master plan for solid waste
collection and disposal <~> tri-parish
metropolitan area of
final report on a solid
irasle management
demonstration
:;
Vil
-.-.t-.-.r
/
\
i> »0 *»
-.v.-.^
i
.A \
-------
This report has been reproduced as received
from the grantee. No editorial or other changes
have been made, although a new title page, fore-
word, and preface have been added .
-------
MASTER PLAN FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
TRI-PARISH METROPOLITAN AREA OF NEW ORLEANS
Final Report on a Solid Waste Management Demonstration
This report (SW-4d) was prepared by
Albert Switzer & Associates, Inc., and Greenleaf/Telesca,
for the City of New Orleans under Grant No. D01-UI-00063.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service
Environmental Control Administration
Bureau of Solid Waste'Management
1969
-------
Library of Congress catalog card no. 77-602040
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE PUBLICATION NO. 1932
Single copies of this publication will be distributed as supplies permit.
Requests should be directed to the Bureau of Solid Waste Management,
Environmental Control Administration, 222 East Central Parkway, Cincinnati,
Ohio 45202.
-------
FOREWORD
An estimated 900 million pounds of wastes in the solid state are
produced in the United States every day. What to do with these solid
wastes, how to dispose of them without needlessly endangering public
health and welfare, and how to recover and reuse valuable materials
now "thrown away" are among the most challenging and perplexing of
current national problems. Because of lack of suitable planning, in-
terest, and public understanding, these problems have reached such
proportions that nationwide attention is demanded and action for the
development of adequate solutions must be taken.
Intensified action concerning these problems was made possible
by the Solid Waste Disposal Act, Title II of Public Law 89-272, which
was signed by the President on October 20, 1965. This legislation
directs the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare to initiate, encourage, and support a national program aimed
at discovering and evaluating better methods of coping with the solid
waste problem.
The Secretary is authorized (1) to conduct and support research
on the nature and scope of the problem, on methods of more safely
and efficiently collecting and disposing of solid wastes, and on
techniques for recovering from solid wastes potentially valuable
materials and energy; (2) to provide training and financial and tech-
nical assistance to local and State agencies and other organizations
-------
\* the planning, development, and conduct of solid waste management
programs; (3) to encourage and support projects that may demonstrate
new and improved methods of solid waste collection, handling, and
disposal. The Bureau of Solid Waste Management carries out these
responsibilities.
Among these responsibilities, the Bureau provides grant support
for demonstrations relating to the development and application of new
and improved methods of solid waste collection, storage, processing,
and ultimate disposal; and grants for studies and investigations that
may lead to a demonstration of improved disposal practices, or may
provide solutions for regional or national solid waste disposal prob-
lems. Associated with this is the responsibility for collecting and
making available by appropriate means the results of, and other
information pertaining to, such federally supported demonstrations,
studies and investigations.
Accordingly this report has been reproduced to disseminate as
widely as possible the latest available information and findings of a
project that has received grant support from the Bureau of Solid
Waste Management. It is hoped that it will provide those working
in this field with useful information that will be of assistance in
developing approaches to the solutions of their solid waste disposal
problems.
— RICHARD D. VAUGHAN, Director
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
-------
PREFACE
This report was prepared by the consulting firms of Albert
Switzer & Associates, Inc., and Green!eaf/Telesca, Engineers & Archi-
tects, for the City of New Orleans. It results from studies and inves-
tigations carried out by the two firms for the purpose of analyzing
existing solid waste collection and disposal facilities in the New
Orleans Metropolitan Area, and for develbping a master plan for an
integrated collection and disposal system. A solution to the refuse
problem is proposed in two stages, covering periods from the present
to 1980, and from 1980 to 1990. The study was supported, in part, by
demonstration grant DOl-UI-00063, made to the City by the Bureau of
Solid Waste Management under provisions of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act (PL 89-272).
We trust that this report well illustrates the method of devel-
oping a solid waste management plan for a major metropolitan area and
the elements that should be included in such a plan. It should be
useful to others who may be considering a similar study.
It may be noted (see page VI-I of report) that a separate study
of a portion of the New Orleans Metropolitan Area was conducted by the
consulting engineering firm of Pepper & Associates. This latter study,
partially supported by demonstration grant D01-UI-00019, has been com-
pleted. The final report is being reviewed by the Bureau of Solid
Waste Management, and will also be made available for widespread dis-
tribution by the Bureau.
—ANTON J. MUHICH, Director
Division of Demonstration Operations
-------
Study of Solid Waste - New Orleans, La.
INDEX
Preface
Acknowledgements
Purpose and Scope
Conclusions and Recommendations
Page
(omitted)
(omitted)
CHAPTER I
CHAPTER II
CHAPTER
CHAPTER IV
BRIEF HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION OF THE
METROPOLITAN AREA
METROPOLITAN POPULATION
A. General
B. Growth Areas
C. Application to the Metropolitan Solid Waste Study
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL PRACTICES IN THE AREA
A. History of Disposal
B . Existing Public Solid Waste Systems in the Area
C. Private Collection and Disposal Services
D. Private vs. Municipal Operation of Refuse Collection
and Disposal Systems
E . Area Ordinances
F . Salvage and Reclamation
1. Basic Salvage Materials
2. Abandoned and Junk Automobiles
G. Required Tri-Parish Regulations
METHODS OF REFUSE DISPOSAL
A. Open Dumping
1-1
ll-l
ll-l
11-5
11-9
111-1
Ill-l
111-3
111-9
III-H
111-14
111-15
111-16
111-16
111-19
IV-1
-------
Study of Solid Waste - New Orleans, La.
B. Hog Feeding
C. On-Site Disposal
D. Composting
E. Incineration
F. Other Processes for Reducing Waste with Heat
1. Melt-Zit Process
2. Pyrolysis
G. Landfill
H. Sanitary Landfill
1. Transport of Waste by Barging
1. Route Distances
2. Speed and Haul Time
3. Equipment Requirements
4. Weather Factors
5. Policies of Governmental Authorities
6. Summary - Transport of Waste by Barging
J. Special Preparation of Refuse for Disposal
1. Shredding
2. Grinding
3. Compaction
K. Applicable Methods of Refuse Disposal
1. Composting
2. Central Incineration
3. Landfill
4. Sanitary Landfill
CHAPTER V NEW ORLEANS
A. Description of the Sanitation Department
1. Organization and Personnel
2. Budget and Operating Costs
3. Municipal Waste Collection
4. Frequency of Municipal Refuse Collection
5. Municipal Waste Disposal
6. Emergency Operations
7. Comments on Operation of the Sanitation Departn
Page
IV-1
IV-2
IV-2
IV- 10
IV- 12
IV- 12
IV- 13
IV- 14
IV- 14
IV- 16
IV- 16
IV- 17
IV- 18
IV- 18
IV- 19
IV-20
IV-21
IV-21
IV-22
IV-22
IV-23
IV-23
IV-23
IV-24
IV-24
V-l
V-l
v-n
V-13
V-26
V-28
V-44
lent V-45
-------
Study of Solid Waste - New Orleans, La.
Page
B. Quantities and Types of Refuse V-48
1. Present Quantities - Municipal and Private V-48
2. Forecast of Future Waste Production V-49
3. Characteristics of Waste V-50
C. Analysis of Refuse Collection System V-63
1. General V-63
2. Haul Study V-63
3. Revised Collection Districts to Serve Present
Incinerators (1968) V-66
4. Savings in Haul Costs V-73
5. Future Collection Districts for First Stage Development V-73
6. Future Requirements in Number of Trucks V-74
7. Collection Service to Fringe Areas V-79
8. Summary of Analysis of Collection System V-79
D. Discussion of Existing Disposal Facilities V-80
1. General V-80
2. Evaluation of Present Landfills V-81
3. Evaluation of Present Incinerators V-82
4. Operations Review and Evaluation V-84
5. Seventh Street Incinerator V-87
6. Florida Avenue Incinerator V-90
7. Algiers Incinerator V-92
8. St. Louis Incinerator V-95
9. New Orleans East Incinerator V-95
10. Recommendations Concerning Existing Incinerators
(A. Michaels) V-96
11. Incinerator Residue - Characteristics and Disposal V-97
12. Fly Ash Characteristics and Disposal V-99
13. Disposal of Non-Combustible Refuse V-99
14. Process Water V-100
E. Air Pollution Control Requirements V-101
1. General V-101
2. Guidelines and Regulations for Federal Buildings V-102
3. Louisiana Air Control Law V-105
4. Requirements for New Orleans Incinerators V-105
-------
Study of Solid Waste - New Orleans, La.
Page
F. First Stage Refuse Disposal Program 1970 to 1980 V-107
1. Present Incinerator Capacities V-107
2. Proposed Program of Development V-108
3. Anticipated Income V-113
4. Proposed Incinerator Design Criteria V-113
5. Estimate of Project Cost V-115
6. Cost of Operation and Maintenance V-116
7. Proposed Layout V-117
CHAPTER VI ST. BERNARD AND JEFFERSON PARISHES
•
A. General Vl-l
B. Collection and Disposal Practices VI-2
1. City of Kenner (Jefferson Parish - Eastbank) VI-2
2. City of Harahan (Jefferson Parish - Eastbank) VI-3
3. Jefferson Parish Eastbank Unincorporated Area VI-5
4. Jefferson Parish Westbank Unincorporated Area VI-6
5. City of Westwego (Jefferson Parish - Westbank) VI-7
6. City of Gretna (Jefferson Parish - Westbank) VI-8
7. St. Bernard Parish VI-8
C. Evaluation of Waste Disposal Facilities in the Area VI-10
1. Incinerator Installations VI-10
2. Landfill Operations Vl-l8
D. Quantities and Types of Wastes Vl-l9
1. Present Quantities Vl-l 9
2. Forecast of Future Waste Production VI-24
E. First Stage Refuse Disposal Program 1970-1980 VI-24
1. Jefferson Parish VI-25
2. St. Bernard Parish VI-25
VII MASTER PLAN FOR TRI-PARISH AREA
A. General VI1-1
-------
Study of Solid Waste - New Orleans, La.
APPENDIX 1
APPENDIX II
APPENDIX III
APPENDIX IV
APPENDIX V
B. Characteristics of Future Development
C. Proposed Methods of Refuse Disposal
D. Economic Size of Incineration
E. Proposed Master Development Program
1 . Orleans Parish - General
2. St. Bernard Parish
3. Jefferson Parish
F. Implementation of the Program
1. Estimated Capital Investment
2. Overall Effect on Cost of Disposal
3. Central Management
DIGEST OF SOLID WASTE ORDINANCES
HAUL STUDIES
INCINERATOR MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE
INDUSTRIAL WASTE SURVEY FORMS
SUGGESTED REGULATIONS FOR SANITARY
LANDFILLS
Appendix
thru
Appendix
thru
Appendix
thru
Appendix
thru
Appendix
thru
Page
VI 1-2
VI 1-2
VI 1-2
VIM
VIM
VI 1-6
VI 1-7
VI 1-7
VII-7
Vll-10
VII-10
1-1
1-9
ll-l
IM
Ill-l
111-7
IV-1
IV-3
V-l
V-5
APPENDIX VI REFUSE SAMPLING PROCEDURES
Appendix Vl-l
-------
$9lid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
1
II
II
II
II
II
III
III
III
III
III
Ml
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
- 1
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
LIST OF TABLES
Climatic Conditions of the Metropolitan New Orleans Area
Tri-Parish Population Distribution 1900-1960
Metropolitan Population 1900-1960
Estimated Tri-Parish Population Distribution 1965-1990
Metropolitan Population 1960-1990
Population Distribution City of New Orleans 1960-1990
Refuse Collection District and Present Disposal Facilities
Collection Systems of the Tri-Parish Area Communities
Existing Tri-Parish Disposal Facilities
Typical Hourly Variation in Refuse Collections Received at
Selected Disposal Points
Daily Variation in Tri-Parish Refuse Collection
Estimated Number of Abandoned Vehicles Collected Annually
in the Tri-Parish Area
Commercial Venture - Compost Plant
Resume of Costs and Income for a 300- Ton (Refuse) Per day
Composting Plant
Waterway Transport Routes
Requirements for Land Area and Cover Material
Estimated Minimum Operating Costs of Disposal by Sanitary Landfill
Transfer Trailer Operating Costs
Cost of Hauling Refuse from Collection Districts to Proposed
Sanitary Landfill Sites
Cost of Refuse Disposal by Sanitary Landfill Within New Orleans Area
Page
1 - 3
II - 1
11-2
11-3
11-4
II -10
III- 5
III - 6
III- 7
III - 8
III - 9
111-17
IV- 4
IV- 6
IV-17
IV -26
IV -27
IV -28
IV -30
IV -30
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
IV
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
- 9
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
-10
-11
-12
-13
-14
-15
-16
-17
-18
-19
Haul Distance and Cost of Disposal Truck Transport to Landfills
Outside. Parish Area
Monthly Pay Rates
Sanitation Department Employment Experience in 1967
1968 Allocated Personnel - Incineration
1968 Allocated Personnel - Landfills
1968 Allocated Personnel - Garbage and Trash Collection
1968 Allocated Personnel - Incinerator Support
1968 Allocated Personnel - Shops and Stores (City Garage and Yard)
Operating Costs - Sanitation Department
1968 Collection Fleet Assignment
Incinerator Support Container Service Collection
Trends of Collections and Haul Costs (1965-1968)
Comparison of Municipal Collection and Haul Costs
Frequency of Refuse Collection in Selected Sites
Collection District Assignment to Disposal Facilities
Number of Ash Trucks Assigned to Incinerators
1968 Equipment Assignment at Landfills
Incineration Costs (1967-1968)
Breakdown of Cost of Refuse Disposal at Various Facilities for the
Years 1965, 1966, and 1967
Transfer of Combustible Wastes (1967)
Page
IV -32
V - 4
V - 5
V - 6
V - 6
V - 7
V - 8
V - 9
V -12
V -21
V -23
V -24
V -25
V -27
V -30
V -32
V -32
V -37
V -38
V -41
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
V -20
V -21
V -22
V -23
V -24
V -25
V -26
V -27
V -28
V -29
V -30
V -31
V -32
V -33
V -34
V -35
V -36
V -37
V -38
Transfer of Oversize and Non-Combustible Wastes (1967)
Fleet Assignment to Incinerator Support (1968)
Breakdown of Incinerator Support Costs - 1967
Incinerator Support Annual Operating Expenses
Total Refuse Production (1967)
Forecast of Total Refuse Production
Physical Composition of Refuse - City of New Orleans
Methods of Collection and Disposal of Commercial and Industrial
Wastes
Quantities and Types of Wastes Reported
Distribution of Reported Private Wastes
Estimated Port Wastes 1965-1985
Distribution of Port Wastes
1967 Demolition Permits - City of New Orleans
Refuse Collected by Sanitation Department by Collection Districts
1967-1990
Summary of Refuse Produced in Each District
Summary of Collection and Haul Study
Present and Adjusted Number of Truck Routes Required by Districts
1967-1968
Annual Cost of Collection Trucks
Estimate of Future Requirement - Truck Routes Per Day
Page
V -41
V -42
V -43
V -44
V -49
V -50
V -51
V -53
V -53
V -54
V -56
V -56
V -58
V -61
V -62
V -65
V -68
V -73
V -75
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
V -39
V -40
V -41
V -42
V -43
V -44
V -45
V -46
V -47
V -48
VI - 1
VI - 2
VI - 3
VI- 4
VII- 1
VII- 2
VII- 3
VII- 4
Types of Control Equipment
Volume of Incinerator Residue
Water and Sewer Charges in 1967 Based on Monthly Consumption
Collection Efficiencies - Air Pollution Requirements
Monthly Variation in Municipal Waste Collection
Estimated Quantities of Incinerable Refuse
Schedule of Proposed Incinerator Utilization
Design Criteria - Florida Avenue & Seventh Street Incinerators
Estimate of Cost - Florida Avenue & Seventh Street Incinerators
Annual Operating Cost - Florida Avenue Incinerator
Total Refuse Production - 1967
Solid Waste System Cost Analysis - Municipal Collection & Disposal
Jefferson and St. Bernard Parishes - 1967
Estimated Disposal Costs by Incineration - Jefferson Parish - 1967
Forecast of Waste Production to 1990
Proposed Master Development Program
Chronological Program of Capital Investment
Projected Costs of the Tri-Parish Solid Waste Disposal Program
1971 - 1990
Estimated Variations in Operating Costs
Page
V - 86
V - 98
V -100
V -102
V -107
V -108
V -112
V -113
V -116
V -117
VI - 21
VI - 22
VI - 23
VI- 24
VII- 8
VII- 9
(backcover)
VII- 11
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
1 - 1
II - 1
11-2
IV- 1
IV-2
V- 1
V- 2
V- 3
V- 4
V- 5
V- 6
V- 7
V- 8
V- 9
V-10
v-n
V-12
V-13
V-14
V-15
V-16
V-17
V-18
V-19
V-20
V-21
V-22
LIST OF FIGURES
Existing Collection Districts
Population Forecasts for the Tri-Parish Area
Population Forecast by Parishes
Haul Cost to Disposal Area
t
General Soils Classification
Organizational Structure - Sanitation Department -
City of New Orleans
Existing Central & Night Districts
Existing Western District
Existing Eastern 1 District
Existing Eastern II District
Existing Algiers District
Cost per Ton to Incinerate in Relation to Plant Size
Revised Collection Districts
Revised Central District
Revised Western District
Revised Eastern ] District
Revised Eastern II District
Future Collection District
Future Number of Truck Routes - Night & Eastern 1 Districts
Future Number of Truck Routes - Central & Eastern II Districts
Future Number of Truck Routes - Western & Algiers Districts
Proposed Schedule of Incinerator Improvements
Proposed Incinerator - Site Plan
Proposed Incinerator - Ground Floor Plan
Proposed Incinerator - Operating Floor Plan
Proposed Incinerator - Charging Level Plan
Proposed Incinerator - Longitudinal Section Thru Furnace
Partial Rear Elevation
Page
(backcover)
11-6
11-7
IV- 29
(backcover)
V- 2
V-15
V-16
V-17
V-18
V-19
V - 37
(backcover)
V- 69
V- 70
V- 71
V - 72
(backcover)
V - 76
V- 77
V- 78
v-in
V-H9
V-120
V-121
V-122
V-123
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
Page
V -23 Proposed Incinerator - Cross Section Thru Furnace V -124
V -24 Proposed Incinerator - Front Elevation V -125
V -25 Proposed Incinerator - Perspective V-126
Vll-l Economic Size of Incinerator - Cost of Operation and Haul VII- 3
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The preparation of this study and report was financially aided in part by a grant
from the U. S. Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare.
No study of the scope or magnitude of the present one can be successfully con-
cluded without the assistance, cooperation, and advice of many people. We
are grateful for all such help, and particularly wish to acknowledge the assist-
ance of the following:
From the City of New Orleans: Mr. Thomas J. Heier, Jr., Chief Administra-
tive Officer, and his Assistant, Mr. Ben Levy; Mr. Stewart Brehm, Director,
City Planning Department; Mr. John E. Cassreino, Director, and Mr. F. Earl
Berry, Superintendent of the Sanitation Department together with staff members
of the Sanitation, City Planning, and Data Processing Departments.
From St. Bernard Parish: Mr. Valentine Riess, President of the Police Jury; Mr.
Angela Chetta, Director-Secretary of the Planning Commission, and Earl P.
Deselle & Associates, Consulting Engineers.
From Jefferson Parish: Mr. Thomas F. Donelon, Parish President; Mr. Richard
C. Mouledous, Director of the Planning Commission; Mr. Eddie D'Geralamo,
Mayor, City of Kenner; Mr. Freddie Wilcox, Mayor, City of Harahan; and
Gerome Pepper and Associates, Consulting Engineers for the Parish, the City
of Gretna, and the City of Westwego.
In addition to the City and Parish officials, their staffs and consultants men-
tioned above, we wish to acknowledge the help and assistance of:
Mr. Charles F. O'Doniel, Director of the Regional Planning Commission; Mr.
Gerald D. Healy, Jr., of the Louisiana State Board of Health; the Greater
New Orleans Chamber of Commerce; private waste contractors, and the many
business and industrial firms in the area which assisted in this work.
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleansy La. - 15 May 1968
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In the following we have summarized the findings and conclusions resulting from the detailed
studies contained in this Report. These have been grouped into those which apply to the Tri-
Parish area as a whole or where inter parish cooperation is considered, and into those which ap-
ply to a single parish each of which has been treated separately.
A. TRI-PARISH AREA
1. Existing landfills, municipal as well as private, are not operated in accord-
ance with accepted health standards due principally to: a) filling in areas
where leachates can contaminate streams and bayous, b) lack of suitable
cover material in the area, and c) the practice of burning refuse at the site.
2. Existing landfills should be converted to sanitary landfills by diking and drain-
ing and by providing adequate and suitable cover material so as to stop air
and water pollution and eliminate possible health hazards. (See Appendix
for suggested regulations).
3. In order to immediately prohibit further open dumping or burning of combustible
materials, sanitary landfills should be establishedand operated for the disposal
of all putrescible and combustible refuse in excess of the capabilities of the in-
cinerators until such time as sufficient incinerator capacity can be provided.
4. Enforcement of regulations concerningcollectionand disposal of solid waste is
lax due largely to insufficient funding and manpower assigned for this purpose.
5. The need for diking and draining the site, for purchasing suitable cover ma-
terial and for limiting the depth of fill, each adds to the cost of sanitary land-
fill operation in the area, making this method of disposal less competitive than
is frequently the case. (Page IV-24 to IV-30).
6. Incineration was found to be the most practical and economical method of sat-
isfactory refuse disposal to meet both present and future needs, based upon a
study of methods considered for the area. (Page IV-23 to IV-31).
7. An incineration program to cover the requirements of the Tri-Parish area for
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans/ La. - 15 May 1968
the next twenty years will increase considerably the reliability of the entire
waste collection and disposal system.
8. Cooperation in the joint usage of facilities between the parishes in the Tri-
Parish area will result in a more effective and economical refuse disposal
system, and couid save as much as 10-15% in overall disposal costs. (Page
VII-10roVII-12).
9. The communities should formulate and adopt common standards, preferably
under the administration of a single Authority, for the control and regulation
of the disposal of waste. These standards in the form of a master ordinance
should incorporate by reference the recommended specifications for disposal
of all types of solid wastes by methods that are acceptable to local, state
and federal authorities. (Page 111-18 to 111-19).
10. This Authority should establish policy, administer, control, and enforce the
adopted regulations. Such regulations should specifically prohibit open
dumping and open burning of all wastes that would present environmental
hazards or any means of disposal that would contribute undesirable pollution
levels to the air, water, or land. (Page 111-18 to 111-19).
11. Control of all refuse disposal facilities under a single authority would provide
the maximum reliability and flexibility of operation at the lowest possible
operating cost. This would probably result in an annual savings of 5-10%.
(Page VII-10 to VII-12).
12. Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes should consider the use of a joint disposal
facility before 1980 to handle refuse in excess of the capacities of the en-
larged Florida Avenue and the New St. Bernard Incinerators.i(PageVII-6 to VII-7)1
13. Orleans and Jefferson Parishes and the City of Gretna should consider the
joint use of the Algiers incinerator for the disposal of refuse generated in
the area. (Page VI1-4).
14. Combustible refuse production in the area will amount to 3,675 tons/day
in 1980 and is expected to reach 5,700 by 1990. (Page Vll-l).
15. The proposed disposal program by incineration will require an estimated
capital investment of $19,100,000 by 1980 and an additional capital in-
vestment of $17,100,000 in the continuing period to 1990, based on 1967
costs. (Page VII-7 to VI1-9).
it
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
16. An effective annual incineration capacity of 1,400,000 tons will be available
under the proposed program by 1980 and will be expanded to slightly over a
1,800,000 ton capacity by 1990. (Page VII-8).
17. Operating at full effective capacity, estimated annual costs of these inciner-
ator facilities are expected to be about $4,500,000 by 1980 and $6,400,000
by 1990 based on 1967 costs.
B. ORLEANS PARISH
1. The total production of waste in Orleans Parish at present, amount to 1,950
tons per day and includes 1,285 tons of combustible refuse of which 55% is
collected by the City and the remainder by private disposal companies and
individual business firms. This represents a per capita production of 5.69 Ibs.
per day total and 3.96 Ibs. per day of combustible refuse. (Page V-48
to V-50).
2. The per capita production of combustible refuse in Orleans Parish is expected
to increase to 4.31 Ibs/day by 1980 and 5.08 Ibs/day by 1990, thus requiring
incinerator capacities of 2,200 tons/day and 2,900 respectively. (Page V-108).
3. Regulations covering solid waste handling and disposal are reasonably adequate
except for establishing firm air pollution control limits and specific operating
criteria for sanitary landfills and other methods of disposal.
4. The total capacity of existing incinerators in Orleans Parish, including the
St. Louis plant which is presently out of service, is not sufficient to handle
all combustible refuse presently produced in the City.
5. Neither the Florida Avenue nor the Seventh Street plants can meet anticipated
air pollution standards without major reconstruction of the furnaces and appur-
tenances.
6. The existing incinerators in Orleans Parish are excellently located with respect
to their service areas so that the additional incinerator capacity required at
present should be provided at those sites.
7. The St. Louis plant must be rehabilitated and returned to service, as an early
step of any improvement program. Included in the rehabilitation should be
iii
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
the Installation of wells and pumps to supply the 120 million gal. per year
estimated water requirements of the plant under full operation.
8. The First Stage Development Program should provide sufficient incinerator
capacity for at least a 10-year period. This will require a total of 2,200
tons per day (6-day week) to meet the needs of the City (1980). (Page V-108).
9. The additional capacity required should be provided by increasing the com-
bined capacity of the Florida Avenue and the Seventh Street Incinerators to
1,500 tons per day. (Page V-10& to V-l 10).
10. Substantial savings in operating cost will be realized by enlargement of the
two existing plants, over the operating cost of reconstructing these plants
to their present size and providing the additional -capacity required by a new
incinerator at another site.
11. The Florida Avenue Incinerator can be modified and enlarged utilizing a
portion of the existing facilities. Such enlargement should provide for a
total of 600-ton per day capacity utilizing two 300-ton per day furnaces.
12. The Florida Avenue Incinerator should be rebuilt first under the develop-
ment program since removing the present plant from operation will cause
a minimum interference with refuse disposal operations. Its construction
should be started in 1969 so as to place it in operation by 1971.
13. Additional incinerator capacity required by 1973 should be provided by
enlarging the Seventh Street plant to a rated capacity of 900 tons per
day utilizing three 300-ton furnaces.
14. The quality of the residue at the Algiers Incinerator can be improved by
increasing the capacity of the forced draft fan and the downtime and
operating cost can be substantially reduced by modifying the residue con-
veyor as outlined in this report. Also, this plant should be provided with
its own wells and pumps to supply the estimated 50 million gal. per year
required for its operation.
15. Treatment of the waste water from both, St. Louis and Algiers Incinerators
will remove settleable matter before discharge into storm or sanitary sewers
and will permit its reuse to the extent practicable.
16. Once the St. Louis Incinerator has been placed in regular operation, the
IV
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
collection districts and truck routes should, subject to field verification, be
modified as recommended herein. Such modification will result In the re-
duction in the present number of truck routes at an annual savings of $23,000
per year, per route without increasing the present work day.
17. Calculations based on our survey show a possible reduction In the number of
routes from the present 111 to 101 which number will increase in 1970 to 108
and by 1980 to 139 due to the growth anticipated in the area. (Page V-63
to V-80).
18. After the additional incinerator capacities have been provided, further modi-
fication of the collection districts as outlined in this report will result in an
annual savings of approximately $50,000 by the elimination of two additional
truck routes.
19. The anticipated growth within the service area of the Algiers Incinerator in
Orleans Parish requires that this facility be enlarged prior to 1975.
20. The addition of a 300-ton furnace by 1975 with a second similar furnace be-
fore 1990 is required if the Algiers Incinerator is to serve as a joint facility
for the City of Gretna and part of Jefferson Parish in addition to its present
service area.
21. The N. O. East Incinerator will reach its full capacity by 1980 when ad-
ditional disposal facilities will be required. Interim use of the St. Bernard
facilities until 1987 should be considered, after which a site for a sanitary
landfill containing 50 to 100 acres should be prepared with dikes and drain-
age in the Blind Lagoon Park area and utilized as a sanitary landfill. The
sanitary landfill should be operated until such time as the growth in refuse
production justifies the construction of an additional incinerator. Such in-
cinerator should have an initial capacity of 400 tons per day with provisions
for expansion to 600 tons.
JEFFERSON PARISH
1. The present Gretna and Marrero Incinerators are of an obsolete type, ex-
pensive to operate and cannot meet anticipated air pollution standards and,
therefore, should be retired from service.
2. The Marrero Incinerator is well located in its service area and should be
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
replaced by a modern incinerator with an initial capacity of 500 tons per day.
This incinerator will require enlargement to 750 tons per day prior to 1990.
3. The Algiers and Marrero Incinerators with proposed enlargements through 1990,
can adequately serve the entire Westbank development in both Orleans and
Jefferson Parishes.
4. Two new incinerators, in addition to the present David Drive Incinerator, wi''
be required to serve the Eastbank of Jefferson Parish prior to 1980. One to
be located near the Kenner city limits, having an initial capacity of 400 tons
per day with provision for expansion to 600 tons prior to 1990. The second,
to be located near Labor re Road and Airline Highway having an initial capa-
city of 600 tons per day with provision for expansion to 900 tons prior to 1990'
D ST. BERNARD PARISH
1. A new 400-ton per day incinerator wil I be required before 1980 to dispose of
combustible waste generated within the Parish and that produced within the
adjacent area of Orleans Parish. This incinerator will require enlargement
to 600 tons per day prior to 1990.
2. Continued operation of the present 100-ton per day incinerator would not be
economically feasible and should be discontinued once the new plant is com"
pleted.
VI
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
RECOMMENDATIONS
In the following recommendations, those applying to more than one parish or to the Tri-Parish
area as a whole have been placed in a group, and those applying to a single parish have been
so separated.
A. TRI-PARISH AREA
1. Convert present landfills receiving putrescible and comkfUstible'refuse to
sanitary landfills by diking, draining, and-adequately covering the refuse
daily with suitable material and adopt ordinances to regulate these opera-
tions (see Appendix V, Suggested Regulations for Sanitary Landfill).
2. Limit use of landfills not converted to sanitary landfills to receiving only
non-combustible refuse which will not contaminate waters leaching or drain-
ing from the fill.
3. Prohibit further open dumping or burning.
4. Enforce regulations concerning collection and disposal of solid wastes and
assign sufficient personnel for this purpose.
5. Dispose of all combustible waste generated in area by incineration in modern
incinerators with adequate air pollution control.
6. Adopt air pollution control limits conforming to the Los Angeles County re-
quirements, namely:
An allowance of not more than 0.3 grains per standard cubic foot of flue
gas corrected to 12 percent CO2.
7. Select incinerator service areas that will produce at least 600 tons of refuse
per day within a reasonable period in order to insure minimum disposal costs
through economical incinerator operation and haul costs.
8. Undertake, through an agency such as the Regional Planning Commission, to
sponsor an Authority which will formulate standards and encourage adoption
and implementation of such standards by each community as rapidly as pos-
sible with an agreement upon deadline for compliance by not later than 1980.
VII
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
9. Arrangements be made by Orleans and St. Bernard for the joint disposal of
refuse in excess of the capacities of the enlarged Florida Avenue and St.
Bernard Incinerators.
10. Arrangements be made by Orleans and Jefferson Parishes and the City of
Gretna for the joint disposal of refuse generated in the area at the Algiers
Incinerator.
B. ORLEANS PARISH
1. Correct deficiencies of the St. Louis Incinerator including the addition of
wells and pumps for its water supply requirements and place this plant in
regular service as soon as possible.
2. Modify the fans, residue conveyor, and provide wells and pumps for water
requirements at the Algiers Incinerator to improve its operation and reduce
its cost. Also, repair cyclones and ductwork to extent required to permit
proper operation.
3. Conduct stack emission tests at the Algiers, St. Louis, and New Orleans
East Incinerators once these plants are in regular operation to determine
emission rates and verify design criteria for new plants.
4. Authorize design for the modernization, reconstruction, and enlargement of
the Florida Avenue Incinerator, so that construction may be started by 1969/
after the St. Louis plant is in service, and initiate immediately the steps ne
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
2. Construct a new incinerator before 1980 to serve the City of Kenner and
the surrounding unincorporated area. Incinerator to have an initial capac-
ity of 400 tons and an ultimate capacity of 600 tons per day.
3. Construct a new incinerator before 1980 to serve the easterly part of the un-
incorporated area on the Eastbank. Incinerator to have an initial capacity
of 600 tons and an ultimate capacity of 900 tons per day.
ST. BERNARD PARISH
1 . Construct an incinerator to provide for the needs of the Parish and to serve
the adjoining area of Orleans Parish. Incinerator to have an ultimate ca-
pacity of 600 tons per day with 400 tons being provided initially.
2. Retire present incinerator from operation when larger plant is placed in
service.
3. Supplement present incinerator with sanitary landfill until refuse quantities
can justify incinerator construction.
IX
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
BRIEF HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION OF THE METROPOLITAN AREA
For purposes of this study the metropolitan New Orleans area is defined as the
existing contiguous developed area of Orleans, Jefferson, and St. Bernard Parishes
and that area expected to develop within the next two decades.
Accounts of the historic development of the metropolitan area are generally cen-
tered around that of the City of New Orleans. New Orleans was founded by Jean
Baptiste le Moyne, sieur de Bienville and was named in honor of Due d'Orleans,
Regent of France. The founding date (contested by historians) has been established
legally by the Mayor and City Council as April 16, 1718. New Orleans has flown
under various flags and has been considered one of the principal cities and/or ports
during its 250 years history. Having been established as a French colony in 1718,
New Orleans remained a French possession until it was given to Charles III of Spain
by his cousin, Louis XV, in 1762. Spanish rule extended to 1803 when it was
transferred back to France and later was purchased by the United States in the same
year. As a result of the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, the City became an integral
and strategic part of the United States and it was capital of Louisiana during the mid
19th Century.
Orleans, the first County created after the Louisiana Purchase comprised all that
portion of Louisiana lying on both sides of the Mississippi River from the mouth of
the River to the Parish of St. Charles. Thus, Orleans County incorporated all the
territory included in the present parishes of Orleans, Jefferson, St. Bernard, and
Plaquemines. The Orleans Territorial Legislature of 1807 revoked the establishment
of the original 12 counties and created instead nineteen parishes. Two of these new
parishes, St. Bernard and Plaquemines, were taken from Orleans. All of the remain-
ing territory of Orleans County became Orleans Parish. Jefferson Parish was created
in 1825 by its removal from Orleans Parish which extended from Felicity Street to
St. Charles Parish and Lake Pontchartrain on the Westbank of the Mississippi River,
and on the Eastbank from the river to the Gulf of Mexico. Annexation of Lafayette
(1833), Jefferson City (1890), and Carrollton (1874) by rapidly growing New Orleans
have altered the original parish boundaries. Jefferson's Eastbank comprises an un-
incorporated area and the incorporated areas of Kenner (1873) located 12 miles above
New Orleans and Harahan (1920) two miles below Kenner. Metairie, a large unin-
corporated community is located west of and adjacent to New Orleans. The West-
bank comprises an unincorporated area and the incorporated areas of Gretna (1916),
the Parish Seat, (adjacent to the New Orleans community of Algiers) and Westwego
(1919), located above Gretna.
This metropolitan community as illustrated in Figure 1-1 (backcover)is located in south-
eastern Louisiana, situated on Lake Pontchartrain to the north and is divided by the meander-
ing Mississippi River. It is situated approximately 85 miles north of the mouth of the
1-1
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
Mississippi and 76 miles southeast of Baton Rouge. Variable routes of access to the
Gulf of Mexico exist via the Mississippi River, Lake Pontchartrain, the recently
completed Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, and the Intracoastal Waterway, all of
which are interconnected by the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal.
The Governmental structure of the area is unique. Orleans Parish, being coexten-
sive with the City of New Orleans, has a Mayor-City Council (7) form of govern-
ment. A President and Police Jury govern St. Bernard Parish. Jefferson's unin-
corporated area has a Parish President - Council. The incorporated cities of Kenner/
Harahan, Gretna, and Westwego have Mayor - Aldermen forms of government.
New Orleans' strategic location on the Mississippi River provided the setting for
its inevitable major role in various historical conflicts, including the War of 1812,
Civil War, World War I, and World War II. Great strides in commercial and in-
dustrial expansion from the late 19th Century to the present time may largely be
attributed to this strategic location.
The Central Business District of this metropolis is characterized by a major and
growing complex of high rise structures, including retail stores, hotels, apart-
ments, a hospital, private and governmental offices and multi-level parking garages-
The port is one of the principal business and trade centers on serving the midwest an»
Latin America. Its location and accessibility have gained for New Orleans the
rank of 2nd largest port (in value of foreign commerce) in the United States.
The Country's second Foreign Trade Zone is located in New Orleans. Within this
zone, products from foreign countries may be stored indefinitely, examined, re-
handled, assorted, graded, combined, relabeled, processed, and packaged. Duties
are paid only if products enter into domestic commerce. Wharfare, cargo handling/
and associated port fees are nominal. With ownership vested in the State of Louisi-
ana, the operations are governed by an appointed commission. The port Includes
harbor frontage in Orleans, Jefferson, St. Bernard, and Plaquemines Parishes, total'
ing approximately 51.4 miles on both banks of the River, 11 miles along the Inner
Harbor Navigation Canal and nearly unlimited frontage available for development
along the Mississippi River-Gulf Ojtlet Channel. Catering to both domestic and '\f
ternational trade has encouraged numerous firms, foreign representatives, and trans-
portation lines to locate in New Orleans. Such representation has led to the devel'
opment of International Trade Mart and Rivergate Exhibition Hall. It is the primary
purpose of the International Trade Mart to provide office facilities to firms and or-
ganizations which are .directly connected or interested in foreign trade and business
of the port. Upon completion of Rivergate Exhibition Hall in 1968, New Orleans
will be able to accommodate the larger conventions and exhibitions. The Internati^
al Center Complex is located centrally within the metropolitan port area.
1-2
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
Extremely low ground is characteristic of the area. Topographic characteristics
necessitate a system of flood control levees through the metropolitan area. The
extreme low elevations in the New Orleans area range to five feet below mean
gulf levels in some locations. In addition to the disadvantage of topography, low
elevations, and poor natural drainage, the area receives annual rainfall in excess
of 60 inches, which further necessitates the elaborate system of drainage canals
and pumping stations.
The area has a semi-tropical climate, with high humidity, yet the mean temper-
ature for southeastern Louisiana is only 69.5°F. The climate is affected by pre-
vailing southerly winds and the influence of the surrounding water masses. Freez-
ing weather is seldom experienced. Mean summer highs can be expected to range
in the 90's. This "hot-house" type of climate makes a growing season possible
330 to 350 days a year. Monthly climatic conditions are presented in Table 1-1.
TABLE 1-1
CLIMATIC CONDITIONS OF THE METROPOLITAN NEW ORLEANS AREA
JAN. FEB. MAR. APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. ANNUAL
Normal Mo. Av8. Temp. 55.5 57.7 62.1 68.9 75.7 81.1 82.6 82.5 78.9 71.1 61.0 56.6 69.5
Normal Mo. Max. Temp. 64.8 67.3 71.7 78.4 85.3 90.3 91.4 91.6 88.1 81.4 71.3 65.9 79.0
Normal Mo. Min. Temp. 46.2 48.0 52.4 59.4 66.0 71.9 73.7 73.4 69.7 60.7 50.6 47.2 59.9
Highest Temp, on Record 83 85 90 91 97 102 100 100 99 93 89 84 102
lowest Temp, on Record 17 20 28 41 50 62 66 65 54 40 31 19 17
Normal Monthly Preeip. 4.4" 4.7" 6.2" 5.4" 5.1" 5.5" 7.9" 6.3" 6.0" 3.2" 3.7" 4.9" 63.3"
A*g. No. Day. with Precip. 10 9 9 7 9 12 15 14 10 7 7 10 119
Avg. % Posjtble Sunshine 49% 51% 57% 65% 69% 67% 61% 64% 65% 72% 62% 48% 61%
Avg. Wind Speed - MPH 7.5 7.6 7.8 7.5 6.7 5.9 5.6 5.6 6.7 6.9 7.2 7.3 6.9
A*Q. Relative Humidity-% 85-67 85-64 83-60 84-59 83-59 83-60 84-63 85-63 85-62 82-59 82-60 85-66 84-62
: Statistical Abstract of the U. S., 1964
As recently indicated by planning studies conducted by Larry Smith and Company,
Inc., a dual economy actually exists in New Orleans, being largely dependent
on the industries of tourism and port activities. The overall economy of the metro-
politan area incorporates extensive agricultural enterprises, exploiting the fertile
alluvial soil in the outlying areas of the delta region and producing rice, sugor-
1-3
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
cane, cotton/ corn, fruit, and vegetables. Animal husbandry, trapping, and com-
mercial fishing, together with agricultural production and importation of foreign
and domestic products have led to manufacturing and industrial activities, such as
food processing and packaging, granaries, sugar refineries, rice milling, coffee
processing, furs, and textiles. The abundance of natural resources of the region
such as timber, salt, sulphur, natural gas, and oil, have also led to major industrial
development, including the petro-checmial plants, shipbuilding, aluminum produc-
tion and petroleum refineries.
Supplementing agriculture and its natural resources, as vital factors in the area's
industrial growth, are the natural advantages of the port with its easy accessibility
to inland and coastal ports via various routes; the unlimited and inexpensive fuel
supply of natural gas and the ample supply of fresh water which is taken directly
from the River. To attract and encourage large corporations to settle within the
State and metropolitan area, the Louisiana State Legislature has granted a ten-year
property tax exemption.
Area industry is served by 8-trunk railroads, 100 steamship lines, 70 barge lines,
60 motor freight lines, and the Public Belt Railroad with 175 miles of trackage
which connects the various terminals and facilities of all carriers on a common
circuit and interchange. The highway network serving the metropolitan area pro-
vides principal east-west access via Interstate 10 (under construction) and U.S.
90. Principal northerly routes include U. S. 11, Lake Pontchartrain Causeway,
and U. S. 61. The traffic network within the metropolitan area is severely con-
gested today at peak load hours. Highway access between the Eastbank and West-
bank communities is limited to two bridges spanning the River; (I) the Huey Long
Bridge to the west and (2) the Mississippi River Bridge centrally located in the met-
ropolitan area. Several ferry routes at intermediate points supplement these cross-
ings. Various expressway system modifications, including additional bridge cross-
ings, are anticipated to relieve this congestion in the coming years. The area is
also served by three airports: The New Orleans Airport on Lake Pontchartrain for
private planes; the Moisant International Airport for commercial traffic; and Cal-
lender Field for military aircraft.
The metropolis offers many cultural and recreational attractions to its citizens and
visitors. Various theatrical, musical, and operatic productions are sponsored and
produced by municipal, university, and private organizations throughout the year.
The Municipal Auditorium, Civic Theater, Gallery Theater, and Le Petite Theater
de Vieux Carre are among the many facilities housing these productions. The pro-
posed Cultural Center Complex, to be located centrally in New Orleans, will soon
be added to these facilities. The cultural heritage of the area is being preserved
1-4
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
by such civic-minded groups as the Folklore Society, the Louisiana Historical As-
sociation, and Vieux Carre Commission. Local museums, including Isaac Delgado
Museum of Art, Louisiana State Museum, Confederate Museum, and Tulane Medi-
cal Museum also relate the area's heritage. Complimenting the cultural advantages
of the metropolis are its 380 public and private schools, colleges, universities,
business colleges, and vocational trade schools. Within the area there are two major
medical schools and 21 hospitals, including general, special, industrial, army, and
public health hospitals.
Metropolitan New Orleans has much to offer and accommodate her thousands of
tourists annually. It is noted internationally for its varied and numerous restaurants,
hotels, the entertainment and historic aspects of the Vieux Carre, the Mid-Winter
Sports Carnival climaxed by the Sugar Bowl Classic, and the famed Mardi Gras
season. Spectator sports have been dominant in the past in New Orleans and re-
cent interest in the professional sports field through local franchises of National
Football League and American Basketball Association teams have been the stimu-
lant for the promotion of the proposed fifty to eighty thousand seat domed stadium
to be centrally located in the City of New Orleans.
1-5
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
II
METROPOLITAN POPULATION
A.
General
Tri-parish population data used in this report has been taken from the U. S. Bureau
of Census 1900 to I960, and studies undertaken by local planning agencies. Plan-
ning forecasts of population growth have been based upon detailed studies of the
various trends and influences affecting the respective areas.
The historic change in population of the various parishes from 1900 to 1960 in-
dicates the great growth and urbanization trend of the 20th Century. At the turn
of the century, 93.5% of the Tri-parish population was located in Orleans Parish,
5.0% in Jefferson and 1.5% in St. Bernard. A gradual change in this percentage
distribution started during the 1920-30 decade. Table ll-l illustrates the population
ratio changes of Orleans, Jefferson, and St. Bernard Parishes at each decade from
1900 to the last census year, 1960.
TABLE ll-l
TRI-PARISH POPULATION DISTRIBUTION 1900-1960
Year
1900
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
Total Tri-Parish
Population
307,456
362,599
413,750
503,306
552,244
685,405
868,480
% Distribution
Orleans
93.5
93.5
93.6
90.7
89.6
83.3
72.4
Jefferson
5.0
5.0
5.2
8.0
9.1
15.1
24.1
St. Bernard
1.5
1.5
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.6
3.5
"able 11-2 further details this population distribution by communities of the Tri-
parish area during this same period and their individual growth rates during each
decade.
1-1
-------
TABLE 11-2
METROPOLITAN POPULATION 1900-1960
Jefferson Parish
(Eastbank)
Unincorporated Area
City of Kenner
City of Harahan
TOTAL Eastbank
(Westbank)
Unincorporated Area
City of Gretna
City of Westwego
TOTAL Westbank
Jefferson Parish (TOTAL)
St. Bernard Parish
Orleans Parish
Metropolitan Area
1900
Pop.
4,289
4,289
11 , 032
11,032
15,321
5,031
287,104
307,456
* %
15.9
16.3
18.6
18.4
1910
Pop.
4,320
4,320
13,927
13,927
1 8, 247
5,277
339,075
362,599
* %
.7
.7
26.2
26.2
19.1
4.9
18.1
17.9
1920
Pop.
4,352
1,882
6,234
8,132
7,197
15,329
21,563
4,968
387,219
413,750
* %
.7
44.3
-41.6
10.1
18.2
-5.9
14.2
14.1
1930
Pop.
10,065
2,440
892
1 3, 397
13,064
9,584
3,987
26,635
40,032
6,512
458,762
505, 306
* %
131.3
29.6
114.9
60.6
33.2
73.8
85,7
31.1
18.5
22.1
1940
Pop.
15,375
2,375
1,082
18,832
15,724
1 0, 879
4,992
31,595
50, 427
7,280
494,537
552, 244
* %
52.8
-2.7
21.3
40.6
20.4
13.5
25.3
18.6
26.0
11.8
7.8
25.7
1950
Pop.
45,068
5,535
3,394
53,997
27,735
13,813
8,328
49,876
103,873
11,087
570,445
685,405
* %
193.1
133.1
213.7
186.7
76.4
27.0
66.8
57.9
106.0
52.3
15.3
24.1
1960
Pop.
106,638
17,037
9,275
132,950
44,037
21,967
9,815
75,819
208,769
32,186
627,525
868,480
* %
136.0
207.8
173.3
146.2
58.8
59.0
17.9
52.0
101.0
190.3
9.9
27.3
* Percent change from previous census
Source: Bureau of U. S. Census
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans/ La. - 15 May 1968
Table 11-3 illustrates the forecast change in percentage distribution between Or-
leans, Jefferson, and St. Bernard from 1965 to 1990.
TABLE 11-3
ESTIMATED TRI-PARISH POPULATION DISTRIBUTION 1965 - 1990
Year
1965
1967
1970
1975
1980
1985
* 1990
Total Tr?-Parish
Population
987,750
1,073,570
1,131,000
1,297,000
1,489,000
1,700,000
1,966,000
% Distribution
Orleans
67.8
64.0
63.2
58.9
55.2
51.5
47.7
Jefferson
27.9
31.7
32.2
36.2
39.6
43.2
47.0
St. Bernard
4.3
4.3
4.6
4.9
5.2
5.3
5.3
*Projection from 1985 to 1990 based on the same percent of growth as the prior
5-year period.
Table 11-4 shows distribution of this population as forecast for the communities of
the Tri-Parish area to the year 1990.
In 1960 the Metropolitan Area of New Orleans (SMSA, including St. Tammany
Parish) ranked as the 16th largest Metropolitan Area in the United States, with a
population of 907,123. The Tri-Parish area alone (excluding St. Tammany Parish)
has increased greatly within the last seven years, surpassing the 1,000,000 plateau
in the mid-sixties.
Three principal factors have had a continuing effect on the population increase of
this area. First, the Metropolitan Area has developed as a manufacturing center
oF the first magnitude. There were 900 plants with average employment of 58,000
in 1966, receiving an estimated annual payroll of $293 million. From 1946 through
1966, over $1.59 billion has been invested in capital expenditures for new and
expanded manufacturing facilities, making it one of the fastest growing industrial
sections in the United States. Secondly, a vast complex of petro-chemical plants
has developed in recent years along the Mississippi River between New Orleans
and Baton Rouge. The rapid and continuing growth of the petro-chemical industry
11-3
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May T968
TABLE 11-4
METROPOLITAN POPULATION 1960 - 1990
Jefferson Parish
(Eastbank)
Unincorporated Area
City of Kenner
City of Harahan
TOTAL Eastbank
(Westbank)
Unincorporated Area
City of Cretna
City of Westwego
TOTAL Westbank
Jefferson Parish (TOTAL)
** St. Bernard Parish
** Orleans Parish
METROPOLITAN AREA
1960
U.S.
Census
106,638
17,037
9,275
132,950
44,037
21,967
9,815
75,819
208,769
32, 1 86
627,525
868,480
1965
Est.
145,360
23,200
12,640
181,200
54,850
27,500
12,250
94,600
275,800
42,300
669,650
987,750
1967
Est.
179,000
35,000
16,000
230,000
63,750
32,000
14,250
110,000
340,000
46,380
687,190
1,073,570
1970
Est.
190,000
43,000
17,000
250,000
66,700
33,400
14,900
115,000
365,000
52,500
713,500
1,131,000
1975
Est.
249,500
50,000
20,500
320,000
90,000
35,500
16,000
150,000
470,000
64,000
763,000
1,297,000
1980
Est.
311,000
72,500
26,500
410,000
125,000
38,000
17,000
180,000
590,000
77,000
822,000
1,489,000
1985
Est.
380,000
97,500
32,500
510,000
164,000
41,000
18,000
220,000
730,000
90,000
880,000
1,700,000
•1990
Est.
460,000
120,000
40,000
620,000
242,000
44,000
19,000
305,000
925,000
104,000
937,000
1,966,000
* Projection from 1985 to 1990 based on same percent of growth as the prior 5-year period
** City of New Orleans Planning Commission estimates (Larry Smith Consultant)
has become one of the area's major economic assets. Thirdly, NASA Michoud As*
sembly facility has created 23,000 job opportunities within the area. Not only
have these factors affected the Metropolitan Area's population increase during the
sixties, but it is anticipated that they will continue to do so in the future, togeth^
with intensified industrial growth throughout the area, supported by improved trans'
portatlon systems, availability of economical fuels and an adequate labor supply.
Several forecasts of population have been made for the Tri-Parish area as well as
for each of the individual parishes. The Louisiana State University (L. S. U. N. O.)
through its Department of Business and Economics has made a forecast based upon
a detailed study of the area. It has been suggested that this forecast will probably
be adopted by the State in its future planning for the area. Larry Smith, Consult^
to the New Orleans Planning Board has made a detailed forecast for Orleans ParisH
as well as a forecast covering the Tri-Parish area. Both Planning Services, Inc.
11-4
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
and the Chamber of Commerce have also prepared forecasts covering the area. These
forecasts for 1985 vary from a low of 1,300,000 to a high of 2,075,000. For the
purpose of our study we have adopted a figure of 1,700,000 for 1985 and have pro-
jected this to 1,966,000 for 1990. These forecasts are shown on Figure 11-1. On
Figure 11-2 we have shown our proposed subdivision between each of the Parishes.
Jefferson Parish has been further subdivided between Eastbank and Westbank. In
subdividing the population between the Parishes we have adopted the forecasts of
Larry Smith for Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes.
B. Growth Areas
Details of available land, the developed area and the direction and rate of growth
are essential in defining the present and future waste disposal problem of the Tri-
Parish area, and in understanding present collection and disposal practices that
prevail in the area.
The gross land area of the Tri-Parish area consists of some 1,115 square miles or
711,520 acres. Orleans Parish (City of New Orleans) with the greater ratio of
population, contains the lesser land area with approximately 200 square miles or
127,360 acres. St. Bernard Parish with a gross land area of some 405 square miles
and Jefferson Parish with about 510 square miles jointly contain 82% of the total
Tri-Parish land area. Figure 1-1 (backcover) illustrating the relationship of these
Parishes, also shows vast areas of marshlands that generally remain inaccessible
today. Only some 160 square miles or 14,5% of the total Tri-Parish land area is
presently developed or being developed. The principal developed areas is general-
ly contained within a ten to twelve mile radius or a nominal 25 minute driving time
range from the Central Business District of the City of New Orleans, with the majori-
ty of the population located in the Eastbank communities. The geographic barrier
of the Mississippi River with its limited crossings was the chief deterent, affecting
the rate of growth of the Westbank area prior to 1900. It was not until the 1920-
30 decade, that the Westbank began to show significant population growth, as may
be noted in Table 11-2.
Historic evolution of the communities within this Tri-Parish area and their
respective population growths has produced eight separate and distinct populous
areas with differing characteristics of government.
11-5
-------
2, 000, 000
1,800, 000
1,600, 000
O Chamber of Commerce
=FL.S.U.N.O:
Larry Smith, Consultants
New Orleans Planning Board
A Planning Services, Inc.
400, 000
1950 1955
I960 19 5 1970 1975 1980 1985
POPULATION FORECASTS FOR THE TRI-PARISH AREA
11-6
FIG.
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
FIGURE 11-2
POPULATION FORECAST BY PARISHES
2,000,000
1,600,000
1,200,000
800,000
400,000
1955 m° "965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
Referring again to Figure 1-1 (backcover) and Table 11-4, the geographic
Dnship of the communities of the Tri-Parish area will be noted, together
with current and forecast population growth of each over the next two *
decades.
Principal areas for new expansion to meet forecast population growth are limited.
In Jefferson Parish the Eastbank unincorporated area and the Cities of Kenner and
11-7
-------
Study of Solid Waste - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
Harahan are confined by their present boundaries. Though population is expected
to increase by 160,000 in the 1970-1980 decade and about 210,000 in the 1980-
1990 decade, this growth will all be within existing limits. However, extensive
land reclamation projects along the lakeshore area, presently programmed over a
twenty year development period, will add substantial land area of premium value
within these limits. The Westbank area of Jefferson, in addition to "fill-in" in
the populous areas generally paralleling the River to a two-mile depth, offers
extensive areas for future development to the south bounded by Plaquemines
Parish (to the east) and St. Charles and LaFourche Parishes (to the west). The
ultimate potential of Jefferson Parish growth after the year 2000 is predicted to
be in the vast areas of the Westbank, Jefferson Westbank population is expected
to increase by 65,000 from 1970-1980 and about 125,000 from 1980 to 1990 with
the principal increases likely to occur in the two mile wide band paralleling the
River.
Principal developed areas of St. Bernard Parish also parallel the River, extending
eastward some three miles from its common boundary with the City of New Orleans*
Sparsely populated areas parallel the River to the southeast. Principal areas for
expansion lie to the west and southwest, bounded on the north by the Parish line
and Lake Borgne and to the south by Plaquemines Parish. During the 1970-1980
decade a total population growth of 24,500 is forecast for St. Bernard with an ad-
ditional population increase of 26,000 expected in the 1980-1990 decade.
The major developed area of the City of New Orleans, generally referred to as
Orleans Central, is contained within the boundaries formed by Jefferson Parish to
the west, Lake Pontchartrain to the north, the River and Intracoastal Waterway
to the south, and the Industrial Canal to the east. The area east of the Industrial
Canal, generally referred to as New Orleans East, today is only partially develop*"'
but is one of the principal growth areas of the City. In addition to the above, the
Westbank community of Algiers, a part of New Orleans and generally referred to
as Orleans South, is substantially developed in that area lying north of the Algiers
Canal (Intracoastal Waterway). This area is bounded by the River and its common
boundaries with Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes.
A total population growth of 108,500 is forecast in the 1970-1980 decade for NeW
Orleans of which about 20% or 22,000 is expected to occur in Orleans South, 53%
or 57,500 in Orleans East and the balance, 27% or 29,000, occurring in the Orlea(|i
Central area.
During the 1980-1990 decade additional population growth of 115,000 is forecast
with the projected distribution expected at 27% or 31,000 in Orleans South, 55%
11-8
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri -Parish Area
J^w_Qrleans, Lg . 15 Mg 1
. 15 Mgy 1968
or 63,000 in Orleans East, and 18% or 21,000 in Orleans Central. By 1990
Orleans Central is expected to approach its ultimate population capacity.
C. Application to the Metropolitan Solid Waste Study
Population distribution within the Metropolitan Area, to be meaningful, for
purposes of this study, must be correlated to each solid waste collection and
disposal system existing in the area. Those communities of the Metropolitan
New Orleans Area as listed in Tables 11-2 and 11-4 each have independent
systems. Each of these communities, other than the City of New Orleans
proper, is operating with a single collection district and independent disposal
facilities. The importance of producing reasonably accurate population estimates
for each collection district is, of course, to provide the basis for calculating
current and future per capita waste production factors of each area.
The City of New Orleans with its large developed area and high percentage
(67%) of the metropolitan population is sub-divided into six separate districts,
functioning independently, but under central supervision of the Sanitation De-
partment. It follows that further detail on population distribution within this
City is necessary for application in this report. We have reviewed census re-
ports and comprehensive planning studies of present and future population dis-
tribution to the year 1990. Data available and presented in these planning
studies provided 1965 distribution on a block-by-block basis in the City, as
well as summaries by planning sections and planning areas as illustrated in
Table 11-5.
Correlation of this data for application in this study required plotting the pres-
ent collection district boundaries (Sanitation Department) on available planning
maps, then recording composition of each pertinent area by planning units. This
analysis involved considerable manual recording of data and with the assistance
of the Data Processing Department of the City of New Orleans computations
of population distribution were compiled in summary form by collection routes
and districts. The base year of this estimate was 1965. Population projections
were then manually calculated by collection districts, based upon planning
forecasts of the various planning units composing each district. The summary
of these forecasts covering the period 1967 to 1990 is shown in Table V-33
(Page V-61) which presents population distribution by each of the City's col-
lection districts.
11-9
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Trf-Parish Area
New Orleans/ La. - 15 May 1968
TABLE 11-5
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION CITY OF NEW ORLEANS 1960- 1990
Plan.
Sec.
No. Planning Area and Section
Orleans Cenfral
1 Lakeview
2 Gentilly
3 Broadmoor
4 Mid-City
5 Bywater
6 Carrol Iron
7 University
8 Lafayette
9 Central Business District
TOTAL Orleans Central
Orleans East
10 Downtown
11 Edgelolce
1 1 c East Lakefront
1? East Gent illy
16 New Orleans East
1 8 Visvant
19 Chef-Rigolers
TOTAL Orleans East
Orleans South
13 Algiers
) 4 Aurora
15 Elmwood
17 Lower Algiers
TOTAL Orleans South
TOTAL City of New Orleans
1960
21,350
70,697
56,636
106,912
71 ,049
33,129
62,171
76,667
37,618
536,229
33,002
7,333
1 3, 1 49
118
2,370
592
56,564
25, 486
8,327
517
402
34,732
627,525
1965
23,650
80,300
60,300
104,350
64,200
30,000
67,750
81,650
38,350
550,550
39,050
10,400
19,600
1,850
1,150
1,450
73,500
31,200
13,400
550
450
45,600
669, 650
1967
24,190
81,380
60,980
104,610
64,520
30,000
68,250
81,790
39,010
554,730
39,230
13,440
22,960
3,910
1,090
1,670
82,300
32,920
15,240
1,490
510
50,160
687,190
1970
25,000
83,000
62,000
105,000
65,000
30,000
69,000
82,000
40,000
561,000
39,500
18,000
28,000
7,000
1,000
2,000
95,500
35,500
18,000
2,900
600
57,000
713,500
1975
27,000
86,000
63,000
105,000
67,000
30,000
70,000
83,000
43,000
574,000
40,000
24,500
3,000
35,000
15,500
500
2,500
121,000
39,000
23,000
5,000
1,000
68,000
763,000
1980
29,000
89,000
64,000
105,000
71,000
31,000
71,000
84,000
46,000
590,000
40,500
33,000
10,000
41,000
25,500
3,000
153,000
41,000
28,000
8,000
2,000
79,000
822,000
1985
31,000
92,000
65,000
105,000
74,000
31,000
72,000
85,000
50,000
605,000
41,000
41,000
16,000
47,500
36,000
3,500
185,000
42,000
31,000
14,000
3,000
90,000
880,000
1990
33,200
93,000
66,000
103,000
76,000
31,300
73,000
84,000
54,000
613,500
41,500
47,000
22,400
52,500
46,000
4.100
213,500
44,000
35,000
27,000
4,000
110,000
937,000
-------
I*1
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
Following the various cycles of incineration and landfill operation since 1916, the
City of New Orleans Sanitation Department ago in today is faced with determining
the most suitable method of solid waste disposal that will be acceptable to the
City Administration, Public Health authorities, and the public.
Jefferson Parish, followed a pattern similar to that of New Orleans, utilizing land*
fill operations as the predominant means for disposal of solid wastes, until the con-
struction of the David Drive Incinerator located in the Eastbank Unincorporated
Area. That plant operated until 1962 and handled about 60% of the area wastes
generated at the time of its replacement by a modern plant facility. The new pic"1''
the Eastbank Incinerator, operating since 1962, is presently handling nearly all
putrescible wastes generated in the Unincorporated Area, as well as wastes col-
lected in the City of Harahan. It has a substantial surplus burning capacity remain*
ing at this time. The City of Kenner is the only community in the Eastbank Area
which continues to utilize open dumping as a means of disposal. The Westbank coi*"
munities in Jefferson Parish also utilized open burning as their principal means of
refuse disposal, until the early fifties, at which time small plants were built in the
City of Gretna and the Unincorporated Westbank Area. The general intent of ope'"'
ation of those plants was for the disposal of the majority of putrescible wastes genef
ated in these communities with the balance of wastes handled by the open dumping
method. Those plants by comparison to today's modern incinerator facilities would
be considered obsolete. The City of Westwego is the only community in the West-
bank Area which continues to utilize open dumping exclusively, as a means of
disposal.
Methods of solid waste disposal in St. Bernard Parish have been generally limited
to that of open burning dumps, with such operation continuing up to the present ti<"
However, in late 1966, the Parish after investigation of their solid waste-disposal
problems, awarded a contract for construction of their first incinerator. This plant/
though generally complete, is not in operation at this date. It is anticipated that .
the capacity of this plant will be adequate to handle all putrescible wastes gener"'
in the presently developed area of St. Bernard Parish.
Previous reports have emphasized area factors affecting the selection of a long rctnSr
program for waste disposal. The principal factors, concerned with the geography/
physiography, and economy of the area, as well as the character and habits of the
population are: (1) Long, hot, humid summers promoting rapid decomposition of
garbage; (2) Excessive rainfall; (3) Rapid seasonal growth of vegetation; (4)
ural soil is not suitable as cover material for disposal method by sanitary fill;
(5) Flat terrain and elevations below sea level of over 60% of inhabited areas cre°
difficult drainage problems; (6) Mixed population; (7) Habits of refuse prep
storing and collection acquired over generations; and (8) Change in composition
refuse material.
111-2
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
La. - 15 May 1968
In the early 1920's refuse was composed of 60% rubbish and 40% garbage. De-
clining percentages of garbage in the composition of waste has been due to more
complete food processing at processing plants, extensive use of refrigeration,
and expanding use of domestic garbage disposal equipment. The increase in the
production of rubbish (non-food waste) is due largely to continued progress in
development of containers for packaging processed foods and other consumer pro-
ducts.
B. Existing Public Solid Waste Systems in the Area
Each of the eight communities in the Tri-Parish area (Unincorporated and Incor-
porated areas) differ widely in their methods of handling public services includ-
ing the collection and disposal of solid wastes. Orleans Parish and St. Bernard
Parish have singular control in their collection and disposal of solid wastes,
with the City of New Orleans Sanitation Department and the St. Bernard Gar-
bage Department operating these services in their respective areas of jurisdiction.
Jefferson Parish introduces complexities to the regional (Tri-Parish) waste dis-
posal program under consideration. It has six separate systems of waste collection
and disposal contained within the Parish boundaries. The entire Eastbank area,
including the Unincorporated area, the City of Harahan and the City of Kenner,
each operate with independent private contracts covering both collection and dis-
posal of solid wastes and providing services to households and small commercial
installations. In addition to the private contractor services, each of these com-
munities provide public collection systems for the collection of oversize wastes.
Conversely the solid waste systems of the communities of the Westbank, including
the Unincorporated area, the City of Gretna, and the City of Westwego each
operate independent collection and disposal services.
By and large, the scope of services provided by each of these communities is
similar, in that the public services are in practice limited to household and small
commercial installations with the commercial collectors in the area servicing
multi-family apartments, high rise developments, and large commercial and in-
dustrial installations.
Though the scope of services are similar in all of these communities, wide
variations occur in actually providing these services. Major variations in-
clude:
111-3
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
1. Frequency of collection services vary from two times per week in the
Eastbank Unincorporated area of Jefferson Parish to six times per week
as provided by St. Bernard Parish.
2. Though the type of service, i.e., curb and alley pickup is general-
ly common in all communities, required preparation of refuse for
separate pickup of household garbage and supplementary pickups
of rubbish will be found in the City of Gretna which varies from
the more common combined pickup that will be found in the other
communities.
3. Methods of funding these public services varies between funds pro-
vided exclusively from revenues generated from tax sources, to
combinations of tax revenues and direct service charges. Variables
also occur between communities in the basis of determining assessed
valuations, as well as the mileage rate applicable to solid waste
and the rates established as direct service charge to the recipients
of these services.
4. The cost of collection and disposal services varies extremely between
these communities. Costs vary due to the size of the community,
closeness of supervision, and attitude toward equipment mainte-
nance and housekeeping! Collection costs also vary with the den-
sity of population, type and frequency of service, type of col-
lection equipment used, and haul distances to the disposal facili-
ties. Variation In disposal costs are affected by the volume of
wastes handled, and method of disposal vs. the crew size and equip*
ment investment.
As noted in the foregoing text, methods of collection as well as disposal vary
erable between the communities, with either incinerator or landfill operations or
binations of both servicing the communities. Tables 111-1, 111-2, and UI-3 provide
brief descriptions and comparisons of these various systems and facilities. Reference
to Figure 1-1 (backcover) shows the relationship of the communities, districts, and
disposal facilities. In order to further illustrate the magnitude of the Tri-Parish soM"
waste problem, we have prepared Tables IM-4 and 1 11-5 showing hourly and daily
variations in refuse collection activities at selected disposal points as observed in
actual field studies conducted during December 1967 and January 1968. Chapters v
and VI of the text will explore the systems of each of these communities in greater
depth with analyses of quantities and types of wastes produced and further details
of the field surveys.
1-4
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
NgwDrleans La. - 15 May 1968
TABLE Ill-l
REFUSE COLLECTION DISTRICT AND PRESENT DISPOSAL FACILITIES
Orleans Parish
Night District
Central District
Western District
Eastern I District
Eastern II District
Algiers District
Private Collectors
Seventh Street Incinerator
Seventh Street Incinerator
St. Louis Incinerator as transfer
station to Algiers Landfill
Florida Avenue Incinerator
N. O. East Incinerator in
partial operation
Remainder to Gentilly Landfill
Algiers Incinerator
Algiers, Gentilly and New
Orleans Disposal Co. Landfills
Jefferson Parish
East Bank Unincorporated
Harahan
Kenner
West Bank Unincorporated
Westwego
Gretna
David Drive Incinerator
David Drive Incinerator
St. Charles Parish Landfill
Marrero Incinerator
Parish Landfill
Westwego Landfill
Gretna Incinerator
Gretna Landfill
St. Bernard Parish
Private Collectors
St. Bernard Incinerator (not in use)
St. Bernard Landfill
Private Landfill
111-5
-------
TABLE 111-2
COLLECTION SYSTEMS OF THE TRI-PARISH AREA COMMUNITIES
Community
St. Bernard Parish
Jefferson Parish
Eastbank Uninc. Area
Kenner
Harahan
Westbank Uninc. Area
Westwego
Gretna
City of New Orleans
Owner
Parish
Contractor
Parish
Contractor
City
City
Contractor
City
Parish
Parish
City
City
City
City
City
City
Trucks
No.
10
5
17
5
NA
4
1
1
NA
NA
16
4
3
2
6
13
125
13
Type
Packers
Stake Body
Packers
Stake Body
NA
Packers
Packers
Stake Body
Packers
NA
Packers
Stake Body
Packers
Stake Body
Packers
Stake Body
Packers
Misc.
Type
Collection
Curb
Curb
Curb
Curb
Curb
Curb
Curb
Curb
Frequency and Type Refuse Collected Point of Disposal
Garbage
6/Wk
-
-
_
~
_
-
:
-
3/Wk
-
Trash
2/V/k
-
-
_
••
_
-
-
-
3/Wk
-
Combined
_
2/Wk
-
3/Wk
1/Wk
3/Wk
-
*3/Wk
5/Wk
-
3/Wk
Oversize
Continuous
-
1/Wk
_
1/Wk
_
1/Wk
1/Wk
5/Wk
Continuous
On Call
Parish Dump
Eastbank Incinerator
Westbank Dump
St. Charles Private Dump
ii ii ii ii
City Dump
Eastbank Incinerator
Westbank Dump
Marrero Incinerator
and Westbank Dump
City Dump
City Incinerator
City Dump
3 City Incinerators
2 City Dumps
Notes
1. Frequency of collection in the community of Terrytown is provided only 2 times per week.
2. See pages VI-2 through VI-9 for further detail of individual collection systems of
St. Bernard and Jefferson Parish and pages V-13 through V-28 for City of New Orleans.
3. See Table V\-2, Page V\-22 for CosV Data - Jefferson and St. Bernard Parishes.
-------
TABLE 111-3
EXISTING TRI-PARISH DISPOSAL FACILITIES
Location, Owner
Type of Refuse
Rated
Capacity
Tons/Day
Residue
Disposal
Present
Usage
Tons/Day
EXISTING INCINERATORS
of New Orleans
Seventh Street
s*. Louis Street
Florida Avenue
Algiers
New Orleans East #1
^
Garbage & Trash 400
Garbage & Trash 450
Garbage & Trash 400
Garbage & Trash 200
Garbage & Trash 400
Algiers Dump 270
N. A. under construction
GentillyDump 200
Algiers Dump 150
Gentllly Dump under construction
t- Bernard Parish
Paris Road
Jefferson Parish
Westbank (Marrero)
Gretna (City of Gretna)
Eastbank (David Drive)
Garbage
100
under construction
Garbage 90
Garbage 100
Garbage & Trash 400
Westbank Dump 60
Gretna Dump 30
Hattaway Dump 220
.__..ju_[---- j _i__._L__r"-- —
EXISTING LANDFILLS
of New Orleans
Algiers
Gentilly
New Orleans Disposal Co.
NonComb. Oversize, Residue
NonComb. Oversize, Residue
Garbage, Trash, Non Comb. Oversize
350
600
230
• Bernard
Parish Dump - Paris Road
Private Dump - Paris Road
Trash, Oversize
Trash, Oversize, NonComb.
68
8
Jefferson Parish
Westbank
Gretna
Westwego
Kenner
Hattaway
Notes: (I)
(2)
(3)
(4)
- (U.S. Hwy#90) Trash, Oversize, Residue
- (City of Gretna) Trash, Oversize, Residue
-(City of West-
wego) Garbage, Trash, Oversize
- (City of Kenner) Trash
Disposal Co. Garbage, Trash, Oversize
180
20
30
10
36
See Figure 1-1 (Backcover) for location of the above community disposal facilities.
All landfills are operated as open dumps in violation of accepted standards.
Existing facilities to be utilized in future program includes only St. Louts, Algiers,
New Orleans East, Paris Road and David Drive Incinerators.
Detailed descriptions of individual facilities may be found on pages V-80 through
V-98 and VI-10 through VI-19.
III-7
-------
00
TABLE IIM
TYPICAL HOURLY VARIATION IN REFUSE COLLECTIONS RECEIVED AT SELECTED DISPOSAL POINTS
LOCATION
Seventh Street Incinerator
Municipal - Loads 69
Tons 172. 0
Comm. & Private - Loads 32
Tons 7. 1
Combined - Loads 101
Tons 179. 1
Jefferson Eastbank Incinerator
Municipal - Loads 51
Tons 215.1
Comm. & Private - Loads 12
Tons 3.2
Combined - Loads 63
Tons 218,3
Gentilly Landfill
Municipal - Loads 89
Tons 303.9
Comm. & Private - Loads 186
Tons 342.6
Combined - Loads 275
Tons 646.5
% of Daily Loads & Tons Handled Hourly
0600
M
_
-
_
-
-
-
7.0
8.9
4.7
4.7
0700
4.3
5.4
6.2
2.8
5.0
5.3
23.6
26.6
_
19.1
26.2
3.4
3.7
2.1
4.5
2.5
4.1
0800
18.9
24.4
6.2
15.6
14.8
24.1
3.9
5.1
8.3
6.2
4.8
5.2
16.9
23.7
5.9
7.5
9.5
15.1
0900
24.6
23.3
-
16.8
22.4
19.7
20.4
_
15.9
20.1
20.2
20.7
8.1
9.1
12.0
14.5
1000
16.0
16.9
3.1
4.2
11.9
16.4
7.8
6.1
16.7
31.4
9.5
6.5
23.7
22.8
11.8
13.7
15.6
18.1
1100
17.5
14.9
6.2
22.5
13.9
15.2
7.8
4.7
8.3
3.1
7.9
4.7
13.5
11.1
11.3
13.9
12.0
12.6
1200
11.6
9.9
6.2
2.8
9.9
9.5
7.8
7.9
25.0
18.8
11.1
8.0
7.9
5.3
11.3
11.3
10.2
8.5
1300
1.4
1.3
37.6
23.9
12.9
2.2
9.8
7.9
25.0
28.0
12.7
8.2
6.8
7.1
7.5
5.8
7.3
6.4
1400
5.7
3.9
34.5
28.2
14.8
4.9
3.9
3.5
16.7
12.5
6.3
3.7
5.6
3.9
16.1
8.7
12.7
6.4
1500
_
-
-
15.7
17.8
—
12.7
17.4
2.2
1.7
8.6
8.5
6.6
5.3
1600
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.2
8.1
6.9
4.3
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
.Ng^Orleans, La, - 15 May 1968
TABLE II I -5
DAILY VARIATION IN TRI-PARISH REFUSE COLLECTION
% of Average Day
Mon. Tues. Wed. Thurs. Fri. Sat.
Municipal Collections;
%Avg. No. Loads/Day 106 93 103 106 109 81
% Avg. Tons/Day 116 95 98 101 105 88
& Private Collections;
%Avg. No. Loads/Day 95 95 101 97 100 112
% Avg. Tons/Day 101 94 103 109 112 82
Cgrnbined Collections;
%Avg. No. Loads/Day 100 94 102 101 104 100
% Avg. Tons/Day 110 94 99 104 107 85
Note: Above data based on field observations at 13 points of disposal during
December 1967 and January 1968
Avg. Day (100%) Municipal Collection: 386 Loads 1,259 Tons
Comm. & Private Collection: 566 Loads 949 Tons
Combined Collection: 952 Loads 2,208 Tons
C. Private Collection and Disposal Services
Private collection and disposal services, supplementing the area's public solid
waste systems, consist of complete contractor services, collection services, on-
site incinerators and landfills operated by individual enterprises for their own use,
as well as private dumps operated for profit through salvage and/or direct dumping
charges.
111-9
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
A limited number of firms provide complete collection and disposal services within
the Tri-parish Area. New Orleans Disposal Company, Inc. is the principal firm
serving commerce and industry. Operating from modern plant facilities, centrally
located in the City of New Orleans, this firm is servicing accounts with a well
maintained collection fleet of some 50 radio-equipped vehicles of various types.
The type of service offered by this company is that of container service operation.
The principal point and method of disposal utilized by this company is their pri-
vately operated landfill located on the Orleans - St. Bernard Parish line, south of
Bayou Bienvenue. This landfill, though an open burning dump, is generally run in
an orderly fashion, with adequate equipment on site to follow up rapidly in the com*
pact ion, grading, and final application of cover material.
Jefferson Disposal Company, Inc. with its subsidiaries is the principal firm providing
contract collection and disposal services to community governments in the area. It
presently serves the Unincorporated Eastbank Area of Jefferson, as well as the City
of Harahan and is also active in contract services with commerce and industry. This
firm operates from modern plant facilities located in Jefferson Parish Eastbank Area
under lease from Jefferson Parish. The majority of wastes collected under their
public service contracts are delivered to the Eastbank incinerator for disposal. This
firm operates with a well maintained fleet of about 40 radio-equipped vehicles, a*
required for collection and. disposal operation.
Hattaway Disposal Company services the City of Kenner under contract for collection
anddisposal of wastes generated by household and small commercial installations. Ope
ing witha small compactor truck collection fleet, wastes are hauled into St. Charles
Parish to the contractor's operated landfill, located some 7 miles west of the Jeffers*"1
Parish line. There is a limited number of other independent col lection contractors,
operating with enclosed compactor type vehicles in theTri-Parish area, however, the
are innumerable open truck owners operating as independent general haulers. Their
waste hauling activities vary with thedemand. Available statistics obtained from
local licensing agencies generally does not classify or limit trucks by .types of,use.
On-site incinerators and landfill operations are not uncommon in the area. On-site
incineration is found consistently in the commercial-retail installations throughout
the area, with concentrations in the high-rise structures of the Central Business
Districts. In one major industrial complex in the New Orleans East area, the NA$^
Complex, an on-site landfill operation is presently being conducted for disposal of
their own wastes. The method of operation of this landfill closely approaches the
concept of a true sanitary landfill and from our observations is the only compar^
one in existence in the New Orleans area. This is made economically feasible by
large stock piles of cover material that remained from dredging the Industrial Canfll
in the NASA Complex area. This landfill is receiving a combination of food wastes/
111-10
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
N -
La. - 15 May 1968
commercial and industrial wastes generated by the various firms within the complex.
Due to a rapidly diminishing supply of cover material, management of this complex
is anticipating early construction of an incinerator plant to handle all wastes gen-
erated from their combined operations. A small on-site incinerator currently exists
at this complex for the destruction of classified materials, principally paper products.
Various industrial firms operate on-site landfills or landfills remote from the devel-
oped areas for disposal of hard fill materials generated by their own operations.
This "self disposal is augmented by many commercial and industrial firms transport-
ing wastes by their own trucks to public and privately operated landfills.
In the communities with higher growth rates, such as the Jefferson Eastbank area,
garbage grinder installations are common place in both single family units and the
numerous multi-family garden apartment complexes. High density apartment dis-
tricts with grinder installations appear to reduce household collections some 25%
by weight but negligible volume reduction occurs.
Quantities of combustible wastes handled by on-site disposal facilities in the over-
all Tri-parish area are generally minimal and their effect is noticeable only by
limited areas of concentrated use.
D. Private vs. Municipal Operation of Refuse Collection and
Disposal Systems
The preceding review of area collection and disposal practices shows wide varia-
tions in methods of management of the solid waste systems of the various Tri-parish
communities. Private enterprise participation in management of the public systems
in Jefferson Parish is the most significant departure in the area from normal prac-
tices in that the three communities comprising the Eastbank area of Jefferson Parish
(the Unincorporated Area, the City of Harahan, and the City of Kenner) have
entered into contractual agreements for collection and disposal services within the
past two years.
The Jefferson Parish contractual agreement with the private firm of Jefferson Dis-
posal Company, Inc., (as required by bidding specifications) includes not only col-
lection of refuse, but also operation and maintenance of the Parish owned and built
Eastbank Incinerator. Later contractual arrangements between WES Enterprises,
Inc. (a subsidiary company of Jefferson Disposal Co., Inc.) and the City of Harahan
also Included collection services with the disposal of wastes to be handled by
111-11
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
incineration at the Eastbank Incinerator. The latter, of course, occurred with the
approval of Jefferson Parish authorities.
The City of Kenner, after seeking bids, entered into contract for services includ-
ing collection and disposal of wastes. In this case, however, the contractor,
Hattaway Disposal Company, provided disposal in their privately operated land-
fill located in adjacent St. Charles Parish.
These local examples of "packaged services" for both collection and disposal of
wastes differ somewhat from the normal contractual services presently being expe-
rienced in other areas. There are numerous cases in the United States where house'
hold refuse is collected by private agencies operating through contracts with the
municipal authorities. A survey of some 956 cities in the United States and Canada/
conducted in 1964 by the American Public Works Association, listed 225 cities or
23.5% of all cities surveyed, where refuse collection is by contract with the mu-
nicipality. This type of service is most often-found in small communities where
there is an insufficient quantity of refuse to justify operating a municipal service
and where a private collector can operate economically, particularly if he has con-
tracts with several communities.
This aforementioned survey showed some notable exceptions for large communities
which are listed below.
Population
San Francisco, California 750,000
Seattle, Washington 557,000
Baltimore County, Maryland 500, 000
Omaha, Nebraska 301,000
Ottawa, Canada 259,000
San Jose, California 203,000
Anaheim, California 118,000
Peoria, Illinois 103,000
Santa Ana, California 100,000
In most of the communities, where municipal contracts with private collectors exist/
disposal is generally handled by open dumping or sanitary landfill.
In recent years there have been a number of instances where cities have undertaken
to contract refuse disposal to private contractors on the basis of the private collectof
111-12
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
La. - 15 May 1968
owning and operating the facilities and receiving a disposal fee for their use.
Recently, the City of Houston, Texas, let four contracts; three for the construc-
tion of compost plants and one for the construction of an incinerator. Each to be
constructed and financed by private capital with payments to be made from disposal
fee revenues from the use of the facilities charged to the municipality as well as
other users. Similarly, the City of St. Petersburg, Florida, entered into two sepa-
rate contracts for disposal of wastes which required the private construction and
operation of an incinerator plant and a compost plant. The above contracts dif-
fered from the Eastbank Jefferson Parish contract in that the local disposal facility
was built by the Parish, taking advantage of the lower financing costs. The Parish
originally operated the facility for a period of about two years. When faced with
rising costs, lack of trained manpower, and costly breakdowns, the Parish requested
bids and awarded a contract for private operation of the facility in mid-1966. The
contract is in its second year of operation and a successful working arrangement
has apparently been achieved.
The principal advantages of contracting refuse collection and disposal to private
enterprises are as follows:
1. A firm basis of cost is guaranteed to the City for the contract period.
2. Periodic bidding insures the minimum cost for the City.
3. Limitation of responsibility for social and fringe benefits on payroll.
4. Freedom from political pressure in management.
5. The opportunity to utilize the most efficient methods and equipment.
6. The opportunity of adopting personnel policies that will attract the most
competent personnel.
7. The opportunity to establish optimum crew sizes.
The principal disadvantages of this system are:
1. Lack of direct contact between the City and its inhabitants in providing
a necessary municipal service.
111-13
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
2. Difficulty in anticipating possible cost increases beyond the effective con-
tract period.
3. Selection of bid specifications that will limit bidding to reputable and
rienced contractors, yet not discourage competition of those most qualified.
4. The payment of taxes and earning a profit may make this method more expensiv6'
Further data, covering each of the private contracts in effect in Jefferson Parish, is
presented in Chapter VI with more detailed discussions of the solid waste system used
In the individual communities.
E. Area Ordinances
The ordinances which are now in force within the principal communities of the Tri-
Parish area covering the collection of solid waste by or on account of the municipal
agency are similar in scope, A digest of the Ordinances for Orleans and Jefferson
parishes and of the bid specifications for the City of Kenner are included in Appen-
dix I. It goes without saying that the larger communities (the City of New Orleans
and the Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson Parish) have, of necessity, developed or-
dinances over the years of their growth that are comprehensive in coverage, whereas
the smaller communities, in their developing stages, have adopted only those minimum
regulations appearing to be necessary. In the case of St. Bernard Parish, this commu-
nity has not yet officially adopted regulations covering any phase of solid waste col-
lection or disposal. However, officials of this community are aware of the need and
are now in the process of formulating ordinances covering regulations in this field.
State regulations on disposal of solid wastes provide minimum standards concerned
with the accumulation and collection of refuse as well as methods of disposal and
operation of disposal facilities. These regulations are presented in Appendix l-E.
The ordinances of the City of New Orleans and Jefferson Parish define the kinds
and classes of refuse, handling requirements, detail of collection services, and
methods and permitted means of disposal, as well as defining the responsibility for
administration of these services and enforcement of the regulating ordinances.
These ordinances provide detailed explanations of the pre-col lection practices that
are expected of those receiving service, such as preparation of refuse, container
requirements, weight limitations, and in the case of bundled rubbish, length limi-
tations. The scope of the ordinances further sets forth limitations as to types of
properties that are entitled to receive this public service, generally the small pro-
ducers of waste such as residential and small commercial installations and specifi-
cally excluding industrial establishments. Without exception all the communities
require curb and alley locations of containers for collection. Specified frequency
111-14
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
La. - 15 May 1968
of collection varies substantially from community to community with pickup oc-
curring as often as six times per week and as few as twice a week. Conformity in
container standards exists among all communities which require containers of
either metal or other approved material, with watertight covers. In New Orleans
and Jefferson two 30-gallon containers or three bundles of trash, or reasonable
combinations thereof are the limiting factors. Allowable container weights and
volumes vary slightly from community to community. The ordinances also specify
certain special services such as the collection of small dead animals and oversize
trash which are generally collected upon notification by the residents. Private
collection vehicles and methods of disposal are also regulated by ordinance. Regu-
lations concerned with waste disposal prohibit open dumping and burning in some
communities, opposed to relatively no regulation or control existing in neighboring
communities. No pollution control regulations exist in any of the communities.
Existing ordinances vary considerably in regards to financing and payment for ser-
vices. As a general rule, all communities provide at least a part of the operating
funds of the solid waste system through property tax assessments with the rate varying
from 4 mils to 7 mils among the communities. In Jefferson Parish a service charge
supplements the tax revenues varying from as little as 20 to 50 cents per month.
Failure to comply with regulations stipulated by ordinance carries penalties ranging
from $2.50 to $100.00 per violation and/or three days to ninety days imprisonment,
or both.
Enforcement of these regulations for all practical purposes is very minor in the area
due partially to the lack of adequate funds and manpower for issuing violation notices,
following up to verify compliance or fining of repeated violators. Violations in some
cases are probably due to ignorance of the requirements by the residents and lack
of effective communication between the regulating agency and citizenry.
F. Salvage and Reclamation
In the Tri-parish Area various special disposal problems are partially handled by
private enterprise through salvage and reclamation of certain waste materials. Rev-
enues generated from salvage of waste materials has been of varying importance to
municipal collections and disposal systems in past years. With a strong fluctuation
in the markets for salvage material, as well as the rising costs of salvage, munici-
pal participation in this field has gradually diminished. In the Tri-parish Area
today, nearly all salvage activities are handled by private contractors.
111-15
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
1. Basic Salvage Materials
Salvage contractors in the area, generally specializing in a particular material, in*
elude those dealing with paper, cullet, rags, non-ferrous metals, ferrous metals and
building materials. Generally, materials handled by salvage contractors in the Qte°
are selected and collected directly by the contractor prior to being mixed with other
general refuse. Also, materials are delivered to the contractor by individuals who
hand pick the products from local dumps and other sources.
Other than dealers in scrap metal and used building materials, a very limited
of salvage contractors serve the area and it appears that they provide adequate serV*
ices to meet the local need.
2. Abandoned and Junk Automobiles
Numerous salvage lots and garages engaged in automobile salvage operations are
active in the Tri-parish Area. Initial salvaging or stripping of automobiles handled
by salvagers may see the immediate removal of all usable spare parts or the autom°*
bile itself may be used as a "warehouse" until the need for its parts occur. Timing
of salvage, of course, depends on the demand and the availability of labor. What-
ever the time element may be, ultimately the remaining hulk, chassis and body/
must in effect be stored for lack of a permanent point of disposal, method of destruc'
tion, or further reclamation, as may be seen by observation of the many "storage"
yards throughout the area.
Abandoned vehicles on the highways and the streets pose a problem that is common
to all the communities of the Tri-parish Area. As in other areas, these automobi'65
are usually found stripped of all readily usable and saleable parts that would be of
interest and profit to commercial salvage yards. Their value in the condition that
they are found hardly would warrant the cost of removal. However, they must be
removed by municipal authorities or under local governmental control and stored
temporarily by the collecting agency until the hulk is claimed by the owner (whi^1
rarely occurs) or legal permit to junk is obtained and then later hauled to comrnei"
cial storage yards. The invested costs for removal, temporary storage and transfer
to permanent storage yards generally exceeds the salvage value.
Various methods and arrangements exist for the pickup and removal of abandoned
automobiles in each of the Tri-parish communities. However, by observation, ft
is apparent that the rate of removal does not quite keep pace with the need on a
day to day basis. Although each of the communities is making sincere efforts to
keep the streets free of the abandoned vehicles, the solution of providing a local
means for ultimate disposal still remains to be developed.
Ill-16
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
Nw La. - 15 May 1968
It is estimated that approximately 10,000 abandoned automobiles are collected an-
nually in the Tri-parish Area. Table 111-6 illustrates the estimated number of auto-
mobiles collected by each of the communities in the Tri-parish Area during 1967.
This Table shows the number of vehicles picked up for storage or disposal and does
not reflect the total number of vehicles abandoned in the streets and highways.
TABLE 111-6
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF ABANDONED VEHICLES
COLLECTED ANNUALLY IN THE TRI-PARISH AREA
City of New Orleans 5,000
St. Bernard Parish 300
Jefferson Parish 3,500
City of Gretna 350
City of Westwego 150
City of Harahan 100
City of Kenner 400
TOTAL UNITS COLLECTED ANNUALLY 9,800
In a recent environmental reports on the City of New Orleans, it was estimated
that some 12,000 vehicles were abandoned or "permanently" parked on the city
streets. The Police Department estimated that 5,000 of these were actually junk
and approximately 7,000 repairable. The Police Department indicated that with
current procedures complete removal of these vehicles from the streets would re-
quire approximately four years. It is estimated in this report that the rate of ac-
cumulation of these abandoned cars on the streets of the City of New Orleans is in
excess of 1000 units annually. This inventory and accumulation is over and above
the number of cars removed annually by the City of New Orleans Police Depart-
ment.
The responsibility for removal of autos falls on different public agencies in the
various communities of the Tri-parish Area. Typical of this variation occurs in the
City of New Orleans where the Police Department is charged with this responsibil-
ity, in Jefferson Parish, the Department of Roads and Bridges is responsible for
removal of vehicles, and in the City of Kenner, though the responsibility was
charged to the Police Department, removal was handled by private contractor until
such time as it no longer became profitable to the contractor when the City started
paying a fee to the contractors to remove the automobiles. However, this proved
feasible for only a short period. At the present time even this subsidy does not at-
tract haulers, having been recently estimated by local authorities that there are
111-17
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
between 1500 and 2000 cars on the streets and private property of the City that must
be removed.
The 10,000 automobiles abandoned in the Tri-parish Area are equivalent to about
7,500 tons of scrap. To this must be added a considerable number of automobiles
retired from service annually in the area that are sold directly to salvage yards,
thus increasing substantially the number of tons annually of scrap available from
this source.
Various types of equipment have been developed and adopted for disposal or recla-
mation of automobiles bodies. Included in this array of equipment are scrap baling
machines capable of compressing an automobile into a bale of metal of approxima-
tely an 8 cubic foot volume from its original 250 cubic foot volume, or a 96% vol-
ume reduction. Controlled incineration in large continuous flow incinerators are als"
available that can burn out from 100 to 200 car bodies in eight hours and hammer-
mills that can consume an average car body in 45 seconds or a'rate of 250 to 400 car5
per eight hour day. Combinations of these various methods are sometimes employed
to achieve the desired results.
Today's market value of the end scrap product of the hammermill method is about $30
per ton. This would indicate a potential scrap value between $225,000 and $330,0$
from automobiles abandoned annually on the public right of ways In the Tri-parish
Area. This volume, together with the potential value of the inventory of automobi'6
bodies presently in the "storage" yards in the area and those delivered annually by
their owners, together with oversize metal wastes generated annually, should w
investigation by private enterprise. Local governments should jointly encourage
private investors in development of reclamation operations in this field to serve the
Tri-parish Area. A plant located centrally within the Tri-parish Area with facilities
for water and rail shipments might well provide the means for disposal of abandoned
vehicles from more distant communities, as well as having dual means of shipping ^e
end product to domestic or foreign markets.
G. Required Tri-Parish Regulations
Upon review of existing collection and disposal practices, regulations controlling
these practices and upon analyses of various disposal methods adaptable to the area/
our study indicates the need to determine and program disposal facilities for the im-
mediate requirements of the areas; such facilities to be adequate for the next decade
and adaptable in the long range program to the following decade.
We have determined in the course of study that programming of these facilities may
best be handled by the individual communities for the first stage development
111-18
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
La. - 15 May 1968
period 1970-1980 (as covered in Chapters V and VI) and on a cooperative regional
program for the second stage development period 1980-1990 (as covered in Chapter
VII).
In order to provide a common denominator applicable to the communities of the Tri-
Parish Area, these communities need to formulate and adopt common standards,
preferably under the administration of a single authority, for the control and regul-
ation of the disposal of waste. These standards in the form of a master ordinance
should incorporate by reference the recommended specifications for disposal of all
types of solid wastes by methods that are acceptable to local, state and federal
authorities. This authority should establish policy, administer, control and enforce
the adopted regulations. Such regulations should specifically prohibit open dump-
ing and open burning of all wastes that would present environmental hazards or any
means of disposal that would contribute undesirable pollution levels to the air,
water, or land.
Immediate efforts should be undertaken through such an agency as the Regional
Planning Commission to sponsor an authority to formulate these standards and en-
courage adoption and implementation of such standards by each community as
rapidly as possible with an agreement upon deadline for compliance by not later
than 1980.
It would also be desirable for this central authority to provide minimum recom-
mended standards covering other phases of the solid waste system; standards to be
incorporated in the local ordinances of the various communities. Each community
should retain those standards of waste collection best suited to their individual
needs such as frequency of collection, number of containers, weight limitations,
type of service, etc. However, basic regulations covering health standards, pre-
paration of wastes, container requirements, violations, compliance, penalties, en-
forcement of ordinances, control of private collectors, disposal of special wastes,
etc., should be common to all communities. In fact, it would be desirable to draw
a common overall ordinance for all communities adopted by each and amended as
required to suit the individual needs.
Specific standards related to waste disposal should be adopted covering operation of
incinerators, sanitary landfills, as well as landfills designated for dumping of non-
combustibles and oversize wastes. In the case of incineration, regulations concern-
ing air pollution limits should be adopted, and enforcement of such regulations to
be controlled by periodic stack emission tests.
111-19
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
IV METHODS OF REFUSE DISPOSAL
Refuse by definition is something worthless to be left or thrown aside. Tradition-
ally man has attempted to dispose of his refuse in the least costly manner and with
a minimum of effort. Only recently, as larger urban areas have developed and
citizens have become aware of the hazards to public health, has more attention
been given to refuse disposal.
A. Open Dumping
Open dumping has been practiced for years and is probably the oldest organized
effort of refuse disposal. Generally a site for such purpose was selected at some
distance from the community and frequently a scavenger was permitted to reside
on the dump property in hopes that he would exercise some control over the process
of dumping. Frequently, materials are delivered to the dump by the community
refuse collector and by industries and home owners. In some dumps open burning
is encouraged in order to reduce the volume and in hopes that such fires might
reduce the quantities of garbage, thus discouraging the harboring of vermin and
insects. Some years ago the open dump was the site of a rat shooting sport. Open
dumps are looked on with disfavor by Public Health authorities and are being leg-
islated out of existence in nearly all metropolitan areas.
The Tri-Parish area has agreed to discontinue this form of disposal as a condition
to obtaining financial assistance from the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, with which this study is being undertaken.
B. Hog Feeding
The feeding of garbage portions of refuse to hogs was probably the first attempt to
salvage benefits from refuse. The system generally involves a program wherein
the hog farmer provided for collection of selected wastes from residences, hotels,
restaurants and food processing plants. Years back the hog farmer actually paid
certain garbage producers for the privilege of removing their wastes. However,
increased labor and transportation costs in recent years has reversed the procedure.
Some time dgo investigations by Health Departments determined that the feeding
of such garbage to swine in many cases was detrimental from a public health view-
point. The hogs contracted diseases and sometimes ingested parasites. Under
certain circumstances the meat resulting from slaughtering of the hogs carried dis-
ease causing organisms which transmitted diseases to humans. The result of this
IV-1
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
investigation was that hog farmers were required to process the garbage by cooking
before feeding. This additional processing costs money and reduces profitfrom this
operation to a marginal level. This method has fallen into general disfavor and in
Louisiana there are at least tv o laws which control the feecttng of garbage to hogs.
C. On-Site Disposal
On-site disposal frequently includes incinerator devices installed in the structure
where the refuse is generated. Many of the larger apartment houses have refuse
chutes leading to flue fed incinerators and into refuse storage areas where the build"
ing caretaker finds it and feeds it to the on-site incinerator. Many industries, in-
cluding food process ing plants and supermarkets, are constructed with on-site incin-
erators for the reduction of the volume of refuse. The use of on-site incinerators is
being discouraged because there is little or no control over the combustion process
or the gases produced by combustion. In the absence of proper control, these gases
are large contributors to air pollution and residue from improper combustion may be
putrescible and require burial for proper final disposal. The installation of such de-
vices in new construction is forbidden in a number of cities and it is expected that
this method of disposal will be discouraged or materially upgraded as more rigid
air pollution control standards are imposed.
Garbage grinders are also used for on-site disposal of food wastes. These installations
have proven tobe a popular method of garbage disposal and the number of installations
is increasing rapidly in many areas.
D. Composting
Composting is a biochemical degradation of organic materials to a sanitary, nuisance
free, humus-like material. Modern scientific composting has been described as a
rapid but partial decomposition of solid organic waste matter by the use of aerobic
microorganisms under controlled conditions. The major advantage of the process op"
pears to be that it produces a potentially marketable and useful product. However,
unlfess some economically beneficial use is made of the product, composting as such
is of limited value as a means of municipal refuse disposal since the resulting
is equivalent to approximately 70% of the original volume of the refuse less any
lume of materials salvaged*
The first full-scale European composting plant for the disposal of city refuse was
begun in the Netherlands in 1932 where the refuse was composted in large open
IV-2
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
windrows without grinding or sorting. The windrow method of composting combined
with the rasping system which involves grinding the refuse before the composting
process is started, and turning the compost piles during a three to six week period,
has become popular in Europe and by 1950, twelve plants based on this process
were either in construction or use.
Between 1953 and 1956, Michigan State University conducted extensive labora-
tory and field experiments on the composting of municipal wastes. Numerous
variables affecting the process were studied and a pilot plant was operated for 2
years in which 45 tons of garbage per day from the City of East Lansing were
processed. These experiments were based on a multiple deck silo type of digester.
Also, the United States Public Health Service initiated two research projects on
composting in 1953, one in Savannah, Georgia and the other in Chandler,
Arizona, near Phoenix. Considerable information has been obtained from the
operation of both of these plants. The Arizona studies included the development,
construction, and operation of a 10-ton-per-day experimental plant at Chandler
in which aeration, bin and windrow composting were used.
In 1956, a 100 ton-per-day composting plant was placed into operation at
McKeesport, Pennsylvania, This plant operated for about a year and was sub-
sequently closed. More recently the plant has been dismantled and we understand
it has been installed at Kingston, Jamaica, where it is again in operation, in-
termittently.
A visit to the S.A.C. compost plant in March 1967, located in San Fernando,
California, revealed that this plant had been shut down for about two years
because of inability to find a market for the end product.
A visit in July 1966 to the 150 ton-per-day compost plant in St. Petersburg,
Florida, indicated that contracts had been obtained with growers for taking the
compost directly from the windrows; however, another visit in S'eptember 1967
revealed that except for limited quantities sold in bags to hardware stores, most
of the compost has been disposed of by dumping. Also serious odor problems
have plagued the plant, causing it to be shut down in 1968.
Recent inquiries to Mobile, Alabama, indicate that the lack of a market for the
end product is the greatest problem in the operation of that City's new 300-ton
per day composting plant.
IV-3
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
Houston Tex'as, awarded three contracts for compost plants and one for an incin-
erator in April 1966. One compost plant was completed and commenced operation
in the spring of 1967, a second plant was completed but not placed in operation
because of complaints by neighbors of odors. The Contract for the other compost
plant was cancelled.
The most recent compost plant to be placed in operation is the 160-ton per day
plant at Gainesville, Florida which receives the refuse from the City of Gainesville
and the University of Florida. This plant was constructed by the same company that
is operating the plant at Houston, Texas. Operating costs for a plant of this size
were estimated by its operators on an annual and per ton basis as shown in Table IV-1
TABLE IV-1
COMMERCIAL VENTURE - COMPOST PLANT
(160 T/D - 50,000 tons Annually - Capital needs $1,500,000)
Rate Per
Ton Amount
Operating Costs:
Labor and payrolI expense $3.28 $164,000
Utilities .42 21,000
Supplies .40 20,000
Repairs .50 25,000
Travel .04 2,000
Telephone .12 6,000
Equipment rental .03 1,500
Licenses and fees .02 1,000
Consultants .05 2,500
Contract hauling .26 13,000
Total Controllable Expense $5 12 $256,000
Insurance .20 10,000
Land rental .12 6,000
Property taxes .20 10,000
Legal and audit .09 4,500
Management fee .60 30,000
Franchise taxes, start-up expense, etc. ,20 10,000
Total Non-Controllable Expense $1.41 $ 70,5u5
Total Operating Expense $6.53 $326,500
IV-4
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
Rate Per
Ton Amount
Depreciation or Debt Service:
Note: Debt service - $1,200,000 at 6 1/2% for
20 years equals $107,424 per year; depreciation
on $1,250,000 at 8% annually is $100,000.
Capital needs include some working capital, which
are not depreciable $2.15 $107,500
Total Operating Expense $8.68 $434,000
Less Credits for:
Sludge $..10 $ 5,000
Metal and paper salvage 1.30 65,000
Compost 2.00 100,000
Total Credits $3.40 $170,000
Net cost for 50,000 Tons $5.28 $264,000
The net cost of $5.28 per ton is predicated upon finding a market for the compost pro-
duced from 50,000 tons per year of refuse. Arecentstudy make for Riverview, Michigan,
covering an estimated population of 319,970, by Johnson and Anderson, Inc., Con-
sulting Engineers, had the following to say regarding the marketing of compost:
"This study of the possible uses of refuse compost from a manufacturing
facility located in lower Michigan indicates the presence of a special-
ized market probably large enough to absorb 25,000 tons annually of
compost out of an annual production of from 25,000 to 44,000 tons from
the Riverview plant, provided that there is no immediate development
of additional compost manufacturing capacity in the Ohio-Michigan
region."
The City of Gainesville together with the University of Florida has about one quarter
of the population of the Riverview Study Area.
The estimated operating costs for the proposed Riverview Plant are shown in Table
IV-2.
IV-5
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
TABLE IV-2
RESUME OF COSTS AND INCOME FOR A
300-TON (REFUSE) PER DAY COMPOSTING PLANT
COST PER TON
ITEM OF REFUSE
Capital Costs $2.88
Operating Expenses 5.12
TOTAL PRODUCTION COST $8.00
Other Costs $0.47
Disposal of 70 Tons of Compost Per Day
in Nearby Landfill
Disposal of 70 Tons of Compost Per Day $1.40
transporting 200 miles by rail to land
reclamation area
GRAND TOTAL COSTS $8.47 $9.40
Income
Salvageable Material $3.50
Compost Sales 3.24
TOTAL INCOME $6.74
The net cost per ton of $1.73 and $2.66 respectively depends upon obtaining an in-
come of $6.74 per ton from the sale of compost and salvageable materials or about
twice that estimated for Gainesville.
In commenting on the history of composts plants in the United States, Johnson and
Anderson, Inc. have the following to say:
" 1 • Aside from some Technical Difficulties, the Principal Cause of
Failure has been Economic.
"With few exceptions, the plants that have shut-down were operated
by private businessmen who expected to realize a profit, balancing
IV-6
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
Hew Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
the cost of processing refuse into compost against a fee charged to the
city plus proceeds from the sale of the compost. Ideally, the amount
charged the city for each ton processed would pay for plant operation,
and compost sales would provide the profit.
"It has not worked out that way. Generally, the fees paid by munici-
palities to plant operators for each ton of refuse processed range from
$1.00 to $5.00, while the cost to process a ton of refuse is between
$5.00 and $10.00.
"Running a deficit, the operators looked belatedly inro the marketing of
compost. Still believing that there was a wide requirement for the com-
modity, they tried to sell it to the people they thought had the greatest
need for humus; farmers. They were, except in Florida, usually disap-
pointed. The market was not there.
"2. Compost Plants have Failed because of Technical Difficulties and
Poor Location, even before Encountering the Marketing Problem.
"The main complaint in most start-up operations is the unsuitability of
many items found in city refuse for hammermill and grinding operations.
Large objects, usually metal, have caused extensive damage to the
machinery and long down-time. The designers then consider procedures
or machines to detour "tramp" metal, paper and other items having sal-
vage value.
"Another factor, one which has a new plant in Houston closed at the
moment, is poor location. Despite all claims to the contrary, there
is an odor from compost and from compost plants, especially in warm,
humid weather. There is a temptation to relocate the plant at the end
of a refuse pick-up line, even though that location may be in a resi-
dential area. Whether for real or imagined reasons, people do not like
to have refuse or sewage plants in their neighborhoods. The Houston
plant, one of two built recently, was placed in a better-than average
residential area not far from a house of worship. Five hundred residents
have signed a petition to have it moved.
"In short, composting plants built over the past seventeen years gener-
ally have not been successful. Many have not proven to be econo-
mically feasible. Several have had technical difficulties and a poor
IV-7
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
location is a problem to at least one new plant. Those that have suc-
ceeded have done so principally because of successful compost market-
ing efforts."
To the above comments we should like to add that all compost plants in the United
States with a successful history of operation of five years or more were of less than
50 tons per day capacity and the compost produced was for a special and limited
market. Concerning the market in the Riverview area, Johnson and Anderson, Inc.
comment as follows:
"Riverview and the other towns that would participate in the use of the
proposed plant are relatively small in comparison with nearby Detroit
and its larger suburban communities. The marketing opportunities that
we believe do exist for a quantity of about 25, 000 tons of compost an-
nually will be sharply altered if parallel plans for compost plants are
endorsed by the Federal government within this region which, for market-
ing purposes, must include both Michigan and Ohio.
"If, on the other hand, the disposal problem becomes too acute in the
area to be concerned with the development of end-product sales for one
plant so that it becomes self-supporting, then, we believe, compost may
have a final virtue.
"Our findings indicate that it would be difficult to give compost to near-
by farmers. They do not appear to want it, free or otherwise. Making it
free to local citizenry in small amounts does not seem a practical means
of moving large amounts of compost continuously.
"However, compost making does reduce refuse volume substantially, and
in an area saturated by over-production this may be an advantage if the
final plan is to use the compost in landfill and soil reclamation projects
some distance from the plant.
"It may be necessary to add a compacting operation to achieve greater
density, but sanitary landfill may be both a supplement to current
marketing efforts and a future (5 to 10 years) alternative as other com-
munities enter the program."
IV-8
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
fsjew Orleans/ La. - 15 May 1968
Advantages*
1. A composting plant produces a usable end product that may be sold, thus
either paying for, or at least reducing, costs.
2. Composting can be used to dispose of many industrial wastes such as
those from meat packing plants, paper mills, saw mills, tanneries, stock-
yards, and canneries; also dewatered sewage solids, especially if they
are mixed with ground refuse; and cans and bottles that have no salvage
value can be economically ground with the remaining refuse.
3. Normally composting offers favorable conditions for salvage of rags,
glass, cardboard, paper, cans, and metals.
4. A well located refuse composting plant may reduce the cost of hauling
refuse to the point of disposal.
5. Flexibility of operation permits a 100 to 200 per cent overload in de-
sign capacity for several days by increasing the time the receiving bins
and grinders operate.
Disadvantages*
1. Capital and operating costs are relatively high.
2. Whether the end product can be marketed is not yet proven and seasonal
use of the end product may require special marketing procedures or exten-
sive outdoor storage.
3. Trained personnel to operate composting plants are not readily available.
4. Refuse that damages grinders must be removed and disposed of separately
such as tires, pipes, heavy stones, mattresses.
IV-9
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
5. If cans and bottles have no local salvage value they must either be re-
moved and disposed of separately or ground with the organic matter,
thus somewhat reducing the quality of the finished compost.
6. Site procurement for a composting plant is difficult.
*From Municipal Refuse Disposal, A.P.W.A.
Although composting plants continue to capture the imagination of the public, par-
ticularly those who are conservation minded and a number of plants have been built,
none of those constructed and presently operating in the United States have a capa-
city sufficient to be seriously considered in the present study.
We have considered the possibility of constructing a small compost plant sized
to meet the needs of the various Parks Departments within the City. The conserva-
tion of the parks, parkways, and gardens within the City is divided among the follow-
ing agencies, each of which we have contacted: the City Parks Department, the
Department of Streets; the New Orleans Recreation Department; the New Orleans
District Levy Board; the Parks and Parkway Commission; and the Audubon Parks. In
general, we find that river sand is used almost exclusively for lawn and garden dress-
ing by each of these Departments. In almost every case, the organic matter required
is obtained from the operation of compost piles maintained and operated by the De-
partments using cuttings and other materials from the Departments' operations as the
raw material. In the case of the Parks and Parkway Commission, records indicate
that some 240 cubic yards of organic muck material was purchased.
As shown by the above, there is no demand in any of the Parks Departments for com-
post material such as might be manufactured from the City's refuse.
E. Incineration
A modern municipal incinerator must meet a number of basic design requirements.
It must be free of public nuisance. Neither air pollution, water pollution nor ugly
appearance is permissible. It must be economical to own and operate. It must be
dependable in its operation and be able to process a maximum variety of solid waste.
Avoidance of public nuisance is of prime importance since the principal reason for
the existence of an incinerator is to dispose of a public nuisance—solid waste or
IV-10
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
refuse, (n our rapidly expanding metropolitan areas, it is safe to assume that, re-
gardless of the remoteness of the incinerator site selected, there will be tax-paying
neighbors nearby during some part of the life of the plant. Consequently, inciner-
ator design must provide extremely close control of air pollution to prevent dust
fallout and unpleasant odors or fumes in neighboring areas. Air pollution code
restrictions have become increasingly stringent in recent years and it seems most
appropriate for publicly owned and operated facilities to be models of good perform-
ance in this regard. Recognition and acceptance of the need for very low stack
emission rates has a marked effect on the design of incinerators.
Mechanical developments in the last several years since the advent of more strin-
gent air pollution control regulations, which have demanded a high degree of ef-
ficiency, have now made it possible to construct incinerators requiring a minimum
of operating personnel and capable of functioning without smoke or other stack
emission while producing a completely burned-out residue which can be disposed
of without nuisance or the need for burying.
Such incinerators are good neighbors and can be built in any area zoned for in-
dustry or commerce without blighting the surrounding area or causing complaints
from adjacent property owners.
Advantages *
1. Much less land is required than for disposal in landfills. If there are
insufficient sites available for landfills within economic haul distan-
ces, incineration may be the most economical method of disposal.
2. A central location for an incineration plant is possible. A carefully
operated plant in a well-designed building that has well-landscaped
grounds is acceptable in many neighborhoods, and so site selection is
not as difficult as it is for some other disposal methods. A location
near-central to tributary collection areas reduces hauling costs.
3. An incinerator can produce ash residue that contains a negligible a-
mount of organic materials and thus is nuisance-free. The residue is
also acceptable as fill material.
4. The modern incinerator can burn a good many kinds of refuse. It can
efficiently burn combustibles to ash and can even reduce the bulk of
the non-combustible components of mixed refuse.
iv-n
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
5. An incinerator is not affected to any degree by climate or unusual weather.
Disadvantages
1. Large capital investment and high operating costs.
2. Difficulty in securing a site because disposal operations in any form are
offensive to many people. Moreover, truck traffic to and from the plant
may be considered a hazard and a nuisance, particularly in residential
neighborhoods.
3. Not a complete disposal method. Ash and other residue from the burning
process, including fly ash, must be disposed of by other means.
4. Inability to handle bulky and industrial waste.
5. Requirement of trained personnel.
6. Necessary to treat and dispose of quench and scrubber waters, and possi-
bility of air pollution.
F. Other Processes for Reducing Waste with Heat
Considerable research into modifications of the generally recognized incinerator
process has been undertaken. Two such projects are worthy of mention.
1. Mel t-Zit Process
The American Design and Development Corporation of Whitman, Massachusetts,
has been developing the Melt-Zit Process. The literature on this process makes it
sound very attractive. The technical details were unavailable and it was not pos-
sible to see the existing experimental 100-ton per day unit in operation. This
process requires auxiliary fuel and it is reported that coke is used at the rate of
1.0 ton per 40 tons of refuse. This unit does not utilize grates and is presumed
to be a form of blast furnace which uses a refractory lined column into which
the refuse is fed. Temperatures in this zone are maintained at approximately
3,000°F. Such temperature results in the melting of the glass and metals to pro-
duce a melted pool of residue. The pool is drained into a quench tank where the
IV-12
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
|s|ew Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
rapid chill results in production of a granular material. It is reported that the
weight of residue is approximately 3% of the weight of refuse treated. This very
high reduction in weight is especially attractive in areas where residue disposal
is a problem and can be a substantial element of cost.
The cost of auxiliary fuel, together with the maintenance of the high temperature
refractory lining of the furnace make this process inherently more expensive than
the normal incineration process and thus its use can only be justified where residue
disposal is a serious problem. In the case of New Orleans, a well burned residue
from a modern incinerator which is a high quality fill material is in demand, and
the considerably larger volume of residue produced under normal conditions is an
advantage rather than a detriment.
The development of refractories for such high temperatures is relatively new and
no data has been obtained on the service life of the refractory. The Federal Gov-
ernment through the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has approved
a grant. The objective: "To investigate and evaluate the Melt-Zit high temper-
ature pilot incinerator at Whitman, Massachusetts..."
The Melt-Zit Process appears to have a great deal of potential for future applica-
tion. However, there is presently no such process in use on a community basis and
there are no evaluating data available from independent concerns on which defi-
nite conclusions may be based.
Because of the still experimental nature of this process at this time, as well as for
the reasons stated above, this process should not be considered for the New Orleans
area.
2. Pyrolysis
The City of San Diego, California, is experimenting with another process for the
reduction by heat of municipal wastes. This process is described as pyrolysis. Py-
rolysis amounts to destructive distillation. Destructive distillation is accomplished
by heating the material to be subjected to distillation in a container with suitable
vents. The products of destructive distillation include hydrogen, carbon dioxide,
carbon monoxide, methane, ethylene, ethene and other gases. The gases produced
can be burned with an expected heating value of 300 to 400 BTU per cu. ft.
Other products of destructive distillation which escape through the same vents and
can be condensed, are termed pyrol igneous acids. Although the pyrol igneous acids
IV-13
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
can be expected to contain 70 to 80% water, the remainder will be a variety of
alcohols, ketones, tars, and organic acids. It is expected that these materials can
be separated and sold. The char resulting from this method contains substantial
amounts of inert materials such as metal and glass and has a heating value of ap-
proximately 11,000 BTU's per pound. Experimental work indicates that this process
can be self-sustaining.
This process has been developed in the southern California area where because of
smog conditions air pollution is critical and cost is of secondary importance. Such
a process cannot be expected to compete economically with normal modern incin-
eration except under special circumstances which do not exist in the New Orleans
area.
For these reasons, as well as the experimental nature of the process, we do not
consider this method suitable for use in the New Orleans area.
G. Landfill
Landfill is required for the ultimate disposal of residues from all refuse reduction
processes as well as .for the disposal of such wastes as are not amenable to reduction.
Proper refuse disposal recognizes two types of landfill, namely: The sanitary
landfill, which is treated at length in a subsequent section, and the landfill which
is limited to the disposal of non-putrescible, non-incinerable waste materials
such as demolition and construction wastes, oversize wastes, ash, incinerator
and industrial residues, and similar materials that form satisfactory fills and do
not require the use of cover material or special precautions to prevent the develop-
ment of health hazards. Landfills of this type can be undertaken with a mini-
mum of precaution in most low areas requiring fill material for their proper de-
velopment and subsequent use of the area need not be limited. This type of land-
fill must form a part of the planning in every refuse disposal program.
H. Sanitary Landfill
This method was developed in the United States early in the 1930's when disposal
of refuse by dumping in open areas, due to the offensive nature of refuse, had
created conditions in most cities that were unsatisfactory to all. It consists of
dumping of refuse in a selected site in which the refuse is compacted in cellular
construction and covered at least once a day with a layer of earth that is also
compacted to provide a tight seal.
IV-14
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
During the early part of World War II, military installations, faced with ever
increasing quantities of solid waste, adopted this method of refuse disposal at
many camps and other installations. It was soon adopted by many municipali-
ties across the nation, so that from less than 100 cities using it in 1945, more
than 1,400 cities had adopted it by 1960. More recently, however, the me-
thod had to be curtailed in a number of large cities including New York and
Baltimore because of the lack of suitable sites within economic haul distances
and because of the need to preserve the sites for other uses.
Sanitary landfill operations may be classified into three categories: The Trench,
the Area, and the Ramp methods. The method selected is usually dictated by
the topography of the site and characteristics of the soil.
Regulations and recommendations of state and federal health agencies have
done much to improve the operation and upkeep of the landfill sites. Few so-
called sanitary landfills, however, meet the recommendations of the United
States Public Health Service.
Advantages
1. A well designed and efficiently operated sanitary landfill can meet
all the requirements of public health standards.
2. If adequate land with suitable cover material is available at a rea-
sonable distance from the collection center relatively low capital
investment and operating cost will result.
3. Unlimited as to kind or type of refuse that can be accepted for
disposal.
4. Limited number of skilled personnel required for operation.
5. Unlimited capacity for emergency conditions.
6. Improvement of property for limited use after fill is completed, such
as play areas, parks, athletic fields, parking areas, etc.
IV-15
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans/ La. - 15 May 1968
Disadvantages
I. Usually located at considerable distance from the geographical cen-
ters of the collection area so that hauling distances are long, thus
resulting in a higher overall cost of refuse collection, not to men-
tion the effect of delays and emergencies, particularly during in-
clement weather.
2. Under certain conditions, contamination of the ground water or surface
waters has occurred particularly where refuse is dumped into pits, quarries
and depressions that extend below or close to the water table which per-
mits the leaching of contaminants.
3. Limited use of the completed landfill area.
4. Explosion hazards due to lateral passage of decomposition gases to
adjacent areas.
!• Transport of Waste by Barging
Investigation of factors affecting the feasibility of barging wastes, included
determination of routings, distances, equipment, and time factors, as well
as consideration of weather factors and methods of preparation of wastes prior
to shipment. Policies of the various governmental agencies must also be con-
sidered in evaluation of the methods of disposal, such as burning and/or dump-
ing at sea. Investigation of these latter methods were specifically requested by the
City of New Orleans.
1. Route Distances
The principal routes considered for waterway transfer include the Mississippi
River, the Gulf Outlet Channel, and the Intracoastal Waterway.
Maps and charts of these waterways indicate nominal distances ranging from
80 to 120 miles (one-way) from the Mississippi River Bridge in downtown
New Orleans to open Gulf waters. These route distances shown in Table
IV-3 include a ten-mile allowance beyond the mouth of the outlets into
open waters
IV-16
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
TABLE IV-3
WATERWAY TRANSPORT ROUTES
Route Nautical Miles
Via the Mississippi River
Southwest Pass 120
South Pass 114
Pass Loutre 118
Tiger Pass (proposed) 105
Via the Gulf Outlet Channel 80
Via the Intracoastal Waterway and Lake Borgne 80
2. Speed and Haul Time
Discussions with experienced and knowledgeable parties in barge transport on
the Mississippi River discloses average towing speeds of five knots (round-
trip basis ) should be contemplated for the time and size of cargo to be
transported. With this speed, an elapsed roundtrip haul time to open waters
varying from 32 to 48 hours must be allowed, depending on the route selected.
Allowing additional loading and discharge time would immediately indicate
the need for three sets of barges and the availability of additional tug units
for a reliable system.
It should be noted that multiple barge units in tow may be allowed in in-
land waterways, but generally, only single units in tow are permitted on the
open sea. It follows, that small barges towed in a group to the mouth of
IV-17
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
the River or other outlets would then require individual shuttling a distance
of approximately ten miles for discharging cargo. At five knots, each unit
would require about four hours for the roundtrip.
3. Equipment Requirements
Preliminary discussions indicate that the tonnage and volume requirements for
one day's production of refuse (assumed at 600 tons per day) as received at
a single transfer station, could be incorporated in a single barge with special
design features for burning or unloading at sea. Assuming that natural com-
paction of this material in loading would achieve a density of about 300
pounds per cubic yard, or say, six cubic yards per ton, the magnitude of
this load would be comparable to a net cargo space (volume) of approxi-
mately 50' x 165' x 12' depth. Local opinions are that barges for this
particular purpose would necessarily be of special design and limited in use
for other purposes. Should grinding or shredding of refuse be performed at
the transfer station thereby reducing volume, much smaller barges would be re-
quired, but higher preparation costs would be incurred.
4. Weather Factors
Considerations for employment of barge transport of waste for disposal should
also include evaluation of weather factors that affect the reliability of this
means of transport. The frequency and hours of duration of fog and storm
conditions that slow or close navigation of the inland and open waters are
unpredictable conditions that would affect the reliability of the system.
Statistics are lacking on these conditions. However, indicative of the prob-
lem is the Corps of Engineers records of heavy fog in the immediate vicinity
of New Orleans during 1965, 1966, and 1967. For these years, fog slowed
or closed river traffic as follows:
37 days in 1965
28 days in 1966
43 days in 1967
It averaged 33 days per year over the past 19 years with the normal occur-
rence during the five month period from November through March.
IV-18
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
Local shipping operators indicate modern sea-going tugs with radar navigational
equipment are generally all-weather craft, and continue operations regardless
of weather, except for severe storm conditions. A reliable transport system
would require properly equipped craft. Costs of this type of equipment, of
course, are extremely high. Preliminary indications of contract costs for tugs
capable of furnishing this service range up to $900 per day.
5. Policies of Governmental Authorities
Extremely important and perhaps the deciding factors against dumping or burn-
ing at sea are the probable unfavorable reactions of state and federal gov-
ernmental authorities (due to indicated violation of their policies).
These governmental authorities concerned with and/or previously ruling on
the utilization of inland waterways and offshore waters include the U. S.
Supreme Court, the U. S. Public Health Service, the State Board of
Health, the U. S. Coast Guard, the Corps of Engineers - U. S. Army,
State Stream Commission, Wildlife and Fisheries Commission, the tourist
agencies of Lousiana communities and communities of adjacent coastal states.
Specific obstacles against dumping at sea may be cited in a U. S. Supreme
Court Ruling of 1933. Prior to this time, dumping refuse at sea was a
fairly common practice of various coastal cities in the United States. In
this Ruling, the Supreme Court prohibited this practice in a decision in-
volving New York City. At the time, New York faced court action ini-
tiated by coastal cities in New Jersey to force cessation of dumping its
refuse at sea. The Supreme Court upheld a ruling requiring that New York
City cease this practice due to its effect on the neighboring communities and
resort areas in the coastal region.
Although Louisiana has no major coastal resort cities or heavily populated
communities in the coastal region, the resort areas of neighboring states
would in all likelihood be affected by waterborne deposits of refuse, resulting
in contamination of the Gulf beaches.
Deposits of this waterborne debris could also be expected in the relatively
shallow coastal waters, thereby contributing to their pollution. Health
IV-19
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
authorities, the Wildlife and Fisheries Commission, and representatives of the com-
mercial fishing industry are continually striving to minimize the dangers of pollution
in inland and coastal waters. Hundreds of square miles of comparatively shallow in-
land waters and marshlands parallel the coastal areas of Louisiana as well as the
coastal areas of adjacent states, and currently provide highly productive fishing
grounds for the commercial shellfish and fishing industry.
The U. S. Coast Guard and Corps of Engineers among their many duties, are highly
concerned with maintaining minimum navigational hazards on inland and coastal
waterways. The discharge point of unloading large volumes of refuse at sea would
be subject to control to eliminate drift of masses of material into navigable chan-
nels. Burning at sea or in inland waters would also be subject to their control. Un-
official recommendations indicate that dumping of this daily volume and type of
material should not be permitted in less distance than a 24-hour run to sea.
The Coast Guard, Stream Commission, and the Corps of Engineers jointly would pro-
hibit dumping or burning refuse in or near the principal inland waterways due to
pollution and navigational hazards.
Formal and joint application to all agencies affected would be required in pursuing
this means of disposal. It would be highly unlikely that approval could be obtained
from all agencies. Assurance that approval would be granted or guaranteed for a
sufficient period to amortize investment requirements is even more unlikely.
6. Summary - Transport of Waste by Barging
In this area, barging of wastes for final disposal appears to be a highly undesirable
and unreliable method of disposal. Distance and time, together with the unpre-
dictable weather factor alone, rule out serious consideration of this method. With
consideration of the rightful emphasis placed on pollution controls (of air, water,
and land) by governmental authorities, disposal by dumping at sea and especially
in inland waters today is in direct violation of the aims of the pollution control
program.
Based upon the factors detailed above, economic evaluation for barging to sea is
not considered warranted.
Barging to inland locations for disposal by sanitary landfill was considered as an
alternate method for utilizing water transport. Preliminary investigation indicates
IV-20
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
this method of handling would not be economical. Based upon a 50-mile one-way
haul to a site that would be suitable for sanitary landfill operations/ costs of$5.50/
Ton were estimated, allowing $1.00/Ton for transfer station costs (loading), $1.50/
Ton for unloading and transport costs at the landfill site and $1.50/Ton for the sa-
nitary landfill operation. Excessive rehandltng costs are unfavorable in this method.
Further, unpredictable weather factors contribute to the unreliability of this method
of transport of solid wastes. Although some barging of wastes has been practiced
by some coastal communities in the past, consideration for this method of disposal
for the Metropolitan New Orleans area appears to have no merit in the foreseeable
future.
J. Special Preparation of Refuse for Disposal
The light weights and low densities of many types of wastes have resulted in large
volumes to be transported and at relatively high cost per ton. Likewise, these
wastes, because of their low densities occupy large initial volumes in landfills and
are subject to a high degree of settlement.
Numerous efforts have been made to consolidate these wastes in order to reduce the
cost of transportation and the space required at the disposal area. A considerable
amount of experimental work has been done in both shredding and compacting ref-
use as a means of reducing its volume, and full scale installations of both types of
equipment have been made outside of the United States.
1. Shredding
One of the more common uses today is for shredding automobile bodies and preparing
the material for scrap. Experiments have been carried out using the same type of e-
quipment which have shown that the volume of refuse can be reduced to about one-
fifth with a corresponding increase in density, thus reducing the cost of transportation
from the collection points to the disposal site. The increase in density reduces the
subsequent settlement in a landfill and lessens the amount of cover material required.
Also, the shredding changes the appearance of refuse, so that areas may be filled
with shredded refuse which otherwise would be unacceptable to the general public
and neighbors in the vicinity.
Shredding is also particularly useful for the reduction of volume of garden trash,
oversize waste, and other materials for which disposal is currently a problem, either
at incinerators or on landfills.
Economic studies by the authors covering garden trash in the Miami area have shown
that savings in transportation costs due to increase in density can be greater than
IV-21
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
the cost of installing and operating a shredding plant. Several special types of equip-
ment have been developed for this purpose. It is believed that this type of waste
processing will come into more general use as transportation to more distant areas
becomes an important factor in the cost of refuse disposal. However, the limitations
on the use of sanitary landfill in the area would still be applicable and shredding
on a large scale is not indicated at this time.
2. Grinding
The grinding of garbage and other putrescible wastes, either in home units or con-
veniently located central stations for disposal of the ground material into the sani-
tary sewerage system has become increasingly popular since its introduction about 30
years ago. Locally, a comprehensive study undertaken by Godat & Associates for the
New Orleans area in 1952 recommended against grinder discharge into the river or
sanitary sewers. Today, increased use of home grinders is occurring in the new
areas of development and is expected to increase further with proposed improvements
in the sanitary sewerage systems. However, the findings of this earlier report against
discharge from central stations into the river are still valid, for conditions have not
improved materially in the intervening years.
3. Compaction
Large hydraulic presses have been in use to process car bodies into blocks which can
be shipped as scrap to the steel mills. Recently, processes have been developed util-
izing this type of equipment for compressing refuse into a small volume for its tran-
sportation and final disposal. The Tezuka Kosan Co., Ltd., of Tokyo, Japan, has
developed a refuse compressing system which we have studied based upon their
literature.
Briefly, the process involves a reduction in volume by the use of hydraulic pressure
in order to obtain a final specific gravity of the compressed refuse in the order of
1.2 and 1.9 and it is our opinion that the final specific gravity of the resulting cube
or bale is a function of the nature of the refuse, as well as the nature of the cover
which is added to the finished bale. The finished bale can be enclosed with chicken
wire and hot asphalt, chicken wire and Portland cement concrete, chicken wire and
vinyl, chicken wire or iron strap only, vinyl only, iron sheet or unconfined, depend-
ing on the final disposition of the material.
It appears that this is a modification of the process being used in Mobile, Alabama,
in that, by the Tezuka process, no effort is made to sort the refuse or to salvage any
IV-22
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans/ La. - 15 May 1968
materials, whereas in Mobile, non-compos tables are removed prior to the baling
process. The literature from Mobile and from Tezuka are completely contrary to
each other in that according to the Mobile, Alabama Process the material after
completion of the cubes undergoes anaerobic decomposition with the resulting for-
mation of a compost. The literature from Tezuka makes a claim that the materials,
once baled, will not decompose (corrode) and that due to the absence of oxygen,
the propagation of micro-organisms is prevented.
The Tezuka Process proposes to use the finished product as landfill and claims that it
is particularly well suited to underwater filling. The Tezuka literature indicates that
the cost of baling will be in the range of $2.50 to $3.50 per ton, and since these
calculations appear to be a conversion from the predicted cost in yens on the Tokyo
basis, the reliability of the estimate is questionable. Furthermore, the estimate does
not provide for debt service. It is quite possible that, with debt service the cost may
reach $6.00 per ton or more. Also, the literature indicates the need for much power.
As of December 29, 1967, a news release indicates that no plant of this nature is in
service and that the first installation is scheduled for Kofu, a City northwest of Tokyo.
This process produces a liquid waste which Tezuka apparently proposes to treat by
the activated sludge process. It is our opinion that this process is still experimental
and should not be considered for this project at this time.
K. Applicable Methods of Refuse Disposal
In the foregoing we have discussed the various methods of refuse disposal and where
possible have indicated the relative advantages and disadvantages of each. Of
these various methods there are several that should be singled out . further dis-
cussions as applied to the refuse disposal problem in the Tri-Parish area. These
include composting, central incineration, landfill and sanitary landfill.
1. Composting
This method can be expected to convert the refuse into about 70% of the equivalent
volume of the raw refuse less any materials that may be salvaged. The finished
product is a humus-like material very similar to the organic muck covering much
of the Tri-Parish area so that little market can be expected locally for this product
in competition with the abundant supply of natural material.
2. Central Incineration
Since the construction of the first incinerator in 1916, central incineration has been
the preferred method of refuse disposal in the Tri-Parish area. Although capital and
operating costs for this type of plant are higher than those required for sanitary land-
fill operations, they are well located within their respective collection districts
IV-23
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
thus reducing transportation costs to a minimum. Also the increase in disposal capa-
city required through 1980 can be largely accommodated by enlarging and rebuilding
the presently obsolete plants to modern standards on existing sites.
Details required to carry our the program of enlargement and modernization together
with records of operation and maintenance cost for the existing plants as well as
estimates for those proposed are included in subsequent chapters where they are dis-
cussed in detail.
3. Landfill
Landfill areas must be a part of any refuse disposal program. There is need for fill-
ing much of the land in the Tri-Parish area prior to its development so that obtaining
convenient sites for this purpose presents no problem and areas need not be reserved
in advance for this purpose.
4. Sanitary Landfill
The swampy terrain in and around the Tri-Parish area would require extensive diking,
drainage, or filling before a sanitary landfill could be constructed without danger of
either contaminating the ground water or the surface streams. Contamination of these
streams by leachates from sanitary landfills has been found to upset the ecological
balance which could adversely affect the marine life including bivalves, shellfish,
and fish, all of economic importance to the area.
A preliminary report on environmental conditions prepared recently by the City Plan-
ning Commission of New Orleans with their consultants, emphasized the characte-
ristics of the Mississippi River delta lands in and adjacent to the City of New Orleans
as follows: "Characteristics of the alluvial deposits include generally high water
tables and low load bearing capacities of the soil. The majority of the area has a
ground surface elevation less than the mean delta level with water tables within a
foot or two of the surface requiring surface and storm drainage via a system of pump-
ing stations. Subsurface soil composition is characterized by an overlayer of natural
humus some 20 feet !n thickness consisting of a combination of organic sand and peat.
The underlayer of this strata is lined with soft gray clays, silt, and fine sand with
the distribution of sand layers at very irregular pattern depths and locations."
These soil characteristics limit the depth of fill that can be placed in a given area
without foundation failure and the lateral movement of the underlying soils. Such
failures have already been experienced in certain of the open dump operations.
Because of the limited bearing capacity of the soils in this area, the Louisiana State
Highway Department follows the practice of limiting the height of embankments to
4 feet. Bridge approaches and other structures which would normally require a
IV-24
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
greater depth of fill are constructed with pile bents and unsupported concrete slabs,
at considerable additional cost. Recently, on interstate construction where highway
grades are generally maintained several feet above that of the surrounding terrain,
practice has been to excavate all peat and muck and to refill with river sand. This
preparation to ensure stable embankments, which has required an average of more
than 20 feet of excavation and fill, has greatly increased the cost of highway con-
struction in this area. This condition extends throughout most of the Mississippi
River Delta land in Louisiana as is evidenced by recent soils investigations under-
taken by us for the Baton Rouge Incinerator, which showed a limiting depth for fills
in that area of not more than 10 feet in order to avoid failure of the subsurface strata.
A map showing the soils classification in the Tri-Parish area has been included with
this report (backcover of Appendix).
In view of these conditions we have found it necessary to limit the depth of fill for a
sanitary landfill to a maximum of about nine feet including both refuse and cover ma-
terial especially in the lower areas. Although the higher and better drained areas
might support a somewhat greater depth of fill, the limited amount and high price of
such areas would preclude their use as sanitary landfills even though they may be
dedicated to park purposes.
Also thehumus type of soil which is subject to cracking on drying is not suitable for
use as cover material in a sanitary landfill. The only available material which could
be used for this purpose would, therefore, be river sand which is dredged commercially
from deposits in the river and sold generally throughout the area at a price of about
$1.50 per cubic yard.
In summation we find that the need for diking and draining the site, the limiting of
the depth of fill and the need for purchasing cover material each odd to the cost of
this method of disposal in the Tri-Parish area and make it less competitive than is
frequently the case.
In order to further evaluate this method of refuse disposal we have selected two pos-
sible areas within Orleans Parish where a sanitary landfill might be developed. One
is on the land lying between the parish boundary and the Intracoastal Waterway
between Paris Road and the Industrial Canal. This land is controlled by the Dock
Board and is being reserved for future industrial development. The other is at Blind
Lagoon in the Chef Menteur area where 500 acres are presently preserved for park
purposes. No specific inquiries have been mode as to the availability of either site
for use as a sanitary landfill.
Both of these sites are low and must be diked, drained, and pumped to be maintained
in a dry condition during placing of the waste material and maintained watertight
afterwards to prevent contamination by leachates of the surrounding waters. Also
sand for cover must be imported.
IV-25
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
In determining the cost of waste disposal by sanitary landfill we must consider not
only the cost of operating the landfill, but also the additional cost of transporting
the waste from the present collection districts to the landfill. Such waste can either
be transported directly in the collection vehicles or if the distance becomes too great,
these vehicles can deliver their loads to a transfer station and larger transfer vehicles
be used to haul the waste to the disposal site. Since the incinerators presently serv-
ing the City are centrally located in each of the refuse collection districts, we have
considered the additional haul distance from each of these incinerators to the pro-
posed landfill site as a part of the cost of sanitary landfill.
In the following text we have made a brief analysis of the cost of refuse disposal
by sanitary landfill.
In order to arrive at comparative cost figures we have made the following calcu-
lations, based on a selected daily quantity of600rons of waste, with compaction to
adensity of 1,000pounds per cubic yard, layered in two-foot depths with six inches
of cover material on each of three lifts and a final topping of 18 inches of cover
material.
We have selected a600-ton/day landfill for the cost analysis, since we consider
that this size operation represents the work that can be accomplished daily with
one set of spreading and compacting equipment. This, therefore, represents the
minimum cost of operation since a larger landfill will require more equlpmen!'
and additional crew with correspondingly greater costs.
Table IV-4 illustrates daily and annual requirements of acreage and cover materials.
TABLE IV-4
REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND AREA AND COVER MATERIAL
Daily Annually
Tonnage of Waste 600 187,200
Acreage Required (9 sf/ton) . 125 39.0
Compacted Cover Material 600 CY 187,200 CY
Based on these factors, one acre of land will accommodate eight days waste production
(4,800 tons)and require4,800 cubic yards of compacted cover material which is e-
quivalent to about 6,000 yards of loose cover material allowing 20% for compaction.
IV-26
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
The minimum cost per cubic yard of sand to be used as cover material delivered
within a 5-mile radius of its source would be about $1.50. This at the Dock
Board site would probably give a cost of about $1.70 per cubic yard and at the
Blind Lagoon site we have assumed the same price. The minimum per ton cost
for placing, spreading, and compacting waste material is estimated at about
$0.30 with an additional cost of about $0.20 per cubic yard for spreading and
compacting the cover material.
Preparation of these marshland sites would include a required levee and de-
watering system to provide suitable ground conditions for equipment operation.
Cost of these improvements, together with provision of surface drainage, road
construction within the work area, fencing, water supplies, and required
structures, excluding cost of land or access roads and based on minimum de-
velopment of 100 acre plots, are estimated to range from about $1,750 to
$2,000 per acre or about $0.35 to $0.40 per ton of waste handled.
Combining the above cost factors, Table IV-5 illustrates that the minimum cost of
working 600 tons of waste per day at sanitary landfill will be approximately
$2.58 per ton, excluding cost of land.
TABLE IV-5
ESTIMATED MINIMUM OPERATING COSTS OF DISPOSAL
BY SANITARY LANDFILL
Item Per Ton of Waste
Site Preparation $ 0.38
Spread and Compact Waste 0.30
Spread and Compact Cover Material 0.20
Cost of Cover Material Using River Sand 1.70
Estimated Minimum Working Cost $ 2.58
We have also determined that a 60-cubic yard compactor trailer similar to that
presently used by the Sanitation Department would be required for transferfng
refuse from the transfer station to the sanitary landfill. The cost of operating
these units including the cost of the driver is shown in Table IV-6.
IV-27
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri- Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May T968
TABLE IV-6
TRANSFER TRAILER OPERATING COSTS
(60-Cubic Yard Compactor Trailer with Tractor and Operator)
Annual Daily Hourly
"Operating and Maintenance $ 7,820 $25.20
Labor and Fringe Benefits 6,814 21.84
TOTAL $14,634 $47.04
''Based on 312 operating days per year, seven hours production per day.
These 60-cubic yard transfer trailers have a maximum tonnage capacity of 15
tons based upon a 500 pound per cubic yard weight of compacted refuse. As-
suming that nominal operation of these units would be at approximately 90%
of capacity or 13.5 tons per load, the cost is calculated at $0.0083 per ton/
minute.
The cost of transportation of the refuse In terms of cost per ton/minute has
been calculated for the 20-cubic yard (5 ton) compactor collection trucks
with three-man crews as presently operated by the City of New Orleans.
Based upon annual average operating costs of these trucks (see Chapter V),
the hourly operating cost including labor was calculated at $10.50. As-
suming a nominal 80% working capacity of these trucks at four tons, results
in a cost of $0.0438 per ton/minute.
The cost of operating a transfer station for disposal within the Tri-Parish
area has been estimated at $1.00 per ton including tractive equipment while
the cost for disposal outside the Tri-Parish area has been estimated at $1.32
per ton due to the additional tractive equipment required. The cost per ton
per minute for operating the 20-cubic yard and the 60-cubic yard compactor
trucks together with the cost of operating the stations has been shown graphi-
cally on Figure IV-1.
IV-28
-------
3.00.
2.50.
2.00.
c
o
§1.50 \
8
u
1.00
Operating Cost for Transfer Equipment
including tractor and 60 cu.yd. trailer
12-ton load (cost per ton/min. $0.0094)
Transfer Cost for Disposal Outside the Tri-Parish Area
Including Transfer Station and Tractive Equipment
H
Transfer Cost for Disposal Within the Tri-Parish Area
Including Transfer Station and Tractive Equipment
1.00.
H20 cu. yd. 3-man Collection Truck (cost per ton/minute $0.0438)
.50
20
40
60
80
100
Minutes - Roundtrip Driving Time
HAUL COST TO DISPOSAL AREA
120
FIG. IV-1
Page IV-29
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
The haul distances from each of the incinerators to the Dock Board land will vary
considerably depending upon whether access is from Florida Avenue or from Paris
Road. These distances together with the distances to the Blind Lagoon site and
the estimated times of travel are shown in Table IV-7. Also shown is the cost of
hauling as determined by Figure IV-1.
TABLE IV-7
COST OF HAULING REFUSE FROM COLLECTION DISTRICTS
TO PROPOSED SANITARY LANDFILL SITES
Incinerator
Designation
Florida Avenue
St. Louis Street
Seventh Street
New Orleans East
Algiers
Dock Board Property
Florida Avenue Entr.
Dist. Travel Cost*
in Time Per
Miles Min. Ton
@
15mph ($)
6.0 48 1.52
6.0 48 1.52
9.0 72 1.73
14.0 112 2.03
11.0 88 1.87
Paris Road Entr.
Dist. Travel Cost*
in Time Per
Miles Min. Ton
@
20 mph (IJ )
11.0 66 1.67
11.0 66 1.67
13.0 78 1.78
3.5 21 0.90
16.0 96 1.92
Blind Lagoon
Dist. Travel Cost*
in Time Per
Miles Min. Ton
@
25 mph ($)
13.3 64 1.65
14,8 71 1.72
17.7 85 1.83
7.4 36 1.42
19.8 95 1.92
* Includes 15 minutes at dumping area for unloading
In Table IV-8 we have shown the total cost of waste disposal at both Dock Board and
Blind Lagoon sites. It will be observed thatthe cost of sanitary landfill for a site on
the Dock Board property, depending upon location even from those areas closer to
this property would average about $4.17 per ton while the cost of operating a sani-
tary landfill at Blind Lagoon would be somewhat higher.
TABLE IV-8
COST OF REFUSE DISPOSAL BY SANITARY LANDFILL
WITHIN NEW ORLEANS AREA ($ per Ton)
Florida Avenue
St. Louis
Seventh Street
New Orleans East
Algiers
Dock Board Property
Fla. Ave. Entr.
4.10
4.10
4.31
4.61
4.45
Average
4.17
4.17
4.33
4.04
4.47
Paris Rd. Entr.
4.25
4.25
4.36
3.48
4.50
Blind Lagoon
4.63
4.30
4.41
4.00
4.50
IV-30
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
Based on the proposed program of incinerator improvement and enlargement
discussed in detail in Chapter V, we estimate the cost of refuse disposal by
incineration at $3.50 per ton including interest and amortization of the capi-
tal cost as well as operation and maintenance.
We conclude, therefore, that except for sanitary landfills located within the
Tri-Parish area close to the collection disrr'cts this method of disposal is not
as economical as central incineration.
a. Truck Transport of Refuse to Locations Outside the Tri-
Parish Area
The relatively high cost of sanitary landfill at these previously dis-
cussed sites, compared with that generally experienced, is due to
the extensive site preparation required and to the necessity for im-
porting river sand as a cover material. If it were possible to lo-
cate a site where suitable cover material was available and the
land was sufficiently high as not to require diking, these costs
could be reduced by approximately half of those estimated here-
in, or say $1.30. We have also considered the cost of develop-
ing sanitary landfills outside of the area where cover material
would be available and cofferdamming would be unnecessary. We
have examined each of the highways leading from the Tri-Parish
area and determined the probable distance that would be neces-
sary to travel to reach a suitable site for a sanitary landfill. We
have assumed that a sanitary landfill under these conditions could
be operated for $1,50 per ton including the cost of land. In
Table IV-9 we have shown the haul distance and cost as well as
total cost for disposal at these relatively remote sites using transfer
trucks to haul the refuse from transfer stations located in each col-
lection district. It shows total disposal costs per ton, ranging from
a low of $3.80 to $5.65, all above the estimated cost of inciner-
ation shown in Chapter V. We conclude, therefore, that truck
transportation of refuse to remote sanitary landfills is not the best
solution to the waste disposal problem particularly since the disposal
areas would be in other political jurisdictions outside of the control
of the Tri-Parish area.
IV-31
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
TABLE IV-9
HAUL DISTANCE AND COST OF DISPOSAL
TRUCK TRANSPORT TO LANDFILLS OUTSIDE PARISH AREA
Route
U. 5. 90 East leading through New Orleans East
via the Chef Menteur Highway
U. S. Highway 1 1 leading northeast to St. Tammany
Parish
Interstate 10 East leading to New Orleans East and
St. Tammany Parish
U. S. 90 West through St. Chorles Parish
U. S. 61 leading northwest through St. CharlesParish
Pontchartroin Causeway (Toll Road) leading north across
Lake Pontchartrai n to St. Tammany Parish
State Road 18 leading to the east on the Westbank
of the Mississippi River
State Road 44 leading west on the Eastbank of the
Mississippi River
State Road 45 leading to the south into Jefferson
Parish
State Road 23 leading southeasterly on the Westbank
of the Mississippi River
State Road 39 leading southwest on the Eastbank of
the Mississippi River
State Road 46 leading easterly in St. Bernard Parish
Average
Speed
(mph)
40
40
45
40
30
40
20
20
30
30
20
30
Dist. To
Disposal
Site
(Miles)
35
30
35
37
50
35
25
50
None
None
None
None
Travel
Time
Outside
City
Round Trip
(Min.)
105
90
93
111
200
105
150
300
.
-
.
-
Plus 40 Min.
Travel
Inside
City
(Min.)
145
130
133
151
240
145
190
340
-
-
.
-
Cost of
Haul
To Possible
Disposal Sites
ft/Tor.)
2.52
2.40
2.42
2.58
3.30
2.53
2.90
4. 15
-
-
-
-
Total Cost
of Sanitary
Landfill
ft/Ton)
3.°2
3.80
3.82
3.98
4.70
3.93
4.30
5.65
-
-
-
-
b. Rail Transport of Waste to Locations Outside the Tri-Parish
Area
Since several areas in the United States are presently considering rail
transportation of refuse from the collection areas to remote sanitary
landfill areas, we have also considered this method of transportation
for the Tri-Parish area.
Factors affecting the feasibility of rail transport of wastes include
determination of routes, distances, classification of cargo and appli-
cable rates, availability of equipment, time schedules, availability
of rail spurs at locations of transfer stations and assembly of the loaded
cars. Method and time for unloading, and equipment requirements
for rehandling and transporting wastes from point of unloading to point
of deposit at the sanitary landfill operation. Assuming that the
IV-32
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
point of transport would be beyond the Tri-Parish limits, private and
public reaction of the recipients must then also be considered.
In order to establish guidelines for this investigation, discussion with
experienced and knowledgeable railroad officials and other personnel
was undertaken. In the initial discussions the following data pertaining
to transport of wastes by rail were outlined:
Assume base quantity of 600 tons per day to be handled at a single
transfer point.
Weight of waste material assumed to be 250 pounds per cubic yard
(600 tons would be equal to some 4,800 cubic yards).
Weight of ground waste material would average approximately 700
pounds per cubic yard (600 tons would occupy 1,800 cubic yards).
Daily loading of wastes at the transfer station would require a no-
minal seven hours, between 7:00 AM and 2:00 PM at the transfer
station.
The City would own and operate the transfer station.
A minimum ten-year contract period was assumed to allow for amor-
tization of the plant as well as railroad equipment.
The unloading method (type of car, hopper chutes, conveyors, etc.)
though not determined, must be considered together with the time
requirements for unloading in order to permit rapid return of the
cars to the transfer station for re-use. Minimum unloading time
has been estimated at four hours.
Cars must be cleaned to prevent return of flies, etc. to the City as
has happened in the Netherlands.
Assume a nominal 50-mile transport distance as a basis for tonnage
or carload rates.
Determine transport time and arrival at the point of disposal for
scheduling daylight operation of sanitary landfill.
IV-33
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, Lo. - 15 May 1968
With the guidelines as outlined above, the railroads were asked to deter-
mine the type and number of cars required to handle this material, the
availability of equipment and to specify those routes that could be con-
sidered for the mo\ement of this material as well as the availability and
location of spurs wilhin this maximum distance range.
In consideration of these factors, railroad representatives emphasized the
following:
A specified number of cars would necessarily be reserved 24 hours a
day, 6 days a week for this service.
Productivity of these cars would be limited to a short payload dis-
tance "dead heading" on the return.
Expensive car-types (bottom or side discharge) would be best suited
for this service.
Certain uncontrollable variations in arrival and departure of other
rail traffic would, on occasion, also cause extreme variations in
departure and/or arrival time of refuse cars. This circumstance
would in all likelihood occur frequently.
Due to the above factors exploration of the economics of rail transport
was not considered warranted. However, for comparison purposes similar
investigations in the State of Florida revealed that costs of transport-
could be expected to be about $5.20. This cost was based on a Class 20
rating at a rate of $0.26/100 Ibs., transporting 50 miles, with minimum
20 ton weight per car. Transport costs together with transfer (loading)
costs at $1.00/ton, unloading & transfer to working site of landfill at
$1.00/ton and sanitary landfill operation at $1.50/ton would present
total disposal costs of $8.70/ton.
It should be pointed out that the above is based on a density of 400 Ibs.
per cubic yard, which density is usually obtained with a conventional
packer. However, research under way at the present time indicates that
the cost of rail haul for refuse may be reduced to as little as $2.00 per
ton, provided that suitable compaction equipment can be developed to
give a density of 80 Ibs. per cubic foot to the refuse being transported,
which would permit loads of 100 tons per car. This will require the de-
velopment of baling equipment capable of about twice the compaction
possible with presently available commercial equipment. We estimate
that under such conditions, the total cost of refuse disposal utilizing
rail haul might be expected to be in the vicinity of $6.00 per ton.
IV-34
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. . - 15 May 1968
V NEW ORLEANS
A. Description of the Sanitation Department
1. Organization and Personnel
Organizational structure of the Sanitation Department is complex in terms of de-
partmental responsibilities. Functions of the Department consist of municipal col-
lection and disposal of solid wastes in the City of New Orleans, allied duties in
connection with these operations and miscellaneous services not directly connected
with the solid waste system. Including administrative and supervisory personnel,
the Department consists of a labor force of nearly 1,000 employees, a fleet of some
300 vehicles, an operational budget in excess of $5 million, and a multi-million
dollar investment in existing waste disposal facilities, all under the management
of the Director of Sanitation with responsibility to the Mayor, City Council, and
taxpayers.
In order to operate efficiently, all supervisory and administrative personnel must,
to varying degrees, understand the functional operations necessary to manage con-
trol and administer the responsibilities with which they are charged. Organizational
structure of this Department is illustrated in Figure V-l showing the principal divi-
sions within the Department. In 1968, for performance of the respective duties of
these various departmental divisions, authorized personnel numbering 946 was ap-
proved with the following distribution by division:
Administration 17
Shops and Stores 124
Incinerator Support 15
Waste Collection 415
Waste Disposal 224
Other Services 151
Total Personnel 946
It is the aim of the Director's office to establish a relationship among the various
operational divisions involved and their respective first-line supervisors so that joint
coordinated action of each division is possible in the accomplishment of their common
tasks. Departmental communication is established with the supervisory personnel by
V-l
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
FIGURE V-l
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
SANITATION DEPARTMENT - CITY OF NEW ORLEANS
SANITATION
DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR OF SANITATION
. WASTE
COLLECTION
WASTE
~~ DISPOSAL
H INCINERATION |
^ LANDFILL |
L
OTHER
SERVICES
STREET
CLEANING
1 GRASS
CUTTING
means of weekly staff meetings held by the Director of the Sanitation Department
to update on changing policies and procedures, criticism of the operation, and ex-
change of ideas for a better coordinated operation.
A safety education program was expanded in 1967 for the minimizing of accidents
and personnel injuries. The program now in effect is divided into the two phases
of vehicular accidents and occupational injury.
The vehicular phase of the program commences when a driver applies for an Equip-
ment Operator I job. All drivers are thoroughly screened by Civil Service, which
includes medical examination, investigation through traffic courts, a written ex-
amination, and an on-the-road driving test by a Department representative to
determine the required skill and ability of the applicant in operating large equip-
ment. Once these pre-requisites have been met, the applicant is ready to be clas-
sified as an Equipment Operator I. In conjunction with the Vehicular Accident
Control Safety Program within the Department, a Safety Committee has been formed.
All accidents (minor or major) are reported and require a written accident report
by the supervisor and forwarded to the central office. In cases of major accidents,
v-:
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
a serious bodily injury, fatality or vehicular damage, the Department Head and
insurer are notified immediately. From these reports a summary is prepared and
distributed to the Safety Committee members who meet monthly with the super-
visors and offending employees. The Safety Committee is composed of representa-
tives of the Civil Service insurer, claims adjuster, and department supervisors. An
account of each accident is read in the presence of the person involved. Follow-
ing this report, the offender explains the accident with visual aids. After the visual
demonstration and the question and answer session are completed, the Committee
discusses causes, circumstances, safety factors, and results of accident. Having
reached a decision, the accident is judged "avoidable" or "unavoidable", and
written in the employee's record as such. The penalty imposed depends upon in-
dividual's previous driving record after a majority decision is reached by Committe.
The penalty ranges from a reprimand, remedial driver instruction, suspension, de-
motion, or dismissal. Pertinent safety pamphlets are distributed by the insurer.
A Civil Service representative prepares a summary of the monthly meeting, which
is distributed to the men in the field via the supervisors.
The occupational injury phase of the program was added in 1967. With a 12% rise
in occupational injuries in 1967 a program was initiated by Civil Service and
Sanitation Department in an effort to control injuries and high medical cost to
the City. With the cooperation of Civil Service, Sanitation, and Red Cross, a
program has been devised to train personnel in First Aid care. In addition, Civil
Service has organized a monthly meeting to study and develop methods of control-
ling and preventing occupational injuries by means of education and communication
with personnel via their supervisors. Monthly injury reports are reported to Civil
Service for analysis. In addition, safety posters and pamphlets dealing with Occu-
pational Injuries are distributed. Occupational injuries are normally lessened by
issuance of safety equipment relative to job classifications. The range of equipment
issued by the Department to personnel (dependent on type of assignment) includes
orange decaled raincoats, orange helmets, protective gloves, orange shirts, steel-
toe shoes, goggles, and respirators. The City of New Orleans provides this safety
equipment free-of-charge after a six months probationary period. When a man
resigns or is dismissed, he must return all safety equipment. Policy requires all
men to use their safety equipment as a condition of continued employment.
Salary levels as established by City Civil Service are based on skills and position
classification. Each classification carries a pay range number identifying the mini-
mum monthly rate and five in-grade pay steps. These in-grade pay increases are
equivalent to about 5% of the preceding rate and are awarded on a merit basis.
V-3
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Or leans, La. - 15 May 1968
In addition to the six steps from minimum to maximum pay within a given classifi-
cation, four additional steps are authorized as longevity increases. Table V-l
provides full details on the dollar increments of these step increases by the appli-
cable pay range numbers.
TABLE V-l
MONTHLY PAY RATES
Range
Number
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Six
Min
281
295
310
325
341
358
376
395
415
436
458
481
505
530
556
Steps Within
- 295-
- 310-
- 325-
- 341 -
- 358-
- 376-
- 395-
- 415-
- 436-
- 458-
- 481 -
- 505-
- 530-
- 556-
-584-
310
325
341
358
376
395
415
436
458
481
505
530
556
584
613
Each Classification
Max.
- 325-
- 341 -
- 358-
- 376-
- 395-
- 415-
- 436-
- 458-
- 481 -
- 505-
- 530-
- 556-
- 584-
- 613-
-644-
341 -
358 -
376 -
395 -
415 -
436 -
458 -
481 -
505 -
530-
556 -
584 -
613 -
644 -
676 -
358
376
395
415
436
458
481
505
530
556
584
613
644
676
710
1st
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
29
31
32
34
35
Longevity
2nd
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
29
31
32
34
35
37
Increases
3rd
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
29
31
32
34
35
37
39
4th
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
29
31
32
34
35
37
39
41
The Sanitation Department's employment experience in 1967 is detailed in Table
V-2. A high percentage (nearly 86%) of personnel turnover was experienced dur-
ing 1967, due primarily to the tremendous rate (about 140%) experienced in the
Collection Division, the Disposal Division ranked second in the Department with
a turnover of 80 employees or about 50% of the average 161 required. This turn-
over occurred principally in the labor classifications.
Although the percentage of turnover was high this rate was due primarily to repeat-
ed turnover of a minor number of positions in the Collection and Disposal Divisions,
The availability of labor from normal waiting lists maintained by the Department
was adequate to fill these vacancies rapidly. The high rate of labor turnover is not
V-4
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
TABLE V-2
SANITATION DEPARTMENT EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE IN 1967
Division
Director's Office
Shops and Stores
Garbage and Trash Collections
Cartage and Trash Disposal
Other Services:
Street Cleaning*
Grass Cutting
TOTALS
Employees
Avg.No.
15
120
392
161
125
12
82S
Man Days
3,936
35,538
116,400
49,385
39,680
3,844
248,783
Sick Leave
Days Used
164 1/2
2,139 1/2
435 1/2
4,080
1,936
213
12,885 1/2
%
4.18
6.02
3.74
8.26
4.88
5.54
5.18
Annual Leave
Day* Used
276 1/2
1 ,486 1/2
3,132 1/2
2,955 1/2
1 ,682 1/2
161
9,694 1/2
%
7.02
4.18
2.69
5.98
4.24
4.19
3.90
Employee Turnover
No.
—
43
548
80
36
1
708
%
0
35.83
139.80
49.69
28.80
8.33
85.82
* Includes Incinerator Support
unusual and is due largely to several interrelated factors (1) disagreeable nature
of the work, (2) physical output, (3) extremes in climate, and (4) a six-day work
week.
Certain apparent inequities exist in labor classification. The present pay scale for
incinerator plant laborers, ranging from $281 to $358 per month and requiring six-
hour, forty-minute shifts, six days per week Is equivalent to an hourly wage scale
of $ 1.625 to $2.075. Incinerator plant laborers are predominantly at the lower
rate which is below prevailing rates for semi-skilled labor in the area. Conver-
sely, the same pay range applicable to the collectors, working on the task basis,
and averaging say, 5 1/2 hours per day, permits them the opportunity, based on
crew productivity, to draw about $1.975 per hour as a starting rate.
Classification of collection, disposal, and support personnel authorized by the
1968 Budget and employed as of February 15, 1968, is listed in Tables V-3 through
V-7, and also shows monthly pay range of each position. When occasional short-
ages of qualified personnel occur in the various divisions and manpower is not
available to permit the Department to build up to the authorized level, it is com-
mon practice to double-shift existing personnel. Due to pay scales and short work-
day shift presently in force, it is not uncommon for employees to hold a second job
either within the Department or in private enterprise.
V-5
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
TABLE V-3
1968 ALLOCATED PERSONNEL - INCINERATION
Classification
General Superintendent
Incinerator Foreman III
Plant Superintendent
Incinerator Foreman II
Shift Foreman
Incinerator Foreman 1
Crane Operator
Equipment Operator III
Maintenance Repairmen
Ash Driver
Equipment Operator 1
Laborer. ••
Monthly Pay Kan ge
Minimum
(530.00
481.00
395.00
4*5.00
376,00
325.00
281.00
Maximum
J676.00
013.00
505.00
530.00
481 .00
415.00
358.00
*No.
27
25
21
22
20
17
14
TOTAL
Fla . Ave
A
-
I
4
4
2
6
25
42
E
-
1
2
3
1
5
21
33
Personnel Assignment by Incinerator Plants
Algiers
A
-
1
4
2
4
20
35
E
-
1
2
0
3
20
30
Seventh St .
A
1
,
4
2
6
24
42
E
1
0
3
1
3
24
36
St. Louis
A
-
1
4
2
6
24
41
E
-
1
0
2
1
0
8
12
N . O . Eos
A
-
1
4
4
2
4
24
39
E
-
1
2
2
'
2
17
25
Total
A
1
5
20
20
10
26
17
99
E
1
4
11
13
4
13
90
136
*See Table V-l for steps by Pay Range No.
"Scalemon and clerks are included in laborer classificatio
A - Number of Personnel Allocated by 1968 Budget
E - Number of Personnel actually Employed 2/15/68
TABLE V-4
1968 ALLOCATED PERSONNEL - LANDFILLS
Classification
General Superintendent
Labor Foreman II
Bulldozer Operators
Equipment Operator IV
Crane Operators
Equipment Operator III
Laborers
TOTAL '
Monthly Pay Range
Min imum
1458.00
458.00
415.00
281.00
Maximum
$584.00
584.00
530.00
358.00
No."
24
24
22
14
Personnel Allocated by Location
Genrilly
Landfill
2
4
6
8
20
Algiers
Landfill
1
-
2
2
5
Total
3
4
8
10
25
Total
Personnel Employed
2/1 5/68
3
2
8
9
22
* See Table V-1 for steps by Pay Range No.
V-6
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
TABLE V-5
1968 ALLOCATED PERSONNEL - GARBAGE AND TRASH COLLECTION
Classification
General Superintendent
Labor Foreman Ml
District Superintendent
Labor Foreman II
Section Foreman
Labor Foreman 1
Drivers
Equipment Operator 1
Waste Collectors
Laborers
Monthly Pay Range
Minimum
(530.00
458.00
358.00
325.00
281.00
Maximum
J676.00
584.00
458.00
415.00
358.00
No.*
27
24
19
17
14
TOTAL
Personnel Allocated by Districts
t W E-l E-2 A N
1 ...
Ill 1-1
444 421
25 26 31 25 11 13
49 52 64 49 21 24
79 84 100 79 34 39
Total
1
5
19
131
259
415
Total
Personnel Employed
2/15/68
1
5
18
111
259
394
•See Table V-1 for steps by Pay Range No.
"Collection Districts: C (Central), W {Western), E-l (Eastern-l), E-2 (Eastern-II),
A (Algiers), N (Night)
Incentives to attract qualified labor are provided in the generous fringe benefits,
which include holiday pay, annual leave, sick leave, civil leave, educational
leave, a retirement program, group insurance, and optional participation in the
municipal credit union, as well as certain required equipment furnished free of
charge to special classifications of employees.
The Mayor and City Council determine which holidays with pay will be granted to
City employees. Normally ten official holidays, as listed below, are recognized
and observed, however these holidays are dependent solely upon the governing
body of the City that granted them.
New Year's Day
Mardi Gras
Good Friday
Independence Day
Labor Day
All Saints' Day
Veterans' Day
Thanksgiving Day
Huey P. Long's Birthday
Christmas Day
Other days, by special proclamation
V-7
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
TABLE V-6
1968 ALLOCATED PERSONNEL - INCINERATOR SUPPORT
Classification
General Superintendent
Labor Foreman 11
Transfer Service
Tractor-trailer Driver
Equipment Operator III
Equipment Operator II
Container Service
Dumpster Driver
Equipment Operator II
Transfer Service
Dump Driver
Equipment Operator 1
Laborers
Monthly Pay Range
Minimum
$458.00
415.00
358.00
358.00
325.00
281.00
Maximum
$584.00
530.00
458.00
458.00
341.00
358.00
No.
*
24
22
19
19
17
14
TOTAL
Total Personnel
Allocated
1968 Budget
1
3
2
4
2
3
15
Employed
2/15/68
1
2
2
2
2
2
11
*See Toble V-l for steps by Pay Range No.
A full-Hme employee of the Sanitation Department, accumulates annual leave
with pay at a rate of one and one-half days each month throughout the year but
can accrue to a maximum of only ninety days. Annual leave with pay cannot be
taken until completion of six months of service. Request for annual leave is made
to the supervisor who in turn submits the request through the Central Office for ap-
proval. The Department grants an additional day of annual leave for each calen-
dar year of completed service up to a maximum of three additional days. In the
event an employee should resign from the Department, the City will pay the ac-
crued annual leave time at the current rate of pay provided the employee gives the
superintendent a ten-day notice of his resignation.
V-8
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans/ La. - 15 May 1968
TABLE V-7
1968 ALLOCATED PERSONNEL
SHOPS AND STORES (CITY GARAGE AND YARD)
Classification
Superintendent!
Workshop Foreman
Auto Mechanic Foreman
Electric ian
Plumber
Machinist
Carpenter
Welder
Auto Mechanics
Sheet Metal Worker
Spray Painter
Equipment Operator 1
Storekeeper II
Typist Clerk II
Storekeeper 1
BroomrfKiker
Maintenance Worker
Laborers
Watchmen
Monthly Pay Range
Minimum
$4.4o.OO
530.00
505.00
505.00
505.00
505.00
458.00
456.00
458.00
458.00
415.00
325.00
325.00
325.00
281.00
281.00
281.00
281.00
281.00
Maximum
(710.00
676.00
644.00
644.00
644.00
644.00
584.00
584.00
584.00
584.00
530.00
415.00
415.00
415.00
358.00
358.00
358.00
358.00
358.00
No.«
28
27
26
26
26
26
24
24
24
24
22
17
17
17
14
14
14
14
14
TOTAL
Personnel Allocated by Location
City
Yard
1
1
-
1
1
1
3
3
-
2
1
3
-
-
2
1
-
22
4
46
City
Garage
1
-
5
-
-
2
-
2
28
-
3
2
1
2
3
-
1
28
-
78
Total
2
1
5
1
1
3
3
5
28
2
4
5
1
2
5
1
1
50
4
124
Total
Personnel Employed
2/15/68
2
1
5
1
1
3
3
5
25
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
1
44
4
111
*See Table V-l For steps by Pay Range No.
Sick leave with pay is earned at the rate of two days per month. If during any
month the employee has taken any leave without pay, he does not accrue sick
leave for that month. Unlike annual leave, there is no limit to accruement and
it may be used within the first six months. Sick leave is granted to employees
absent from duty only because of illness, injury, or death in the immediate family.
If the employee is on leave for more than six consecutive working days a doctor's
certificate must be furnished upon returning to work.
Civil leave with pay is granted to perform such civic duties as voting, serving as
an election official, answering a subpoena, and for taking Civil Service, Armed
Forces, or Selective Service examinations.
Military leave is granted employees who have entered active military service in
the armed forces and they are allowed leave-of-absence with pay up to 15 work-
ing days. Military leave without pay is also granted with assurance of reinstate-
ment in the position vacated within 90 days of his honorable discharge.
V-9
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
Educational leave is granted to permanent employees by the approval of the
City Civil Service Commission. A special leave with pay up to one year
may be obtained for educational training directly related to an employee's
work in his department.
A Retirement Program administered by a Board of Trustees consisting of five
members, was established by the City in 1947. Membership in the retire-
ment system is compulsory for all City employees. Each employee contrib-
utes five per cent (5%) of his salary each pay day and the City of New
Orleans contributes a larger percentage to maintain the system on an actu-
arily sound basis. For example, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967
the City contributed 60.5% while the members of the program contributed
39.5%. The employee and the City also contribute to the Social Security
Program which further supplements the Municipal Retirement Program.
Eligibility for retirement benefits of the Municipal Program is based upon
at least ten continuous years of creditable service with the City by age
sixty, with retirement compulsory at age sixty-eight. Upon retirement, the
employee chooses one of several optional plans for settlement which best
meets his requirements. The employee's monthly benefit is based upon type
of plan, number of service years, and average earnings. The amount of
the monthly pension is basically equivalent to two percent (2%) of the aver-
age monthly salary earned during the employment period times the number of
years employed. If an employee is separated from City employment, he may
either withdraw his retirement contributions with interest or permit the accu-
mulated contributions to continue drawing interest for five years.
The group medical and hospitalization insurance is provided by the City
through a Blue Cross Plan. A basic plan, for employees only, including
major medical coverage, is paid for in full by the City. If an employee in-
cludes dependents or optional riders, he is required to pay for the additional
coverage through automatic payroll deductions. Medical, surgical, and hos-
pital care under the provision of the Workmen's Compensation Law of Louisi-
ana are assured to an employee injured on the job.
If it is determined that an employee is to be absent due to work-connected
injury, generally, he has a choice of using his sick leave, annual leave, or
file a claim for Workmen's Compensation. At present, maximum benefits are
based on the Workmen's Compensation rate of $35.00 per week over a maxi-
mum period of 400 weeks.
V-10
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
Credit Union membership is available in New Orleans Municipal Employee's
(NOME) Credit Union, a non-profit organization. Savings on deposit draw
5 1/4% interest annually and loans are available to members at an interest rate
of 1% a month on the unpaid balance. Loan repayments or savings deposits can
be made through automatic payroll deductions. The Credit Union is governed by
Federal and State laws which protect the rights and investments of all members.
2. Budget and Operating Costs
Operating costs of the Department are financed through the City's General Fund.
Current Operating Budget for 1968 as approved stands at $5,161,703. Allocations
within this Department budget are as follows:
Administration $ 115,420
Shops and Stores 1,543,717
Incinerator Support 77,800
Waste Collection 1,787,253
Waste Disposal 1,027,774
Other Services 609,739
Total Budget $5,161,703
Pro rata reduction of those funds (such as administration, shops and stores, etc.)
not entirely applicable to the solid waste budget and elimination of the total funds
budgeted for "Other Services" presents the net funds approved for solid waste col-
lection and disposal in the amount of $4,222,445 allocated to the various divi-
sions as follows:
Administration $ 94,644
Shops and Stores 1,234,974
Incinerator Support 77,800
Waste Col lection 1,787,253
Waste Disposal 1,027,774
Total Solid Waste Budget $4,222,445
This budgeted sum generally includes allocations for all out-of-pocket operating
expenses for the year, but certain known costs such as the cost of fringe benefits
v-n
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
(including group insurance, social security, and pension fund) totalling 11 .4% of
gross payroll, utilities at the various plant locations, equipment insurance and ca-
pital expenses are not included in the budgeted fund. Such variable cost items as
plant and equipment maintenance are reflected in the budget as allowance items.
Previous years' maintenance records indicate that costs will be substantially higher.
As additional funds for maintenance or emergency needs are required they may be
obtained through justified supplementary budget requests.
Analyses of actual costs incurred in 1967 and projected costs anticipated in 1968,
(including adjustments to the budget allocations for 1968), were made of the
principal divisional activities of the Department as shown in Table V-8. By com-
parison to the foregoing allocation of budgeted funds, those sums classified as
Shops and Stores (maintenance and repairs) have been distributed to the divisions
receiving these services.
The anticipated increase in costs from 1967 to 1968 (about $625,000 or 14.0%) is
due principally to the assumed full operation of both St. Louis and New Orleans
East incinerators, together with expected increases in labor rates in all division.
These projected costs as anticipated for 1968 (including those adjustments for
payroll taxes, insurance, utilities, probable maintenance requirements and capi-
tal expense) exceed the budget as approved by some 20.4%.
TABLE V-8
OPERATING COSTS - SANITATION DEPARTMENT
Division
Administration
Collection
Disposal:
Incineration
Landfill
Incinerator Support
Total Solid Waste Costs
1967
Actual Costs
$ 104,638
2,581,537
1,343,371
269,505
181,016
$4,480,067
% Total
2.3
57.5
30.0
6.0
4.2
100.0
1968
Projected Costs
$ 104,638
2,693,354
1,869,028
267,157
171,648
$5,105,825
% Total
2.1
52.7
36.6
5.2
3.4
100.0
V-12
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
Based upon the population estimate of 687,190 and costs of $4,480,067 experienced
in 1967, the per capita cost for operation of the solid waste system in New Orleans
can be estimated at $6.42 for that year.
Cost analyses presented in detail later in this Report include all the above noted de-
partmental costs of the solid waste system and exclude only the applicable portion of
overhead costs of City government.
3. Municipal Waste Collection
The Sanitation Department of the City of New Orleans is charged with the collec-
tion and disposal of solid waste generated in the developed corporate area. This
service is provided for the small producers of waste, such as households, small com-
mercial and business installations, and this service is not provided to areas of low
population density such as the southeast section of Algiers and the extreme north-
eastern area of the City.
a. Districts and Routes
The area being served by the Sanitation Department is divided for ad-
ministrative and supervisory purposes into six collection districts.
Referring to the District Map, Figure 1-1 (backcover), the Central,
Western, Eastern I, Eastern II, Night, and Algiers District are geo-
graphically delineated. Each of these districts is subdivided into the
Monday-Wednesday-Friday and Tuesday-Thursday-Saturday collection
areas with garbage and trash (combined), being collected three times
each week in these areas.
In the Central District, each of the day group collection areas are
subdivided into 22 collection routes, in the Western District 28 routes,
in the Eastern I District 22, in the Eastern II District 23, in the Al-
giers District 8, and in the Night District 8 routes. In the case of
the Night Districts, Routes 1, 2, and 3 are collected on a nightly
basis, with the balance of the district subdivided into the Monday-
Wednesday-Friday and Tuesday-Thursday- Saturday collection areas.
In total, 111 collection routes are picked up daily in the City of
V-13
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
New Orleans, as illustrated in the route maps of each district, Fig-
ures V-2 through V-6.
b. Supervision
The line of supervision in the collection division consists of a general
superintendent Jn charge of all collection activities, six district super-
intendents and the number of section foremen as the various districts re-
quire. The Central, Western, Eastern I, and Eastern II Districts are sub-
divided for supervision and policing into four sections each. These sec-
tions, each under the supervision of a section foreman, consist of from
five to eight routes, variable by districts. Due to the limited number of
routes in both the Night and Algiers Districts no further subdivision is
made.
c.
Collection Method
The collection method employed by the Sanitation Department consists
of pick up at curb and alley locations. Advantages exist in this method
in the rapidity of making collections along with resulting lower labor
costs. Also, it is unnecessary for the collectors to enter onto private
property. This collection method is the most economical from the stand-
point of direct cost, although the amount of service provided is less com-
pared with such systems as the setout and setback methods. There are
certain disadvantages to this method such as the unsightly appearance of
the streets on collection days when the full and empty containers re-
main on the streets or alleys for long periods of time. Also, it is not un-
usual for the refuse to be strewn over the streets, alleys, or yards. Al-
though the curb and alley collection system is the cheapest from the stand-
point of direct cost, generally street cleaning expense increases.
d. Equipment and Maintenance
Collection equipment for each of the districts is assigned to the district
garages, which are located as accessory facilities at the existing incin-
erator plants. In the case of the Algiers District, equipment is based at
the Algiers Incinerator Garage and the Western District equipment is
V-14
-------
EXISTING CENTRAL 9, NIOHT DISTRICTS
LEGEND
| HO.I m-r. LOUIS a, NO.a rth.sT INCINERATOR
BOUNDARIES :
•*^*'-^'-* COUUECTION OISTKICT*
' ^ I •• I COU.ECTION DAYS
" ' TRUCK ROUTES
SOOO ISOO
sooo
sooo
SCALE IN FEET
FIG. V-2
Page V-15
-------
aooo 1000 o
SOOO BOOO
• CAt_E IN FEET
EXISTING WESTERN DISTRICT
L. E 9 E N D
r^^ COLLECTION DISTRICTS
™ I COLLECTION DAYS
• TRUCK ROUTEO
FIG. V-3
Page V-16
-------
EASTERN 3X DISTRICT
EASTERN 1C DISTRICT
NI.GHT DISTRICT
CENTRAL- DISTRICT
WESTERN DISTRICT
3OOO IOOO O
SOOO
eooo
SCALE IN FEET
EXISTING EASTERN I DISTRICT
LEGEND
| FLORIDA AVENUE INCINERATOR
BOUNDARIES :
m**r^r*r COLLECTION DISTRICTS
I • t • I COLLECTION DAYS
TRUCK ROUTES FiG.V-4
Page V-17
-------
EXISTING EASTERN 31 DISTRICT
i- e a E N D
f N. O. EAST INCINERATOR
BOUNDARIES :
••SWO^^-. COLLECTION DISTRICTS
• SB I im I COLLECTION DAYS
............ TRUCK ROUTES
•000 I BOO O
FIG. V-5
Page V-18
-------
EXISTING ALGIERS DISTRICT
LEGEND
I ALGIERS INCINERATOR
BOUNDARIES :
•P^pr-^F^^J COLLECTION DISTRICT*
I • I •• I COLLECTION DAYS
TRUCK ROUTE*
\
\
3OOO I BOO O 3OOO 6OOO
SCALE IN FEE
FIG V-6
PageV-t9
-------
Solid Waste Disposal -Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
based at the St. Louis Incinerator Garage. Collection equipment for
both the Night and Central Districts are based at the Seventh Street
Incinerator Garage. Collection equipment for both Eastern I and East-
ern II Districts is presently based at the Florida Avenue Incinerator
Garage. Upon completion of the New Orleans incinerator, construc-
tion of garage facilities is planned for location of the collection equip-
ment of Eastern II District.
Communications with all district offices and disposal facilities are pro-
vided by telephone and radio networks. The Sanitation Department
operates on its own radio frequency from its departmental control sta-
tion in the City Hall. Another control station is established at the
Maintenance Garage. Departmental managers and first-line field
supervisors and some operators are equipped with mobile units. Portable
transmitters are also available for assignment for emergency or special
communication needs.
Preventive maintenance, routine servicing, and minor repairs to the
collection equipment are handled at facilities in the respective district
garages. Major repairs are handled at the City Garage in downtown
New Orleans.
The collection vehicle fleet consists of 125, 20-cubic yard, side load-
ing, Hobbs "Hyd-Pak" packer units with International and Ford chassis
of 1962 to 1966 vintage. Each collection route is serviced with a packer
unit. In addition to the packer fleet, each district is assigned two trash
trucks and one dog truck. The trash trucks and dog trucks assigned to
each district are utilized principally for complaint calls on oversized
waste, missed collections, and pick up of dead animals. Table V-9
presents a summary of the operating equipment assigned to each of the
collection districts.
Past operating experience with the side loading trucks has been favor-
able from the viewpoint of initial cost and service life. However, the
department now has on order five rear loading Heil Mark III packers on
International Model C-0190 chassis. Rear loaders have certain advantages
such as added protection and reduced lifting height for the collectors
when loading. It is hoped by the Department that this new type of e-
quipment may help reduce accident and employment turn over ratios of
V-20
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
TABLEV-9
1968 COLLECTION FLEET ASSIGNMENT
MANUFACTURE AND TYPE
Garbage Fleet:
Internal ional-Hobbs Hyd-Pak
Ford -Hobbs Hyd-Pak
International-Hobt» Hyd-Pak
Internationdl-Hobbs Hyd-Pak
Internat ional-Hobbs Hyd-Pak
International-Hobbs Hyd-Pak
Ford -Hobbs Hyd-Pak
Internal ional-Hobbs Hyd-Pak
Internal ionol-Thiele Pak
International -Hobbs Hyd-Pak
Ford -Hobbs Hyd-Pak
International-Hobbs Hyd-Pak
TOTAL Packer Flee*
Number of Daily Routes
Fleet Reserve-Number of Units
Fleet Reserve -Percent
Trash & Dog Trucks:
International-Packer
International-Packer
Ford -Dump
Ford -Dump
International-Dump
TOTAL Miscellaneous Vehicles
CYCAP
20
tt>
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
YR.
60
60
61
62
62
62
63
64
64
65
65
65
65
61
65
66
66
TOTAL Investment in Present Fleet
Route Trucks
Misc* Trucks
TOTAL
PRICE
t 7,000
7,006
8,566
9,000
7,608
7,37:,
7,#0
6,4dO
6,480
7,142
6,575
7,211
$ 7,000
8,500
3,017
2,670
i[soo
$908,774
48,884
$957,658
Central
2
1
2
5
1
1
8
7
27
22
I
I
1
3
Western
3
25
4
32
28
1
1
2
Eastern
1
4
2
11
9
26
22
1
1
1
3
Eastern
II
2
2
2
1
10
9
26
23
1
1
2
Algiers
3
2
1
2
3
11
8
1
1
1
3
Night
2
1
3
•8
*0
TOTAL
2
1
4
17
3
2
7
20
10
25
9
25
125
111
14
12.6%
1
2
2
5
3
13
'Night District also utilizes equipment
of Central District
the collectors and provide increased efficiency in collection. This
new equipment at about $12,000 per unit exceeds by one-third of the
cost of the side loaders. Should this type of equipment prove satisfac-
tory the Department plans replacement of the collection fleet.
e.
Special Collection Services
In addition to the collection districts and routes serviced regularly in
the New Orleans area, the Department also maintains a special con-
tainer service for waste collection. This service is handled under the
V-21
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
supervision of the Incinerator Support Section. Twenty-nine locations
at public and semi-public installations within the City are provided
with this service. A total of some 44 containers varying in size from
two to eight cubic yards each are presently in use. The type of collec-
tion vehicles servicing this container operation is the Dempsey Dumpster.
A listing of facilities receiving this service is indicated in Table V-10,
together with container sizes and frequency of pick up.
f. Work Schedule
The scheduled work week of the collection districts consists of six days
of variable hours depending on the workload. The collection crew on
each truck consists of a driver and two collectors. The crews normally
leave the district garages at 6:00 in the morning on work days and com-
plete their routine collections in a nominal six to seven hour period.
When the areas (routes) assigned are completed and refueling and clean-
ing of equipment is performed, the work day is also completed, regard-
less of the hours required. The basis of pay for drivers and collectors
is a flat daily rate for each route, which provides the incentive to get
the fob done as quickly as possible.
Prior to the latter part of 1967, collections were made on all holidays,
with the exception of Christmas. A policy change in late 1967 modified
the collection procedure to exclude collection activities on all City
holidays. This policy change in effect would reduce the normal annual
work days from 312 to 303 days.
g. Collection Records
The Sanitation Department has been maintaining a comprehensive rec-
ord system of waste collection since January 1966. The 1966 records
also incorporated the best estimates available for the year 1965 for
comparison purposes. Some 80% of solid waste collected by the
Sanitation Department during this period of time has been delivered
to the municipal incinerators which are equipped with scale facilities.
In these cases, recorded quantities of wastes have been based on
scaled weights.
V-22
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
TABLE V-10
INCINERATOR SUPPORT CONTAINER SERVICE COLLECTION
Location
Collection
District
Collection
Frequency
Containers
No. CY
Night
Night
Night
Night
Night
Western
Western
Western
Western
Western
Western
Algiers
Eastern I
Eastern I
Eastern I
Western
Night
Western
Night
Night
Eastern II
Western
Eastern I
Eastern I
Central
Western
Eastern II
Night
Eastern II
City Hall
Civil Court
Juvenile Court
Traffic Court
Auditorium
Masonic Cemetery
Yatch Harbor
Police Harbor
Propeller Club
Coast Guard Station
Audubon Park
Gumbel Old Folks Home
Port of Importation
Riverview School
Little Sisters of Poor
St. Patrick Cemetery
New Library
Police
Wildlife and Fishery
French Market
Prytania Private School
Power Squadron
S.P.C.A.
St. Claude Apts.
Goodwill Industries
Police Riding Academy
Pontchartrain Beach
St. Louis Cemetery
Mount Olivet Cemetery
Maximum - Weekly container capacity 1,484 cy or about 185 tons
Avg. daily collection 247 cy or about 31 tons
Avg. daily tonnage collected by each truck about 15.5 tons
Nominal - 1967 collection records indicate actual collections of 6,430 tons or an average daily
tonnage of 20.6 tons
* 7 days per week (all other daily service is 6 days per week)
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
2/WK
MWF
MWF
MWF
MWF
TTHS
2/WK
MWF
TTHS
TTHS
2/WK
TTHS
Daily
Daily
"2/Day
MWF
TTHS
TTHS
MWF
2/WK
MWF
TTHS
TTHS
2/WK
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
8
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
V-23
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
Weekly route cards are maintained for recording daily collections and
activities of each route, including crew hours worked, number of loads
collected per day, a scale record of the weight of each load, and total
mileage (where odometers are in operation). Mechanical breakdown,
hours and reasons of breakdown/ are also recorded daily. This record is
maintained by the driver and the scaleman at the point of disposal. The
weekly summary of individual route activities is compiled either by the
section foreman or the district foreman. The weekly records provide re-
quired information for compiling the monthly summary of activities.
h. Cost of Refuse Collection
Records were obtained from the Sanitation Department of collection
costs for the period of 1965 through 1967 and budget allocations for
1968. In evaluating these records we find that total collection and
haul costs are equivalent to about 55% of total annual costs of the muni-
cipal solid waste system. Total social and fringe benefits (including an-
nual leave, sick leave, holidays, and terminal leave) are equivalent to
about 25% of direct productive payroll costs. During this three-year
period total labor costs including benefits have averaged approximately
74% of the total collection costs.
A summary of the annual costs of collection and haul appears in Table
V-11, which also shows total tons of refuse collected, cost per ton, and
number of collection vehicles for each respective year. Anticipated
costs are also shown for the 1968 budget year.
TABLE V-11
TRENDS OF COLLECTIONS AND HAUL COSTS (1965 - 1968)
Division of Operating Costs
Labor and Fringe Benefit!
Fuel, Repairs, Maintenance
Licenses and Insurance
* Depreciation (Allowed)
TOTAL Annual Operating Cost!
TOTAL Tons Refuse Collected
Collection and Haul Cost per Ton
* Number of Collection Vehicles
Actual Costs
1965
$1,600,790
317,368
20,907
127,600
$2,066,665
253,552
$8.15
102
1966
$1,809,282
460,760
27,232
166,300
$2,463,574
267,779
$9.20
134
1967
$1,912,129
475,706
27,402
166,300
$2,581,537
270,567
$9.55
134
Estimated Costs
1968
$1,990,348
501,283
27,523
174,200
$2,693,354
125 .
V-24
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
The increase in collection and haul cost from 1965 to 1966 was due pri-
marily to wage rate increases and additions to the collection fleet. In
1965 a limited number of trucks were in operation often doubling-up
daily on route assignments. With the increase in the number of trucks
in 1966, annual depreciation expense as shown increased substantially.
Areasonable leveling off of col lection and haul costs was experienced in
1966 and 1967, resulting in an increase of only 3.8% in the unit cost per
ton. Budget allocations for 1968are predicated on this indicated trend.
Collection costs are expected to continue to increase gradually due to
annual salary increases and higher equipment maintenance and operating
costs.
A further analysis of the present collection and haul costs of$9.55per ton
(see Table V-I1) is presented later in this Chapter breaking down the collec-
tion and haul components respectivelyat72%and28%of total costs. This
ratio indicated that for each ton of waste handled, a cost of $6.87 for col-
lection and $2.68 for haul is incurred. Based upon present methods of col-
lection and an incentive wage basis, it appears that any possible economies
to be found will most likely occur in the haul component of these costs.
Costs of collection and haul experienced by New Orleans compares
favorably with cost statistics available from other cities. Table V-12
shows this comparison and it is of interest to note that the collection
component is substantially lower than other cities.
TABLE V-12
COMPARISON OF MUNICIPAL COLLECTION AND HAUL COSTS
Cost Per Ton
City Year No. Coll./wk Collection Haul Total
Los Angeles *1965 2 $8.49 $4.25 $12.74
Washington, D. C. *1965 2 NA NA 14.11
Philadelphia *1965 1 8.13 2.70 10.83
Pittsburgh **1966 1 14.82 2.62 17.44
Providence **1965 NA NA 7.67
NEW ORLEANS 1967 3 6.87 2.68 9.55
*1965 PHS Survey ** Engineering Studies
Note: Pittsburgh has backyard collection, all others curb and alley.
V-25
-------
Study of Solid Waste - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans/ La. - 15 May 1968
Recommendations made under the Analysis of Collection and Haul,
covered later in the report, propose certain changes Fn the route
system whereby economies in haul time may be achieved without
changing present service to which the public is accustomed. Also,
possible reduction in frequency of service merits consideration as
a means of reducing costs. This topic is discussed in more detail in
the following section.
4. Frequency of Municipal Refuse Collection
The frequency of municipal collection of household refuse varies in different
communities, depending on the amount, characteristics of the waste produced,
climate, mode of payment, and to a certain extent, on the demands of the cit-
izens. It follows that the more frequent the collections the more convenient it
is for the residents. However, economic factors should also be consfdered so that
a proper balance is often difficult to establish.
The Manual on Refuse Collection Practice published by the American Public
Works Association (APWA, Third Edition), sets forth the following criteria:
The maximum period between collections should not be greater than:
a. The normal time for the accumulation of the amount of refuse
that can be placed in a container of reasonable size.
b. The time it takes fresh garbage to putrefy and to give off foul
odors, under average conditions of storage.
c. The length of the fly-breeding cycle. Unwrapped garbage
should be removed from the premises at regular intervals spaced ac-
cording to the minimal time required for the development of flies
from eggs to mature larvae. During the hot summer months this is
frequently less than /days.
It is the consensus that most municipal agencies meet the above criteria as found
in a survey carried out by the APWA in 1964 on the frequency of collection from
residential areas by municipal forces covering 418 communities across the United
V-26
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May T968
States. This survey revealed that 46.7% of the cities provide pick-up service once
a week, 48.5% twice a week and 3.6% three times per week. It can be stated,
therefore, that the practice among most cities in the country for municipally col-
lected refuse containing garbage is on the basis of two collections per week or
less.
Pursuing this matter further, we have prepared Table V-13 showing the frequency
of collection and other pertinent data for several selected cities located in the
southern sections of the U. S. having characteristics similar to those of New
Orleans. Of'the 17 cities selected, including New Orleans, 14 provide two
or less collections per week, and the remaining three show three collections per
week.
TABLE V-13
FREQUENCY OF REFUSE COLLECTION IN SELECTED SITES
(From "Refuse Collection Practice" - APWA, Third Edition)
City
Los Angeles, California
San Diego, California
San Diego County, Col.
Phoenix, Arizona
Tucson, Arizona
Corpus Christ! , Texas
Dallas, Texas
Fort Worth, Texai
Beaumont, Texas
Austin, Texas
Savannah, Georgia
Miami, Florida
Dade County, Florida
Tampa, Florida
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
New Or leans, Louisiana
Pop. in
Thousands
2,479
523
225
439
213
168
673
364
119
187
140
292
500
276
100
153
657
1.
System
Used
M.P.
M
P
M.P.
M.C.
M.P.
M.P.
M.P.
M
M.P.
M
M.P.
M.P.
M
M
M
M.P.
2.
Area
Served
R.C.I.
All
All
R
R.C.I.
All
All
R.C.M.
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
R.C.I.
All
3.
Collection
Points
A.C.
A.C.
C
A
A.C.
C.R.
A.C.R.O.
A.C.R.O.
V
R
R
A. C.R.
R
A.C.
V
(Pick-up Per Week)
Combined Refuse
Summer
Res.
1
1
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
3
Cam.
5
5
R
6
R
R
R
R
R
R
3
Winter
Ret.
1
1
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
3
Com.
5
S
R
6
It
R
R
R
R
R
3
Garbage
Summer
Res.
2
2
2
2
2
Com.
2
R
R
6
Winter
Rei.
2
2
2
2
2
"om.
2
R
R
6
Rubbish
Summer
Res.
1
1
B
B
1
Com.
1
1
1
Winter
Rei.
1
1
B
1
3om.
1
1
1
4
Method
of
Financ-
T. E.
G.T.
G.T.
G.T.
5.C.
G.T.
T.C.
S.C.
G.T.
G.T.
S.C.
S.C.
G.T.
G.T.
G.T.
CODING: 1. Systems Used: M • Municipal; C = Contract; P - Private
2. Areos Served: R ; Residential: C = Commercial; M = Manufacturing & Industrial; I = Institutional & Public
3. Collection Points: A : Alley; C ; Curb; F - Front of house; R ; Rear of house, V - All four collection points used; O ; Other
4. Method of Financing: GT : General Tax; SC : Service Charge; TC : General Tax & Service Charge
If the City of New Orleans were to reduce the collection of refuse From the present
three to two times per week, the savings to be realized from this move are difficult
to estimate accurately but it would probably be in the neighborhood of 10 percent
of the cost of collection. Nonetheless, since the citizens have been receiving
V-27
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
this service for several /ears for which nodirect charge is made, any reduction of
the frequency of collection would be strongly resented unless a solid well-orga-
nized campaign of selling the public on this change is undertaken.
In summary, we feel that should the rise in operating costs become unreasonable
the City may consider the possibility of reducing the frequency of service to off-
set costs and be more in line with the practice in most large southern cities.
5. Municipal Waste Disposal
Observations of disposal practices indicate that in 1967 about 477,400 tons of
waste were handled by municipal disposal facilities of which 44% or 196,000 tons
were incinerated with the balance being deposited in the municipal landfills oper-
ated by the City.
a. Brief Description of Disposal Facilities
Prior to January 1968, the Sanitation Department of the City of New
Orleans operated three incinerator plants and two landfills for disposal
of solid wastes.
The Algiers Incinerator, with a rated capacity of 200 tons per day,
is located in the Westbank community of Algiers at the intersection
of the Westbank Expressway and Victory Drive.
The Seventh Street Incinerator, with a rated capacity of 400 tons
per day, is located in the southern section of the City, midway
between Claiborne Avenue and St. Charles Avenue on Seventh
Street.
The Florida Avenue Incinerator, with a rated capacity of 400 tons
per day, is located in the north central portion of the City of New
Orleans, at Florida Avenue and Elysian Fields Avenue.
The landfills presently in operation are the Algiers landfill, a 57-
acre tract, located in the extreme southern portion of Algiers on the
Westbank immediately adjacent to the Plaquemines Parish line and
the Gentilly landfill, a 34.7-acre tract, located on old Gentilly
V-28
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
Road approximately one mile west of Paris Road. Each of these pro-
perties are leased from private owners on a year-to-year basis. Lease
costs are limited to the amount of City and State taxes.
Two new incinerator plants are being added to the disposal system in
1968. Renovation of the St. Louis Incinerator, located on St. Louis
Street and N. Derbigney Street only one block north of Clairborne, is
near completion. The rated capacity of the plant is 450 tons per day.
During the past year this plant has seen limited use, in the function of
a transfer station. Concurrently with the preparations of this report,
New Orleans East Incinerator, with a rated capacity of 400 tons per
day, is complete and undergoing burning tests. This entirely new facil-
ity is situated on a 5-acre site on old Gentilly Road about three miles
west of Paris Road.
Adjacent to this new plant, a vacant tract of approximately 15 acres
owned by the City is reserved for the deposit of incinerator residue.
The District Map, Figure 1-1 (backcover) illustrates the location of
the above mentioned disposal facilities, as related to the six collec-
tion districts. Detailed evaluations of each of the municipal dis-
posal facilities are set forth later in this Chapter.
b. Present Assignment of Use by Collection Districts
Utilization of the municipal disposal facilities in 1967 by the six col-
lection districts is shown in Table V-14.
Changes in the utilization of disposal facilities by the various collection
districts will occur as soon as the New Orleans East and St. Louis Incin-
erators are in operation. This redistribution, in accordance with the
methods set forth in the Haul Study will provide substantial economies
in haul costs to the Collection Division.
c. Policies of Use of Disposal Facilities
The major user of the incinerators at present is the Sanitation Department
of the City. The sites are fenced with entrance gates for control and
V-29
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
TABLE V-14
COLLECTION DISTRICT ASSIGNMENT TO DISPOSAL FACILITIES
District
Central
Western
Eastern 1
Eastern II
*Night
Algiers
Disposal Facilities Used
Seventh Street Incinerator
Seventh Street Incinerator
Algiers Incinerator
St. Louis (Transfer Station)
Florida Avenue Incinerator
Florida Avenue Incinerator
Gentilly Landfill
Seventh Street Incinerator
Algiers Incinerator
Algiers Landfill
Collections
Received
100%
25%
65%
10%
100%
20%
80%
100%
60%
40%
*Alternate location - St. Louis (Transfer Station)
prior to 1968 only limited deliveries of refuse were accepted from private
and commercial vehicles, free of charge. Commencing in 1968 all com-
mercial vehicle deliveries will be subject to a disposal charge on a ton-
nage basis. Private vehicles with household refuse will continue to be
admitted without restriction or charge. Similar policies of use will be
placed in effect at landfill sites in 1968.
Disposal facilities are open to the public seven days a week during day
light hours. Control of access at the incinerators is reasonably adequate*
however, at the landfills control is more difficult after normal work hour*
due to inadequate lighting, lack of fencing, and the remote locations.
d. Weighing Facilities and Use Charge
Prior to 1968, weighing facilities were available only at the incinerator*
Scale installations were completed during the latter part of 1967 at the
V-30
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
landfills and it is now an effective policy to weigh all waste deliveries
at all points of disposal.
Simultaneously with the installation of scales at landfills a new use
charge was conceived as a means of producing revenue for the City.
The established rate of charge (for wistes delivered by commercially
licensed vehicles) effective January 1, 1968, is one dollar ($1.00)
per 1,000 pounds or fraction thereof when delivered to any landfill,
and one dollar ($1.00) per 500 pounds or fraction thereof when deli-
vered to any incinerator.
e. Disposal Plant Facilities
(1) Emergency Fire Protection
Fire control equipment (hoses and fire extinguishers) is available at all
incinerators and arrangements with municipal fire fighting agencies have
been made to assist in major emergencies. Maximum distances from in-
cinerator locations to the fire stations are three miles. Landfills are not
equipped with an adequate water supply to control fires in their early
stages, therefore, principal fire control, rests with the heavy equip-
ment such as bulldozers.
(2) Support Equipment
Each of the disposal facilities is assigned the necessary support equip-
ment for a self-contained operation under normal conditions.
Each incinerator is assigned from two to three ash trucks of adequate
size to meet their peak requirements in residue hauling. These are
shown in Table V-15. Heavy equipment such as bulldozers, graders,
etc., as assigned to landfills Is shown in Table V-16.
(3) Operational Maintenance
Crew members at the incinerators handle normal repair and service re-
quirements of the plant equipment. Expendable spare parts are stored
at each site. Major repairs are performed by personnel from the City
V-31
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
TABLE V- 15
NUMBER OF ASH TRUCKS ASSIGNED TO INCINERATORS
Truck Description
Diamond T - Dump
International - Dump
Diamond T - Dump
Diamond T - Hiele Dump
International - Hiele Dump
International - Hiele Dump
Total Ash Truck Fleet
Cap.
(c.y.)
16
16
20
20
20
20
Year
62
63
64
65
65
68
Price
$15,000
15,000
12,594
14,186
13,050
14,864
Fla.
Ave.
2
1
3
7th
St.
1
1
1
3
Algiers
1
1
1
3
St.
Louis
3
3
N.O.
East
2
2
Total
2
2
5
2
1
2
14
Total Investment in Fleet
$194,120
TABLE V-16
1968 EQUIPMENT ASSIGNMENT AT LANDFILLS
Location
Gentilly Landfill
Algiers Landfill
Description
EIMCO Model 103C Tractor
Cummins CR 160 Diesel Engine
Caterpillar D7 Tractor
(#1 73 AyD . Control 7A Bui Idozer Blade)
P & H Crane
255 ALC w/Draglrne
Koehring Comb. Drag
International Harvester
Caterpillar D7 Tractor
(#1 73 HyD . Control 7A Bui Idozer Blade)
Year
1964
1965
1958
1952
1951
1965
Price
$ 26,520
37,132
30,941
10,000
800
37,132
No. of
Units
2
3
1
1
1
1
TOTAL EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT
$243,309
V-32
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleons/ La. - 15 May 1968
Yard and Shop which maintains a labor pool of approximately 45 men
of various skills. Priority has been established with this shop for servic-
ing incinerator plants in case of emergency breakdown. Major repairs
and service to rolling equipment at both incinerator and landfill lo-
cations are provided by the facilities of the City Garage presently oper-
ated by the Sanitation Department. During 1968 it is anticipated thot
major repairs will be handled by the newly organized Central Garage
facility. Details of this arrangement are presently being resolved.
4) Area Sanitation
Reasonable sanitary conditions are maintained within the incinerator
plants, although violations of good sanitary practices occur on the aprons
adjacent to the pits. Often this condition is caused by overloading and
infrequent cleanings of the storage pits. The Board of Health reportedly
sprays the pits daily, however, long retention of wastes in these pits con-
tributes to the problems of sanitary control with the presence of flies,
birds, and rats not uncommon.
Landfill operations are conducted as open dumps with area sanitation a
major problem at both locations. Open burning occurs frequently at the
Algiers location whereas underground fires are more prevalent at the
Gentilly landfill where unburned wastes are compacted and covered.
Cover material is limited in supply and must be hauled into both loca-
tions. Neither location is operated in a manner that meets the accepted
standards of sanitary landfills.
5) Salvage and Scavengers
Salvaging at disposal points is officially banned, however, this policy
is not strictly enforced. Existing salvage and scavenging operations,
although apparently not interfering with the disposal operations, are
detrimental to "good housekeeping" practices, especially at the in-
cinerators.
Local observations indicate the minor salvage and on-site storage prac-
tices permitted to incinerator personnel are the principal cause of the
littered appearance evident at the various plants. If this practice were
discontinued and basic housekeeping and maintenance practices made
mandatory, morale should improve and greater plant efficiency can
be expected.
V-33
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, LQ. - 15 May 1968
f. Waste Disposal Records
Daily operating records maintained at both incinerators and landfills
are forwarded to the Department offices for analysis by management.
The daily records include cumulative totals of each activity, as well
as personnel reports of each shift. These daily records are used as
control measures on labor costs (budgeted personnel and payroll), as
well as evaluation of daily operational conditions at each plant con-
cerning daily tonnage received from municipal and private trucks,
tonnage of refuse burned, residue removed, and remaining floor ton-
nage. An operational cost section illustrating in detail the cost of
labor, maintenance, and fuel required to operate the facility is also
included in the report. From the total cost, a cost per ton is calcu-
lated. Weather, refuse, and residue conditions are recorded since
they also have a direct effect on solid waste disposal and disposal cost.
These daily reports together with furnace charts are retained in per-
manent record files on each plant.
The Chief Administrative Office in 1965 adopted the Performance Type
Budget (PTB). Monthly Performance Reports in support of the budget
are compiled from the daily operating records. This report provides
a monthly summary of activities for each location and comparisons to
the same period of the previous year and provides a means for review
and analysis of program alternatives.
In early 1968 a data processing system was designed to provide ac-
curate recordings of all wastes delivered at each of the disposal facil-
ities. This system initially conceived to facilitate billing procedures
of commercial accounts was broadened to encompass activities of all
vehicles and users of the municipal disposal facilities. Seven Standard
Registers (source-record-punch) Model 1601 were installed at the dis-
posal sites for this recording activity. In order to simplify the billing
of fees, a credit record procedure similar to credit cards was devised
by the Department of Finance. Application for credit cards is made
through the Sanitation Department. Predesigned punch cards (charge
forms) used with the credit cards are used to record net weight and
identify type of refuse for billing purposes. If a person does not have
a credit card the machine operator writes his name, address, and
license number of vehicle on the blank charge card. White (original)
V-34
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
copy is given to customer, and other two copies are retained by machine
operator. Charges are billed monthly to the owner of the licensed ve-
hicle or credit card holder thereby eliminating the handling of cash.
The Sanitation Department anticipated further use of the punch card
machines and with cooperation of EDP was able to set up a program
which would not only record information necessary for billing purposes
but also additional record data pertinent to the Department. All muni-
cipal trucks, including garbage, ash, and trash trucks of the Sanitation
Department are assigned cards to be presented at the disposal site. The
punch cards are forwarded to the Department offices where they are
segregated and sent to EDP for final analysis. Here the information be-
comes input to the IBM Computer Model 30. Output in the form of
monthly statistical reports and customer billing is timely.
The programmed computer can by means of card sorting obtain various
combinations of desired information. Statistical data can be acquired
as to tonnage collected per route and district, tonnage of combustible
and non-combustible collected, and tonnage detail received at each
disposal facility. A monthly print-out is made of the six collection
districts and each disposal facility. The monthly summary for disposal
facilities includes tonnage and types of material received from City,
State, and Federal agencies, and commercial and private sources.
With application of data processing to the Department it is hoped to
eliminate redundant paper work and also assure accurate and concise
data. This system now in its first month trial period (May 1968) is ex-
pected to produce records that will be invaluable to management in
planning and controlling within the Department.
g. Cost of Disposal
Evaluation of the Sanitation Department cost records for 1967 indicate
disposal through operation of incinerators and landfills was equivalent
to about 36% of the total annual cost of the solid waste system. Bud-
get allocations for 1968 project costs for solid waste disposal (inciner-
ator and landfill) at an estimated 41.8% of total budgeted cost. The
projected increase of some $523,000 for 1968 is due principally to
the assumed full operation of both St. Louis and New Orleans East
incinerators as well as expected increases in labor rates. The summary
of the total annual cost for solid waste disposal as experienced by the
V-35
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
Department in 1965, 1966, and 1967 is illustrated in Table V-18. This
table/ illustrating in detail the costs of disposal by both incineration
and landfill, resolves all costs to a cost per ton basis, ranging from a
low of $0.45 per ton at the Algiers landfill to a high of $6.91 per ton at
the Algiers incinerator.
The per ton cost for both the Florida Avenue and the Seventh Street
incinerators shows a sharp increase for 1967 over the two previous years
due principally to the smaller tonnage handled at each of these plants.
This was largely due to more downtime for repairs. Based on the quan-
tities burned in two previous years the $5.57 per ton shown for the
Florida Avenue Incinerator should have been about $4.80 per ton and
the $4.87 per ton shown for the Seventh Street Incinerator should have
been about $4.25 per ton. The lesser cost per ton at the Seventh Street
Incinerator, even though the total annual costs are 15 and 30 per cent
higher than at Florida Avenue and Algiers effectively demonstrated the
advantage of the larger plants. This is shown graphically on FigureV-7
on which is also shown the cost for the 600 and 900-ton plants proposed
later in this report.
Table V-17 shows the breakdown of incinerator costs for each of the
three incinerator plants operated in 1967 as well as the 1968 budgeted
cost breakdown for St. Louis and New Orleans East incinerators. Brief
operating experience in 1967 of the St. Louis Incinerator, as well as
current experience at the New Orleans East Incinerator reasonably jus-
tifies that budgeted figures for these two plants are realistic. In pract-
ice each of these five incinerator plants incur similar gross payroll costs
in their annual operation.
Excluding both St. Louis and New Orleans East incinerators, the total
labor cost (including benefits) for the three year period (1965-67) a-
veraged approximately 58.9% of the total incineration cost per ton.
St. Louis and New Orleans East incinerators are expected to be
operated at a labor ratio of about 45-50% of total costs.
The variations of landfill operations present a low unit cost of $0.45
per ton in Algiers where open burning is conducted and $1.27 per ton
at the Gentilly landfill which is operated as an open dump, without
burning being practiced.
V-36
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
|s|ew Or I eons, La. - 15 May 1968
TABLE V-17
INCINERATION COSTS (1967-1968)
(Cost Per Ton)
Division of Operating Cosh
Labor and Fringe Benefits
Utilities, Fuels, Maintenance
Repairs, Lie. and Insur.
Sub-Total
•Depreciation and Amortization
TOTAL COST PER TON
Capacity of Plant (Tom/Day)
Rated Capacity
Effective Capacity
ACTUAL COSTS 1967
Florida A've.
$3.45
1.22
$4.67
.90
$5.57
400
200
Seventh St.
$2.77
1.06
$3.83
1.04
$4.87
400
270
Algiers
$4.01
1.33
$5.34
1.57
$6.91
200
150
ESTIMATED COSTS 1968
St. Louis
$1.55
.49
$2.04
.68
$2.92
450
410
New Orleans Eait
$1.65
.42
$2.07
1.50
$3.57
400
365
•Includes straight line depreciation of ash trucks (6 yr. life) and amortization of plant
(20 yr. life @ 3 1/2% interest)
FIGURE V-7
COST PER TON TO INCINERATE IN RELATION TO PLANT SIZE
7.00
-6.00
• 5.00
.4.00
. 3.00
I Algiers
NOTE: Present Florida Ave. and Seventh
St. based on 1967 costs and average quan
tities 1965 & 1966.
Enlarged Algiers
100
200
, I „-
Proposed Florida Ave
Proposed Seventh Street-
300
400
-L.
500
600
Tons Per Day
700
'
800
V-37
-------
TO
OO
00
TABLE V-18
BREAKDOWN OF COST OF REFUSE DISPOSAL AT VARIOUS FACILITIES FOR THE YEARS 1965, 1966, and 1967
INCINERATORS:
Florida Avenue
Seventh Street
St. Louis*
Algiers
Incinerator Support
(All Incinerators)
* *
LANDFILLS:
Gentilly
Algiers
Year
67
66
65
67
66
65
67
67
66
65
67
66
65
67
66
65
67
66
65
Incinerator and Landfills
Labor, Inc.
Fringe
Benefits
($)
223,790
214,144
175,070
235,999
214,144
179,558
76,808
185,878
158,626
151,876
98,471
94,642
91,276
118,526
126,900
114,469
32,114
29,230
28,430
Utilities
Elec.
and Gas
($)
6,647
10,196
10,212
19,463
18,702
16,388
33,943
10,974
13,438
17,510
—
—
—
386
556
404
232
162
321
Repairs
($)
55,566
52,095
43,617
48,612
39,559
42,045
6,575
34,142
31,176
23,562
796
1,262
217
1,862
3,143
2,346
1,361
541
979
Amorti-
zation
20 years
at 3 1/2%
»)
47,806
47,806
47,806
78,307
78,307
78,307
75,507
65,660
65,660
65,660
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Vehicular Equipment
Licenses
&
Insurance
($)
509
484
490
494
488
479
498
479
473
468
1,321
1,300
1,299
1,395
1,363
1,358
211
200
200
Gas
&
Lube.
($)
4,536
2,271
2,064
9,299
3,406
3,069
8,618
4,30?
2,271
2,064
12,928
6,812
6,812
12,960
6,812
12,385
2,592
1,135
1,032
Mainte-
nance
($)
12,000
9,975
8,000
12,000
9,975
8,000
9,000
12,000
9,975
8,000
36,000
29,925
24,000
60,000
49,875
40,000
8,978
8,579
8,000
Amorti-
zation
5 years
($)
10,500
10,500
10,500
10,500
10,500
10,500
9,875
7,000
7,000
7,000
31,500
31,500
31,500
25,792
25,792
25,792
3,095
3,095
3,095
Total
Annual
Oper.
Cost
($)
361,354
347,471
297,759
414,674
375,081
338,346
220,824
320,442
288,619
276, 140
181,016
165,441
155,104
220,921
214,441
196,754
48,583
42,942
42,057
Tons
Incinerated
or dumped
64,835
75,845
75,062
85,181
98,185
99,730
5,691
46,382
43,382
40,480
196,398
217,412
215,272
174,000
—
—
107,000
—
Cost
Per
Ton
($)
5.57
4.58
3.97
4.87
3.82
3.39
N.A.
6.91
6.65
6.82
Q.92
0.76
0.72
1.27
—
—
0.45
—
*Not in full Operation
** See TaWe V-22, Page V-43 for detailed breakdown
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
The above cost data includes all operating and capital costs of these
plants and in the case of incinerators, includes both labor and equip-
ment cosh for residue removal. These costs specifically exclude those
portions of Incinerators'Support costs (covered in the next section of
this report) applicable to transfer of wastes between incinerators or
from incinerators to landfills.
Total departmental costs of disposal by incineration and landfill in-
cluding transfer operations during 1967 averaged $6.55 per ton based
only on that tonnage collected by the City or an average of $3.70
per ton for the disposal of all municipal and private collections handled
at the City facilities. This latter overall cost, showing a great re-
duction in the unit price for disposal, is of course due to the high
percentage of commercial wastes handled by landfill.
In review of total disposal costs by incineration the individual cost
of residue removal was investigated to some extent. The present
method of handling quenched residue at each incinerator is by direct
discharge from conveyors and hoppers to 16 or 20 cubic yard diesel
powered dump trucks. Records of the Sanitation Department indicate that
a total of 97,962 tons (wet weight) of residue was removed from the
three operating incinerators (Algiers, Seventh St., and Florida Avenue)
in 1967.
This volume required 11,089 truck loads to be hauled to the various
landfill points. Based upon a 312 day operating year, average daily
activity involved 35.5 roundtrip hauls to remove 314 tons of residue.
Three trucks are assigned at each incinerator. These nine trucks each
averaged approximately four loads per day with 8.7 tons per load.
Haul distances from each incinerator to points of disposal vary. With
Algiers and Seventh Street incinerators delivering residue to the Algiers
landfill their respective roundtrip haul distances are estimated at 10
and 18 miles requiring an estimated 45 minutes roundtrip haul time
from Algiers incinerator and 105 minutes from Seventh Street. Florida
Avenue incinerator delivering to Gentilly landfill has an estimated
roundtrip haul distance of 12 miles requiring an average roundtrip
haul time of 60 minutes.
1967 records indicate 3,325 roundtrips were from Algiers, 4,477 trips
from Seventh Street and 3,287 trips from Florida. Based upon haul
V-39
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans/ La. - 15 May 1968
distance and time requirements for each load from the respective inciner-
ators, combined annual mileage of these nine trucks servicing these in-
cinerators was 153,280 miles requiring 13,616 truck operating hours ex-
cluding loading time. It follows that each truck averaged about 17,000
miles per year and 1,513 operating (haul time) hours or 54.5 miles and
4.85 operating hours per 24 hour work day.
Department records indicate frhatthe annual cost of operation of each truck
is about $15,600. This cost includes payroll (with social and fringe
benefits) of $9,550, insurance and licenses at $250, capital cost (6year
equipment life) $2,345, maintenance and repairs at $2,440 and fuels,
oil, and lubrication at $1,020 $0.06 per mile).
With these nine trucks,in operation, total annual costs of $140,400 were
incurred in 1967 for residue removal at these three plants, or it may be
expressed that an average cost of $1.43 per ton was experienced in the
removal of residue. Relating this total cost to the gross volume of
196,400 tons of waste burned at these three plants indicates a unit cost
of $0.71 per ton of waste incinerated or approximately 13% of total
incineration costs.
It should be noted'that average daily haul time of 4.85 hours per truck
represents only 20% of the availability of truck time or total daily truck
costs. The balance of time is consumed by "down-time" in the loading
cycle and maintenance and repairs which contributes to the high unit
cost experienced.
h. Support Services Common to Collection and Disposal Divisions
The Incinerator Support division functions as an independent service in
both collection and disposal activities. As noted earlier, this division
provides container collection for public installations and utilizes front-
end loading (fork lift) compactor trucks in this service.
In addition to this responsibility, the division also provides the transfer
operations needed at the St. Louis incinerator, and at other incinerators
during prolonged breakdowns. Transfer of wastes may occur either between
incinerators or between incinerators and landfills. During the year 1967
about 43,735 tons combustible wastes, or 16% of total municipal collectfof
were handled in this operation, representing an average of about 140 tons
V-40
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
per day. The quantifies removed from each of the incinerator plants
during this period are shown in Table V-19.
TABLE V-19
TRANSFER OF COMBUSTIBLE WASTES (1967)
Incinerator Tons
St. Louis (Transfer Station)
Florida Avenue
Seventh Street
Algiers
Total Waste Transferred 43,735
A large portion of this material was transferred to the somewhat distant
landfill by the Incinerator Support equipment consisting of transfer trailers
(compactors) and diesel tractors.
This division also provides transfer service of oversize and non-combustible
wastes from the incinerator plants to the landfills which in 1967 amounted
to about 2,215 tons or 1% of total annual collections. Three 20-cubic
yard diesel powered vehicles are utilized for this transfer operation. Table
V-20shows the quantities handled from each plant in 1967.
TABLE V-20
TRANSFER OF OVERSIZE AND NON-COMBUSTIBLE WASTES (1967)
Incinerator Tons
St. Louis (Transfer Station)
Florida Avenue
Seventh Street
Algiers
Total Transferred 2,215
V-41
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
The equipment assigned to Incinerator Support for performance of both,
collection and transfer operations for 1968, is shown in Table V-2T.
TABLE V-21
FLEET ASSIGNMENT TO INCINERATOR SUPPORT (1968)
Capacity No. of
Truck Description (C.Y.) Year Price Units
Transfer Equipment;
International Tractors - 64 $ 11,312 3
Hobbs Hyd-Pak Transfer Trailer 53 64 14,777 2
Hobbs Hyd-Pak Transfer 60 64 15,679 2
Diamond T- 20 67 13,750 3
Container Service Equipment:
Diamond T - Hydro Ex-Pak 20 64 14,950 1
International - Dumpmaster 20 63 16,000 1
Total Equipment Investment:
Transfer Equipment $136,098
Container Service Equipment 30,950
Total Investment $167,048
In addition to the foregoing, Incinerator Support also provides services
within the Sanitation Department and other municipal departments not
directly connected with collection and disposal of wastes. In 1967
costs of special project assignments outside departmental activities were
estimated to be equivalent to 15% of the total annual costs incurred by
this division. The nature of these projects range from removal of abandoned
automobiles for the Police Department to assistance to other departments
in clearing and preparing City land for various uses. Another 5% of the
annual costs in 1967 were attributable to hauling of dirt, rock, and leafajj*
V-42
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
stockpiles resulting from street sweeping operations. This material was
hauled to City owned property (parks, etc.) for fill material.
A total cost of $181,000 was incurred in 1967 by the Incinerator Support
division for performance of all services. A breakdown of this cost appears
in Table V-22 which shows, in addition, the estimated unit costs and
amounts of waste materials handled for the entire year.
TABLE V-22
BREAKDOWN OF INCINERATOR SUPPORT COSTS - 1967
Service
Container Collection
Transfer Combustible Material
Transfer Oversize and Non-
Combustible Material
Tons
Handled
6,430
43,735
2,455
Est. Cost
Per Ton
$6.00
2.30
3.00
Total Cost
$ 38,580
99,855
7,365
Total Collection and Transfer
Costs 52,620 $2.77 $145,800
Special Assignments 27,150
Hauling Miscellaneous Materials 9,066
Total Other Costs $ 36,216
Total Division Costs - 1967 $181,016
Table V-23 provides a summary of total annual operating expenses such
as labor and fringe benefits, maintenance and repairs, etc. as incurred
in 1967 and projected for 1968. Economies are expected to be achieved
in the future from reduced transfer of combustible materials, when St.
Louis and New Orleans East incinerators go into full operation.
V-43
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
TABLE V-23
INCINERATOR SUPPORT ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSES
Division of Operating Expenses
Labor and Fringe Benefits
Fuel and Lubrication
Repairs and Maintenance
License and Insurance
Amortization of Equipment (5 years)
Total Annual Costs
1967
Actual Costs
$ 98,471
12,928
36,796
1,321
21,500
$181,016
1968
Proj. Costs
$ 86,603
13,228
38,996
1,319
31,500
$171,646
6. Emergency Operations
Specific policies, preparations, controls, personnel, and equipment are employed
during times of disasters and emergencies, when called upon by local, state, or
federal direction. The Department has appointed eight key men as the nucleus of
the emergency team on call 24 hours a day, each with the responsibility of assembling
assigned personnel at a designated emergency station in the event of disaster alert.
These stations located throughout the City consist of the various branch facilities of
the Department.
City Hall - Sanitation Department Central Offices
Seventh Street Incinerator
St. Louis Incinerator
Florida Avenue Incinerator
City Yard & Shop
City Maintenance Garage
New Orleans East Incinerator
Algiers Incinerator
Various types of departmental equipment are assigned to these locations. In all,
these emergency stations are equipped and manned with approximately 186 men,
123 pieces of equipment, 29 radio-equipped vehicles, and 10 portable radios.
V-44
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
Emergency operations are controlled from the Sanitation Department central offices
with liason and communications with Civil Defense Headquarters, American Red
Cross, Police Department, other emergency agencies, and the facilities of the
eight Department emergency stations.
In severe emergencies, such as the not uncommon area hurricane conditions, this
Department's first responsibility is evacuation. All mobile equipment is deconta-
minated upon notice of hurricane alert conditions for use as may be required.
Once hurricane conditions have passed and emergency evacuations completed,
this Department joins with other agencies in clearing debris in the area. In some
cases the Department is not able to dispose of contaminated garbage, spoiled foods,
and debris at the regular disposal facilities due either to breakdowns of inciner-
ators or excessive amounts of refuse and debris at these locations. In the case
after Hurricane Betsy in 1965, seven additional dumps were opened to accept the
estimated 136,500 loads of mixed garbage, trash, trees, etc. Reactivation of
former dumps or designations of new emergency dump locations can readily be
obtained by the Department in case of emergency needs.
7. Comments on Operation of the Sanitation Department
In the foregoing sections we have reported on the organization and operation of
the Sanitation Department as the result of more than eight months of detailed study
of its operation, during which time we have developed certain opinions and con-
clusions which we believe should be set forth in this report. Our comments are as
follows:
a. The basic responsibilities with which the Department is charged
are clearly defined and its organizational structure defines the
scope of duties for each major function or division.
b. Weekly staff meetings provide good communication with first line
supervisors in all divisions.
c. Salary levels together with fringe benefits under the Civil Service
system are generally in line with prevailing area rates for the
various classifications and respective skills required.
d. The subdivision of the City into six collection districts for refuse
V-45
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
collection, each under a district foreman, represents a sound
practice in that it limits collection areas to a reasonable size
for supervising and policing.
e. The provision of an incinerator to serve each collection district
reduces collection costs to a minimum by reducing travel distance
and time to and from the point of disposal.
f. The garaging of collection vehicles at the incinerator sites re-
duces dead running time and permits better crew control.
g. With theshort haul tothe point of disposal in each collection dis-
trict, the collection vehicleof 20-cubic yard capacity is adequate.
h. The use of rear loading packer trucks recently purchased will re-
duce the lift that is required to load the truck from that required
by the present side loading trucks thus reducing the efforts re-
quired by the collector.
i. Packer trucks should be of the type that unload with a pusher plate
to avoid strain on the truck chassis and facilitate unloading.
j. The present practice of obtaining the weight of refuse in each ve-
hicle delivered to either an incinerator or dump as well as the
practice of identifying the truck route and collection district for
each Sanitation Department vehicle should be continued.
k. Type and format of records maintained by both Collection and Dis-
posal Divisions appear adequate and generally concise.
I. Our study of these records indicate the, need for improvement in
accuracy and completeness in their preparation.
m. Information concerning both collection and disposal should be sum-
marized monthly and the information analyzed to ensure an equi-
table distribution of the work between the crews and control of
the overall operation.
n. The substantial differences between the quantities collected by
crews working in adjacent areas as disclosed by our survey should
be further investigated by analysis of the records over a longer
period and by field observations.
V-46
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Trl-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
o. Consideration should be given to raising the pay scale of the sec-
tion foreman to ensure a higher scale than that of the personnel
under their supervision.
p. Consideration should also be given to increasing the car allowance
for foremen required to use their own cars in connection with their
jobs to ensure adequate supervision.
q. The general appearance of the three regularly operating inciner-
ators, Florida Avenue, Seventh Street, and Algiers, could be
substantially improved by better housekeeping and a regular pro-
gram of preventive maintenance.
r. The increasing degree of complexity and mechanization of the
newer incinerators beginning with Algiers, St. Louis, and New
Orleans East as well as those proposed hereunder require a care-
fully planned and executed program of regular preventive main-
tenance to minimize costly breakdowns in equipment and inter-
ruptions in plant operation.
s. An adequate budget allowance under which regular maintenance
can be accomplished including the renewal or replacement of
equipment is a necessity for a program of preventive maintenance.
t. The present budget of the Sanitation Department is unrealistic
and inadequate to provide for proper maintenance and contributes
to plant neglect and lack of pride of the operators.
u. Personnel requirements should be reviewed on the newer inciner-
ators and qualifications and pay rates established commensurate
with the duties required.
v. Efforts being made to provide an effective safety program to re-
duce vehicular and occupational accidents are vital and should
be further emphasized. The safety programs introduced at the
various plants should be more vigorously enforced and employees
required to use safety equipment provided for their protection.
The requirement that all collection employees wear safety shoes
should be rigidly enforced.
V-47
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
B. Quantities and Types of Refuse
1. Present Quantities - Municipal and Private
In order to determine the present quantities of waste generated within the City,
records for the years 1965, 1966, and 1967 were examined. These records in-
cluded the weight of all materials delivered to the incinerators and estimated
weights for both the Gentilly and Algiers Dumps.
In order to verify these records, a field survey was made covering the first two
weeks in December. For this purpose, scales were installed at both of the munic-
ipal dump sites. During the survey a man was stationed at each scale to check
the weights, as well as the source and types of refuse. The weights thus deter-
mined were checked against the City records and related to the annual produc-
tion. In the case of the incinerators, the correlation was excellent and as the
results the City's records were adopted without correction. Estimates of weights
made at both dumps, however, proved to be grossly in error. The Gentilly Dump
records showing several times more refuse than determined by survey while the
Algiers Dump records were somewhat less than that indicated by the survey. Sur-
vey figures projected to reflect annual coverage figures were adopted for this
portion of the record.
In addition to the City dumps, the New Orleans Disposal Co. operates a large
landfill within the City. This is the only major commercial disposal facility in
the City receiving any substantial quantities of refuse. A similar two-week sur-
vey was made at this dump and the volume and amounts of the different type of
refuse were estimated.
We find the total refuse production in New Orleans amounts to 1,950 tons per
day (7-day week) of which 43% is collected by municipal forces and the remain-
der by private disposal concerns and demolition companies. Generally, the
latter collects all waste from commercial and industrial enterprises and that gen-
erated from the port facilities. The total quantity of refuse, expressed in terms
of per capita production, amounts to 5.69 pounds per day, which is about 25%
higher than the national average. A breakdown of our findings into combustible
and non-combustible refuse is shown in Table V-24 which includes the per capita
figures for each classification. It should be noted that the amounts recorded in
the Table as Municipal refuse include that collected by other public agencies in
addition to the Sanitation Departments.
V-48
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
TABLE V-24
TOTAL REFUSE PRODUCTION (1967)
(7-Day Week)
Municipal
Private (Ind.,
Comm., Port, etc.
Demolition and
Construction
TOTAL
Combustible per Day
Tons
750
610
1,360
Lbs/Cap
2.18
1.78
3.96
Non-Combustible per Day
Tons
75
115
400
590
Lbs/Cap
0.22
0.24
1.17
1.73
Tofal per Day
Tons
825
725
400
1,950
Lbs/Cap
2.40
2.12
1.17
5.69
The regular refuse collection service provided by the City through its established
collection routes is largely limited to the collection of combustible refuse, i. e.,
that which can be charged into an incinerator. Special crews are used for the col-
lection of oversize and non- combustible refuse, i.e., that which cannot be
charged into an incinerator.
2.
Forecast of Future Waste Production
Records show that nationally the per capita production of refuse has increased from
2.7 Ibs. per day in 1920 to 4.2 Ibs. in 1960 and forcast projections anticipate a
steady continuing increase as disposable items come into greater use. A similar sit-
uation has been experienced by the City so that approximately 15% increase per
decade in per capita production over the next twenty years has been adopted in this
report in forecasting future refuse quantities.
Based on the above criteria, it is expected that the present per capita production
of 5.69 Ibs. per day will reach 7.69 Ibs. by 1990 which amounts to 3,610 tons
per day distributed as shown on Table V-25 The national average as estimated
by APWA for that year is 6.4 Ibs. per capita.
V-49
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
TABLE V-25
FORECAST OF TOTAL REFUSE PRODUCTION
(7-Day Week)
Year Population Lbs/Cap/Day Tons/Day
1967 687,170 5.69 1,950
1970 713,500 5.81 2,080
1980 822,000 6.69 2,750
1990 937,000 7.69 3,610
3. Characteristics of Waste
As previously mentioned, most household refuse produced in the City'is collected by
Sanitation Department forces. Except for oversize and special wastes this refuse is de-
livered to the incinerators, as much as it is possible to do so and within the availability of
incinerator capacity. As additional incinerator capacity becomes available it is expected
that all combustible and household refuse, with some exceptions, will be incinerated .
In order to determine the composition of the waste presently delivered to the incinerators/
samples of such refuse were col lected for five consecutive days and analyzed. A summary
of the test appears in Table V-26 which shows the results of the average 5-daysampling
and includes moisture content and the calculated calorific values for the various component*'
The samples were collected during a dry period. (See Appendix VI for Sampl ing Procedur^'
a. Incinerable Refuse
Under this heading we have included all refuse which would be acceptable
for burning at an incinerator. Amounting presently to 1,310 tons per day/
it includes some non-burnable materials such as glass, cans and other metal*
which are normally found in household refuse. Our survey revealed that
municipal collection accounts for approximately 55% of the total com-
bustible refuse produced in the City and it is expected that this proportion
will remain fairly constant over the years.
b, Non-incinerable Refuse
In the New Orleans area non-combustible waste must be considered in
two separate classifications. That which makes satisfactory fill material
and, therefore, presents no problem in that it may be in demand in the
V-50
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
Classification
of Compohents
3. Paper Products
5. Plastic & Misc.
Total Combustibles
Mon-Combustibles:
1. Glass
2. Misc. Metals & Cans
TABLE V-26
PHYSICAL COMPOSITION OF REFUSE
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS
(Averages of 5-day Sampling)
Calorific Value*
Percent Composition Percent (BTU/Lb.)
Wet Weight Basis Moisture (Dry, Ash-
(As Delivered) Free Basis)
18.9
9.2
39.4
2.6
1.5
71.6
39.5
39.2
10.5
4.9
-
5,900
5,500
7,150
7,600
16,000
9,800
9,350
8,000
8,000
16,000
21.3
16.2
12.2
5.9
Total Non-Combustibles
Total
28.4
100.0
3.1
16.2** 4,890**
5,890**
Basis, values from Proceedings, 1964 National Incinerator Conference.
sendix B & C, Page 46-47.
As Delivered, values reduced to moisture content shown.
Weighted Average
;. See Appendix VI for sampling procedures and other data.
V-51
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
area for filling low ground. Under this heading is included most demoli-
tion waste and some forms of industrial wastes. Since they present no prob-
lem and are frequently disposed of by the contractor or industry producing
them, reliable estimates of the amounts of such waste are difficult to ob-
tain. Ash and incinerator residue from a properly operated incinerator
are also in this classiffication.
The second category includes waste which cannot be used as fill material
such as discarded or abandoned vehicles. In the New Orleans area some
of these are processed as scrap and the remainder are a problem which was
covered in Chapter III. Old refrigerators, stoves, large pieces of furniture,
bedsprings, stumps, logs, timbers, and similar materials including some auto
bodies, cannot be incinerated without special handling. Such materials
will continue to be dumped in landfills where they can be crushed, com-
pacted, and covered for disposal.
c. Industrial and Commercial Waste
Field observations made in December 1967 of the activities at both munici-
pal and private disposal facilities, reasonably established the gross tonnage
of wastes being delivered to incinerators and area landfills. These observation5
also provided'a breakdown between municipal and privatewastes delivered
to these locations. However, as a means of providing further detail of private
wastes produced in the area, that is, type and composition as well as major
producers and methods of disposal not revealed by the field observations, a
direct mail survey of industry and commerce was undertaken. The support of
theChamberof Commerce of Greater New Orleans was obtained in launching
this survey covering some 2,100 selected firms in the Tri-Parish area (about
1,700 within New Orleans, 300 in Jefferson, and 100 in St. Bernard). This
direct mail approach together with follow up via telephone (to more than 1^
firms) and mail produced a response of about 30%. This percentage of repHe5'
though low, was reasonable considering the broad range and number of bust'
ness firms initially solicited. Review of the initial mailing list and replies
indicates that representative coverage of the major industrial and commer-
cial firms was obtained.
Table V-27 summarized 453 replies from firms solicited in New Orleans
and illustrates the number of firms utilizing the various methods of collection
or disposal listed. A sample of the questionnaire is included in Appendix IV'
Excluding those firms receiving municipal collection and those which pro-
vided incomplete replies, the resulting number (about 84%) was considered
pertinent to further analysis. Table V-28 covers quantities and types, i.e./
combustible and non-combustible wastes reported by these 381 firms.
V-52
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Par?sh Area
.New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
TABLE V-27
METHODS OF COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL WASTES
Firms Solicited
Firms Replying (by 2/15/68)
Municipal Collection
Collection by Private Contractor
Haul Own Trucks
On-Site Incineration
Combination of Methods
Incomplete Reply
No.
1,686
453
71
259
82
25
15
1
% Replies
Received
15.7
57.2
18.1
5.5
3.3
.2
TABLE V-28
QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF WASTES REPORTED
Method of Col lection or Disposal
By Private Contractor
Haul Own Trucks
On-Site Incineration
Combination of Methods
Total
Avg. Tons Daily (6 Day Wk.)
Percent of Total (Tons/Day)
No. of
Firms
259
82
25
15
381
Tons per Week
Comb. Non-Comb.
730.3 122.0
81.5
3.5
*
815.3
135.8
85.6
15.8
.2
*
138.0
23.1
14.4
Total
852.3
97.3
3.7
*
953.3
158.9
100.0
* Included above
By comparison, our December field observations at all disposal points in-
dicated a total of 725 tons per day from private commercial and industrial
sources with 610 tons per day (84.2%) combustible and 115 tons/day (15.8%)
V-53
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
non-combustible material, which compares very favorably with the ma-
terial classification from replies to the mail survey. However, compa-
rison of quantities based on percentage of replies to total firms solicited
does not appear to be a reliable method of evaluation of total wastes
generated.
To correlate the point of origin of the wastes reported in the survey,
to the collection districts of the Sanitation Department, we prepared
Table V-29which presents distribution of quantities, types and percent
of total wastes by district, as well as percentage distribution of the
firms reporting.
TABLE V-29
DISTRIBUTION OF REPORTED PRIVATE WASTES
Collection
District
Central
Western
Eastern 1
Eastern II
Algiers
Night
Total
%of
Firms
Report
14.5
19.3
5.0
8.9
1.2
51.0
100.0
Tons Per Week
Comb.
57.2
246.3
34.1
131.2
1.2
345.3
815.3
%
7.1
30.2
4.2
16.1
Tr.
42.4
100.0
Non-
Comb.
16.6
37.2
1.4
33.1
.7
49.0
138.0
%
12.1
26.9
1.0
24.0
.5
35.5
100.0
Total
73.8
283.5
35.5
164.3
1.9
394.3
953.3
Avg.
Tons
/Day
12.3
47.3
5.9
27.4
.3
65.7
158.9
%of
Total
7.7
29.7
3.7
17.5
Tr.
41.4
100.0
The principal points of disposal as indicated by the replies were private
landfills, with municipal landfills receiving only 32.0 tons/day and mu-
nicipal incinerators 4.5 tons per day.
The composition of the combustible materials reported included paper,
cardboard, carton, wood, plastics, cloth and food wastes. Considered6
variations in the combinations of materials occurred in the replies, with
paper products'predominantly high in the order of quantities. Other
combustibles reported less frequently were leather, rubber, grass, lint/
V-54
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
.NewjDrleans, La. - 15 May 1968
etc. Principal non-combustibles consisted of metals and glass. Occa-
sionally, limited quantities of oversize wastes, such as discarded ap-
pliances, furniture, machinery, defective and damaged plumbing fixtures
were reported. Also, large quantities of waste materials were reported,
such as those from a gypsum producer with 50 tons of waste per day, and
a plumbing fixture manufacturer with wastes in the form of broken pottery
molds producing about 40 tons per day. Special wastes of this nature have
been excluded from the foregoing summaries of combustibles and non-
combustibles as this type of material does not present a major disposal pro-
blem !n the area, being disposed of normally in landfill developments.
d. Port Wastes
Of principal interest and application to our study of Metropolitan Wastes,
is the determination of the quantities and types of wastes produced in
the port facilities, the origin, their point of dijposal and projection of
the increasing quantities of wastes to be expected.
In 1965 a comprehensive study entitled "Wharf Refuse Collection and
Disposal" was prepared for the Board of Commissioners, Port of New
Orleans by Godat and Pepper, Consulting Engineers, New Orleans.
This study was concerned with all aspects of collection, removal, and
disposal of dunnage and other refuse accumulating in the wharf areas,
from transfer of incoming and outgoing cargo between ships and rail or
motor freight carriers. It will be noted that the scope of this study is
confined to those public facilities operated by the State and excludes
coverage of wharfage operated by private industry.
In the study, quantities of wastes were determined through evaluation of
field observations taken over a four-month period which included weigh-
ing of trucks at the Algiers incinerator enroute to the Algiers landfill and
daily collection records of the Dock Board. Wide fluctuations found in
daily quantities of wastes generated varied with, the number and frequency
of berthings, the tonnage of vessels serviced and the nature of cargo carried,
The results of this study reasonably established the quantity of wastes pro-
duced in 1965 with projections of the annual level of wastes to be expected
through the year 1985 based on increases anticipated at the rate of 5%
per annum as shown in Table V-30,
V-55
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
TABLE V-30
ESTIMATED PORT WASTES 1965 - 1985
(tons)
Year Annual Weekly *Daily
1965
1967
1970
1975
1980
1985
* 6-day week basis
6,864
7,540
8,736
11,128
14,228
18,127
132
145
168
214
274
349
22
24
28
36
46
59
It was estimated that 90% by weight of port wastes were combustible ma-
terials, consisting mostly of heavy wood scantling, timber, pallets, crates,
boxes, building paper, and waste paper. Other miscellaneous combustibles
included broken bales of produce, broken bags of coffee, grain, fertilizer,
carbon black, rope, and plastics. Non-combustibles consisted of steel
bandings, baling wire, nails, and bolts. Much of the combustible materials
were found to be large and bulky, difficult to handle for disposal, either
in a properly operated landfill or by incineration without first crushing or
pulverizing. The practice of disposal of these materials was by open burn-
ing at the Algiers landfill.
Distribution of the origin of these wastes as produced in the wharf area is
identified in the port study by wharf name and plotted by location. Orientinfl
these wharfs and the respective quantities of waste produced in 1965 to the
boundaries of the collection districts of the Sanitation Dept., as they exist
today, we find the approximate distribution of tonnage as shown In Table V~3'
TABLE V-31
DISTRIBUTION OF PORT WASTES
(Tons)
*District % 1965 **1967
Western
Central
Eastern 1
Night
20
25
25
30
1,372
1,716
1,716
2,060
1,508
1,885
1,885
2,262
TOTAL 100 6,864 7,540
* Trace percentages (not shown occurred in Algiers and Eastern II Districts
** Assumed same percentage distribution as 1965
V-56
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
e.
Demolition and Construction Wastes
1967 records show that 437 demolition permits were issued in the City.
These included 143 single family units, 152 duplex buildings, and
56 buildings of other residential classification (triplex, four pi ex,
apartments, etc.). In total, 351 buildings containing 765 living
units were demolished in 1967. The remaining 86 demolition per-
mits issued covered all other classifications of buildings. However,
small commercial buildings were most predominant in this group.
Table V-32 provides the complete listing of building types covered
by 1967 permits.
Principal waste materials resulting from demolition projects include
concrete and masonry rubble, plaster, roofing, lumber, wiring,
piping, etc. A great portion of these wastes consists of non-
combustible, hard fill materials, and of oversize wastes.
In New Orleans, as in other areas throughout the country, the sal-
vage of bricks and other materials from demolished buildings is
actively practiced to satisfy the growing demand in this market.
Several specialized demolition contractors in the City compete for
demolition projects which have large quantities of salvage material.
Discussions with the major contractors revealed that a substantial
amount of this type of material is also imported into the City from
sources out of state to satisfy the local market demand.
Combustible materials such as wood, roofing, etc., are normally
disposed of by burning at permitted locations within the City. Or-
dinarily, collection and disposal of such materials is handled by the
demolition companies, or in some cases, especially on the larger
projects, by private hauling contractors.
The general practice for disposal of non-combustible fill materials
is through private hauling by individuals in need of such material
for land development. Common practice in this area indicates that
usable fill is loaded free of charge for removal from demolition
sites. A considerable amount of this waste has gone to the outlying
V-57
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
TABLE V-32
1967 DEMOLITION PERMITS - CITY OF NEW ORLEANS
Building Type No. Bldgs. No. Living Units
Apartment Houses 11
Dormitory 1
Sororities 2
Motel 1
Single Family 143 143
Two-family 152 304
Triplex 11 33
Fourplex 16 64
Roominghouse 2 19
Theatre 3
Public Elementary School 1
Universities 2
Churches 2
Convalescent Home 1
Orphanage 1
Private Garages 2
Carport 1
Open Sheds 2
Enclosed Sheds 6
Factory 1
Machine Shop 1
Warehouses (Storage of Non-Combustibles) 23
Lumber Yard 1
Wholesale Store 1
Retail Stores over 1000 sq. ft. 13
Commercial and Residential 16 92
Restaurant T
Cocktail Lounge - Bar 1
Bar and Restaurant 1
Service Stations 5
Repair Shop over 1000 sq. ft. 1
Office Buildings 5
Small Commercial Stores under 1000 sq. ft. 7
V-58
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
areas in the northeastern section of Orleans Parish for filling marshland
areas in this section of the City.
In order to arrive at an estimate in the amount of demolition waste
produced in the City, we contacted some of the most active demo-
lition companies in the area and reviewed the demolition permits
issued by the Buildings Department in the City of New Orleans. It
is estimated that the total amount of non-combustible demolition
waste produced in the City of New Orleans in 1967 ranged between
100 and 150 tons per day, with the majority of this material being
deposited in private fills for land development purposes.
In addition to demolition wastes, activities in new construction, as
well as alterations and additions contribute a substantial quantity
of non-combustible wastes from the construction industry. In 1967
some 4,000 building permits were issued in the City of New Orleans
for new construction and alterations and additions to existing struc-
tures. It is estimated that non-combustible wastes from new con-
struction activities (materials similar to those waste materials of demo-
lition projects) ranged from 200 to 250 tons per day in the year 1967
Non-combustible wastes produced by these construction activities are
also used in landfill developments.
Although it is the practice of most building contractors to handle
disposition of their combustible wastes, large building contractors in
the area, especially those operating in the central business district
and on major projects such as hospitals, schools, etc., in the out-
lying sections, are looking more to the private hauler for the disposal
of combustible wastes.
f. Refuse Collection by Sanitation Department
As previously mentioned, the Sanitation Department collects approx-
imately 43% of the refuse generated within the City. For this
purpose, the City of New Orleans is divided into six collection
districts.
V-59
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
Data gathered in the field survey, supplemented by information ob-
tained in the collection and haul study, made it possible to deter-
mine the quantity of combustible refuse collected by the City from
each collection district, and also to determine the per capita pro-
duction in each district. This breakdown was essential in develop-
ing the collection and haul study covered later in this Report, and
is pertinent to the analysis of the refuse collection system of the
City's Sanitation Department.
In order to determine future quantities of refuse to be anticipated
from each district, population forecasts made by the Planning De-
partment were correlated to the collection districts and applied to
the per capita waste production projected to future years up to
1990.
Forecast of population in five-year intervals by collection districts
is shown in Table V-33 together with our estimate of the total tons
of combustible refuse expected from each district, based on the per
capita production. It should be noted that the quantities shown
have been adjusted to a 6-day week basis to conform to the oper-
ating schedule for both, the collection and disposal operation.
Also, the collection districts for 1975 to 1990, except for the Al-
giers and Night Districts, have been modified in accordance with
the First Stage Development Program discussed later in this Report.
g. Quantities of Refuse Delivered to Municipal Incinerators
In addition to the refuse delivered to each incinerator from the
collection district by the Sanitation Department, private haulers
account for much of the refuse from industrial, commercial, and
multi-family residential units. Also, the Port Authority disposes
of substantial quantities of refuse from shipping both into and out
of New Orleans.
A summary of the estimated quantities of waste produced from each
of these sources in each collection district from 1967 through 1990
is given in Table V-34.
V-60
-------
TABLE V-33
REFUSE COLLECTED BY SANITATION DEPARTMENT BY COLLECTION DISTRICTS - 1967 - 1990
(6-Day Week)
Collection
District
Central
Western
Eastern 1
Eastern II
Algiers
Night
Total
Population
Weiahted
Average
Lbs/Capita
TOTAL
Tons/Day
1967
Population
152,760
162,440
142,660
106,490
5C.160
42.680
687,190
Lbs.
Cap.
Day
1.92
2.73
2.82
2.69
2.15
3.19
2.52
Tons
Per
Day
176
222
202
143
54
63
865
1970
Population
184,060
164,440
144,100
120,600
57,000
43,300
713,500
Ihs.
Cap.
Day
1.96
2.79
2.88
2.75
2.20
3.20
2.56
Tons
Per
Day
180
228
208
165
63
69
913
1975
Population
225,250
124,750
194,740
105,000
68, 000
45,260
763, 000
Lbs.
Cap.
Day
2.00
2.98
3.07
2.94
2.35
3.30
2.66
Tons
Per
Day
225
186
299
155
80
75
1,020
1980
Population
229, 000
127,750
203,000
1 36, 000
79, 000
47, 250
822, 000
Lbs.
Cap.
Day
2,10
3.18
3.27
3.14
2.50
3.40
2.85
Tons
Per
Day
240
203
332
214
100
81
1,170
1985
Population
231,750
129,750
210,750
168,000
90, 000
49, 750
880, 000
Lbs.
Cap.
Day
2.28
3.46
3.55
3.41
2.72
3.70
3.10
Tons
Per
Day
264
224
374
286
123
92
1,363
1990
Population
234,750
132,750
212,250
195,500
110,000
51,750
937, 000
Lbs.
Cap.
Day
2.47
3.78
3.84
3.68
2.94
4.00
3.36
Tons
Per
Day
290
251
407
360
162
104
1,574
NOTES: 1 . Population estimates for 1970, based on revised collection districts, (Figure v'-S).
2. Population estimates for 1975 to 1990, based on future collection districts of the
First Stage Development Program with Florida Avenue, Seventh Street and Algiers
Incinerators enlarged and in service. (Figure V-14).
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
TABLE V-34
SUMMARY OF REFUSE PRODUCED IN EACH DISTRICT
(6- Day Week)
Algiers:
Municipal
Comm. & Ind.
Port
Total Algiers Incinerator
Central:
Night:
Municipal
Comm. & Ind.
Port
Municipal
Comm. & Ind.
Port
Total Seventh Street Incinerator
Western:
Total St.
Eastern 1:
Municipal
Comm. & Ind.
Port
Louis Incinerator
Municipal
Comm. & Ind.
Port
Total Florida Avenue Incinerator
Eastern II
: Municipal
Comm. & Ind.
Port
1967
54
60
-
114
176
144
6
68
56
7
457
222
118
5
345
202
130
6
338
143
95
-
1970
63
70
-
133
180
147
7
69
56
8
467
228
120
6
354
208
133
7
348
165
105
-
1975
80
92
- .
172
225
190
9
75
61
10
570
186
122
7
315
299
184
9
492
155
110
-
1980
100
110
-
210
240
197
11
81
68
13
610
203
130
9
342
332
200
11
543
214
150
-
1985
123
139
-
262
264
213
14
92
75
17
675
224
142
12
378
374
227
14
615
286
204
—
1990
162
184
—
346
290
228
17
104
80
20
739^
251
1 CO
152
15
418
407
n A C
245
17
669
^
360
1CK
255
_
Total N.O. East Incinerator
238 270 265 364 490 615
V-62
-------
Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
C. Analysis of Refuse Collection System
1. General
In order to properly evaluate the present system, it was necessary that we study the
pick up and haul aspects of the refuse collection operations of the parish and thus,
determine what modifications of the collection districts would be required to pro-
vide an effective system under present and future conditions.
2. Haul Study
The analysis comprises a comparison of the system under present operating condi-
tions and that resulting from the addition of the New Orleans East Incinerator and
the rehabilitation of the St. Louis Incinerator. The former is, at this writing, un-
dergoing final tests and should be in operation shortly. The unit at St. Louis is
expected to be in service within a year. Therefore, the present system consisting
of three incinerators and two dumps, plus a transfer station at St. Louis, will be
operating in the near future with all five incinerators in service. The dumps will
be confined to absorbing non-combustibles from all sources and residue material
from the incinerators.
The study is limited to the operations of the Sanitation Department and does not
include private or other municipally collected refuse.
The existing collection districts were modified with respect to the five incinerators
in operation on the basis of reducing, as much as it was possible to do so, the
haul distance and time of the vehicles and of confining the service area of each
incinerator to a collection district, except for the Central and Night Districts
which will continue to share the Seventh Street Incinerator as they are presently
doing. The general layout of the proposed system is shown in Figure V-8 (back-
cover) and a detailed description is covered later in this section.
The Data Processing Department of the City provided valuable assistance in the
evaluation of the large amount of information gathered in the survey. Data ob-
tained in the field were adjusted to computer input form and a special program
developed to carry out the necessary calculations of the study.
It was evident from the start that the five incinerators are excellently located with
respect to the quantity of refuse production and the haul distances within their re-
spective service areas.
V-63
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
The analysis of collection and haul operations was developed from actual field
records collected with the cooperation of Sanitation Department personnel, from
each truck route in each district. The total number of hours and mileage of col-
lection and haul, as well as the tonnage collected, number of trips, etc., were
recorded and evaluated. We were then able to calculate the average travel speed
of the vehicles and the min jtes-per-ton of collection for each truck route and for
every collection day. The haul distances were then adjusted to the proposed col*
lection districts with the five incinerators in operation. In the process of analys'5'
the total number of working hours and the travel speed of the vehicle were kept
the same. In the latter case the only exception was in the evaluation of the re-
vised Eastern II District where the Mon-Wed-Fri routes were assigned an average
haul speed of 15 1/2 mph, to and from the New Orleans East Incinerator which 's
easily accessible through U.S. 90 most of the way. As would be expected, these
routes recorded lower speeds when delivering to the Florida Avenue Incinerator
due to the more congested area of travel.
It should be noted that the collection crews do not work any specified number of
hours and perform their task as long as required to cover their respective areas,
thus the actual number of working hours vary from day to day and from route to
route. It was necessary, therefore, that in the process of analysis the total work"
ing hours recorded in each case be maintained constant when applied to the neW
conditions. Similarly, the calculated minutes-per-ton of collection was applied
throughout, for each case.
It follows that the savings to be realized will be reflected in the reduction in
haul time. It was found, for instance, that under present conditions the pick up
crews average approximately 28% of the total working hours in hauling refuse
and the remainder in collection. With the revised collection district, the haul
time is reduced to 19% which, expressed in terms of haul cost, represents a de-
crease from $721, 000 to approximately $490, 000, or a savings of $231, 000 per
year, based on 1967 cost data. These savings can only be realized if any time
available, as the result of the reduction in haul time, were applied to col lectio11'
By so doing, we find that the present collection crew could pick up an addition0'
93 tons of refuse per day within the same working hours. Since this additional
tonnage represents an amount greater than that produced during the survey, it
necessary that the data be further reduced in terms of number of trucks required
to serve each area and thus determine what reduction in the number of trucks
would be obtained in each district. For this, it was necessary that the load per
truck, per trip be maintained at, or less than the capacity of the vehicles, so
in some instances additional trips were required. The corresponding increase i°
haul time for such cases were included in the analysis.
V-64
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
The data gathered In the survey together with the result of calculations and
projection to future operating conditions, that is, all five incinerators in oper-
ation under a revised collection layout, appear in Tables A-8 through A-37 In
Appendix II, together with a detailed explanation of Data Processing application.
Results of the data compiled and calculated are summarized in Table V-35,
which shows a total savings of ten trucks in the number of vehicles required
to serve the present areas by the same crew and within the same working hours.
It should be noted that the Algiers and Night Districts remain at eight truck
routes each, since normal conditions do not affect these districts, which will
continue operating as presently.
Attention is directed to the fact that the analysis is confined to conditions
presently existing when applied to a revised collection system that can be
best served by the five incinerators. While future conditions will change as
the City continues to grow, the survey provides valuable information on which
realistic projections and estimates can be made.
TABLE V-35
SUMMARY OF COLLECTION AND HAUL STUDY
(Trucks/Day)
District
1 . Central
2. Western
3. Eastern 1
4. Eastern II
5. Algiers
6. Night
TOTAL
Number of Trucks Required - Five Incinerators in Service
Man.
20.5
25.5
17.5
21.3
8.0
8.0
100.8
Tues.
22.0
24.7
21.9
19.8
8.0
8.0
104.4
Wed.
20.0
21.2
20.6
23.2
B.O
8.0
101.0
Thur.
22.0
23.8
18.0
19.5
e.o
8.0
99.3
Fri.
20.5
21.7
17.5
21.9
8.0
8.0
97.6
Sat.
22.0
21.7
21.9
21.3
8.0
8.0
102.9
Total
127.0
138.6
117.4
127.0
48.0
48.0
606.0
Adjusted
Average
21
23
20
21
8
8
101
No. of Trucks
Presently
In Use
22
28
22
23
8
8
111
Savings
(Trucks/Day)
1
5
2
2
0
0
10
V-65
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
3. Revised Collection Districts to Serve Present Incinerators (1968)
The collection districts were modified and the disposal point of several truck
routes rearranged in order to reduce haul distance and time and provide a more
efficient and economical system within the limits of incinerator capacity. It
would have been possible to maintain the districts as at present by confining
the proposed changes to points of disposal for the truck routes only. This
approach would have been impractical under the present operating scheme of
the Sanitation Department, because trucks assigned to the same districts would
unload at different locations and operate from different garages.
It has been the practice of the department to maintain the collection districts as
separate units, each with its own vehicles and supervisory personnel operating
from the same garage and unloading generally at the same incinerator or dump.
We believe this method of operation to be sound and practical and the proposed
changes in collection districts and truck routes maintains the present operating
set up.
With the New Orleans East and the St. Louis incinerators in service, the
logical distribution of the five-incinerator service areas is as follows:
District Incinerator
Central Seventh Street
Western St. Louis
Eastern I Florida Avenue
Eastern II New Orleans East
Algiers Algiers
Night Seventh Street
The layout of the revised district is shown in Figure V-8 (backcover). It may be
seen that the district boundaries, except for the Algiers and Night Districts which
V*66
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
remain the same, have been adjusted by interchanging several truck routes from
one district to another, but maintaining the boundaries of the present truck routes.
Specifically, the modifications are as follows:
a. Central District
Increases from the present 22 to 26 truck routes, by relinquishing
Routes No. 13 through 22 (Monday-Wednesday-Friday) to the West-
ern District and picking up Routes No. 1 through 14, also 19> 21,
25, and 27 (Tuesday-Thursday-Saturday) from Western. In summary,
it exchanges with the Western District, losing five and gaining nine
truck routes, for a net gain of four.
b. Western District
The number of truck routes remains at 28, but they are rearranged. In
the exchange with the Central District, as explained above, it loses
four routes, but gains four from Eastern I, as follows: Routes 1, 2,
4, and 7 (Monday-Wednesday-Friday) and Routes 1, 3, 7, and 8
(Tuesday-Thursday-Saturday).
c. Eastern I
The number of truck routes is increased from the present 22 to 23 by
relinquishing four to Western District as explained above, and picking
up five from Eastern II as follows: Routes No, 8 through 12 (Monday-
Wednesday-Friday) and Routes No. 7 through 10 and 12 (Tuesday-
Thursday-Saturday).
d. Eastern II
The number of truck routes is reduced from the present 23 to 18, by
losing five routes to Eastern I as explained above.
V-67
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
The aforementioned changes appear in Figures V-9 to V-12 which show the indi-
vidual truck routes for each revised district and Table V-36 summarizes the ex-
change of truck routes among the collection districts. By applying the results of
the haul study to the particular routes involved, we determined the number of
trucks required in the revised collection districts. These appear in the same Table
which shows the distribution of the total savings in number of trucks among the
different districts.
TABLE V-36
PRESENT AND ADJUSTED NUMBER OF TRUCK ROUTES
REQUIRED BY DISTRICTS 1967 - 1968
(Trucks/Day)
DISTRICT
1. Central
2. Western
3. Eastern 1
4. Eastern II
5. Algiers
6. Night
TOTAL
Present
Operation
22
28
22
23
8
8
111
Recommended
Reassignment
+4
—
+1
-5
—
—
0
REVISED DISTRICTS
(Five Incinerators in. Service)
. Adjusted
26
28
23
18
8
8
111
Required
24
24
20
17
8
8
101
Savings
2
4
3
1
0
0
10
A breakdown of the specific truck routes assigned to each revised collection dis-
trict is shown in the tables included with the above Figures. In these tables, each
route is identified as to its number, day of collection, and the districts to which
they are presently assigned. Also, the calculated number of trucks required for each
route is shown.
In order to implement the reduction in truck routes, only those routes requiring less,
or more, than one truck to serve their respective areas should be affected. The redoc*
tion may then be accomplished by combining portions of certain adjacent routes ac-
cording to the tabulated values computed for each, and to the special characteristics
of the area as determined by field investigation. This subject is covered further in
the Summary at the end of this section. For more clarification as to the specific truck
routes involved, they have been noted in Figures V-9 to V-12, where, in addition,
all routes in each district are clearly identified.
V-68
-------
MON - WED - FRI COLLECTION
Present Operation
Route
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
g
9
10
1 1
12
4
5
6
10
11
14
15
16
17
20
21
22
Day
MWF
,<
,,
„
i,
„
„
,,
ii
ii
..
ii
n
"
..
n
.i
.i
.i
..
District
Central
n
..
n
..
,i
i,
,;
,,
n
n
n
..
..
n
||
ii
..
..
ii
"
ii
n
TOTAL
No..
Trucks
Req'd.
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
24.00
TUBS - THURS - SAT COLLECTION
Present Operation
Route
No.
1
2
3
7
8
9
12
13
18
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
19
21
25
27
Day
TTS
1
n
"
i'
"
"
||
"
||
"
"
11
»
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
11
"
"
"
11
District
Central
11
••
n
11
"
11
11
11
Western
11
"
i'
"
"
11
"
"
11
"
11
"
"
11
"
11
"
No.
Trucks
Req'd.
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
.89
.77
.70
.79
.75
.75
.75
.84
.68
.79
.87
.82
.77
.79
.86
.81
.86
.87
24.36
Average
Use
24.18
24.00
I
i
REVISED CENTRAL. DISTRICT
LEGEND
Tlh STREET INCINERATOR
BOUNDARIES-
•naW.^^' COI-1-ECTION DISTRICTS
REVISED COLJ-ECTION
•• ' •• DAY OROUP
PRESENT
"^^^^' DAY 0»0
TRUCK ROUTES
NOTES: 1 . Truck routes ore identified by present truck-route numbers.
2. Truck-route numbers shown inside o circle indicate Tues - Thurs - Sat routes
re-assigned from Wesiern District
FIG.
Page
-------
I_AKF PONTCHARTRAIN
JEFFCMON PARIS
NOTES:
1. Truck routes are identified by present
truck-route numbers.
2. Truck routes re-assigned from other
districts are shown as follows:
Q Re-assigned from MWF of Central District
Q " " " Eastern I
" TTS
3OOO | OOO
SCALE IN FEET
MON- WED- FRI COLLECTION
Present Operotion
toutf
No.
1
2
c
7
g
9
0
^
16
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
28
16
TOTAL
Doy
MV, I
TTS
DMrid
No.
Trurki
Req'd
83
84
7;
.76
.B5
86
.89
.65
67
82
75
.80
80
.86
70
oB
.84
.90
79
.83
.83
85
87
91
.80
.84
.81
88
23.71
TUES - THURS - SAT COLLECTION
Present Operation
Route
No.
15
17
18
20
?2
23
24
26
28
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
2
4
7
1
3
7
8
Day
TTS
MWT
11
TTS
District
Western
"
11
Central
fastem 1
No
Trucks
Ruq'd.
.93
1 .00
91
.92
.81
87
.91
91
.90
1.00
.85
83
.78
.80
.87
.78
69
94
.80
.75
87
.74
1.03
98
.96
1 . 00
.93
23.76
23.74
24.00
ISSI3SIPP1 RIVER
REVISED WESTERN DISTRICT
LEGEND
ST L.OUIS INCINERATOR
BOUNDARIES •
^^i^-*T^^ COL.L.ECTION DISTRICTS
^ I • | ^ REVISED COL.L.ECTION DAV OROUP
^^'VK'Vk^ PRESENT COLLECTION DAV OROUP
TRUCK ROUTES
CENTRAU DISTRICT
FJe. V-10
Page V-70
-------
MON - WED - FRI COLLECTION
Present Operation
Route
No.
0
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
8
9
10
11
12
12
Day
MWF
ii
"
"
"
"
"
ii
"
ii
||
ii
||
||
||
ii
"
||
"
"
"
District
Eastern 1
•i
||
||
"
||
||
||
"
ii
||
||
||
"
"
"
Eastern II
||
||
"
"
TOTAL
No.
Trucks
Req'd
.86
.81
.82
.70
.77
.98
.81
.77
.72
.91
1.00
.74
1.00
.96
.81
.84
.85
.75
.90
.65
1.01
.66
.89
1.00
20.21
TUES - THURS - SAT COLLECTION
Present Operation
Route
No.
2
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
7
8
9
10
Day
TTS
1
|'
11
||
"
"
||
"
11
"
"
"
"
1
11
"
||
"
"
District
Eastern 1
"
"
n
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
11
"
11
"
"
"
"
Eastern II
11
"
"
No.
Trucks
Req'd.
.92
.93
.92
.86
.91
1.00
.92
.90
.97
.89
1 .01
.91
.90
.99
.96
1.00
.90
.88
.92
.81
.82
.86
20.18
Average
Use
20.19
20.00
NOTES: 1. Truck routes are identified by present truck-route numbers.
2. Truck routes re-assigned from other districts are shown as follows:
Q Re-assigned from MWF of Eastern II District
" TTS
MON.. WED., » FRI.
REVISED EASTERN I DISTRICT
LEGEND
•| FLORIDA AVENUE INCINERATOR
BOUNDARIES:
B^^^T^r^ COLLECTION DISTRICTS
REVISED O PRESENT
COLLECTION DAY OROUP
TRUCK ROUTES
3OOO I BOO
CALE IN FEET
FIG. V-ll
Page V-71
-------
NOTE: Truck routes are identified by present truck-route numbers.
MON - ME) - Fftl COLLECTION
l»r.»nl Optiulia"
tout*
He,
1
1
]
;
°"
wwr
EOIT«M. II
TUIAI
Truck >
»*
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
4. Savings in Haul Costs
In order to arrive at the dollar savings that would result from the adjusted refuse
collection system, cost data obtained from the Sanitation Department were reduced
to cost per truck per year.
The cost figures include payroll, operating and maintenance expenses, fringe ben-
efits, and other miscellaneous expenditures covering the cost of operating the
vehicles. As would be expected, with generally rising prices the cost is increasing
yearly as shown by Table V-37 which covers expenditures of the last three years.
TABLE V-37
ANNUAL COST OF COLLECTION TRUCKS
(Cost Per Truck)
1965 1966 1967
1. No. of Trucks Route 125 125 111
2. Payroll (Incl. Social &
Fringe Benefits $12,806 $14,474 $17,226
3. Insurance & Licenses 220 220 250
4. Operating & Maintenance 3,300 3,640 4,270
5. Capital Cost (Estimated) 1,250 1,250 1,250
Total Cost (Trucks/Year) $17,576 $19,584 $22,996
A savings of ten trucks will, therefore, amount to approximately $230, 000 per
year, based on 1967 prices. This figure compares favorably with the annual savings
of $231,000 in haul cost previously described which savings was based strictly on
the reduction in haul time.
5. Future Collection Districts for First Stage Development
As previously mentioned, we were able to verify in the process of the haul study,
the excellent location of the present incinerators with respect to their service areas.
The revised collection layout to be implemented as soon as the incinerator at St.
Louis is put in service, was based on the present capacities of the various inciner-
ators and their ability to handle the refuse produced in their tributary areas.
V-73
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
By increasing the capacities of the Florida Avenue and the Seventh Street inciner-
ators, it would be possible to further improve the collection system to meet the fu-
ture requirements of the City. Whereas the revised collection districts to be served
by the present incinerators were limited by the capacities of these units, it is
obvious that the larger plants at Florida Avenue and Seventh Street provide more
flexibility in adjusting the boundaries of the service areas. These incinerators are
located within relatively short distances from the source of most intense refuse pro-
duction so that their service areas may be increased in relation to the larger incin-
erator capacities, and thus achieve additional savings in the cost of refuse collec-
tion and disposal.
Following the above criteria, we have further revised the collection districts served
by the two incinerators. These are shown in Figure V- 13 (backcover) where it may
be noted that the Eastern I and Central Districts have been enlarged considerably by
taking in areas from the adjacent Eastern II and Western Districts. The Night and
Algiers District will remain within their present boundaries. In order to properly
evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed system, it was necessary that we project
the population growth of the revised districts and estimate the quantities of refuse
production in each.
Based on the result of the haul study, we were able to estimate the savings that
would result by implementing the changes recommended herein at approximately
$50,000 per year in haul cost (1967 prices) when both of these incinerators are
enlarged and placed into operation (1973). The major savings will be obtained
by assigning all of the Mon-Wed-Fri routes from Eastern II District to the Florida
Avenue incinerator instead of New Orleans East. In addition, the new system
will relieve the load from the St. Louis and New Orleans East incinerators which
will be too small to serve their present service areas by 1975.
The distribution of the load among the incinerators under the proposed layout from
1975 to 1990 is shown in Table V-45 (page V-112). We estimate that the recom-
mended districting will be adequate at least until 1980 when the entire system
will have to be re-evaluated.
6. Future Requirements in Number of Trucks
We have previously established in Table V-33 (page V-61) the projected amount
of refuse, by districts, to be collected by the City forces in future years. Based
on these estimates and on the average tonnage picked up by the vehicles per day
in each district so as to maintain the work load of the crews about the same as
presently, we calculated the number of truck routes that will be required in the
future.
V-74
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
The result of our calculations are presented graphically in Figures V-14 V-15 and
\/- 1 6 covering a period from the present to 1985. A summary of the estimated
number of truck routes required by districts in a five-year interval is shown in Table
V-38.
TABLE V- 38
ESTIMATE OF FUTURE REQUIREMENT-TRUCK ROUTES PER DAY
1985
1. Central 24 24 25 31 33 36
2. Western 24 25 25 20 22 24
3. Eastern I 20 21 21 30 33 37
4. Eastern II 17 19 20 19 26 34
5. Algiers 8 9 9 12 15 18
6. Night __8 __8 8_ 9_ 10 11
Total 101 106 108 121 139 160
*From 1975 on, based on districts for First Stage Development with Florida
Avenue and Seventh Street Incinerators enlarged and in service. (Refer to
Map V-14, backcover).
The rapid increase in the number of truck routes in the Algiers and Eastern II Dis-
tricts is reflected by the greater rate of growth anticipated by the City Planning
Department for these areas.
The above figures are estimates based on the best information available. The actual
number of routes required in the future will vary according to operating conditions
then existing which will require a re-evaluation of the system every few years. Also,
some of the districts may be reduced in size once it becomes apparent that they are
too large to function effectively.
V-75
-------
NIGHT DISTRICT
Truck Routes
Required
60
1965
EASTERN I DISTRICT
350 -
300 -
250
200
150
Truck Routes
Required
cue
-Effect of Redistricting
to increasing capacity
Florida Avenue 8> Seventh
Street Incinerators
Truck Routes
Required
40
o
-
35
30
25
20
965
1970
1975
YEAR
1980
1985
FUTURE NUMBER OF TRUCK ROUTES
NIGHT AND EASTERN I DISTRICTS
FIG. V-W
V-76
-------
CENTRAL DISTRICT
1865
1970
1975
YEAR
1980
1985
EASTERN II DISTRICT
3001—
250
200
150
100
35
965
Routes
Required
Truck Routes
Required
-
Effect of Redistricting due
to increasing capacity of
Florida Avenue & Sevtenth
Street Incinerators
I
1970
1975
YEAR
1980
1985
FUTURE NUMBER OF TRUCK ROUTES
CENTRAL. AND EASTERN U DISTRICTS
30
25
X
-20
15
FIG. V-l$
-------
WESTERN DISTRICT
250
225
x
o
Q
„ 200
c
175
150
Mruck Routes
Required
Effect of Redisfricti ng
due to increasing ca-
pacity of Flfxida Ave-
nue & Seventh Street
Incinerators
1965
1970
1975
YEAR
1980
1985
-,30
25
20
15
10
ALGIERS DISTRICT
Truck Routes
Required
1965
1970
1975
YEAR
1980
1985
FUTURE NUMBER OF TRUCK ROUTES
WESTERN AND ALGIERS DISTRICTS
FIG. V-16
V-7K
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
Collection Service to Fringe Areas
The greatest area of future development within the city limits is expected in the
Eastern II collection district where the City is rapidly extending into the presently
undeveloped lands along the southern shore of Lake Pontchartrain. At present,
development in the Chef Menteur-Rigolets area is largely limited to fishing camps,
which for the most part are occupied on a seasonal basis. The Sanitation Depart-
ment has estimated that about 1500 of these camps exist in this area for which no
refuse collection service is presently provided even though they are located within
the city limits. For the most part these camps are along the highways and border
the lake, canals, or bayous. These properties pay city taxes and are entitled to
city services, including the collection of refuse, however, there has been no strong
demand on the part of the owners for such services due to the periodic and tempor-
ary nature of occupancy of these camps and to the convenience of disposing of their
refuse on their property or in the nearest waterway. It would appear that until such
time as refuse disposal becomes a problem to the residents of the area and a concer-
ted demand for service is made, that there should be no special effort to provide
such service. When collection service is initiated based on the demand of the res-
idents, it should be limited only to such residents who meet the requirements, as to
placing standard containers alongside of the road for easy access to the collection
vehicles. It is our opinion that initially one collection vehicle and crew should
adequately meet the requirements of the area on a one or two collections per week
frequency, with additional vehicles and crews provided as the area develops.
A second district of anticipated growth is the lower coast Algiers area. When the
demand for collection service is made in this area one of the present truck routes
can be extended to provide the necessary service initially, and be later served by
a route specifically assigned to that area.
8. Summary of Analysis of Collection System
In this section we have analyzed the refuse collection system with particular em-
phasis on the time required to haul refuse from each collection district to the pre-
sent point of disposal and have calculated the savings in haul time which would be
affected by readjusting the districts to take full advantage of the use of the five
incinerators. These studies have shown that the savings in haul time required to
V-79
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
transport refuse from the collection district to the disposal area would possibly per-
mit reducing the number of collection vehicles by ten as shown in Table V-25. It
must be pointed out that these studies are based on field surveys carried out in Nov-
ember and December of 1967 and reflect conditions prevailing at that time.
In Table V-38 we have shown the increase in number of truck routes required in each
of the collection districts between the present and 1985. This increase is based on
the anticipated growth of the New Orleans area as determined by the City Planning
Department. It will be noted that the 101 truck routes required based on our calcul'
ations for conditions prevailing at the end of 1967 will increase to 106 by 1969.
Since it is expected that the St. Louis Incinerator should be placed in service prior
to implementing the modifications of the collection districts as recommended hereifV
should this plant not be placed in operation until 1969 as now appears likely, then
a total of 106 truck routes will be required (1969) amounting to a savings of five
routes from the present 111.
The reduction in the number of truck routes as outlined herein should be implement6
based on careful field verification by the Superintendent of the Sanitation Depart-
ment in close cooperation with his District Supervisors and Section Foremen of the
areas involved. Since these changes are affected by various factors, such as tonnes
collected, distance, time, size and characteristics of the areas, as well as crew .
characteristics, it is recommended that the reduction in truck routes be accompli5"6
gradually and by collection districts.
D. Discussion of Existing Disposal Facilities
1. General
The City at present has five incinerators and two landfill operations which to-
gether with a landfill operated by the New Orleans Disposal Company receive
most of the waste generated within its limits. The location of each of these
facilities is shown on Figure 1-1 (backcover).
At present the Florida Avenue, Seventh Street, and Algiers incinerators are i11
regular operation on a six-day, 24-hour schedule. The St. Louis incinerator,
V-80
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
which was rebuilt in 1966, has not yet been placed in regular operation pending
the correction of operational difficulties. The New Orleans East Incinerator
has just been completed and its performance is being tested prior to placing it in
operation. Each of these incinerators is well located with respect to the area
served and will provide for the disposal of the solid waste generated within the
City within a reasonable haul distance.
Since two of the five incinerators are not now operating, the landfills are re-
ceiving considerable quantities of municipal waste as well as a large part of
the commercial and industrial waste from the area. The Gentilly landfill is
the largest and is located close to the New Orleans East incinerator. Fill
is being placed to a compacted depth of about six feet. Burning is not practiced
at this location nor is there a regular program for placing cover material. The
Algiers landfill is located on the Westbank near the City Limits in an undeveloped
area and here open burning is practiced as a means of reducing the volume of the
refuse.
2. Evaluation of Present Landfills
All three of the landfills being operated in Orleans Parish are on low ground
either covered with water or subject to frequent flooding where leachates from
the landfills can cause contamination of the streams and bayous with the pos-
sible hazards to the ecology of the waters as discussed in Chapter IV.
While efforts are made to control burning at the Gentilly dump, fires are
not uncommon and large areas of refuse are uncovered for extended periods.
Burning is regularly practiced at both the Algiers Dump and at the one
operated by the New Orleans Disposal Company.
Little cover material is provided at any of the dumps other -than may be
needed to provide access to the dumping area. All three of these land-
fill operations must be considered as unsanitary contributing to both air and
water pollution and to the breeding of insects and vermin with the always
present hazard of spread of disease to the citizens of the area as history
has previously demonstrated.
V-81
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
Until such time as adequate incinerator capacity is available, open dumps should
be converted to sanitary landfills within properly diked and drained areas with
proper and adequate cover material provided as discussed in Chapter IV. Since
both the Gentilly and Algiers landfills are on leased property, it would be neces-
sary for the City to acquire a suitable site in order to invest the capital required
to construct the dikes and other improvements needed before filling could be
undertaken. After filling, the area could be used for park purposes.
3. Evaluation of Present Incinerators
As a part of our study we engaged the services of Abraham Michaels, P. E.,
Incinerator Consultant, to inspect and evaluate each of the following existing
incinerators:
Seventh Street Incinerator - constructed in 1959 at a cost of $1,112,960.67 -
nominally rated at 400 tons per day.
Florida Avenue Incinerator - constructed in 1957 at a cost of $727,979.14 -
nominally rated at 400 tons per day.
Algiers Incinerator - constructed in 1962 at a cost of $933,214.28 -
nominally rated at 200 tons per day.
St. Louis Street Incinerator - completely renovated during 1966 and 1967
at a cost of $1,097,813.49 - nominally rated at 450 tons per day - not
yet accepted by the City.
New Orleans East Incinerator - constructed in 1967 at a cost of $2,353,387.23
start-up and tests scheduled for early 1968 - nominally rated at 400 tons pe
The report covering this work, including general comments on factors affecting
the design and operation of incinerators, has been incorporated in its entirety in
the following text:
A detailed description, review of operations, and evaluation of each plant is in-
cluded in this report. However, a brief statement describing the character of
the design criteria for incinerators, and the recent changes of both is offered to
assist in understanding the evaluation of the various incinerators.
V-82
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
On a nationwide basis, the quantity and character of refuse continues to change
due to changes in production, packaging, and distribution of consumer goods
and the growing affluence and wastefulness of our society. In 1966, the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences - National Research Council reported "... the
average per capita refuse production - those solid .wastes ordinarily subject
to routine collection - increased from 2.75 Ibs. per day in 1920 to 4.5 Ibs.
per day in 1965. At present, the per capita rate of refuse production is in-
creasing at a rate of 2 per cent a year. . ."
The character of refuse in New Orleans is somewhat different from "average"
refuse in the United States because of weather conditions. The warm, humid
weather with above average rainfall, approximately 63" per year compared
with a national average between 35" and 40" per year, generates a refuse
with more fresh food wastes, grass clippings and shrub and tree trimmings,than
the average. However, the increased quantity of paper and plastics from
packaging changes is also affecting New Orleans refuse, and today's refuse is
probably less moist and contains a higher heat value than New Orleans refuse
of the past several decades.
Moisture content and heat value are important factors affecting the designs of
new incinerators and the capacities of existing plants. As these factors vary,
the need for axuiliary fuel and the grate size and combustion space require-
ments vary. Plants designed for the heat value of refuse several years ago may
not be capable of incinerating the original design quantities of today's refuse.
This factor must be recognized when evaluating existing facilities.
Other criteria used to evaluate incinerator plants are the quality of discharges
from the plant, which include furnace residue, gaseous emissions, and waste
water, plant maintenance experience, and plant appearance including odors and
nuisance attraction.
Several of the New Orleans incinerator contract specifications indicated that
the furnaces were to be constructed to accommodate refuse with a high heat
value of 5,000 BTU's per pound and, at the other extreme, a refuse with so
much moisture that there would not be sufficient heat available to evaporate
all the moisture. This is generally refuse with heat value under 3,000 BTU's
per pound. In all instances, gas burners were provided to supply the heat re-
quired to evaporate the excess moisture. The two extreme conditions noted
V-83
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
appear reasonable for today's New Orleans refuse, and, although these values
may not have been used for all plants, it is reasonable to use them for the pres-
ent evaluation.
4. Operations Review and Evaluation
The standard incinerator operating schedule for New Orleans consists of a
four-shift day, six-day work week with ten legal holidays per year. This results
in a 303-day work year on a regular pay basis. Operations are also continued
on an overtime pay basis on all holidays with the exception of Christmas. In-
cinerator shifts operate on a 12-6-12-6 schedule, and employees work a 6-
hour-40 minute work day, six days per week. Twenty minutes is allowed at the
start and end of each shift for washing and change of clothing. The plants
start operation at 6:00 a.m. on Monday mornings. The first two or three
hours are spent cleaning, lubricating, and maintaining equipment, furnaces,
cranes, etc. Burning actually starts around 8:00 a.m. or shortly thereafter.
The schedulle is well conceived since it provides a 40-hour work week and co-
incides with the six-day refuse collection operation.
It is common practice in New Orleans to permit refuse storage pits to hold ref-
use for abnormally long periods of time. Plant operators report that the pits
are seldom cleaned even once a year. As a result, refuse tends to decompose
while in the pit, which generally creates odor and other nuisance problems.
Although there was no evidence of serious odor problems at the time of inspec-
tion, the pits contained many flies and birds. Another undesirable feature
of this method of operation is that it reduces the amount of space available in
the storage pit for normal daily operations. Consequently, if a breakdown
occurs in the plant, thereby reducing or eliminating furnace capacity, or if
unusually high collection quantities or collection vehicle breakdowns result
in above normal deliveries to the plant, the pit storage space, being reduced by
the held-over refuse is less likely to be adequate for the extra load. This practice
also requires additional stockpiling or re-casting of refuse to provide dumping
space for incoming refuse and increases the unloading time for collection vehicles.
Since water level storage capacities of all the pits average better than a full
day's operating capacity, the smallest being approximately one day's ca-
pacity, it is recommended that storage pit operations be changed to provide
for pit cleanouts at least once every two weeks. This can easily be
V-84
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
accomplished by scheduling deliveries to plants and landfills each day based upon
the quantities of refuse stored in the pits.
The residue coming from the three plants in operation at the time of the inspection
was all of poor quality and would not be considered acceptable for disposal with-
out daily cover with clean earth. Large amounts of unburned paper, food waste,
and other materials were observed. This condition will be analyzed in the detailed
evaluation of each plant. It is noted that the residue quality from the renovated
St. Louis incinerator was reported as excellent by the City operator.
Plant operators complained about the lack of availability of incinerator residue ve-
hicles and the problems encountered with this equipment. This is a common problem
with municipalities and generally occurs when the incinerator residue truck is con-
sidered as one which is subject to the same type of service as other sanitation ve-
hicles. Sanitation service is more severe than most any other service on vehicles
because of the nature of the sanitation operation and the type of materials handled.
The service of incinerator residue vehicles is the most severe service of any sani-
tation vehicles because, as is true in New Orleans, the vehicles are used 24 hours
per day and they carry material which is extremely abrasive and often corrosive.
The truck loading area at the incinerator is usually one with severe dust and moisture
problems seriously affecting the combustion air supply to the motor and the residue
truck body. This service is further affected by the fact that these vehicles operate
at landfill dumps at all hours of the day or night, which subjects them to poor riding
conditions, often without adequate light. Incinerator operating costs are generally
substantial and when plants are unable to operate as a result of lack of residue ve-
hicles, the lost time in operation reflects in even higher operating costs. For these
reasons, it is essential that properly designed trucks be used, that ample stand-by
trucks be made available, i.e., a good stand-by number would be 100% of the
operating number, and that these vehicles be replaced as often as once every two
years.
Since the City of New Orleans does not have air pollution limits for incinerators,
there haven't been any stack emission tests performed. Therefore, the air pollution
evaluation will be based upon the efficiency of various types of incinerator control
equipment as described in a recent U.S. Public Health Study prepared for the
District of Columbia, and contained in a report entitled "Air Pollution Study of
Municipal Incinerator Effluent Gases" dated February 1967. The equipment and
efficiencies listed in the report are shown in Table V-39.
"V-85
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
TABLE V-39
TYPES OF CONTROL EQUIPMENT
Electrostatic
Precipitator
Baghouse Filter
Comparative
Space Efficiency
100%
110%
90-99%
99%
Basic Limitations
1. Does not remove soluble
gases.
2. No installation working
in U.S. municipal incin-
erators .
3. Efficiency low on large
particles.
Scrubber
(Flooded Plate)
33%
90-99% 1 .
2.
Possible mist emitting
from stack.
Clarification and neutra-
3.
lization of wash water
required.
High water usage.
Mechanical
Cyclone
(60" Tangential) 33%
75-90% 1 . Low efficiency on small
particles.
2. Erosion from abrasive
fly ash.
1. Multitude of variables
to be control led coupled
with the complexity of
the effluent stream.
Settling Chamber
67%
40-60%
1. Low efficiency.
V-86
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
[view Orleans, La, - 15 May 1968
5. Seventh Street Incinerator
The Seventh Street Incinerator, constructed in 1959, is a two-furnace batch feed
installation with combustion chambers, flues, and two 8'-0"xl25' high chimneys,
one for each furnace, to provide furnace draft and disperse the stack gases. Two
fouMon, 2 1/2 cubic yard overhead traveling cranes are used to feed refuse from
the storage bin to the furnaces. Only one crane is required to operate the plant
which permits the second crane to be used as a standby. Each furnace contains
four cells and four hydraulically actuated, manually controlled, rocker-arm burn-
ing grates and dump grates. Each furnace is provided with one 15, 000 cfm forced
draft fan to supply undergrate combustion air and with two gas burners with the
capacity to supply 10,000, 000 BTU/hour of heat to each furnace. Two wet troughs
with drag flight conveyors are used for residue quenching and loading into open
body residue trucks. The furnace discharge chutes are bifurcated to permit the res-
idue to be deposited into either conveyor. This design permits the plant to be oper-
ated with one conveyor while the other is down for repairs or avaMable as a standby
unit. A wet spray system located in the breaching to the chimney is used for flyash
control.
Plant records indicate that 99,730 tons, 98,185 tons, and 85,181 tons of refuse
were processed in 1965, 1966 and 1967 respectively.
The refuse storage pit contains 1300 cubic yards of space at the tipping floor level,
which is equivalent to 260 tons of refuse at 400Vcubic yard. This represents 15.7
hours of storage at the nominal plant capacity of 400 TPD or 22.2 hours at the
1967 incineration rate of 281 TPD. Considering plant downtime for breakdowns and
repairs, the incineration rbte at this plant is approximately 325 TPD. This storage
space is sufficient to permit the pit to be cleaned out weekly.
The 2 1/2 cubic yard crane bucket will lift an average of 1500#/load. For a 400
TPD operation this represents a total of 534 loads/day or an average of one load
every 2.7 minutes. For the 325 TPD actual capacity, the charging rate would be
one load every 3.44 minutes. However, since the plant uses the batch feed system,
all furnaces are charged in approximately the first third of each cycle, which rep-
resents a charging rate of one load every 1.1 minutes, if both furnaces are charged
simultaneously. This is a reasonable rate for this type of plant.
A review of the operating records of this plant reveals that combustion chamber
temperatures vary from lows of 600°F. to highs of 2000°F. when refuse is dry and
highs of 1200°F. when refuse is wet. With the batch feed operation, the low
V-87
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
temperature periods representing refuse charging, residue dumping, and furnace
clean-out periods account for 20% to 40% of total operating time. With this
record of operating experience, it can be concluded that the furnaces are operat-
ing at capacity only 70% of the time.
The grate size of the two furnaces is 290 sq.ft. each and combustion volume is
7,800 cu.ft. each. The grate size is adequate for the design rate of 200 tons/day
of 5,000 BTU/lb. refuse, and the furnace volume is well in excess of the 6750 cu.
ft. required. Combustion air for the 200 tons/day rate would be approximately
35,000 cu.fr. per minute of air for 150% excess air, a condition which is typical
for batch feed plants. One 15,000 cfm forced draft fan is provided and additi-
onal air is needed to complete combustion. Some of this additional air, up to
40%, could be Introduced over the grate, but the resr, approximately 6,000 cfm
should be undergrate air. It appears that lack of undergrate air may account for
some of the poor burn out experience at this plant.
Many batch feed plants operated without forced draft provided the natural stack
draft is sufficient to draw undergrate combustion air through the bed of refuse.
Although it might be desirable to attempt this in New Orleans, it is unlikely
that this method would succeed because the spray chambers keep chimney tem-
peratures low, thereby keeping natural draft low.
This plant also has a small crematory which originally was intended for the dis-
posal of small dead animals, but currently is being used primarily for disposal of
cadavers or amputated limbs. The crematory is equipped with a gas fired igni-
tion burner and discharges into one of the incinerator stacks. There is no after-
burner or temperature control on this furnace to insure complete combustion of
the gases produced. However, although low temperature, unburned hydrocarbons
may be emitted from the crematory, they represent a very small part of the total
gaseous emission from the plant and they are well diluted with emissions from the
incinerator furnace.
In addition to the gas used for the crematory, gas is used as a part of the regular
incinerator burning cycle. The gas burners are used after the first bucket charges
are placed in the furnace and are kept going until the furnace temperature reaches
1200°F. This may occur even before the furnaces are fully charged. After charg-
ing is completed, the forced draft fans are turned on and the batch of refuse is
burned until temperatures drop indicating that the burning has been completed. Oc-
casionally during this burning process, the rocker grates are activated and hand
stoking is used to improve combustion.
V-88
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
Mew Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
The furnaces, flues, etc. were inspected while they were shut down on a Sunday.
Some furnace grate beams were sagging, refractories were in need of repair in the
furnace, and the furnace charge doors did not fit tight as they should. Refracto-
ries in the combustion chambers and flues were in reasonably good shape and the
chimney appeared to be in good repair. Generally, the condition of the equip-
ment, other than the cranes, appeared to be good. The temperature recording
instruments were functioning well although they were not conveniently located
for the use of plant operating personnel. At the time of the inspection, one crane
was out of service and the other was operating at half speed. This is an indication
of poor maintenance probably resulting from a lack of spare parts, some of which
require long periods of time for delivery.
The following observations and recommendations are offered:
a. Poor residue quality is probably due to inadequate undergrate
combustion air and improper furnace charging procedures. The
inadequate combustion air quantity can be increased by instal-
ling a larger fan, say 25, 000 cfm @ 4" H2O, or by increasing the
natural draft and operating without the forced draft fan. Natural
draft can be increased by reducing the water sprays. This would
increase the particulate emissions from the stack, but part of this
increase could be offset with the use of a stainless steel screen
in the stack breeching and flyash traps in the flues. The furnace
charging procedure should be changed by allowing more time
between charges so as to permit a charge to reach a high tem-
perature, say 1200°F., before placing another charge on top.
This procedure would permit the initial charges to attain a bet-
ter burnout. If this charging procedure is adopted, it is sug-
gested that the use of the gas burners could be eliminated from
the process, except when the refuse has a high moisture content.
b. From the standpoint of residue conveyor operations and crane
charging operations, it would be desirable to operate the two
furnaces independently and preferably on an alternate time
schedule, i.e., completely charge one furnace before starting
the second, and completely clean out the first furnace before
cleaning out the second.
c. An effort should be made to reduce the dumping and clean out
time of 20% to 40% of cycle time which is excessive. Recom-
mendations a and b will help to accomplish this by producing a
better burnout and reducing the quantity of residue to be re-
moved from the furnace.
V-S9
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
According to the Air Pollution Control Equipment table, settling
chambers are capable of removing 40-60% of the flyash produced.
Between 90% and 95% removal would be required to meet the
federal standards. This plant is not capable of maintaining the
1200°F. minimum combustion chamber temperature. It is apparent
that a complete major renovation would be required to meet the
federal air pollution standards.
6. Florida Avenue Incinerator
The Florida Avenue Incinerator, constructed in 1957, is a two-furnace, batch feed
installation with combustion chambers, flues, and a single lO'-O" x 150' high chim-
ney, which provides furnace draft and disperses the stack gases. Two three-ton, 2
cubic yard bucket overhead traveling cranes are used to feed refuse from the storage
bin to the furnaces. Each furnace contains four cells and four hydraulically acti-
vated manually controlled rocker arm burning grates and dump grates. Each furnace
is provided with a 15,000 cfm forced draft fan to supply undergrate combustion air
and with auxiliary natural gas burners for additional furnace heat as required. A
single wet trough with a drag flight conveyor is used for residue quenching and
loading into open body residue trucks. A wet spray system is used for flyash control.
Plant records indicate that 75,062 tons, 75,845 tons, and 64,835 tons of refuse
were processed in 1965, 1966 and 1967 respectively.
The refuse storage pit contains 1400 cubic yards of space at tipping floor level
which is equivalent to 280 tons of refuse at 400i'l/cubic yard. This represents 16.8
hoursof storage at the nominal plant capacity of 400TPD or31.2hours at the 1967
incinerator rate of 215 TPD. Considering plant downtime for breakdowns and re-
pairs, the incineration rate at this plant is approximately 250 TPD which will pro-
vide 26.9 hours of storage space. This is sufficient to permit the pit to be cleaned
out weekly.
The 2 cubic yard crane bucket will lift an average of 1250#/load. For a 400 TPD
operation this represents a total of 640 loads/day or an average of one load every
2.3 minutes. For the 250 TPD actual capacity, the charging rate would be one
load every 3.6 minutes. Assuming all furnaces are charged in approximately the
first third of each cycle, the charging rate would be one load every 1.2 minutes
if both furnaces are charged simultaneously. This rate would be adequate, how-
ever, if the burning rate were to be increased to 350 TPD or more, it might be
necessary to use two cranes if both furnaces were to be charged simultaneously.
V-90
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
fsjew Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
There are no furnace temperature records available at this facility. However, this
plant is so similar to the 7th Street Incinerator that it can be safely assumed that
operating experiences are similar with respect to temperatures in the furnaces and
a furnace availability time of 70%.
The grate sizes of the two furnaces are 290 square feet each and combustion vol-
umes are 6300 cubic feet. The grate size is adequate for the design rate of 200
TPD of 5000 BTU# refuse, but the furnace volume size is slightly shy of the 6750
cubic feet required. Combustion air required for the 200 TPD rate would be ap-
proximately 35,000 cfm of air for 150% excess air. A 15,000 cfm forced draft fan
is provided, and additional air is needed to complete combustion. Approximately
40% of the air needed could be introduced over the grate, but the remaining
6,000 cfm should be undergrate air. The shortage of undergrate air may account
for some of the poor residue quality.
Many batch feed incinerators operate exclusively with stack induced natural draft.
Although it may be desirable to attempt this at this plant, the likelihood of suc-
cess is hampered by the low stack temperatures caused by the use of wet spray
chambers.
Furnace charging, burning, clean out and dumping are similar at this plant to the
7th Street plant except that the gas burners are used at this plant only when refuse
is wet.
The furnaces, flues, etc. were inspected while the plant was shut down on a Sun-
day. Conditions at this plant were similar to those at 7th Street, except that one
wall of one furnace had been repaired on a test basis with gunited castable refrac-
tory. This wall was repaired approximately six months before the inspection. A
10 square feet section of the repair had fallen out, and many cracks appeared in
the wall, but it was too early to evaluate the effectiveness of the repair design.
A bad hole in the discharge trough from one spray chamber caused leakage of water
from the chamber as well as leakage of air into the chimney.
The following observations and recommendations are offered:
a. The same comments relating to combustion air and furnace
charging procedures which were offered for the 7th Street plant
would apply to this incinerator.
b. Because this plant has only one chimney, both furnaces must be
charged simultaneously to provide adequate draft during com-
bustion process.
V-91
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
c. The single conveyor is a constant source of plant downtime and
requires constant surveillance. If this plant is to continue oper-
ating without major alteration, it is suggested that the conveyor
be removed and replaced with a direct dump into trucks or con-
tainers. However, instead of using the old ash tunnel for truck
movement, it is suggested that the trucks or containers be backed
under the residue hopper perpendicular to the old ash tunnel.
This change will keep the truck motors and cabs out of the spray
and dust from the residue discharge operations.
d. An effort should be made to reduce the dumping and clean out
time which is excessive. Recommendations a and c will help to
accomplish this. If this time is reduced and furnace efficiency
increased, it may be necessary to add another crane operator
on each shift.
e. According to the Air Pollution Control Equipment table, settling
chambers are capable of removing 40-60% of the flyash produced.
Between 90% and 95% removal would be required to meet the
federal air pollution standards.
7. Algiers Incinerator
The Algiers Incinerator, constructed in 1962, is a single furnace traveling grate
plant with a water spray cooling chamber, mechanical cyclone flyash collector,
and a short metal stack and induced draft fan. The furnace, which is nominally
rated at 200 TPD contains two traveling grates. An inclined grate is used for
feeding, drying, and igniting, and a horizontal grate is used for burning and dis-
charge into a wet trough conveyor. A four-ton, 2 1/2 cubic yard bucket over-
head traveling crane is used to transfer refuse from the 1200 cubic yard storage pit—
240 tons of capacity— to the continuous feed, water jacketed furnace charge hop-
per. The furnace is provided with a total of 35, 000 cfm combustion air @ 5 1/2"
water gauge pressure which is distributed over and under the grate through overfire
nozzles and undergrate plenum chambers. The combustion air fan is driven by a
40 hp. motor.
After cooling with water sprays to approximately 500°F., gases from the furnace
pass through a mechanical cyclone collector designed for 90, 000 cfm @ 500°F.
with 3 1/2" water gauge pressure drop which theoretically removes all particles
V-92
-------
Solid Waste Disposal -Tri-Parish Area
Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
over 10 microns in size. The gases are drawn through the collector by an induced
draft fan designed for normal operations at 90,000 cfm @ 500°F. @ 4" water gauge
and maximum loads of 112, 000 cfm @ 500°F. @ 6" water gauge. The fan is driven
by a 150 hp. motor.
Plant records indicate that 40,480tons, 43,382 tons, and 46,382 tons of refuse
were processed in 1965, 1966 and 1967 respectively.
The refuse storage pit contains space for 300 tons of refuse @ 400*/cubic yard,
which represents storage capacity for 36 hours at the design rate of 200 TPD or 72
hours at the estimated average operating rate of 150 TPD. This substantial pit ca-
pacity is adequate to permit frequent clean out of the storage pit and considerable
flexibility in refuse deliveries to the plant.
The 2 1/2 cubic yard bucket will lift an average 1500#/load- For a 200 TPD oper-
ation, this represents a total of 267 loads/day or an average of one load every 5.4
minutes. Since this is a continuous operating furnace, the charging rate of one
load every 5.4 minutes will apply. This is a very slow rate and represents a costly
part of the operation.
Temperature records at this plant indicate combustion chamber temperatures are
maintained between 1700°F. and 1900°F. regularly except during periods of break-
down and cooling chamber temperatures vary from 450°F. to 550 F. These are good
temperature ranges since they indicate good gas combustion characteristics and
good flyash collection control.
The grate size and arrangement result in a usable grate area of 280 square feet
which is adequate for 5000 BTU/# refuse and a total combustion volume of 5000
cubic feet which is shy of the 6750 cubic feet desired. Combustion air required
for a furnace of this design could be approximately 42,000 cfm representing 200%
excess air. The fan installed is designed to provide 35,000 cfm of air which would
indicate that more air would be required to meet the design capacity of the fur-
nace.
Gas burners were installed at this plant for use only when refuse is wet but were
removed due to excessive use. Residue is removed by a flight conveyor with an
overhead return designed to pass through the furnace. This design is poor since it
results in frequent fouling of the conveyor and requires the full-time presence of
an additional man at each shift. There are plans to redesign this conveyor in the
near future to eliminate this source of downtime and extra manpower.
V-93
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
After five years of operation, the horizontal grate has been renewed. The Inclined
grate has required only a minimum of maintenance and is still in good condition.
The horizontal drive coupling has worn excessively and should be replaced quickly
because the worn coupling contributed to the rapid deterioration of the horizontal
grate. Except for the inside refractory flue wall near the cyclone breeching which
has moved and is in need of repair and the roof arch, the refractories throughout
this installation are in good condition and properly maintained. Individual cyclone
parts, breeching, housing, and stack are all in need of repairs. The I.D. fan is in
good condition.
At the rime of inspection, the refuse appeared dry and of normal quality, the fur-
nace was operating at design capacity, operating temperatures were good, but the
residue quality was poor. The quality observed was reported as typical. Lack of
combustion air, particularly under the grate, could account for this experience.
This would confirm the calculations noted earlier indicating a need for additional
combustion air.
The observed color of the chimney discharge was good indicating good combustion
of gases (Note: This would indicate adequate overfire air for the amount of refuse
burned, but more refuse is available for burning as indicated by the high propor-
tions of combustibles in the residue). The operators reported that complaints from
flyash were minimal. However, although this plant is acceptable at this time
from an air pollution standpoint, tests at other similar installations indicate that
this design would probably not meet the proposed new federal air pollution stand-
ards. According to the Air Pollution Control Equipment table, the mechanical
cyclone efficiency varies from 75% to 90%. A collection efficiency of 90% to
95% would be required to meet the federal standard.
Records indicate high operating costs for this plant. The primary reason for the
high cost is the plant size. As noted earlier, the crane operation was inefficient
because the charging rate was slow. The same crane operator could feed two
and perhaps even three furnaces. The same expensive labor cost conditions apply
to other parts of the operations. If this plant were to be doubled in size, the
operating cost would be reduced by 25% to 40% or to approximately $4.00/ton
Improvement in the residue conveyor design as proposed would probably reduce
operating costs another 10% by eliminating one-man shift, and reducing plant
downtime.
V-94
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
.New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
8. St. Louis Incinerator
This is an old facility which has been completely renovated with the installation
of new furnaces and appurtenances. Although completed late in 196A, this plant
has not performed satisfactorily and, therefore, has not been accepted by the
City. We are advised that the difficulty in plant operation Is caused by moisture
carry over with the flue gases from the cooling sprays to the dry cyclones. This
moisture causes severe corrosion of the cyclones and a buildup of flyash resulting
in clogging which prevents operation.
The plant was not operating at the time of inspection and no operating experience
is available for evaluation. For record purposes, a description of the plant is in-
cluded in this report.
Two new furnaces each rated at 225 TPD have been installed. Each furnace con-
tains two traveling grates, one inclined for feeding, drying, and ignition, and
one for burning and discharge of residue. The exposed grate surface is 43' long
by 6' wide for an area of 260 square feet. The furnace and combustion space
available is 4500 cubic feet.
Combustion air is provided by two fans. An underfire fan which provides 15, 000
cfm @ 4" water gauge pressure is powered by a 15 hp. motor, and overfire air is
provided by a 25, 000 cfm fan @ 4" water gauge powered by a 25 hp. motor. The
overfire air is introduced partly at the grate level and partly over the bed of ref-
use. Furnace draft is provided by a 110,000 cfm, 6" water gauge pressure @
600°F. induced draft fan powered by a 150 hp. motor. Flyash control is provided
by a multi-cone mechanical dust collector which is preceded by water cooling
sprays.
A new type of gas burner is provided which can introduce 10, 000 cubic feet/hour
of natural gas into the furnace at the top of the feeding stoker.
9. New Orleans East Incinerator
This is a new facility which was started up early in 1968. No operating experience
is available and no evaluation can be made. For record purposes, a description of
the plant is included in this report.
The plant contains two continuous feed reciprocating grate furnaces each rated at
200 TPD. The grates are 9' wide, are arranged in four steps, and provide 325
square feet of exposed grate surface. The total furnace and combustion chamber
volume is 5800 cubic.feet.
Combustion air is provided by an underfire forced draft fan with 20, 000 cfm capac-
ity @ 4 1/2" water gauge pressure driven by a 20 hp. motor and by an overfire air
V-95
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
fan with 24, 000 cfm capacity @ 10" water gauge pressure driven by a 50 hp.
motor.
Combustion gases are cooled by water sprays and travel a long path to Multi-Tube
cyclone collectors designed for 120, 000 cfm @ 600°F., and 2.7" water gauge pres-
sure draft loss. A 150 hp. induced draft fan is provided. The design collection ef-
ficiency of the Multi-Tube cyclone is reported as 90% removal of particulates con-
taining a particle size distribution of 15% less than 10 microns and 35% less than 20
microns with a particulate specific gravity of 2.5.
The refuse storage pit can hold 1750 cubic yards or 350 tons of refuse at water level-
10. Recommendations Concerning Existing Incinerators (A. Michaels)
a. Revise plant refuse storage pit operations to permit cleanout of the
pits at least once every two weeks. This can be accomplished •
conveniently by cleaning out one-half of a pit each week. This
change will result in a cleaner operation and provide more storage
space in case of breakdowns.
b, Modify equipment and/or operations to provide a better quality
residue than is produced by the three plants evaluated. For Algiers/
this would be accomplished by increasing the size of the forced
draft fan capacity. For the Seventh Street and Florida Avenue
plants, this would involve changes in operating procedure as des-
cribed in the individual plant evaluations.
c. Provide a new fleet of residue trucks designed specifically for this
severe service. Establish a replacement schedule based upon a
two-year life cycle (two years of 24 hour/day service is equivalent
to six years of one shift/day service).
d. Test the chimney emissions from the Algiers, St. Louis Street, and
New Orleans East plants to determine conformance with either the
New Orleans air pollution regulations when these are adopted, °r
the federal standards.
e. Modify the Algiers residue conveyor as soon as this plant can be
closed down for repairs. This modification should reduce
and operating costs at this facility.
V-96
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
f. The Sevenfh Street and Florida Avenue incinerators are not designed
to operate at rated capacity because of the lost time between batch
charges. Although some improvement can be expected with operat-
ing technique changes, residue quality from these plants is poor, and
will probably get worse as the character of refuse changes. These
plants cannot be operated to meet anticipated air pollution standards
without major renovation to the furnaces and appurtenances. There-
fore, these plants should be completely renovated or replaced with
continuous feed furnace installations and air pollution control e-
quipment capable of meeting local standards.
g. As soon as refuse generation quantities indicate a need for additional
capacity in the area served by the Algiers incinerator, enlarge
this facility to reduce unit operating costs.
h. Although plant personnel are diligent and cooperative, there is an
apparent lack of understanding by many of the operators of the prin-
ciples of incineration. It is recommended that an incinerator operators'
training program be established for all supervisory and operating per-
sonnel. Such courses are now being given by the American Public
Works Associations, the US Public Health Service, and the ASME
Incinerator Committee. It is suggested that these organizations
be contacted for assistance in setting up such a training program.
i. At the request of the Sanitation Department, Model Incinerator
Maintenance Schedules for both Continuous Feed and Intermit-
tent Feed Pkints have been Included in Appendix III.
11. Incinerator Residue, Characteristics and Disposal
From the incinerator operating records we have determined the percentage of res-
idue at each of the incinerators and have estimated its annual volume both in cubic
yards and acre feet. The information for the New Orleans East incinerator is based
on only 27 days operation in 1968, with residue volumes projected to a full annual
operating basis. This information is shown in Table V-40.
The relatively high percentage of residue at Florida Avenue, Seventh Street and
the Algiers incinerators makes it desirable to continue to dispose of this material
at the. dumps at Gentilly and Algiers and because of its relatively high organic
content to provide cover over it to prevent nuisance. The lower percentage of
residue and greater weight per unit volume indicate that the New Orleans East
incinerator residue contains little unburned organic matter and should therefore
V-97
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
be suitable as a fill material. It should be expected that the St. Louis Incinerator
and both the reconstructed Florida Avenue and Seventh Street Incinerators should
produce a residue comparable to that of New Orleans East.
If the proposed Schedule of Incinerator Improvements, Figure V-17, is followed,
the residue requiring covering will reduce from 128-acre feet in 1968 to 35-acre
feet by 1971 and the quantity of residue suitable for fill will increase from 25-
acre feet in 1968 to 147 feet (240,000 CY) by 1971. These amounts will increase
annually and by 1990 can be expected to reach 240-acre feet per year or about
400,000 CY. The residue produced during this period will fill 1000 acres four
feet deep. The City can thus reclaim substantial areas of low land for public pur-
poses and should make provisions to acquire such property before it is needed.
TABLE V-40
VOLUME OF INCINERATOR RESIDUE
Florida Ave,
Seventh St.
Algiers
N. O. East
Year
1965
1966
1965
1966
1965
1966
1968
Projected Annual
Total
Incinerated
Tons/Yr.
75,062
75,845
99,730
98,185
40,480
43,382
6,800
110,000
Residue
Tons/Yr.
31,437
30,579
47,946
50,204
27,197
28,966
1,951
31,600
Residue
Dry
Basis
26.7
24.0
29.8
31.7
41.3
41.5
17.3
Approx .
Wt.
Lbs/CY
1100
1100
1050
1050
1000
1000
1500
Est. Annual
Volume Residue
In CY
57, 000
55, 000
91,000
95, 500
54,500
58,000
42,200
Acre
Ft.
35
34
56.5
59
33.5
36
26
V-98
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
12. Fly Ash Characteristics And Disposal
The Algiers, St. Louis, and the New Orleans East Incinerators are each provided
with cyclones for the removal of flyash from the flue gases. It is proposed that
similar equipment be installed in the reconstructed Florida Avenue and Seventh
Street Incinerators. To meet the air pollution requirements under the Federal Reg-
ulations approximately 29 Ibs. of fly ash per ton of refuse burned must be removed
from the incinerator gases before discharge into the atmosphere. On this basis the
five incinerators would produce about 25 tons per day in 1970 increasing to some-
thing over 40 tons by 1990.
Although this material has certain pozzolanic characteristics which make it useful
as a concrete additive, the relatively small quantities produced would preclude its
sale to cement producers. Likewise the limited quantities available preclude its use
as base for fertilizer manufacture. It has also been successfully used with lime as a
road base material, however, the limited quantities produced would require that
the material accumulate until a sufficient quantity is available for any given pro-
ject. The dusty nature of the material would require that it be stored in closed
containers thus adding materially to such costs. The present practice of flushing
the fly ash from the cyclones into the residue quench tank for removal with the res-
idue is probably, the best means of handling this material and should be continued.
13. Disposal of Non-Combustible Refuse
In addition to area required for residue and fly ash disposal, dumping area must also
be provided for non-combustibles and oversize wastes which our survey shows
amount to approximately 10% of the refuse collected by the City. This is about
12.5% of the total estimated production of non-combustible wastes produced in the
area. Since there is a demand for refuse which can be used as fill, the bulk of
this material will be delivered to other than municipal facilities. We believe that
the City should anticipate receiving non-combustible and oversize waste at the
rate of about 0.3 Ibs. per capita, at present, with this amount gradually increasing
to 0.4 Ibs. per capita per day by 1990. Based on the estimated 1970 population,
this would amount to 3,900 tons per year increasing to 6,850 tons by 1990. If this
material is assumed to have a compacted weight of fifty pounds per cubic foot, the
volume in 1970 would equal 5,800 cubic yards or about 3.5 acre-feet. This would
increase to 10,000 cubic yards or about 6.5 acre-feet by 1990. Based on a four
foot depth of fill, twenty five acres would be required for this material during the
next twenty years.
V-99
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
14. Process Water
Water for each of the incinerators excepting the New Orleans East plant is taken
from the city mains and waste water is discharged into storm drains. In 1967 the
estimated charges for water and sewer service together with the quantities recorded
are shown
TABLE V-41
WATER AND SEWR CHARGES IN 1967 BASED ON MONTHLY CONSUMPTION
Annual Consumption
Incinerator in Gallons Water Charge Sewerage Charge
St. Louis
Florida Avenue
Seventh Street
Algiers
10,881,000
20,773,000
18,026,000
3,121,000
$1,772.96
$3,385.68
$2,916.16
$ 531.36
$ 952.48
$1,743.84
$1,524.08
$ 331.68
NOTE: Charges for service not actually made.
It should be pointed out that the St. Louis Incinerator operated a total of only 28
days during 1967, thus giving a daily rate of 388,000 gallons, about 10% more
than that required for reducing the temperature of the gases from the combustion
chamber to the 600°F. required for the operation of the cyclones. On this basis
full annual operation of this incinerator would require 122,000, 000 gallons of
water. Consideration should, therefore, be given to the installation of wells and
pumps at this incinerator relieve the water system of this heavy load. Also con-
sideration should be given to installing treatment facilities for the waste water
prior to its discharge to the sewers.
The 3,121, 000 gallons consumed at the Algiers plant appears to be seriously in er-
ror since it represents only about 10% of that required to control the gas tempera-
ture for the cyclone operation. The annual water demand at this plant should be
approximately 50, 000, 000 gallons. Consideration should also be given at this
plant to the installation of both wells and pumps and to the treatment of waste water-
The New Orleans East Incinerator has two wells, each equipped with 500 GPM
pumps for its water supply needs, and a lagoon for removing the solids from the
waste water before discharge into an outlet canal.
Water supply wells and pumps, together with waste water treatment facilities, will
be required at both the reconstructed Florida Avenue and Seventh Street Inciner-
ators and provision has been made in the estimates of cost for each of these plants
for such installations.
V-100
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
E. Air Pollution Control Requirements
1. General
Until recently little if any attention has been given in the United States to the
control of stack emission and complaints from neighbors of soot and flyash have
been common. However, with the realization of the hazards and health and ec-
onomic losses caused by air pollution and the adoption of air pollution control
codes by a number of states and metropolitan areas there has been a marked in-
crease in the installation of air pollution devices in incinerators.
A survey undertaken by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Incinerator
Committee in 1965 showed that since 1959 no incinerator has been constructed
without some air pollution control device. This survey also showed the trend
toward more sophisticated equipment as regulations have become more stringent.
In most of the larger incinerators operating today, flyash control devices are
limited to subsidence chambers with or without baffles. Both the baffles and the
chamber bottoms may be either wet or dry. In some, sprays are employed both to
cool the gases and to aid in trapping particulate matter.
Until recently code requirements generally considered satisfactory were those estab-
lished by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, which limited particulate
emission to 0.85 Ibs per 1,000 Ibs. of gas at 50% excess air. These requirements
could generally be met with the subsidence chamber baffles and sprays, provided
that proper attention was given to plant operation.
There has been a marked increase in the last several years in the use of both
cyclones and scrubbers as code requirements have been tightened
As the demands for cleaner stack emission increases, the efficiency of the control
devices must likewise increase. Based on an estimated 40 Ibs. of flyash leaving
the furnace per ton of refuse charged and 32 Ibs. per ton entering the collector,
collection efficiencies to meet code requirements are as shown in Table V-42.
In Table V-39Mr. Michaels lists the relative efficiency of the various types of
air pollution control equipment together with its basic limitations and comparative
space requirements.
V-101
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
TABLE V-42
COLLECTION EFFICIENCIES - AIR POLLUTION REQUIREMENTS *
Percentage of Efficiency
Code Requirements Needed to Meet Code
0.85*/l ,000 # @ 50% Excess Air 74
0.65*/l, 000 # @ 50% Excess Air 80
0.20#/1,000 # @ 50% Excess Air 94
Clear Stack (Refractory Furnace) 96-97
Clear Stack (Water Cooled Furnace) 98.5
* From paper presented by Alan Walker, Technical Director, Re-
search Cottrell at symposium entitled Incineration of Solid Wastes
sponsored by the Metropolitan Engineers Council, March 21, 1967.
2. Guidelines and Regulations for Federal Buildings
Under the recent Executive Order 11282 issued by the President, May 26, 1966/
guidelines were established for government installations relative to air pollu-
tion. This Executive Order established that the federal government would pro-
vide leadership in the nationwide effort to improve the quality of our air through
the prevention, control, and abatement of air pollution from federal govern-
ment activities in the United States. The Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare was charged with administration of the Order and with promulgation of
certain regulations concerning its functioning.
The objectives of this Order for federal facilities and buildings are given under
Section 4 of the order and are quoted as follows:
"(a) Except for discharges of radioactive emissions which are regulated
by the Atomic Energy Commission, Federal facilities and buildings shall
conform to the air pollution standards prescribed by the State or commu-
nity in which they are located. If State or local standards are not pre-
scribed for a particular location, or if the State or local standards are
less stringent than the standards established pursuant to this Order, the
standards prescribed pursuant to Section 5 of this Order shall be followed'
"V-102
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
"(b) The emission of flyash and other participate matter shall be kept to a
minimum.
"(c) Emission of sulfur oxides shall be minimized to the extent practicable.
11 (d) Wherever appropriate, tall chimneys shall be installed in order to
reduce the adverse effects of pollution. The determination of chimney
height shall be based on air quality criteria, land use, and metereological,
topographical, aesthetic, and operating factors.
"(e) Solid fuels and ash shall be stored and handled so as not to release to
the atmosphere dust in significant quantities. Gasoline or any volatile
petroleum distillate or organic liquid shall be stored and handled so as not
to release to the atmosphere vapor emissions in significant quantities.
"(f) In urban areas refuse shall not be burned in open fires and in rural
areas it shall be disposed of in such a manner as to reasonably minimize
pollution. Refuse shall not be left in dumps without being covered with
inert matter within a reasonably short time. Whenever incinerators are
used they shall be of such design as will minimize emission of pollutant dusts,
fumes, or gases.
"(g) Pollutant dusts, fumes, or gases (other than those for which provision
is made above) shall not be discharged to the atmosphere in quantities
which will endanger health or welfare.
"(h) The head of each department, agency, and establishment shall, with
respect to each installation in the United States under his jurisdiction,
take, or cause to be taken, such action as may be necessary to ensure that
discharges of radioactive emissions to the atmosphere are in accord with
the rules, regulations, or requirements of the Federal Radiation Council as
published in the Federal Register.
"(i) In extraordinary cases where it may be required in the public interest,
the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare may exempt any Federal
facility or building from the objectives of paragraphs (a) through (g) of
this section."
In implementing this Order, Part 76 of Chapter 1 - Public Health Service, Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare entitled "Prevention, Control, and Abate-
ment of Air Pollution from Federal Government Activities: Performance Standards
V-103
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
and Techniques of Measurement" was issued on June 2, 1966, by the Secre-
tary. Section 76.8 concerning the Disposal of Refuse is quoted below:
"(a) Refuse shall not be burned in open fires in urban areas. In
nonurban areas there shall not be burned In open fires, within a
24-hour period, more than 25 pounds of material at a single site
nor more than 500 pounds of material at any number of sites with-
in a one-mile radius, except that these quantities may be exceed-
ed when the open burning occurs at diverse sites such as are as-
sociated with railroad rights-of-way, interurban highways, irri-
gation canals, forests, agricultural operations, etc. Deteriorated
or unused explosives, munitions, and certain hazardous materials
may be burned in open fires, in accordance with recognized pro-
cedures. Refuse shall not be left in dumps without being covered
with inert matter within a reasonably short time.
"(b) Refuse shall be incinerated only in facilities specially de-
signed for that purpose. Incinerators shall meet the emission
visibility standards of 76.4 (a) (2) and (a) (3). In addition, for
installations burning 200 pounds of refuse or more per hour, emis-
sions shall not exceed 0.2 grain of particulate matter per standard
cubic foot of dry flue gas corrected to 12 per cent carbon dioxide
(without the contribution of auxiliary fuel), and shall not normally
include particles larger than 60 microns. For installations burning
fewer than 200 pounds of refuse per hour, emissions shall not ex-
ceed 0.3 grain of particulate matter per standard cubic foot of
dry flue glass corrected to 12 per cent carbon dioxide (without
the contribution of auxiliary fuel)."
Based upon the limitation of particulate emission to 0.20 grains per standard
cubic foot of flue gas corrected to twelve per cent carbon dioxide, under
the new regulations established by the Federal Government for use in Federal
facilities, and assuming 30-40 Ibs. of particulate matter issuing from the
furnace per ton of refuse charged, compliance with the Federal limitations
on particulate emission would require an overall removal efficiency of about
90 per cent.
V-104
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
3. Louisiana Air Control Law
Under Legislative Act of 1964 No. 259, the State of Louisiana established
the Louisiana Air Control Law for the protection of the purity of the air of
the State of Louisiana and created a Commission to carry out its provisions.
The Commission was empowered to promulgate and adopt rules and regulations
to reduce undesirable levels of air contaminants which appreciably injure hu-
man life beyond inconvenience or materially injure or interfere with reason-
able use of animal or plant life or property. The Commission was authorized
to control outdoor burning of waste material or refuse by issuing regulations
establishing methods to be used. A public hearing and the written approval
of four members of the Commission is required for the adoption, modification
or repeal of any rule or regulation. The Law recognized the need for vary-
ing the level of undesirable air contaminants with the physical conditions of
the area in question including type of development, zoning, classifications,
topography, and prevailing wind direction, and velocity, etc.
4. Requirements for New Orleans Incinerators
Although no specific limits of particulate emission or other air contaminants
have been established by the Commission for the municipal incinerators of
the City, the urban location of each of these incinerators in or close to
residential areas makes a high degree of air pollution control mandatory.
The increasing consciousness of the public to dangers to health from air pollution
has progressively increased the severity of air pollution control requirements.
Since this trend can be expected to continue and since any improvements to the
incinerators should be made anticipating future conditions, a high degree of air
pollution control must be established. The County of Los Angeles has long recog-
nized the need for street air pollution control because of the peculiar almospheric
conditions prevailing in the area. The Code regulating air pollution control
measures within the County limits the particulate emission from stacks to 0.3grain
per standard cubic foot of dry flue gases at 12% CO«. The results from the ap-
plications of these standard for particulate emission appears to have been satis-
factory since they have been in effect for a number of years.
In view of the extensive development of heavy industry in the area, and the fact
that no specific standards have been previously adopted under the State Air Control
V-105
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
Law we belie've that the moderate standards such as those used by the County of
Los Angeles will be satisfactory and should be adopted by the City of New Orleans
and the Tri-Parish area for particulate emission from incinerator and other stacks.
In addition to the 0.3 grain per cubic foot at 12% CO- for particulate emission,
the regulations should also prohibit open burning of refuse and require it to be
covered with suitable earth in accordance with the suggested requirements for sa-
nitary landfill (See Appendix V).
If the City were to avail itself of a demonstration grant under Section 204, Title II,
Public Law 8^-272, the Solid Waste Disposal Act or a construction grant of up to
two-thirds the construction cost under pending Federal legislation (HR 11405 and
S 1646) the requirements as established by the Public Health Service of the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare would become a condition to such Federal
participation. These regulations, in addition to limiting the particulate emission
from stacks, to 0.2 grains per cubic foot at 12% CO_ also prohibit open burning
of refuse and require it to be covered with inert material within a reasonably short
time when placed on dumps.
One of the conditions in accepting the Federal grant under which this study is being
undertaken is that regulations to stop open burning are to be established and enforced
within the Tri-Parish area. Such regulations would limit the amount of combustible
refuse dumped on the landfills at Algiers and Gentilly to that for which inert cover
material could be provided, and require that the remaining combustible matter be
delivered to an incinerator for disposal. This would also apply to the dumps operated
by private enterprise.
The adoption and enforcement by the City of the suggested air pollution limits of
0.3 grains per cubic foot at 12% CO would, in effect, require the elimination of
on-site incineration by industry, institutions, and commercial installations because
the cost of installing, operating, and maintaining the necessary equipment would
greatly increase the cost of this type of disposal. As a result, such wastes can be
expected to be added to amounts presently being disposed of at the municipal in-
cinerators.
Though no stack emission tests have been -**nducted at any of the New Orleans in-
cinerators to determine particulate emissicv.iorh the Florida Avenue and the Seventh
Street incinerators are of the batch * ;pe which could not be expected to approach
such rigid requirements without exf
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
The Algiers, St. Louis, and New Orleans East incinerators are all of the continuous
type and are provided with multiple cyclones for fly ash removal. Although these
incinerators may not meet the suggested air pollution requirements for particulate
emission, they should with careful operation be expected to approach these limits
and result in a minimum of complaints from neighboring areas and thus not justify any
further expense for air pollution at this time.
F. First Stage Refuse Disposal Program 1970 to 1980
1. Present Incinerator Capacities
The City of New Orleans has five incinerators and two landfills which receive the
refuse collected by the City and a substantial part of that collected by private haulers.
Studies of the operation of the Florida Avenue, Seventh Street, and Algiers inciner-
ators show these incinerators to have average operating capacities of 250, 325 and 150
tons per day, respectively. Each of these capacities is based on operating experience.
In the case of the reconstructed St. Louis Incinerator, the New Orleans East Inciner-
ator and those proposed under this program, consideration must be given to the maxi-
mum months of refuse production in determining the effective average capacity. In
Table V-43 is shown the monthly percentage variation in refuse collection over the
past three years together with a three-year average.
TABLE V-43
MONTHLY VARIATION IN MUNICIPAL WASTE COLLECTION
Percent of Average
Month 1965 1966 1967 Avg.Syrs.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
93
86
100
101.5
99
104
108.5
109.5
104
95
•94
102.5
94
90
102
103
105
107.5
109
111.5
106
96
94
101
94
89.5
103
98
107
106
109
112
99
96
88
98
94
88
101
101
103
106
108
110
103
95
91
100
100
V-107
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
From the above it will be noted that June, July, and August are the months of max-
imum refuse production and that during this period collections are about ten percent
greater than the annual average. Since an incinerator must be able to handle the
month of maximum production at its rated capacity, its average effective capacity
must be correspondingly reduced. On this basis an average effective capacity of
410 tons per 24 hours has been assigned for the St. Louis incinerator and 365 tons
per 24 hours for the New Orleans East incinerator thus making the total present av-
erage incinerator capacity 1500 tons per day.
Waste production has been estimated as shown in Table V-44. Estimated quantities
of incinerable refuse for both a six and a seven day week are given since both waste
collection and incineration are on a six day basis and the larger quantities must be
handled.
TABLE V-44
ESTIMATED QUANTITIES OF INCINERABLE REFUSE
(Tons/Day)
Year 7 Day Basis 6 Day Basis
1967 1360 1585
1970 1450 1690
1975 1655 1930
1980 1885 2200
1985 2200 2565
1990 2530 2950
2. Proposed Program of Development
Any proposed development program should provide additional capacity that will be
sufficient for at least a 10-year period (1980). The capacity of the St. Louis, Nev
Orleans East, and Algiers incinerators has been established on an annual average
basis as 925 tons per day. This would require an additional effective average incin
erator capacity of 1275 tons per day to be provided. In order to provide for peak
months the rated incinerator capacity would have to be at least 1400 tons per day-
V-108
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
Since both the Florida Avenue and the Seventh Street incinerators are of an older
design that cannot be readily modified to meet proposed air pollution standards, and
since both plants are well located with respect to their respective collection areas,
these incinerators should be reconstructed, modernized and continued in operation.
Consideration should be given to reconstructing these incinerators with the same
rated capacity as at present, namely 400 tons per day each and a new 600 ton per
day incinerator constructed on a new site to provide the total required capacity, or
the existing plants could be enlarged so that they would provide the additional ca-
pacity necessary.
Based on the cost per ton for incineration shown in Figure V-7, tlte reconstruction
of the Florida Avenue and Seventh Street incinerators at their present capacity with
a new incinerator at some other location providing the necessary additional capacity,
the average operating cost would be approximately $0.70 per ton more than if the
present incinerators were enlarged to provide this needed capacity. In 1975 this
would amount to about $220,000 per year increasing to about $280,000 in 1980.
In addition, since any new incinerator would have to be located in an industrial area
at a greater distance from the points of collection than the present plants, the cost
of haul would be increased substantially, further increasing the cost of disposal under
such a plan.
We have, therefore, based the proposed Program of Development on the enlargement
of both the Florida Avenue and the Seventh Street Incinerators. Each of the pro-
posed plants will be located so as to incorporate the existing storage pits and high
walls surrounding them into the enlarged plant thus saving the most expensive part
of the existing plant structure. Due to the difference in furnace configuration be-
tween the existing and proposed furnaces, new furnace supports and foundations
will be required. Also, the layout of gas conditioning and pollution control equip-
ment will require both special supports and foundations. These and other consider-
ations, therefore, make it impossible to determine to what extent other portions of
the existing structure may be utilized until detailed plans for the proposed inciner-
ators are worked out.
Taking into account the relative size of the two sites, the capacity provided should
be approximately in the ratio of 2 to 3.
If furnaces with a unit capacity of 300 tons per day were utilized, two units at Florida
Avenue would provide 600 ton capacity there and three units at Seventh Street would
give 900 ton capacity at that installation. The total additional capacity on this basis
would be 1500 tons per day. The additional 100 ton capacity above the minimum
needed by 1980 would permit taking the Algiers Incinerator out of service for enlarge-
ment which will be needed by 1975 to take care of the projected growth in that area.
V-109
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
It is therefore proposed that both, the Florida Avenue and the Seventh Street incin-
erators be reconstructed and enlarged to have a rated capacity of 600 and 900 tons
per day respectively, after which the Algiers incinerator can be doubled in size.
Since the Florida Avenue incinerator has a smaller actual capacity than the Seventh
Street plant and is in need of substantial repairs and modifications, if it Is to continue
in operation, it should be the first plant scheduled for reconstruction and enlargement.
Its removal from service will cause the minimum reduction in the total available in-
cinerator capacity.
Before this incinerator can be removed from service, however, the deficiencies in
the St. Louis incinerator must be remedied and that plant placed in operation. After
the enlargement of the Florida Avenue plant is completed and placed in service, the
Seventh Street incinerator can then be reconstructed and enlarged. Once the en-
larged Seventh Street incinerator has been placed in operation, adequate incinerator
capacity to receive all combustible refuse generated within the City will be available
so that further dumping of combustible material can be discontinued. This total ca-
pacity will be sufficient to meet the overall needs adequately until 1979, except for
growth anticipated in the Algiers area which will require the enlargement of the Algiers
plant before 1975.
The above program is presented graphically with a time schedule on Figure V-17
In preparing this graph we have assumed that the difficulties at the St. Louis incin-
erator can be rectified this year and the plant placed into service in 1969. Plans
for the reconstruction and enlargement of the Florida Avenue incinerator should be
completed in 1968 so that construction can be undertaken as soon as the St. Louis
plant becomes operable. A two-year construction period has been allowed for the
reconstruction at Florida Avenue to allow time for receiving bids and awarding con-
tracts as well as time for trial operation and testing. This would permit placing the
enlarged plant into operation in 1971 at which time plans for the enlargement of the
Seventh Street incinerator should be ready so that construction can be started in 1971
and the plant placed in operation in 1973. The enlargement of the Algiers incinerator
to double its present capacity has been scheduled for 1973 and 1974 so that it will
become operable in 1975 when additional capacity is required in this area. Under
this proposed program incinerator capacity to receive all combustible waste generated
in the City will not be available until 1973 .
This program which completes the modernization and enlargement of the present in-
cinerators is adequate to take care of the needs of the City until 1983 when additional
new incinerator capacity must be provided. Since a new site or sites must be selected
V-110
-------
3000
1
.
o^
o
dditional
Capacity
Required
Enlarged Algiers
Rebuilt Seventh Street
s(Eff.Cap.820T/D)
Rebuilt Florida Avenue/
(Eff.Cap.545T/D)
(Eff.Cap.410T/D):::
N Seventh^
- NStreet x
New Orleans East
(Eff.Cap.365T/D)
300 T/D
YEAR
PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF INCINERATOR IMPROVEMENTS
FIG. V-17
Page V-I11
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
for this additional incinerator capacity, both the size and location of these require-
ments will be considered in Chapter VII - "Master Plan for Refuse Disposal for the
Tri-Parish Area."
The increase in capacity of both the Florida Avenue and the Seventh Street incin-
erators to 600 tons and 900 tons per 24 hours respectively permits delivering the
refuse generated within the City to incinerators located within relatively short haul
distances from the point of pick up. With relatively minor changes in the areas
served by each incinerator as the City continues to grow, the load on each plant
can be balanced so that all plants will carry a proper proportion of the load. The
service area changes required by 1975 and covered in Section 3 will be adequate
until 1985 when additional incinerator capacity must be provided. This is shown
for the years 1975 to 1990 in Table V-45. Should, in the interim, actual operat-
ing experience require further modifications in service areas to better balance the
loads among the incinerators, this may be accomplished by re-routing private and
commercial waste and need not affect municipal collection.
TABLE V-45
SCHEDULE OF PROPOSED INCINERATOR UTILIZATION
(Tons Per Day - 6-Day Week)
District
Algiers
Central
Night
Western
Eastern 1
Eastern II
TOTAL
Excess Cap.
Deficiency
Incinerator
Algiers
7th Street
7th Street
St. Louis
Florida Ave.
N.O. East
Tons/Day
Tons/Day
Tons/Day
1
Incin.
Cap.
300 -.
820^
410-4
545-4
365-«
2,440
51
975
Collected
172
424
570
315
492
—265
1,930
0
1
Incin.
Cap.
300-
820V
410-
545—
365—
2,440
2'
980
Collected
210
448
\162
342
543
364
2,200
10
Incin.
Cap.
300-
820^
410-
545-
365N
2,440
2
985
Collected
262
491
675
378
615
^545
~75-
490
. 70-*1
\.3Z5
^365
TO,
2,565
0
1
Incin.
Cap.
300-
820
410X
545X
365-
2,440
-3
990
Collected
346
^•300
535
204
\Tt
m
418
^159
669
N^126'
615
2,787
47
To St. Bernard Parish
V-112
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
3. Anticipated Income
The proposed refuse disposal program is based upon the establishment by the City of
a policy to permit no further burning of refuse on open dumps and to limit dumping
of combustible refuse to that which can be properly covered daily. Under this pro-
gram most combustible refuse would be delivered to an incinerator for disposal.
Our survey indicates that about 45% of all mcinerable wastes is handled by other
than municipal forces for which, under the newly adopted regulations, a charge of
$4.00 per ton would be made by the City. Although under the proposed program,
capacity to receive all this waste will not be available until 1973, an increasing
quantity of private or commercially collected refuse can be expected to be delivered
to the incinerators as the savings in haul cost becomes more apparent. By 1973 if
the entire estimated volume were delivered for disposal by incineration and a charge
were made of $4.00 per ton, the annual income to the City would be approximately
$1,250,000 and by 1990 the amount would be approximately $1,650,000 per year.
Since burying of combustible refuse would be considered permissible a certain portion
of this type of refuse would continue to be dumped and buried for disposal thus re-
ducing the income to the City from this source.
4. Proposed Incinerator Design Criteria
Using as a guide the analysis of refuse shown in Table V-26, (page V-51) and making
certain adjustments to compensate for the unusually dry period when samples were
collected, we developed the design criteria for both, the Florida Avenue and Seventh
Street incinerators. These are shown in Table V-46.
TABLE V-46
DESIGN CRITERIA
FLORIDA AVENUE & SEVENTH STREET INCINERATORS
Florida Ave. 'Seventh St.
Incinerator Capacity, Tons/Day 600 900
Storage Pit Capacity, C.Y. 3000 4500
Number of Bridge Cranes 2 2
Capacity of Bridge Cranes, Tons 5 5
Size of Grag Bucket, C.Y. 3 1/2 3 1/2
V-113
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
Weighing Scales
Capacity, Tons
Platform Size, Feet
Type
Number of Furnaces
Size of Furnace Unit Tons/Day
Water Supply
Number of Wei Is
Capacity of Well, GPM
Waste Water Treatment
Sedimentation Time, Min.
Capacity Required, C. F.
Number of Units
Florida Avenue
50
50x 10
Automatic Printer
2
300
2
600
30
1200
2
Rating of Furnace Unit Lbs/Hour
Furnace Feed
Characteristics of Refuse
Non-combustible %
Moisture %
Combustible %
Heat Value
Combustible, BTU/Lb.
Refuse as fired BTU/Lb.
Heat Release, BTU/Cu.Ft./Hr.
Furnace Volume, Cu. Ft.
Maximum Temperature Outlet Gas F.
Grate Area
Loading, Lbs/Sq. Ft.
Area, Sq. Ft.
Seventh St.
50
50x 10
Automatic Printer
3
300
3
450
30
1800
2
Both Incinerators (Each Furnace)
25,000
Chute water jacketed
12.5
25.0
62.5
8,000
5,000
12,500
10,000
1,800
60
417
V-114
-------
Study of Solid Waste - Tri-Parfsh Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
Both Incinerators (Each Furnace)
Spray and Baffle Chamber
Spray Pressure, psi
Outlet Temperature °F.
Water Required, GPM
Subsidence and Reaction Chamber, C.F.
Air Pollution Control Equipment
Type
Efficiency %
Combustion Air Fans
Undergrate Capacity, cfm
Discharge Pressure, In. of Water
Overfire Air Capacity, cfm
Discharge Pressure, In. of Water
Induced Draft Fan
Capacity, cfm
Discharge Pressure, In. of Water]
Stack
Residue Handling
50
600
300
5,300
Multiple Cyclones
90
45,000
6
30,000
4
230,000
8
Masonry Stack
Dual quench tanks with
drag chain
Storage hopper with gate
5.
Estimate of Project Cost
The following estimates of cost are based on currently prevailing prices (Spring 1968)
and reflect the savings in construction cost due to utilizing portions of the existing
plants. No allowance for escalation in cost of the Seventh Street incinerator has
been made due to its being programmed for construction at a later time.
Our estimate is shown in Table V-47.
V-115
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri.-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
TABLE V-47
ESTIMATE OF COST - FLORIDA AVE. & SEVENTH ST. INCINERATORS
Florida Ave. Seventh St.
Capacity 600 Tons 900 Tons
Site preparation incl. demolition $ 50,000 $ 100,000
Foundations 300,000 450,000
Building 475,000 800,000
Mechanical
a. Cranes 220,000 220,000
b. Furnaces 1,250,000 1,875,000
c. Cyclones 180,000 270,000
d. Water treatment and piping 100,000 150,000
e. Stacks and induced draft fans 240,000 335,000
f. Wei Is and pumps 50,000 75,000
Electrical 90,000 135,000
Sub Total $2,955,000 H,410,000
Contingencies 10% 295,000 441,000
Sub Total $3,250,000 $4,851,006
Engineering Design 6% 195,000 291,000
Sub Total $3,445,000 $5,142,000
Engineering Supervision
a. General 2% 65,000 97,000
b. Resident 30,000 30,000
Sub Total $3,540,000 $5,269,000
Legal & Miscellaneous 2% 71,000 105,000
Sub Total $3,611,000 $5,374,000
Interest during construction 4% 144,000 215,000
Total Estimated Cost $3,755,000 $5,589,000
Say $3,750,000 $5,600,000
6. Cost of Operation and Maintenance
The proposed new Florida Avenue incinerator will be of the continuous charging
type similar to the present Algiers plant. The labor cost for its operation should
V-116
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
be similar. Its larger size will require two crane operators instead of one; however,
with certain design improvements some of the labor costs at the Algiers plant could
be eliminated thus compensating for the additional crane operators. The cost of
utilities and repairs have been proportioned in relation to the size of the two plants
and the cost of residue rem'/val has taken into consideration the improved quality
of residue anticipated. For the purpose of comparing costs with those appearing in
Tables V-17 (pageV-37)and V-18 (page V-38)amortization has been based on 20-
year 3 1/2% level debt service and the cost of amortizing both the present and pro-
posed plant has been included. These costs (1967basis)are shown in Table V-48.
TABLE V-48
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
FLORIDA AVENUE INCINERATOR
Labor and Fringe Benefits $186,000
Utilities 30,000
Repairs 60,000
Residue Disposal 30,000
Amortization new plant 253,000
Amortization existing plant 47,800
Annual Operating Cost $606,800
Based on the quantities shown on Table V-45 to be delivered to the proposed Florida
Avenue Incinerator in 1975 of 153,000 tons per year, the cost per ton for incineration
would be $3.97 and the cost for 1980 with an estimated 165,000 tons delivered to the
incinerator and with retirement of the bonds covering the original plant cost would be
about $3.40. (If the current interest rate of 5% were used this would increase to about
$3.60).
7. Proposed Layout
We have made some preliminary layouts of the proposed enlargement of the Florida
Avenue Incinerator to a modern 600-ton/day incinerator capable of meeting the pro-
posed limitations of air pollution. This layout proposes to utilize the refuse storage pit
V-117
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
and certain other parts of the existing incinerator as well as the existing stack.
The proposed site plan, the various floor plan elevations and sections as well as
a perspective of the proposed enlargement are shown on Figures 18 thru 25
inclusive.
V-118
-------
PROPOSED 600 TON FLORID* AVENUE INCINERATOR
FOR THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
00
-------
OJ I— i
TO O
m •
IV vO
o
NEW STACK
. I O FAN
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
PROPOSED 600 TON FLORIDA AVENUE INCINERATOR
FOR THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
-------
NEW STACK
-I. D- FA hi
PROPOSED 600 TON FLORIDA AVENUE INCINERATOR
FOR THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
TO O
n •
-------
Q) hH
OQ O
(I •
h- to
CXI»T STACK
CHAROINO LEVEL PLAN
PROPOSED BOO TON FLORIDA AVENUE INCINERATOR
FOR THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
-------
CYCL.ONE
DILUTION AI
I
£ r*B.an_*
\^ y^ CMUT1
I
RESIDUE CONVEYORS
LONGITUDINAL. SECTION THRU FURNACE
PARTIAL REAR ELEVATION
PROPOSED 600'TON FLORIDA AVENUE INCINERATOR
FOR THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
—
tra O
ro to
w
-------
cro Q
en •
TIPPING APRON
ISO' STACK
CROSS SECTION THRU FURNACE
PROPOSED 600 TON FLORIDA AVENUE INCINERATOR
FOR THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS LOUISIANA
-------
FRONT ELEVATION
O 10 ZO 4O
SCALE IN FECT
O) h— I
TO O
fD •
Ln
PROPOSED eoo TON FLORIDA AVENUE INCINERATOR
FOR THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS LOUISIANA
-------
nj t— i
TO O
[SJ Ul
PROPOSED 600 TON FLORID* AVENUE INCINERATOR
THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. -15 May 1968
VI ST. BERNARD AND JEFFERSON PARISH
A. General
After brief review of the solid waste systems in St. Bernard and Jefferson Parishes, a
field survey was conducted in early 1968 to determine quantities and types of waste
generated in the area. These observations and Investigations were made in each of
the communities, except for the Westbank Unincorporated Area of Jefferson Parish
which is covered by a separate study now in progress.
This Solid Waste Study of the Westbank Area is still in progress by the firm of Pepper
and Associates, and on completion will supplement and complement our overall study
of the Tri-parish Area. The Westbank Study in terms of its scope and the time inter-
val of study has been divided into two phases. Its first phase consisting of the field-
work covering the Unincorporated Westbank Area was conducted during the 1966-67
period. Though not presently in final form for detailed review, pertinent findings
have been made available for the Tri-parish Study. The second phase consists of the
1968 in-depth study of the City of Gretna and the City of Westwego, and is not
scheduled for completion until late 1968. Every effort has been made to coordinate
the findings of that portion of the Westbank Study presently completed with the Tri-
parish Study presented herein. Though our observations and analysis of the com-
munities of Gretna and Westwego should precede the completion of that study, our
findings have been submitted to the Westbank consultants for review and comments.
It should be recognized that final results of the Westbank Study now in progress may
affect the conclusions presented herein.
As noted in Chapter II, "Metropolitan Population", current population estimates and
projections made by various local agencies in the Tri-parish Area show very wide
variations, especially in the projections beyond 1970. Although accepted popula-
tion estimates and projections were available for portions of this study dealing with
New Orleans, and St. Bernard, in the case of Jefferson Parish, planning studies now
in progress are not yet advanced to the point where it would provide "accepted"
estimates and projections. Due to the time limits requiring completion of this study
we have adopted population estimates and projection for Jefferson Parish of 925,000
by 1990, as shown previously in Chapter II. Distribution of population by communi-
ties within Jefferson Parish has been predicated on the past growth history, and cur-
rent trends within each community.
Later in this report the effect of current and projected population estimates will be
noted in the analysis of existing and future per capita waste production, as well as
Vl-l
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
the analysis of existing per capita cost factors of collection and disposal services,
presently experienced by the individual communities. These effects should be em-
phasized so that future use of this study will consider appropriate adjustments on
the development of firm and accepted estimates.
B. Col lection and Disposal Practices
In the course of our investigations in the Tri-parish Area, existing collection and
disposal practices in each of the communities were determined, as well as pertinent
data in system management. Highlights of our findings are presented in the follow-
ing descriptions of each community.
1. City of Kenner (Jefferson Parish - Eastbank)
Collection and disposal of solid wastes in the City of Kenner is handled by a com-
bination of municipal services and of private contractors. Garbage and trash col-
lection of small commercial installations is picked up once a week by the City in
an 18 cubic yard compactor truck. Time required for this service is 2 1/2 days
(Monday, Wednesday, and one-half day Friday). Oversized waste from residential
accounts is also picked up once a week by the City utilizing a 12 cubic yard stake
body dump truck. Time allotted for this service is also 2 1/2 days (Tuesday,
Thursday, and one-half day Friday). Combined garbage and trash collection from
all residential accounts is handled under contract with a private disposal company.
Equipment utilized in this service consists of four 18 cubic yard compactor trucks.
Original requirements of this contract were for all pickups to be made on Monday,
Wednesday, and Friday. However, recent modifications to this contract allow the
contractor to pick up one-half of the City on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and
one-half on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. This modification was due to the
frequency of equipment breakdowns which were affecting the reliability of collec-
tion for the entire City.
All wastes hauled by the disposal company and all garbage collected by the City are
taken to a private landfill in St. Charles Parish. Trash, (excluding garbage) collec-
ted by the City is taken to a landfill adjacent to the St. Charles - Jefferson levee on
the parish line.
Cost of this service to the recipients is assessed on the basis of seven mils per one
thousand dollars of assessed valuation of real property. Within the City of Kenner,
assessed valuation of real property consists of the following:
VI-2
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans/ La. - 15 May 1968
Type of Property Assessed Value
Residential $10,000,000
Commercial $ 2,000,000
Public Utility $ 7,500,000
The mileage rate on the total sum of $19.5 million assessed valuation of real pro-
perty produces between $130, 000 and $140, 000 a year. This amount represents the
total monies budgeted for collection and disposal costs of solid wastes by the City
of Kenner. Actual costs incurred by the City for this service are within the budgeted
amount. For 1967 the approximate costs were as follows:
Services Annual Cost 1967
Private contractor
services (approximate) $ 84,000
Operating cost of City
collection equipment $ 16,000
Total cost of collection
and disposal services $100,000
Based upon a population of 35, 000, the per capita cost in 1967 for total collection
and disposal services averaged $2.85 against an allocated amount of $3.85 per
capita. With the classification of properties and their respective assessed values,
this service costs the owners of residential property $69,300 (51.3%), the commer-
cial property owners $13,900 (10.3%) and public utility companies $51,800
(38.4%) during the year.
2. City of Harahan (Jefferson Parish - Eastbank)
Collection and disposal of solid waste in the City of Harahan is principally handled
through the services of a private contractor with municipal forces handling only
oversize wastes. Collection of garbage and trash from both household and small
VI-3
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
commercial installations is provided three times per week by the contractor. The
City is divided into two areas, one receiving service on Monday, Wednesday, and
Friday and the other area on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. Private contractor
equipment utilized in this service consists of two compactor trucks of 20 cubic yard
capacity, one 8 cubic yard capacity flat bed trash truck, and one three quarter ton
pick-up truck, all radio equipped.
All wastes collected by the private contractor are delivered to the Eastbank inciner-
ator which principally services the Unincorporated Eastbank area of Jefferson Parish.
Working arrangements have been made between the City of Harahan, the Parish
Government and the contractor for disposal of waste collected in the City of Harahan.
Cost of this service to the recipients is assessed on the basis of 5 mils per $1, 000 of
assessed valuation of real property and a monthly service charge of $0.45. Within
the City of Harahan, assessed valuation of real property consists of the following:
Type of Propej-ty Assessed Value
Residential $4,076,360
Commercial $ 766,249
Public Utility $ 381,640
The mileage rate on the approximate total of $5.22 millions, assessed valuation of
real property produces about $26, 000 per year. An additional amount of about
$8, 000 was generated through direct monthly service charges. This total of $34, 000
represented the total monies allocated for collection and disposal costs of solid
waste anticipated by the City of Harahan. Actual costs incurred by the City of
Harahan for this service exceeded the allocated amount. For 1967 the approximate
costs were as follows:
Services Annual Cost 1967
Private contractor
services (approximate) $48,980
VI-4
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
Operating cost of City
collection equipment $ 3,750
Total cost of collection
and disposal services $52,730
Based upon the 1967 population of 16,000, the per capita cost for total collection
and disposal services in the City of Harahan averaged $3.30, against an allocated
cost equivalent to about $2.15 per capita in 1967.
3. Jefferson Parish Eastbank Unincorporated Area
Collection and disposal of solid waste in the Eastbank Unincorporated area is gen-
erally handled by a private contractor. Contractual arrangements between the
Parish Government and the service contractor requires this contractor to provide
all equipment utilized in the collection service and operate the Parish owned and
built Eastbank incinerator. Collection of garbage and trash from household and
small commercial installations is provided two times per week. Collection equip-
ment (all radio equipped ) utilized in this service consists of the following:
17 - Twenty cubic yard compactor trucks
1 - Two ton stake body trash trucks
4 - Three quarter ton stake body dump trucks
This contractor and other private haulers also serve the commercial and industrial
accounts in the area.
Oversize waste in the area is picked up by the Parish. All wastes collected by the
service contractor are taken to the Eastbank incinerator located on David Dr. off
Airline Highway. A service charge has been established on commercial wastes
received at the incinerator. Oversize wastes collected by the Parish are hauled
to the Parish landfill located on the Jefferson Parish Westbank on U. S. Highway
90.
Cost of this service to the recipients is assessed on the basis of 5 mils per $1,000
of assessed valuation of real property, as well as through direct service charges.
Eastbank recipients are subject to a $0.45 per month service charge. Total re-
venues generated for this service for the entire Parish in 1967 included $735,260
from property taxes, $347,503 from other tax sources (sales, etc.) and an addi-
tional $281,170 from direct service charges. This total amount of $1,363,933
VI-5
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
represented total funds allocated for operating costs of the solid waste system for
the Unincorporated Eastbank and Westbank area. Breakdown of income generated
by each area was not available.
Estimated costs incurred by the Eastbank Unincorporated area for 1967 is es-
timated at approximately $805,000, including both the private contractor services
for collection and disposal and the Parish cost in handling miscellaneous oversize
waste. This cost to the Eastbank area excludes capital costs of the Eastbank in-
cinerator which is equivalent to about $120,000 annually.
Based upon the 1967 population of 179,000 the per capita cost for total collection
and disposal in the Eastbank Unincorporated area averaged about $5.15 during
that year. With the combined population of the Unincorporated Eastbank and
Westbank area estimated at 242,750 in 1967, total operating funds allocated for
the solid waste system In the Parish were equivalent to an average rate of about
$5.63 per capita.
4. Jefferson Parish Westbank Unincorporated Area
Collection of solid waste in the Westbank Unincorporated area is handled by the
Parish Government. Collection of garbage and trash from household and small
commercial installations is provided three times a week throughout the Unincor-
porated area, with the exception of the community of Terrytown, adjacent to the
City of Gretna, which receives collection services only twice a week. Collection
of oversize wastes is also provided by the Parish on a weekly basis, utilizing four
stake body trucks in this service. Equipment utilized for garbage and trash collection
consists of five 20 cubic yard, ten 16 cubic yard, and one 18 cubic yard compactor
trucks.
Wastes collected by the Parish are taken either to the Parish landfill located on
U. S, Highway 90 West, or the Parish incinerator located in the Marrero area.
However, the majority of putrescible wastes are delivered to the incinerator for
disposal.
Tax revenues produced in the entire Parish for the collection and disposal of wastes,
as well as revenues generated from the direct service charges were reported earlier
in the previous section covering the Jefferson Parish Eastbank Unincorporated area.
Although the mileage rate on property is the same throughout the Parish, in the case
of direct service charges to the recipients, variations occur in the Westbank area.
VI-6
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
The Terr/town Community is charged on the basis of $0.50 per month with the bal-
ance of the Unincorporated area (generally located nearer the points of disposal)
being charged at the lesser rate of $0.20 per month.
Cost of this service to the Westbank Unincorporated area in 1967 was approximately
$420,000, excluding capital costs of the collection equipment and the incinerator
plant, which are estimated at about $30,000 annually.
Based upon the 1967 population of 63,750 the per capita cost for total collection
and disposal services in the Westbank Unincorporated area averaged about $7.05
during that year, compared to allocated operating costs equivalent to about $5.63
per capita for the entire Parish.
5. City of Westwego (Jefferson Parish - Westbank)
Collection and disposal of solid waste in the City of Westwego is principally handled
by municipal forces. Collection of garbage from household and small commercial
installations is provided on a daily basis with separate collection of rubbish and
oversize wastes provided five days per week. Garbage collection services are pro-
vided by three 16 cubic yard compactor trucks with two stake body trucks being
utilized in the rubbish collections. Private collection contractors, as in the neigh-
boring communities, service the larger commercial and industrial accounts in the
City of Westwego.
All municipal waste collections are delivered to the Westwego dump located im-
mediately south of the City at the end of Central Avenue. Garbage, garden trash,
and oversize wastes are delivered to this landfill for disposal by open dumping and
burning. The Parish provides both equipment and labor in operation of this dump,
at no expense to the City.
Estimated costs incurred by the City of Westwego for these services in 1967 were
about $50,000 excluding capital cost for collection equipment, which is estimated
at about $5,000 average annual expense.
Based upon the 1967 estimated population of about 14,000, the per capita cost for
total collection and disposal services in the City of Westwego averaged about $3.93
during that year.
VI-7
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
6. City of Gretna (Jefferson Parish - Westbank)
Collection and disposal of solid waste in the City of Gretna is principally handled
by municipal forces. Collection of garbage and trash from both household and
small commercial installations is provided three times a week, with one half of
the City receiving service on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday and the balance of
the City on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. This service is provided by six 13-
cubic yard compactor trucks operated by the City. Separate collection of garden
trash and oversize waste is also provided by the City on a continuing cycle. This
service requires the use of four 12-cubic yard stake body trucks and nine 6-cubic
yard dump trucks. Private collection contractors service the larger commercial
and industrial accounts.
All garbage collections from household and small commercial installations are de-
livered to the Gretna incinerator for daily burning. Garden trash and oversize
waste (other than food waste) are delivered to the Gretna landfill for disposal by
open dumping. Deliveries of putrescible wastes are prohibited at this landfill.
Costs of this service to the recipients is assessed on the basis of seven mils per
$1,000 of assessed property values. The breakdown by types, classifications,
and assessed value of taxable properties was not available. Funds generated
from this assessment amounted to about $ 130,000 En 1967. This amount repre-
sents the total operating costs for collection and disposal of solid wastes as an-
ticipated by the City of Gretna. Actual costs incurred by the City for these
services in 1967 were $160,000 excluding capital costs for collection equipment
and the incinerator plant which is estimated at about $40,000 average annual ex-
pense.
Based upon the 1967 estimated population of about 32,000 the actual per capita
cost for total collection and disposal services in the City of Gretna averaged about
$6.25 against allocated operating costs equivalent to about $4.07 per capita in
1967.
7. St. Bernard Parish
Collection and disposal of solid wastes in St. Bernard Parish is administered by
the Parish Government. The Parish provides separate garbage pickup six days
per week within the populated section north of the community of Poydras. Trash
pickup throughout the populated area is on a continuing cycle varying from one
to two pickups a week, depending on daily work loads.
VI-8
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
The Parish collection fleet consists of two 18 ond two 16 cubic yard packers, six
13 yard packers, and five 13 yard stake body trash trucks.
At present both garbage and trash collections are delivered to the public dump on
Paris Road for disposal by open burning. During 1967, St. Bernard Parish built a
new incinerator plant (100 ton per day capacity) a short distance south of this
dump. Operation of this plant is anticipated during 1968 at which time it is in-
tended to deliver all putrescible materials to this plant for disposal by incineration.
In the sparsely populated area below Poydras, arrangements have been made with
Plaquemines Parish for garbage pickup and disposal.
Private contractors provide collection services for commercial and industrial enter-
prises with disposal of these materials handled at both the public and private area
dumps.
Cost of this service to the recipients is assessed on the basis of 4 mils per $1,000
of assessed valuation of real property. Within St. Bernard Parish assessed valuation
of real property consists of the following:
Type of Property Assessed Value
Residential $27,500,000
Commercial and Industrial $20,400,000
Public Utility $ 8,900,000
The mileage rate on the total assessed property valuation of $56,8 million produces
between $200,000 and $225,000 per year. This amount represents the t'otal monies
budgeted for collection and disposal costs of solid waste as anticipated by the Parish.
In 1967 actual costs incurred for this service were within the budgeted amount, slightly
below $200,000.
Based upon the 1967 estimated population of 46,380 the per capita cost for total
collection and disposal services in St. Bernard Parish averaged about $4.30, against
a budget allocation equivalent to $4.65 per capita. Based upon the classifications
of properties and their respective assessed values the tax charge for this service cost
the owners of residential property about $110,000 (48.5%) of commercial property
$81,500 (35.9%) and Public Utility Companies $35,500 (15.6%).
VI-9
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
C. Evaluation of Waste Disposal Facilities in the Area
With the cooperation of various officials in the Tri-Parish communities and/or their
solid waste consultants, we had the opportunity to inspect the existing incinerators,
review available plans and specifications and make observations of the various land-
fill operations in these communities. It should be'noted that the concept of develop-
ment of these facilities was based on needs of the individual communities and on
conditions present at differing periods over a span of twenty years without any thought
of future adaptability of these facilities to a regional program. The purpose of this
evaluation is to present our findings on their adequacy, their present standards of
operations, their possible enlargement or modernization to meet present and future
needs and their adaptability to a long range regional program.
1. Incinerator Installations
a. Eastbank Incinerator (Jefferson Parish)
The 400-ton Eastbank incinerator is located on David Drive adjacent
to the Airline Highway. The site (ISO1 x 2,650') constitutes an area
of approximately 9.0 acres. Based on the 1961 study by Godat & As-
sociates, justification of this project was based on 1960 garbage and
trash production of 64,040 tons on the Eastbank, consisting of approx-
imately 38,000 tons of garbage collected by the Parish, 10,400 tons of
trash collected by the Parish, and 15,700 tons of mixed refuse collected
by commercial enterprises. Disposal at this time was by incineration
and open dumping. Approximately 38,000 tons were incinerated at
the old David Drive plant and some 26,000 tons handled by area dumps.
In connection with this study, population and waste projections in 1975
were estimated as follows:
Population 346,800
Garbage (Parish collected) 101,000 Tons
Trash (Parish collected) 27,600 Tons
Mixed refuse (collected by commercial
accounts) 41,850 Tons
Total garbage and trash for disposal 170,450 Tons
VI-10
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
During the course of this 1961 study, the solution to the problem of dis-
posal called for an increase in incinerator capacity rather than disposal
through landfill operations. This determination was based on the lack
of sufficient land area located near or adjacent to good highways ca-
pable of handling the annual tonnage and cubic yardage volumes on a
long term basis that would be within economic haul distances for col-
lection trucks.
Incineration capacity was established based on a six-day operating week
with an allowance of eight legal holidays and approximately five days
downtime for the plant, or an effective operating year of 300 days.
At the time of the above study it was also anticipated that the original
David Drive incinerator (presently abandoned) would be continued in
operation with Its then present average burning capacity of 120 tons and
a possibility of improving its capacity to 150 tons per day. Therefore,
based upon the 1975 annual waste forecast of 170,450 tons an inciner-
ation deficiency of 400 tons per day was calculated. After a comparison
study of contemporary plant types, it was the opinion and the recom-
mendation of the consultants to design the new 400-ton plant per day
as a continuously fed plant with two, 200-ton rectilinear furnaces e-
quipped with traveling grate stokers.
For design purposes the refuse characteristics were then assumed to
have the following analysis:
Inert solid matter 12 1/2% by weight
Moisture content 25% to 40% by weight
Combustible matter 27 1/2% to 62 1/2% by weight
Heat content 8,000 BTU per pound dry
of combustible matter
Plant facilities and site improvements included automated scales (20
ton capacity with a 24' x 10' platform) for weighing refuse inflow to
the plant, paving, shelled parking area for employees, drainage and
sewerage system, utility service and two-200 gallon per day deep water
wells. As a part of this project the Department of Sanitation of Jeffer-
son Parish also planned centralization of its administrative offices in
the new incinerator building.
VI-11
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
In conjunction with this plant, accessory facilities were also anticipated
at this location consisting of storage garage for collection vehicles,
maintenance facilities for the maintenance of the truck fleet, and a
body and repair paint shop for the departmental vehicles.
Total cost of this plant on completion of construction in 1965 was
$1,578,575 including engineering fees, but excluding land costs. In
addition to this cost some $265,000 was expended in the development
of accessory facilities for the collection division of Jefferson Parish
Eastbank.
This incinerator is a double furnace traveling grate plant with water
spray cooling chambers, mechanical cyclone flyash collectors, and
twin metal stub stacks with induced draft fans. Each furnace is nomi-
nally rated at 200 tons per day and contain two traveling grates. In-
clined grates are used for feeding, drying, and igniting and horizontal
grates are used for burning and discharge into a wet trough conveyor.
Two overhead traveling cranes of four-ton (2 1/2 cubic yard bucket)
capacity are used to transfer refuse from the 1500 cubic yard storage
pit (300 ton capacity) to the continuous feed, water jacketed, fur-
nace charging hoppers.
Each furnace is provided with a total of 35,000 cfm combustion air
at 5 1/2 inch water water gauge pressure which is distributed as over-
fire air (entering the furnace through nozzles located in the roof) and
underfire air (entering the furnace through the grates and through side
nozzles just above the burning grate). The forced draft system provid-
ing combustion air is powered by a 40 hp motor.
After cooling with water sprays to approximately 500°F., gases from
the furnace pass through a mechanical cyclone collector. The gases
are drawn through the collector by an induced draft fan designed for
normal operations at 90,000 cfm at 500°F. at 4 inch water gauge pres-
sure and maximum loads of 112,000 cfm at 500°F. at 6 inch water
gauge pressure. Each fan is driven by a 150 hp motor.
The refuse storage pit (100' x 27' x 15' deep), containing space for
300 tons of refuse (@ 400 pounds per cubic yard), represents a storage
capacity for 18 hours of burning, operating at a rated capacity of 400
tons per day. The plant, presently operating on a 16-hour day, is
VI-12
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Or I eons, La. - 15 May 1968
burning at an average rate of some 200 tons per day, which indicates an
effective capacity of about 75% of the rated design.
The 2 1/2 cubic yard bucket will lift an average 1500 pound load. The
present 200 ton per day operation over a 16 hour period indicates a total
of 267 loads per 16-hour day are lifted daily or an average of one load
every 3.6 minutes. Since this is a continuous operating furnace with
only one crane operating, the charging rate of one load at 3.6 minutes
will apply. This is a nominal rate and represents a reasonable cost in
the overall operation, however, assuming this plant will, in the future,
approach its rated capacity of 400 tons per day (in a 24 hour operating
day), the requirements on the crane would be 534 loads per day or an
average of one load every 2.7 minutes and would substantially reduce
this cost component.
Total air requirements were calculated to provide a temperature of
2000°F. in the furnace while burning mixed refuse containing the high-
est moisture content (40%) and 1800°F. while burning dryer (25% mois-
ture) mixed refuse. Equipment was selected to permit variation of the
total amount of air flowing into the furnace between the values ob-
tained from these calculations with provisions to insure that the under-
fire quantity would be held relatively constant.
Each furnace is equipped with auxiliary gas burners mounted on the
roof of the furnace near the feeding end of the inclined grate. Burners
are of the venturi type capable of delivering a maximum 30,000,000
BTU per hour per furnace at a gas pressure of 10 psi.
Each furnace is equipped with a dry type, multiple tube flyash col-
lector, located between the subsidence chamber and the inlet of the
induced draft fan. The collected particulate matter is continuously
discharged through submerged outlets into the ash conveyor trench.
Arrangement and size of cyclone tubes were selected to insure re-
moval of virtually all material over 10 microns in diameter and not
less than 65% of the material down to 5 microns in diameter.
Residue leaving the burning grate passes through a quenching trench
and is transported by flight conveyor for deposit in the ash storage
hopper. The 50 cubic yard ash storage hopper is located outside the
incinerator building, permitting ash trucks to drive through for con-
venient loading.
VI-13
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
Control instrumentation is designed to indicate pressures, indicate and re-
cord temperature, and in certain instances, to control functions of plant
operation. Control equipment was provided to automatically, 1) maintain
temperature of flue gases at approximately 500° F., 2)shut down forced
draft fan and open relief vent damper if ID fan inlet temperature becomes
too high or instrumentation operating air pressure is lost, and 3) maintain-
ing temperature of furnaces between 1,600° F. and 2000° F.
Upon completion of the incinerator in 1965, observations of the plant op-
eration were made by the design engineers. Initial operation was based
on the three eight man crew shifts per day. Reported costs of operation
during its initial operation period in February 1965 were comparable to
$8.66 per ton operating at less than one third of its rated capacity. It
was estimated a cost of $2.70 per ton can be expected when this plant ap-
proaches its rated capacity of 400 tons per day. This unit cost estimate
excluded the costs of plant maintenance and residue removal.
We anticipate that this type of plant, with proper operation, will be
capable of meeting the recommended standards contained in this report.
b. Westbank Incinerator - Marrero (Jefferson Parish)
The 90-ton Westbank incinerator located in Marrero is a relatively old
facility constructed in 1947-48 at a cost of approximately $210,000 or
about $2,300 per ton, including engineering fees, but excluding land
costs. Located at the corner of Ames Road and Belle Terrace, this plant
occupies a site (4801 x 445') constituting an area of approximately 4.9
acres. The site, together with adjacent properties comprising a total of
17.86 acres, was acquired by the City in 1946 for a total purchase price
of $8,000. Its location, about 1/2 mile south of the Westbank Expressway*
is centrally situated within the developing unincorporated Westbank area.
Accessory facilities on this site include maintenance garages for the Parish
vehicles and offices for the Westbank garbage collection district.
Refuse is not weighed at this location. However, it is estimated that
approximately 40 to 60 tons per day are burned in the two 8-hour shifts
at this plant. The average crew size consists of five men including
the ash truck driver. The plant is operated approximately 300 days per
year.
VI-14
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
The incinerator consists of a two furnace batch feed installation with
combustion chambers, flues, and a single masonry stack to provide
furnace draft and disperse the stack gases. No air pollution control
equipment is provided. The plant is equipped with one 3 ton bridge
crane with a 1 1/2 cubic yard clam shell bucket. Each furnace con-
tains a single cell with burning grate and manually controlled dumping
grate. This plant is not equipped with auxiliary burners. After burn-
out, the accumulation of residue is discharged direct to the ash hopper
located directly below the furnace where it is manually quenched prior
to direct discharge to the residue trucks. An access tunnel for trucks
passes below the furnaces and it is necessary to move the ash trucks
from one hopper to the next for receipt of residue.
The refuse storage pit contains a volume of about 300 cubic yards which
is equivalent to about 60 tons of refuse at 400 Ibs. per cubic yard. This
storage volume represents 16 hours fuel reserve, operating at the rated
plant capacity of 90 tons per day and is about equivalent to its actual
working capacity at the present time, permitting frequent clean-out
of the pit. Relatively no reserve storage capacity is available in the
case of plant downtime due to breakdowns and repairs. However, with
minimum mechanical features present in this plant, normal maintenance
and repairs require minimum time and relatively little loss in operating
time is experienced.
This plant is obsolete by today's standards of modern incineration. Based
on annual average destruction of about 18,000 tons of refuse, it is es-
timated that it is operating at a unit cost of about $4.00 per ton in-
cluding capital expenses, which is comparable to the unit cost limits
experienced locally by the larger modern plant, at New Orleans East.
c. Gretna Incinerator (City of Gretna)
The 100 ton Gretna incinerator is located on the Belle Chasse Highway
in the southerly portion of the City of Gretna. It is a relatively old
facility, constructed in 1951-52 at a cost of about $200,000. Recent
improvements have included the addition of air pollution equipment at
a cost of some $35,000. The incinerator installation is situated on a
three acre site which also contains facilities for the Gretna collection
division. This plant is operated on a single eight hour shift basis, six
days per week and about 300 days per year with a crew of 5 men
VI-15
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
including the ash truck driver. Refuse is not weighed at this location,
but it is estimated the plant burns approximately 30 tons daily.
This plant, similar to the Westbank incinerator, is a two furnace batch
feed installation with combustion chambers, flues and a single masonary
stack 6 feet in diameter and 100 feet high to provide furnace draft and
disburse the stack gases. It is equipped with a single 3 ton bridge crane
with a 1 yard clam shell bucket.
The plant also provides for direct discharge of residue from the furnace
to the ash hopper where it is manually quenched prior to discharge to
the ash trucks.
A spray cooling chamber and fly ash collector was installed in 1967 in
an effort to reduce this nuisance factor.
The 215 cubic yard refuse storage pit represents approximately 43 tons
of refuse @ 400 pounds per cubic yard, or about 10 hours of storage,
assuming operation at the rated plant capacity of 100 tons. This is
adequate for the present actual working capacity of the plant. The
established policy requires daily burning of all refuse received. This
policy is adhered to and the storage pit is cleaned daily and sprayed
to maintain excellent sanitary conditions. As in the Marrero
incinerator, relatively little loss in operating time is experienced.
This plant, obsolete by today's standards of modern incineration ex-
periences relatively high operating costs due to its small capacity and
one shift operation. Based upon annual average destruction of about
9,000 tons of refuse, this plant is operating at a unit cost of about
$5.00 a ton for incineration including capital expense.
d. Paris Road Incinerator (St. Bernard Parish)
The Paris Road incinerator is a new facility (not yet in operation) con-
structed at a cost of $548,000 or about $5,500 per ton, including en-
gineering fees, but excluding land costs. No operating experience is
available to date. For information purposes a description of this plant
is included in this report.
VI-16
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
The incinerator has a capacity of 100 tons per day and is located on an
off-highway site (3001 x 645') constituting an area of approximately
4.4 acres. Its location is in an undeveloped area, zoned for future in-
dustrial use. Accessory facilities on this site include a maintenance
building for Parish vehicles. Site improvements include paved access
roads and parking areas, as well as a scale installation for weighing of
all refuse. Provisions for drainage of process water and surface drain-
age is through an open ditch system. Potable water supply, process
water, and fire protection is provided from a 12 inch main leading to the
property.
This facility consists of a single furnace traveling grate plant with water
spray cooling chamber, mechanical cyclone fly ash collector, a single
metal stub stack and induced draft fan. The furnace which is nominally
rated at 100 tons per day, contains 3 traveling grates. An inclined
grate is used for feeding, drying, and igniting. The first horizontal
grate is used for primary burning and the second horizontal grate is used
for final burnout and discharge of residue into a wet trough conveyor.
Auxiliary gas burners are furnished at this plant for firing up of the
incinerator and for use when refuse is wet.
A 3-ton overhead traveling crane is used to transfer refuse from the
storage pit to the continuous feed, water-jacketed, furnace charging
hopper. This crane, equipped with a one cubic yard clam bucket will
lift an average 600 pound load. For a 100 ton per day operation a total
of 334 loads per day or an average of one load every 4.3 minutes is re-
quired.
The 50 ' x 25 ' x 4' deep refuse storage pit contains space for 37 tons
of refuse @ 400 pounds per cubic yard which represents storage capa-
city for 9 hours operation at the designed rate of 100 tons per day, or
10 hours at the estimated probable average rate of 90 tons per day.
The plant is designed to operate at combustion chamber temperatures
between 1800 and 2000°F. The grate size and arrangement results in
useable grate area of about 180 square feet. Design criteria assumed
the heating value of refuse as fired would be about 4,230 BTU per
pound. Design criteria also required 130% excess air to be supplied
to control the temperature of the furnace exit gases. Total combustion
air requirements were calculated at approximately 12,100 cubic feet
VI-17
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
per minute. The furnace is provided with a total of 18,000 cfm com-
bustion air at 6" water gauge pressure, which is distributed over and
under the grate through overfire nozzles and under grate plenum cham-
bers. The combustion air fan is driven by a 20 HP motor.
After cooling with water sprays to approximately 500°F., gases from
the furnace pass through a mechanical cyclone collector designed for
50,000 cfm at 500°F. with 5" water gauge pressure drop which theore-
tically removes all particles over 10 microns in size. The gases are
drawn through the collector by an induced draft fan designed for normal
operations at 50,000 cfm at 500°F. with 4" water gauge pressure and
maximum loads of 60,000 cfm at 500°F. at 6" water pressure. The in-
duced draft fan is driven by a 60 HP motor.
Residue leaving the burning grate passes through a quenching trench
and is transported by flight conveyor for deposit in the ash storage hop-
per. The conveyor was designed to receive plant discharge from the-
furnace at any rate up to 3 tons per hour and at an operating speed of
not less than 20 feet per minute. The ash storage hopper is located
outside the incinerator building permitting ash trucks to drive through
for convenient loading.
We anticipate that this type of plant, with proper operation, will be
able to meet the recommended standards contained in this report.
2. Landfill Operations
Both private and public landfills which serve Jefferson and St. Bernard Parishes
are generally operated as open burning dumps. Housekeeping and sanitation stand-
ards vary only slightly between these operations although considerable variation
occurs in the types of wastes handled.
In St. Bernard Parish nearly all of the Parish waste collections are delivered to the
public dump on Paris Road, a 200-acre tract, first started as a dump in the mid-
forties and estimated to have a remaining life of some twenty-five years, if con-
tinued to be operated as in the past. This dump is located in marshlands and the
progress of its development has been through continued burning of combustibles and
dumping of non-combustibles in the submerged land areas. A private dump, oper-
ated in a similar manner, is located adjacent to the public dump and receives com-
mercial wastes generated in both St. Bernard Parish and the City of New Orleans.
Scavenging is practiced at both locations. Equipment usage for compaction and
grading to maintain a reasonable appearance at these locations is not adequate and
relatively no cover material is used ot'ier than the on-site residue.
VI-18
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
Three active dumps presently serve the Jefferson Westbank. The Parish dump located
on U. S. Highway 90 consists of about 50 acres. It is situated about 1.5 miles from
the nearest development. This dump receives oversize and non-combustible wastes
from the Eastbank as well as about 60% of the total wastes generated in the West-
bank unincorporated area. The Gretnq dump, consisting of about 2 acres, is lo-
cated on Gretna Boulevard adjacent to developed areas. Policy of operation of
this dump permits burning on a very limited basis under strict supervision. It receives
approximately 40% of the wastes generated in the City, limited to non-putrescible
wastes. It is one of the few area dumps operated on well drained land. The West-
wego dump consisting of about 15 acres is located in marshlands off Central Avenue.
It receives nearly all of the wastes generated in the City.
In addition to the Parish dump located on the Westbank, the Jefferson Eastbank is
served by two other dump facilities. A private dump operated in St. Charles Parish
receives about 80% of all wastes generated in the City of Kenner as well as limited
amounts of commercial wastes from the balance of the Eastbank. The City of Kenner
uses an area paralleling the Jefferson-St. Charles levee for the disposal of commer-
cial trash and all oversize wastes. This dump covers an area of some 10 to 12 acres,
averaging about 100 feet in width and about a mile in length. It is presently closed
to public access but continues to be used by the City. There is no attendant on this
dump and its method of operation presents considerable fire hazards. Due to its
proximity to residential development and to the International Airport, burning has
not been permitted, although the vast majority of materials are combustible. Neither
compaction of wastes nor application of cover material is practiced at this location.
Except for the prohibition of putrescible wastes, its method of operation presents
the most hazardous conditions observed in the Tri-Parish area.
All seven of the area dumps, serving Jefferson and St. Bernard Parishes, are oper-
ated in a manner either in violation of existing ordinances or accepted methods
recommended by health authorities. All present hazards, in varying degrees, to
public health, welfare and safety. In order to eliminate these conditions, regula-
tions must be adopted and enforced, not only prohibiting open dumping and burn-
ing, but also presenting minimum standards that must be met in operation of sani-
tary landfills and other methods of disposal acceptable to local, state and federal
authorities.
D. Quantities and Types of Wastes
1. Present Quantities
Commencing in mid January of 1968, field observations were made over a period
VI-19
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans/ La. - 15 May 1968
of some three weeks at the principal disposal facilities in Jefferson and St. Bernard
Parishes as well as one dump located in St. Charles Parish where wastes generated
in the City of Kenner were hauled for disposal. These observations excluded those
disposal facilities in the Westbank Unincorporated area which were covered by the
previous survey of Gerome Pepper and Associates in early 1966. These field obser-
vations included daily recordings of number of loads, type, size and capacity of
delivering vehicle, classifications and weight of material received, as well as class!"
fications of municipal or Parish collection and private collection vehicles. Ob-
servations covered an average period of fourteen days at each location with a mini-
mum of eight days coverage at the private dump in St. Charles Parish where lesser
volumes of materials were handled, to a maximum of seventeen days observation
at the Eastbank incinerator where a great majority of the area tonnage was handled.
In addition to the disposal facilities noted above, one open dump located on the
Jefferson - St. Charles Parish line, utilized by the City of Kenner for the disposal
of miscellaneous waste, was not covered by continuous observations. However,
it was estimated by the City of Kenner and reasonably verified by spot checking,
that the City delivers, on the average, about 6.5 tons per day of mixed refuse (non-
putrescible) wastes to this dump. Later estimates of total production for the City
of Kenner will include adjustment for this one item.
In review of the Westbank Study, we find that recorded waste collections from
the Westbank Unincorporated area averaged about 675 tons per week consisting
of some 500 tons of Parish collected garbage and trash and some 175 tons collected
by private and commercial haulers. It was also indicated that the Parish inciner-
ator at Marrero was handling an average of about 240 tons per week with the
balance of area wastes collected being handled at the Parish dump.
In addition to the waste from the Westbank, approximately 490 tons per week
generated on the Eastbank were also delivered to the Westbank Parish dump.
For the purpose of this report and for comparison of each community, quantities
of refuse production will be computed in tons and/or pounds per day (7 day week
basis).
We find that the total refuse production in the total Eastbank area amounts to 366
tons per day of which 64% is collected by municipal forces (including private con-
tractors providing municipal pickup) and the remainder by private disposal con-
cerns. We also find that 218 tons per day were produced in the Westbank area
of which 61% is collected by municipal and Parish forces. In St. Bernard Parish
76 tons per day were produced with 35% being collected by Parish forces.
VI-20
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
Generally the private haulers collect all waste from the large commercial and in-
dustrial enterprises, in each of these areas.
The total quantity of refuse expressed in terms of per capita production amounts to
an average of 3.19 Ibs. per day in the Eastbank area, 3.97 Ibs. per day in the
Westbank area and 3.30 Ibs. per day in St. Bernard Parish. A breakdown of our
findings by individual communities, which is shown in Table Vl-lf also includes
the per capita figures for each community. It should be noted that the amounts re-
corded as municipal or Parish refuse also includes collections by private contractors
which provide the public services in the Jefferson Eastbank area.
TABLE VI-1
TOTAL REFUSE PRODUCTION - 1967
(7 Day Week)
COMMUNITY
St. Bernard
Jefferson Westbank
Gretna
Westwego
Uninc. Area
Total Westbank
Jefferson Eastbank
Kenner
Harahan )
Uninc. Area )
Total Eastbank
Municipal*
Lbs/Cap
1.15
2.30
2.92
2.37
2.43
2.08
1.95
1.97
Tons/Day
26.4
37.0
21.2
75.2
133.4
36.0
190.0
226.0
Priv. & Comm.
Lbs/Cap Tons/Day
2.13 49.6
0.68 11.0
1.37 9.8
2.00 63.8
1.54 84.6
0.57 10.0
1.33 130.0
1.22 140.0
Total Per Day
Lbs/Cap
3.28
2.98
4.29
4.37
3.97
2.65
3.28
3.19
Tons/Day
76
48
31
139
218
46
320
366
*That part of the refuse for which the municipality assumes responsibility
The regular public garbage and trash collection services provided by the various com-
munities through their own forces or through private contractors are largely limited
to the collection of combustible wastes. In most cases special collections of oversize
and non-combustible wastes are handled by separate collection crews and equipment.
This type of material represents about 10% of the total wastes collected.
VI-21
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
Summarizing'our findings on the existing solid waste systems of Jefferson and St.
Bernard Parishes, we have prepared Table VI-2, which relates annual costs in-
curred by each of the communities to the respective quantities of wastes produced
and handled. Due to lack of cost accounting detail in these communities, we
have necessarily estimated costs for the most part based on our observations and
evaluation of those cost breakdowns available. In the case of incinerator costs,
Table VI-3 was prepared to present the basis of these estimated costs.
In review of these tables it must be recalled that Jefferson Parish Eastbank com-
munities are Served primarily by private enterprise and that estimated costs shown
do not propose to show actual contractor costs but only an approximate distribu-
tion of total community costs incurred, whereas in the case of Jefferson Westbank
communities and St. Bernard Parish, estimated costs are those probably directly
incurred by the communities. Variations in the estimated costs of collection and
haul can be attributed to the variations in haul distances and/or frequency of col-
lection, as in the case of St. Bernard Parish, which provides daily collections
over a wide area with extreme haul distances.
TABLE VI-2
SOLID WASTE SYSTEM COST ANALYSIS
MUNICIPAL COLLECTION & DISPOSAL - JEFFERSON AND ST. BERNARD PARISHES- 1967
bt. Population
Annual Torn Produced
Average Tons per Da/ Collected
Lbs/Capita (6 Day Bash)
Annual Collection & Disposal Cosh
Cut Per Capita
Cost Per Ton
(2) Annual Tom Incinerated
Est. CostAon
Est. Annual Cost
% of Total Collection
Annual Tons - Landfill
(3) Est. CostAon
Ett. Annual Cost
% of Total Collection
Est. Annual Cost of Disposal
Average CostAon
Annual Camtn. & Private Tons
Received at Municipal Disposal
Facilities
0) Annual Cost of Disposal of Comm.
& Private Collections
Bt. Cat of Municipal Collection
4 Haul
Average CostAon
Jefferson Parish Easlbank
Kenner
35,000
13,300
44
2.42
$100,000
$ 2.85
$ 7.53
_
-
.
-
13,300
$ 1.50
$ 19,950
100
$ 19,950
$ 1.50
.
$ 6.03
Harohan
16,000
5,700
19
2.27
$52,730
$ 3.30
$ 9.25
5,000
$ 4.62
$23,000
87
700
$ 1.25
$ 875
13
$23,875
$ 4.22
.
-
$ 5.03
Uninc.Areo
179,000
63,500
212
2.27
$925,000
$ 5.15
$ 14.50
55,000
$ 4.62
$254,000
86
8,500
$ 1.25
$ 10,625
14
$264,625
$ 4.17
.
-
$ 10.33
Jefferson Parish Westbank
(l)Westwego
14,250
7,600
25
3.40
$55,000
$ 3.93
$ 7.25
.
-
.
-
7,600
$ 1.50
$11,400
100
$11,400
$ 1.50
3,400
$ 5,100
$55,000
$ 7.25
GfAtno
32,000
13,500
45
2.69
$200,000
$ 6.25
$ 14.82
9,000
$ 5.38
$48,350
67
4,500
$ 1.50
$ 6,750
33
$ 55,100
$ 4.10
3,800
$ 5,700
$139,200
$ 10.30
Uninc.Area
63,750
27,400
91
2.76
$450,000
$ 7.05
$ 16.45
18,000
$ 4.35
$ 78,200
65
9,400
$ 1.25
$ 11,750
32
$ 89,950
$ 3.28
34,600
$51,900
$308, ISO
$ 11.20
St. Bernard
Parish
46,380
9,700
32
1.34
$200,000
$ 4.30
20.60
-
-
-
-
9.700
$ 1.50
$ 14,550
100
$ 14,550
$ 1.50
15,000
$ 22,500
$170,450
$ 17.60
(1) Westwego Landfill is operated by Parish Sanitation Dept. - Cost of Disposal shown is not Included In Total Annual Coif.
(2) Data from Table VI-3
(3) Allowance of $1.50 assumed for relatively small landfill preparations $1.25 at Westbank Landfill compared to average
cost of $1.00A«n at New Orleans' large landfill operations.
Note: See also Table 111-2, Page II1-6
VI-22
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
TABLE VI-3
ESTIMATED DISPOSAL COSTS BY INCINERATION
JEFFERSON PARISH - 1967
Year Constructed
Plant Cost
Rated Capacity
Present Operation
No. of Days/Week
No. of Hours/Day
No. of Men/Shift
No. of Tons/Day
Annual Tons Incinerated
Annual Costs
(1) Capital
(2) Operating
TOTAL
Cost Per Ton
Capital
Operating
TOTAL
Eastbank
Incinerator
1964
$1,578,575
400 T
6
16
6
200
60,000
$ 112,000
165,800
$1.86
2.76
$4^62
Marrero
Incinerator
1948
$210,000
90 T
6
16
5
60
18,000
$ 14,900
63,300
$ 78,200
$0.83
3.52
$4"35
Gretna
Incinerator
1951
$235,000
100 T
6
8
5
30
9,000
$ 16,700
31,650
$ 48,350
$1.86
3.52
$5738
(1) Capital expense for comparison purposes is based on Amort. Factor of .07036/yr.
(For 20 yr. Life @ 3 1/2 % Int.)
(2) Operating expense is based on the following nominal allowances:
Payroll & Benefits: Salary Avg. of $400/Mo. per crew member
Utilities: Avg. $0.20/Ton Incinerated
Maint. & Repairs: Avg. $0.40Aon Incinerated
Residue Removal: Avg. $0.25/ton Incinerated
VI-23
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
2.
Forecast of Future Waste Production
In the case of our projections of per capita waste production in the City of New Or-
leans, we selected a 15% increase per decade over the next twenty-year period.
We have adopted this same allowance as the probable future increase in per capita
production for St. Bernard, Jefferson Eastbank, and Jefferson Westbank over the
next twenty years. Based on this factor Table VI-4 has been prepared showing the
estimated per capita production by each of these communities at five-year intervals
to 1990. These figures generally indicate that the future per capita production of
these various communities will be well under the 6.4 Ibs. per capita as forecast by
APWA as the national average by 1990.
TABLE VI-4
•FORECAST OF WASTE PRODUCTION TO 1990
(7-Day Week)
St. Bernard
Jefferson Westbank
Gretna
Westwego
Uninc. Area
Jefferson Eastbank
Kenner
Harohan
Uninc. Area
1970
Lbs/Cap Tons/Day
3.45
3.15
4.50
4.55
2.80
3.15
3.45
91
53
34
155
60
27
328
1975
Lbs/Cap Tons/Da/
3.70
3.35
4.80
4.90
3.00
3.35
3.70
117
60
38
220
75
36
460
1980
Lbs/Cap Tons/bay
3.95
3.60
5.15
5.25
3.25
3.60
3.95
152
68
44
318
117
47
615
1985
Lb»/Cap Tom/Day
4.20
3.85
5.50
5.60
3.40
3.85
4.25
189
79
50
460
166
62
805
1990
Lbi/Cap Ton/Day
4.55
4.15
5.90
6.00
3.70
4.15
4.55
236
92
56
725
222
83
1,050
E.
First Stage Refuse Disposal Program 1970-1980
An immediate need for programming additional disposal facilities in both Jefferson
and St. Bernard Parishes is necessary to accommodate forecast quantities during the
1970-1980 decade. A principal objective in the first stage of the proposed Tri-
Parish development program is to prohibit open burning and dumping. To accomplish
this objective the capacities of incinerators must be enlarged or sanitary landfills
established. The following text covers Recommended Programs for each Parish and
community.
VI-24
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
1. Jefferson Parish
The effective capacity of the David Drive Incinerator can be assumed at about 365
tons per da/. Operating at this capacity it will be capable of handling approxima-
tely 75% of all wastes generated in the Eastbank area irv 1970. An incineration
deficiency of about 115 tons per day will exist in 1970; 300 tons per day in 1975;
and 545 tons per day by 1980. To meet this deficiency, an incinerator installation
with an initial capacity of 600 tons per day should be programmed in the eastern
portion of the Parish in the vicinity of Airline Highway and Labarre Street to be in
operation by 1975. To accomplish this, construction should be started by 1973.
Based on present costs (1967), such an incinerator with adequate air pollution con-
trol would cost approximately $4,000,000 exclusive of land. An additional plant
to serve the western portion of the Eastbank unincorporated area and Kenner should
be programmed for construction in the mid-80's with an initial capacity of 400 tons
per day. Such an incinerator should be ready for operation by 1985 and is estimated
to cost approximately $3,000,000 exclusive of land.
Combined wastes generated by the communities of the Jefferson Westbank area are
estimated to be 280 tons per day by 1970; 370 tons per day by 1975; and 500 tons
per day by 1980. Expansion of the New Orleans Algiers incinerator to a capacity
of 500 tons per day by 1975 would accommodate those wastes generated by the City
of Gretna and the adjacent unincorporated area through 1980. Such an addition
with plant modifications required would cost approximately $2,250,000. If a charge
of $4.00 per ton were made by the City of New Orleans for this service, the cost to
the City of Gretna and the Unincorporated area would be somewhat less than the pres-
ent cost of incineration. Such a charge would fairly allocate the cost between the
users of'the facility.
A new incinerator proposed at the location of the existing Marrero plant with an
initial capacity of 500 tons per day should be programmed for construction immediately
to serve the balance of the Unincorporated area and the City of Westwegp. Such a
plant, based on present conditions (1967), would cost approximately $3,500,000
including air pollution control equipment. The site of the present plant is adequate
and can be utilized for the new facility. This capacity would be adequate through
1985. These two plant locations are so situated to provide reasonable haul distances
in the areas they serve.
2. St. Bernard Parish
Our estimates of the quantities of combustible refuse produced today in St. Bernard
Parish indicate that the .existing Parish incinerator has little reserve capacity beyond
VI-25
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
existing requirements for disposal of all combustible wastes presently generated in
the area. In order to meet the demand for satisfactory disposal of all combustible
(incinerable) wastes generated in this developing area of St. Bernard for the period
1970-1980, doubling its capacity or establishing a sanitary landfill operation is
necessary.
The probable cost of operating the present 100-ton per day unit at full effective
capacity (24 hours/day and 6 days/week) can be expected to be in the neighbor-
hood of $8.00 per ton including amortization (25-year period) of the plant invest-
ment. Similarly, if this plant were to be doubled in capacity and the quantities
of wastes delivered correspondingly increased, the cost per ton might be expected
to drop to about $6.00 per ton.
Disposal of wastes by modern incineration methods is generally relatively expen-
sive in communities the size of St. Bernard Parish, due to the limited quantities of
wastes generated in the area and the correspondingly small capacity of the re-
quired plant.
Based upon our analysis of quantities presently generated in the area and the pro-
jections of waste through 1990, it is not likely that disposal by incineration will be
economical until after 1980, at which time the Parish should consider participation
in the provision of larger incineration capable of meeting the future needs of this
Parish as well as other portions of the Tri-Parish area. Further detail of the future
Tri-Parish program is covered in Chapter VII.
As an alternate means of disposal in the interim years until 1980, St. Bernard Parish
should consider sanitary landfill methods for its requirements beyond the capacity
of the present incinerator. Locations for sanitary landfill would be desirable in the
same general area where the present open dump is operated on Paris Road. This
area ?s presently removed from urban development, in an area of future industrial
use and is reasonably close to the growth area. Based upon average annual quantities
of wastes for the 1970-1980 period, about 10 acres per year would be required. Such
a landfill could receive refuse generated in excess of the incinerator capacity until
1980, and will provide a convenient point of disposal for incinerator residue. In
connection with the landfill and future expansion of the incinerator program, it is
recommended that St. Bernard provide a small transfer station in the vicinity of Poy-
dras, some eight miles to the southeast, when growth warrants its development.
It is estimated that costs of disposal during this interim period (1970 to 1980)
would average about $5.50 per ton, that is, about $8.00 per ton by incinera-
VI-26
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
tion and about $4.50 per ton by sanitary landfill methods, with costs allowed
for transfer of wastes from the southeasterly developed areas. Based upon the
long range program designed to serve the Tri-Parish area, considerable economy,
through reduced disposal costs, would be immediately available in 1980 to St.
Bernard Parish.
VI-27
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
VII MASTER PLAN FOR TRI-PARISH AREA
A. General
The Tri-Parish area, which includes the parishes of Orleans, Jefferson, and St.
Bernard, generally covers the New Orleans metropolitan area and for the purpose
of this study is limited to the developed and populated portions of these three
parishes. It covers an area of approximately 163 square miles, of which Orleans
Parish occupies,66 square miles, Jefferson Parish 43 square miles on the east bank
of the Mississippi and another 43 on the west bank, while the area under consid-
eration in the St. Bernard Parish accounts for approximately 11 square miles
In previous chapters we have described these areas in detail; we have discussed
the economic factors upon which the growth of the area depends and the relative
rate of growth of one parish to the other. We have analyzed the various sources
and rates of waste production, the types and characteristics of the waste, and the
present means of disposal. We have discussed the inadequacies of the present
waste disposal facilities and the steps required to bring them up to present day
standards.
This is an area of dynamic growth, in which the presently estimated population
of 1,073,000 is expected to increase to 1,131,000 by 1970; 1,489,000 by 1980;
and 1,966,000 by 1990, or an increase of nearly 100% in the next 22 years. At
the same time, the per capita rate of refuse production is expected to increase
by 15% per decade.
In terms of refuse production, it is estimated that 2,280 tons per day of combus-
tible refuse are currently generated within the area. It is anticipated that this
quantity will increase to 3,675 by 1980 and to 5,700 tons per day by 1990 (6-day
week), or nearly a 2-1/2 times increase over the present.
In Chapters V and VI we have discussed the first stage of development of
a waste disposal program for each of the parishes covering the period from 1970
to 1980. In this Chapter it is our purpose to develop an overall master program
of waste disposal for the entire developed Tri-Parish area adequate to the year
1990. We propose to integrate the waste disposal of the three parishes into a
single whole and to present a solution without reference to parish or other po-
litical boundaries. Such solution must continue to utilize such existing facilities
as may be economically incorporated into the overall program.
VIM
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
B. Characteristics of Future Development
Because of the relatively high cost of land development due to the need for filling
and draining, and otherwise reclaiming of lands on which urban development can
take place in the Tri-Parish area, It is anticipated that the future growth of the area
will follow the already well established pattern of small lots and dense urban develop-
ment. The estimated population densities in the planning studies for the Tri-Parish area
upon which future population forecasts have been based further bear this out.
C. Proposed Methods of Refuse Disposal
Because of the relatively high density of developments and the relatively low eleva-
tions which have been established for urban development, there is little likelihood
of being able to develop large sanitary landfill sites for general use within a reason-
able haul distance from the developed areas. This matter was discussed in detai1 In
Chapter IV together with other possible means of refuse disposal, all of which were
discarded in favor of incineration. We have, therefore, for the most part, based the
development of the master plan upon the use of incineration as a means of disposal of
combustible wastes, limiting dumping to non-combustible materials and incinerator
residue both of which can be used for the recovery of land either for public or commer-
cial purposes without creating nuisance or health hazards in their vicinity.
D. Economic Size of Incinerator
Before undertaking the development of the waste disposal plan for the Tri-Parish area,
we made a study of the cost of constructing and operating modern incinerators of dif-
ferent capacities and the cost of hauling refuse from the pickup areas to the inciner-
ators. Because of recent changes in market conditions, this study is based upon a con-
struction cost of $6,250 per ton of incinerator with an annual interest of 5% and amor-
tization with level debt service over 25 years, rather than the 3 1/2% interest and 20
year amortization used by the City in its records for the years 1965; 1966, and 1967
appearing in Table V-18. Wages are based on those currently paid by the Sanitation
Department of the City of New Orleans.
The costs of utilities and residue disposal are also based on recent experience of the
Sanitation Department in incinerator operation. Repairs have been assumed at 2% per
annum of the entire cost of the plant. Plant operation has been based on 90% of the
rated capacity (6-day week operation) and operating between 90 and 95% of the time,
depending on the size of the Incinerator and the number of furnaces available. The
VII-2
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
cost of haul to the incinerator has been based on the actual records for the
use of 20-cubic yard packers currently used by the Sanitation Department with
an estimated average load of four tons.
Studies have been made on collection areas having a density of 25 persons per
acre and a waste production of 3.5 Ibs. per capita with truck travel speed from
the collection area to the incinerator of 15 miles per hour and also, on collec-
tion areas having a density of 15 persons per acre producing 3 Ibs. per capita
and haul speeds of 18 miles per hour from the collection area to the incinerator.
In the development of the study it has been assumed that the incinerator is lo-
cated in the center of a waste production area which is square in shape. Varia-
tion in the shape of the waste production area as well as in the relationship
between area and incinerator would somewhat increase the haul cost from those
shown under these ideal conditions. However, the cost would increase propor-
tionately and the validity of the conclusions would not be altered. This infor-
mation has been plotted on Figure Vll-l. A study of this figure will reveal
that the minimum cost of incinerator operation plus haul to the incinerator cor-
responds to an incinerator having a capacity of 600 tons per day. The cost per
ton increases sharply for the smaller incinerators, increasing more gradually as
the size of the incinerator also increases. This criteria holds true regardless of
the density of population of the tributary area served.
FIGURE Vll-l
ECONOMIC SIZE OF INCINERATOR - COST OF OPERATION AND HAUL
10.00
8.00
Incinerator Oberalion (se$ Pig. V^
800 1000
Tons Per Day
1200
1400
1600
VII-3
-------
Solfd Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
E. Proposed Master Development Program
1. Orleans Parish - General
In Table V-45 in Chapter V we presented a schedule of proposed incinerator util-
ization based on the first stage of development recommended in that Chapter for
the City of New Orleans and covering the years from 1975 thru 1990. This sched-
ule showed that, whereas all of the incinerators had adequate capacity to meet the
requirements of 1980, substantial additional capacity was needed to meet the re-
quirements of 1990.
a. Algiers District
The estimated waste production within the Algiers col lection district
(within Orleans Parish) is 346 tons per day by 1990 or 46 tons in excess
of the 300-ton capacity provided thru the enlargement of the Algiers in-
cinerator required as a part of the first stage of development. Examining
the location of the Algiers incinerator, we find that it is located on the
westerly boundary of Or leans Parish, adjacent to the City of Gretnaand
to a substantially developed area in the unincorporated portion of Jefferson
Parish, both of which could be economically served by it, provided that
sufficient capacity were available. This has been previously mentioned
under Jefferson Parish in Chapter VI.
If instead of the 200-ton addition to the Algiers incinerator proposed
under the first stage development, provisions were made for ultimately
increasing the capacity of this incinerator to800 tons by adding two 300-
ton furnaces. Such an arrangement would require that the first 300-ton
furnacebe constructed prior to 1975and the secondafter 1980. This in-
cinerator would then have adequate capacity to receive the wastes from
the Algiers section of Orleans Parish, the City of Gretna, and the adjacent
section of the unincorporated area of Jefferson Parish to 1985. After
1985, the second 300-ton furnace would be needed to provide enough ca-
pacity thru 1990.
The additional increase of the Algiers incinerator to provide service to
Gretna and part of the unincorporated area of Jefferson Parish would
result in a reduction in the cost per ton of waste processed at this plant
from approximately $4.50 per ton, for the plant enlarged to provide
for the City of New Orleans only, to approximately $4.00 per ton for
serving the enlarged area.
VIM
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
This substantial savings would benefit the City of New Orleans as
well as the City of Gretna which will pay less than the cost of
using Its present incinerator. Also, because of the proximity to the
adjacent portion of the unincorporated area of Jefferson Parish, the
overall cost of disposal at the Algiers incinerator should be less than
that of hauling the refuse to the Marrero incinerator which is pro-
posed to serve the main part of the westbank .area of Jefferson
Parish.
With the modification in the suggested program of the Algiers incin-
erator mentioned above, adequate capacities would be available with
this incinerator to serve the Algiers district thru 1990 and it would not
be necessary to transfer refuse from this plant to the Seventh Street
incinerator as proposed under the first stage development, thus leaving
additional capacity at the Seventh Street incinerator for further
growth.
b. Western, Central, and Night Districts
Referring again to Table V-45, we note that by 1990 there will be a
slight shortage of capacity at the St. Louis incinerator to serve the
Western district whereas the Seventh Street incinerator serving the Cen-
tral and Night districts still has a capacity in excess of the require-
ments of these collection areas. By extending the Central collection
area east of CarrolIton Avenue from Julia to Tulane, the loads on each
of these incinerators would be more evenly balanced.
c. Eastern I District
In the case of the Florida Avenue incinerator serving the Eastern I
district, we find that its full capacity will be reached in 1982 after
which provisions must be made for the excess of waste produced from
the district. If the area served by this incinerator were reduced by
eliminating the area from the St. Bernard Parish line to France Road
(just westerly of the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal) approximately
126 tons per day (based on 1990 estimates) would be removed from the
district thus permitting this incinerator to have sufficient capacity to
meet the requirements of the remaining area until 1990. The removal
of this area from the Eastern I collection district would reduce the
haul distance for refuse trucks within the district and thus reduce the
cost of waste disposal at this plant. Since this district is adjacent to
VII-5
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
the developed areas of St. Bernard Parish, it would be logical to con-
sider the waste disposal from both of these areas in a single facility.
d. Eastern II District
In Table V-45 it was shown that the New Orleans East Incinerator
serving the Eastern II collection district would reach full capacity by
1980 and that a second disposal facility would be required after that
time. The anticipated growth in the Eastern II collection district can
be expected to be in an easterly direction from the presently devel-
oped area toward Paris Road. The subsequent development can be ex-
pected to continue along the lake and highways as these areas are
drained, filled, and prepared for urban development. Therefore, the
additional disposal facility should be located to the east of Paris Road.
Since a 500 acre tract, reserved for public park development, is lo-
cated in the vicinity of Blind Lagoon, relatively close to the Paris
Road area, consideration should be given to the development of a san-
itary landfill in this area, to be in operation by 1984 to receive refuse
collected within the district in excess of the capacity of the present
incinerator. Between 1980 and 1984 and at a decreasing rate there-
after until 1988, the proposed St. Bernard incinerator will have the
excess capacity required to receive the average of waste produced in
N.O.-Eastern II District. The use of this facility by New Orleans to
the extent possible will reduce disposal costs to a minimum.
Since the area served would be in the vicinity of Paris Road, the haul
distance would be considerably reduced from those shown in Chapter
IV thus making this method of disposal more attractive even with the
standards that must be observed in sanitary landfill development as
previously discussed. This landfill should be continued in'full oper-
ation until such time as the daily production of refuse will warrant the
construction of a second incinerator. Such an incinerator should have
an ultimate capacity of 600 tons provided by three 200-ton furnaces.
Initial construction would provide for the construction of two furnaces
having a total capacity of 400 tons with provisions for the addition of
the third unit when needed. The first stage construction should be
ready for use by 1989. A portion of the sanitary landfill area at Blind
Lagoon should be reserved as the site for the future incinerator.
2. St. Bernard Parish
In Chapter VI it was proposed that St. Bernard Parish provide a new incinerator to
replace the present incinerator and have it in operation by 1980. If such an
incinerator were planned to have an ultimate capacity of 600 tons per day with
VII-6
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 Mav 1968
three 200-ton furnaces, two of such units would meet the needs of the Parish until
about 1995 after which the third unit would be required. The two units would pro-
vide a nominal capacity of 400 tons per day and are estimated to cost $3,000,000
inclusive of land based on 1967 costs. If the refuse from the easterly portion of the
Eastern I district of Orleans Parish were to be disposed of with that of St. Bernard
Parish, 400-ton capacity would be sufficient until 1990 after which the third unit
bringing the plant to its full 600-ton capacity would be needed. The effect of
combining the refuse from a portion of the Eastern I district of New Orleans with
that generated within the Parish would be to reduce the operating cost of refuse
disposal from about $6.00 per ton to approximately $4.00 per ton. Such an arran-
gement would permit the City of New Orleans to dispose of its waste at $4.00 per
ton and at the same time defer the capital expense required for a new incinerator.
3. Jefferson Parish
a. Westbank
The Marrero incinerator proposed under the first stage of development in
Chapter VI to serve the unincorporated area of the Westbank of Jefferson
Parish lying to the west of the City of Gretna and including the City of
Westwego will be adequate to meet the 1990 conditions if enlarged to its.
ultimate capacity of 750 tons. The increase from the initial 500 tons to
750 tons will be required between 1985 and 1990 depending on the rate
of growth of the area.
b. Eastbank
The present David Drive incinerator will be adequate to serve the needs
of the City of Harahan and a portion of the unincorporated area of the
Eastbank of Jefferson Parish provided that the Jefferson Kenner and Jef-
ferson Labarre Street incinerators proposed under the first stage of develop-
ment in Chapter VI are enlarged to their ultimate capacity of 600 and 900
tons respectively. These three incinerators will have a combined capaci-
ty sufficient to serve the entire Eastbank of Jefferson Parish including
both the Cities of Kenner and Harahan thru 1990.
F. Implementation of the Program
1. Estimated Capital Investment
The basic Master Plan Development Program is shown in Table VI1-1 and
locations of these plants are shown in Figure V-14 {backcover). Imple-
mentation of the proposed solid waste disposal program will require a total
capital investment estimated at $36,200,000 (1967price basis) over the
twenty period as shown in Table VII-2.
VII-7
-------
K
00
TABLE VIM
PROPOSED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
1980
1990
Incinerators
Incinerator Area Served
Seventh Street Central District
Night
(Add Western Tulane Julie area)
St. Louis Western Deduct before 1990
Tulane Julia area
Florida Avenue Eastern 1 Deduct
France Road to St. Bernard Parish
St. Bernard St. Bernard Add Eastern 1
France Road to St. Bernard Parish
N. O. East ') Eastern II
N. O. East *2
*
Algiers Algiers
Algiers - Gretna Unincorporated
Gretna
Jefferson, Marrero Jefferson West Bank Unincorporated
Westwego
Jefferson David Drive Jefferson East Bank Unincorporated
Horahan
Jefferson Kenner Jefferson East Bank Unincorporated
Kenner
Jefferson Lobarre Street Jefferson East Bank Unincorporated
TOTAL
Population
229,000
47,250
276,250
127,750
127,750
203,000
38,000
165,000
77,000
38,000
115,000
136,000
136,000
79,000
22,000
38,000
139,000
103,000
17,000
120,000
12.6VOOO
26,500
V52,500_
72,500
182,950
T82,950
U»,
Per
Cop.
3.92
6.87
5.35
5.35
4.65
5.35
5.35
5.30
6.15
4.20
6.15
6.0
4.65
4.25
3.80
4.65
Tore
Per
Day
448
162
6TO
342
341
543
-100
CJ
180
100
356-
364
-365
~5
210
68
80
558
314
51
365
2*3
57
355
138
425
125"
3,^75
No. &
Size
Furnaces
3@300
2@225
2@300
2@200
2@200
-
1@200
1@300
565
2@250
2@200
Landfill oncf 7th"
2@ 300
Average
Capacity
Tons/Day
330
410
545
365
365
-
450
450
365
Str«et Incin^
545
4,3T5,
Population
234,750
51,750
9,150
295,650
132,750
- 9,150
123,600
212,250
40,000
252, JSO
104,000
40,000
144,000
195,000
155,000
110,000
78,000
44,000
232,000
164,000
19,000
183,000
96,400
40,000
136,400
90,000
120,000
210,000
272,500
272,500
Lbs.
Per
Cap.
4.55
7.88
6.21
6.30
6.30
5.50
6.29
6.78
6.85
4.85
6.85
7.00
5.50
5.00
5.50
4.50
5.50
Tors
Per
Day
535
204
29
768
418
-29
3S9
669
-126
33
286
126
ZT2
615
-365
215
346
268
106
720
561
59
620
264
100
364
247
270
5T7
750
750
5,700
Incinerators
No. &
Size
Furnaces
3@300
2@225
2@300
3@2X
2@200
2@200
1@200
2@300
§55
3@250
2@200
3@200
3@300
Average
Capacity
Tons/Day
'
120
410
545
545
365
365
720
675
365
545
,$20
6,775
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - T5 May 1968
TABLE VI1-2
CHRONOLOGICAL PROGRAM OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Based on 1967 Costs
Estimated Cost
J969
Reconstruct and enlarge Florida Avenue Incinerator to 600 tons/day $ 3,750,000
Construct new Marrero Incinerator to 500 tons/day $ 3,500,000
-I*7!
Reconstruct and enlarge Seventh Street Incinerator to 900 tons/day $ 5,600,000
J973
Enlarge Algiers Incinerators to 500 tons/day $ 2,250,000
Construct Jefferson La bar re Street Incinerator having 600 tons/day
initial capacity $ 4,000,000*
J978
Construct St. Bernard Incinerator having 400 tons/day initial capacity $ 3,000,000*
J983
Enlarge Algiers Incinerator to 800 tons/day $ 2,250,000
Enlarge Marrero Incinerator to 750 tons/day $ 2,000,000
Construct Jefferson Kenner Incinerator having 400 tons/day initial
capacity $ 3,000,000*
J985
Enlarge Jefferson Kenner Incinerator to 600 tons/day $ 1,600,000
J987
Construct New Orleans East Incinerator *2 - 400 tons/day $ 3,000,000
J989
Enlarge Jefferson Labarre Street Incinerator to 900 tons/day $ 2,250,000
Total Investment - Twenty-Year Program $36,200,000
*p|us land
VI1-9
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
2. Overall Effect on Cost of Disposal
Present disposal costs averaging about $3.70 per ton, but ranging from $0.45 per
ton at the Algiers dump to $6.91 per ton at the Algiers Incinerator, as experienced
by the City of New Orleans in 1967, will level off to an estimated cost of $3.50-
$4.00 as the program is developed. In effect, the City of New Orleans will not
incur major unit cost increases with development of improved disposal facilities.
Conversely, those communities including St. Bernard, Westwego and Kenner, served
exclusively by open dumps will experience costs that will be two to three times their
present unit costs of disposal, with the availability of improved standards of disposal.
By and large none of the communities will experience a reduction in the average
cost per ton for disposal, with the possible exception of the Unincorporated Eastbank
Area of Jefferson Parish, which through full operation of the existing Eastbank In-
cinerator should lower unit costs substantially.
To emphasize the magnitued of this program, by 1980 the annual combined capacity
of these plants would be about 1,400,000 tons with annual costs at about $4,500,000
and by 1990 the expanded plants would have a combined annual capacity of over
1,800,000 tons with annual costs of some $6,400,000. These compare with a 1967
annual incinerator capacity of 340,000 tons operated at a cost of $1,500,000.
Table VII-3 was prepared showing each plant expansion in the program together with
projections of anticipated annual costs over the twenty-year period. In Table VI1-4
is shown the operation cost for the various sizes of incinerators for each of the col-
lection districts and parishes used in the preparation of Table VII-3. (Backcover).
3. Central Management
A central Tri-Parish authority was suggested in Chapter IV for the control and reg-
ulation of solid waste disposal. With the adoption of a long range Tri-Parish dis-
posal program and development of the proposed incinerator plants, it follows that
central management of these plants should also be considered. With increasing
complexity of modern disposal facilities it is imperative that plant operation and
maintenance be closely managed, to assure maximum efficiency at minimum ex-
pense and a reasonable period of useful life.
Central management in operation and control of these facilities would be more
effective in acquiring, training and utilizing all classifications of personnel.
Similarly, with multi-plant operation, minimum parts and supplies inventories
would be required and standardization of plant and equipment could be achieved
where practicable. Total responsibility on management for operation and
VII-10
-------
TABLE VIM
ESTIMATED VARIATIONS IN OPERATING COSTS
( Incinerators 100 Tons/Day - 900 Tons/Day)
(6 day basis - 3 shift operation)
RATED CAP. T/D
EFFECTIVE CAP. T/D
EFFECTIVE CAPV T/YR.
OPERATING EXPENSE
LABOR & FRINGE BENEFITS
Variable
UTILITIES
Constant Unit Cost
MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS
Constant Unit Cost
RESIDUE REMOVAL
Constant Unit Cost
TOTAL
Average Cost/Ton
400
365
113,000
$ 150,000
1.32
20,000
40,000
20,000
$ 230,000
2.02
500
450
140,000
$ 170,000
1.22
25,000
50,000
25,000
$ 270,000
1 .93
600
545
170,000
$ 186,000
1:096
30,000
• 176/T
60,000
.352A
30,000
.176 A
$ 306,000
1.80
750
675
210,000
$ 222,000
1.06
37,000
74,000
37,000
$ 370,000
1.75
800
720
224,000
$ 234,000
1.04
39,000
78,000
39,000
$ 390,000
1.75
900
820
256,000
$ 255,000
1 .00
45,000
90,000
45,000
$ 435,000
1.70
100
35
10,000
(1 shift only)
$ 30,000
2,000
10,000
2,000
$ 44,000
4.40
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
maintenance of the plant facilities, without being charged with other unrelated
functions would provide a foundation for an efficient and economical solid waste
disposal program that could be operated by either public or private enterprise.
The full utilization of the tri-Parish disposal facilities for the disposal of waste
generated within the tri-Parish area without limitation of parish boundaries results
in an overall savings to the tri-Parish area of 10-15 percent with the savings to St.
Bernard Parish and the Westbank Area of Jefferson Parish approaching 25 percent.
Additional savings through a single tri-Parish administrative and operating orga-
nization could conceivably reduce these costs another 5-10 percent oc an overall
reduction in disposal cost through a single tri-Parish organization of about 20 per-
cent.
In the opinion of the Assistant City Attorney of the City of New Orleans, the City
may join with other parishes in the establishment of a tri-parish garbage disposal
area. This opinion is based upon the following portions of Section 1324 of Title 33
of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950:
"Any parish, municipality, police jury, harbor
and terminal district or any combination thereof
may make agreements between or among them-
selves to engage jointly in the exercise of any
power, the construction or acquisition or im-
provement of any public project or improvement,
or the promotion and maintenance of any under-
taking which each of the participating authorities
may exercise or take individually under any pro-
vision of general or special law. Such arrange-
ments may include but are not limited to activities
concerning:
(3) Sewers, drains and garbage and other refuse
collection and disposal;****"
VII-12
-------
APPENDIX
-------
Study of Solid Waste - New Orleans, La.
INDEX
APPENDIX I DIGEST OF SOLID WASTE ORDINANCES
|-A Digest of City of New Orleans Solid Waste Ordinance
I-B Digest of Jefferson Parish Solid Waste Ordinance
I-C Digest of Kenner Bid Specification in lieu of Solid Waste
Ordinance
APPENDIX II
APPENDIX III
APPENDIX iv
APPENDIX V
APPENDIX vi
I-D Digest of Gretna Solid Waste Ordinance
I-E Solid Waste Disposal Regulations - State of Louisiana
HAUL STUDIES
INCINERATOR MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE
Continuous Feed Plant
Batch Feed Plant
BASIC FIELD INFORMATION FORMS UTILIZED IN SURVEY
SUGGESTED REGULATIONS FOR SANITARY LANDFILLS
Sec. 1 Sanitary Landfill Sites
Sec. 2 Site Approval
Sec. 3 Site Improvement
Sec. 4 Fire Protection
Sec. 5 Sanitary Landfill Operation
REFUSE SAMPLING AND TESTING.PROCEDURES
Page
1-1
1-1
1-3
1-5
1-5
1-6
ll-l
Ill-l
Ill-l
111-5
IV-1
V-l
V-l
V-l
V-2
V-2
V-3
Vl-l
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
jjew Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
APPENDIX I Digest of Solid Waste Ordinances
Digests of the available Solid Waste Ordinances in the TrirParish Area have been included in the
following:
I-A City of New Orleans
I-B Jefferson Parish
I-C City of Kenner (Bid Specifications
for contract collection)
I-D City of Gretna
I-E Solid Waste Disposal Regulations - State of Louisiana
l~A Digest of £?ty of New Orleans Solid Waste Ordinance
Unlawful to keep, throw, deposit any refuse which is offensive to smell or injurious
to health.
Unlawful to leave any airtight containers such as iceboxes, refrigerators, etc.,
which could be easily accessible to children without first removing either the door or
the locks. 3/17/67
Unlawful to use garbage, refuse, or swill for purpose of filling lots.
Owners and occupants of all premises shall provide containers for storage which
should be enough to hold one week's amount of trash and garbage.
Containers should be galvanized steel or any other material approved by Director of
Sanitation, with handles and tight fitting covers, watertight - not less than 10 gal-
lons and not more than 30 gallons, the cover is not to be attached in anyway to con-
tainers; combined weight of both garbage and trash is not to exceed 75 pounds.
Cans must be covered at all times and garbage wrapped in newspaper.
Trash containers and contents therein must not exceed 75 pounds, yet these containers
may be made of wood or metal and need not have covers. Boxes are allowed for
this purpose.
Branches and shrubbery must be cut in lengths of less than four feet and tied in
bundles not to exceed three bundles and/or 75 pounds.
Appendix 1-1
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
Time of collection is designated by Director of Sanitation - cans placed at curb or
alley before 5 AM for day and between 5 and 6 PM for night must be removed im-
mediately after pickup.
Not in excess of 60 gallons of garbage or three bundles of branches will be removed
by department from any one household. Excessive amounts must be removed by oc-
cupants themselves.
Refusal to pickup garbage and trash may be made by Director of Sanitation when no
compliance to type or quantity of refuse.
Contractor, manufacturers, and trading refuse is not accepted.
Contagious or infectious hospital waste must meet and be prepared for removal as
indicated by Board of Health. All such boxes labeled "Hospital Waste".
Any flammable material must be placed in metal containers with cover and disposed
of as stated by Director of Sanitation.
Unlawful to dispose of explosives by putting the same in garbage or trash containers.
Unlawful to put out refuse not properly separated or stored in containers or to keep
refuse on premises if not properly stored or to remove covers other than placement
or disturb cans of others.
Dumps facing road must be enclosed by fence not less than seven feet nor more than
ten-feet high having no advertisement on the fence.
Burning on private dumps prohibited. Those who maintain private dumps must take
all necessary precautions to prevent fire by either persons or spontaneous combus-
tion.
If fire does occur and New Orleans Fire Department (NOFD) is called upon to
extinguish, the company or individual must pay for cost of personnel and equipment.
Cost plus accrued interest at rate of 6% annum will be charged to owner's tax bill.
If owner fails to pay full amount, a representative of NOFD shall have recorded
in the Mortgage Office a sworn statement of cost; this recordation shall constitute
a lien on the property until payment is made in full.
Appendix 1-2
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, Lo. - 15 May 1968
Resident of any premises must remove all sweepings of sidewalk so as not to allow
this debris to stop up the drains.
Vehicle hauling wastes must be equipped with a tarpaulin in order to prevent
spillage.
Removal of fire debris must be done within six days by residents.
Discharging of garbage from vessels into River is unlawful. Vessels discharging
garbage to land in the Port of New Orleans must comply with container requirements.
Licences to collect garbage for the Port of New Orleans must be accepted by Board
of Health.
The Police Department shall remove from streets abandoned, stripped junk cars
placing a notice on them three days prior to removal and may be sold for |unk after
removal.
I-B Digest of Jefferson Parish Solid Waste Ordinance
All refuse accumulated in Jefferson Parish is collected, conveyed and disposed of
by Parish. Private collectors must obtain operating permits from Director of Garbage
and State Health Authorities. Open or stake body vehicles must be covered. This
provision does not prohibit the actual producer or outside collectors to use Jefferson
thoroughfare as long as both abide by above ordinance.
Director of garbage is authorized to regulate and schedule days of collection, type
and locations of waste containers and other matters pertinent to this Division. He
may modify or change same after notice as required by law.
Garbage and trash should be drained, bottles and cans rinsed and drained before
disposing, tree trimmings and hedge clippings must not exceed 3" in diameter nor 4
feet in length, and tied in bundles not more than 2 feet thick. Trash which exceeds
above limits and all non-combustible materials - building materials (brick, plaster,
cement) will not be picked up and should be removed by occupants.
Occupants must supply and keep in good sanitary condition their own refuse contain-
ers. Occupants not meeting these standards will not be serviced. Containers ere to
be of galvanized steel or approved material with handles, tight fitting covers yet
Appendix 1-3
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleons, La. - 15 May 1968
nor secured to container, watertight and having a minimum 10 gallon to maximum
30 gallon capacity. Combined weight will not exceed 75 pounds.
Storing of refuse must be in approved containers unless express approval is granted
by the Director, otherwise accumulation of refuse is prohibited. No persons shall
place refuse in such a manner that scattering may occur due to elements.
Director designates days of collection in Areas of Parish. Occupants place approved
containers at curb before 4;00 AM for collection days and removed promptly after-
wards.
Collection of garbage and trash shall be collected not less than 3 times weekly.
At any one collection, the occupant is limited to 60 gallons of refuse and three bundles
of shrubbery and above this limit must be handled by occupant.
Charges for collection and disposal of refuse placed between sidewalk and curb for
Garbage District I - 45 4 / month/dwelling unit; Garbage District II - 50 4 /
month/dwelling unit. Service charges are collected bi-monthly on same billing of
Waterworks of Jefferson Parish. An account will be considered delinquent if not
paid 10 days after receipt. 30 days delinquency and the Director authorizes that
all refuse collection for that account be halted. Services will resume on payment
of accumulated fees plus 10%. Garbage disposal at Parish incinerator by commercial
contract haulers or actual producer rate are set at $2.10/ton or fraction thereof
which is charged rateable at $2.00/ton. Disposal of garbage or trash at Parish Dump
or Landfill are rated to vehicles capacity:
Compaction vehicle 13-20 c.y.: 5.00/load
Compaction vehicle excess of 20 c.y.: 7.50/load
Vehicles such as open stake body or van type are charged .35 4 / 100 * / load.
Fees charged are collected by Director of Garbage in a manner within his discretion -
provided at least one monthly by Finance Director to any Commercial Contract
hauler. Penalties are equivalent for delinquent payments.
Any violator of Ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction
fined not more than $100.00 or imprisonment not more than 30 days in jail or both.
Each day such violation is committed or permitted to continue shall constitute a
separate offense.
Appendix 1-4
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. -15 May 1968
I-C Digest of Kenner Bid Specification in lieu of Solid Waste Ordinance
Residential refuse collection will be combined of garbage and trash, three times
weekly at the curb, not to exceed 15' from property line.
Not acceptable for trash collection will be ashes, construction debris, broken con-
crete, tree branches and wood in excess of 36* in length or debris from commercial
and industrial establishments.
Refuse containers shall be metal or plastic, cylindrical shape, watertight, strong
handles and tight fitting covers. Such containers shall be provided by occupant
and maximum capacity must not exceed 30 gallons.
Collections shall be made on a weekly schedule by contractor who must submit
(area scheduled for collection) within 45 days after city awards contract. Services
shall not begin before 5:00 AM and be completed by 10:00 PM with no collections
on Sunday. Contractor need not take more than three 30 gallon containers per
dwelling unit. Any non-resident abides by above specifications.
All garbage and trash should be drained of all free liquids, with garbage either
wrapped in paper or bagged. Separation of combustible and non-combustible is
not required, but trash must be placed in containers or tied in bundles not to ex-
ceed three (3) feet in length. Loose trash will not be collected.
I-D Digest of Gretna Solid Waste Ordinance
It is unlawful to dump garbage, dead animals or fish and other refuse on public or
private property whether enclosed or not, except on such grounds as designated by
the City of Gretna for this purpose.
Violators will incur a fine not less than $2.50 not more than $25.00 or imprison-
ment for not less than 3 nor more than 30 days in jail or both.
Refuse containers must be galvanized iron with a tight cover not to exceed 30 gal-
lons. Violators will be fined not more .than $10.00 or imprisonment not more than
5 days.
It is unlawful to throw, place or deposit garbage, trash or other waste materials of
any kind on public streets, highways, alleyways, public places and on private
property whether enclosed by fence or not. Violators of above ordinance will be
fined $100.00 or imprisonment not to exceed 30 days in jail or both.
Appendix 1-5
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans/ La. - 15 Moy 1968
I~E Solid Waste Disposal Regulations - State of Louisiana
10.50 DEFINITIONS
10.50.1 For the purpose of these regulations the following definitions shall apply:
REFUSE: Refuse includes garbage, rubbish, ashes, animal and vegetable
waste from animal quarters, and all other waste matter, except sewage,
from any public or private establishment, institution, or residence.
GARBAGE: Garbage includes all putrescible waste matter except sewage
and recognizable industrial by-products. It includes putrescible vegetable
matter, animal offal, and animal carcasses.
RUBBISH: Rubbish includes all non-putrescible waste matter, except ashes,
from any public or private establishment, institution, or residence.
ASHES: Ashes includes the solid residue resulting from the combustion of
all fuels used for heating, cooking, and the production of power in any
public or private establishment, institution, or residence.
STABLE REFUSE: Stable refuse includes animal feces and urine, any ma-
terial contaminated by animal body discharges, and waste feed stuff.
10.51 ACCUMULATION AND COLLECTION OF REFUSE
10.51.1 No owner or lessee of any public or private property or premise nor any
agent of such owner or lessee shall permit garbage to accumulate upon the
property or premise except in tightly covered containers constructed of such
material and in such a manner as to be strong, watertight, not easily cor-
roded, and rodent and insect-proof. When garbage and other types of ref-
use are collected separately, separate containers may be required by the
State Health Officer or his duly authorized representative.
10.51.2 Refuse shall not be allowed to remain in any house or other building, cellar,
or outhouse, or on any premise long enough to cause a nuisance or health
hazard.
10.51.3 The bodies of vehicles used for the collection and transportation of garbage
shall be watertight and easily cleaned. Such bodies shall be covered ex-
cept when being loaded and unloaded.
Appendix 1-6
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, Lo. - 15 May T968
10.51.4 No person shall throw or deposit or shall allow to fall upon any walkway,
thoroughfare, or private property any refuse of any kind.
10.52 APPROVAL OF PLANS
10.52.1 No garbage or other refuse disposal plant or establishment shall be con-
structed unless plans for same have been approved by the State Board of
Health.
10.53 DISPOSAL OF GARBAGE AND OTHER REFUSE
10.53.1 The disposal of garbage and other refuse shall be by a method or methods
approved by the State Board of Health. The method or methods of disposal
used shall include the maximum practicable insect, rodent, and nuisance-
control.
10.53.2 No place for the disposal of garbage or other refuse shall be maintained or
operated except by permission of the duly authorized representative of the
State Health Officer.
10.53,3 No refuse dump or place of deposit shall be maintained without provision
for the prompt and proper disposal of the material deposited. Ultimate
disposal f'nall be by incineration or burying so as to effectively prevent
the breeding of flies and other insects, the breeding and harboring of rats
and other rodents, and the creation of any other nuisance or health hazard.
10.53.4 Refuse shall not be deposited on or allowed to remain in any place from
whence normal drainage might tend to contaminate any well, spring,
cistern, or other source of potable water nor shall refuse be deposited on
or allowed to remain in any place from whence drainage may cause the
conveyance of any toxic, noxious, or offensive material onto any private
premise.
10.53.5 The handling of refuse for salvage shall not be practiced except by per-
mission of the duly authorized representative of the State Health Officer
and then only under proper supervision.
Appendix 1-7
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans/ La. - 15 May 1968
10.54 SWINE FEEDING
10.54.1 No garbage shall be fed to swine without having first been heated through-
out to a temperature of not less than 212 Farenheit and such temperature
maintained throughout the mass for at least thirty minutes. Such heating
shall be done in apparatus and by a method approved by the State Health
Officer or his duly authorized representative.
10.55 DISPOSAL OF CARCASSES
10.55.1 Animal offal and the carcasses of animals shall be buried or cremated as
directed by the State Health Officer or his duly authorized representative
or shall be cooked (rendered) at a minimum temperature of 250 Farenheit,
which temperature shall be maintained for at least thirty minutes. The ap-
paratus and method or methods used in rendering shall be approved by a
duly authorized representative of the State Health Officer, and rendering
shall not be carried on in any establishment except under the provisions of
a permit issued by such representative, as required in Chapter XX of this
Code.
10.56 STABLE REFUSE
10.56.1 Every owner, lessee, manager (or other agent of an owner or lessee) of any
stable, barn, stall, or any other establishment in the built-up part of any
community, in which horses, cattle, dogs, fowls, or any other animals are
quartered or in which stable refuse may accumulate shall cause such stable
refuse to be promptly and properly removed therefrom, and shall at all times
keep, or cause to be kept, such stable, barn, stall, or quarters, and the
yards, drains, and appurtenances in a clean and sanitary condition, so that
no offensive odors shall be allowed to escape therefrom. Manure shall be
kept in covered containers, or shall be treated to prevent the breeding of
flies.
10.56.2 It shall be the duty of every owner, lessee, manager (or other agent of an
owner or lessee) of any stable, barn, stall, or other establishment used
for quartering animals or fowls to cause all stable refuse to be removed
daily from such stable, or stable premise, unless the refuse is pressed in
bales, barrels or boxes. The removal and disposal of stable refuse without
Appendix 1-8
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
a written permit from the duly authorized representative of the State Health
Officer is prohibited.
10.56.3 Vehicles used for the removal of stable refuse shall be loaded within the
premise, and not upon the street or sidewalk.
10.56.4 No stable refuse vault or receptacle shall be built, or used, on any premise
except pursuant to the terms of a permit granted therefor by the duly author-
ized representative of the State Health Officer.
Appendix 1-9
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tfi-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
APPENDIX II Haul Studies
Tables A-8 through A-37 which follow show the detailed analysis of refuse collection and haul
by days and districts.
These tables are each divided into two parts, namely: "Present Operation" and "Future Operation. "
The information gathered in the survey is shown under "Present Operation. " In each District,
truck routes are numbered consecutively and are shown in the first column; the numbers shown,
under the second column "Disposal Point", each represent a disposal location and are identified
as follows:
1* Algiers Incinerator
2. Seventh Street Incinerator
3. Florida Avenue Incinerator
4. New Orleans East Incinerator
5. Algiers Dump
6. Gentilly Dump
' • St. Louis Incinerator
The next five columns including number of loads, tons collected, total haul mileage, minutes per
day of collection and haul are obtained from the daily field survey data.
Minutes per ton collected is the collection time divided by tons collected, and average speed of
travel is haul time divided by the total haul mileage.
Under "Future Operation", where no change in disposal point is proposed, additional time for
collection is zero as are the additional tons (collected) per day and the number of trucks required
to serve the area is 1.00. Where there is a change in the point of disposal (under future operation)
Qd justed haul miles have been scaled from the City map along the most probable route and the
naul minutes computed using the average travel speed previously established, except in such
cases where a different speed should obviously apply. Saving in haul time for the truck route
nas been considered as additional time for collection and has been posted under this heading.
Additional tons per day (collected) have been computed by dividing the additional collection
Hme by the minutes per ton collected which result has been added to the observed tons collected
°nd thus determine the total tons that could be collected under future operation.
number of trucks required to serve the route has been determined by dividing the tons presently
c°Hected, by the calculated (Future) tons that could be collected without increasing the work-day
Appendix 1 1-1
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La, - 15 May 1968
beyond that presently required. Summarizing the incremental trucks required to serve each route
and subtracting this number from the trucks presently utilized indicates the savings in truck routes
that could be realized by readjusting the collection areas within the district.
For additional information the reader is referred to pages V-64 and V-65 of the text.
Use of Computer
Planning and organization for the haul study providing for application of Data Processing initially
required review of the end-product detail and desired format with supervisors in the City's Data
Processing Division. Previous design of the route survey form (Form No. RS-1) provided for the
acquisition of pertinent data from the field on an individual route basis. Processing and review
of these daily route surveys required a summary of individual route activity i.e., number of loads,
total tons collected, total haul'and collection mileage, total haul and collection minutes, with
posting of this detail to master summary sheets (Form RS-2) which provided total input for Data
Processing handling. These summary sheets also included complete identification of each route
by day group (days collected), day, week, route number, collection district, point of disposal,
truck type and capacity. (Copies of Forms No. RS-1 and RS-2 enclosed in Appendix IV.)
This route information was converted by card punching to a form that Data Processing could then
apply to the designed computer program. Simple formulas were provided to Data Processing for
computer calculation of route speed (MPH), average tons per load, collection minutes per ton
for the existing route conditions and adjusted time and distance characteristics where a change
in the point of disposal is anticipated in future operations.
Tables A-8 through A-37 were prepared in similar format as the Data Processing print out except
for manual computations of "Additional Time for Collection" and "Trucks Required to Serve Area".
The Data Processing Division was also requested to compile certain summaries to demonstrate
types of information that could be compiled from the same input. Typical summaries included
total daily and weekly collection activity of each district and tonnage records at each point of
disposal.
Appendix 11-2
-------
TABLE A-8
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE COLLECTION AND HAUL
District: CENTRAL Collection Day: MONDAY No. of Trucks per Day: 22
PRESENT OPERATION - 3 Incinerators and 2 Dumps
Route
No.
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13*
U*
15*
16*
17*
18*
19*
20*
21*
22*
Total
Disp.
Poin:
**
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
-
No. of
Loads
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
4
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
58
Tons
Collec.
6.7
8.0
7.0
10.2
7.6
8.5
9.0
7.2
8.8
7
11.0
9.3
9.0
4.6
7.6
7.3
6.0
5.7
6.9
7.2
6.0
5.7
166.3
Total
Haul
Mi leage
7
7
5
9
7
7
3
2
5
2
10
6
9
11
9
11
18
12
15
12
7
14
188
Minutes Per Day
CoMec.
315
255
210
245
275
297
234
160
275
370
360
332
190 •
255
285
185
220
200
270
225
248
185
5,591
Haul
60
65
69
50
90
68
40
30
42
20
87
55
80
45
85
75
80
84
110
105
47
65
1,452
Min.
Per
Ton of
Collec.
47.0
39.5
30.0
24.0
36.2
32.6
26.0
22.2
31.2
52.8
32.7
35.7
21.1
55.6
37.5
25.3
36.6
35.1
39.1
31 .2
41.3
32.4
-
Aver.
Travel
Speed
(mph)
7.0
6.5
4.3
10.8
4.7
6.2
6.0
4.0
7.1
6.0
6.9
6.6
6.8
14.7
6.4
8.8
13.6
8.6
8.2
6.9
8.9
- 12.8
-
FUTURE OPERATION - 5 Incinerators
Disp.
Point
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
-7
7
-
Adjusted Haul
Miles
6
7
5
9
7
7
3
2
5
2
10
6
9
4
1
4
8
8
6
1
5
6
121
Min.
60
65
69
50
90
68
40
30
42
20
•87
55
8Q
16
9
27
35
56
44
9
34
28
1,014
Addit.
Time
for
Collec.
(min. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
0
o
o
o
0
29
76
48
45
28
66
96
13
37
438
Tons/Day
Addit.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
2.0
1 .9
1.2
0.8
1 .7
3.1
0.3
1.1
12.6
Total
6.7
8.0
7.0
10.2
7.6
8.5
9.0
7.2
8.8
7 n
11.0
9.3
9.0
5.1
9.6
9.2
7.2
6.5
8.6
10.3
6.3
6.8
178.9
No. of
Loads
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
4
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
58 .
Trucks
Req'd.
to
Serve
Area
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
i.nn
i.m
1.00
0.90
0.79
0.79
0.83
0.88
0.80
0.70
0,95
0.84
20.48
* To be re-assigned to Western District
** (2)7fh Street Incinerator; (7) St. Louis Incinerator
-------
TABLE A-9
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE COLLECTION AND HAUL
District: WESTERN Collection Day: MONDAY No. of Trucks per Day: 28
PRESENT OPERATION - 3 Incinerators and 2 Dumps
Route
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Disp.
Point
*x
7
1
1
1
7
7
5
5
5
7
7
7
7
5
7
1
7
7
7
7
7
5
7
7
No. of
Loads
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
Tons
Coilec.
7.3
8.2
7.4
6.3
7.5
6.4
7.6
7.0
6.8
6.8
5.9
6.2
5.6
8.2
6.2
6.7
7.6
8.7
9.1
7.6
7.4
8.1
6.4
7.1
Total
Haul
Mileage
12
51
23
22
8
9
51
29
32
6
5
5
5
18
9
42
15
13
24
8
14
47
18
24
Minutes Per Day
Coilec.
370
295
205
175
250
205
215
225
265
240
170
205
100
185
205
272
255
285
345
215
170
360
165
170
Haul
90
175
65
95
50
55
160
150
145
48
45
50
55
160
55
' 120
50
80
95
115
60
180
75
100
Min.
Per
Ton of
Coilec.
51.0
. 36.0
27.7
27.8
33.3
32.0
28.3
32.1
39.0
35.3
26.8
33.0
17.8
22.6
33.0
40.6
33.5
32.7
38.0
28.3
24.9
44.4
25.8
23.9
Aver.
Travel
Speed
(mph)
8.0
17.5
21 .2
13.8
9.6
9.8
19.1
U.6
13.2
7.5
6.7
6.0
5.5
6.7
9.8
21.0
18.0
9.8
15.1
4.2
14.0
15.6
14.4
14.4
FUTURE OPERATION - 5 Incinerators
Disp.
Point
**
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Adjusted Haul
Miles
12
30
5
9
8
9
20
10
6
6
5
5
5
8
9
14
15
13
24
8
14
16
18
24
Min.
90
103
14
39
50
55
63
52
27
48
45
50
55
108 '
55
40
50
80
95
115
60
62
75
100
Addit.
Time
for
Coilec.
(min. )
0
72
51
56
0
0
97
98
118
0
0
0
0
52
0
80
0
0
0
0
0
118
0
0
Tons/Day
Addit.
0
2.0
1.8
2.0
0
0
3.4
3.1
3.0
0
0
0
0
2.3
0
2.0
0
0
0
0
0
2.7
0
0
Total
7.3
10.2
9.2
8.3
7.5
6.4
11.0
10.1
9.8
6.8
5.9
6.2
5.6
10.5
6.2
8.7
7.6
8.7
9.1
7.6
7.4
10.8
6.4
7.1
No. of
Loads
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
Trucks
Req'd.
to
Serve
Area
1.00
0.80
0.80
0.76
1.00
1.00
0.69
0.69
0.69
1 .00
1.00
1.00
1 .00
0.78
1 .00
0.77
1 .00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.75
1 .00_
1.00
Note-. See following page for coding information
-------
TABLE A-9 (Continued)
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE COLLECTION AND HAUL
District: WESTERN Collection Day: MONDAY No. of Trucks per Day: 28
PRESENT OPERATION - 3 Incinerators and 2 Dumps
Route
No.
25
26
27
28
Total
Disp.
Point
**
7
7
7
1
_
No. of
Loads
2
2
2
2
59
** (1) Algiers Incinerator
(5) Algiers Dump
(7) St. Louis Incinerator
Tons
Col lee.
9.0
7.2
8.8
6.8
203.9
Total
Haul
Mileage
25
13
16
40
584
Minutes Per Day
Collec.
200
240
283
230
6,500
Haul
100
50
80
130
2,633
Min.
Per
Ton of
Collec.
22.2
33.3
32.1
33.8
_
Aver.
Travel
Speed
(mph)
15.0
15.6
12.0
18.5
_
FUTURE OPERATION - 5 Incinerators
Disp.
Point
**
7
7
7
7
_
Adjusted Haul
Miles
25
13
16
24
371
Min.
100
50
80
78
1,839
Addit.
Time
for
Collec.
(min. )
0
0
0
52
794
Tons/Day
Addit.
.0
0
0
1.5
23.8
Total
9.0
7.2
8.8
8.3
227.7
No. of
Loads
2
2
2
2
60
Trucks
Req'd.
to
Serve
Area
1.00
1 .00
1 .00
0.82
25.55
-------
TABLE A-10
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE COLLECTION AND HAUL
District: EASTERN! Collection Day: MONDAY No. of Trucks per Day: 22
PRESENT OPERATION - 3 Incinerators and 2 Dumps
Route
No.
1 *
2*
3
4*
5
6
7*
8
9
10
H
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Total
Disp.
Point
**
6
6
6
6
6
6
3
6
6
3
6
6
4
6
3
3
3
3
6
3
3
6
No. of
Loads
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
j2
2
2
2
2
49
Tons
Col lee.
10.3
9.7
9.5
7.6
8.0
10.3
8.5
7.4
7.0
8.2
8.8
6.6
8.6
8.1
8,2
7.7
8.9
9.8
9.9
7.9
7.5
8.5
187.0
Total
Haul
Mi leage
39
22
35
36
31
90
8
35
34
9
32
26
47
31
9
2
3
2
32
5
6
28
562
Minutes Per Day
Col lee.
215
240
280
205
225
255
305
193
240
335
253
235
270
280
231
197
245
240
280
415
402
370
5,911
Haul
170
150
150
130
115
225
95
182
150
125
152
120
235
130
154
43
10
40
190
70
70
165
2,871
Min.
Per
Ton of
Col tec.
20.8
24.8
29.4
27.0
28.0
24.8
36.0
26.0
34.3
41.0
28.8
35.6
31.4
34,5
28.2
25.6
27.6
24.5
28.2
52.5
53.6
43.5
Aver.
Travel
Speed
(mph)
13.7
8.8
14.0
16.6
16.4
24.0
7.0
11.5
13.6
4.3
12.6
13.0
10.3
14.3
3.5
3.0
18.0
3.0
10.1
4.3
5.1
10.1
_
FUTURE OPERATION - 5 Inc nerators
Disp.
Point
**
7
7
3
7
3
3
7
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
_
Adjusted Haul
Miles
9
5
5
5
5
8
11
5
7
9
H
1
tl
6
9
2
3
2
6
4
6
2
13?
Min.
5?
51
31
27
27
27
130
39
31
125
78
5
64
25
154
43
10
40
54
56
70
18
,157
Addit.
Time
for
CoHec .
(min.)
lift
99
119
103
88
198
- 35
143
119
o
74
115
171
105
0
0
o
0
136
14
0
147
1,714
Tons/Day
Addit .
5.7
4.0
4.1
3.8
3.1
8.0
-1.0
5.5
3.5
o
2.6
3.2
5.4
3.0
0
0
0
0
4.8
0.3
0
3.4
59.4
Total
16.0
13.7
13.6
11.4
11.1
18.3
7.5
12.9
10.5
8.?
11 .4
9.8
14.0
11.1
8.2
7.7
8.9
9.8
14.7
8.2
7.5
11.9
246.4
No. of
Loads
4
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
59
Trucks
Req'd.
to
Serve
Area
0.64
0.71
0,70
0.67
0.72
0.56
1.13
0.57
0.67
l.QP
0.77
0.67
0.61
0.73
1.00
1.00
1 1. 00
1.00
0.67
0.96
1.00
0.71
17.49
To be re-assigned to Western District
(3) Florida Avenue Incinerator; (6) Gentilly Dump; (7) St. Louis Incinerator
-------
TABLE A-l]
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE COLLECTION AND HAUL
District: EASTERN II Collection Day: MONDAY No- °f Trucks per Day: 23
PRESENT OPERATION - 3 Incinerators and 2 Dumps
Route
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8*
9*
10*
11*
12*
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Total
Disp.
Point
**
6
6
3
6
6
6
6
6
6
3
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
3
6
6
6
6
3
-
No. of
Loads
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
47
Tons
Collec.
5.6
6.9
9.0
6.5
7.4
6.3
8.4
9.1
7.4
6.0
7.3
8.2
6.8
6.3
7.5
5.6
6.3
7.6
5.9
5.1
9.9
6.7
7.7
163.5
Total
Haul
Mileage
33
32
11
21
31
37
32
31
31
7
29
26
34
34
35
28
35
12
32
33
53
24
8
2,284
Minutes Per Day
Collec.
270
180
230
240
260
210
195
445
245
175
320
370
240
175
300
190
310
155
198
250
285
230
170
5,643
Haul
180
180
70
120
160
120
125
130
175
55
160
110
185
140
150
130
170
65
162
140
270
140
50
3,187
Min.
Per
Ton of
Collec.
48.2
26.1
25.6
37.0
35.0
33.4
23.2
49.0
33.2
29.2
44.0
45.0
35.2
27.8
40.0
34.0
49.0
20.4
33.5
49.0
28.8
34.4
22.0
_
Aver.
Travel.
Speed
(mph)
11.0
11.0
9.4
10.5
11.6
18.5
15.7
14.3
10.6
7.6
10.9
14.2
11.0
14.5
14.0
12.9
12.3
11.0
11.8
14.1
11.8
10.3
9.6
-
FUTURE OPERATION - 5 Incinerators
Disp.
Point
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
-
Adjusted Haul
Miles
30
29
28
27
28
29
31
. 7
6
7
6
6
24
27
26
25
33
33
29
30
43
32
30
566
Min.
11-6
113
108
104
108
115
120
43
51
55
33
25
93
104
102
97
128
128
113
116
166
124
116
2.278
Addit.
Time
for
Collec .
(min. )
64
67
-38
16
52
5
5
87
124
0
127
85
92
36
48
33
42
-63
49
24
104
16
-66
909
Tons/Day
Addit.
1.3
2.5
-1.5
0.4
1.5
0.2
0.2
1 .8
3.7
0
2.9
1.9
2.6
1.3
1.2
1.0
n.9
-3.1
1.5
0.5
3.6
0.5
-3.0
21.9
Total
-6.9
9.4
7.5
6.9
8.9
6.5
8.6
10.9
11.1
6.0
10.2
10.1
9.4
7.6
8.7
6.6
72
4.5
7.4
5.6
13.5
7.2
4.7
185.4
No. of
Loads
2
2
2
9
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
49
Trucks
Req'd.
• to
Serve
Area
0.81
0.73
1.20
0.94
0.83
0.97
0.98
0.83
0.67
1.00
0.72
0.81
0.72
0.83
0.86
0.85
0.88^
1.70
0.80
0.91
0.73
0.93
1.60
21 30
To be re-assigned to Eastern I District
** (3) Florida Avenue Incinerator; (4) N. O. East Incinerator (6) Gentilly Dump
-------
TABLE A-12
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE COLLECTION AND HAUL
Districts: ALGIERS and NIGHT Collection Day: MONDAY No. of Trucks per Day: 8
PRESENT OPERATION - 3 Incinerators and 2 Dumps
Route
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 .
Total
Disp.
Point
+*
'l
5
5
5
j
5
5
1
_
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
_
No. of
Loads
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
17
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
22
Tons
Collec.
8.2
8.3
6.0
12.7
8.4
5.1
8.9
8.2
65.8
8.7
9.5
6.6
9.0
7,5
6.4
8.2
8.9
64.8
Total
Haul
Mileage
5
8
14
18
12
20
20
10
107
17
15
13
. 11
10
7
15
11
99
Minutes Per Day
Collec.
325
375
285
440
390
310
250
175
2,550
240
255
197
257
195
251
230
335
1,960
Haul
46
48
60
84
52
180
100
80
650
80
90
58
43
45
34
95
70
515
Min.
Per
Ton of
Collec.
Aver,
Travel
Speed
(mph)
A L G
39.6
•45.0
47.5
34.6
46.5
60.8
28.0
21.3
_
6.5
10.0
14.0
12.8
13.8
6.7
12.0
7.5
_
FUTURE OPERATION - 5 Incinerators
Disp.
Point
**
Adjusted Haul
Miles
E R S
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
_
5
8
12
18
12
12
16
10
93
NIGHT
27.6
26.8
29.8
28.5
26.0
39.2
28.0
37.7
_
12.7
10.0
13.4
15.3
12.5
12.3
9.5
9.4
_
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
-
17
15
13
11
10
7
15
11
99
Min.
46
48
51
84
52
108
80
80
549
80
90
58
43
45
34
95
70
515
Addit.
Time
for
Collec.
(mm, )
0
0
9
0
0
72
20
0
101
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tons/Day
Addit.
0
0
0.2
0
0
1 .2
0.7
0
2.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
8.2
8.3
6.2
12.7
8.4
6.3
9.6
8.2
67.9
8.7
9.5
6.6
9.0
7.5
6.4
8.2
8.9
64.8
No. of
Loads
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
17
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
22
Trucks
Req'd.
to
Serve
Area
1.00
1.00
0.97
1.00
1.00
0.81
0.93
1.00
7.71
1.00
1 .00
1.00
1.00
1 .00
1 .00
1.00
1.00
8.00
** (\) Algiers Incinerator; (2) 7th Street Incinerator; (5) Algiers Dump
-------
TABLE A-13
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE COLLECTION AND HAUL
District: CENTRAL Collection Day: TUESDAY No. of Trucks per Day: 22
PRESENT OPERATION - 3 Incinerators and 2 Dumps
Route
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
. 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Total
Disp.
Point
**
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
No. of
Loads
3
3
3
3
4
2
4
3
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
4
72
Tons
Collec.
7.5
7.8
8.3
8.3
9.3
7.7
11.3
7.2
8.5
7.2
10.9
9.8
9.2
9.4
7.9
11.3
9.8
13.3
6.7
9.4
7.6
9.5
197.9
Total
Haul
Mileage
18
12
15
13
16
6
14
17
9
7
8
8
6
6
2
3
4
10
8
7
6
13
208
Minutes Per Day
Coliec.
245
215
265
165
235
220
283
245
380
345
385
290
283
305
295
230
339
258
265
290
290
293
6,121
Haul
115
100
85
55
130
30
61
85
75
55
90
40
42
75
25
25
81
82
85
35
55
107
1,533
Min.
Per
Ton of
Collec.
32.7
27.6
32.0
19.9
25.3
28.6
25.0
34.0
44.7
47.9
35.5
29.6
30.8
32.4
37.3
20.3
34.6
19.5
39.5
30.9
38.1
30.8
Aver.
Travel
Speed
(mph)
9.4
7.2
10.6
14.2
7.4
12.0
13.8
12.0
7.2
7.6
5.3
12.0
8.6
4.8
4.8
7.2
3.0
7.3
5.7
12.0
6.5
7.3
FUTURE OPERATION - 5 Incinerators
Disp.
Point
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Adjusted Haul
Miles
18
12
15
13
16
6
14
17
9
7
8
8
6
6
2
3
4
10
8
7
6
13
208
Min.
115
100
85
55
130
30
61
85
75
55
90
40
42
75
25
25
81
82
85
35
55
107
1.533
Addit.
Time
for
Collec.
(min. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
Tons/Day
Addit.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
7.5
7.8
8.3
8.3
9.3
7.7
11.3
7.2
8.5
7.2
10.9
9.8
9.2
9.4
7.9
11.3
9.8
13.3
6.7
9.4
7.6
9.5
197.9
No. of
Loads
3
3
3
3
4
2
4
3
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
4
72
Trucks
Req'd.
to
Serve
Area
1 .00
.on
.00
.00
.00
.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
22.00
** (2) 7th Street Incinerator
-------
TABLEA-14
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE COLLECTION AND HAUL
District: WESTERN Collection Day: TUESDAY No. of Trucks per Day: 28
PRESENT OPERATION - 3 Incinerators and 2 Dumps
Route
No.
1*
2*
3*
4*
5*
6*
7*
8*
9*
10*
11*
12*
13*
14*
15
16
17
18
19*
20
21 *
22
23
24
Disp.
Poinr
**
7
1
1
7
7
1
1
7
1
7
7
7
7
1
7
1
7
7
1
1
7
1
7
L 7
No. of
Loads
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
Tons
Collec.
6.9
7.0
7.8
7.0
6.9
7.7
8.8
7.8
7.1
6J
8.1
7.9
8.3
7.1
8.7
8.9
8.0
9.3
7.5
10.4
9.6
9.9
7.0
7.6
Total
Haul
Mileage
20
31
24
21
16
26
36
17
33
12
16
15
12
28
14
30
14
15
32
28
18
35
10
12
Minutes Per Day
Collec.
235
215
245
235
210
295
222
255
240
230
215
225
280
245
255
330
255
160
260
245
210
305
200
210
Haul
85
115
115
80
80
145
123
63
120
85
80
85
50
95
85
97
95
80
100
115
80
130
55
70
Min.
Per
Ton of
Collec.
34.1
' 45.0
31.4
33.6
30.4
38.2
25.2
32.7
33.8
37.7
32.1
28.5
33.7
34.5
29.5
37.1
31.9
17.2
34.6
23.5
22.0
30.8
28.6
27.6
Aver.
Travel
Speed
(mph)
14.1
16.2
12.6
15.8
12.0
10.8
17.6
16.2
16.5
8.5
12.0
10.6
14.4
17.6
9.8
18.6
8.8
11.2
19.2
14.6
13.6
16.2
10.9
10.3
FUTURE OPERATION - 5 Incinerators
Disp.
Point
**
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
7
7
7
7
2
7
2
7
7
7
Adjusted Haul
Miles
12
11
10
8
7
8
10
5
9
8
10
10
7
9
14
13
14
15
13
12
12
18
10
12
Min.
51
41
48
30
35
44
51
19
33
56
50
57
29
31
85
42
95
80
41
74
53
67
55
70
Addit.
Time
for
Collec.
(min. )
34
74
67
50
45
101
72
44
87
?9
30
28
21
64
0
55
0
0
59
42
27
63
0
0
Tons/Day
Addit.
1
1.6
2.1
1.4
1.4
2.6
2.9
1.3
2.5
n.8
0.9
1
0.6
1.8
0
1.4
0
0
1.7
1.8
1.2
2.0
0
o
Total
7.9
8.6
9.9
8.4
8.3
10.3
11.7
9.1
9.6
6.9
9.0
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.7
10.3
8.0
9.3
9.2
12.2
10.8
11.9
7.0
7.6
No. of
Loads
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
Trucks
Req'd.
to
Serve
Area
0.87
0.81
0.79
0.83
0.83
0.75
0.75
0.86
0.74
0.88
0.90
0.88
0.93
0.80
1.00
0.86
1.00
1.00
0.82
0.85
0.88
0.83
1.00
1.00
N,ote: See following page for coding information
-------
TABLE A- 14 (Continued)
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE COLLECTION AND HAUL
District: WESTERN Collection Day: TUESDAY No. of Trucks per Day: 28
PRESENT OPERATION - 3 Incinerators and 2 Dumps
Route
No.
25*
26
27*
28
Total
Disp.
Poirvt
**
7
1
7
7
_
No. of
Loads
2
2
2
2
57
Tons
Col lee.
5.6
7.7
7.2
7.4
219.3
* To be re-assigned to Centra! District
** 0) Algiers Incinerator
(2) 7th Street Incinerator
(7) St. Louts Incinerator
Total
Haul
Mileage
11
15
12
12
565
Minutes Per Day
Col lee.
255
245
260
185
6,722
Haul
65
55
60
55
2,463
Min.
Per
Ton of
Collec.
45.5
31.8
36.1
25.0
_
Aver.
Travel
Speed
(mph)
10.1
16.3
12.0
13.1
*»
FUTURE OPERATION - 5 Incinerators
Disp.
Point
2
7
2
7
_
Adjusted Haul
Miles
9
11
10
12
299
Min.
54
41
50
55
1.437
Addit.
Time
for
Col lee.
(min.)
11
14
10
0
.027
Tons/Day
Addit.
0.2
0.4
0.3
0
30.9
Total
5.8
8.1
7.5
7.4
250.2
No. of
Loads
2
2
2
2
59
Trucks
Req'd.
to
Serve
Area
0^97
0.95
0.96
1.00
24.74_
-------
TABLE A-15
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE COLLECTION AND HAUL
District: EASTERN! Collection Day: TUESDAY No. of Trucks per Day: 22
PRESENT OPERATION - 3 Incinerators and 2 Dumps
Route
No.
1*
2
3*
4
5
6
7*
8*
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Total
Disp.
Point
T -fr
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
3
3
3
_
No. of
Loads
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
51
Tons
Col lee.
14.2
12.5
9.4
12.8
11.8
11 .4
9.1
11.3
11.2
12.4
11.6
9.7
9.7
9.3
8.5
7.7
10.7
8.9
9.4
9.2
9.9
9.7
230.9
Total
Haul
Mileage
12
7
7
8
7
7
12
9
12
15
8
14
24
13
23
14
14
14
24
15
20
10
289
Minutes Per Day
Collec.
290
275
352
245
240
270
370
255
265
470
275
300
340
220
335
310
360
290
155
340
165
265
6,387
Haul
90
55
48
60
60
65
50
46
60
115
55
90
75
70
115
80
106
85
143
85
135
72
1,760
Min.
Per
Ton of
Collec.
20.4
22.0
37.4
11.3
11.0
23.7
40.7
22.6
23.7
38.0
23.7
30.9
35.0
23.7
39.4
40.3
33.6
32.6
16.5
35.0
16.7
27.3
_
Aver.
Travel
Speed
(mph)
8.0
7.6
8.7
8.0
7.0
6.5
14.4
11 .7
12.0 '
7.8
8.7
9.3
19.2
11 .1
12.0
10.5
7.9
9.8
10.2
10.6
8.9
8.3
_
FUTURE OPERATION - 5 Incinerators
Disp.
Point
**
7
3
7
3
3
3
7
7
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
_
Adjusted Haul
Miles
12
7
10
8
7
4
12
9
12
15
8
14
24
13
23
14
14
14
13
15
20
10
278
Min.
90
55
69
60
60
37
50
46
60
115
55
90
75
70
115
80
106
85
76
85
135
72
1 .686
Addit.
Time
for
Collec.
(min. )
0
0
-21
0
0
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
16
Tons/Day
Addit.
0
0
-0.6
0
0
1 .2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.6
0
0
0
1 .2
Total
14.2
12.5
8.8
12.8
11.8
12.6
9.1
11.3
11 .2
12.4
11.6
9.7
9.7
9.3
8.5
7.7
10.7
8.9
10.0
9.7
9.9
9.7
93? 1
No. of
Loads
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
<5l
Trucks
Req'd.
to
Serve
Area
1.00
1.00
1.07
1 .00
1.00
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
1 .00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.94
1.00
1.00
1 .00
21.92
* To be re-assigned to Western District
** (3) Florida Avenue Incinerator; (7) St. Louis Incinerator
-------
TABLE A-16
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE COLLECTION AND HAUL
District: EASTERN II Collection Day: TUESDAY No. of Trucks per Day: 23
PRESENT OPERATION - 3 Incinerators and 2 Dumps
Route
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7*
8*
9*
10*
11
12*
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Total
Disp.
Point
**
3
6
6
6
6
3
6
6
6
3
6
3
6
6
6
6
3
5
6
6
6
3
6
-
No. of
Loads
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
2
2
3
2
49
Tons
Col lee.
8.7
8.7
9.5
8.8
10.1
9.9
10.2
8.8
9.7
6.5
7.9
7.5
9.1
10.3
7.3
10.9
14.3
10.2
11.7
9.7
11.4
11.8
8.7
221.7
Total
Haul
A! leogc
16
19
17
21
25
17
29
35
26
8
26
7
26
24
29
30
44
16
11
16
21
45
30
538
Minutes Per Day
Codec.
420
220
215
175
210
190
195
215
244
194
370
345
305
175
345
190
450
193
265
396
195
365
350
6,222
Haul
80
95
115
125
162
78
105
145
161
50
100
65
150
95
100
110
195
82
95
130
130
146
114
2,628
Min.
Per
Ton of
Col lee.
48.3
25.3
22.6
20.0
20.8
19.2
19.1
24.4
25.1
29.9
47.0
46.0
33.5
17.0
47.2
17.4
31.5
18.9
22.7
40.8
17.1
30.9
40.2
-
Aver.
Travel
Speed
(mph)
12.0
12.0
8.9
10.2
9.2
13.0
16.5
14.5
9.7
9.6
15.6
6.5
10.4
15.1
17.4
16.3
13.6
11.7
6.9
7.4
9.6
18.5
15.8
-
FUTURE OPERATION - 5 Incinerators
Disp.
Point
**
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Adjusted Haul
Miles
12
10
8
14
17
20
6
4
8
.6
26
7
22
24
24
26
12
4
2
2
6
21
18
299
Min.
60
50
81
82
110
92
33
25
73
38
100
65
127
95
83
96
53
31
25
24
57
68
68
1536
Addit.
Time
for
Collec .
(min. )
20
45
34
43
52
-14
72
120
88
12
0
0
23
0
17
14
137
51
70
106
73
78
46
1.087
Tons/Day
Addit.
0.4
1.7
1.5
2.1
2.5
-0.7
3.8
4.9
3.5
0.4
0
0
0.7
0
0.3
0.8
4.3
2.7
3.1
2.6
4.3
2.5
1.1
42,5
Total
9.*1
10.4
11.0
10.9
12.6
9.2
14.0
13.7
13.2
6.9
7.9
7.5
9.8
10.3
7.6
11.7
18.6
12.9
14.8
12.3
15.7
14.3
9.8
264 .£
No. of
Loads
2
2
3
2
2
JL
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
57
Trucks
Req'd.
to'
Serve
Area
0.96
0.84
0.86
0.80
0.80
1^08
0.73
0.64
0.73
0.94
1.00
1.00
0.93
1.00
0.96
0.93
0.77
0,79
0,79 .,
0.79
0.73
0.83.
0.89
19.79
* To be re-assigned to Eastern I District
(3) Florida Ave. Incinerator; (4) N. O. East Incin.; (5) Algiers Dump; (6) Genfilly Dump
-------
TABLE A-17
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE COLLECTION AND HAUL
District: ALGIERS and NIGHT Collection Day: TUESDAY No. of Trucks per Day: 8
PRESENT OPERATION - 3 Incinerators and 2 Dumps
Route
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Total
t
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Total
Disp.
Point
**
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
_
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
—
No. of
Loads
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
17
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
21
Tons
Col lee.
7.9
6.3
7.1
6.2
6.3
8.9
8.2
9.7
60.6
8.4
8.4
9.8
10.1
10.2
7.5
10.4
9.0
73.8
Total
Haul
Mileage
10
8
5
6
5
8
6
6
54
11
12
19
6
9
10
16
7
90
Minutes Per Day
Col lee.
220
205
215
205
165
280
326
370
1,986
250
' 205
245
280
195
125
235
252
1,787
Haul
40
50
35
47
60
45
40
35
352
50
50
85
39
45
87
100
88
544
Min.
Per
Ton of
Collec.
Aver.
Travel
Speed
(mph)
FUTURE OPERATION - 5 Incinerators
Disp.
Point
**
Adjusted Haul
Miles
ALGIERS
27.8
39.5
30.3
33.0
26.2
31.5
39.7
38.1
_
15.0
9.6
8.6
7.7
5.0
10.7
9.0
10.3
_
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
_
10
8
5
6
5
8
6
6
54
NIGHT
29.8
24.4
25.0
27.7
19.1
16.7
22.6
28.0
..
13.2
14.4
13.4
9.2
12.0
6.9
. 9.6
4.8
—
2
?
2
2
2
2
2
2
_
11
12
19
6
9
10
16
7
90
Min.
40
50
35
47
60
45
40
35
352
50
50
85
39
45
87
100
88
544
Ad
-------
TABLE A-18
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE COLLECTION AND HAUL
District: CENTRAL Collection Day: WEDNESDAY No. of Trucks per Day: 22
PRESENT OPERATION - 3 Incinerators and 2 Dumps
Route
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12*
. 13*
14*
15*
16*
17*
18*
19*
20*
21*
22*
Total
Disp.
Point
**
•3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
-
No. of
Loads
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
47
Tons
Collec.
7.0
5.5
5.0
7.6
5.8
6.3
5.4
5.1
6.6
5.8
8.5
7.0
5.5
4.9
5.0
5.4
4.4
4.4
5.3
4.9
4.9
5.4
125.7
Total
Haul
Mileage
6
5
5
6
10
4
2
1
3
2
8
4
6
11
9
11
12
8
10
12
8
15
158
Minutes Per Day
Collec.
225
150
200
165
215
211
263
240
270
295
277
290
150
180
225
120
135
180
185
135
240
125
4,476
Haul
45
20
30
35
45
26
12
45
31
35
48
40
90
75
55
63
58
75
100
85
50
85
1,148
Min.
Per
Ton of
Collec.
32.2
27.2
40.0
21.7
37.0
33.5
48.8
47.0
41.0
51.0
32.6
41.5'
27.3
36.7
45.0
22.2
30.7
40.9
35.0
27.5
49.0
23.2
.
Aver.
Travel
Speed
(mph)
8.0
15.0
10.0
10.3
13.3
9.3
10.0
_
6.0
3.4
10.0
6.0
4.0
9.0
10.0
10.5
12.4
6.4
6.0
8.5
9.6
10.6
_
FUTURE OPERATION - 5 Incinerators
Disp.
Point
**
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
_
Adjusted Haul
Miles
6
5
5
6
10
4
2
1
3
2
8
4
6
4
1
4
5
5
4
1
5
6
97
Min.
45
20
30
35
45
26
12
45
31
35
48
40
90
27
6
23
24
47
40
7
31
34
741
Addit.
Time
for
Collec.
(min.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
48
49
40
34
28
60
78
19
51
407
Tons/Day
Addit .
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.3
1.1
1.8
1.1
0.7
1.7
2.8
0.4
2.2
13.1
Total
7.0
5.5
5.0
7.6
5.8
6.3
5.4
5.1
6.6
5.8
8.5
7.0
5.5
6.2
6.1
7.2
5.5
5.1
7.0
7.7
5.3
7.6
138.8
No. of
Loads
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
47
Trucks
Req'd.
to
Serve
Area
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.79
0r82_
0.75
0.80
0.86
0.76
0.64
0.92
0.71
20.05
* To be re-assigned to Western District
** (2) 7th Street Incinerator; (7) St. Louis Incinerator
-------
TABLE A-J9
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE COLLECTION AND HAUL
District: WESTERN Collection Day: WEDNESDAY No. of Trucks per Day: 28
PRESENT OPERATION
Route
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Disp.
Point
**
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 '
1
1
1
1
1
1
•No. of
Loads
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
3
2
2
Tons
Col lee.
4.5
5.8
5.3
4.3
4.6
4.6
7.2
5.5
4.4
4.0
4.3
4.5
6.0
5.1
4.3
4.3
4.8
4.9
3.5
5.5
3.8
7.4
5.1
4.5
- 3 Incinerators and 2 Dumps
Total
Haul
Mileage
25
23
21
24
19
23
21
30
24
22
20
21
23
21
26
31
28
30
16
24
26
32
32
34
Minutes Per Day
Col lee.
220
200
170
145
168
220
221
165
145
150
152
105
175
210
162
185
160
170
130
125
145
290
185
150
Haul
100
105
90
75
122
90
84
130
110
78
83
120
100
70
85
90
90
95
70
120
90
140
105
145
Min.
Per
Ton of
Collec.
48.9
34.5
32.1
33.7
36.5
47.9
30.7
30.0
33.0
37.5
35.4
23.3
29.1
41.2
37.7
43.2
33.3
34.7
37.1
22.7
38.2
39.2
36.3
33.3
Aver.
Travel
Speed
(mph)
15.0
13.1
14.0
19.2
9.3
15.3
15.0
13.8
13.1
16.9
19.5
10.5
13,8
18.0
18.4
20.6
18.7
19.0
13.7
12.0
17.3
13.7
18.3
14.0
FUTURE OPERATION - 5 Incinerators
Disp.
Point
**
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Adjusted Haul
Miles
8
20
5
9
8
9
20
10
6
6
5
5
5
8
9
14
15
12
8
10
14
24
18
24
Min.
32
92
21
28
52
35
80
44
28
21
15
29
22
27
29
41
48
41
35
50
49
105
59
103
Addit.
Time
for
Collec.
(min. )
68
13
69
47
70
55
4
86
82
57
68
91
78
43
56
49
42
54
35
70
41
36
46
42
Tons/Day
Addit.
1 .4
0.4
2.2
1.4
1 .9
1.1
0.1
2.9
2.5
1.5
1 .9
3.9
2.7
1.0
1 .5
1 .1
1.3
1.6
0.9
3.1
1 .1
0.9
1.3
1 .3
Total
5.9
6.2
7.5
5.7
6.5
5.7
7.3
8.4
6.9
5.5
6.2
8.4
8.7
6.1
5.8
5.4
6.1
6.5
4.4
8.6
4.9
8.3
6.4
5.8
No. of
Loads
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
3
2
2
Trucks
Req'd.
to
Serve
Area
0.76
0.94
0.71
0.75
0.71
0.81
0.99
0.65
0.64
0.73
0.69
0.54
0.69
0.83
0.74
0.80
0.79
0.75
0.80
0.64
0.78
0.89
0.80
0.78
Note: See following page for coding information
-------
TABLE A- W (Continued)
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE COLLECTION AND HAUL
District: WESTERN Collection Day: WEDNESDAY No. of Trucks per Day: 28
PRESENT OPERATION - 3 Incinerators and 2 Dumps
Route
No.
25
26
27
28
Total
Disp.
Point
**
1
1
1
1
_
** (1) Algiers Inc
(3) Fla. Ave.
(7) St. Louis 1
No. of
Loads
2
2
2
2
56
inerator
Incinerah
ncinerato
Tons
Collec.
5.5
4.3
4.5
4.5
137.0
r
Total
Haul
Mileage
30
31
31
40
728
Minutes Per Day
Collec.
120
140
108
170
4,686
Haul
110
97
92
100
2,796
Min.
Per
Ton of
Collec.
21 .8
32.6
24.0
37.7
-
Aver.
Travel
Speed
(mph)
16.3
19.2
20.2
24.0
-
FUTURE OPERATION - 5 Incinerators
Disp.
Point
**
7
7
7
7
-
Adjusted Haul
Miles
25
13
16
24
350
Min.
92
41
48
60
1,327
Addit.
Time
for
Collec.
(min. )
18
56
44
40
1,459
Tons/Day
Addit.
0.8
1 .7
1.8
1.1
44.4
Total
6.3
6.0
6.3
5.6
181.4
' No. of
Loads
2
2
2
2
56
Trucks
Req'd.
to
Serve
Area
0.87
0.72
0.71
0.80
21.22
-------
TABLE A-20
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE COLLECTION AND HAUL
District: EASTERN 1 Collection Day: WEDNESDAY No. of Trucks per Day: 22
PRESENT OPERATION - 3 Incinerators and 2 Dumps
Route
No.
1 *
2*
3
4*
5
6
7*
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Totals
Disp.
Point
**
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
3
3
6
3
3
3
_
No. of
Loads
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
44
Tons
Collec.
7.6
9.0
9.2
7.8
9.7
9.6
7.0
7.4
6.5
8.1
8.5
7.4
9.8
7.7
6.3
6.4
6.9
7.6
9.6
7.3
6.3
7.3
173.0
Total
Haul
Mileage
8
6
7
9
6
6
8
7
8
10
11
1
7
5
6
24
3
2
32
5
6
2
179
Minutes Per Day
Collec.
295
190
221 '
195
220
215
190
175
240
255
162
195
220
210
215
170
285
270
215
240
260
248
4,886
Haul
60
55
80
70
45
40
75
85
71
103
100
20
96
55
60
115
20
45
100
75
57
35
1,462
Min.
Per
Ton of
Collec.
38.8
21.2
24.0
25.0
22.7
22.4
27.1
23.7
36.9
31.5
19.0
26.4
22.4
27.3
34.1
26.6
41.3
35.5
22.4
32.9
41.3
34.0
_
Aver.
Travel
Speed
(mph)
8.0
6.6
5.3
7.7
8.0
9.0
6.5
4.9
6.8
5.8
6.6
3.0
4.4
5.5
6.0
12.5
9.0
4.0
19.2
4.0
6.5
3.4
_
FUTURE OPERATION - 5 Incinerators
Disp.
Point
**
7
7
3
7
3
3
7
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
—
Adjusted Haul
Miles
6
5
5
5
5
5
8
5
7
9
11
1
7
6
6
2
3
2
6
4
6
2
116
Min.
45
45
57
39
38
33
75
61
62
92
100
20
96
66
60
10
20
30
28
60
57
35
1.129
Addit.
Time
for
Collec.
(min. )
15
10
23
31
7
7
0
24
9
11
0
0
0
11
0
105
0
15
72
15
0
0
355
Tons/Day
Addit.
0.4
0.5
1 .0
1 .2
0.3
0.3
0
1.0
0.2
0.3
0
0
0
0.4
0
3.9
o
0.4
3.2
0.5
0
0
13.6
Total
8.0
9.5
10.2
9.0
10.0
9.9
7.0
8.4
6_7
8.4
8.5
7.4
9.8
8.1
6.3
10.3
6.9
8.0
12.8
7.8
6.3
7.3
186.6
No. of
Loads
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
45
Trucks
Req'd.
to
Serve
Area
0.95
0.95
0.90
0.87
0.97
0.97
1.00
0.88
0.97
0.96
1.00
1 .00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.62
1 .00
0.95
0.75
0.94
1.00
1.00
20.63
To be re-assigned to Western District
** (3) Florida Avenue Incinerator; (6) Gentilly Dump; (7) St. Louis Incinerator
-------
TABLt A-21
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE COLLECTION AND HAUL
District: EASTERN II Collection Day: WEDNESDAY No. of Trucks per Day: 23
PRESENT OPERATION - 3 Incinerators and 2 Dumps
Route
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8*
9*
10*
11 *
12*
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
.20
21
22
23
Totals
Disp.
Point
**
3
3
3
6
3
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
3
6
6
6
3
3
6
6
6
6
3
No. of
Loads
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
36
Tons
Collec.
8.6
6.5
4.8
9.6
5.1
6.5
9.8
5.9
5.7
5.2
6.1
5.5
6.9
6.3
8.0
4.0
4.0
4.8
6.7
5.7
6.9
8.7
4.2
145.5
Total
Haul
Mileage
4
5
10
21
6
7
32
4
16
3
29
2
10
29
35
14
7
7
30
16
35
24
4
350
Minutes Per Day
Collec.
285
205
200
205
230
130
150
237
167
115
240
243
165
120
240
150
225
190
137
205
227
140
160
4,366
Haul
70
80
60
120
33
75
105
48
133
15
165
22
90
105
160
75
30
45
123
65
118
125
30
1,892
Min.
Per
Ton of
Collec.
33.1
31 .5
41 .7
21.4
45.0
20.0
15.3
40.2
29.3
22.1
39.3
44.2
23.9
19.0
30.0
37.5
L 56.3
39.6
20.4
36.4
32.9
16.1
38.1
„
Aver.
Travel
Speed
(mph)
3.4
3.8
10.0
10.5
10.9
5.6
18.3
5.0
7.2
12.0
10.5
5.5
6.7
16.5
13.1
11.2
14.0
9,3
14.6
14.7
17.8
11 .5
8.0
_
FUTURE OPERATION - 5 Incinerators
Disp.
Point
**
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
-
Adjusted Haul
Miles
30
29
28
27
14
29
31
4
6
4
6
3
24
14
26
13
16
11
29
15
29
32
15
432
Min.
116
112
108
104
54
112
120
48
50
20
34
33
93
54
101
50
62
62
112
58
112
124
58
1,797
Addit.
Time
for
Collec.
(min. )
-46
-32
-48
16
-21
-37
-15
0
83
- 5
131
-11
- 3
51
58
27
-34
-19
10
7
7
1
-28
92
Tons/Day
Addit.
-1.4
-1.0
-1.1
0.8
-0.5
-1.4
-1.0
0
2.8
-0.2
3.3
-0.3
-0.1
2.7
1.9
0.7
-0.6
-0.5
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.6
-0.7
4.9
Total
- 7.2
5.5
3.7
10.4
4.6
5.1
8.8
5.9
8.5
5.0
9.4
5.2
6.8
,_ 9.0
9.9
4.7
3.4
4.3
7.2
5.9
7.1
9.3
3.5
150.4
No. of
Loads
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
37
Trucks
Req'd.
• to
Serve
Area
1.19
1.18
1.30
0.92
1 .11
1.27
1 .11
1.00
0.67
1.04
0.65
1.06
1 .01
0.70
0.81
0.85
1.18
1.11
0.93
0.97
0.97
0.94
1.20
23,17
F . • nutricf ** @) Florida Avenue Incinerator; (4) N. O. East Incinerator; (6) Gentilly Dump
-------
TABLE A-22
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE COLLECTION AND HAUL
District: ALGIERS and NIGHT Collection Day: WEDNESDAY No. of Trucks per Day: 8
Route
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Total
PRESENT OPERATION - 3 Incinerators and 2 Dumps
Disp.
Point
**
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
_
No. of
Loads
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
11
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
16
Tons
Collec.
6.1
4.5
5.0
5.1
4.4
3.8
4.6
4.7
38.2
6.4
6.2
6.2
6.8
6.3
7.3
8.0
6.5
53.7
Total
Haul
Mileage
5
4
12
13
6
6
8
5
59
11
9
13
5
9
8
8
7
70
Minutes Per Day
Collec.
282
220
255
250
200
165
235
165
1,772
185
160
145
241
125
250
250
253
1,609
Haul
31
21
53
70
18
15
29
33
270
45
60
55
25
50
55
65
53
408
Min.
Per
Ton of
Collec.
Aver.
Travel
Speed
(mph)
FUTURE OPERATION - 5 Incinerators
Disp.
Point
**
Adjusted Haul
Miles
ALGIERS
46
49
51
49
46
44
51
35
-
9.7
11.4
1375
11.1
20.0
24.0
16.5
9.1
-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
5
4
12
12
6
6
8
5
58
NIGHT
29
26
23
35
20
34
31
39
_
14.6
9.0
14.2
14.4
10.8
8.7
7.4
7.9
_
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
_
11
9
13
4
9
8
8
7
69
Min. •
31
21
53
65
18
15
29
33
265
45
60
55
17
50
55
65
53
400
Addit.
Time
for
Collec.
(min. )
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
8
Tons/Day
Addit.
0
0
0
0.1
0
0
0
0
0.1
0
0
0
0.2
0
0
0
0
0.2
Total
6.1
4.5
5.0
5.2
4.4
3.8
4.6
4.7
38.3
6.4
6.2
6.2
7.0
6.3
7.3
8.0
6.5
53.9
No. of
Loads
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
11
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
16
Trucks
Req'd.
to
Serve
Area
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.98
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
7.98
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
7.97
** (1) Algiers Incinerator; (2) 7th Street Incinerator
-------
TABLE A-23
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE COLLECTION AND HAUL
District: CENTRAL Collection Day: THURSDAY No. of Trucks per Day: 22
Route
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12*
13
U
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Total
PRESENT OPERATION - 3 Incinerators and 2 Dumps
Disp.
Point
**
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
_
No. of
Loads
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
47
Tons
Col lee.
5.6
5.1
5.4
6.5
6.0
6.2
6.8
4.6
6.4
5.3
6,9
6.8
6.0
6.5
6.0
7.1
7.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
5.4
6.2
132.8
Total
Haul
Mileage
18
8
10
9
8
6
7
11
9
5
4
5
4
3
2
2
3
5
5
5
4
4
137
Minutes Per Day
Collec.
210
180
170
185
175
193
225
170
255
290
331
200
195
345
225
225
236
235
180
180
215
195
4.815
Haul
120
70
40
57
60
22
37
55
90
30
37
30
15
35
20
30
44
35
80
35
25
40
987
Min.
Per
Ton of
Collec.
37.5
35.3
31.5
28.4
29.1
31:1
33.1
36.9
39.8
54.7
48.0
29.4
32.5
53.1
37.5
31.7
32.8
43.5
32.2
31.0
39.8
31.5*
_
Aver.
Travel
Speed
(mph)
9.0
6.9
15.0
9.5
8.0
16.4
11.4
12.0
7.7
10.0
6.5
10.0
16.0
5.2
6.0
4.0
4.1
8.6
4.0
8.6
9.6
6.0
FUTURE OPERATION - 5 Incinerators
Disp.
Point
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Adjusted Haul
Miles
18
8
10
9
8
6
7
11
9
5
4
5
4
3
2
2
3
5
5
5
4
4
137
Min.
120
70
40
57
60
22
37
55
70
30
37
30
15
35
20
30
44
35
80
35
25
40
987
Addit.
Time
for
Collec.
(min.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tons/Day
Addit.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
5.6
5.1
5.4
6.5
6.0
6.2
6.8
4.6
6.4
5.3
6.9
6.8
6.0
6.5
6.0
7.1
7.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
5.4
6.2
132.8
No. of
Loads
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
47
Trucks
Req'd.
to
Serve
Area
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
7.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
•>•>. OQ
** (2) 7th Street Incinerator
-------
TABLE A-24
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE COLLECTION AND HAUL
District: WESTERN Collection Day: THURSDAY No. 'of Trucks per Day: 28
PRESENT OPERATION - 3 Incinerators and 2 Dumps
Route
No.
1*
2*
3*
4*
5*
6*
7*
8*
9*
10*
11*
12*
13*
14*
15
16
17
18
19*
20
21*
22
91
24
Disp.
Point
**
1
7
1
1
7
7
1
7
1
7
7
7
7
1
7
1
7
7
7
7
7
1
7
7
No. of
Loads
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
Tons
Collec.
4.7
5.0
4.9
5.5
4.3
4.6
4.5
4.9
4.6
5.6
5.4
4.3
4.4
4.8
6.2
6.4
5.9
7.3
5.9
3.6
6.7
6.9
5.9
5.1
Total
Haul
Mileage
14
20
28
24
16
20
36
15
33
15
18
15
12
26
15
28
14
15
20
17
18
35
10
13
Minutes Per Day
CoMec.
240
190
172
175
212
205
133
180
140
123
140
185
110
210
173
320
205
160
198
140
145
290
175
135
Haul
55
100
152
80
69
76
101
62
125
82
80
73
65
95
94
120
70
. 72
100
38
101
120
48
66
Min.
Per
Ton of
Collec.
51.0
38.0
34.7
31.8
49.4
44.6
29.6
36.8
30.4
22.0
26.0
43.0
25.0
43.8
27.9
50.0
34.7
21.9
33.6
38.9
23.8
42.0
29.7
26.5
Aver.
Travel
Speed
(mph)
12.9
12.0
11.0
18.0
13.9
16.7
21.2
14.5
15.8
11.0
13.5
12.3
11.2
16.5
9.6
14.0
12.0
12.5
12.0
11.0
10.7
17.5
12.5
11.8
FUTURE OPERATION - 5 Incinerators
Disp.
Point
**
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
7
7
7
7
2
7
2
7
7
7
Adjusted Haul
Miles
6
11
10
8
7
8
10
5
9
8
10
10
7
9
14
13
14
15
13
6
12
12
10
12
Min.
28
55
54
27
30
29
28
31
34
44
44
49
38
33
88
56
70
72
70
33
67
41
48
61
Addit.
Time
for
Collec.
(min. )
27
45
98
53
39
47
73
31
91
38
36
24
27
62
6
64
0
0
30
5
34
79
0
5
Tons/Day
Addit.
0.5
1.2
2.8
1.7
0.8
1.0
2.5
0.8
3.0
1.7
1.4
0.6
1.1
1.4
0.2
1.3
0
0
0.9
0.1
1.4
1.9
0
0.2
Total
5.2
6.2
7.7
7.2
5.1
5.6
7.0
5.7
7.6
7.3
6.8
4.9
5.5
6.2
6.4
7.7
5.9
7.3
6.8
3.7
7.5
8.8
5.9
5.3
No. of
Loads
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
Trucks
Req'd.
to
Serve
Area
0.90
0.81
0.64
0.76
0.84
0.82
0.64
0.86
0.61
0.77
0.79
0.88
0.80
0.77
0.97
0.83
1.00
1.00
0.87
0.97
0.81
0.78
1.00
0.96
Note: See following page for coding information
-------
TABLE A -24 (Continued)
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE COLLECTION AND HAUL
District: WESTERN Collection Day: THURSDAY No. of Trucks per Day: 28
PRESENT OPERATION - 3 Incinerators and 2 Dumps
Route
No.
25*
26
27*
28
Total
* To be r<
** 0) A
(2) 7t
(7) St
Disp.
Point
**
7
1
7
7
_
No. of
Loads
2
2
2
2
54
Tons
Collec.
4.8
4.9
4.9
4.8
146.2
^-assigned to Central District
giers Incinerator
h Street Incinerator
. Louis Incinerator
Total
Haul
Mileage
11
16
13
14
531
Minutes Per Day
Collec.
223
160
192
115
5,044
Haul
49
90
57
55
2.295
Min.
Per
Ton of
Collec.
46.5
32.6
39.2
27 .4
—
Aver.
Travel
Speed
(mph)
13.4
10.7
13.7
15.3
—
FUTURE OPERATION - 5 Incinerators
Disp.
Point
2
7
2
7
—
Adjusted Haul
Miles
9
11
10
12
281
Min.
40
62
44
47
1.323
Addit.
Time
for
Collec.
(min.)
9
28
13
8
972
Tons/Day
Addit.
0.2
0 9
0.3
0.3
28.2
Total
5.0
5 8
5.2
5 1
174.4
No. of
Loads
2
2
2
2
54
Trucks
Req'd.
to
Serve
Area
0.96
0 84
0,94
0 94
23.76
-------
TABLE A-25
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE COLLECTION AND HAUL
District: EASTERN! Collection Day: THURSDAY No. of Trucks per Day: 22
PRESENT OPERATION - 3 Incinerators and 2 Dumps
Route
No.
1*
2
3*
4
5
6
7*
8*
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18^
19
20
21
22
Total
Disp.
Point
**
6
6
6
3
6
6
6
6
6
3
6
6
3
6
3
6
6
3
3
3
6
6
_
No. of
Loads
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
44
Tons
Col lee.
8.1
9.2
8.2
8.4
8.4
7.7
6.4
J0.2
7.4
8.8
8.4
7.4
8.4
6.3
6.0
7.6
6.5
7.2
7.9
6.5
7.2
6.7
168.9
Total
Haul
Mileage
14
26
36
20
32
29
12
23
33
10
28
33
16
36
15
33
32
14
15
15
33
33
538
Minutes Per Day
CoMec.
210
250
290
210
210
250
290
210
200
200
207
210
310
215
180
215
195
210
315
160
155
215
4,907
Haul
90
125
140
75
75
125
50
130
130
90
108
165
HO
135
85
135
150
75
120
110
125
145
2,943
Min.
Per
Ton of
Collec.
26.0
27.2
35.4
25.0
25.0
32.5
45.4
20.6
27.0
22.7
24.6
28.4
37.0
34.1
30.0
28.3
30.0
29.2
40.0
24.6
21.6
32.1
_
Aver.
Travel
Speed
(mph)
9.3
12.5
15.4
16.0
26.0
13.9
14.4
10.6
15.2
6.7
15.5
12.0
8.7
16.0
10.6
14.6
12.8
11.2
7.5 ^
8.2
15.8
13.6
-
FUTURE OPERATION - 5 Incinerators
Disp.
Point
**
7
3
7
3
3
3
7
7
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
-
Adjusted Haul
Miles
8
7
10
5
4
4
12
9
12
10
8
14
16
13
15
14
14
14
13
15
14
10
241
Min.
52
51
39
19
9
17
50
76
47
90
46
70
110
49
85
58
66
75
104
110
53
44
1,320
Addit.
Time
for
Collec.
(min. )
38
74
101
56
66
108
0
54
83
0
62
95
0
86
0
77
84
0
16
0
72
101
1,173
Tons/Day
Addit.
1.5
2.7
2.9
2.2
2.6
3.3
0
2.6
3.1
0
2.5
3.3
0
2.5
0
2.7
2.8
0
0.4
0
3.3
3.1
41.5
Total
9.6
11.9
11.1
10.6
11.0
11.0
6.4
2.6
10.5
8.8
10.9
10.7
8.4
8.8
6.0
10.3
9.3
7.2
8.3
6.5
10.5
9.8
210.4
No. of
Loads
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
47
Trucks
Req'd.
to
Serve
Area
0.84
0,77
0.74
0.79
0.76
0.70
1.00
0.80
0.71
1.00
0.77
0.69
1,00
0.72
1.00
0.74
0.70
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.69
0.68
18.05
* To be re-assigned to Western District
** (3) Florida Avenue Incinerator; (6) Gentilly Dump; (7) St. Louis Incinerator
-------
TABLE A-26
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE COLLECTION AND HAUL
District: EASTERN II Collection Day: THURSDAY No. of Trucks per Day: 23
PRESENT OPERATION - 3 Incinerators and 2 Dumps
Route
No.
1
2
3
4
5
A
7*
8*
9*
10*
11
12*
13
U
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
93
Total
Disp.
Point
**
6
6
6
6
6
&
6
6
&
6
6
3
3
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
A
-
No. of
Loads
1
2
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
41
Tons
Collec.
5.0
10.1
5.1
6.6
8.4
8.8
8.8
4.9
5.1
3.5
6.9
8.0
4.4
6.7
5.0
4.4
7.0
5.1
6.3
5.5
8.6
8.1
5.4
147.7
Total
Haul
Mileage
6
19
22
21
25
25
29
14
15
15
26
7
20
25
29
18
76
14
11
16
21
25
30
449
Minutes Per Day
Collec.
175
195
240
180
175
180
185
185
185
115
190
280
145
165
192
120
340
145
255
255
259
266
231
4,658
Haul
60
99
120
125
115
145
80
75
145
70
115
65
190
100
115
115
76
62
80
120
141
100
110
2,423
Min.
Per
Ton of
Collec.
35.0
19.3
47.1
27.3
20.8
20.5
21.1
37.8
36.3
32.9
27.6
35.0
33.0
24.6
38.4
27.3
48.6
28.4
40.5
46.4
30.2
32.9
42.7
-
Aver.
Travel
Speed
(mph)
6.0
11.5
11.0
10.0
13.0
10.3
21.8
11.2
6.2
12.8
13.5
6.5
6.3
15.0
15.1
9.4
12.6
13.5
8.3
8.0
8.9
15.0
16.4
-
FUTURE OPERATION - 5 Incinerators
Disp.
Point
**
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
-
Adjusted Haul
Miles
6
10
12
14
17
20
6
2
4
3
26
7
22
24
24
13
6
2
2
2
6
14
18
532
Min.
60
81
65
84
78
116
17
22
78
14
115
65
210
96
95
83
29
18
15
15
60
56
65
1,537
Addit.
Time
for
Collec.
(min.)
0
1R
55
41
37
29
63
53
67
56
0
0
-20
4
20
32
47
44
65
105
81
44
45
886
Tons/Day
Addit.
0
1 0
1.2
1.5
1.8
1.4
3.0
1.4
1.9
1.7
0
0
-0.6
0.2
0.5
1.2
1.0
1.5
1.6
2.3
2.7
1.3
1.1
27.7
Total
5.0
11.1
6.3
8.1
10.2
10.2
11.8
6.3
7.0
5.2
6.9
8.0
3.8
6.9
5.5
5.6
8.0
6.6
7.9
7.8
11.3
9.4
6.5
175.4
No. of
Loads
1
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
46
Trucks
Req'd.
*to
Serve
Area
1.00
0.90
0.81
0.81
0.83
0.86
0.75
0.78
0.73
0.67
1.00
1.00
1.15
0.97
0.90
0.79
0.87
0.77
0.79
0.71
0.76
0.86
0.84
19.55
* To be re-assigned to Eastern I District
(3) Florida Ave. Incinerator; (4) N. O. East Incinerator; (6) Gentilly Dump
-------
TABLE A-27
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE COLLECTION AND HAUL
District: ALGIERS and NIGHT Collection Day: THURSDAY No. of Trucks per Day: 8
PRESENT OPERATION - 3 Incinerators and 2 Dumps
Route
No.
1
2
2
4
5
6
7
8
Total
]
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Total
Disp.
Point
**
r
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
^
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
_
No. of
Loads
2
1
9
1
1
2
2
2
13
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
17
Tons
Codec.
4.8
4.5
5.6
3.9
4.5
5.7
5.3
5.9
40.2
6,8
7.2
7.7
7.4
7.2
7.1
7.9
6.6
57.9
Total
Haul
Mileage
9
4
8
2
3
5
7
4
42
12
12
19
. 4
6
10
9
4
76
Minutes Per Day
Collec.
160
165
170
170
125
183
235
263
1.471
215
190
198
141
210
190
210
186
1,540
Haul
46
34
38
16
51
75
41
27
328
55
50
72
66
30
50
60
34
417
Min.
Per
Ton of
Collec.
Aver.
Trave 1
Speed
(mph)
FUTURE OPERATION - 5 Incinerators
Disp.
Point
**
Adjusted Haul
Miles
A L G E R S
33.3
36.7
30.4
43.6
29.8
32.1
44.4
44.6
_
10.7
7.1
12.6
7.5
3.5
4.0
10.2
8.9
_
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
_
10
4
5
3
3
5
6
6
42
NIGHT
31.6
26.4
25.8
19.1
29.2
26.8
26.6
28.2
-
13.1
14.4
15.8
3.6
12.0
12.0
9.0
7.1
-
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
_
11
12
19
4
6
10
9
4
75
Min.
56
34
24
24
51
75
36
40
340
50
50
72
66
30
50
60
34
412
Addit.
Time
for
Collec.
(min.)
-10
0
14
- 8
0
0
5
-13
-12
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tons/Day
Addit.
-0.3
0
0.5
-0.2
0
0
0.1
-0.3
-0.2
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.2
Total
4.5
4.5
6.1
3.7
4.5
5.7
5.4
5.6
40.0
7.0
7.2
7.7
7.4
7.2
7.1
7.9
6.6
58.1
No. of
Loads
2
1
?
1
1
2
2
2
13
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
17
Trucks
Req'd.
to
Serve
Area
1.06
1.00
0.92
1.05
1.00
1.00
0.98
1.05
8.06
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
7.97
(\) A\giers Incinerator; (2) 7tVi Street Incinerator
-------
TABLE A-28
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE COLLECTION AND HAUL
District: CENTRAL Collection Day: FRIDAY No- of Trucks per Day: 22
PRESENT OPERATION - 3 Incinerators and 2 Dumps
i
Route
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13*
14*
15*
16*
17*
18*
19*
20*
21*
22*
Total
Disp.
Point
**
2
2
o
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
o
2
2
2
2
_
No. of
Loads
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
49
Tons
Collec.
7
6.5
6.1
7.5
6.1
7.9
8.2
4.6
7.5
6.2
8.8
8.0
6.5
5.5
6.4
6.6
5.0
4.7
7.5
5.6
5.1
6.-1
143.4
Total
Haul
Mileage
6
4
5
6
7
5
3
1
6
2
7
6
6
11
9
11
12
8
15
12
7
14
163
Minutes Per Day
Collec.
272
205
180
225
235
310
260
210
290
355
321
300
201
190
275
151
136
190
280
195
220
175
5.176
Haul
57
20
30
35
65
40
40
40
50
40
37
45
24
45
40
57
74
75
125
80
50
55
1,124
Min.
Per
Ton of
Collec.
38.8
31.5
30.0
30.0
38.6
39.2
31.7
45.7
38.7
57.3
36.5
37.5
31.0
34.5
44.0
23.0
27.2
40.5
37.3
34.8
43. .1
28.7
_.
Aver.
Travel
Speed
(mph)
6.3
12.0
10.0
10.3
6.5
7.5
4.5
7.2
_
11.4
8.0
15.0
14.7
13.5
12.0
11.0
6.5
7.5
9.0 .
8.5
15.0
_
FUTURE OPERATION - 5 Incinerators
Disp.
Point
**
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
_
Adjusted Haul
Miles
6
5
5
6
7
5
3
1
5
2
8
4
6
4
1
4
5
5
6
1
5
6
100
Min.
57
20
30
35
65
40
40
40
50
40
37
45
24
16
4
21
31
47
50
7
36
24
759
Addit.
Time
for
Collec.
(min.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
36
36
43
28
75
73
14
31
365
Tons/Day
Addit.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.8
0.8
1.6
1.6
0.7
2.0
2.1
0.3
1.1
11.0
Total
7.0
6.5
6.1
7.5
6.1
7.9
8.2
4.6
7.5
6.2
8.8
8.0
6.5
6.3
7.2
8.2
6.6
5.4
9.5
7.7
5.4
7.2
154.4
No. of
Loads
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
49
Trucks
Req'd.
to
Serve
Area
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
K€0
1.00
1.00
l.vO
1.00
1.00
0.87
0.89
0.81
0.76
0.87
0.79
0.73
0.94
0.85
20.51
* To be re-assigned to Western District
** (2) 7th Street Incinerator; (7) St. Louis Incinerator
-------
TABLE A-29
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE COLLECTION AND HAUL
District: WESTERN Collection Day: FRIDAY No. of Trucks per Day: 28
PRESENT OPERATION - 3 Incinerators and 2 Dumps
Route
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Disp.
Point
**
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
• 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
• No. of
Loads
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
Tons
Collec.
5.2
4.5
6.3
5.4
6.4
4.7
5.0
6.0
4.6
4.6
6.1
4.5
5.6
6.5
4.8
4.3
4.4
5.1
4.4
6.6
5.3
6.8
4.4
4.9
Total
Haul
Mi leage
25
36
20
27
20
23
11
28
24
22
20
22
23
22
15
32
28
30
16
24
26
32
32
34
Minutes Per Day
Collec.
250
190
180
195
242
195
159
165
170
148
242
240
200
166
197
135
240
185
210
195
150
280
140
150
Haul
130
110
125
90
83
90
46
95
110
77
93
120
98
74
43
205
100
90
45
120
130
95
100
110
Min.
Per
Ton of
Collec.
48.1
42.3
28.6
36.2
37.8
41.5
31.8
27.5
37.0
32.2
39.7
53.4
35.7
25.5
41.1
31.4
54.6
36.3
47.6
29.6
28.3
41.2
31.8
30.6
Aver.
Travel
Speed
(mph)
11.5
19.6
9.6
18.0
14.5
15.4
14.4
17.7
13.1
17.2
12.9
11.0
14.1
17.8
18.1
9.4
16.8
20.0
21.2
12.0
12.0
20.2
19.2
18.5
FUTURE OPERATION - 5 Incinerators
Disp.
Point
**
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Ad|usted Haul
Miles
8
20
5
9
8
9
10
10
6
6
5
5
5
8
5
14
15
13
8
10
14
16
18
24
Min.
42
61
31
30
33
35
42
34
28
21
23
27
21
27
17
89
54
39
23
50
70
48
56
78
Addit.
Time
for
Collec .
(min. )
88
49
94
60
50
55
4
61
82
56
70
93
77
47
26
116
46
51
22
70
60
47
44
32
Tons/Day
Addit.
1.8
1.2
3.3
1.7
1.3
1.3
0.1
2.2
2.2
1.7
1.8
1.8
2.2
1.8
0.6
3.7
0.8
1.4
0.5
2.3
2.1
1.2
1.4
1.0
Total
7.0
5.7
9.6
7.1
7.7
6.0
5.1
8.2
6.8
6.3
7.9
6.3
7.8
8.3
5.4
8.0
5.2
6.5
4.9
8.9
7.4
8.0
5,8
5.9
No. of
Loads
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
Trucks
Req'd.
to
Serve
Area
0.74
0.79
0.66
0.76
0.83
0.78
0.98
0.73
0.68
0.73
0.77
0.71
0.72
0.78
0.89
0.54
0.85
0.78
0.90
0.74
0.72
0.85
0.76
0.83
Note: See following page for coding information
-------
TABLE A-29 (Continued)
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE COLLECTION AND HAUL
District: WESTERN Collection Day: FRIDAY No. of Trucks per Day: 28
PRESENT OPERATION - 3 Incinerators and 2 Dumps
Route
No.
25
26
27
28
Total
Disp.
Point
**
1
1
1
1
_
No. of
Loads
2
2
2
2
53
** (1) Algiers Incinerator
(3) Fla. Ave. Inc.
(7) St. Louis Inc.
Tons
Col lee.
5.0
4.7
5.9
4.2
146.2
Total
Haul
Mileage
30
30
31
40
721
Minutes Per Day
Collec.
129
125
188
195
5,261
Haul
126
100
92
100
2,797
Min.
Per
Ton of
Collec.
25.8
26.6
31.8
46.4
-
Aver.
Travel
Speed
(mph)
14.3
18.0
20.2
24.0
-
FUTURE OPERATION - 5 Incinerators
Disp.
Point
**
7
7
7
7
-
Adjusted Haul
Miles
25
13
16
24
329
Min.
105
43
48
60
1,235
Addit .
Time
for
Collec.
(min.)
21
57
44
40
1,562
Tons/Day
Addit.
0.8
2.1
1.4
0.9
44.6
Total
5.8
6.8
7.3
5.1
190.8
No. of
Loads
2
2
2
2
53
Trucks
Req'd.
to
Serve
Area
0.86
0.69
0.81
0.82
21.70
-------
TABLE A-30
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE COLLECTION AND HAUL
District: EASTERN! Collection Day: FRIDAY No. of Trucks per Day: 22
PRESENT OPERATION - 3 Incinerators and 2 Dumps
Route
No.
1*
2*
3
4*
5
6
7*
8
9
10
n
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Total
Disp.
Point
•**
6
3
3
6
6
3
3
6
6
3
6
6
6
3
3
6
3
3
3
6
6
6
_
No. of
Loads
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
44
Tons
Col lee.
9.4
9.9
12.7
7.6
8.3
8.3
6.9
6.5
6.9
7.5
7.2
5.8
8.7
7.2
6.8
6.2
9.4
9.1
7.1
6.5
5.9
3.5
167.4
Total
Haul
Mileage
35
6
8
34
18
6
8
32
34
10
32
26
47
5
6
24
4
3
6
29
30
28
431
Minutes Per Day
Col lee.
220
255
220-
165
175
215
250
170
240
265
188
215
225
225
195
172
250
280
265
240
160
200
4,790
Haul
155
75
63
100
80
105
95
107
150
65
127
130
230
50
50
123
50
55
40
170
155
180
2,355
Min.
Per
Ton of
Collec.
23.4
25.8
17.4
21.6
21.1
25.9
36.3
26.2
34.7
35.3
26.1
37.1
25.8
31.3
28.7
27.7
26.6
30.8
37.3
36.9
27.1
57.2
_
Aver.
Travel
Speed
(mph)
13.5
4.8
7.6
20.4
13.5
3.4
5,1
18.0
13.6-
9.2
15.1
12.0
12.2
6.0
7.2
11.7
4.8
3.3
9.0
10.2
11.6
9.3
_
FUTURE OPERATION - 5 Incinerators
Disp.
Point
**
7
7
3
7
3
3
7
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
_
Adjusted Haul
Miles
6
5
5
5
5
5
8
5
7
9
11
1
7
6
6
2
3
2
6
4
6
2
116
Min.
40
63
60
22
22
88
95
17
31
59
44
5
51
60
50
10
50
36
40
24
31
13
911
Addit.
Time
for
Collec.
(min. )
115
12
3
L_ 78
58
17
0
90
119
6
83
125
179
- 10
0
113
0
19
0
146
124
167
1,444
Tons/Day
Addit.
5.0
0.5
0.2
3.6
2.8
0.7
0
3.4
3.4
0.2
3.2
3.4
6.9
-0.4
0
4.0
0
0.6
0
4.0
4.6
2.9
49.0
Total
14.4
10.4
12.9
11.2
11.1
9.0
6.9
9.9
10.3
7.7
10.4
9.2
15.6
6.8
6.8
10.2
9.4
9.7
7.1
10.5
10.5
6.4
216.4
No. of
Loads
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
47
Trucks
Req'd,
to
Serve
Area
0.65
0.95
0.98
0.68
0.75
0.92
1.00
0.66
0.67
0.97
0.69
0.63
0.56
1.06
1. 00
0.61
1. 00
0.94
1.00
0.62
0.56
0.55
17.45
* To be re-awigned to Western District
(3) Florida Avenue Incinerator; (6) Gentilly Dump; (7) St. Louis Incinerator
-------
TABLE A-3I
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE COLLECTION AND HAUL
District: EASTERN II Collection Day: FRIDAY No. of Trucks per Day: 23
PRESENT OPERATION - 3 Incinerators and 2 Dumps
Route
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8*
9*
10*
11*
12*
13
U
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Total
Disp.
Point
**
3
3
3
6
6
6
6
6
6
3
6
6
3
6
6
6
6
3
6
3
6
6
6
-
No. of
Loads
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
39
Tons
Collec.
7.3
4.5
7.3
6.3
3.9
8.7
10.4
5.4
5.4
4.3
6.1
5.7
5.3
6.3
5.5
4.5
3.1
4.5
4.4
3.7
7.1
7.4
4.4
131.5
Total
Haul
A\ leage
12
6
11
21
31
37
32
16
31
4
27
26
10
29
35
14
17
7
30
6
35
24
32
493
Minutes Per Day
Collec.
285
180
220
240
270
190
315
165
195
155
200
270
225
170
205
180
130
130
170
195
252
200
205
4,647
Haul
65
24
70
120
120
100
95
55
155
35
165
90
175
100
129
65
no
35
117
40
148
98
150
2,261
Min.
Per
Ton of
Collec.
39.1
40.0
30.1
38.1
69.2
21.8
20.7
30.6
36.1
36.1
32.8
47.4
42.5
26.9
37.3
40.0
41.9
28.9
38.6
52.7
35.5
27.0
46.6
-
Aver.
Travel
Speed
(mph)
11.2
15.0
9.4
10.5
15.5
22.2
19.2
17.4
12.0
6.9
10.5
17.4
3.4
17.4
16.3
12.9
9.3
12.0
15.4
9.0
14.2
U.7
12.8
-
FUTURE OPERATION - 5 Incinerators
Disp.
Point
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
-
Adjusted Haul
Miles
30
15
28
27
28
29
31
4
6
4
6
6
24
14
26
13
16
16
29
15
29
32
30
458
Min.
116
58
'108
104
108
112
120
28
30
35
34
21
93
54
100
50
62
62
112
58
112
124
116
1,817
Addit
Time
for
Collec.
(min.)
-51
-34
-38
16
12
-12
-25
27
125
0
131
69
82
46
29
15
48
-27
5
-18
36
-26
34
444
Tons/Day
Addit.
-1.3
-0.9
-1.3
0.4
0.2
-0.6
-1.2
0.9
3.5
0
4.0
1.5
1.9
1.7
0.8
0.4
1.1
-0.9
0.1
-0.3
1.0
-1.0
0.7
10.7
Total
6.0
3.6
6.0
6.7
4.1
8.1
9.2
6.3
8.9
4.3
10.1
7.2
7.2
8.0
6.3
4.9
4.2
3.6
4.5
3.4
8.1
6.4
5.1
142.2
No. of
Loads
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
40
Trucks
Req'd.
to
Serve
, Area
1.22
1.25
1.22
0.94
0.95
1.07
1.13
0.86
0.61
1.00
0.60
0.79
0.74
0.79
0.87
0.92
0.74
1.25
0.98
1.09
0.88
1.15
0.86
21.91
* To be re-assigned to Eastern I District
(3) Florida Avenue Incinerator; (4) N. O. East Incinerator; (6) Gentilly Dump
-------
TABLE A-32
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE COLLECTION AND HAUL
District: ALGIERS and NIGHT Collection Day; FRIDAY No. of Trucks per Day: 8
PRESENT OPERATION - 3 Incinerators and 2 Dumps
Route
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Total
Disp.
Point
**
1
J
"1
1
5
5
1
1
_
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
No. of
Loads
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
16
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
3
19
Tons
Codec.
4.5
6.2
5.9
5.6
7.0
5.3
5.9
6.1
46.5
6.6
6.7
5.5
7.1
6.7
8.1
12.0
8.1
60.8
Total
Haul
Mileage
5
8
10
12
16
15
16
11
93
8
10
11
6
9
• 7
18
9
78
Minutes Per Day
Col lee.
180
240
257
200
330
230
175
165
1,777
175
185
120
173
195
250
270
178
1,546
Haul
40
50
49
41
40
46
116
70
459
50
55
90
78
45
55
120
122
615
Min.
Per
Ton of
Collec.
Aver,
Travel
Speed
(mph)
FUTURE OPERATION - 5 Incinerators
Disp.
Point
**
Adjusted Haul
Miles
A L G E R S
40.0
37.7
43.6
35.7
47.1
43.4
29.7
27.1
-
7.5
9.6
12.2
17.5
14.0
19.5
8.3
9.4
-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
5
8
12
12
12
6
16
10
81
NIGHT
26.5
27.7
21.8
24.4
29.1
30.9
22.5
21.9
_
9.6
10.9
7.3
4.6
12.0
7.6
9.0
4.4
_
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
_
8
10
11
6
9
7
18
9
78
Min.
40
50
59
41
51
18
105
64
428
50
55
90
78
45
55
30
123
526
Addit.
Time
for
Collec.
(min. )
0
0
-10
0
- 4
28
11
6
31
0
0
0
0
0
0
90
- 1
89
Tons/Day
Addit .
0
0
-0.2
0
-0.1
0.7
0.4
0.2
1.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.0
0
4.0
Total
4.5
6.2
5.7
5.6
6.9
6.0
6.3
6.3
47.5
6.6
6.7
5.5
7.1
6.7
8.1
16.0
8.1
M.8
No. of
Loads
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
16
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
3
19
Trucks
Req'd.
to
Serve
Area
1.00
1.00
1.04
1.00
1.01
0.89
0.94
0.97
7.85
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.75
1.00
7 .7.5
** (1) Algiers Incinerator; (2) 7th Street Incinerator; (5) Algiers Dump
-------
TABLE A-33
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE COLLECTION AND HAUL
District: CENTRAL Collection Day: SATURDAY No. of Trucks per Day: 22
PRESENT OPERATION - 3 Incinerators and 2 Dumps
Route
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Total
Disp.
Point
**
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
No. of
Loads
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
52
Tons
Col lee.
7.4
6.2
5.8
5.1
6.3
6.6
7.8
5.5
6.6
6.1
8.1
7.1
8.3
9.8
8.5
7.1
8.9
6.3
4.8
7.0
5.9
6.4
151.6
Total
Haul
Mileage
18
9
10
9
8
6
8
12
9
5
6
5
8
5
3
3
2
5
5
8
4
4
152
Minutes Per Day
Codec.
235
180
215
222
235
185
250
216
315
290
342
280
251
347
275
181
280
225
210
250
250
195
5.429
Haul
76
40
35
38
65
30
45
69
50
40
53
25
52
63
55
39
23
70
70
60
25
40
1,063
Min.
Per
Ton of
Codec.
31.8
29.0
37.1
43.5
37.3
28.0
32.0
39.3
47.7
47.5
42.2
39.4
30.3
35.4
32.4
25.5
31.5
35.7
43.7
35.7
42.4
30.5
—
Aver.
Travel
Speed
(mph)
14.2
14.0
17.1
14.2
7.5
12.0
11.7
10.7
11.0
8.0
6.8
12.0
9.2
4.8
3.3
4.6
5J
4.3
4.3
8.0
9.6
6.0
—
FUTURE OPERATION - 5 Incinerators
Disp.
Point
**
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
_
Adjusted Haul
Miles
18
9
10
9
8
6
8
12
9
5
6
5
8
5
2
3
2
5
5
8
4
4
151
Min.
76
40
35
38
65
30
45
69
50
40
53
25
52
A3
55
39
23
70
70
60
25
40
1.063
Addit.
Time
for
Codec.
(min. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tons/Day
Addit.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
7.4
6.2
5.8
5.1
6.3
6.6
7.8
5.5
6.6
6.1
8.1
7.1
8.3
9.8
8.5
7.1
8.9
6.3
4.8
7.0
5.9
6.4
151.6
No. of
Loads
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
52
Trucks
Req'd.
to
Serve
Area
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
22.00
** (2) 7th Street Incinerator
-------
TABLE A-34
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE COLLECTION AND HAUL
District: WESTERN Collection Day: SATURDAY No. of Trucks per Day: 28
PRESENT OPERATION - 3 Incinerators and 2 Dumps
Route
No.
1*
2*
3*
4*
5* '
6*
7*
8*
9*
10*
11*
12*
13*
14*
15
16
17
18
19*
20
21*
22
23
24
Disp.
Point
**
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
7
1
1
1
1
7
7
•1
1
1
1
1
1
I
No. of
Loads
1
2
2^
2
2
n
L.
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2_
2
Tons
Col lee.
4.7
4.8
5.1
4.8
4.8
5.1
4.1
5.8
5.3
4.1
5.7
5.5
5.0
5.1
8.1
7.5
6.7
8.2
7.4
5.3
7.1
9.1
6.8
9.3
Total
Haul
Mileage
14
31
28
24
34
26
11
17
32
22
15
38
26
26
30
17
14
33
20
14
33
35
25
29
Minutes
Colled.
225
150
175
215
195
200
203
183
185
133
180
180
120
240
223
240
285
165
305
185
185
300
145
195
Per Day
Haul
55
T05
140
85
95
130
52
110
115
75
48
105
120
85
99
55
48
120
102
71
100
135
T60
150
Min.
Per
Ton of
Collec.
48.0
31.2
34.3
44.8
40.6
40.0
49.5
31.5
34.9
32.4
31.6
32.7
24.0
47.0
27.5
32.0
42.5
20.1
41.3
34.9
26.1
33.0
21.3
21.0
Aver.
Travel
Speed
(mph)
15.3
17.7
12.0
17.0
21.5
12.0
12.7
9.3
16.7
17.6
18.8
19.8
13.0
18.3
18.2
18.5
21.3
16.5
11.8
19.8
19.8
15.6
9.4
15.6
FUTURE OPERATION - 5 Incinerators
Disp.
Point
**
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
7
7
7
7
2
7
2
7
7
7
Adjusted Haul
Miles
6
11
10
8
7
8
5
5
9
8
10
10
7
9
14
13
14
15
13
6
12
12
10
12
Min.
24
37
50
28
20
40
24
32
32
27
32
28
32
29
46
42
48
56
66
60
36
69
64
93
Addit.
Time
for
Collec.
(min. )
31
68
90
57
75
90
28
48
83
48
16
77
88
56
53
13
0
64
36
71
64
66
96
57
Tons/Day
Addit.
0.6
2.2
2.6
1.3
3.5
2.3
0.6
1.5
2.4
1.5
0.5
2.4
3.7
1.2
1.9
0.4
0
3.2
0.9
0.3
2.5
2.0
4.5
2.7
Total
5.3
7.0
7.7
6.1
8.3
7.4
4.7
7.3
7.7
5.6
6.2
7.9
8.7
6.3
10.0
7.9
6.7
11.4
8.3
5.6
9.6
11.1
11.3
12.0
No. of
Loads
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
Trucks
Req'd.
to
Serve
Area
0.89
0.69
0.66
0.79
0.58
0.69
0.87
0.79
0.69
0.73
0.92
0.70
0.58
0.81
0.81
0.95
1.00
0.72
0.89
0.95
0.74
0.82
0.60
0.77
Note: See following page for coding information
-------
TABLE A-34 (Continued)
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE COLLECTION AND HAUL
District WESTERN Collection Day: SATURDAY No. of Trucks per Day: 28
PRESENT OPERATION - 3 Incinerators and 2 Dumps
Route
No.
25*
2d
27*
28
Total
Disp.
Point
**
1
7
]
1
—
No. of
Loads
2
4
2
2
55
Tons
Collec.
7.3
6J
7.7
7.6
174.1
* To be re-assigned to Central District
** (1) Algiers Incinerator
(2) 7th Street Incinerator
(7) St. Louis Incinerator
Total
Haul
Mileage
24
24
25
27
694
Minutes Per Day
Collec.
178
228
199
155
5.572
Haul
152
132
144
90
2,878
Min.
Per
Ton of
Collec.
24.4
37.3
25.9
20.4
_
Aver.
Travel
Speed
(mph)
9.5
10.9
10.4
18.0
_
FUTURE OPERATION - 5 Incinerators
Disp.
Point
**
2
7
2
7
_
Adjusted Haul
Miles
9
22
10
12
287
Min.
57
121
58
40
1,291
Addit.
Time
for
Collec.
(min. )
95
11
86
50
1,586
Tons/Day
Addit.
3.9
0.3
3.3
2.5
54.7
Total
11.2
6.4
11.0
10.1
228.8
No. of
Loads
2
4
2
2
58
Trucks
Req'd.
to
Serve
Area
0.65
0.95
0.70
0.75
21.69
-------
TABLE A-35
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE COLLECTION AND HAUL
District: EASTERN I Collection Day: SATURDAY No. of Trucks per Day: 22
PRESENT OPERATION - 3 Incinerators and 2 Dumps
Route
No.
1*
2
3*
4
5
6
7*
8*
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Total
Disp.
Point
**
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
_
No. of
Loads
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
44
Tons
Collec.
9.8
8.3
9.1
6.7
9.1
10.0
10.2
10.3
9.1
10.7
9.0
9.5
4.8
7.7
5.9
8.5
8.2
11.8
7.1
7.8
8.7
6.3
188.6
Total
Haul
Mileage
6
8
8
5
5
6
12
10
11
10
8
14
24
15
14
14
14
15
13
15
14
11
252
Minutes Per Day
Collec.
240
260
213
240
230
255
236
220
210
400
270
260
300
195
205
282
300
375
240
235
215
255
5,636
Haul
60
60
62
40
40
35
99
40
63
105
60
85
80
80
65
85
85
100
79
95
70
75
1,563
Min.
Per
Ton of
Collec.
24.5
31.4
23.4
35.8
25.3
25.5
23.1
21.4
23.1
37.4
30.0
27.3
62.5
25.3
34.8
33.2
36.6
31.8
33.8
30.2
24.7
40.5
_
Aver.
Travel
Speed
(mph)
6
8
7.7
7.5
7.5
10.3
7.3
15.0
10.5
5.7
8.0
9.9
18.0
11.2
12.9
9.9
9.9
9.0
9.9
9.5
12.0
8.8
_
FUTURE OPERATION - 5 Incinerators
Disp.
Point
**
7
3
7
3
3
3
7
7
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
. 3
3
3
3
3
_
Adjusted Haul
Miles
8
7
10
5
5
4
12
9
12
10
8
14
16
13
15
14
14
14
13
15
14
10
242
Min.
80
53
78
40
40
24
99
36
69
105
60
85
53
70
70
85
85
93
79
95
70
68
1.537
Addit.
Time
for
Col lee.
(mtn.)
-20
7
-16
0
0
11
0
4
- 6
0
0
0
27
10
- 5
0
0
7
0
0
0
7
26
Tons/Day
Addit.
-0.8
0.2
-0.7
0
0
0.4
0
0.2
-0.3
0
0
0
0.4
0.4
-0.1
0
0
0.2
o
0
0
0.2
0.1
Total
9.0
8.5
8.4
6.7
9.1
10.4
10.2
10.5
8.8
10.7
9.0
9.5
5.2
8.1
5.8
8.5
8.2
12.2
7.1
7.8
8.7
6.5
188.7
No. of
Loads
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
44
Trucks
Req'd.
to
Serve
Area
1.09
0.9£
1.08
1.00
1.00
0.96
1.00
0.98
1.03
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.92
0.95
1.02
1.00
1.00
0.98
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.97
21.95
* To be re-assigned to Western District
** (3) Florida Avenue Incinerator; (7) St. Louis Incinerator
-------
TABLE A-36
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE COLLECTION AND HAUL
District: EASTERN II Collection Day: SATURDAY No. of Trucks per Day: 23
PRESENT OPERATION - 3 Incinerators and 2 Dumps
Route
No.
1 ,
2
3
4
5
6
7*
8*
9*
10*
11
12*
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
• 20
21
22
23
Disp.
Point
**
6
6
6
6
6
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
6
6
6
6
6
3
3
_
_
No. of
Loads
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
2
2
2
39
Tons
Collec.
7.5
7.9
8.7
6.9
5.3
11.7
5.6
6.5
6.0
4.9
8.5
4.5
8.7
5.3
8.6
4.9
7.9
5.4
8.6
10.1
7.8
8.2
4.7
164.3
Total
Haul
Mi (cage
12
20
22
20
13
25
1
4
4
4
14
4
20
13
29
18
16
14
11
28
32
25
30
379
Minutes
Col lee.
360
175
250
218
195
280
145
260
235
250
300
250
200
180
210
190
380
195
287
263
250
345
230
5,648
Per Day
Haul
110
113
115
73
99
150
15
30
20
30
70
15
180
70
115
120
75
70
73
187
125
120
141
2,116
Min.
Per
Ton of
Collec.
48.0
22.1
28.7
31.6
36.8
24.0
26.0
40.0
39.2
51.0
35.0
55.6
23.0
34.0
24.4
38.8
48.2
36.2
L 33.4
26.0
32.0
42.1
49.0
-
Aver.
Travel
Speed
(mph)
6.6
9.2
11.5
16.4
7.9
10.0
4.0
8.0
12.0
8.0
12.0
16.0
6.7
11.1
15.1
9.0
12.8
12.0
9.1
9.0
15.4
12.5
12.8
FUTURE OPERATION - 5 Incinerators
Disp.
Point
**
4
. 4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Adjusted Haul
Miles
12
10
8
14
17
20
3
4
4
3
26
4
22
12
24
13
6
2
2
3
6
14
18
247
Min.
110
57
42
51
130
120
45
30
20
23
130
15
197
65
95
87
28
20
13
20
23
67
85
1.473
Addit.
Time
for
Collec.
(min.)
0
56
73
22
-31
30
-30
0
0
7
-60
0
-17
5
20
33
47
50
60
167
102
53
56
643
Tons/Day
Addit.
0
2.5
2.5
0.7
-0,8
1.3
-1.2
0
0
0.1
-1.7
0
-0.7
0.2
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.4
1.8
6.4
3.2
1.3
1.1
20.7
Total
.7.5
10.4
11.2
7.6
4.5
13.0
4.4
6.5
6.0
5,0
6.9
4.5
8.0
5.5
9.4
5.7
8.9
6.8
10.4
' 16.5
11.0
9.5
S.fl
185,0
No. of
Loads
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
i
2
3
2
2
•)
39
Trucks
Req'd.
.to
Serve
Area
1.00
0.76
0.78
0.91
1T18
0.90
1.27
1.00
1.00
0.98
1.24
1.00
1.09
0.97
0.91
0.86
0.89
0.79
0.83
0.61
0.71
0.8A
0 fil
21.35
* To be re-assigned to Eastern I District
(3) Florida Ave. Incinerator; (4) N. O. East Incinerator (6) Gentilly Dump
-------
TABLE A-37
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE COLLECTION AND HAUL
District: ALGIERS and NIGHT Collection Day: SATURDAY No. of Trucks per Day: 8
PRESENT OPERATION - 3 Incinerators and 2 Dumps
Route
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Total
Disp.
Point
**
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
_
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
No. of
Loads
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
15
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
17
Tons
Col lee.
6.1
4.6
5.9
5.3
5.2
7.0
3.5
6.2
43.8
8.5
8.0
7.6
7.4
7.2
8.1
7.9
7.6
62.3
Total
Haul
Mileage
10
9
8
6
3
6
7
4
53
10
12
13
4
6
15
10
4
74
Minutes Per Day
Collec.
150
170
185
189
180
183
145
243
1,445
235
200
195
150
200
310
190
180
1,660
Haul
50
26
55
90
39
50
35
29
374
40
45
105
60
40
75
70
30
465
Min.
Per
Ton of
Collec.
24.6
37.0
31.4
35.7
34.6
26.2
41.4
39.2
_
Aver.
Travel
Speed
(mph)
FUTURE OPERATION - 5 Inc nerators
Disp.
Point
**
A L G E R S
12.0
20.8
8.7
4.0
9.2
7.2
12.0
8.3
_
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
_
Adjusted Haul
Miles
10
8
5
6
3
5
6
6
49
NIGHT
27.7
25.0
25.7
20.2
27.8
38.3
24.0
23.7
_
15.0
16.0
7.4
4.0
9.0
12.0
8.6
8.0
—
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
_
11
12
12
4
6
15
9
4
73
Min.
50
23
35
90
39
42
30
43
352
44
45
97
60
40
75
63
30
454
Addit.
Time
for
Collec.
(min.)
0
3
20
0
0
8
5
-14
22
- 4
0
8
0
0
0
7
0
3
Tons/Day
Addit.
0
0.1
0.6
0
0
0.3
0.1
-0.4
0.7
-0.1
0
0.3
0
0
0
0.3
0
0.5
Total
6.1
4.7
6.5
5.3
5.2
7.3
3.6
5.8
44.5
8.4
8.0
7.9
7.4
7.2
8.1
8.2
7.6
62.8
No. of
Loads
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
15
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
17
Trucks
Req'd.
to
Serve
Area
1.00
0.98
0.90
1.00
1.00
0.96
0.97
1.06
7.87
1.02
1.00
0.96
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.96
1.00
7.94
** (1) Algiers Incinerator; (2) 7th Street Incinerator
-------
Form No. RS-1 New Orleans - Rt. Survey Form
Master Plan for Solid Waste Collection and Disposal
Orleans - St. Bernard - Jefferson Parish, Louisiana
DQi-sw-uuoga-oOT
Collection and DTsposaT Records for Orleans Parish
DAILY ROUTE LOG
Collection: (Circle collection day)
Division Section
Date
Driver (Name)
Truck No.
Leave Garage:
Return Garage:
Collectors (Names)
Garage Location
Mileage Out
Mileage In
Total Miles
M-W-F T-Th-S Nightly
Route No.
&
Time Out
Time In
Total Minutes
DRIVER'S RECORD
Start Collection: Location
Mileage
Time
Finish Collection: Location
Mileage
Time
Arrive Disposal: Location
Mileage
Time
SCALEMAN'S RECORD
Weight
Leave Disposal: Time
1st Load
LOAD
2nd Load
RECORD
3rd Load
:
4th Load
-------
Form No. RS-2
METROPOLITAN NEW ORLEANS WASTE STUDY
DAY
GRP
1
DAY
.
WEEK
DIS-
TRICT
RT.
NO.
FT.
DISP.
TRK.
TYPE
TRK.
CAP.
COLLECTION ROUTE - HAUL STUDY
KTTSTTWa
TRJ
MI.
7EI,
ON.
CONSTANT
JOL.M
MI.
CTTON
MIN.
EXISTING
HAUL
MI.
MIN.
EXISTING-
TONS
COLL,
2tt-
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
APPENDIX III Incinerator Maintenance Schedule
The following Model Incinerator Maintenance Schedules have been prepared as a guide to good
maintenance procedures. While certain modifications may be required to adapt them to the
specific plants conditions they will nevertheless provide a sound basis for developing an adequate
maintenance program.
CONTINUOUS FEED PLANT
A Daily
1. Lubrication - Grease and/or oil
(a) Crane bucket bearings
(b) Stoker bearings
(c) Stoker drive chain
(d) Recirculation water pumps
(e) Induced draft fan bearings
(f) Mechanical dust collector discharge mechanism
(g) Air compressors
(h) Residue conveyor and/or grate bearings
(i) Residue truck motor and hoist mechanism
2. Inspect, clean, and adjust
(a) Crane operation
(b) Water cooled charge chute
(c) Stoker drives
(d) Stoker shaft, fan bearing, etc. water cooling systems
Appendix Ill-l
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
(e) Fans - forced draft, wall cooling, induced draft
(f) Water sprays and spray piping systems
(g) Compressed air system
(h) Instruments and controls - replace daily instrument charts and fill ink reser-
voirs
(i) Hydraulic systems
(j) Flyash handling and waste water systems
(k) Combustion air ductwork, gates, flexible connection, nozzles, etc.
(I) Furnace siftings systems
B Weekly
1 . Lubrication - Grease and Oil
(a) Crane wheel bearings - bridge and trolley
(b) Stoker drive mechanism
(c) Induced draft fan variable speed rive oil level
2. Inspect, clean, adjust, and repair
(a) Crane cables
(b) Crane brakes
(c) Stoker chain tension adjustment
(d) Grate castings, chains, pinions, fastenings, etc.
(e) Water cooled charge chute - internal
(f) Slag and repair all refractories
Appendix 111-2
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
(g) Clean, inspect and repair cooling and/or flyash chambers and dust control
equipment
(h) Waste water handling and treatment system
(!) Air and water nozzles and openings
(j) Instrumentation sampling openings, thermocouples, and controls
(k) Induced draft fan housing and impellers
(I) Adjust residue conveyor chain tension
C Monthly
1. Inspect, clean, adjust and repair
(a) Stoker chains and sprockets
(b) Fan drive belts
(c) Packing glands in pumps, shaft bearings, etc.
(d) Compressor drive belts
(e) Replace monthly strip charts
(f) Inspect and clean out truck scale pit
D Tri-Monthly
(a) Inspect and adjust stoker drive mechanism
(b) Inspect, adjust, lubricate and calibrate all instruments - to be performed by
trained serviceman
(c) Inspect, adjust, lubricate and calibrate truck scale - to be performed by
trained serviceman
Appendix 111-3
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
(d) Replace crane cables - (assume continuous use)
E Semi-Annually
(a) Replace electrical contacts on crane
(b) Replace crane bridge and trolley brakes
(c) Change oil in crane geat boxes and lubricate, inspect, and adjust drive
systems
(d) Replace crane main line conductor wheels
(e) Have crane inspected and tested by trained serviceman
(f) Replace bearing grease in large fans
(g) Inspect and lubricate all motor bearings
(h) Check balance of Induced Draft fans
(i) Check electrical transformer fluid
F Annual
(a) Replace, renovate, or refurbish hydraulic cylinders
(b) Replace, renovate, or refurbish the components of the stoker drive system
(c) Replace, renovate, or refurbish water pumps and air compressors
(d) Reline and/or repair refuse charge hoppers, residue discharge hoppers, and
residue conveyor trough
(e) Change oil in induced draft fan fluid drive if used
G Bi-Annual
(a) Replace stoker sprockets on trunion bearings
Appendix 111-4
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
(b) Refurbish crane bucket - replace pins, rollers, sheaves, bearings, tynes, etc.
(c) Replace crane wheel bearings
(d) Replace and rebuild seals and bearings in fluid drive if used
BATCH FEED PLANT
A Daily
1 . Lubrication - Grease and/or oil
(a) Crane bucket bearings
(b) Stoker bearings
(c) Charge gate bearings
(d) Recirculation water pumps
(e) Induced draft fan bearings
(f) Mechanical dust collector discharge mechanism
(g) Air compressors
(h) Residue conveyor and/or gate bearings
(i) Residue truck motor and hoist mechanism
2. Inspect, clean, and adjust
(a) Crane operation
(b) Stoker drives
(c) Stoker shaft, fan bearing, etc. water cooling systems
(d) Fans - forced draft, wall cooling, induced draft
Appendix 111-5
-------
Solid Waste Disposal -Tri-Parish Area
New Qrleans/ La. -15May1968
(e) Water sprays and spray piping systems
(f) Compressed air system
(g) Instruments and controls - replace daily instrument charts and fill ink reservoirs
(h) Hydraulic systems
(i) Flyash handling and waste water systems
(j) Combustion air ductwork, gates, flexible connections, nozzles, etc.
B Weekly
1. Lubrication - Grease and Oil
(a) Crane wheel bearings - bridge and trolley
(b) Stoker drive mechanism
(c) Induced draft fan variable speed drive oil level
2. Inspect, clean, adjust, and repair
(a) Crane cables
(b) Crane brakes
(c) Charge door refractories and mechanism
(d) Grate castings, chains, pinions, fastenings, etc.
(e) Slag and repair all refractories
(f) Clean, inspect and repair cooling and/or flyash chambers and dust control
equipment
(g) Waste water handling and treatment system
(h) Air and water nozzles and openings
Appendix 111-6
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
(i) Instrumentation sampling openings, thermocouples, and controls
(j) Induced draft fan housing and impellers
(k) Adjust residue conveyor chain tension
C Monthly
1. Inspect, clean, adjust and repair
(a) Fan drive belts
(b) Packing glands in pumps, shaft bearings, etc.
(c) Compressor drive belts
(d) Replace monthly strip charts
(e) Inspect and clean out truck scale pit
D Tri-Monthly
E Semi-Annually
F Annually
G Bi-Annually
(All same as for CONTINUOUS FEED PLANT)
Appendix 111-7
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
APPENDIX IV Basic Field Information Forms Utilized in Survey
1. Survey of Solid Waste Production
2. Follow-up Letter
3. Daily Route Log
4. Route Log Summation
Appendix IV-1
-------
January 8, 1968
SOLID WASTE PROGRAM FOR METROPOLITAN NEW ORLEANS
SURVEY OF SOLID WASTE PRODUCTION'
1. Company: Mason-Rust
Address: P. 0. Box 29000
Indlvldun1: Clyde H. Gordon
Title: ptv. Mgr. - Plant Engineering
2. Estimate Amount of Refuse
Daily 60 Weekly 300
Check one (l):
Lbs Tons X
Cubic Feet Cubic Yards
What Does Ycur Refuse Consist of?
Indicate (1), (2), (3) etc. In order of decreasing quantities:
Paper 1 Cloth
Cardboard 2 Leather_
Rubber ___ Glass "_
Plastics 4 Cartons
Metals Wood
Food Waste 5
Other (describe)_
k. Method of Disposal:
Municipal Collection
Private Contractor Collection
Hauled By Own Trucks. Where? mnHf^i »„ site
On-Site Incineration
5. How Often is Your Refuse Collected:
5 Times a week
Times a month
8/tripg/dav Other
6. Data on Your Present Refuse Collector:
Company Name Mason-Rust (Ourselves)
Address P. 0. Box 29000
Telephone 255-2642
USE THE ENCLOSED POSTAGE PAID BUSINESS RS>LY ENVELOPE...
THANK YOU
-------
March 5, 1968
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Michoud Operations
P. 0. Box 26078
New Orleans, Louisiana
RE: Metropolitan Solid Waste
Program
Gentlemen:
The Chamber of Commerce of the New Orleans Area, assisting
us in contacting local industry earlier this year, directed a
questionnaire on solid waste disposal to your office. Not having
received your reply as yet we are following up by means of this
second request.
We have attached a copy of the original request and question-
naire and ask your cooperation in providing the desired informa-
tion. Please mail your reply to the Chamber of Commerce today.
Very truly yours,
SWITZER/GREENLEAF
Enclosures
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
APPENDIX V
SECTION 1
1.1
1.2
SECTION 2
2.1
2.2
2.3
Suggested Regulations for Sanitary Landfills
SANITARY LANDFILL SITES
Location
All refuse disposal site locations shall conform to applicable State laws and
county or municipal zoning laws and ordinances.
Flooding'
Sites subfect to flooding should be avoided, if possible. Sites located in
areas which may be subject to flooding shall be protected by impervious
dikes. Pumping facilities shall be provided for removal of seepage and sur-
face waters.
SITE APPROVAL
Sanitary landfill sites shall conform with the general requirements contained
in Section 1. In addition, the following requirements shall apply:
Subsoils
The subsoil structure shall be such that there is reasonable assurance that
leachate from the landfill will not contaminate the ground waters or streams
in the area, or that suitable procedures to prevent such contamination will
be followed.
Grading
The surface contour of the area shall be such that surface run-off will not
flow into or through the operational or completed fill area. Grading, dik-
ing, terracing, diversion ditches, or tiling may be approved when practical.
Water Table
Areas having high ground water tables may be restricted to landfill opera-
tions which will maintain a safe verticle distance between deposited refuse
Appendix V -1
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
and the maximum water table elevation. Any operation which proposes to
deposit refuse within or near the maximum water table elevation shall in-
clude corrective or preventive measures which will prevent contamination
of the ground water stratum. Monitoring facilities may be required.
SECTION 3 SITE IMPROVEMENT
The following physical improvements shall be made before a landfill site is
placed in operation:
3.1 The site shall be adequately fenced, with an entrance gate that can be locked
and posted. Opening and closing hours and days of operation shall be clearly
shown.
3.2 All-weather operational road(s) shall be provided for vehicular movement
within the site. Separate operational areas may be operated within the site
to allow for wet or dry weather operation and access. When necessary, to
prevent dust nuisance, operational roads within the site shall be surfaced or
treated.
3.3 A shelter, convenient for use by operating personnel, shall be furnished. The
shelter shall be screened and provided with heating facilities and adequate
lighting. Provisions shall also be made for safe drinking water and sanitary
hand-washing and toilet facilities.
SECTION 4 FIRE PROTECTION
Arrangements shall be made for fire protection services when a fire protection
district or other public fire protection service is available. When such a
service is not available, practical alternate arrangements shall be made.
4.1 Burning material, or any refuse at a temperature likely to cause fire shall not
be deposited in the fill. Said material may be deposited in a separate lo-
cation a sufficient distance from the fill to prevent fires from spreading to
the normal fill area and shall be immediately covered with a sufficient a-
mount of earth to extinguish same.
Appendix'V-2
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
SECTION 5 SANITARY LANDFILL OPERATION
5.1 Site Access
Access to the site shall be permitted only during the hours when operating
personnel are on the site.
5.2 Dumping Area
Dumping of refuse on the site shall be confined to the smallest practical area.
5.3 Unloading
Unloading shall be supervised. Portable fences shall be used when necessa-
ry to prevent blowing litter from the unloading site. The fill and surround-
ing area shall be policed as necessary to collect all scattered material.
5.4 Equipment
Sufficient equipment in operational condition shall be available at the site
at all times to permit operation of the landfill according to the approved plan.
5.5 Spreading and Compacting of Refuse
As rapidly as refuse is admitted to the site, it shall be spread and compacted
in shallow layers of approximately two to three feet in compacted depth de-
pending upon the type of material and the compaction equipment. The com-
pleted cell shall consist of the refuse admitted and compacted during one
working day, regardless of overall height and area covered.
5.6 Cover
Cover material shall be of such quality as to prevent fly and rodent attraction
and breeding, blowing litter, release of odors, fire hazards, and unsightly
appearance, and which will permit only minimal percolation of surface water
or cracking when properly compacted. Cover shall be applied as follows:
5.61 Daily Cover: A compacted layer of at least six (6) inches of ma-
terial shall be used to cover all exposed refuse at the end of each
Appendix V -3
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May T968
working day; except that on surfaces that will not receive an ad-
ditional depth of refuse or the final cover within 60 days, a com-
pacted layer of cover of at least one (1) foot shall be applied.
5.62 Final Cover: A compacted layer of at least two (2) feet of ma-
terial in addition to the daily cover .shall be placed over the
entire surface of all completed portions of the fill within six (6)
months following the final placement of refuse. Final cover shall
be graded as provided on the approved plan and to prevent pond-
ing. The surface of the final cover shall be maintained at the
plan elevation at all times, by the placement of additional cover
material where necessary.
5.7 Deposition of Liquids and Hazardous Materials
Sewage solids or liquids, septic tank pumpings, and other liquids or hazar-
dous substances shall not be discharged to a sanitary landfill until written ap-
proval has been obtained from the Department. Special provisions may vary
from site to site depending upon local conditions, and will be specified in the
approval letter.
5.8 Vector Control
Insect and rodent control measures shall be employed as directed by the De-
partment.
5.9 . Sanitary Landfill Variation
Large quantities of non-combustible and non-putrescible waste such as boiler-
house cinders, broken paving, or materials resulting from construction or de-
molition operations may be disposed of at a sanitary landfill by open dumping.
Such material shall be leveled and spread at sufficient intervals to prevent
unsightly appearance or rodent harborage, and shall be finally covered as re-
quired for a completed sanitary landfill in Rule 5.07, unless approved plan
provides for other cover.
5.10 Prohibited Activities
The following activities shall be prohibited in conjunction with, or upon the
site of the sanitary landfill.
Appendix V-4
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May 1968
5.101 AM scavenging operations. Scavenging shall mean the manual
sorting of refuse, either in the trucks, at the face of the fill, or
in unconfined truck discharge areas.
5.102 All feeding of farm or domestic animals.
5.103 Deposition of refuse in
5.104 Burning, except in an approved incinerator.
Appendix V -5
-------
Solid Waste Disposal - Tri-Parish Area
New Orleans, La. - 15 May T968
APPENDIX VI Refuse Sampling and Testing Procedures
Refuse sampling was performed daily at Florida Avenue Incinerator over a five-day period January
22 through 26, 1968. These samples were taken from well-mixed refuse in the storage pit. The
method consisted of removing about a two-cubic yard sample from the pit via the overhead crane
and bucket and depositing the contents on a plastic sheet on the charging floor. Here the sample
was mixed and quartered to obtain a working size sample of about 25 gallons. The working size
samples were:
1. Weighed for gross weight.
2. Physical components were separated and weighed individually.
3. Percentile composition of each component was calculated.
4. Air drying of the samples was conducted for a period of two to three weeks.
5. Re-weighing of the components was performed.
6. Each component of the laboratory sample was oven-dried for further moisture deter-
mination; (testing was performed by Shilstone Testing Laboratory in New Orleans).
7. Total moisture content (weight loss) was calculated on the typical sample (average
composition five-day period) as shown in Table V-26, page V-51.
During the sampling period extremely dry weather conditions prevailed and relatively no rain
occurred during the week preceeding the sampling period, so an extremely dry refuse was handled.
Appendix VI-1
ftU. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1969 O - 3S«-41»
------- |