Proposals for a Refuse Disposal System
IN  OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN
       Final Report on a Solid Waste Demonstration Grant Project
      This report (SW-7d) was prepared by Jones & Henry Engineers Limited
                 under grant DOJ-UI-00068 from the
                Bureau of Solid Waste Management
        U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
                 Public  Health Service
                    Environmental Health Service
                  Bureau of Solid Waste Management
                          1970

-------
                 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  A




                       Public Health Service Publication No. 1960
                      LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD HO. 79-607-050
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 20402 - Price $1.25

-------
                   FOREWORD
Ac:
                      CUTE PROBLEMS in solid waste management usually occur in high
                       density urban centers, and nowhere are their effects more apparent.
                   However, small towns or rural areas are also faced with difficult tech-
                   nical and  economic  problems related  to  collection  and  disposal  of
-3                 refuse.  These smaller communities often find it hard to provide efficient,
•o                 economical management of solid waste, because they cannot achieve the
 t                 necessary economy of scale.
^-                     Grants to State and interstate agencies  for planning for solid waste
 i                 management have been aimed at solving such problems for communities—
                   both large and small—by developing needed  data and by encouraging all
                   communities to approach the problems on a regional basis. The present
                   publication documents the  results of a planning study,  which was made
                   for a smaller community and was supported by  a State planning  grant.
                   The project included plans for developing,  constructing,  operating, and
                   maintaining a comprehensive program  of refuse disposal.  The investiga-
                   tion covered such areas as  secondary transportation, incineration, residue
                   disposal, rural collection and disposal, as well  as legal, financial, and  public
                   information aspects. The cooperative efforts with two other counties were
                   appraised.  Only through this kind of  careful planning, and cooperative
                   effort, can we hope to meet the growing crisis of solid waste management
                   in all the communities of this Nation.

                                               —RICHARD  D. VAUGHAN, Director
                                                  Bureau of Solid Waste Management
                               m

-------

-------
                                        CONTENTS

                                                                                    Page No.

INTRODUCTION 	         1
       History of the Study  	         1
       Purpose of the Study	         1
       Scope of the Study  	         2
       Method of Study	         2
       Method of Presentation  	         2

DESIGN CRITERIA  	         3
       Residential Refuse	         3
       Commercial Refuse  	         4
       Industrial Refuse	         5
       Estimated Quantities	         6
       Solid Waste Characteristics  	         9
       Air Pollution Control	         9
       Water Pollution Control	        10
       Water Supply & Sewerage	        10
       Wind Conditions	        10

HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS  	        11
       Southeastern Oakland  County Incinerator Authority	        11
       Site Availability   	        11
       Opposition to Solid Waste Disposal	        11
       Public Act 87	        13
       Present Facilities	        13
       Collection Practices	        13
       Disposal Practices 	        14
             Open Dumping	        14
             Sanitary Landfill	        14
             Incineration	        14
       Existing Operations	        14
       Industrial Disposal Facilities  	        15
       Miscellaneous Disposal Methods	        15

THE PROJECTION	        18
       General	        18
       Collection Practice	        18
       The County Program	        19
             Rural Areas  	        19
             Secondary Transportation	        19
             Disposal   	        19
       Secondary Benefits  	        19

-------
                                                                                    Page No.
GENERAL ENGINEERING

INCINERATION	        21
       Advantages of Incineration  	        21
       Disadvantages of Incineration  	        22
       Incineration Location	        22
       Incinerator Characteristics	        23
       Types of Incinerator Furnaces	        23
             Refractory Furnaces  	        24
             Waterwall Furnaces	        25
       Modifications of Furnaces	        27
             Waste Heat Boilers	        27
             Rotary Kiln	        28
       Comparison of Incinerator Systems	        29
       Evaluation of Incinerators	        31
       Components of Incinerators  	        32
             Scales	        32
             Tipping Floor	        32
             Refuse Pit	        33
             Crane  	        33
             Charging Hopper, Gate and Chute   	        33
             Grates	        33
             Air Pollution Control Devices  	        34
             Stack  	        35
             Residue Handling Equipment  	        35
             Building and Grounds  	        36
       Recommendations	        36

RESIDUE DISPOSAL  	        38
       Residue Transportation  	        38
             Truck Haul  	        38
             Rail Haul	        39
       Residue Disposal Area  	        40
             Gravel and Borrow Pits	        41
       Residue Disposal Equipment and Design  	        43
       Miscellaneous Uses for the Residue Area  	        43
       Recommendations for Residue Disposal	        44

SECONDARY TRANSPORTATION	        45
       Transfer Stations	        45
       Transfer Station Location	        46
       Bulk Transportation Systems	        46
             Road Transport  	        46
                    Open Semi-Trailers	        47
                    Compactor Trailers	        47
             Rail Transportation	        47
             Pipeline Transportation  	        48
             Conveyor Transportation  	        49
       Economics of Secondary Transportation  	        50
       Recommendations on Secondary Transportation	        50

                                             vi

-------
                                                                                  Page No.

THE RURAL PROBLEM  	        51
       Disposal Methods for Rural Areas	        52
             Convenience Centers  	        52
             Sanitary Landfill	        55
       Closing Existing Disposal Sites	        55
       Recommendation for the Rural Problem 	        57

PLAN PRESENTATION AND IMPLEMENTATION

PROPOSED SOLUTIONS	        59
       Facility Location	        59
       Cost Estimating	        61
       Plan A-1970-1980 	        63
             Incinerators	        63
                    Avon Incinerator  	        63
                    Farmington Incinerator	        64
                    Independence Incinerator	        65
             Secondary Transportation	        65
                    Milford Transfer Station	        65
                    Oxford Transfer Station	        66
                    Troy Transfer Station  	        66
             Residue Disposal	        66
       Plan A - 1980-1990  	        67
       Cost of Program  	        69
       Omission of Pontiac	        71
       Plan B-1970-1980 	        71
             Incinerators	        71
                    Farmington Incinerator  	        73
                    Independence Incinerator	        73
             Secondary Transportation	        74
                    Highland Transfer Station	        74
                    Oxford Transfer Station	        74
             Residue Disposal	        74
       Plan B - 1980-1990	        75
       Cost of Program  	        75
       Omission of Pontiac	        78
       Plans A & B 	        79
             Construction Material, Fly Ash, Foundary Sand,
             Liquid and Hazardous Waste Disposal	        79
             Trees and Brush  	        79
             Cost of Special Waste Disposal	        80
             Order of Construction and Land Procurement  	        80

WAYNE COUNTY AND MACOMB COUNTY  	        81
       Wayne County  	        81
       Macomb County	        81
       Evaluation of the Situation	        82

PROBLEMS FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION	        84
       Use of Steam  	        84
       Rural Convenience Centers 	        85
       High Temperature Burning 	        85
       Septic Tank Sludge Incineration	        85
       Summary	        88

                                           vii

-------
                                                                                   Page No.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS	        89
       Current Legislation  	        89
             Act 342, Public Acts of 1939  	        89
             Act 320, Public Acts of 1927  	        90
             Act  87, Public Acts of 1965  	        90
             Act 348, Public Acts of 1965  	        90
             Other Pertinent Legislation	        91
                    Act 298, Public Acts of 1917  	        91
                    Act 261, Public Acts of 1927  	        91
                    Act 106, Public Acts of 1963  	        91
                    Abandoned Vehicles 	        91
       Suggested Legislative Amendments	        92
             Act 342	        92
             Abandoned Automobile Hulks	        93

IMPLEMENTING THE PROGRAM   	        96
       Financial Capabilities	        96
       General Obligation Bonding Capacity  	        97
       Capital Costs for Solid Waste Disposal	        97
       Operational Financing 	        99
             Convenience Centers	        99

PUBLIC RELATIONS AND SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL	       100
       Motivating the Public	       100
       Gaining Public Acceptance 	       100
       Public Relations Program  	       101
       Inducements	       101
       Recommendation 	       102
APPENDIX

       Population Projection (Table I)  	       103
       Commercial Floor Area (Table II)	       104
       Methods and Costs of Collection and Disposal of Refuse
             in Oakland County (Table III)	       105
       Methods and Costs of Collection and Disposal of
             Refuse in Oakland County. Excerpt from Table III -
             Refuse Disposal Plan for the Detroit Region (Table IV)  	       115
       Quantities of Industrial Refuse from Questionnaires and
             Summary of Pertinent Data (Table V)	       125
       Estimated Vehicle and Equipment Requirements (Table VI)  	       126
       Estimated Manpower Requirements (Table VII)  	       127
       Estimated Unit Prices of Vehicles and Equipment
             in  1970 (Table VIII)  	       128
       Typical Transfer Station Cost (Table IX)	       129
       Typical Convenience Center Cost (Table X)  	       129
       Estimate of Cost for Septic Tank Sludge
             Incineration Equipment (Table XI)	       130
       Cost of Steam Line to Oakland University (Table XII)  	       130
       Oakland County Equalized Valuation (Table XIII)	       131
       Active Disposal Sites in Oakland County, December
              1967 (Table XIV)	       132

                                            viii

-------
                                                                                     Page No.

       Improperly Closed and Inactive Sites, December
              1967 (Table XV)	       134
       Implementing Procedure	       125
       Solid Waste Definitions	       136
       Land Areas not Suitable for Landfill Operations	       143
       Test-Boring Reports	       144
LIST OF TABLES
       Estimated Refuse Quantities in Oakland County, 1970-1990	          6
       Annual Percentage Frequencies of Wind Direction and Speed	         10
       Typical Comparative Cost Figures for Furnace Systems  	         30
       Plan A Costs	         70
       Plan B Costs	         77
       Convenience Centers Capital Costs  	         98


LIST OF FIGURES

       Per Capita Refuse Production for the United States
              (Figure 1)  	          3
       Projected Residential Refuse Production (Figure 2)	          4
       Classification of Industrial Waste Production (Figure 3)  	          5
       Estimated Incinerable Refuse Production (Figure 4)	          6
       Classification of Refuse Materials (Figure 5)	          8
       Existing Disposal Sites (Figure 6)	         16
       Typical Refractory Lined Incinerator (Figure 7)  	         25
       Typical Waterwall Furnace with Waste Heat Boiler (Figure 8)   	         28
       Typical Rotary Kiln Incinerator with Waste
              Heat Boiler (Figure 9)  	         29
       Comparative Cost of Multiple Unit Incinerators
              (Figure 10)  	         31
       Gravel Pit Locations  (Figure 11)	         42
       Roll Off Body and Truck (Figure 12) 	         53
       Convenience Center Groups 1970-1980 (Figure  13)	         54
       Convenience Center Groups 1980-1990 (Figure  14)	         56
       Plan A - 1970-1980 Decade (Figure 15) 	         63
       Plan A - 1980-1990 Decade (Figure 16) 	         68
       Plan B - 1970-1980  Decade (Figure 17)  	         72
       Plan B - 1980-1990  Decade (Figure 18)  	         76
       Flow Diagram for Sludge Incineration (Figure 19)	         87
       Land Areas Not Suitable for Landfill Operations
              (Figure 20)  	        143


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

       Plan II Refuse Disposal in the Detroit Region	          7
       Clippings	         12


                                             ix

-------
                            SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
     The  results  of  a  study and  investigation
leading to a solid waste disposal plan for Oakland
County are  documented  in  this  Report.  The
proposed plan for Oakland County conforms in
general  to  Plan II  of the Detroit  Metropolitan
Area  Regional  Planning  Commission Report  of
1964. The concept of several large incinerators
located  in  the  populous portion of the County
has been retained but service area boundaries have
been  adjusted as needed.  The Oakland  County
report and  the  recent   Wayne  County study
propose plans that,  when implemented, will serve
much of the population of the Metropolitan Area.
There is no conflict between  the reports, and the
Oakland   study  indicates  the  possibility   of
inter-county cooperation for residue disposal. The
study has  explored the various aspects of Solid
Waste  disposal  including  incineration,  residue
disposal,  secondary  transportation,  and  rural
problems.  No attempt was made  to study refuse
collection in depth.

     In  addition  to the engineering study,  the
report sets forth in brief discussions information
concerning legal,  financial and other aspects of
the  total   problem which will   aid  in   the
implementation of the plans presented.

     Several  recommendations have  evolved  as
work was done in preparing the Report. These are
itemized below.

 1.  Refuse  disposal  service must  be made
     available to all  members of  the  Oakland
     County  Community:  residents,  businesses,
     and industry. Disposal of certain hazardous
     or hard  to  handle  materials  must   be
     excluded  for  the  safety of  operating
     personnel and  other citizens, but all material
     that can be safely and readily handled by the
     recommended equipment should be included
     in the County refuse disposal program.

 2.  We recommend that all  governments of the
     County  use  the  facilities proposed in this
     Report.  Plan A is recommended and is able
     to provide for the refuse  disposal needs of all
     members  of  the  community  including
     supplementary service for the  Southeastern
     Oakland County Incinerator Authority.
3.
4.
5.
Plan B is  recommended if the Southeastern
Oakland County Incinerator Authority does
not  wish  to  participate  in the  County
program.

We  recommend  a  few   large  capacity
incinerators rather than many smaller sized
ones.

We recommend  the following construction
program under Plan A:
    Construction


    Incinerators
    Avon
    Farmington
    Independence
    Troy

    Transfer Stations
    Milford
    Oxford
    Troy
                 Installed Capacity - Tons/Day
                 1970-1980      1980-1990
                 1300
                 1200
                 1500
                  -0-
1300
1600
1500
1500
                 300
                 200
                 850 (to be replaced by an
                    incinerator in 1980)
6.
7.
A residue disposal area in excess of 500 acres
is recommended to be obtained in western
Addison Township.

All  sites should be acquired immediately to
prevent them  from  being  developed for
other purposes.

Incineration of all burnable  waste material
originating in  the County is recommended
by  the Report. Provision  for burial  of fly
ash, foundry  sand, construction  materials,
bulky items and other non-burnables is made
at the residue disposal area.

Water  wall  incinerators  are  recommended.
Water wall furnaces permit operation at high
temperatures and  use a minimum of  excess
air  to accomplish thorough burning and help
reduce air pollution,  which is becoming of
great concern  to  officials and citizens alike.
We   recommend  the  use  of electro-static
precipitators for air cleaning.

-------
10.  The  use  of transfer stations to  supplement
    collection  service  in  outlying areas is
    recommended.  This  secondary
    transportation  system  will  use  trucks  to
    deliver refuse to the incinerators.

11.  Transfer  stations  designed  to  allow  for
    changing  technology by providing room to
    incorporate  advanced  methods as  they
    develop  and  are  proven,  is strongly
    recommended.

12.  The  rural  areas  should  be  served  by
    convenience  centers  to  substitute  for
    sanitary landfills.

13.  We  recommend  that  Oakland  County
    cooperate with its neighboring Counties for
    the disposal  of incinerator residue or refuse
    on a contractural basis.

14.  Federal funds are available to eligible  local
    governments for demonstrations of new or
    improved methods of solid  waste disposal.
    We  suggest  four projects  in  this  Report
    which  may be eligible for such grants. We
    recommend  that  the  County  apply for a
    Federal  Grant  before  the  time  of
    construction.
15.  We recommend that abandoned vehicles be
    removed from the streets and fields under a
    County Program  and delivered  to  private
    automobile reduction plants.

16.  Public Act 342 of 1939, the litter law, and
    the   abandoned   vehicle  law require
    amendment  to ease the tasks recommended
    for the County program. We recommend
    that the County Corporation Counsel  bring
    the suggested amendments to the attention
    of the legislature.

17.  We recommend  that the County employ
    competent financial counsel to establish the
    financial program for all participants to the
    program.

18.  We  recommend  that  a  public  relations
    program be  begun soon after acceptance of
    this   Report  as  an effective method  of
    communicating with the general public. A
    public relations specialist should  be used in
    the formulation of a program.

19.  We  recommend  that  the  program  be
    implemented  soon  after this  Report is
    accepted  through  the procedures listed in
    the Appendix.
                                                   Jones & Henry Engineers Limited
                                            XI

-------

-------
                                       INTRODUCTION
     Refuse —

     Until  recently, refuse  was  a subject  not
usually  discussed in polite social conversations.
Things  are changing  now. The newspapers are
crowded  with  news  items  concerning  refuse
collection and disposal in New York, Memphis,
Detroit, Pontiac  and others of the nation's cities.
National  magazines  such  as  Fortune  and
Newsweek have carried articles about this growing
problem and  there is an explosion of concern by
editors, conservationists,  public  officials,  and
individual citizens over our rapidly deteriorating
environment.

     It  is not difficult to understand that  just
about  as much  material must  be  taken from a
community  as is  brought into it. Goods enter
                     communities  by  way of
                     our extensive  road,  rail,
                     ship, or air transportation
                     facilities  in  neat  bundles
                     and  fancy  packages.
                     Wastes  are  taken  out  and
                     disposed of  with  little
                     thought. Until now, nature
has covered  for  such  a casual  attitude towards
waste handling through the natural  destruction
processes; however, man's technology is rapidly
exhausting nature's generosity.  Aluminum cans,
non-returnable bottles, and growing numbers of
plastic  items do  not  deteriorate  appreciably.
Despite the millions of dollars spent annually for
refuse  disposal,  most communities  are  falling
behind and will face a crisis in solid waste disposal
in the near future. Modern man is finding that his
past approach  to  the  problem  is no  longer
satisfactory.

     The  task before us is  unbounded. Solid
waste  disposal cannot be contained  within  the
confines of a community any more  than blight
could  be  contained "on  the other side of the
tracks". Each community is a segment of  our
total society  and no amount of rationalizing  will
exempt one  healthy segment  from the  decay
lurking  in another.  Before much progress can be
made in meeting the  solid waste crisis facing us,
new   patterns  of  cooperation  between
municipalities must emerge.
     We must realize that we are subject to every
tampering  with  our environment.  We must be
willing to work for quality everywhere, not just in
our  own  backyard. The  ugliness  of litter in
Pontiac Lake Recreation Area or the abandoned
vehicles in Milford Township do not affect these
areas alone,  but their  presence  is felt  also in
Pontiac,  Madison Heights,  Oxford,  and even
beyond the  limits  of  Oakland  County.  The
challenge  of  the  quest is awesome  and the  goal
inspiring.
              History of the Study

     The  quest  for  better  refuse  disposal in
Oakland County  accelerated  in  1964  when the
Detroit  Metropolitan  Regional  Planning
Commission  issued its  report entitled "Refuse
Disposal Plan for the Detroit Region". This report
contained the results of a feasibility study by the
Commission Staff and offered two plans to solve
the  problem. The Oakland  County  Board of
Supervisors made a long and careful study of the
regional report and decided to authorize a further
report before embarking upon a County program.
Mr.  Daniel W. Barry, Drain  Commissioner, was
named agent for  the County  under provisions of
the County Public Improvement  Act on October
5, 1966, and  on  October 11  of  1967 a contract
was  entered for engineering services to prepare a
plan for implementing the basic findings of the
regional study. Application for Federal assistance
under  provisions of the Solid  Waste  Act of 1965
was  made  and  the  Public   Health Service,
Department  of Health,  Education and Welfare,
accepted the application and authorized the study
to begin on August 1, 1967.
             Purpose of the Study

     Prior to retaining  an engineer, the County
decided upon incineration as the best method of
refuse  disposal  for  Oakland  County  which
permitted  this study to begin  where the Detroit
Metropolitan  Regional  Planning  Commission
report stopped. This report presents plans for the
development,  construction,  operation and
maintenance  of  a comprehensive  program  of

-------
refuse  disposal.  The  work  includes  the  size,
location  and type  of construction for transfer
stations  and incinerators,  requirements  for  air
pollution control and estimates of cost. In making
this study, we encountered problems beyond the
original intent of the contract, so the purpose of
the Report was expanded to include abandoned
vehicles.
and operation reflect current industry prices.

     Many private  or  public  organizations  and
individuals have contributed generously  to  this
study.  We list in the Appendix a more complete
acknowledgement of those  who have helped us
with this work.
              Scope of the Study

     The work presented in  this Report results
from  a thorough  study  of the refuse disposal
problems of  Oakland County. Our investigation
has   explored   secondary  transportation;
incineration;  residue  disposal; rural  problems;
legal,  financial and public relations aspects of the
problem;  and an investigation  of cooperative
endeavors with Wayne and Macomb Counties.
              Method of Study

     Various methods of operation were used to
conduct  this  study.  Information  from  many
sources  was compiled  and evaluated. Data were
gathered  from  questionnaires,  telephone
conversations,  and personal interviews.  Aerial
photographs,  previous  reports,  visitations  to
existing disposal  sites and operations, both in and
beyond  the County  limits,  together  with
interviews  with  operating  and  supervisory
personnel for these installations provide much of
the information  upon which recommendations
are  based.  We  talked  with manufacturers  of
equipment to  determine  the  capabilities of their
product and its method of manufacture wherever
possible.  Computers helped  determine load
centers  and do  other  mathematical  work, thus
allowing a more thorough study of alternatives
than would otherwise  be permitted.  A total of
275  combinations  of  the  municipalities  was
established and  studied  on  the  computer  and
from this evolved two plans which are presented
in this  Report.  Financial  and  legal  discussions
were   assembled  with   the  aid  of  men
knowledgeable in these fields. Estimates  of cost
            Method of Presentation

     The Report is divided into several sections,
each section dealing with certain aspects of the
problem. There are  four  major divisions of the
Report;  introductory,  general  engineering
information, presentation  and  implementation
procedure for the plan, and appendix.

     This introduction contains a listing of design
considerations, the history of the project and the
projection of anticipated needs.

     The  second  division  contains  general
engineering  considerations. This portion  of the
Report  includes  the  information  on  which
decisions as  to type of  incinerator, secondary
transportation, residue disposal and rural  aspects
of the problem were reached.  Various methods of
handling the  problem are  considered  in  this
section of the Report and the conclusions reached
upon which the recommended plans are founded.

     The third portion of the  Report presents the
plans selected  for refuse disposal  throughout
Oakland  County   and explores various  related
aspects of the problem. It is in this section that
such information  as  legal,  financial,  public
relation discussions  and  cooperative endeavors
with Wayne and Macomb Counties are presented.
These discussions,  although not a  direct  part of
the  plans presented  for  refuse disposal in the
County, will help  the Board  of Supervisors and
their Agent in implementing the proposals.

     The last portion of the Report contains the
Appendix  in  which  the  tables and other
supporting data, not  contained in the text of the
Report, are presented.

-------
                                      DESIGN CRITERIA
     Solid waste is produced by all constituents
of  the  County  community.   Residences,
commercial  establishments  and  industry each
make a contribution to the total refuse disposal
problem. Variations of quantity occur from each
of these  contributors according to type and size
of  family  or business.  Quantity  also  varies
seasonally.  An  average  estimate  of  quantity
contributed  by each member of the community is
needed for the design of facilities for the County.

     Few accurate records are  kept  of  refuse
production in the  County. Collection practice is
diverse;  individual  private  haulers  keep  few
records.  Salvage,  by  industry or  through junk
dealers, on-site burning and other private disposal
practices cloud the picture of refuse production.
Most  municipalities  have little  knowledge of
amounts  of  refuse collected or even the amount
disposed  of in terms of area, yardage or tonnage.

     The  Southeastern  Oakland   County
Incinerator  Authority  (SEOCIA),  the Central
Wayne  County  Sanitation  Authority  and the
Sanitation Department of the City of  Detroit do
keep  accurate records of  quantities delivered to
their  incinerators.  The   records  of  SEOCIA
represent  quantities  from  approximately  43
percent of Oakland County residents according to
1967  estimates  by  the  Detroit  Metropolitan
Planning  Commission. All  records relate primarily
to residential wastes but these three organizations
have collected enough data to guide our estimate
of the amount of solid waste  produced  in the
County.
               PER CAPITA REFUSE PRODUCTION
                 FOR THE JMTED STATES

                   FIGURE 1
     Nationally, the quantity  of solid waste has
risen steadily in the past. The curve in Figure No.
11 indicates  the  trend  and   the  projected
continuation into  the future. This curve is for
illustrative purposes  only, because  it does not
represent  the entire  quantity of commercial and
industrial  material  which is  produced nor  is it
indicative  of quantities that can be  expected from
any local area.

     Several years  will be required to establish a
solid waste  program.  We have proposed the year
1970 as the first year of service, and we further
proposed  that  facilities  be  designed  for
expansions  adequate  for projected loads in the
year 1990.

     Quantities of refuse that will be produced in
Oakland   County,   and  on  which  the  various
facilities proposed  in  this Report are based, have
been  estimated by  separate  consideration  of
domestic,  commercial  and  industrial  refuse
sources.
                 Residential Refuse

     Population  data,   on  which  estimated
quantities of refuse are based, are taken from the
report "The Population  Growth and Evaluating
Urbanization of Oakland  County" by Albert J.
Mayer. This report was prepared by the Oakland
County Planning Commission in 1967 and covers
population growth through the year 1990. The
report estimates future populations by political
subdivisions  or  combinations  of  subdivisions
within Oakland County for the years 1970,  1980,
and  1990. For  purposes  of  estimating interim
quantities, we  have  interpolated between  the
values  for  population  given in  that  report.
Estimates  of  population  are  tabulated  in
Appendix Table I.

     The  Southeastern  Oakland  County
Incinerator Authority has kept an accurate record
since 1955 of the amounts of refuse produced in
each  contributing  political unit. This, together

1.  Reproduced with permission from Refuse Collection Practice,
   3rd Edition, A.P.W.A., 1966

-------
with estimated population for each political unit,
has furnished a rather  accurate picture  of the
growth of refuse production in terms of pounds
per capita daily over the last  10 years. A similar
series of records for members of the Central
Wayne  County  Sanitation Authority are also
available, but for a period of only 3 years.

     The  Southeastern Oakland  County
Incinerator Authority has projected the estimated
amounts of  refuse  that will  be  produced  per
capita through the year 1995. This projection is
based  on  historic  fluctuations  in   refuse
production from  the various  members of that
Authority. Their prediction has been taken as the
best available data for the Oakland County area.
However, the age and character of housing within
the authority makes  their projected quantities
somewhat low for the rest of the County  in our
opinion. The  reason for  this is that the homes are
generally in the 10  to  15 year age bracket, the
economic situation of the population is at about
the low ebb  for refuse  production, and most of
the homes are now past  the period of first major
appliance replacement. Our production figure per
capita  has, therefore, been  increased over  the
SEOCIA figure, but  the  rate of increase has been
kept approximately the same after 1975.



^1



/
OAKLAND
PROJECT

/'
COUNTY
ON 1967-
/
S S*

>^
EOCIA PR

.------
OJECTION

/ SOUTHEASTERN OAKLAND COUNTY
/ INCINERATOR AUTHORITY
/ ACTUAL PER CAPITA QUANTITY





	
965



     1955   I960  1965   1970   1975
                       YEAR
                               I98O
                                     1985   1990
           PROJECTED RESIDENTIAL REFUSE PRODUCTION
                   FIGURE 2

     Figure No. 2 above is a graph which shows
the SEOCIA projection and our Oakland County
projection of per capita refuse through 1990.

     Information  furnished  by  Mr.  A. J.
Kronbach, General Manager of SEOCIA, indicates
that the 1966-1967 average  quantity of refuse
throughout  the  entire  authority  amounted to
2.39 pounds per capita daily, based on a calendar
day.  Mr.  Virgil  Eller, Superintendent  of the
Central  Wayne  Authority,  provided  figures
indicating the production in the  same period for
his  authority at  1.84  pounds  per capita per
calendar day. A spot check of the records of the
refuse shed of the Southeast Incinerator for the
City  of Detroit  indicates their production  of
residential refuse at 2.83 pounds per capita daily.

     We estimate  that  the quantity of refuse
produced  by  the  domestic  segment  of the
Oakland County population will be 2.78  pounds
per  capita per  calendar  day in  1970.  Actual
quantities of  refuse collected in the early years of
the  program  from  the  rural portions  of the
County  will probably be much less than indicated
as a result of the numerous backyard burners and
other private means of  disposal  commonly used
by rural residents.
              Commercial Refuse

     Commercial  units  include retail  and
wholesale stores,  commercial  and professional
offices,  schools,  hospitals,  and  other  similai
institutions. Most of the refuse from these sources
consists of paper and paper products, but will also
include  food  waste  from  such sources as
restaurants and markets.

     We base our estimates of quantity  from
commercial sources on the number of square feet
of  floor  area  devoted  to  commercial  use in
Oakland County. In 1964 a survey  was made by
the  Oakland County Planning Office  in which
floor area for various commercial  buildings was
listed  and  classified.  Current   estimates of
commercial  floor  space are  based on  figures
obtained in the  1964  survey and are increased in
proportion to the population  for purposes of
projecting to  the  year 1990.  Our estimates of
commercial  floor space  in  Oakland   County
appears in the Appendix Table II.

     The  amount  of commercial  refuse
production  varies  considerably.  Seasonal
fluctuations as well as differences among types of
businesses create these variations. We were unable
to locate existing  records which would indicate
average  daily  commercial  refuse yield.  Our
estimates are based on refuse produced by various

-------
commercial  establishments.  We  estimate  a
projected figure of 0.01 pounds per  square foot
of  building  area  per  day in  1970. We  have
estimated that the rate of commercial production
will increase at the rate of approximately 1-1/4%
per  year,  so  that commercial  production will
approach  .0126  pounds  per  square foot  per
calendar day by 1990.  These figures represent a
quantity of commercial refuse equivalent to 0.97
pounds per capita daily in 1970, and 1.45 pounds
per  capita daily in  1990, based  on projected
population figures.
               Industrial  Refuse

     Questionnaires were  sent to 1338 industrial
firms doing business in Oakland County. Of these,
177  were reclassified as commercial firms based
on their replies, and 77 were either no longer in
business or were located outside Oakland County.
The  remaining  1,084 firms provide the sample on
which  the industrial refuse load was computed.
Of the 1,084 firms,  replies were received from
650, of which  usable data was contained in 516
replies, representing  about  half of  the firms
operating in Oakland County. Telephone contacts
with representatives  of  several  firms indicated
that  those who did not reply probably produced
refuse  equivalent  to   that  expected from
residential type operations. Accordingly, we have
assumed that data  contained  in  the 516 replies
represent  90%  of  the   total  industrial  refuse
production in the County of each  classification.
Loads used elsewhere rely  on this assumption.

     We  believe that the  data received  from  the
replying  industries  are   representative  of  the
industrial  solid  waste production current  in
Oakland County. In several instances  data were
provided  from  company  records, and in others
plant surveys of varying duration  were conducted
before  returning the questionnaires. However, it
must be noted  that no historic data are available
on which to project estimates of future industrial
solid waste  production. This  lack  increases  the
uncertainty   of projections  of  refuse  from
industrial sources through  1990.

     Data returned  on the questionnaire were
divided into several classifications  of  refuse,
including  garbage   and   combustibles,
non-combustibles, construction material, fly-ash,
sludges, volatile liquids and  non-volatile liquids.
The breakdown  is  shown  on the  pictograph,
Figure No. 3.
           CONSTRUCTION
            MATERIAL
              CLASSIFICATION OF  INDUSTRIAL
                  WASTE  PRODUCTION
                   FIGURE 3

     The industrial load which could be expected
at a disposal site was computed as follows:

    All garbage and  combustible  material  and
    one-half of  the  non-combustible  material,
    exclusive   of  fly-ash,  foundry  sand  and
    construction material, were assumed to reach
    the  disposal  site.  The  remainder of  the
    non-combustible   refuse was  assumed  as
    salable material which would be salvaged by
    the company  producing it. Fly-ash, foundry
    sand, and  construction materials are  items
    that would be disposed of  by landfill  and
    were  considered  separately  from  other
    non-combustibles  for  the  purposes  of
    disposal. Only a  very small  portion of the
    volatile  liquid and probably  none of  the
    non-volatile liquid solid  waste from industrial
    sources  would reach the disposal  sites  of
    Oakland County since most of this material is
    sent  to  commercial firms  in  Detroit  for
    reclaim,  salvage  or  disposal  according  to
    replies from questionnaires.

     We  assume that  industrial refuse quantities
will  increase at an approximate  rate of 2% per
year between  1970 and 1990. Our estimates of
the amount  of industrial  waste which will reach
the  disposal  sites, exclusive  of foundry  sand,

-------
fly-ash, and construction materials will represent
1.46 pounds per  capita daily in  1970, and will
reduce to 1.23 pounds per capita daily by  1990.
                                         A graphical representation of the amounts of
                                    refuse produced in each design period is shown by
                                    Figure No. 4.
             Estimated Quantities
     The  quantity of  solid waste  generated in
Oakland County will increase  in the future. The
increase  will  result  from both  increasing
population  and increasing  use of pre-packaging
and  throw-away containers by both commercial
and  industrial  firms.  Efforts  will  be made  to
restrict the production of throw-away containers
and  the acceleration in the use of  convenience
packaging  will probably  diminish in the future.
However, it is unlikely that the rate of increase in
the per capita refuse production will be reversed.
The  increase  in the  per  capita   solid   waste
production will be  further augmented by more
stringent restrictions on open burning. It is likely
that  the  amount  of incinerable   solid   waste
contributed per capita will increase to in excess of
6 pounds daily within the next 20 years. This will
be  in  addition  to  the  unburnable  materials
produced   by  the  commercial  and  industrial
sources within the County.


     We estimate the following quantities of solid
waste  material  will be  produced   in  Oakland
County between 1970 and 1990:
                        Daily Quantity (Calendar Day)
Type of Refuse    Year      Tons*         CY **
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
 Totals
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990

1970
1975
1980
1985
1990

1970
1975
1980
1985
1990

1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1320
1780
2070
2390
2750

 510
 680
 840
1010
1180

 770
 820
 870
 920
 960

2600
3280
3780
4320
4890
650
670
680
690
710
                                                      INDUSTRIAL
                                                     COMMERCIAL
                                                    R E S, I DENT! A L
    Normally handled Refuse
    Bulk Items and Hazardous Materials
                                              I97O     1975    1980    1985    1990
                                                           YEAH
                                                    ESTIMATED INCINERABLE
                                                     REFUSE PRODUCTION
                   FIGURE 4

     Two plans were  selected for further  study
and  investigation  upon  completion  of  the
preliminary  study,  one to offer  county facilities
to  relieve  the  load   on  the  existing  SEOCIA
incinerator  in  Madison  Heights,  the  other  to
exclude the SEOCIA entirely. These two plans are
discussed in greater detail later in the Report.

     Neither  of  the  two  plans  selected
corresponds to the plan established in the Detroit
Metropolitan Area Regional Planning Commission
Report  of  1964. Developments since  that report
was  published, including  the  detailed Wayne
County study, necessitate changing some of the
refuse  disposal area boundaries. This change in
boundaries allows  the service  areas  of Oakland
County facilities to stop  at the County line. The
plate on the  following  page, reproduced  with
permission, shows Plan II of the Detroit Regional
Report as it was originally proposed.

-------
PLAN   HE
REFUSE   DISPOSAL
                                                      INTHE
                                                      DETROIT  REGION
0"-~
©
©
•©"
1 	 1
O-2
©
©
O-l
&
	 ,
©
MA-4
©
MA 1
© ©
1 1-
,£x MA-2
® ©
                                                                               TYPES
                                                                                 of
                                                                         REFUSE DISPOSAL
                                                                           INCINERATOR
                                                                           LOADING STATION
                                                                        © LANDFILL SITE
                                                                        O MAJOR LANDFILL SITE
                                                                       Ml INCINERATOR DISTRICT
                                                                       illl  »itfc»RE(l(tUI»8tR
                                                                       Bi CORE AREA OUTLINE
                                                                       r —1 llNDfllLDISTBCT
                                                                       I_J  with AREA NUMBER
                                                                       E3 LANDFILL AREA to 1970
                                                                       CD AREAEXCLUDEOftmPLAN
—,•.-,_„ rmj^ JL _~__ f— — -*

-------
                                Classification of Refuse Materials
Refuse
(Solid
Wastes)
Garbage
Rubbish
Ashes
Bulky
Wastes
Street
refuse
Dead
animals
Abandoned
vehicles
Construction
& Demolition
wastes
Industrial
refuse
Special
wastes
Animal and
Agricultural
wastes
Sewage
treatment
residues
Wastes from the preparation, cooking,
and serving of food
Market refuse, waste from the handling,
storage, and sale of produce and meats
Combustible
(primarily)
organic)
Noncombustible
(primarily
inorganic)
Paper, cardboard, cartons
Wood, boxes, excelsior
Plastics
Rags, cloth, bedding
Leather, rubber
Grass , leaves , yard trimmings
Metals, tin cans, metal foils
Dirt
Stones , bricks , ceramics ,
crockery
Glass , bottles
Other mineral refuse
Residue from fires used for cooking and for
heating buildings, cinders
Large auto parts , tires
Stoves , refrigerators , other large appliances
Furniture, large crates
Trees , branches , palm fronds , stumps , flotage
Street sweepings
Leaves
Catch basin dirt
contents of litter
, dirt
receptacles
Small animals: cats, dogs, poultry, etc.
Large animals: horses, cows, etc.
Automobiles , trucks
Lumber, roofing, and sheathing scraps
Rubble, broken concrete , plaster, etc.
Conduit, pipe, wire, insulation, etc.
Solid wastes resulting from industrial
processes and manufacturing operations
such as: food-processing wastes , boiler
house cinders , wood, plastic , and metal
scraps and shavings, etc.
Hazardous wastes: pathological wastes ,
explosives , radioactive materials
Security wastes: confidential documents,
negotiable papers , etc.
Manures, crop residues
Coarse screenings, grit, septic tank sludge,
dewatered sludge
From:
households ,
institutions ,
and commercial
concerns such
as:
hotels ,
stores,
restaurants ,
markets, etc.
From:
streets ,
sidewalks ,
alleys,
vacant lots, etc.
From:
factories,
power plants ,
etc.
Households ,
hospitals ,
institutions ,
stores ,
industry, etc.
Farms,
feed lots
Sewage treat-
ment plants ,
septic tanks
Reprinted with permission Municipal Re fuse Disposal, 2nd Edition, APWA, 1966.
                                                 FIGURE 5

-------
          Solid Waste Characteristics

     It is necessary to know the characteristics of
the material handled to prepare a suitable plan of
refuse disposal.

     Domestic  and  commercial  refuse  is
composed primarily of paper and paper products
with quantities of garbage, grass clippings, plastic,
glass, metal,  and  various  other  materials.  A
general analysis of a composite municipal refuse
as shown in  the  following  table represents  an
average taken from several sources.
     Corrugated Cardboard
   Newspapers
   Miscellaneous Papers
   Plastic Film
   Leather, Molded Plastic & Rubber
   Garbage
   Grass, Leaves and Dirt
   Textiles
   Wood
   Glass, Ceramics, and Stone
   Metal lies
 7%
14%
25%
 2%
 2%
12%
10%
 3%
 7%
10%
 8%
     Seasonal  variations  occur  in  refuse
characteristics.  For instance  grass or leaves  can
account for more than 30% of the total quantity
during some seasons.

     A generalized classification of refuse material
appears in Figure No. 5 on the preceding page.

     The density of refuse is  variable with degree
of  compaction,  moisture  content  and  its
constitution. Normal refuse weighs about  100 to
150  pounds per cubic  yard at the collection
                     point.  When placed in  a
                     collection  truck  and
                     compacted the density  will
                     range  from 250 to  450
                     pounds per cubic yard. In
                     compactor   transfer
                     vehicles the density  will be
                     500 to  600 pounds  per
                     cubic yard. In the storage
                     pit  of  an  incinerator
densities  of 325 to 450 pounds per cubic yard are
common  and in sanitary  landfills densities  of 700
to 1000  pounds per cubic yard can  be achieved
after thorough compaction.
     When  municipal refuse is burned in  an
incinerator  plant,  the volume  of material is
greatly  reduced.  Residue  leaving the incinerator
may have as little as  15 to 20% of the original
volume and will weigh about 30 to 35% of its
original  weight.  The  density of residue is
approximately 1,000 pounds per cubic yard.

     A large amount of heat release accompanies
incineration. Heating value of refuse received at
an  incinerator  varies  between  3500 and 6000
BTU  per  pound,  depending  upon  moisture
content  and   relative  composition. Increasing
quantities of paper and  high  BTU content of
plastic  materials appearing  in  refuse,  together
with decreasing proportions of garbage, will cause
the average BTU  content of refuse received at an
incinerator site  to  increase from approximately
4500 BTU per pound to 5500  BTU per pound
over the design period.
              Air Pollution Control

     The  Michigan Air  Pollution Control  Act,
Public Act 348, 1965, has authorized the State
Health  Department  to formulate  rules  and
regulations  governing   the  characteristics  of
emissions  from burning devices.  Under  these
regulations  the  density  of smoke discharge is
limited,  so  that the  maximum  amount  of
particulate matter leaving the stack of a municipal
incinerator  shall not  exceed 0.30 pounds  per
1,000  pounds  of stack  gas  corrected  to  50%
excess air. Such emission standards will require
sophisticated types  of  air  pollution  control
devices on any furnace stack.

     The trend toward more and more control of
the  environment  is  evident  from  recent
legislation. Efforts to control air pollution have
increased greatly in the past few years. Emissions
from municipal  incinerators  are  expected  to
become more rigidly controlled in the  future, and
discharges  permitted  in  the  current  rules and
regulations  will probably be reduced in  the
future.

     All incinerators recommended in this Report
should be equipped  with the best available air
pollution  control equipment capable  of meeting
or exceeding present State standards.

-------
           Water Pollution Control

     Refuse  buried  in  sanitary  landfills is  a
potential  source of  ground  and surface water
pollution.  End products  of decomposition -
carbon  dioxide and water  - can  combine to
increase hardness,  dissolved solids, and chemical
pollution  in  any  water  they  reach.  Toxic
chemicals in waste present the greatest hazard to
water supplies. For this reason, sanitary landfills
are required  to be  isolated from  ground  and
surface waters by  a minimum of 2 feet of earth.

     Residue from incinerators seldom has been
burned  completely  enough   so  that  it  can  be
placed on the open  land  for disposal.  Sanitary
landfills  are  required  for  disposal  of  most
incinerator  residues  because  of  the unburned
material which they contain. Normal precautions
against water  pollution must be  followed at  the
residue fill.

     Water for quenching ashes in an incinerator
unit and for trapping fly-ash must be recirculated
or treated to prevent water pollution. This waste
water must be treated by a suitable sewage system
contained within the plant itself, or disposed of
through a municipal sewage system.
          Water  Supply & Sewerage

     Wherever incinerators are used in the refuse
disposal program, an adequate supply of water for
cooling gases and for quenching ashes or  for
potable uses must be available. Sites selected for
the  incinerators  proposed  in  this  Report have
been studied for the availability of a water supply
through   the  Detroit  Metropolitan  Water
Development  Program,  and/or  for  a privately
developed water supply for use in the incinerator
installation.

     Likewise,  incinerator  locations have  been
selected  near existing sewer  systems  or sewer
systems  proposed under the  Pollution Control
Program of the Department of Water Supply, City
of  Detroit.  This program  is  far-reaching and
extends  into Oakland  County,  with  planned
completion  dates for  construction extending  to
the year 2000. However, a great  portion  of the
County  is  either now or expected  to be  served
under the system by  1975.
                    Wind Conditions

     Wind   has an  important  effect  on  the
selection  of solid  waste  disposal  sites.  Wind
direction  should be considered when trenches or
cells are established at sanitary landfills, as well as
when selecting a site for an incinerator. Inasmuch
as little wind information  is readily available in
Oakland County, we include the following listing.
Data on the prevailing winds were obtained from
the  U.S.   Department  of  Commerce  Weather
Bureau for the Wayne-Oakland County area.

            Annual Percentage Frequencies
             of Wind Direction and Speed
              Flint
Direction   %Time  Speed MPH
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
CALM
 4.1
 3.0
 3.7
 4.3
 4.2
 3.8
 3.9
 4.6
 7.6
 9.3
10.9
10.2
 6.6
 7.2
 5.6
 4.5
 6.5
 8.6
 9.4
 9.1
 8.7
 8.1
 8.9
 8.3
 9.4
 9.5
10.2
10.0
10.7
10.3
10.6
 9.1
 8.9
Detroit
% Time
10.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
6.0
4.0
5.0
3.0
10.0
5.0
9.0
6.0
9.0
8.0
9.0
4.0
1.0
Speed MPH
8.9
8.5
8.0
8.9
7.8
8.5
7.6
8.3
8.9
11.0
12.3
12.9
12.3
13.9
11.5
11.3

                                                10

-------
                               HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS
     Since World War II the character of much of
Oakland County has changed. The Southeastern
quadrant is now highly developed with residential
communities. The search for suburban living is, at
this  moment, carrying prospective home buyers
into  the more rural areas of the County, including
parts of  Brandon,  Independence,  Oakland and
Holly  Townships.  Despite  this  increase  in  the
population density,  the  responsibility for solid
waste disposal rests largely upon the individual.
     In  rural  areas  invidivual  home  owners
dispose of their refuse through backyard burning,
burial,  or  by hauling to a disposal  site.  Many
subdivisions and some scattered rural homes have
the services  of  a private refuse hauler. Private
haulers also  furnish  the  only refuse  collection
service  in  many  of the villages and  cities  in
Oakland County. Several densely populated areas
in the  southeastern  corner of  the  County use
private  haulers  contracting  directly  with  the
community  for  refuse  removal; and  in several
instances, municipal forces are used. The problem
has been to find a place to properly dispose  of the
unwanted waste material.
         Southeastern Oakland County
            Incinerator Authority

     The  Southeastern  Oakland  County
Incinerator Authority represents the  efforts  of
several   communities  to  overcome  the
disappearance of suitable low-cost  disposal sites
within a reasonable distance. An incinerator with
rated capacity of 450 tons per day was put into
service in 1955, and rebuilt to a capacity of 600
tons per  day in the early  1960's.  Today, this
facility  near John  R. and  12  Mile Road  in
Madison  Heights  is  overloaded  by  the  waste
produced  by the 14 member  communities. The
municipalities now  comprising the authority are:
City of Berkley, Village of Beverly  Hills, City  of
Birmingham,  City of Clawson, City of Femdale,
City of Hazel Park, City of Huntington Woods,
City of Lathrop Village, City of Madison Heights,
City of Oak Park, City of Pleasant Ridge, City  of
Royal Oak, Township of Royal Oak, and City  of
Troy.
               Site Availability

     Suitable  land for  solid  waste  disposal
continues  to  become  scarce  as  urbanization
encroaches upon rural areas of the  County. The
problem is no less acute in rural areas as a result
of sites for solid waste disposal being discouraged
by  zoning  regulations.  Thus, in  the  greater
portion  of  Oakland County, land legally  and
geographically well-suited to solid waste disposal
is difficult to find.

     The concern of the public is aroused by an
activity  which  it   believes  will  endanger  the
County's  resources or  create  a  nuisance.  The
active  protests  to  proposed  locations of  solid
waste disposal sites in several areas in the County
demonstrate this concern.
       Opposition to Solid Waste Disposal

     The  subject of refuse disposal is one that
arouses  the  emotions  of  Oakland  County
residents.  So strong is  the public attitude against
refuse disposal that  in  1966 and  1967,  an
adamant group in  Waterford Township  blocked
the  construction  of a private  sanitary  landfill
which would have been approximately 2,000 feet
from the nearest lake, 12 feet above ground water
elevation, was isolated  from homes on three sides
by  public  lands and on the  fourth  side by  an
industrial   area, and  was  intended  to  be  run
according  to  the  best  technology available.
Despite favorable testimony at public hearings by
officials of the Planning Commission, State and
local Health Departments and by outside experts,
the  Township  Board  refused  to  permit  the
sanitary  landfill  operation after  several public
hearings which as many as 400 citizens attended
to voice their objections.

     In Commerce Township, officials have voted
against a sanitary landfill proposed  by the County
Road Commission.  In Troy Township, a transfer
station located in  an industrially-zoned area and
to  be operated  by the  Southeastern Oakland
County  Incinerator Authority has  met  with
considerable  resistance and  the  authority  is
receiving many objections to the operation of its
                                              11

-------

                                                    35*52
                                    ^•Sa^ 2=^:£ £?Ssfts

       _.U.«—- tt.——-^   .SST-»«-»-"-i sat"-  -*,;

      (PlfiBiriSJBlSSi"8"^
                           j=rfSS?3   /o*'^
•^5*^3*""*
               ^l^e*
                                           Volet of th« p^pi,.

                                           Proposed Land Fill Site
                                           Discussed by Readers

                                          ^SSsSsSf^Sf
                                          tssr^^srsit
                                                * *
tteadcn View Proposed S«nit«ry Land Fill



  R nd Divid Wvd bt alloma 10 open
  T Uod fin on »te*d*y L*ke R»d tt
            er e
            Thest
 II UM «n ctnptffnlni ifimt W.Urtord'i propottd uni-
un DU doo't kwiw more about the rvfuliUcn iwmm« LU
ipwiUaa Hun Ik*)' do about Uu U-S PoHil lyMciu, flay
 )T WHfeta'1 ta N *fltart tta mpOMd *
         *S?^S^ •af=^^>*t


        •^^^snpsa?   ^-^Sr
                    ».»!. * .  ""
          i ' «"M ^ '•"»/>»
                             5X<^'^'^
                             ^ OJ»«o, °"ft>t J:*cw«v *^una
                             ***»**«»»„ ***«( -- •""ft,/
                                  12

-------
incinerator.  The  clippings reproduced on the
opposite page attest to the general public attitude
regarding sanitary landfills in Oakland County.

     Indeed, zoning  regulations of many  cities
and  townships  reviewed  in the  course of this
study seem to oppose the vital public  service of
refuse disposal.  In all but two  of the Ordinances
reviewed,  incineration  was prohibited.  In six
additional  Ordinances,  landfill  was a permitted
land use in certain restricted areas under special
permit and review  by the Zoning Board, and in
two  instances  upon  written  approval  of
surrounding  property  owners  within  specified
distances.  Five  of  the  Township  Ordinances
specifically prohibited any form of refuse disposal
within  their  jurisdiction.   The  remaining
Ordinances made  no mention  of solid  waste
disposal, neither permitting nor prohibiting such
use  of  the land.  These zoning regulations will
certainly  make  the  final  site  selection   more
difficult, and in some instances, zoning changes
will  be required to permit the disposal of residues
and solid wastes in Oakland County.
                Public Act 87

     In  1965, the  State  of  Michigan  enacted
Public Act 87, which required the operation of
disposal  sites  to conform to State regulations or
to be abandoned. A more complete discussion of
Public Act 87 occurs later in the Report. The
enforcement   of  Public  Act  87 has  prompted
operators  to  close several  sites in  Oakland
County.  These operators  did  not believe they
could economically  convert  their dumps to the
desired  landfills.  The  effect of closing  disposal
sites is felt most in rural and suburban townships.
Some effort was made to combine rural areas into
authorities  for  better  control,  such  as  the
Pontiac-Orion Disposal Authority, which operates
a  dump on  Kern  Road.  Some  of these rural
efforts have  been in vain  but urban authorities
have been  successful. The problem  was further
compounded  when  several  private  operations
closed  their disposal sites  rather  than make the
changeover to the better  form of refuse disposal.
The effect of Public Act 87 has been to stop open
burning,  close sites whose owners would or could
not meet the  cost of operating sanitary landfills,
and in some instances to convert open dumps to
"sanitary landfills"  in name only. However,  in
general, its effect has been to vastly improve the
quality of solid waste disposal  throughout the
state.
               Present Facilities

     The  pursuit  of  this  study  required as
accurate  a  determination as  possible  of solid
waste collection and  disposal methods now used
in Oakland County.  The Detroit Metropolitan
Area Regional Planning Report of 1964 provided
a portion of the information used, but, a majority
of  the  data  were  accumulated through field
investigation, questionnaires  and interviews with
officials of the  individual communities  within
Oakland County.  Existing solid  waste  disposal
sites were located on  aerial photographs provided
by  the Oakland  County  Planning Commission,
and then individually inspected on the ground for
verification.
              Collection Practices

     Three types of collection practice are used in
Oakland County;  municipal collection,  contract
collection,  and  private  collection.   A  brief
description  of each follows for those unfamiliar
with the various systems.

     When a municipality owns and operates the
collection trucks and  makes direct  employment
of  collection  crews,  the  system  is  called  a
municipal  collection  system.   Supervision  and
direction are under a regular governmental official
just as such functions  as street cleaning or sewer
maintenance. At the present time,  six  cities in
Oakland County are using this form of refuse
collection.

     If  a private  individual or firm owns the
collection vehicles  and  employs  the crew, but
contracts  directly with the local government, the
collection  practice  is  referred  to  as   contract
collection. The contractor acts  as an agent of the
city in making collections,  and the  municipality
enforces regulations  and usually collects the fees
for the services of  the contractor. Twenty-six
municipalities in Oakland County report the use
of contract  collection  for refuse service in their
communities.
                                               13

-------
     Private collection is the term which refers to
the system wherein the individual property owner
contracts directly with a refuse collector to serve
his premises. Under  this system there is seldom
regulation  by  any authority,  and  fees  are
collected  by  the  hauler  directly  from  the
individual. Twenty governmental units in Oakland
County  report  that  private  haulers  provide
collection of refuse within their subdivisions.

     Table No. Ill in  the Appendix entitled —
"Methods and Costs of Collection and Disposal of
Refuse in Oakland County"  is supplemented by
Table No. 3 in the Detroit Metropolitan Regional
Planning Commission Report  of  January 1964
(Appendix Table No. IV.) A comparison indicates
that twenty-five municipalities have changed the
type of collection service which is offered their
residents since the survey of 1961 reported in the
1964 report.  In  most  cases,  the  service was
upgraded from that shown in the earlier study.

     Specific recommendations for methods and
types of collection in Oakland County were not a
part of  this  study;  however,  the method  of
collection  has considerable   influence on  the
selection   of  disposal  facilities  which  are
recommended  in  this   Report.  Approximately
70-80% of the total cost of refuse disposal on the
average is spent in the collection of refuse.
Disposal Practices

     Once  refuse has been  collected it must  be
disposed of  in some manner.  Three  common
types of disposal are used  in Oakland County;
open  dumping,  landfill,  and incineration. These
forms of disposal are practiced by municipalities,
private  collectors, industries, and individuals  to
varying degrees.
Open Dumping

     Open  dumping  is  the least  acceptable
method  for  disposal  of  solid  waste.  Open
dumping is  the  oldest method of waste disposal
used  by man.  It is  simply  to discard unwanted
material as near to the place of origin as feasible.
When the depository for this material is used by
several  individuals,  it  is commonly known as a
dump.  The  characteristics   of the  open  dump
include uncovered refuse,  fly breeding,  seagulls,
rats, open burning,  blowing papers,  odors,  and
other  nuisances well known to any  who  have
visited these places. Open dumping is the most
common  method of refuse disposal occuring in
the United States.
Sanitary Landfill

     Recently,  land disposal of refuse has  been
greatly  improved. Modifications  of methods of
filling  land with  refuse have been adopted  by
public health and  engineering officials to control
nuisances associated with the open dump.

     This  new  method  of disposal  is called
"sanitary landfill". Sanitary  landfill involves the
compaction   and  daily
covering  of  all refuse
brought to the site. Rats,
flies,  seagulls,  and  other
vermin cannot find  the
landfilled refuse habitable
or a  source of food,  and
the  possibility of fire  and  blowing  papers  is
averted. When  properly  operated,  a  sanitary
landfill can meet  the highest standards of refuse
disposal desired by any modern community.
Incineration

     Incineration  is  the term applied  to  the
controlled, confined  burning of refuse within a
furnace.  A  modern  incinerator reduces  the
volume  of refuse brought  to  it and  discharges
gaseous  and  some   particulate  matter  to  the
atmosphere.  The reduction of refuse  to an ash
and  gas  accompanies a large release of heat.  The
products of incineration carried in the exit gases
must  be removed prior to discharging  to  the
atmosphere.  The   residue  which  leaves  the
incinerator  is  considerably  reduced  in  volume
from that received.
Existing Operations

     Twenty-three  communities  indicated  on
questionnaires  that  they dispose of their solid
waste  at  a  sanitary landfill, seven indicated the
use of open dumps, fourteen used an incinerator,
                                               14

-------
and  eighteen  did  not indicate their method of
disposal.   Many  of  these sites  used  by
municipalities   and  townships  are  operated
privately by contract collectors or private haulers.
In most instances, these sites  are open dumps or
modifications  of  open  dumps.  Where  a
modification  of  the open dump  occurs,  it  is
usually as a result  of an effort toward compliance
with  regulations under  Public Act  87. In  most
instances this is limited to restrictions of  open
burning. Failure  to cover refuse  daily is often
excused by  mis-statements that no garbage  is
permitted,  or that rats, flies,  seagulls,  and other
vermin are not problems.  Dumping in  surface
water  or  into the water  table is still  common
practice at many  dump  sites and  little or  no
attempt is  made to control vectors. Both of these
practices create nuisances and hazards to  health.

     The inspection  of aerial photographs  and
subsequent  ground inspections revealed  several
operating disposal  sites in Oakland County as
shown  on  Figure  No. 6. There were thirty-nine
open  dumps existant at the time the  photographs
were  made in 1963. These thirty-nine operations
included  known public  dumping  sites   and
promiscuous operations  including  roadside
dumping operations in  which  refuse covered an
area of approximately  one-tenth acre or more.
There  are eight construction material fills located
in  the  County.   Construction fills   are
differentiated from open dumps by the fact that
the construction fill contains  no household  type
waste, paper or garbage. Seven disposal sites are
actively operating as sanitary landfills, or making
an extensive effort  to comply with the regulations
of  Public  Act  87.  One  piggery  operates  in
Oakland  County   but   will probably  close
operation within a year, according to its operators.

     In addition to the active disposal operation
in Oakland County,  our  investigation  revealed
fifty-eight closed disposal sites, of which nineteen
were not closed in a suitable manner. Inadequate
care   in  final  covering is  the  most  frequent
violation.

    Questionnaires  to   the  individual
communities   indicate  that  thirty-two  of  the
sixty-four political  bodies within Oakland County
now   dispose  of  solid   waste   beyond   their
boundaries, whereas only seven have disposal sites
within their political jurisdiction. The remaining
twenty-five communities did not indicate  where
their refuse is taken for disposal. We must assume
that  the  solid  waste  from  the  twenty-five
municipalities also crosses into the  territory of
another political body for disposal.
Industrial Disposal Facilities

     Several   industries  in  Oakland  County
operate  their  own  disposal  facilities, including
open  dumps,  landfills, lagoons,  and  private
incinerators.  The  questionnaires  returned  by
forty-four industries  indicate they operate such
refuse disposal facilities. Twenty-five  of these
forty-four industries operated dumps, eighteen
reported operating landfills,  and one has a private
incinerator. Several of the reported sites  do not
fall  within the jurisdiction  of Public Act  87,
which exempts industrial disposal areas on land
contiguous to manufacturing plants.

     Many of the industries  of Oakland County
produce  liquid  wastes or hazardous wastes which
require special  knowledge or handling for proper
disposal.  Much of this material is being sent  by
the producer to disposal operations or reclaimers
located  outside the  County. There can  be  no
objection to such practice provided that the final
disposal  does not become a health hazard through
environmental pollution.

     Occasionally  some  of  the  material  of
industrial  origin remains  in Oakland County.
There are three disposal operations in the County
receiving  industrial wastes — one each in Avon,
Pontiac  and  Rose  Townships.  In each case,
disposal is poor and  conditions are aggravated by
importing  industrial  waste  from  beyond  the
County  boundary. The local  and state  health
departments  are  attempting  to  bring  these
operations to  acceptable standards  or to force
their  closure.   If  the  disposal  of these   waste
materials  can be  done in an  acceptable manner.
these  sites  will   be  permitted  to  continue
operation. With specialized knowledge in handling
special  waste   such  firms can make  a  useful
contribution to the  overall  solid waste disposal
program.

Miscellaneous Disposal Methods

     Throughout  the County,  open burning is
                                              15

-------
                                         INDEPENDENCE
                                         HUNTIN«TON WOODS
HAZ. PK. • HAZEL PARK
P.M. * PLEASANT RI08E
W.C.R • WOOD CREEK FARMS
• —OPEN DUMP
A-SANITARY  LAND  FILL
T- CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL  FILL
jg- PARTIALLY  CLOSED DUMP
f> - PIGGERY
                                 EXISTING  DISPOSAL  SITES
                                                   16
                                                                                  01234
                                                                                      SCALE IN MILES
                                                                                           FIGURE 6

-------
practiced. Almost without exception, rural and
suburban homes display a trash burner or burning
barrel  in  the  rear  yard.  Many  commercial
establishments in rural areas  also burn refuse on
the  site.   Approximately  one-third  of the
industrial  concerns  indicated  on   their
questionnaires that they also  burn refuse in order
to reduce the volume that must be removed from
their premises.

     Burial of refuse is  common in agricultural
areas. Farmers  have ample room to  dispose of
vegetable  trimmings and  other  miscellaneous
garbage  items on  their own property. Frequently,
large  lots  on  which single dwellings are
constructed also  afford similar  refuse disposal
opportunities.

     In  some instances,  residents of  Oakland
County  dispose of their refuse in family dumps
near their  homes. These  privately owned  open
disposal sites usually consist of a large heap of tin
cans and  bottles thrown by  the owner into a
marshy  area of  a  ravine.  Such  open disposal
operations  are not  common in all parts of the
County, but  can be seen occasionally. This form
of refuse disposal breeds rats and flies,  and creates
health hazards due to these vectors. Further, it is
attractive  to  children, dogs, and other animals,
which scatter the refuse  or  play in it, increasing
the  possibility  of  injury  to themselves  or to
passers-by.
                                              17

-------
                                      THE PROJECTION
     The following is a summary of the County
refuse  disposal program  as  we envision it. The
program  entails much coordination  of County
agencies, and  a considerable amount of money,
but it is the goal toward which the County should
strive.  The various aspects  of the program are
briefly mentioned  in the following paragraphs.
These aspects will  be discussed in more complete
detail in ensuing sections of this Report.
                   General

     All  over the country  public  awareness  of
refuse  disposal  problems  is increasing.  Many
newspapers and  popular magazines  have recently
devoted  space  to  the subject  of solid  waste
disposal and  associated  problems.  Increased
public  awareness  of  the   problem  will  place
pressure on responsible officials to rectify present
conditions.

     The most frequent point of contact between
local  government  officials  and  the  resident is
through  refuse collection.  There is considerable
interest on the part of the individual home owner
in maintaining good refuse practice or improving
it. The greatest demands for  improvement of the
refuse program of Oakland County  will probably
concern  collection. Improvements  in  collection
will  be reflected in  increased quantities of refuse
that must be cared for by disposal.

     The  method  and location  for disposal  of
solid waste  will also  be subject to demands for
improvement. Not only will  the  State and local
Health Department  require  the conversion  of
open dumps to  sanitary landfills,  but the local
residents  will be less  tolerant  of illicit  disposal
areas and abandoned bulk items. Land for public
disposal  of solid waste will become scarce  as
urban development encroaches on  rural  areas of
the  County.  This   urbanization  of  sparsely
developed  land  will  increase the  quantities  of
refuse which are  produced in  the County and thus
aggravate the problem rather  than aid its solution.
It is imperative that  the officials of Oakland
County look toward the future  in  deciding their
course.   The  haphazard crisis-to-crisis type  of
operation which is typical of the past must yield
to an efficient and planned system of solid waste
disposal.

     Solid waste planning must not be confined
to the residential problem. Business and industry
are a  part  of the  community  too,  and  their
problems  are  no less acute than  those  of the
domestic  segment.  The  past  practice  of many
communities to  exclude  certain commercial and
industrial  refuse  must stop  and  service  must
extend to  all  members  of  the  community.
However, hazardous and other special wastes can
logically be  excluded from  disposal sites  and
higher rates  charged for hard to handle materials.

     If  legislative trends  continue, open burning
will  become unlawful. Quantities of refuse will
become  greater  from  all  segments  of  the
community. Collection of all refuse including that
now  burned  at  the  point  of origin  and the
collection of leaves can produce a load 9 times
that now experienced by some communities, with
the  average  nearer  twice  current  collections.
Anticipated increases  in  quantity  must  be
included in planning for future disposal facilities.
              Collection Practice

     Refuse  collection  practice  in  Oakland
County  is  being  upgraded.  Replies  from  the
questionnaire  sent  to  local governments within
the County  indicate municipalities are turning
from   the  use of  private  haulers  to  contract
collection or municipal collection systems. Private
hauling as a collection  method is still in common
use in  the County,  but  as  municipalities are
formed  and population densities  increase, the
need  for  control  of  collection  systems  is
becoming  apparent  to public  officials. Private
hauling will, undoubtedly, continue as a method
of refuse collection in more rural neighborhoods
and  for commercial or industrial  installations.
Contract or municipal  collection will probably be
used by  the majority of communities in Oakland
County in future years.

     Improved  refuse  service  will  probably
include the complete  collection of rubbish and
garbage  in all areas of the County. If contract
                                              18

-------
collection is provided by a city or a township,
little problem will exist because collection service
will be available to all residents. Commercial and
industrial  pickup  should  also  be  combined
collection.  Thus, all  solid waste including both
combustible and  non-combustible  refuse  and
garbage will be picked up in a single collection
operation since there will be no need to separate
for disposal.

     Residential  collections  should be  made  at
least once per week. Public demand may seek
more  frequent  collections,  but  once-weekly
collection  in  the  County area  is  normally
satisfactory. Residential  collection should not be
more  frequent  than  twice  per  week.  More
frequent  collection  is  usually  necessary  for
commercial  and  industrial customers because of
waste characteristics or large volumes.
              The County Program

     It is assumed the County program will begin
where  collection  service   terminates. County
service will include transportation of refuse from
collection areas to a disposal site, the disposal of
refuse  generated  within the County boundaries,
and  the  maintenance  and administration  of the
solid waste program.
Rural Areas

     Open disposal will become less acceptable in
rural  areas. Dump sites  will  be closed as  the
regulations  under  Public  Act  87  are  more
stringently  enforced.  Remote landfills serving
several townships will not  be satisfactory  alone
because  of the  distance  individuals  must haul
their waste. County operated collection points are
expected  to  be located  at  several sites in rural
townships  so that convenient service  is  available
to  all residents.  This  will  provide  an  interim
solution  until  county  or  township  controlled
collection routes can be established in  rural areas.
Secondary Transportation

     Transportation  of refuse in large quantities
from  convenient points scattered throughout the
County will  be  necessary.  The  expense  of
operating collection vehicles is too great to permit
them to  make extended trips  to disposal sites.
The limits within which these trucks are able to
operate efficiently will become  more confined as
costs increase. County  operated transportation
systems will reduce the  cost of refuse service by
providing economical bulk  delivery  service for
collection vehicle loads.
Disposal

     Disposal of refuse will include reduction of
bulk. Incineration will provide this reduction for
most County wastes. Incineration will take place
at a few large plants rather than at many small
plants.  These  plants  will  be  located  in areas
convenient  to  road and  rail  facilities  and  in
undeveloped  areas  or in  currently  designated
industrial areas.

     The by-products of incineration, residue and
gases, will  be  treated and  disposed of in a safe
manner. Residue will be hauled to remote areas of
the County for compaction and burial. Gases will
be passed through high efficiency cleaning devices
to reduce air pollution loadings.

     The County will take a more active interest
in maintaining  a desirable environment  for  its
citizens. More intense efforts  at removing and
disposing of litter  from highways and  closing
promiscuous  dumping areas  will  be  made.
Abandoned automobile hulks will be collected  by
the  County and delivered  to  private  disposal
facilities for salvage value. Thus, the solid waste
disposal program will be a complete one.
              Secondary Benefits

     The solid waste disposal program will create
several secondary benefits for the County. Several
roads now in Class B condition must be brought
to Class A standards to permit year around use by
transportation vehicles. Utility extension to sites
will be of benefit to property owners along their
routes. Property values will probably increase as a
result of removing  litter and abandoned vehicles
from  the landscape. A good solid waste program
with  adequate  facilities  for disposal  will be
attractive  to industry.  Residue disposal areas can
turn undesirable  or unusable land into a useful
                                               19

-------
asset after filling is complete.

     The  County  program  will  require  a
cooperative  effort by  the communities  of the
County.  Many townships  and  villages are  too
small to finance an effective solid  waste program
under Public Act  87 for themselves. Cooperation
will  extend beyond  the  County boundary as
Oakland  County  establishes a relationship  with
Wayne County for the disposal  of incinerator
residues.
                                              20

-------
                                   GENERAL ENGINEERING
                                       INCINERATION
     It is generally acknowledged that disposal of
refuse  represents approximately 20-30% of the
total cost of the complete solid waste program.
The remaining portion of the cost is consumed by
the  collection  service.  The cost of a  disposal
program  is  significant  even  for  a  mediocre
operation.  The  added  cost for an outstanding
solid  waste  disposal program is  minor when
compared to  the  total cost of collection  and
disposal.

     The  term  "Incineration"  describes  the
disposal process whereby  refuse  is  reduced in
volume  by  burning before final disposal.  The
central  incinerator burns waste  from  many
sources  and  contrasts  with on-site incinerators
which burn material at the  point of origin, such as
at  an   industrial  plant,  a   commercial
establishment, or an  apartment house.  On-site
incinerators  are not considered in this study; the
word  "incinerator" will mean publicly  owned
central incinerators throughout this Report.
     Incineration reduces combustible material to
a  more  inert  residue.  Modern  incinerators
accomplish  this by combining the process of
drying wet refuse  and  burning it  in  a single
chamber  within a  furnace. The refuse  moving
slowly through the furnace  is consumed,  the
residue  being  disposed  of  by  land,  whereas
gaseous by-products of combustion are discharged
to  the  atmosphere.  Incineration  reduces   the
volume  of  material  to  be  handled  in a
nuisance-free manner, but  it is not a complete
method of disposal.
          Advantages of Incineration

     Incineration  requires much less land than
does  the  landfill  method  of  disposal.  The
incinerator itself can  be  situated on a relatively
small parcel of land. Some of  the incinerators in
Detroit occupy  parcels of less than five acres.
Residue disposal requires less land  than required
                                              21

-------
for  landfilling  raw  refuse   -  a significant
contribution to conserving land resources.

     A more central  location is possible for an
incineration plant. The incinerator can be located
close to the service area in an industrially zoned,
or in some instances a commercially zoned area.
A  well   designed building with attractively
landscaped grounds surrounding it will make the
operation  acceptable  in  many  neighborhoods.
Locating a plant near the center  of the  refuse
shed reduces the hauling cost.

     An  incinerator  produces  a  residue that
contains  small quantities of organic material and
is  less nuisance  than  raw  refuse. It  is  often
mis-stated  that  residue  from an incinerator  is
sterile.  Recent   examinations of incinerator
residue  indicates  that  the  ash  abounds   in
biological life,  but that most of the pathogenic
organisms are destroyed by incineration. Residue
produced by an incinerator must be covered like
raw  refuse because of  the minute quantities of
organic matter.

     An incinerator plant can burn many kinds of
refuse. It will burn most  combustibles to an ash
and   can  even  reduce  the   bulk  of   some
non-combustible components of a  mixed refuse.
It  cannot,  however, handle  large objects, those
which cause excessive smoke, or explosives.

     The operation of an incinerator is generally
not   affected by  climate or  unusual  weather
conditions.

     Some flexibility exists in the incinerator for
handling varying amounts of refuse. A  plant can
operate  8,  12,  16, or 24 hours  per  day, for
example. The operation can also  be carried out on
a 5,  6, or 7 day burning week. Grate speed in the
furnace may be adjusted within a limited range to
regulate  the  time  material  remains in  the
combustion chamber. By modifying the hours of
operation,  the number of days of operation, and
the  speed  with  which the refuse passes through
the  furnaces, the incinerator plant is capable of
handling  a wide  range  of refuse volumes  as
created by  its contributing population.  .

         Disadvantages of Incineration

     The  incinerator has  several  disadvantages
which  must  be weighed  against the advantages
outlined above. The  incinerator is  expensive in
capital cost as  well as operating cost. Depending
upon the type  and size of unit constructed, the
initial  cost  will  vary  from  $4,000  to  almost
$10,000 per  ton of rated  daily capacity, whereas
the operating cost can range from $5.00 to $9.00
per ton of rated daily capacity, including residue
disposal and amortization.

     Skilled  employees are  required to operate,
repair and maintain an incinerator. These men are
more in number  and generally higher paid than
employees at a sanitary landfill.

     Maintenance and repair costs are also higher
because of the  type of equipment involved in the
furnaces.  Equipment  is often damaged by  wire,
fusable  metals, abrasives, or  explosive  objects
entering the furnace with the refuse.

     The  combined high  capital investment and
the costly maintenance and repair for incinerators
create   a per  ton   cost  for  refuse  disposal
considerably  higher than for sanitary landfill.

     It is often difficult to obtain the best site for
an incinerator because refuse disposal operations
are not  acceptable to many people. Because of
heavy  truck  traffic, the  possibility of noise, or
other  real  or imagined  nuisances, incinerator
locations  are frequently  confined  to  industrial
areas.  Even  this precaution  will  not  prevent
nuisance complaints from  nearby residents.

     Incineration does  not  complete  the job of
disposal  of the community's waste. Residue and
flyash  must  be transported  to a landfill  site for
burial.
             Incineration Location

     It is necessary to make a decision where an
incinerator  plant  will  be  located.  The  site
selection involves  engineering  problems  and
public acceptance of the chosen location. Often
the engineering problems are the easiest to solve.

     Locations  central  to  the  load  from  the
service area usually result in the lowest collection
costs.  Topography and soil  conditions  have a
distinct influence on construction costs.  Hillside
                                               22

-------
sites can reduce construction costs by permitting
designs where  the  refuse flow roughly parallels
the natural ground  surface.  This  results  in  less
excavation and simpler structural design  than a
multi-storied plant  on flat ground. Sub-surface
soils and ground water will have a profound effect
on foundation design and underground structures.

     In urban and suburban  areas such as those
prevailing in much of Oakland County, the  site
selection problem is usually most difficult. If the
site is  to  be  located near residential  property
nearby  residents will object out of apprehension
regarding nuisances  from  smoke,  dust,  odor,
noise, and intense truck traffic. These citizens are
also  concerned about possible   reduction  in
property values.  Some of these  fears may  be
justified by  past experience with incinerators that
have been poorly operated, designed or managed
or may have been overloaded. Modern incinerator
design  minimizes  many of the sources of past
complaints.  However,  even   the  most  careful
selection of a location in intensely industrialized
areas  may  not eliminate objections which may
come from  residents several  thousands of yards
from the site.

     We  propose  to  locate incinerators  in
industrially zoned land to reduce objections. The
sites  will  be  chosen  to  be adjacent  to  or
reasonably close to railroads  and good primary
roads.   Site   access  roads  are  proposed  for
improvement if they do not now meet Class A
standards of the County Road Commission. We
will select sites where public utilities are existent
or planned for  the near future or where wells and
private treatment  plants  will  be  the least
objectionable.
           Incinerator Characteristics

     The term "incinerator" generally provokes a
picture  of  a box-like, red brick structure with a
tall stack emitting a large plume of black smoke.
The ground around the incinerator is visualized as
littered  with  blowing papers and the driveways
filled with  refuse trucks making their way in and
out of the  site. This picture need not be correct.

     A  modern  incinerator  can  be  as
architecturally  aesthetic as many  industrial  or
commercial buildings. The tall stack is no longer a
necessity, although in some instances it is very
desirable. Better furnace  design  and operating
techniques combined with modern air pollution
control equipment eliminates the plume  of black
smoke, whereas blowing  paper is controlled  by
enclosed dumping areas.  The type of operation
which once  was  an  eyesore  has been largely
eliminated  through  better   operational and
maintenance  practices. A modern, well-operated
incinerator is an asset rather than a liability to the
community.

     Incinerators reduce  the materials handling
problem significantly. The  residue of a modern
incinerator  represents  approximately   1/3  the
weight of material introduced to the  furnace.  At
the same time  that the weight is being lessened,
the   volume  of  material  is  reduced  to
approximately  1 /5 of the delivered volume. Much
of  this  material  is  converted   to  gaseous
by-products of combustion such as water vapor,
carbon  dioxide,  and  several  minor  gases. The
remaining residue is  a mixture of metal, glass,
ashes, dirt,  and other non-combustibles with a
small amount of unburned carbon.

     A modem incinerator plant can be operated
to minimize nuisance problems. With  proper care
of  operation  a well  designed incinerator can
function without excessive dirt, dust,  noise,  or
odor. A successful operation will require constant
attention and  control to  prevent  overloading
which often  is  the  cause of  these  nuisance
problems.

     We  discuss the  various types of incinerator
plants in more  detail in the following  paragraphs.
         Types of Incinerator Furnaces

     Incinerators recently designed for municipal
use are fed refuse continuously throughout the
burning period. The ability to receive fuel (refuse)
in this manner eliminates many of the problems
associated with municipal incinerators  of the old
batch  feed  design.  Among  the  advantages  of
continuously fed  incinerators are large  furnace
capacity,  excellent control of combustion and
near uniform furnace temperatures which reduce
thermal damage to components.

     We  have  studied two classes of continuous
                                              23

-------
feed  furnaces  which  we  believe  applicable to
Oakland  County.  These  are  refractory  lined
furnaces and water wall furnaces. The following
paragraphs will discuss  these  different  classes of
incinerators,  together  with   common
modifications, in more detail.
Refractory Furnaces

     Refractory  lined  furnaces  are commonly
used for refuse incineration in American practice.
The  refractory furnace is a proven system and is
the most  economical type of unit in sizes under
250  tons per day. Refractory furnaces are limited
to a  maximum size of approximately 300 tons per
day.  Above this limit, increased maintenance and
operating  costs begin to offset  the  cost of adding
another smaller unit.

     Refractory replacement is a costly item for
this  type  of furnace. Refractory is damaged by
overheating, slagging, chemical reactions,  erosion
of the furnace lining by the materials in  contact
with the brick and by heating and  cooling of the
furnace.  Wide  temperature  variations  in  the
furnace  produce  refractory  damage  through
expansion and contraction and through moisture.
When the  unit is allowed to heat and cool, stresses
are created in the brick and furnace frame. These
stresses cause movement of the  furnace lining,
which in   turn  can  chip or  break the  bricks.
Condensation of moisture also occurs  when the
furnace is cooled. Moisture is absorbed  by the
refractory lining and when the furnace is brought
back to operating temperature,  turns  to steam.
The  rapid expansion  of gas  in  forming steam
creates  a  pressure within the brickwork which
spalls  off the  face  of  the  lining.  Replacing
refractory  usually  means  a  furnace is  out of
service  for two weeks or more,  and that some
refuse must be sent to the landfill for disposal.

     Furnace  re lining  is  a  costly  operation.
Reports from plants  across the country indicate
that  relining is  required  typically every  two or
three years. The cost  of  relining will range from
$20-$30 per square foot or $100,000 or more for
a complete relining of a 300 ton per day furnace.
In addition to the major relining projects, minor
repairs to  brickwork are often  required whenever
a furnace  is taken out of service. The cost of these
repairs varies widely, depending upon the extent
of damage, but the square foot cost cited above is
appropriate.   Repair  and  replacing  furnace
refractory are a  substantial portion of the annual
cost of operating this class of incinerator.

    The  brick  lined  furnace relies on  air  for
cooling.  This  air  must  be  supplied in  large
quantities  to  prevent  overheating  of  the
refractory  lining and  excessive  slagging  of  the
walls. This excess air joins the combustion gases
and must  be passed  through the air pollution
control  equipment.  The  larger  volumes of  gas
being treated  for  particulate   matter removal
increase the cost of air pollution control  devices.

    The  refractory  lined   furnace   does  not
require   licensed  personnel  for  operation.
However, every effort should be  made  by  the
operating authority to employ men conscientious
in  their  work  and  trained in the  problems
involved  in refractory furnace  operation.  Such
men  can  soon  become qualified as efficient
incinerator operators  and  become  skilled  in
maintaining the plant  in its optimum condition.
The  savings in  labor and  operating expenses
inherent  with  the refractory furnace must  be
weighed  against  the  higher maintenance cost
associated with this type of unit.

    Operating  personnel  is an  important
consideration of incinerator cost. There is no way
of estimating manpower  requirements on  a  per
ton basis because this  will vary with the design of
the  plant.  Interviews with operators and
superintendents  of several plants indicate  most
are understaffed.  Indeed a  few seem to  pride
themselves  on  how few men   are required to
operate  their installation, but the result is usually
a dirty, poorly maintained plant and grounds.

    Typical labor requirements  for a refractory
incinerator are as follows:
Superintendent
Scale Attendant
Tipping Floor Attendant
Crane Operator
Charging Floor Attendant
Fireman

Fireman's Helper
Electrician
Mechanic
Laborer
Janitor
1
1 per shift when deliveries are made
1 per shift when deliveries are made
1 per shift per crane used
1 per shift
1 per shift for every 3 or less
 furnaces
1 per shift for every 2 furnaces
1
1
2 - day shift; 1 each other shift
2 - day shift; 1 each other shift
                                               24

-------
     Relief  personnel will  be needed  when
 operation  is on  a seven day  per week basis or
 when  operation  must  be  continued around the
 clock.

     The refractory lined furnace is economical in
 terms  of initial cost  for all  unit sizes and  in all
 plants studied with  from  one to five units per
 plant.  The  average  range  of capital cost  for
 refractory  incinerators is  $4,000 to $7,000 per
 ton  of rated capacity, depending  on individual
 unit sizes and  number of  units per plant. These
 cost figures  are exclusive of residue disposal and
 land. A more detailed explanation of the basis of
 comparison and  the  results  of the furnace study
 will be given later in this discussion.

     A  typical cross-section  of a refractory lined
 furnace installation is illustrated in Figure No. 7.
 over  a  year.  Other  water  wall  furnace
 construction is currently planned for Chicago and
 New York City.

     Water wall furnaces can be constructed for a
 large range of capacities. The minimum practical
 size of water wall furnace is 200 tons per day, and
 the  maximum is approximately 600 tons per day.
 In  multi-unit  incineration plants  using  large
 furnaces the ability to deliver refuse to the plant
 will become an important consideration.

     The  walls of  the  water-cooled  furnace
 consist of a  series of tubes connected by  fins or
 welded directly  together. Heat is transferred from
 the  burning refuse through the wall to the water
 in the tubes. The water filled tubes form the cool
 wall in  contact  with the flame and hot gases,
 preventing the accumulation of slag.
                                    OVERFIKE FORCED  'oRA?T
                                      ' AIR FAN      FAN
                         TYPICAL REFRACTORY  LINED  INCINERATOR
                                            FIGURE 7
Water Wall Furnaces

     The  water  wall  furnace uses  water-filled
tubes to  form  the furnace wall.  This type of
furnace for  municipal  refuse incineration  has
found  wide application  in  European and  South
American  installations.  There is  one water wall
incinerator in operation at the Norfolk Naval Base
in Virginia. This unit has been in  operation for
     Water cooling reduces the use of excess air.
Excess air in water  wall furnaces can be held to
approximately  50%  to 60%,  although provision
for supplying  100% excess air is advisable. The
volume of air passing  through the furnace has a
direct effect upon the size of air pollution control
devices.  A  secondary advantage  of restricting
excess air quantities is the introduction of less
moisture in  the  form  of humidity into  the gas
stream.
                                               25

-------
     Moisture in the  furnace  can be a problem
with  water  wall  furnaces.  The moisture  may
combine with gases formed by the combustion of
plastics  and  certain  other  materials  found in
refuse.  If  the moisture and gas combine,  they
could form an acid capable of damaging the walls
and  boiler  tubes.  Inspection  of  the Norfolk
incinerator, the  only water wall refuse incinerator
in  the  United  States,  after nine months of
operation revealed little corrosion  of the tubes.
The  Norfolk  plant   should provide  extreme
conditions since the furnaces are shut down each
week  and  no  supplementary  heat is supplied
during the  shutdown  period.  The  formation of
corrosive  acids can   be  minimized  by  using
supplemental heat during the period the furnace
is out of service.

     Tube replacement in water wall furnaces is
an infrequent maintenance  problem according to
European  experience.  The  experience of boiler
operators  for  industry  and  power  generation
indicates that the need for tube replacement may
occur  at periods in  excess of 5 to 7 years. Tube
failures  in   industrial  furnaces   are  frequently
caused by erosion of the tube by  entrained flyash.
A thorough rebuilding job is normally done at the
time  of  the  first  repair  as  a preventative
maintenance operation. European incinerator or
American boiler practice  is  not  easily  related to
American incinerators  because of differences in
fuels. There  has not been enough experience with
water  wall refuse incinerators in this country to
provide an accurate forecast of wall maintenance
costs.

     Water  wall furnaces  require specialized  and
careful treatment of the water used in  the boiler.
Treatment  removes  foreign material  which  is
potentially  damaging to the boiler  parts. Among
the impurities to be removed are scale and sludge
forming  materials, soluble salts,  oil, dissolved or
releasable gases, and other materials by the same
methods  used  to  treat  boiler  water  in  power
plants.

     The  water wall  furnace  requires  skilled
personnel for efficient  operation. Licensed power
plant  operators and firemen should be available
on  the floor of any  steam generating plant.  A
water  wall furnace is a boiler  plant, and  the
installation  should  employ  the same qualified
personnel. Such personnel demand higher salaries
than the men normally hired for refractory wall
furnaces.

     Typical labor requirements for a water wall
furnace are as follows:
Superintendent
Scale Attendant


Tipping Floor Attendant


Crane Operator
Charging Floor Attendant
Power Plant Operator
Asst. Power Plant Operator
Fireman


Fireman's Helper


Electrician
Mechanic
Millwright
Laborer


Janitor
1
1 per shift when
 deliveries are made
1 per shift when
 deliveries are made
1 per shift per crane used
1 per shift
1 per shift
1 per shift
1 per shift for every 3
 or less furnaces
1 per shift for every
 2 furnaces
1
1
1
2 per day shift; 1 each
 additional shift
2 per day shift; 1 each
 additional shift
     Relief personnel will be required for 7 day
operation or when operation must be continuous
around the clock.

     Recent studies  have promoted water  wall
furnaces on the basis of recovery or sale of steam
generated. The effort to conserve  the  valuable
by-product is a laudable one; however,  unless a
ready  market  is  available,  it  is an impractical
consideration. We believe that the possible sale of
steam  as a by-product of water-cooled furnaces is
a  possibility  and  do not dismiss it summarily.
However, because ready markets are not available
at most sites selected  in the recommended plans,
we do  not  consider  the sale'of steam as part of
our economic study.

     The  capital cost of constructing water wall
incinerators with waste heat boilers is in the range
of $5,000  to  $9,000  per ton  of  rated  daily
capacity  based  on information furnished us by
equipment  suppliers  and contractors. However,
recent  bids taken in Chicago  for  water  wall
furnaces  approached  $ 1 1,000  per  ton  of  rated
daily   capacity. There  were  some  contract
conditions  for this  bidding  which  could  have
                                                26

-------
caused high contract prices. We believe that the
middle  to  higher  end  of the range  is  most
appropriate  for  consideration  of  costs for
Oakland County. These costs do not include the
cost  of land   or  of  residue  disposal  and
transportation.

     A  drawing  of the  essential features  of  a
water wall furnace with waste heat boiler appears
in Figure No. 8.
Waste Heat Boilers

     Incinerator  gases  must  be  cooled  from
1800-2000 F  to  400-600 F before discharge to
the atmosphere. Cooling the gas is done to reduce
gas  volumes,  to  reduce  damage  to  furnace
components and  to improve  fan  efficiency. Gas
cooling  is  an important  part  of incinerator
operation.
                            TYPICAL  WATERWALL  FURNACE
                             WITH WASTE  HEAT BOILER
                                          FIGURE 8
           Modifications of Furnaces

     Many  attempts have been made to improve
performance  of  incinerator  furnaces.  These
attempts have resulted in several modifications
and  we believe the two major ones, waste  heat
boilers and  rotary kilns, deserve discussion at this
point.
     General  practice  cools gas by dilution with
excess air and/or water spray. Both methods add
to  the  volume  of gas to be  handled by  the
following  furnace  components  and  to  the
moisture content  of  that gas.  Both  methods
remain  popular  because  they  require  little
additional capital expenditure and sprays provide
a  limited  amount  of  air  pollution  control.
                                             27

-------
However, more stringent air pollution regulations
will  increase the need  to  minimize air volumes
and moisture passing control devices.

     Waste heat boilers  can  be installed  in  the
furnace  to  cool combustion  gases  without
introducing  great  amounts  of  excess  air  or
moisture.  The boiler  consists  of  several  tubes
which the gas must pass as it leaves the furnace.
The  heat carried by the gas is transferred to water
contained in the boiler tubes. Waste heat boiler
installations are illustrated in Figures No. 8 and 9.

     The heat passed to the boiler water must be
dissipated  or explosions  will  result.  Heat  is
converted to steam and may  be used for heating,
auxiliary power, to drive steam driven equipment
or for  other  purposes.  In-plant  steam use will
consume approximately 10%-15%  of  the total
steam produced.

     Excess  steam should  be condensed and
recirculated  to  conserve  boiler  feed  water.
Condensation takes  place  in  cooling  towers.
Forced air cooling  towers mounted on the roof of
the incinerator will be satisfactory for condensing
surplus steam.

     A substantial  added expense is incurred by
providing  a  boiler   bank  and condensing
equipment  in  a refractory  furnace  instead of
conventional cooling.  The  cost of  adding waste
heat boiler equipment at a refractory  furnace is
$1500-2500/ton  of  capacity.  The  cost  for
comparable  equipment in a water wall  furnace is
$2000-3500/ton.  The  cost  is lower  for  the
refractory  furnace because  large  quantities of
dilution air  are  used for gas  cooling, a situation
not encountered in the water wall furnace. With
air  dilution,  the size of boiler bank required to
lower combustion  gas  temperatures to a suitable
range can be reduced.

     The  annual cost  of  maintaining and
operating  boiler banks in  refractory and  water
wall furnaces is essentially the same. Compared to
the annual cost of maintaining refractories, grates
and other components, this cost is negligible.
     The annual cost of operating furnaces with
waste heat boilers varies with the class of furnace.
In a refractory  furnace  the same high salaried,
specialized personnel would  be required as in any
steam generating incinerator  plant. The additional
cost  of boiler tube maintenance and  the cost of
processing  feed  water  must  be added  to the
already high  cost of operation  and maintenance
of  the  refractory  furnace.  Most of  these
additional annual costs  do not apply  in the case
of water wall furnaces.  Here the only additional
real cost would  be the  added  capacity of boiler
water treatment  equipment and of the additional
cost of tube repair in the boiler bank.
Rotary Kiln

     The   rotary  kiln  modification  of  the
refractory  furnace provides a chamber in which
hot gases  pass over the residue from the grates.
The kiln rotates slowly on its long axis, tumbling
the material being burned. The residue leaving the
kiln contains less putrescible material than residue
from standard grates.

     Rotary kiln furnaces are of European design
and  are licensed to a company in the U.S. for
manufacture and sale. These units are produced
currently  in the  250  ton  per day size  only,
although the company is considering production
of larger units. Past construction couples rotary
kilns with  refractory  furnaces only,  but it seems
technically possible to  couple a  refractory kiln
with a water wall furnace. However, such a hybrid
unit  would  probably  have   most  of  the
disadvantages  of  both  types  of  furnace
construction and few of the advantages.

     Operating and installation costs for rotary
kiln  modifications to  refractory  furnaces  are
readily available for 250 ton per day units. The
licensee has provided us with their  estimates of
cost for 300 ton per day furnaces. Construction
costs range from $5000 to $9000 per ton of rated
daily capacity  adjusted to  present day  prices.
Operating  and  maintenance  costs   are
approximately  20% greater  than  for refractory
                                              28

-------
furnaces  of equal  capacity  without  the  kiln    and building construction cost. Much of the data
modification.

     A  drawing  of  a  typical  rotary  kiln
incinerator  followed  by  a  waste  heat  boiler
appears in Figure 9.
from  which  annual  costs  are  derived  were
obtained  or  verified  from  existing municipal
incinerators or similar industrial operations. The
cost of residue transportation and final disposal,
and  the cost of land were  excluded from this
study.
                                                                        T-
OPEN TIPPING
FLOOR

I
#
V^-f}'''
^ STORAGE
PIT -,_«.
*' ~\,' '' :
* v i. 1
                     \\  /    '  H    VUNDERFIRE FORCED  AAASH CONVEYOR
                    fc •* ^£.\-vj»>;>.»:ca    ^ A|B _.N
                               TYPICAL  ROTARY KILN  INCINERATOR
                                 WITH WASTE  HEAT BOILER
                                            FIGURE 9
       Comparison of Incinerator Systems

     The  preceding  discussion  compares  the
advantages of the major classes of incinerators
and  certain  of  their  modifications.  Such
comparisons  are  beneficial,  but  must  be
supplemented by a study  of capital  and annual
costs to provide an  effective comparison of the
units under consideration.

     The incinerator systems proposed  for study
in Oakland County are refractory lined  furnaces,
refractory lined furnace with waste heat boiler,
refractory  lined furnace  with  rotary  kiln,  and
water wall furnace with waste  heat  boiler.  The
comparative cost for these incinerator systems is
based on information supplied by manufacturers
of the various types of equipment included in our
estimates for structures and accessories  used  in a
complete  plant. In most cases,  more  than  one
manufacturer  of a  system  component   was
consulted in  order to  clarify what was involved
and  the cost. This  information was assembled
along with estimates of labor cost, utility cost,
maintenance and operating cost, installation cost,
     To provide as varied a representation of unit
sizes  as possible, the  comparison was made of
100, 200, 300,  and  400 ton per day units to be
operating  in plants containing from  1 to 5 units.

     Initial comparison of units based on capital
costs reveal the water wall  furnace with waste
heat boiler is the most expensive type of all units.
This higher  cost for water wall furnaces remains
constant for all unit  sizes and combinations of
units from  1  to 5. The refractory furnace with
rotary kiln  is a close second  to the water wall
furnace in terms of capital cost.

     Refractory furnaces with  waste heat boilers
and  refractory furnaces  alone  are  the  least
expensive  units compared for capital cost. This is
true,  despite  the  fact that  larger air  pollution
control equipment  was included for both the
refractory  furnace  and the refractory furnace
with rotary  kiln, in  order to achieve equal stack
emissions in terms of particulate matter.

     A more  significant basis  of comparison  is
that  of  annual  cost.  When  capital  costs are
                                               29

-------
                                                       o
                                                       o
                                                       o

                                                       oo"
                                                       o
                                                                                    o  o  o
                                                                                        §o  o
                                                                                        co_  in



                                                                                    in  <*
                                                                                                       CN

                                                                                                       CD"
                               §000
                               o  o  o
                               o  o  o

                           o"  CD" in" o"
                           •>«•  in  r-~  o
                           CN  CN  n  O5
CO

111

te

CO

01
u
                                                       o
                                                       o
                                                       o
                                                       rx

                                                       in
                      2  5
                                                                                                       o
                                                                                                       o
                                                                                                       o

                                                                                                       CN
                                                                                                       CO
                                                                                                       CN
CC

D
U.


cr

o
LL


CO
UJ

CC

D

C3
O


o
o
n
                           O>  CD   _   _
                           CN  CN  O)   in
                                                       O
                                                       o
                                                       O

                                                       oo"
                                                       in
                                                       O)
CO
O      w

o      t

UJ
                                                                                    O  O  O
                                                                                    o  o  o
                                                                                    o  o  o

                                                                                    o"  in  in"
                                                                                    oo  o  n
                                                                                                       o

                                                                                                       o"
                                                                                                       CN
                                                                                                       CN
DC

<
tx
O

Q.
                           o  o  o  o
                           o  o  o  o
                           o  o  c^  o

                           o"  o>~ n"  o"
                           •a-  in  n  ai
                           CN  CN  OJ  CO

                           CN"      CN"
                                                       O
                                                       O
                                                       o

                                                       CN
                                                       CN
                                                                                                               o
                                                                                                               o
                                                                                                               o

                                                                                                               8


Structure
0
CO
OJ
c
'o


struction
c
o
O
>.
,ti
^


mponents
cS
OJ
o
CO
C
3
quipmen'
UJ
n Control
o
j2
o
Q-
.b
yl
O
O
4-1
'o"
IX
OJ
CO
UJ




                                    £  ±3  i!  
-------
reduced to annual  bond  retirement  costs, and
operation, maintenance, labor, and  other annual
costs  are included  in  the comparison, the
advantage  no  longer remains  with the refractory
furnace in all cases. The refractory furnace in unit
sizes  under  250  to  300  tons per  day is less
expensive  on  the  annual  cost  comparison.
However, in unit sizes above this range the  water
wall furnace with waste heat  boiler  becomes less
expensive. This situation occurs primarily because
of the increasing maintenance and operating costs
of refractory furnaces in sizes exceeding 250 tons
per day.  Installations  containing from 1  to 5
furnace units consistently show this  reversal of
cost between  refractory and water wall furnaces.
In all cases, the annual cost of refractory furnaces
with  waste heat boiler and  refractory  furnaces
with rotary kiln is more than for either refractory
furnaces or water wall furnaces with  waste heat
boilers. The Table on the preceding page presentsa
sample  comparison  for three 300  ton per day
incinerator  units  as  an  illustration of the
economic  comparison  performed  for  all  unit
capacities  and for  installations of from  1  to 5
units.

     The  figures presented in  the Table exclude
the  cost  of  residue  disposal,  land,  and
landscaping. The cost of these items depends on
the individual site selected for residue disposal or
for  the  incinerator  plant.   The item entitled
"Incinerator  Structure"  includes building,
foundation,  and stack. The  item  for "Utility
Construction" consists of  the cost of extending
public utilities to the plant and for the cost of
treating   waste  water  discharged  from the
incinerator. Grates, refractory or water walls and
arches,  scales, cranes,  hoppers, fans, duct  work,
and where applicable boiler banks and auxiliaries
are  included  under  the  heading  "Furnace
Components".  "Air  Pollution  Control
Equipment" consists of electrostatic  precipitators
and associated  equipment. All cost  figures are
projected  to the  year 1970.

     The   result  of  the  complete   comparison
between water wall furnace with waste heat boiler
and the refractory furnace  is shown graphically in
Figure No. 10.
                 200     500     400
                 UNIT SIZE (TONS/DAY)

         COMPARATIVE COST OF MULTIPLE UNIT
      REFRACTORY AND WATER WALL INCINERATORS
          EXCLUSIVE  OF  LAND, LANDSCAPING
              AND RESIDUE DISPOSAL
                  FIGURE 10

           Evaluation of Incinerators

     Little advantage can be ascribed to  the use
of refractory furnaces with waste heat boilers. On
the basis of cost they  must  be excluded  from
further consideration for use in  Oakland County.

     Rotary  kiln  incinerators  are more costly
than the refractory furnace with waste heat boiler
in  terms  of annual cost.  Incinerator  residue
should be  buried, so the better quality  residue
from  a rotary kiln is of little advantage. Furnace
sizes  exceeding  250 to 300  tons per day for
rotary kiln units are not currently  available. For
these  reasons we eliminate  from  consideration
rotary kiln furnaces.
                                               31

-------
     Refractory furnaces show a good annual cost
ratio in sizes under 275 tons per  day. The cost
disadvantage is very slight between 275 and 300
tons per day,  and refractory furnaces  should be
considered for use in all sizes up to the currently
accepted limit for capacity, which is 300 tons per
day.

     Manufacturers  of  water  wall  furnaces
recommend furnace  sizes for their  equipment
ranging from  200 to  600  tons   per  day per
furnace. Our economic  evaluation  indicates that
this equipment is more  advantageous in terms  of
annual cost in sizes above 300 tons per day. We
believe a practical limit to water wall equipment
will be  500 ton per day units. The use of water
wall equipment in sizes under 300 tons per day
can be economical only if the waste heat  can  be
economically used.

     Based on the foregoing evaluation, we will
use refractory furnaces in sizes up to 300 tons per
day and water wall units above that  size in our
comparison of possible alternative plans.
          Components of Incinerators

     An  incinerator plant is  composed of many
parts. The furnace  and  furnace  construction are
not  the only components required to make the
incinerator  a  functioning unit. Such  items as
scales, tipping floor, cranes,  stacks, air pollution
control devices, and the building which surrounds
the equipment combine to produce a functioning
plant. The following  paragraphs will  discuss
briefly various aspects of each of the many other
components of the incinerator.
Scale

     The  first  component  of the  incinerator
which any entering refuse vehicle  will encounter
is the scale.  The  weighing apparatus  should  be
large enough to  accommodate the  largest vehicles
which will roll over it. A  60 foot platform will
permit  the 55 foot long transfer  vehicles to  be
weighed.  The  scale  capacity  should  be
approximately 60  tons. The weighing platform of
the  scale should be located so that it is easy for
the  vehicles to gain access to the dumping areas.
     The weighing head should be located indoors
and may be at a location either close to or remote
from the platform of the scale. In either case the
platform should  be easily seen from the weighing
head.  The weighing head  should indicate  the
weight of  the vehicle and  include an  automatic
tare  which isolates the  load  weight  from  the
vehicle  weight.  The  equipment  should  be
provided  for  entering a  vehicle identification
number into  the scale and for printing the load
weight of that vehicle on a weigh slip. The scale
should be easy to use and easy to read. Controls
are needed if the operator is  remote from the
scale platform. In this case, a manually operated
traffic  signal  can  inform   the  driver  that  the
weighing is complete and he is free to travel to
the dumping area.

     At  larger installations,  two scales  may  be
required  to handle  the truck traffic entering the
incinerator.
Tipping Floor

     The  tipping floor  is the area in which the
refuse  vehicles dump their loads to the pit. The
tipping floor  should  be  closed  for  northern
climates as a way to reduce problems created  by
inclement weather.  Enclosing  the tipping floor
also prevents the blowing of papers and confines
dust which is created as the vehicles unload. Open
tipping floors  have  recently  been  advocated,
particularly  in the southern  states, but the open
floor is not adequate for northern climates.

     The tipping floor should be  of ample size to
allow  refuse  vehicles  to  maneuver  easily.  Tf
tractor-trailer  units are  to  use  the tipping floor,
the turning radius of this equipment must be kept
in mind during the design. The traffic pattern in
the tipping floor area should be such that the  pit
area is to  the  left of the driver as he backs into a
loading position.  Hold-down  chains should  be
available at each unloading  position to prevent
trucks from tipping into the  pit as they discharge
their loads. Head room should  be sufficient to
accommodate the largest vehicles expected.

     When  transfer  vehicles  are  used, the  large
trailer  units  are  difficult to  maneuver  in  the
confined  .tipping  area.  We  suggest  that
                                               32

-------
incinerators receiving refuse from transfer stations
be  designed  so  that  the transfer  vehicle will
discharge  to the pit at a point other than where
collection route vehicles dump. The ends of the
pit  or a tunnel behind the pit could be provided
with hoppers  for  unloading  side  dumping
transport  vehicles.  Such isolated dumping areas
for  transport  vehicles relieve  congestion which
would otherwise  occur  on the tipping floor and
save considerable time for route truck unloading.

     The tipping floor should  be attended during
all   hours  in  which   vehicles  unload.  The
attendant's duties include directing trucks to the
proper unloading position and keeping the tipping
areas clean. To aid in  keeping the  tipping area
clean, he should be  provided with a small sweeper
vehicle  to  pick up  papers   and  dust which
accumulate on the  floor during the unloading of
vehicles.
Refuse Pit

     The refuse brought to the incinerator by the
trucks is  emptied into the pit.  This  is a large
bunker in the floor for storing refuse until it can
be  burned  in the furnace.  The  pit  acts as  a
reservoir from which accumulated refuse can be
drawn.

     The  pit  should  be  large enough to store
between 1 and 2 days' supply of refuse. This  will
permit operation of the route trucks 5 days of the
week, and still allow 6 or 7-day  operation of the
plant   under emergency  conditions.  The  pit
dimensions should provide ample unloading space
for refuse  vehicles,  and  the  width of the  pit
should  not  exceed  30  feet  unless   transport
vehicles are  unloaded on  both sides. Drains  and
sprays or other  dust control devices  should be
installed in the pit.

     The  pit should be designed  to  permit
unloading by  the cranes in the  event  the refuse
cannot  be  fed  to  the  furnaces.  This can  be
accomplished  by providing a place to position
vehicles under the crane from the tipping floor.
The  crane can then  empty  the  refuse pit into
readable  vehicles   for  transportation  to   an
emergency   disposal  area.  The  emergency
emptying feature also allows the cranes to unload
heavy equipment received at the plant by truck.
Crane

     A  reliable heavy-duty  crane  system should
be provided to transfer refuse from the pit to the
charging hopper of the furnace.

     Bridge cranes provide the greatest versatility
of movement  available for incinerator operation.
This versatility is needed to  mix the refuse which
enters the pit  and to move refuse from the pit to
the charging hopper. Mixing of refuse is needed to
obtain a more  uniform charge for the furnace.

     More  than  one  crane  is needed in most
installations. The size, capacity and number of
cranes  is dependent upon the amount of refuse
being handled. In  most  cases, a  spare crane is
desirable as standby equipment. Standby cranes
or readily  available spare parts are required  to
prevent complete plant failure in  the event of a
breakdown of one crane component. Without the
crane, the incinerator cannot operate.
Charging Hopper, Gate and Chute

     Refuse which is taken  from the pit  by the
crane  is charged  to  the  furnace through  the
charging hopper and chute. This arrangement is a
funnel-style passage  through  which refuse enters
the furnace. In continuous feed furnaces such as
those proposed in Oakland County, refuse in the
chute acts  as a seal between  the furnace and the
charging floor. When the furnace is shut down, a
hydraulic gate  should be available to  close the
chute  and  provide  the necessary  seal  until  the
charge has  been burned out. Other less expensive
forms of closing the chute are available, but do
not   appear   satisfactory   where intermittent
operation can be expected.
Grates

     There are  three general types of grates now
being used in the United  States. These are the
chain, reciprocating and  rocking types.  They are
all modifications of grates used for homogeneous
fuels such as coal, wood chips, bagasse or other
specialized industrial fuels.

     The function of the grates is to provide an
area on which the fuel bed rests during burning.
                                              33

-------
The grate is perforated to permit underfire air to
pass  through  and  cool  the  metal.   The
reciprocating  and  rocking grates  mechanically
agitate the fuel bed to expose unburned material
to the flame. The chain grate  does not agitate
material and hand raking or slashing must be done
to  achieve  a  high  degree  of  burnout.  We
recommend  against  the  chain  grate  for  this
reason.

     A  comparison  between the  two  agitating
grate types is not easy. Both have advantages and
disadvantages;  strengths  and  weaknesses.   The
rocking grate provides  more agitation, but may
introduce more flyash into the effluent gas stream
in so  doing. The agitation performed by the
reciprocating grate is less violent  and seems to
retard  flyash  production.  We believe these  two
types of grates are equally appropriate to modern
incinerator design and submit that the selection
of grate  type  be left to the  discretion of the
engineer  at  the time design plans  are drawn.
However, we emphasize  that an agitating  grate
should be used.
Air Pollution Control Devices

     There are two basic  types of gas cleaning
systems  —  wet  and  dry.  The  wet  system
                     incorporates  water  to
                     remove particulate matter
                     from the gas stream. The
                     dry  system of air pollution
                     control permits  no water
                     to contact the gas stream
                     in   removing  particulate
                     matter. Each system  has
its  merits  when  applied  to  refuse incineration
under specific conditions or circumstances.

     In 1966, Mr. James A. Fife and Mr. Robert
H.  Boyer,  Jr. presented a paper in  which they
discussed  the  relative  efficiency  and cost  of
various types of air pollution  control equipment.
The information  contained in their paper is of  a
relative nature and cannot be considered specific
to  any  case.  The  wet  cleaning  systems  were
evaluated  separately  from  the  dry  cleaning
systems, and the dry cleaning  systems assumed
the  sale of  all  steam  generated in the boilers
which preceded  the  air pollution  control units.
For this reason, the figures presented for cost for
dry systems  must  be  evaluated  separately from
the cost indicated  for wet systems.  However, a
comparative cost of scrubbers and precipitators is
presented  in  the  table  for  wet  systems.  The
various  types of  equipment  which  were
considered in the  study  included  baffled spray
chambers,  spray cooling chambers, wet scrubber
systems,  mechanical cyclone  collectors  and
electro-static precipitators.

     A  summary of the  results  of the  Fife and
Boyer study  is contained in the  following Table.
          Device

Baffled Spray Chamber
Spray & Cyclone
Wet Scrubber
Spray w/E lectro-static
  Precipitator
WET SYSTEMS

  % Efficiency

      50
      78
      96

      95
                    DRY SYSTEMS

Cyclone                    78
Electro-static Precipitator        95
$ Cost per
 ton burned
 0.77
 1.12
 2.10

 1.10
                                                                                       0.38
                                                                                       0.39
     In 1968,  Mr.  J.  H. Fernandes  presented a
paper before the National Incinerator Conference
which  included data  on cost  of operating air
cleaning devices based  on  the  volume  of air
treated per minute. This comparison accounts for
differences in equipment size resulting from the
type of cooling (air or water) used and provides a
fair   comparison  between  electro-static
precipitators,  wet  scrubbers  and cyclones.  His
figures for maintenance  and repair appear in the
following table.
       Collector
   Mechanical Collector
   Electro-static Precipitator
   Wet Scrubber
    $ Per CFM Annually (Range)
     Maintenances Repair
         $.005 - $.02
          .01  -  .025
          .02 -  .05
     Michigan  Air  Pollution  Control  Code
presently permits 0.30 Ibs. of particulate emission
per thousand pounds of flue gas corrected to 50%
excess air.  Bear in  mind  that  legislated codes
establish  the  maximum  pollution  allowed; no
minimum  is  set.  We believe  that  a realistic
minimum  which  can  be  attained  by  any
incinerator  plant is  0.20 pounds per thousand
corrected to 50% excess air. This lighter discharge
                                               34

-------
makes  available  a  safety  factor  to insure
compliance with  existing codes and allows some
leeway  for  future  restriction  on  emission
standards. Pollution  control efficiencies in excess
of 93% are required to meet the  proposed 0.20
pounds standard.

     From the foregoing Tables the only devices
capable of meeting such a standard are the  wet
scrubber and the electro-static precipitator.

     The wet scrubber is a highly efficient device
for removing dust particles from the gas. Gas may
be  bubbled  through  a  water bath or  water
injected into the  gas stream. The water traps the
dust particles  and is treated before recirculation.
Wet scrubbers are associated with medium to high
draft  losses in the furnace, thus requiring  larger
fans.

     Electro-static precipitators  are  a  high
efficiency dry  dust collector. The precipitator
consists of a series of plates between which are
suspended  wires.  Dust particles  receive  an
electrical charge from the wire, and are attracted
to  the   oppositely  charged  plates  and  thus
removed from the gas stream. The  material which
collects on the plate is removed  to a receiving
hopper by automatic rappers which vibrate the
plates and dislodge the dust. Gas temperatures for
electro-static  precipitators are  critical and must
fall between the  range of 350° F. and  570° F.
Gas velocities through  the unit are also critical
and  cannot  exceed  8  feet  per  second  for
incinerator use.

     A small cyclone collector should precede a
precipitator to  catch large particles of flyash
which could short-out the unit.

     Mechanical  cyclone  collectors  are a  dry
system relying upon centrifugal force to separate
suspended particulate matter from the gas. Gas is
introduced into the cyclone to produce a spiraling
motion which throws the solid particles to the
outside wall.  The  center  core  of clean gas is
removed whereas  the dust falls down the walls
into  a hopper from which  it can  be removed
without interrupting the gas flow.

    The efficiency  difference  between   wet
scrubbers and electro-static  precipitators is  not
significant. The operating costs between the  two
units  do  show  a  significant  difference.  The
precipitator has been used extensively in Europe
and  is being tested in this country on a plant scale
in New  York. If the results of these tests are
favorable,  precipitators  should be  used on all
installations in Oakland County.
Stack

     A  tall  stack  has been  the  symbol  of a
municipal  incinerator plant.  This  symbol  is
disappearing rapidly  with  modern technology.
The tall stack was used to provide draft and to get
the gaseous discharge high enough to be dispersed
by  the  atmosphere. More  sophisticated  air
cleaning equipment and the use of induced draft
fans will  permit  the use of short  stubby  stacks
which  are conducive  to  a  more   attractive
incinerator architecture.

     Both  the short and the tall stack have their
place.  Characteristics  of  the  terrain  and
surrounding  development  will  to  some extent
dictate  the type  of stack  which accompanies a
particular incinerator plant. Careful selection of
the site with consideration  for prevailing winds,
nearby  development and other  factors will help
make the short stack design feasible.


Residue Handling Equipment

     Incineration is a combustion process  which
leaves  a   solid   by-product  called   "residue".
Residue is  a mixture of unburned refuse, ash, tin
cans and other  non-combustibles  that must be
removed from the furnace and cooled. Cooling is
accomplished   by  quenching.   Quenching
eliminates  the hazards of fires, smoke and odor.

     Two forms of residue  collection systems are
in common use in American incinerator practice.
These are:  an ash hopper beneath the grates, and
the conveyor type of collection device.

     Ash hoppers receive residue from the end of
the  grate  for  intermittent  discharge.  In  the
interest of economy  and operation, the hopper
should be large enough to store residue for several
hours.  Quenching is  accomplished with  water
from  spray  nozzles  beneath  the  grates.   Each
hopper is normally equipped with discharge gates.
                                              35

-------
However, these gates frequently leak and create a
messy  environment in the ash tunnel. The ash
tunnel provides a  place  where  trucks can be
driven  directly beneath the hoppers to receive the
quenched residue.  Ash tunnels should be paved,
well-drained, and well-ventilated. Drainage carries
away the water leaking from the ash hoppers and
from washing  down any  spillage. Ventilation is
important to remove dust and steam rapidly from
the tunnel.

     More  common  than  ash  hoppers  for
continuous   feed  type  incinerators  is the
immersion type residue collection system.

     In this system residue is discharged from the
grate to a  water trough or tank long enough to
receive residue from all furnaces. An  endless chain
conveyor system drags the settled ash from the
bottom of  the trough and deposits it in a storage
hopper or directly  into the transport truck. Most
of the  quenching water contained in  the residue is
drained as the conveyor moves the material up an
incline  for  discharge  to  the receptacle.  A
conveyor system is  subject to  much wear and
requires  frequent  repair.  Therefore,  a  standby
conveyor should be available to assure reliable
operation of the incinerator plant.

     The quenching water from either system will
contain dissolved salts and solids from the residue
as well as  micro-organisms  which transfer from
the ash. This quench water must be treated prior
to final disposal or re-use. The quench water is
usually of high pH which should be adjusted
before delivery  to a sewer  system.  Treatment
facilities for residue waters are an important part
of the incinerator operation.

     We recommend the use of immersion type
quenching.
Building and Grounds

     The   incinerator  building  should  be
attractive,  but  simple,  economical,  and
functional. Today's public  is  conscious of the
beauty  of its surroundings. The incinerator plant
of past years is frequently an ugly structure, but
modern plants can l>e made attractive. The plant
layout should consider that certain parts of the
operation  will  be outside  of the building, and
efforts should  be made to prevent these from
detracting from the architectural beauty  of the
plant.

     An incinerator is basically an industrial type
of building. Normal industrial type of precautions
and construction must be made in the design of
the  incinerator  building.  Interior  walls  and
ceilings should be easily cleaned and designed for
a minimum of maintenance.

     The  incinerator  plant  should contain
facilities for the employees. Lunchrooms,  locker
rooms,  and  washrooms  should be  efficiently
planned and well-designed for employee comfort.
A separate washroom near the tipping floor will
provide facilities  for  truck  drivers  and   other
transient  personnel.  Safety  and  firefighting
equipment must be provided.

     Pleasing and effective landscape is a must for
the  incinerator  grounds.  Shrubs and  grass are
relatively inexpensive and pay large dividends in
public  relations  in the neighborhood and  in the
entire city. The layout of walks and driveways to
eliminate  as  much  cross traffic as possible  is
important.  The incinerator grounds  should be
much larger than the  building area requires to
provide isolation from surrounding construction.
Ten  or more  acres devoted to the incinerator
grounds is desirable.
              Recommendations

     We   have  discussed  the  advantages  and
disadvantages of both refractory and  water  wall
furnaces.  The  faults  of  each are  known
throughout the industry. Refractory furnaces are
a  proven form  of refuse  incineration whereas
there has been little experience  with  water  wall
incinerators  in this country.  However, we believe
the potential of the water wall is superior to that
of the refractory wall. We believe the problems,
particularly  those  of corrosion  of walls can be
overcome and  that the water wall furnace  has
more to offer in the way of advanced technology
and  hence,  more  of  a future than does  the
refractory furnace.  If current experiments  now
being  conducted in New  York and  elsewhere
substantiate  our faith, then we recommend water
wall  furnaces for  Oakland County.  If further
testing does not overcome problems experienced
                                              36

-------
with operating equipment, or new problems arise,
then this  recommendation must be reviewed at
the  time  of  design and  the  best  furnace
construction then available used.

     Water wall  furnaces permit smaller capacity
air pollution  control equipment. This equipment
must be of high efficiency to meet existing codes,
and  should  provide  easy  accommodation  for
restrictions in emission standards. We recommend
the use of electro-static precipitators preceded by
cyclone mechanical  collectors for  the Oakland
County installations,  unless current tests prove
these units unsuitable for municipal incinerators.
We  believe that this  will  be the least expensive
and most efficient form of air pollution control
operation for the County incinerators and will
eliminate  the steam plume associated  with  the
wet type of control devices.

    We recommend that standby equipment  be
provided  for  the  crane and that a  continuous
conveyor  type residue removal system be used  by
the plant.

    We recommend that an attractive building be
constructed, and that the grounds be amply large
to permit isolation from surrounding structures.
The building and grounds should be attractively
landscaped and carefully maintained.
                                              37

-------
     ^^ffj^ffm
      - 'rs • sfr4
          ^  JT«*T»*V-
      **»-^W^
-------
resident  objection  to  the  operation  on  the
grounds of traffic hazard or noise.

     Trailer  bodies  should  be  watertight  to
prevent leakage of quench water and  resultant
odor  and nuisance problems. Rock type bodies
without  unloading doors or  gates  will provide
satisfactory watertight service and odor problems
can be further reduced by covering the residue
with a tarpaulin while en route.

     Wet residue is an alkaline material which can
be  quite  corrosive.  Trailer bodies should  be
constructed of steel to withstand chemical attack
and minimize deterioration of equipment. Central
Wayne Sanitation  Authority and SEOCIA both
report average residue  truck life of about two
years.

     The tractor selected for the operation must
be suitable for a 65,000 pound G.V.W. A tilt cab
over   engine  model  appears  easiest   for
maintenance  and  maneuverability.  All  safety
devices and heavy duty  tires should be included
on  the  tractor  unit.  The  tractor should  be
equipped  with special power train including high
power engine  and heavy duty transmission. The
additional power will be required at the disposal
site,   where  .low  speeds  and  high  power
requirements  are  needed  to  pull the loaded
vehicles over the material deposited by previous
trucks.  In  the  interest of  economy,  both  of
maintenance and operation, a diesel engine should
be supplied despite the higher initial cost of this
unit. High capital  cost is rapidly offset  by lower
fuel and maintenance costs.

     Maintenance is an important function of the
residue   hauling  operation.   Safe  operating
conditions of  the vehicles are an important part
of any residue disposal schedule. Breakdowns are
costly, both in time lost and in maintenance crew
costs.  Since breakdowns cannot  be eliminated
completely, additional vehicles must be  provided
to supplement the equipment needed to provide
the minimum service.

    The maintenance operation should  include a
washing and disinfecting operation. Outdoor units
similar to  those used in automatic car washes can
be supplied on the incinerator  plant grounds  so
that returning  ash vehicles can be washed before
reloading or storage. Washing trailers and tractors
creates a clean appearance  to the public, and
reduces  the  corrosion of  the  equipment,
preserving  its life.  The  automatic  washing
equipment can be provided with odor control or
disinfectant spray as well as the washing solution.

     The  equipment  purchased  for  residue
disposal can be operated most efficiently on a 24
hour per day basis. This will  require that the
vehicles be operating on highways both night and
day, which may bring objections from the public
along  the route.  However,  the  savings  in the
equipment  and  manpower  cost  obtained  by
round-the-clock operation are sufficient to justify
this type of operation.
Rail Haul

     Each incinerator is situated reasonably close
to  an  existing  rail facility.  This  permits easy
routing for rail traffic between  incinerator and
disposal area with short haul truck transportation
from incinerator to railroad and from railroad to
disposal site.

     Railroads  are  considered  for residue
transportation for many reasons. Rights of way
are   usually already  existent  and  adequately
isolated  from   most  development  to  preclude
objections.  The responsibility  for long distance
haul  is  with  the  railroad,  so  that  public
responsibility is  limited to loading and unloading
operations and final disposal. The use of rail haul
eliminates the need for several long distance truck
drivers and maintenance of their equipment.

     Rail  transportation  can be accomplished by
direct haul in  rail cars  or by  piggy-back  rail
combination.

     Direct  transportation in rail cars will require
either covered  gondola cars or covered hopper
cars.  Gondola cars should  be  of the side-dump
variety, capable  of unloading  onto  conveyors or
into  a  hopper  from  which  residue would  be
transferred to trucks for hauling to  the disposal
area.  If hopper cars are used, these should  be
equipped with wide gate bottoms which can be
opened for  direct  dumping  into trailers or onto
conveyors for delayed trailer loading. In either
case, the operation on  the fill  site would be done
by  trucks because  of  their  maneuverability  and
                                              39

-------
versatility.

     Where  piggy-back  operation  is  used, we
would recommend  40 yard  rolloff bodies for
residue receptacles. Rolloff bodies can be placed
on  flat  cars  or  gondola  cars  for piggy-back
operation to the disposal site. Special cabs and
frames  would  take  the  bodies from  the ash
collection point at the incinerator to the train,
and  from the  train to the dumping face at the
disposal  area. Rolloff bodies are less costly than
standard wheeled  trailers;  thus, less  money  is
invested   in  idle equipment  awaiting
transportation  between disposal  and incinerator
site.

     Rail cars or truck bodies used for handling
residue should be covered to prevent  odors and
blowing ash.

     Equipment  used  for  rail haul  should be
maintained clean and sanitary, the same as that
for   truck  haul.   This  will  prevent undue
deterioration  of the equipment  from corrosion
and  will present  a  better  appearance  to the
observing public.

     The cost of rail  haul is about $ 10 per ton of
residue hauled, according to prices offered by the
railroad. This amounts to about 19 cents per ton
mile, but rail haul  may become less expensive in
the future due to increasing labor costs  for road
haul.

     Disadvantages of rail haul of residue within
Oakland County  include  high cost; long  cycle
time, as much as three days per car; inflexibility
of  routing  in  the event  of a disaster;  lack of
transportation  control by the municipality and
inadequate back up  systems by the railroad to
meet any major contingency. These disadvantages
are not  insurmountable but should be carefully
considered  before  selecting  rail  haul  as the
primary  form  of residue  transportation  for the
County under current conditions.


             Residue Disposal Area

      Residue  must be transported  to a suitable
location for  final disposal. This  final  disposal
operation is similar in nature to a sanitary landfill.
All of the principles  of sanitary landfill including
daily  cover,  protection  of ground and  surface
water, confinement  of residue, and compaction
are important in the residue disposal operation.

     Depressed  areas  such  as natural ravines,
potholes,  or  man-made  pits  provide  an
economical  location  for residue  disposal. This
does not imply that  more level terrain cannot be
used,  provided the land is not part of a flood
plain  and  normal  precaution   against
contamination  of ground  or surface  water  is
made. The  site should have  a readily available
supply of cover material either contained on the
site or suitably close for economical importation.
The residue disposal site should receive the same
consideration as a sanitary landfill receives for
ultimate use  development. The fill site should be
properly engineered and planned to become an
asset  to the community rather than a detriment.
Because of the character of the residue, a denser
compaction  with  less future  settlement  can be
achieved.  This  will  provide  a  much   firmer
foundation  for  airport facilities, light  industrial
areas, recreational facilities or other anticipated
uses.

     Areas adjacent to lakes and streams or areas
which have indication of development have not
been  considered as  residue  disposal areas.  The
first  consideration is  given to  undeveloped land,
isolated  areas  far from population  and  scenic
beauty and removed from the extensive park and
recreational  areas  of the  County.   Farmland
received second consideration, but only when it
was  believed to be  poor cropland  or  had been
removed from  active agricultural  use.  In such
cases, the land  could  have greater economic value
developed after it was used for residue than if left
for the natural course of events.

     There  are many  large  tracts of land  in
Oakland County which appear suitable for residue
disposal areas.  We have investigated several sites
which displayed the  characteristics of a good
residue  disposal  location.   Our  investigation
considered the  area of land available, an estimate
of its capacity  for residue disposal, the general
type  of neighborhood,  road  access and several
other subjective items.  We were able  to select
three areas  for a  large  single site for  futher
objective  evaluation  with  the plan for  refuse
disposal.
                                               40

-------
     The three sites are located near railroads and
are isolated areas of ground largely undeveloped
and unused as land resources.  One site is located
in  Addison  Township  and  has an  estimated
capacity  of 60,200 acre  feet.  The second site is
located along the Orion Independence Township
boundary  and contains  approximately  40,000
usable acre feet. The third site is situated along
the  Springfield-Rose  Township  boundary and
contains  82,000 usable acre feet. We have made a
comparative study of the economics of using each
of these sites with the plans presented later in this
Report.  The  site  selected  for residue disposal
changes between  the two plans. For this reason,
no indication of the economic  advantage of each
site is presented here.  Suffice  it to say that such
criteria as  transportation time, road  conditions,
cost of  vehicle  operation,  maintenance,  added
man-power and cost of the land purchased at each
site  were  among  the items  considered  in  the
economic comparison.

     We  do not anticipate extensive difficulties in
using any of the  three sites suggested. However,
before any  one site  is finally  selected, thorough
sub-surface  investigation  of the territory  should
be conducted to avoid problems created by poor
soils or high ground water.

     We  recommend a single large  area of land for
residue  disposal.   The  large   area will  permit
operations  to continue at  the same  site  for an
extended period of time and  allow construction
of  permanent   buildings   for equipment
maintenance and minor repair.  The land area need
not be large enough for the  entire project life.
Two  or  more large sites may  be obtained close
enough together  to allow common  use  of the
maintenance  building.  Upon  completion of
operations  in  the area, the maintenance building
may be  sold  for light industrial  use  if it is not
needed further for County operations.
 travel and Borrow Pits

     Past  studies of  disposal areas in Oakland
County  have  placed  considerable  emphasis on
using the  large gravel extraction areas north of
Oxford. These areas are large volume depressions
which would take many years to fill with residue
from Oakland County. However, it is our opinion
that these areas are not suitable sites for residue
disposal at this time. Most of the area is currently
in use. Some areas in which gravel operations have
terminated permanently  have been converted to
lakes  and  the surrounding  shoreline has  been
subdivided.  The  company operating  the  gravel
operations has graded the land, planted grass seed,
and  has made considerable  effort  to beautify
these areas.  Certain  portions  of  the  gravel
operations are under water.  In  these areas the
operations are continuing by dredging gravel from
beneath the ground water level. The use of these
gravel pits for residue disposal would disrupt the
operations, reduce their value to the company as
a possible source  of gravel at depths below those
now  existing,  and  remove  the  possibility  of
converting these  to attractive  home sites  or
recreational areas.

     At some time in the future, it is possible that
dry abandoned gravel pits will become a site for
residue  disposal. This  will occur   when  the
company  ceases operations without an effort to
reclaim the  area. We  believe  that  the  gravel
extraction  operations will continue  far enough
into the  future that we  have not considered the
active gravel pits as a  residue disposal  site for
Oakland County.

     There  are   currently  in Oakland  County
many  small  dry  abandoned  gravel  and borrow
pits.  These are shown on Figure No. 11.  These
pits  disfigure the  landscape and  attract illicit
dumping by local residents. Elimination of these
pits by filling with residue can restore the natural
beauty of the area and do away with attractive
sites  for local dumping. Many pot  holes, sharp
ravines  and dead lake  areas  abound in certain
areas  of Oakland  County. These  too attract illicit
dumping and are  valueless from the standpoint of
economic development.  The owners of such sites
may permit their  use for residue disposal at little
or no cost to the County.

     Both  the abandoned pits and the pot hole
areas  of the  County could be used  for residue
disposal.  The sites would be filled rapidly and the
operation easily moved to another site in order to
continue residue disposal. The versatility of truck
transportation will  make the use of  these small
areas  more feasible. By using  abandoned pits and
pot holes as a residue  disposal area, the County
can  reclaim  land which now lies  useless and
beyond feasible development.
                                               41

-------
                                            FARMINGTON
                                              {xOluAKERTOWN
B.F. < BINGHAM FARMS
H.WOS. « HUNTIN8TON WOODS
HAZ. PK.« HAZEL PARK
P.R. * PLEASANT RIDOE
W.C.F. •  WOOD CREEK FARMS
                                   O— GRAVEL  PITS

                                   K— ABANDONED GRAVEL  PITS
                                  GRAVEL  PIT  LOCATIONS

                                                 42
                                                                                 01234
                                                                                     SCALE IN MILES
                                                                                         FIGURE 11

-------
     Residue Disposal Equipment and Design

     Certain specialized equipment will be needed
at the residue disposal area. The equipment must
be capable of handling large volumes  of residue
and  earth in order to perform satisfactorily the
covering-compaction  operations.  Three  major
types  of  equipment  are available  for this
operation;  tracked  equipment,  wheeled
equipment, and roller equipment.

     Tracked  equipment  is  the  most  common
type  of  fill  area  machinery  in  current use.
Tracked vehicles spread the vehicle weight  over a
large area, thereby reducing ground pressures and
enabling the equipment to maneuver in areas too
soft  for other types of vehicles. Tracked vehicles
have  a  large  capacity  for handling residue  or
earth.  Examples  of this type  equipment  are
bulldozers, front end loaders and tracked cranes.

     When used at a land fill or ash disposal fill
site,  the equipment should have undersized  tracks
equipped  with  cleats. The  cleats  will  crush
material left  at the site and the narrower  tracks
will  provide  greater  pressure.  Tracked  vehicles
have  a  disadvantage  in  that the  tracks  easily
become  clogged   with  wire  and  other
miscellaneous  items found  in residue. However,
they offer  a  greater maneuverability and
flexibility of operation over the entire fill site,
particularly in poor ground conditions.

     Wheeled vehicles incorporate the use of large
cleated  rubber  tires in  place  of tracks.  This
equipment is  also available in bladed bulldozer
type equipment, front loaders and earth moving
pans. Rubber  tires  are susceptible to damage by
materials in the fill. Reinforcing rods, steel  pipes,
wires, glass  and  other items can puncture the
tires.  Recent  experiments using wire  mesh tire
cord in  place of cloth fabrics have shown that this
type of tire,  though much more costly, reduces
the  frequency  of  tire  failure.  Rubber  tired
equipment can be driven over the highways, thus
increasing its versatility when used with multiple
small site residue disposal operations.

     Roller type equipment is gaining popularity
in  sanitary  landfill   and  residue  disposal
operations. The  SEOCIA  operates a roller type
vehicle at its residue disposal facility. This type  of
vehicle  is a  steel  wheeled tractor  with  cleats
attached to the wheel to enhance  compaction.
The roller type equipment is suitable only for fill
use and running on firm ground. It is very easily
rendered useless in muck, mire  and peat  and
cannot  be used  on the  highways.  Roller type
equipment achieves a high degree of compaction,
thus conserving  the volume available for residue
disposal.

     The inability to  travel over highways with
tracked  and  roller type  equipment  is not  a
complete detriment to their use. The disadvantage
can  be overcome by  hauling these vehicles on
lowboy tractor trailer  rigs from site  to site. This
method is  similar  to that used by contractors in
hauling  heavy  equipment  over the  highway
system.

     Bulldozers used at the residue  disposal site
should  have   a capacity   for handling
approximately 250 to  300 tons of residue per  8
hour shift. For the size of operation anticipated
for Oakland County, any  units smaller than this
will  waste  both equipment and manpower in
inefficient  operation.  Larger equipment can be
used  if  desired.  Front  loaders  should be  the
largest available and should be  equipped  with
buckets which can also  act as blades or clamshells.
This type  of  bucket will permit equipment to
pick up and maneuver bulky items received at the
site.

     We  recommend that a self-loading scraper
pan  be used to haul  and spread cover material
over the completed fill. This piece of equipment
will  be a rubber tired vehicle  with  a minimum
capacity  of  10  cubic  yards   of  earth.  The
self-loading feature will permit the equipment to
excavate trenches without the aid of a secondary
bulldozer  to force material into the pan. Soil
types encountered at the proposed disposal sites
are suitable for using self-loading equipment. The
loaded vehicle on tires  will also aid in compacting
the residue  as it travels  over the completed fill
spreading its load.
     Miscellaneous Uses for the Residue Area

     There are certain types of materials which
are unsuitable to feed into an  incinerator plant.
These materials must be handled at a landfill site
if they are delivered in their original form. These
                                              43

-------
items  include   hot  water  tanks,  stoves,
refrigerators,  tree  stumps and  tree  parts,
construction  debris,  demolition waste and other
bulky or hazardous items.

     Certain  areas within the fill site should  be
specified for disposal  of  construction and
demolition debris.  This material is difficult  to
handle and damaging to the tracks or wheels of
the  landfill  equipment. It  can be  covered  on
occasion but does  not necessarily  require daily
cover.  Construction  debris and clean demolition
debris  can be used to fill low marshy land below
the water table provided  it  is free of organic or
putrescible matter. Stoves, refrigerators, freezers,
hot water  tanks  and  other similar  bulky
appliances can be best disposed of at the landfill.
The  alternative   of passing  these  through  a
hammermill  operation and  feeding  through  the
incinerator is  more costly  and   damaging  to
equipment than  simple  burial. A  special  site
should be selected at the residue disposal area for
burial of this  type of appliance.

     Much of  the hazardous wastes, oils, and
other volatile liquids are  now being sent out of
the County for treatment and disposal. Much of
this material is  burned  in a special  privately
owned  incinerator  in  McComb  County.  This
practice  should be encouraged, but the landfill
area  should  be  prepared  to  receive  small
quantities of those materials from  small firms or
individuals. Proper  disposal could  be burial in
sealed  drums or  other containers encapsuled in
concrete  to  prevent the  metal  containers from
corroding away. These  areas set aside for wastes
requiring special handling  techniques will provide
the County with a complete  disposal system.

     Hazardous wastes, oils  and chemicals which
are not sent out of the County by their producers
to  be  reclaimed  can  be  buried  with  proper
precaution at the residue site. A  separate area
should be provided  for this service.  These areas
set  aside  for  wastes requiring  special handling
techniques  will  provide  the  County  with  a
complete disposal system.
     Recommendations for Residue Disposal

     Residue leaving the incinerator can best be
handled by over-the-road transportation facilities.
Highway  transportation  is  less  costly,  more
versatile   and  more   flexible   than  rail
transportation.  Highway  transportation  will
permit ease  in  moving from  site to  site as small
residue disposal areas become filled.

     Three   large single  disposal  areas were
selected in  the County for consideration with
each of the plans studied and presented later. The
recommendation for  a disposal area is included
with the discussion of the plans.

     The County abounds  with local abandoned
gravel or  borrow  pits and with potholes. These
areas are of no current economic use and can be
reclaimed  by using them for small residue disposal
areas. The life  of  such sites  may  extend from a
few weeks to a few months,  but the value of the
reclaimed  land  would  offset  the cost of moving
equipment from site to site.

     The residue disposal area should be equipped
with  heavy  tracked   equipment  and   pans  of
adequate capacity  and suitable ruggedness for use
in residue  fill operations.

     The current practice by industry of special
and  hazardous  wastes  disposal through private
operations should  be encouraged. However, small
quantities  of  these  wastes will  probably   be
brought to the residue site for final disposal. Such
wastes should be disposed of in special areas  and
by the use of safe methods in accordance with the
characteristics of the particular types of waste.
                                              44

-------
                               SECONDARY TRANSPORTATION
     The transportation of refuse from collection
districts  to  the  incinerator  can  create  several
problems.  Much  valuable  equipment  is
ineffectively  employed in taking collections to
the place of final disposal.  Frequently, the men
working  the  collection  route  accompany  the
refuse truck to the disposal  site, increasing the
ineconomies  of  using route  trucks  for  long
distance haul. A secondary transportation system
can provide a place for trucks to unload near their
routes and eliminate the  need for long distance
hauling in small vehicles.

     Route  vehicles create  traffic  congestion in
the vicinity  of the incinerator.  Operations the
magnitude  of those proposed for Oakland County
will impose traffic loads at each disposal site. A
secondary  transportation  system  will  help
alleviate  this problem by providing  a  place for
route trucks to unload away from the incinerator.
A few bulk transportation units would then take
refuse to the disposal site to complete  the relief
of traffic problems.
               Transfer Stations

     A transfer station is the facility where refuse
is  unloaded from  collection vehicles  and placed
on  other forms  of transportation for  a more
economical haul to the disposal site. The transfer
station  will receive solid waste  from passenger
cars, industrial trucks, and other private delivery
vehicles in addition to the route trucks.

     Station   efficiency is  a  primary  design
consideration. The number of vehicles entering a
station at any given period of time must be able
to unload with a minimum of delay. Station and
transportation  equipment  must  be  reliable  and
adequate reserve or standby  equipment must be
available to handle emergencies.

     In  the northern climates, the station should
be  roofed  or enclosed. Enclosure prevents the
accumulation  of  rain  water or  snow  on  the
dumping floor.  It  also helps prevent unsanitary
conditions  and  restricts the blowing of paper.
Dust control facilities should  be provided.
     The transfer station must be attended. Since
both transient and regular personnel will be at the
site, facilities for  their convenience  should be a
part of the  design.  The  transfer  station should
have a restroom area and  a potable water supply.
Scales  should be available at the transfer station
site to weigh both incoming or outgoing loaded
vehicles.

     The transfer station should be kept as simple
as possible.  Simplicity provides a system more
                                              45

-------
reliable than a complicated station and is easier to
maintain.  Direct dumping from the route vehicle
onto  transport  equipment  is  suitable  for  all
transport systems considered.

     The  transfer  system must  be designed  to
meet  all  foreseeable contingencies. The transfer
station must  have  adequate capacity in  both
access  and  transport  volume  and  must  be
economical to operate. The operation which can
meet these criteria best today may be replaced  by
a more efficient operation in the  future. Because
of this possibility  the system designed should  be
capable  of  modification  and  expansion  as
required  with as  little disruption  of service  as
possible.

     Transfer stations designed to accommodate
other forms of transportation than that proposed
initially  will  permit  a   more  flexible  system
capable of longer  and  better  service  to  the
Oakland County community.
           Transfer Station Location

     The  location of a  transfer  station will  be
influenced  considerably  by  the  method  of
transportation used. The economics of hauling by
collection truck must be compared to the cost of
hauling by bulk carrier plus the cost of operating
and maintaining the transfer station. The type of
secondary  transportation is  an important
consideration  in locating transfer  stations.
Existing systems will be  improved and new ways
to handle refuse will be developed. The location
of the transfer station must allow for changes in
transportation method if economics justify such a
change.

     The  transfer  station  should be located as
near the center of production of its service area as
possible.  It  should  be situated  near  a  good
primary highway leading to the disposal area and
connecting  roads   should  be  hard  surface  all
weather roads of Class A standard of the County
Road Commission. Some highway improvement
will  be  necessary  to meet this consideration.
Railroad service should be available on the site, or
reasonably close so that  a  spur track  can  be
constructed if  rail  transfer is used. The station
location must   minimize  objections  by
surrounding  residents. Industrial  or agricultural
areas are best.

    The   ultimate  consideration  in  locating
transfer stations, or deciding if they are needed at
all, is economics. Travel time is an all important
factor  in  this  decision  because  it relates  to
distance for  truck  travel,  but  that distance can
vary under differing road conditions. If the cost
of driving route trucks to the disposal site from a
given location is greater than the cost of operating
a transfer  station and bulk carrier system, then
the transfer station is justified.
          Bulk Transportation Systems

     Bulk transportation of refuse in quantity is
the purpose  of secondary  transportation.  Bulk
transportation reduces labor costs and provides a
feasible method of moving large amounts of solid
waste  between  points.  Large  trailers,  railroad,
pipeline and  conveyors are  being considered for
refuse transportation. Each method is discussed in
the following paragraphs.
Road Transport

     Transfer  of refuse from a collection area to
the  disposal site  by road  is the most popular
method. Roadways are already available in most
areas and no  special equipment maintenance  is
needed. Truck transportation offers the advantage
that a breakdown  is  readily  overcome  by
substitution of another piece of equipment. Road
transportation does not  depend  upon  a single
route.  In  the event  a route  is  disrupted  by
construction, bridge failures, flooding, or for any
other  reason,  a  substitute  route  is  usually
available   and  the system can  continue  to
function.  Unloading  equipment  at the  disposal
area required  for  truck transportation is  simple
and  inexpensive.  These  factors   reliability,
adaptability,  simplicity,  and  reasonable cost
combine to  create  the popularity of road transfer.

     Transportation of refuse by highway is not
free of problems,  however. Some existing roads
are unsuitable for  heavy truck traffic  required by
transportation of  refuse. In these instances, the
road  surfaces must be improved before service
begins.  Refuse transportation on  the roadways of
Oakland County will add  to traffic.  If  the haul
                                               46

-------
routes pass through residential areas, local home
owners  will  complain that  the  added  traffic
creates a hazard  to their children.  Complaints
may also cite  truck traffic as the cause of plaster
cracking in homes regardless of the actual cause,
and  twenty-four hour hauling operations  may
result  in complaints that traffic noise prevents
sleeping. When the haul route is over well-traveled
highways, the complaints will be less severe and
frequent. However, some adverse reaction can  be
expected from people using these roads.  Their
chief  complaint  will be  that  the heavy  truck
traffic has  slowed their normal travel time over
the route.
Open Semi Trailers

     Open trailers  have  been used  for refuse
transportation in the past. They are economical,
simple,  and provide  good service.  They must be
covered by tarpaulins during operation over the
roads to prevent blowing debris and reduce  odor
problems.

     Open trailers are of many types including
open top semi trailers, open rear dump sand type
trailers, and open top side dump trailers and low
boy  semi trailers with  containers.  Semi trailers
and   low  boy  container  trailers require an
independent  machine for unloading; the dump
trailers  do not need help to unload. The trailer
capacity should be  between  70  and  80  cubic
yards for open type trailers. Three axles will be
needed.

     Refuse  arriving  in  packer type collection
vehicles will  be partially  compacted, but much
material will  be loose. Some compaction can be
obtained  by  using backhoe machines  to  push
loose refuse  down  into  the  trailer.  The  same
machine can  help distribute the load in the trailer
or aid in loading bulk items. Compaction in large
open trailers cannot be  too  great or  highway
weight restrictions will be exceeded.
Compactor Trailers

     Much of the popularity of compactor trailers
comes from the belief that more refuse can be
hauled in these  than in  open trailers. It is true
that several  route truck loads can be hauled in a
 small  volume, but  the  weight  restrictions  on
 highway use limit the loads to about the amount
 that can  be hauled in  open trailers. Compactor
 trailers are totally enclosed and self unloading.

     During  this  investigation  we  observed
 operations  and  talked  with personnel  at  the
 Dearborn, Lincoln  Park,  and Plymouth Road
 transfer stations in the Detroit area. The Lincoln
 Park unit uses compactor trailers and stationary
 compactors and Dearborn uses compactor trailers
 to  increase  load  capacity of  their  vehicles.
 Operating reports  of  these  two  stations and
 discussions  with the  operators indicate  that
 compactor  equipment  is  subject   to  frequent
 mechanical breakdown  and is   very  costly  to
 operate and maintain.  The main difficulty  lies
 with the  compactor trailer itself. The hydraulic
 system is  subject to failure, and if refuse jams
 behind the pusher plate of the trailer, that unit
 must  be  removed from  service  for  repair.
 Operators told us that  these repairs can take as
 much  as 48  hours. In the meantime, refuse piles
 up  and is  usually stored in the open behind the
 transfer   station.  Such  operation  can  create
 nuisances of blowing papers and  odors, and may
 create  health hazards through vector harborage.
 We conclude from the  investigation that the use
 of  compactor type  transfer  vehicles  will  be
 unsatisfactory because  of  the high  maintenance
 and operating  cost  associated  with them,  and
 because of the  difficulty in keeping vehicles in
 service.
Rail Transportation

     In  the  1964  report  by   the  Detroit
Metropolitan  Area  Regional  Planning
Commission,  railroads  were considered  for
secondary  transportation  of refuse. That study
emphasized the  use  of  flat cars  to piggy-back
transport vehicles.  The existing rail system would
be   capable  of  carrying  refuse  from   the
Metropolitan Region to the landfill  site proposed
in northern Oxford Township.

     Railroads offer an attractive means of refuse
transportation.  Railroad  rights-of-way  are
normally   isolated   from the  residential  and
commercial  communities.   Because of  this
isolation, noise and traffic problems created by
the  heavy flow of refuse cars do not disrupt the
                                              47

-------
everyday  living  of  the  neighbors.  Dust and
seepage  from  the  full refuse cars  along  the
right-of-way are less of a problem than along a
major  highway. Rail and  highway crossings at
major highways are frequently separated, so that
rail traffic creates a minimum of inconvenience to
the  public.  Railroads  permit the highways  to
remain more available for automobile traffic  by
eliminating  the numerous trucks  which  would
pass through certain  streets and roads in a road
transport  system.  Less manpower  and  fewer
vehicles are required if railroads are  used  to  do
the major portion of the refuse hauling.
     Railroads  can  create  problems  to a short
haul refuse  transportation  system. Drivers and
vehicles are  needed at each end of the rail haul to
load and unload  the  transport  trailers,  if the
piggy-back system is used. If direct haul by rail is
preferred, the unloading equipment is  much more
complicated than  is  required for piggy-back  or
truck   transport.   In this case,  unloading
equipment, vehicles or conveyor systems must be
provided   at   the  incinerator   site,  and  the
equipment provided  to   spot  rail  cars  for
unloading.  The use  of railroads  for long haul
distances will probably  be justified, however.

     The volume of refuse handled by individual
transfer stations in Oakland County is low enough
so that trains would probably be run  once a day
only. Refuse would remain in the  hauling vehicle
for  about  24  hours,  and   additional  time  is
required for the return trip.  The  result of such
longtime delay is  that each trailer could be used
only once  in  the cycle time. Therefore, a large
number  of  piggy-back trailers is required,  or
enough rail cars to provide adequate capacity plus
reasonable   standby  must  be  available.  Batch
delivery  to  an incinerator  site  is  more  of a
problem than at a landfill because a large storage
pit is needed at the incinerator to accommodate
large deliveries, or else  enough trackage must be
provided to  permit storage in the rail cars.

     The present railroad pattern  is not suitable
for secondary transport of raw refuse. It will be
necessary to construct  extensive connecting rail
lines to make this form of transportation feasible
at this time.

     Even  if   rail  transportation  were readily
available and the other  difficulties surmountable,
rail haul  would   still   have  several   major
disadvantages. The control of the system is in the
hands of the railroad and not  the  county; rates
and charges can be changed without consultation
with  the   county.  Further  responsibility  for
meeting delivery schedules rests entirely upon the
railroad with  little  recourse on the part of the
public  for  failure to meet that  schedule. In the
event of a  mishap such as derailment,  strike, or
other natural or man-made disruption of service,
the  community  is  without  secondary
transportation.

     The railroad's solution is  to  stockpile the
material  until  service  is restored.  For  short
disruptions in  service,   this  is a satisfactory
method of handling the problem, but in the event
of one  or  more days with no rail service, road
transportation  facilities will have to  be rapidly
provided for adequate interim service. This means
that sufficient, suitable road haul vehicles must be
available within a reasonable distance and time of
Oakland  County. The reliability of the railroad
transportation system  should  be  carefully
considered  before a  decision is  made to use this
method.

     Piggy-back transportation for railroads is not
the only available means  for rail hauling refuse.
The  concept of baling refuse  and hauling it in
freight cars is  being considered in Chicago and
New York. Refuse is handled as any other boxed
or baled commodity. Covered hopper cars are also
a possible  way  to haul refuse  by  rail.  In  most
instances, the  refuse must be  preprocessed  by
grinding or baling prior to hauling in the rail car.

Pipeline Transportation

     The   use  of  pipeline   for secondary
transportation  is a  recent innovation. Extensive
investigation is being conducted at the University
of Pennsylvania and elsewhere  in search  of a
low-cost, reliable method of transporting  refuse
by  pipeline.  The  investigations  have  been
conducted  on municipal refuse that has been run
through a grinder and slurried for transportation.
A paper presented by Mr.  Iraj Zandi and Mr. John
A.  Hayden to the  American  Society  of Civil
Engineers concludes that over  a long period of
time, pipelines will be  more economical than the
present road transportation system.

     There is no dust,  dirt, or filth resulting from
                                               48

-------
the transportation itself, although these problems
may  arise  at  the  station  where  refuse is
transferred from route vehicles to the pipeline.
The material forming the slurry must be dried at
the disposal site for handling.  The  drying  will
require  the use  of  centrifuges  and will permit
some  use  of  waste heat  from  boiler  cooled
incinerators. The experience at the University of
Pennsylvania indicates that  the municipal refuse
when relieved of large, heavy objects such as iron
bars, bicycle frames, sign posts, etc. can be passed
with  ease  through  the  pipelines  with little
clogging. Water is used to create the slurry in the
pipeline, this  being  a relatively inexpensive  and
widely available commodity in Oakland  County.
Pipelines  can   be  buried at  shallow  depths
interferring  with neither underground structures
nor traffic.

    Pipeline  transportation  has some
disadvantages  to  offset  the  advantages presented
above.  The  inability  to transport large metal
objects has already been indicated, although glass
bottles  and  tin  cans  have successfully passed
through both  the grinder and  the pipeline at the
University of Pennsylvania. The experiments thus
far have been  confined to pipe sizes of 6" or less
and  have  not  been  on  a  scale suitable  for
consideration  in  a transportation system similar
to that  required  by  Oakland County.  The water
used in slurrying the refuse must be reclaimed in
order to maintain the  economy of the  system
over  a  long  period  of time. The reclamation
consists of  settling  with some final  treatment
before disposal, with makeup  water being added
to  the system as required. No clogging of  the
pipeline system  at bends was  experienced in the
University  of Pennsylvania  operation, but they
indicated  that some  difficulty was observed at
valves.

    Our studies indicate that the cost of pipeline
transportation  is less  than that  of any other
transport  system.  However,  the  embryonic
technology of pipeline transportation prevents us
from  recommending  this method  of  secondary
transportation for Oakland  County. Should  the
technology  of pipeline transportation  advance
rapidly enough so that promise of a trouble-free
system is apparent at the time of construction of
the facilities  proposed in this  Report, then
pipeline transportation  should be reinvestigated
as a transportation method.
Conveyor Transportation

     The use of conveyors to transport refuse was
explored during this study. Investigation included
both elevated and underground conveyor systems.
Of the  several  types  of conveyor considered the
most   suitable type of equipment  currently
available  on the  commercial market  is  a  belt
conveyor.

     Conveyor transportation offers advantages
similar  to those  of  rail  and pipeline transfer.
Conveyors relieve  the road  system of the heavy
truck  traffic  usually associated  with  refuse
transportation.  The  conveyor  system can  be
placed  underground or where it is hidden  from
the view  of the  local citizenry, or it may be
placed at  ground level or above, in which case it
becomes  a  visible  part  of  the  landscape.
Conveyors have the  ability to traverse various
types of terrain and can  be designed to  change
direction.  Noise, dirt, and  other problems will not
be  a  major  consideration in transportation  by
conveyor, but will still be present at the transfer
station or  the point of discharge.

     The  disadvantages of  conveyor equipment
are many.  Conveyor equipment currently comes
in limited sizes and  is generally  unsuitable for
long distance transportation. Belts are limited in
length and  conveyors must be  combined  in a
series,  in  order  to   make   a  multi-mile
transportation  system operable.  Conveyors are
subject  to  wear  and breakage  and  must  be
replaced on occasion. Standby  or  emergency
transport  equipment must  be available  in the
event of such breakdown. Fire hazards on a belt
due  to  burning refuse brought  to  the transfer
station by a truck  is always a possibility. A fire in
either a tunnel or in an elevated conveyor housing
is difficult to control and extremely dangerous. If
overhead conveyor systems or surface  conveyor
systems are used, the housing is not attractive and
will be  a  detriment to nearby  property  values.
Many safety problems occur with the  use  of
conveyors, such as personnel having limbs caught
in machinery, long objects  projecting  from the
belt injuring personnel, etc. The  cost  of refuse
transporation by conveyor system is quite  high in
relation to the other methods investigated. These
disadvantages relate  to  currently  available
conveyor equipment.
                                               49

-------
     Refuse transportation  in the  future may
become more economical by conveyor. Monorail
conveyors, similar to monorail train systems, may
be available for transporting baled or otherwise
packaged raw refuse. It is even conceivable that a
refuse  transportation  system  could  be
incorporated into  a system  of  public
transportation.
    Economics of Secondary Transportation

     The cost of operating a  transfer operation
must be paid for in savings realized from reducing
non-productive  time  for  route  vehicles.  The
example below illustrates this point.

     The  cost of operating  a  20  cubic yard
packer-collection  vehicle will  amount to about
$150 per day for sinking fund, operation and
maintenance and a 3 man crew. We have assumed
the  truck  will be  driven 50 miles  per  day
including  disposal of 2  loads. At an  average
weight of 400 pounds per cubic  yard and two
loads per day, the vehicle handles 8 tons per day.
The  cost  of  operating the collection truck  is
about $ 19 per ton. If the round trip haul distance
is increased 20 miles,  the added operating cost per
day  will  be $4 and  the time lost in  travel  1.6
hours, assuming an average speed of 25 miles per
hour for the truck. The truck will be  limited to
collecting  about 1-1/2 loads per day,  or 6 tons.
The  cost per  ton would  be about $25.60. The
difference of $6.60 per ton could be spent on a
secondary transportation system.

     We have used the transfer  station, disposal
site locations  and quantities from  Plan A under
Proposed Solutions to formulate estimated costs
for the various methods of transportation. These
costs reflect current  costs  for equipment, labor,
operation  and maintenance.  Each   system  is
compared  on  the same capacity and terminal
points; routings were  not  necessarily  the same.
The comparison is as  follows:
       Type of
   Transportation

       Road Haul
       Rail Haul
       Pipeline
       Conveyor
Cost
Per Ton

$ 6.38
 10.00
  6.05
 25.39
Cost
Per Ton Mile

$0.12
 0.19
 0.14
 0.43
                            Recommendations on Secondary Transportation

                                Our present recommendation  is that road
                            transportation  be used  in Oakland  County. In
                            order  to  facilitate   other  methods  of
                            transportation, most transfer station locations are
                            near a railroad. This will permit conversion to rail
                            haul  for  secondary  transfer  if  this  method
                            becomes more feasible in the future. Pipelines can
                            also be used if this  method is more economical
                            from the proposed transfer station locations. In
                            both cases, modification of the proposed transfer
                            stations would be required to facilitate  the new
                            form of transfer. The proposed transfer station
                            dimensions are large enough that this can be done
                            without major alteration to the buildings.

                                Transfer stations designed to accommodate
                            other forms of transportation than that proposed
                            initially will  permit  a  more flexible  system
                            capable of  longer  and  better  service  to the
                            Oakland County community.

                                The  truck-trailer  units should  be  self
                            unloading non-compacting trailer rigs. The trailer
                            itself  should   be  of  the  side-dump  variety
                            whenever  provision  for  this  design  can  be
                            incorporated into the  incinerator.  Truck  units
                            should  be rated  for 65,000 pound gross vehicle
                            weight  (G.V.W.).

                                The transfer station should be neat and clean
                            in appearance, the grounds landscaped and kept
                            mowed. Operating personnel at the station should
                            take pride in their working location and maintain
                            it  in  an  attractive  and  nuisance-free  sanitary
                            condition  at all  times in  order to minimize the
                            concern of neighbors. The transfer station should
                            be equipped to handle adequately the volume of
                            refuse  which  will  be  brought  to  it,  provide
                            facilities for the  personnel and a scale to weigh
                            the material coming to the station.
                                               50

-------
                                   THE RURAL PROBLEM
     Problems created by local practice of refuse
disposal in rural areas differ from those of the
municipality.  Heavily  urbanized  and suburban
areas generally are sufficiently populated to make
house to house  pick up economical. In contrast,
rural areas contain  large areas  of  open space.
Scattered  homes increase the  cost of pickup so
that it  is  unusual to have collection from  all
homes in rural areas.

     The following townships are considered rural
areas: Addison,  Brandon, Groveland, Highland,
Holly,  Independence,  Lyon,  Milford,  Novi,
Oakland,  Orion,  Oxford,  Rose  and Springfield,
including villages within each.

     Vast  areas of these  townships  are
undeveloped  and approximately   50%  of  the
Township area is devoted to agricultural use. The
rural townships  listed above  do  contain  some
areas of  urbanized  development  such  as  the
villages of Holly, Oxford, and Lake Orion or the
suburban areas now projecting into Independence
Township.  Despite the  fact that  the urbanized
areas are  populated  enough  to  justify  public
refuse collection  and  disposal, they are included
in the rural area  because of geographic location.
The discussions that follow regarding rural refuse
problems  deal primarily  with the non-farming
rural residential  and  privately owned  cottage
developments. Occupants  of most  farms practice
reasonably good  refuse  disposal  on  their  own
land.

     Information   obtained  from   the  Oakland
County Planning Office indicates that in 1963 the
fourteen  rural   townships   contained  22,117
residential units of all types. This is an average of
almost  44  residences per  square mile.  Three
hundred eighteen of  the mile square sections
within  these  14   townships  held  less than 20
residential  units  per   section.  In  terms  of
collection there  are  about 22  stops per  average
mile in all fourteen  townships and 10 or less in
2/3 of the  sections contained  within  these
townships.

     Many rural residents are unwilling to employ
a private hauler to  dispose of their  refuse. An
individual owner or home resident  can dispose of
his  own refuse in  several ways. He may bury it or
burn it in a back yard burner, which is usually
acceptable  in  rural  areas and is  sufficient  to
prevent abnormal health hazards. However, these
                                              51

-------
methods are limited  to  small  household items.
Larger  items,  such  as  automobile  hulks,
refrigerators,  or  stoves,  must  be  handled
differently.

     The ultimate solution to rural problems will
be achieved when every refuse producing premise
is provided  with collection under a township or
county controlled program.

     Many  individuals  do  not practice either
sanitary  or  thoughtful  refuse disposal.  They
dispose  of their waste  along  the roadside or a
stream,  as illustrated  by the photographs on  the
opposite page.  Each  of  these illustrated private
dumps  are  found  in Oakland County. Often,
when started by one thoughtless individual, they
are  visited by others looking for a place to throw
their  trash  and in  time become quite sizeable.
Adding  to the problem in Oakland County, is the
abundance of transient residents -- those persons
who own or rent  cottages or other recreational
facilities in the County and live elsewhere. These
people are often prone to ignore refuse collection
by  private  haulers and  take refuse  with  them
when their brief stay in the County is over. This
refuse is carried in the car to an isolated spot  on
the back road and thrown into the brush or onto
a roadside  dump  which  has  been  started   by
another individual. This unsightly and unsanitary
practice  must  be  stopped. We discuss methods
whereby this can  be accomplished later in this
section.

     Open burning in backyard burners reduces
the volume of refuse to be disposed of by  the
home owner. However, the Air Pollution Control
Act  of  1965 and  the implementing rules and
regulations could be extended  to the more rural
areas and prohibit backyard burning. The practice
of backyard burning and leaf burning in the open
has  been   stopped  in  much of  southeastern
Oakland County.  If  backyard burning  in rural
areas is prohibited by future attempts to control
air  pollution, the  volume   of  refuse  which
individuals  must  dispose of will  increase.  The
individual will have to find a means to remove the
unwanted material from his premises for disposal
at an approved location,  or he will take it himself
to a roadside dump.

     Bulk  items  and   automobile  hulks  are
particular problems.  Bulk  items  consist   of
refrigerators,  stoves,  mattresses,  springs,
automobile  seats,  and  other  similar items too
large  for  easy  disposal by  collection truck.  In
many locations throughout the County one sees
numerous examples of  bulk item  disposal along
roadsides or in creeks.

     Automobile hulks similar to photographs on
the  facing  page  are  scattered  throughout the
County. We have estimated that  a minimum  of
one abandoned automobile body exists per square
mile and we believe this estimate of 910 hulks is
very  conservative. These items,   together with
roadside  dumps,  are eyesores for the passing
motorist   and  certainly  cannot  be  considered
attractive by local residents. A good and effective
means of  permitting the disposal of these items
through the County Agency in cooperation with
private disposal facilities is needed.
       Disposal Methods for Rural Areas

     Rural residents want  their  refuse disposal
service improved.  The absence of disposal sites in
some townships or a single, infrequently open,
public site in others is tolerated by rural residents,
but they are not satisfied. Individuals interviewed
while they were  using rural dumps indicated  a
reluctance  to travel  more  than  4 miles to  a
disposal site.  Sparse  facilities and severly limited
hours at disposal sites tend to encourage roadside
disposal and other littering practices.

     We  have explored  two  methods of final
disposal  for  rural areas  —  convenience centers
with final disposal at county solid waste facilities,
and  sanitary  landfill. The  two  methods  are
compared  on a  basis of equal  service.  Travel
distances are  restricted to a maximum of about
four miles so that  39 rural disposal points will be
provided in the rural townships.  Disposal points
will  open for 12  to  16  hours daily to provide
convenient operation for most citizens.
Convenience Centers

     A convenience center will  provide a clean,
sightly place for rural residents to dispose of their
wastes. The center would be enclosed to prevent
blowing paper  and roofed to keep the weather
from  the  user and  the  deposited  material.
                                              52

-------
All-weather  roadways  would  allow easy traffic
movement in all seasons.

     The  convenience  center  would contain 20
cubic yard  to 40 cubic yard portable  sanitary
containers in which the public could deposit their
refuse. The  facilities would be primarily for use
by  individuals and commercial  establishments
hauling their own waste, but one or two could be
constructed  large  enough  to  permit  private
haulers  to use them as a transfer station. The
portable  containers would  be  emptied daily and
their  contents taken to the incinerator or to  a
large county operated sanitary  landfill.

     Convenience centers would be visited three
times daily  throughout  the  week by  county
crews. A pick up vehicle would collect filled and
partly filled  containers  and  take  them  to  a
transfer station or a disposal site. The  pick up
vehicle would  make at least two  visits daily. A
two man clean up crew would visit each unit once
each day in a special truck to keep building and
grounds clean and neat. The facility would not be
attended except for these visits.

     Each  clean  up  area  would be  provided a
truck equipped with  a  portable steam generator
suitable  for  steam  cleaning  and  applying  a
deodorizing agent if needed. A  small insecticide
spray unit and water tank could be provided. The
truck bed  should contain  enough room to haul
lumber and large bulk items that cannot be placed
in the containers. A front loader attached to the
truck would greatly aid the clean up operation.

     The  container  pick  up  vehicle  operator
would be  responsible for seeing that  adequate
numbers of clean  empty containers are supplied
each  center.  Each  container  should  be steam
cleaned before it is returned to service after each
emptying. The containers would be roll off units,
as illustrated  in Figure No. 12, or commercial
containers.
                                           FIGURE 12
                                              53

-------
            INDEPENDENCE
           
-------
     Figures No. 13 and 14 depict the location of
proposed convenience centers and the grouping of
units served by each container pick up truck and
each clean  up crew. Six container pick up trucks
and  eight  clean  up  crews and  trucks  will  be
needed for the 1970 program to serve 39 sites in
the fourteen rural townships.

     Convenience centers, excluding the cost  of
incineration and residue disposal, are inexpensive
to  operate. Our estimate  of capital   cost  of
convenience centers to serve  the fourteen  rural
townships  is $1,648,400. The annual operating
cost  will be $1,818,800 in the decade from  1970
to 1980 and $2,249,900 in the decade beginning
in 1980. The  annual  cost includes amortization,
labor, maintenance and operating costs, but does
not  include  the  cost of incineration and  final
disposal. Incineration and final disposal  will add
approximately $560,000 to the annual cost in the
first  decade, which will bring the annual cost of
convenience centers to $2,378,800. The cost  of
final  disposal  will  increase  to  approximately
$1,300,000 in  the  second decade, bringing the
total annual  cost  for  operating convenience
centers to $3,549,900.
Sanitary Landfill

     Traditionally, open dumping has been the
method of  solid waste  disposal in rural  areas.
Consideration of sanitary landfills to replace these
open dumps is a natural outcome of the passage
of Public Act 87.

     Sanitary landfills are an acceptable means of
final disposal of solid waste. The County agency
for solid waste disposal would be the logical place
to concentrate  authority for sanitary landfills to
maintain uniform county-wide standards of good
operation.

     With county-wide  operation  of  a  landfill
program,  the  39 sites could  be kept open for
public  convenience  over  a  12-16 hour  daily
period.  An   attendant  would  serve each site,
directing traffic,  picking up blowing papers and
doing other  general site  maintenance during the
day. Cover and compaction would be provided at
each fill by a crawler tractor front end loader unit
suitable for short haul  of cover.  Each tractor
could serve all sites in a township by being hauled
from site to site on a low-boy semi-trailer driven
by  the loader operation. A dump truck operator
would accompany the dozer operator to haul
cover or  to do cleanup and  maintenance work.
The tractor would be at each site for a period of
about 1-1/2 hours  daily.

     We  have  estimated the cost of operating 39
sanitary  landfill sites in the  fourteen townships.
The estimate is based on keeping each site open
seven days a week. The annual cost of  operation
in this manner will be approximately $2,241,600
in 1970-1980  decade including the cost of labor,
equipment,  land  maintenance   operation  and
amortization over  a 20 year period. The cost will
increase  to $3,176,700 in 1980 to 1990 decade.

     The  cost  estimates  in  the   preceding
paragraph are  based  on the assumption that all
sites  have adequate cover material and suitable
terrain  for  the purpose.  If insufficient cover
material  is available or if the soil conditions  are
poor, the cost of creating landfills may be much
greater than our estimates.
         Closing Existing Disposal Sites

     The  change from a casual  form of  refuse
disposal to a thoroughly planned one will require
that existing disposal sites be properly closed. The
cost  of  closing  active  disposal sites will vary
according to  the  conditions  at each site.  Old
partially-closed disposal sites  should be  brought
to acceptable standards.

     We have estimated that the cost of closing
these  disposal sites will vary from $6,000  to
$ 12,000 per acre, depending upon the geography
and   conditions of the  site. These estimates
include the  cost of vermin extermination, grading
the site, applying final cover and seeding the area.
We have  assumed  adequate  material for  cover
exists  on  all sites. If not, existing cover  material
can be supplemented with imported cover.  In the
latter case the cost  of  supplying dirt will need to
be added to the figures indicated above. The cost
of closing all  existing  disposal sites not operated
as sanitary landfills and of all improperly closed
sites will be in excess of $2,400,000, assuming an
average cost of $10,000 per acre for this purpose.

     The total cost of proper covering and closure
                                               55

-------
                                      INDEPENDENCE
                                    <^i ElCLARKSTON
B.F. • BIN6HAM FARMS
H.WOS. * HUNT1N«TON WOODS
HAZ. PK.« HAZEL PARK
P.R. • PLEASANT RIME
W.C.F. t WOOD CREEK FARMS
O  CONTAINER  CENTERS
•  ROLL-OFF CENTERS
P-0  PACKER  GROUPS
R-0  ROLL-OFF UNIT GROUPS
fi  CLEAN-UP GROUPS
                                                                         012345
                                                                            SCALE IN MILES
                          CONVENIENCE   CENTER  GROUPS
                                        1980-1990
                                            56
                                                      FIGURE 14

-------
of existing sites will not be paid by the County.
Most  of the active disposal  sites are  privately
owned  and  under  permit  from  the  Health
Department.  The  owners  of  these  sites will
properly close  them  when  operations  cease
according to their  permits. This will mean that
about  190 acres of  site closure  will  be done
privately. An estimated fifty acres of abandoned
solid waste  disposal sites which are improperly
closed  will remain for the County  to close. Since
closure may be done with clean fill dirt or other
material  using  the  partially closed dump  as  a
disposal  site, this $500,000 cost has not been
included in previous cost tables.

    Rat  extermination  is  mentioned  in  the
preceding paragraphs.  This  item must  not be
forgotten when existing sites are closed because
burial  will not  eliminate the rat population. The
rats will  burrow out from the  buried refuse and
migrate to nearby homes  or farms in search of a
food supply. Extermination is the surest method
of stopping these migrations after a site is  closed.
The  cost of rat  extermination  is negligible,
probably between $50  and $100 per acre. The
value of such a program is immeasurable.
    Recommendation for the Rural Problem

    We believe that convenience centers located
within  four  road  miles  of  any point  in the
Township will be more acceptable to the nearby
residents than  sanitary  landfills,  and  that
convenience centers will help pay for themselves
through  such  intangible   assets  as  resident
convenience and a  more  attractive appearance.
Collections from the convenience centers should
be incinerated or  otherwise  disposed  of by the
County Agency.

     Convenience  centers  located  at  such
frequent intervals throughout the rural areas will
help keep Oakland County clean and  attractive.
Convenience centers will gain the confidence of
the general population that refuse disposal is not
an ugly business and that it can be conducted in
an  aesthetic  and  attractive  manner.  A  greater
savings  than  the  difference  in  average  annual
operating  costs  between  sanitary  landfills and
convenience centers  will probably be realized by
savings in roadside  cleanup because the public is
more likely  to  use  convenience centers  than
landfills, particularly if the landfill  operation is
not perfect at all times.

     We recommend  that  all improperly closed
disposal sites within the County be closed under
the direction of the County Agency. This will
include all sites  listed in the  Appendix. Closure
should include vermin control where the need is
apparent or in question.
                                              57

-------

-------
                        PLAN PRESENTATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
                                   PROPOSED SOLUTIONS
     In this section of the Report we set forth the
proposed solution to the refuse disposal problem
of Oakland  County. This solution is  necessarily
divided into two plans, each dependent upon an
action of  the Southeastern  Oakland  County
Incinerator Authority. Both plans are discussed in
detail together with a contingent course of action
should the City of Pontiac decline to participate.
Facilities which will be required under each  plan
and the costs  each will incur are included in the
discussion.

     The two plans for a solution to the problem
are called for convenience Plan A and Plan B.  Plan
A envisions  a  program  for  all  the  County
including  provision for incinerating  the
production of SEOCIA in excess of their nominal
burning capacity. Plan B is more limited in scope
and  makes  the assumption  that  SEOCIA  will
remain an  independent Authority  devoted to
adequate  disposal  of  all  waste created  by its
members.  The  final  choice   of  the  plan to
implement  will depend upon  decisions by the
Oakland  County  Board of  Supervisors  and the
SEOCIA Board of Directors.

     The SEOCIA is a totally independent refuse
disposal operation  at this time.  The Authority is
finding  its  facilities  overloaded by  the  refuse
generated  by its members  and must  dispose of
part   of its waste without  incineration at  the
sanitary landfill in Avon Township. The Board of
Directors of the Authority will need  to make a
decision  whether  they will cooperate with  a
county-wide program  or whether they prefer to
continue on an independent course. The Board of
Supervisors  of Oakland County  for  their  part
must  decide whether to offer County facilities for
Authority use. It  is for these reasons that plans
are  presented  including   the  Authority  and
without its participation.

     The City  of Pontiac is now developing a two
hundred  acre  site  for a  Municipal  Sanitary
landfill.  The proposed site will be adequate for
Pontiac's use for more than 25 years according to
projected loads. The site is well isolated and the
landfill will probably  not  be  an  objectionable
operation. For these reasons it is conceivable  that
Pontiac  will elect to  continue operating their
facility  and remain independent of the County
program.

     Both  Plan  A  and Plan B  require the full
cooperation  of all  governmental  units  within
Oakland County. Refuse disposal programs under
each Plan incorporate the transportation of refuse
from one political unit to another. Final disposal
of refuse  will in most instances take place in a
third   political  jurisdiction.  The  quantities
predicted  for  transportation and incineration in
both Plans assume that all political jurisdictions in
Oakland   County  will  cooperate. Failure to
achieve  complete  cooperation  of  the political
entities  within the County will create a condition
wherein facilities are oversize,  in some cases to
the  point  of  being inefficient to  operate. The
cooperation of governments within the County
may demand that some individual interest must
be  subordinated for  the welfare  of the entire
community.

     The projected growth of Oakland  County is
varied.  Rural  areas are  expected to grow much
more rapidly  than semi-rural  areas,  and the
heavily  developed  areas  are expected to remain
nearly  static in population.  Despite this varying
growth  rate,  the  population will  increase too
greatly  to  permit initial  equipment installation to
meet 1990 needs. The design period has therefor
been divided into decades for discussion purposes.
The  first time period consists of the decade from
1970 -  1980; the second, the decade from 1980 -
1990.
               Facility Location

     The number  and size of incinerators and
transfer  stations   were  determined  from
evaluations of alternative plans. The use of a large
number of incinerator sites using small  furnace
sizes  reduces  transportation costs. However, a
comparison  of annual  cost  for  the  County
disposal program  during  the  preliminary study
indicated an  advantage to few incinerator sites
using large  furnaces,  with  transfer  stations to
reduce haul problems.

     The preliminary  studies  did not consider
                                              59

-------
savings due to reduced collection costs. Collection
from most of the areas of Oakland County is now
done  by  private  haulers,  who  take  their
collections to private disposal sites which may be
up to 20 miles away. Frequently the hauler passes
a site operated by  another on his way from the
collection route to his  own disposal area. Under
the plans proposed in this section of the Report, a
publicly operated disposal site, transfer station or
large convenience center will be located about 10
miles from any point in the County. Haulers will
probably  use the  facility  closest  to  the end of
their daily route, so  a  savings  in  collection cost
should result.

    Capacities of incinerator facilities mentioned
in the  text refer to tons per 24 hour day. Some
transfer  stations indicated in  the  Figures are
shown in  more than  one  color as  are  their
respective service areas.  This is done to indicate
by corresponding colors the incinerator used by
that transfer station.

    Incinerators and transfer stations have been
located as near  as  possible to the load center of
their service area. Usually the best combination of
land use,  access,  and  other  facilities  could be
found  within 3  miles  of the load center. The
maximum variation of about 5 miles occurs with
the Avon Incinerator  under  Plan  B, but the
selected location permits reasonable travel  times
from its entire service area.

    Several  sites  were  chosen  and  evaluated
before those presented  under the  Plans  were
selected. Selection  was  based  on  several factors
including  availability   of  utilities,  land  area,
surrounding  land use,  soil borings, topographic
features, zoning, and a  site inspection from both
the ground and the  air. Incinerators should be
constructed on parcels of 10 acres minimum size,
preferably on 20 or more acres of land. Transfer
stations should occupy sites 5 acres minimum and
preferably 10 acre sites. Convenience centers can
use sites of 1 acre or less.

    We  believe  the chosen  sites are the  best
available from an engineering standpoint. Some of
the sites  not chosen were nearly equal to the
selected  sites.  The final  decision on the sites
considered  the  probable  public  acceptance of
them for refuse disposal purposes.
     Convenience centers are proposed according
to the plan discussed earlier. Convenience centers
are to be placed in  the fourteen rural townships
to  replace  the  township  dumps  and  private
disposal facilities.

     There are several private haulers operating in
Oakland County at the present time. The solution
to the problem for solid waste disposal will in no
way alter their current mode of operation. These
haulers are expected to use all facilities proposed
in this Report except for convenience  centers
which are for  the   use  of local  citizens as a
replacement  to the  township dump. The hauler
will  continue  to collect  refuse -from individual
homes and dispose of it for the individual.

     If the private hauler is  operating his own
solid  waste  disposal  facility,  he will  be  able  to
continue  to  use  it provided  he meets the
requirements  established  under  Public  Act 87.
Failure of the private hauler to comply with these
regulations will  bring  notice from the Health
Department to improve his operation or to close
his facility. In the event he must close his  facility,
the County operation will be available for his use.
However, we  believe  it necessary to point out that
it  will be the  duty  of the State Department  of
Health and the local  Health Department to rigidly
enforce their requirements for good solid  waste
disposal.  The continuation of even a mediocre
sanitary  landfill  at  the  same time the  County
operates an incinerator program will undoubtedly
cause much  refuse to go to the landfill.  Strict
adherence must be made to requirements.

     The  plans proposed for a  solution to the
solid  waste  problems  of Oakland  County,
presupposed  that all government units  in each
service  area   will join the  program.  We have
assumed  that  all refuse  will be brought to a
County facility and that none, except for special
industrial  waste,  will  be  delivered  to  private
disposal  operators.  Failure  to attain full
cooperation of all governments within the service
area, or to require the improvement of the many
private disposal sites to acceptable standards, will
result  in  a reduction of refuse volume to the
installations proposed. Any reduction in volume
arriving at these sites will reduce the size  of units
and cause the unit cost of disposal to increase.
                                               60

-------
               Cost Estimating
rate.
     A necessary part of comparing two or more
plans  is  estimating  costs. Throughout  the
following pages numerous references are made to
cost  and pricing  figures.  In order  to help  the
reader understand these figures, a brief discussion
of the pricing and cost comparing  methods  is
essential.

     Basic  costs  were   obtained  from
manufacturers. In most instances, more than  one
manufacturer  of  an item  was  asked to offer
estimating prices for his equipment. Labor costs
are estimated  from wage  rates supplied by the
Michigan Industrial  Relations Department  and
from  current  industry  practice. The  cost  of
equipment  and labor  used for estimates in  this
Report  is high  enough   to  cover  the  best
equipment of its type currently available.

     Installation  costs  were  obtained from
contractors  or  from equipment manufacturers'
figures  on installation  contracts  for their
equipment.

     Operating  and  maintenance  costs  for
vehicles, incinerator plants, transfer  stations  and
other items of equipment  are based  on figures
supplied by owners of similar equipment.

     All costs used for estimating are escalated to
the years 1970, 1980 and 1990. 1970 base figures
were  estimated  for structures and  specialized
refuse  handling  equipment from  actual  or
currently  estimated  costs.  These  figures were
projected by using the Engineering News Record
construction cost index as a guide. Vehicle costs,
salaries and operating and maintenance costs are
assumed to increase at the 3-1/2% current rate of
the  cost   of  living  index.  Replacement  for
equipment  of short  life is assumed to be provided
for by a sinking fund invested at 4% interest.

     Estimates of construction are increased by
20% to  allow for engineering and contingencies.
No allowance is made for the cost of selling bonds
nor  of  obtaining  contracts  from participating
communities.

     We  estimate the current bond  market  for
Oakland County is 5% per annum. Bonds sold in
1980 or after are  assumed to carry a 6% interest
     Land  costs used  in  making  the estimates
presented  in  the  Report  are   derived  from
information  obtained  from  real  estate
advertisements and real estate agents in Oakland
County.   A  wide  variance  in  the  cost  of
commercial and industrial land occurs throughout
the County. Land prices of under $1,000 an acre
were encountered as  well as land prices in excess
of  $30,000  an  acre.  We  have  used  locally
appropriate land cost in this Report.

     All  capital costs  were reduced  to  bonded
annual cost for comparative  study of the plans
presented. The annual cost figures include interest
and  principal payments only, with no provision
for  bond  coverage.  Operation,  maintenance,
labor, sinking fund, and other annual cost figures
were added to the annual cost of bonding the
capital investment  to  obtain  the annual cost
figures used throughout the Report.

     Certain  costs are  indicated  for  road
construction  purposes  under  items  for  residue
disposal and  secondary transportation. The cost
figure presented under each of these  items does
not  represent  the  complete  cost of  road
rebuilding and construction. For purposes of this
study,  we have assumed that  the road surfacing
will  be paid for under the Incinerator Program.
Since the road improvement program will benefit
others  beyond  those abutting the highway and
the  refuse  agency  for the  County,  we  have
assumed that the Road Commission will  pay for
the grading and straightening required to improve
these  highways.  The  cost  of culverts,  utility
relocation and other  incidental costs are also left
to the  Road Commission or to the agencies who
have present responsibility for these items.

     Estimates  of cost  include  a section for
administration.  The  costs  included  under this
item contain  one half of the  salary of the Drain
Commissioner plus an adequate staff, supplies and
vehicles.  The  solid  waste  program will  require
additional  space  beyond  that available at the
present   offices  for  administration and  for
vehicular maintenance.  We have   made  an
allotment  in  the estimate  to construct a new
maintenance  and  office building for use of the
solid waste agency. Additional office space can be
provided  in the building and  rented by the solid
                                             61

-------
                        NOHTHVU.L I, '-itf':»i iY\ i^V*;
B.F : BINGHAM FARMS
H.WDS. = HUNTINGTON WOODS
HAZ. PK = HAZEL PARK
RR.= PLEASANT  RIDGE
W.C.F = WOOD CREEK FARMS
D
•
A
EXISTING SEOCIA INCINERATOR
PROPOSED  INCINERATOR
PROPOSED  TRANSFER  STATION
PROPOSED  RESIDUE  HAUL ROUTE
PROPOSED  TRANSFER  ROUTE
COMBINED RESIDUE  AND TRANSFER ROUTE
INCINERATOR DIRECT SERVICE  AREA
TRANSFER  STATION  SERVICE  AREA
ROUTE  IMPROVEMENT  AREA
EXISTING PAVED ROAD SYSTEM
                                          PLAN  A
                                      1970-1980  DECADE
                                                                              01   2345
                                                                                  SCALE IN MILES
                                                                                      FIGURE 15
                                                62

-------
waste  administration.  The  entire  cost  of the
building  has been  charged to the  solid waste
program. If another county agency shares space in
this building, then it should pay a fair rent to the
solid  waste  program or share in the capital and
maintenance costs of the building. We anticipate
that a suitable site for construction can be found
on the  grounds  of one  of  the  proposed
incinerators  or near the County Civic Center.

    Vehicular  equipment listed as necessary at
the various facilities is the minimum requirement.
No standby  or spare equipment appears in these
listings.  Cost  estimates do  include  spare
equipment by providing for one additional tractor
unit for every five required, and a spare for every
ten trailers.  The residue disposal area can operate
with any  one piece of equipment  out of service
although  the operation would be much  more
efficient  if all major pieces  were functional. We
do not believe that the added efficiency warrants
standby equipment for the residue disposal area.
If a breakdown restricts operations too greatly,
rental equipment is readily available to use until
the County's  equipment  can be restored to
operation.
                   PLAN A

     Plan A encompasses all of Oakland County
including excess refuse from SEOCIA. Under this
plan,  all refuse of combustible  nature will be
delivered to incinerators scattered throughout the
County. Delivery of refuse to the incinerators will
be  facilitated  through  secondary  transport
systems.  Rural areas  will be  aided  in  refuse
handling by  convenience  centers  designed to
supplement  whatever rural refuse collection or
disposal is provided by the individuals themselves.

     In  preparing  Plan  A,  that  including
cooperation with  the Authority, we have made
some  assumptions.  We  have  assumed  the
Authority will want to remain as independent as
possible of  a complete  County  program. This
independence will lead the Authority to continue
operating the Madison Heights incinerator and the
Avon residue  disposal area. In this manner the
Authority can continue to regulate its incinerator
and landfill under the control of the participating
members.  Cooperation  with  the County  will
merely be a  means of reducing  the volume of
refuse which must be handled by the Authority's
disposal  facilities.  Cooperation with the County
would relieve the  overloaded conditions existing
at the present incinerator.

     Under   the  cooperative  plan the  County
would construct and maintain all facilities outside
of the Authority. In return, the County would
sell its capacity at a specified rate per  ton and
would complete the  disposal of refuse brought to
it by Authority members. The Authority could
reduce the charges by the County by permitting it
to use the  Avon ash disposal facility.  A joint
operation between the County and the Authority
should bring a benefit to both parties.

     Figure  No. 15  shows conditions under  Plan
A for the first decade.
Incinerators

     Three incinerators are  shown  on the Plate
for construction in the 1970-1980 decade. These
three  incinerators  are  the  Avon  incinerator
located  in  central  Avon  Township, the
Farmington  incinerator  located  in  western
Farmington Township  and  the  Independence
incinerator located in southwestern Independence
Township.  In addition to these three, the existing
incinerator operated by the SEOCIA is shown  in
Madison Heights. The  location of these units is
approximate and no specific parcel of  land has
been  chosen for their construction site.  In the
following paragraphs we  will discuss the general
aspects of each incinerator proposed.
Avon Incinerator

     The Avon Incinerator is located centrally in
Avon Township.  It is on an  industrially zoned
parcel  of  ground   isolated  from  present
subdivisions  by  approximately  a mile  on the
northeast   and  east.   Subdivisions  are
approximately a half  mile to the northwest and
                                              63

-------
south.
the site for disposal.
     The  capacity  required  by  the  Avon
Incinerator is 1300 tons per day. This capacity
will be made up by 4 furnaces, each with a rated
daily capacity of 325 tons, all of which is to be
installed in the 1970 - 1980 construction period.

     The site on which the Avon Incinerator is
situated lies within two miles of an interchange
on M-59 which provides easy connection to 1-75
and US-24. The Grand Trunk Railroad abuts the
proposed incinerator site.

     Public  sewer  service  is reasonably available
to the  site.  A sewer constructed by the County
Department of Public Works is located in Avon
Road.  This  sewer is served by  a  small sewage
treatment plant along the Clinton River southeast
of the  city of Rochester.  The size of sewers and
plant prevent the use of these sewers for process
water from  the  incinerator. However, we believe
this sewer system  is available  for sanitary  waste
from the plant.

     Process water will have to be treated on the
site.  Restrictions  on  discharging wastes  to the
rivers of the state are strict enough to make the
cost  of treatment for discharge little  different
from  treatment for reuse.  Hence,  most  of the
process water will probably be recycled through
the  system.   Sludges  and  other residue  from
treatment will be disposed of at the residue area if
they cannot be burned in the incinerator. An
alternative  to  thorough  treatment  of process
water  is   discharging  it  to the proposed
Clinton-Oakland trunk sewer  system leading to
Detroit. This  trunk  sewer is in the Paint  Creek
and Clinton River  valleys in Rochester, a distance
of 2-1/2 miles away along the river valley.

     The public water supply  from the City of
Rochester is available approximately  1-1/2 miles
from  the proposed  site.  The  Rochester  water
system is served by wells and an elevated storage
tank. It may not be capable of supplying all needs
of the  incinerator  plant. If public water supply is
insufficient  for the  incinerator a private well
supply  for   plant  water  can   supplement the
potable water available from the City system.

     The residue produced by the Avon plant will
require 3 trailers and  1 tractor  to remove it from
Farmington Incinerator

     The  Farmington Incinerator is proposed in
western Farmington Township on land zoned for
industrial use at this time. Land prices in this area
are extremely high, so that it may be desirable to
move  the location  to  presently  undeveloped
residential land within a reasonable distance. Any
movement of the proposed incinerator site should
be  carefully  planned  to  avoid  the location  of
proposed  Highway 1-275. The site  chosen is on
the fringes of the expanding suburbanized area of
Detroit, but at this time is isolated approximately
one  mile from  any extensive residential  or
commercial  subdivision.  Noise  and  traffic
problems  are somewhat reduced by this location
due  to the relationship  of the  site to Highway
1-96 and the Farmington Industrial Park.

     The  Farmington  Incinerator  should  be
constructed for an  ultimate  capacity of 1,600
tons of refuse per day. This capacity  should  be
spread among four furnaces of 400 ton  per day
capacity  each.  Three  of these furnaces  with
capacity of 1,200 tons per  day  will be required
with  the  initial  construction  to   provide  the
intended service  at this site.

     Material   arriving at  or  leaving  the
Farmington Incinerator site has excellent highway
service. Existing  Interstate  Highway access is
within  two  miles of the  intended  site. The
Interstate Highways  96  and  696  provide
interchanges with several north-south highways in
Oakland  County,  including easily  reached US
Route 24. The proposed construction of Highway
1-275 through Farmington with  a connection of
1-75 in Springfield Township will provide rapid
north-south highway  transportation  from  the
proposed site.

     Access  to  the  C   &  O   Railroad  is
approximately   3-1/2  miles  from  the location
proposed  for the Farmington Incinerator. In the
event that rail transportation of residue or refuse
is utilized in the future, a transfer station for this
purpose can be located on this railroad, or a spur
line constructed to the site.  The spur could bring
rail  service into  the industrial park,  thereby
benefitting  the  industrial development   of the
                                              64

-------
area.

     The  site  proposed  for the  Farmington
Incinerator is serviced by public water and sewer
facilities.  These utilities do  not reach into  the
proposed site at  this time but  are sufficiently
close  so that no problem is foreseen in their use.

     The  Farmington  Incinerator  should   be
supplied  with  three 40 yard  residue trailers and
two tractor units.
Independence Incinerator

     The Independence Incinerator is located in
the southwest corner of Independence Township
on  land  currently zoned for industrial  use. The
selected site is isolated from present subdivisions
by  approximately a mile on the north  and east.
Further   encroachment   of  subdivision
development is restricted because of a  lake and
swampy land in the immediate vicinity. Land to
the south and west of the selected site is virtually
vacant.

     The capacity  which should be installed in
the Independence Incinerator is 1500  tons  per
day. The installation should include four 375 tons
per day incinerator  units, all of which are to be
installed in 1970.

     The Independence Incinerator site is located
approximately 2  miles from US Route 10 and
3-1/2 miles to  an  interchange on  Route 1-75.
Route 1-75  provides connections with  Michigan
State Route  15 and US Route 24 so that easy
access to the Independence site is  available  to
highway transportation.

     The Grand Trunk Railroad has a single track
adjacent to the proposed site.

     The  site  selected  for  the  Independence
Incinerator is without water or sewer service. If
the  construction takes  place immediately,  the
water supply  must  be  from  wells  and sewage
treatment must be done by private  facilities on
the  plant   ground.  The  Oakland  County
Department of Public Works is planning to begin
construction   later this  year   on  the
Clinton-Oakland sewer  system  serving much  of
Waterford Township. When  this sewer system is
operative, a 24 inch trunk sewer will reach within
approximately a mile and a half of the proposed
incinerator site.

     The Independence Incinerator site should be
equipped with four 40 cubic yard residue trailers
and  two   tractors  at  the  time of  its initial
installation.
Secondary Transportation

     Secondary  transportation is  needed under
Plan A to increase the efficiency of hauling from
outlying areas to the incinerators.

     Travel times from the western, southeastern
and northeastern portions of the County were too
long to permit route  vehicles to be effective for
haul to the incinerator. Travel times were clocked
by study personnel over proposed alternative haul
routes and the shortest route in  terms of  time
used in the study recommendations. Haul times in
excess of one-half hour from proposed transfer
station  to the incinerator occurred for all except
the northwestern quadrant  of the County, where
1-75 provides swift direct haul.

     Transfer stations will  be located in Milford
Township, Oxford Township and in the City of
Troy. The station locations are shown in a general
way by triangles on the Plate.
Milford Transfer Station

     The Milford transfer station will be located
in the northeastern portion of Milford Township.
The area in which the station is proposed is zoned
for agricultural use. The area is relatively isolated
with but  a  few  scattered  dwellings  in  the
immediate area of the proposed station.

     The transfer  station for Milford  would be
capable of loading four trailer units at one time.
The station would remain open 16 hours a day
for use  by  the  citizenry   and transportation
vehicles  would  operate  on  the  highways only
during a 16 hour period.

     The refuse brought to the Milford Station
would  be transported by highway to either  the
Independence  Incinerator  or  the  Farmington
                                              65

-------
Incinerator.  Half  the  loads  will  go  to  the
Farmington Incinerator and will  be  routed over
Commerce Road  and  Haggerty  Highway. The
remaining loads  will  be  delivered  to  the
Independence  Incinerator by way of Commerce
Road,  Union  Lake  Road, Cooley  Lake Road,
Williams  Lake  Road,  Airport   Road and
Andersonville  Road.  Rail  transportation  is
available  approximately  1/4  mile  from this
transfer site.

     Public water and sewer facilities  are available
to the  site through the village of Milford system.
A small pumping station and force main will be
required in order to service the proposed station
with sewers.

     The vehicular equipment required to service
the Milford transfer station will include 4 tractors
and  17 refuse trailers. This equipment will be able
to supply the needs of the  station over a 16 hour
period.
Oxford Transfer Station

     The  Oxford transfer  station is  situated in
southeastern  Oxford Township. It is  located on
land currently zoned for industrial use and is well
isolated from existing or potential dwellings. The
four unit  Oxford transfer station will route refuse
to the Avon  incinerator during the 1970 - 1980
decade. The route for delivering this refuse will be
US Route 24 and M-59 to Crooks Road exit. The
Oxford Station can  be serviced by  the Grand
Trunk Railroad which has a spur track adjacent to
the proposed site.

     Utility  service  for  the  Oxford  Transfer
Station will  be  a  combination  of  private  and
public supply.  Water can  be supplied from the
Oxford Village system  which  has a  water main
within one mile of the proposed site. No  sewer
service is  available however and a private disposal
facility must be included at this location.

     The  equipment  necessary  to   service  the
Oxford Transfer Station will be 3 tractor units
and 8 transfer  trailers during the first decade of
operation.
Troy Transfer Station

     We propose  that the Troy Transfer Station
occupy the ground on Coolidge Road now being
considered for a transfer station site by SEOCIA.
The  land  at  this  site is zoned  for industrial use
and  there is little  isolation  from  surrounding
development. A railroad on the west side of the
property  will separate  the transfer station  site
from residential development. The rest of the area
in  the  vicinity  of the  proposed  station is
industrially developed.

     We propose  that the Troy Transfer Station
be  large  enough to accommodate  6 transfer
trailers at  one time. The transfer routes from the
Troy  Transfer Station  would be via Maple  and
Crooks Roads to the Avon incinerator site. We
have mentioned that the Grand Trunk Railroad
abuts the property considered for this station site.

     All  public   utilities  are  available  for  this
transfer station.

     We recommend that the site purchased be a
minimum  of 12 acres in size. The transfer station
will  become obsolete  at  the  end of  the first
decade  since increasing  refuse  production in its
service area will be able  to support an incinerator.
Future incinerator construction will require the
additional land.

     The  vehicular equipment  needed to  service
the Troy  Transfer Station consists of 6  tractor
units and  16 trailers. This  total includes standby
equipment necessary for this station to operate
24 hours a day.
Residue Disposal

     Residue generated by the incinerator plants
under Plan A will be taken to the ash disposal site
in Addison Township. The site is situated in the
western  portion  of  Addison  Township  and
consists of land not presently used for agricultural
purposes. The land can be reached by the Grand
Trunk Railroad  or  by highways. In  order to
utilize  road  transportation  of  residue,
approximately   3  miles of  highways  must  be
                                               66

-------
brought  to  the Class A  standard of the Oakland
County Road Commission.

     The disposal site should have capacity for
approximately 5500 acre feet of residue over the
20  year  life of this project. The 5500 acre feet
will include approximately 20% cover material,
and about 15% will be devoted to bulk refuse and
hazardous refuse disposal. The capacity of the site
is based  on  the assumption that 50% compaction
of residue can be achieved in  the landfill. A large
parcel of land will  be required for the residue
disposal  area.  To  achieve the 5500 acre  foot
capacity in a single site will require approximately
275 acres of land if fill depths reach 20 feet. If
this parcel  of land  is square  and a  500  foot
isolation distance is maintained between the edges
of the property and the  actual fill, 460 acres of
land will be required. Fill depths up to 80 feet are
possible  in  certain areas  in the vicinity selected
for residue disposal. The effect of greater depth is
to  reduce the  area  of land required for residue
disposal. There are several parcels of land suitable
for residue disposal in western Addison Township
from which the final choice may be selected.

     Heavy  equipment will be required to operate
the  residue disposal fill. We  believe  that  1
bulldozer with a 250 ton per  shift capacity and a
front  loader  with  approximately  the  same
capacity will be required  to operate the landfill
on  a 24 hour a day basis. A  self-loading scraper
pan  for  moving  dirt  from  remote  areas and
digging trenches should be provided. This piece of
equipment can also  be used to cover the residue
after it has been compacted. A large building with
about 3600  square feet  of space  should  be
provided at the site to  store the vehicles on
weekends and provide space for minor repair and
maintenance. This building will consist of a light
metal structure with a foundation and an  earthen
floor in  the  areas  in which the  vehicles will
operate.  This building can house a small office, or
a portable trailer unit could be provided  for this
purpose.  Water  and  sanitary  facilities must  be
provided.
              Plan A- 1980-1990

     Construction of facilities  in  the  decade
1980-1990 will complete the incinerator program
for Oakland County. These are shown on Figure
No.  16.  At this time the Farmington incinerator
will  add its  fourth 400 ton per day furnace to
bring its capacity to 1600 tons per day. The Troy
incinerator will  be  built on  the site of the Troy
transfer  station. This incinerator will provide for
4 - 500 ton per day furnaces, of which 3 will be
installed at the beginning of the period. A fourth
furnace,  which will bring the total rated capacity
to 2,000 tons per day, will be  needed at the end
of the design period.

     The secondary transport system will  be
revised.  The  Troy  transfer  station will   be
eliminated and no additional transfer stations are
anticipated. The Milford site  will continue to split
its load  between the Waterford and Farmington
incinerators.  The  Oxford  transfer  station will
begin transferring  refuse  to the Independence
incinerator  in the  second decade  of operation.
This will relieve the Avon incinerator to preserve
capacity for the rapid development anticipated in
its  service area.  The  service  area  of the Troy
incinerator  will  be  the  northern  portion   of
SEOCIA and much of Bloomfield Township. No
added   highway  construction  is anticipated
because  of  the  additions  to the refuse disposal
plant occurring in  the  1980-1990 period.
     The following table presents a summary of
the furnace sizes and  transfer station  equipment
needed at each site for the periods 1970-1980 and
1980-1990. The  information contained in this
summary  is  used to  estimate  the  cost of  the
proposed project.

        ESTIMATED EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
                     PLAN A
 INCINERATORS   Installed
                Capacity
                T/D *
 Avon
     1970-1980
     1980-1990
 Farmington
     1970-1980
     1980-1990
 Independence
     1970-1980
     1980-1990
 Troy
     1980-1990
Ash
Truck
Tractors


  1
  1

  2
  3

  2
  2
1300
1625

1200
1600

1500
1500

1500          4

* 6 - 24 hour workdays per week
Ash
Truck
Trailers


 3
 5

 3
 5

 4
 5
                                               67

-------
B.F. = BINGHAM FARMS
H WOS = HUNTINGTON WOODS
HAZ. PK.= HAZEL PARK
PR. = PLEASANT  RIDGE
WCF. = WOOD CREEK FARMS
D
EXISTING SEOCIA INCINERATOR
PROPOSED  INCINERATOR
PROPOSED  TRANSFER STATION
PROPOSED  RESIDUE HAUL ROUTE
PROPOSED  TRANSFER ROUTE
COMBINED  RESIDUE  AND TRANSFER  ROUTE
INCINERATOR  DIRECT  SERVICE AREA
TRANSFER  STATION  SERVICE  AREA
ROUTE  IMPROVEMENT AREA
EXISTING PAVED ROAD SYSTEM
                                         PLAN  A
                                     1980-1990 DECADE
                                                                            01   2345
                                                                                SCALE IN MILES
                                                      FIGURE 16
                                              68

-------
TRANSFER
STATIONS
               Installed
               Capacity
               T/D
Transfer
Truck
Tractors
Transfer
Truck
Trailers
Milford
1970-1980
1980-1990
Oxford
1970-1980
1980-1990
Troy
1970-1980
RESIDUE
DISPOSAL SITE


300


200


850
250 T/D
Bulldozer
1

4
4

3
3

6
250 T/D
Front- Loader
1

17
23

8
16

16
Self -load
Pan 10CY
1
                Cost of Program

     At the present time all factors affecting costs
of refuse disposal cannot be  known. Previously
we pointed out that haul distance for the transfer
vehicles,  cost   of land  and   the  number  and
location of participating  communities will affect
the final cost. Therefore, the costs denoted in the
following  tables  and  discussion  assume  total
participation  of all  governmental units  in the
County, adequate manpower and equipment, and
the  haul routes indicated  on the  Plates.  Cost
figures are thus only  an indication of actual costs
that may be encountered.

     We have prepared a  table which is presented
on the next  page indicating the capital costs and
annual  cost  for each decade  of operation until
1990. This Table has been broken down to major
items  including administration,  incinerators,
residue  disposal, transfer stations and convenience
centers.  Twenty  percent has  been allowed  for
engineering and contingencies  on all capital costs
for which this  would apply.  Figures presented for
annual  cost include amortization, operation and
maintenance together with utilities and necessary
supplies.

     Incinerator costs  shown  in  the table  are a
summation of all incinerators proposed. The cost
of  incineration  construction  and  operation  is
distributed as follows:
Incinerator
               Capital Cost
           1970-1980   1980-1990
Avon      $10.575,500$    -    $1,672,000
Farmington    9,882,500  2,242,000  1,792,000
Independence 10,324,500     —     1,913,000
Troy         -      15,076,000
    Average Annual Cost
    1970-1980  1980-1990
            $1,882,200
             2,242,000
             2,204,400
             3,790,300
     Transfer station cost estimates shown in the
following table apply to each station. The capital
cost of land and construction for  each station
together with annual operating cost is as follows:
                                                   Transfer Station
                                                   Transfer Station

                                                   Milford
                                                   Oxford
                                                   Troy
                                                                  Capital Cost
                                                                  Capital Cost
                                                                  $
                                         890,700
                                         501,900
                                        1,850,000
                                                     Totals        $3,242,600
                                                        The high cost of the
                                                   the estimated price of land.
                                       1970-1980     1980-1990
                                          Average Annual Cost
                                       1970-1980     1980-1990
                                       $  517,600     $  692,300
                                          427,000       517,000
                                        1,031,600        31,700

                                       $1,976,200     $1,241,000

                                      Troy station  is due to
                                                        In reviewing the table one will note that the
                                                   annual  average cost  of transfer station operation
                                                   decreases in the  1980-1990 decade. This decrease
                                                   is brought about by  eliminating the Troy transfer
                                                   station  and substituting the Troy incinerator.

                                                        The cost of the program can be expressed in
                                                   terms of cost per ton  of refuse delivered. This
                                                   method of cost accounting provides a ready way
                                                   to charge customers. The various  phases  of the
                                                   program  reduced to  the  cost per  ton are listed
                                                   below   based  on  average  tons  for  each decade.
                                                   Convenience centers  cost is apportioned over the
                                                   entire   County  tonnage  in   this  table.  An
                                                   alternative method of financing would permit the
                                                   individual townships to pay the capital  cost of
                                                   convenience  centers  within then- boundaries and
                                                   operation   only  would  be  distributed
                                                   County-wide.  This method  of   financing  is
                                                   discussed in more detail under the section entitled
                                                   "Implementing the Program".
                                                   Item
                                                                   Cost Tabulation $/Ton

                                                                            1970-1980
                                                   Administration              $  .32
                                                   Incinerators                  5.37
                                                   Incinerators                   .76
                                                   Secondary Transportation        1.97
                                                   Convenience Centers            1.81

                                                             Total            $10.23
                                                             1980- 1990

                                                              $  .29
                                                                7.13
                                                                1.19
                                                                 .87
                                                                1.59
                                                              $11.07
  Totals    $31,382,500 $17,318,000 $5,377,000 $10,118,900
                 The figures  listed in the above tabulation
            indicate the approximate cost of each phase of
            the refuse disposal program under Plan A. These
            cost  figures  do  not account for operating  or
            administrative costs of SEOCIA but are indicative
            of the unit  cost per ton for service to all portions
            of the County including the surplus received from
            the Authority. These cost estimates are based  on
                                                69

-------
(0
o g
en 5 ^

rn cn O
ro 2
>

"co
O)
2 c 0
5 w
(Tl '~* ®
y; Q. o
CO
o
cfl
fe »
0 §§
W *-  	
.«» -D 2 is 2
'E J3 m > S.


o
o
CO
1^
in



8
CO
f^
in


o
o
CO
P^
in










o
o
co
p^
in




o
o
CO




8
CO

OO O O O
oo o o o
*- o oo r~- a>
co" CD" in" «- oo"
•T CM CM CO "-
CM !••*«-_
co" co" o"

o o o o o
o o o o o
«— O CO O r~
•— co ro co co
O CM CM O «-
^ ^ o^
co" •*" o"

o o o o o
o o o o o
•— o co in CM
in co CM o «-
en CM CM CM CM
o ^\n
co" n en"
888
o o o
§00" oo"
.- «-
CO CO
E ^


o o o o o
o o o o o
CO O •- O O
co CD in in i^
en CM *— co r^
CM O) CO
co" «-" in"


o o o o o
o o o o o
CO O •- * t
cs co r^ co co
en CM r- CM CM
CO CO CO
co" CM" in"

§0000
o o o o
in o CM CD CD
r^ i~~ co co CD o
in co CM •- «* co





o
8
in
















o
4-*
ro -o

c
i— co en
co" «-" <*"



§OO 0
o o o
o in in
O f CO CM
o CM ^- co
CO CO CO
o" <-"
CO CO



"ra
0
H
& 1

T3 '^
m D
c c
.2 .2


13 D Qj 	
||| 2



888
en o co
— en co
^- «- in



o o O
o o o
en en co
— o oo
•* CM m


o o o
o o o
ro i- co
•— r^ oo
•* .- in










888
en co co
•- in oo
M- ^ in




888
O5 t- CO
«- r~ oo
•a- •- in



888
52S





§o o
o o
00 •tf'
co CM r-.
CM ^- CM
in r-








01
c
.— (/>
-a -o
.— to
3 O
_ cocc
S c c
o o 2
D_ 't-* '+^
in 00
5 § §
0) "O ys (/i

CC


8OOOOO
O O O O O
in in o «-
SCM t^
«- co
CO CO


o o o o
o o o o
in TJ- in •«•
in r~ •*
co «- o>
1^ !•»


§000
o o o
CD •* 00
in oo en
in o r^
in in

g
o
CM"

co



o o o o
o o o o
in ^- in in
in oo CM
oo r- CD
<- CM



o o o o
So o o
«* o oo
CO O
r^ oo
o oo
(N CO
•-"

0 0
So
TO
co <—
CM TO
«-'

§Q
Q
^~
CM ^
1^ CO

*~~
8
o
CM"
^
CO



§o
Q
CM
ro CM
.- CD




§o
0
TO TO
"* CD O TO 00
<— CM r^ co co
CM CO


8888
co «- •*
in co in
T- CM




8§ §
co en CM
TO F^








C
o c
^ '+-> o
•r: ra '&
•- t ra
~ 0 t
5 a &-D
{- C 05 X
CD C ^"
O k_ (Q (C
•*3 H ,™ -1
° U> t— 05

a." 2^
§-S^-£
0 >Q!>

.- 00


88
o co
ro in
TO in
co




8
o
CO
,_r




2
o
I-
co



_
c
ro

_^
"5
>-
£


o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o
CO CO CO CD CO TO O
CM *- ro" in" r» co" «-
CO CD CM TO •- •*
CM 00 CM
.-"

80 o o o o o
o o o o o o
co co oo co co co i^
CM ro TO in CM CM co
CO CD CM CM LO O
CO TO t
•-"

o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o
CO TO CO CO O «- CN
CM oo TO in co in in
co in CM i^ r^ p~
CM CD O_
*—








So o o o o o
o o o o o o
oo o oo co in co co
CM" !•-' ro" in" o" o" CD"
co CD CM TO in r~
in CM ro
«— " ,-T


o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o
00 O CO CD CO CO CO
CM o ro in ^- co co
co r» CM co CD co
CO ^CM
•-"CM"

goooooo
00 TO GO CO 00 ^* CO
CM co ro in co r~ CD
CO CD CM •- CO CO
in o CD
r-"r-~



88888 8
O ^" *1* 00 O CD
co ^r CM TO o CM
r^ CM CM •- o ^>
co in «- co TO CM
«-" co"




1
0
1-
3
0) o, tO

	 ._ O}
TJ .ti "O
ill
c tec
o o o o
'+-1 '— " ', .
"2 0 O O „,
fn 3 3 3  r^
TO CO
TO




o o o
o o o
O 1^ TO
CM CO TO
^f ro ^f
CM CO CM
CM"

o o o
o o o
CM TO O
o in LO
oo >a- in
CM O 't
•-"CM"

o o o
o o o
OO CD 00
CO <- *±
o ^ ^~
CM 1^ O
CM"
§o
o
in TO
oo" TO"
in
CM



o o o
o o o
O 00 00
co oo «-
<- in oo
r— "


§00000
o o o o o
OO CO O CO O CM
•* »- CM
O r»
o
•—

o o o
o o o
co CM »r
«3" CO CM
TO CO
ro




•* TO CM
oo oo in
«- CO OT_
•~

888
in co CM
co co in
CO OO 00
*— rf co
^-"



o o o o o
§000 o
O O ^" *3"
o «- «-
co o i^
CM •-
,_"







C3)
c
'•D
fe '5
*; 00
c
o o
o> 'g g

c ? .E
Q) £ co
'^ "O W •*->
>388
8
CM CD
^J"




3
o
1-
J3
CO







S 	
" 0
1 "
> 0.


o
o

in"
o

in
£
8
o
ro"

t-.~
w
8

,_"
CO
CM
S
o
o
TO
TO"

TO
r--"


o
o
co"
in
CM
o"


o
o
co"
CO
CM
S

O
o
CM
ro"
CO
CM
TO"

O)
—
c
o
O
»3
S
a>
LL.
O)
C

's
c
LU

a>
•o

"o
c
*

70

-------
information contained in the text of this Report
and in tables in the Appendix.
              Omission of Pontiac
                                    The unit  cost  per ton resulting from the
                               above  savings  is  higher  than  if Pontiac  were
                               included. This results from a reduction in annual
                               tonnage and is  itemized  below for the  1970 -
                               1980 decade:
     Thus far,  our discussion has  assumed that
the  City  of  Pontiac  will  participate  in  the
county-wide  program. The City, with  its own
successful landfill program may choose to remain
independent. Such a choice will have a noticeable
impact upon the County program.

     If the City operates its own facilities, two of
the incinerators proposed under Plan A would be
altered to  accommodate  the  reduced load. The
Avon Incinerator  originally to have a  1300 ton
per day capacity would  require only about 950
tons per  day.  We recommend construction to
include three 325 ton per day furnaces in 1970.
The  reduced   capacity  of  the  Independence
Incinerator would be 750 tons per day installed in
1970, with provision  to  expand in  the  second
decade by adding one more  375 tons per  day
furnace. Provision for expansion should be left in
the event Pontiac should decide to join a County
program.

     The  remaining  construction under Plan A
would remain unchanged. However, material from
the Oxford Transfer Station would be routed to
the Avon Incinerator.
                                 Administration
                                 Incineration
                                 Residue Disposal
                                 Secondary Transportation
                                 Convenience Centers
                               Unit Cost/ton
                               $ 0.42
                                 6.34
                                 0.97
                                 2.61
                                 2.40

                               $12.74
                                                  PLANE

                                    Plan  B  sets  forth a program  which  will
                               include  all  members  of the  Oakland  County
                               community  who  are not  members  of  the
                               SEOCIA.  Refuse  that  originates outside  the
                               Authority and can be burned will be delivered to
                               incinerator sites located throughout the County
                               under Plan  B.  A  secondary  transport system
                               similar to that proposed under Plan A will be
                               used. Rural areas will be served by a convenience
                               center program.

                                    Figure No. 17 on  the page following shows
                               conditions under Plan B for the first decade from
                               1970- 1980.
     If the City of Pontiac is omitted from Plan
A,  the  capital cost of  the program would  be
reduced  by $3,640,000 in  the  first decade as
follows:
Avon
Independence
Avon
Independence
        1970 - 1980
Plan A         Without Pontiac
$10,575,500     $9,375,500
 10,924,500      8,484,500

        1980 - 1990
Plan A         Without Pontiac

              $1,710,000
     The savings in  annual cost  will amount to
$603,800 as follows:

  Amortization of Capital Cost           $280,000
  Salaries                           186,000
  Residue disposal                      27,800
  Operation & Maintenance of Equipment   100,000
Incinerators

     Two incinerators are shown on the Plate for
construction in the first  decade of  operation.
These two incinerators are located in Farmington
and in  Independence  Townships.  The  name
designation  and  location  of  each  of these
incinerators is similar to  those of Plan A, that is,
the Farmington Incinerator and the Independence
Incinerator.  The locations shown on the Plate for
these incinerators are approximate and no specific
                                               71

-------
                                         FARM1NGTOW
                                            I OUAKERTOWN
B.F. ' BINQHAM FARMS
H.WOS.= HUNTINGTON WOODS'
HAZ. PK.= HAZEL PARK
R R. = PLEASANT RIOOE
W.C.F. = WOOD CREEK FARMS
   Q    EXISTING SEOCIA INCINERATOR
   M    PROPOSED  INCINERATOR
   A    PROPOSED  TRANSFER STATION
•••••-» PROPOSED  RESIDUE HAUL ROUTE
«•••«•» PROPOSED  TRANSFER ROUTE
«••••• COMBINED RESIDUE  AND TRANSFER ROUTE
         INCINERATOR  DIRECT  SERVICE  AREA
         TRANSFER  STATION SERVICE  AREA
 0//J/JJ  ROUTE  IMPROVEMENT  AREA
 	 EXISTING PAVED ROAD SYSTEM
                                          PLAN   B
                                      1970-1980 DECADE
                                                                             01  2345
                                                                                 SCALE IN MILES
                                                               FIGURE 17
                                              72

-------
parcel of land has been chosen for a construction
site.  In  the  following paragraphs we will discuss
the  general  aspects of  each  of  these  two
incinerators.
Farmington Incinerator

     The   Farmington  Incinerator has  been
located in western Farmington Township on land
which  is industrially  zoned.  Land prices in this
area are very high for land currently selling in the
Farmington Industrial Park.  If  this is  an
indication  of the high  cost  of land, it  may be
desirable to move the location of the Farmington
Incinerator to a presently undeveloped residential
area within reasonable distance of our proposed
site. Any  movement of the incinerator site must
be  planned  to avoid the location of proposed
highway  1-275.   This highway will be  located
crossing diagonally  across Farmington Township
and meeting 1-96  near the  Novi-Farmington
Township   line.  The  proposed  site  of the
Farmington  Incinerator is   isolated  from  any
extensive residential or  commercial development
by  nearly  a  mile.  Noise and traffic  problems
created by movement to and  from an incinerator
site  located  in this remote  area  of Farmington
Township will be reduced by the relationship of
the site to the Highway 1-96.

     Farmington  Incinerator  should  be
constructed  for   an  ultimate capacity  of 1,600
tons  of  refuse   daily.   This  capacity   will  be
provided by  4 furnaces  of  400  tons  per day
capacity each. All four  of the proposed furnaces
should be installed in the Farmington incinerator
site in the 1970  - 1980 decade. Highway service
to the Farmington Incinerator site is  excellent.
The existing Interstate Highway system provides
access  within 2  miles of the intended  site and
connections to existing  north-south highways in
Oakland County  through U.S. 24. The proposed
Highway  1-275 connecting to 1-75 in Springfield
Township will provide a rapid north-south traffic
movement  across the western central portion of
Oakland County.

     Railroad access is approximately 3-1/2 miles
from the location of the Farmington Incinerator.
In  the  event rail  transportation of refuse  or
residue is desirable in the future, transfer  stations
for  this purpose can be  located on land available
adjacent  to  this  railroad,  or  a railroad  spur
constructed to  the  site. Transportation by rail
must be a cooperative arrangement between the C
& O Railroad and the Grand  Trunk Railroad to
arrive at the residue disposal site proposed later in
this section.

     The   site  proposed  for the  Farmington
Incinerator is presently serviced with public water
and  sewer facilities.  These  utilities do not reach
into the  proposed  site at  this  time but are
sufficiently close so that no problem in their use
is foreseen.

     The   Farmington  Incinerator  should  be
supplied with  one semi-tractor  unit  and three
residue trailers.
Independence Incinerator

     The Independence Incinerator is located in
the  extreme  southwestern  corner  of  the
Township.  The  site  is isolated  from  present
development  by  approximately a  mile  on  the
northerly   and   easterly  sides.  Further
encroachment from this  direction is  restricted
because  of  a  lake and  swampy  land  in  the
immediate  vicinity.  To the  south and west of the
selected site the land is virtually vacant.

     The   capacity  of   the  Independence
Incinerator should be for a total of  1,875 tons per
day of refuse. The installation should include 4 —
375  ton per  day units in the first  decade. These
will  produce  a  1,500  ton  a  day capacity under
initial  construction.  The  additional  capacity
supplied by the fifth furnace can  be installed in
the second  decade.

     The   Independence   Incinerator  site  is
approximately 2 miles southerly from U.S. Route
10 and the distance to the  closest interchange on
1-75  is  about 3-1/2 miles. Route  1-75  provides
connections with most north-south highways in
the County and through U.S. Route 24 provides
accessibility to 1-96.

     The site is served by   the  Grand  Trunk
Railroad which abuts the property.

     The Independence Incinerator is located on
a site without water or sewer service available. If
                                              73

-------
construction takes place in the immediate future,
water supply  must  be from wells  and sewage
treatment must be done by private facilities. The
Oakland  County Department  of Public Works is
currently  planning to construct a major  trunk
sewer system  in the  Clinton-Oakland  project in
the near future. This sewer system will provide a
24 inch trunk sanitary sewer  near the location of
the Independence  Incinerator. When this  sewer
system is operative, connection to it  should be
made from the incinerator so that public  sewer
service is provided.

     The Independence Incinerator site should be
equipped  with one residue tractor unit and two
40 cubic yard semi-trailer units.
Secondary Transportation

     Refuse originating in areas of the County for
which  transportation time to  the incinerator is
excessive will be  serviced by transfer stations.
Two  transfer stations  will  be  located  in  the
County under Plan B, in Highland Township and
in Oxford Township. Locations of these transfer
stations are shown by Figure No.  17 and are the
result  of travel time studies  made  during  the
course of this investigation.
The Highland Transfer Station

     The  Highland  Transfer  Station  will  be
located  in the  central  portion  of  Highland
Township  on  land that is  currently  zoned for
industrial use.  The  area  in which  the transfer
station  is  located   contains  several  scattered
residential  units. The transfer station  has  been
located as far as possible from the dwellings.

     The transfer station at Highland should have
four stalls for loading transfer trailers. The station
will remain open 16 hours a day  for use by local
citizenry  and   transportation  vehicles  would
operate on the  highways during the  similar  16
hour period.

     Refuse brought to the Highland  Station will
be transported  to  the Farmington incinerator.
Travel will be via Milford Road  and 1-96 to the
Grand  River   Avenue  interchange.  Rail
transportation is available on the site.
     Public  water and sewer  facilities  are  not
available at the Highland site. Water supply must
be by well and sewage facilities will be by private
system to serve the site only.

     The  vehicular equipment required  by  the
Highland  transfer station in the first decade  will
be  2  tractor  units  and  18  —  80  cubic yard
capacity open  semi-trailers.  This equipment  will
supply  the  requirements  of the station for 16
hour operation during the first decade.
Oxford Transfer Station

     The  Oxford Transfer  Station  is  situated
southeast  of Oxford Village in Oxford Township.
The  land  on  which the station is proposed  is
currently  zoned for  industrial use and is suitably
isolated from potential construction. The Oxford
transfer station is proposed large  enough for 4
trailer  stalls.  Material  brought to the Oxford
transfer  station  will  be  routed  to  the
Independence  incinerator during the first decade
of operation.  The route for delivering  refuse to
this site will be by U.S. Route 24 and 1-75.

     The  Oxford Station can be serviced by the
Grand  Trunk  Railroad,  which  has a spur track
adjacent to the proposed site.

     Utility  service at the Oxford transfer station
will  be a  combination  of private  and public
supply. Public water supply is available from the
water  system  of Oxford Village.   Sewer service
must be  supplied by private  disposal  facilities
included in the planning for this location.
Residue Disposal

     Residue  generated  by  incinerator  plants
under Plan B  would be taken to an ash disposal
site  along  the  Independence-Orion  Township
boundary. Portions of the  land considered for this
residue  disposal site are currently being used for
agricultural purposes. Part of the land is presently
marsh  land. The site  can be reached  either by
railroad or highway. Approximately  2-1/2 miles
of County  Road must  be brought  to Class  A
standard if  highway transportation is used.  For
complete rail transportation approximately 3-1/2
miles of railroad spur must be constructed to the
                                               74

-------
site or supplemental transportation by truck must
be  provided from an unloading  station on  the
railroad.

     The  disposal  site  must  have  capacity
available  for  approximately 4,300 acre feet  of
residue over the 20 year life of the project. This
volume  of  material  will include  20%  cover
material and about 15% devoted to bulk refuse
and hazardous refuse disposal. The site capacity is
based  on  an assumed  50% compaction  of  the
residue arriving at the landfill.  A large  parcel of
land will be required for residue disposal area.
Two hundred twenty acres of land are required to
provide sufficient capacity if fill depths of 20 feet
are achieved. Assuming  a square area with 500
feet of isolation in any direction from the fill area
to the edges of the property, a parcel of 380 acres
should be purchased.

     The heavy  equipment required  to operate
the residue disposal fill will include one bulldozer,
one front loader and a pan. We estimate that 250
ton  per  shift  capacity units for  loader and
bulldozer will be sufficient for operation on a 24
hour a day  basis. The self-loading scraper pan for
moving dirt and digging trenches should  have a
capacity from 8 to 10 cubic yards. An equipment
storage shed  should be  provided in which the
vehicles  can be placed when not in operation  or
for minor repairs and oil change. This building
will be a light prefabricated metal structure with
foundation  and earthen floors in the areas which
the vehicles will operate. This building  can also
house  a small office  or a portable trailer unit
could be provided near  the entrance  to the site
for office facilities. Equipment can be hauled by
low-boy  tractor  trailer  unit to  the central
maintenance building for major repairs. Water and
sewer facilities should be provided.
              PlanB- 1980-1990

     Construction  of  facilities  in  the  decade
1980-1990 will complete  the incinerator program
for Oakland  County  exclusive of the area served
by  SEOCIA. The Independence incinerator will
add its  fifth  furnace  in this decade, bringing its
capacity  to  1,875   tons per  day. The  Avon
incinerator will be constructed  on the same site
proposed  under Plan A, 325 ton per day furnaces
for a total capacity of 1,625 tons per day. Figure
No. 18 indicates Plan B for the second decade.

     The Avon Incinerator will  be situated  on
land  zoned for industrial use  and well isolated
from  current housing development.  The site is
approximately  two  miles  from  an interchange
with M-59, which provides easy access to 1-75 and
U.S.  24.  The Grand  Trunk Railroad operates a
line abutting the proposed site. Public water and
sewer service  may be available from  the City of
Rochester or sewer service may be available from
the  Clinton-Oakland  system.  Both systems  are
about 2-1/2 miles distant from the proposed plant
site.  Three trailers and 2 tractor  units will  be
needed for residue disposal at the Avon site under
Plan B.

     The  following  tabulation summarizes
furnace   sizes and  transportation  equipment
needed  for  each  site  during  the  periods
1970-1980 and 1980-1990. The  information in
the summary is used to estimate the costs of the
proposed project.

       ESTIMATED EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
                     PLAN  B
INCINERATORS
Avon
    1980-1990
Farmington
    1970-1980
    1980-1990
Independence
    1970-1980
    1980-1990
TRANSFER
STATIONS

Highland
    1970-1980
    1980-1990
Oxford
    1970-1980
    1980-1990

RESIDUE
DISPOSAL SITE
Installed
Capacity
 T/D *

1625

1600
1600
                           Ash
                           Truck
                           Tractors
1500          1
1875          1
* 6 - 24 hour workdays per week
            Ash
            Truck
            Trailers
Installed
Capacity
 T/D

 450
 450

 250
 250

250 T/D
Bulldozer
Transfer
Truck
Tractors

  3
  4

  3
  3

250 T/D
Front-Loader
Transfer
Truck
Trailers

 18
 27

  9
 13

Self-load
Pan 10 CY
                1           1           1
                Cost of Program

     The  costs presented in this section are an
indication  of  the  actual  costs which may be
                                               75

-------
B.F : BIN6HAM FARMS
H.WDS. = HUNTINGTON WOODS
HAZ PK.= HAZEL PARK
RR = PLEASANT  RIDGE
W C F. = WOOD CREEK FARMS
D
•
A
EXISTING SEOCIA INCINERATOR
PROPOSED  INCINERATOR
PROPOSED  TRANSFER STATION
PROPOSED  RESIDUE HAUL ROUTE
PROPOSED  TRANSFER ROUTE
COMBINED RESIDUE  AND TRANSFER  ROUTE
INCINERATOR  DIRECT  SERVICE  AREA
TRANSFER  STATION  SERVICE AREA
ROUTE  IMPROVEMENT AREA
EXISTING PAVED ROAD SYSTEM
                                         PLAN  B
                                     1980-1990  DECADE
                                             76
                                                                            01  2345
                                                                                SCALE IN MILES
                                                      FIGURE 18

-------


























CO
0
U
OS

z

_J
0.




























re
0 c
cn ~
co 5 ^
f- < tr
cS QJ ^ >
00 g>U
O) ^-
T— Qj
>

0 "CD ^
115
*^

§15 ^
i 8
cn c o
i_ c o
**

^
o — «--
oo S S
co ~ ,3

U



15
o 2
oo c
cn 5 «-
O ^ rj
cn i_
«— QJ
3


_
00 ^ ^
°> C CJ
^


15
2 §3
"*

*
r~ ™ g
- £°
0






1 1 1


H
LU
n
^
m


88888
O CD t^* CO i—
CM CM CO 00 P~
t «-  in <- oo
*± *— cn in
i- CM T

69
§OOOO
O O O O
CM in CM CD in
co <- o in
>- CM CO

69









ooooo
§0000
00 CD ^ 00
CM cn o CD oo
CM «— r» »-
«- «- CO


69


OOOOO
§OOOO
^f O *3" 00
CM in CM co in
CO r- O LO
«- CM CO

69
88888
O CM CO CO 00
CM ^J- CO CO •—
CM "» 00
i- t- CM

69
§88 8
in o CM i—
CM in T- co
°. °.
<_" ,— "
69
15
o

1





O in
ti c"_w =
fe _ « y O
'£ -1 CO > Cv
— 00 CO 00 00 00
co CM r- r~- cn in
<— in i^
in" CM" t-T

o O o o
O O o o
o .
.E Jj o o > cc
c

ooooooooo
ooooooooo
cocooinoomcoi-^cn
CNcncn inoor^r^o

*- CO CM CM O_
T^T


§00000000
OOOOOOOO
coooinr^oincoco
CM'— cn 'S-cocncoco
cocMin incMcn^co
«- CO CO CM CM
•— "

88888§§§8
coinoincnocM»— in
co »— in incor^r^^1
T- CM CM »— CO


o o o
o o o
°. °. °,
co" ^" r»"
CM CD CO





§00000000
OOOOOOOO
cocooin«— co*" IT)T—
CMcocn ^ i^ oo »— CM
co <— in ocn^-cnin
^- ^- in





8 OOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOO
C*4 CO O C* CO ^ 1*^ (O
co^-in cM'-moo
>- ^ <- «- CO


ooooooooo
ooooooooo
oo«— oinr^coi^cnoo
CM^-cn coOt-inr-~
co^-in coooTfrr-o


§0000 o o
o o o o o o
o oo CM o in m o
o CM in co co CM o
in •* co o co r~
 .2 £ w
c „ ^ <- .°
2 | 5 g g
'3 o -s 2 ^ = _
_ op or z> & g^ =

O OOOk-^coc
£ OOO^H^-J

Qj-otntot/l.y O.O O
!.§<§ !<§>£> £
cc

ooo ooo oooooo
§00 ooo oooooo
inco oor^.^- inoocnoi^cn
CMincN fcocn incncocMcocn

CO 00 CM O CM 00 CM
»-" r-" CM"


ooo ooo oooooo
ooo ooo oooooo
oocnco »— ^f oo inincocMcno
CM oo" CM" in CM" «- in in" r--~ o" in" m"
t coinrj- cMcncO'i-in
•^ cn ^t o CM o *±
>-" ^-" «-" CM"

ooo ooo oooooo
OOO' OOO OOOOOO
oo o co cooo inocnoocooo
CM" CM" CM" «»" in" P^" in" ^t" cn co" «- «*•"
^- cor--in *— p^o^^f
CO CO O O_ CM p~ O_
«-~ i— " CM"

o o o o o o o
CD co in T— co to cn
co" co" OO"CM"O"OO" cn"
«- «- «- co in
CO CO «- «- CM




ooo ooo oooooo
ooo ooo oooooo
oo CM CD r- in oo oo «*• CM r- r-. r-
^- <-cnin cncocooO'-
CM "S- r- cn «- in co_
T—




OOO OOO OOOOOO
ooo ooo oooooo
OOOCD CMn0^" OOCDOCOOCM
CM" CM" CM" in" oo" «- ir i- CM" ^r" cn" CM"
^ ^P*-^ Of^-oocoin
CM in co o_ «- co cn
T— *—

OOO OOO OOOOOO
ooo ooo oooooo
OOCOCD CMCM«- OOCM^-mcOCM
CM oo" CM oo" o" CM rf co" CM" co oo" in"
co oD'-^f cncocooooo
«— ^ CD cn i— ^ co
•—*

800 o o oooo o
oo o o oooo o
mrrcM p» cn O»-«-CD oo
co«-co t- cn toop~<- •*
CO CD CO CM >- CM CO
^J* ,_r

- -
o o
r- 1-
-0 J2
gjg J3 g. cn
III 2
D '^ o 5 '5
« °P=":F Z °°
c c c c a> c
•2 .2 .2 .2 t) o M
re ooow o ^0*01
yl 333^j_ ^ 3Cft> 	
i^ *-* *~* *^ O "o ^ *-" (U ^ ^
!r "O CO w) tn .— P •= *n cn +-J .— P
•ffccccjrt gccc^t
uireooocjj SraOO«>re
c — I O O O > o- c — I O O > i
H a

o
o
cn"

^~
co"

w
0
in
cn"
CO
f"
w
S
cn
co"
in

CM"
69
o
o
in
CM"

CM
o"
CM
69

§
Ifl
CO
r^.
in
r*.

WJ


§
o"
CM
oo"
69
§
CM_
I
co"
69
§
1
,_"
S

_l
<
O










 s
'o.
 C
 o
O

o3
 c
'01
 c
LU

 £
TJ

-------
encountered in implementing this  project only.
The estimates of cost provided herein assume that
all  governmental  units  within Oakland County
will participate in the program except those now
joined in the SEOCIA.

     We have tabulated capital  cost and annual
cost for each  decade of operation below. This
listing  is  divided into  major  units  including
administration,  incinerators, residue  disposal,
transfer  stations  and  convenience  centers.  An
allowance of 20% has been made for engineering
and contingencies  on all capital cost  for  which
this would  apply. Figures  presented for annual
cost  include   amortization,  operation  and
maintenance together with utilities  and  necessary
supplies.

     Incinerator  costs are  shown  in  the first
listing. The cost of incinerator construction  and
annual operating cost is distributed as follows:
Incinerator        Capital Cost     Average Annual Cost
           1970-1980   1980-1990  1970-1980   1980-1990
Avon      $  100,000 $17,228,400 $   8,000  $3,550,900
Farmington   11,924,900     0     2,351,200   3,072,600
Independence 13,024,900  2,250,000 1,767,900   1,868,300
 Total     $25,049,800 $19,478,400 $4,127,100  $8,491,800
     Transfer station cost is estimated as follows:
Transfer
Station
Highland
Oxford

  Total
               Capital Cost     Average Annual Cost
          1970-1980  1980-1990  1970-1980  1980-1990
$605,300
 394,300
$200,700
 112,900
$999,600   $313,600
$424,800
 342,000
$756,800
$ 652,400
  597,000

$1,249,400
     The cost of the program can be expressed in
terms  of cost  per ton  of refuse delivered. This
method  of cost accounting provides a ready way
to charge customers. The cost of the phases of the
program are reduced to the cost per ton and listed
below.
                             $/Ton handled
Item                    1970-1980    1980-1990
Administration
Incinerators
Residue Disposal
Secondary Transportation
Convenience Centers
                 S .40
                  5.19
                   .69
                   .95
                  2.29
                                     $
                     .35
                    7.37
                     .95
                    1.08
                    1 95
  Total                     $9.52      $11.70
     The cost figures in the above tabulations
indicate the approximate cost  for  construction
and operation of the program under Plan B. These
                                         cost estimates are based on information contained
                                         in the text of this Report and from tables listed in
                                         the Appendix.
              Omission of Pontiac

     The City of Pontiac is currently constructing
a sanitary landfill north  of Collier Road. This
landfill will replace the Kennett Road operation
when the  latter  is filled.  The new Collier Road
site will last the  City 25  or  more years and with
the City's  long experience with sanitary landfill,
they  may  wish  to  continue  independent
operations.

     If Pontiac chooses not to become a part of
the  County  program,  we  recommend that
Farmington Incinerator be installed as originally
proposed with four 400 ton per day furnaces all
installed in 1970. The  material from Bloomfield
Township  will  all  be   burned  at the  Avon
incinerator.  The  Avon   and  Independence
incinerators will be reduced in size  if Pontiac does
not participate so that each must  be built in the
first decade.  Three 325  ton per day  furnaces
would  be required at  Avon  in 1970 and two of
the same  size at  Independence.  Each of these
plants  will need to add another furnace in 1980.
Provision should  be made  for ready expansion of
the Avon and Independence plants  in the event
Pontiac should later elect to become a part of the
County operation.

     If the City  of Pontiac  is omitted from Plan
B,  the capital cost  of the  program  would be
reduced as follows:
                                                                    1970 - 1980
                                                             Plan B
                                                                           Without Pontiac
                                         Avon
                                         Farmington
                                         Independence
                      Avon
                      Farmington
                      Independence
$ 1 00,000
1 1 ,924,900
13,024,900
1 980 -
Plan B
$17,228,400
0
2,250,000
$ 6,970,000
1 1 ,924,900
5,360,000
1990
Without Pontiac
$910,000
0
910,000
                                              The savings in annual cost over the planning
                                         period will amount to $ 1,550,100, as follows:
                                                 78

-------
   A. lortization of Capital Cost           $861,000
   Salaries                           51,100
   Residue Disposal                     54,500
   Operation & Maintenance of Equipment    583,600

     Despite the lesser annual cost produced by
reduced  operations  as  a  result  of  omitting
Pontiac,  the  unit  cost  per  ton will  increase
because  of a larger proportionate reduction  in
annual  tonnage.  The  unit  costs for  the  first
decade are listed below.
   Administration
   Incineration
   Residue Disposal
   Secondary Transportation
   Convenience Centers

        Total
       Unit Cost Per Ton
           $ 0.58
             8.25
             1.14
             1.38
             3.32

           $14.67
                 PLANS A & B

Construction Material, Fly Ash, Foundry Sand,
Liquid and Hazardous Waste Disposal

     Significant  quantities  of  material  are
produced daily in Oakland County which cannot
be   burned  in  an  ordinary   incinerator.
Construction  and  demolition  debris,  fly  ash,
foundry  sand, dead trees, non-volatile liquids and
industrial sludges are among those items which
cannot  be burned or  are difficult to burn  in
municipal  incinerators.  Based  on  replies  from
industrial  questionnaires  and  discussions  with
municipal and industrial officials,  it is prudent to
expect  that  the  following  quantities of  these
materials could be delivered to the County  for
disposal:
     Type of Waste

Construction & demolition debris
Foundry Sand
Fly Ash
Industrial Sludges & Liquids
Trees, trimmings and brush
Average Daily Quantity-CY

        60
       340
       100
        50
       100
The  disposal  of these  materials  will  require
approximately  2,700 acre feet of land volume in
the 20 year life of the program.

     Foundry sand wasted by County industry is
generally not oily and can be disposed of almost
anywhere.  It could be  used as daily  cover for
incinerator  residue.  Foundry  sand  may  be
deposited in gravel pits or other low areas, or used
to cover trees or other bulky items placed in such
holes. Foundry sand can be mixed with sludges to
make  them  more  manageable  by  the landfill
equipment.

     Fly ash is not  so  easily disposed  of  as
foundry sand.  Depending upon its size, fly ash
could become windblown if left in  the open for
any length of time. Windblown fly ash  can create
a major nuisance in the vicinity of the disposal
area. Fly ash may be mixed  with other materials
to make its disposal somewhat easier or it can  be
buried immediately upon delivery to the disposal
site.

     Construction  and  demolition  debris  is
usually large bulky material and is often difficult
to  handle.   Material  from  the  destruction  of
buildings or from  pavement removal projects is
not easily worked by bulldozers and can damage
equipment.  Certain of  this waste  is  free  from
objectionable material  and can be used to raise
low areas above high water levels without danger
of water pollution. Once in place, this  debris can
be covered with foundry sand  or earth cover and
the land so reclaimed used for further disposal or
converted to other uses.

     Industrial sludges  and liquids will be most
difficult to  handle.  Most of this  material  in
Oakland County is  now  being disposed of by the
manufacturers. It is being accepted  by industrial
disposal firms in the Detroit Area for reclaim  or
final   disposal.  These  firms  are   more
knowledgeable  of  the  characteristics  and safe
handling  of  these  materials than   municipal
employees  would be. We encourage the  continued
disposal of  industrial   sludges and liquids by
private  firms with the equipment and knowledge
to handle this material properly.
Trees and Brush

     Trees   and  trimmings  are  combustible
materials  but  they  are  difficult  to handle  in
municipal incinerators unless properly prepared.
Brush  and tree trimmings will  burn readily and
can be managed if they are  cut into lengths and
loosely bundled. Large limbs, trunks and stumps
                                                79

-------
are seldom  consumed even when cut to easily
handled lengths.

     Brush,  medium branches and  large lumber
may be burned in municipal incinerators if they
are first passed  through a  chipper.. This is a
stationary   model  somewhat  larger than  the
portable  units  frequently  employed  by
commercial  tree trimmers and power companies.
Chippers will cost about $90,000 and one should
be installed at each incinerator.

     Large  tree parts  can  be buried. Stumps and
trunks are  difficult for bulldozers  to handle.  If
they are dumped into holes or dry  pits, earth  or
foundry  sand can be used  to cover them from
above. Final earth cover can be spread after all
wood is buried and rough cover graded to restore
a natural look to old borrow pits. This method  of
tree disposal will  be  least  expensive  and  is
recommended.

     If sufficient  space cannot be found to bury
tree parts,  or if it becomes desirable for some
other reason, then a tree burner can be built.

     Large  tree parts can be burned in special
incinerators such  as the  brush burners operated
by  the City of Detroit. Tree parts  are placed  in
the brush burner  several times daily and allowed
to burn for extended periods. Ah- is supplied as in
an ordinary incinerator, but there are no grates in
the  Detroit  units.  A  brush burner  will cost
approximately $350,000 at today's  prices based
on  applying  the  Engineering News  Record
Construction Cost Index to the construction cost
of the Detroit  units. The  Avon or Independence
incinerator  sites offer the  best location for a tree
burner.
Cost of Special Waste Disposal

     Foundry  sand should  be handled at cost.
Since this material is relatively easily managed at
a fill site, the cost of residue disposal will be in
the range of $0.50 to $1.00 per ton buried. Less
manageable materials such as tree stumps, sludges,
liquids,  construction  and demolition  debris, fly
ash and bulky items will cost more to dispose of
at the fill site. The charge for disposal of these
items should be proportionately higher than for
foundry sand.
Order of Construction and Land Procurement

     It is  unlikely that  either program proposed
in this  section  of the  Report  will be  entirely
implemented at  one time. Much time is required
for  making contractual  arrangements  with
participating governments,  for  preparing plans
and  specifications,  and  for construction.  A
suggested  order of construction to permit orderly
planning of the project is proper.

     We  urge  that  all  land   for  all  future
construction be purchased as soon as financing is
available.  Early  purchase will probably  reduce
land costs below those that would be encountered
if land is  acquired  as the  need  arises.  Early
purchase  will  also  protect  the  County from
private  purchase and development of  desirable
parcels for a good solid waste program.

     The  County should first  determine the Plan
they  will develop  and obtain  contracts  with
participating governments  for  the  Farmington
Incinerator.  This unit should be  constructed first
because  of the  dense  development  of  the
contributing area and  because  of a need for
additional facilities in this  area.  The Milford or
Highland  Transfer Station should be constructed
with, or soon after  the Farmington Incinerator.
This  construction  should  be followed by  the
Avon  or  Independence Incinerators  and  their
supporting transfer stations. Convenience centers
should be constructed early in the program.
                                              80

-------
                          WAYNE COUNTY AND MACOMB COUNTY
     At this time the Detroit metropolitan region
faces a challenge of soaring  population and  a
shrinking  allotment of  space  per  person, and  a
conflict  of how to apportion  the  remaining
available space. Vast land areas must be used for
sanitary landfill for raw  refuse  or even the residue
from incineration plants.  The  rapid urbanization
in the Wayne-Oakland-Macomb County areas has
already  developed  for  private  purposes much
space which could have been used  for public
benefit.
                Wayne County

     An   engineering  report  on  solid  waste
disposal  for  Wayne  County,  Michigan, was
presented  to  the  Board of  County  Road
Commissioners in 1967. This report  outlined the
planning  for refuse disposal for  Wayne County
over the next 20 years. Certain areas of Wayne
County were  excluded from the  study,  among
them the cities of Hamtramck,  Highland Park,
River Rouge, Ecourse, Trenton, and  those cities
comprising the Central Wayne County Sanitation
Authority. In each of these cases,  the city  or
authority is now served by an existing incinerator.
However,  the  City of Detroit, although  serviced
by  four  incinerator plants,  is included  in  the
study because those four plants are not adequate
for the refuse generated by the city.

     The  report recommends that the four city
incinerators presently  operating  in  Detroit  be
purchased by Wayne County as a part of its refuse
disposal program. The four plants are located as
follows:

     (a) St. James at Edsel Ford Expressway
     (b) Davison at Detroit Terminal Railroad
     (c) West Jefferson at 24th Street
     (d) Winder in the vicinity of Eastern Market

     The  report  states  that  actual  burning
capacity  of each  of  these plants  is materially
below original design  and recommends that they
be reconditioned and modernized.

     In  addition to  the  four City  of Detroit
plants, the Wayne County report recommends the
immediate  construction  of  five  additional
incinerator  plants  at  various  locations  in the
County. These are:

       (a) Near the State Fair Grounds in the
            City of Detroit
       (b) Near Southfield and the C & O Railroad
            in the City of Detroit
       (c) Near the C & 0 Railroad and Haggerty
            Highway in Plymouth Township
       (d) In the City of Dearborn near Butler and
            Greenfield Roads
       (e) In Brownston Township near Eureka Road
            and Allen Road near the D T & I Railroad

     The location of some of these incinerators
was  moved from  those of the original Detroit
Metropolitan Area Regional Planning Commission
report. The Wayne County study confined  itself
to problems originating in
Wayne  County  only  and
consequently  incinerator
plant locations which were
to  provide inter-county
service  were  abandoned
and   new   sites  located
within  the  bounds  of
Wayne  County.  Efforts   were  made  to   place
incinerators near  or within  reasonable hauling
distance of rail facilities. The report states that if
Regional Plan II of the DMARPC Report can be
effected  at  some  time in  the future,  the plants
proposed  in  the Wayne County  study   will
conveniently fit into the prior plan.

     The study  states  that no decision has  been
made  as  to the  disposal site  for  incinerator
residue. There is mention,  however, of two sites
in the County,  one in the southeastern portion
and the other in the northwestern portion.  The
volume  of residue  to be  produced  by  the
incinerators of Wayne County, excluding those in
the   omitted   cities  and  authority,  will  be
approximately  two  to three  times as much as
generated by all of Oakland County.

               Macomb County

     The southern portion of Macomb County
situated immediately east of Oakland  County  is
                                               81

-------
largely urbanized. Two refuse disposal operations
currently exist in Macomb County. These are the
South  Macomb  Disposal  Authority  and  the
Grosse Pointe-Clinton Refuse Disposal Authority.

     The  South Macomb  Disposal  Authority
operates  a  sanitary  landfill  in  Washington
Township of Macomb County. This Authority has
operated sanitary landfills  successfully  in  the
more  densely  populated southern  portion  of
Macomb County for many years. In the course of
this  investigation, we spoke with Mr. William
Harper, Manager of the South Macomb Disposal
Authority.  Mr. Harper indicates to us that the
Authority  is  not  interested  in  joint  disposal
service with  Oakland County.

     Mr. Vern Olson, Manager, and Mr. Robert F.
Ryan,  Director  for the Grosse  Pointe-Clinton
Refuse  Disposal  Authority,  have  provided
information concerning the operation and intent
of their Authority.  The present operation of the
Authority is by contract with a private individual
for sanitary  landfill of refuse now originating
from members. The Authority is engaged in the
process of obtaining the contractor-operator for a
600  ton per day incinerator. They propose the
contractor build the plant and operate it for the
Authority for a period of 25  years. Seventy-six
acres of land have been purchased for residue and
bulk  refuse  disposal. This  area  is  partly  an
abandoned gravel pit and is ready for use as soon
as  the  incinerator  becomes operable. The
indication   is that  the  Grosse  Pointe-Clinton
Refuse Disposal Authority will be self-sufficient
over the life of its contract.

     In early  May  of this year, approximately
30,000  persons in six northern Townships began
to use the  South Macomb Disposal Authority's
service  according  to  Mr.  Jerome  Schoof,
Supervisor for  Bruce Township.  With  this
extension  of service, most of Macomb County
residents are provided refuse service by one of the
authorities.  There appears  to  be  no  immediate
need  to  consider  a  cooperative  system with
Macomb County.
          Evaluation of the Situation

     It is  almost a certainty that Wayne County
or the City  of Detroit will approach Oakland
County officials regarding residue disposal.  It is
much less probable that a similar overture will be
made by Macomb County officials for raw refuse
disposal.  If such  approaches  are made  and
Oakland County  has  adequate capacity in its
facilities to  handle such material, there are good
reasons for a cooperative disposal program.

     The quantity  of residue  that  will be
generated by Wayne  County  and  Detroit  is
estimated in the 1967  "Engineering Report on
Solid Waste Disposal - Wayne County, Michigan. "
The  report  projects  14,000 acre feet of residue
until  1990, plus  4,200 acre feet of cover material.
This figure  does not include the Central Wayne
County  Sanitation Authority  or the cities of
Hamtramck, Highland Park,  River Rouge, Ecorse
or  Trenton.  These  cities  provided  estimates
indicating that incinerator residue from them will
amount to  7,300  acre  feet  including cover
material for the period until  1990. Many however
have  long-term  residue  disposal  arrangements
which they wish  to continue to use.

     If all  these  communities  should use the
Oakland County area for residue  disposal more
land will be  needed. The residue from the City of
Detroit and Wayne County as projected in the
County  report  together with Oakland  County
residue will  require an area of approximately 2
square miles if  fill depths average 20  feet.  The
residue from  the  authority and five cities will
require an additional 360 acres of land if their
needs are to  be met.

     Provisions of Public Act  342, under which
the  county  is  operating,  require cooperating
counties to enter a contract  for joint service. The
act provides for establishing  an  administrative
agency  and  gives  authority for that  agency to
conceive, construct, operate and finance projects
within  the  limitations  of  the  contract.   We
recommend  that Oakland County be prepared to
purchase adequate  land  to provide for residue
disposal for neighboring  incinerators  if   such
contracts materialize.

     The  cost  of disposing of Wayne  County
residue in Oakland County will be little different
from  the cost of  disposing of Oakland residue.
However, in addition  to the  outright cost of
operating  and  maintaining  equipment  and
purchasing land  for  residue disposal, there is a
                                              82

-------
further consideration that land capacity vital to
Oakland  County's  program  is  being  used  by
outside parties. The County should be reimbursed
for such use of their resources, and such a charge
should be  a  part  of  the negotiations.  Wayne
County  should expect  to pay  for all legimate
costs of service granted by Oakland County.

    The situation in Macomb County may alter
in  the  future.  Should  Oakland County  have
sufficient  capacity  in its furnaces,  contractural
arrangements  with  Macomb  County could  be
made  for complete disposal of refuse delivered to
incinerators  of Oakland  County.   This
arrangement  would  work well  both for  small
quantities from the  northernmost townships or in
the unlikely  event that  the  South  Macomb
Disposal  Authority would  seek  to  purchase
burning capacity  from Oakland County.

    It is  most   likely  that  the northernmost
townships  only  of  Macomb  County will  desire
service  from Oakland  County.  Contractural
arrangements should be similar to those suggested
for Wayne County. The  population projection of
the six  northern  townships by the  Macomb
County  Planning  Office indicates that 370 tons
per day of  refuse can be expected from this area
by  1990,  based  on a 5-day  week.  The nearest
incinerator  to these townships is the Avon  Unit.
This  incinerator  should  be  designed  with
provision for expansion to accommodate Macomb
County refuse.
     Any  contract  joined  between  Oakland
County and parties of  Macomb County should
also  consider  the fact that capacity built  by
Oakland County is being taken for outside waste
materials.  These  contractual arrangements should
provide for a surcharge to  account  for this use of
capacity in addition to the charge for incinerating
the refuse.

     We do not  feel it is within our authority to
suggest a  price  for  such  surcharge  for outside
communities. We can  strongly urge that the base
rate  for incineration be  the same as that charged
Oakland  County  participants  to  the  refuse
disposal  program. We  urge  that  the  Oakland
County officials  consider the use of their facilities
by outside counties as a service  to be sold in a
similar manner as water and sewer service are sold
by Detroit.

     There is adequate space  in Oakland County
facilities to permit cooperation with Wayne and
Macomb  Counties. The Oakland County  refuse
disposal program should consider the possibility
that  cooperation with  these two  counties is a
distinct  future possibility.  Cooperation  as
suggested  herein will  help bring  about the trust
required to promote a regional program for the
Detroit metropolitan area.
                                             83

-------
                         PROBLEMS FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION
     This study and investigation included many
aspects of the refuse disposal problem. Some of
these aspects have been thoroughly explored  by
others over the course of years. Other aspects are
not so well  known. In some cases, we believe a
new  and different approach is available to an old
problem. The Solid Waste Act of 1965  authorizes
the  Federal  Government  to  participate  with
public bodies, through demonstration grants, in
investigations of new or different approaches to
solid waste problems. We present in this section
of the Report four problems we believe should be
accorded further study under this program. The
purpose of the demonstration grant is  to explore
the worthiness of the methods  we propose as a
means of helping solve  the  problem of refuse
disposal or reducing its cost. Obtaining a Federal
Grant cannot be assured and many  conditions
must be met before one is awarded.
              The Use of Steam

     Hours  of  discussion  have  been  spent
regarding the use of steam from  modern refuse
incinerators. To our knowledge, little attempt has
been made up to this time to produce steam for
private uses outside the incinerator. The Norfolk
Naval Incinerator supplies steam for port use of
Navy ships at  the base.  The City  of Atlanta
obtains  heat  for  buildings  from  one  of  its
incinerators and  has  done so  since  1941. We
believe  that  steam generated  from incinerators
could be used  to  heat detached  residential and
other types of buildings.

     We propose a demonstration be conducted
cooperatively with the Avon Incinerator of the
Oakland   County System  and  the  Oakland
University Campus. The University is a complex
of several  buildings located approximately 4-1/2
miles  from the  Avon   Incinerator  site.  The
University offers liberal arts training and has both
class  room  and dormitory  facilities for
approximately 4000 students. A representative of
the  University  indicates  that  expansion is
contemplated in the future. Oakland  University
has its own power generation plant and steam is
furnished  to  several  buildings of the  University
from  this  source.  We  propose   that  the
demonstration be established to prove or disprove
that  steam  from  refuse  generation  can
successfully be used to heat detached buildings
economically by carrying steam from the Avon
Plant and  furnishing it to the University's system
at the  outlet  to their  present  steam  generating
facilities.

     In  order  to  enlist  the  aid  of Oakland
University Authorities, we propose that steam be
furnished at a minimum charge to the University.
This will   be  possible  if the Federal Grant is
available  to  pay  a  portion of  the cost  of
construction. The  Federal demonstration grant
could amount to 2/3 of the total project cost. We
estimate that the tunnel and piping necessary for
steam  heat and  other equipment required  to
perform  this  demonstration will cost
approximately  $63,800  annually. We estimate
that this will bring the cost of steam furnished to
the University to a value between $.20 and $.25
per pound. We would  not propose a  charge for
steam generation at the incinerator because  this
steam would be generated by the burning refuse
even if a  demonstration were not conducted.
One-third  of the cost would be paid by Oakland
County and returned to them through a minimal
charge  of between $.07 and  $.08 per  pound for
steam delivered to  the University. This minimum
charge  would  repay  the  County  for  its
participation in a 20 year period.

     The  project  is  designed to  demonstrate
problems which could arise in long distance steam
transmission  and  return  facilities  on a  closed
circuit  steam heating  system. The  equipment
would  include  super-heating  units at  the  boiler,
steam  lines,  steam tunnel,  return  lines  and
condensate pumps. Difficulties in  maintaining a
constant supply of steam, or meeting fluctuating
demands of the University or similar complex of
buildings,  and any  operating problems which may
evolve regarding  the  use of  saturated  or
super-heated steams   over long  distance
transmission, should be proven in a  period of
between 5 and 10 years.
                                              84

-------
           Rural Convenience Centers
unless higher temperatures can be tolerated.
     Oakland  County seems ideally situated to
demonstrate the feasibility of using convenience
centers  for rural refuse  disposal. We propose a
demonstration which would encompass two types
of convenience centers, those using rolloff bodies
and  those using commercial type containers and
sanitary  landfill.  Certain  township areas in
Oakland County presently are served by sanitary
landfill.  Under  the  demonstration,  these
government  units would continue  to operate a
properly run sanitary landfill.  A demonstration
can be made of the effectiveness of each  type of
convenience  center  by  selecting  other  rural
townships  for service  by  such  facilities. We
propose a five year demonstration to compare
refuse convenience  centers, and sanitary landfills
for effectiveness of keeping roadsides clean and to
compare  costs and  document   problems of
operation  and maintenance which may accrue to
each. In order to achieve this goal, we propose
that  the  full operating  cost  records be  made
available  on   one  or  more  existing  sanitary
landfills, and that the operation be turned over to
the  County  using sanitary  landfill units as
described  earlier  in  this  Report.  This
demonstration  could  include  also  the
effectiveness and cost variation between operating
landfills on  a  1, 2, 5, 6 or  7 day  week. The
demonstration would  include  observation of
roadside litter  and efforts  would  be made to
evaluate the effectiveness of the sanitary landfill
unit  and the convenience centers  in  preventing
the litter nuisance. By including both  rolloff and
detachable  container  type convenience centers,
we believe that the effectiveness of each  type of
container  can  be  demonstrated for   future
reference.
          High Temperature Burning

     Increasing use  of plastic in consumer goods
and of plastic films in food marketing, together
with a greater consumption of single use paper
products is  causing a significant  rise in heating
value of refuse. Incinerator designs at  3500 BTU
per pound of refuse fired were used in  1940. In
the early 1960's the design was for about 4500
BTU per pound, and today designs of 5000 BTU
per pound  are  common.  The increasing heat
release rate  means larger furnaces will be needed
     High  temperatures are  considered  above
2000°  F.  in  municipal  waste  incineration
practice. Water wall furnaces can withstand high
temperatures, as evidenced  by their use in central
power plants. However, excess air quantities must
be  limited to  prevent  nitrogen  fixation  which
occurs  at  temperatures above   1800 to  2000
degrees  F.  Lower  air quantities  and  higher
temperatures  will  probably require different
furnace configuration  than normally associated
with refuse incinerators. The tall furnace similar
to  those  of  central power plants may offer a
better furnace shape for high temperature burning
than  the low profile furnaces now  in common
use.

     Problems of maintenance and deterioration
of municipal  incinerators under high temperature
conditions  cannot be known without studies on
full  scale  installations. We  suggest  that  one
furnace  be designed for  high  temperature
materials at the Independence Incinerator site and
that a thorough study of the phenomenon of high
temperature burning be conducted here. The high
temperatures can  be achieved through reduced
excess  air quantities  or  by firing  high  BTU
materials, such as paper and plastics, into this
furnace in larger quantities  than  is normally
acceptable.
        Septic Tank Sludge Incineration

     Despite  the  fact that public sewer systems
serve  much  of  Oakland  County,  there  are
thousands of  septic tanks serving suburban and
rural  families.  We  have   calculated  that
approximately 11, 600,000 gallons of septic tank
sludge is collected annually in  the County. All of
this  sludge needs  to  be disposed  in  a  safe and
adequate manner.

     In  the  past  much of this sludge has been
delivered to larger sewage treatment plants, such
as the  Auburn plant  in the City of Pontiac  for
final disposal. Other loads of  septic tank  sludge
have been deposited  in manholes on the sewer
system of the City of Detroit. The latter is not
good practice and the former is meeting increased
opposition  from   sewage  plant operators  since
septic tank waste upsets the operational processes
                                              85

-------
of the plant.  The Health  Department does not
permit disposal  of  septic tank sludges on open
land or into any water course. The septic tank
sludge hauler  must find some place  to  put his
sludge for safe disposal.

     Several attempts have been made to burn
sewage  sludge  with municipal  refuse at many
incinerators  in  the  United  States.  The
performance  of these installations has been less
than  hoped  for in most  cases.  However,  we
believe that under properly controlled conditions
sewage or septic tank sludges can be burned with
municipal refuse. Such a system of mixed refuse
and  septic tank  sludge  burning would  offer  a
place for  safe disposal by  the septic tank sludge
hauler.

     We propose a  system for septic tank sludge
incineration  with  municipal  refuse  at  the
Independence  Incinerator  Plant.  This plant  is
centrally  located to the areas not served by  a
public sewage  system. It will offer relatively short
hauls for most septic tank  haulers in Oakland
County. The requirement that septic tank sludge
be disposed of at the incinerator until such time
as the system can be proven or disproven will be
necessary.

     We have assumed that all 11,600,000 gallons
of  septic  tank sludge  will  be delivered  to the
incinerator  for disposal.  Our  designs for the
future do not  allow  for  any increase  in the
volume  of sludge which  will be delivered.  The
Detroit Sewage System is expanding into Oakland
County and will  permit  many homes  to replace
private  sewage  facilities  with  public   sewage
service.  We have assumed,  however,  that the
number of septic tanks in the County will remain
stable due to  new  construction  in  rural areas
approximating those which will be removed from
service because of the enlargement of the Detroit
sewer system. It is  almost a necessity that the
entire amount of septic tank sludge come to the
plant in order that the size of the equipment can
be made reasonable.

     We  have  made the following assumptions in
our analysis of the septic tank sludge incineration
with municipal refuse:
Annual Sludge Volume
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Heat Content
Sludge Delivery to the Plant
11,600,000 gals.
4.25%
60%
8,000 BTU per Ib. of dry solids
50,000 gpd - 230 days per yr.
     It is difficult to get combustion with fuel of
greater  than  45% moisture  content. Summer
moisture content in municipal refuse may exceed
30%.  In order  to  obtain  a reasonable  fuel we
assumed a moisture content of  the  mixture of
sludge and refuse at 40% moisture. This will allow
a safety factor of 5% moisture.

     Septic tank sludge mixed  1  Ib. to 3 Ibs. of
refuse must have a 60% moisture content in order
not  to  exceed the  40% requirement.  60%
moisture content can be achieved by driving off
approximately 90 Ibs. of water for every 100 Ibs.
of sludge. We believe the best method to reduce
moisture  content  at   the  incinerator  will  be
through the use  of an evaporating pan which will
utilize waste heat from the incinerator to increase
the  rate  of  evaporation.  The   result  of  the
evaporation will  be approximately 700 cu. ft. of
dried sludge  and 18,000 cu. ft.  of water vapor
daily.

     The  water  vapor will  carry  with it certain
odors  resulting  from  the decomposition  of
organic  material  in the septic tank sludges. This
material must  be deodorized  before it  can be
discharged to the  atmosphere. Greenhouses to
cover the evaporating pans and louvred to admit
air  could entrap the vapors from  the process and
they  could be withdrawn through an afterburner
to destroy any odors present in the vapor stream.
The  deodorized  vapors  could   be   discharged
through a stack to the atmosphere. A plume of
water vapor  will result from this operation. An
alternative would condense the vapor for in plant
water uses.

     The  dried   sludge  which  remains  in  the
evaporating  pan  following  drying  could  be
removed by a front end loader and conveyed to a
ball mill where  it  could be pulverized  for easy
handling.  After  leaving the ball  mill the dried
sludge would  be conveyed to a point  and mixed
with  incoming refuse at specified rates so as not
                                               86

-------
to  exceed the  critical 40% moisture  content.
Combined  sludges and refuse  would then  pass
through a  hammermill which would reduce the
size of particles in the refuse and effectively mix
both  refuse  and   sewage  sludge  into  a
homogeneous mixture. This  step is, we believe, a
critical one. Past experience in burning sewage
sludges indicates  that  if sludge is permitted to
enter the  furnace  in a batch not  thoroughly
mixed with the refuse, it smothers the fire, tends
to ball, refuses to burn or explodes. A thoroughly
homogeneous  mixture   produced  by  the
hammermill operation will  help  to prevent this
problem.

     The mixture of sludge and ground refuse can
be  conveyed to  the  charging  hopper  of  one
furnace. At this point the sludge and refuse will
be  mixed  with  normal refuse  delivered to the
charging hopper by a crane.

     The flow diagram shown in Figure No. 19
indicates  the  processes  we  envision  for  the
successful  incineration of septic tank  sludge with
municipal  refuse.  The total quantity of  sludge
which  will be  fired  under the system  as we
envision it for Oakland County will  not exceed
three tons per day, which is far less than the 325
ton  per  day  capacity  of the  Independence
furnaces.
     We  have estimated that the capital cost  of
installing  the  sludge  drying  and  incineration
equipment  including  the evaporation  pans,
greenhouse, the ball and hammermills, condensate
and  steam piping,  afterburner, fans, conveyors
and  electrical  controls  will be approximately
$582,000  including  20%  allowance for
engineering and contingencies. We have estimated
that the operation can be done for approximately
$100,000 in  annual cost. This amounts to about
one cent per  gallon  of sludge delivered to the site
for ultimate  disposal  or  $10.00  per  thousand
gallon septic tank truck load.

     We  believe  that two major considerations
must  be given in burning sewage or septic  tank
sludge  with  municipal refuse.  These  are: (1)
thorough mixing, (2) reasonably close control  of
moisture content with a way to adjust moisture
content within the  plant if it is evident that the
mixture is getting too wet.

     One furnace at  the Independence Incinerator
may be used  to demonstrate the feasibility of this
type of operation. If successful, the system might
be  applied   to  small  sewage  treatment  plant
sludges  or industrial  sludges  of  low  volatile
content.
COND
(OPT

EHSER
ONAL)
WATER
s~*~~~ *
	 k.
                                 FLOW DIAGRAM FOR SLUDGE INCINERATION

                                           FIGURE 19
                                              87

-------
                  Summary

     We  believe  that  these  four  proposed
demonstrations can be successfully incorporated
into the Oakland County plan for refuse disposal.
These  projects will demonstrate  the feasibility
and  problems  which  may  be encountered in
different areas of refuse  disposal programs; the
rural collection system, mixed sewage sludge and
refuse  incineration,  and incineration by-product
use. These aspects of the refuse disposal problem
have been discussed in the  past but no effective
demonstration  of feasibility or problems  which
might arise from  any of the solutions is known at
this time.  It is our hope that the projects outlined
will be  effective  in demonstrating the feasibility
of these solutions.
                     88

-------
                                  LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
     Legal aspects of solid  waste disposal have
been  given considerable attention under current
Michigan legislation. The State recognizes garbage
and refuse disposal as an important function  in
the preservation  of  public  health and welfare,
equally as important as sewage disposal and water
treatment. The  State  includes  refuse  service
among those functions delegated  to  its various
political jurisdictions.
              Current Legislation

     A necessary part of this  Report is a brief
presentation   of  legislation  pertinent  to
implementing  a  County solid waste  disposal
system. Many  laws  have  been passed  by the
legislature  in  the  past  which pertain  to  this
service.  We do not propose  this portion of the
Report as a substitute for the advice of counsel,
but  offer it as  a method of helping the reader
understand the enabling legislation  under which
this project can be implemented.
Act 342, Public Acts of 1939

     The Oakland County Board of Supervisors is
now operating  under provisions of Act 342. The
Drain Commissioner has been  appointed as the
County Agency for making  the  study  which is
detailed  in this Report. Act  342 is the basis of
authority for implementing the provisions of the
Detroit  Metropolitan  Regional  Planning
Commission Plan 2, of which Oakland County is
an integral part.

     The Act authorizes counties to establish and
provide among other  things facilities for solid
waste collection and disposal within or between
cities,   villages,  townships,  and  township
improvement  districts.  These  cities,  villages,
townships, or any combination of them may be
within the limits of the county or beyond county
jurisdiction. The  Act  enables  the county to
acquire,  purchase, construct, own and maintain
and/or operate  incinerators and disposal grounds
and  to  establish,  administer,  coordinate,  and
regulate  a system  or systems of garbage  and
rubbish  collection  and  disposal  facilities  and
services among these  governmental jurisdictions.
The  services authorized under Act  342 must be
furnished  under  Agreements  to   each  of the
political jurisdictions  affected  by  the program.
These  agreements  may  be for periods up to 40
years.

     The County is granted the right to purchase,
accept as a gift, or  condemn private property
needed for  the facilities authorized  under this
Act. If condemnation is used, the  provisions of
Act 149, 1911, will take precedence.

     The  County  Board  of Supervisors may
designate various agencies of the County as the
Authority for providing service under Act 342.
Certain agencies of the County are  designated as
follows:  the  County  Road  Commission; the
County Drain Commission; or in  counties over
1,000,000 or  less than  400,000 population, the
County Department of  Public Works. The lower
population range is a restriction of Public Act
185, the Department of Public Works enabling
legislation.  These  agencies  may  make  the
contracting  agreements  for  service  between the
cities, villages,  and townships to which service will
be extended.  The  Oakland County Supervisors
have designated the County Drain Commissioner
as the designated authority for their  County.

     Two  or  more  adjoining  counties may
contract to establish refuse disposal facilities and
services and to provide for an administrative
agency  composed  from  membership  of their
respective county  agencies. The  multi-county
administrative   agency has  and is required  to
exercise all powers and duties conferred upon the
county agency under  provisions   of  this Act,
except as specifically limited by any provisions of
the  contract.  Bonds  issued   to  finance
construction   of  improvements   under
multi-county contract shall be a joint obligation
of all participating counties.

     The Act  permits revenue bonds to finance
these services.  General obligation bonds pledging
the  full faith  and  credit of the county are also
permitted under this  Act. If general obligation
bonds are used in financing the project, the Board
of Supervisors must approve their use by a 2/3
                                              89

-------
vote of  the members  of  the  Board. General
obligation issues are subject to a referendum by
the voters  of the county.  Rates and charges  to
contracting  municipalities must  be adequate  to
pay  bond  and  interest retirement as well  as
operation and  maintenance of  the facilities.  If
revenue bonds  are issued,  a coverage of 50% is
required  but such coverage is not necessary when
general obligation bonds are issued. Bonds may  be
issued under Public Act 94, 1933.

     Any contracting unit of government except
the County  may  raise  the  funds required  as a
result of the Agreement by  collecting revenue
rates, charges or assessments from  the users and
beneficiaries  of the facilities or may levy  a tax
upon the taxable property for this purpose, which
tax is not subject to the charter or statutory tax
limitation.  The Agreement can stipulate that the
County  agency  rather  than local  governmental
units may  collect charges, rates, or assessments
directly from the users for the services furnished.
There is no provision for the County to levy a tax
or assessment directly upon taxable property  or
make a direct charge to users of the service.

     Act  342  specifically  states  that  "The
construction or acquisition of any improvements
or facilities in accordance with the provisions of
this Act, shall not be subject to  the requirements
and provisions  of Act 261 of the Public Acts of
1927."  Act  342  also  provides  for the
condemnation of private property determined  by
the county agency to be necessary for public use.
Act 320, Public Acts of 1927

     Act  320 is a  second Act  which provides
counties the authority to furnish garbage disposal
plants  and  facilities.  Since  the  County  has
undertaken  the  project under  provisions of Act
342, Act 320 is of  interest primarily because of
its provision that  garbage disposal systems  and
sewage  disposal  systems  are  subject  to
construction under   court  issued  orders.   The
Authority on this portion  of  the Act has  been
demonstrated  in   many  instances  wherein
communities  have  been  ordered  to  construct
sewage  plants under  the provisions of this Act. It
is possible that failure of a municipality or county
to provide adequate refuse disposal facilities will
result  in its receiving court  orders  to provide
adequate  facilities,  or  to  join  the  County
Program.
Act 87, Public Acts of 1965

     Act   87  was  passed  by  the  Michigan
Legislature in  1965  and  implementing  rules
established soon after. This legislation establishes
standards  of operation  for  solid waste disposal
areas and  provides for enforcement of these rules.
The  Act   and  rules  effectively  preclude  open
dumping  and seek to avoid water pollution at
refuse disposal sites.

     The   Act  applies  to  individuals,  firms,
corporations, or any political subdivisions of the
State,  including  any  governmental   authority
created by statute. The Act  does not apply to
individuals providing proper disposal of their own
refuse on their own property.

     The  Act restricts disposal of any refuse at
any  place  except  a disposal  area licensed as
provided by this Act. Nothing in  this Act should
override the legal right of a local  governing  body
to develop an enforcing local ordinance, codes, or
rules and regulations on solid waste disposal equal
to or more stringent than the provisions of the
Act. Act  87 does not relieve the applicant from
the  responsibility  of obtaining a license from a
local governing body for operating a disposal area
under their rules and regulations if such apply.
Act 348, Public Acts of 1965

     Act  348  became  effective  in  1965  and
implementing  rules  were  established  under
provisions of the Act. This legislation  establishes
an  air  pollution control  commission  with the
State Health Department and authorizes rules and
regulations to control atmospheric pollution. The
Act  also provides for enforcement  of the rules
and  regulations of the Commission and penalties
in the event such rules are violated.

     Under  the  provisions  of the Act,  persons,
firms, corporations  or  any political subdivisions
within the Federal, State, or local government are
subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules
established  thereunder. Anyone intending  to
construct or  alter  any fuel  burning or  refuse
                                               90

-------
burning  process  must  submit  plans  and
specifications  for  approval of the  Commission
prior to  the  construction. Permits  to  operate
equipment   will  be   issued  to  conforming
installations by the Commission under the rules.

     The  rules establish specific  limitations and
prohibitions  on  emissions  to the  atmosphere.
These limitations will generally require the use of
air cleaning devices on  any equipment installed.

     Air pollution is defined in part  by the  Act
as contaminate in quantities, of characteristics,
under  conditions  and  circumstances, and of a
duration  causing  injury to  human,  animal, or
plant life. This contamination may be considered
injurious  if reasonably  detrimental  to  the
enjoyment of life and property.  The  Act  is
assumed to apply  to private residences as well as
to  industrial,  commercial,  and  political
establishments.
Other Pertinent Legislation

     Under  the acts permitting its incorporation,
each  municipality  within  the County  has
authority to collect tax  levies  for the collection
and  disposal of refuse.  General  obligation debt
may  be  voted  by  the communities  for  the
construction  of  disposal  facilities  such  as
incinerators or landfill sites or  the acquisition of
property  for  disposal operations. Municipalities
may also contract with other communities for
collection and disposal of solid waste.
Act 298, Public Acts of 1917

     Act 298 authorizes cities and villages under
150,000 population to levy a tax not exceeding
2  mills annually for collection and  disposal of
garbage. This  tax levy may  exceed charter  and
State statute limitations on authorized tax levies
and may  be  placed  on the  State equalized
valuation. Should the  tax be for construction of
garbage disposal facilities, the bonds for such must
be  repaid  in 5 years at an  interest  rate  not
exceeding 5%.

Act 261, Public Acts of 1927

     Act 261  prohibits construction of garbage
disposal  plants  in  cities  or  villages by another
municipality  or  by  private contractor unless
authorized by  a vote  of the majority  of the
electors voting thereon. This shall not apply to
the Authority created under Act 179, Public Acts
of 1947, when the community is a member of the
particular Authority. The provisions of Act 261
do not apply  to municipalities using Act 342.
Act 106, Public Acts of 1963

     Act 106 prohibits littering public and private
property or  waters  and  prescribes penalities for
violations.  This  Act makes it unlawful for any
person knowingly and  without the consent of the
Public Authority having supervision of public or
privately  owned  property to  dump,  deposit,
place,  throw  or leave litter  on  any public or
private property or water. The term litter as used
in this  Act  means all  rubbish,  refuse,  waste
material, garbage,  paper, bottles,  and debris or
other  foreign  substances  of  every  kind   and
description. The Act does not  limit the powers of
cities,  villages,  and  townships  to  enact   and
enforce  ordinances  for  the  control   and
elimination of litter.

     An  interesting and little used section of this
law   provides  that  a  person  guilty  of  the
misdemeanor of littering may  be directed by the
court to clean up by  litter gathering labor that
litter which he deposited or any other litter the
court may direct.
Abandoned Vehicles

     An  automobile is considered abandoned in
the State of Michigan if left on a public highway
or street for a period exceeding 48 hours without
notification of proper  authorities  of the reasons
for leaving it. If the auto is on private property, it
is  considered  abandoned  if left over  48  hours
without the owner's consent. If a vehicle is judged
abandoned  under these  conditions,  it may  be
taken into custody by  law enforcement officials.
The proper officials then have 10 days in  which
to notify the  Department of Motor  Vehicles to
check for  current registration. If the vehicle is
currently registered, the Department will notify
the Owner and he and any lien holders may claim
the vehicle within 45 days from the  date of such
                                               91

-------
notice by paying for  all charges incurred. If the
owner or a lien holder  fails to claim the vehicle
within the 45 day period, it may be sold at public
auction at any time after the expiration  of the
waiting period.

     Vehicles without registration or registered in
another State may be sold at auction after a single
publication of notice and a wait of 30  days.

     An  abandoned vehicle with  value less  than
$100 may be delivered to a garage keeper within
the  County where the  abandoned vehicle was
found. The garage keeper has the responsibility of
notifying  the  Department  of Motor  Vehicles
within 10 days of the date any vehicle is delivered
to  him.  If  the vehicle  is  registered,  the
Department will send notice of impoundment  to
the owner who shall  have  15 days to claim his
property.  If it is not  claimed, the garage  keeper
may at the expiration of the 30  days from the
time of notification claim title to  the vehicle and
sell it upon proper publication of notice.

     Vehicles  5  years old  or older which  have
extensive damage by either collision or vandalism
which renders them inoperative  and  whose fair
market value is under $25 may be sold as scrap by
the peace officer or sheriff after determining that
the vehicle has not been reported  stolen.
       Suggested Legislative Amendments

Act 342

     The  County  Public  Improvement  Act of
1939,  Act  342,  is an  excellent Act  for
                     cooperation  between
                     counties  and  between
                     counties  and  cities,
                     villages, and townships for
                     water,  sewer,  and  refuse
                     disposal   facilities  or
                     improvements.  This  Act
                     gives as broad an authority
as any Act on  the  books to  accomplish its
purpose. It provides the ability to build complete
systems without referendum. However, there is
room for  some improvement in Public Act 342.
     The  greatest handicap  of Act  342 is its
failure to provide any way for the county itself to
finance  improvements benefiting more than one
community.  Under the  present legislation, the
county  must  rely  upon  assessments,  rates,
charges, or special taxes levied or established by
the  community to  which  service  is  provided,
unless the county adopts a "Home Rule Charter".
Improvements  as  proposed in  this  Report
constitute  a  county-wide  system,  and the
possibility  does  exist that all communities may
not  wish  to  participate.  Failure  of  some to
participate could cause  a  needed project to fail,
unless  some  way  is found to spread the cost
equitably to all benefited areas of the county. We
offer  for consideration  of  the  legislative
authorities the following methods for the county
to establish the revenue which will be required to
operate  this system.

     The county should be authorized to fix rates
and charges to individuals, corporations, or firms
for the service of refuse disposal. These rates and
charges  should be published and should be similar
for similar types  of waste. Rates and  charges
could be higher than for residential refuse  if the
waste material is hard to handle, hazardous, or in
any other way increases the cost of operating the
disposal facility.

     Rates  and  charges  to participating
municipalities as a whole could be charged by the
county. In this method, the municipality would
receive a bill on monthly or stipulated basis for
services provided by the county facilities.  Rates
and charges would be  adequate to cover all cost
of  operation  and would  be uniform  for all
participating municipalities. Special consideration
might be  given  in the  form of higher rates for
waste of special characteristics originating from
any particular municipality to compensate for the
greater difficulty in handling this item.

     The County should have the ability to levy
special  assessments for water, sewer,  or refuse
service rendered against benefited property  in the
service  area   of any  county  operated or
constructed facility. The special assessment  could
be  levied  according to benefit and would be
applied  against  all  property.  Vacant property
should also be assessed at a lesser rate because of
a lesser benefit by the  existence of the  facility.
Any properly constructed  and operated refuse
disposal facility  can be construed as a benefit to
any  property because  it will enhance the sale
                                              92

-------
value of that  parcel of land. Thus, vacant  land
may be assessed  for the  special  benefits which
accrue to  it because of the existence of good
public services. Special assessments would permit
the County to spread the cost of  facilities over a
greater base, and thus gain a more favorable cost
to individual members of the  community.  The
benefit  assessed can  be  based on the  type  of
occupancy, by  the unit, by front footage, by area,
or by valuation as the legislative authority sees fit.

     A  fourth  method   of  financing  projects
permitted to the County should be a combination
of special  assessments and  rates  or charges. A
combination could allow the County to assess the
capital  cost  of construction and  equipment
against all  property  involved in the service  area
and  use rates  and charges from users to pay for
operating  costs.  In theory,  the  plant  and
equipment  benefit all property in the service area
because they  are  ready  for use  whenever  the
property owner desires; the costs of operation are
for the benefit of users only.  Such a combination
may prove more equitable than  the use of one
form or the other.

     The procedures for establishing assessments
or rates and  charges  should be  placed by  the
legislature upon the County Board of Supervisors
acting through the  designated  agent  for  the
improved project. In this matter, the County as a
whole has  some control  on  the cost of  the
assessments or on the rates and charges. However,
the individuals who will be affected and benefited
by any  improvement should  have a  voice in the
procedure.   For  this  reason,  these  individuals
should be  provided an opportunity to  be heard
under  the  legislation that would  amend Public
Act  342. Such  a hearing should be limited to the
need for the improvement and the boundaries of
the assessment  area. If it has  been found that the
improvement is required  for the  general health
and  welfare of the  public, then these  two items
will  be all that it is  necessary to discuss with the
citizens who will be affected by  the assessment.

     A  second problem arising from Act 342 is
that of   inter-community   cooperation.  Most
municipalities  are reluctant to surrender complete
control  of  a refuse program to a County agency,
particularly if  the municipality operates disposal
facilities. Most communities would prefer to  have
a voice in the administration of any county refuse
program  because the  administration of such  a
program  has  a  direct  effect  upon   each
contributing municipality. A board of directors to
help establish policy and to review administrative
decisions  and budgets  could  minimize possible
objections by individual municipalities to joining
a county program for solid waste as well as other
permissive operations under this Act.

     The  board  should give  municipalities  the
greatest vote on  issues. It could consist of seven
voting members appointed   by  the  Board  of
County Supervisors as follows: one representative
of the County Health agency; one representative
from the Board of Supervisors; one representative
from each: a township,  village, and  a city;  a
representative of private haulers, and one random
member.

     The  authority  of the board of  directors
should be limited. The primary functions  could
include   establishing  rules  and  regulations,
reviewing rates,  charges, and  budgets  drawn by
the county agent and making recommendations
to the Board of  Supervisors, reviewing proposed
capital  improvements  and  making
recommendations to the Board  of  Supervisors,
and acting as an arbitration board for complaints
and inequities. The  board of directors should not
enter  into  direct   administration,  appropriate
money,  review  bids and  specifications,   select
equipment, or otherwise direct the operations of
the solid  waste disposal agency.
Abandoned Automobile Hulks

     A new and major  problem is growing from
the country's  prosperity. This problem concerns
the destruction  of abandoned automobile hulks
which  currently  fill  automobile junk  yards  or
litter  the countryside.  Abandoned automobile
bodies may be found in  open fields, behind barns,
in wooded  lots, or  even  in  the side  yards  of
residential  properties.   The  owners  of  these
vehicles are  unwilling to pay for the removal or
destruction  of these  abandoned hulks, and  so
they are left to rust away in a forgotten corner of
their property. A way must be found to make the
removal of the abandoned automobiles easier, and
once they are removed, to facilitate their disposal.

     Much of the problem lies with the restrictive
                                              93

-------
legislation currently  existent in the State.  The
time required  for  processing automobiles taken
into custody as abandoned vehicles is  lengthy.
Frequently the law enforcement officers to whom
this problem is assigned have little time to occupy
themselves  with  automobiles  which  do  not
constitute traffic hazards. Much of this  problem
can  be  alleviated  by  differentiating  between
abandoned vehicles  which  constitute a traffic
hazard and those which are a public nuisance or
eyesore.  In the former case, jurisdiction should
still rest  with the Police Department or  Sheriff,
and the current laws should be revised  to make
their disposal easier. Perhaps the most significant
change in the law and the most useful one would
be to shorten  the  time  required for notification
and impoundment, on  the grounds that modern
communications are  much more effective  than
those at the time these provisions were instituted.

     For  the  purpose  of this  study we  have
concentrated  on automobiles abandoned in such
locations  that they do not constitute a traffic
hazard. These may be on  highway  rights-of-way,
but more likely will be found in the back or side
yards of residences,  on vacant lots, or in  open
fields  or  woodlands.  The problem created  by
abandoned automobiles is both a nuisance  from
the standpoint of aesthetics and a possible hazard
to the health and welfare of the community.
Abandoned vehicle bodies can  impound water
which  breeds mosquitoes and   can   provide
harborage for rats, mice, and other disease bearing
rodents. They are an attractive nuisance to young
children, who frequently  find them a place to
play in or to explore. In such childhood pastimes,
youths  are  exposed  to  danger  of cuts  from
exposed  metal  or  glass as well as other injuries
which may result from falls or other causes.

     We   believe  that  effective  legislation  is
required  to enable counties or  municipalities to
remove abandoned automobile  hulks from  areas
which  do not  constitute a hazard  to the driving
public. We are not prepared to offer an ideal law
to provide a solution to this problem. It is the
duty and right of the corporation counsel of the
county  or other competent counsel  to  suggest
such  changes  to  the legislature for enactment.
Instead, we will suggest several points which we
believe  should  be  studied  in  more detail by
knowledgeable  men  before  making  a
recommendation to  the  property  legislative
authority  to  obtain  the  necessary  legal
instruments.

     A tour of the County will quickly reveal to
the  interested  observer  the magnitude  of the
problem caused by abandoned automobile hulks.
These vehicles blight the landscape and should be
removed  from public view for  the benefit of all
residents  and visitors of  the  County.  Such a
program  may create hardships or infringe on the
rights of some people, but it is  for the benefit of
the  general  public.   However,  it  is  a
well-established fact that  the public through its
County or State agencies has the right to step in
and  alleviate problems which constitute  hazards
to public  health and welfare or create nuisances
to  the  community  in  general.  We, therefore,
present the  following list  of items which should
be   considered  when  the  current  law  on
abandoned vehicles is revised.

     1. Definition.  An  automobile which has
extensive  damage  by  collision or  vandalism,
including but not limited to a broken window or
windshield,   missing  wheels,   tires, motor,  or
transmission,  and not  displaying  a  current
registration  plate, or any combination of these
circumstances  rendering  the  said  vehicle
inoperative,  which  is  not  contained  within a
manmade enclosure which screens it from public
view. Abandoned vehicles  should include  but not
be   limited  to  automobiles, trucks,  busses,
motorcycles,  bicycles,  trailers,  tractors,  farm
equipment, or any parts thereof.

     2. Legislation should designate an authority
or agency of the County  which has the  right to
investigate abandoned vehicles. This Authority
should  be  authorized  to  enter onto  private
property  for  the purpose  of  determining the
condition of any abandoned vehicles which are
visible  from  the  highways  or on  which  a
complaint is made. As an alternative, the licensing
procedure each year  should include a provision
whereby  the last owner  of record  consents to
removal and  disposal of the vehicle should it be
abandoned.  This  provision  may  be   enacted
through implied consent upon  purchase of the
vehicle as a part of  the title. If  the automobile is
abandoned on  property of another party, the
implied consent  could extend to  damages or
liability occurring because of the inspection. This
Authority could  be composed  of three  parties;
                                              94

-------
one from the Department of Health, one from the
sheriff's  office,  and  the  third  party  to  be
designated for the county at large.

     3.  The Authority should be given the right
to employ  inspectors  who would  examine  and
photograph  vehicles to determine that they are
inoperable.

     4.  An  agency  for  the County should  be
assigned the  task  of picking up  vehicles  and
assuring that they are delivered to an authorized
junk  yard or  auto  destruction  plant.  Any
payment by the junk yard  or auto destructor for
the automobile bodies delivered should be made
to the operating fund of the agency.

     5.  The agency will be able to operate a truck
and  crew specializing  in picking up abandoned
vehicles for delivery to  the site for disposal or
contract with a private firm for this service. The
agency  should  also cooperate  with  the  law
enforcement agencies for picking up abandoned
automobiles left on highways and city streets or
complained about under present legislation.

     6.  The  County should have  the right  to
assess all real property in the county for services
of  picking  up  abandoned automobiles  and
destroying them. In addition  to the assessment,
the right  to perform  this work on  a  fee  basis
should also be included.

     7.  Provision may  be included  in the law to
license  all  vehicles whether  operable  or  not.
Registration  certificates  can be checked at the
title and registration office in Lansing for a period
of five  years after the vehicle was last registered
and unregistered vehicles can be investigated. By
being charged a fee, the owner  will be given an
incentive to junk or otherwise destroy the vehicle
after it is no longer useful.

     8. Title should be made out in the name of
the purchaser and the State for ready transfer if
the vehicle is judged  abandoned. In this manrer
the State may transfer title to the ju.ik dealer or
auto destructor at the time the vehicle is delivered
for disposal.

     9. A notice by  certified or registered mail
should be sent to the last known address of the
owner of record for the vehicle indicating that the
vehicle has been adjudged an abandoned vehicle
and asking him to show just cause for the agency
not to remove it. Just  cause might include historic
vehicles in process of repair  or absence  of the
owner in military service.

    10. The  certified  notice  from  the  State
should give the owner opportunity to remove the
vehicle himself. Fifteen days would be a suitable
length of time for him  to perform this service,
and  proof  that  it  has  been  done should  be
presented to  the authority or  agency by  the
owner.  Incentive  might  be  provided   by  a
minimum charge  if  the crew  appears at  the
property even if no work is performed.

    11. The law  should  provide for immediate
sale of the  vehicle after the waiting period has
expired. Extended time  periods for storage only
serve  to hinder the enforcement.

     Oakland County has always been progressive
in activities to improve the health and welfare of
its people  and  thus contribute  to  the
improvement of the  State of Michigan. Striving
for  improvement to   existing  legislation  for
disposal of refuse, litter, and abandoned vehicles
is another way to advance the public interests.
                                              95

-------
                              IMPLEMENTING THE PROGRAM
                                       Donald M. Oakes
                                Public Management Consultant
                                    Grand Rapids, Michigan
     It necessarily follows that Oakland County
would use county supported bonds for a county
sponsored service  such as  solid waste disposal.
The County Agency assigned the task of assuming
the responsibility for the serivce by the Board of
Supervisors can do an adequate job for the people
of Oakland County only with this support.

     The County Public Improvement Act, or Act
342  of the Public Acts of  1939, as amended, is
the State statute permissive believed best adapted
to accomplish the purpose for Oakland County. It
permits  individual municipal  political units to
contract  with the County  for the  service  and
pledge  their  own full  faith  and credit  to the
County; the County, in turn, may pledge its full
faith and credit to the bond buyers who furnish
the funds for the improvement. The details of Act
342  are explained elsewhere in this Report. It is
much preferred to other State  statutes for both
the practical application of getting the job done
for  the  people  and  the  financial  advantages
implicit in its structure.

     Several other State statutes either require
additional financial  security  leading to higher
consumer rates  or are inhibited "protections"
against  disposing  of "garbage"  in  certain
localities.  The Legislature  has  passed  many
varieties  of legislation over the years to  suit
certain conditions. When the need to clean up our
landscapes, our air, and our environment became
more evident,  the Legislature passed  Act 87, of
1965 to  require that  solid  wastes be dealt with
summarily.

     There  has  been  no significant  legislation
passed since that time to ease the financial impact
on the populace. Luckily, some far sighted people
sought amendment to Act 342, over the years,
and  succeeded. Further amendment is needed to
assist those  officials at the local level in really
accomplishing the purpose of attaining clean air,
water, and landscape which is required by Act 87,
of 1965 and other related Acts.
     The passage of Act 87 has literally "dropped
a bomb" in the laps of those who must dispose of
refuse  on the local  level. Every  constituent of
every local government contributes to the local
refuse  problem  and  some   are   not  so
understanding of the possible solutions as they
should be. Each local government in Michigan is
struggling to  meet the  additional costs of solid
waste disposal while  trying to maintain the same
tax rate or service charge.  In very  few localities is
this  possible. Short  range solutions may handle
the State requirements  for  awhile but the long
range  solutions indicate  that the  Legislature,
knowingly or not, decreed that local governments
would  have to get together to solve the problem
if they  would  accomplish  the  solution at as
reasonable a cost as possible.

     This leaves  only  Act  342 of  1939, as
amended, as the best possible collective financial
condition for a County or Inter-County solution.

     The Legislature in the future should be made
aware of the responsibility
and  costs  they  have
required   of  local
governments  for  solid
waste  disposal  and  be
responsive  to  helpful
a m e n d ments  to  present
laws  to  make   local
financing as painless as is possible.
             Financial Capabilities
     The  basis for County  supported bonds in
Michigan is the current state equalized valuation.
A history of the equalized valuation for Oakland
County for the past 21 years is included as a part
of the Appendix. It indicates an excellent growth
factor with an  increase of almost  518%  since
1948.  The  1968  equalized  value of  Oakland
County is $3,460,371,031.
                                              96

-------
General Obligation Bonding Capacity

     Michigan statutes  permit  a  County  to
obligate  up  to  10% of  their state  equalized
valuation  for  General Obligation debt.  On the
basis of the 1968 equalized value the County may
obligate up to $346,037,100.

     Direct debt of Oakland County after sale of
the most recent bond issue is as follows:
Direct Debt with
Bonds Pledging
County Credit
Drains
Sewer
Water
Motor Vehicle
Highway Fund
Total County
Support for
Bonded Debt
Gross
Debt

$40,351,250
46,933,000
5,565,000
4,915,000
$97,764,250
Portion Paid
By Benefitting
Municipalities
$39,339,450
46,933,000
5,565,000
4,915,000
$96,752,450
County
at Large
Taxes
$1,011,800
-0-
-0-
-0-
$1,011,800
     There are additional bonds either approved
by the Municipal Finance Commission and not
sold, or  presently  being considered by the
Finance  Commission   in  the  amount  of
$10,175,000.  Additional  construction  to  be
financed  later  this  year  is  estimated  at
$1,200,000. This  additional debt  amounting  to
$11,375,000 will place the full faith and credit of
the   County  behind  $109,139,250  of general
obligation  debt  or 3.15% of  the   1968 state
equalized value. This is less than one-third of the
statute permitted capacity.

     There are substantial  retirements  of  all
bonds each year,  so that by the time additional
bonds are issued the total County obligation does
not necessarily increase by the total amount of a
new bond issue.

     While the County is obligating its  full faith
and credit behind the above noted bonds the debt
must be repaid by the constituent municipalities
which  receive  the  additional  services.  By
contracting with the County for the services they
are pledging their revenues to repayment of bonds
and interest even if it is necessary for them  to
levy  additional local  property tax  above any
charter or statute limitation to repay their debt.
The  Motor  Vehicle Highway  Fund  Bonds are
supported by the  gas  and  weight taxes returned
each year from  the  State to  the County Road
Commission.
     Capital Costs for Solid Waste Disposal

     The  1970  capital  costs  for solid  waste
disposal  projects are  $39,031,800,  including
engineering  and  contingencies.  This  is  the
estimate  for Plan  "A", which  includes disposal
needs  for  the entire  County  and the surplus
material generated by the Southeastern Oakland
County Incinerator Authority.

     Plan  "B" costs, which do not include the
Authority, are  $31,455,400 and also include
engineering and contingencies.

     Plan "A"  would obligate Oakland County by
only 1.13% of the 1968 equalized valuation and
Plan "B"  by only 0.91%. Both amounts are well
within the outside  debt  limitation  of  10%
including the remainder of the County supported
debt.

     With further growth of the equalized value
of Oakland County  by  1970  the valuation is
expected  to be  up another 20%  and  the  debt
attributable to solid waste disposal at that time is
expected  to be  only 0.94%  for Plan  "A"  and
0.76%  for Plan "B".

     The additional expenditure in 1980 for Plan
"A" is estimated to be $17,919,900 and for Plan
"B",  $20,238,900. The  estimated increase in
equalized  valuation is 58.4% between  1970  and
1980 and the  additional  debt to be assumed for
solid waste disposal in 1980 would be 0.0027% of
the  then  equalized  value for  Plan   "A"  and
0.0031% for Plan "B".

     Oakland County has the capacity and  will
have the capacity to finance the entire program of
solid waste disposal for the capital improvement
expense  for  both  1970  and 1980.  The
municipalities  which will  benefit  from  the
program  will  pay  for  the  capital  improvement
costs  through the  various  charges   they  are
permitted to make and also the yearly operational
costs. The capital cost obligation assumed by the
County is  not significant in  proportion  to  the
permitted general obligation debt limitation.
                                              97

-------
                      CONVENIENCE CENTERS CAPITAL COSTS




                                OAKLAND COUNTY
Township
Addison
Brandon
Groveland
Highland
Holly
Independence
Lyon
Milford
Oakland
Orion
Oxford
Rose
Springfield
Novi
No. of
Stations
2
3
4
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
2
Capital
Costs each
1970
$100,900
141,400
114,800
145,200
109,500
146,500
107,900
1 1 1 ,000
87,500
148,600
148,600
83,700
94,800
108,000
Equalized
Valuation
1968
$16,682,302
25,904,860
15,890,350
45,079,800
40,041,300
84,150,100
30,433,600
49,472,200
46,070,000
76,660,540
41,437,600
16,042,260
24,598,000
74,016,400
Tax rate per $1000 to
amortize Capital Costs
10 yrs. 15 yrs. 20 yrs.
$0.77
0.70
0.92
0.41
0.35
0.22
0.45
0.29
0.24
0.25
0.46
0.66
0.49
0.19
$0.57
0.52
0.69
0.31
0.26
0.17
0.34
0.21
0.18
0.18
0.34
0.50
0.37
0.14
$0.48
0.43
0.57
0.26
0.22
0.14
0.28
0.18
0.15
0.15
0.28
0.41
0.31
0.12
Total
39
$1,648,400
$586,479,312
(0.365) (0.267) (0.223) Average
                                         98

-------
             Operational Financing
entire service.
     While the  capital and operational costs will
be  assumed  by  the  local  governments  from
various  charges, a county  at-large tax could be
levied to pay for the service. This is not suggested
as a solution, but noted here to  show that it is
possible.

     Were Plan  "A" to be paid for at-large on the
basis  of the 1968 equalized value,  the yearly
charge would be $2.67 per thousand. On the basis
of the projected valuation for 1970 the cost per
thousand  of  equalized value would be $2.23 per
year  for  all  of the  service described  here,
including  the residue from  the  South Eastern
Oakland County Incinerator Authority.

     For Plan "B", which does not  include the
Authority,  the  equalized  valuations  of the
Authority members have been deducted and the
cost to  the remainder of the County would be
$3.05 based on  the  1968  valuation.  On the
projected  valuation for   1970  the tax   rate
necessary  to  support the service would be $2.63
per thousand.

     Under Act 342 each individual  community
could levy these  tax rates above any limitation
and in turn pay the County for the service.
Convenience Centers

     There  are   39  Convenience  Centers
recommended for  14  of the Townships  which
could be constructed in 1970 if the County were
to be fully covered to give  proper  service. An
additional  2   convenience   centers  are
recommended by  1980. On the basis  of the 1968
equalized valuation the yearly cost of operation
and  amortization  of capital costs would  be 49
cents per thousand. On the basis of the projected
1970 equalized valuation the  cost would  be 41
cents per  thousand. All tax  rates projected are
based on the total County valuation assuming the
responsibility for the Convenience  Centers. This is
a reasonable cost  to assure the construction and
operation of this type of facility.

     The  cost  of  construction  and operation
could also be assumed by the County  and built-in
to the  rate charged the  municipalities for the
     There is another possible means to solve the
problem  of solid wastes in sparsely settled areas
from the financial standpoint. This could involve
the local units paying for the cost of construction
of the Convenience Centers within their  borders
and  then  spreading the cost of operation of the
Centers as  well  as the  whole service  to the
participating municipalities.

     Each  Township  Board  involved could
contract  with the County Agency  assigned the
task  by  the  Board  of  Supervisors,  and  by
resolution  assume the  capital  costs and  interest
payments for the construction costs.

     Because of the Township payment of capital
costs the  rate  for disposal and annual costs as
compared to those stated elsewhere in this Report
would be  slightly lower.  No attempt has been
made to amortize the capital  cost additions by
1980. The valuations for each individual unit will
increase,  but no attempt has been made  here to
project this increase, except on a County-wide
basis.

     Shown in the Table on the opposite page are
the Townships in which the Convenience  Centers
will  be located,  the number  recommended by
1970, the  capital costs for each Township, the
equalized  value, and the tax rate (based on the
1968 valuation) necessary to pay for the capital
costs of the convenience centers for each year for
individual  Townships.  A  10,  15,  and  20 year
amortization is included.  However, it would be
understood that the County  would have to settle
on  only  one  as  the bonds will be  sold for a
specified number of years.

     Another test has  been made of the impact
on  the tax  rate for the above Townships if the
capital cost  amortization and  annual costs of
operation were included.  They  ran  from $1.39
per thousand each  year to $8.38 per thousand,
and would seem impractical.

     Serious consideration should be given to
piecing  together  a  combination of  the above
financial   facts to   suit  all  of  the   County
governmental  units and  include Convenience
Centers .as an  integral   part  of any  over-all
solution.
                                              99

-------
                      PUBLIC RELATIONS AND SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
     The general public does not like to think of
refuse  disposal. They recognize  it as an essential
service but are unwilling to agree to location of
facilities near their homes. Often  separation of
several miles is insufficient to gain acceptance of a
refuse disposal site.

     The program proposed in  this Report will
locate several  disposal  sites  throughout  the
County.  Seven  townships  will  contain  a site.
Additional  municipalities will be  on the route
taken  by vehicles transporting refuse  or  residue
from one location to another. This diversification
of sites for the program will create a large public
outcry against the County  Plan unless something
is done to relieve the anxities of the public.

     A sound public relations program will be an
efficient tool in winning the acceptance required
to implement  your program. Models, pictures,
charts  and  drawings  are a part  of the  public
relations effort. They help  explain the need and
the  effect   of  the  program.  These visual  aids,
however, do not allay  the fears of persons not
thoroughly  informed  of the problem  and  its
solution. It  is  the  most  difficult  part  of the
public  relations program dealing with the  human
elements of the problem that we discuss in greater
detail.

     No other  public  service  is  so  closely
associated  with the individual citizen as refuse
disposal and  he therefore feels compelled to voice
his opinions  regarding  any  change of  service.
These opinions are usually  heard as objections by
public officials,  and  the  strength of these
objections  varies  with  a  person's  habits,
personality and philosophy of life.
comprehension of the average person. Usually the
resident wants to know how much of the cost of
a project will come from his own pocket and how
much the "government" is going to "give" him or
his community. It is frequently difficult to obtain
acceptance of  a worthy project  even  when  an
economic  benefit  can   be  shown.  Other
motivations become dominant in this case.

     Two such motivations — security, and health
and  safety — perhaps cause more apprehension
for the local citizenry than any other except cost.
The  resident of an area holds a possessive attitude
toward his home, his land,  his roads, and as we
have earlier pointed out, his lakes. The resident
wants to know what effect  the hauling of refuse
will have on his streets, his traffic habits, and the
safety of his children and his neighbor's children.
He inquires about the safety and the effect on his
health,  and  he  ponders  unforeseen  problems
which  might arise  because  of the new disposal
method.  The local citizen is entitled  to know to
the best  of technical knowledge what effects the
location of facilities in his area will have upon his
life and his property. Usually, the well-informed
citizen will become an  ally  and will be able to
help  in  the  realization  of a  project,  since his
knowledge helps dispel the fears of his neighbors.

     The final motivation which we will discuss is
social  recognition.  This force often causes the
undecided  citizen to raise his voice in protest.
Such a person is reluctant to face the problem for
himself and to reach his own decisions out of fear
of what his neighbors will think. Although people
with this attitude will  swell  the ranks  of any
public  hearing, such opposition subsides rapidly
after a decision has been reached.
             Motivating the Public

     The major motivating forces in the resistance
to  change  in  the solid waste  service  of the
community  are cost, security, health, safety, and
social recognition.

     Effective  solid  waste management  costs
money. Unfortunately, the cost is too large to be
easily  overlooked,  but  is  not  beyond the
           Gaining Public Acceptance

     Locating  technically  suitable  solid  waste
disposal sites is in itself difficult. Finding a site
totally  acceptable  to  the local population  is
almost impossible. Many political jurisdictions in
Oakland  County  have  no suitable  space  for
disposal  facilities and  must  rely  upon  their
neighbors to accept waste from their community.
Under  the  section  of  this  Report  entitled
                                              100

-------
"Historical Considerations" we point out that 32
                     county  communities  haul
                     refuse   to  another
                     community  while  an
                     additional  25, although it
                     is  not specifically  stated,
                     probably do so also.

     The  concept of solid  waste  disposal  as a
regional problem  escapes the ordinary household.
The  primary concerns  are  for  the speed  with
which  refuse is  taken  from the property  and
located elsewhere and the neatness of the service
rendered.  Therefore, the  larger objectives of air
pollution abatement, of the  creation of parks and
recreation  facilities,  of  land  reclamation  and
creation of open  space all at some indefinite  time
in the  future should take a secondary place to the
personal  interest  of  the  household.  The
homeowner is  more  interested  in  increased
property values, the clean-up of the roadside trash
pile  his  child  plays on, and the removal of
abandoned automobile  hulks in  the vacant lot
across  the street  than he  is  in the future welfare
of his  community.  He  frequently views  such
facilities  as  golf courses,  park land, and general
recreational facilities as a benefit to the affluent
few rather than as a direct benefit  to himself.

     The  public  inertia  against  the location of
facilities  in  a  given   neighborhood  can be
overcome  by a well-organized  approach  to  the
people. You will  find it difficult to convince the
opposition and  to win  friends for your cause,
because health  is an  abstract subject and garbage
ranks low as a  conversational topic. The way to
gain  acceptance is through a  good  public relations
program.
           Public Relations Program

     Local   news media  can  be  helpful  in
presenting  your  program   to  the  people.
Newspapers, radio, and television often look for a
crusade which  will be a public service to their
customers  and  which can help  increase their
circulation or listening  audience. News releases,
interviews with reporters, and field trips to pick
out and show the local trouble spots help these
sources to help  you.  The news media can do
much of the ground work to convince the general
public  of  the worthiness of your proposed sites
and  methods  of operation  if  they  become
interested in your project. Officials should make
every effort  to  contact local citizens to explain
the  proposed  operation.  Public  meetings  help
present a project to the public.

     Some  persons in  a community  may  be
difficult  to  convince. They  continue to object
despite  these efforts  to  convince  them that the
program  is  worthwhile   and should   be
implemented. In such cases, personal contact by a
responsible official of the agency in charge of the
project is appropriate. Such personal interest in the
problems of a citizen  can often pave the way for
cooperation. The public relations program should
extend  to  a  field  trip  to  local  as  well  as
competently operated distant sites, with a group
of opponents to the  project. Viewing a well-run
refuse disposal operation, and explaining ways to
avoid the problems of concern to  the group, can
do more to convince strong objectors than hours
of talk and hundreds  of pictures. The expense of
such  a  trip  will  be  returned   in  public
understanding of your problems and cooperation
with  your program. If influential opponents to
your  program are chosen the return will be even
greater because  they will tell their neighbors and
friends of what they have seen and learned on the
trip.  Effective  communication with  dissenters
reduces the opposition to a project.

     Residents whose property is near a proposed
site will be the most difficult to convince. No one
wants a refuse disposal facility  in his backyard,
but  the County  is  too densely  developed  to
isolate these facilities from everyone.  When  all
factors have been considered and a decision made
on the location  of the disposal area, every effort
should be  exerted to  convince the surrounding
people  that   their  interests are  not  being
jeopardized,  and that the decision is  the correct
one.  It is important not  to change the decision
once  made. Once a change is made, citizens living
near any other proposed site will exert all possible
pressure to produce another change.
                 Inducements

     Certain inducements can be offered to help
convince surrounding property  owners that the
location of the disposal site in their neighborhood
is not  a detriment. Better roads can  be cited as
                                              101

-------
improvements arising  because of  the  disposal
facility; utility extension to  nearby properties
may be feasible,  particularly  where incinerators
are to  be built.  Local disposal  sites can be
properly closed  by the  County  Agency.  The
County, in general,  can make payments  to the
local government to make up for  the taxes lost
when land formerly in  private hands is converted
to public property. Additional payments might be
made by the  County to local subdivisions to help
reimburse  for nuisances and  maintenance  arising
from  refuse  traffic  on local  roads,  or  lower
disposal rates may be enacted for local residents.
Such  funds  should   be  used  by the   local
subdivision  primarily  in  the  neighborhood
immediately  adjacent  to  the  disposal  facility.
Sites  which  have  been  expended, such  as  ash
disposal facilities, or sanitary landfills where the
land is not leased by the County, can be returned
to the  local political  authority for  use by  its
citizenry.
               Recommendation

     We  recommend  that  a   public  relations
program be an integral  part of  your program of
solid waste planning and management.
                                              102

-------
                                              APPENDIX

                                                TABLE I

                                      POPULATION PROJECTION
SUBDIVISION

CITIES
  Berkley
  Birmingham
  Clawson
  Ferndale
  Hazel Park
  Huntington Woods
  Keego Harbor
  Lathrup Village
  Madison Heights
  Oak Park & Royal Oak Township
  Pleasant Ridge
  Pontiac
  Rochester
  Royal Oak
  Southfield
  Sylvan Lake
  Troy
  Walled Lake
  Wixom
VILLAGES
  Beverly Hills
  Bingham Farms & Franklin
  Lake Angelas
  Novi & Northville
  Quakertown & Wood Creek Farms
  Wolverine Lake
TOWNSHIPS
  Addison & Leonard Village
  Avon
  Bloomfield  & Bloomfield Hills
  Brandon & Ortonville
  Commerce
  Farmington & City of Farmington
  Groveland
  Highland
  Holly & Holly Village
  Independence & Clarkston
  Lyon & South  Lyon City
  Milford & Milford Village
  Oakland
  Orion & Lake Orion Village
  Oxford & Oxford Village
  Pontiac
  Rose
  Springfield
  Waterford
  West Bloomfield & Orchard Lake
  White Lake
        Total

1970
27,000
32,900
21,000
38,000
32,000
9,100
3,000
4,500
59,000
55,200
3,800
96,000
6,500
110,000
57,400
2,400
34,000
4,200
3,000
12,000
4,000
300
8,500
2,000
3,100
2,200
29,600
39,750
3,780
13,400
42,950
1,530
6,800
6,400
14,500
5,870
6,930
3,600
14,900
6,690
15,000
1,900
3,100
61,000
21,600
1 1 ,600

1975
27,000
32,900
21,000
38,000
32,000
9,100
3,000
4,500
59,000
55,200
3,800
96,000
6,900
110,000
1 05,000
2,400
42,000
4,200
7,500
12,000
4,800
300
11,200
2,400
3,100
2,500
36,500
44,400
3,800
30,400
51,000
1,600
7,700
6,550
15,500
6,300
7,400
4,100
16,000
6,800
30,000
2,000
3,200
81,000
42,000
13,500
YEAR
1980
27,000
32,900
21,000
38,000
32,000
9,100
3,000
4,500
59,000
55,200
3,800
96,000
7,500
110,000
126,500
2,400
49,000
4,200
9,200
12,000
6,000
300
14,900
3,000
3,100
2,900
40,500
53,000
3,980
45,400
61,000
1,730
9,000
6,700
17,300
6,870
7,930
4,700
17,800
6,990
45,700
2,100
3,300
105,000
53,600
16,200

1985
27,000
32,900
21,000
38,000
32,000
9,100
3,000
4,500
59,000
55,200
3,800
96,000
7,800
110,000
126,500
2,400
54,000
4,200
9,200
12,000
7,800
300
19,700
3,600
3,100
4,500
43,000
81,000
4,300
47,000
95,000
1,900
12,000
6,900
27,000
7,800
9,000
5,700
28,000
7,200
60,000
2,300
3,500
125,000
55,000
20,000

1990
27,000
32,900
21,000
38,000
32,000
9,100
3,000
4,500
59,000
55,200
3,800
96,000
8,000
110,000
1 26,500
2,400
57,000
4,200
9,200
1 2,000
10,000
300
21,400
4,000
3,100
5,100
45,000
124,000
4,580
48,400
142,000
2,230
16,400
7,200
41,800
9,800
11,000
8,200
42,200
7,490
74,700
2,600
3,800
140,000
56,600
26,700
942,000
1,105,550
1,241,300
1,383,200
                                                                                                  1,569,400
                                                   103

-------
                                                TABLE II
                                     COMMERCIAL  FLOOR AREA
                                                 (SQ.  FT.)
SUBDIVISION
CITIES
  Berkley
  Birmingham
  Clawson
  Ferndale
  Hazel Park
  Huntington Woods
  Keego Harbor
  Lathrup Village
  Madison Heights
  Oak Park & Royal Oak Township
  Pleasant Ridge
  Pontiac
  Rochester
  Royal Oak
  Southfield
  Sylvan Lake
  Troy
  Walled Lake
  Wixom
VILLAGES
  Beverly Hills
  Bingham Farms & Franklin
  Lake Angelas
  Novi & Northville
  Quakertown & Wood Creek Farms
  Wolverine Lake
TOWNSHIPS
  Addison & Leonard Village
  Avon
  Bloomfield & Bloomfield Hills
  Brandon & Ortonville
  Commerce
  Farmington & City of Farmington
  Groveland
  Highland
  Holly & Holly Village
  Independence & Clarkston
  Lyon & South  Lyon City
  Milford & Milford Village
  Oakland
  Orion & Lake Orion Village
  Oxford & Oxford Village
  Pontiac
  Rose
  Springfield
  Waterford
  West Bloomfield & Orchard Lake
  White Lake

1970
1,238,100
2,918,400
719,500
2,840,100
1 ,870,500
234,100
228,500
161,200
2,335,200
4,981,600
174,100
21,890,700
774,200
8,158,500
8,100,400
373,900
11,357,500
692,800
283,500
1,100,100
277,000
1,700
1,038,500
4,700
58,200
160,100
1,892,000
2,723,800
275,200
1,119,000
7,821,800
1,198,600
541,400
708,400
850,700
606,300
960,000
183,400
1 ,844,800
684,300
1,831,200
615,400
5,103,700
1,595,000
5,898,600

1975
1,296,500
3,056,100
753,500
2,974,000
1,958,700
244,900
239,300
177,200
2,445,400
5,216,600
182,300
24,058,500
1,016,200
8,966,200
9,887,300
391,500
12,801,300
725,500
372,100
1,152,000
348,600
1,900
1,307,100
5,600
60,900
197,600
2,132,500
2,851,300
288,200
1,468,700
10,266,100
1 ,305,600
674,900
741,800
1,099,300
683,400
1,082,100
191,800
2,383,800
835,300
8,698,200
679,300
6,295,800
2,026,100
7,252,700
YEAR
1980
1,354,900
3,193,700
787,400
3,108,000
2,047,000
256,100
250,100
185.100
2,555,600
5,421,500
190,500
26,226,300
1,258,100
9,773,900
11,674,200
409,100
14,245,100
758,200
460,700
1 ,203,900
420,200
2,100
1,575,700
6,500
63,600
235,100
2,373,000
2,978,800
301,200
1,818,400
12,710,400
1,412,600
708,400
775,200
1,347,900
760,500
1,204,100
200,200
2,922,800
986,300
15,565,200
1 ,033,200
7,487,900
2,457,200
8,606,800

1985
1,413,300
3,331,400
821,300
3,242,000
2,134,800
267,100
260,900
193,100
2,665,800
5,686,500
198,700
28,394,100
1,500,100
10,581,600
13,461,100
426,700
15,688,900
790,900
549,300
1,255,800
491,800
2,300
1,844,300
7,400
66,300
272,600
2,613,500
3,106,300
314,200
2,168,100
5,154,700
1,519,600
841,900
808,600
1,596,500
837,600
1 ,326,200
208,600
3,461,800
1,137,300
22,432,200
1,097,100
8,680,000
2,888,300
10,960,900

1990
1,471,700
3,469,000
855,300
3,376,000
2,223,000
278.200
271,700
201,100
2,775,900
5,922,500
206,900
30,561,900
1,742,000
1 1 ,389,300
15,248,000
444,300
17,132,700
823,600
637,900
1,307,700
563,400
2,500
2,112,900
8,300
69,000
310,100
2,854,000
3,233,800
327,200
2,517,800
17,599,000
1,626,600
975,400
842,000
1,845,100
914,700
1,448,300
217,000
4,000,800
1,288,300
29,299,200
1,196,000
9,872,100
3,319,400
12,315,000
                                                    104

-------
    H
    Z


    §
    U

    a

    z
    o


    *-^

    U4
    1/2

    3

    U.

    U

    Oi

    U.

    O

    -4

    <
    00
3

aa

•<
H
    o




    i

    o
    o
    CU
    O
    on

    53
    o

    Q
    Z

    1/3
    Q
    O



    I
a
o z



u.
Sfe~


u. j1"



^
1
*
<
o
a.
a



8

H
faj
O
U


II 1
a:
0
z

r—
Z
111
a.
o
UJ


1 8
UJ |Jj
Z D 0
-^

O h-

d 5
o 3
u <



t §
MUNICIPAL
&
POPULATI










S
z
i
o
u
X
S
ca
i

u
o
0
o
ffi

8
F=
5
Q

a
COMBINED

X
i

a:
o
2
o:
o
COMBINED

x
m
CD
^
CE



UJ
O

ca
a:
u



S ^


a> 3
0 u.




S <
20
| o
1 ~










r~" 0>
E~




• u
o s/ a] o v £
« t E CN t 


CO o
c
|

c
D















01
c
to
t ^
ea c

CD £













£ *~

.1 3

D_ £,




0) w
to ***
11

Bloomfield
Hills City
2,378

£

c c
 S
a : c
o ^ aj




o ' ' r»T 3
0 OC 0 S 0















c
o
I §
TO •— O
u. o i-

ro
flj "D
C C
fl> 3
O U.




0 <
2 o S -^
c O - g
£ "S S










CM" S
P- T-




!nj|g
O ^ Q) "D £
rv •£ £ CM CN









*- S
3 _^ i C 0
1 g II | S 5
3 0 ' ' g CM" £















6
V
••88
£ "I
U. CO
                                                              105

-------
3 I
eg s
o
III
3f U
if
E

UJ u.
O£ Q «/>
3 LiJ
£3*

£
UJ

1
i



i-
8
i

_1
8



*
8
0
z
<
1-
z
UJ
1
3
o
UI



"* A
S H
fc S
*Qd
5 z u
u t
d I
8 *


t g
MUNICIPAL
&
POPULAT









COMBINED
X
i
m
3
C£
UI
o
i
o
3!
D
I
8

F
S
Q
K
a
UJ
r
COMBIN
X

5
CO
ce.


UI
o
2
a:
0
o
COMBINE

X
S
Of


ffi
CtL
0




—
(0
0) 3
CD u.





0 rf
|g|s
g « in ^










IT)
RS
in en

w w




U J^' 0) T) 3 *~
in fc E cs £ 8












_ c
Hero1" 2"!










N > O
x G S


	
0) 3
O LL





O ^
| O Cn LO










in
s-i

**



jr"
co t: E v- t CM












in
S. i-s I
U "1 -S < 0 S
'c g •- CN 5 co
S £ ir o co ~










S &
So
Us
3 O IT)
I 5 en


	
CO
0) 1J
C C
0 if
c


c
c
D
LL
J
C
CD
U)







i
c
E
< |
co E


Si|J|
^ a §.:§ ^

c
c
D













I
c
o
o

S 6
~ S -5
§ gT
**~ cc

ill
^ *~ C*J
o cc o

o
-S
(D
X
^ OCM"


	
Q) "D
S §
O u.





liii










o ^ ,.
8S
o w

W ""


c

E (N S E CN
o - c 3 .-
O ^ 0) "D j^
ro i: E <- t













0 CC 
-------
o
UJ
* (J
o z
u!

UJ u.
3 UJ
^~ IL t
£=!"

8
ul

35
o
fe
a


H*
i/t
O
U
I
H
(J
UJ
_)
0
o
*
UJ
QL
a
z
•*
z
UJ
a.
^
o
Ul




1 i
E c
UJ UJ
if s
h- ^ on
U 1-
UJ Z
_1 r?
d 25
8 3


t z
— 2
^ n~
u "^ =
1 2










COMBINED

X
*/»
5
CO
a:


UJ
O
i
0
D
cc.
UJ
1
F
RESIDEN
COMBINED

S
CD
CD
C£


UJ
0
<
CD
CC
O
UJ
z
o
u

X
1

cc



Ul
C)
m
ce
o














Incinerator
(SEOCIAI









































0>
•a
£
1 >.8
(L U 
Ul CN "o










•— ^
"E
CM 0
ill
S ~ >
u
c
C CO Q) £ *- QJ <-
o .- c 3 .- c £ :







c
to
Q. E
c _
8 • u
" " s
1 -g -g
0 a, ^ - 2 •- -1


s 1 2

C (D '
0- .C O


t 1 -*
Ojjin^25;<59
llolilu-


^
6
2 0
O U3
Q- CO

T3
111 1
1 Hi





2 < $
llll
— — v> ~











0
CO —
5 ~

c
8 "- c | "- a -J |













l^uL
c u "~ In o 5
11 Ct 0 fi 5













§ !
> > o
0 - o
C O 0)


8 |
S> 6
c
§
c
c
D











^
.Q
CN ff. — CD
0 ^ -D £
» "" | 0
D
C
d













c
£ 1 1
£ ^ 3 JJ m c1
^ i > D , CD
3c ir^o £













"£
1 >.§
o t: o
CO O CD

C
1
c
c
§
c
c.
D
Unknown











c
o
c
-g
D

1
c
D













ill
= T ^
O CC (J













1
-c in
5 > co
5S!:-
107

-------































3 ?
w |
ca s
< 2
H •-_-


























Q
UJ
* U
O Z
1 <

U.

UJ u_
isi
CLD-"




I
u

<
o
8?
S




8
i

u
UJ
_l
o
u


s
UJ
g
o
z
1-
z
UJ
1
o
UJ






s s
I s
S d
Us
H «/*
(j (—

d S
0 *
u •<

fc z
t 0
L§
0 =
— Q_













s
z
i
o
u
X
ii
CO
o;


UJ
o
0£
u
O
ffi
g

-i
F
5
0
t/n
£
o
UJ
z
CO
s
o
u
X

CD
CD
S
UJ

3
cc
0

Q
LU
Z
CO

o
u

X
m
CO
•g



UJ
o
CO
os
o








1 S
U (0
£ =
-
w S
c
5
o
c
c
D
TJ
J>* d
c o £ -id
CO ,- O «-
CO .= Q. W











St.
O

«1l
«| 8
"o
C



c
p
E CN
- t

j^'
t c
Q- £
O ^
U <-





"ro • >
| !B -i 3 5
|S'S2
^ ^ CC oo — '


«
, -Q
5 x S ^ ,. >• ^
I«lfl||
0 OC 3 CC ^ CO -


CO
c

UJ 6 CN



80)
o>
> fe

to o




S <
2 o § _
c O n g

— ~ w —










X}
. (0 *^
m' t t J
S> S. Q. ~



§6 ut
E S
in t t
^ QJ ^
w Q. a
a "I
g CO (U
o .- c
O ^ o
CM fc E











c
c -g i g

CJ OC 0 •*










£ i
O 0
^^ o
K S



2
Q) *O
C C

a u.
c

c
=>

LL
C
CO
W











1
§- g-
to -6
!£)" ® jg
** " ^
"o
c

c
o
c
c
D











£ -t -E
c *~ *~
o
u cc o










0)
CO
~ > r*.
go,-


^
[Q
Q] *O
c c

0 u.



















i
o — »

*"• 2 S
w — 'g
1

Q.
E g
o .- g
o * E
- fc CM











Pi
c *~ *^
o
U CC 0










u
Q Q
g ™



£
S -n
c c
Q) a
0 u.




o -5
11

— —












§_
!§
r," CD
w •—






ci
£ c
8 J E
CM i M






g "
|| x|2_

o cc o co W C










I
> a> O
>- en o
9J _ o
CO > Z



2
11

C3 L^

g
O
c
D




c

c
c
-1










c
1
c



c
3
o
c
c











il
§ *•"






g
(a
u.
1  C?
108

-------
























si
pa "5

H 3-




























o
HOW
FINANCE

U U_

3 °UJ
li ^
£3-"




^
8
f
UJ
*
S
o
fe
5


L^
Lrt
COLLECTION CO:


*
UJ
8
Q
Z
t-
z
UJ
0.
5
0
UJ





8 g
fa UJ
59 o
Z t_)
P ** o*>
0 H
Ul Z
_J 3
Ij o
S 3



t 2
t: o
< *~
OL ^
o ^ =
1 1









UJ
2

3
o
u

X
S
CO
ct


UJ
o
o
u
o:
RESIDENTIAL COMME
o
UJ

i
o
(J
X

CO
ce
UJ
u

™
o
a
UJ
z
CO

o
u

i

ce


B
CD
Q£
0






u en
CO O







LL
-1
c"
CO









.0 +-
o o 2 £
LO t w £
CN (U QJ w
W Q. D- ^
? ^ 1
LO t t
CN Q) g
f> 5. a
c

c









^
g fcl llsl
™ _ CN C *- C CO
> 3 i 3 , *r
c S si 3
Q. JI CC CC O













1*8
(0 — CN
U > <-'

ra
£ ?
QJ 3
'J U.
C
5
o
c
c
D





a "S
!§'•£
I |-|d
0 co £ H







. S8 =
ollig
CO — • O C^ M
« a — 5 C





a
8^










||
C "~
0 '
o cc









c
— 0)
-^ 0) O
C co o
2 = 0


CO
0) "O
g §
O LL

^

g
LO
CN

LL
-J
C
CO
CO











$9,700
(1965)
(includes disposal]
c

Q. fc
E co
° ^|
c

t'
3 ? ^
"0 ^ fj



a
$L





ii
0 ^
c *-
1 CC


c- i
2 -S >. a
£ ™ S
O ' ' t
o cc o £

0)
S1
fi
o m
I co"

S 8,
11
W 0






c
3
c
J£
D











o P ®
5V 0)
cl a
c
g
o
c
c
D










QJ _ t
^"5*7
f~ flj
^ cc











(A
"u
0)
ll.
.3 > D!

CO
(D D
O U.






















$8,060
(1965)
(includes disposal)













§ 5 1 5 fe
£ (N E ^ C
cScc "cc S












c
0
o «
.J > CN

fl) -^
w u
C


c
c
D

LL
—1
C
CO
CO










_^^
$2.50 per/mo.
per/stop
(1965)
(includes disposal
c

a c
E f
8 J o









•o
S S I d

o cc u §













bo
3>$

Q) "D
C C
13 LL





















^^
$10.000
(1965)
(includes disposal













H 1 5

8 cc o













£ fo
5 > in
109

-------
3 I
oa  e


^  -»^
0
UJ
* u
uT

UJ U-
tt o««
H [^ l~
Szj"1


^
8
|-
3E
_i
o
8?
Q
8
H
U
-J
0



%
UJ
a:
u
o
•z.
^
I-
z
UJ
0.
3
o
UJ

ETHODS
.ECTED
^ Ij
g|S
u £
UJ Z
1 3
d o
8 3



fc z
t o


t o3 _l
1 ^
X










a
UJ
z
i
o
u

I/I
00
00
a

UJ
u
BS
8
^
F
5
^
UJ
z
o
u

X

ffi
CD
=>
a


UJ
o
a
0
COMBINED

X
1
ce

UJ
o
CO
Of
o









0} (U
1 £
w 6
c

c
c
D































!
Private
Hauler














Is
o in
Z r-'


£
Q> "D
C C
OJ 3
C3 U-
c
S
o
c
c
3
^ >*- u
-Jo,™
nj — o
C/l O Q_








§5)
.8
(O T—
w "


t
8 ^ I |
•- i IN u












i " "^ *7 9 ro
5 £ cc 0 2 C











0>

"
||s
O > r-'


0) 0)
2 E1
 OJ
O fJ
£ = (^
o > I-:


CD nj
2 ff
£  "O
"u
c
















sills 1
« ?I E - c ™ 5
o ' 2 ' ? ' f
0 DC DC 0 £











a
ra
>
Is
x co
O CN









































c
o
o
"o
0


o





c
o
If.
a > %
                                           110

-------
a
* u
§5
Z
•X
UJ u_
Q£ o \s>
3 U
U. ^


„,
g
X
K
UJ

1
5

H
0
u
s
1-
s
_l
o
u





UJ
(J
a
2
<
^
UJ
a.
^
O
Ul



1 §
x 2J
Z 9 o
o z o
1- < vo

UJ Z
1 3
d s
S 3


t §
d t-
MUNICIP)
&
POPULA





S
2
i
o
u

CO
CO
Of.
UJ
o
D
Ul
^
8

F
5
9
S
a
UJ
z
s
o
u
X

CO
co
a.


Ul
o

u.
o
jjj
3
8

VI
i

O£

tu
O
<:
CO
o




£
(1) TJ
C C

OJ r-
Si 3
CC > in
















o
|
§
5




















S
(0
c
o
o










0)
Wolverine
Lake Villag.
2,404

CO
03 ~Q
C C
0) 3
0 LL











C
!>
> ro
=> s



S' >.
•^
o> y
 Q.



a
0 -*
0 fc












" p 1
2 ^ *- ' c
CJ K i 1 ffl §










^ s,
1o JS
o > ^
112
° CO if)
> LL 00

SO)
0,
CO 6


LL
C
CO
CO







o E S
• t tr
w a a


6 v>
Sc a)
-~. -il
CM" ® w
w a a
c
QJ
d E
0 ^ ^













.* ^ >
£ fe|^-l 3
.> = T £> 1* g
et S a. S o g











a
SI
€ 18
•oo^.

8 |,
w u

o
it 'o
d 1 d
W It i H







<- —
£ S
I §•
c •£)
i|
CO "u
—


















» i
IE 5 co 2









a
1
C
1- 0
ll










































1
a. c
f S £
5 — 5J
o ^ w
1- o «
OJ
H i




Bloomfield
Twp.
22,530
111

-------





















a 9-
« •§
pa c
< o
H x_-






























Q
O Z
Z
u.

UJ U,
QC o i/t
£§^


f.
UJ

*/»
o
i




8
i
COLLECT



*
UJ
o:
u
o
z
"*
i—
0.
o
UJ



a s
9 D-
E C
u, u.
i|8
u P
Ul -t
d 8
o 5
0 <




t z
t o
_J i
MUNICIPA
&
POPULA1







i
i
0
u
X
5
CQ
CK

UJ
a
o
s!
u
ffi
8
RESIDENTIAL
o
UJ
2

0
U

x

CO
CD
£K
UJ
u

0
o
Ul
z
CD
5£
O
u

I
CO
13
or



B
m
or
o






0) 0)
.a g>
II



-
-II
_J "5> QJ
c € o 1









E "S -
sll
(NOW
w a —
II
s &














- ^ -
n'sl'Soi'sl'Sai
3 I 3 a: ^ o " 6 '^














Q.
H
c
0
"O O
CQ CO"

8 3
J •£ *-
<= ^ -£
Mr-™
CO •£ -1












(N •§ CM" fe *-" ,S2
W »- « o> W -Q















« _ "5 "3
137T
i 2 cc o













a
3 V3
h- CD
Sol
I-
is
E o


O



LL
_J
S






1
03
CO <
N'sf 8
«» c ^ ^







Q.
E
^ fc'





a> 'S
i 5 o fe


si
c *7




a> i-
5 "§
it i a:




Farmmgton
Twp.
32,000

8 8,
'> *~
£ j=
CO O
c

g
c


c
^ "c

' m ^-








By
Arrangement


















0
CN
2 u $
> 3 , £
i -c tr S3








Q.

I-
c

8 8,
II
w o




u.
J












1 8 =
9 -t 'u *
0 K C S
m a~ T3















0)
II














Q.
Highland Tw,
5,700







LL ^_
J 0
e UJ ?•
CO Z \~









c
{
c
D
Unknown















« >. £
£ i ct: °













g
!E
Holly Towns
3,200








































c
0
1
o


o




a
g
h-
01
tndependeno
10,121

.S p
w 5


>
CN
|%a
|||
0 § °









c
|
C
c
1
c
o
.X
c
3










iL c ^ c -Q

•c » ' g ' f cj













Q_

1
o ^
-1 CO"
112

-------
S "^
09
<
a
UJ
* u
0 Z
UL.

UI u.
QC O */>
3 lU
^ uT t
2:3"

8
1
UJ
*
s
o
5





o
u

i
S
o
u




X
UJ
a:
u
a
z
^
i-
z
UJ
0.
^
0
UJ




S Q
1 i
|18
J 1
d o
S 5


i* Z
t 0
MUNICIPAL
&
POPULAT











COMBINED

X
3
m
tt

UJ
o
2
S
u
O
ui


8
F
5
a

or
o
UJ
z
i
o
u

X

m
m
a:


UJ
u
•<
a:
o
a
UJ
z
CO
§
u
X
m
CO
3
a:

UJ
u
Of
o














Hit
O - I H







































1
— 0
I » 2
111

V
-C O
1- c


a
•£
Milford Town
1,548
I 8

>
|||
5 n 6
c
g
O
c
c
D
M
-0 r* 0 — .
C g 0 Lf
O O « C
















o"
O £
o • —
CN 0)
&} Q.

















0) j_
CD V
> 3
i 5








Oakland
Township
2,469



SQJ
a>
> to
£ -c
w u



^
o

J , 8 J 1
c: .2 | i _ |




































Scu
o
ffl £ E *«
5 cc °° o *~







.9-
° 0
c O
2 °>
E
t
s. ^

CN 0>
W CL
C
g
o
c
c
D
1- a a. O •£ -5 ' K















o 3
5° S



a w a w
o 2 E 2 Q 3 1
ro (- CN CN h- »-














llElgOu^^
si^i'Uiid








if I
X O ^
0 1- n

c
>
o
c
c
D
c
g
o
c
c
D
1 1 i 1 1 8





































Sill
oT j? a: o








||§

C

|
C
D



d
5

a 4-
£ o
•DO t~. —
r. O . 2 Lf
£ - a g cc
g. uj g 2 0)
O w 1- w C














c
0)
0)
c
CD
CD



















0) ,_
ti Q>
ll







a
1
cc
                                           113

-------























••« -—v
•" "B
W c
— 1 a
ca c
•< °
H -i-




























Q
UJ
* U
o z
07
UJu.
H°£
23K



8
X

•x.
0
5


H
8
1
h"
a
o
u




*
DC.
^-*
O
z
<
z
UJ
Q.


UJ



1 §
* J
i § 8

S i
d 8
o *
u <



>- Z
t g
MUNICIPAL
&
POPULAT







a

i
o
u

X

5
ca
oc
UJ
o
o
D
i
8

F
UJ
§
a-
UJ
z
i
o
u

X
ts*
5
CD
ce


UJ
u
i
o
o
UJ
z
ca
5c
0
u

X
S
DO

^

UJ
<
ca
ce
0





— vt
aj -D •- 21
c c ? 5
Q) D M JZ
O u- « U



S<
CD —•

ii§l










S —
CN^ 5
5°




a
o .
O _•£












» „•"
9- g ^ 	
1 J2 cc co S













15 c O
> 5 o
CC ° 1^'










8
-c S
a »
il
If
£ i





























CD
a c
Z 2
c u E

°1 1

r" O
H c





Springfield
Township
2,664



w u
c
c
c
D
a
•o
1
O












a>
i"
2
< c
m 1


a
E «i
3 t













CO ,
tS i
.2 3
Q. JI













Waterford
Township
47,008



o ra
i 5
(?) 0

£_
L«
a
•o
1
O









c

c
c




















<» _ 8
|| E|












"S
If
in



« |
lo



U.' "D
; C a
_J 0) >
C C/3 1"
CO C M-
to - o








c
c
c



O ui
0 P £
P "t ^
(M 0) 0)
W Q. D-

















co ,_
53
l- CD
a. JT













White Lake
Township
12,000
114

-------An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.

-------
a I
09 C
s
* u
I
c
UJ u.
0£ o t/i
?1"H
3. ?"


X
1-

3C
J
a
o
9s
a


i-
8
i
H*


o
u





£
o:
u
z
•^
1
£
a.
o
UJ





1/1 Q
S UJ
O !~
1 §
Ii8
H oo
u t
 N— '












lO ^^.
CM ^
^" '^'





J_--Jf
O *"

w j^' £ -o E
CM -t E — CN












I 111

U ^ u «'S









o .t:
"c o f*
I 5 oo"


«
0 if

c
o
CM



c

1
c
^

. .
u_ ^
O — u-
t/1 •— O
1
1
o "c
Q^ E
w ^

o E £ ^ fi
'O "x^ \^ — o
—' ai  -o
-£ — ; [^
-3> co"

o
g-g
0 i2




1 1 If
— •—«'>--'












S"
^ C-





^
• U
Q- CM D
E , 
-------
BQ  C
£
§5
Uu
Sfe-
Its
J


t/t
8
UJ
*
<
0
0.
5




0
u
5
i-
o






£
u
0
z
^
z
111
0-
^
o
UJ




8 S
1 5
-_ _j
•* _ j
59 o
— < °
h~ *^t
u s-
UJ Z
d 5
S 5




t §
-j c
MUNICIPA
&
POPULAi






1
I
0
u

£
CO
eg


Ul
o
CD
O
D
IS
3
8
1
Si!
0
UJ
z
03
S
o
u
r
S2
CO
CD
r>
CtL


UJ
O
^r
(K

O
a
UJ
z
CO
8

I
CO
CO
a:



S
•<
CO
<
u




0
Jl



.E O 8 5
U LU ^ O*

— - • t*V - '













— <>
Q °*



Q.CO
E > .
o • c
U v ^)
— i: E













I || J^
J £ L u ^~ C-












8>
TJ
oi
^ 0 co"

__  c *~ •
O v j) Q. y
rx i E CM i:


• -C"
a. u
1", s
u . c
c^i -^ |



— . L. *" D ^ 'X
^Q. ^ O 4, ° c> ~£
^ " ' 'E 1 ' ™ CO" -S S



~g_ ^ -^Q -^^

.- s-^^^o^^^i^ x ^
D " 1 ' '- n ' o" D* ^
5.£a;U dl_cU rxoC-


U
I*
O CM
a_ oo

2
|-g
Ou?



J o a"?
o UJ " C^
c i/> ^~ *~-
' *— '













CO
CO —
lO 0^-
CO —
CM -- '



Q_
E
0
u .
0 -*














c
o _^ -^ °
°- 55
1 1 T "? 5. i














D
0 CN

g
g-o
4) C

C
1
3














X

CO "S
,«. ^, irt O
II
.£ o

^
^
O .
0 _^
•* i













^ 1 4_
iT.ll'f |
U Q£ £ -C U 2














on O co

_y o)
flj -C
uo U
c
c
^
1 c!"
•D . '" —
S 'i ? I
x~\ JO ^ _











1
0)
en
c
o
O "c
^ E

8.44
•— 0) 0>
v» Q. Q.

^
£
O .
o .it:
CM -t













u
o
c
0
u














c
o
X
                                         117

-------
   a>


31
03  C
- .,
t g
^ ^~"
D "* =>
I i










fi
z
i
o
*/>
ffi
ID
=)


UJ
U
u
O
1
i
71
£
O
UJ
i
o
u
x

i

02

UJ
0
a


0
a

m
^
o
(J

I
i
z>


UJ
o
CO
0£

o






_ 
O D)
•
0
1"
_X 10


0
Sj-o
O iZ






l^«
I O « 5
U ' ' ' .^ C>-
-5^. «C.









S"
10"°;









Q.CN
o .- c
— Jr E













| § S | |
§ 1 ' C ""> §
U QC U 2 — " O







1^
^
in
X 0}
CO > CO


2
(U ^
O if
c

o

c




c
Q
J
c
D





c
c
c
13






c
0
^
c
=)













D \
0 '
(J Q£







E
o
u_
E d,
111
                                               118

-------














>*
2
bJ •"*
M e


























* u
= <
E
FUTURE
LIFE OF
SITES

i
£

-J
0
S

fe
8
i
8



*
S
Q

r~
1.
UJ
Q.
§
UJ






I 1
5|8
t3 t
UJ Z
d 8
8 3


t §
x t
&-3
I 6




Q
z
9
8

i
co
3
ft
UJ
O
i
I
i
§
o
UJ
i
o
u
X
1





UJ
o

et

o

S
Z
S
8

5
i
a


S
2
K
3



V a.
u O)
'E J
 Z. O







O O .!2
S s^ Ifl *-
0 i> i_ 0 C
t^ a. Q. S E
8* i/i
•<•<
CN D 0)
v> a. a.

D. CN i
1 r §-
— .t -o













_S£ _* -*
*i *- "x. * "\ ai ^
"5 _J CN ^ — -£ ^
"Co1 D ' **
Q- -c t*: ^ o^ * U










1 «
_2 O)
_o ;^ o
2
g-g
O u?
Unknown
i


• T3
||l
C • O

O en .E 3




. 0) ^
s ill"




D-
E
o .


1 ~"~











0 \
c (







LU > CN"
2
g-g
O LU
0
o
1. 1
-O 0) a
c "g =
8- -Z
O Z o








"5
S
a_
u
c


a.
e
0 .
U y
CN i^

Q- CN
3 . C
-0 _y — c




£"
O .
O sf*
CN i:
i j_
o -\ x E
^ ^ ca a>
§ , • f
O o: U 2

II
O \
J tt

! ^
o "j '° £
£ 7 " g1 1 5
o ^ u S 3 g
a,
0
|«
4) Q)
U oj

QJ -^
on U

c
J
c
Z)









S-l
o
£ i 2

1
C
13













^
41 L_ V^
*c o '
Q_ _C Qi









~S
D)
C ^
0, _D
D ;- co.
— 1 > CN
o
i ~=
OuE
c
c
D
Q.
IvXl
O-'o








"5
o
Q.
O ^^ .2
°-S 8
^c.-g
0
C

















- -* _^
O "\ * ->? fli
0 ' I ' 'I
U C* "* OZ f









C
Oa>
g)co
o
c -o
O if
Unknown
-'
ill








"s
o
CL
CO "O 0)
"~^ ~u
c


c
o
c
c
Z)













- 6
O £
U CXL










"T3 jj
I 0°
0 = 0-
o) v- in
-1 > CO
o
S "=
o i2
c
=>

D w-
l/l CN O

g"S
^ £ «
c -S5 g>
V 0) —
O iX >



o .--. °-
0 — .2
CO ^O ~D
~u
C


• o
E ^
o r c
*-> JK: 0)
m -t E













- -^ ^ -* & g
D -N^ "U ^ 5} X E
17 | T -| ^ |

j
i







"D 4)
~ F" co
119

-------
ca  c
<;  g
H  ^-^
o
gB
z
uT
UJ u.
OC. Qvi
aSt
^ "1 *^



§
S
*
|
S

fc
O
z

s
8






UJ
g
o
1-
2
J
2
o
UJ






S S
i £
518
f- e
a £
d^
3
o •*
u <
t z
— 2
^ P
00 _1
1 I









i
i
8

i
m
et
I
o
0
^
|

_i
1
a
UJ
z
i
o
u
X
i
CO
a:

01

a
CK
O
O
UJ
Z
CO
X
o
u

I
i
=>
a:

<
m
a:
3






J I
£ jj
CO (J
C

J
c
ID
j' c S,
_j ._ D
JTi>










•844||
' — CN 4) 4> .£ •—

C
J
J
c
z>










0) w
0 J?
> 3
'C O
D 	 C






4)
_0
~
|j

S
0) ^
Q> ^
Ou.
C

J
C
3
u.' S-s
; u- o o- x
-1 o o o
• X'-^ "0 D
C 4- C • 1)
0 ;- O CN
i-o U a. vv "^










c
1
c







(M
_ 4)
1-5
-§ g

~ E








I i -i
'£ S - 3 °. =
llcLSti

| 178-^1
•< ul ^ -O X C

4)
o
—1
-Q
C 4)
-E j?£

0) m
•- H>
£ _g
co U
c

J
c
3
:'i
-* >
CO O






0 |r • -D "5
O 5J -TT D "J
. Q 	 Q _ O
o . p u Q-

* \
v> X «- "u ^


Q_
E
o .
O _x
"~ *-









_^ _^ -* -^
4> u ^J 1J v? *" "\. ® \ *"
"^ (D^E^iicN £• — 5
> "5 i £ i -- i i i .E
*E O 5} j ^ J







V
—
*> *
c o>
o o
t — *—

s
S "c
OIL

^
J
c
Z)
• . 4)
LI- MJ D)
• . o
c '§>
0 t*.
CO CO O






—
o
8-t
OO *O M
u
c


c

c
c
^






c
2
c
~-*^
^ ^S t _^ o _g
i •— ' ' — ^ CN ^^~

U Q: U o; o C-




111
i • l-r
U o: 5 0
V
O)
o

^-
Is

V Q)
£ _g
00 U
c

J
c
=3




c
o
c






c
c







c
c
=>












*S^g
> "5 i i "*




i
o
ih
                                                120

-------
S -s
CQ C
<(. °
H -3
S
k O
sl
FUTURE
UFEOF
SITES



§
p
C
*
d
Q
S



J_
8
i
u
3
^







£
85


h"
S
i
LU



1/1 O
N
d i
8 5





H S
MUNICIPALI
&
POPULATK




e
Z
1


Z
i
m
i

LU

5
0
i
i
§
^
F
5


ffi
s
Z
i
o
0
z
IS)
i
2

Ul
o

a
i
55
5
u
u.


%
^
to
a:
•<
0



g
|l
1 |-| |
o x o x
X CN U-> CN





• V
U- O)
_j -5 o

c > - S
O c C^ •—
•oZ
E j'g
£ a ".
o ?"
x .= 4


Is
^ O












l"c
y _!,: 4)
— i E

tl
h



mil
5 « U — :x
^-
ot1-1ew"»1-1t •*

i; CN ^ • ^ E  3










O>
.£ =
> » 3
l"*x
> — 1 CM

a
Ij
c
1


















• ft) o



a S.S.^41






c
1
c







s4
"c ,
o '
U a:








_v O)
j =
iii
c
J
c
c
c
_•-.!:
§ Z Q |~
5 -s ^ i3




































g
-II
Q.5.
1 •-

H" aJ
_

t- y

III

D ai
0 0)
£ J
c
c
u.' 'o
-* -o
,: '5 a.
0 • *
(jO UJ f—











1
4)
O) 1 — ^
C .C
O "c "D Q_
X £ -5 .2
03 E O T3

^
o i *>


«— d) 4)
v* Q. Q-













||ll


Jd
c
c
3
m j. ^
c Z. J i-
0^5!











i>
E
0 c
03 E

• • D O
o i s~i 8


^ S. S-cE"0

a.
E
0 .
U v
— -t








1 ^_
o « ,!> co a)
> ~5 , i g>
i ^ ec (J S










T3
V
i^ o
5 t— (N
                                                121

-------
CQ  C
o
ii
z
ul
UJ u.
Q£ Q |/1
^ LU|_

u- 3
8
i
i/i
5

H
8
i

d
o
u


£
o:
u
Q
Z
•^
LK

UJ
D-
§
UJ
""* o
g UJ
E b
i d
50 o
_ z 8
u t
d i
o 3
u •<


t z
t: o

L§
U 3
7 ft.
= 0
i °-









COMBINED

RUBBISH
LU
U
i
i
8

F
5
5=;
£
o
OMBINE
u

_-
i/>
S
CD
=>
o:


UJ
o
!
COMBINED
I 1
i
3
CO
Eg

UJ
•<
o:
u








c

§

c
Open dump
S.W. cor-
of Twp.



























8
-11
a- X
£ o
|l
t— tU
1— O

Q.
C
It
CO CN

0) A)
1 1

oo U
c

£

c
c ? -S
O c O








. S-
o i § "i §
"^^^ "o 0.
*A Q- Q. •~— • "O

C
C
^











III








1

u
4)
11
U o"

o
£ c
0 iE

£
8

o


11
-a -E
c .? .
Ill



^
R- S-
O — ^
"•0s- i/)
O >— 0)
W D
"o
C





c
J
c

c
^




o

ll^







c
o
I3 -o
D J urT
U- 1— CN

* a
'£ 0
oo U
c
J
c

c


g- co
1 o o ^
_^ T3 IO -"
^ C w ^>
c 0 ,0
g.- a--
O .E hf .£














c
J
o
y
C
=)




1 -g
o a>
D » ^ <»
.1-5 , g1
i_i c* 2





i-
I—
c
o
2 CO

.y ra
£ o
D -J-
oo U
c
J
o
c

c
=>
1..
O' U-
00 O








. . 8 —
0 S "° S
— W 4) .C .^!
V> Q. Q.O- T5

n? .
CN i a> i











0 -? ^
Hi








ol

1
IE 10
O)OO

0) a)
•- 2*
£ o
00 U
c

i

c
?• .
1H
O 00 O




c
j
c

c
1
c

c
c
^











. s 1
ct _C Cii CN








_c

C
t—
o ,.
X CN

0) 4)
£ o
oo U
c

£

c
^ J .9-
_j C _C
D C 0
OO .- 1 —




Q. ^^ ^
^-g^-s I
t^V S CL~U ^5

O \
Q- c I ^
g g.^ w, D
^-" • "R Q-
CN J S — •-
t/> X i- U "D

i-JlL-
•— i: a> i











0) ,_
D 41
> D








0)
u
c
0)
ll-_
| Jo~

u m
'£ J
0 r^
t/i u
e
S
X
Q
o
c i .
O" U h?




c
j
J

c
o
c

c
I
3











I. c !- c
o a) a a>
« u. >^ E x E
O 4t co 4) CO 4)
£ J 
-------




















> V
S 1

CQ C
H •£•






























O
UJ
§5
"•
UJ u.

IP

1

s
5



H
8

P
§
o
(J




*
B£
a
z
<
t£
UJ
a.
^
o
UI





s s
1 t
ui UJ
S d
ifs

y z
d S
o 3
u <




,_
t 0
5 "*

G =
1 o
2







COMB MED
i
GO
Of
UJ
I
o
5!
D
i

L
F
£
9
i/1
£
a
UJ
z
i
o
u

X
S3
m
CO
Of


Ui
o
a:
o
a
UJ
z
CO
I


I
s
te.

g
m
CE

0









c

_*
c
r>
u.
4 z jc i"
O - .E J




































o
c
J: «u
.a £
U
H- 0)
4) —
-C 0
t— o



a
-p 1£
^ I S

~D
IJ.2 &
O u_ i/» U
c

c
oj o o ^-J












O £ £
O \_ "\
CM aJ 0)
t/)- O- Q.















^

11^














-a 0-
jls
&te


b^ O)
£ _o
Jj U
c

o
c
c
O a. t— E£ o















^_
1^
CN ^











^ ^ ^ _* ^
o -\ ** "\. * •*? *~ \ {5
^CN~ECN E ,_• .*- •— *.
(J ex. *" (J "c*; O











o.
!H
?
o
1 —
O Tf
6 oC


S
h
O u_
c
J
o
c
c
D
0 Q.^
I *£ - I ! 9- «
O O 4) ,-<. 0 •- ."±
t— Q. O.U i*- "O in




































O
C
li
l.i
t— a)

_c "5
t— v



CL
*** 1 Ct

C
J
^
C

c
o *z • ^ ^^
*^ C «• _ *; C







C
o
c
c
=>
c
c
c

c
c
Z)












£ «-
"o jj















Q_
111
o o *•
Q- J— CO

c
c
=>
c

c
c
Is i
"° O Q-C-
§_uj ^- o















c
c
^












iu ^
o *5
.> "5












Q.
_c
c

o
*sS
123

-------
if
a I
05 =
Q
OZ
Z
Z
UJ u.
OC Ob*>
ls«


„
1
*


0
S




8
5
i
o
u





ffi
S
a
T.
^
.
2
UJ
1
o
UJ

8 S
1 d
5i8
H" **t
U H
LLJ Z
i ~^
li S
8 5




t i
H
i °








s
s
i
8
i
CO

a
UJ
i

™5
O
i
8
F
£
Q

E
S
z
i
0
u
x

S
CO
3


UJ
u

MBINED
o
u
X
on
§

ce


UJ
U

CO
cc
o











£5-
|D 5^-
U LU ** O«










S5
~ ~^




c
1
C
C
D










lii.
U ^ in ^w-












o a.
o o ^
a: i— oo











O
c
J
.9- '
_C j-
 •—
|i
>— 0
ai a
t— "D
























8 .

_c +-
Q. >-
-C
1 'Z
o u

4> ^
^U

~a
(iu a.
I'll
a. o -
00 1— OJ

.ii O)
£ _E
CO {J
c
5
j
c
Is - • s
"^ °_ O.J ^' ^
rR- • *- "i ""• 0 1"
*~J t/l o O — J O 1—





















c
S
c

c
3






D <5
> 3
™ O
0- -C







1 .9-
i"f s
•S. o h«r
> i— ^r

«S,
£_°
Ji u


1
a.' ,-S
-J S 't
J!i!!









o u-^ir
O 0) UJ
o ^-^*^* °- a-
^ C^
o a
o £ £
O v^ v^

4^ Q. a.














pi|L
j^u S«-E











~«
jU^
* o C*T"
> i— —






in c
1 S
CM >.
"•'".?
J » a.
o c **-
(>n .- o












8 s.S
00 ^^~

^ Q- Q.
C
|
_c
c










ll
a! _c












ij-
^ « r-
^ O ••
^ (— 00
                         124

-------
                                        TABLE V

                          QUANTITIES OF INDUSTRIAL REFUSE
                                FROM QUESTIONNAIRES
                                           and
                            SUMMARY OF PERTINENT DATA
Item
           Quantity per Calendar Day
             T/D        CY/D
Garbage
Combustible
Non-combustible
Construction Material
Fly Ash
Foundry Sand
Non-volatile liquid
Volatile liquid
Sludge
Industries operating seasonally
Industries doing salvage
Industries burning waste materials
Industries operating open dumps
Industries reporting operating sanitary landfill
Industries operating on-site incinerators
              27
             537
             553
                            58
                            82
                          300
                            22
                            62
                          126
No.
 50
126
223
 25
 17
  6
                                           125

-------
                                 TABLE VI
         ESTIMATED VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
                                   PLAN A
                                                    TOTAL  NO.  REQUIRED
INCINERATORS
       Passenger Vehicle
       1/2 Ton Pick-up Truck
       6x9 Dump Truck
RESIDUE DISPOSAL
       65,000 GVW Tractor
       40 C.Y. Ash Trailer
       Bull Dozer
       Front Loader
       Self Loading Pan - 10 C.Y.
       1/2 Ton Pickup Truck
       Passenger Vehicle
TRANSFER STATIONS
       65,000 GVW Tractor
       80 C.Y. Side Dump Trailer
       Street Sweeper
       Tractor w/Bucket & Backhoe
INCINERATORS
       Passenger Vehicle
       1/2 Ton Pick-up Truck
       6x9 Dump Truck
RESIDUE DISPOSAL
       65,000 GVW Tractor
       40 C.Y. Ash Trailer
       Bull Dozer
       Front Loader
       Self Loading Pan - 10 C.Y.
       1/2 Ton Pick-up Truck
       Passenger Vehicle
TRANSFER STATIONS
       65,000 GVW Tractor
       80 C.Y. Side Dump Trailer
       Street Sweeper
       Tractor w/Bucket & Backhoe
                                     PLAN B
                            COMMON TO BOTH PLANS
ADMINISTRATIVE
       Passenger Vehicle
       1/2 Ton Pick-up Truck
CONVENIENCE CENTERS
       55,000 GVW Roll-Off Chassis
       Roll-Off Frame
       30 C.Y. Compactor Truck
       6x9 Dump Truck w/Lodal
       40 C.Y. Roll-Off Unit
       30 C.Y. Roll-Off Unit
        8 C.Y. Container
  Includes spare equipment where required for adequate maintenance and service.
1970-1980
3
3
3
6*
11 *
1
1
1
1
1
13
41
3
3
2
2
2
3*
6*
1
1
1
1
1
9
51
3
3
3
1
4
4
2
8
20
30
37
1980-1990
4
4
4
12*
27*
1
1
1
1
1
7
36
2
2
3
3
3
6*
10*
1
2
1
1
1
12
79
3
3
3
1
4
4
2
9
46
26
57
                                      126

-------
                                         TABLE VII

                        ESTIMATED  MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS

                                             TOTAL  REQUIRED
ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT
       Executive
       Engineers and Technicians
       Secretaries and Clerks
       Maintenance and Labor

CONVENIENCE CENTERS
       Drivers
       Helpers
TOTAL
                                 TOTAL
                                             1970-1980  1980-1990
2
3
5
_7^
17
30
26
56
2
3
5
7
17
30
26
56
INCINERATORS
       Drivers
       Crane Operators
       Tipping Floor Attendant
       Scale Attendant
       Superintendent
       Shift Engineer
       Boiler  Engineer
       Firemen
       Electricians
       Mechanics
       Laborers
       Janitors
TRANSFER STATIONS
       Drivers
       Floor Attendants
       Scale Attendants
       Laborers
       Equipment Operators
RESIDUE DISPOSAL
       Drivers
       Laborers
       Landfill Foremen
       Equipment Operators
                                 TOTAL
                                 TOTAL
                                 TOTAL
                                             TOTAL REQUIRED
                                             1970-1980  1980-1990
                                                    PLAN A
                                      TOTAL REQUIRED
12
24
3
12
3
12
12
56
6
6
18
9
173
52
10
10
10
10
92
20
2
1
6
29
16
32
4
16
4
16
16
76
8
8
12
12
220
24
6
6
6
6
48
33
2
1
8
44
1970-1980
PLAN
8
16
2
8
2
8
8
44
4
4
6
6
116
18
6
6
6
6
42
10
2
1
4
17
1980-1990
B
12
24
3
12
3
12
12
72
6
6
15
9
186
24
6
6
6
6
48
20
2
1
8
31
                         GRAND TOTAL
               367
385
269
362
                                            127

-------
                              TABLE VIII
ESTIMATED UNIT PRICES OF VEHICLES & EQUIPMENT IN 1970 *
      ITEM                                   UNIT        UNIT  COST
      Passenger Vehicle                         Each         $  3,000.
      1/2 Ton Pick-up Truck                     Each            3,500.
      65,000 GVW Tractor                      Each           17,500.
      40 C.Y. Ash Trailer                        Each            8,500
      80 C.Y. Side Dump Trailer                 Each           21,000.
      Roll-Off Frame                           Each            5,800.
      55,000 GVW Roll-Off Chassis               Each           15,200.
      30 C.Y. Compactor Truck                  Each           29,000.
      6x9 Dump Truck                        Each            8,000.
      Lodal Brush & Scoop                      Each            3,600.
      40 C.Y. Roll-Off Unit                     Each            3,500.
      30 C.Y. Roll-Off Unit                     Each            3,200.
      8 C.Y. Roll-Off Unit                     Each             600.
      Front Loader                            Each           45,000.
      10 C.Y. Self Loading Pan                   Each           80,000.
      Bull Dozer                               Each           40,000.
      Street Sweeper                           Each           12,000.
      Tractor with Bucket and Backhoe            Each            6,000.
      Scale                                   Each
      Fence                                   LF.                3.
      Landscaping                             Ac.             1,000.
      Onsite Roadway                          S.Y.                4.
      Access Road Construction                  L.F.               10.
      Access Road Resurfacing                   L.F.                3.30
        1980 unit costs may be determined from 1970 prices increased by 1.411
                                   128

-------
                    TABLE IX

     TYPICAL  TRANSFER STATION COST

Land                                     $   9,000.
Earthwork                                    2,000.
Concrete Substructure & Foundation              22,700.
Superstructure                                67,600.
Paving & Utilities                              30,000.
Fencing & Landscaping                          6,000.
Scale & Pit                                   25,000.
                                         $ 162,300.

Engineering & Contingencies                     32,500.
                                         $ 194,800.
                    TABLE X

    TYPICAL CONVENIENCE CENTER COST

Land                                     $   2,000.
Earthwork                                     1,000.
Concrete Substructure                           6,400.
Superstructure                                11,600.
Paving & Utilities                               3,000.
Fencing & Landscaping                          3,200.
                                         $  27,200.

Engineering & Contingencies                      5,400.
                                         $  32,600.
                        129

-------
                             TABLE XI

                     ESTIMATE OF COST FOR

        SEPTIC TANK  SLUDGE INCINERATION  EQUIPMENT

 Excavation                                                   $  11,000.
 Evaporating Pans & Foundations                                     235,000.
 Greenhouse                                                     120,000.
 Equipment                                                     103,900.
 Electrical                                                        15,000.
                                                            $ 484,900.

 Engineering & Contigencies                                          97.000.
                                                            $ 581,900.
                             TABLE XII

        COST OF STEAM LINE TO OAKLAND  UNIVERSITY

Land Acquisition                                               $  45,000.
Excavation                                                      22,300.
Conduit                                                        364,000.
Steam Pipe & Insulation                                            404,600.
Equipment                                                      14,100.
                                                            $  850,000.
Engineering & Contigencies                                         170,000.
                                                            $1,020,000.
                                 130

-------
                         TABLE XIII

         OAKLAND COUNTY EQUALIZED VALUATION
Year
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Equalized Valuation
$ 560,000,000.
576,300,000.
592,012,185.
709,400,000
774,315,000.
845,071,000.
966,608.754.
1,395,250,000.
1,584,801,899.
1,673,313,271.
1,808,669,648.
1,822,915,328.
1,893,302,301.
2,094,683,180.
2,112,408,200.
2,202,625,500.
2,313,884,200.
2,447,383,400.
2,689,070,738.
3,034,706,025.
3,460,371,031.
% of

2.91%
2.73
19.83
9.15
9.14
14.38
44.34
13.59
5.59
8.09
0.79
3.86
10.64
8.46
4.27
5.05
5.77
9.88
12.85
14.03
Increase


5.72
26.68
38.27
50.91
72.61
149.15
183.00
198.80
222.97
225.52
238.09
274.05
277.22
293.33
313.19
337.03
380.19
441.91
517.92
                             131

-------
                              TABLE XIV

         ACTIVE DISPOSAL SITES  IN OAKLAND COUNTY

                           DECEMBER, 1967

ADDISON TOWNSHIP
         Mack Road between Texter & Townsend
AVON TOWNSHIP
          1741 School Road
              School Road
          2751 Hamlin Road
BRANDON TOWNSHIP
          M-15  1/4 mile N. Township Line -
COMMERCE TOWNSHIP
          Maple behind Sterling Garrett
          Welch behind McEvoy Door Co.
          Ladd Road near Lakeside Market
HIGHLAND TOWNSHIP
          3100 Teeple Lake Road
          3200 Teeple Lake Road
          Reid Road 1/8 mile east Milford  Road
HOLLY TOWNSHIP
          Falk Road
          Quick Road just west of Pagan
INDEPENDENCE TOWNSHIP
          6440 Orion Road
          5380 Center Street
LYON TOWNSHIP
          11 Mile Road 1/4 mile east of Martindale
MILFORD TOWNSHIP
          Old Plank Road at S. Village Limits -
          Milford Road 1/2 mile north Buno
NOVI TOWNSHIP
          50250 8 Mile Road
          Taft Road near Northville Village Limit
OAKLAND TOWNSHIP
          Rochester Road
SEOCIA operated
Construction Debris
Veteran's Disposal Service

County Road Commission
Robinson Disposal Service
Willard Sanitation Service
Village of Holly
Ben Powell Disposal
Dervage Disposal
Milford Township
Munn Contracting
Nunn Piggery

Pontiac-Orion Authority
ORION TOWNSHIP
          1350 Kern Road
          Clarkston Road 1/4 mile west N.Y.C. R.R.
          Greenshield Road 1/4 mile west Kern Road - Highland Rec. Area
          Bald Mountain Road at Dutton Road
OXFORD TOWNSHIP
          M-24 between Metamora and Dunlap Roads
                                   132

-------
PONTIAC TOWNSHIP
          Bald Mountain Road at Dutton Road
          Joslyn Road south Taylor
          Kennett Road at G.T.  R.R.
          Auburn Road 1/8 mile east Opdyke
ROSE TOWNSHIP
          2375 East Rose Center Road
ROYAL OAK TOWNSHIP
          John R 1/4 mile north 12 Mile Rd.
SOUTHFIELD TOWNSHIP
          J. L. Hudson Dr. across from Northland  Construction Materials
SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP
          Eaton Road 1/2 mile north Davisburg Road
WATERFORD TOWNSHIP
County Road Commission
Industrial Services of America
City of Pontiac
Marlow & Sons Disposal
SEOCIA Incinerator
          M-59 at Cass Lake Road
WHITE LAKE TOWNSHIP
          9941 Cedar Island Road
Construction Materials
Chapel Disposal
                                   133

-------
                       TABLE XV

      IMPROPERLY CLOSED and INACTIVE SITES
                    DECEMBER, 1967
BLOOMFIELD TOWNSHIP
              Kemp - East End

FARMINGTON TOWNSHIP
              10 Mile Road - 1/2 mile east of Drake

NOVI TOWNSHIP
              13 Mile Road - 1/2 mile east of Novi Road
              Liuhart Street- 1/8 mile east of Novi Road

OXFORD TOWNSHIP
              Lakeville Road east of Village Limit

ROSE TOWNSHIP
              Demode Road 1/2 mile west Buckhorn Lake Road

WATERFORD TOWNSHIP
              Cooley Lake Road 1/4 mile East Hospital Road
              Letart Street West End 1/2 mile N. Walton
              Rockcroft South End - building material

WEST BLOOMFIELD
              Willow Road  1/8 mile S. Hiller
              Halstead  Road 1/8 mile S. G.T. R.R.

WHITE  LAKE TOWNSHIP
              4914 Cedar Island Road
                           134

-------
                                IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURE


     The work proposed  in  this Report  will require  much  coordination  of activity  to implement
recommendations.  These recommendations are based  on a County-wide operation for refuse disposal
facilities. Michigan law requires contracts assigning authority for refuse disposal to the County  before
these recommendations can become a reality.

     The following list indicates the procedure that is suggested to implement the program.

      1.  Present report to the County Board of Supervisors.

      2.  Study report and recommendations by the County Board of Supervisors.

      3.  Present the Report to the Southeastern Oakland  County Incinerator  Authority for their
         study.

      4.  A meeting between the Board of Supervisors and the Directors of the Southeastern Oakland
         County Incinerator Authority to determine which plan will be followed.

      5.  Authorization from the County  Board of Supervisors to the County agency to proceed with
         the recommended project.

      6.  Obtain limited contracts from cities, villages and townships.

      7.  Locate land for the construction of facilities and obtain options or purchase outright.

      8.  Make necessary soil investigations.

      9.  Prepare engineering plans and specifications for construction of facilities.

     10.  Establish rates.

     11.  Obtain firm contracts from cities, villages and townships.

     12.  Engage financial consultants to review financing procedure.

     13.  Supervisors approve bond issues.

     14.  Finance commission approves bond issue.

     15.  Sell bonds. Advertise for bids on  construction to implement the program.

     16.  Award contracts.

     17.  Hire supervisory operating personnel to observe construction of facilities.

     18.  Complete construction, test equipment, and begin service.

     19.  Certify rates  to be collected under the agreements to the County fiscal officer  for collection.
                                              135

-------
                               SOLID WASTE DEFINITIONS


ABANDONED VEHICLES
     Passenger automobiles, buses, trucks, motorcycles, farm implements and trailers that are no longer
     useful as such and have been left elswhere than a recognized junk yard or auto destructor.

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DEVICE
     Equipment  for  removing  fly ash, particulates,  and  some gaseous  or chemical products  of
     combustion  from the stack effluent prior to release to the atmosphere. Such equipment may  be
     electrostatic precipitators or high efficiency wet scrubbers.

ASHES
     Residue from the burning of wood, coal, coke, or other combustible materials.

AUXILIARY FUEL FIRING EQUIPMENT
     Equipment to supply additional heat, by the combustion of an auxiliary fuel, for the purpose of
     attaining temperatures sufficiently high (a) to dry and ignite the waste material, (b)  to maintain
     ignition thereof, and (c) to promote complete combustion  of combustible solids, vapors and
     grease.

BAFFLE
     Any  refractory  construction intended to change  the direction of  flow on the products  of
     combustion.

BREECHING (FLUE CONNECTION)
     A passage for conducting the products of combustion to the stack or chimney.

BTU (BRITISH THERMAL UNIT)
     The quantity of heat required to increase the temperature of one pound of water from 60 degrees
     to 61  degrees F.

BULKY WASTE
     Large items of refuse such as appliances,  furniture, large auto parts, trees and branches, large
     containers, rubber tires,  etc.

BURNER
     A device  for either  municipal or on-site volume reduction  of refuse by burning,  and of simple
     construction. Not to be confused with an incinerator, which, properly designed and operated,  can
     produce an acceptable emission and residue.

BURNING AREA (INCINERATOR)
     The horizontal projected area of grate, hearth, or the combination where burning takes place.

BURNING RATE
     The amount of waste consumed, usually expressed as pounds per hour per square foot of burning
     area.  Occasionally expressed as BTU per hour per square foot of burning area, which refers to the
     heat liberated by combustion of the waste.

BYPASS
     An arrangement  of breechings or flue connections and dampers to permit the alternate use of two
     or more pieces of equipment by directing or diverting the flow of the  products of combustion.
                                            136

-------
CAPACITY RATED
    The theoretical amount of solid, semi-solid, gaseous or liquid wastes that can be burned to an
    inoffensive residue containing little or no combustible material, and/or as gaseous by-product in a
    given time period usually expressed in pounds per hour or tons per day.

CELL
    Compacted refuse completely surrounded by cover material.

CENTRAL GARBAGE GRINDING
    The mechanical grinding of garbage  accumulated by municipal,  commercial,  or private delivery
    vehicles.

CHIMNEY
    See STACK.

CHUTE, CHARGING (INCINERATOR)
    A pipe or duct through which wastes are conveyed from above to the primary chamber.

COMBUSTIBLE RUBBISH
    Miscellaneous burnable materials. In general, the organic component of rubbish.

COMBUSTION AIR (THEORETICAL)
    Air, calculated from the chemical composition  of waste, required to burn the waste completely
    without additional air. Also  designated as  stoichiometric  air.

COMBUSTION AIR (EXCESS)
    Air supplied in excess of theoretical air, usually expressed as a percentage of  the theoretical air.
    Also called excess air.

COMBUSTION CHAMBER
    Chamber where ignition and burning of the waste occur.

COMMERCIAL REFUSE
    All solid wastes which originate from a business such as office buildings, stores, markets, theaters
    and privately and publicly owned hospitals and other institutional buildings.

COMMUNICABLE  DISEASE
    All illness  due to an infectious  agent or  its toxic  products which is transmitted directly or
    indirectly to a well person  from an  infected  person or  animal, or through the agency of an
    intermediate host, vector, or inanimate environment.

COMPACTOR TRUCK
    Enclosed vehicle provided  with special mechanical devices for loading the refuse into the main
    compartment of the body,  compressing the loaded materials, and distributing the refuse within the
    body.

COMPOSTING
    A controlled biological degradation of  organic waste yielding a nuisance-free product of potential
    value as a soil conditioner.

CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTES
    Waste  building  materials  and  rubble resulting  from construction,  remodeling,   repair,  and
    demolition operations on houses, commercial buildings, pavements, and other structures.
                                            137

-------
CONTAMINATION
    Presence of a pathogenic organism on a body surface, or on or in an inanimate article.

CONTRACT COLLECTION
    An arrangement whereby the city pays a contractor for doing collection work.

DEAD ANIMALS
    Those that die naturally, from disease or are accidentally killed. Condemned animals or parts of
    animals from slaughter houses or similar places are not included in this term, but are regarded as
    industrial refuse.

DEMOLITION WASTES
    See CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTES.

DISINFECTION
    Killing of pathogenic agents outside the body by chemical or physical means directly applied.

DISPOSAL AREA
    A site, location, tract  of land, area, building, structure or premises used or intended to be used for
    partial and/or total refuse disposal.

DOMESTIC REFUSE
    All those types of solid  waste which normally originate in the residential household or apartment
    house.

DRAFT
    The pressure difference  between the incinerator, or any component part,  and the  atmosphere,
    which causes the products of combustion to flow from the incinerator to the  atmosphere.

       —Natural: The negative pressure created by the difference in density between the hot flue gases
                 and the atmosphere.

       —Induced: The negative pressure  created by  the action of a fan, blower or ejector located
                 between the incinerator and the stack.

       —Forced:  The positive pressure created by the action of a fan or blower, supplying the primary
                 or secondary air.

DRYING HEARTH
    A surface within  the  primary chamber upon which wet waste material is depositied for drying,
    prior to burning.

DUMP
    See OPEN DUMP.

EMISSION
    The gases, vapor, and particulates that reach the atmosphere from the burning process.

EXCESS AIR
    The air remaining after  a fuel has  been completely burned, or that air supplied in addition to the
    theoretical quantity.

FLUE
    See STACK.


                                            138

-------
FLUE GAS WASHER OR SCRUBBER
    Equipment  for  removing fly ash  and other objectionable materials  from the products  of
    combustion by means of sprays, wet baffles, etc. Also reduces the temperature of effluent gases.

FLY ASH
    All solids including ash, charred paper, cinders, dusty soot or other partially incinerated matter,
    carried by the gaseous products of combustion.

FLY ASH COLLECTOR
    Equipment for trapping and removing fly ash from the products of combustion.

GARBAGE
    Rejected food wastes  including  waste  accumulation of animal, fruit or vegetable matter used or
    intended for  food or that attend the preparation, use, cooking, dealing in or storing of meat, fish,
    fowl, fruit or vegetable.

GARBAGE GRINDING
    A method of uniformly  reducing food  waste or garbage and placing the reduced product in sewer
    systems. The reducing device may be a home sink grinder, or a large central grinder which serves
    industry or the community. It is  noted that the ground garbage, which should pass through a
    sewage treatment plant, must still be disposed of as sewage sludge after treatment.

GASES, INCINERATOR
    Combustion  gases  which may contain water vapor  and excess or dilution air added after the
    combustion chamber.

GRATE
    Surface with suitable openings, to support the refuse and permit passage of air through the burning
    fuel. It is usually located in the primary combustion chamber, and is designed to permit movement
    of unburned refuse or residue, and may be horizontal or inclined and stationary or movable.

GROUND WATER
    Water in the ground that is in the zone of saturation.

HAZARDOUS WASTES
    Includes, but is not limited to, explosives, pathological wastes, radioactive materials and chemicals.

HEAT  EXCHANGER
    A device for transferring heat  from one medium to  another  by  conduction through a third
    material. In a boiler, the processes whereby hot gases pass over waterfilled metal tubes, to cool the
    gases and to convert the water to steam.

HEAT  OF COMBUSTION
    The amount  of heat, usually expressed as BTU per pound of as-fired or dry waste, liberated by
    combustion at a reference  temperature of 68 degrees F. With reference to  auxiliary gas, it is
    expressed as BTU per standard cubic foot, and to auxiliary oil as BTU per pound or gallon. Also
    called heating value.

HEAT  RELEASE RATE
    The amount of heat liberated in the  primary combustion  chamber, usually expressed  as BTU per
    hour per cubic foot.
                                            139

-------
INCINERATION
    An arrangement of chambers and equipment  designed for burning solid, semi-solid, liquid or
    gaseous combustible waste to an inoffensive gas and a residue containing little or no combustible
    material.

INDUSTRIAL REFUSE
    All solid wastes which result from industrial  processes and manufacturing operations such as
    factories, processing plants, repair and cleaning establishments, refineries and rendering plants.

JUNK
    A collection of secondary materials, sorted but unprocessed.

MUNICIPAL COLLECTION
    An arrangement  whereby the  city pays  the  collection  personnel  and operation is  by  city
    departments.

NONCOMBUSTIBLE RUBBISH
    Miscellaneous  refuse materials that are unburnable at ordinary incinerator temperatures  (1300
    degrees F to 2000 degrees F).

ON-SITE DISPOSAL
    Includes all means  of disposal or volume  reduction of refuse on premises before  collection.
    Examples are garbage  grinding; burning or incineration; burial; compaction; or slurrying at homes
    and commercial establishments.

OPEN DUMP
    The consolidation of waste from one or more sources at a central disposal site which has little or
    no management.  Some of  the problems associated  with  open dumps are: vector breeding, air
    pollution, water pollution, unsightliness, wasted  land, disease and accident potentials.

PARTICULATE MATTER
    Any liquid or any solid which is so finely divided as to be capable  of becoming  windblown or
    being suspended in air or gas.

PATHOGEN
    Any infective agent capable of producing disease.

PRIVATE COLLECTION
    An arrangement whereby citizens or firms, individually or in limited groups, pay collectors or
    private operating agencies for removing refuse.

PUTRESCIBLE
    Capable of being decomposed by microorganisms with sufficient rapidity to cause nuisances from
    odors, gases, etc. Kitchen wastes, offal, and dead animals are examples of putrescible components
    of solid waste.

REFUGE
    A hiding place or shelter for rats, mice and insects. It is important to distinguish between refuge
    and refuse. Refuse means solid waste. The confusion comes about because refuse frequently serves
    as a refuge for vermin.
                                             140

-------
REFUSE
     Putrescible and nonputrescible solid wastes, except body wastes. Includes garbage, rubbish, ashes,
     incinerator residue, street cleanings and solid market and industrial wastes.

REFUSE SHED
     A region or area which for reasons of topography, contiguous population and/or other common
     features, includes refuse sources which may be considered collectively in general planning. Usually
     synonymous with the general populated or metropolitan area, and not necessarily limited by lines
     of political jurisdiction.

RESIDUE
     Solid materials remaining after burning,  comprising ash, metal,  glass, ceramics, and unburned
     organic substances.

RINGELMANN CHART
     A printed or photographically reproduced series of four shades of gray, by which density of smoke
     emissions from an incinerator may be estimated. A clear stack is recorded as 0, and 100% black
     smoke as 5. No. 1 smoke is 20% dense; No. 2, 40% dense; No. 3, 60% dense; No. 4, 80% dense.

RUBBISH
     Nonputrescible solid wastes. Includes ashes of both combustible and noncombustible wastes, such
     as paper, cardboard, tin cans, yard clippings, wood, glass, bedding, crockery, or litter of any kind.

SALVAGING
     The controlled removal of reusable materials.

SANITARY LANDFILL
     A method  of disposing of refuse on land without creating nuisances or hazards to public health or
     safety, by utilizing the principles of engineering to confine the refuse to the smallest practical area,
     to reduce it to the smallest practical volume and to cover it with a layer of earth at the conclusion
     of each day's operation or at more frequent intervals if necessary.

SCAVENGING
     The uncontrolled picking of materials in a disposal area, usually associated with an open dump.

SEWAGE TREATMENT RESIDUES
     Coarse  screenings, grit, and dewatered or air-dried  sludge  from  sewage treatment plants,  and
     pumpings of cesspool or septic tank sludges, which require disposal with municipal solid wastes.

SPECIAL WASTES
     Hazardous wastes by reason of their pathological, explosive, radioactive or toxic nature.

STACK (CHIMNEY, FLUE)
     A vertical passage for conducting products of combustion to the atmosphere.

STERILIZATION
     Destruction of all microorganisms and their  spores outside the body  by chemical or  physical
     means.

STOICHIOMETRIC AIR
     See COMBUSTION AIR, THEORETICAL.
                                            141

-------
STREET REFUSE
     Material picked up by manual and mechanical sweeping of streets and sidewalks, litter from public
     receptacles, and dirt removed from catch basins.

SURFACE WATER
     A body of water whose top surface is exposed to the atmosphere, including a flowing body as well
     as a pond or lake.

SWILL
     Semi-liquid waste material consisting of garbage and free liquids.

THEORETICAL AIR
     The exact  amount of air  required to supply oxygen for complete combustion of a given quantity
     of a specific fuel.

TONS PER DAY (INCINERATION)
     Denotes the weight of refuse which can be properly processed by an incinerator within a 24 hour
     period. (See Capacity, rated)

TRANSFER STATION
     A supplemental  transportation system as an adjunct  to  route collection  vehicles to reduce haul
     costs or add flexibility to the operation. A typical system has facilities in which route vehicles
     empty into a large hopper, from which open semi-trailers of about 80 cubic yards capacity or
     railroad cars are filled. There may be some recompaction of refuse.

VECTOR (OF DISEASE)
     A living insect or other arthropod, or animal (not human) which transmits infectious diseases from
     one person or animal to another.

WASTE
     Useless,  unwanted, or  discarded  materials  resulting from normal  community activities. Wastes
     include solids, liquids, and gases. Solid wastes are classed as refuse.

YARD RUBBISH
     Prunings, grass clippings, weeds, leaves, and general yard and garden wastes.
                                            142

-------
B r- BINGHAM  FARMS
H WDS = HUNTINGTON  WOODS
HAZ  PK -• HAZEL PARK
PR =PLEASANT  RIDGE
WC F = WOOD CREEK FARMS
                                          UNSUITABLE LAND FOR REFUSE DISPOSAL
                         LAND AREAS NOT SUITABLE FOR LANDFILL OPERATIONS
                                                   143

-------
                                  TEST BORING REPORT
                                  RAYMOND
                                  CONCRETE  PILE  DIVISION
All boring, art plotted to a .cafe of l"=	8  ft. tmng    Ground  Surface Only

  Bering No	„       Boring No    AV-1        Boring No	!-?__
                                                  	ua fixed datum.
                                                   Boring N»   1-1
                                                                                                                   TEST BORING  REPORT
                                                                                                                   RAYMOND
                                                                                                                   COKCRETE  PILE  DIVISION
                                                                                                             To	Jones and Jtenrv_
                                                                                                              Location of Bortnga Propo;
                                                       All boringi an plotted to a Kale  of BJt
                                                                                                                                        Casing
                                                                                                                                        Encountered 'water
                                                                                                                                        at  22.
                                                                                 ClaiM&cationJ arc made by visual mipccuon
                                                                                 Water levels (WL)  Rgure indicate* tiro* of rtadmg (houri) afier completion of bonng   Towl Foc"8' - -  —    -
                                                                                 Water levelt indicated arc thoie obs*rv«| when borings wrre made, or M noted  Pofouty   Pnrrm** See bottom  Of  lO|
                                                                                 of the jml straw, vanatiom of rainfall, me tnpngraphy, rtr , may cause change* in these   . b NQ ECB-13997-D __

                                                                                    *
                                                                                                              F™ in right hand column ,nd.cale number of blow, required t
                                                                                                              ling pipe one foot  uiing  140 lb  weight falling 30 mchel
                                                                                                                                                                      « ;" O D ,««p-
                                                                                                                                                                                      Class! fication *>y
                             DRILLER:  J.  Pugti


Clavificationi are made by vuual inspection
                                                       DRILLER:  C.  Pn
                                                                                 DRILLER.  C.  Piersc
Qaanficatioiu are mad* by vuual inspection
Water levels (WL) Figure indicate) tune of reading (hou«) after completion of bonng    "       »           -—— —
Water leveli indicated  are ihcae observed wh*n barings were made, or aj noted Porosity   Foreman __S£e_battQffl_SiLl2££.
0( the Mil «rata, v.rutK»u of Miw/.II, att ropog.iphy, MC , may cause chango in ihe«   J(jb No  ^CB-13997-D    	

Figure) in right hand column indicate number of b!o*i required 10 drive 2"  O D «mr>   Classification by  oreman	____
ling pipe on« foot, using 140 tb  weigh! falling JO inch*,                           Sh*«^t.	"f-_	L-	
                                                                                                     144

-------
                                    TEST BORING REPORT

                                   RAYMOND
                                   CONCRETE  PILE  DIVISION

To    Jones and  Vetay_
Location of Bortngi,__Proposti4_Inoxnerat.ion  Sites,  ^^-j^,^^     	___

All bor«ng. *re platted w .«:»!«of \"=    6   ft. u«ng        Ground Surface Only
   Boring No	.	        Bonng  No    P-l          Boring No  3-1
                                                           	a a fixed datum.

                                                             Boring No	
                                                                                                                               TEST BORING  REPORT
                                                                                                                               RAYMOND
                                                                                                                               CONCRETE  PILE  DIVISION
                                                                                            To	Jones and Henry
                                                                                            Location of Bonnet _
                                                                                                                                                                 D.t>_2  flpt-U,  T96fl
All faonogi are plotted 10 a icaJe of !"=_§__ft. mtng  __Cirgund_Surface, 'Inly  .   _     M , fixed datum.

  Boring No _^___       Boring No __A^!^        Bonng No	QX^1_        Bonng No _QAiL__
32'0"



3?'0"


bl'O"
loose mediiun
brown 5 AND;
clay binder;
gravel
firm medium
vdrt-colored
SATO *
brown SAND;
gravel
stiff sandy
grey CLAY;
some gravel

firm coarse '
grey SAND;
gravel
compact coar
grey £W1D;
firm coarse
grey SAND;
gravel
compact coar
grey SAND;
gravel
very hard
sandy grey
CLAY; gravel

1
22
_25
.JO.
_22
00^,
00/<
0/1 1
medi'im sandy
CLAY; small
layers of
peat
veiy loose"
fine grey
SAND
firm medium
to coarse
grey SAND;
some gravel


7
17
21
19
                                                          Boring  Completed
                                                          3-7-68
                                                          Used 29'  of BX
                                                          casing
                                                          Encountered Plater
                                                          at 6'6"
                              3-5-68
                              Uaed  7li'  of BX
                              casing
                              WL 32*


Waier Itvtts (WL) Rgurc mdical« time of reading (hours) afited

later















O'O"

3-o"
TO"

12 '0"










28 '0"




















loose nted-co
brown SAVDjjj
loose bla k
PEAT; gre
grey 5 AND
some grav 1
firm medium

grey SAND;
gravel, atre
of grey clay






compact line
Boring Compl
3-13-6S
Used 2li' of
casing
Encountered
at 2-6"
WL 2'6" on
Completion













arse


2




iks

15


20



ted
«

ater














O'O"
O'lo-


9-6"





18 '6"

22-0"









33 '0"




U7'0"



50 '6"



62 '6"

TOPSOTt.
brown SAND;
shallow sea;
brown clay

stiff sandy
grey CLAY;
seams of
clayey fine
grey sand


stf sndy grJ
ly grey CLAY
pedium sandy
gravelly gre
CLAY; seams
of clayey ex
fine grey
sand





stiff sandy
grvly gr CLA'
seams of wed
v comp fine
grey SAND; '.
earns gr cla;
very compact
tnediim to
me grey SAJ

"BOULDER '"
~y Tid "shay gr
ly gr CLSY;
some bouiier



10

17


_22



, 22


11


17


Mi


23


00/9


6li

J*L

"?2_


                                                                                                                                                                                (rock  or boulder}
                                                                                                                                                                                Boring  Completed
                                                                                                                                                                                3-22-68
                                                                                                                                                                                Augered to hS'
                                                                                                                                                                                (*L I'lO"  72 hrs)
                                                                                                                                                                                Used Ii9'  of NX
                                                                                                                                                                                Casing
                                                                                                                                                                                Eiicountered water

                                                                                                                                                                                WL       on Corn-
                                                                                            :U»«fic3lic,nj are mad* by vuual impccOon
                                                                                            I'aitr leuli (Wl.) Figure indicates time of rradmg (hours) af
                                                                                            (,'-,-. level] indicitrd irt thoie oburved when borings were madr,
                                                                                                 unl 11 tali, vanaiioni of rainf ill, me topography, r(c , n
                                                                                           o( Oil     	
                                                                                           levtb
                                                                                                                   i indicate numbfr of blowi required
                                                                                                                   } Ib  weight falling 10 inchu
                                                   Cla«.fiCatlon b> _

                                                   Shrct __2	of
                                                                                   145

-------
                                  TEST  BORING REPORT
                                  RAYMOND
                                    CONCRETE PILE DIVISION
Location of BoHagL
                                             L tutus	Around Surfac
                                                        firm fine
                                                        brown SAND
                             Boring  Completed
                             3-6-63
                             Used  U9'  of BX
                             casing
                             A 16'
    Cl««ilflc*Uooi «rt mode by vlctul ImpcctlOB.
    Watw leveli (WL).  Flpire lodlc.tei time of reading (houn) «ft«r com.
 plcUon of boring-  Water leveli IndiccteJ «re thow o(r«erv«J when borlnj.
 wer. made, ot u noted.  Pttroilty of the ioll «tr«U. v«ri«tioni of rainfall, (lt«
 topojr.phy, etc^ may cauM ch.nlei fa the** level*
    Flgarei In right h«ad column Indicate number of blow, required to drive
 Z" O.D. umpllnf pipe on* foot,  uiinj 140-Ib. weight fallfof JO inch**.
                                                 146

-------