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
£
-------
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
------- |