -_.. GT___,�.y.. h:riie.. r►w writ um_ at.- , -•'![� 3 1!u _6t_ e j .v, !, _ i, --- `,.elm._,,,. _. _._�st__ t Via' S ,+ l6ara tt tt d�� v a' •• d f + t .Sara_.r.� sil t.�! euns:I .1 a [ur! ___.__' �, zwatictr +• + r eim. TLR ] 1 ' i n r t` , . _ -E►=1 aw ca a 3. 6 `;^ c tat tE1,,l�_ . b t ' It ` ayj f 1 t tjt ��, -1 i6turf rV,:_J�--t�ILt�ST..���� C1J.L.:l:r/.Si- ? I •r --ram 'r-- a�-- tf t`'�r !itt4td+-SL i r1 i ,,. 1 i;.isalt LEdfr__'==� =- i1--9-1-A-�+� r1,1 ,4 .......... nrriwr i t 3tA _ .1_ t ' r� i IYa.- -� r 7`1fS - - - —� _� - y 8 • • • r- --).� j• s.- $ fir;--: t�tr nr- L `r._ irk - ,,=--i j N1 St_, 4.111 ' �`1w6_ tlJ. _.7t+e. -'s- - �j[+�t7r_.71^a—iSt NE: '�_�tin _ "Sit �#i~n6 d v dtt ^'o 7i r _stJ -- =u 7. 71.4 �SLr l hE�r.___J 71farl5 3T 1 ,,: �;� hM r�ls ,! 'r �-- IJ 1 ;•__ i- �IS._..�.1 .4i.._� �: .�: - . L UCH . sf -NE--1 . 1 1 — 2 _ __IL Lad — sett( 1 W W S t] i'e� • a.� j, f 1„c • x.M._!3S w ,~]:S"OYiC' �E13!•J11EI� '� N 'L t• r - cam, . J I _� 9 1 a1 1 wi r j' - ht!-l6tt TE.41 rlti...U!r IU.J —� to f bet. a 'S1D _ _SL �It=l �. _ .t u 4 e' ti. 1 r __ 0 le aa., r•i.ad �_ -3��,� fir• _ L __f u3t ST_� tr. v. I Y.E. •t-...�-t: • --- -. r- _ - _ _ ._... - lns 01.4 Ir i _21 .I -L _., „i6 7 _i L- _ t• =.thi`=ri.1 1 _44,1sj6.J_IC.2LL sk tt V,= _ �.^._gin , :„r► IT n! rl 3� �r— Sty. _3S__�_ - t 4 :.e+N1 � ! st 1 RC:513 .m_ -- 7 S4te �i ItL. • 4ea . — Y — — is ' - Mt — - r,1•4 l '► — _ .— r ts� 7". illi N —1— - �a, y1 . (x 7 ��,' tall La t iSL El � � - _mot_ i► L �r-- i --R l.6 -- _ .: r ran. - ►��. e > S17Gtli- - , =r-�� 1- r ILL_7.m.� , ,l Drs. w It =a_ It6pJ• 7[t1 «'_ _ � $ •'_ i •!;() ? 1tl'6 _ _ �.5ZlLEr._SC = F— 1• , , . S % lS �Q[!t __ - _ _ r r- ---• � lug _ S Cxt _ 1 t r:� • t �, 52� r- 3` `r �Ir r r- ~rip Adak . --•.57 - • tR a Ja d arnii ►1 1 .st�3 ._ _ - �—s i i St• COMMERCIAL ROUTE NO. 57 Number of Accounts: 105 Monday -Saturday Collection st - ='a" ' .. SL.x � � sand Y I. r - O > t it___++ Sa_a_� L I _ _'_ _�IxE-_30a. --- 1'' �� —_ _ __;' ucc • 4. STD!!-,ti-�ra, �' !�1 ST_t _ ro�Mt (cJLiISL [ t st 11E ii . •. *! SL / tl1 f D '• lEi6 � SI..r a �. l is lltiii j t • --3 =`ii-� St i:k.: r 11. D t---1 r. i _ `V�I°' "sst� a171_ - • "'6. - i� r IC`I ""-:.) its 11 _.,,fT7:1 I— �==7uk .. r 1 r-- -� r-- c, • '. - n r L.Llft . �i_L 1 if!'J'_� ❑ J it",1t e.-. ,1 ST r c - _ ..47 1 SI r• ♦Sri y,Al1L',r• _.. 1lLE._- 4414-le St • "irU s.��4 N r ---'- -- J llri.-J ff SM ... 44 - ! al w . - _' ~ [itt E: = 1:, — = __.SL.3 `*i. rl uisL:J. l _- -Ff___,..= B-A P-30 l0 Ave. Tonnage Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday CoI Iected 11.89 8.61 N/A 9.19 7.81 N/A Route Time 310 291 N/A 316 275 N/A Ave . Tons/Day. 9.38 Lbs/Acc/Day: 178.6 a A N A ' �l ] . It '• ' : _: a * * ,' : a , 31 '! -I i a a1 .:I I ',, r Ltl iJ (__a ""I'' '441 N sr. • 514I a t .. ri r• t'S �' ' .r fYC M' .r•)[fI .._.. ♦� toirJ3- 00.•.ftS • fta+•ta a••:. 3• t J!1►.A ft. a� • 'i'�'--.�•_- ipJ 1!y1•oit1Y:tt' • w� . .'+ .. , ' ' t tA. l �yy - !ni! 0[[M6t ' ;; _ II i.� i n J. .j �•.. !:I:: 9. i.. . u[.' •Otit I 1 Xi:: t. n . .-- ) 1 rf • 11 9 It. �' ■p - � . • �.tfL7 • ���IiIST[OfUtfrr '., :a► SttJ`SL:iJtf^frtt sT. J -►a�L�a i 3 I; . tat41 .7 ' i ft.v7 1 Jt 1t __.�_I ,.tYi.ttt' fit it 2Ni. Jrf S?i : w . .~s: ^I d ..`i :.1'Lt ft. . 1 re: - �.ular . .,.I '� t� . �� f iJd r... �ift: to st.._ �+tt "" r ?..;. wa Mtn a sc.�i- tu..1 r was' lull -id. . tt sus:, Si Kt ��., •[..t..s..tttJi"'Al.i tt +ir .f..t ..._! �i t a..?° i ...4 Ji '� .i ..._S � - .....5 � .i ST � ...'. _5 •�_ _.;•.), '�-j . �J. JLSL.r St' T7L� ;� 'ttC •3 1‘.! u� i�i i ut>4 .. •s.�� at. j M —�� �3i��tL �3S.r'r.•ti l� ,+� ti,n. ,1 d• .` - to __ :---. •,�I' - Jilt. . It •! L. ii " _- 1 ...II". �tr 1' ,s.' I t te_ :• is ��-- 1 !t••�� a. f. -, t Q Sig • - �'� 4• 1 ' .t1✓ 4 }�+ :. iN lJ7W.7•silt ^ . , • o v .lit Si al 1r _.fw.% ' r_iZ = 17[L:._tr „ -=-�•- --• ��-'• •1[Sflma iL. _.- :t43;,.7...'!_t.1 _ 1 -- }1 --ttf-A� i L_'J�' -L.- �_ s_-- r1_ir�`_ nlam" ,. ;•1"'�•13: Si tlr._�--..-. �, r� J��.aa- w G��agl' 1ri�iti.�3nRtLl.�t = ,3l!_•ct__.+ Si Z ��ri ~ A• �+�' ae lt, 'V • v YGLIf W`►�,� .-. _ f 1 • ._ T j''� �- r C.LJ L' AZDD� ~ J l �ttt.._.l_ _....:J_ !L_ t. `31 I_ta. d �LJ,it..a I p� .�, �����yyyyyyyyyy - r-; Yr- - -t _ ,.,.Ld1.••-- - .._ ,.._1r— . a.r :�.•1; n. ttl 1 } .�•.•.L.ar.ttm.pr.rfli lfra4..:pAU... (!1Yi.WITi $R. v • J ,>t:$r.! . ._ �`�] • ;Jai al :. — Stt _ --. 1""_ • . . Jln,,--.-.--tr.[t '.. N 1 V. .i . TIP. I t. .f .. a , j El! el • 1 J �_.I• } "� J r-.�1- _ t. IL N yy t. .1< .s. _ .a-.-..=.tl.dLr.. .14 :4u 11-4 1 ) i t `_ I r" • S r ! � I � t.. � .. -� - l-.. � . � ... ..:�..' Ai, - ' _ : In , "! at 'JJ " T _.- _� (•.r .(�'—r •�� ...•"""""."."'".."'"*"*".�� . . rrVi�r.r..�.-s.-..ra�r�`.w..:+ _1-- �" `. �1_I ••:'SZ= 1tt. _ iL a: '_ ifY tlffCr, .SaA Y.fJi' I .. 1^ i t a mi_ _.i t, u -� • •.a'' TII I ` , M 1.L. af1�l1 wt SI addla/a-../ d dia'-au `,�A- -✓f• rl eU .L . .nil _ • eft. _•1.d .tto -• - - •'S � `V .�_• J _._. J1 _..... L.•,w -.Y1tt .-JLL_-.-r r[.f.l1. .ltl-._I►t R- 4 • '1 .i '-. •- "1 • J 1 J ,., i M.ta. . _ .- 131L+ 1. t-! at lL.. I 1 .i. .11 r r ,. . i 1 t r ■ i ' • . r - — ta; LUL4 J w u *•�'�� -•--.— . w w - - •• ..I - a ^ f+ 9- •� f-- - t1t14� .2711L ( '`a �� d Ls r .4r_fL • .. '- -i. . dsritYi I. � >r :fir rr. � Y,� a.. ,.. � a e/• ���:-'�•�' r' a d ;? j s.. e ~ d _ % 1 t� t Z �; — �[ S71.27 u- _. 3Y .. r: - _S[ ..idt : .. �.,. ^a • I 4I'i •. _ n i. C : -Ll�l •i.1. _ � l.Jl.t- • • • ± v <s•:o �_ 11[_ JILO. i. Lf.n=.tom `i ".i .-. II-..._, f2 i M 1__;• s.:.it st..,' 6 ,Sf. _S i_J5' _ i:34-2 i�r-_ _iZ�^� 1 r .1 "'ra..'-3:-n . , a ..s.cv_r_e:2.7.v..n: d'�r1:i110_�._ __!Js sL .: a . 7 1 - - - S!.:-._J.. uf= 0rL•. •4 a a_o a.trt _...~.. fL -a• t/ If 1, o•f! �.[t►� Lit -Pi _-1 •SO'S... 1 i'i'S' •'tit' I.-'�aL..- ; •I.:7 ;.1L� VWiS COMMERCIAL ROUTE NO. 58 Number of Accounts: 80 Monday -Saturday Collection Ave. Tonnage Collected Route Time Monday 9.40 359 Tuesday 6.09 306 Wednesday N/A N/A Thursday 5.89 272 Friday 6.26 309 Saturday N/A N/A Ave. Tons/Day: 6.91 Lbs/Acc/Day: 172.8 B-AP-31 tit ' -1' -..',1:=1,' ''.1 41 . ;:1,1•11161•111.). * Z•014:.1 ...6". -11 I+II }} .i • - w t' yl •14,1 i f, w i . .r1:•.I• • •.. 1i. w _ 1 _ L "� ,• hh•eI: 'r M11f 1 'TMq37q• ' off• '.•r 17•a♦.r ?IIII. .T !• • • . _i1 1 '9,'I• • � i ". • t •W Tr Y W t y , •'+w .t r _ Y f tom— Y ►1 "T r .rr !:.t r-I1rft7tc R-M "'r/ w 1 *• 4e t •i' i V - I __ 1 ! 1 `" . r. r r "h If -• -. - ar. - .r-wr+1 1.••••• / r i. •, ,. . - - , ' ,_..>t w tat .. F''' 'J _ 7A M'T 1 I '•I r'1 i w (i .�i a wrw ~ ' 1;, is* . - Ii I- �S ri. .r. 1!� • I •= IN f..4 T I. N• I S z i t Ll I r : I !' =ft - ' , r ya-+*ga ' �"� ''-' ' .�'s'. e . t n ! i �i ai , r_..`. —,' ,--,r•1ter :lit .t.ltt+. r.= �:-1,1---tr �7"- J ... :t�•� ' .. „ w .. ■V� P y ~5 'L -- '�Jaft 11i I 97 7, - "-:1 v\t,'•'-Q; �3'47y,' ,. '�L.==,;, Tin sir 11 �'� -.. 1.: ...- �� , e ... lac , •'....,1*.. 1'1• V. - _ _. t --_- - , ._ -=11ei t_ —r— 7�-u� _-..1 _ -_: l6„ *•e'h e'17Vt1�1ty /� t' 11t Or' / ��.r .r-•I—. 1(, �•.. -� 1 �rTQ `,1 J r'?t{ ` /,4sli `71-Ti �1• .0 •y fit; 1..l w iww ww nwi Alt,. 1101 iI • i:.li- a'>TTQ' ' * ."�0 Yilt`Iy��•, .1 1 i'`ilvi "'rt.!. { a e+ I �r t)t•``` 11V 4:, j rm's 1I',r+n =1� ��'- �1 I r r,,.,ii, X ..: .- .: _ o i I { �I :i :i,�! a 1. �/ Ir r' -, -Fr < ., rft iI 01.--11-" r1 y' , -'.•^ i't] 11.1 . . iF •C. . •i i., L.L.J. j .err, I:L:.;gL'll_... ' 1 4 _ , ~ sF lA..1 i,' r �� �w w.{t r. 1� 1^ . N H 5g. E!! E. a .lf _L i il— w M :l• l is tit,_, ' !I. V ~ ri t V. N1 ri {.r--r�, t r r ji �r'' r 1: w... .-- •.� 'll, -'�, 1_j filI !�� 1g. • Q1� •w .4. �' • a! •, to "7A0i tc r !•/ •�.l r Iw • C1. t 1` 1...._ �Z _lfli_,!r 41 "el If 1 �:1 'i7 zi•7 mIG1YM• �'— .i_i1 1;......,..____;..„,._., I:1 ._ J, 1 aKi - ►s• i '� T"Ar I I =....t>`_ __.-_'r ' --.-" _ ... __ ^�.,_ (( ii7.1, , ' r-Vy ',r�.a ,lrf_ibriLl!1:-:• 4:: ,. .t _ Pis i i+ ! +1 � :.27 'iq'iT' :Y wr ` t ',.:,. ii 11 J 1 1 till '19O•- I1 II 11 • Ina-,- i- _I . •Y r �1 i 4.• +�,1 mot. ' I '1r11 ri 1.0 Ijy• 1 .. '; 01i7 _.. S N/.• I/' Ave/Tons/Day: 7.97 Lbs/A c c/Day:181.2 r1 wa��i'.tr • w't•o'w its 6 • H COMMERCIAL ROUTE NO. 59 Number of Accounts: 88 Monday -Saturday Collection Ave. Tonnage Collected Route Time Monday 9.24 312 Tuesday 7.56 310 Wednesday N/A N/A Thursday 7.36 308 Friday 7.73 302 Saturday N/A N/A B-A P-32 3 COMMERCIAL ROUTE NO, 60 Number of Accounts: 94 Monday -Saturday Collection Ave . Tonnage Collected Route Time Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 10. 94 334 8.13 338 N/A N/A 7.04 265 6.60 272 N/A N/A Ave. Tons/Day: 8.18 Lbs/Acc/Day: 174.0 _IA -9- Tull _ ----t a ISLA j • to —17-7r—t! -7-1 kS2f...t _ _S _ _A r-----, r . F-S-T. r-.L7 'aid 0 r----7 I ir 7' —1 SI.W. -1 L --• Ala r r— Is., iML rp. F-3 r I LZ Mar.,L.. f•-- -1 4 Lax sr. ze,- LL-2 4446J c 1 • r r L L siL r — IL st . . 1 a —16 - I I a_n Ss Lft ik . T. jf B-A P-33 ; 0,• a CHOPWf P LA! • 44. a 0 M N , '' ' ' Irr' • Spy, ' .�y.; %J� A% ' '1 •• '* +1 .• • to ' \...5 . ,101,11 elle rJ'. ;:�"i I /��►'; o5"11/ ;/�,•' �.-�6'" tit., ;. ' 1 ! i f t 9 r• r� L COMMERCIAL ROUTE NO. 61 Number of Accounts: 90 Monday -Saturday Collection i '•?\ ••�I'^ : 42 .1 PIC.: ii4 :.ILA 1 A I ! ,Iiil: 01.1ini pi 1 1 ,. ..Av.,,v.,;:...‹.., „..... , •1st ",• i' rr ,W,p/. ..�, ;1�i• ,-' \. .�� '.t - r l'ti 't' 1 I l w „L ,`n w •- , w Ip �t t N r ��1^ >> . f rI r. - i w r •-I. T r l•r-.•;1.. e-I+-•:4T4,.. * •T'11(�iy^'!,• r,-�•.LZ-sifr j42 ,,. 1 '�' .11 �• y It ~^ M S w ' t' • rw•°L.'s w « tv 1■ it -s ,�4t ? ski w -w _ �n . t,, r�r e•, +•-.. •- ,r r•' 11;22,1/limii r !r �r 77i. 1\t"i-l•1� _� � �3TD"i 'i.r 1 tsl ' .• w• • (54. 4 f ! I; , ' it . .1 E' �� - _:, CO 7r •7�- .^r.-_3 '7Jr 1 Ir.1i�i 1 fi 1ti! i tri Ir 'r I 1\ 3-•11101"1`.• ? i _ I, � i .`'.� iI 1L � � ' i .. � 1 . -i I _' _ _ 1 1 Ly iII '�'"`'`�j, 1i}r� .40 l _L 1' ,tom; L., ra t '� » g: __ la J! •II �i��Y+�.L'il'��:� Ave .Tonnage Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday CoI Iected 13.11 7.89 N/A 6.05 9.35 N/A Route Time 534 354 N/A 281 433 N/A Ave . Tons/Day: 9.10 Lbs/Acc/Day: 202.2 Li �f r trl � t .� t r +� r i,ra • Ii..:� ,l.l:I c 21I,1 rip sw 'dii' -I m f- G (.. w w a die yN PIT ;l' +tN "-`. 'T110 lr lfw t•, ..11S, "�II II ILL' i[ 1r7ULJUi�LL 1l. 7' \\;r., +tnD• +r .'f+r ring' (If 1 +ir1:--•^r;; l•'A� ,, It:7ir'^^ir.-,cIT'••jta lL r'�' Jr �1 -llim i 11 M .N. N vowel. . �� • r i � 1 qI l'_!:D9,1 1._.L 11 11 •��x�lift • .: J t • • O • • i it y ~ ! �''��, Irma'—t•' ,A1' 71,! t�� �..'�1ri(vl •Iwd•rt1 �l[! iir I is me zs 1 ,r'=ter • Imo.. • •17TC 1t'�� •, i.lr..ri - t1 1�r - Cc _ , . .1 clfa >r r-n; q. 1. ;. is L • r• u. ro.rsi • -arww, 7r vrotr l t ! I4 I� ° Sl; v „wic,r Pt wt1 �- nYWYr R1 iau,rrl. f.g.1174!1.1r Uri •�.c iV�� � t � � j � = � %•e.►' i l rne;r--•�s';1'.' "•-ie e111e 1 � � J! I �! \ � �, on. 3 1 l ,rr71 1 _ • r.t4 H.•+.+; '.:.+c7orxc ,>>•Iz•• 1�nsgi ' .{ ; ' cI_ 'r,t .i ts...l�� Ip11 .•k0,0 ; IN it►i : a s l , t { a�r1'N ,r I ,7r ytWr7 .. f 1 •.RI fly: firer i 1' •r�i � ;, •�.a .. �• � t' all IA I ,ta OK '1 q. rrr7r : � r � n i u • �• :. ; ., i.'gig mo iAt AVOW �: `� 1•,� ''�77�\jj I , •r y Ir.11ii„ aIJl31<i '�►. 'p �'ri3 :'Ir,ir hIFTT'f�IrT 1 i�. Ortfa"'! d ,:a, IJ:1i ._ �" 1�1��{M �, �f� �.,�r I `� �L7't'" •t'r p,f71411�L11' l 'J' �N, �..�: N�..:1 .l .il r J.y rYn• 1 1;- ti B-AP-34 11 at M N N COMMERCIAL ROUTE NO. 62 City -Wide 2 C.Y. Container Service - 4 Days a Week Number of Units Served: 2,850 Number of Stops/2 Days: 74 Ave . Tonnage Collected Route Time Monday 16.86 425 Tuesday 15.09 434 Thursday 13.20 415 Friday 10.30 406 Ave . Tons/Day: 13. 86 Lbs/Acc/Day: 374.7 Lbs/Unit/Day: 9.73 8-A P-35 M M POLYETHYLENE BAGS - APPENDIX SPECIFICATIONS 1. These specifications cover the sanitation and public health require- ments for polyethylene bags intended for indoor and outdoor storage of dry, wet and flammable refuse. Minimum Specifications - These minimum specifications are required to make the bags resistant to wear, tear resistant, and to effect sanitation. 2. Definitions: Bag: The word "bag" shall be used in the context of these criteria to mean "Refuse Bags". Polyethylene: A plastic or resin prepared by the polymerization of ethylene as essentially the sole monomer. Refuse: "Refuse", for the purpose of this criteria, shall include putrescible and nonputrescible solid wastes, consisting of organic or nonorganic materials. 3. Bags: Dimensions: The bogs shall have a thirty (30) inch face width, (NON GUSSET) and a lengt dimension of thirty seven (37) inches. Dimension tolerances shall not exceed one-half (1/2)inch. Slip Coefficient: The bags shall be readily opened by hand and shall have a slip coefficient between 0.1 and 0.25, when tested in accordance with ASTM D-1894. Heat Seal:Any heat seal shall withstand a ten (10) minute tensile loading of one pound per inch of seal without failure. Drop Resistence: Bags shall withstand a drop of five (5) feet onto a smooth concrete surface, when filled to a total weight of thirty (30) pounds with a material having a density of fifteen (15) pounds per cubic foot. The bag shall be securely closeable with a twist tie. (Note: Complete details of the test method used is available from the National Sanitation Foundation, 2355 West Stadium Boulevard, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103). B-A P-36 W EGIMAN • G R E E N LEAF / TELESCA Polyethylene Bags - Appendix Material thickness: The nominal gauge of the polyethylene shall be two (2.0) mils, with point to point variation not to exceed plus or minus 2(P/o. (Note: This requirement is not intended to preclude the use of nominal wall thickness in excess of 2.0 mils, however, the plus or minus 2(P/o mentioned shall apply to said nominal wall thickness). Weight: The bags, exclusive of packaging and ties, shall have a minimum weight of 220 pounds per i, 000 bags. Closures: Each package of bags shall contain an equal quantity of wrapped six (6) inch wire, twist tie, closures or their equivalent. Leakproof Seals: All seals will be constructed in such manner as to prevent to bag from leaking. (Bags to be produced only of seamless tubing). Odor Transmittance: All bags will be constructed in a manner not to allow odors to escape when properly closed, using the twist ties provided. Air Pollution Requirements: All bidders are to furnish with their bid, a complete chemical breakdown analysis of gaseous substances produced, when bags are combusted. bidder). Color: All bags shall be in color. (Samples shall be presented by 4. Packaging: Number: Bags will be packed twenty (20) bags per package, with twenty (20) six inch (6") wire wrapped twist ties per package. (Samples of twist ties shall be presented by bidder). ALTERNATE: Bags to be packed ten (10 bags per package, with ten (10) six inch (6") twist ties (wire wrapped) in package. ALL CARTONS TO BE CLEARLY MARKED ON THE OUTSIDE, INDICATING CONTENTS AND QUANTITY THEREIN. 5. Defective Bags: The contractor will replace bags failing test with equal quantity of bags meeting requirements, removing defective bags at his expense, within ten (10) days after notification of failure. B-AP-37 WEGMAN • G R E E N L E A F / TELESGA PolYethyle_ne Bags - ApPendix PROPOSAL FOR: ONE YEAR'S REQUIREMENTS OF POLYETHYLENE BAGS Unit Cost Total Cost Initial shipment of two hundred thousand bags: $ $ (20 bags per package) (per bag) Five (5) additional shipments of 200,000 bags each, for a total of 1,200,000 bags: (20 bags per package) (per bag) TOTAL $ ALTERNATE BID: Initial shipment, same as above, only packed 10 bags per package: $ $ (per bag) Five (5) additional shipments, same as above, only packed 10 bags per package: (per bag) TOTAL $ ALL OF ABOVE TO INCLUDE TWIST TIES AND TO BE IMPRINTED AS DIRECTED Manufacturer's Name Identification Number (if any) Weight, per M Bags (1,000 bags) Guarantee or warranty DELIVERY DATE (IN DAYS) FOR INITIAL SHIPMENT Advance Notice required for additional shipments NAME OF BUSINESS BUSINESS ADDRESS BUSINESS TELEPHONE NO. DATE: (days) SIGNED BY TITLE B-A P-38 WEGNIAN • G R E E N L E A F / TELESCA M CITY OF MIAMI SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY PART C - DISPOSAL SYSTEM Prepared by Leonard S. Wegman Co. Inc. WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA TABLE OF CONtENTS PART C - DISPOSAL SYSTEM Page CHAPTER 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS A. Reduction and Disposal Facilities C-1-1 B . 1. 20th Street Incinerator C-1-1 2. Coconut Grove Incinerator 0-1-6 3. Virginia Key Disposal Site C-I-8 B. Units Served by Municipal Collection C-1-10 C. Zoning and Use of Land Near Disposal Facilities C-1-10 D. Waste Quantities C-I-10 C-1-10 C-I-11 C-1-11 C-I-11 C-l-11 C-I-11 C-1-12 C-I-12 F . Operating Costs and Amortization C-I-12 1. Incinerator C-I-12 2. Disposal Pit C-1-13 G. Revenues C-I-13 1. Sources and Amounts C-I-13 2. Revenue Impact C-I-14 H. Tax Support C-I-14 E. 1. General 2. Disposal Quantities 3. Other Disposal Facilities General Management 1. Present Departmental Structure 2. Incinerator Status 3. Revenue Losses 4. Disposal Fees CHAPTER 11 FUTURE CONDITIONS A. Increases in Population and Per Capita Generation of Refuse C-il-1 8 . Decrease in Land Availability C-II 1 C. Public Attitudes C-11-1 1. Environmental Protection C-II-1 2. Resource Recovery and Recyling C-11-5 3. Neighborhood Acceptance C-II-5 4. Cost Impact C-II-5 c-i WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA Table of Contents ` Part C Can't D. Possibilities for Pollution Control at Existing Incinerators Cell-6 1. interim improvement at 20th Street C'li-6 2. Air Pollution Control at Coconut Grove C�Ili2 E . New Methods of Volume Reduction C-li-7 F . Future Jurisdiction C�tl-8 G. Private Col lectors C-11-8 CHAPTER IIi POLLUTION SOURCES iN SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL A. Air Pollution Inventory C-11i-1 B. Water Pollution C-lii-4 CHAPTER iV ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATE DISPOSAL METHODS A. Processing and Disposal Alternatives C-iV-1 1. Open Dumping C-IV-1 2. Ocean Disposal C-IV-1 3. Sanitary Landfill C-IV-1 4. Shredding and Mi l I i ng C-IV-4 5. Compaction and Baling C-IV-7 6. Composting C-IV-7 7. Wet Fiber Extraction C- IV-10 8. Conventional High Quality Incineration C-iV-11 9. Incineration with Heat Recovery C-IV-14 10. Fluidized Bed Reactor C-IV-15 11. Slagging Incinerator C-IV-15 12. Pyrolysis C-IV-16 13. Shipment to Remote Locations via Barge or Rail C-IV-19 14. Union Carbide Refuse Converter System C-IV-19 B. Resource Recovery C-IV-21 1. Source Separation C-iV-21 2. Paper C-iV-21 3. Non -Ferrous Metals C-IV-22 4. Ferrous Metals C- iV-23 5. Plastics C-IV-23 6. Glass C-IV-23 7. U.S. Bureau of Mines Technique C-IV-24 8. Conclusions C-IV-25 c-i i WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA M E . Incinerator Layouts 'cable at Contents - yPart C Con't Page Analysis of Alternate Systems Ci1V-22' Volume Reduction and Land Depletion C-IV-31 1. Reduction Methods CIV-31 2. Refuse Materials C-IV-31 3. Reduction Factors C-IV-33 4. Depletion of Land C-IV-35 C- IV-35 Arrangement I C- IV-38 Arrangement II C- IV-39 Arrangement III C-IV-40 Arrangement IV C-IV-40 Arrangement V C-IV-40 Arrangement VI C-1V-42 Arrangement VII C-IV-42 Arrangement VIII C-IV-42 Arrangement IX C-IV-43 Arrangement X C-IV-43 Arrangement XI C-IV-43 Arrangement XII C-IV-43 Arrangement XIII C-1V-44 Arrangement XIV C-IV-44 F. Coconut Grove Incinerator Alternates C-IV-45 CHAPTER V RECOMMENDED AND SUITABLE ALTERNATE DISPOSAL PLANS A. Plan Base and Outline C-V-1 1. Miami and Miami Beach C-V-1 2. The Recommended Plan and Alternates C-V-1 B . Landfill Site C-V-2 1. General C-V-2 2. Virginia Key C-V-2 3. Other Sites C-V-4 C. Recommended Plan Features and Costs C-V-5 1. General C-V-5 2. The Shredder Plant C-V-9 3. The Controlled Landfill C-V-11 D. Alternate Plan No. 1 C-V-11 c-iii WEGMAN • G R E E N L E A F / TELESCA I I Table of Contents Part C Con't P... t. Alternate Plan No. 2 C-V-18 F. Possible Modifications to Recommended and Alternate Disposal Plans C-V-27 1. Limiting Initial Capital Cost C-V'27 2. Minimum Measures C-V-28 G. Regulatory Jurisdiction C-V-28 1. Jurisdictions and Other Governmental Functions Affecting the Recommended Plan C-V-28 2. Jurisdictional and Other Governmental Functions Affecting Alternate Plan No. 1 C-V-33 3. Jurisdictional and Other Governmental Functions Affecting Alternate Plan No. 2 C-V-34 CHAPTER VI ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ASPECTS A. General C-VI-1 B. Capital Requirements C-VI-1 1. Introduction C-VI-1 2. Reduction and Disposal Sequence C-VI-1 C. Economics of Refuse Disposal C-VI-5 1. Cost Elements C-VI-5 2. Cost Analysis C-VI-9 3. Collection Cost Economy C-VI-9 4. Basis for Unit Cost ($/`Ton) Computations C-VI-10 5. Through -put Rates C-VI-11 6. Uniform Accounting Procedure for Incinerators C-VI-11 7. Operating Costs C-VI-12 8. Unit Cost for Shredder Facilities C-VI-12 9. Incinerator Flexibility C-VI-12 10. Haul to Landfill C-VI-12 11. The Controlled Landfill C-VI-14 12. Land Costs C-VI-17 13. Manpower Considerations C-VI-17 14. Operating Cost Forecast C-VI-19 D. Steam Market Survey 1. Scope 2. Base for Sales 3. Impact on City Costs c-iv WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA C-VI-23 C-VI-23 C-VI-23 C-VI-24 Toby, of Contents -_Part Can't E. Financing the Disposal System 1. Obtaining Capital Funds 2. Debt Service 3. Sources of Revenue 4. Federal Aid c-v WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA I'b C-VI.25 C-VI-25 C-VI-25 C-VI-25 C-VI-28 M M M N M M M A M • C- IV-6 C- IV-7 C-iV-8 C-iV-9 LIST OF TABLES - PART C Existing 20th Street Incinerator Staff Revenue C-111-1 Pollution Inventory - 1000 Tons Shredded Refuse to Landfill C-i1I-2 Pollution Inventory - 1000 Tons Refuse Incinerated, 100 Tons Residue to Landfi I l C-IV-1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Sanitary Landfilling C-iV-2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Shredding and Milling C-IV-3 Composting Plants in the United States C-IV-4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Composting C-IV-5 Advantages and Disadvantages of Conventional High Quality Incineration Advantages and Disadvantages of Pyrolysis Analysis of Processing and Disposal Alternatives - Criteria Table Land Depletion Summary of Incinerator Plant Arrangements Studied C-1--4 C-i.13 C-111.2 C-III-3 C-IV-3 C- IV-5 C- iV-8 C-IV-9 C-iV-12 C-IV-18 C-IV-28 C- IV-36 C- IV-37 C-V-1 Recommended Plan - Outline for Phased Solid Waste Management Plan Serving Miami and Miami Beach Shredding Rubbish & Bulk, Garbage & Trash C-V-7 C-V-2 Alternate Plan No. 1 C-V-20 C-V-3 Alternate Plan No. 2 C-V-26 C-VI-1 Estimated Capital Requirements 1972 to 1999 for the Recommended Plan and for Alternate Plans 1 and 2 C-VI-2 C-VI-2 Recommended Plan - Design and Construction of New 2-Unit Shredder Facility - Estimated Capital Cost C-VI-4 C-VI-3 Alternate Plan No. 1 - Design and Construction of New 4-450 TPD Flue Connected Boiler Incinerator Plant - Estimated Capital C-Vl-6 Cost C-Vi WEGNIAN • G R E E N L E A F / TELESCA List ,of Tables~- Part C Can't C-Vi-4 Alternate Plan No. 2 - Design and Construction of New 2-450 TPD Flue Connected Boiler Incinerator Plant - Estimated Capital Cost Ca-VI-7 C-VI-5 Economics of Refuse Disposal Cost in $ffon C-VI-8 C-VI-6 Recommended Plan - Shredder Facility Unit Costs C-VI-13 C-Vl-7 Recommended Plan • Costs Per Ton for Refuse Disposal C-VI-16 C-VI-8 Summary - Personnel Requirements - Recommended & Alternate Plan No. 1 C-VI-18 C-VI-9 Breakdown of Personnel 'Requirements - Recommended Plan C-VI-20 C-VI-10 Recommended Plan - Capital Expenditures for Phased Solid Waste Management Program Serving Miami and Miami Beach - Shredding Rubbish & Bulk, Garbage & Trash C-VI-26 C-VI-11 Recommended Plan - Shredder Facility Capitalized Annual Cost C-VI-27 C-vi i WEGMAN • G R E E N L E A F / TELESCA M 1 1 1 LIST OF FIGURES PART C 0.11=1 Paper Consumption Increase Compared with Population Increase In the United States C-114 0..114 Plastics Consumption Increase Compared with Population Increase in the United States C-114 C-I1-3 Refuse Generation - Garbage & Trash, Rubbish & Bulk C-11-4 C-IV-1 Flowsheet for Concentrating Valuable Materials Contained in Incinerator Residue C- I V-26 C•IV-2 Refuse Volume & Weight Reduction Data for Alternate Disposal Methods C-IV-32 C-V-1 C-V-2 C-V-3 C-V-4 C-V-5 C-V-6 Recommended Plan - Planning Diagram - Phased Installation of Shredders Recommended Plan - Shredder Facilities General Plan - Shredder Facilities Sections 1-1 and 2-2 - Shredder Facilities General Plan Shredder Facility Sections 3-3,and 4-4 - Shredder Facilities C-V-6 C-V-10 C-V-12 C-V-13 C-V-14 C-V-15 C-V-7 Development of Open Space and Recreation Area by Means of Controlled Landfill C-V-16 C-V-8 Development of Open Space and Recreation Area by Means of Controlled Landfill C-V-17 C-V-9 Alternate Plan No. 1 - Planning Diagram - Phased Installation of Incinerators for Garbage & Trash, Shredders for Rubbish & Bulk C-V-19 C-V-10 Alternate Plan No. 1 - Site Plan C-V-22 C-V-11 Alternate Plan No. 1 - General Plan C-V-23 C-V-12 Alternate Plan No. 1 - Section 20-20 C-V-24 C-V-13 Alternate Plan No. 2 - Planning Diagram - Phased Installation of Incinerators for Garbage & Trash, Shredders & Incinerators for Rubbish & Bulk C-V-25 C-V-14 Virginia Key Area of Biscayne Bay C-V-30 C-V-15 Virginia Key Landfill Site - Depletion Rate C-V-31 c-viii WIEGMAN • G R E E N L E A F / TELESCA • r M A N M N M M List cif Figures = Part C Can't P C-Vi+1 Estimated Capital Requirements 1972-2000.. Recommended Plan and Alternate Plans 1 and 2 C-VI-3 C-VI-2 Shredder Facility - Transfer Packer/Transport Trailer Time and Motion Study C-VI.15 C-V1-3 Weekly Schedule for Shredder Operations and Maintenance C-V1-21 C-VI-4 Shredder Maintenance Schedule C-Vi-22 APPENDIX Arrangement No. I Arrangement No. II Arrangement No. III Arrangement No. IV Arrangement No. V Arrangement No. VI Arrangement No. VII Arrangement No. VHI Arrangement No. IX Arrangement No. X Arrangement No. XI Arrangement No. XIII Arrangement No. XIV Rubbish and Bulk Shredder Facility at Coconut Grove c-iX W EGMA N • GREENLEAF / TELESCA C-AP-1 C-AP-4 C-AP-7 C-AP-10 C-AP-13 C-AP-16 C-AP-18 C-AP-20 C-AP-22 C-AP-24 C-AP-26 C-AP-28 C-AP-30 C-AP-31 1 1 M r CHAPTER 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS A. Reduction and Disposal Facilities 1. 20th Street Incinerator a. General The principal Miami reduction facility is the incinerator at N.W. 20th Street and 12th Avenue. The plant was funded and designed in 1951 and constructed in 1953 to 1955. Its central location enables collection vehicles to reach it within 20 minutes from anywhere in Miarni. Across 12th Avenue are the City Munic- ipal Garage and Property Maintenance Division. The County Jackson Memorial Hospital is adjacent to the garage, and a Veterans Administration Hospital is south of the inciner- ator. Refuse brought to the incinerator is household and commercial garbage and trash with an average heating value of 5,300 BTU per Ib. Daily inciner- ation during fiscal 1970-1971 averaged 450 tons, received largely from Miami munic- ipal collection trucks plus private collectors and Miami Beach collection vehicles. The incinerator operated 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. b. Equipment Type and Capacity The incinerator contains 6 Nichols Monohearth fumaces, each rated at 150 tons per day, charged by 2 P&H cranes, each with 2 cubic yard buckets. Present capacity is 600 tons per day compared with the 900 ton rated capacity. Volume reduction is estimated to be about 75%. The residue quality is quite poor. One reason is that the maximum heat must be obtained from the refuse for steam production and then the grates are dumped and the fumaces are recharged. Sufficient time is not allowed for complete burnout. c. Description of System The flue connections from the 6 furnaces are arranged so that there are 2 groupings of 3 furnaces plus 2 flue -connected boilers. The center fumace of each group divides its gas flow between the 2 boilers. Isolating dampers are provided so that furnaces and boilers may be removed for servicing as required. The limited draft of the system prevents connecting 2 furnaces to one boiler, so that the center furnace must be down if a furnace on either side is out. Each boiler has a by-pass chamber, through which flue gases are diverted if boiler system pressures become excessive. An electrically C-I-1 INEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA M 1 1 operated water-cooled damper acting on a signal from the boiler steam pressure regu- lates the quantity of flue gases diverted around each boiler. The flue gases from the boiler and its respective by-pass chamber converge in an after -chamber where the gases are spray -cooled to 550°F before they pass into a 2-stage fly -ash eliminator chamber. The cleansed gases continue through a steam -driven induced draft fan and are then discharged into o 150 ft high chimney, one for each grouping. The chimney also takes the discharge of a second induced draft fan which induces the gas flow through each second boiler. Presently, the steam is used for incinerator plant steam auxiliary drives and hot water service and is also sold to the Jackson Memorial Hos- pital. In plant use is about 250,000 Ibs per 24 hours, about the same amount as is supplied to the hospital. Steam auxiliary drives are: 1 Boiler Feed Pump 1 Boiler Feed Pump Stand-by 4 Induced Draft Fans 6 Charging Gates 1 Deep Well Pump 1 Damper Recirculating Water Pump 1 Well Water Booster Pump 1 Well Water Booster Pump Stand-by The 15' x 50' fly -ash settling lagoons are 2 concrete rec- tangular basins separated by an elevated trough that discharges the plant fly -ash slurry to either basin. Each basin slopes from grade down to 10' below grade so that a front-end loader can enter it after it is dewatered, excavate the fly -ash and load a truck for transport to the landfill. The fly -ash slurry must flow back across the 50' length of basin before it reaches its overflow connection. Two wood planks are placed across the basin to intercept any floatables. The overflow water is mixed with well water for thermal pollution control and then pumped to Wagner Creek. There is no recircu- lation water system for the plant. d. Maintenance, Operation and Problems Water-cooled by-pass dampers are used to regulate the nt steam output. The usual method is incorporation of a condenser plant. trol system is still operative; however, the dampers do jam in their lotion of fly -ash. When this happens, one of 2 things occur: boiler p The original con guides due to the accumu (1) When stea valves, set at 255 psig, blow the excess steam to C- I-2 m generation exceeds demand, the safety atmosphere or; WEGNIAN • G R E E N LEAF / TELESCA (2) When steam generation is less than demand, pressure on the steam mains falls below its nominal rating of 250 psig and the quality of the steam supply service suffers. Each boiler is taken down once a year for a thorough 3-week inspection and cleaning of tubes. Tubes on each boiler are also air lanced on the fire side abou` 3 times a year. A 2 man crew does the air lancing and requires 3 days for each boiler. During operations, tubes are soot blown every 4 hours. Tube failures have been infrequent; some have been caused by the proximity of the soot blowers. The City does not contract for any plant maintenance. Maintenance required during the 3:00 PM - 11:00 PM and 11:00 PM - 7:00 AM shifts is done by the operating staff personnel; in emergencies regular maintenance staff personnel are brought in on overtime. The chimneys appear in good condition except for rusting on the steel cladding. The City ribbed the chimneys with angle iron placed verti- cally at about 18" centers around the perimeter and started to add steel plate between the angle iron ribs. After going about two thirds of the way up the chim- ney work was stopped because of exhaustion of money budgeted for this improvement. Stack effluents vary from a clear Tight steam plume to a dirty brawn -grey plume approximately No. 2 Ringelmann. The dirty appearance occurs when the furnaces are being charged with new refuse, at about 1 hour intervals. The stacks are visible in the Civic Center area and from the adjacent elevated expressways. Enclosed Pak-mor tank trucks are used to receive the residue as it is discharged. Ash gates close tightly after having their guides flushed clean. The refuse storage bin was reported to have a poor drainage system in that the drain troughs are located at the rear rather than the front of the bins. When wet refuse is tipped into the bins, free water is absorbed by the refuse as it travels from the front of the bin to the drain at the rear. Many of the rein- forcing rails hove been grappled out of the bin floor, although the rail system on the bin side walls are in relatively good condition. WEGMAN • C- t-3 GRE ENLEAF / TELESCA e. Completed Modifications The gates on the 6 charging hoppers have been relocated from below to above the charging floor to facilitate maintenance. Furnaces were originally equipped with mechanical stoking rabble arms, which did not work properly from the start, and were removed. The forced underfire and overfire air systems have been disconnected and all air for com- bustion is induced through the undergrate access doors which the City forces have enlarged. The above grate access doors have also been enlarged by the City. A retractable Coppus oil burner has been installed in the flue chamber between each furnace and boiler on an overhead monorail system, to facilitate handling. The burners are used only during rainy periods and hurricanes. The City rebuilt the spray chambers and installed fly -ash eliminators at the chamber outlet, similar to the Detrick -Jens design. A second bank of eliminators was added about 1970. Before their installation, the lagoons, where the trapped fly -ash is collected, had to be cleaned every 2 weeks; since their installation, the lagoons require cleaning every week, indicating improved clarifi- cation. f. Existing 20th Street Incinerator Staff TABLE C-1-1 1 Supervisor 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM Shift Only Operating Staff 1 Plant Operator 11 (Shift Foreman) 1 Plant Operator I (Boilermai) 2 Crane Operators 2 Residue Truck Operators 8 Stokers 1 Fireman on Furnace Floor 2 Gatemen on Charging Floor 1 Traffic Director on Tipping Floor 1 Ash Pusher 1 Tunnelman 20 Operators on 1 Shift 80 Operators for 4 Shifts (3 shifts per day, 7 days per week) C-1-4 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA Maintenance Staff (1 Shift, 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM 5 days/wk only) 1 Foreman 1 Electrician 1 Mechanic -Electrician 5 Mechanics 6 Mechanic Helpers 5 Laborer II (including 2 Lancemen) 1 Laborer I 3 Custodians 1 Stock Room Clerk 24 Maintenance Men Scalemen 1 During 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM Shift 1 During 3:00 PM - 11:00 PM Shift 2 Scalemen Relief Staff 1 Kant Operator II 1 Plant Operator I 3 Cranemen or Truckmen 5 Reliefmen Summary Supervisor 1 Operators 80 Maintenance 24 Scalemen 2 Relief 5 Total 112 g. Environmental Impact Air pollution tests were last performed on the stack effluent of the 20th Street Incinerator on September 9 and 11, 1970 by Applied Research Laboratories of Florida, Inc. which reported their conclusions on September 29, 1970, as follows: C-I-5 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA M 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 (1) The Pollution Control Ordinance, Chapter 24, Section 24-21, entitled "incinerator Burning" specifies the maximum discharge of particulate matter 1111011 not exceed 0.2 grains per Standard Cubic Foot of Dry Gas corrected to 50% excess air. (2) Particulate emissions of the incinerator was found to be 0.1285 groins per cubic foot, uncorrected for 50% excess air. (3) Particulate emission of the incinerator was found to be 0.2509 grains per cubic foot, corrected for 50% excess air. (4) The particulate matter was found to be mainly of material less than 10 microns particle size. (5) The air pollution control equipment, as installed and operated by the City of Miami, does not comply with the Metropolitan Dade County Code for allowable rate of emission based on Section 24.21, Dade County Pollution Control Ordinance. 2. Coconut Grove Incinerator a. General The Coconut Grove Incinerator was closed by court order in August 1970 as a result of a suit brought by the immediately adjacent City of Coral Gables, who complained that the stack effluent was causing air pollution in Coral Gables. The plant is in a residential area adjacent to schools, parks and single family homes. Access to the site is through narrow streets, bad for the safe movement of large collection and residue trucks. in addition to the vehicle noise outside the plant, residents have complained of the noise generated inside the plant at night. The plant was completed in 1960 on the approximate site of an old incinerator. The City has not applied for a variance to reopen the plant. The 1970-1971 budget listed 19 positions for the plant staff. b. Equipment There is a single 300 ton per day Volund furnace, with pro- vision in the building for another furnace of the same size. A P&H 5 ton crane with a 3 cubic yard grapple transfers the refuse from the bin to the charging hopper. Average daily burning was only about 260 tons; low sometimes because the supply C-I-6 rU EGMA N • GRE E NLEAF / TELESCA N A M 1 M M 1 M hod to remain sufficient at the 20th Street Incinerator to provide steam and conse- quently Coconut Grove often suffered for fuel. Burnout at the plant was reported to be excellent. c. Maintenance, Operations and Problems High maintenance areas included: (1) Refractory lining of the rotary kiln required constant patching, usually every Monday morning before starting up the furnace for the week. The plant operated 5 days a week. (2) There are 3 levels of grates; 2 drying and 1 ignition. All grates are reciprocating with about a 2 inch drop between grates in the direction of refuse flow, with about 8' between the second drying grate and the ignition grate. Many of the drying grates are broken and ignition grates are slagged and warped. Grates required replacement at about 6 month intervals. (3) Pins used to interlock the chain links on the residue conveyor tend to yield under Toad, causing the flights to run askew. (4) Water used in the fly -ash eliminator is recirculated. Considerable work was done to improve this system since the plant was started in 1960, but it still poses problems. Adjacent to the plant are two earth -lined lagoons that collect the overflow from the recirculated water system. The lagoons have overflowed from time to time causing flooding in the neighboring streets. Before the plant was shut down there were plans to line these lagoons with concrete and to effect a connection to a newly installed sewer line on Jefferson Street. d. Completed Modifications The air cooled alloy steel walls on the sides of the grates, furnished with the original equipment by international Incinerators Inc., failed a number of times and because of the high cost of replacement the City substituted castable refractory wall construction. Since then, there have been problems with slag building up on the walls. Screw conveyors furnished to move siftings were removed because of high maintenance. Siftings then were collected in hoppers below the grates and removed manually about once a shift. A forced draft fan provides underfire air to the ignition grates. This fan was originally connected to several side wall sleeves to provide C-i-7 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA overfre air in the ignition chamber but has since been disconnected. These sleeves are still intact and are presently arranged so that ambient air is induced into the ignition chamber by furnace draft. Butterfly dampers are provided in the sleeves to regulate the quantity of air so induced. A third bank of fly -ash eliminators was added after the first series of air pollution tests in 1963. Two banks are similar to the Detrick -Jens. The center bank consists of flat stainless steel plates arranged across the flue. Present air pollution statutes specify that discharge of particulate shall not exceed 0.2 grains, and hearings are currently underway to halve this to 0.1 grains. Air pollution tests were last performed on the stack effluent of the Coconut Grove Incinerator on July 23, 1970 by Applied Research Laboratories of Florida, Inc. Conclusions summarized in Appl ied's Report of July 28, 1970 are much like those given in their 20th Street test report except that results at Coconut Grove were not as good. Particulate emission was found to be 0.379 grains per cubic foot, corrected for excess air. 3. Virginia Key Disposal Site a. General The final disposal site for all municipally collected refuse in the City of Miami, as well as the material brought to the incinerator from other sources, is Virginia Key, about two miles from the mainland and about a mile south of Miami Beach, reached by the Rickenbacker Causeway where a toll of 54 per truck is charged by Dade County. The island, including the mangrove area, con- tains about 950 acres, with about 75% belonging to the City of Miami and the remainder to Dade County. The driving time to the disposal site is a maximum of 35 minutes from all areas of the City. The area that has been used to date as a disposal site is some 120 acres, filled to various depths. Average elevation is now about plus 10 above mean low water, Biscayne Bay. Duck Lake was excavated for fill for the sewage treatment plant and access rood. The treatment plant is immediately to the north of the landfill. Borings for the sewage plant showed 2 feet of muck underlain by 10 to 15 feet of sand, shells and marl, below which was white sandy limestone. The unused areas of the Key are mangrove and apparently most of the Key used to be covered with mangroves. C- I-8 WIEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA M b. Use of the site is limited to Miami trucks, which bring residue from the incinerator, as well as rubbish and bulk items such as sofas, beds and refrigerators. Junk automobiles also can be observed at the site. Working hours of the site crew are 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM. Residue however is dumped through- out the day and night. Incinerator residue is used to cover the yard trash and bulk items. Approximately 2-1/2 million tons of residue and rubbish have been deposited on Virginia Key. Equipment used to handle this material in- cludes five caterpillar type tractors, two pull off trucks for unloading rubbish trucks, one water truck, and one fire fighting truck. c. Fires The fire problem that has plagued the Virginia Key landfill in the past was due in part to the high exposed vertical face of material resulting from the end dump method of filling. Recent practice has been to regrode the so-called cliff areas. This procedure has served to reduce the incidence of wide -spread fires. Oper- ational emphasis on compaction of the landfill and the covering of the fill surface with fines, such as incinerator ash, has also served to reduce the fire hazard. Additional measures that may be undertaken to further mitigate against fires are as follows: 1. Daily spraying with insecticide to keep landfill surface damp, minimizing the possibility of surface fires, as well as controlling insect and dust problems. 2. Protective fences far security to prevent unauthorized persons from entering the site and starting fires. 3. Addition to present rubbish pit rolling equipment fleet of two fire -fighting tank trucks, with 2000 gallon tank and 400 gpm gasoline driven pump installed on each truck. The high ground water level on Virginia Key is suitable for the construction of several shallow wells, at scattered locations, for filling the trucks. d. Utility Availability Electric power and water services are available. Water is supplied in a 12 inch main, which is badly overloaded. Miami constructed a 36 inch water main to just east of the toll gate where the county takes over with a 12 inch line, supplying Virginia Key and Key Biscayne. Distribution on Key Biscayne is by C-I-9 WEGIMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESGA r r General Water Works which purchases the water from the County. There are also two force main sewer lines on Virginia Key; one from the Marine Stadium and the other from Key Biscayne, the latter belonging to General Water Works. There are no wells on Virginia Key. e. Security The disposal site is posted with no dumping signs. B. Units Served by Municipal Collection Tables B-1-1 and B-l-3 show pickups of garbage made by City collection forces, all of which goes to the 20th Street Incinerator for volume reduction. C. Zoning and Use of Land Near Disposal Facilities The zoning of the 20th Street Incinerator site is residential -office. Across 20th Street, to the north, zoning is light industrial. The Municipal Garage, across 12th Avenue is in a general commercial zone, while Jackson Memorial Hos- pital is zoned for medium density multiple. The Veterans Hospital is in a residential - office zone. The area immediately to the west of the incinerator site, along 20th Street, is zoned general commercial. The Coconut Grove incinerator is constructed on land zoned for two- family dwellings. Grand Avenue Park is adjacent to the west and a single-family zone is located about 400 feet to the south. The zoning is for two-family homes to the east and immediately to the north of the incinerator site. The corporate boundary between Miami and Coral Gables is about 250 feet north of the incinerator chimney. Although Virginia Key is shown in the zoning atlas there is no zoning indicated for the island. The Dade County General Land Use Master Plan designates the major portion of the City -owned area for recreational purposes. The classifica- tion of the waters surrounding Virginia Key is Class III, Recreation, Fish and Wildlife. D. Waste Quantities 1. General Approximately 345,000 tons of refuse were generated in the City in 1970, as discussed in Section A-I-H. C-I-10 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA M a M M M M A 1 1 2. Disposal Quantities Miami forces brought some 400 tpd to the 20th Street Incinerator in 1970. The 14,000 tons from Miami Beach and 8,600 tons of privately collected refuse brings the total incinerated to 164,000 tons in 1970, for an average of over 450 tons per day. Garbage and trash collected by municipal forces and private collectors in Miami alone was about 220,000 tons for 1970, or 600 tons per day, one and one-third times the amount which was actually incinerated. 3. Other Disposal Facilities Closing down of landfills outside the City could throw a large load on the incinerator. There are presently 24 solid waste facilities located within the County, including 4 incinerators. County Waste Division facilities include 3 land- fills, and the Northeast Incinerator. Present County regulations do not bar incorpor- ated areas of the County from disposing of their refuse at County facilities. E. General Management 1. Present Departmental Structure The Waste Disposal Division of the Deportment of Sanitation is responsible to the Assistant Director of Sanitation. The Division has two facilities for refuse reduction and one for disposal . There is a scheduled position for Division Superintendent but the position is not filled at present. Under the Superintendent there is a Plant Supervisor in charge of Incinerator #1 at 20th Street, a foreman in charge of Incinerator Maintenance and other foreman in charge of the Disposal Pit at Virginia Key. The department organization is shown in Fig. B-III-1. Incinerator #2 at Coconut Grove is closed, there are no funds in the department budget for it, but there is a watchman at the site during daylight hours. 2. Incinerator Status Management of the Disposal Division has had to contend with the uncertainty of the status of the 20th Street Incinerator. Discussions occurred through- out the 1960's on the possibility of the County taking over the operation of the Incinerator. With the increasing stringency of air pollution standards the question became not only who would operate the incinerator, but whether it could remain in operation. In 1970, however, Miami decided that the operation of a volume reduc- tion facility was a necessity and a public election authorized $7 million dollars in bonds for upgrading solid waste disposal practices in the City. C-I-11 INEGNIAN • GREENLEAF / T E L E S CA r r 1 M M M 0 1 1 M 1 3. Revenue Losses The Waste Disposal Division staff is sufficient in number to accom- plish the assigned tasks at both 20th Street and Virginia Key. Operational difficulties at 20th Street require the shutting down of furnaces from time to time, resulting in turning away private collectors and City of Miami Beach trucks, both of which would pay disposal fees. In addition, when the steam generation rate decreases to the point where it is all required for incinerator operation, the supply to Jackson Memorial Hospital must be shut down. The hospital is then inconvenienced as it must assign personnel to its own steam generating units to make up the deficiency. The lack of a continuous uninterrupted supply of steam to the hospital, along with occasional fly -ash emissions from the stacks, affects relations between the incinerator and Jackson Memorial Hospital and also the Veterans Hos- pital. The Veterans Administration has stated that if at the time of construction un- interrupted steam could have been assured, the hospital would have been built to receive it. 4. Disposal Fees In an effort to meet the increasing operating costs, the City increased the disposal fee in the 1968-69 budget from $2.50/ton to $4.50/ton for collectors domiciled outside of the City of Miami, but no increase was levied against City domiciled collectors. Actual operating costs are considerably higher, about $7.80 per ton in fiscal year 1970-71. F. Operating Costs and Amortization 1. Incinerator Operating costs consist of personal services, i.e., salaries and wages; contractual services such as power, water, City Garage, motor pool, printing, repairs and special services for furnace parts; commodities including chemicals, clothing, construction materials, fuel oil heating, lubricants, special supplies, repair parts and expendable tools and supplies; fixed and sundry costs which include road tolls; and equipment, both new and replacement. Annual operating and debt costs for 1969-70 was stated to be $9.44/ton for 20th Street, and $11.06/ton for Coconut Grove, with the average for the City being $9.71/ton. The $9.44 cost for 20th Street includes $1.80 for debt service, so the actual operating cost is $7.64 per ton. Adjusting Coconut Grove for $2.47 of debt service, the operating cost is $ 8.59 per ton. C-I-12 VIEGMAN • GREENLEAF / T E L E S CA r r M 2. Disposal Pit Operating costs for the Virginia Key disposal pit for handling, in fiscal year 1970-71, 100,000 tons of rubbish and the residue of 164,000 tons of garbage and trash was $1.E12 per ton. G. Revenues 1. Sources and Amounts Deportment of Sanitation revenues for the incinerator are obtained from several different sources as tabulated below for the year 1969-70: TABLE C-1-2 REVENUE Source Jackson Memorial Hospital Steam Sales Disposal Fees - City of Miami Beach Total Incinerator Amount Share $ 80,823 $ 80,823 121,045 121,045 • " - Incinerator 11 - Private Collectors = Domiciled in City 37.E 37,573 • • - Incinerator 02 - Private Collectors - Domiciled hi City (Incinerator now closed) 304 304 • - Incinerator #1 - Private Collectors - Domiciled Outside City 4,512 4,512 Lot Clearing 2,172 Lot Clearing - Administrative Cost 2,340 Excess Collection 126,050 31,512 Salvage 325 325 Miscellaneous - Scale Fees 996 996 Trash Can Advertising 834 Interest on Investments 10,000 C-t-13 41111. Total $386,974 $277,090 W EGMA N • G RE E NLEAF / TE LESCA 2. Revenue Impact Jackson Memorial Hospital's payment of $80,000 in a year for steam lowers the overall cost per ton by about $0.50. The $121,000 paid by Miami Beach came to almost 10% of the operating budget, excluding debt service. The fee for the collection of excess cans does not pay for itself. Assuming 50 cans for 1 ton of refuse, the fee at $0.35 per can would be $17.50. Allowing one-fourth this amount as a credit to incineration (based on incinerator allocation in total budget), the revenue for incineration would only be about $4.35/ton. if, however, the incinerator is not working at capacity due to an insufficient amount of refuse being delivered, the collection of the excess cans is beneficial since it helps to bring down the overall cost per ton of incineration. Revenue obtained from private collectors domiciled in the City was $37,573 in 1969-70. The estimated revenue from this source for 1970-71 is $20,489. This decreased because just one incinerator is open and private collec- tors con only be accepted on an intermittent basis due to the smaller burning capacity, which is further reduced by equipment shutdowns for maintenance and repair. H. Tax Support Since revenue from fees collected supplies only about 20% of the total budgeted for the incinerator, the Department of Sanitation must turn to the City's General Fund for support. Approximately 3.5 mills of the total tax collection is budgeted to the Department of Sanitation. The incinerator received 80% of its operating funds from this source. C-I-14 WIEGMAN • G R E E N L E A F / TELESCA M N M M 1 • r • CHAPTER 1 I - FUTURE CONDITIONS A. Increases in Population and Per Capita Generation of Refuse Miami population and the refuse generated per capita continue to grow, and the amount of vacant land within the City is decreasing rapidly. Table A4-1 shows 1970 population and projections through year 1990, Table A-I-3 shows the refuse that will be generated annually within those time limits. Fig. C-II-1 shows the sharp increase in the use of paper and paper products over recent years. The 5 year trend only shows a slight slackening, reflecting 1970-71 economic conditions. The increase in the use of paper products is exceeded by that for plastics, Fig. C-I I-2. The steepness of the curves is one reason why many incinerators are working over capacity, so that products are not being thoroughly burned, decreasing the residue quality, and causing air pollution. Unburned paper decomposes slowly, particularly when wet, and plastics generally do not degrade. Figure C-11-3 projects daily refuse quantities for Miami and Miami Beach to the year 2000. B. Decrease in Land Availability Land available for solid waste disposal is decreasing for obvious reasons, such as the increase in population and the reserving of land for future recreational uses. Citizens dislike having a waste disposal facility nearby. Areas previously considered unusable except for such as solid waste disposal are now being preserved in their unusable state. Land which is environmentally and geographically desirable makes it too valuable for solid waste disposal. Suitable land for solid waste service is further limited by the high water table in South Florida. The cost to improve such land to the point where it can be safely used is high. A membrane barrier and leachate treatment system and required fill results in the ready -to -use cost of the land being several times the initial land purchase cost. C. Public Attitudes 1. Environmental Protection People need to be convinced that landfill operations, if properly engi- neered and financed, can proceed without any damage to the environment. Fears are unwarranted that the groundwater must become polluted by leachate, nearby streams con- taminated and pollutants carried into other larger streams and perhaps harbors. The public image of landfills unfortunately usually includes fires, air pollution fears, and a general dislike of the unsightliness of the operation. C-II-1 WEGMAN • G R E E N L E A F / TELESCA M 1 r M 1 A A A 13 12 1I 100 91 a, 0 81 W z 6� ;Lc'5 224 a 3 2 1 0 MI 1950 ''r' -558 i11ii PIPET CONSOMME! ) 1950 - 29,012,144 TONS 1960 — 39,138,488 TONS ' 53. ) 1965 — 49,070,834 TONS 1970c - 57,024,000 TONS 1971 (E) - 57,703,000 TONS Ma 1E1E11 ` P1W C1111111111 4" "••_0 PIIIIIIIII 05,1: P11111 111 IIII11 ) D 433 A f .�,.. 403�+• . Co‘ .+ 00.. , • 6. 0,• r 1954 195 1966 PAPEI CINSIMPTIOI INCREASE COMPARED WITH POPILATION INCREASE IN TIE INITED STATES 1111 $IIICE — 1MEIIi11 PIPET 11111111E C— I I-2 1111111 1. /EIMII �1. TIE, nhIIIl�i 111 !Iris 111 ilrt 11111 p un FIGURE C•il-Il 11111 PLI$Il$$ g1iIMPtl11 00►---- 1950 — 1.075,259 TONS 1960 — 3,071,500 rows 750 1965 — 5,841,000 TONS 19701r1- 9,34 ')00 rows 197 I tea— IQ,100,000 TONS 1E1E11 —550 500 4'.i0 400 35O 300 250 200 150► 100 50� P1111111 11111�11111 P111111111 �11111 111 111111 • 3 01111101111111.1011 • 43 011111111111111.1101 69 • 91 i 11111111111. 98 WIN 0 m m 11 1950 1954 19 1992 1946 10004 Pl1ii•I11 11111111111 1111111E 11 l'11 E1 1111 PIPILIT111 11111111 II 11 E 1111 E1 1111E1 111111NIE-t11$ flf► I1 In MP *11711, 11I. MEIlMMI 1. MIM11 11.111..1111111n nn 11/ 101.111 11M 11111 C- I I-3 FIGURE C-IK- 2 3300 3000 2700 2400 2*0 ▪ a00 0 a ▪ ea 100 S00 300 0 r I i ibto •70 DI7! 73110 NOS N30 YEAR • MAIM S MIAMI SEACM MIAMI ALOPM GARBAGE a TRASH N1s 2000 3300 3000 2100 2400 loco SMOO a ▪ teoo s 1200 900 O00 300 0 1170 o s MO NM WO Nis YEAR MIAMI S MIAMI RAM MIAMI owe RUBBISH & BULK ✓✓" #0„ - r r M i s Mtoo A111+IN��r 2000 3D00 3000 2100 2000 2M0 S moo a ro00 A H 1200 11100 300 •• Sr eg to 0 $B-#- s i / i . i 1 N70 N7s *20 112s YEAR MIAM • MINN N.ACN MIAMI weir COMBINED &MADE 0 TRASH, RUBBISH BI BULK ORS 21,1011120 MOMS SOLID ISM 'SMARMS? ST1 MUM GENEMTION 0110 MSS 2000 SMSASE STRAW. RUMOR $ Milt I_ 5 MOW M! Ilt INVOINIV MANY MORS C'-1!- 2 M • M M M M 2. Resource Recovery and Recycling Municipalities are encouraging the participation of citizens in popular resource recovery campaigns and industry is providing some financial rewards. The present scale of resource recovery, however, Is small compared to the overall solid waste disposal problems. Items currently being recovered, or recycled, include newspapers, aluminum cans, and glass. Care must be taken that magazines or glossy paper, do not get mixed in with the regular newsprint. The householder may experience difficulty in selecting aluminum cans from steel cans, or determining whether aluminum cans have steel tops and bottoms. in the case of glass, bottles must be segregated by color, they must be clean and no metal rings can be left on them. Householders must conform with standards imposed by industry for collection of products for recycling. The length of time over which the public will observe suck rules cannot be predicted. The public generally will not pursue for long anything that becomes inconvenient or uneconomical. Further discussion of resource recovery is in Owpter iV. 3. Neighborhood Acceptance The acceptance of a reduction facility in a residential neighborhood is obviously difficult, as witness Coconut Grove. The many one -family homes, the proximity of 2 schools, and the resulting presence of many children on the existing narrow streets in juxtaposition with a reduction facility with its attendant heavy truck traffic creates dangerous conditions. The 20th Street Incinerator is in a much better location, in an area that contains light industry, commercial enterprises, City garage facilities and hospitals. The hospitals are air conditioned, of substantial construction, providing acoustical isolation for interior areas. 4. Cost Impact The Sanitation Department hod been getting the returns from approximately 3.5 mills of taxation, or almost one fourth of the total amount collected by the City. Present mill rate is approximately 14.75 per thousand dollars of assessed valuation, while the new limit is 10.00 per thousand dollars. The 14.75 rate includes 2.23 mills for exempt municipal bonds, which may be added on to the 10.00 mills, producing a total rate of 12.23 mills, a decrease of about 18%. An 18%decrease in the budget allowance of the Department of Sani- tation, would approximately equal the total amount budgeted for the operation of the incine- rator. One example of changing cost impacts is that in the 1950's less than 5 to 10%of the total cost of an incinerator in the United States was for air pollution control. Because of the greater potential for air pollution in the disposal of today's wastes, coupled with the public's demand for a degree of air pollution control never previously contemplated, the cost of air pollution control on a steam producing incinerator is now in the 30% range. C-11-5 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA M M M M A M M This comes about because the simple wire screen at the top of the chimney which served the purpose of trapping some larger pieces of char until the screen burned out, is a 1950 concept now completely rejected by the public. As a result, developing techniques have provided bag filters, electrostatic precipitators, combined scrubbers and cyclones and conditioning towers. The use of these systems is needed to comply with present standards. Attempts are presently being made to slow down construction cost increases but there is no assurance on effectiveness of such efforts. Costs have increased approximately 6096 in the last 5 years, rising 14.8% in the past 12 months. It seems certain that costs will continue to rise for the next 5 years. The need for a bond issue supplementing the seven million dollar issue presently authorized is discussed later. D. Possibilities for Pollution Control at Existing Incinerators Interim Improvement at 20th St. The Recommended Plan provides for the 20th Street Incinerator to be phased out in 1976. For the interim, the plan provides for remedial action to lower air pollution bye modulated overfire air jet system for each of the existing furnaces. The overfire air jet system is intended to reduce the particulate matter in the gas stream leaving the furnace by providing sufficient combustion air and creating turbulence in the furnace overfire air zone, thereby burning off smoke and other incomplete products of combustion that would otherwise escape to the stack. In analyzing the results of the air pollution tests, it is noted that the plant failed to meet the current Dade County code requirement of 0.2 grains by about 30%. The particulate matter was mainly of material less than 10 microns particle size. Recent experience, specifically at the Dade County North- east incinerator, indicates that much of the pollutant that manifests itself as particulate matter, as measured by the testing agency, is in the gaseous state as it passes through the furnace train and fly -ash arrestor equipment. Thus, at Dade County, although a highly efficient electrostatic precipitator is employed there to trap fly -ash, tests per- formed at this plant indicate that gaseous pollutants are not stopped. The fly -ash arrestor equipment at the 20th Street incinerator consists of a series of water -filled vertical ducts, with overflow water cascading down the sides of the ducts which are arranged to baffle the flow of flue gas. This system is effec- tive in trapping the solid fraction of the pollutants in the gas stream but, like the electro- static precipitator, does little in arresting the pollutants in the gaseous state and further- more has difficulty in stopping sub -micron size particulate matter such as smoke. C-11-6 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA M N Some gaseous pollutants and smote are amenable to further coma- bustlon if supplied with sufficient air and kept turbulent while still in a zone of elevated temperature, such as above the refuse bed in the furnace. Overfire air jets can supply this alt. Cost of the overfire air jet system is modest, estimated at $15,000 for the 6 furnaces, assuming the installation work will be done by plant main- tenance personnel during routine scheduled furnace outages. This interim improvement will enhance the capability of the furnaces for burning of additional pollutants within the furnace. It will provide benefit by reducing stack emission visibility impact. 2. Air Pollution Control at Coconut Grove The furnace at Coconut Grove is the rotary kiln type, which achieves good burnout of residue but requires especially good defenses downstream against fly -ash emissions. installation of air pollution control equipment to correct fly -ash emissions to within code limits on the existing incinerator would cost about $2,000,000. However, were the air pollution problem resolved, disadvantages inherent in the plant, e.g. high maintenance, noise, water problems, truck traffic obstacles and neighborhood opposition, would still remain to be overcome. On balance the disadvantages outweigh the benefits of attempting upgrading and restoration to service. E. New Methods of Volume Reduction Several new methods of solid waste volume reduction are in pilot stages. Due to the sophistication the costs are high, and because they are all in the pilot stages, the results are unproven for acceptance by a municipality. While pilot plants can be run on a selective basis (using whatever type of refuse is desired and operating primarily only if it is desired to gain information, or to demonstrate the plant) a municipality is faced with a steady, never ending stream of heterogeneous solid waste. When volumes approach 1000 tons/day, the reduction facility must be able to handle everything that is carried by the refuse trucks. There is no time or room for extracting objects that might cause difficulty. Among the systems that do show promise are pyrolysis, fluidized bed incineration and slagging incineration. Each of these methods and others are discussed in Chapter IV. Shredding and milling is compatible with most methods of solid waste disposal. A shredding and milling facility is a requirement in pyrolysis systems and shredded material can be used for fluidized bed incineration and also for slagging incineration. Shredding and milling is a logical first step for the incorporation of solid waste reduction systems of the future. C- I I-7 WEGMAN • G R E E N L E A F / TELESGA M r N N M M 1 r 1 t 1 i It is probable that additional reduction systems will be developed, since the growth of a problem stimulates the growth of the research for the problem solution. It is possible, of course, that conventional high -quality incineration will turn out to be the method of the future, as it has been in the past. Shredding and milling, once again, is a logical step in that process. With land availability approaching a critical state, however, the volume reduction obtainable from a shredding and milling system, particularly from bulky wastes, is a credit to the system on both financial and environmental bases. The 95% volume reduction which can be obtained by incineration materially reduces capital investment required for land purchase and land improvement, especially in areas where the ground water must be carefully protected. The actual capital and opera- ting costs for the innovative methods of volume reduction currently being developed cannot be accurately predicted, however. In particular, the reliability portion of the operating costs are difficult to forecast for a system using new equipment and new methods on such a heterogeneous material as solid waste. F. Future Jurisdiction 1. Federal agencies will have a primary impact in setting standards and guidelines in solid waste systems. The State will probably increasingly exercise direct regulatory controls. Hopefully both Federal and State agencies will work toward helping cities financially, in addition to regulation. A more complete discussion of agency juris- diction will be found in Chapter V. G. Private Collectors Control of private collectors may become a very important part of solid waste management in Miami. Approximately 25% of the total refuse generated in the City is picked up by private collectors, and only 10% of this was brought to the Miami incinerator in 1970. The Future reduction facility, however, must be sized to handle all refuse generated within the City. A tightening up of landfill controls could force the closing of disposal sites to which private collectors bring Miami solid wastes. It would, of course, be most beneficial for planning and revenue if private collectors picking up within the City were to bring their material to the City reduction facility. In the future the private collectors might clamor to use the City facilities as close -in landfills are depleted, haul distances become longer and controls become more stringent. W EGNIAN • C-I I-8 GRENLEAF / T E L E S CA M M N N 1 1 i A CHAPTER 111 POLLUTION SOURCES IN SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL A. Air Pollution Inventory Tables 01114 and C411-2 express numerically the overall air pollution per- formance of a refuse disposal system employing shredders for comparison with a disposal system where refuse is processed by modern 'best state of the are incineration. The incinerators ore designed for efficient burnout of oil combustion products within the furnace, and ore provided with electrostatic precipitators having collection efficiencies in the order of 97.9% Performance of the precipitators to specification requirements is assured by the provision of conditioning towers, one upstream of each precipitator. The precipitators will not only operate to better the new Federal Standard of 0.08 groins per scf of dry gas corrected to 12% CO2 by a considerable margin, but in addition will provide on optically clear stack. Known pollutants that may be generated in measurable quantity in the various steps of each refuse disposal system are accounted for, except that methane gas emissions have not been measured. When comparison is made with pollution resulting from a shredder facility processing the same quantity of refuse, the incinerator disposal system places second, except for the methane gas factor. information sources used in developing the data are U.S. Deportment of Health, Education & Welfare 'Rapid Survey Technique for Estimoting Corwnunity Air Pollution Emissions', U.S. Air Pollution Control Office test data on the Dade County Northeast Incinerator and Roy F. Weston inc. Air Pollution test data on New York City S. W. Brooklyn incinerator. The tatter two sources were used to determine sulphur dioxide and HCi emissions, respectively for the incineration of refuse. Pollution caused by the power company in generating required electricity for the processing facilities and that due to road traffic needed to transport the shredded refuse or residue to landfill in addition to operation of crawler equipment at the landfill are included in the tabulations. Peripheral dust from tire and broke wear, and from pavement surfaces are not known to be significant. In Table C-111-2, credit for reduced pollution is made for the waste heat generation of 500 tons of steam as a by-product of the incineration process. The sale of this quantity of steam to hospitals and other civic center buildings in the vicinity prevents the pollution that would otherwise be caused by the burning of No. 2 fuel oil to produce the equivalent heat units. 500 tons of steam approximates the daily require- ments of potential customers for the steam as determined in Our November, 1971 steam market survey. The 1000 tons of refuse, used os o starting point in determining corresponding pollution levels in the tables approximates the current rate of refuse generation for Miami and Miami Beach. Therefore the pollution levels given in the tables are roughly those that may be expected to be generated in each day's activity of refuse disposal. C-11f-1 WEGMAN • GRE ENLEAF / TELESCA POLLUTANTS Sulphur Dioxide Oxides of Nitrogen Hydrocarbons Carbon Monoxide Organics Particulates Methane in Landfill TABLE POLLUTION INVENTORY 1000 TONS SHREDDED REFUSE TO LANDFILL EMISSION INLB. Shredder Hauling Landfill Landfill Operation Operation Operation Generation (At Power Source) 118 19 14 - 151 89 107 77 273 87 62 - 149 19 20 14 14 16 53 38 Totals 223 305 219 *No Available Authoritative Basis for Estimate Totals 33 107 747 1111 i 111 POLLUTANTS Sulphur Dioxide Oxides of Nitrogen n Hydrocarbons Carbon Monoxide Organics Particulates HCL Methane in Landfill - 1111 U ill TABLE C-III-2 POLLUTION INVENTORY 1000 TONS REFUSE INCINERATED, 100 TONS RESIDUE TO LANDFILL Incinerator ration (At Pwr Stac (Source) (Effluent) 199 143 1500 300 26 750 2300 TOTALS 368 4850 EMISSION IN LB. Hauling Landfill Operation Operation 6 5 33 26 29 21 10 7 7 5 18 13 103 Landfill Generation *No Available Authoritative Basis for Estimate Credit for Sate of 500 Tons of Totals Waste Heat Steam 1710 502 50 17 12 807 2300 5398 -788 -596. -103 -1487 Net Emission in Lb. 922 -94 50 17 12 704 2300 * 3911 B. Water Pollution Water pollution and quality control Is under scrutiny by federal, state and county agencies, even affecting waterfront construction. This waterfront control includes not only the composition of the fill material that is placed in the water, but the trend is toward prohibition of the placing of any material below the mean high water mark. Until recently permission could be obtained to place fill out to the bulkhead lines. Recent regulations modifying the Refuse Act of 1899, require the Corps of Engineers to now consult with both the Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, before issuing a permit for dredging and filling operations. Plant outfolls into streams which flow to navigable waterways, also require a Corps of Engi- neers permit, contingent upon State issuance of a permit. Refuse, piled on the bank of a stream, which may be washed into navigable waterways is also subject to the Refuse Act requirements. The Water Pollution Code of the State of Florida specifies the minimum quality standards generally and then for each classification of water, 1 (public water supply) through V (navigation, utility and industrial use water). The Dade County Code does not specify quantities in its description of pollu- tion or nuisances. It does say, however, that introduction of matter or deleterious sub- stances into surface or underground water, or tidal salt water, to the extent that they are injurious to human, plant, animal, fish or aquatic life or interfere with enjoyment or business, constitutes water pollution. This is also defined under the County Code as a nuisance. The Dade County Code has created and established the office and position of Pollution Control Officer. In addition to enforcing the provisions of the Dade County Code relating to pollution control, the Pollution Control Officer is also responsible for the enforcement of state air and water pollution control regulations. The intent of the Dade County Code is to implement and assist the enforcement of the State Air and Water Pollution Codes. C-III-4 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA CHAPTER IV - ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATE DISPOSAL METHODS A. Processing and Disposal Alternatives These are the 14 possible methods of disposing of raw refuse: 1. Open Dumping Open dumps are just what the name implies, the placing of all refuse on the land with minimum interest in the environment. It has long been con- sidered obsolete, it has a high potential for rat development, odors and fires. Of all methods of refuse disposal it also consumes the largest amount of land and offers the greatest threat to the environment. Open dumping is not an approved method of refuse disposal in Florida. Accordingly, it is unsuitable for the City of Miami. 2. Ocean Disposal Ocean disposal involves taking refuse to sea and dumping it. The decrease in availability of land and the vastness of the oceans give this method some appeal to harried municipalities. The Marine Protection Act of 1971, presently in Congress, however, would stop ocean dumping of solid waste as soon as possible. Practically all conservationists and environmentalists believe that the ocean should not be used for any waste discharge. Floatables would foul beaches, as New York City refuse did to New Jersey beaches prior to a 1935 permanent injunc- tion by the U.S. Supreme Court prohibiting the city from ocean disposal of refuse. Marine ecology might also be adversely affected by ocean disposal. Actually, not enough is known, at the present time, of the probable impact of wastes on the oceans, and therefore ocean disposal cannot be recommended, even if permitted. 3. Sanitary Landfill The sanitary landfill concept was developed during World War II when disposal systems had to be devised for safely disposing of huge amounts of wastes from troop training areas and camps. It was a least -cost attack on the disposal prob- lem. If very carefully operated and maintained, a sanitary landfill can improve land for some purposes such as parks and recreational areas, golf courses and open space. Basically for a landfill to be classed "sanitary" it must meet the following minimum criteria: thin layers. a. Wastes must be spread and compacted over a limited face in C-IV-1 WEGNIAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA b. The wastes must be covered daily with a minimum of six inches of clean earth, compacted in place after covering. c . The operation must be carefully controlled in a manner which minimizes odors, nuisances, blowing papers, vectors, flies, and potential water pol I ut ion Sanitary Iandfilling as a method of disposal has certain important advantages and disadvantages. These are listed in Table C-IV-1. C-IV-2 W EGPAA N • GREENLEAF / TELESCA h M M M N M A t 1 TABLE C-IV-1 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF SANITARY LANDFILLING Advantages Where land is available and suitable for use, sanitary landfill is an econom- ical method of solid waste disposal. Initial investment is low, and operat- ing costs are minimal compared with other methods. A well designed and efficiently oper- ated sanitary landfill can meet public health standards. A sanitary landfill can be put into operation in a short period of time, can receive all types of solid wastes, and is flexible with regard to increas- ing capacity for emergency conditions Integrated with an open space, park and recreation program, a sanitary landfill after completion can provide land reclamation and property im- provement for parks, playgrounds, etc. Disadvantages Sanitary landfills require large amounts of land area, frequently unattainable in suburban areas. Inclement weather can hamper operations drastically. If not properly operated and funded, a sanitary landfill may quickly degenerate into an open dump. Defects in operations, unfortunately, are not immediately apparent. Location near residential areas or residen- tial growth adjacent to the site can result in growing public opposition and abandon- . ment. The completed fill has limited use. Special costly design and construction must be utilized for buildings constructed on landfills due to settlement and gas production factors. The completed fill will settle requiring periodic maintenance, and explosive de- composition gas can become a hazard or nuisance problem. Contamination of groundwater can occur unless a leachate barrier is used. Recovery of potentially valuable material is practically eliminated when wastes are buried and covered. C-IV-3 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA Advantages TABLE C-IV-1 (cont'd) Disadvantages Unattractive working conditions can create management difficulties in main- taining high quality operation. Rats and other nuisances may breed and multiply in voids in the fill caused by failure to compact and in bridging resulting from bulky wastes such as logs, sofas and the like. 4. Shredding and Milting Shredding and milling is a processing technique which hos recently proven effective. It is a dependable means for reducing and requirements in sanitary landfills and for changing refuse characteristics, thus reducing cover requirements, pollution potential, and differential settling. A detailed listing of the advantages and disadvantages of shredding and milting is given in Table C-IV-2. Shredders, crushers, grinders, and mills are interchangeable words for essentially the same process. Most refuse grinding has been performed by machines developed for a specific type of homogeneous material such as coal, rock, and scrap metal . Conversionof these machines for processing heterogeneous materials such as refuse was a temporary technological barrier to their extensive use in the solid waste Id. However, since almost every new advancement in refuse processing and dis- uires particle size reduction and homogeneity of input, work on shredding increased. The result is o new generation of machines capable of effec- these functions. fie pawl has greatly tively performin Efficient shredding is the first step in a majority of developing refuse processes, including many recycling schemes. It is also a required step in pro- posed solid waste transport schemes which utilize gravity flow and pressure pipe sys- tems. More uniform smaller particle sizes enable better compaction and higher densities for such operations as transfer stations, baling plants, and sanitary landfills. As a pre-processing technique in c shredding can improve the combustion process by increasing available for rapid oxidation. The input feed material becomes refuse and hos o more constant Btu value. This leads to a more comp lower residue volumes, improved operation, and o more standardized des C-iV-4 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF/ TELESCA bination with incineration, the refuse surface area less variable than raw lete burnout, n. M M M TABLE C-IV-2 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF SHREDDING AND MILLING Advantages Higher densities allow landfill savings of 30 to 50 percent, compared with sanitary landfills. Less cover material is required. Homogeneity permits easier spreading, minimizing spreading and compacting machine requirements. Milled material compacts more easily, permits shaping and contouring for ultimate use purposes. Differential settlement is minimized through elimination of voids. Nesting places are reduced radically, compared with older forms of landfilling. Milled refuse has little or no odor and overcomes rat, fly, and vector problems. Nuisances, such as blowing paper and fires, are minimized and more easily control led . Has the capability of being incorporated into advanced future disposal or recovery systems. Milled refuse can be used for haul road material to the controlled landfill . Eight feet supports a trailer weighing over 70,000 pounds. WEGMAN • Disadvantages More costly than conventional sanitary landfill. As in sanitary landfill an impermeable membrane barrier is needed to prevent leachate contamination of groundwater. Plant design should provide critical equipment backup for operational dependability . There is a relatively high maintenance factor on the shredders. C-IV-5 GRE E N LE A F / TELESCA Advantages TABLE CwIVi2 (cont'd) Disadvantages Overall downtime for Landfill equipment repairs and maintenance is lessened. Shredded wastes can be magnetically separated and screened to recover potentially valuable material as part of the shredding operation. Bulk refuse items can be processed with ordinary refuse. The landfill operation is more sightly and decomposition more rapid. The environmental effects of the elimination of the cover require- ment on shredded landfills are currently being observed in Madison, Wisconsin and Pompano Beach, Florida. It is too early to say whether or not satisfactory results are being obtained. Shredding equipment takes several forms. A hammermill with either fixed or free swinging hammers throws the incoming material against a breaker plate, where a series of crushing, shearing and tearing actions occur. Impact mills use a rotating mandrel to drive the material against an impact plate. Knife hogs use a rotating mandrel with knife-edge blades to shave away pieces of the incoming objects. In some units a further reduction takes place by grinding against an outlet grating. Shredding and milling, coupled with a membrane barrier for leachate protection, provides an interim step between sanitary landfill and incinera- tion, considering economic and environmental factors, provided the land is available. If land is available and accessible, and considering public attitudes towards incineration and large capital costs, shredding and milling is a viable modem solution to the refuse reduction problem. C-IV-6 WEGNIAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA M 5. Compaction and Baling Various forms of compaction and baling systems are in use in the United Skates. A plant at San Diego, California, is reported to be processing i50 tons per day of shredded scI id waste to a density up to ablaut 60 lbs. per au . ft. There is also a new plant in St. Paul , Minn. arrd one in Cambridge, Mass. The latter plant was recently destroyed by Rre, but the owners say it will be rebuilt. Unanswered questions relate to the gases of decomposition which would be generated within the baled unit and what the future effect of these confrned gases may be. When refuse moisture content reaches 30% compaction is not effective. The land requirements for compaction and baling are similar though somewhat less than, those for shredding and milling. However, there is the uncertainty of behavior of the highly compacted refuse over a Icing period. Giving land requirements and environmental factors the necessary weight, compaction and baling of raw refuse by itself or as at adjunct to shredding and milling has not yet been proven to be a satisfactory means of disposal . 6. Composting Composting of refuse can be defined as "the aerobic, thermophilic degradation of putrescible material in refuse by micro-organisms". Modern compost- ing had its beginning in the 1930's when attempts were mode to mechanize and accelerate the aerobic decomposition process. European plants in Holland and Denmark were among the first composting facilities during that decade. Composting was introduced in the United States as the Frazer Process in 1949. All composting operations involve three steps refuse preparation, stabilization, and product up-groding. Preparation includes receiving, sorting, salvaging, grinding, and the addition of moisture and nitrogen . Stabilization occurs through aerobic digestion in either open windrows or mechanical digesters. Upgrad- ing involves grinding, enrichment, granulation, shipment and marketing. Composting in the United States has been tried in many places us- ing different concepts. Table C-IV-3, compiled by the Environmental Protection Agency, lists recent municipal plants. The prospects for successful composting operations in the U.S. have been primarily hampered by two factors; (1) composting at best represents only a par- tial answer to the disposal problem, and (2) the economics have always been tied to sale of the end product. The listing of advantages and didvantages of composting shown in Table C-IV-4 summarizes the conclusions of researchers aver the last 20 years. WEGMAN • C-iV-7 GE E N LE A F J TELESCA TABLE C-IV .3 COMPOSTING PLANTS IN THE UNITED STATES Location Altoona, Pa. Boulder, Colo. Gainesville, Fla. Houston, Texas Houston, Texas Johnson City, Tenn. Largo, Fla. Norman, Okla. Mobile, Ala. New York, N.Y. Phoenix, Ariz. Sacramento Co., Calif. San Juan, P.R. Springfield, Mass. St. Petersburg, Fla. WiIIiamston, Mich. Process Fairfield Windrow Metrowaste Metrowaste Snel I Windrow Metrowaste Naturizer Windrow Varro Dano Dano Fairfield Frazer Naturizer Riker Capacity Type of tpd Waste 45 Garbage & paper 100 Mixed Refuse 150 Mixed Refuse Digested Sludge 360 Mixed Refuse Raw Sludge 300 Mixed Refuse 52 Mixed Refuse Raw Sludge 50 Mixed Refuse Digested Sludge 35 Mixed Refuse 300 Mixed Refuse Digested Sludge 150 Mixed Refuse 300 Mixed Refuse 40 Mixed Refuse 150 Mixed Refuse 30 Garbage 105 Mixed Refuse 4 Garbage Raw Sludge Present Status Operating Intermittent Operation Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Intermittent Operation Intermittent Operation Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Wilmington, Ohio Windrow 20 Mixed Refuse Closed C-IV-8 N M M TABLE C-IVr4 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF COMPOSTING Advantages Windrow composting in the open is a simple procedure. Simple turning of the windrow main- tains needed aeration. The process is applicable to animal manures, cannery wastes and other organic refuse. Finished compost can be used as an organic soil conditioner. Landfill volume requirements can be decreased by composting and com- pacting the organic fraction of refuse. Composting can be adopted to separa- tion and processing systems for resource recovery. Disadvantages No adequate Tong -range market for compost exists. Separation using hand labor is costly and undesirable. Careless plant operation and open storage of compost has caused public objection to odors and aesthetics. Composting is only effective on organic refuse and represents only a partial answer for solid waste disposal. Composting as a solid waste processing and disposal alternative appears to have poor prospects for future systems either alone or as part of a total re- covery system. The recovery of organic materials is consistent with preservation of natural resources, however, and if used by the agricultural industry in the future, the market problem may be solved. Although composting is one of the oldest solid waste management practices, its full use has still to be realized. The almost uniform record of failure of compost plants in the United States, coupled with the lessening percentage of food waste in refuse, indicates little promise of this system as a viable method for municipal refuse disposal in Miami. C-IV-9 WIEGMAN • GREENLEAF / T E L E S CA M M M 7. Wet Fiber Extraction A system designed to extract fibers from waste paper as pulp is operating in Franklin, Ohio. This process, the Hydrasposal-Fibreclaim System, begins with incoming refuse being fed by conveyor from a storage hopper. The ma- terial is ground in a Hydropulper cohprised of a tank, water, pulping rotor and an extraction plate with one half inch holes. Heavy inorganic materials are removed by a bucket elevator. The pulped material passes through a liquid cyclone to separate heavy materials such as dirt, broken glass, small bits of metal, and bone. The remaining organic material is progressively passed through a series of screens to concentrate the paper fiber. One of the screening operations removes fine fiber and ground food waste from the more valuable long fiber. Centrifugal cleaners remove residual heavy dirt and odd -shaped particles of organic material from the long fiber fraction. From the cleaning step, the reclaimed paper fiber is thickened for transport to receiving mills. If the customer's mill requires further purification, the fiber may be given a chemical treatment to dissolve small particles of vegetable matter (leaves, grass and wood). Combustible organic matter rejected in early stages of the system is oxidized in a fluid bed incinerator following removal of inorganics from the slurry and dewatering. A wet venturi scrubber is planned for use in air pollution control. The demonstration plant in Franklin is designed for 168 tons of refuse per day, at a reported capital cost of about $2,000,000. Expectations are that 10.4 air dry tons per day of fiber can be reclaimed at a projected value of $25.00 per ton. Capital costs of the total system are estimated by the manufacturer as: Capacity (tpd) Capital Cost ($ Million) 300 5.2 500 5.5 1,000 10.0 If the paper fiber were recovered and sold, the estimated overall disposal cost is about $4.00 per ton of refuse. No total cost figures, excluding fiber sales, are reported. Although this process appears to be advantageous from the recovery point of view, its untried nature in daily municipal operation cannot support a pre- diction of the Hydrasposal-Fibreclaim System's success as a disposal method. Should C-IV-10 INEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA the federally sponsored demonstration plant in Franklin prove successful, and an adequate market be established, this system may hold future promise as a solid waste processing and disposal technique. In terms of land consumption wet fiber extraction at best would be the same as the conventional high quality incinerating plant. But Miami would be additionally burdened with the problem of disposing of the reclaimed fiber. Even assuming that the City could operate essentially a successful marketing enterprise, it would still be faced with the necessity of providing disposal land for the residue which is part of the wet fiber system. 8. Conventional High Quality incineration in the last 50 years, the only successful solid waste high volume reduction system developed and used on a day-to-day basis has been combustion in incineration facilities. Originally modified from coal burning plants, modem incin- eration represents an evolutionary process which is constantly changing to improve operational performance and meet more stringent environmental codes. This field has been characterized in the past by unpleasant, expensive, smoke -belching plants resulting from overloading, poor design and poor operation. The 1960's have seen public opposition to these installations, and new air pollution requirements and residue disposal criteria have been adopted to prohibit these occurrences. In the 1970's incineration will represent one of the few tech- niques which can dependably reduce volumes and conserve land. Modern conven- tional high quality incineration achieves maximum volume reduction while protecting air and water from unnecessary contamination. incinerator designs must be geared to the job. Of the three types of refuse furnaces (single -chamber, cylindrical, batch -feed; single -or multiple -cell, rectangular, batch -feed; and continuous -feed) the continuous -feed furnace is the most adaptable to the goals of high quality residue and minimum air pollution. The advantages and disadvantages of conventional incineration are shown in Table C-iV-5. . There are basically six types of flow -through or continuous fumaces, (1) traveling grates, (2) rocker grates, (3) forward and (4) reverse reciprocating grates, (5) drum grates and (6) rotary kiln. The first five types employ a rectangular primary combustion chamber followed by various downstream elements. The rotary kiln employs an inclined, horizontal rotating kiln furnace lined with refractory. The kiln rotates slowly, tumbling and advancing the material from one end to the other. The kiln has primarily been used for secondary bumout following combustion in C-iV-11 WEGPAAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA 1 r M continuous furnaces employing stokers. It is also used in pyrolysis concepts which are discussed elsewhere. The hourly combustion rate in all of these incinerators is determined in the primary chamber while the secondary chamber provides the necessary fumace volume to complete combustion of volatile gases and to trap fly -ash. The air pollu- tion control segment of the incinerator can include any one or a combination of such devices as settling chambers, cyclone collectors, impingement scrubbers, electro- static precipitators, and fiberglass bag filters. TABLE C-IV-5 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF CONVENTIONAL HIGH QUALITY INCINERATION Advantages Reduces solid waste volumes to Tess than five percent of input. When operated well, disposes of the health problems associated with refuse accumulation . Adaptable over a wide range of equip- ment capacities from domestic size to 6000 tpd in municipal service. Quality and inorganic nature of residue aids considerably in proper disposal in sanitary landfills. Requires less landfill volume than any other conventional processing technique. Adaptable to recovery systems through heat energy reclamation and residue separation. Properly designed and operated this system possesses the best record of dependable and predictable volume reduction. Disadvantages High capital and operating costs. Generates gaseous and solid combus- tion products which must be controlled. Must have landfill for residue and noncombustibles. C-IV-12 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / T E L E S CA A The efficiencies of individual air pollution control devices are shown below. In combination as systems these can achieve removal efficiencies in the 99.8% range. Maximum Percent Demonstrated Type of Collector Efficiency Settling Chambers Wetted Baffles Cyclone Collectors Direct Impaction Scrubbers Electrostatic Precipitators Bag Filters* 35 53 75-90 94-96 99 plus 99 plus *Require extensive gas cooling down to prevent damage to bags. Incineration has been successfully practiced in recent years in many facilities, including the Town of North Hempstead's Roslyn plant. This plant incorporates continuous -type furnaces employing both traveling grates and rocker grates. The air pollution control sequence combines settling chambers, baffles, water sprays, and dry cyclone collectors. This system of devices enabled the incinerator as tested in 1967 to pass the 1970 New York State Air Pollution Code even though it was designed in 1964. Operations began in 1966 and the installation has continuously met 125 percent of its designed capacity since. In 1968 it received an award from the Consulting Engineers Council of the United States for excellence in municipal engineering. The plant was designed for 600 tpd at a cost of $6,500,000. The City of New Orleans placed the newest of its five incinerator plants in operation in 1968. It contains two identical, but independent, furnaces each designed to bum 200 tpd based on solid waste with a heat content of 5000 Btu per pound. The furnaces are the continuous -type employing four -level reciprocat- ing grates. Each fumace has its own stack and residue conveyor, with the latter discharging into a central hopper for loading into a residue truck. A 1750 cy storage pit is serviced by two 2-1/2 cy grapple bucket cranes. The plant has been operating successfully at 118 percent of design capacity producing a residue with one percent unburned combustibles. It was originally designed in 1964, prior to today's stringent air pollution codes, and additional equipment may be required for these restrictive standards. City officials feel that they have one of the finest incinerators in the country doing the job it was designed for —reducing refuse volumes on a dependable basis. The capacity is 400 tpd at a capital cost of $4,500,000. C-IV-13 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA M r r 1 1 1 1 1 1 Costs for incineration vary widely depending on such factors as type of system, geographical location, land costs, labor, utility costs, site prepar- ation and foundation work. Capital costs are high and may range from $8,000 to $20,000 per ton of rated capacity, requiring a debt service of $3 to $6 per ton. Operational costs may vary from $5 to $12 per ton. Incineration has proven its dependability in solid waste processing if the plant is properly designed and built, the input matches the plant capacity and the plant is well maintained. Further, it is necessary for municipal incinerators, the same as for industrial plants, to keep abreast of the public's new and rising insistence on reducing air pollution. Too frequently one or more of the above conditions is absent, and the public justifiably expresses its impatience and opposition. 9. Incineration with Heat Recovery Experience with heat recovery from wastes in the United States is developing. Miami has one of the few plants so operating for many years on munici- pal refuse. However, this practice has, until recently, not been prominent in the United States primarily due to unfavorable fuel economics for waste heat recovery. On the other hand, the recovery of useful heat from the combustion of solid wastes has been practiced extensively in Europe. If consideration is given to the values for ease of handling of a refuse disposal problem and enhanced environmental quality, in addition to fuel savings, heat recovery from refuse incineration could become attractive. In many locations, the economics of heat recovery depend on existing power companies accepting steam as a supplemental power source, but there appears to be a reluc- tance on the part of these utility companies to use refuse -derived power. It can also be used, however, for equipment drive, heating and hot water. One method of waste heat recovery from refuse incineration has been the addition of a waste heat boiler immediately following the incinerator, as in Miami . Recent plants have used an integral boiler, the furnace lining being formed by steel tubes to provide a water -walled incinerator chamber. This has been highly successful in Europe and has also been used in this country. A third system incorporates an air -heater type of heat exchanger following the fumace chamber. The cost of adding heat energy recovery systems to an incinerator plant is approximately 20 percent of the capital cost of conventional incineration. This added cost can be absorbed if the steam is used productively. The extraction of heat lowers the gas temperature entering the precipitator decreasing the conditioning tower's use of water for temperature reduction. The minimizing of water vapor in the exhaust gas helps eliminate the steam plume. C-IV-14 WEGNIAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA 10. Fluidized Bed Reactor A fluid bed reactor is basically a cylindrical furnace containing sand through which air is pumped at a rate sufficient to counter the gravitational forces on the sand. This action causes the sand to be fluid -like in character (it can be poured like water). The material to be burned is introduced at the bottom and is oxidized within the bed. The system usually requires auxiliary heating to maintain bed temperatures. The fluid bed incinerator has been used for sewage sludge burning following high speed centrifugal dewatering. Research on the use of such a reactor for refuse has been conducted at West Virginia University for several years. Limited success has been experienced, but the system has not yet been tried on all refuse. In Franklin, Ohio, a fluid bed incinerator has been built to bum the rejected organics from the wet fiber extraction plant described earlier. The incinerator will bum dewatered, compacted, non-pulpable materials which cannot be productively recovered. This facility is in the shakedown phase of operation and definitive information on costs and operation are not expected for two to three years. Another concept employing a fluid bed reactor is under research and development in California. The total system, known as the CPU-400, is designed to burn municipal refuse and expand the resulting hot gases through a gas turbine to produce mechanical power. The project is supported by federal funds and is predicted to be an attractive altemate to conventional incineration if found technically and economically feasible. Research work has been underway since 1966. A full-scale pilot model of the total system has not been built. Fluidized bed incineration may hold promise for future solid waste systems, assuming current investigations prove successful. Because of its lack of day- to-day performance in municipal service, it is not now a practical alternative for Miami, except possibly as an adjunct to a basic plant. 11. Slagging Incinerator Incineration of refuse at high temperatures (3000°F) has been demonstrated at a pilot scale in Whitman, Massachusetts ("Melt -Zit"). Refuse is charged by conveyor into a "blast-fumace" type reactor where the material is burned through open -flame combustion. The resultant gases are treated for particu- late control in a scrubber and vented to the atmosphere. The residue from the furnace is a molten slag which, when water-cooled, resembles a frit. The main advantage of this concept is volume reduction (up to 97%). The combustion requires auxiliary fuel to sustain the temperature of the heat C-IV-15 WEGNIAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA sink. The primary disadvantage of the system is that it has never operated on a day- to-day sustained basis and performance is, therefore, uncertain. The first full scale installation in the country is reportedly to be under construction this year. A second slagging incinerator concept, the Torrax Solid Waste Disposal System, has been built at pilot scale near Buffalo, New York. Using fed- eral funds, a 75 ton per day plant has just been completed and is in the shakedown phase. The technique of combustion is different in that combustion occurs in an oxygen -deficient atmosphere. An air preheater supplies 2000°F air to a reaction chamber which is charged from the top with solid waste. The purpose of the reactor is to decompose the organic and volatile matter in the waste. The gases of such decomposition are highly combustible and are mixed with air in a separate chamber, ignited, cooled, and passed through a bag filter system to a stack. The non-combustible and slow buming wastes are converted to a molten slag at the base of the reactor and become inert residue after water quenching. The total system is claimed to be useful for burning raw refuse or in converting conventional incinerator residue to a slag . The residue converting operation requires full auxiliary fuel. If slagging incineration proves successful, the concepts employed will represent a significant breakthrough in refuse combustion technology. The higher temperature utilized will mean greater volume reduction and less land con- sumption for residue disposal. At the same time, resource recovery may prove feasible through energy recovery and reclamation and reuse of the residue for aggre- gate in road construction. However, the complete absence of a basis for predictable performance on a slagging incinerator makes it unacceptable for the day-to-day icipal operations on the scale required for the City. mun 12. Pyrolysis Pyro oxygen deficient atmospher Until recently, pyrolysis has be and for ore beneficiation. lysis is the thermal decomposition of organic material in an , at temperatures generally ranging from 900°F to 1600°F. limited to the conversion of wood to charcoal, The latest version of pyrolysis as a refuse processing technique has been advanced by Monsanto's Enviro-Chem Division as the Landgard Solid Waste Disposal System based on pilot work in a 35 tpd facility at the St. Louis County, Missouri landfill . The concept involves shredding, pyrolyzing, residue processing, and gas purification. Shredding reduces waste volume and produces a uniform particle size. C-IV-16 W EGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA r M M The shredded waste is conveyed to a conical storage hopper where large rakes rotate the refuse outward to an exit chute, and thence to ram feeding the rotary kiln. The slightly inclined refractory -lined kiln rotates the refuse forward. In the kiln, waste is heated by an auxiliary fuel burner in an oxygen -deficient atmosphere to decompose organic matter to carbon, ash, and gaseous products. Complete pyrolysis involves heating the material with gas or oil to approximately 1600°F prior to leaving the kiln. The residue is water quenched and passed to a magnetic separator; 94% volume reduction of incoming material is claimed. The wet residue is conveyed to trucks for transport to a disposal site. The gases are passed through a refractory Tined combustion chamber where hydrocarbons are oxidized in the presence of air and auxiliary heat. The gases then pass through a scrubbing tower for spray cooling and particulate removal . Water from residue quenching and scrubbing is clarified and recirculated. There is no full scale refuse reduction pyrolysis plant in operation at the present time. Advantages and disadvantages of the pyrolysis processing technique are listed in Table CrIV-6. C-IV-17 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA M M M ■ TABLE C IV-6 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF PYROLYSIS Advantages Employs a carbonization technology to effect volume reductions to 94%. Uses a reportedly simple rotary kiln for agitation and surface exposure. Produces a clean, uniform residue from which metals and char can be removed for reuse. Manufacturer (in the case of Enviro-Chem) offers guarantees on: - maximum particulate level in stack discharge - plant capacity - operating cost - residue quality - waste water quality Disadvantages No record of proven performance in daily municipal operation. System is about as high in total cost per ton of refuse processed as incineration, without the proven dependability. Generates combustion products which must be controlled to prevent air pollution Must have a Iandfil) for nonrecoverable residues and noncombustibles — about equivalent to incineration, assuming 94% reduction. Proposes only one kiln for 1000 tpd. Backup kiln availabity increases capital cost by about 25%. Utilizes potentially high quantities of auxiliary fossil fuel to maintain kiln temperature and bum off gases. Materials handling system reliability not proven in shredded refuse service. Requires a competitive measure of sales price and performance. Manufacturer must operate plant to provide guarantees. At this time, pyrolysis does not have a performance record and cost advantage which would justify its use for the City of Miami. C-IV-18 INEGMAN • G R E E N LEAF / TELESCA 13. Shipment to Remote Locations via Barge or Roil For the past several years there have been frequent discussions of the environmental and economic feasibility of moving daily loads of raw refuse via railroad or barge from the generating municipality to locations remote from that municipality. For such movement from Miami, either rail or barge transit may be required. The concept of having to receive some other town's daily garbage is normally repugnant to the proposed receiving community and resident opposition can be expected to be rather intense. The projected growth of Florida and the reservation of large segments of its land area as natural environments and wildlife preserves mitigates against the possibility that a remote locale outside Dade County would accept Miami's refuse. Even if such a location could be found for the near - term, there is no guarantee that such use might not be forbidden in the future by the residents. The Seaboard Coast Line Railroad has been actively seeking a disposal site in Florida for quite some time now, without success to date. The rail- road has found that even though environmental protection agencies grant a permit the local residents are able to forestall a disposal operation. Disposal on one of the Keys or on an island is also disadvantageous. With the growing interest in Florida as a fishing and sport area, with the increasing accessibility of the Keys and islands to other than Florida residents, it would not seem prudent to commit such a valuable resource as island property to refuse disposal use. Shipment to remote locations is not an assured long term alterna- tive for the City of Miami. 14. Union Carbide Refuse Converter System The Union Carbide Refuse Converter Process disposes of municipal refuse by converting it into a useful fuel gas and a sterile, compact residue. Typically, refuse is fed into the top of a vertical shaft fumace. As the refuse is processed through the shaft, it successively passes through an upper region of drying, a middle region of thermal decomposition, and a combustion and melting zone at the bottom. Oxygen is injected into the combustion and melting zone, where it generates sufficient heat and a sufficiently high temperature to melt the inorganic portion of the refuse in the melting zone. As the hot combustion gases ascend through the descending refuse in the shaft, the refuse is thermally decomposed (gasified). The molten inorganic portion is discharged as a residue and quenched. W EGNIAN • C-IV-19 GRE E N LE A F / T E L E SCA The combustion gases, which have been cooled by the endothermic pyrolysis reaction, continue to ascend through the descending refuse, together with the gaseous products of the thermal decomposition of the organic fraction of the waste. While the gases no longer have sufficient thermal energy to pyrolyze the waste, they are still hot enough to vaporize the moisture in the waste. The off gases exit at a low temperature from the furnace. The off gas is subsequently cleaned of solid and liquid particulates. This clean fuel gas has flame temperature and heat transfer characteristics similar to natural gas and can be used for energy conversion or heating directly. Overall, approximately 80% by weight of the solid waste is converted into a fuel gas. Twenty percent is reduced to an inert residue. The volume of the residue is 2-3 percent of the volume of the refuse. The process is presently in the development stage and cannot be recommended now for Miami. WEGMAN • C-IV-20 GREENLEAF / T E L E SCA M M M M • B . Resource Recovery Resource recovery contemplates returning the discarded waste back into use, that is, to recycle it —as opposed to burning it or burying it. But this definition itself needs qualification because a heat recovery incinerator in effect recycles the heat energy in waste and thereby conserves an equivalent quantity of other fuels. The following discussion concerns the direct recycling, exclusive of heat energy recovery. 1. Source Separation Recoverable components of waste such as paper, cans and bottles can be separated at the household, commercial and industrial source. But the public has always resisted attempts to move in this direction, and has demanded and re- ceived combined collection of solid waste. To the individual citizen this has meant personal economy, convenience and sanitation. It will be difficult to overcome these factors on any long term basis. 2. Paper Historically, the paper industry has utilized reclaimed waste paper, at a rate equal, recently, to about 21% of the total raw material fiber re- quired for manufacture of all paper and paperboard grades. This percentage has been declining —from 35% in 1945 to 21% in 1969. It is expected to decline even further to 19% in 1976 because of contamination of paper by coatings, special inks and varnishes; increased costs of collection and labor; large increases in virgin pulp supplies; and advances in papermaking technology based on the virgin fiber process. This prediction was recently supported by Kimberly-Clark Corpor- ation, one of the largest paper companies in America, in response to a request for information concerning recycled waste paper. Kimberly-Clark felt that other than newsprint, waste paper from households is too contaminated with plastics, chemicals, and other materials to be economically reclaimed. This corporation recommended that such paper be reclaimed as heat energy from an incineration process. Newspaper appears to be the only paper waste with reclamation possibilities at the household. At commercial and industrial plants, corrugated and mixed papers may be reclaimed as long as they are in a "clean" condition. A north- eastern township of 240,000 population is currently recovering about 3% of its solid waste as newsprint. Several pilot programs for separation of newsprint are also under- way in such cities as Madison, Wisconsin, San Francisco, CaI ifornia and West C-IV-21 WIEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA M• Hartford, Connecticut. These programs indicate that with public cooperation, governmental and private agencies can collect, process and market reclaimed paper. In most cases the plan might break even financially so that the community saves on disposal costs and volume requirements. Reclaiming corrugated and mixed papers is possible because these materials are generally in a "clean" condition at such sources as supermarkets and office buildings. If collected separately, processed and delivered to paper stock plants or mills, these waste materials can be reused for such products as wallboard and combination board. It was shown at Bowling Green, Kentucky, that a viable system of this type can be created using city collection to deliver separated corru- gated and mixed paper to a paper stock plant. The material is processed and delivered to a paper mill for reuse. Prices paid by the brokers and mills fluctuate a good deal, depend- ing on supply and demand. This is characteristic of the salvage industry —particularly the paper salvaging business. Buyers tend to control the price by selective buying at specific times and in specific quantities. Any system must allow for the unexpected gluts of paper on the City's hands when the market price drops and the usual receivers vanish from sight. 3. Non -Ferrous Metals The National Association of Secondary Material Industries reports that non-ferrous metals are annually being reclaimed at the rate of 3,000,000 tons. Thirty percent of the aluminum, 45% of the copper and brass, 52% of the lead and 20% of the zinc materials produced in this country are supplied through reclaiming and secondary production, largely from industrial and federal govemment sources — not from municipal waste streams. Very little of this reclaiming is due to separation at the household level. To reclaim non-ferrous metals at the household, separation of individual metals will be required. This goal is not practical at this time due to public resistance, a lack of collection and transportation methods, confusion by the homeowner as to which metals are which, inability to separate bimetal cans and uncertain markets and economics. The separation of non-ferrous metals from the waste stream at the central disposal facility could be done by sophisticated equipment, presently untried in day-to-day municipal service, provided a dependable market existed. Until these obstacles are overcome, the best approach is to provide for space in the reduction facility for future addition of separation and reclaiming equipment. Eventually recovery of non-ferrous metals will be most economically accomplished at one central facility, as opposed to source separation. C-IV-22 W EGMA N • GRENLEAFE/ TELESCA r r r Separation and transport by homeowners or civic organizations to a redemption center similar to those being voluntarily established throughout the country by can manufacturers such as Reynolds Aluminum Company is feasible, if not economical or environmentally sound, but has yet to make a substantial contribution to reduction in the quantity of solid waste. 4. Ferrous Metals Historically, ferrous metal reclamation as for most secondary mate- rials has been limited by a lack of market at a price sufficient to pay for all the hand- ling required. Demand for scrap ferrous metal does exist but the price is too often not attractive to those who process and transport to United States mills or export. Trans- port costs are a primary factor. With a current market value of from $10 to $20 per ton for scrap, it is possible to show an estimated revenue of $.50 to $1.00 per ton of refuse for reclaimed ferrous metal scrap. However, it may cost more to transport the material than can be made from its sale. Detailed market studies are required to determine feasibility for the City. 5. Plastics Plastic materials account for a small, but increasing, percentage of the solid waste problem. Most plastics bum adequately in well designed inciner- ators or melt at temperatures of 1400 to 1800°F. Properly designed air pollution control systems overcome any hazard in burning plastics at the concentrations found in municipal refuse. In controlled landfills these materials do not decompose and maintain their original form indefinitely. Separation of plastics at the household level is not practical. The materials are often used for coatings on paper, food wrappings, and liners in packag- ing which make separation almost impossible. And the plastics industry is totally uninterested in contaminated and mixed plastic wastes. 6. Glass Glass containers are 10% of the solid waste Toad, by weight. The advent of throw -away bottles has contributed greatly to the increase in waste glass during the last decade. The glass industry has responded to this problem by research- ing uses for waste glass and by a nationwide bottle redemption program. Ninety two glass container plants in 25 states received 42 million used glass bottles during the first 3 months of this program, about 10% of the consumption of some 5 billion glass containers in the same period. The Glass Container Manufacturers Institute estimates that crushed waste glass could supply 30% or more of the raw materials needed to make new bottles, but so far no real dent has been made in reducing the amount going to waste. Again, with glass using silica sand, one of the cheapest and most plentiful raw materials, economics are a formidable obstacle to recycling. C-IV-23 W EGNIAN • G R E E N L E A F / T E L E S CA It is more feasible to reclaim glass at the Central disposal facility since it already is a part of the waste stream. Techniques for separation following crushing are untried in full-scale operation and are costly to buy and operate. The next two to three years should see a breakthrough in this area, and future glass recovery should be considered. Gloss could be recovered in a manner similar to that employed by the U.S. Bureau of Mines plant in Maryland, which processes incinera- tor residue. 7. U.S. Bureau of Mines Technique The U.S. Bureau of Mines has developed and demonstrated a technically feasible method for processing incinerator residues to reclaim metal and mineral values. This "mining of urban ore" utilizes a system of proven mineral engineering equipment to shred, screen, grind and magnetically separate the com- ponents of residue. The first processing step consists of screening in a punched plate trammel screen having 1-1/4-inch holes. The minus 1-1/4-inch material is screened and washed on a 30-inch-diameter circular vibrating screen fitted with both 4- and 20-mesh screens. During screening the residue materials are sprayed continuously with water. The plus 1-1/4-inch material is blended with the minus 1-1/4-inch plus 4-mesh fraction from the primary screening operation then shredded in a 30-hp hammermill . The minus 4- plus 20-mesh fraction from the primary screening opera- tion is joined with the shredded material, and is transferred to a 30-inch-diameter secondary vibrating screen fitted with both 4- and 20-mesh screens. The plus 4-mesh oversize material is discharged to a vibrating conveyor which spreads the material and underfeeds a permanent magnet drum -type separator. A water spray gives the material adhering to the magnet a final wash, leaving a clean iron product. To recover the non-ferrous metals, the remaining fraction is fed to a 10-hp hammermill . The hammermill discharge is screened and washed on a 24-inch-diameter circular vibrating screen fitted with both 4- and 20-mesh screens. The plus 4-mesh material is recovered as a non-ferrous metal concentrate. The minus 4- plus 20-mesh frac- tion is treated by an electrodrum magnetic separator using an overfeed system. The mognetic material is collected after a water spray directed on the drum face washes away nonmagnetic material, which is dewatered to about 60 percent solids in a spiral -type classifier. This pulp is ground in a peripheral discharge rodmill . The rodmill discharge is washed and screened on a 20-mesh, 24-inch-diameter circular vibrating screen to recover a non-ferrous metal product. The minus 20-mesh material is pumped to a 26-inch-diameter by 1-inch-thick rotating disk, matrix -type magnetic separator where the glass content C-IV-24 WEGNAN • GRENLEAF / TELESCA M M r M M is given a rough magnetic cleaning to remove highly magnetic particles. A final magnetic cleaning of this rougher nonmagnetic concentrate is made in a commercial high -intensity magnetic separator producing a product that is primarily colorless flint glass. All minus 20-mesh products from the various screening operations and waste waters are combined at the water reclamation system. Here they are classified in a spiral classifier to remove slimes. The slime is then flocculated and thickened in a thickener. The overflow is filtered on a vacuum drum filter leaving a clean overflow to be recycled as wash water. A flow diagram for the Bureau of Mines system is given in Figure C-IV-1. Tests of the residue from various incinerators are currently being conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Mines to ascertain the degree to which this residue could be recovered in a Bureau of Mines type system. Materials recovered include ferrous metal, aluminum, brass, copper and glass. Studies based on the 1000 Ib. per hour plant operated by the Bureau of Mines in College Park, Maryland have deter- mined that the value of these materials can be as much as $15 per ton of residue. 8. Conclusions Resource recovery and recycling, as an efficient municipal opera- tion, or in combination with a voluntary citizen participation, has some promise. However, much remains to be done in the form of developing continuing viable markets on a regionally wide basis, probably involving legislation by Congress. Until such programs are developed and backed by the kind of legislation needed to assure an economic return, recovery of raw materials either before or after shredding and milling, incineration or other processing will not significantly affect the overall quantities of solid wastes. At best the most that can be expected now would be an offset against the continuing annual increase in solid waste per person. A marketing study would establish viability. It is found that any components can be pulled from the refuse stream, and sold, several benefits will accrue: some decrease in the solid waste volume for reduction and disposal will result, revenues will be obtained and resources will be saved. In terms of reducing land requirements, resource recovery will have minimal effect and consequently cannot be considered as a feasible alternate for the City of Miami. C-IV-25 WEGMAN • G R E E N L E A F / TELESCA • 9 1 C 1 P INCKRATOR RENOIR IRttR TROWEL ��►.1 r► ra �1 .I I1RNCR RWRR --N1 SCREEN 1 ifinisi -EO NEM G ASSifl TFNCKETIER I INNIMENED -INN NM .4 NUN SHREDDER 1113:=11 4 YEEN SCR OMEN ►Y[M MA.IIETIC 1 -1 SEVMATOIT 1 I HAMMER MILL RAM-- ; lO REM+►—�'�"� SCR I -► NON • ER NON WAFER WATER WI TEII .M FLOWSHEET FOR CONCENTRATING VALUABLE MATERIALS CONTAINED IN INCINERATOR RESIDUE 1 EYREAO OF NMI[E METER ► 4 NEM 1411144114 NRTM. -• MINI, .2O WW1 N AYRWR NETAL 'SERSITYPARAT001 r CCIOR D suss Ui. QCICLL WO[R LEONMO S. WEE ELMO a iNC. /REENLEAT/ GUILE 0ff-1 M M M N C. Analysis of Alternate Systems The good and bad qualities of each of the processing and disposal systems have been discussed, but now each system must be analyzed for its applicability to the City of Miami solid waste problems. There are many factors involved in system selection. The method must be proven, it must be economical, aesthetics must be considered, and overall engi- neering judgment must be employed . There is, of course, no absolute way to deter- mine the best system. Based solely on economics the open dump method of disposal would appear to be the most advantageous and the various forms of incineration would be rejected. Open dumping, of course, is not permissible in Florida while incinera- tion is a volume reduction method used successfully in many parts of the world, as well as in Florida. Having already ruled out ocean disposal, the next cheapest method of disposal is sanitary landfill which has been in common use for about 25 years. During these 25 years, however, it has been found that a true sanitary land- fill is difficult to maintain, and usually degenerates into an open dump. In addition, a sanitary landfill is prone to problems of vector and rodent infestation, methane production and unpleasant odors. There is no facility for resource recovery in a standard sanitary landfill operation. In short, the aesthetic and judgment drawbacks to sanitary landfill ing far outweigh the economic advantages of the system. Inciner- ation, on the other hand, effects great savings in land costs, there is possible resource recovery in the generation of heat, as well as in the recovery of metals and glass. Incinerator deficits include its high capitol and operating costs, as well as its inherent potential to pollute the air. The processing and disposal alternatives and judgment criteria are shown in Table C-IV-7. This method of analysis gives consideration to each of the criteria relevant to the requirements of the City of Miami. The ratings assigned have several bases, including system performance history, cost, engineering experience and judg- ment. The criteria hove been split into 3 main categories; Environmental Impact, Functional, and Economics. The groupings are considered to be of equal significance, therefore the scores attained by the disposal alternates in each category are given equal weight in determining the best solid waste disposal plan. The criteria presented in this analysis table represent the major problems encountered in solid waste disposal. Scores were assigned from 1 to 10 for each criteria and disposal altema- tive. The higher the score, the more desirable the altemative. The results in order of numerical ranking area: 1. Shredding and Milling 2. Incineration with Heat Recovery 3. Conventional Incineration C-IV-27 INEGRIAN • GREENLEAF / T E L E S CA s in s ur sM`i iiII Wit�'f7'`�'t Criteria TABLE C-1117 ANALYSIS OF PROCESSING AND DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES CRITERIA TABLE PROCESSING AND DISPOSAL METHOD Wit Fiber Sirreddkp Compaction Extraction With Incineration Total Open Ocean Sanitary and and Fiuidlz d led Canv.ntianal . With Fluidized fed; Slagging, Il tower Landfill Miles 1�ni __ klieg ,Gurmosting Incinoation Incineration HeatRecovory Incineration root erattat a ii s+ Group I Environmental Impact n 1. Water Pollution 1 1 5 6 7 7 7 8 8 P 9 9 f I R.2. Air pollution 2 10 9 10 10 9 8 8 9 8 88 $ ' 1 ( 3. Methane Production 1 1 2 7 6 3 9 9 9 9 10 9 F 4. Vector Pooductien 1 2 6 9 9 8 9 9 9 9 10 9 9 5. Putnncibiliy 1 1 5 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 10 9 9- 6. Odor Emission I 7 4 7 5 2 7 7 7 7 8 t 7 7. Fin Hated 1 10 5 8 8 6 9 10 10 10 10 9 9 8. Aesthetics 1 1 5 8 8 4 3 3 9 3 3 3 9 Sub -Total 9 33 41 63 61 47 66 63 70 63 68 66 68 Group 11 • Funetianal 1. Volume Reduction 1 7 3 7 8 6 8 9 9 8 10 2. Dependability 9 2 8 7 5 4 1 9 9 2 4 3. Efficiency 1 6 5 7 6 5 7 8 9 7 8 4. Pr.dictabl. Performance 9 1 7 7 4 4 3 9 9 4 5 5. Land Requirements 1 10 3 6 7 5 8 9 9 8 10 6. Capability for Handling 10 7 10 9 7 4 5 I 8 7 8 all Rafus. 7 6 7. Resource Recovery Capability 0 1 9 1 8• 9 8 9 8. Adoptability Emerging Technology 1 1 1 10 5 6 3 S 5 Sub -Total 33 34 . 38 62 43 42 44 d5 67 5 48 3 54 9 10 6 1. 7 1 6 1 9 10 7 $ 7 10 4 It 3 -w Ranking Order is mr-fur-vs----ur-vur lir -mr-in-u-ver IIIF et TABLE C-IV 7 (Coned) ANALYSIS OF PROCESSING AND:DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES CRITERIA TALE PROCESSING AND DISPOSAL METHOD Wit Fiber Slwedding Compaction Extraction With tneinemaian Open Ocean Sanitary and and Fluidized Bed Conventional With Ftudized Sod Slagging: Landfill Miffing Boling Composting incineration Incinaotian Heat &eeswry Incineration Incineration Tote,' Rsswes Pyrolysis Recovery Group In Economics 1. Capitol Eaviment Cats 9 S 8 7 7 5 2 2 1 4 1 3 E 2. °wetly Casts 9 5 • 7 7 S 3 4 3 S 3 S t 3. Land Costs 1 9 3 6 5 4 8 8 8 8 9 8 S 4. Total Cat POT Ton of Ram Rua 10 7 9 7 8 5 2 3 2 3 2 3 I 5. Tax Lao 1 9 3 6 7 3 8 8 8 8 . 9 $ 9 6. Financial Sudan 10 7 9 7 8 5 2 3 , 2 3 2 3 1 7. Ultimata Lad Vela, at Fill She 1 0 5 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 C. • 9 8. Possible Revenue refund Gam T Id Recovered Materials 1 1 3 9 2 7 8 7 8 7 S Sub-Tetel 42 43 48 56 51 41 41 43 40 46 40 45 37 Summary of Sub -Total, Group 9 33 41 63 61 47 66 63 70 63 68 64 69 Group 11 33 34 38 62 43 42 44 65 67 48 S4 SS 49 Group 111 42 43 48 56 51 41 41 43 40 46 40 45 37 TOTAL 84 110 127 181 155 130 151 171 177 157 162 164 15* (3) (2) (1) (4) 4. Pyrolysis 5. Slagging Incineration 6. Fluidized Bed Incineration 7. Compaction and Baling 8. Total Resource Recovery 9. Wet Fiber Extraction with Fluid Bed Incineration 10. Composting 11. Sanitary Landfi I l 12. Ocean Disposal 13. • Open Dumping The analysis technique indicates that shredding and milling is the prefer- able method of solid waste disposal for the City of Miami. Conventional incineration and incineration with heat recovery also make very strong showings. Some of the methods can be eliminated on the basis of illegality, such as open dumping and ocean disposal. Others are not suitable at present on the basis of a lack of satisfactory performance because they are either new methods or have a record of failure. Com- posting has had many trials in this country and has yet to prove itself a viable method. A problem with total resource recovery is that it is subject to vast market changes in secondary materials, resulting in totally unpredictable revenues. The possible altematives for Miami fall into 2 classes, those suitable for present use and those which have potential for future use. Feasible for Present Use 1. Shredding and Milling with Controlled Landfill 2. Incineration with Heat Recovery and Residue Landfill 3. Conventional Incineration with Residue Landfill 4. Sanitary Landfill of Raw Refuse Potential Future Use 1. Pyrolysis 2. Slagging Incineration 3. Fluidized Bed Incineration 4. Compaction and Baling 5. Total Resource Recovery 6. Wet Fiber Extraction with Fluid Bed Incineration All of the future systems are adaptable to the preferable system, shredding and milling. Composting and Total Resource Recovery, while not viewed as possible future disposal methods, are also adaptable to the shredding and milling concept. It C-IV-30 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA M M can readily be seen, therefore, that implementation of a shredding and milling opera- tion, with a controlled landfill, would permit the City to dispose of its solid wastes with o minimum potential of environmental damage and at a tolerable cost. The City would also be in a position to incorporate any of the above listed potential future methods of volume reduction and disposal when they become acceptable, with a minimum of cost. D. Volume Reduction and Land Depletion 1. Reduction Methods A tangible benefit of processing refuse, be it by incineration or by shredding, is the reduction in volume. Incineration provides maximum volume reduction and at the same time achieves reduction in weight. Shredding does not achieve the degree of volume reduction that is possible with incineration, nor does it reduce weight; however, it converts the extremely heterogeneous material that characterizes refuse to one having a reasonable degree of uniformity and eliminates voids, thereby reducing volume. Savings result in subsequent hauling, landfill operations and land costs. These savings are greater, of course, for incineration, but are significant for shredding. In order to quantify the economics of shredding and its comparison with incineration and raw refuse disposal, line diagrams exhibiting refuse volume and weight reduction data for the altemate disposal methods were developed and are shown in Figure C-IV-2, "Line Diagrams, Refuse Volume and Weight Reduction Data for Alternate Disposal Methods". Garbage and trash (G&T) is treated separately from rubbish and bulk (R&B) . 2. Refuse Materials a. Garbage and Trash (G&T) Garbage and trash is defined, in accordance with the City's Agreement of August 18, 1971 with our joint venture, as follows: "GARBAGE - is hereby defined as every refuse accumulation of animal, fruit or vegetal matter attending the preparation, use, cooking and dealing in or storage of meats, fish, fowl, fruits, vegetables or grains. "TRASH - is hereby defined as all small discarded material other than GARBAGE and RUBBISH which can be placed in appropriate trash containers and can be handled at the City incinerator." C-IV-31 W EGMAN • G R E E N L E A F / TELESCA n t N UNE DIAGRAM$ • REFUSE VOLUME a WEIGHT REDUCTION DATA FOR ALTERNATE DISPOSAL METHODS gARBAGE B TRASH lG BIT ) 1M) row REFUSE DISPOSAL It" TOM • • i TD f.Tf c (A1 WEDDING O MILLING 'tFCtt■Ne 1449S.L uTT0011 AL UI M 1000 TO mac T! Q ��1�{•��I p)■ ��y1 �{pQ CT CO}N�►ACTION IN Moo TOM • $§ • 1f00 TONG 1 TOL.N[D. a TOM �1(f0 S CTI/ ATOM 1[N* WO T8M V:ro FFtt1O O-' OTC /ITEM@ 1 T01 1■T■O\ (L) (NCiaNAT om M T}t[pppp��EE__ O TOM • pa • ATOM � n!M0 1 f4.OLD. RUBBISH 9 BULK (R d B 1 All TTpp lN(a � I tiaa l 1IDI mar (0) Rim REFUSE DISPOSAL L �TaN I1 comrcil`L MIN 1000 tr (11 fE0 TONE • •rCT a • IOO�TOW J( AO� NT TOMil[N ! LAM 705.l1116i0. TOO TONE 4.5 CT/TOM I. T01 MT.NLO. 711,1116E) V .far fPNFCelatD► fiso tr t!) f00 tOM ■ I • 1' c :•P TO i '• Rio SOO TONS LP TO NLO50. CAI RIREDDIND ornCCTTa1r1 1N lfoo CT Lfpp���__�t,� fXOLODINf , 3000 CT TOFM►o11T iNAIL[O, If0 CT SETTLLNENT f0O 70N! ■ • i0ifT01[ ! TO I ;TX f00 TOM OTO S CT/TON) SOO TONS LS TO 1 VOL.OLM f00 TOM 1 To1 NT.N IA TO I NTACIL !M0 C (t) INCINERATION M[LININAOr commas IN IiNO5D01Nf IOLLOINED DT y 16OTIIj.1[Ly5MT •4a Cr Opp TOM • WI • NTCoIINEMAIT„I00NEO mot:_ ypL w i0N{ TONWWI • LOriI tLN[D SOTONS �gI MT coM1MHaN MIN u +u CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY REFUSE VOLUME & WEIGHT REDUCTION DATA FOR ALTERNATE DISPOSAL METHODS Lowe ! I OWNN• 06 ■1C. SMEONLEAI/TELIIW FIGURE C• II.Y-2 b. Rubbish and Bulk (R&B) Rubbish, as used herein, is also defined, in accordance with the Agreement, as follows: "RUBBISH - is hereby defined as all grass cuttings, leaves, and shrubbery, or the trimmings thereof, from improved property, excluding commercial cemeteries and nurseries, all of which is acceptable along the public right of way, and which can be disposed of in rubbish pits or dumps. Tree trunks or other branches and limbs of trees or shrubbery shall be cut into lengths of five feet or less and no single piece shall exceed fifty pounds in weight." BULK - is not detailed in the Agreement, but is taken as that presently placed in the disposal pit, along with the rubbish. Bulk consists of demolition lumber, concrete and masonry rubble, discard building interior wall, ceiling and floor construction including light- ing and plumbing fixtures, oversized cartons, crates and pallets, discard furniture and mattresses, automobile and truck tires with or without rims, refrigerators, hot water heaters, storage tanks, washing machines, dryers, stoves, television, radio, hi-fi sets and consoles, bicycles and tricycles, baby carriages, lawn mowers, ladders, and like discards. Of the material classed as rubbish and bulk (R&B), bulk comprises about 40% of the total weight in Miami. Under each category, G&T and R&B, 3 altemate methods of disposal are shown in the line diagram as follows: (1) raw refuse disposal (2) shredding (3) incineration 3. Reduction Factors Estimates and judgments, based on accumulated experience, have been made on the bulk density of G&T and of R&B and the volume and weight reduc- tions effected on the refuse as it passes through its disposal sequence. C-IV-33 INEGNIAN • GREENLEAF / T E L E S CA For the purpose of illustrating the magnitudes of weights and voiumes involved, each of the line diagrams start with 1200 tons of G&T and 600 tons of R&B. As an example for the disposal of garbage and trash (G&T) by shredding and milling, the line diagram is read as follows: 1200 tons of G&T having o raw bulk density of 6 cy per ton has a volume of 7200 cy before shredding. After shredding, with 1 to 1 weight and volume reductions, weight and volume remain the same at 1200 tons and 7200 cy respectively. However, shredded garbage and trash can be compacted into transport trailers to a density of 3 cy/ton, resulting in 3600 cy of shredded garbage and trash for the haul to remote landfill . Further compaction and settlement in landfill reduces volume by a factor of 1.5 resulting in a reduced volume requirement of 2400 cy which is used in computing acreage requirements for landfill. Volatilization of the organic fraction of the shredded G&T in the landfill reduces weight 1.2 to 1, resulting in a final weight of 1000 tons in the landfill. Because of the wide variation in rubbish and bulk (R&B) when disposed of raw, without processing, 2 possible line diagrams are shown for this case. The line diagrams are fundamental to the development of overall economics of disposal since the costs of hauling, landfill operations and land use are greatly influenced by the various degrees of volume reduction possible under the alternate methods of disposal. In summary, our three options for reducing the expected 1987 daily input of 1300 tons of garbage and trash plus 730 tons of rubbish and bulk are: Disposal Method Raw Weight Raw Volume Finished Weight Finished Volume Landfill 2030T 15,100 cy 1690T 5440 cy Shredding 2030T 15,100 cy 1690T 4060 cy Incineration 2030T 15,100 cy 282T 445 cy C-IV-34 WIEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA 4. Depletion of Land Table C.-IV-8 exhibits estimated rates of land depletion for the various methods of disposal. In general, the more expensive disposal methods require less land and conversely the least expensive require more land. The land depletion rates given in this table are the basis of estimating the cost of landfill operations and land costs, items 3 and 4 of Table C.-VI-5 "Economics of Refuse Disposal". E. Incinerator Layouts Table C-IV-9 summarizes 14 possible incinerator plant arrangements that were investigated. The table includes estimated capital and operating costs. The latter is given in $/ton and is based on a uniform accounting procedure, outlined in the table. Arrangements I through V provide for reuse of the existing incinerator building with modifications, including the removal of the six existing furnaces, along with the boilers, spray chambers, fans, flues, and the installation of three new 400 tpd furnace units as shown on the various arrangement drawings. Arrangements VI through XIII are based on the erection of a complete new house the various new furnace combinations and auxiliary equipment. capacity will be 1200 tpd or 1800 tpd as indicated. Arrangement XIV employs 96 - 12.5 tpd module type furnaces of special design arranged to provide an incinerator plant having a total capacity of building to Total plant proprietary 1200 tpd. Steam, generated in the arrangements incorporating waste heat boilers, will be utilized to drive in -plant equipment such as large pumps and fans, and for heating requirements. Excess steam may be sold to hospitals or other buildings in the Miami Civic Center area. The balance will be condensed in air-cooled condensors. Portion of heated air discharged from condensors will be ducted to furnaces to supply preheated combustion air when required. All arrangements provide for air pollution control which will equal or better Federal, State and local codes and provide optically clear stacks. The furnace trains utilize electrostatic precipitators with conditioning towers, provided to assure optimum collection efficiencies. C-IV-35 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA III it at PLAN TABLE C-IV-8 LAND DEPLETION Volume Requirements (Based on 109E Slope Losses and 2596 Cover Losses) Site Area Requirements (Based on 54' High Landfill, 2096 "Lake" Area, and 25 Year Life) 1. ALTERNATE PLAN NO. 2 Minimum Depletion 135 AF/yr Incinerate 1300 TPD G&T 600 ccy/D 19 AF/yr Incinerate 730 TPD R&B 685 cy/D /D 154 AF/yr 89 Acres 9 2. ALTERNATE PLAN NO. 1 Intermediate Depletion 135 AF/yr a Incinerate 1300 TPD Gd T 600 cy/D 507 AF/yr Shred 730 TPD R&B 2250 cy/D 372 Acres 2850 cy/D 642 AF/yr 3. RECOMMENDED PLAN Accelerated Depletion Shred 1300 TPD G&T 4000 cy/D 901 AF/yr Shred 730 TPD R&B 2250 cy/D 507 AF/yr-p----- 815 Acres 6250 cy/D 1408 AF/yr -- 4. NOT RECOMMENDED Maximum Depletion Raw 1300 TPD G&T 5000 cy/D 1128 AF/yr Raw 730 TPD R&B 3370 cy/D 760 AF/yr 8370 cy/D 1888 AF/yr ^ 1092 Acres cy/D equals Cubic yards per day AF/yr equals Acre-feet per year Raw refuse quantity is average for period 1975 to 2000 tb. Wetewall Incfnwear Mont 3-400 TP0 Traveling Ga% N neca Alterations a Existing 706 St. Man 11. Weteredl indsaar Plant ot Aleat�iw. to 6499 St. PI t Ill. Ms Connected bO.�e rant 100 Traveling Typo Fromm Genn% Naateo.. ,. Existing Mt 5t. Mee rv, Five Connected golf. Incisats Plant 3440 TM) Tawlip Gran Tape fames Ma. Heaton a bfdtn0 209 St. Plant V. No Who Isisaar Plant Traveling Grant TypoTornaces Altenatiao to Satiating Mt St. all . 1 _1115 — 3 401PD Pomade In Eel eFw 709 St. Plan Capital Otvipden Coat 93,059,00D ( 1*.751 (017,10) S14,775,000 ( 00.75) (AFe.75) S 9,605,000 (AM.051 ao1 at t Capital Inca tap Fact. al .0711- Navr.ay..t a S-i%!1t 19.9r 77-1/3 99 9991 Menben.crepe ato0d11Iy d 77R Mal le toting 9FsbIN)da"aTor365 d0M a two, nn Iw 75A spsiy R , Ave wear Rot IM al tti I,aiderlan. d In etc..cvs al0. tally.... reeelwi, oeapr for Anpt%rv., n MOF. SUMMARY OF Cot pen Tan $3.67 C4- InaTot.i t4.10 Coe 5.62 0p Tot. R MA Copt 5.39 Op TILT/ Tat.! 53.42 Cap• 5.39 Op WE Tot.' 57.56 Cap• 4.75 Op S73T Mgt VI. Wetomdl hKharata P1 Foment, TPD Traveling Grate ) . No. Inchnralnr Plaid Ailment a ldtrhq 709 St. Plant Vil. Weteadi 191999 Mont 3.400 TPD Dun Gina Typo Pontoon New Incinerator Plant Aijtcent a bating 709 St. Plant VOL Fiw Caenecad Soifer eefro dm Plant 34 incineration �Trawling Grote Type Fomoear Ailment to tetatinp 7011 St. Plow IX. No golf. Incine dorMont i Pumsat 3-400TPD Traveling Grata Ailment to Eeldiro 7061 St. Msr THEE C-N INCINERATOR PLANT ARRANGEMENTS STUDIED 3-400 1PD Fumsec a New 706t 50. Plant Copied tea, Cat A6aaviattaa MOp 4JNttlet 6 Maintenance Cats Per T POp*Paanal gyrating Cott Per T. OP-OWtoNM Cost Mr Tan Cap,C9191194 Can per Ton Tor *Teal Cod p.. Tan C * Inddld NM. Capacity, Teo Far Day o for Seen R Avail o Capacity Given orlc, l.0W00n .7thesis 5 ad .05.05awns TGin. in Pa wt eti in i AF-AvalloMliy fear, drove T.Me fen Specific Mgt Cad No. ,.Ton $11,01,000 15.14 Cap. X. (AF.q VET* To. S S19.97,000 S 3.67 ( Ito.75) 5.69 Op (090.75) ITT:IT Tot. ! j( .1 2511 1 19 OOpp.+ XII. (A1..45) fEETe1. - S13,737,05) S 4.19 Copt %ill. (AF.Rl) SL97TTa. 441OTP0 Forme. In Now 7016 St. Mend GNAW Cant Cott Pon Teo ( ..751 431 w (AM1,q TeA! Waaadl Isisaar Plant 4.450 New ITPDT Plant Rnna4w Adjacent a bWa1701h St. Plant Woamell Islneeb Mans 6450 TPD Dun Gate Type Fromm Now Intimater Man M(sent to biding 20015t. Plant Mae Ca n.tid Foil. Imfsaat Plant 4-450 500 Tntwiiro Grate. Type hmatee New InclaMet Man Mj.ont a Existing 709 St. Mont No Salt. Incl.ab Plant 4.4001P0 Tmalltq Gate Type Forma. New IMneaao Matt Mlsent to bidin070th St. Flat Special Plant Xrv. No Sailer Incineralae Mod 96-17.5 TPD Modulo Type Furore. New Site 135, g) A` ap vOp (41,15) Yif. 575.7561000 S4.! ( I.7A 477 570,744.000 53.41 Car ( SP.)51 4.oRw (AP -.RA Inn" 577.443,000 ( R-.10/ (AF-,RS) $ 3 Credit for do al Wow abuildaOFin Civic Center ato istoarTr net d� C.P. Tor, given oboeamtai Mw oaks raw., The 1200 tpd plant arrangements, consisting of 3 - 400 tpd furnaces, would be considered should Miami decide to proceed on its solid waste management program without refuse input and revenue contribution from Miami Beach. The equivalent 1800 tpd plants require greater outlays in capital, but economies inherent in larger plant construction and operations reduce the cost per ton of refuse inciner- ated. The use of the existing incinerator plant building at 20th Street to accommodate new incinerator equipment affords the advantage of reduced construc- tion costs. However, existing operations would be hampered and capacity to incin- erate curtailed during the construction period. The need to utilize existing founda- tions and structures for maximum economy imposes a restraint on design of the new furnace arrangements. Layouts for optimum facility in ultimate plant operations are compromised for the exigencies of economy. The use of the existing building is furthermore limited to a maximum of 1200 tpd due to physical restraints of existing structures, which would limit its application as an incinerator facility. Further discussion of differences, advantages and disadvantages are included under specific descriptions of the individual arrangements given below: ARRANGEMENT 1 Three new 400 tpd furnaces, each utilizing a 3-level traveling grate stoker will be installed for Arrangement No. 1, Fig. C-AP-1, 2 and 3. Each unit will have a waterwall type boiler. Air pollution control will be effected by means of a conditioning tower followed by an electrostatic precipitator, for each furnace. The necessary draft will be provided by an induced draft fan located downstream from each precipitator. The fans will be arranged to discharge into a common flue, which in turn connects to the two existing chimneys. The refuse storage pit will be enlarged and the tipping and charging room floors raised. The present tipping room will be utilized as storage space. Access to the new elevated tipping room shall be effected by means of new ramps at the North and South sides of the plant. Residue removal will be accomplished by two water -filled drag conveyors, dis- charging into trucks at the South side of the plant. Siftings from each fumace stoker train will be carried to the residue conveyors by dry -type enclosed drag conveyors, operating automatically. Similar conveyors will be provided to move collected fly -ash from the precipitator and conditioning tower hoppers to the residue conveyors. A new enclosure for the residue conveyor discharges will be furnished. The waterwall boiler concept has generally been adapted into the various European -origin proprietary systems. It eliminates the refractory fumace enclosure and substitutes for it a waterwall enclosure. It obviates the possibility of by-passing C-IV-38 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESGA 1 the boiler since the burning is done within a portion of the boiler, which is the water - wall enclosure. It further obviates the possiblity of a secondary combustion chamber for extended burning of combustible gases and fly -ash, since, in concept, accelerated cooling of the flue gases starts immediately in the furnace primary combustion chamber. Advantages initially cited for the waterwall concept, in that less furnace excess air would be required since cooling of the gases is done by radiation to the waterwall, has not been fully realized in practice. Designers who had sized their downstream air pollution control devices smaller in expectation of reduced gas volumes, due to the lower excess air quantities, have been disappointed. In practice, fly -ash builds up on the waterwall and serves as insulation; additional air is then required for cooling the flue gases to avoid excessively high temperatures that would otherwise damage the tubes of the convection section of the boiler. Initially, it was anticipated that waterwall fumaces in refuse service could operate at excess air levels between 25% to 50%. Experience now indicates realistic levels in the range of 100% to 150%. Another plus feature cited for the waterwalls has not proven to be as advan- tageous as originally contemplated, namely that the waterwall would eliminate the expense of refractory maintenance on conventional fumaces. In practice the water - wall must be protected by a layer of silicon carbide refractory which needs to be applied over porcupine studded waterwall tubes. This furnace enclosure system is expensive and has not proven as maintenance -free as was expected. ARRANGEMENT II Arrangement II, Fig. C-AP-4, 5 and 6, is similar to Arrangement I, except that the Dusseldorf drum grate is used in lieu of the 3-level traveling grates used in Arrangement I. Siftings removal will be automatic, and charging the fumaces will be accomplished using hydraulically operated water-cooled rams which shall deliver a predetermined amount of refuse to the furnace at each stroke. The Dusseldorf drum grate is the major element of a proprietary incinerator system currently being promoted in the United States by Zum Industries under Iicense agreement with the firm of Vereinigte Kesselwerke, A.G., Germany. Zum Industries is the parent company of Erie City Co. whose waste heat boilers are currently in use in the 20th Street plant. The Dusseldorf system has been selected for recent incinerator installations in London, England and Stuttgart, Germany over competitive systems of European origin. To date there is no American installation of a Dusseldorf grate system, although among competitors Martin has an installation in Chicago, and Von Roll has one in Montreal, Canada. Various and sundry difficulties have been reported on these installations. Martin has licensed IBW-Martin, whose parent company is Ovitron, to market its C-IV-39 WEGAIAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA M r 0 • ■ proprietary system in the United States and Von Roll has licensed Rust Engineering Co. for its system. The Volund system is an older version of a European -origin proprietary system, marketed in the United States by International Incinerators Inc. An installa- tion of this system was made for the Miami Coconut Grove incinerator plant in 1960. The common denominator in the European systems is the requirement for greater automatic stoking action on the furnace grates, due to the more difficult burning characteristics of European refuse. Experience with these systems invariably indicates that the stoking action is obtained at the sacrifice of reliability. The availability factor (AP = 0.75) for the drum grate, used in the computation for determining cost per ton, given in Table C-IV-9, reflects the judgment estimate of this reliability; it compares unfavorably with the reliability expected of the 3-level traveling grate for which the availability factor is estimated at .85. ARRANGEMENT in Refractory Tined fumaces and flue -connected boilers rather than waterwall boilers are the main difference between Arrangement 111, Fig. C-AP-7, 8 and 9, and Arrangement I. Preceding the boilers are secondary combustion chambers with hopper bottom ash collectors. For ease of boiler maintenance a by-pass flue is provided around each boiler. As in the previous layouts, the precipitator discharge flues are connected to the two existing chimneys. Siftings collection will be automatic, utilizing drag conveyors. In the light of the waterwall system characteristics discussed for Arrangement I, the use of refractory lined fumaces with silicon carbide wall construction up to ap- proximately 12 feet above the grate line is preferred to waterwall units. ARRANGEMENT iV In Arrangement IV, Fig. C-AP-10, 11 and 12, the existing building and storoge bin remain as they are. The 3-level traveling grate will not have automatic siftings removal; this will be accomplished manually. The remainder of the system for each fumace is the same as in Arrangement IiI. This arrangement is less expensive due to the elimination of the automated siftings system and much of the alteration work at the existing building. ARRANGEMENT V Arrangement V, Fig. C-AP-13, 14 and 15, is basically the same as Arrange- ment III, except that all elements of the steam generation system have been eliminated. All cooling of the flue gases will be accomplished in the conditioning towers. The C-IV-40 WEGPAAN • G R E E N L E A F / TELESGA M elimination of the steam system represents a substantial saving in equipment costs and affords simplified operations, but introduces several disadvantages, as follows: a) Elimination of the steam system is the first step in downgrading an incinerator plant. Observation of operating plants throughout the world, including those in Miami, demonstrates that steam plant personnel, trained in the combustion process, have a beneficial influence on overall incinerator plant operations. The ability to readily measure steam flows, pressures and temperatures, which can be related to the weight of refuse processed and its gross heating value, provides the operator a powerful tool for productivity and quality control, not available in a conventional incinerator without waste heat steam generation. b) Flue -connected steam boilers can be used to efficiently reduce flue gas temperatures and volumes before passing into the conditioning towers and electro- static precipitators. The boilers obviate the need for the large quantities of water which would otherwise be required for cooling. The density of the chimney steam plume is thereby reduced, resulting in a more aesthetic stack effluent, especially when atmospheric humidity is high and/or temperatures are low. As an example, a 450 tpd fumoce, operating in conjunction with a boiler, will produce a stack effluent gas flow of 233,000 CFM at 450 F, having a moisture content of 11.5% by volume. A furnace having the same tpd rating, however, operating without a boiler, will require a water rate of about 200 gpm for cooling the gases to 450 F with a resulting effluent gas flow of 292,000 cfm having a moisture content of 29% by volume. The 450 tpd furnace rating corresponds approximately to the present burning rate at the 20th Street Incinerator. Gas volume flows and moisture contents in the flue gases under present methods of operation, range midway between the two condi- tions cited above since flue gases are partly cooled by the boilers and partly cooled by spray water. This flue gas is discharged out of 2 chimneys at 20th Street and the resulting plumes can at times be seen for miles. These plumes appear most dense on a humid, cool night when there is some moonlight to illuminate the sky. The visual effect is that of 2 dark palls that hover over the city, readily seen from any of the many elevated expressways surrounding the area. With the increased capacity required for the plant, this effect is multiplied 3 to 4-fold and would be more pronounced with gases having higher moisture due to the plume effect of the greater quantities of moisture condensing in the cool night air. C-IV-41 WEGPAAN • G R E E N L E A F / TELESCA 1 1 M It is judged that the visual appearance of steam plumes emanating from an incinerator burning at 3 to 4 times the present rate would be intolerable if the gases contained higher moisture and that it would be acceptable if the lower moistures prevailed. Lower moisture gases can be accomplished by way of boiler operations, and therefore an incinerator without waste heat boilers would not be recommended for the 20th Street location. c) A conventional incinerator without waste heat boilers precludes the possibility of recycling the energy discharged up the stacks. It means that steam cannot be used for in -plant drives and for heating requirements and that these needs will be met by purchasing electricity from Florida Power and Light. It also fore- closes the possibility of sale of waste heat steam to hospitals and other buildings in the area, and the Toss of potential revenues. The burning of fossil fuels becomes the source for this energy, thereby accelerating depletion of this dwindling natural resource and further adds to the air pollution load due to this fossil fuel being burned. ARRANGEMENT VI A new building with three new furnaces of 400 tpd capacity each, on City owned property immediately east of the existing plant is provided in Arrangement VI, Fig. C-AP-16 and 17. Steam generation is effected by means of waterwall boilers. The 3-level traveling grate will be equipped with automatic siftings removal equip- ment. The new building will be fitted with cranes, residue conveyors, and all other necessary appurtenances for a complete and properly functioning installation. Air pollution control equipment will consist of gas conditioning towers, electro- static precipitators, and induced draft fans. Individual 150 ft high stacks will be provided, for each furnace. These stacks will be clustered and then masked in an aesthetically pleasing tower structure. ARRANGEMENT VII Arrangement VII, Fig. C-AP-18 and 19, is similar to Arrangement VI, except that the furnaces are fitted with Dusseldorf drum -type grates. Hydraulically operated, water-cooled ram -type feed units will be furnished, to charge the furnaces with a predetermined quantity of refuse at each stroke. Siftings removal is automatic and discharges to the residue conveyors. ARRANGEMENT VIII Flue -connected boilers rather than waterwalls are used in Arrangement VIII, Fig. C-AP-20 and 21, which is otherwise similar to Arrangement VI. Preceding the boilers are secondary combustion chambers with hopper bottom ash collectors. For C-IV-42 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA M0 M M ■ ease of boiler maintenance, as for other flue -connected boiler arrangements, a by- pass flue is provided around each boiler. Although this arrangement is more costly than VI, it insures continuous furnace operation under all conditions and would be a recommended incinerator plan if a plant sized to accommodate Miami's garbage and trash to the exclusion of that generated in Miami Beach were needed to replace the existing plant to serve Miami up to only about the year 1990. ARRANGEMENT IX All steam generation equipment has been eliminated in Arrangement IX, Fig. C-AP-22 and 23. The furnace and stoker configurations are similar to Arrangement VI; however, a secondary combustion chamber has been provided, directly preceding each gas conditioning tower. All cooling of the furnace flue gases is accomplished in the towers prior to the gases entering the precipitators. This plant, without boilers, would not be recommended for the reasons cited in the discussion given under Arrangement V. ARRANGEMENT X Arrangement X, Fig. C-AP-24 and 25, provides four new fumaces of 450 tpd capacity each, in a new building on City owned property immediately east of the existing plant. Steam generation is effected by means of waterwall boilers. The 3-level traveling grate will be equipped with automatic siftings removal equipment. The new building will be fitted with cranes, residue conveyors, and all other necessary appurtenances for a complete and properly functioning installation. Air pollution control equipment will consist of gas conditioning towers, electrostatic precipitators, and induced draft fans. Individual 150 ft high stacks will be provided for each fumace. These stacks will be clustered in 2 groups of 2 stacks each. Each stack group will be masked in an aesthetically pleasing tower structure. ARRANGEMENT XI Dusseldorf drum grates are employed in Arrangement XI, Fig. C-AP-26 and 27, which is basically similar to Arrangement X. Capacities, equipment types and pollu- tion control systems are identical to Arrangement X. ARRANGEMENT XII Arrangement XII, Fig. C-V-10, 11 and 12, is basically similar to Arrangement X, except that the waste heat boilers are flue -connected to the furnaces, thus elim- inating the waterwolls. Preceding the boilers are secondary combustion chambers with hopper bottom ash collectors. For ease of boiler maintenance, as for other C-IV-43 W E G MAN • GREENLEAF / T E L E S CA 1 r 1 flue -connected boiler arrangements, a by-pass flue Is provided around each boiler. In this arrangement any combination or any single pollution control train may be taken out of service without affecting operation of the others. This arrangement, though more costly than Arrangement X, insures continuous furnace operation under all conditions and is the recommended incinerator arrangement for Alternate Plan No. 1. ARRANGEMENT XIII In Arrangement XIII, Fig. C-AP-28 and 29, all steam generation equipment has been eliminated. The fumace and stoker configurations are similar to Arrange- ment X; however, a secondary combustion chamber has been provided, directly preceding each gas conditioning tower. All cooling of the furnace flue gases is accomplished in the towers prior to the gases entering the precipitators. This plant, without boilers, would not be recommended for the reasons cited in the discussion given under Arrangement V. ARRANGEMENT XIV Arrangement XIV, Fig. C-AP-30, is unique in that it employs an unusually large number of small module type furnaces to provide the required capacity of 1200 tpd. The modules are packaged by Waste Control Systems, Inc. of Houston, Texas under the trade name Consumat. The largest furnace unit developed by them to date is 12.5 tpd and 96 of these units would be required for the ultimate planned capacity of 1200 tpd. The system concept of small furnace units means that installation of modules can be phased more closely to the growing refuse load than is possible with the other arrangements studied, which require phased installations in either 400 tpd or 450 tpd increments corresponding to respective fumace capacities. The economy inherent in the phased installation of smaller furnace units is accounted for in the uniform accounting procedure used as the basis of economic comparison of alternate arrangements. A reserve factor of 10% is used in lieu of the 25% factor which is applicable in developing the cost per ton for the other arrangements. The use of a lower reserve factor has the effect of increasing the denominator in the uniform accounting procedure formula given in Table C-IV-9 to account for the fact that installed capacity in any time interval is being employed more efficiently. This effect for reducing the cost per ton is nullified by the high capital cost for the incremental additions to the plant over its life and also due to its high operating cost, because of the larger staff needed to operate and maintain the many small furnace units and also due to the large element of cost for continuous auxiliary fuel firing, which is a requirement of this system. C-IV-44 WIEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA Capital costs for this arrangement include electrostatic precipitators, conditioning towers, breechings, stacks, refuse and residue handling equipment including storage bins for refuse received. Earlier installations of the Consumat furnaces in the Houston area have been of limited capacity, multi -sited installations in fringe areas where many of the costly capitol cost elements, required in a large, central facility, as is indicated for Miami, were not required. F. Coconut Grove Incinerator Alternates The Coconut Grove Incinerator, completed in 1960, has encountered many problems, as outlined in Chapters C-1 and C-11. The City's records show the unit costs for the plant to be nominal, without allowing for the cost of modern air pollution control. Cost per ton, including debt service, amounted to $11.06 in 1969-70. The plant through -put in 1969-70, however, was only 30,000 tons, due to maintenance problems and the court -ordered shutdown in August 1970. The operating cost used by the City in the computation of $11.06 per ton approximated those for a normal year in which some 45,000 tons of solid waste were incinerated. Adjusting the unit cost to a 45,000 ton base, it becomes $7.35 per ton. This compares favorably with costs for the Twentieth Street Incinerator, which was $9.44 per ton in the same period and also with the $8.85 estimated cost per ton for modern incineration in a new plant, as developed in Alternate Plan No. 1. The estimated $2,000,000 capital investment that would be required to reduce particulate emissions from the incinerator stack to meet Dade County codes, when capitalized at 4-1/2% interest for 22-1/2 years, adds $157,600 debt service to the plant's annual costs. Based on a 45,000 ton average through -put of refuse, $3.50 per ton would be added to the unit cost. Additional cost of utilities and maintenance due to the air pollution control equipment would approximate $1.00 per ton, bringing the total cost per ton to $11.85. This cost would be difficult to justify in view of the satisfactory alternates available, even though the City is currently paying about $75,000 per year for existing debt service on this plant. Another possibility considered for the City's Coconut Grove Incinerator is its conversion to a shredder facility. This concept was studied and layouts are shown in Figures C-AP-31, 32 and 33. Cost of the shredder installation at Coconut Grove is estimated at $1,500,000 and could be economically justified. However, because of its location with respect to residences and because of the noise inherent in a shredder facility and the heavy truck traffic that the plant would draw, the shredder operation at Coconut Grove is not ad- visable. C-IV-45 W EGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA r r r r r r r ■ CHAPTER V - RECOMMENDED AND SUITABLE ALTERNATE DISPOSAL PLANS A. Plan Base and Outline 1. Miami and Miami Beach From Miami's view, the inclusion of Miami Beach has several advantages. As a general rule the larger the plant the more efficient it becomes. Particularly in the range of refuse disposal involved here. The additional Miami Beach loading enables support of a better qualified operating staff and a better schedul- ing of operating hours. Land requirements ore, of course, higher. But the difficulty and sequence of procuring the basic Miami acreage is not significantly Tess than that needed for both cities. All aspects of survey, hearings, negotiations and the like are not materially affected. Financially, Miami should benefit in allocating contributions by receiving an equitable allowance for the importance of its administration, land and existing facilities which will be devoted to the refuse disposal system serving both cities. Also, the financial base for bonding is stronger when two cities are in association, rather than one. From Miami Beach's view, the combination is beneficial because it provides facilities totally unavailable within its own boundaries, thereby leaving its own taxable land unaffected by municipal refuse impact. Further, Miami Beach benefits by avoiding the cost and administration for its own disposal system, and keeps itself clear of an otherwise recurring need to upgrade, make new contracts and the like. Miami Beach is freed of the onerous task of coping with the inevitable environmental challenges of creating a new refuse disposal complex. For both communities the posture of an on -going multi -municipal operation gives them a preferred status in Federal financial aid programs. Usually such programs provide a 75% contribution for a group, as opposed to 67% Federal participation for the single city. A joint enterprise, on a workable and equitable basis, is con- clusively beneficial to both cities. Accordingly, the three plans discussed below all contemplate joint usage. 2. The Recommended Plan and Alternates The Recommended Plan employs shredders for volume reduction with disposal in a controlled landfill, using a membrane barrier for groundwater protection, C—V—i WEGMAN o GREENLEAF / T E L E S CA r N M and a soil cover. A new shredder fac i I i ty will be constructed at the 20th Street site. The existing incinerator will be phased out by 1975 and the building will be converted to a second shredding facility. New land acquisition for the controlled landfill Is a key element of this plan. Alternate Plan No. 1 provides for the construction of a new incinerator facility at the 20th Street site, and the conversion of the existing in- cinerator to a shredding facility, with somewhat less new land requirements. Alternate Plan No. 2 achieves the greatest volume reduction via a new incinerator with pre -shredding. This is the most expensive of the three systems and contemplates no new land acquisition. B. Landfill Site 1. General Implementation of a solid waste management plan requires that land for the ultimate deposition of the end residue be available and under municipal con- trol . Elsewhere in the report it is shown that the 25 year average, 1975-2000, of the 2030 tons per day of raw refuse expected from Miami and Miami Beach will demand, each day, 6250 cy of land volume if shredded, and 685 cy if completely incinerated. At 1613 cy per acre-foot (1 acre filled to a height of 1 foot) the doily demand is 3.86 acre-feet for shredding and 0.43 acre-feet for incineration. if a fill height is assumed to be 54 feet, 1 acre will provide 54 acre-feet. Thus, with allowance for cover, borrow pit, grading and the like, from 1975 to 2000 shredding demands a landfill area of 815 acres and incineration 89 acres, Table C-IV-8. Neither Miami nor Miami Beach presently control the quantity of land required for shredding, so it will have to be acquired if that plan is followed. 2. Virginia Key Virginia Key has a total land area of some 950 acres, of which 714 are owned by the City of Miami, and of the Miami property 120 acres are now employed for the refuse disposal operation. But a number of restraints preclude any assurance that the present refuse land can long continue such service, let alone be expanded. Figure C-V-14 shows the Virginia Key area of Biscayne Bay. The existing 47 mgd sewage treatment plant on Virginia Key occupies 65 acres of the city -owned land and the January 15, 1971 feasibility report prepared by the Department of Water and Sewers forecasts a need for an additional 65 acres for plant updating and expansion. Expansion may be either to the south, encroaching on the present landfill site, or to the north on undeveloped land, hydraulically filled when the shipping channel was previously dredged. C-V-2 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA M The Corps of Engineers is once again planning to dredge the Miami channel, and will again place spoil material on the 150 acres at the north end of Vir- ginia Key. It is anticipated that work will commence in the spring of 1972 and will be completed in September 1974. The spoil material will reach elevation 25 to 30 above mean low water . The area west of the existing disposal site is covered with mangroves and is subject to partial inundation by the waters of Biscayne Bay. The mean high water line has not been established for Virginia Key so that it is not known whether approval for usage in the mangrove area would be required of the Corps of Engineers, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Florida Department of Natural Resources and the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund, agencies with jurisdiction below this line. The Fish and Wildlife Service, along with the State agencies, is opposed to use of significant areas of mangroves, however. The Fish and Wildlife Service advised the Metro Commission in November 1971 that the agency would refuse to recommend approval of any dredge and fill permits seaward of the mean high water line in the South Dade bayshore mangrove area. Reportedly, the utilization of additional areas of Virginia Key would not be in keeping with the objectives of the Coastal Coordinat- ing Council of the Department of Natural Resources which does not visualize a solid waste disposal facility as being suitable usage of a coastal region. Miami has considered the construction of a public golf course on Virginia Key, requiring the use of some 130 acres of land. The employment of 65 acres north of the existing sewage treatment plant for plant expansion to the ultimate capacity of 210 mgd does not leave sufficient land for a golf course in this part of the key. When the Corps of Engineers was seeking spoil sites, Miami sug- gested that the marginal land in the northwest portion of Virginia Key be extended into the tidal flats and open water. The established bulkhead lines in this area are from 1000 ft to 4000 ft from the existing shoreline. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- vice and the Florida Department of Natural Resources objected, however, and the matter was dropped . Dodge Island Seaport, a mile and a quarter northwest of Virginia Key, is developing at a remarkable rate as the Caribbean Cruise Terminal. The distance from Virginia Key to the channel used by the many ships serving the port is Tess than three quarters of a mile, raising the possibility of a landfill operation at the northern Hp of the Key being aesthetically detrimental to the tourist's vista. In 1970 some 700,000 passengers used the port, three times the 1966 volume. Passengers from north- eastern states enjoy saving the two days or more of winter sailing in exchange for a two or three hour airplane trip to Miami. Forecasts are for a million transits in 1975. Cargo shipping is also increasing at Dodge Island, with some 1600 trailers being handled at present. C-V-3 W EGINAN • GREENLEAF / T E L E S CA For refuse needs, the very best that could be contemplated on Virginia Key would be continuance of the present refuse site of 120 acres. If a com- pleted fill height of 54 ft can be achieved, the yield would be .3750 acre-feet, suf- ficient to accommodate the incinerator residue from Alternate Plan No. 2 for 25 years. The present system of disposing of incinerated garbage and trash and raw rubbish and bulk will fill the site to about 23 ft in approximately 3 years, or 1975. The use of cover material is reflected in the depletion rates, Figure C-V-15. Several recreational facilities are on Virginia Key, including the Commodore Ralph Monroe Marine Stadium, the Seaquarium and Virginia Beach. The University of Miami Marine Laboratory is on the Key. The Dade County General Land Use Master Plan indicates Virginia Key usage, in general, as parks and recreation, but an amendment adopted on May 28, 1969 changes a portion of the key from park to institutional designation, for use in oceanographic sciences. Included in this area were facilities for the Tropical Atlantic Biological Laboratory and the Environmental Science Services Administration (now part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) . Miami applied for a permit to construct a trench type landfill on the northern 150 acres of Virginia Key, but permission was denied by the Bureau of Entomology of the Division of Health of the State Department of Health and Rehab- ilitative Services. Reasons given included probable odors, water pollution, mosquito breeding in water in the cells, inability to cover daily in water filled trenches and the proximity of the Virginia Beach bathing area. Subsequent discussions with the Bureau of Entomology and the Solid Waste Planning Office of the Division of Health, and other state, county and federal agencies revealed that a controlled landfill, above mean high water, with a membrane leachate barrier, would be permitted on Virginia Key, but all agencies expressed reluctance to see the land used for solid waste dis- posal . The decision to place channel dredging spoil on the key, the probability of sewage treatment plant expansion in a northerly direction, the City consideration of the construction of a public golf course and the unusual aesthetics of the area, with its panoramic view of Biscayne Bay, downtown Miami and Miami Beach, the Dodge Island Seaport and the Atlantic Ocean, are all public policy factors to be weighed in considering expanding the disposal operation to the northern tip of Virginia Key. 3. Other Sites There are no other areas within the political boundaries of Miami or Miami Beach, which could be considered suitable for refuse service economically, functionally and environmentally. Practically, therefore, the City of Miami must move to acquire adequate acreage, outside its borders, which meets the above criteria. To be en- vironmentally acceptable it would have to be in a lightly used area, not presently designated for park or recreational use, surrounded by open space, and suitable for W E G MA N • C-V-4 G R E E N LE A F / TELESCA 1 r M • • M op protection against groundwater and stream pollution. Economically the site should be within 20 miles of the 20th Street Incinerator, require minimum work to incorporate groundwater and stream pollution protection and be of comparatively low cost per acre. Functionally it would hove to be large enough to accommodate a controlled landfill, 54 ft high, through the year 2000. To place 54 ft in perspective the site will have dimensions in the range of 5000 ft x 7000 ft, so that a 54 ft height would hardly be noticed. Land meeting these criteria does lie within the boundaries of Dade County, in the unincorporated area west of Krome Avenue and south of the Tamiomi Trail (U.S. Highway 41). Unless the City elects Alternate Plans 1 or 2 and continues refuse operations at Virginia Key, land equivalent to that available west of Krome Avenue will be required very shortly. Preliminary inquiries of the County Division of Water Control, the State Flood Control District and its Miami Field Station and the Dade County Building and Zoning Department indicate no objection to the Krome Avenue site, providing the land is graded to meet the flood criteria. The City reportedly has no legal obstacle to the acquisition of such land. Borings would be required to determine the suit- ability of the material for use in grading and cover. The development of an open space and recreation area by means of a controlled landfill is shown in Figs. C-V-7 and C-V-8. C. Recommended Plan Features and Costs 1. General The Recommended Plan is charted on Fig. C-V-1 against the grow- ing Toad of combined refuse generated in Miami and Miami Beach through the year 2000. The plan provides for the orderly retirement of the existing Miami incinerator plant at 20th Street by 1975 and the phased construction of an enlarged refuse processing -transfer station complex utilizing the existing plant building, and adjacent City -owned site area. In lieu of the present practice of incinerating gar- bage and trash and direct haul of rubbish and bulk to the Virginia Key landfill along with the incinerator residue, all refuse will be received at the complex, processed by shredding and then compacted into transport trailers for haul to a new landfill site west of Miami . To implement the pion, a phased program outlined in Table C-V-1 should be followed. A tabular summary of capital requirements for this program is given in Table C-VI-1. The success of the Recommended Plan is contingent on the avail- ability of land required for landfill, estimated at 815 acres for the needs of Miami and Miami Beach through the year 2000. C-V-5 GREENLEAF / TELESCA • protection against groundwater and stream pollution. Economically the site should be within 20 miles of the 20th Street Incinerator, require minimum work to incorporate groundwater and stream pollution protection and be of comparatively low cost per acre. Functionally it would have to be large enough to accommodate a controlled landfill, 54 ft high, through the year 2000. To place 54 ft in perspective the site will have dimensions in the range of 5000 ft x 7000 ft, so that a 54 ft height would hardly be noticed. Land meeting these criteria does lie within the boundaries of Dade County, in the unincorporated area west of Krome Avenue and south of the Tamiami Trail (U.S. Highway 41). Unless the City elects Alternate Plans 1 or 2 and continues refuse operations at Virginia Key, land equivalent to that available west of Krome Avenue will be required very shortly. Preliminary inquiries of the County Division of Water Control, the State Flood Control District and its Miami Field Station and the Dade County Building and Zoning Department indicate no objection to the Krome Avenue site, providing the land is graded to meet the flood criteria. The City reportedly has no legal obstacle to the acquisition of such land. Borings would be required to determine the suit- ability of the material for use in grading and cover. The development of an open space and recreation area by means of a controlled landfill is shown in Figs. C-V-7 and C-V-8. C. Recommended Plan Features and Costs 1. General The Recommended Plan is charted on Fig. C-V-1 against the grow- ing load of combined refuse generated in Miami and Miami Beach through the year 2000. The plan provides for the orderly retirement of the existing Miami incinerator plant at 20th Street by 1975 and the phased construction of an enlarged refuse processing -transfer station complex utilizing the existing plant building, and adjacent City -owned site area. In lieu of the present practice of incinerating gar- bage and trash and direct haul of rubbish and bulk to the Virginia Key landfill along with the incinerator residue, all refuse will be received at the complex, processed by shredding and then compacted into transport trailers for haul to a new landfill site west of Miami . To implement the plan, a phased program outlined in Table C-V-1 should be followed. A tabular summary of capital requirements for this program is given in Table C-VI-1. The success of the Recommended Plan is contingent on the avail- ability of land required for landfill, estimated at 815 acres for the needs of Miami and Miami Beach through the year 2000. WEGIMAN • C-V-5 G R E E N L E A F / TELESCA 3300 3000 2700 2400 WOO WOO 1100 N00 TOMS 3 G00 300 0 1210 1973 11E0 1993 WS 2000 YEAR MIAMI I 211AM1 REACH COMBINED GARBAGE 0 TRASH. RUBBISH 1 BULK r 9, i 1990 OADO OVERFIRE AIR JET SYSTEMS TO E71ST1N0 FURNACES AT20NST"': INCINERATOR PLANT CRATED AT G00 TON/GAT) AS IMMEDIATE ACTION INTERIM MEASURE roe IMPROVED' AIR POLLUTION CONTROL PERFORMANCE. PROCEED WITH EN01N1ERING ON maw SHREEDDEFACILITY IR NEW Down: HvES12 SIRLOINS. OA00 2-UOOTON/I1HR. SHRE00ER FACIUTY IN NEW 200ST. (WEST) IUILOING. OPERATE 1 SMRIDOER AT 1200 24 M . G THE OTHER AT E00 ISHR. FOR CONFINED OUTPUT 0 2000 TOWOAT.. CEASE OPLRAIIOIA EXISTING INCINERATOR PLANT AT 201 ST. MAST) WILD °REMOVE OW -HALF OF O11GTe1GNWORRATOR PLANT; Am t4Go _ MINN SHREDDER • Row woo M can rpm 1EAlr) WILDING. 1100oo OPERATE ALL SMIILDDERF TOM/IAN14 O4 REMOVE REMAINING HALF OF EXISTING INCINERATOR PLANT Si A00 1-400TON/SHR. SHREDDER AT 201N ST. (EAST)' WILDING. RENEW 2ND .CRANE G 1NLARGl EXISTI HO RIM. 00PERATE ALL 4-1NR100ERS AT SOO TON/IS HR. FOR CONFINED THROWN -PUT OF 3200 TONIWOWS CITY OF MlAW, P10210A SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUOT RECCOVABIDED PLAN PLANNING DIAGRAM PHASED INSTALLATION OF=EIEDDERB mime a.r,rease. aoun.ar+ FIGURE C • 1 1 1 1 1 1 I i Year 1971 -72 1972 - 76 TABLE CE.V i4 RECOMMENDED PLAN OUTLINE FOR PHASED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN SERVING MIAMI AND MIAMI BEACH SHREDDING RUBBISH & BULK, GARBAGE & TRASH 1976-80 1980-83 1983 - 86 Phase Cost Description ( $ 85,000 Solid Waste Management Study i (5,000 Air Pollution Control Improvements at 20th Street Incinerator 1 500,000 Option to Purchase Land for Controlled landfill 2 $6,800,000* Design and Construct New 2-Unit Shredder Facility in New 20th Street (West) Building 2 3,670,000 Complete Purchase of Land for Controlled Landfill 2 1,920,000* Prepare First Block of Land for Controlled Landfill $1,920,000* Prepare Second Block .of Land for Controlled Landfill 3 & 4 $2,000,000* Install I Shredder and Renew I Crane in Existing 20th Street (East) Building after removal of 1/2 of Existing Incinerator Plant 1,920,000* Prepare Third Block of land for Controlled landfill 5 $2, 500, 000* Install 2nd Shredder, Renew 2nd Crane and enlarge Existing Bin in Existing 20th Street (East) Building after Removal of Remaining half of Existing Incinerator Plant 1,920,000* Prepare Fourth Block of Land for Controlled landfill C-V-7 r r r Year 1986 - 91 1991-99 Total Phase MIR - TABLE `V'.I (cont'd) Cost description, $I, 920, 000* Prepare Fifth Block of Land for Control led Landfill 1,920,000* Prepare Sixth Block of Land for Controlled Landfill $1,920,000* Prepare Seventh Block of Land for Controlled Landfill 1,920,000* Prepare Eighth Block of Land for Controlled Landfill 1,920,000* Prepare Ninth Block of Land for Controlled $32, 850, 000 Landfill *Engineering Costs included in Cost Given for Construction C-V-8 r r r r M 2. The Shredder Plant a. Refuse Receipt, Storage and Feed The refuse receipt, storage and feed systems will draw on time -proven concepts which have been developed for incinerator facilities and which are currently in use in Miami's 20th Street incinerator. An enclosed tipping floor area allows refuse delivery trucks to enter to discharge their contents directly into a receiving bin. The bin will have a capacity of approximately 10,000 cubic yards, corresponding to about 1600 tons of refuse storage. Removal from the receiving bin to feed the 2 shredders will be by means of 2 - 12 ton overhead crones, each operating 7 cubic yard grapples. b. Shredders Each operating crane grapple will deposit its payload of refuse into an oversized, wide -mouth feed hopper. The grapple will operate through a fine, spray water mist which will blanket the hopper to hold down dust . A vibrating pan conveyor, operating within the hopper will feed the refuse at a controlled rate into the shredder. Each shredder will have an hourly rating of 75 tons but will nor- mally be operated at a conservative feed rote of 50 tons per hour for an 8-hour through -put of 400 tons. Each shredder will discharge on to a cross -conveyor, designed to direct the shredded refuse to either one of 2 transfer packers which are connected to transport trailers. The transfer packer will ram feed the shredded refuse into the transport trailers for haul to the landfill . Should a market develop for scrap recycled ferrous metal in the refuse, an alternate shredder discharge will be to a magnetic separator. c. Appurtenances (1) The new shredder building will provide ancillary facil- ities such as maintenance shops, offices, locker rooms, toilets and electrical equip- ment which will complement such existing 20th Street facilities for the requirements of the expanded complex. (2) Site redevelopment, Figure C-V-2, will provide a system of roads and ramps and a new scalehouse located so that all trucks entering the area will be routed across either one of 2 scales for rapid weigh-in and direction to the designated tipping area. Site layout will include parking for plant personnel and visitors. Building exterior architectural treatment and area landscaping will be coordinated with site functional requirements for enhanced overview aesthetics. C-V-9 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF/ TELESCA 6 111 IF It yr in lir la vior lor irr mit -um sok • . . SITE PLAN 0 COW MOOS SOLI WWI VO merao IW.IKOTVI MOO 111/1e71.6 " • %ALI CM OV IMAM FLORID* SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUOT nEcommetion PUN SHREDDER FammEs smatooese rum gamest* coor sigate guar capotrie le ammo mauve SITE PLAN LOOM OVIKOSSIO MING sawasers mimeo 0404ast miaow ~um FIGURE C r p 1 A Plans and sections for the new building are shown in Figs. C-V-3 and C-V-4 and for the existing plant, converted to shredding in Figs. C-V-5 and C-V-6. 3. The Controlled Landfill The landfill site will be fenced for safety and to prevent unauthor- ized entrance for either disposal or scavenging purposes. The condition of high groundwater prevalent throughout western Dade County is anticipated at the landfill site. If the upper soil layer is found to be unsuitable material, incapable of supporting the proposed landfill, it will be neces- sary to strip it and replace it with suitable material . In any case, the land must be graded, with borrow if necessary, to conform to the Division of Water Control flood criteria. A barrier is required to prevent contact between the groundwater and water leaching through the shredded and milled refuse. Several plastic and rub- ber compound barriers are available. Clay has been used effectively for this purpose and sprayed on asphaltic compounds have also been employed. A permeable layer of soil is placed ontsop of the membrane, which has been constructed so as to make maximum use of gravity flow. Leachate flows through the permeable material to a treatment system. The flatness of the terrain requires pumping stations at scattered locations and pressure piping to convey the Leachate to an aeration lagoon which will have an impervious bottom. The pumping station will also serve as a pre - settling unit and will remove flotabies which might cause difficulties in the aerator operation. Aeration lagoon effluent will be treated by chlorination, liming or other means of purification and will then flow into another lagoon with a pervious bottom which will dispose of the treated water by evaporation and return to ground water. Surface of the landfill, on which 2 ft of cover material is placed, will be graded so that runoff will flow in swales or ditches to the pumping stations. Gas ventilation will be provided. Staged construction of the landfill, Figs. C-V-7 and C-V-8, can provide recreational facilities such as golfing, swimming, picnicking, tennis and handball a few years after the operation commences. Suitable screening with trees and bushes will provide a buffer between the recreation areas and the landfill operation. D. Alternate Plan No. 1 A contingent plan, more costly but requiring less land, estimated at approximately 365 acres for the needs of Miami and Miami Beach through the year 2000, is an alternate to the recommended plan. C-V-11 WEGNIAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA it lir 111-M11"111-111ruulliw" low -ow . r _ sexammAsna �(.>MO.�...IIPPP.pIQ�T / 1 TORMEADYLAIONI -___ �'— I I1 1 =A 1 II / • 1 -t=it 1 11 LA). 1, t1 l' ‘1-____.J.J y 1-� �t ,r-- 1 1 I1 WEIS -- �.._-+,L' .r'r Tom..._) — -v—r----=---'-� 1 1 1 L_ _J • • tseirtr vui w PUT GENERAL PLAN ♦ I-rPKOOu RO" i0000! OIM r %a =O Mit-- ts4M! , L_ ij '>h O I I - 1 ?i 4. 4 1 r SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY —1SHREDDER FACILITIES 18101 011100001 PLASM .OPi.O lT /0 O.R l0• ROW! 030001/10 10 00110000 .1101117 GENERAL RAN moos overman most a[ouarim sca. PIW♦A DOWN I...POR1{ MIME C-7- 3 II ; -i-"-, i II 1I'1 'L' ' I 1 I I. 1 11 t-_— % �i% / % i L--a / , ! f 1 1 ,� I T; --r ,f1� - 11 4 I. V SECTION 1-1 cm O mem SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY SHREDDER FACILITIES w rrLR A -A RAw "SECTION 2 2 1111 111 111 1111 II ill 11 11 111111 11111111ff is lir ,:floa. ,lak CRY v MO. wawa Sous WASTE wwAG MENT =WI SHREDDER FACILITY loll NW Imo Ins se vs ime vet IMF lilt 1111r 111 OPERATING PROC UR I. STRIP MUCK AND EXCAVATE SORROW PIT, STOCKPILE SORROW MATERIAL. 2. PLACE PICNIC I AREA ANDMALAKE. CONSTRUCTAL IN FILL REPARKING `AEA. POOFOR L AND FENCE. 3. STRIP MUCK , CONSTRUCT SPORTS AREA. PARKIINGRAREA, OW ALANDSCAPE RAREA �S. AND T U FENCE. REMOVE FENCING BETWEEN AREAS "A AND "S- 4. STRIP MUCK. STOCKPILE, PLACE SORROW MATERIAL FOR AREA "C� CONSTRUCT GOLF COURSE AND PARKING AREA. S. STRIP MUCK. STOCKPILE. PL ACE REATRBORROW MA E RIA L FOR AREA " D" LANDSCAPE , TYPICAL PL.MI r9MP l FTED CONTROL I FD l.A FI APROXIMATE AREA I l SQUARE MILE OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION AREAS TO CONFORM TO STANDARDS RECOMMENDED SY METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY PL. ANNNI O DEPARTMENT AND METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY PARKS RECREATION DEPARTMENT . COMPACTED SOLID WASTE — — 11111 ART H COVER EACKFILL WITH NORRD FROM LAKE AREA (SORK W PIT AVATE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL SELECT BORROW {POROUS MATERIAL ) (I ERMEASLE MEMBRANE LANDSCAPED LAKE ( PADDLE BOATS, FOUNTAINS SWIMMING POOL, PICNIC AND PARKING AREAS BEYOND fiRIte,tralk. f GOLF COURSE COMPLETED LANDFILL TYPICAL CELL SECTION DURING OPERATION TYPICAL SECTION OF COMPLETED LANDFILL OTC sMOV6 seello N! D.LJOTRATIVt ONLY. NOT DRAWN TO MC ALC DEVELOPM NT OF OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION AREA pY MEANS OF CONTROLLED LANDFILL =Dula EMI KMN CO INC. NNEDLBAF/TELESCA FIGURE c• Y . s I 1 This contingent plan is charted on fig. C-V-9 agairist the growing Toad of garbage, trash, rubbish and bulk, estimated up to the end of this century. The plan provides for the phased retirement of the existing Miami incinerator, this re- tirement to be completed in 1981; for the construction of a best state-of-the-art incin- erator of enlarged capacity on the City -owned site immediately west of the existing plant; and for the installation of shredders in the existing plant. The present practice of incinerating only garbage and trash will be continued; however, in lieu of direct haul of rubbish and bulk to landfill, this refuse will be received and processed by shredding in the renovated 20th Street (east) plant and then compacted into transport trailers for haul to the landfill. Residue from incineration will also be transported to landfill, however, in Pak-mor tank trucks, as presently used by Miami. The phased program to implement this alternate plan is outlined in Table C-V-2. A tabular summary of capital expenditures on the program is given in Table C-VI-1. The proposed site layout is shown in Fig. C-V-I0. The existing incin- erator building converted to a shredding facility is as shown for the Recommended Plan (Figs. C-V-5, C-V-6). Plan and sections for the incinerator shown on the Site Plan are given in Figs. C-V-11 and C-V-12. E. Alternate Plan No. 2 A second alternate plan, the most costly but requiring the least land for landfill, provides for incineration of rubbish and bulk as well as garbage and trash. Because this alternate plan offers maximum predictable volume reduction, landfill requirements are only about 89 acres to serve the needs of Miami and Miami Beach from 1975 through 2000. Alternate Plan No.2 is in reality an extension of Alternate Plan No. 1, since rubbish and bulk must first be shredded before it is incinerated. The incre- mental cost of Alternate Plan No. 2 over that of No. 1 is due to the additional incinerator capacity for the rubbish and bulk. Alternate Plan No. 2 is charted on Fig. C-V-13 showing the expanding Toad of garbage, trash, rubbish and bulk, and combined refuse generated in Miami and Miami Beach through the year 2000. The phased program to implement the second alternate plan is outlined in Table C-V-3. A tabular summary of year -by -year capital costs for the program is given in Table C-VI-1. Plans and sections for Alternate No. 2 are the same as for Alternate No. 1 with the exception that additional incineration capacity is required in 1982. C-V-18 W EGMA N • GREENLEAF / T E L E SCA 5500 3000 2700 2400 2100 1900 900 0 1995 2000 3500 2700 2400 2100 1000 1500 0 W )200 a IO 2. H • 900 1 r~ 500 0 1970 1975 1930 1995 1990 YEAR MIAMI a MIAMI BEACH RUBBISH 6 BULK .4.4111444444 A r 0 AOD OVE3FME AO JET SYSTENO TO EXISTING NNMACIO AT WOW ST. INCINERATOR PLANT (NATIO AT S00 TON/OAT I AS 019E0I61E *010)4 1NTENIY NEASINIE FON IN/R0VE0 A1N POLLUTION C041E04 FENFONNANCE. M10CEE0 NITS EN3UIEERIN6 ON NEW RICINENATOR FACILITY 1N N EW 20TN ST (WEST) ILD* MO WIT. SHEENIER FACILITY TO REPLACE EXISTING PURNACTO NI SNI3T. 10T. ST t9AST) NOS. ADO 3-430 TON/N NR NIGNUITOR FACILITY W/PROVI/IONS FON FUT. 4TN 4S0 TON/14 Nit UNIT NA NEW NTH ST (WEST) SLOB. NEINWE I/1 OF EXIST. EDT. ST. (EAST)' IIIOM/RAYON PLANT TO F3OV101 mow FOR NEW 000 TON/1 1NRE001N UNDER MAIM 4 °t O ADO td00 TONNIL SNI /10 NIL I) EXIST LOTH STAND* (EAST) AND NSOEW 1 EMIT. CRANE. 5 O ADD 1-450 10,024 NN: NICDI(EATOE newt AT 20714 E1.0R1T)' HOE. ©REMOVE NENNINO0N OF EXIST X01 ST. (EAST) INCINERATOR FAtOL/T119 TO PROVIDE E0011 POW NEW' 40D TON/S�33NEDOER UH01N N( PHASE 7t i O *OD I-400 TON/1 NIL 7111100E4 1N SNIIT. EOTN. 3T OLDS. (EAST1• NINE, 2N0 EXIST. CRANE AND EMLAR4X EN(SE ON. CITY OF MIAMI, FLOR10A SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY ALTERNATE PLAN No. 1 PLANNING DIAGRAM' t995 2000 PHASED OF INCI • R GARBAGE0N O 15 TRASH, SHREDDERS FOR RUBBISH d BULK 1E0N4110 i WENIAN CO INC. W1EEN1EAP/T1L110A flGU t c-I.9 4k I 1970 1975 1990 1995 1990 TEAR MIAMI 8 MIAMI BEACH GARBAGE 9 TRASH r r r I M M 1 1 1 1 OUTLINE INCINERATION Year 1971 - 72 1972 - 76 1976-80 1980 - 83 TABLE C-V-2 ALTERNATE PLAN NO. I FOR PHASED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN SERVING MIAMI AND MIAMI BEACH OF GARBAGE & TRASH, SHREDDING OF RUBBISH & BULK Phase 1 Cost Description $ 85,000 Solid Waste Management Study 215,000* Air Pollution Control Improvements at 20th Street Incinerator 250,000 2 $20,260,000* 3 500,000* 1,575,000 840,000* 4 $1, 500, 000 840,000* 5 5,500,000 6 & 7 $2, 500, 000k C-V-20 Option to Purchase land for Controlled Landfill Design and Construct 3 450 Ton/24 Hr. Incinerator with Provision for future 4th 450 Ton/24 Hr. Unit in New 20th Street (West) Building Remove 1/2 of Existing 20th Street (East) Incinerator Plant and Engineering Design in Preparation for Installation of New Shredder Complete Purchase of Land for Controlled Landfil I Prepare First Block of Land for Controlled Landfill Install 1800 Ton/I6 Hr. Shredder in Existing 20th Street (East) Building and Renew I Existing Crane Prepare Second Block of Land for Controlled Landfill Install 1450 Ton/24 Hr. Incinerator Furnace in New 20th Street (West) Building Install 2nd Shredder, Renew 2nd Crane and Enlarge Existing Bin in Existing 20th Street (East) Building after Removal of Remaining Half of Existing Incinerator Plant Year 1980 - 83 (cont'd) (983 - 86 (986 - 91 1991 - 99 NO SID • TABLE C=V-2 (cont'd) Cost Description $ 840,000* Prepare Third Block of Land for Controlled Landfill $ 840,000* Prepare Fourth Block of Land for Controlled Landfill $ 840,000* Prepare Fifth Block of Land for Controlled Landfill $ 840,000* Prepare Sixth Block of Land for Controlled Landfill $ 840,000* Prepare Seventh Block of Land for Controlled Landfill 840,000* Prepare Eighth Block of Land for Controlled Landfill 840,000* Prepare Ninth Block of Land for Controlled Landfill TOTAL - $39,945, 000 *Engineering Costs included in Cost Given for Construction C-V-21 . • • 1111-11-1111" •!../... •,..,m,,, • ise,fiz .;,,,,,,:z.nner:i9Ava ..,9, Acres • AeilLIMVIII ••••••• ilffalir , e reralffigaro A A ii/. 5. wi, 4 EliFilliPW, ,. 4 6 0 V, if:. ,..• •wi. r," /pzeff;,,,,,i.•:,i FI,A.,1/42 11- is is-# II INV SECTION 20 - 20 MMr ver Amu vow -^sior am or Wilk name SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT MDT ALUM IKra Mal ARRANGEMENT Xi sera• .__wSW MEV SECTION MOPS 1111106•111:0 flIMPIAgf MAIM FIGURE IC- V- 12 n U 3300 3000 2700 2400 2100 1900 1500 0 Gs 1200 s 2 900 600 300 0 1970 1975 .0 / / a ` ci ,4 76, ; 4.1, / / 1,s'• 4.----0-- Is .10 ..._ isee .00 1900 19115 YEA R MIAMI S MIAMI BEACH 1990 GARBAGE 8 TRASH RUBBISH 8 BULK TONS PER DAY 3300 3000 2T00 2400 2100 IB00 1500 1200 900 600 300 0 /- es� SAME AS ALTERATE PLAN Nat EXCEPT A00 s OA00 2-450TON/24 NR INCINERATOR FACILITY WPROV1111I0* FOR FUTURE 31112 43* T011124 NR. UNIT. 1995 2000 1970 1975 1940 1985 1990 1995 2000 YEAR MIAMI S MIAMI BEACH INCINERATORS FOR GARBAGE d TRASH,;: SHREDDERS 8 INCINERATORS FOR RUBBISH d BULK RUBBISH 8 BULK LE0N'110 S. *OMAN w VIC. OIIW 5Arrnt.escw P1GU1 C'.!- 13 CITY OF MIAMI, FIARIOA SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY ALTERNATE PLAN Nw2 PLANNING DIAGRAM PHASED INSTALLATION OF 1 I I I M 1 TABLE C' V-3 ALTERNATE PLAN NO. 2 OUTLINE FOR PHASED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN SERVING MIAMI AND MIAMI BEACH INCINERAT ION OF GARBAGE AND TRASH SHREDDING OF RUBBISH AND BULK FOLLOWED BY INCINERATION Year Phase Cost Description 1971 - 72 I $ 85,000 Solid Waste Management Study 1 215,000* Air Pollution Control Improvements at 20th Street Incinerator 1972 - 76 2 $20,260,000* Construct 3 450 Ton/24 Hr. Incinerator with Provision for Future 4th 450 Ton/24 Hr. Unit in New 20th Street (West) Building 3 500,000* Remove 1/2 of Existing 20th Street (East) Incinerator Plant and Engineering Design in Preparation for Installation of New Shredder 1976 - 80 4 $1,500,000 Install 1 800 Ton/I6 hr. Shredder in Existing 20th Street (East) Building and Renew 1 Existing Crane 5 5,500,000 Install 1 450 Ton/24 Hr. Incinerator in New 20th Street (West) Building 1980 - 83 6 & 7 $2, 500, 000* Install 2nd Shredder, Renew 2nd Crane and Enlarge Existing Bin in Existing 20th Street (East) Building, after Removal of Remaining Half of Existing Incinerator Plant there 8 13,500,000* Construct new 2 450 Ton/I6 Hr. Incinerator Plant with Provision for Future 3rd 450 Ton/24 Hr. Unit TOTAL $ 44, 060, 000 *Engineering Costs Included in Cost Given for Construction C-V-26 • • F. Possible Modifications to Recommended and Alternate Disposal Plans 1. Limiting Initial Capital Cost In order to limit initial capital costs to the existing $7,000,000 au- thorized bond issue, the Recommended and Alternate Disposal Plans, as outlined above, would have to be modified as follows: a. Recommended Plan, Modified This plan for shredding all refuse generated in Miami and Miami Beach, as outlined in Table C-V-1, is unchanged except that no capital would be expended initially acquiring or improving lond for landfill. The shredded refuse, therefore, must all be hauled to and deposited on the existing Virginia Key landfill in lieu of a new landfill site. This modification will reduce the capital costs through 1976 to $6,900,000. The height of the landfill at Virginia Key will be raised to El. 54 feet by 1979 with shredded refuse from Miami and Miami Beach. Eliminating the contribution from Miami Beach, this height will be reached in 1980. A variation on the modification of the recommended plan which is also intended to keep within the $7,000,000 bond authorization, is the construction of only half the shredder facility that is ultimately required. The estimated cost of the re- duced -size shredder facility would be in the order of $4,000,000. The solid waste quantity is estimated at 1,700 tpd in 1976, exceeding the capability of the reduced -size plant by 600 tpd. The balance of money remaining from the $7,000,000 bond authorization may then be used to purchase and develop land for disposal as a controlled landfill i n an un- incorporated area of the County. b. Alternate Plan No. 1, Modified This plan, which would provide for incineration of garbage and trash and shredding of rubbish and bulk must be modified to remain within the $7,000,000 authorized bond issue. The modified plan would continue use of the existing Twentieth Street Incinerator, with the addition of air pollution control equipment necessary to meet Dade County codes. The pollution control equipment costs would amount to $4,200,000. The balance of money from the $7,000,000 bond authorization may be used to purchase and develop land as described above. Reference to Figure C-V-15 shows that the rate of land depletion for the existing reduction and disposal operation approximates the rate of lond depletion for deposition of shredded refuse. C-V-27 WIEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA r r r This modification contemplates the extended use of the new air pollution control equipment beyond 1981 when the existing furnaces would best be retired and replaced with modem incinerator equipment. Suitable plans for the ultimate modernization of the plant, wherein the $4,200,000 expenditure for air pollution equipment could be completely salvaged are contained in the first 5 incinerator arrangements summarized in Table C-IV-9. c. Alternate Plan No. 2, Modified Since Alternate Plan No. 2 is identical to Alternate Pion No. 1 up to the year 1982, the modification proposals for Alternate Plan No. 1 to keep within an initial expenditure of $7,000,000 would be equally applicable to Alternate Plan No. 2. 2. Minimum Measures The minimum measures outlined above are just that - minimum. None offer any dependable system after 1980. High land consumption is aggravated by deferring new land acquisition. This leads to a sort of dead end in 1980 - unless it is understood that additional funds must prudently be supplied within - say - the next two years. Certainly no later than 1975. G. Regulatory Jurisdiction 1. Jurisdictions and Other Governmental Functions Affecting the Recommended Plan a. Plant Planning for the recommended shredding and milling plant at the 20th Street location must take into account a variety of codes and jurisdic- tional bodies. These regulate the site selection through zoning and land use concepts. They control aspects of the building and equipment construction through building, fire, health, labor, air pollution and other codes and agencies. Facility operations are controlled, to some extent, under still other codes. Present City zoning restricts use of the 20th Street area to residential and office categories, but the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (Article IV Section 35) provides that any property owned by the City shall not be restricted in any municipal use by the Ordinance, provided that the use under consideration is recommended by the City Planning and Zoning Board and approved by the City Commission. C-V-28 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA N M 1 Design and construction of the plant must adhere to the South Florida Building Code, which governs in the City of Miami . Construction must also comply with the Rules of the State of Florida Division of Health (Chapter 10D-12) which provide that any garbage and rub- bish disposal or stabilizing process must be operated in a sanitary, nuisance -free manner. There ore no specific requirements in these rules for the operation of shred- ding and milling plants. The rules provide instead that before any stabilization method other than sanitary landfill is constructed or placed in operation, complete plans, specifications and design data must be submitted to the Division of Health for review and approval, through the local health department . Operational work plans must be submitted for sanitary landfill approval. The Dade County Code, Chapter 15, Garbage and Trash, specifies collection and removal practices and funding but does not relate to the plant construction. b. Hauling of Shredded Waste Use of public highways for hauling shredded waste from Miami to the proposed disposal site in the vicinity of Krome Avenue will be under the juris- diction of the State of Florida Department of Transportation. The weight of the loaded haul vehicles must meet limits mandated by the Department for the roads along the haul route. c. Disposal Site The operation of a disposal site is in the jurisdiction of the State of Florida Division of Health through the power of the Division's Bureau of Entomology to review and approve the municipality's operational work plan. The Dade County Building and Zoning Department has juris- diction over land use within the County. The County General Land Use Master Plan prepared by the County Planning Department designates the proposed disposal site as "Agricultural and Open Space". None of the land classifications of the County Master Plan designate garbage disposal . The Master Plan is conceived as a flexible document for guiding development; variance requires the approval of the County Zoning Appeals Board. During State review of site selection, there is also the possibility of comment by the U. S. National Park Service on the relationship of the site to Everglades National Park and by the U. 5. Department of the interior Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife on ecological results of the site selection on such facets as bird nesting grounds. Another state agency which may become in- volved in an advisory capacity is the Department of Natural Resources, through the Division of Interior Resources, Bureau of Geology, which is at present planning hydrology reports for each of the 18 urban centers of the state. C-V-29 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA t1t-A-3 ZIEfient NAV3S113 "X 0301110 brannuals w swam, 011•11op, )I/O 3NAV3S113 JO V3IV A3)I VINI91:11A minis 111311391/NVW 3.LSVM 13110S Ilnwi310111110:v1T::07,- V0111101.1 'HAMM dO ALI, 112V3E1 WIVIVd GNV1SI U3HSIS VI d —SLlP1 ALI ointwvnowas 1110101110 1001110 1.1 11001 0001 0001 0 00 fl NON S33N313S 3114dVII3ONV330 V3VV 3000ON00 !UV 110dS 3S03NO 01S0dOlid 030V l0SOdS10 ON1151X3 100ld 10311111301 300035 0141151Si ON3931 11441 !WON NM AIM Mb. IN& mow low am me- an- — mak au& - MEL III It 5500 5000 4500 4000 9 3500 Era Y M' 3000 m 2500 I4 u 2000 4 1500 1000 500 0 1970 1975 1980 1995 1990 1995 YEAR MIAMI ALONE __�-5t fill r i 5500 5000 4500 3500 3000 E 2500 W L. 2000 4 1500 10 500 0 1970 1979 1990 1985 1990 19 YEAR MIAMI 8 MIAMI BEACH MIME MIME M MEI= 111111111111111 1111111111111111111 MIIIIIIIIMIMII EMI= PROJECTED LAND USE FOR INCORPORATION OF MIAMI nEACN 111 ALTERNATE PLAN N0. 2 CITY OF MAW. FLONIOA'. SOLID WASTE MANASEMENT STUDY 2000 VIRGINIA KEY LANDFILL SITE DEPLETION RATE 1NM.w CM.IMS M01Mf/MM. FIGUU C-!•15. r r r • • Sanitary landfills are covered under Chapter 10DA2, Garbage and Rubbish, of the Rules of the Division of Health. Landfill requirements include 6" earth cover at the end of each day's operations; 24" earth cover to close off each finished cell; 24" of cover on side slopes, which must be seeded and have a maximum slope of two horizontally to one vertically; maintained dewatering of operating trenches; water spray for dust prevention and other requirements. The Rules of the Department of Air and Water Pollution Control, Chapter 17-3, Pollution of Waters, deal with drainage, or absorbing, well permits and applications for them, and describe Florida State jurisdiction over mat- ters relating to the groundwater contamination. Samples and data may be required from supply wells within one mile. Any possible water pollution source comes under the juris- diction of the above Department and a permit is required. Compliance with the principle of non -degradation cited in the Rules is required unless pressing social or economic interests necessitate a project. The impounded leachate from the shredded and milled waste disposal area would come under Section 17-3.04 which requires that any industrial or other wastes be effectively treated by the latest modern tech- nological advances. The removal efficiency is to be not less than 90% for both organics and inorganics. The Dade County Pollution Control Officer, established under Chapter 24 of the Ordinances,reviews and approves plans for potential surface or underground water pollution, as accompanied by an engineer's comprehensive report. Evaluations of groundwater protection via the impermeable barrier and of leachate treatment at the landfill are expected. The Dade County Building and Zoning Department must also review the plans for operation of the landfill . This County Department imple- ments the policies of the State of Florida Central and Southern Flood Control district and the Metropolitan Dade County Public Works Department, Water Control Division, which set minimum land elevations prior to development. Proposed landfill areas would have to be filled to these elevations prior to start of landfill operations. The U. 5. Environmental Protection Agency issues infor- mative publications relating to landfills and this agency may be expected to come into a significant advisory role during plan approval stage. Under the recommended plan, the Virginia Key landfill will continue to be used within its present bounds until it is exhausted, or as ex- tended. The State Division of Health would remain the only government agency with jurisdiction over the Virginia Key operation. C-V-32 W E G M A N • G R E ENLEAF / TELESCA r r r r 2. Jurisdictional and Other Governmental Functions Affecting Alternate Plan No. 1 Every government agency and regulation pertinent to the recom- mended plan of shredding and milling would be involved in the first alternate pion. For the alternate plan, additional regulations and jurisdictions concern the incin- ator only. The Rules of the State of Florida Department of Air and Water Pollution Control, Chapter 17-2, Air Pollution, require a maximum visible emission of Number two Ringelmann for any emission source and a maximum particulate dis- charge of 0.2 grains per standard cubic foot of dry gas corrected to 50 percent excess air for incinerators. The Department of Air and Water Pollution Control recently held hearings in several cities to tighten Chapter 17-2 of the Rules. A proposed revision to the maximum allowable emission of particulate matter is to reduce the 0.2 groins value to 0.1 for new incinerators. Existing sources are to comply as expeditiously as possible, but no later than July 1, 1975. The present 20th Street facility oper- ates under a temporary air pollution extension issued by the Dade County Air Pollu- tion Control Board, lasting until May 15, 1972. The Board anticipates that the City will then present a plan for terminating the excess 20th Street emissions by 1975. Recently announced Federal emissions standards for incinerators limit particulates to 0.08 grains. Plans, specifications, applications and other docu- ments must be submitted to the State Department of Air & Water Pollution Control for a permit. The Rules of the State Division of Health (Department of Health and Reha- bilitative Services, Chapter 10D-12, Garbage and Rubbish) require that the plans submitted to the Department of Air & Water Pollution Control also include operating instructions and provide that future incinerator use may be restricted if instructions are not adhered to. The standard form (Application for Permit to Operate Air Pollution Control Facilities) Part II - Identification of Air Contaminants includes compounds of chlorine, fluorine, sulfur and nitrogen; hydrocarbon, smoke, fly ash, dusts, and odors and requires naming of specific compounds. Part III - Air Pollution Control Devices requires specifics of control devices for each contaminant. Under Part IV - Contaminant Balance, a flow diagram required earlier is used as a basis for the listing of input and output of all raw materials and the listing of input and output of all resul- tant products and solid and liquid wastes; the difference between total input and output is termed Airborne Wastes. Part V - Discharged Emissions to Atmosphere requires rate of discharge and other data on all discharged contaminants. The final division, Part VI - Treatment and Disposal of Liquid and Solid Waste relates to the fly ash and residue process water and requires complete information giving identifi- cation, treatment, disposal, concentrations and volumes of each contaminant. Part VI information would be evaluated in terms of Chapter 17-3, Pollution of Waters, as for leachate from the shredded and milled waste disposal area. C-V-33 WEGMAN • G R E E N L E A F / TELESCA Jurisdictional and Other Governmental Functions Affecting Alternate Plan No. 1 Every government agency and regulation pertinent to the recom- mended plan of shredding and milling would be involved in the first alternate plan. For the alternate plan, additional regulations and jurisdictions concern the incin- ator only. The Rules of the State of Florida Department of Air and Water Pollution Control, Chapter 17-2, Air Pollution, require a maximum visible emission of Number two Ringelmann for any emission source and a maximum particulate dis- charge of 0.2 grains per standard cubic foot of dry gas corrected to 50 percent excess air for incinerators. The Department of Air and Water Pollution Control recently held hearings in several cities to tighten Chapter 17-2 of the Rules. A proposed revision to the maximum allowable emission of particulate matter is to reduce the 0.2 grains value to 0.1 for new incinerators. Existing sources are to comply as expeditiously as possible, but no later than July 1, 1975. The present 20th Street facility oper- ates under a temporary air pollution extension issued by the Dade County Air Pollu- tion Control Board, lasting until May 15, 1972. The Board anticipates that the City will then present a plan for terminating the excess 20th Street emissions by 1975. Recently announced Federal emissions standards for incinerators limit particulates to 0.08 grains. Plans, specifications, applications and other docu- ments must be submitted to the State Department of Air & Water Pollution Control for a permit. The Rules of the State Division of Health (Department of Health and Reha- bilitative Services, Chapter 10D-12, Garbage and Rubbish) require that the plans submitted to the Department of Air & Water Pollution Control also include operating instructions and provide that future incinerator use may be restricted if instructions are not adhered to. The standard form (Application for Permit to Operate Air Pollution Control Facilities) Part II - Identification of Air Contaminants includes compounds of chlorine, fluorine, sulfur and nitrogen; hydrocarbon, smoke, fly ash, dusts, and odors and requires naming of specific compounds. Part Itt - Air Pollution Control Devices requires specifics of control devices for each contaminant. Under Part IV - Contaminant Balance, a flow diagram required earlier is used as a basis for the listing of input and output of all raw materials and the listing of input and output of all resul- tant products and solid and liquid wastes; the difference between total input and output is termed Airborne Wastes. Part V - Discharged Emissions to Atmosphere requires rate of discharge and other data on all discharged contaminants. The final division, Part VI - Treatment and Disposal of Liquid and Solid Waste relates to the fly ash and residue process water and requires complete information giving identifi- cation, treatment, disposal, concentrations and volumes of each contaminant. Part Vi information would be evaluated in terms of Chapter 17-3, Pollution of Waters, as for leachate from the shredded and milled waste disposal area. C-V-33 WEGPAAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA 3. Jurisdictional and Other Governmental Functions Affecting Alternate Plan No. 2 The second alternate plan eliminates the need for new acreage west of the City of Miami . The some jurisdictional government agencies as for the recommended and first alternate plans will require answers to questions of air and groundwater pollution and landfill operation, and will require submission of plans, specifications and design data review. C-V-34 WEGIMAN • GRE ENLEAF / TELESCA A r 1 i r r • M CHAPTER VI • ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ASPECTS A. General In this chapter the capital requirements are compared along with the operation costs for various elements among the Recommended Plan and the two Alternates. Lastly, there is a discussion of various sources of capital and revenue to meet the debt service and operation expenses. B. Capital Requirements 1. Introduction Capital costs are significantly different for the Recommended Plan and the 2 Alternates, Table C-VI-1 and Fig. C-VI-1. The major capital requirements are for: (I) the reduction facility and (2) the controlled landfill site and improvements. 2. Reduction and Disposal Sequence a. Recommended Plan The Recommended Plan provides for a phased construction pro- gram culminating in the retirement of the existing 20th Street Incinerator in (975 and the subsequent use of shredders for volume reduction. The Incinerator will remain in operation until 1975, providing steam to Jackson Memorial Hospital and helping to provide the system reduction capacity necessary to earn revenue for payment of the 1951 Incinerator Revenue Bond obligation. Coconut Grove is to be abandoned as a refuse disposal facility. An immediate capital investment of $15,000 is required to reduce the current level of air pollution until the 20th Street Incinerator is retired. Other initial capital requirements are the costs for this Solid Waste Management Study and option costs for future land purchase for a total capital outlay for 1971-1972 of $600,000. Prior to 1976 a new two -unit shredder facility is to be constructed at 20th Street. Design, construction and attendant costs are estimated at $6,800,000, Table C-VI-2, in addition to the $600,000. The completion of land acquisition and the commencement of land preparation as a controlled landfill site should also be accomplished within the same period. Estimated additional cost for this purpose is $5,590,000, for a total cumulative capital requirement by 1976 of $I2,990,000, Table C-VI-1. The City has previously authorized $7 million in bonds for refuse disposal facilities. Miami Beach reportedly is ready to contribute $2.5 million. If capital investment rnust be limited to the $7,000,000 present bond authorization, it can be done by deferred purchase of land as a modification of the Recommended Plan. As noted elsewhere C-VI-1 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA i 1111 lilt INS lilt liar it -tor 11111- +■F +r +r -gat lilt Ir. TABLE C-VI-1 ESTIMATED CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS 1972 to 1999 FOR THE RECOMMENDED PLAN AND FOR ALTERNATE PLANS 1 AND 2 (Thousands of Dollars) 1971-72 1972-76 1976-80 1980-83 1983-86 1986-91 1991-99 RECOMMENDED PLAN Facility 100 6, 800 0 2,000 2,500 0 0 Land Options 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 Land and Improvements 0 5, 590 * 1, 920 1, 920 1, 920 3, 840 5, 760 Total 600 12, 390 * 1, 920 3, 920 4,420 3,840 5,760 CUMULATIVE TOTAL 600 12,990 * 14,910 18,830 23,250 27,090 32,850 ALTERNATE PLAN NO. 1 n Facility 300 20, 760 7, 000 2, 500 0 0 0 C Land Options 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Land and Improvements 0 2, 415 840 840 840 1, 680 2.520 Total 550 23,175 7,840 3,340 840 1,680 2,520 CUMULATIVE TOTAL 550 23,725 31,565 34,905 35,745 37,425 39,945 ALTERNATE PLAN NO. 2 Facility 300 20,760 7,000 16,000 0 0 0 Land Options 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Land and Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 300 20,760 7,000 16,000 0 0 0 CUMULATIVE TOTAL 300 21,060 28,060 44,060 44,060 44,060 44.060 NOTE: Periods shown are fiscal years, i. e. , October 1 to September 30. Construction costs including engineering. All costa include financing. * If the City must limit its initial expenditures to $7, 000, 000, then the Land and Improvement costs must be deferred. If Miami Beach contributes $2, 500, 000, then only a portion need be deferred. I I I I I I I I I i I I I (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) co O Z IL CUMULATIVE CAPITAL 45,000 — 40,000 - 35,000 - 50,000 - 25,000 - 20,000 15,000 WIN 10,000 - 5,000 r I ALTERNATE PLAN No. 1 r.�.._.. _._..._._._ ALTERNATE PLAN No. 2 RECOMMENDED PLAN �+----- DENOTES MODIFIED RECOMMENDED PLAN: DEFERRED INVESTMENT ON LAND PURCHASE I TO LIMIT CAPITAL INVESTMENT TO WITHIN S7,000,000 BOND AUTHORIZATION THROUGH 1979 . 0 Poi I 14 1 1,4 11 I/ 4 1 1 1 I 4 I I I' I l I 4 I 1 1 1 72 78 80 65 90 95 2,000 YEAR ESTIMATED CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS 1972 - 2000 RECOMMENDED PLAN AND ALTERNATE PLANS 1 AND 2 C4V1-3 LEONARD S. WEGMAN CO. INC. GREENLEAF/TELESCA FIGURE C 11-1 ll i I I I I 1 I i r TABLE C-VI-2 RECOMMENDED PLAN DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW 2-UNIT SHREDDER FACILITY .• ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST Item asnimhinow Sitework General Construction Electrical Plumbing Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Mechanical Equipment (shredders, cranes, feed conveyors, discharge conveyor, scale, and associated equipment) Allowance for topography, subsurface conditions, engineering fee, financing, inspection during construction Estimated Capital Cost $ 461,000 1, 883, 000 300,000 156,000 200,000 2,900,000 900,000 Total Capital Cost $6, 800, 000 C-V I-4 i i I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 the contribution of Miami Beach must take account not only of the capital cost of the new facilities, but also the present worth of the land and other facilities which the City wv uld make available for the project. It appears that the combined availability of capital would be adequate to meet initial capital requirements for the recommended plan. Depending on the sequence of land purchase, it is probable that an additional $2.5 million in available capital will be required by 1976. Additional capital expenditures required for years subsequent to year 1976 are shown in Table C-V-i and C-VI-I. b. Alternate Plan No. 1 This plan provides for phased construction of 4 - 450 ton per day incinerator furnaces and 2 shredders for rubbish and built, Table C-VI-I, indicates cumulative capital requirements for this plan ore $23,725,000 by 1976. Incinerator capital costs are given in Table C-VI-3. c. Alternate Plan No. 2 This plan provides for incinerating everything after shredding, including rubbish and bulk. Capital requirements for 1976 are $21,060,000, somewhat less than Alternate Plan 1. However, by the 1980-83 period Alternate Plan 2 has a total capital requirement for $9.16million above that of Alternate Plan 1. Initial incinerator costs are given in Table C-VI-4. C. Economics of Refuse Disposal 1. Cost Elements Table C-VI-5 summarizes the cost elements of the several methods. Costs are in dollars per ton of refuse handled and includes both debt service and operating costs. The comparative unit costs are averaged across the period from 1974 to 2000 using 1972 prices. Percentage of costs, in parentheses, are allocated among 4 basic steps in the disposal sequence: a. Processing and/or transfer station operations b. Haul to landfill c.• Landfill operations d. Land depletion allowance Administrative costs are not reflected in Table C-VI-5 because they will not affect comparison. Administrative costs cover City Hall and Director services including overhead, insurance, communications, payroll, purchasing and the like and apply also to collection. C-VI-5 W EGAIAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA r r M M M M TABLE CaVI+3 ALTERNATE PLAN NO. 1 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW 4450 TPD FLUE CONNECTED BOILER INCINERATOR PLANT - ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST Item Sitework General Coretruction (foundations, building construction) Electrical Plumbing Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Mechanical Equipment (furnaces, steam plant, air pollution control, stock, cranes, fans, scale, instrumentation, and associated equipment) Allowance for topography, subsurface conditions, engineering fee, financing, inspection during construction Estimated Capital Cost $ 800, 000 5, 969,000 388,000 211,000 251,000 15,141, 000 3,000,000 Total Capital Cost $25, 760, 000 For additional capital costs related to Altemate Plan No. 1 and method of phasing capital expenditures itemized above, see Table C-V-2. C-VI-6 TABLE C.VI-4 ALTERNATE PLAN NO. 2 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW 2..450 TPD FLUE CONNECTED BOILER INCINERATOR PLANT - ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST 1 tem S i tework Estimated Capital Cost $ 420,000 General Construction (foundations, 2,700,000 building construction) Electrical Plumbing Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Mechanical Equipment (furnaces, steam plant, air pollution control, stack cranes, fans, scale, instrumentation, and associated equipment) Allowance for topography, subsurface conditions, engineering fee, financing, inspectionduring construction 215,000 113,000 134,000 8,318,000 1,600,000 Total Capital Cost $ 13, 500, 000 For additional capital costs related to Alternate Plan No. 2 and method of phasing capital expenditures, itemized above, see Table C-V-3. 11111 1111111 -low -lien lour -nor -vow -my "-VOIIf -wilt 1. Processing i/or Transfer Station 2. Haul to Landfill (40-mile round trip) ** 3. Landfill Operations 4. Land Costs TOTAL COSTS: 0o TABLE C-VI-S ECONOMICS OF REFUSE DISPOSAL COST IN S/Ton NOT RECOMMENDED a) Raw Refuse Thru Transfer Station G&T R&B G&T, * R& B $1.00 $ 1. 35 $1.13 (15%) (17%) (16%) RECOMMENDED PLAN b) Shredding and Controlled Landfill G&T R&B G&T, * R&B ;3.06 $3.37 $3.16 (41%) (44'%) (42 X) ALTERNATE PLAN NO. 1 c) In- Shred- ig _ ding G&T R&B G&T.* G&T R&B ;8.85 S3.18 $6.81 (91%) (42%) (75%) ALTERNATE PLAN NO. 2 d) Incineration $8.85 (95%) R&B G&T,* R&B $12..38$10.10 (98%) (97%) $1.78 $2.13 ;1.90 $1.42 $1.42 $1.42 $ .40 $1.42 $ .77 $ .25 $ .07 $ .19 (28%) (27%) (27'%) (19%) (18%) (Irk) (4%) (1996) (9%) (2%) (1%) (1%) $3.08 $3.69. $3.30 $2.46 $2.46 $2.46 $ .44 $2.46 $1.27 $ .27 $ .07 $ .20 (48%) (47%) (48%) (34%) (32!) (33%) (4!) (3396) (14%) (3%) (1!) (2%) .60 $.72 $.64 $.48 $.48 $.48 $.07 $.48 $.22 - UK_ 122L 12 t.._ (6x= i. L Li.L f$) (01 (Z_ - $6.46 $7. 89 $6. 97 $7.42 $7.73 $7.37 $9. 76 $7.54 $9.07 $9.37 $12.52 $10_49 (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (1 00 %) (100%) (100!) (100%) (100 i) (NOV TOW • G&T, R&B combined in the ratio of G&T .1^ 7e R&B 1 ** For Alternate Plan No. 2, roundtrip haul distance to Virginia Key = 20 miles 41.1 - 2. Cost Analysis The cost data was developed for these disposal methods: a. All refuse handled through a transfer station at 20th Street with ultimate disposal as raw, unprocessed refuse in a distant sanitary landfill. As discussed elsewhere the ecological disadvantages of this method outweigh the cost benefit. b. All refuse processed at 20th Street by shredding and milling for ultimate disposal in a distant controlled landfill. This is the Recommended Plan. At a unit total disposal cost of $7.52 per ton, it provides the best combination of economy, effectiveness and environmental acceptability. Note that disposal of the rubbish and bulk (R&B) fraction of the refuse, at $7.73 per ton, is less expensive than the $7.89 per ton cost for disposing R&B as raw refuse without processing. c. Garbage and trash (G&T) processed at 20th Street by incin- eration, rubbish and bulk (R&B) processed at 20th Street by shredding and milling, all for ultimate disposal in a distant controlled landfill, Alternate Plan No. 1, with a unit total cost of $9.07 per ton. d. All refuse incinerated at 20th Street, with residue disposal in a distant landfill. This is Alternate Plan No. 2 and has a unit total cost of $10.49 per ton. Under the various methods, the unit cost data has also been developed for separately handling garbage and trash, and rubbish and bulk and then together in the ratio of 1.78 tons of G&T to each ton of R&B. This ratio approximates the actual ratio between G&T and R&B, as collected in Miami and Miami Beach. 3. Collection Cost Economy A major factor in overall economics is the unique central location of the 20th Street plant. Regardless of the method of handling and/or processng the refuse through the plant, the central location allows collection vehicles to effect the savings of reduced haul distances from collection points to disposal point, since the collector's dis- posal point is the 20th Street plant rather than some remote landfill area. These savings affect rubbish and bulk collection as welt as garbage and trash, since under any of the proposed alternates, both R&B and G&T are to be handled through the 20th Street plant. C-V I-9 WEGNIAN • GREENLEAF / T E L E S CA I I I 1 1 I 1 A 4. Basis for Unit Cost ($/Ton) Computations a. Capital Costs Major capital costs as for land, buildings and plant equipment are amortized at 5-I/2% interest rate, 22r1/2 year payment period. Rolling equipment such as transport trailers, bulldozers and trucks are amortized at an 8°% interest rate with a 5 year payout. b. Operating Costs (1) Personnel This is the largest operating cost component. A plant manning chart was prepared for each plan and extended for the prevailing annual rates for each clas- sification. Fringe benefits are 17.51% of salaries, exclusive of sick leave, vacation and holiday pay, which are covered by the relief men allocation. following: (2) Maintenance and Repairs Maintenance and repair annual budgets are based on the Mechanical equipment such as furnaces, steam plant, air pollution control equipment, conveyors, fans, pumps, cranes, shredders, and the like 4% of capital construction cost. Cost for shredder hammers, being expendable, is added at $.25 per ton of refuse shredded. Building heating, plumbing and electrical systems 2%of capital construction cost. Rolling equipment such as transport trailers, bulldozers $6, 300/year. (3) Electricity Electric operating costs are computed on estimated electric power demands and energy consumption with billing on the basis of Florida Power and Light Company Rate Schedule I.R. as follows: Monthly Demand Charge: $2.30 per Kw for the first 400 Kw $1.80 per Kw for additional Kw's C-VI-10 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESGA Monthly Energy Charge: 2.74 per Kwh for the first 1,700 Kwh 1.40 per Kwh for the next 4,300 Kwh 1.10 per Kwh for the next 34,000 Kwh 0.90 per Kwh for the next 40,000 Kwh 0.70 per Kwh for all additional Kwh (4) Water Water requirements are estimated and costs computed at 160 per 1000 gallons. (5) Auxiliary Fuel and Lubrication #2 Oil for auxiliary firing 11.50 per gallon Natural gas for auxiliary firing 110 per Therm (100,000 Btu) Diesel fuel 250 per gallon Lubricating oil $2.00 per gallon 5. Through -put Rates Realistic through -put rates for processing refuse determine in large measure the cost per ton for refuse disposal at any one time. Initial investments are capitalized at a uniform annual rate for repayments of principal and interest, regardless of total tons processed. If the equipment breaks down and there is insufficient reserve capacity in the design of the plant, production is lost. On the other hand, if there is too much excess capacity, the stand-by facilities represent costs for which there is no apparent return. The solution must also include reasonable reserve capacity to meet the continually rising refuse Toads per capita. The planning Diagrams are used to phase the periodic, additions of plant equip- ment so that the proper balance is maintained. 6. Uniform Accounting Procedure for Incinerators Because of the many incinerator plant arrangements studied, a uniform evalua- tion procedure was developed to compute the unit cost of amortizing and operating each plant, summarized on Table C-IV-9. The reserve capacity, about 25%, averaged over the life of the facility, provides against lost production if any portion of the facility is not available because of planned or unplanned shutdowns. C-VI-11 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA 7. Operating Costs Personnel operating costs, similar to debt service, continue sub- stantially independent of production. Once a plant is committed to an operating staff, a loss hi tons per day processed through the plant due to breakdown of equipment has to be reflected hi higher unit cost for the tons that are processed, less temporary pro- ductivity improvements. to production. Expenditures for routine maintenance and utilities are proportional 8. Unit Cost for Shredder Facilities Computation of unit costs for shredder facilities at 20th Street is in Table C-VI-6. For each 5-year period between 1975 and 2000 the average unit cost assumes the plant having an availability factor of 85 percent. in Table C-VI-5. The 25-year average unit cost is $3.16, which value also appears For the initial operating period 1975-80, unit cost for shredder operations is $3.61 allowing for inclusion of the annual debt service outstanding on the existing 20th Street Incinerator. Neglecting the debt service, the unit cost for this period is $3.22. The initial period cost values are higher than the 25-year average because during the first 5 years, the plant is not processing as much refuse as in subsequent periods. 9. Incinerator Flexibility Incinerators, especially those incorporating waste heat steam gene- ration, operate best on a 24-hour, 7-day a week basis. The large capital investment for these plants also requires that maximum daily utilization be obtained. Thus, in the event of an outage, eithe+ planned or unplanned, the cushion of reserve capacity or potential for overtime make-up is not available as it is for the shredder facility and unprocessed refuse must be by-passed to the landfill. 10. Haul to Landfill Unit costs of haul to landfill ale generally a function of residual volume after processing. If refuse is merely transferred at 20th Street and shipped raw, without processing, haul costs are highest, especially for the rubbish and bulk fraction. C-VI-12 W EGNIAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA Annual Costs Capital (Cap*) Personnel (P Op) Maintenance & Utilities (MOp) Total Tons Per Day (TPD) Tons Per Yr. TPY=312 TPD TABLE C-VI-6 RECOMMENDED PLAN SHREDDER FACILITY UNIT COSTS P E I O D 1975 - 80 1980..85 $ 684,000 $ 684,000 187 947 (a) $ 871,947 ($I.80) $ 476,300 ($. 98) ($1.23) $ 640, 000 ($1.15) $ 402,000 $ 472,000 ($. 83) ($.85) $1,682,500 $1,728,000 1830 = 571,000 85% TPY 485,000 Op (85%) '- Operating Cost= 85%TPY Tot (85%) = 2100 655,000 557,000 $1.81 $2.00 Total Annual Cos t= $3.61 (b) 85% TPY (a) (b) $3.23 1985 - 90 $ 684,000 ($1.I0) $ 762,000 ($I.22) 1990 - 95 1995 - 2000 $ 684,000 $ 684,000 ($.98) $ 787,000 ($1.13) $ 537,000 $ 601,000 ($.86) ($.86) ($.89) $ 787,000 ($1.03) $ 665,000 ($.87) $1, 915, 000 $2, 004, 000 $2, 068, 000 2350 2630 733,000 821,000 623,000 698,000 $2.08 $1.99 $3.18 $2.97 25 Year Average including item (a) = $3.16 25 Year Average excluding item (a) = $3.05 25 Year Average to be used = $3.16 Average Annual Debt Service (1975 - 80 only) outstanding on 20th St. Incinerator Bond = $187,947 Tot (85°, = $3.61 includes item (a) Tot (89%) = $3.22 excludes item (a) (POp)= Personnel Annual Cost (MOp)_Maint & Utilities Cost 85% TPY TPY (Cap*) = Capital Annual Cost C-VI-13 2890 902,000 766,000 $1.90 $2.79 t i i I I Shredding of refuse benefits lower haul costs in that the shredding operation makes the refuse more suitable for compaction in transport trailers for the long haul to landfill. An empirical time and motion study was made to establish the comple- ment of trucks and truckmen required to operate in conjunction with a single shredder. The study diagram is shown in Fig. C4I-2. Allowing for amortization of rolling equip- ment, personnel including relief, tuel and oil maintenance and repairs and insurance, unit cost for a 20-mile - 1 way, 40 mile round hip haul to landfill is estimated at $1.42 per ton of shredded refuse, Table C-VI-7. Unit cost of hauling residue, after processing, is based ai use of the Pak -more type residue trucks currently in operation between the Miami 20th Street incinerator and the Virginia Key Ianafill. Based on an extension of the City's own operating experience, adjusted for the longer haul to the controlled landfill and discharge of residue from residue conveyors in lieu of furnace residue hoppers, unit cost for a 20 mile - 1 way, 40 mile round trip haul to landfill is estimated at $2.00 per ton of residue. Because of the weight reduction of refuse when processed by incineration, estimated at 5 to 1 for G&T and 20 to 1 for R&B, a considerable reduction in cost is achieved. 11. The Controlled Landfill The controlled landfill concept is new and quite different from the older, and more common, sanitary landfill. Control is achieved by a membrane leachate barrier, which prevents any material contact between refuse and ground water, and an underdrain and treatment system which clarifies drainage water before discharge adjacent areas or waterways. These features are not a part of so called sanitary land- fills. The first cost element in operating the controlled landfill is the preparation of a block of land, assumed to be marginal and in a high water table, to make it suitable for landfill. This work would be done by contract. Each block so pre- pared would be adequate for about 3 year's use before an adjacent block would require preparation. The work required follows: a. Strip organic silt from surface, which may require removal of a Layer of silt from 2 to 3 feet deep. b. Using earth cover material obtained from a section portion, which portion is to become a "lake" area, the surrounding area is to be built up to 2 ft. above high water level to provide the base of the landfill. C-VI-14 WEGNIAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA -11/111110- '1~ --"wwww; r— , i r I T I r I I ..,t ! 1 -, a * _ ii I. i ! I . $ L.1 I. .. :. ze i :1 2. Ili • 1i —./ . —1 //1 t a 2 . . ' 1 I 1 . — t . • 2 I I II I . a 1I II Ilill LT* . : : e Ii :1 7 : 41I1- I et I 4 S I LT4 it • TI e=I I _T: " * It I I 1 _Ts t • I 1 I . . tI1 1—/7 1 LT' 11 7•:11 . 1 S . III 44114 had* WWI* PIMP OP Wye* Pt 11,101.011 tralle4 11•11111114 WI! UMW T4140 111/1414. CITY Or hltA141„ nom^ SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY ECCER FACILITY ER R%CKER/TRNSPORT TIME a harlot STUDY MOM 1•11111AM ak rue sageourms Taal* 04.111tell aollsegia • Oftelftin FIGURE ic-n-2 I I 1 I I I I I r TABLE.., C. YI .. RECOMMENDED PLAN COSTS PER TON FOR REFUSE DISPOSAL 1975-80 1980-85 1985-90 19 90-95 (995- 2000 Average Capital Costs: Facility 1.80 1.23 1.10 .98 .89 1.20 Land .48 .48 .48 .48 .48 .48 Land Improvement .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 TOTAL 3.24 2.67 2.54 2.42 2.33 2.64 Operating Costs: Facility I.81 2.00 2.08 1.99 1.90 1.96 Haul 1..42 1.42 1.42 (.42 1.42 1.42 Landfill Operations 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 TOTAL 4.73 4.92 5.00 4.91 4.82 4.88 TOTAL CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS 7.97 7.59 7.54 7.32 7.15 7.52 Note: All costs in 1972 dollars. Administration costs not included. Rolling equipment costs for haul and landfill operations are included in operating costs. . C-VI-16 Cs tlii4 hrire 14 44 14* f4V,}?►4iirl.! '.''ti of an impermeable membrnne bottle" 44 i1'e4eoi f401,414. I . t water, and then covered with n p wrists i►tyttt of t111 ►z. t t4 . t;,y,t f: leachate to perforated underdrnln ptlrtstw woo 1++ Nio prof** ,t ..;b- ?t,; ! 4;4- , leachate to collection sumrpumpinq stnlintts whet* * i t*1., a4,t ;.+; f .,v0 of solids including flotables. d. Piping will be provides! •. Ivey the tes4hu1 a were lagoon provided with an impermeable membrane b•tt'n, e. The aeration lagoon effluent will iv, will then flow into a second lagoon with pervious bottom which will tiiiii,vst ij' #w ireatee water by evaporation and return to groundwater. The cost of preparing the block of land fn , - r t zter. at $23,000 per acre. The second element in operating the controlled r*- J` day-to-day operations of spreading and compacting refuse as receiver, material, grading, seeding and erecting fences and providing roadwcys. i-is °t estimated at $I.50 per ton of residue or shredded refuse received and more when refuse received is raw and unprocessed. 12. Land Costs The final item in the refuse disposal sequence is the land depletion cost. Land requirements are based on Table C-IV-8. Land costs, item 4 of Table C-VI-5 assume land purchased at $5,000 per acre with investment amortized at 5-1/2% interest, 22.5 year payout period. 13. Manpower Considerations The decision to shred all of the refuse generated in the Miami and Miami Beach area in lieu of the current practice of incinerating the garbage and trash and direct disposal to landfill of the rubbish and bulk will require a partial redeploy- ment of personnel currently engaged in these activities. Table C-VI-8 provides on overall view of these manpower requirements from 1970 through 2000. Personnel needed for refuse disposal in the Recommended Plan is given along with theserequirements for the contingency Altemate Plan No. 1. C-VI-17 W EGNIAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA TABLE C-VI-8 SUMMARY — PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS RECOMMENDED & ALTERNATE PLAN NO. 1 PLAN 1970 - 1975 1975 -1980 1980 -1985 1985 -1992 1992 - 2000 Recommended Plan (1) Existing Incinerator 112 - - - (2) Shredder Plant (West) - 55 50 50 50 (3) Shredder Plant (East) - 24 35 43 (4) Hauling 4 22 25 28 32 n (5) Rubbish Pit 20 - - - - < i (6) Landfill Site - 69 75 81 88 ao Total 136 146 174 194 213 1970 -1975 1975 -1980 1980 - 1982 1982 - 1990 1990 2000 Alternate Plan No. 1 (1) Existing Incinerator 112 5* - - - (2) New Boiler Incinerator - 118 128 128 128 (3) Shredder PIani (East) - 33 44 44 44 (4) Hauling 4 14 17 21 24 (5) Rubbish Pit 20 15 10 - (6) Landfill Site - 20 31 39 52 Total 136 205 230 232 248 *One half of existing incinerator removed in this period to allow installation of shredder unit in its place; remaining half reverts to stand-by service. M M A detailed breakdown of personnel requirements for the Recommended Plan is given in table C-VI4. As a further guide to management in implementing the recommended plan, reference to the following data will be found useful: Figure C'VI-3 Figure CWI-4 • Weekly Schedule for Shredder Operations & Maintenance - Shredder Maintenance Schedule 14. Operating Cost Forecast The 1975 - 76 cost of operating the recommended plan for waste disposal is estimated at approximately $1,000,000 per year greater than the present cost, as follows: a. Estimated 1970 - 71 operating costs for refuse disposal from the Miami 1970 - 71 Budget are: Totai,Incineration including hauling of Residue to the Rubbish Disposal Pit $1, 267, 829 Total, Rubbish Disposal Mt 227,298 Total $1,495,127 The above represents the City's operating costs for disposal of 164,024 tons of garbage and trash by incineration and approximately 100,000 tons of rubbish and bulk by direct rubbish pit disposal. b. Refuse generated for Miami and Miami Beach in 1975 - 76 is estimated by reference to Figure C-l1-3. The chart for combined garbage and trash, rubbish and bulk shows generation to be 1700 tpd based on a 6-day week. On a 7-day week this amounts to (460 tpd, for an annual quantity of 532,900 tpy. Using a unit operating cost of $4.75 per ton for the Recommended Plan in the period (975 - 80, from Table C-VI-7, the estimated annual operating cost is $2,520,000. This is approximately $1,000,000 more than Miami's operating cost budget for 1970 - 71. The estimated 1975 - 76 operating costs, therefore, are about 68% more than the operating costs in 1970 - 71, but the quantity to be disposed of, 532,900 tons, for (975 - 76 is about 100% more than that disposed of in 1970 - 71. C-VI-19 WEGMAN • GIVE ENLEAF/ TELESCA Jab Clossification a) At Shredder Plant (West) Operating & Maintenance Superintendent 1 •0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 Foreman 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 0 1 3 Scale Operators 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 0 1 3 Crone Operators 2 2 .1 2 7 2 2 0 2 6 2 2 0 2 6 2 2 0 2 6 Shredder Operators 2 2 1 2 7 2 2 0 2 6 2 2 0 2 6 2 2 0 2 6 Truck Driven 2 2 1 2 7 2 2 0 2 6 2 2 0 2 6 2 2 0 2 6 Maintenance Men 2 2 2 3 9 2 2 2 3 9 2 2 2 3 9 2 2 2 3 9 Laborers 2 2 2 3 9 2 2 2 3 9 2 2 2 3 9 2 2 2 3 9 Secretarial Lbrk 2 1 0 1 4 2 1 0 1 4 2 1 0 1 4 2 1 0 1 4 Tipping Flow Operators 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 0 1 3 50 50 50 TABLE C-VI - 9 BREAKDOWN OF PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS - RECOMMENDED PLAN 1975 - 1980 1980 - 1985 1985 - 1992 1992 2000 Shift Relief Total Relief Total Relief Total Relief Toter 7-3 3-11 11-7 Men Personnel 7-3 3;11 11-7 Men Personnel 7-3 3-11 11-7 Men Personnel 73 3-11' 11-7 Men Personnel 55 b) At Shredder Plant (East) Operating & Maintenance n •Ass't. Superintendent 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1' 0 0 0 1 Foreman 1 1 0. 1 3 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 0 1 3 j Scale Operators 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1. 1 0 0 0 1 N Crane Operators 1 1 0 1 3 2 1 0 2 5 2 2 0 2 6 Shredder Operators 1 1 0 1 3 2 1 0 2 5 2 2 0 2 8 Truck Driven 1 1 0 1 3 2 1 0 2 5 2 2. 0 2 6+ Maintenance Men 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 1 2 6 2 2 2 2 8 Laborers 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 1 2 6 2 2 2 2 4 Secretarial Clerks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Tipping Floor Operators 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 0 1 3. 24 35 43' 4 Hauling Truck Driven 6 6 3 7 22 8 8 0 9 25 9 9 0 10 28 10 10 0 12 32 25 28 32 d) At Landfill Supervisor 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1E Foreman 1 1 1 0 3 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 0 1 3 Waste Equipment Operators 4 4 2 5 15 5 5 0 6 16 6 6 0 6 18 6 6 0 6 18 Scolsman 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 0 2 4 1 1 0 2 4 2 2 0 2 4 Waste Collector II 3 2 1 2 8 3 3 0 4 10 4 4 0 4 12 4 4 0 * 13 Waste Collector I 3 3 1 4 11 4 4 0 4 12 4 4 0 5 13 5 4 0 5 14 Maintenance Men 2 2 1 2 7 3 3 0 3 9 3 3 0 3 9 4 4 0 4 12 Laborers - 4 4 3 6 17 5 5 0 7 17 5 5 0 7 17 6 5 0 7 18 Secretarial °irks 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 0 1- 3 2 1 0 1 4 2 1 0 1 4. 99 75 81 aa 174 194 213' 22 TOTAL PERSONNEL 146 I I I I I M r r M 8 AM- Y $ 5 - 4 - 3 2 di 1 AM- 12 M- 11 PM- 10 9 - 8 — T 6 - '5 4 - 3 - 2 — I PM- 12 N- 11 AM- ID — 9 - 8 AM- - LEGEND Ir NACNINI NO. 1 UM Name No. 11011111111111 1MACHINE IN OPERATION (TOTAL OP 114 HOURS/ MACHINE) • riitt or I MACHINE OUT FOR MAINT. (TOTAL OF S0 MR= . / MACHINE) insult TIME AVAILADLE FOR MAKE+UP OF LOST PRODUCTION54 M DUI TO EXTENDED OUTAGE OF ANY ONE MACHINE (R=./MACII ) 111 lre r 1j "It1� 1 !� ! 1 •111 � II ■ ■ 1 sir IL I M ■ 1 1 1 .. . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f 11 w j ■ i 1 1 ■ 1 i MON 7UE WED THU F R I SAT SUN DAY OF' THE WEEK WEEKLY SCHEDULE FOR SHREDDER OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE LEONARD S. WEGMAN CO. INC. GREENLEAF/TELESCA FIGURE C •Y- 3 C—VI-21 on lag ilms -um -vow --wog -vow -vim -"gm -ism -vow vomit limir NNW ‘111111, 411111111r AIM 11111111 Mit FOR 1 SHREDDER SHREDDER MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE AVERAGE 19 PRODUCTION HOURS/DAY (16 & 22 ON ALTERNATE DAYS) e 50 TONS/HOUR a 950 TONS/DAY IN 6 DAYS, 5T00 TONS OF REFUSE ARE PROCESSED. REQUIRING REFITTING OF HAMMERS ON SUNDAY SHUT -DOWN TWO MEN pp��Y S� W V 3 5fa 4MNTENANCEW 2¢ 939 ® �� e 31w >TOPS OPEN MACHINE \ N NSPECT INTERNALS DAILY S TIONTEN LOOSE SOLIS ROUTINE 9 CLEAN LUSE OIL FILTER MAINTE- .LEAN ORATES ROTOR N ROWS EDGES ?Am\ - ,'RIND 1 ti HOURS ] INSPECT INTERNALS •• REPEATED EVERY WEEK + r REFIT NAMMERS + •• + ADJUST BREAKER PLATE • � LUSE OIL • I • • ` •js, • JNANOE N REPLACE MORN NOZZLES M! REPLACE TORN to LINERS ItEFL ACE SUSPENSION BARS REFIT •RATES • • 'r REFIT SEMEN • • PLATES 1 SERVICE N D UC a, P PACKAUE REM PLATE$AIUM •� ~ a RENEW CRATES LEONARD S. WEGMAN CO. INC. GREENLEAF/TELESCA FIGURE C - Yi-4 . Steam Market Survey 1. Scope The potential revenue from steam sales using incinerator steam production has been considered. 20th Street Incinerator currently sells waste heat steam to Jackson Memorial Hospital . Recent revenue and its effect on reducing the cost for incineration follows: Fiscal Year Revenue Annual Tons Sale of Steam of Refuse Unit Cost Saving 1969-70 $80,828 152,910 $.53/ton 1970-71 $90,000 164,024 $.55/ton In November 1971 a steam market survey was made of potential customers for steam in the Miami Civic Center area near the plant proposed under Alternate Plans No. 1 and No. 2. Potential customers were contacted by telephone to determine interest in purchasing this steam, resulting in the following possible range of steam sales: Potential Customer Jackson Memorial Hospital Veterans Administration Hospital Cedars of Lebanon Hospital University of Miami Medical Center Metro Justice Bldg. Public Safety & Jail Totals Steam Sales Potential (Ib/hr) Average Maximum 15,000 30,000 15,000 30,000 5,000 10,000 7,000 14,000 5,000 10,000 47,000 94,000 2. Base for Sales Users were advised that the City prefers to sell steam on an interruptible basis. This means that steam users must provide sufficient boiler plant for their steam needs if steam from the incinerator is not available. C-VI-23 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / T E L E S CA I I 1 I I 1 1 A tentative formula for selling price of steam was proposed: S=MfF Where: S = Selling price for Mb steam M = Miami's costs to provide 1 Mb steam F = Fuel costs to provide 1 Mb steam using kw sulphur fossil fuel to comply with air pollution codes. Mb = Thousand posinds At this time, M is estimated at $.60/Mb and F is estimated at $1 .20/Mb. Selling price is then $.90/Mb, in effect splitting the difference between Miami's costs and what it would cost the user to purchase fossil fuel to generate the steam in their own boiler plant. The City gains an estimated $ .30/Mb; the users save an estimated $ .30/Mb on the steam, and all benefit in that dwindling supplies of fossil fuel that would otherwise be used is conserved. 3. Impact on City Costs Assuming an average steam sales rate of 50,000 lb/hr at a price of $.90 per 1000 Ib. of steam, annual revenue would be $335,000, allowing for an availability factor of 85%. Assuming plant daily through -put is 1200 tons, this steam revenue would offset operating costs at a rate of $ .90 per ton. The proposed incinerator plant has capabilities for producing steam for sale far in excess of the presently forseeable market. Deducting in -plant requirements net available steam rate from a plant incinerating 1200 tons per day is in order of 300,000 lb/hr. If this steam could be sold, resulting revenues would be increased 6-fold. Realistically, however, the chances of steam sales ever exceeding 100,000 Ib/hr are remote in view of the low demand for space heating. Also, steam absorption air conditioning systems are competitive with the alternate refrigerating motor -driven compressor systems only where electric power rates are high (in the range of per KWH). The 4 rate that Florida Power and Light offers places steam absorption air conditioning systems in a poor competitive position. C-V I-24 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / T E L E S CA 1 I I 1 i I 1 A tentative formula for selling price of steam was proposed: S= M+F Where: 5 = Selling price for Mb steam M = Miami's costs to provide 1 Mb steam F = Fuel costs to provide 1 Mb steam using low sulphur fossil fuel to comply with air pollution codes. Mb = Thousand pounds At this time, M is estimated at $.60/Mb and F is estimated at $1 .20/Mb. Selling price is then $.90/Mb, in effect splitting the difference between Miami's costs and what it would cost the user to purchase fossil fuel to generate the steam in their own boiler plant. The City gains an estimated $ .30/Mb; the users save an estimated $ .30/Mb on the steam, and all benefit in that dwindling supplies of fossil fuel that would otherwise be used is conserved. 3. Impact on City Costs Assuming an average steam sales rate of 50,000 Ib/hr at a price of $.90 per 1000 Ib. of steam, annual revenue would be $335,000, allowing for an availability factor of 85%. Assuming plant daily through -put is 1200 tons, this steam revenue would offset operating costs at a rate of $ .90 per ton. The proposed incinerator plant has capabilities for producing steam for sale far in excess of the presently forseeable market. Deducting in-pbnt requirements net available steam rate from a plant incinerating 1200 tons per day is in order of 300,000 lb/hr. If this steam could be sold, resulting revenues would be increased 6-fold. Realistically, however, the chances of steam sales ever exceeding 100,000 Ib/hr are remote in view of the low demand for space heating. Also, steam absorption air conditioning systems are competitive with the alternate refrigerating motor -driven compressor systems only where electric power rates ore high (in the range of per KWH) . The 1 rate that Florida Power and Light offers places steam absorption air conditioning systems in a poor competitive position. C-V I-24 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA E. Financing the Disposal System 1. Obtaining Capital Funds For Miami's portion of the capital demand, either revenue bonds backed by fees and charges collected from disposal facility users or general obligation bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the City could be used. The general obligation bonds would probably carry a lower rate of interest and generally be more saleable than revenue bonds. Some of the debt service for general obligation bonds could be obtained by fees and charges collected from the facility users, other than the City. By doing so, the burden upon Miami's taxpayers would be reduced and advantages of both revenue and general obligation bonds could be achieved. 2. Debt Service The City uses a capital recovery factor of .0788 assuming a 22-1/2 year payout at 5-1/2%. For the Recommended Plan this capital recovery factor indicates a capitalized annual cost of $684,000 for the reduction facility. There is also an average annual requirement of $187,947 for debt service on the 1951 Series of Incinerator Revenue Bonds making a capital cost of $871,947 until the 1951 bonds are retired in 1981 and $684,000 thereafter, plus debt service in land. The annual debt service for land and land improvements will depend to a considerable extent on the amount of land purchased per year. Probably annual debt service will be about $350,000 or $0.48 per ton for the land acquisition and $700,000 or $0.96 per ton for the land improvements from 1975 to the year 2000, assuming Miami Beach participation . The tentative schedule of capital demand for the Recommended Plan is in Table C-VI-10 and the annual capitalized cost for the shredder facility is on Table C-V1-11. 3. Sources of Revenue There are only 2 effective and practical means for obtaining the revenue needed to pay for debt service and operation expenses. Such revenue would be either a property tax on an ad valorem bads or from fees paid for use of the facilities on a per ton basis - or a combination of the two. It could well be argued that since the very existence of the new facility benefits the City as a whole, it might be appropriate to consider that the debt service should be produced from ad valorem taxes. However, many consider there is an inherent inequality in too wide a use of ad valorem taxes, particularly so relative to solid waste disposal . Major sources of solid wastes which do not pay property taxes are schools, hospitals, some charitable institutions, streets, parks, places of public recreation, governmental buildings and public and quasi - publicly owned complexes. The ad valorem tax would not reach such tax exempt sources of solid wastes. C-VI-25 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA I I TABLE C-VI-10 RECOMMENDED PLAN CAPITAL EXPENDITURES F©RPHASED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM SERVING MIAMI AND MIAMI BEACH SHREDDING RUBBISH & BULK, GARBAGE & TRASH (a) (b) (a) Land Land Construction Purchase Preparation Costs for Shredder Facilities 1971-72 $5 00,000 72-73 (Option to Purchase) 73-74 74-75 3,670,000 75-76 (Purchase) 76-77 77-78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 2000-01 $4, 170, 000 $ 100,000 ) 2,800,000 ) *Phase 1 & 2 2,500,000 ) Construction 1,920,000 1,500,000 ) 1,920,000 1,920, 000 1,920,000 1,920,000 1,920,000 1,920,000 1,920,000 1,920,000 500, 000 ) *Phase 3 & 4 1,500,000 ) Construction 500, 000 ) *Phase 5 2,000,000 ) Construction TOTAL $17,280,000 $11,400,000 $32,850,000 (a) Land Purchase & Construction Costs for Shredder Facilities Financed by General Obligation Bonds. (b) Land Preparation Financed from General Fund. * For Phased Construction, see Table C-V-I C-V1-26 i 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I I I 1 MTABLE_ C�;rV1- t.----- RECOMMENDED PLAN SHREDDER FACILITY CAPITALIZED ANNUAL COST Year Capital Present Year No. Expenditure PWF(5-1/2%) Worth 1971-72 0 100,000 1.0000 1972-73 1 2,800,000 .9479 1973-74 2 2,500,000 .8985 1974-75 3 1,500,000 .8517 1980-81 9 500,000 . 6182 1981-82 10 1,500,000 . 5861 1984-85 13 5RO, 000 .4995 1985-86 14 2,000,000 .473$7 100, 000 2,660,000 2,250,000 1,278,000 310, 000 880, 000 250, 000 948, 000 11, 400, 000 Total Present Worth 8,676,000 CAPITALIZED ANNUAL COST = TOTAL PRESENT WORTH x CRF* 8,676,000 x . 0788 = $684,000/yr. * Facilities are capitalized at a Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) of 0.0788 (equivalent to 5-1/2% interest, 22-1/2 year payout). C-VI-27 Chapter B-II contains a discussion of possible service charges to Miami residents. If such a charge is deemed acceptable by the City, the amount of ad valorem taxes required for disposal funds will be proportionately reduced. A sales tax might also be considered as a possible source but that tax raises many questions about the variable impact on different income groups and other questions of broad public policy. Likewise, there are many articles which enter the solid waste stream, particularly landscape waste and food waste, which are not subject to sales tax. Only the state of Florida has the authority to impose a sales tax. An equitable and all encompassing method of reimbursing the City would be a flat charge per ton on all waste which enters the City solid waste disposal facility. Elsewhere it has been shown that it will cost an average of $7.52 per ton over the life of the program to handle and dispose of all solid waste under the Recommended Plan. This cost per ton includes the expense for debt service, operation, and other annual expenses, except central administration,shown in Table C-VI-7. However, other than a bookkeeping exercise, there is no practical use in assessing a tonnage charge for City of Miami collection vehicles, the principal user. After a decision is made on Miami Beach's participation and what part of costs are to be bonded, the remaining demands will fix the rates for those who will pay a disposal charge per ton. The primary sources of funds are: City of Miami Taxes City of Miami Beach Capital Contribution City of Miami Beach Disposal Fees Private Collector Disposal Fees Excess Collection Fees and Miscellaneous Increase Steam Sales (during incinerator operations) More remote sources would be Federal or State grants, income from resource recovery, and the future possibility of such concepts as the penny -a -pound under pending U. S. Senate Bill S.3058. 4. Federal Aid Historically federal financial aid for local government solid waste needs has been limited to funds available under the Solid Waste Act of 1965. This Act originally authorized the funds for a variety of grants and contracts for projects relating to research, training, state planning and demonstrations. The 1965 Act was revised and became the Resource Recovery Act of 1970. This bill expanded the provisions of the original Act to include funds to local governments for regional solid waste planning under Section 207 and Resource Recovery Grants under Section 208. The 1970 bill has indications of providing construction grant funds, but no such funds have ever been made available. C-VI-28 WEGMAN • GREENLEAF / TELESCA Section 204 of the Act offers partial demonstration grants to communities which want to undertake the risks of experimenting with new and untried systems. However, there has never been anything like the magnitude of funds under this section for what Miami would require. More recently the Environmental Protection Agency, which administers the Act, has gone to a program of soliciting applications for specific projects in which EPA is interested. Money under Section 208, for such solicitations, which was initially $15 million for 1972 and 1973 has not been released, even though appropriated by the Congress. Some of this money may be solicited for in the near future. However, this money is limited to demonstration grants of untried methods. Continued surveillance of such solicitations is advisable, but substantial aid under these Acts is not now in sight. A possible source of revenue is a disposal fee. One form of this is the "penny -a -pound" fee presently being considered by the U.S. Senate (S.3058). This bill will provide that the Federal Government collect a disposal charge of a penny per pound on any article requiring disposal within ten years from its manufacture. The revenue obtained would be transferred to municipalities on per capita basis to fund and operate their solid waste facilities. Although in the long run the fee would be passed on by the manu- facturer to the consumer, an incentive exists for the manufacturer to recycle and produce items of lower weight which would reduce the nation's solid waste burden, according to Leonard S. Wegman, the originator of the concept. C-VI-29 WEGMAN • GRE E N LEAF / TELESCA CITY OF MIAMI SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY PART C - APPENDIX W (GINA N • GRE ENLEAF / TELESCA wl. timer — "—_ ..`gym N "'lrli' .a,- -W ''n`rr. cow ruw ,r,M O: .`-^r.r..t -^"eiristalr -"Isiger1 SITE PLAN II cntor MM. IMMO* SOLID. 'ANIMISM? stUUV ARRANGEMENT U FIGURE C MANGUM', smov ARRANGEMENT Oil INTROS swiftnw PIRO _ arL sse rQ11[ LIMO aTMwA wow wit owls soma WA$fl IHIe' MOTs. MLs moulloiresnares-waillierilir srwur Mrre foie nrrrurs MttaaMr A OMrrM' ar R MINT are OF NEIL NAM M. MAfi[ MMMEIt-r STUDY ARRANGEMENT I == — 1110401. �0/ rf TM 11/000 0000/0/ID0/Ir r R nl meta RAZE vtcUAE c-AF-s 1.41.10 till TM OM V SECTION 10-10 SECTION 9-9 CITY OF MINK ruler SOLID NA3TE MANAGEMENT slum ARRANGEMENT la NW MOM=LW BMW. R-1.....,M nwMs awn nn n1MM. anutynMR. 111.11v ww mr♦NMsy..mc FIGU1R . C • AB-9 SECTION 12-12 SECTION II -11 SECTION 12-12 SECTION I I -11 an or rm. mew SOLID WWI MANAGEMENT STUD? ARRANGEMENT 1Q �• �.• arwaONwmO.IOra- SECTIONS umrswiii1lMS. PICURB C-AP-12 We PLAN u ARRANGEMENT Y n o- t4 GENERAL PLAN olertlswo WOWS • • r r. r Kul.[ M /[LT il'I I r- 1 0110110,01 COPPIMORII Io pert worm* osamoss awns 14 CRT a UM N SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY ARRANGEMENT 31/. IMKLMt Met NIE 101MSt .ems mew atiararr wtOMi NIP, It RAW GENERAL PEA* INCONSAMAMOIR MIQ MURK C - AP 16 9 D v 24. ORO tooKONS SECTION 14-14 s. ITO TOMS - OTT A WM wary SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STEN ARRANGEMENT SE MM., OW. OW MEMO. __ MEI rrs nsw+r And SECTION MGM C-AP-17 ftMMUS F SECTION 16- 16 �1 v - -1 - Mr p/ SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY ARRANGEMENT ME ••• VP NMI.. RYA WR R•••••IrRA! SECTION Lawrwannw ea is nowasor FIGUItI; C-API GENERAL PLAN CAS 0 ?UT IT art or sew Kona SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT'STUDY ARRANGEMENT g • MIL_ iMMa. ,imv $. T+rm. „ . ,. TAR 101100e0 .�.110001010 R.00OINKSWIM SPUR N..r GENERAL PLAN' AA/ Magi" SECTION 17-17 ILALlt MI ROMS IMMO an a MI" name SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT MOT ARRANGEMENT ME __........... I*flj . Mom .. e,gaga,g .e•••MO. SECTION FIGURE 'C AP 23 u a. GENERAL PLAN IS OW OF — =LID WASTE MANAGEMENT Silk!' ARRANGEMENT = 1......... 1w ..... GENERAL RAN LIMINIMO MOM CS NM II/= FIGURE G - AP- OTT OP NM MOM !CUD 1R M MANAGEMENT WNW ARRANGEMENT I .01.1M,. I........ I.M O, ... N.. - BOO Aaw..RP I.110e.,.. SEcrioN GM OP NM MINN SGLfD WAR' imusaIENr slum ARRANGEMENT sE ..e.....SIM.. IINr. MD MOM/ • GENERAL PLAN t1a,11� tMINIM CO M an • SECTION 19-19 oeit MEM MOM --RR OWN w•ORS eallsOlt OW VP MIK ROM% MO WASTE MANAGEMENT STUOm ARRANGEMENT it mom ryTWO - rsrw w•M i-r•w• w aw-• n SECTION �� 0l NR IMEIMAR PICORS C-14P 27 21 9 N co GENERAL PLAN wa at. t+IM s . 21 a , OP ■M. II0/1. SOLID WASTE IMPROVISES S1WV ARRANGEMENT III Oa NAP SIS O.NR fy�Or 111.1•13..- MOW TOO - 4 dp AM WOLOr AOOI0 lAI.111, SEEMS RAN UMW • MOM 0 ;Eng. C-AP-21 1