The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1920-03-13
CITY TO IMPROVE IT'S
PLAN Of GARBAGE
DISPOSAL At ONCE

The department OF public welfare
will in a few days ask for bids for the
| disposal OF the city garbage. fnis step
is taken as the result OF a comprehen-
sive survey of the situation. and is in
line with the plan OF the director of
the department to proceed along the
| most economical as well as the most
perfect line.
DIR. r. c. Levy. director of public
welfare, has transmitted to Mayor
Ainslie the report recently submitted
to the director by 1. 8. Osborn. con-
sulting engineer, OF Cleveland, Ohio.
This report covers a study of garbage
disposal in the city-of Richmond.
! AS stated by him in hts letter to
| the mayor, DIR. Levy has, from the
| time Of entering ONCE last year. had
| In mind the necessity Of such study.
disposes Of its garbage by incinera-
| ton while a number OF other cities
recover certain value from their
garbage, either by what Is known as
| the reduction method or by using 1t
for feeding hogs.
DR.. Levy brings ont the point that.
In view Of the number of large cities
which employ the reduction method.
1t was imperative that . special study
q
to determine, first of ALL whether this
method was applicable to Richmond.
BY reduction, the products which are
recovered are grease, which Is used
for a number OF purposes. and tank
age, which is used as fertilizer.
Mr.. Osborn's report considers five
projects. az follows:
Project A IL our present method OF
collection and disposal.
n {e IN mr.
except that it provides for an addi-
tional incinerating plant.
Project provides for the sale OF
garbage to an outside individual or
concern for feeding purposes.
Project D provides for the city's
establishing and conducting reduc-
ton plant
self establishing and conducting a
piggery.
| In discussing the cost Of each OF
these projects. the cost OF disposal of
ashes and trash (Which is $4,000 a
year, is included, although this item
| is not affected by the above systems
Of garbage disposal and remains con-
start under each project.
Project A. which is the present
method. costs the city each syear as
| follows.
Collection OF garbage ...$ $4,000 90
Disposal OF garbage $50. $4,000 90
Collection and disposal of
OF ashes and rubbish. $4,000 90
Total :. .~........31 $4,000 90
Project involves the erection OF
an additional incinerator, and il this
method Is continued an additional in
Generator will become necessary in a
very short time. This would involve
an outlay of $4,000 and would add
1870 to the present cost OF disposal.
but by reason Of shorter hauls when
there is an additional incinerator.
81 500 would be saved on collection.
SO that the net cost Of Project B
would be $z.I6o more than at present.
Under Project c the city would sell
its garbage to a concern which would
use 1t for feeding hogs 1t is impos-
sible to state just what saving this
would bring about, but even though
the city received nothing for its garb-
ago and delivered It to the contractors
At the two plants there would be a
saving of $4,000 a year, which it
costs to dispose OF the garbage by
present methods Added to this saw
ing would be whatever amount the
contractor would pay the city for the
garbage.
Under Project D the city would
erect and operate a reduction plant.
This would involve an initial capital
outlay of $350,00o. Interest and de-
probation ON this would amount to
SIS. 500, and operating expenses would
amount to $4,000, making a total
annual cost of $1e7 200. Against this
cost would be an estimated annual
revenue of $4,000 for grease. tank
age and other products, thus making
the annual net cost of the reduction
project $50. 500, which is SIT, 500 more
than our present cost OF disposal by
incineration., but as there would be
only one reduction plant. the cost of
delivery of garbage would be $4,000
more.
Mr.. Osborn's report therefore shows
that, instead OF IL being profitable tor
Richmond to erect and operate re-
duction plant, it would actually cost
$2a,500 more than our present sys-
tenn.
Project e provides for the city's
establishing and operating its own
piggery. The report shows on the
face OF It that this would be the most
profitable of the five projects which
are discussed, but the risks are very
great, and the report does not recon-
mend that the city undertake this 1t
would involve an immediate outlay of
$4,000. and the annual operating
cost, including interest and deprecia-
ton. would amount to $4s,s90.
The returns would depend entirely
on the market price of pork. Est
mated at eleven cents pound, the
annual revenue would be $4,000.
This represents an actual net revenue
OF $3,S10, against the present annual
cost OF $4,000, showing net gain of
$fS.s10 with pork sellin gat eleven
cents q pound
It Is estimated that 4so.eeo pounds
of pork would be produced each year.
so that each cents variation in the
-'~~ ut pork would equal the sum Of
$4,000.
in summing up Mr.. Osborn's re-
port, DR.. Levy states that he proposes.
now that ali this information is in
hand, to advertise for bids for the
sale OF Rfchmond's garbage. This
will be done very shortly
DR.. Levy states that it was not ad-
visable to enter into matter OF such
Importance hastily, as the re.a,ive adj
vantaEes OF all plans had first to be
carefully considered. Furthermore.
no one would contract for taking the
city's garbage for a period OF less
than five years, and this was an addi
tional reason why a very careful
study had to be made before deciding
/ ~