PB-225 299
HOUSTON'S MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM;
A CASE STUDY
APPLIED MANAGEMENT SCIENCES, INC,
PREPARED FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1973
Distributed By:
National Technical Information Service
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA
SHEET
1. Report No.
EPA/530/SW-51C
PB..225 299
. Tule and Subtitle
Houston's municipal solid waste management system]
a case study
5- Report Date
1973
6.
'. Author(s)
8- Performing Organization Rept.
No.
'. Performing Organization Name and Address
Applied Management Sciences
962 Wayne Avenue
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
10. Pro)ect/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract/ubjfent No.
68-03-0041
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
Washington, D. C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period
Covered
final
14.
IS. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstracts
This study examines solid waste collection and disposal in Houston,
Texas. The background of the system, including location, geography,
demography, climate, form of government, and the solid waste
management agencies is described, and the characteristics of the
system, including the services, equipment, and finances are discussed
17. Key Words and Document Analysis 17o. Descriptors
Waste disposal, urban areas
17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
17e. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This
Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
20. Security Class (This
Page
UNCLASSIFIED
21. No. of Pages
27- Price
FORM NTIS-33 (REV. 3-72)
USCOMM-DC M98Z-P72
-------
JEPA Region V ’ Ll ’ A ?
Denver, Ccbr h
HOUSTON’S MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
A Case Study
This final report (SW—51c) describes work performed
for the Federal 80 lid waste management programs under contract No. 68-03-0041
to APPLIED MANAGEMENT SCIENCES, INC.
and is reprbduced as received from the contractor
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1973
-------
AS NOTED IN THE NTIS ANNOUNCEMENT,
PORTIONS OF THIS REPORT ARE NOT
LEGIBLE. HOWEVER, IT IS THE BEST
REPRODUCTION AVAILABLE FROM THE
COPY EURNISHED NTIS BY THE CONTRIB-
UTOR.
‘ - c - I
-------
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government.
An environmental protection publication (SW-51c)
in the solid waste management series
‘a
11
-------
FOREWORD
Solid waste management systems are an integral part of the environ-
ment of nearly every citizen in the United States. Yet until recent
years, these systems have not received the attentiOfl other visible
residential services have enjoyed. This historical neglect has resulted
in systems which may not be cost-effective, especially with respect to
the rising cost trends encountered in solid waste management activities.
These trends arise from two principal factors:
* Environmentally sound disposal methodology is being enforced
or strongly encouraged; as a result, disposal sites and needed
equipment are now expensive to procure and operate; and,
* The collection function is highly labor intensive. Thus, the
costs of unskilled labor, which have been rising to meet socio-
economic demands, have had enormous impacts on local agency
budgets.
This rise in cost pressure has forced all levels of governmental
organizations to consider more closely the management and costs of
solid waste management activities.
Because efforts to upgrade solid waste management practices are
in their infancy, there is still an obvious lack of data bases for
evaluative and comparative analyses. This case study is one in a
series of case studies of solid waste management systems which has
been conducted under the sponsorship of the Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs, U. s. Environmental Protection Agency. Kenneth
Shuster and Cindy McLaren served as EPA project officers on the case
study reported herein. The purpose of these case studies is to fill
in this data gap with actual case histories of how cities are handling
their solid waste problems.
Concerned agencies at all government levels, as well as private
firms, will be able to access Information of the following types:
* The management and operating characteristics of public
sector solid waste management systems.
* The institutional forces which give rise to these
characteristics.
* Those techniques that have been or are being applied to enhance
the measures of productivity, aesthetics, level of service, and
environmental control.
iii
-------
—2-
These agencies and firms can then use these comparisons to upgrade
their systems according to the norms achieved in other cities of similar
size, geographi cal location
teristics.
-—ARSEN J. DARNAY
Acting Deputy Aeei8tant Adjnini8trator
for Solid Waote Management
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . • . . . , . • , • . .
2 SYSTEMDESCRIPTIONABSTRACT • , . . • • . •
3 FINDINGSANDCONCLUSIONS........... 0 ..
4 BACKGROUND OF THE SYSTEM. . . . . . . . • .
4.1: Location, Geography, Demography, and
C lirriate . . . . . . • . . . . .
Form of Government and Organization . . .
Solid Waste Management System History
Agencies Impacting the Solid Waste
Management System . . . . . . . . . . . . .
WASTE SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS . . .
Collection Services of the Department
of Solid Waste Management . . . . . . . . .
Quality of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Labor Management Relations
I.rui er City .
Disposal Methods - Present and Planned . .
Equipment Description . . . . . . . . . . .
Financial Aspects of the Houston Solid
‘V i aste System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix A: Enabling Ordinance
Appendix B: Petition and Response
Appendix C: Solid Waste Ordinance .
4.2:
4.3:
4.4:
5 SOLID
5.1:
5.2:
5.3:
5.4:
5.5:
5.6:
5.7:
APPENDICES:
1
4
8
12
13
14
16
18
28
28
38
39
43
44
51
54
65
68
71
V
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS AND TABLES
FIGURES Page
1 Data Sources and Information Types 3
2 Organization Chart of the City of Houston’s
Municipal Government 15
3 Organization of the Department of Solid
Waste Management 17
4 Facility Locations in Houston 50
TABLES
1 Collection Abstract 6
2 Disposal Abstract 7
3 Manpower and Equipment Allocation 32
4 Efficiency and Productivity Data for Houston
Solid Waste Management System 33
5 Employee Benefits 41
6 Tenure Data 42
7 Disposal Site Use and History 46
8 Collection Fleet Descriptions and Operating
Costs 52
9 1972 Summary of General Fund Estimate 56
10 Property Valuation, Tax Rates, and the Amount
of Property Taxes Collected - 1962-72 57
11 Summary of Expenditures for Solid Waste
Collection and Disposal 59
12 Monthly Sponsorship Payments 61
13 Garbage Disposal Bond Fund 62
14 City of Houston New Equipment Request 63
vi
-------
1
INTRODUCTION
The solid waste man gement system of Houston, Texas 1 has been in a
state of transition for nearly a decade. In 1965, the city initiated the recovery
of a potentially marketable commodity, compost, from the solid waste nor-
mally incinerated and landfilled. This program was not successful and since
that time, the greatest fraction of the disposal function has been contracted
to the private sector. However, Houston has maintained a continuing interest
in disposal technology as is demonstrated by the novel approaches taken toward
incineration.
More recently, Houston has experienced a number of changes in the
collection function and in the organizational relationships of the various depart-
ments of the city. Although the city is prohibited by state law from recognizing
and negotiating with labor organizations, the solid waste collection workforce
has been remarkably effective in transforming the system to its benefit. The
first major shift was the reduction from a six to a five day work-week with no
pay penalties. The “task” incentive program was continued at the same time.
Furthermore, consideration is being given to a four day work-week. However,
the division of responsibilities has yet to be formulated and it is likely to be a
number of years before such a plan can be implemented.
Less than one year ago, the Department of Solid Waste Management was
formally created from the Refuse Division of the Department of Public Works.
This new organizational arrangement resulted from the requests of the work-
force and apparently not from any bilateral city planning efforts. The primary
result of this new organization is a happier workforce with no significant
1
-------
sacrifice in either level or quality of service. Currently, there are plans to
further compartmentalize the activities of the Department of Solid Waste
Management. The equipment activities now performed by the Motor Repair
Division of the Department of Public Works may soon be absorbed by the new
department.
The case study of Houston, Texas was performed using a carefully
structured interview technique. Initial contacts were made by both Office of
Solid Waste Management Programs and Applied Management Sciences personnel
and interviews were scheduled at the convenience of the city personnel. During
these interviews, notes were taken and tape recordings were made after ob-
taining permission from the interviewees. Extensive efforts were taken to
require a minimum of city personnel time and whenever possible, existing
documentation was solicited to support the general discussions. Figure 1
presents the titles of the people interviewed in Houston, the dates of these inter-
views, and the types of information obtained.
This report consists of five chapters, including the introduction. Chapter
a is a systems description abstract which synopsizes the characteristics of the
city and the collection and disposal systems. Chapter 3 presents the findings
of the case study effort and identifies potential problem areas. Chapter 4 is a
description of the city in terms of those parameters which can affect solid waste
management operations. Finally, Chapter 5 reports the characteristics of the
solid waste system in considerable detail. All aspects of the system are dis-
cussed and appropriate tabular data are presented.
a
-------
TITLES
DATE
INFr APTr N TYPE
Director, Department of Solid Waste Management
12 Feb.
Historical data and current operating 1
characteristics of the system
Manager, Departrn rit of Solid Waste Management
12 Feb.
Details on the solid waste management
system_-_principally_collection
Supervisor of Coll ct:on, Department ot Solid
Waste Managemcnt
12 Feb.
Same as above
Supervisor of Plants (Incinerator), Department of
Solid Waste Managcrnent
14 Feb.
Details on Incineration operations in the
disposal function
Assistant Controller, City of Houston
13 Feb.
FLnancial aspects of the Solid Waste
Management_system
Manager, Motor Repair Division, Department of
P.ibhc Works
14 Feb.
Equipment policies
Planner, Model Cities Department
14 Feb.
Model cities involvement in Solid Waste
Management_activities
Director of Civic Affairs, Houston Chamber of
Commerce
13 Feb.
Chamber of Commerce - impacts on Solid
Waste Management system
Business Manager and President, American
Eederation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees
14 Feb.
Effects of organized labor on Solid Waste
Management activities
FIGURE 1: DATA SOURCES AND INFORMATION TYPES
-------
Contacts:
Jack McDaniel, P. E.
B.B. Howard
John W. Daut
James Odle
Roland Brunette
- Director, Department of Solid
Waste Management
- Manager, Department of Solid
Waste Management
- Supervisor of Collection, Department
of Solid Waste Management
- Supervisor of Plants (Incinerator),
Department of Solid Waste Management
- Assistant Controller, City of Houston
Harry Snead
Rick Gerlach
Charles T. Lansden
Maynard White
Representative
- Manager, Motor Repair Division of
the Department of Public Works
- Model City Department
- Houston Chamber of Commerce
- Business Manager and President,
AFSCME Local 1550 of AFL/CIO
- Houston-Galveston Council of
Governments
Dates of Visit: February 11 - February 15, 1973
Population Demography:
Date
Total
White
Other
1970
1,232,
802
975,146
257,656
1960
938,
219
720,547
217,672
1950
596,
163
---
---
2
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION ABSTRACT
City: Houston, Texas
4
-------
Area: 451 square miles including Lake Houston
434 square miles (land area only)
Density: 2, 841 people per square land mile
Mileage: f-” Roads: 4546 miles; 103 miles-freeway; 782 miles-primary;
3661 miles-secondary
Alleys: Minimal
Collection: Table 1
Miscellaneous: The mixed refuse collection operation is
performed with a remarkable degree of effectiveness. More
than 1,000 stops per crew are collected by men working under
the task basis incentive system. All collection vehicles have
innovative applications: Mixed refuse trucks have extra
motors to drive the hydraulics and “grinder” type vehicles
are being tested; bulky item trucks have a special side-loading
hydraulic lifter and “Rotobooms” are on order. The intro-
duction of other innovative concepts is likely to occur at a
reasonably high rate.
Disposal: Table 2
Miscellaneous: Most of the disposal function is currently being
performed by private sector companies in Houston. The
municipal incinerator, rated at 800 TPD, has had a number of
costly and disabling problems. The city is now testing mini-
incinerators to be located at strategic “neighborhood” points.
1/ An annexation after the site visit raised the area of the city to 506.5
square miles.
ai Now likely to be inaccurate data due to the annexation.
5
-------
TABLE 1
COLLECTION ABSTRACT
flct on
Variables
Mixed Refuse
Trash
Bulky Items
Ash
4
Animals
3
Number of Routes
320
160
2
CrewSize
3
3
3
2
Frequency of
Service
2/week
1/week
on request -
2/month maximum
on request
on request
curb
Point of Collection
curb
curb
curb
Special side-loadin
curb
Nothing special
Method of Collectior
Nothing special
Nothing special
Hydraulic Lift
Nothing special
- -
Stops
330, 000
- -
- -
- -
Animals 100 lbs.
Service Limitations
Residential - Un-
limited number of
containers 30 gal.
and 100 lbs. each
Commercial - 3
cans 30 gal. and
100 lbs. each
Bundles
exceed five feet in
length and 18 inches
in diameter
None
None
are collected free.
Animals > 100 lbs.
are collected for
$15.00, but the fee
is not charged at
this time.
None
Incentive System
Task
Task
None
None
General Fund
Fund Source
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
and Fees
No. Small = 14, 572
Tonnage (annual)
410,000
62,000
222,720 yards
NA
No. Large= 902
Same
Wage Scale (hourly)
Helper: $3. 61
and
Same
Same
Same
Unions
Texas Federation
of Public Employees
Same
Same
Same
037
Same
$67, 589 -
Annual Cost
$3, 920, 154
$980, 039
Collection is
$794, 169
Very innovative
$76,
Comments
Ver’/ efficient at
1025 stops per
truck per day
per-
formed by Mixed
Refuse Collectors
on_Wednesday
equipment
None
None
-------
TABLE 2
DISPOSAL ABSTRACT
Data
‘
1
3
4
5
Type
Private Sector
Landfill
Private Sector
Landfill
Prj ate Sector
Res. Rec. Plant
Municipal
Incinerator
Mini-Incinerator
Capacity
2000 cubic yards
per day (—500
tons /day)
2000 cubic yards
per day ( 500
tons /day)
850 tons per day
800 tons per day
NA
Real Loading
447 tone per day-
510 tons per d
418 tons per day
335 tone per day
NA
Expected Lifetime
2 years
2 years
NA
25 years
NA
Operating Costs to
City (not including
Department service)
$Z19,592 ”
$Z54,613 ”
$554,460 ”
$658,961
than
NA
Estimated
Start-upCosts
NA
NA
NA
$5,000,000
$2,112,475
2!
Location
Holmes Road
3eaumont High-
ray
Lawndale Road
Holmes Road
Scattered
These figures do not include bulky item disposal. For 1972, approximately 222,720 cubic yards of such
waste was disposed at these sites. This is approximately 450 cubic yards per day per site and is not too
significant for either site.
Calculated from true loading and fee schedules for a 250-day year. Does not include bulky items.
2! Three sites have been selected: one in the northwest sector of the city, one in the northeast, and one in the
southwest.
-------
3
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The City of Houston and its solid waste management system have several
unique and significant characteristics. The city is rapidly growing via annexa-
tion, the tax base is rising even faster and the tax rates are actually falling.
Because of these factors and the lack of a zoning ordinance, land speculation
is a common practice. The solid waste management system has had to adapt
to these conditions and to other difficulties arising from both internal and
external sources. Consequently, the most appropriate descriptor for the solid
waste system is ‘flexible.” Additionally, the system operates at a very high
productivity rate with relatively low cost. The workforce is relatively happy,
exceptionally stable, arid has been able to secure a number of reasonable
concessions from management. The city has disposal problems and has
managed to solve them but only at a relatively high cost.
The growth patterns of size and wealth have two opposing effects. Growth
in size and population requires that the solid waste management system expand
to meet the rising service demand. The size of the increment and its loca-
tion determine the extent of strain placed on the system. To date, the process
of annexation has not created insurmountable difficulties for the system’s
ability to meet the demand for additional solid waste services. The growth
in city resources has helped to alleviate difficulties in supplying both equip-
ment and manpower when solid waste services were required to expand.
Under these circumstances, it is apparent that the Department of Solid Waste
Management in Houston is not faced with the common problem of growing
service demands and shrinking resources.
8
-------
Two aspects of the collection function of the solid waste system are re-
markable. First, crew productivity for mixed refuse collection is excep-
tionally high, at about 1,000 stops per truck per day. Furthermore, collection
service is twice per week at an annual cost of approximately $13.00 per
dwelling unit. If the trash, bulky item, ash and animal collections are in-
cluded, the total annual collection cost per dwelling unit is $19.47, a very
low figure.
An equally surprising finding concerning the collection function is the
apparent job satisfaction of the workforce. Turnover is exceptionally low
and absenteeism is not regarded as a significant problem. It is likely that
this high level of morale can be partially attributed to the workforc&s success
in changing the system to their benefit. The city management has responded
to worker requests on a number of issues which include: departmental
autonomy; a reduction from a six to a five day work-week with no pay penalties;
and, the continuation of the task incentive system. Consequently, the origins
of worker satisfaction are the abilities to communicate with management and
to secure desirable working arrangements.
The disposal operations in Houston do not have the same history of suc-
cess as does the collection function. Costs are relatively high because dis-
posal responsibilities are principally contracted to the private sector for a
substantial fee. The city does own a relatively new municipal incinerator,
but it has been affected with a number of disabling problems which have re-
sulted in limited use of the 800 TPD facility. The city has also contracted
for ganged, batch-fed mini-incinerators for disposal purposes. These are
allegedly pollution-free and appear to be of the pyrolytic or controlled air
type. Slightly more than $2,000,000 has been appropriated for this project,
now in its initial construction phase.
Apparently, the basic reason for the current disposal situation originates
from the willingness of city management to attempt innovative approaches.
With the single exception of a contract signed in 1968 for landfill, all approaches
have some experimental aspects arid have not met with high levels of success.
However, there are continuing attempts to reconcile the problems in order
9
-------
to maintain a continuing disposal capability. The new director of the Depart-
rnent of Solid Waste Management has stated that he is certainly in favor of
resource recovery practices but not at his city’s expense. Consequently,
further innovation is unlikely without a thorough and competent cost-benefit
analysis of proposals.
The Department of Solid Waste Management is not facing any major
problems at this time. There are a number of relatively minor problems
which are in various states of solution. First, the budgetary process in the
city government often lags the start of the fiscal year by as many as six
months. Since capital expenditures cannot be made during this interval
considerable stress is put on those departments which must formulate equip-
ment specifications and procure equipment. This aspect of city finance is not
likely to change, so the director of the department is exploring ways to
correct this situation. Typical thoughts include an amortization scheme which
could result in a form of a revolving fund for equipment acquisition.
A second problem is the division of responsibilities for equipment pur-
chases and maintenance. Currently, the Motor Repair Division of the Depart-
ment of Public Works performs all vehicle maintenance and actively partici-
pates in replacement activities. This arrangement is not satisfactory to solid
waste personnel at all levels and steps may be taken to shift part of vehicle
maintenance responsibilities from the Motor Repair Division to the Depart-
ment of Solid Waste Management. The recent public approval of a large bond
issue which included $2,000,000 for a truck park and maintenance shop is a
significant step toward this goal.
A third potential probleir is the lack of a long range disposal plan for
Houston’s solid waste. The primary effect of disposal problems will be due
to an increase in disposal costs and probably not an inability to secure suitable
sites. The private sector can always be used and, additionally, the city can
annex county lands for disposal purposes. Currently, a number of public
and quasi-public agencies are examining regional disposal requirements and
it is likely that a regional plan will be implemented in the near future. The
10
-------
mechanism appears to have been set up for such an approach by virtue of the
Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act.
Solid waste management operations in Houston are successful because
the issues have been placed in the proper perspective. Management and
manpower in the system understand and respect the needs and opinions of
each other and concessions are made on a rational basis. Disposal has
been treated as an important function and expediency has determined the
methodology for this operation. The Department of Solid Waste Management
is striving to maintain as many of the current operating characteristics as
possible while still being openminded to further improvements. While some
difficulties are now apparent, it is unlikely that insurmountable major pro-
blem areas will develop.
11
-------
4
BACKGROUND OF THE SYSTEM
Incorporated in 1836, the City of Houston is today the most populous
city in the State of Texas. The city is located in the southeastern portion
of the state, approximately 50 miles from the Gulf of Mexico. The Houston
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area encompasses Harris County, of which
Houston is the county seat, and Brazoria, Fort Bend, Liberty, and Mont-
gomery Counties. The total population for this five-county SMSA was
greater than two million people in the 1970 Census. Despite the relative
distance of Houston from the Gulf of Mexico, the Port of Houston is the
third largest seaport in the United States. The 58-mile Houston Ship Channel,
which links Houston with the Gulf of Mexico, has made Houston the busiest
seaport in the Southwest.
The local economy is characterized by a wide variety of industries.
Houston is first in the nation in petroleum refining and related industries,
fourth in the production of chemical and allied products, and first in the
manufacturing and distribution of petroleum equipment. Recently, other
high technology industries such as electronic equipment, computer, and
instrument manufacturers have established factories in the Houston area.
The opening of the National Aeronautical and Space Administration’s Manned
Spacecraft Center only 22 miles from Houston’s central business district has
also been a significant addition to Houston’s local economy.
The population growth rate in Houston was virtually twice that of the rest
of the state in the interval between 1960 and 1970. The populatic’n within the city
12
-------
limits increased by 294,597 persons during this ten- year period, and repre-
sents a ten-year growth rate of 31.4 percent. The growth rate for the state
during this same period was only 16 .9 percent. The primary reason for this
phenomenon is that the land area of the city has grown from 321 to 434 square
miles by the process of annexation. In fact, the actual population density
dropped from 2923 to 2841 people per square mile during this interval.
4.1: Location, Geography, Demography, and Climate
The incorporated land area of Houston is 450.6 square miles, including
Lake Houston and the Houston Shipping Canal.!’ This makes Houston the
nation’s third largest city in terms of area and the sixth largest city in terms
of population. It is located in the upper Gulf Coast prairies at an altitude
averaging 41 feet above sea level.
The large number and wide variety of jobs available in the area make
Houston a desirable place to live and work. The unemployment rate in the
area has averaged only 2.8 percent over the past ten years, with rates sub-
stantially below two percent between 1966 and 1969.
The percentage of the black population living within Houston has re-
mained virtually constant over the past ten years. The black population
represented 23.2 percent of the total population in 1960 and has increased
only slightly to 25.7 percent in 1970. This fraction for the Houston SMSA
represented 19.3 percent of the total population. In addition to this substan-
tial minority population, there are a considerable number of Mexican-
Americans living in the area, accounting for 10.7 percent of the total popu-
lation in the SMSA.
The climate of Houston is mild. Winds off of the Gulf of Mexico tend to
produce warm winters and relatively cool summer nights. The average
monthly temperature ranges from 55 •70 Fahrenheit in February to 83 . 90
Fahrenheit in July. Total annual precipitation in the area averages approxi-
mately 38 inches and dry periods are rare occurrences. Snowfall is an in-
frequent visitor to the city and usually disrupts transportation when it occurs.
! “ An annexation after the site visit raised the area of the city to 506.5
square miles.
13
-------
4.2: Form of Government and Organization
4.2.]: Form of Government
The elected leadership of the City of Houston consists of the Mayor,
eight City Councilmen, and the City Controller. Three of the City Council
members are designated as hat .largeu members and represent the entire
city. All officials are elected for two-year terms and elections are held
during odd-numbered years.
The Mayor is the chief executive and administrative officer of the
city. He appoints all department heads and sees that all laws and ordinances
are enforced. Under this particular form of the Mayor-Council type
of municipal administration, the Mayor also serves as the Chairman of the
City Council. He holds most of the power of any City Councilman, including
the power to vote on all Council matters, but he does not have the power of
veto This combination of administrative and legislative authority makes the
Mayor of Houston a powerful and dominant political figure.
The City Council serves as the legislative body of the city. The
members confirm all department heads appointed by the Mayor and also
approve or change the annual city budget submitted by the Mayor.
The City Controller is the supervisor of the city’s fiscal affairs. He
administers the actual disbursement of funds and develops the financial
statements and records requested by the other departments and agencies
within the city government.
4,2.2: Organization
The municipal organization chart of Houston is shown in Figure 2.
The Department of Solid Waste Management is responsible for both the
collection and disposal of solid waste. Prior to July 1, 1972, these
operations were administered by the Refuse Division of the Department of
Public Works. The new, independent Department of Solid Waste Manage-
ment was created in response to requests made by the Refuse Division
per sonnel.
14
-------
FIGUREZ: ORGANIZATION CHART OF THE CITY OF HOUSTON’S MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
Lana ment
I
-------
The organizational form of the Department of Solid Waste Management
is presented in Figure 3. In addition to the normal two branches of collection
and disposal, there is a branch designated for disposal contracts. This
novel division originated as a result of Houston’s tendency to contract a sig-
nificant fraction of the disposal operation to the private sector.
4.3: Solid Waste Management System History
Many of Houston’s recent policy changes in solid waste management
practices have originated from pressures put on the city by the solid waste
system personnel. The remaining changes appear to have been initiated by
local interest groups desiring to upgrade the aesthetic appearance of the city.
All of these shifts have as their origins the rising awareness of solid waste
as an important environmental issue.
In 1965, the Refuse Division of the Department of Public Works, upon
request, expanded its level of service to include bulky item collection for
four consecutive Thursdays during April of each year. Five years later, the
Mayor placed this service on a scheduled basis and added the Wednesday
“light trash pick-up. At this time, the labor force went from a six to a
five day week and the fleet necessary for bulky item collection was assembled.
This transition was worker precipitated and resulted in the equivalent of the
prior six days pay for five days work; the continued task incentive system was
its basis. The scheduled bulky item collection policy was discontinued in the
summer of 1972 because of the residents’ difficulty in remembering the
collection schedule.
On August 10, 1971, an enabling ordinance (Appendix A) was passed which
formally separated solid waste management activities from the Department
of Public Works and created a parallel structure, the Department of Solid
Waste Management. This was reported to be the result of a long-standing
desire of the workforce (including management) to become a relatively autono-
mous group. By early spring of 1972, the separation had still not been
achieved, so the workforce petitioned the Mayor with a number of requests,
16
-------
FIGURE 3: ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Supervisor of
Maint. (Iriciner.
Buel Ray
-------
including this issue (Appendix 13). The Mayor responded on April 20, 1972
(Appendix B, also) indicating that a director for the new department was to
be appointed almost immediately. This was done and the Department of
Solid Waste Management became operationally separate on July 1, 1972.
During the interval from 1965 to the present, there were a number of
events impacting the disposal operation in the city. These are discussed in
detail in the next chapter but, in essence, the private sector became a very
important part of the disposal methodology. This condition still exists and,
in view of current policy, is likely to continue for some time. Consequently,
disposal is a significant direct cost of solid waste management in Houston.
4.4: Agencies Impacting the Solid Waste Management System
There are a number of agencies at the state, county and local levels which
have affected or currently impact the solid waste management system in
Houston. The impacts from these agencies have not been severe because the
city is quite responsive to legitimate requests and, in general, follows rea-
sonable solid waste management practices.
4.4.1: State Level Agencies
At the present time, there are three state agencies that can and do affect
solid waste management practices in the City of Houston; the Department of
Public Health, the Water Quality Board, and the Air Control Board.
Department of Public Health
The Department of Public Health administers the Texas State Solid Waste
Disposal Act, a recent piece of legislation principally directed toward the
interaction of county and municipal governments. This act resulted from the
attempts of several state municipalities to secure landfill sites in surrounding
counties where popular opinion was not receptive. This disposal act allows
both county and municipal governments to control these activities by permit
systems.
However, the act does encourage county governments to take the ini-
tiative in local disposal problems as illustrated by the following quotation:
-------
“The Texas State Department of Public
Health encourages the county governments
to exercise the authority provided in
(the Act) regarding the management of solid
waste.”
In essence, this means that the provisions (of the act) allow county governments
to require and issue licenses authorizing and governing the operation and main-
tcnance of sites used for the disposal of solid waste. Similarly, the municipalities
have the same privilege, but because of the small probability of county waste being
transported to the cities, the impact of the act is somewhat one-sided.
This condition should not suggest that Houston faces the “iron belt” con-
straint with respect to the surrounding Harris County. Because the city has the
option of annexation, the problem of securing suitable landfill sites may well be
academic. At this time, Houston does not have any plans for county disposal so
the power of annexation for this reason has yet to be tested. However, if the
experiences of site procurement within the city limits are any indication, the re-
sidents of potential county disposal sites may successfully block any efforts of
this sort. Section 5.5 of the next chapter discusses this problem.
Water Quality Board
The Water Quality Board is charged with the responsibility of maintaining
suitable levels of water quality in the State of Texas. Consequently, most emphasis
has been directed toward sewage disposal facilities in the municipalities and counties
of the state. The board, however, is also responsible for water quality problems
arising from the dispo 1 of industrial solid waste. Since Houston does not collect
such wastes, the city is not directly affected by this function.
Houston does own an incinerator with a high energy water scrubber and the
Water Quality Board is responsible for the issuance of a permit for the effluent
discharge. Because of a number of problems with this facility, sufficient ef-
fluent quality data has not been obtained and the city has been issued an interim
permit that will be reviewed when the incinerator is restored to operating condi-
tion. Houston management is confident of their water treatment processes and
does not expect any difficulty in obtaining final approval.
19
-------
Air Control Board
The Air Control Board must approve the construction and operation of
all incinerators and other thermal processors and can close down facilities
if they fail to meet emissions tests. The Houston facility has met these
standards and is therefore approved under air quality laws. More strict
legislation may, however, require that additional air pollution control equip-
ment be installed in the future. Because of the design of this facility, such
corrective measures may be extremely difficult.
The division of responsibilities among these three state agencies may not
exist in the very near future. During the site visit, there was a bill before
the State Legislature to form a “commission” on solid waste disposal that
would absorb the responsibilities of the three current agencies in the solid
waste management area. While this legislation was popular with solid waste
management personnel and, would probably have resulted in more stream-
lined and less costly regulation and enforcement, it did not pass. However,
a substitute bill ( H.B. 1502, Environmental Study ) was passed to undertake
a comprehensive study of “all regulations, functions, etc. , of state agencies
responsible for environmental protection, and to recommend ways and means
of improving the performance of such agencies.”
4.4.2: County Level Agencies
There appear to be no county level agencies which have had any significant
impact on solid waste management activities in Houston. There is a local
Council of Governments (COG), the Houston-Galveston Area Council, and an
organization named the Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority. These agencies
represent groups which have studied the waste disposal problem, but not at
great depth.
The COG published Part I of a Solid Waste Management Plan late in 1969.
This document principally addressed solid waste problems in non-metropolitan
areas of the region but did include data on the City of Houston. The document
provided background information on the solid waste problem, present resources,
recent developments, and legal considerations. It also included a cornprehen-
20
-------
sive series of county descriptions in terms of disposal sites and solid waste
disposal rcquirernent projections to the year 1990. The conclusion of this
plan for Houston was:
“Area 22, 23, 24, 25: Areas 22, 23, 24 and 25 constitute
a large portion of metropolitan Houston. Nearly 2, 000 acres
of landfill are estimated to be required prior to 1990 if used
as the exclusive method of waste disposal. Even though such
operations are not contemplated, additional sites will probably
be needed here. Large facilities should probably be consid-
ered (up to 500 acres per site), employing specia1i ed earth-
moving equipment as well as basic landfill equipment. Use
of these sites for smokeless incineration, shredding, com-
pressing, and extruding operations may soon be feasible.
These and other areas of Harris County will be the subject
of more detailed study in the second portion of this report. “
Part 2 of the solid waste management plan has not yet been published.
The Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority is a relatively new organization,
initially formed to provide advanced liquid waste treatment facilities for
industrial waste generators. At this time, the Authority is constructing a
number of these plants and is marketing its service in the area. Municipal
wastes are being regarded as potential inputs, but only sewage sludge has
been seriously considered. However, Authority personnel have discussed
solid waste disposal with Houston management and it is likely that further
talks will be held. The results of these discussions cannot be forecast.
4.4.3: Local Level Agencies
There are a number of local level agencies, both internal and external
to the Houston government, which affect solid waste management activities
in the city. For the most part, these agencies have not given rise to any
problems that could not be easily handled by management personnel. However,
the low-key pressures have resulted in policy changes and other compensatory
measures.
However, there is one local condition in Houston that does not arise from
a definite group and is historical in nature. The city does not have any zoning
ordinance and, consequently, it is very difficult to generate meaningfull land-
21
-------
use plans. This condition has two pov c rf ‘f4 cts on the Department of Solid
Waste Management. First, it is very di fii 11 t’ forecast the collection re-
quirements and, hence, planning is more a mattcr of response than of
planned change. Second, land speculation und io drive up site costs and
can affect landfill site procurement. The long-term effects of either of these
factors cannot be ascertained.
Organized Labor - External
The union which has currently organized a substantial portion of the city’s
employees is the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees . The union claims to represent approximately 3,000, or fifty
percent of the city employees. For the Department of Solid Waste Management,
union membership rolls are approximately 500, or seventy to seventy-five
percent of the department’s personnel. However, the Department of Solid Waste
Management states that the A.F.S.C.M.E. represents 337 employees and
the Texas Federation of Public Employees represents 133 employees.
There is a state statute which proh i bits the, city from engaging in collec-
tive bargaining. It is also against state law for public employees to strike.
. . .‘.. ‘.
As a result, the union has neither a contract nor memo of understanding with
the city. The grievance procedure is an informal “take it up the line” pro-
cess in which union stewards attempt to obtain redress by proceeding from
crew chief to supervisor to the superintendcnt , and higher if necessary.
The union representative noted that the sanitation employees desired to
have the solid waste management system set tip as a department separate
from Public Works. He also noted that many members have second jobs to
supplement their city paychecks. The union views as favorable the depart-
ment’s desire to operate its own maintenance system. It is felt that a lack
of communication between the Motor Repa r Division and the sanitation per-
sorinel may be causing maintenance difficulties.
It is interesting to note that the sanitation personnel are not civil service
employees, and thus there is no appeals process to a Civil Service Commis-
sion. This is not a point of contention on the part of the union or management
rodu b%e py. 22
-------
for two reasons. The union does not desire to subject refuse collection job
applicants or promotion candidates to civil service examinations because of
a literacy problem. Additionally, management feels that the civil service
hiring process would impede rapid personnel acquisition requirements.
Although there are no “official” effects from union activities in the City
of Houston, it is apparent that the organization of employees that comprise
the union is relatively powerful. This condition is amply demonstrated by
the relative success of the employees when dealing with the city management.
Houston Chamber of Commerce - External
The Chamber of Commerce has had a continuing interest in the appear-
ance of the city and has actively taken part in a number of clean-up cam-
paigns. The most important of these was the “Operation Sparkle” in 1965
which appears to have contributed significantly to the form of the current
system.
Prior to this program, residents were required to provide for their own
bulky item and light trash removal. Consequently, both classes of waste
could be found in the streets of the city and there was a proliferation of dumps
in the outskirts. The situation finally reached the proportion where it drew
the attention of the Chamber of Commerce as well as other local interest
groups. Operation Sparkle was the result.
Operation Sparkle initiated the bulky item pick-up, a procedure in which
for four consecutive Spring Thursdays about 100 trucks and 200 crewmen were
diverted from the Street and Bridge Department for this special collection.
Citizens were required to call the city before the pick-up day, describe the
nature and quantity of waste to be placed at the curb, and give their address.
Calls for this collection rose from about 3000 in the first year to more than
25,000 in the fifth. At this point, the Mayor decided to purchase the required
equipment and hire the manpower for continuous scheduled bulky collection.
In 1970, this service was initiated. The history of the collection functions
since 1970 was described earlier in this chapter.
23
-------
The Chamber of Commerce also maintains an interest in resource re-
covery programs with particular emphasis on “front-end t ’ systems. Although
it was acknowledged that the composting idea was not sound because of the
lack of market for the reclaimed material, it is still felt that resource re-
covery is viable if more waste fractions are separated and sold. This interest
may be due, in part, to the recovery programs which have been tried in the
city. Alternatively, the programs may be due to the interest of the Chamber
of Commerce. The exact dependence could not be determined.
Current interests of the Chamber of Commerce include bulky item collection
and resource recovery concepts. Additionally, it is felt that greater efforts
should be expended to increase the number of street-side receptacles in high
litter areas of the city. It has been observed that the litter problem is rising
and that it can be controlled by an increase in the number of and more frequent
collection from these convenient disposal containers.
Model Cities - External
The Model Cities Agency in Houston affects the activities of the Depart-
ment of Solid Waste Management in several ways but the impact is not ex-
tensive. As in many cities, the Emergency Employment Act (EEA) provides
for the employment of model cities area residents. For Houston, Federal
funds support forty-five men of which fifteen are drivers and the balance are
crewmen. The fifteen crews which are comprised of these men do not exclu-
sively collect the model cities area, a deviation from the policy found in a
number of other cities. These men have arbitrary scheduled assignments,
no different from the balance of the workforce.
Another effect of Model Cities activities in Houston is the occasional
implementation of local clean-up campaigns. It was reported that this policy
puts considerable strain on the regular collection system because additional
crews must be sent into the area to remove the assembled waste. It is felt
by the system n-ianagement that residents in model cities should use the bulky
item collection service on a continuous basis rather than wait for special
clean- up days. If this were to be done, then the system could easily perform
removal activities on a day-to-day basis.
24
-------
The Model Cities Agency was instrumental in the establishment of
small scale collection and clean-up operation being administered by the city’s
Department of Health. This activity is separate and apart from those of the
Department of Solid Waste Management and is discussed in more detail in
Section 5 . 4 of the next chapter.
Sponsorships - External
A Sponsorship, a rather unique arrangement, consists of an aggregation
of citizens in a local area who prefer to have a higher level of service (at a
higher cost) than is provided by the city. Consequently, formal or informal
representatives of these residents contract the collection function to private
sector firms and are remitted approximately $1 .40 per month per dwelling
unit for services paid for (by taxes) but not received from the city. There
are currently 64 of these entities representing 20,799 of the city’s dwelling
upits.
The primary disadvantage of this arrangement is the impact on the solid
waste management system when one or more of these sponsorships revert
back to the city collection. Although this is not a frequent occurrence (only
two reversions since July of 1972), it is difficult for the city to reroute to
accommodate the situation. It was reported that if a number of sponsorships
elect to return to city collection, it would be very difficult, if not impossible,
to rapidly expand the city system to meet the new demand.
There is now a proposal before the City Council that would include town-
houses as “disaggregated” sponsorships. Currently, many of these town-
house developments are collected by the private sector but there is no remun-
eration to the residents because of the lack of a representative structure. LI
the proposal is successful, the subsequent loss of revenue to the city for
collection may be significant. Additionally, it is felt that commercial establish-
ments and apartments owners would soon follow suit.
Private Sector Disposal Firms - External
Private sector firms have been indispensable to the City of Houston for
the disposal function and it is anticipated that this will not change. The
25
-------
earliest arrangement of record was a contract signed in 1965 for the opera-
tion of a composting plant which was to recycle a significant fraction of the
city’s waste. For a number of reasons, this effort was not successful. More
recently, a second contract with another firm was signed for the disposal of
solid waste with no recovery efforts. Disposal is discussed at length in the
next chapter.
It is quite evident that private sector disposal is very expensive for
the city. It was reported that such arrangements are a matter of convenience
and expediency, since the city is not faced with the costs and problems as so-
ciated with disposal site procurement, certification, and operation. It was
also stated that if cities were to include all of the expenses and, in addition,
allowed for taxes on profits, then private and public sector disposal operations
would be economically comparable. This statement cannot be easily proven
but may have considerable merit. However, cities are not taxed on general
fund surpluses at the end of their fiscal years.
Controller’s Office - Internal
The Controller’s Office affects the Department of Solid Waste Manage-
ment by controlling the procedures that are followed for the appropriation
of capital and operating revenues. The City Budget is normally submitted in
November of each year. From that point there ensues a series of negotiations
between the City Council and the Controller’s Office which last into late spring
and, occasionally, into the summer. Finally, after appropriate compromises,
the Budget is approved and the funds are released to the various departments
of the city government.
During this time all departments, including the Department of Solid
Waste Management, have to operate under a ‘continuing resolution,’ a minor
problem. However, the major problem associated with this situation is the
unavailability of funds for capital purchases until very late in the fiscal year.
This factor, coupled with the procedures for equipment procurement, causes
considerable stress in the department. Necessary equipment replacements
are delayed, resulting in increased repair costs for the older vehicles in the
fleet. Additionally, the executive workload rises because decisions must be
26
-------
made and equipment specifications must be written in a relatively short
amount of time. Capital expenditures tend to be cut off in November, leaving
only a four-month period for capital acquisition efforts.
The Department of Solid Waste Management recognizes this problem
but does not anticipate that Houston’s financial policies will change. However,
the department is taking steps to anticipate the annual equipment requirements
and perform the necessary procurement on a continuing basis. As previously
mentioned, the department is exploring the feasibility of setting up an amorti-
zation expense to support a revolving fund for equipment replacement.
Motor Repair Division, Department of Public Works - Internal
Equipment is a facet of the system shared by the Motor Repair Division
and the Department of Solid Waste Management. At this time, both agencies
share the responsibilities of writing equipment specifications and accepting
newly delivered equipment. However, it was reported that in some past
instances the specifications were written by the MRD without consultation
with solid waste personnel. Additionally, the Motor Repair Division is respon-
sible for the normal and emergency maintenance of all vehicles in the city,
including those of the Department.
There is now a low-key area of contention between the two agencies.
The head of the Motor Repair Division feels that the employees of the Depart-
ment of Solid Waste Management are being careless with the fleet equipment.
Similarly, the employees feel that the Motor Repair Division is not maintaining
the vehicles as well as could be expected.
In early 1973, a bond issue was passed which includes $2,000,000 for
the construction of a new truck park which could include a major maintenance
shop in the facility. Consequently, in time, all solid waste vehicles are likely
to be maintained by Department of Solid Waste Management Personnel which
is a factor that should reduce, if not eliminate, accusations concerning vehicle
care.
27
-------
5
SOLID WASTE SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS
Houston is a large metropolitan area and, consequently, shares many
solid waste system characteristics found in similar cities. In Houston, the
collection functions performed by the Department of Solid Waste Management
include mixed refuse, trash, bulky articles, ashes, and dead animals. The
firsc two classes are collected on a fixed periodic basis whereas the remainder
are collected upon request. The department is not involved in street cleaning.
Litter basket collection activities are confined to the downtown area. The
Department of Parks and Recreation collects refuse from litter baskets out-
side the downtown area. Street cleaning is the responsibility of the Depart-
ment of Public Works.
Disposal activities are currently managed by the department but are
being performed primarily by the private sector. However, the city does own
a relatively new incinerator, which has been plagued by a number of problems
and is not expected to begin full operation until the summer of 1973. At that
time, it will absorb between 45 to 55 percent of the city’s disposal burden.
This matter is discussed in more detail in Section 5.5 of this chapter.
5.1: Collection Services of the Department of Solid Waste Management
The Department of Solid Waste Management is responsible for the
periodic collection of the normal wastes generated by most of Houston’s
residents. Additional services include ash, bulky items, and dead animal
pickup which are provided upon request. Appendix C presents the ordinance
which prescribes solid waste responsibilities of both the collectors and the
customers.
28
-------
5.1.1: Mixed Refuse Collection
Duties and Level of Service
Mixed refuse is collected from most residential units twice each week
on either the Monday-Thursday or Tuesday- Friday schedule. Wednesday
is set aside for trash collection. Small commercial establishments are also
serviced, providing that the quantity of waste does not exceed the contents
of three solid waste containers with a maximum capacity of 30 gallons each.
Pathological and other hazardous wastes will not be collected and are the
responsibility of the generator.
Residential customers receive unlimited curbside service for collection
from suitable containers, none to exceed 100 pounds in weight or 30 gallons
in volume. Disposable containers such as plastic or paper bags will be col-
lected providing they meet standards set by the department. The fraction of
customers who store their waste in such a manner was estimated at about
20 percent, but the city does not actively promote this practice and keeps no
records of the number of customers using bags.
There are a number of sets of residential units that do not take collection
service by the city. These are the “sponsorships TM and consist of members of
local community organizations that internally elect to receive a higher level
of service, such as carry-out. Under this arrangement, the city will still
collect anything left at the curb and will remit to these organizations a pay-
ment based on the calculated collection costs that are not incurred when the
city does not collect. These revenues are then used by the sponsorship to
augment the fee paid to the private sector agency that collects the area. As
of January, 1973, there were 63 sponsorships representing 20,328 individual
dwelling units, each of which received a monthly remittance of $1 .38 per
1/
unit. —
Manpower and Equipment Allocation
There are currently 160 crews, each consisting of a driver and two
helpers, responsible for the collection of mixed refuse from 320 routes.
! There are now 64 sponsorships representing 20,799 dwelling units.
29
-------
Management personnel estimated that approximately 300,000 dwelling units
are served every two days . This figure compares reasonably well with 1970
census data which indicates that there are 308,400 dwelling units (stops)
contained in buildings with four or less units. Using the estimate provided
by the city, the average crew collects about 940 residential stops per day,
a remarkable achievement. Commercial pickups account for an additional
15,000 stops per day, resulting in an ultimate crew utilization of 1,030 stops
per day.
Aside from the 5pecification of curbside collection and the task incentive
system, no other policies are used to enhance crew efficiency. Crews nor-
mally complete their routes in six to six and one-half hours. No special
procedures are practiced at the stops on these routes. Each laborer collects
one side of the street and the driver does not assist. All physical variables
within the system are typical of large collection systems. For example, the
average route length is 10 miles, the average distance from the route to
disposal sites is also 10 miles, and trucks average 2.2 trips to these sites
each day.
The vehicles used by collection crews are almost all twenty-yard rear-
loading packers with a variety of bodies and chassis. A large fraction of
these are equipped with auxiliary water-cooled motors to drive the hydraulics
independently of the remainder of the power train. This application of tech-
nology has two significant effects of approximately equal importance. First,
the prime mover of the truck is not loaded with hydraulic requirements, a
factor likely to extend its life. Second, the packer mechanism can be oper-
ated while the truck is moving, a condition which certainly contributes to the
collection efficiency but may give rise to job safety problems resulting from
the pace of collection and worker carelessness.
There is another observation which deserves mention. The city has
purchased grinder” type collection vehicles which the manufacturer claims
will improve collection efficiency by increasing packed waste density and
decreasing the number of daily trips to the disposal site. The cabs and
chassis of these vehicles have been troubled with mechanical difficulties and
30
-------
no long-term comparative data has been developed. Management looks for-
ward to further tests. Table 3 presents the manpower and equipment
allocation for the collection operations.
Efficiency and Productivity
Table 4 presents the standard operating characteristics for the Depart-
ment of Solid Waste Management during 1972. Attached to this table are a
number of assumptions upon which the calculations are based. Crew productiv-
ity for mixed refuse is very high in Houston, with about 1,030 stops per truck
per day being serviced. Correspondingly, truck and manpower efficiencies
are also high at 12.3 tons per truck per day and 4.1 tons per direct man per
day, respectively. If only the laborers are considered, then manpower ef-
ficiency is 6 .2 tons per laborer per day. This is a very high value and can
be partially attributed to curbside collection and the auxiliary hydraulic motor
which drives the compacter mechanism.
The collection costs per dwelling unit are also remarkably low, es-
pecially in view of the fact that collection is twice per week. However, care
must be observed when considering this factor because the total costs of the
mixed refuse and trash collections have been separated even though the same
crews perform both functions but on different days.
5.1.2: Trash Collection
Duties and Level of Service
The same crews that collect mixed refuse on the Monday-Thursday,
Tuesday-Friday schedule perform the trash collection on Wednesdays. In
this context, trash is defined as yard waste (grass, leaves, tree trimmings,
etc.) and may be placed in 30-gallon containers or equivalent bags, or tied
in bundles. The city, however, defines it differently, as seen in Appendix C.
This conflict results from the relatively recent initiation of this service,
which occurred about two years ago. At that time, the collection crews
shifted from a six to a five-day week. Mixed refuse routes were lengthened
and Wednesday was set aside exclusively for trash collection. It is on this
basis that trash and mixed refuse are defined. Trash may be put in 30-gallon
31
-------
TABLE 3: MANPOWER AND EQUIPMENT ALLOCATION
Drivers
Mixed Refuse
Bulky
Ash
Animals
Spares
Administrative
Total
160
26
4
3
3
196
Laborers
320
52
4
3
89
468
District Foremen
15
15
Route Study Foremen
1
1
Management
5
5
Clerical/Secretarial
6
6
Totals
480
78
8
6
92
27
691
Eguipmei
Rcar Loaders (20 yd.)
18a
182
Rear Loaders (18 yd.)
23
23
Front Loaders (30 yd.)
2
Flatbed w/Side Lift
26
26
Pickup (Special)
3
Pickup (Special)
4
‘ Grinder” type
10
10
Totals*
217 26
4 3
0
--
250
NJ
Note: Two Rotoboom” cranes and six 10-yard rear loaders are on order.
-------
L.a
L.a
TABLE 4: EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCTIVITY DATA FOR HOUSTON SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
etcrC01 ti0flFU ti00
Population Served
0
No. of itc id. or Co nm. Units
Street Miles
E
o Alley MiIc
o u Area (sq. Yni.)
0 Pop. dLnsity (peo/sq. ml.)
I Animals
Mixed Refuse Trash Bulky Items Ashes Small Large
I .080,000 .!.
330000.!!
4.443
Mi n im.iL 2 ;
451’—
, 3952!
C
CO
a E
<
Annual Amounts Collected
410.000 tons
62.000 tons
222.720 yards I NA
I
14.572 I 901
I
Lbs. /unit/wk
50
72
I
aero— —
I
— -
—
I
— i -
Lbs./persc’nlday
2
.31
I
5/ i
zcr — I -
.;
s
I .
a
m
0
e 9
o >
— ii
‘
U .
. ..ru
o U C
Point of Collection
Curb or Alley
NA
Freq. of Collection
2/week
1/week
On request
T pe of Storage Container
30 gal.
container—
None specified
Avg. DiaL, to 0 iap. Site
Avg. Miles DrivcnltruLk/day
Avj . hours svorkcd/day
Direct men
Crews
10 nit
es
‘I
NA
NA
8
NA ‘ NA
26 1 NA NA
3 NA NA
60 rn ci—
b ,’
480 480
160 160
3 1 3
Crew Size
Trucks
160 J
160
26 j
NA
NA
C
Avg. wages and fringe for laborers
$3.61 Dircct ______
I.2O FringeS _ $4.81
Avg. wages and fringe for drivers
$4 18 Dirvct 557
SI .39 Frintzc >
C
O , ,
14 _
U U
z C
o o
00 u
Stops/Crei /Day
‘Ioiis/Crcu /Day
Coil. Cost/resid. unit,’yr.
CoIl. Cost/person/yr.
CoIl. Coat/ton/yr.
Total CoIl. Cost/yr.
1030
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Il 3
7 6
9 yards
$13 07 $3 27 $2 65 5.25 $.Z3
$ 3 63 $ .91 $ 74 5.07 $.o6
$ 9 56 $15 81 $3 Si yard NA NA
$3,920, 154 .!_L’ $9n0 ,039 _L’ $794, 169 $76,037 $67,589
2 landfill sitca 1 incinerator
i transter/ resource recovery site
°
C
0
0.
e
Type & N’). of Disp. Sites
Total 0 isp. Cost/yr.
$1,795,911
.
00
}-L)
Total Cost/yr.
$7,941,214
e
2
• •
0 C
Coil. E’cp ise as To of tot, E’p,
Coil, labor e pcrt5c as To of tot. Coil.
Coil, equip. expcns a 04 of tot. Coil.
Proc. & Disp. expense as % of tot. exp.
Proc. & Disp. labor expense a. % of
tot. diap.
73 5 percent
87.1 Dcrccnt
12.9 Percent
22.6 percent
36 7 percent
-------
TABLE (Continued)
ASSUMPTIONS AND COMMENTS
1. Based on 3.6 persons per farnilyas reported in the 1970 census and
an estimate of 300,000 dwelling units collected. It is assumed that
one family occupies one dwelling unit. There were 393,368 occupied
dwelling units in 1970 and of these 79, 850 were in buildings with
greater than four dwelling units: These were discounted as the storage
requirements are likely to eliminate these as stops. Commercial stops
account for an additional 30,000 units.
2. Including Lake Houston and the connecting canal at the time of the site
visit. City area is now 506. 5 square miles.
3. This figure is the population density of the residents that receive ser-
vice. The actual population density is 2,870 people per square i-nile.
4. Tonnages for mixed refuse and trash collections are the best estimates
provided by the system management. The bulky item collection is re-
ported in cubic yards and is an accurate number. However, this cannot
be converted to tonnage because of the heterogeneity of components.
Ash collection was not reported but it is picked up separately and may
be included in the trash figures.
5. Bulky collection disaggregation is reported in yards rather than pounds
and is too small to be specified for these entries.
6. Maximum of 30 gallons per container, either conventional or approved
bag.
7. It was reported that disposal sites average 10 miles from routes and
that collection vehicles average 2.2 trips per day. Route lengths were
reported to average 10 miles long, and an additional 10 miles has been
assigned for travel to and from routes from the truck lots.
8. Trash is regularly picked up on Wednesdays by the Mixed Refuse
collection crews. Any waste placed at the curb will be collected from
any residence. The number of collections on this day will normally
be far smaller than the number of dwelling units.
9. Mixed Refuse efficiency calculation is based on 208 annual collection
days and Trash collection is based on 52 annual collection days. Bulky
waste is collected 260 days per year. All assignments do not include
holidays. All efficiencies are therefore conservative.
10. The cost of the total collection function was determined after subtract-
ing incinerator, disposal, and sponsorship costs from the estimated
1972 operating budget. Subsequent to this procedure, the respective
fraction of each collection function was determined by ratio of personnel
assignments with respect to all personnel: extra men and the adminis-
trative burden was allocated to each function proportionately.
34
-------
11. Since trash is collected on one of five workdays by the same crews,
the costs for mixed refuse and trash collection were calculated by
multiplication of these crews’ costs by 0.8 and 0.2, respectively.
12. This cost includes the payments to the private sector disposal firms
and the salaries of the personnel at the incinerator. The latter were
calculated using the ratio of the disposal to total personnel for FY 1973
and multiplying it with the 1972 personnel costs. This value does not
include any capital and repair costs to the incinerator.
13. Includes remittance of $307,000 to sponsorships but does not include
annual vehicle replacement costs of about $600,000.
14. Calculated as 100 percent minus the Automotive Maintenance and fuel
costs.
15. Collection and Disposal percentages will not add to 100 percent as 3.9
percent was remitted to sponsorships.
16. This is a misleadit g figure as disposal is bifunctional in that both
incineration with some labor costs and contracting to the private
sector is done.
35
-------
containers or is bundled and is only picked up on Wednesday, whereas mixed
refuse must fit into a 30-gallon container and will not be picked up on Wednes-
day. Naturally, trash items cannot exceed a certain maximum size: In the
ordinance, the maximum size of a tied brush bundle cannot exceed five feet
long by 1 .5 feet in diameter and must be no heavier than 75 pounds. Pre-
sumably, this is the maximum amount of material upon which a compactor
mechanism can effectively operate and is a maximum load which workers can
safely lift.
Manpower and Equipment Allocation
Trash collection crews and equipment are the same as those used to
collect mixed refuse during the remainder of the week. These crews travel
both of their normal routes on Wednesday and stop to collect only when waste
has been placed at the curbside for collection. Consequently, not all stops
actually receive a collection on Wednesday.
Efficiency and Productivity
Again referring to Table 4, productivity of trash collection activities is
somewhat lower than for corresponding mixed refuse collection. This is not
a surprising result, since the staff for both functions is identical and the trash
quantities collected are considerably lower than for mixed refuse. Thus,
trash collection productivity is material-limited rather than staff-limited
if it is assumed that the time required to travel two routes on a trash collec-
tion day is equal to the time required to collect one route on a mixed refuse
day.
5. 1 . 3: Bulky Item Collection
Duties and Level of Service
Bulky items too large for trash collection trucks are collected by a
separate set of crews and trucks. Such collections are now made on request,
whereas there was once a fixed schedule of two collections per month. Under
the old system, the bulky item collectors completely covered the city twice
each month with specific routes being serviced each day. Residents who
wished to have bulky items removed were expected to remember their collec-
tion schedule. This was not a successful approach as some citizens placed
36
-------
their discards at the curb at any time and they remained there until the
collection day arrived. This situation was clearly not acceptable and the city
changed the service to a request basis, with a maximum number of services
to remain at two per dwelling unit per month.
Manpower and Equipment Allocation
Table 3 presents the personnel and equipment strength allocated to
bulky item collection. The normal crew is three men and all work during a
pickup. The equipment used by these crews are specially adapted flatbed
trucks with hydraulic lifting platforms mounted on the side just behind the
passenger door. Unlike trucks with lift-gate devices mounted in the rear,
the arrangement for the Houston equipment allows the truck to park immedi-
ately adjacent to the item to be loaded, minimizing lifting and carrying efforts.
Efficiency and Productivity
Table 4 indicates that bulky item collection is not as efficient as the
mixed refuse collection when compared on a volume basis. The mixed refuse
crews use 20-yard packer trucks and make an average of 2.2 trips to a
disposal site each day. Consequently, the average daily mixed refuse collec-
tion is about 44 cubic yards and is greater than the volume collected by the
bulky item crews. This smaller value for crew productivity probably results
from both the unscheduled nature of bulky item collection and the longer length
of time necessary to service a bulky item stop.
5. 1 .4: Ash and Dead Animal Collection
Duties and Level of Service
Like bulky item collections, ash and dead animals are collected on
request. Ash is normally generated by buildings that employ incinerators
for internal disposal and volume reduction processes. There is no refer-
ence to ash collection in the ordinance, but it can be assumed that the volume
restriction is not applicable. The maximum weight of container and contents
cannot exceed 100 pounds.
37
-------
Both small and large dead animals are collected from locations not
engaged in animal processing operations. Small animals are collected for
free and there is a $15.00 fee for the collection of any carcass exceeding
100 pounds. However, this fee is not being collected at the present time.
Manpower and Equipment Allocation
Both ash and dead animal collection are small operations in comparison
to the other collection activities. Ash is collected by eight men that operate
four special pick-up trucks. This particular choice of equipment resulted
from some unfortunate experiences when ash was inadvertently loaded into
packer trucks containing combustible materials. The ash was live and the
trucks were destroyed in the ensuing conflagrations.
The dead animal collections are performed by three, two-man crews
operating three pick-up trucks. These crews perform small animal collec-
tion. Large animals such as cows, swine, etc., are quite massive and are
picked up by a specially built truck.
Efficiency and Productivity
Because of the special nature of both ash and dead animal collections,
measures of efficiency and productivity are not suitable measures of effective-
ness. Furthermore, because of the very low volume of ash collection, annual
data is not kept on collection tonnage. Similarly, animals are identified as
discrete units rather than in terms of volume or mass.
Notwithstanding these conditions, truck and crew efficiencies will not
be high because of the “request ’ t nature of collection. It can be assumed that
because of this practice, efficiencies and costs will be comparable with the
bulky item collection operation. In any event, Table 4 indicates that ash
and dead animal collection costs are very small burdens on the citizens of
Houston.
5.2: Quality of Service
The Department of Solid Waste Management does not keep records of
complaint data at this time, although it was reported that such records were
38
-------
once kept. There is, however, a procedure practiced to answer complaints
within two hours of receipt of a call. Complaints from residents are received
by the dispatch office. Every hour, the route foremen call the same office
and any complaints are then investigated. Legitimate problems are rectified
by having either the route crew or one of the special trucks (ash collection)
service the complaint. This is a very good rapid response capability which
does not appear to be shared among many systems of Houston’s size. This
system could be improved with the incorporation of two-way radio communi-
cation between the dispatch office and the route foremen.
Another aspect of quality is the level of service offered with respect
to how much of the total waste generated is actually collected. Until 1965,
the only collections were mixed refuse, ash, and dead animals, with trash
and bulky items left to the generator for disposal. During that year, the
city initiated “Operation Sparkle” which added the collection of trash and
bulky items for limited periods eae . tr. It could be inferred from the appli-
cation of this new policy that before 1965 the city was having an appearance
problem and, consequently, service quality was not sufficiently high. An
appearance problem still exists but is expected to improve.
There is one other quality parameter that should be mentioned. The
Houston Chamber of Commerce apparently feels that there is an insufficient
number of street containers in the city and that this condition is starting to
contribute to a litter control problem. From all appearances noted during the
site visit, street litter is not a conspicuous problem at this time. There is a
litter problem related to parcels of privately owned land. The owners of such
properties are not specifically required to keep such areas cleared of litter
and other vagrant waste, but they are prohibited from creating dumps. There
is apparently no mechanism to handle the gradual and casual accumulation
of solid waste and some private lots show a deterioration in aesthetic appear-
ance.
5 . 3: Labor Management Relations
The City of Houston, like all other Texas cities, is prohibited by state
law from either recognizing or entering into formal negotiations with labor
39
-------
organizations. The major fraction of the skilled and unskilled labor force is,
however, represented by two unions: the American Federation of State,
County, and Municipal Employees (AFL/CIO) and a small independent organi-
zation entitled the Texas Federation of Public Employees. The unions, of
course, cannot bargain for their members; but they have performed and can
operate as an effective locus for policy formulation.
As a case in point, in the early spring of 1972, a petition signed by 650
solid waste employees was sent to Mayor Welch for his attention. This peti-
tion, presented in Appendix B, enumerated a series of points centering a-
round the general wish of the employees to become a department separate
from and parallel to the Department of Public Works. Mayor Welch answered
these points in a letter, also presented in Appendix B. As a consequence of
this document, the Department of Solid Waste Management was created on
July 1, of 1972, with the appointment of the full-time director.
The employees have been effective in other issues relating to solid
waste management activities. For example, about three years ago the
collection activities were performed on a six-day schedule of fixed length.
At that time, the employees of the Refuse Division of the Department of
Public Works approached the Mayor and Council and successfully pleaded to
have the workweek reduced to five days and to have no cut in worker pay.
The city was able to meet these requests because the lower echelon workers
in solid waste activities are not covered by a civil service system.
The absence of the protection of a civil service system does not appear
to be felt by the employees of the Department of Solid Waste Management. In
fact, the fringe benefits represent an additional 33 percent over and above
the direct wage paid. Table 5 presents more detailed information on the
extent of specific benefits. It is interesting to note that Workmen’s Compensa-
tion is not a benefit and, consequently, the possibility of malingering is
reduced. With the absence of civil service rules, there are no written
grievance procedures in effect at this time. The system management feels
that this situation needs to be rectified and will initiate such an effort during
the next fiscal year.
40
-------
TABLE 5
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
Benefit
Percentage Paid by Employer
or Member
Medical/Surgical
100%
Sick Leave with Pay-k-”
15 days
Paid Holidays
9 days
Paid Vacations or Leave -’
Employee pays 4% of salary to fund
Retirement or Pension Plan
City pays 8% of salary to fund
Group Life Insurance
100%
Credit Union
- -
Personal Leave - Death in Family
Nominal
Military Leave
As required
Jury Duty
As required
Accumulation is unlimited for sick leave use. In case of termination,
accumulation is at full time to 90 days and 25 percent of full time in
excess of 90 days. Accumulated sick days are reimbursed only to
employees leaving after two years.
Accumulated to 60 days and is reimbursed to employee upon termination.
On the whole, the work force seems reasonably content and, in fact,
turnover does not appear to be a major problem. Table 6 presents tenure
data provided by management for alt of the work force employed by the
department at the time of the site visit. If the number of employees with
tenure of less than a year represents the turnover rate, then the value in
Houston for unskilled workers alone is 2.4 percent. This is extremely low:
Even if the number of employees with tenure between one and two years
were included, the modified turnover value is still only 19.2 percent, about
half of the national average for blue collar workers.
41
-------
TABLE 6
TENURE DATA
Years
Managerial
Clerical
Foremen
Skilled
Unskilled
0-1
1
13
1-2
1
1
1
13
92
Z-3
70
3-4
3
60
4-5
5
67
5-6
1
9
30
6-7
1
7
25
7-8
1
8
28
8-9
1
8
20
9-10
1
7
12
10-11
1
1
3
9
11-12
5
12
12-13
1
5
4
13-14
1
6
6
14-15
13
11
15-16
4
11
16-17
1
2
17
16
17-18
1
10
6
18-19
1
17
10
19-20
1
1
7
5
20-
1
8
70
41
Total
6
5
18
217
548
Absenteeism was said to be an occasional problem, especially on
Mondays, but it is not regarded as a problem of significance. This may be
due to the reasonably liberal benefit package which allows 15 days of paid
sick leave and the task incentive system. Also, the lack of Workmen’s
Compensation benefit may contribute to reduce absenteeism.
Employee injuries remains one of the department’s more serious
problems. It is interestini that incidence rates were found to rise after
the initiation of the task basis incentive system. In descending order of
- 42
-------
frequency, the five most frequent injury types incurred are: strained back
and shoulder muscles; sprains of the legs, ankles, and shoulders; lacerations;
abrasions; and, contusions. Occasional permanent injuries do occur as a
result of packer mechanisms. The work force apparently shares the opinion
of management that injuries are a serious issue. This statement has as its
support the ninth point in the worker petition (presented in Appendix B),
which stresses the need for the city to find suitable alternative employment
for people permanently injured on the job.
5.4 Inner City
There is a definite inner city area surrounding the business district
of Houston. In these neighborhoods, solid waste problems are considered to
be second to a host of others: For example, water and sewer lines are very
old and, consequently, are in need of extensive repairs. Therefore, only
nominal attention has been given to solid waste issues as other problems have
had greater priority.
In response to a general litter problem in the inner city area, the
Model Cities Agency appropriated funds for the purchase and operation of a
small number of trucks for general clean-up purposes. Houston’s Department
of Health administers this operation under its Environmental Health Program.
The crews have the assignment of the general cleaning of lots, ditches, right-
of-ways, and other related conditions. Additionally, the Department of Health
is “on calP’ for a rapid response to blight conditions.
To place this operation in perspective, it should be noted that there
are a large number of areas in the city, including portions of the inner city,
that are not provided with storm sewers. Rather ditches are used to handle
any emergency drainage situation. These ditches are used for disposal
purposes by many inner city residents and are difficult to keep clear. Since
the ordinance specifying solid waste storage and collection is reasonably
restrictive, neither the Department of Solid Waste Management nor the
Division of Bridges and Streets of the Department of Public Works will remove
discarded items from these ditches.
43
-------
The ordinance does require residents to properly store their wastes
and prohibits illegal disposal. Property owners are held accountable for
malfeasance, but there does not appear to be an effective surveillance and
enforcement program in operation. It should be noted that absentee owner-
ship of residents was said to be low; consequently, there is little difficulty
identifying the responsible parties.
It was also stated that a significant problem in the inner city’s area was
lack of services which, presumably, includes solid waste collection. While
this allegation is difficult to assess, it is noted that solid waste collectors
have the option to bypass collection points if the waste is not stored or placed
according to ordinance. It is occasionally found that residents of inner city
areas are less than careful with their discards, which would invite skipped
pick-ups.
5.5: Disposal Methods - Present and Planned
In recent years, the City of Houston has been quite innovative in its
approaches to disposal needs. It is apparent that management is aware that
disposal is not just a process than can be performed and dismissed. City
planners are well aware of certain properties of solid waste as well as the
costs and difficulties encountered in the disposal process. However, even with
this relatively high degree of sophistication, the approaches to disposal have
not been without problems.
The value of land in the Houston area has always been high because of
the absence of zoning and the growth rate of the city. Consequently, histori-
cal disposal approaches have always been directed toward maximum volume
reduction to achieve good ultimate disposal efficiency. Incineration was
chosen many years ago as the preferred methodology, and recent history
indicates that this philosophy is still being followed. In 1968, a modern
municipal incinerator rated at 800 tons per day was constructed and, more
recently, the city has contracted for the construction and operation of “mini-
incinerators” strategically located at a number of points. Another disposal
approach has been tested: In 1965, the city entered into contracts with three
44
-------
firms to compost solid waste and recover other materials. None of the
“compost” approaches have met the expectations of the city for a number
of reasons. For example, of these three contracts, one plant was never
built and another was built but operated only for a short time. Nearby resi-
dents complained and, as a result, the city was forced to stop refuse delivery
to the facility. The company sued the city and was ultimately awarded a
$2,000,000 judgement. Table 7 presents the disposal history of Houston for
the last four fiscal years.
On the 24th of March in 1965, the City of Houston entered into a 20-year
contract with the Metropolitan Waste Conversion Corporation for the disposal
by composting of 300 + 30 tons per day of solid waste. At that time, the
disposal fee to the city was $3.53 per ton with a minimum of 1800 tons per
week. The only responsibility of the contractor was to accept a maximum
of 330 tons per day of mixed refuse and trash (only) and convert it to compost
plus inorganic residue. The city was to: provide the site (to be rented by the
contractor); provide five to ten tons of sewage sludge per day for the process;
and, to accept the responsibility of the ultimate disposal of the residue. Un-
fortunately, the concept failed because the contractor was unable to find a
market for the compost that was produced.
It happened that the contractor had acquired an inventory of approximately
6000 tons of compost and, consequently, received a number of complaints
from nearby residents. The city of Houston acknowledged this difficulty and,
on the first of December, 1971, signed a second agreement with the same
company. In the preamble, the following statement was made: “WHEREAS,
it has been found not to be feasible for such plant to be operated solely as a
composting plant, to the exclusion of other desirable approaches to the pro-
blem of solid waste disposal; . . .“ This new contract has a life of five
years and contains a number of new provisions:
• A new guaranteed minimum delivery was set at 1500 tons
per week with a maximum of 850 tons per day.
• The City of Houston recovers 10 percent of the revenues
for any material recovered and subsequently sold with a
minimum of $. 175 per ton delivered by the city to the plant.
45
-------
TABLE 7
DISPOSAL SITE USE AND HISTORY
1969
1970
1971
1972
INCINERATION (Subtotal)
13,332
45
26,939
17,060
Holmes Road
13,332
45
26,359
16,763
Mrni-Incinerator (Pilot Project)
- --
---
580
297
CONTRACTED DISPOSAL (Subtotal)
47, 934
75, 943
68, 595
68, 770
Metro Lone Star Organics
20, 600
6,937
---
20, 911
A me rican Refuse Systems
Ella Site
27, 334
32,579
18, 772
---
Kirkpatricks Site
---
13,736
9,743
---
Almeda Site
- --
5, 723
-- -
---
Holmes Site (New)
---
16, 968
23, 748
22, 356
Beaumont Highway Site
- - -
-- -
16, 352
25, 503
CITY LANDFILL (Subtotal)
32, 633
31, 931
---
---
Holmes Site (Old)
14, 780
20, 742
- - -
---
Reed Site
17, 853
11, 189
---
---
GRAND TOTAL
93,899
107,919
95,554
85,830
1/ All numbers in this table are given in 20 cubic yard truck loads. The entries for 1971 and 1972 are for
— mixed refuse and trash only and do not include bulky item disposal of 11,483 and 11,136 loads for these
years. This waste was disposed in the Holmes Road Site (new) and Beaumont Highway Site in approxi-
mate proportion to the mixed refuse and trash loads accepted at those landfills. Bulky item disposal
data were not maintained separately in 1969 and 1970 and the figures presented for these years include
this disposed waste.
-------
• The city is to receive credits for the weight difference
between plant Lnput and plant output of unusable materials.
The contractor is responsible for the transportation of
these materials to the disposal site, and weight reduction
means that these costs are lower. The bill to the city
reflects this savings.
• A new fee schedule was established, as follows:
Average Number of Base Fee
Tons Per Day Per Ton
1st 300 tons $5.60
Next 150 tons 5.40
Next 150 tons 4. 95
Next 150 tons 4.90
All additional tonnage 4. 75
• The contractor must provide and operate the ultimate
disposal site.
• The compost “inventory” must be removed within one
year and,thereafter, all newly composted material will
be stored in an area not to exceed 2000 square feet.
o Not less than 200 tons per month will be processed by
composting. I ’
• All processes must be sanitary.
From these provisions, it is apparent that both the city and the company
managed to negotiate some favorable concessions. Primarily, the city has
resolved a significant fraction of its disposal problems in that the contractor
assumes total responsibility of the waste upon delivery. On the other hand,
the contractor is no longer constrained to recover all of the solid waste. In
fact, the 200 tons per month that is required to be composted is a very small
fraction of the waste throughput. What exists, in fact, is a relatively compe-
titive transfer station in which the operator manually and mechanically pro-
cesses the waste for valuable scrap and disposes of the residue in its own
landfill.
There is a second private sector contractor participating in disposal
activities for the City of Houston. On the 11th of September, 1968, American
Refuse Systems, Lnc. , entered into a six-month renewable contract with the
city to dispose, by landfill, a minimum of 300 loads per week (50 per day) at
1/ At this time, however, no compost is being produced because a fire des-
troyed the required equipment.
47
-------
$10.00 per load. The company would accept anything but hazardous materials.
The contract was amended on July 14, 1971, to redefine the fee basis from
“load” units to “yard” units. The new fee schedule established a cost of
$.50 per yard for disposal of city waste which, because the city uses almost
all 20-yard packers, did not significantly alter the initial arrangement. A
possible difference is that the bulky waste and ash truck collections disposal
costs are now lower since a load for these vehicles is significantly less than
20 yards. Also, the “grinder” type vehicles currently being tested by the
city may lead to more favorable disposal costs. This factor, of course,
depends on the characterization of landfill as either a “volume” or “mass”
disposal operation.
As mentioned earlier in this section, the city also uses incineration
for disposal. In recent years, this practice has been less than successful,
as the new 800 TPD municipal incinerator has been plagued with a number of
expensive mechanical problems. Consequently, the installation has experi-
enced a considerable amount of down time and was, in fact, being repaired at
the time of the site visit. The two most significant problems are related to
material degradation in the breaching area. The initial design had a stack
section which reheated the combustion products after water scrubbing to take
advantage of buoyant forces developed by the stack. The heat transfer
system was located at the exit port of the secondary combustion chamber,
was subject to entrained particle abrasion, and it subsequently eroded. The
heat transfer system was replaced with a system designed to place more
emphasis on material properties than heat transfer criteria but it, too, is
showing significant material ablation/abrasion and will be repaired.
The second significant problem resulted from the design of the high
energy water scrubber system. This system had a natural propensity to
extract chlorine and other acid ions from the combustion products (due to the
presence of chlorinated hydrocarbons such as PVC in the waste). This
acidic solution then passed into the induced draft fan either as entrained vapor
or a liquid suspension. The impeller of this large fan, first fabricated with
316 S.S., and then with high carbon steel, failed at 1800 rpm and operations
48
-------
were abruptly terminated early in December of 1972. The new impellers
will be made of an unspecified Hastelloy alloy which may or may not be
successful. The repairs to the facility are planned to be completed in the
summer of 1973 and, at that time, the incinerator will again be operational.
This new municipal incinerator has been a significant problem and has
received considerable public attention. Additionally, it has been very expen-
sive to the city, since salaries at the incinerator are better than $500,000
per year. The facility currently employs 88 men, as described below:
1 - Supervisor
3 - Foremen
5 - Repair
1 - Weighmaster
6 - Crane Loaders
8 - Truck Drivers
9 - Furnace Operators
55 - Incinerator Helpers
These personnel are being retained during the shutdown for the purpose of
facility repair and maintenance.
A relatively recent development in Houston’s interest in incineration is
the consideration given to the concept of establishing mini-incinerator iristal-
lations at strategic locations within the city. Each of these machines is
estimated to have a capacity of one to two tons per hour and as many as needed
would be installed at each site. These devices are said to be relatively
emissionless and will not require high energy gas cleaning equipment if oper-
ated properly. Pilot tests of these machines have been performed with mixed
results; modifications have been made and the city is proceeding with the
project.
The locations of the current and proposed disposal sites are indicated
in Figure 4 Other installations relating to the solid waste management
system, such as equipment storage and maintenance areas, are also displayed.
There have been a number of problems within the past several years re-
garding the disposal of Houston’s solid waste. From Table 7 , it is noted that
the two landfill sites that began operation in 1970 were closed in relatively
49
-------
Truck lot and/or maintenance
A - Proposed mini-incinerator locations
FIGURE 4 FACILITY LOCATIONS IN HOUSTON
Beaumont
Highway
Sanitation
Landfill
Incinerator
Rescue Recovery Plant Site
Holmes Road Sanitary Landfill
• - Disposal sites
50
-------
sL t periods. The Almeda site was opened on the 29th of June in 1970 and
was closed within eight weeks, on the 21st of August. This site was located
in a white neighborhood, where residents were forceful enough to terminate
operations. The Kirkpatricks site was located in a black neighborhood, where
residents were also not pleased with the arrangement. This site was also
shut down.
The basic local siting problem is complicated by the recent enactment
of a Texas state law which prohibits the disposal of solid waste in adjacent
counties without the permission of the affected county. Consequently, dis-
posal site procurement by either the public or the private sector may be
limited to the area within Harris County boundaries.
5.6: Equipment Description
The Department of Solid Waste Management in the City of Houston
operates a fairly uniform fleet in terms of design. At this time, the mixed
refuse crews utilize almost exclusively 20-yard, rear-loading packers of
various chassis and body types. There are a number of older 18-yard pack-
ers, held in reserve as spares. Also, in 1972, the city took delivery of
ten hlgrinderu type vehicles but, due to a series of cab and chassis problems,
an evaluation of effectiveness has yet to be made. Bulky item crews use
open bed trucks with a stated capacity of 20 yards. The vehicles for ash and
dead animal collection are modified pick-up trucks.
At this time, the city has two additional types of equipment on order.
It has apparently been determined that the 20-yard packers are not well suited
for some alley collection; consequently, six 10-yard rear loaders have been
purchased. Because of the narrower and lower construction of these vehicles,
crews will be able to drive through difficult alleys to collect from stops
where now only carry-out service can be performed. Also, two ‘Rotoboom”
bulky item cranes have been purchased to expedite the collection of massive
discards.
The current fleet data, excluding the modified pick-up trucks, are pre-
sented in Table 8. The 1967 trucks are 18-yard vehicles and are held in
51
-------
TABLE 8: COLLECTION FLEET DESCRIPTIONS AND
OPERATING COSTS! 1
Average Annual Costs Per Vehicle in 197Z
TC1(S
Model
Truck
Body
Fuel
Parts
Total
23
1967
nternational
Pak-Mor
$232.37
$1,631.59
$1,863.96
20
1968
1
Gar-Wood
620. 32
2, 952.84
3, 573. 16
40
1969
Heil
736.47
4, 792. 67
5, 529. 34
59
1970
“
Pak-Mor
796.24
2, 908. 97
3, 705.22
30
1971
“
Heil
794.57
1,706.97
2,501.54
20
10
1972
1972
Ford
.nternational
Heil
Kuka—
489.99
212.10
423.61
260.83
913.21
472.21
202
13
1969
nternational
Open-Bed
323.36
463.41
786.77
15
1971
“
Open-Bed
429.39
294.14
723.58
28
uiOperating costs include neither amortization charges nor repair labor Costs.
— The low costs for these vehicles indicate that they were not operated for a
full year in 1972.
reserve. A number of the newer 20-yard trucks are also used for thi3 pur-
pose. It was stated by personnel in the Department of Solid Waste Manage-
ment that only ten of the better than forty reserve vehicles are operational.
5.6.1: Financing and Cost
Both additional and replacement equipment are financed through the
General Fund. Vehicles of either class must be formally budgeted by the
department head and approved by the Mayor and the City Council. If approval
is secured, the city advertises for bids, selects the lowest responsible bid,
and purchases the equipment. This process currently takes one and one-half
to two years. Purchased equipment is now assigned to the Department of
Solid Waste Management and reasonably accurate records are kept on each
vehicle.
Table 8 presents the average annual fuel and parts costs for vehicles
by year and type. The labor element of the repair costs is not kept at this
time because the Motor Repair Division of the Department of Public Works
feels that this is a fixed overhead liability and is, therefore, not worth keeping.
However, it has been estimated that labor costs are about 35 percent of the
52
-------
costs of fuel plus parts. It is clear that as vehicles age, the costs of repair
rise rapidly. Examination of the fuel costs for the rear loaders purchased
in 1969, 1970, and 1971 indicates that all vehicles of these classes are utilized
at about the same rate, yet the parts costs for the 1969 vehicles are almost
three times those for the 1971 models. The lower gas and parts costs for
the 1967 and 1968 vehicles indicate that this fraction of the fleet is normally
held in reserve.
The open-bed bulky item trucks are clearly less expensive to operate
than the packer fleet. This finding is a natural consequence of the actual
collection function, which is not as severe for bulky pickup as it is for mixed
refuse. The packer vehicles are also far more complex than the open-bed
trucks, which also contributes significantly to operating costs in terms of
parts and labor expenses.
5.6.2: Vehicle Maintenance P&icies
All vehicles operated by the Department of Solid Waste Management are
maintained by the Motor Repair Division of the Department of Public Works.
This arrangement has not been satisfactory to the Depar’ment of Solid Waste
Management and there are mounting pressures to shift all sanitation vehicle
repair and maintenance responsibilities to the department. The collectors
are strongly in favor of sich a shift, a statement which is strongly supported
by ITrequesesi? 2, 3, and 4 of the petition submitted to Mayor Welch in early
spring of 1972. The department director is currently exploring methods to
implement this shift.
The equipment maintenance issue is not new. The workers complain
that vehicles are improperly maintained, whereas the Motor Repair Division
management feels that the equipment is abused. Both points of view have some
validity, as indicated by the simultaneous policies of the Director of the
Department of Solid Waste Management to shift maintenance responsibilities
to his department and, at the same time, suspend drivers for equipment
abuse.
Preventive maintenance is now performed on an informal and limited
basis. Collection crews are requested to check the oil and inspect vehicles
53
-------
for potential problems before starting out each day. However, this may not
always be done. The Motor Repair Division is required to perform vehicle
lubrication at thirty-day intervals and to wash and steam-clean the trucks
when necessary. All repairs are performed when required, i.e., when the
vehicles fail.
If and when the maintenance and repair responsibilities are transferred
to the Department of Solid Waste Management, it is likely that more formal
maintenance procedures will be established. On such a basis, true equip-
ment costs can be determined and, additionally, vehicle problems can be
identified and solved with minimum delay. Equipment damage may also drop
under this arrangement because crews would have a greater responsibility
for primary maintenance and a higher liability for neglect.
5.6.3: E 3 uipment Replacement Policies
The replacement schedule is now set at six years, with all vehicles
of this age being auctioned off. Before sale, however, each vehicle is
stripped for any parts that can be salvaged for installation in a newer truck.
The resulting hulks still manage to sell for between $600 and $900, and it
is suspected that small private sector operators are the purchasers.
5.7: Financial Aspects of the Houston Solid Waste System
The municipal solid waste system of Houston, Texas relies on the
General Fund as a revenue source for its operating budget. The Department
of Solid Waste Management collects a user charge for the collection of the
schools in the city, and this money is contributed to the General Fund. How-
ever, this money is not directly earmarked for the Department of Solid Waste
Management, as all disbursements are made from the General Fund without
recognition of the source of income. Major capital expenditures are generally
financed through bond issues and through a special equipment fund adminis-
tered by the City Treasurer.
Presently, the capital and operating budgets of the department are not
developed simultaneously. The Department of Solid Waste Management was
54
-------
recently formed from the Refuse Division of the Department of Public Works,
so that the last capital budget was actually formulated in the Department of
Public Works. The new Department of Solid Waste Management will assume
this duty in the future.
The budgetary process for the operating budget begins with the Director
of the Department of Solid Waste Management and his staff. He develops the
budget based upon historical costs, changes in the number of men, and future
increases in existing wages. This budget is usually developed with no guidance
from the Budget Office. The fully constructed budget is next passed along to
the City Treasurer for review. After his approval is secured, the operating
budget is passed to the Mayor for approval. The Mayor may either cut or
add to the budget, or approve it as presented. Finally, the Mayor combines
the Department of Solid Waste Management budget with the other departmental
budgets and presents an operating budget for the city, along with the depart-
mental budgets, to the City Council for approval. Houston’s fiscal year be-
gins on the first of January, but the budget is usually not approved until very
late in spring despite City Charter requirements to the contrary. Most
incremental expenditures and capital funds are usually cut off m November,
thus the department has only a four-month period (July - October) in which
to add new personnel or make minor capital expenditures.
5.7.1: Sources of Revenue
The General Fund serves as the basic revenue source for the budget
of the Department of Solid Waste Management. The wide variety of taxes,
fees, and charges which contribute to this fund are shown in Table 9.
General Fund
The primary revenue source for the General Fund is a property tax.
The assessed valuation of city property and the property tax rates for the
past ten years are shown in Table 10. The relatively rapid growth and
prosperity of the Houston economy has allowed the city to reduce the tax
rate over these years. The assessed value of the city’s property has increased
by 116 percent during this interval while the tax rate decreased by Z5 percent.
55
-------
TABLE 9
1972 SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND ESTIMATE
Cash as of 1/1/72
14, 149, 050
Transfers & Grants
Fcdci al Funds (Health)
E. E. A. Funds
DUflU L UflUS
Airport Funds
Civic Center Funds
Other Ti nsfcrs (County and Water)
2,814, 328
272, 796
2, 326, 506
178, 134
259, 788
399, 191
6,250, 743
Estimated fl(venue for 1972
Current Taxes
Delinquent Taxes
Franchise Taxes
Investment Income
Court Fines
Sewer Service Charges
Sales Tax
Mixed Drink Tax
Airport Sci \‘ice Chai ges
Miscc)]ancous Revenue
industrial Conti acts
74, 146, 196
4,337,497
11,300,000
4,767, 359
5,734, 008
4, 634, 688
34, 000, 000
500, 000
1,526,000
8, 686, 050
1,829,7) S
151,461, 513
Total Available for Appropriation :
171,861, 306
Less: Debt Service ? Fixed Charges
Bond Maturities and Interest
35, 668, 510
Fixed Charges
interest on Cash Requirements
Conunission and Exchange
Miscellaneous Refunds
Notes Payable
Interest on Notes Payable
Interest on Equipment Purchases
NW Houston Supply Contract
Gulf Coast Waste Contract
400, 000
40, 000
200, 000
125, 000
15,000
200, 000
290, 117
405, 522 1,675, 639
37, 344, 149
Amount Available for Dcpai tmental Ope r it ions
34, 517, 157
ro E db py
56
-------
TABLE 10
PROPERTY VALUATION, TAX RATES, AND THE AMOUNT
OF PROPERTY TAXES COLLECTED - 1962-72
r Year I ATinount c
Property 1 /
Valuation—
Tax
Rate
Levy
Amount
Cofl&ctcd
Percent
of the Levy
Collected
I
1962
2,541,681,370
a. oo
50. 833, 627
48,176,647
94.77
1963
2,601,036,240
2.00
52, 020, 724
so; 075, 158
96.25
1964
2,735,143,590
2.00
54,702,872
52,597,514
96.15
1965
2,874,652,040
2. oo
57, 493, 040
55, 665, 901
96.82
1966
3,143,725,100
2.00
62,87’1,514
60,097,014
95.58
1967
3,335,969,750
2.00
66, 719, 395
63, 509, 154
95.18
1968
3, 383, 127,690
2. 00
67, 662, 553
66, 05 , 689
97.62
1969
3, 58’j, 550, 420
1.80
64,611,908
63, 933, 052
98.95
1970
3,868,611,730
1.80
69,635,011
67,919,980
97.54
11971
[ l972 J
5,484, 690, 600
5, 484, 690, 600
1. 50
1.50
82, 270, 359
82, 270, 359
79, 800, 408
79, 600, 408
97.00
] 97.00
!“J3ased upon 53 percent of actual value
a”Estimated figures for 1972
The other major revenue source contributing to the General Fund is
sales tax revenue. The one-percent city sales tax will contribute approxi-
rnately 34 million dollars in 1973. This represents approximately 22.5
percent of the total revenue entering the General Fund.
The user charges collected from the Houston School District are in-
cluded in the figure for industrial contracts. The current charge for the 31
school districts is 95 dollars per day and the solid waste is collected on the
basis of a five-day workweek. Assuming that the school year in the district
lasts 36 weeks, the total annual revenue generated by the operation is approxi-
mately $17,100.
Bonds
For major capital expenditures, the Department of Solid Waste Manage-
ment relies upon bonds as a method of financing. These issues are usually
general obligation bonds. One of the bond projects in the $145 million dollar
57
-------
Capital Improvements Program voted on February 24, 1973, was for the
Department of Solid Waste Management. The particular project is the South-
east Maintenance Facility. Funds from this bond will be used for the construc-
tion of an office and vehicle maintenance facility for the Department of Solid
Waste Management in the southeast section of the city. Trucks currently
serving the southeast must travel from service centers located on the Eastex
Freeway or from Beechnut in the southwest, resulting in excessive driving
distance. Other previous bond i ;sues are discussed in the expenditure section.
Equipment Fund
The Equipment Fund is financed out of the General Fund and adminis-
tered by the City Treasurer. When the Department of Solid Waste Manage-
ment needs new vehicles, it requests funds from this account. It is
interesting to note that new vehicles purchased through this fund are financed
over a period of three years.
Subsidies/Grants
In 1972, the Department of Solid Waste Management obtained federal
funds through the Emergency Employment Act. These revenues, which a-
mounted to $25,000 per month, were used to hire 45 additional employees,
including 15 new drivers and 30 new laborers. These new positions were
requested as part of regular operating expenses for the 1973 fiscal year, and
presumably with the approval of the 1973 budget, these federal funds will no
longer be required.
5.7.2: Expenditures
The expenditures of the Department of Solid Waste Management are
monitored by means of a regular monthly accounting report from the con-
troller’s office. This monthly statement reports appropriations, expenditures
and unexpended balances for the department. These data are not disaggre-
gated into divisions such as administrative, collection, and disposal, and are
reported for the entire department’s operations. The expense items which
are reported in the statement are shown in Table 11 along with the annual
department expenses for the past five years.
58
-------
TABLE 11
SUMMARY OF OPERATING EXPENDITURES FOR
SOLID WASTE COLLECTIOI” AND DISPOSAL
diture
Categories
Fiscal
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
PERSONAL SERVICES
Salaries $3,850, 138 $4, 115, 198 $4,917, 128 $5,408,633 $5,718,203
Overtime 104, 281 1 17, 566 40, 755 56, 937 73, 975
Total: $3,954,419 $4,232,764 $4,957,883 $5,465,570 $5,792,178
SUPPLIES
Office 1,930 1,635 4,637 2,794 1,563
Cleaning & Sanitary 266 2, 736 2, 968 2, 501 2, 320
Drugs & Chemicals 7,521 1,768 1,850 8,910 10,526
Miscellaneous 3, 970 2, 428 4, 685 3, 786 3, 634
Total: $ 13,687 $ 8,567 $ 14,140 $ 17,991 $ 18,043
CONTRACTUAL
Transportation 600 600 609 602 600
Communication 11,799 10,186 11,261 10,601 10,675
Heat-Light-Power 49, 783 39, 054 19, 031 54,533 50, 195
Travel 1,150 220 92 110 726
Sponsorship 152,829 176,997 266,380 318,192 306,885
Sanitary Fill Fees 44,010 255, 102 1,403,410 1,405,565 660,288
Resource Recovery 369,950 390,765 135,685 -0— 569,334
Miscellaneous 28,627 21,341 31,263 25,365 128,745
Total: $ 658, 748 $ 894,265 $1, 867, 731 $1, 814, 968 $1, 727, 448
MAINTENANCE
Land & Building 4,645 5,911 5,099 3,861 5,662
Furn. & Fixtures 455 234 154 160 424
Mach. & Tools 8,248 12,174 4,867 13,642 18,433
Automotive 454, 194 599, 817 651, 574 710. 156 829. 468
Garbage Dumps 6,600 10,553 4,397 1,137 3,134
Incinerators 29, 992 20, 889 8, 878 65, 473 38, 380
Total: $ 504, 134 $ 649,578 $ 674,969 $ 794,429 $ 895,501
CAPITAL OUTLAY 4,801 5,266 4,501 3,032 12, 085
GRAND TOTAL: $5, 135, 789 $ 5, 7c0. 440 $7, 519,224 $8, 095,990 $8, 445, 255
59
-------
The total cost for the collection and disposal of solid waste has grown
by approximately $3 .3 million over the past five years. This represents an
increase of 64.4 percent. Unlike many systems, the rising expenses have
not been manifested by labor costs alone, as total salary expenses have grown
only 47.2 percent. The rising costs have also been due to increased contrac-
tual costs and, to a lesser degree, maintenance costs. The total contractual
expenses of the department increased by over one million dollars between
1968 and 1972. This growth in primarily due to the rise of three accounts:
Sponsorship - $154,056; Fill Fees - $612,278; Resource Recovery $199,384.
It is interesting to note the changing patterns of the disposal expense between
fill fees and resource recovery as the city strives to obtain an optimum dis-
posal technique. A more detailed listing of the monthly sponsorship costs
incurred by the department are shown in Table 12. The rise in maintenance
expenses of $391,367 is primarily due to growing automotive repair costs,
which have increased by 82.6 percent during the designated period. Largely
because of the greater relative increase of contractual costs and maintenance
costs, labor expense as a percentage of total expense has fallen from 77
percent in 1968 to 68.6 percent in 1972.
The capital expenditures shown in Table 11 are for the acquisition of
office furniture and equipment. Large capital expenditures, other than for
new vehicles, are always financed through bond issues. Table 13 presents
the various projects for which bonds were issued in the last five years. In
fact, some of these issues are more than five years old, but the data pre-
vented a full disclosure of the year they were floated and their original amount.
The new equipment requested by the Department of Solid Waste Manage-
mant is shown in Table 14. The new rear loaders are replacement vehicles
for 1967 and 1968 models.
60
-------
TABLE 12
MONTHLY SPONSORSHIP PAYMENTS
Sponsorships
Sponsorships (Cont.)
Afton Oaks
746. 58
Memorial Plaza
307. 74
Ashford Community Assn., Inc.
1,275.12
Memorial Trails
67.62
Ashford Forest Maintenance Fund
190. 44
Memorial Way
93 84
si’ford West Community Assn.
478. 86
Nottingham Forest
859. 74
uturnn Oaks Civic Club
110.40
Nottingham IV Maintenancc Assu.
212.52
va1on
430.56
Nottingham Maintenance Fund
441.60
Brachurn Valley
114.54
Nottingham West
462.30
Bracburn Valley Home Owners Assn
735.54
Pine Shadows
169.74
Rri rh nd
78
Pinew d
96. 80
Briarcroft
396. 06
Piney Point
46. 92
3riardalc
27.60
River Forest Civic Assn.
66.24
3riargrove
1,239.24
River Oaks
2,183.16
l3riargrove Park
1,335.84
Royden Oaks
284.28
Briarmeadow
887. 34
Rustling Oaks
173. 88
Burker Hill Woods
38.64
Rustling Pines
173.88
Charnwood
109.02
Sandalwood
241.50
)el Monte II
70. 38
Sherwood Forest
149. 04
3arden Oaks
974. 28
Sleepy Hollow Woods
20. 70
Gaywood
164.22
Tanglewood
1,479.36
Hur it]eigh
89.70
TealwoodI1omeo vners Assn.
110.40
ndian Trail Mainteiiance Fund
51.06
Thornwood Fund, Inc.
505.08
Lakeview Civic Club
125.58
Walnut Bend
1,264.08
r,
Li Lv.’o3J C c Uu
197.34
West Oakb 1
24.84
Loi 1 gwoods Homes Association
60. 72
West Oaks l/Z
30. 36
Aanire Civic Club, Inc.
77.28
West Oaks 1/3
22. 08
4aplewood West
338. 10
Westchester Owners Committee, Inc.
506. 56
Memorial Bend
499. 56
Whispering Oaks
201. 48
Memorial Forest
459. 54
Wilchester
830. 76
Woodland Hollow
48. 30
Wilchester West, 1 & 2
710. 70
Yorkshire
212.52
\Villow Bend
1,021.20
Lake Houston
1,223.25
Willow Meadows
1, 120. 56
112,883.37
j26 . 762. 13
61
-------
TABLE 13
GARLAGE DISPOSAL BOND FUND
- Engineering incidental to constructing an Incinerator on Homes Road
- Purchase of land for Reed Road Sanitary Fill Site
- Consfrnchng two 400-ton per day incinerators on Holmes Road
- Purch sc of fly ash removal equipment for Incinerator on Reed Road
- Purchase of induced draft fans for garbage Incinerator on Holmes Road
- Purchase of land for Keiley Strcct Incincrator Site
- Engineering incidental to Utility Lines to Incinerators and Compost
Plant Sites
- Mechanical and electrical construction at Holmes Road Incinerator
- Constructing the Garbage Division Headquarters Building at North-
east Service Center -
- Engineering incidental to constructing a refuse incinerator
- Two refuse cranes for new incinerator
- Bond and Legal Expenses
- Modification of air-pollution system at Holmes Road Incinerator
- Draft Fans for Holmes Road Incinerator
- Enginceiing incidental to disposal of solid wastes
- Modification to Holmes Road Incinerator
- Soil investigation incidental to sanitary fill near Sheldon
- Engineering incidental to sanitary fill sites
- Purchase of sanitary fill site on Homestead Road
- Purchase of land for Holmes Road sanitary fill site
- Purchase of land for Transfer Station A on S. W. Freeway
between Westpark and Ulirich
- Soil investigation to Tidwell Road sanitary fill site
- Purchase of buildings for use as equipment storage for refuse
depa rtrncnt
- Rental of office space for Land Acquisition Department
- Modification of inlet ducts and draft outlets at Holmes Road
Incinerator
- Engineering service in connection with Holmes Road Incinerator
- Architectural fee incidental to remodeling of Bcechnut Compost Plant
- Neighborhood incinerators at city- furnished sites under contract to
Houston Natural Gas Corporation
62
-------
TABLE 14
c iry OF HOUSTON
NEW EQUIPMENT REQUEST
Date 1-3-73
Department Solid Waste Management
Page 6
Di vie ion
0 ’
No. of
Units
Type Vehicle Requested - Describe Fully
Cost Per
Unit
Total
Cost
One unit must be turned in f,r each new unit. List shop
number, year and make, mileage and to whom assigned.
8
Automobiles - Fordors
2. 500
20, 000
951 1968 Plymouth 94, 000
1013 ‘ ‘ 72.000
1025 “ 105 000
1027 ‘ 75 000
1037 “ ‘ 58 000
1040 “ 98 000
1069 “ “ 68,000
1394 1969 Ford 70,000
4
1/2 Ton Pickups Long Wheelbase
2,100
8.400
301 1967 Dodge
306
378 1968 Ford
1119
2
12 Cu. Yd. Tandem Axle Dump Trucks
10. 000
20, 000
New Equipment to be used for hauling ashes at
Mini-Incinerators.
1
Tractor with 60” Rotary Mower Attachment
3, 000
3, 000
New Equipment to cut grass at all locations.
40
20 Cu. Yd. Rear Loading Packer
Garbage Trucks
14, 000
560, 000
To Replace 23, 1967 Models and 17, 1968 Models.
12
6 Cu. Yd. Containers
350
4,200
To be used with Lo-Dal Front Loading Garbage Trucks.
-------
APPENDICES
64
-------
APPENDIX A
ENABLING ORDINANCE
65
-------
MAYOR’S OFFICE
HOUSTON, TEXAS
.19 71
Honorable City Council of the City of Houston
City Hall
Gentlemen:
In accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of Houston, I submit to you the follow-
ing ordinance with the request that it be passed finally on the date of its introduction. There exists a
public emergency requiring such acti’n and I accordingly request that you pass the same if it meets with
your approval.
Yours very truly,
Mayor vIelch,Coun , .jlmen Mc’Knskle,
d. L1JtIT& ,
L L1nenMcLen re & Cottlieb out j or of the City of Houston.
- - — - -
sta81I I
AN ORDINA CL CI EAT1 C A NEW DEPARTMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF
HOUSTON TO BE DESIGNATED THE DEPARTMENT or SOLID WASTE IANAGEMENT
OF TUE CITY OF hOUSTON; PROVIDING FOR A I)IRECTOR TO BE TIlE HEAD
OF SUCH DEPARTME\F; PRESCRIBING THE DUTIES AN!) FUNCTIONS OF SUCH
DEPAR1MFNT; PROV1I)ING AUTHORITY FOR CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDtJRFS; AND DEC!.ARING AN rMERC .ENcy.
* * * a * *
BE IT ORDAINER BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TUE CITY OF HOUSTON:
Section 1. There is hereby created a department of the City
of Houston to be designated the Department of Solid Waste Management
of the City of Houston.
Section 2. The head of the Department of Solid Waste Management
of the City of Houston shall be the Director of such department who
shall be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council.
Section 3. The Department of Solid Waste Management of the
City of Houston and such employees as arc assigned to such department
shall be charged with the following duties:
(a) to supervise and be responsible for the collection,
transportation and disposal of solid waste.
(b) to carry out the policies of the Mayor and City
Council in the overall planning effort to develop
a reliable and efficient method for solid waste
.disposal.
-------
(c) such other duties and rcsponsibilities as may
be assigned by the Mayor and City Council of the
City of Houston.
Section 4. The Mayor, the City Controller, the City Treasurer,
the heads of City departments and all other concerned officers and
employees are hereby authorized to initiate and carry out the
necessary administrative procedures to effect the establishment of such
department of Solid Waste Management.
Section 5. There exists a public emergency requiring that this
ordinance be passed finally on the date of its introduction, and the
Mayor having in writing declared the existence of such emergency
and requested such passage, this ordinance shall be passed finally
—
on the date of its introduction, this the ___ day of C/- r-i- ’ ’ ,
192.’, and shall take effect in ncdiately upon its passage and
approval by the Mayor.
,
PASSLD this ____ day of . . I , A. 0. 1971.
APPROVED this ____Ctday of ‘ .‘ , .. , A. D. 1971.
i L
of the City of Houston
APPROVED:
Assistant City Attorney
67
-------
APPENDIX B
PETITION AND RESPONSE
68
-------
PETITION TO MAYOR WELCH
TO: Mayor Welch and the City Council
We, the undersigned employees of the Refuse Division would like to
petition you on the following proposals;
1. We would like for, you to hire a director or appoint an acting director
for the new department named Solid Waste Disposal and to activate this
newly formed department.
2. We would like for you to put the repair shops serving this division
under the department and promote someone in the department to Super-
visor over the shops.
3. We would like equipment to clean and maintain the vehicles of the
department.
4. We would like an adequate number of men to service the equipment
properly.
5. We would like an adjustment in the Foremen per day rate of pay.
6. We would like a new set of ordinances to work by without exceptions.
7. We would like personnel to operate the heavy trash trucks which are badly
needed to be in service.
8. We would like for all heavy trash trucks to be reorganized under the new
department with two additional Foreman over all heavy trash trucks
instead of being divided among approxirr.ately fifteen supervisors.
9. We would like a provision made so men disabled while working in this
department be transferred to a division where they could earn their
living and keep their benefits.
10. We would like for you to put all employees in this new department on a
five day week to stop descension and work slow down among six day
employees.
11. We are not presenting an ultimatum or demanding these proposals. We
are only asking they be given immediate attention and consideration as
we are in desperate need of changes and revisions within the division.
It would be foolish to start any changes or make plans, now, as they
may conflict with the plans of the new Director.
69
-------
REPLY FROM MAYOR WELCH
Concerning the petition you recently sent me, I shall reply to your proposals in
the order listed therein:
1. We are very close to hiring a director and the appointment will be made
within the next few weeks.
2. An architect has been commissioned to convert the Beechnut Compost
plant into a garage and maintenance center. Garbage trucks will be
housed and maintained at this location. The garage will still be under
the Public Works Department, however, mechanics will be assigned to
maintaining the Garbage trucks in a section to be set aside for this
purpose only.
3. A steam cleaning unit will be installed at the Beechrtut location. If this
unit proves satisfactory, others will be installed.
4. We have money in this year’s budget for additional-men. More will be
added ,hen the Beech-nut location is completed.
5. This has been done.
6. This has been requested and is being studied.
7. InstructionS have been issued to employ such personnel.
8. This will be considered by the new department head.
9. If weare given the names and requests for such transfers, each case will
be considered.
10. City Council has approved time and one half pay for all employees who
work over 40 hours.
70
-------
APPENDIX C
SOLID WASTE ORDINANCE
Reproduced from -
best available copy.
71
-------
Chapter 20
GARBAGE AND TRASH t
Art. 1. In General, § 20.1—20.24
.%rt. II. Pri ate Haulers, § 20-25—20.41
Div. 1. Generally, § 20-25——20-33
Div. 2. Vehicle License, § 20-34—20-41
Article I. In General
Sec. 20-1. Definitions.
As used in this chapter, unless the context dearly requires
otherwise:
Director means the director of the department of public
works and engineering of the city.
Division means the refuse division of the department of
public works and engineering.
Garbage means all animal or vegetable matter, such as
waste material and refuse from kitchens, residences, grocery
stores, butcher shops, restaurants, hotels, rooming and board-
ing houses, and other deleterious substances and any other
matter commonly understood to be garbage.
Trash means rubbish, such as feathers, coffee grounds,
ashes, tin cans, paper, boxes, glass, grass, shrubs, yard clean-
ings, grass clippings, leaves and tree trimmings, and any
other matter commonly understood to be trash.
Vehicle means every device in or by which any person or
property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public
highway. (Code 1958, § 17-1)
Sec. 20-2. To be placed in containers; container specifications.
(a) Except as provided in subsection (c), garbage and
trash shall be placed in containers of not more than thirty
Charter reference—Regulation and disposal of garbage, Art. U, § 7.
Cross references—Deposit of garbage or waste at airport prohibited,
9.32; accumulations of flammable or combustible waste or rubbish,
18-10; burning rubbish and trash, § 18-14 et seq.; dumping or accuniu
lating garbage and trash so as to afford food or harborage for rats
prohibited, § 21-84; disposal of garbage and refuse at trailer parks, I
47-24.
72
-------
20-2 HOUSTON CODE 20-2
(30) gallons capacity. The combined weight of the garbage
and trash and container shall nc t exceed one hundred (100)
pounds.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (c), the container
shall be a watertight receptacle of a solid and durable grade
of metal and shall be provided with suitable handle or handles
on the outside. It shall have a tightly fitting metal cover
equipped with a handle, or a canvas cover made of not less
than nine (9) ounce canvas, properly water-proofed and
mildew-proofed, and constructed with a rubber band encased
in a loop of the cover so as to hold the cover tightly against
the top of the container to prevent cockroaches, flies, and
other vermin from entering or leaving the container. The
canvas cover must have suitable fasteners or snaps for at-
taching to the handle of the container so that the top can be
removed for emptying the container, but so that it remains
attached to the handle and cannot be misplaced or blown
away. The fasteners or snaps shall be of such design that
the cover can readily be detached from the handle for wash-
ing and cleaning.
(c) Disposable bags or containers made of plastic film or
of any other synthetic or natural organic material which has
sufficient strength and quality to securely contain a capacity
of not less than twenty (20) nor more than thirty-five (35)
gallons of household refuse or garbage may be used in lieu
of the containers required by subsections (a) and (b) ; pro-
vided that, no such container shall be sold, used, or placed
at the curb for collection without prior approval of the
specific type of container by the manager of the refuse
division. The approval of any such bag or container may
be revoked by the manager of the refuse division at any time,
provided a finding has been made that the bag or container
is of inferior quality to the extent that it vill not comply
with the requirements of this subsection. (Code 1958, §
17-3; Ord. No. 67-1015, § 1, 5.31-67)
Cross references—Garbage and trash receptacles at convalescent
homes, § 14-23; garbagc and refuse receptacles at piers and in public
areas at Lake Houston, § 24-31.
73
-------
20-3 GARBAGE AND TRASH * 20-6
Sec. 20.3. Condemnation of defective containers.
Garbage and trash containers that have deteriorated to
the extent of having jagged or sharp edges capable of caus-
ing injury to the garhage collectors or others whose duty it
is to handle the containers, or to such an extent that the lids
will not fit tightly or securely, will be condemned by the city,
acting through the manager of the refuse division. (Code
1958, § 17-3)
Sec. 20-4. Overloading containers.
The contents of any garbage or trash container which is so
overloaded that the lid will not fit securely on the container
will not be picked up by the garbage collectors. The contents
of any garbage or trash container which, with the container,
weigh more than one hundred (100) pounds will not be picked
up by the garbage collectors. (Code 1958, § 17-4)
Sec. 20-5. Placement of containers for collection.
Any person desiring to place garbage or trash for col-
lection shall place the container on or near the curb line in
front of his residence or in a paved alleyway adjacent to
such residence not later than eight o’clock a.m. on those days
designated by the proper authorities of the city for the
collection of garbage. After the garbage and trash has been
collected by the collector, the owners of the containers shall
remove the same immediately from the space between the
sidewalk and curb line or from the alleyway not later than
eight o’clock p.m. of the day that such garbage has been
collected, and no person shall leave any garbage or trash
container empty or otherwise in the space between the side-
walk and curb line, or in an alleyway, between the hours of
eight o’clock p.m. and six o’clock a.m.
It shall be unlawful for any person to place any disposable
container provided for in section 20.2 (c) at the curb for
collection without having securely bound or stapled the open
end of the container in such a manner as to render the con-
tents thereof inaccessible to flies, rodents, insects and dogs.
(Code i 58, 17.5; Ord. No. 67-1015, § 1, 5-31-67)
74
-------
20-6 HOUSTON CODE 20-9
Sec. 20-6. Molesting or disturbing containers.
It shall be unlawful for any person to molest, remove,
handle or othei-wise disturb garbage or trash containers
or contents which have been placed on city property for
servicing by the garbage collectors; provided, that this sec-
tion does not apply to the owner, occupant, lessee or tenant
of the residence or dwelling so placing the container and
contents. (Code 1958, § 17-6)
Sec. 20-7. Preparation of tree trimmings and hedge cuttings
for collection.
Any person desiring to place tree trimmings or hedge
cuttings for collection shall cause the same to be securely
tied in bundles not heavier than seventy-five (75) pounds
nor more than five (5) feet in length and eighteen (18)
inches in diameter. He shall not place more than two (2)
bundles for removal on any one day of collection and shall
place the same for collection in the manner and at the times
provided for the collection of garbage. (Ord. No. 61-2036,
§ 1, 11-8-61)
Sec. 20-8. Collection from business establishments in residen-
tial areas.
On any one collection day, the garbage collectors will pick
up the contents of not to exceed three (3) garbage and trash
containers complying with this article from filling stations,
grocery stores, restaurants, laundries or other business es-
tablishments in residential areas under the same conditions
and provisions prescribed for a residence or dwelling. (Code
1958, § 17-8)
Sec. 20-9. Removal of rubbish from business premises.
Rubbish shall be removed from all business premises e ery
day, and as often as deemed necessary by the health officer,
(Code 1958, § 17-11)
75
-------
§ 20-10 GARBAGE AND TRASH 20-12
Sec. 20-10. Collection of dead animals.
(a) Dead animals not in excess of one hundred (100)
pounds will be picked up by the garbage collectors on regu-
lady designated days of collection, but in no event shall the
person having such dead animal allow it to remain undisposed
of for a period longer than twelve (12) hours. In the event
a dead animal must be disposed of on a day other than the
regularly designated collection day, the refuse division shall
be notified at the city hail between the hours of eight o’clock
a.m. and four o’clock p.m. Dead animals shall not be placed
in garbage containers.
(b) Dead animals in excess of one hundred (100) pounds
will be removed by the refuse division at the owner’s expense,
upon the payment of a fee of fifteen dollars ( 15.00), which
fee shall be in addition to any other garbage collection fee.
The city Will not pick up dead animals from places making a
business of treating, handling or disposing of animals. (Code
1958, § 17-9)
Sec. 20-11. Placement for collection of debris other than gar-
bage and trash.
Any person desiring to dispose of any waste, debris or
other substance not coming within the definition of garbage
or trash as provided in this article, and who desires to place
the same between the curb line and the sidewalk for collection
by private collectors, or by himself, must securely tie or wrap
the same so that the contents cannot become scattered upon
the streets of the city. Such waste, debris or other substance
shall not be left between such sidewalk and curb line more
than two (2) hours. (Code 1958, § 17-10)
Sec. 20-12. Dumping restricted; permits for use of property
as dumping grounds.
It shall be unlawful for any person to dump, unload, dis-
charge, or in any other manner place or cause to be placed,
any raw garbage or organic matter on any lot, tract or parcel
of land located within the city limits, except at garbage
dumps or dumping grounds which are owned, maintained,
Supp No 1
76
-------
§ 20-12 HOUSTON CODE 20-12.1
operated oi authorized by or under contract with the city.
It shall be unlawful for any owner, lessee or person in control
of any real property within the corporate boundaries of the
city to cause or permit the dumping, unloading, discharging
or placing or causing to be placed of any raw garbage or
organic matter on any such property, except that the director
of pubhc health may grant written permits allowing the
use of designated premises as garbage dumps or dumping
grounds where the following minimum public health and
safety standards are met:
(1) The dumping, unloading, discharging or placing of
refuse shall not take place within two hundred (200)
yards of any man-made structure used for human habi-
tation; provided however, that this restriction shall be
applicable only to man-made structures which were in
existence at the time the director of public health
issued the written permit authorizing use of the partic-
ular land for a dump or dumping grounds.
(2) The dur.iping, unloading, discharging or placing of
refuse shall not be allowed in any location when it is
determined by the director of public health or his
agent that by so allowing it would cause or tend to
cause pollution, contamination or any other undesirable
effect upon subsurface waters located in the area of
the proposed dump or dumping grounds.
(3) All such garbage, trash, refuse or other waste ma-
terials shall be processed and treated in accordance
with rules and standards promulgated by the state
department of health. (Code 1958, § 17-12; Ord. No.
69-1136, § 1, 7-1-69)
Amendment note—Ord. No. 69-1136, § 1, amended § 20-12 by adding
the provisions authorizing permits to use property as dumping giounds.
Sec. 20-12.1. Re ocation of permit to use property as dump-
ing ground.
If, after the issuance of a written permit allowing a certain
property to be used as a dump or dumping grounds, a sub-
sequent inspection by the health department reveals that the
minimum public health and safety standards are not being
complied with, the director of public health shall issue notice
Supp No 3
77
-------
20-12.1 GARBAGE AND TRASH * 20-13
to the permit holder setting out the nature of the deficiency
and requiring compliance within twenty-four (24) hours of
the time notice is given. If compliance Is not attained within
the period allowed, the director of public health may revoke
the permit. Upon a second finding of the same or a similar
violation, the director of public health may, without notice,
revoke the permit. (Ord. No. 69-1136, § 2, 7-1-69)
Editor’s note—Ord. No. 69-1136, § 2—4 did not expressb’ an’ cnd
this Code, hence codification as § 20-12.1—20-12.3 was at the discretion
of the editors. The editors Inserted section references to niaintaln Code
format.
Sec. 20-12.2. Sections 20-12 through 20-12.3 declared cumula-
five.
Sections 20-12 through 20-12.3 shall be cumulative of and
in addition to all other provisions in Article I of this chapter
and shall never be construed to have repealed any provision
of said Article I by implication or to have affected any acts
or proceedings undertaken by virtue of any such provision
of Article I. (Ord. No. 69-1136, § 3, 7-1-69)
Note—See the editor’s note following § 20-12.1.
Sec. 20-12.3. Penalties for violations of sections 20.12 through
20-12.2.
Any violation of sections 20-12 through 20-12.2 by any
person, firm or private corporation, shall upon conviction,
subject the offender to a fine of not less than ten dollars
($10.00) and not more than two hundred dollars ($200.00),
and each day of any such violation shall be treated as a
separate offense. (Ord. No. 69-1136, § 4, 7-1-69)
Note—See the editor’s note following § 20-12.1.
Sec. 20-13. Deposit on streets, alleys or other public property.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to throw, dispose
or place any stable manure, hulls, peelings, handbills or other
deposits or litter upon sidewalks, streets or other public
places in the city.
(b) No garbage, trash, paper, ashes, rubbish, old auto-
mobile parts or junk of any nature whatsoever shtll be
thrown or deposited in any street or alley, or upon any side-
Supp No 6
78
-------
* 20-13 HOUSTON CODE 20-14
walk, or between any curb and sidewalk, or on any other
public property in the city, and the presence of any such
upon any street or alley shall be held to constitute a violation
of this section on the part of the owner or occupant of the
property on whose half of the street or alley such commodities
are permitted to lie for twenty-four (24) hours.
(c) It shall be unlawful for any person, the owner, lessee
or occupant of any house, building or place fronting on a
public street of the city to permit any paper or trash to be
or remain in such street opposite such premises at any point
between the line of such property and the center of the street.
(Code 1958, § 17-13----17-16)
Cross refcrence—Stzecta generally, Ch. 41.
Sec. 20-14. Burning of garbage prohibited; exception.
It shall be unlawful for any person to burn, or cause to be
burned, or permit the burning of, within the city, in a place
other than an incinerator constructed and operated in com-
pliance with Chapter 65 of the City of Houston Building Code,
any and all refuse accumulation of animal, food or vegetable
matter, liquid or otherwise, that attends the preparation, use,
cooking, dealing in, or storing of meat, fish, fowl, fruit, or
vegetables, whether the same is from kitchens, residences,
grocery stores, butcher shops, restaurants, hotels, motels, or
rooming and boarding houses. (Code 1958, § 17-7; Ord. No.
59-190, § 1, 2-17-59; Ord. No. 70-722, § 1, 5-19-70)
Amendment note—Ord. No. 70-722, § 1, amended § 20-14 to permit
burning of garbage in an incinerator constructed and operated as pio-
vided in said section.
Cross reference—Regulations governing burning of trash and refuse,
§ 18-14 et seq.
Supp No. 6
pa905
79
------- |