Date: September 13, 2024

To: Honorable Chairman Oliver G. Gilbert, III

and Members, Board of County Commissioners
From: Daniella Levine Cava
Mayor
Subject: Site Selection for a Sustainable Solid Waste Campus and Update on Miami-Dade County’s
Solid Waste Disposal Strategy

Executive Summary
Following the fire at the waste-to-energy (WTE) facility in 2023, Miami-Dade County has been faced
with an unprecedented challenge and a unique opportunity to invest in the future of our solid waste
system. A historical lack of investment in key infrastructure, including the 40-year-old WTE facility,
has led to many of the challenges our community faces today. The need to replace the WTE plant presents
an opportunity to invest in a facility with adequate space to meet the needs of our growing population,
with state-of-the-art technologies that protect human and environmental health and support our long-
term sustainability.

The administration has given enormous care and consideration to this decision. Over the past year,
County officials and staff visited cutting-edge WTE facilities in our backyard in Palm Beach as well as
in Japan and Europe. We have seen first-hand how these facilities are integrated seamlessly into urban
communities and built to protect the wellbeing of nearby residents while minimizing nuisances. We have
also consulted at length with environmental experts because protecting our environment remains a top
priority for my administration. Modern WTE plants are closely monitored by the state Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and designed
with modern odor and pollution controls to protect human health, and emissions for a new facility will
meet or exceed strict EPA air quality standards. Like Europe and Japan, Miami-Dade does not have
available land to build more landfills even if we wanted to do so. Shipping waste out of the county or
state is both more costly in the long term and increases our carbon footprint.

We believe the recommendation detailed in this memorandum – building a new Sustainable Solid Waste
Campus at the Airport West location – offers our best option to move forward in the right direction,
meeting our current and future disposal needs in the most cost-effective way while accommodating
innovative zero-waste technologies. The recommendation on location was made to provide the best
possible balance between multiple factors including cost, project timelines, and impact to residents and
natural resources. Should the Board approve this recommendation, this site will undergo extensive
permitting and regulatory approvals to further ensure the location is compatible with the need to
safeguard our community and environment. To the extent that development of the WTE facility impacts
wetlands, we recommend that the County perform a mitigation project within our watershed in Miami-
Dade as part of our commitment to protecting the environment.
Honorable Chairman Oliver G. Gilbert, III
and Members, Board of County Commissioners
Page 2

Background
On September 6, 2023, the Mayor presented to the Board of County Commissioners (Board) the Report
Related to the Development of an Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan in Miami-Dade County, a
Combined Response to Directives 222097, 230509 and 230998 (Strategy Memo). The Board accepted
the Strategy Memo and indicated that it would have further discussions at the September 19, 2023, Board
meeting. On September 19 the Mayor presented to the Board a Supplemental Memorandum to the
Strategy Memo, and Transmittal of the Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report. In
preparing the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan, the Administration worked closely with
Arcadis, the professional bond engineer for the Department of Solid Waste Management (DSWM). The
full Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report (Arcadis Report) is attached hereto as
Exhibit A. 1

On September 19, 2023, the Board adopted a Resolution directing the Mayor to present three alternate
Waste-to-Energy (WTE) sites to DEP for preliminary permit and regulatory review; directing the Mayor
to negotiate an interlocal agreement with the City of Doral (Doral) for annual contributions to partially
defray costs and fund the relocation, construction and operation of a new WTE facility outside the Doral,
subject to Board approval; and to provide a report detailing the (a) air quality modeling results, and (b)
environmental impacts and mitigation identified by the Department of Regulatory and Economic
Resources – Division of Environmental Resources Management (RER-DERM), within four to six
months of the effective date, and place the completed report on an agenda of the full Board without
committee review On April 19, 2024, the County Mayor presented to the Board a report regarding the
Three Alternate Waste-to-Energy Facility Sites Preliminary Permit and Regulatory Review, a copy of
which is attached as Exhibit B. The Report indicated that the administration would bring a
recommendation on site selection to the Board in September 2024.

On August 27, 2024, the Mayor received a Memorandum from Commissioner Juan Carlos Bermudez
forwarding an unsolicited proposal from TAF Okeechobee Solutions, LLC and West Dade Nurseries,
LLC (collectively, the Developer) concerning an exchange of land with the County for a site off
Okeechobee Road in the northwest corner of the County (the “Okeechobee site”) to accommodate a
WTE Facility (the “Proposal Memorandum”) A copy of the Proposal Memorandum is attached as
Exhibit C.

Recommendation
When making the site recommendation, we carefully weighed multiple considerations including fiscal
and economic impact and environmental impacts, while prioritizing the safety and wellbeing of the
surrounding community regardless of county boundaries. My administration urges the Board to consider
and approve the following action items, so we can move swiftly to implement the elements of the
Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan.

1
The Arcadis recommendations are also consistent with the recommendations set forth in the 2020
Update to the Solid Waste Master Plan. A link to that plan was provided in the Strategy Memo and is
provided here as well. [LINK]
Honorable Chairman Oliver G. Gilbert, III
and Members, Board of County Commissioners
Page 3

1) Authorize the Administration to take all necessary steps to implement the Administration’s
recommendation for the approval of the Airport West site for a Sustainable Solid Waste Campus.
2) Authorize and delegate authority to my Administration to take all necessary steps to proceed with
the demolition of the County’s former Resources Recovery Facility (RRF) located at 6990 NW
97th Avenue, Doral, and to repurpose this site for a transfer station.

The factors underlying this recommendation are further detailed below. Some of the highlights include:
• Preliminary air quality monitoring was most promising for Airport West compared to the other
evaluated sites
• This location offers the largest footprint of the potential sites, meaning it can accommodate a
comprehensive solid waste campus including multiple alternative zero-waste solutions
• Fewer residents reside in the nearby vicinity
• Since this site is already owned by the County and no land acquisition costs or relocations of
facilities are required, this site has the second lowest cost and second quickest timeframe for
development of the four sites

Sustainable Solid Waste Campus

The administration's recommended approach is to build out a sustainable campus that would consist of
multiple phases or components inclusive of (1) a 4,000 ton/day state-of-the-art mass burn WTE facility
and (2) other solid waste operations that will move the County toward a zero-waste future, including
organics processing, sorting and separation systems, wood recycling and mulching, and other facilities
to support diversion, repurposing, biogas harvesting and recycling. Mass-burn WTE is considered the
most common commercially viable state-of-the-art technology for conversion of solid waste to energy.
As mentioned above, modern WTE plants are closely monitored by the DEP and the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and are designed with modern odor and pollution controls to operate in a
manner that does not negatively impact human health. The proposed Mass-Burn WTE emissions will
meet or exceed strict EPA air quality standards. The power generated by the WTE facility could also
be used to reduce the County’s current energy consumption by powering County facilities and/or
charging electric vehicles.

Inspired by the WTE facility in neighboring Palm Beach, we are also planning to include an educational
facility to help promote zero waste initiatives and educate best practices in sustainable solid waste
management – beginning our path towards zero waste by educating future generations. We will ensure
transparency by providing access to emissions readings similar to WTE plants overseas.

Analysis of Potential Sites

The administration, with the support of Arcadis, has conducted an in-depth analysis of the four potential
sites for the future location of the Sustainable Solid Waste Campus; these factors include evaluating
construction and operational costs, land acquisition costs (if applicable), proximity to residential
neighborhoods, location with respect to the Urban Development Boundary (UDB), impacts to the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), general environmental impacts, access to utilities,
Honorable Chairman Oliver G. Gilbert, III
and Members, Board of County Commissioners
Page 4

permitting timelines, and the financially sustainability of the solid waste system, among others. 2 All four
sites are located in County Commission District 12. Attached as composite Exhibit D are score sheets
prepared by Arcadis and County staff, enumerating the pros and cons for each of the four sites. The
sections below summarize these findings.

Figure 1- Location of all considered sites

Airport West Site

This approximately 416-acre site consists of two County-owned parcels suitable for a WTE facility; with
180 acres available for a Sustainable Solid Waste Campus, it offers the largest footprint of the potential
sites and has demonstrated the most promising preliminary air modeling results compared to the other
evaluated sites. Fewer residents reside in the nearby vicinity of this site, compared to the Doral site. The
location also offers favorable road access to US-27 and the Turnpike. Since this site is already owned by

2
In the event the Board selects the Okeechobee site, there will be some additional due diligence required, including
appraisals of the land being offered to the County and the land requested from the County in connection with the land swap.
Honorable Chairman Oliver G. Gilbert, III
and Members, Board of County Commissioners
Page 5

the County, no complicated real estate or other financial transactions with private entities or other local
jurisdictions would be required. Moreover, its ample footprint facilitates the adoption of a
comprehensive suite of additional waste disposal technologies, enabling innovative, effective waste
management practices that support sustainability and move us closer to zero-waste.

The site does present challenges. It is located outside the UDB, where water and sewer infrastructure are
limited to public health and safety uses. The site is designated as “Open Land” under the CDMP,
allowing a WTE facility only if deemed compatible and subject to prohibitions on certain groundwater
contaminating uses. This site is situated approximately 0.5 miles from residential areas and less than 0.5
miles from Miami-Dade County Agricultural zoning, which currently allows for single family housing
on minimum five-acre lots. The City of Miramar (Miramar) has formally objected to the use of this site
for a WTE facility.

The site predominantly features muck soils which are not well-suited for WTE facilities and will require
substantial site preparation. There are also potential traffic impacts and environmental concerns with
respect to wetlands and endangered species habitats. This site is adjacent to the C-9 canal there may be
implications to the CERP; compatibility with CERP and rock mining would need to be demonstrated. 3
There is also a risk of archaeological resources on site requiring a Cultural Resource Assessment Survey
(CRAS). To ensure the environmental concerns are fully addressed, the location will undergo
comprehensive permitting and regulatory approvals; and should the site be selected, the County will
undertake mitigation to minimize any environmental impacts.

The estimated construction cost is approximately $1.6 billion, including the extension of utilities and the
construction of a new transfer station, which would add approximately $50 million in capital costs and
$11.8 million annually in operational expenses. Since this site is already owned by the County and there
are no land acquisition costs or relocations of existing County facilities, this site has the second lowest
total cost of development for the WTE facility. The site also offers a development timeline of about nine
years and three months, the second shortest of the four sites.

An analysis by the Miami-Dade Aviation Department (MDAD) shows the development of a WTE
facility on this site will impact potential future use of Airport West for aviation activities. The height of
the required stack will render the north-south runway unusable under Federal Aviation Administration
regulations, but the east-west runway – where 70% of the airport traffic historically occurred – could
remain usable, meaning there is still potential for significant aviation activity on the site.

Despite the challenges of this site, the Airport West site offers an important balance between overall
project cost, timelines, and impacts to residents and natural resources. Critically important, the location
offers the largest footprint of the potential sites, meaning it can accommodate a comprehensive
sustainable solid waste campus including multiple alternative zero-waste solutions to ensure we are
planning for the future and making key investments in our infrastructure.

3
The Airport West site, as well as the Okeechobee site, are approximately eight miles northwest of the current RRF site in
Doral, near the intersection of Krome Avenue and US-27.
Honorable Chairman Oliver G. Gilbert, III
and Members, Board of County Commissioners
Page 6

Resource Recovery Facility Site (Doral)

The 157.16-acre County-owned site presents some advantages for a new WTE facility. It has a history
of previous WTE operations, allowing for advantages in the development of a facility that incorporates
current state-of-the-art standards and aesthetics. The property is located within the UDB where it is
designated as “Institutions, Utilities and Communication” under the Comprehensive Development
Master Plan (CDMP). The 55-acre developable area is adequate for the WTE facility as well as additional
facilities, with the option to expand this area to 60-70 acres through modifications to the existing
stormwater system. There is no need to build an additional transfer station if the WTE facility is rebuilt
on this site.

The site’s proximity to the 58th Street property, which already hosts DSWM operations, could further
facilitate the creation of an integrated solid waste campus. The location provides access to major roads
and highways with minimal traffic issues, and all necessary utilities are already in place, including an
adjacent electrical substation. Additionally, the site is free from wetlands, endangered species concerns
and CERP impacts, and is the most resilient site from the perspective of sea level rise. The existing 80-
acre ash monofill offers remaining airspace capacity, and previous air permits may offer potential
emissions credits for the new facility. This construction cost is approximately $1.49 billion with a
development timeline of about 7 years and 9 months (including 18 months for demolition of the old
plant).

This site does present challenges, particularly that it is located the closest to residential neighborhoods
and businesses, with adjacent communities to the north and west. Of all the proposed locations, the RRF
location has the highest number of residences in the immediate area around the site. Although those
residential communities were developed long after the former RRF was built and while it was operating,
we still need to carefully consider concerns of proximity to operations, particularly as our community
continues to grow. Doral has formally expressed its objections to the use of this site for a WTE facility.
This site is also the closest to the actual boundaries of Everglades National Park, which is an important
consideration in the air permitting process.

Medley Site
The approximately 100-acre site consists of two parcels under single private ownership and is located
inside the UDB, where it is designated as “Industrial and Office” under the CDMP, allowing the
construction of a WTE facility. The site has ample space for the proposed WTE facility and additional
solid waste campus facilities, with favorable road access to US-27 and the Turnpike. According to the
property owner, the site could also have access along the FEC rail corridor. Utilities such as electrical,
potable water, and sanitary sewers are readily available, with the City of Medley’s 12-inch water main
and an 8-inch gravity sewer line located along the property’s perimeter. The site has no CERP impacts
and would not require new transfer station costs.

Several challenges do exist. The property is privately owned and the purchase of 100 acres would cost
approximately $260 million for the sale alone. In addition to the purchase price, both the property owner
and the City of Medley require payment of annual assessments based on the quantity of solid waste
brought to the facility. This would result in an additional impact between $5 to 10 million annually for
the life of the facility. The site is close to residential communities in Medley, Doral, and Hialeah Gardens,
which may require addressing any impacts on those local communities. While the City of Medley has
Honorable Chairman Oliver G. Gilbert, III
and Members, Board of County Commissioners
Page 7

indicated its willingness to host this facility within its municipal boundaries, the City of Doral has raised
objections to this site.

The site was previously excavated as a quarry and subsequently backfilled, presenting significant
geotechnical challenges and additional site preparation costs. Natural gas utilities are not available. An
on-site lake would potentially need to be filled for usable space, presenting additional site development
costs and requirements. Preliminary air modeling is complex due to proximity of large emitters such as
the Medley Landfill and the Titan Pennsuco Facility. Significant traffic impacts are anticipated, with
potential roadway improvements and additional signaling needed. An archaeological target on the site
may require a CRAS, similar to the Airport West Site. Although there are no existing contamination
records, Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessments are still required. The estimated
construction cost is approximately $1.6 billion (not including land acquisition costs), with a lengthy
development schedule of about nine years and nine months.

Okeechobee Site
This site was submitted as an unsolicited proposal for a land swap with the County for two parcels
located on NW 58th Street between NW 87th Avenue and 97th Avenue in unincorporated Miami-Dade
County. These parcels currently house DSWM, Department of Transportation and Public Works
(DTPW) and Internal Services Department (ISD) operations and facilities, including the Stericycle
facility that handles all medical waste for the County. Maps of the two parcels are attached hereto as
Exhibit E. In exchange for these approximately 74 acres of County land, the developer would provide
the County with 65 acres of land on the Okeechobee site, as well as the design and construction costs of
replacement facilities and a public infrastructure pad with access to all the required utilities on the
Okeechobee site. As noted earlier, if the Board were to decide to move forward with this proposal, formal
appraisals would be required. The site is approximately 1.6 miles from the nearest residential area, with
sufficient space for a WTE facility (including a stormwater retention area and the roadwork for truck
ingress and egress to the site) 4. The site has good access to US-27 and the Turnpike. Although air
emissions and human health impacts have not been evaluated for this site, we do not anticipate significant
variations from the results for the Airport West site which is very close to this site.

This site, however, faces several significant drawbacks. First, there is no additional land for the other
elements of a Sustainable Solid Waste campus or the relocation of any of the County operations currently
located on NW 58th Street. The Developer has offered to provide additional land as needed; however,
the value of any additional land would be deducted from the estimated $45 million cost of the pad-ready
site and replacement structures for the relocated operations. Assuming the need for 50 to 80 additional
acres, the value of those additional acres would likely exhaust the $45 million allowance for the
construction. Moreover, breaking up the Sustainable Solid Waste campus among different locations in
the County will likely result in the loss of operational efficiencies gained by co-locating the WTE facility
with other County facilities.

The site is located outside the UDB, where water and sewer infrastructure are restricted, and is adjacent
to Miami-Dade County Agricultural zoning, which currently allows for single family housing on

4
It should be noted that Miramar has also objected to the use of this site for a WTE facility.
Honorable Chairman Oliver G. Gilbert, III
and Members, Board of County Commissioners
Page 8

minimum five-acre lots. Compatibility with CERP and rock mining would need to be demonstrated. The
site contains wetlands and potential endangered species habitats. Concerns also exist about significant
traffic impacts and greater greenhouse gas impacts due to longer waste transportation distances.
Furthermore, no on-site disposal of ash is permitted on this site; all WTE ash would need to be disposed
offsite. The relocation of the existing DTPW Road, Bridges & Canal Maintenance Division operations
at NW 58th Street to the Okeechobee site eight miles away would pose significant operational and
logistical challenges, including impacts to DTPW’s emergency response during hurricanes or extreme
weather conditions, likely resulting in increased costs and reduced service levels. Finally, the
development of a WTE facility on this site would have the same impacts to aviation activities at the
Airport West location as the location of the WTE facility on that site.

The estimated time for development is 10 years, the longest for the four sites. The estimated construction
cost is approximately $1.59 billion plus the need for a new transfer station at the current RRF site with
the corresponding $50 million in construction costs and $11.8 million annually in operational costs.
Please note that this estimate does not include the value of the land being swapped, the cost incurred by
the County to build new facilities for existing operations, or any cost incurred by the County to acquire
other properties on which to build such replacement facilities. It is estimated that the cost of constructing
the replacement facilities for dislocated County departments alone is approximately $180 million.

Additional Considerations
Reliance on Landfilling as the Primary Mechanism for Disposal of Solid Waste is Not Sustainable
Until the new WTE facility comes online, the County will use private third-party landfill operations as
the primary approach for waste disposal operations, including the transportation of solid waste by truck
and train to landfills outside of Miami-Dade. The argument has been made that the County should not
build a new WTE facility and simply rely on landfilling as the primary source for waste disposal. The
Administration has explored this option and believes that such an approach poses substantial financial
and environmental risks that make this option unsustainable and untenable.

Outsourcing the management of all County waste to private entities and out-of-County facilities weakens
our position in contract negotiations, leading to higher costs and limited control over pricing for transfer
and disposal fees. This has been the experience across the country for jurisdictions that have used this
approach. This method would also place an unnecessary strain on the County’s Disposal Fund, as
revenues would be limited primarily to transfer and facility fees and said fees would have to be set higher
to generate sufficient revenue to offset expenses, including all contract transfer and disposal costs. This
could de-incentivize municipalities to renew long-term disposal agreements, which would lead to even
more significant financial impacts on the Disposal Fund. By contrast, the construction of a state-of-the-
art WTE Facility stabilizes the cost of disposal over the 40-year life of the facility and protects the system
from major fluctuations in the market. The chart below shows the comparative fiscal impact on our solid
waste system in the long term with or without the construction of the WTE facility.
Honorable Chairman Oliver G. Gilbert, III
and Members, Board of County Commissioners
Page 9

Figure 2 – Fiscal Impact of WTE vs. No WTE

Palm Beach County, for example, which operates two WTE facilities and has very limited landfilling of
unprocessed solid waste, is able to maintain fairly stable rates for its customers.

Environmentally, landfill operations are less sustainable than alternatives like WTE facilities. Landfills
emit methane, which the EPA calls a “climate super-pollutant,” that is far more potent than carbon
dioxide and is believed to be responsible for one-third of the warming from greenhouse gases. The heavy
reliance on trucking and rail also contributes to a bigger carbon footprint through the long-haul transport
of waste. These emissions, along with the high costs associated with landfill disposal, make this approach
incompatible with the County’s sustainability goals.

Addressing Health and Environmental Concerns

Residents are understandably concerned about the safety of any WTE facility in the County. We want to
assure the public that we will build a WTE that is safe for humans and the environment. Modern WTE
facilities produce extremely low levels of emissions which are strictly regulated by the EPA and DEP,
and the county plans to meet or exceed strict EPA air quality standards. Additionally, the County retained
Arcadis to conduct preliminary qualitative human health and ecological screening level risk assessments
on three of the sites. There were two key findings:

1) With respect to human health, all three sites have low risk with results within or below the
regulatory established risk levels. To paraphrase the cover letter summary from Arcadis on the
Honorable Chairman Oliver G. Gilbert, III
and Members, Board of County Commissioners
Page 10

report, the worst-case health risk level at all three sites is below the risk posed by simply walking
down the street and breathing air that includes car exhaust.
2) From an ecological perspective, the report found that “the potential ecological risks associated
with air emissions at the three proposed locations are minimal and should not have an impact on
the surrounding ecological communities.”

These findings did not take into account the stricter standards that the EPA has proposed for new WTE
facilities, which should produce even better results. As mentioned on page eight, although air emissions
and human health impacts have not been evaluated for the Okeechobee Site, we do not anticipate
significant variations from the results for the Airport West site which is approximately .25 miles south
of the Airport West Site.

RER-DERM was also asked to perform an analysis of environmental impacts and required mitigation
for the Airport West Site. To the extent that development of any WTE facility or Sustainable Solid Waste
campus impacts wetlands, we recommend that the County commit to performing a mitigation project
within Miami-Dade through the acquisition and/or restoration of wetlands rather than take the option to
pay into a mitigation bank (which may not actually serve to restore wetlands within our watershed).

Transfer Station
Given the distance between residential neighborhoods and the proposed sites, both the Airport West and
Okeechobee locations would add at least eight miles to each of our solid waste collection routes, making
a transfer station essential. Additionally, third-party haulers serving commercial and residential
customers would find it impractical to drive directly to these sites. To ensure efficient waste collection,
reduce traffic congestion, and minimize emissions, constructing a new transfer station will be necessary
if either of these sites is selected. A new transfer station in the vicinity of the RRF Site will enhance
logistics, lower costs, improve safety, and support future zero waste diversion efforts. 5

Unlike our existing transfer stations, some of which are now over 40 years old, new transfer stations
incorporate important features to mitigate concerns of nearby communities, including:

Line of Sight – Visually pleasing perimeter wall design along with vegetation will provide a
buffer. Building design can incorporate architectural features which integrate with the
surrounding community.

Odors – The enclosed transfer building operation activities with staging, receiving area, and
loading areas will include a negative pressure system with activated carbon filtration to control
potential odors. An odor control misting system at the building perimeter with a neutralizing
agent will help mitigate fugitive odors.

5
This new Transfer Station represents an additional $50 million in upfront construction costs and nearly $12 million
annually in additional operational and waste transfer costs. Those costs would increase if the Transfer Station were not
located on the RRF site, and would instead be built on property to be acquired by the County.
Honorable Chairman Oliver G. Gilbert, III
and Members, Board of County Commissioners
Page 11

Noise – The perimeter walls surrounding the transfer station building along with fast door
systems at ingress and egress to the building will mitigate noise concerns. All loading and
offloading activities will be performed within the enclosed building.

Traffic Control – Features such as sufficient queueing lanes for inbound vehicles, auto-attendant
scale systems to minimize wait times, and multiple lanes inside the building for offloading will
help efficient traffic flow.

When we consider where a transfer station could be located (e.g., the existing RRF site), it is important
to keep in mind the lessened impacts of modern transfer stations.

Maintaining Concurrency During Construction of the WTE Facility

To maintain adequate system capacity as the various components of the Sustainable Solid Waste Campus
come online, DSWM will rely on its agreements with Waste Management (WM) and Waste Connections
(WC) for private landfill disposal. These contracts help the County extend the life of its own landfills,
meet concurrency requirements, and ensure the financial health of the system. DSWM has been working
over the last several months with WM and WC to negotiate additional private landfill capacity. To date,
DSWM has secured a letter agreement with WC for an additional 300,000 tons subject to their contract
being re-negotiated by March 2025. Additionally, the Board on September 4, 2024, approved a revised
agreement with WM that increases the County’s disposal capacity to 2.7 million tons per year through
September 30, 2035, with two 10-year options to renew. This will ensure our compliance with
concurrency pending the construction and placement into operation of the WTE facility.

Development of a Zero Waste Plan

The administration is committed to building a more environmentally sustainable and resilient waste
system, which is a key reason we are seeking a WTE site with adequate space to incorporate zero-waste
technologies. The Office of Resilience (OOR) is currently procuring a consultant to develop a Zero
Waste Master Plan, which will outline best practices being employed in other communities to reduce
waste, increase recycling rates, and divert organics, including yard waste and food waste away from
landfills while considering our unique capacity requirements and local and state laws and regulations.
The recommendations around zero waste technologies and practices in this Master Plan will be
incorporated into the Sustainable Solid Waste Campus.

There are some who advocate that the County should not build a WTE facility and instead simply focus
on zero-waste initiatives. The reality is that there are few, if any, examples of large communities that
have successfully diverted all their waste from both landfills and waste-to-energy facilities. Further,
Miami-Dade generates waste at a per capita rate that is nearly twice the national average, a problem
exacerbated by millions of visitors who do not typically practice sustainable behaviors when they are
here Other options such as composting become difficult due to our high-water table and our reliance on
our water aquifers, particularly with the presence of forever chemicals, including per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and many of the same siting concerns as with a WTE facility. Even
in California, which is seen as a leader in zero waste, the state places more waste in landfills annually
than any other state and its per capita landfill waste totals place it in the top ten in the country.
Honorable Chairman Oliver G. Gilbert, III
and Members, Board of County Commissioners
Page 12

Finally, the administration believes that a WTE facility is part of a successful zero waste strategy.
Currently, the County disposes of slightly more than 2 million tons of waste annually, representing less
than 50% of all the waste generated in the County. While we have a legal right under state law to enact
a flow control policy that would require that all waste come to us for disposal, we have never exercised
that right due to a lack of capacity to process all waste. By building a WTE facility capable of processing
4,000 tons daily, our goal is to divert waste from landfills. If successful, we could potentially in the
future require that more waste generated in the County come through our system. Eventually we may
reach a point when we no longer need to landfill and could potentially provide diversion of waste
opportunities to our neighboring counties in a true spirit of a regional system. In the meantime, we will
rely on tested, proven technology that will ensure we can meet our concurrency requirements while
disposing of waste in the most sustainable way currently possible.

Conclusion
The decision about where to place a new waste-to-energy facility is an extremely complex and
challenging one that the administration has carefully weighed from all possible angles to arrive at this
recommendation. Considering cost, timelines, impacts to the surrounding communities and environment,
and our long-term sustainability, we believe that developing a new Sustainable Solid Waste Campus at
the Airport West location presents our best available option to invest in the future of Miami-Dade's solid
waste system.

Attachments

Exhibit A: Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report (Arcadis Report)
Exhibit B: Report re: the Three Alternate Waste-to-Energy Facility Sites Preliminary Permit and Regulatory Review
Exhibit C: Unsolicited Proposal
Exhibit D: Pros/Cons List for Potential Sites
Exhibit E: Map of DSWM and DTPW Facilities (58th Street)

c: Geri Bonzon-Keenan, County Attorney

Gerald Sanchez, First Assistant County Attorney
Jess McCarty, Executive Assistant County Attorney
Office of the Mayor Senior Staff
Aneisha Daniel, Director, DSWM
Theresa Therilus, Interim Chief, Office of Policy and Budgetary Affairs
Yinka Majekodunmi, Commission Auditor
Basia Pruna, Director, Clerk of the Board
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A

Miami-Dade County
Department of Solid Waste Management

Preliminary Solid Waste

System Siting Alternatives
Report
August 2023
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Contents
Executive Summary........................................................................................................................................... ES-1
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1-1
2 Preliminary Future WTE Facility Siting Evaluation Update ...................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Applied Screening Criteria .................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Evaluated Sites ..................................................................................................................................... 2-6
3 Considerations For A Zero Waste Management Strategy ...................................................................... 3-15
3.1 Zero Waste Overview ......................................................................................................................... 3-15
3.1.1 Concept and Goals ......................................................................................................................... 3-15
3.1.2 Zero Waste Strategy in U.S. Municipalities .................................................................................. 3-16
3.2 Overview of the Current Miami-Dade Solid Waste System ............................................................ 3-21
3.2.1 The County’s Waste Stream .......................................................................................................... 3-21
Waste Quantity Factors - Population and Economic Activity .......................................... 3-22
Waste Composition ............................................................................................................... 3-22
3.2.1.2.1 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) ........................................................................................... 3-23
3.2.1.2.2 Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste ..................................................................... 3-23
3.2.1.2.3 Miami-Dade County Waste Composition ......................................................................... 3-24
3.2.2 Existing Solid Waste Operations and Facilities .......................................................................... 3-25
3.2.3 Regulatory Considerations ............................................................................................................ 3-27
Federal .................................................................................................................................... 3-27
State of Florida ...................................................................................................................... 3-27
Miami-Dade County ............................................................................................................... 3-28
3.2.3.3.1 Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) ....................................................... 3-28
3.3 Considerations for a Miami-Dade Zero Waste Strategy ................................................................. 3-31
3.3.1 Analyze Waste Streams ................................................................................................................. 3-31
3.3.2 Identify and Prioritize Materials for Recovery ............................................................................. 3-32
3.3.3 Develop Materials Control Strategy .............................................................................................. 3-32
3.3.4 Determine Collection Equipment and Processing Facilities...................................................... 3-32
Organic Wastes (Yard and Food Waste) ............................................................................. 3-32
3.3.4.1.1 Separation and Collection ................................................................................................. 3-33
3.3.4.1.2 Organics Processing ......................................................................................................... 3-34
Municipal Solid Waste .......................................................................................................... 3-38
Residential and Commercial Recyclables .......................................................................... 3-41
3.3.4.3.1 Collection ............................................................................................................................ 3-41
3.3.4.3.2 Material Recovery Facility ................................................................................................. 3-41
www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report ii
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

3.3.4.3.3 Special Consideration – Glass ......................................................................................... 3-42

C&D Wastes ........................................................................................................................... 3-43
3.3.5 Analyze Secondary Markets .......................................................................................................... 3-43
3.3.6 Zero Waste Plan and Detailed Financial Analysis ....................................................................... 3-44
3.3.7 Additional Programs ...................................................................................................................... 3-44
3.3.8 Public Communication and Stakeholder Buy-In ......................................................................... 3-44
3.3.9 Legislation ....................................................................................................................................... 3-45
3.3.10 Options for the Evaluated Sites .................................................................................................... 3-46
3.3.11 Financial Impacts............................................................................................................................ 3-53
3.3.12 Potential Funding Sources ............................................................................................................ 3-55
4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................ 4-58

Tables
Table ES.1 Site Comparison Summary ........................................................................................................... ES-4
Table ES.2 FY2021 Material Tonnages and Costs for Selected Miami-Dade County Solid Waste
Management System Facilities and Operations ........................................................................................... ES-20
Table ES.3 Estimated Additional Costs of Zero Waste Alternative Facilities Using FY2021 Tonnage Data
ES-21
Table ES.4 – Preliminary Siting Alternatives Analysis Findings ................................................................ ES-22
Table 2.1 Applied Site Screening Criteria .......................................................................................................... 2-2
Table 2.2 Site Comparison Summary ................................................................................................................. 2-9
Table 3.1 Comparison of Miami-Dade Solid Waste Management to Zero Waste Strategies in Municipalities
of Comparable Size ............................................................................................................................................ 3-17
Table 3.2 Zero Waste policies and programs implemented in different municipalities .............................. 3-20
Table 3.3 Organic Waste Processing Types .................................................................................................... 3-35
Table 3.4 MSW Waste Processing Types ......................................................................................................... 3-39
Table 3.5 Potential Development Options for the Seven Evaluated Sites .................................................... 3-46
Table 3.6 Alternative Siting Considerations for the Seven Evaluated Sites................................................. 3-48
Table 3.7 FY 2021 Material Tonnages and Costs for Selected Miami-Dade County Solid Waste
Management System Facilities and Operations .............................................................................................. 3-53
Table 3.8 Estimated Additional Costs of Zero Waste Alternative Facilities Using FY2021 Tonnage Data 3-54

Figures
Figure ES.1 Evaluated Sites Location Map ..................................................................................................... ES-3
Figure ES.2 Miami-Dade County Solid Waste Composition (FDEP) .......................................................... ES-13

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report iii
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Figure 2.1 Original Evaluated Sites Location Maps .......................................................................................... 2-6

Figure 2.2 Additional Sites A1, A2 and A3 Location Maps ............................................................................... 2-7
Figure 2.3 Evaluated Sites Location Map ........................................................................................................... 2-8
Figure 3.1 Zero Waste Hierarchy (from ZWIA) ................................................................................................. 3-15
Figure 3.2 Miami-Dade County Population Projection.................................................................................... 3-22
Figure 3.3 Miami-Dade County Per Capita Waste Generation Rate (FDEP) ................................................. 3-22
Figure 3.4 Approximate C&D Composition (From Cochran, et al (2007)). .................................................... 3-23
Figure 3.5 Miami-Dade County Solid Waste Composition (FDEP) ................................................................ 3-24
Figure 3.6 Miami-Dade County MSW Composition (University of Florida)................................................... 3-25
Figure 3.7 Three-Cart System (SF Public Works)............................................................................................ 3-33
Figure 3.8 ROTO PAC Organic Waste Collection Truck with Auger Packing System ................................ 3-34
Figure 3.9 Typical MRF Facility (Courtesy CP) ................................................................................................ 3-41
Figure 3.10 Glass Crushing Equipment (Courtesy City of Flagler Beach) ................................................... 3-42
Figure 3.11 Glass Crushed to Sand (Courtesy Aqua Tools) .......................................................................... 3-42
Figure 3.12 C&D Recycling Facility (Courtesy Lee County)........................................................................... 3-43

Appendices
Appendix A. Preliminary Future Waste-to-Energy Facility Siting Alternatives Analysis Report
Appendix B. Screening Criteria Map
Appendix C. Site Packages
Appendix D. State of the Industry Report

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report iv
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Executive Summary
Purpose and Scope
The Miami-Dade County (County) Department of Solid Waste Management (DSWM or Department), per the
Board of County Commissioners’ (Commission or BCC) motion dated March 7, 2023, was tasked to analyze and
recommend siting alternatives for a new WTE facility to replace the existing RRF, explore alternative technologies
to a WTE facility; and prepare a report regarding said analysis and recommendations, including costs and
potential funding sources. On May 16, 2023 the Commission amended the motion and changed the deadline for
the County Mayor or the Mayor’s Designee to provide the report by September 13, 2023.
The intent of the BCC direction to the DSWM was to revisit the evaluations of the four potential sites that were
identified in the Preliminary Future Waste-to-Energy Facility Siting Alternatives Analysis Report (“Siting Report”,
copy included as Appendix A) completed in June 2022 as suitable for the development of a future Waste-to-
Energy (WTE) facility and to prepare a report of findings within 90 calendar days. The report was to include
additional analysis and information on the four potential sites including environmental, traffic, and public health
effects, considering alternative technologies and facilities that may be needed to implement a Zero Waste
management strategy within the County, and high-level cost implications, a discussion of potential funding
sources, and potential Solid Waste System effects. Three additional sites (Sites A1 – Dolphin Expressway, A2 –
Opa-Locka West Airport and A3 – Okeechobee Road) were added to the original four potential sites at the
request of the County over the course of the evaluation process and are included in this report for consideration.
This analysis expands on the original Siting Report to provide the BCC and County staff with more detailed
analysis on the four original potential sites and the three additional sites, including a practical discussion
regarding the technologies and infrastructure, policy changes, and relative costs required to shift the County’s
current system of solid waste management toward a Zero Waste strategy.
Due to the expedited nature of this assignment, it should be noted that Arcadis’ services are preliminary in nature.
After a site is selected for development of a future solid waste facility, additional more detailed studies and site
investigations will be needed. In addition, the information related to a future Zero Waste management strategy is
intended to provide an introductory overview of the state of the industry and the factors to be taken into
consideration for the current System and County policies. We recommend the development of a comprehensive
Zero Waste Master Plan be considered to give the Board the detailed information needed to make informed policy
decisions.
Updates to the 2022 Siting Report
It is important to note that the results of the 2022 Siting Report were dependent on the site screening criteria
used. Those site screening criteria were generated through a collaborative effort between Arcadis and
Department staff. No changes were made to those criteria in this update, but a more detailed explanation of why
they are important and how they affect the suitability of a site is provided in this report. The screening criteria
used in the Siting Report are briefly described below and include both the initial and detailed screening criteria.
For more detailed siting criteria information, see Table 2.1.
Applied Site Screening Criteria:

 WTE Facility Capacity – Minimum 40-acre site area sufficient for a mass-burn WTE facility with a throughput
capacity of 4,000 tons per day (tpd). Includes buildings, areas for roads, stormwater facilities, parking,
setback requirements, etc.
 Site Area and Ownership – Minimum 40-acre site area comprised of no more than two contiguous parcels
and two owners to minimize property acquisition schedule, costs, and possibility of Eminent Domain process.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report ES-1
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

 Site Geometry – Sites with parcel boundaries with shapes or dimensions incompatible with a 4,000 ton per
day WTE facility (approximate rectangular parcel size 1,200 feet x 1,500 feet) were eliminated.
 Zoning Considerations – Only sites zoned Vacant, Industrial, Commercial, or Agricultural were considered.
Properties with existing abandoned building structures and Conservation, Environmentally Endangered Lands
(EEL) Program properties, or Other Protected Lands not screened by the GIS tool were excluded.
 Residential Zoning Offset – Sites that were within half a mile of residential zoning were eliminated.
 Proximity to Airport – Due to airport zoning codes and FAA regulations, sites less than four (4) miles from an
airport were excluded from consideration.
 Transportation / Travel Time – Sites with a travel time of more than 10 minutes to major (arterial) or collector
roads as calculated using posted speed limits and online mapping tools were eliminated.
 Canal or Major Roadways on Site – Sites with a canal or major roadway located on the site parcel were
precluded from further evaluation because they could not be abandoned and developed.
 Lake / Borrow Pit – Sites that included a lake or borrow pit in a portion of the parcel were included as they
could be filled. However, sites that were mostly or entirely excavated as a lake or borrow pit were eliminated
due to the significant additional time and expense associated with backfilling to create the developable area of
the site.
 County Parks and other County properties – County parks and other County properties (i.e., wellfields, etc.)
that were not screened by the GIS tool were manually identified and eliminated.
 Other Siting Considerations – Any properties recommended directly by the County to be evaluated as well as
sites within and outside of the Urban Development Boundary were considered.
 Location – Consideration of the physical location of the site relative to existing Solid Waste System facilities,
large air emissions sources, transportation routes, and expected impacts to the System if a proposed WTE
facility were sited there.
 Utilities – WTE facilities have high demand requirements on several utilities. This screening criteria evaluated
the availability of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, electric utility substations, stormwater, and
groundwater at each site.
 Soils – United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil survey information was reviewed to confirm the
type and potential suitability of soils located at each site. The soils data provides a wealth of information on
the physical conditions at a site that can affect development.
 Environment – Extensive environmental permitting is required to construct a WTE facility, in any location. This
criterion evaluated the relative difficulty for a site to meet Federal, State, and local environmental permitting
requirements, policies and jurisdictional interfaces to site, construct and operate a new WTE facility.
 Transportation – This criterion considers local traffic impacts from approximately 300-400 inbound vehicles
per day, site queueing lengths during peak delivery periods, road infrastructure needs, travel times, and other
factors.
 Community – Considers environmental justice concerns and the reaction of the public to siting a WTE facility
at a given location.
 Schedule Considerations – The development of a WTE facility typically takes seven (7) to ten (10) years to
complete. This criterion considers the factors affecting the development schedule at a specific site, which
includes the preliminary planning stage, siting, permitting, financing, procurement, design, and construction,
and varies depending upon the complexity of the project and extent of the regulatory and public concerns.
 Cost – Arcadis developed a cost considerations table to approximate the difference in cost of the various
components required to site, construct and operate a new WTE facility at the seven sites. This cost
comparison includes preliminary planning-level estimates for additional costs associated with the facility
construction, annual Operations and Maintenance (O&M), as well as the potential system impacts specific to
each site option.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report ES-2
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

To aid with illustrating the extent of the siting limitations and options for a WTE facility within the County as
represented by the applied screening criteria, a map of Miami-Dade County showing the areas eliminated from
consideration due to the screening criteria was developed and is included as Appendix C. It should be noted that
some siting criteria were suspended for the RRF site, Site 1 - Medley, and Sites A1, A2, and A3 as they were
directly requested by the County for detailed review.
The June 2022 Siting Report
was prepared to support the
County in determining availability
of sites within the County for
development of a new WTE
facility to replace the existing
RRF, and the findings of that
report remain the same, except
for the addition of Sites A1, A2
and A3. Based upon the results
of the preliminary analysis,
development of a new WTE
facility within the County is
feasible for all the sites, pending
resolution of specific constraints
identified in the report.
Full site packages for each of the
seven sites included in this
evaluation were prepared and
updated with additional
screening details and
considerations for several
alternative processing
technologies and are included in
Appendix B. The locations of the
seven sites within the County are
shown in Figure ES.1.
A comparison of the seven sites
relative to each of the applied
screening criteria is included in
Table ES.1.
Figure ES.1 Evaluated Sites Location Map
It is important to note that the
screening criteria used in the Siting Report were intended solely for the development of a future WTE facility on
one of the seven sites. Other facility types would not have the identical siting requirements and could possibly
result in more options for siting locations within the County, and a separate siting analysis should be considered
for each type of facility. In this report, alternative technologies and facilities that may be needed to implement a
Zero Waste strategy were evaluated for the seven sites using the same screening criteria, but while general siting
parameters (i.e., property acreage, required utilities, etc.) are provided for Zero Waste facilities and discussed
relative to each site, the selection and evaluation of specific potential properties in the County for Zero Waste
facilities were not included as part of this analysis.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report ES-3
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Table ES.1 Site Comparison Summary

New WTE Facility Siting Summary

Site 16 Site 17 Site A2 – Opa-Locka

Siting Criteria Existing RRF Site 1 - Medley Site A1 – Dolphin Expressway Site A3 – Okeechobee Road
Ingraham Hwy. Site #1 Ingraham Hwy. Site #2 West Airport

Parcel size suitable for

Assuming the full parcel area can
development of a 4,000 or 5,000
Parcel size suitable for Parcel size suitable for Parcel size suitable for be developed, the parcel size is Assuming the full parcel area can
tpd WTE facility footprint as well There are many possible parcel
development of a 4,000 or 5,000 development of a 4,000 or 5,000 development of a 4,000 or 5,000 suitable for development of a be developed, the parcel size is
as additional acreage to combinations that would result in
tpd WTE facility footprint as well as tpd WTE facility footprint as well as tpd WTE facility footprint as well as 4,000 or 5,000 tpd WTE facility suitable for development of a 4,000
accommodate co-location of an area suitable for development
WTE Facility additional acreage to additional acreage to additional acreage to footprint as well as additional or 5,000 tpd WTE facility footprint
additional ash monofill capacity of a 4,000 or 5,000 tpd WTE
Capacity accommodate co-location of ash accommodate co-location of ash accommodate co-location of ash acreage to accommodate co- as well as additional acreage to
or other County facilities in facility as well as additional
monofill or other County facilities in monofill or other County facilities in monofill or other County facilities in location of ash monofill or other accommodate other County
consideration of future acreage to accommodate co-
consideration of future sustainable consideration of future sustainable consideration of future sustainable County facilities in consideration of facilities in consideration of future
sustainable campus concept location of other County facilities.
campus concept. campus concept. campus concept. future sustainable campus sustainable campus concept.
(after demolition of Existing
concept.
RRF).

Site area considered includes 147

parcels covering a total area of
864 acres. The County owns a few
parcels, but most are privately
owned. Portions of the site area
320.31-acre site, multiple parcels, 159.71-acre site consisting of two 81.11-acre site, single parcel, are within the UDB and the 2030 416-acre site consisting of two 68-acre site consisting of ten
Site Area and 157.16-acre site, single parcel,
inside the UDB. Single private parcels outside the UDB. Both located outside the UDB. Privately Urban Expansion Area Boundary parcels outside the UDB. Both parcels outside the UDB. Single
Ownership inside the UDB. County owned.
owner. parcels privately owned. owned. (UEA), as follows: parcels owned by the County. owner.

⦁ Outside UDB (±772 acres)

⦁ Inside UDB (±89 acres)

⦁ Inside UEA (±284 acres)

Variable, many possible parcel L-shaped, each leg approximately

Site Geometry Rectangular, 5,280 ft x 5,280 ft Irregular Rectangular, 1,320 ft x 2,640 ft Rectangular, 2,640 ft x 2,640 ft Irregular shape.
combinations one mile long, ½ mile wide.

Zoning Zoning District: GU (Interim Zoning District: M-1 (Light Zoning District: GU (Interim Zoning District: GU (Interim Zoning District: AU
Zoning District: AU (Agriculture) Zoning District: AU (Agriculture)
Considerations District) Industrial) District) District) (Agricultural/Residential)

Residential None – adjacent to residential

Less than 0.1 mile Greater than 0.5 mile Greater than 0.5 mile Varies, Minimum is 0.1 mile Greater than 0.5 mile Less than 0.5 mile
Zoning Offset zoning

Proximity to
4.0 miles from MIA Greater than four miles Greater than four miles Greater than four miles Greater than four miles Greater than four miles Greater than four miles
Airport

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report ES-4
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

New WTE Facility Siting Summary

Travel time to major roads (i.e., Travel time to major roads (i.e.,
Travel time north to W Palm Drive Travel time north to W Palm Drive Travel time to SR 836 and Florida Travel time to US27 and Florida Travel time to US27 and Florida
58th Street, 74th Street) is less Florida Turnpike, US27) is less
is less than 10 minutes. is less than 10 minutes. Turnpike less than 10 minutes. Turnpike less than 10 minutes. Turnpike less than 10 minutes.
than 10 minutes. than 10 minutes.
Estimated travel distances and Estimated travel distances and Estimated travel distances and Estimated travel distances and Estimated travel distances and
Estimated travel distances and Estimated travel distances and
times from the site to the County’s times from the site to the County’s times from the site to the County’s times from the site to the County’s times from the site to the County’s
times from the site to the times from the site to the County’s
transfer stations and landfills are transfer stations and landfills are transfer stations and landfills are transfer stations and landfills are transfer stations and landfills are
County’s transfer stations and transfer stations and landfills are
as follows: as follows: as follows: as follows: as follows:
landfills are as follows: as follows:
Est. Travel Est. Travel Est. Travel Est. Travel Est. Travel
Est. Travel Est. Travel
Facility Dist/Time to Facility Dist/Time to Facility Dist/Time to Facility Dist/Time to Facility Dist/Time to
Transportation Facility Dist/Time to Facility Dist/Time to
Site 16 Site 17 Site A1 Site A2 Site A3
/ Travel Time RRF Site 1
West TS 35 mi/41 min West TS 35 mi/41 min West TS 10 mi/13 min West TS 22 mi/25 min West TS 20 mi/23 min
West TS 9 mi/16 min West TS 11 mi/18 min
Central TS 45 mi/53 min Central TS 45 mi/53 min Central TS 15 mi/19 min Central TS 26 mi/31 min Central TS 24 mi/29 min
Central TS 14 mi/21 min Central TS 11 mi/23 min
Northeast Northeast Northeast Northeast Northeast
Northeast Northeast 58 mi/63 min 58 mi/63 min 26 mi/30 min 23 mi/27 min 21 mi/25 min
18 mi/25 min 15 mi/25 min TS TS TS TS TS
TS TS
S. Dade LF 20 mi/31 min S. Dade LF 20 mi/31 min S. Dade LF 20 mi/27 min S. Dade LF 32 mi/37 min S. Dade LF 30 mi/35 min
S. Dade LF 25 mi/31 min S. Dade LF 26 mi/32 min
N. Dade LF 58 mi/59 min N. Dade LF 58 mi/59 min N. Dade LF 25 mi/25 min N. Dade LF 19 mi/19 min N. Dade LF 17 mi/17 min
N. Dade LF 21 mi/23 min N. Dade LF 18 mi/19 min

Canal or Major
Roadways on None None None None None None None
Site

Lake / Borrow Existing borrow pit over much of Existing stormwater ditches along
Existing stormwater pond on site None None None None
Pit the parcel area. both runways.

County Parks Site not selected by GIS Site selected by clearing GIS Site selected by clearing GIS
Site not selected by GIS screening Site not selected by GIS screening Site not selected by GIS screening
and other screening criteria. County screening criteria. Property is not a screening criteria. Property is not a Site not selected by GIS screening
criteria. Property is not a County criteria. WASD owns several criteria. County property, former
County property used for solid waste County Park or other County County Park or other County criteria.
Park or other County property. properties within the site area. small airport site.
properties management. property. property.

Outside the UDB. Entire site is Site requested by County for

Site requested by County for Site requested by County for
Other Siting Site requested by County for Site requested by County for within a proposed Mitigation Bank evaluation, outside the UDB.
Outside the UDB evaluation, parcels inside and evaluation, outside the UDB, inside
Considerations evaluation, inside the UDB evaluation, inside the UDB area currently under consideration Wetlands Mitigation Area on site.
outside the UDB. CERP Project Area.
by the BCC. Adjacent to CERP Project Area.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report ES-5
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

New WTE Facility Siting Summary

416-acre site is located outside the 68-acre site is located outside the
UDB, at the northern edge of UDB, at the northern edge of
320.31-acre site, directly adjacent 864-acre site is centrally located in Miami Dade County. If this site Miami Dade County. If this site
to residential zoning, inside the the County and consists of 148 were selected for the development
159.71-acre site consisting of two 81.11-acre site is located outside were selected for the development
157.16-acre site, single parcel UDB, approximately two miles parcels with 70 different owners. of one or more of the alternative
parcels outside the UDB. the UDB. Considerable System of one or more of the alternative
inside the UDB. Minimal impact north of the existing RRF facility, Some parcels in the eastern facilities there would be impacts to
Considerable System effects if this effects if this site were selected. To facilities there would be impacts to
to System if selected, however, and adjacent to the Medley portion of the site are inside the the local traffic levels, but the
site were selected. To maintain maintain current collection patterns the local traffic levels, but the
construction phasing will need to Landfill. If this site were selected, UDB and the 2030 Urban effects on the County’s Solid
current collection patterns and and travel times, a new transfer effects on the County’s Solid
be considered in order to limit the overall effects on the County’s Expansion Area Boundary (UEA). Waste System would be minimal.
travel times, a new transfer station station would need to be Waste System would be minimal.
impact to RRF operations. Solid Waste System would be would need to be constructed at constructed at the RRF site if this There are many possible parcel To maintain current collection
relatively minimal.Also, the Medley To maintain current collection
Parcel size suitable for the RRF site if this site were site were selected for combinations that could be large patterns and travel times, a new
Landfill has a history of odor patterns and travel times, a new
development of WTE facility selected for development. development. enough to support any of the transfer station would need to be
complaints, and the WTE, if sited transfer station would need to be
Location footprint as well as additional alternative facilities and co-locate constructed at the RRF site if this
here, could be the subject of future Parcel size suitable for Parcel size suitable for constructed at the RRF site if this
acreage to accommodate co- multiple facilities into a solid waste site were selected for
odor complaints. development of WTE facility development of WTE facility site were selected for
location of additional ash monofill campus, depending on the development.
footprint as well as additional footprint as well as additional development.
capacity or other County facilities Parcel size suitable for constraints of the specific parcel(s)
acreage to accommodate co- acreage to accommodate co- The changes in travel times and
in consideration of future development of WTE facility selected for development. The changes in travel times and
location of ash monofill or other location of ash monofill or other distances from the RRF site,
sustainable campus concept footprint as well as additional distances from the RRF site,
County facilities in consideration of County facilities in consideration of To maintain current collection especially for the West TS, may
(after demolition of Existing acreage to accommodate co- especially for the West TS, may
future sustainable campus future sustainable campus patterns and travel times, a new affect some Collection and
RRF). location of ash monofill or other affect some Collection and
concept. concept. transfer station would need to be Transfer operations. Collection and
County facilities in consideration of Transfer operations. Collection and
constructed at the RRF site if this Transfer fleet labor, fuel
future sustainable campus Transfer fleet labor, fuel
site were selected for consumption and maintenance
concept. consumption and maintenance
development. costs may increase if this site were costs may increase if this site were
selected for development. selected for development.

All required utilities available on

137th Avenue. In general, the
parcels bordering NW 137th Ave
have good access to existing
Potable water and sanitary sewer
utilities, but access may become
utilities appear to be available at
All required utilities infrastructure All required utilities would have to All required utilities would have to more complicated for parcels All required utilities would have to All required utilities would have to
Utilities the site, electric and natural gas
available be extended to the site. be extended to the site. within the site. Depending on what be extended to the site. be extended to the site.
utilities would have to be extended
parcel(s) are selected for
to the site.
development, many additional
parcels or utility easements may
be needed to allow for the
extension of utilities

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report ES-6
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

New WTE Facility Siting Summary

The USDA Soil Survey data for the

site and historical aerial photos (c.
1985) indicate the site area was
previously excavated and
subsequently backfilled. In order
Site soils are primarily muck and Site soils are primarily muck soil
for a WTE facility to be located at Site soils are not ideally suited for Site soils are not ideally suited for Site soils are not ideally suited for
Site has been used for WTE silty soil types and are not ideally type and are not ideally suited for
this site, the facility buildings and building foundations because of building foundations because of building foundations because of
Soils facility operations previously, no suited for building foundations building foundations because of
ancillary components would have water content and shallow depth to water content and shallow depth to water content and shallow depth to
known site soils issues exist. because of water content and water content and shallow depth to
to be constructed on backfill bedrock. bedrock. bedrock.
shallow depth to bedrock. bedrock.
material, which could present
significant geotechnical
engineering challenges for
foundation designs and additional
site preparation costs.

Air Permitting – May be

Floodplain – FEMA Flood Zones challenging, as site is located near
AE (El. 7) and AH (El. 7) Air Permitting – May be another large existing emitter, the
Floodplain – FEMA Zone A Titan Pennsuco Complex.
challenging, as site is located near
Air permitting expected to be
Air permitting expected to be another large existing emitter, the Floodplain – FEMA Flood Zone A
extremely difficult due to close
Floodplain – FEMA Zone A extremely difficult due to proximity Titan Pennsuco Complex.
proximity to Everglades Class I ERP required. The site has
to Everglades National Park.
Air permitting expected to be Area (approximately 4.1 miles) and Floodplain – FEMA Flood Zones potential habitat for the Florida
extremely difficult due to proximity ERP required, possible habitat an existing nearby large emitter AE (El. 7) and AH (El. 7) Panther, Swallow-Tailed Kite, and
to Everglades National Park. issues (Bonneted Bat). The site is (CEMEX Miami facility). Southern Bald Eagle. Additionally,
Air Permitting – May be National Wetlands Inventory
located within the Florida the site is also strategic habitat
challenging, as site is located ERP required, possible habitat National Wetlands Inventory mapping indicates most of the site
Air Permitting - May be Bonneted Bat and Everglades conservation area for the Florida
between two other large existing issues (Bonneted Bat). The site is mapping indicates most of the site is a Freshwater Emergent Wetland
challenging, other large emitters Snail Kite consultation area, has Panther. The site is within 2.5 and
emitters, the Medley Class I located within the Florida is a Freshwater Emergent Wetland habitat, possible habitat issues
(Medley Class I Landfill and Titan core foraging habitat for the 2.7 miles of active wood stork
Landfill and Titan Pennsuco Bonneted Bat and Everglades habitat, possible habitat issues (Wood Stork, Bonneted Bat). ERP
Pennsuco Complex) exist nearby federally endangered Wood Stork colonies and within five miles of
Complex. In addition, the adjacent Snail Kite consultation area, has (Wood Stork, Bonneted Bat). ERP required. The site is located within
Environment that were not present when RRF and Florida Bonneted Bat, and three currently known Southern
elevated (200 ft +) Medley Landfill core foraging habitat for the required. The site is located within the Florida Bonneted Bat and
was initially modeled and may contain habitat for species Bald Eagle nests.
may result in exhaust plume federally endangered Wood Stork the Florida Bonneted Bat and Everglades Snail Kite consultation
permitted. listed in Appendix B of the CDMP.
impaction during air emissions and Florida Bonneted Bat, and Everglades Snail Kite consultation area, has core foraging habitat for The site has jurisdictional wetland
Possible habitat issues dispersion modeling. may contain habitat for species ERP permitting at this site may be area, has core foraging habitat for the federally endangered Wood habitat and portions of the site are
(Bonneted Bat) listed in Appendix B of the CDMP. very challenging due to required the federally endangered Wood Stork and Florida Bonneted Bat, serving as wetland mitigation for
ERP required. Possible habitat
LEDPA (Least Environmentally Stork and Florida Bonneted Bat, and may contain habitat for on-site impacts. The northern
issues (Bonneted Bat) ERP permitting at this site may be
Damaging Practicable Alternative) and may contain habitat for species listed in Appendix B of the parcels (30-001-2910-0070, etc)
very challenging due to required
analysis. species listed in Appendix B of the CDMP. may contain jurisdictional wetlands
LEDPA (Least Environmentally
CDMP. and/or habitat for species listed in
Damaging Practicable Alternative) Entire site is within a proposed ERP permitting at this site may be
analysis. Mitigation Bank area currently ERP permitting at this site may be very challenging due to required Appendix B of the CDMP.
under consideration by the BCC. very challenging due to required LEDPA (Least Environmentally ERP permitting at this site may be
LEDPA (Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative) very challenging due to required
Damaging Practicable Alternative) analysis. LEDPA (Least Environmentally
analysis. Damaging Practicable Alternative)
analysis.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report ES-7
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

New WTE Facility Siting Summary

The parcels bordering NW 137th

Ave have good access to the
Dolphin Expressway and the
Florida Turnpike, but access may
become more complicated for
The site has good access to Existing access to site is via parcels within the site.
Florida Turnpike and US-27 via Ingraham Hwy. and SW 222nd The volume of traffic that is
Ave. (see map below), but The volume of traffic that is
Beacon Station Blvd., but some The volume of traffic that is expected at the proposed WTE
Existing access to the site is via approximately 0.75 miles of two- expected at the proposed WTE
road areas need to be improved expected at the proposed WTE facility (400-500 trucks per day),
Ingraham Hwy. and no additional lane road with paved shoulders will facility (400-500 trucks per day),
Existing access to site is via NW and the Town of Medley may want facility (400-500 trucks per day), will increase traffic loads on the
offsite road improvements are need to be constructed for proper will increase traffic loads on the
97th Ave., which was recently the County to assume will increase traffic loads on the Florida Turnpike and US27, which
needed. The volume of traffic that site access. Additional ROW may Florida Turnpike and the Dolphin
four- laned and has sufficient maintenance of some or all of the Florida Turnpike and US27, which are already high traffic count
is expected at the proposed WTE have to be acquired. Expressway, which are already
capacity for the expected traffic access roads, which would are already high traffic count roadways.
facility (400-500 trucks per day), high traffic count roadways. Traffic
loadings of the proposed WTE increase the County’s costs. The The volume of traffic that is roadways.
Transportation will greatly increase the loads on increases would also be expected Traffic increases would also be
facility. Traffic impacts on local volume of traffic that is expected at expected at the proposed WTE
local roads so the traffic impacts on 8th Street, 12th Street, 137th Truck queuing will have to be expected on the frontage road at
roads would be unchanged from the proposed WTE facility (400- facility (400-500 trucks per day),
on Ingraham Hwy., W Palm Drive, Ave and other local roads. Truck accomplished on site to prevent the site. Truck queuing will have to
existing conditions. The site has 500 trucks per day), will greatly will greatly increase the loads on
and other local roads may be queuing will have to be congestion of local roads. be accomplished on site to prevent
sufficient area to accommodate increase the loads on local roads local roads so the traffic impacts
significant. Truck queuing will have accomplished on site to prevent congestion of local roads.
truck queueing. so the traffic impacts to local area on Ingraham Hwy., W Palm Drive, Selection of this site will prohibit
to be accomplished on site to congestion of local roads.
will likely be significant. Truck and other local roads may be future use of the Opa-Locka West Selection of this site will prohibit
prevent further congestion.
queuing will have to be significant. Truck queuing will have Depending on what parcel(s) are Airport site for aviation. future use of the Opa-Locka West
accomplished on site to prevent to be accomplished on site to selected for development, many Airport site for aviation.
further congestion. prevent further congestion additional parcels or access
easements may be needed to
establish road access sufficient for
heavy truck traffic. Also, rail
access may be available along
north side of site.

Residential developments have

encroached around the site in the Some parcels in the eastern and
The site is approximately half a The site is approximately half a
years since the Existing RRF southern portions of the site are The site is more than a mile from
The site is adjacent to residential mile from the nearest residential mile from the nearest residential
went into operation. The site is within 0.1 miles of residential residential zoning. Site contains The site is less than a mile from
zoning. The west edge of the site zoning and is approximately one zoning and is 1.28 miles from the
now less than a tenth of a mile zoning, and the site contains extensive wetland areas and is residential zoning. Site is adjacent
borders one trailer park owned by mile from the boundary of boundary of Everglades National
from the nearest residential wetlands and possible habitat for located within a CERP project to a CERP project area, so the
Community the Town of Medley, and another Everglades National Park, which Park, which suggests that the
zoning and the local population. multiple species. The siting of a area, so the siting of a WTE facility siting of a WTE facility may face
that is leased by the town. Siting of suggests that the siting of a WTE siting of a WTE facility may be
Community political leaders and WTE facility may face opposition may face opposition by opposition by environmental
a WTE facility may face community facility may be strongly opposed by strongly opposed by the
environmental groups have by the community, environmental environmental groups and groups and regulators.
opposition at this location. the community, environmental community, environmental groups,
indicated opposition to continued groups, and regulators at this regulators.
groups, and regulators. and regulators.
use of the site for WTE facility location.
operations.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report ES-8
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

New WTE Facility Siting Summary

Shortest schedule duration Long estimated schedule duration. Long estimated schedule duration. Longest estimated schedule
Short estimated schedule duration. Second shortest estimated Short estimated schedule duration.
because of existing PPSA, Land acquisition, PPSA permitting, Land acquisition, PPSA permitting, duration. Land and
Land acquisition, PPSA permitting, schedule duration. PPSA Land acquisition, PPSA permitting,
potentially reducing PPSA wetland, floodplain, and wildlife wetland, floodplain, and wildlife ROW/easement acquisition with
and some minor site work increase permitting, wetland, floodplain, and wetland, floodplain, and wildlife
permitting effort and minimal site mitigation, and significant site work mitigation, and significant site work multiple owners, PPSA permitting,
Schedule schedule duration. wildlife mitigation, and significant mitigation, and significant site and
preparation work required. increase schedule duration. increase schedule duration. wetland, floodplain, and wildlife
Considerations site and utility work increase utility work increase schedule
Coordination of construction Estimated Project Duration: 9- mitigation, and significant site work
Estimated Project Duration: 11- Estimated Project Duration: 11- schedule duration. duration.
during RRF operation required. years 9-months increase schedule duration.
years 3-months years 3-months Estimated Project Duration: 9- Estimated Project Duration: 10-
Estimated Project Duration: 7- Estimated Project Duration: 12-
years 3-months years 0-months
years 9-months years 3-months

Additional costs anticipated for

land acquisition*, on-site utility
facilities, stormwater
considerations and addition of fill Significant additional costs
for soil fortification, zoning and anticipated for land acquisition*
potential additional permitting Significant additional costs Significant additional costs due to number of parcels needed
efforts for new PPSA. anticipated for land acquisition*, on anticipated for land acquisition*, on and owners potentially involved,
and off-site utility facilities, and off-site utility facilities, flood and a new ($45M) transfer station Significant additional costs
A new transfer station facility at the Significant additional costs
floodplain, wetland, and wildlife plain, wetland, and wildlife facility at the RRF site. Minor anticipated for land acquisition*, on
RRF site is not anticipated anticipated for land acquisition*, on
mitigation, additional permitting mitigation, additional permitting impacts on Collection and Transfer and off-site utility facilities,
because of the minimal change in and off-site utility facilities,
efforts, and a new ($45M) transfer efforts, and a new ($45M) transfer costs due to changes in hauling floodplain, wetland, and wildlife
hauling distance to this site. floodplain, wetland, and wildlife
For comparative purposes, the station facility at the RRF site. station facility at the RRF site. distances and travel times. mitigation, additional permitting
Purchase of potable water may mitigation, additional permitting
existing RRF site is considered Significant impact on hauling Significant impact on hauling efforts, and a new ($45M) transfer
increase anticipated operational Floodplain and wetland mitigation efforts, and a new ($45M) transfer
the base cost condition and the system due to distance from other system due to distance from other station facility at the RRF site.
costs. It is also assumed that there may increase capital costs. station facility at the RRF site.
base capital cost includes System facilities would increase System facilities would increase Purchase of potable water and
may be impact fees or Purchase of potable water and
estimated stormwater detention capital and operational cost. capital and operational cost. Purchase of potable water and significant distance to haul ash for
improvements required to local significant distance to haul ash for
pond fill costs, environmental Purchase of potable water and Purchase of potable water and significant distance to haul ash for disposal will increase anticipated
roads that have not yet been disposal will increase anticipated
considerations and ash hauling significant distance to haul ash for significant distance to haul ash for disposal will increase anticipated operational costs.
factored into the capital cost for operational costs.
costs. disposal will increase anticipated disposal will increase anticipated operational costs. Rail haul of ash
Cost this site because the extent of Total Estimated Capital Cost (not
operational costs. operational costs. may be possible, further studies Total Estimated Capital Cost (not
Total Estimated Capital Cost (not roadway modifications is currently including land): $1,593,591,4611
needed to determine if that would including land): $1,582,443,5921
including land): $1,488,886,0001. not known. It is anticipated that Total Estimated Capital Cost (not Total Estimated Capital Cost (not (7.0% increase).
be cost-effective alternative to (6.3% increase).
these would be negotiated and including land): $1,574,370,3301 including land): $1,576,952,2271
Estimated Land Cost*: $0 truck hauling. Estimated Land Cost*:
further evaluated during the land (5.7% increase). (5.9% increase). Estimated Land Cost*: $0.
$29,370,858.
Total Estimated Capital Cost acquisition process. Total Estimated Capital Cost (not
Estimated Land Cost*: $8,976,790. Estimated Land Cost*: $4,118,620. Total Estimated Capital Cost of
(including land): $1,488,886,000 including land): $1,564,527,9241 Total Estimated Capital Cost of
Total Estimated Capital Cost (not $1,582,443,592 (6.3% increase)
Total Estimated Capital Cost of Total Estimated Capital Cost of (5.1% increase). $1,622,962,319 (9.0% increase)
including land): $1,498,497,2721 $1,583,347,120 (6.3% increase) $1,581,070,847 (6.2% increase) (Additional 97% annual operational
(0.6% increase). Estimated Land Cost*: (Additional 97% annual operational
cost for potable water purchase,
(Additional 103% annual (Additional 103% annual $12,877,260. cost for potable water purchase,
Estimated Land Cost*: significant ash hauling, and
operational cost for potable water operational cost for potable water significant ash hauling, and
$112,848,865. Total Estimated Capital Cost of additional System hauling costs.)
purchase, significant ash hauling, purchase, significant ash hauling, additional System hauling costs.)
$1,577,405,184 (5.9% increase)
Total Estimated Capital Cost and additional System hauling and additional System hauling
(including land): $1,611,346,137 costs.) costs.) (Additional 98% annual operational
(8.2% increase) cost for potable water purchase,
and significant ash hauling costs.)
(Additional 15% annual operational
cost for potable water purchase
and ash hauling.)
* Land acquisition cost estimated based upon 2023 Miami-Dade Property Appraiser Market Value plus 10%. For Site A1, the value of the largest parcel only was used.
1
Cost values shown escalated 3% from values in June 2022 Siting Report per BLS CPI index data.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report ES-9
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report ES-10
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Considerations for a Zero Waste Management Strategy

Zero Waste Overview
The concept of “Zero Waste” is a version of comprehensive waste minimization, which has been a fundamental
principle of waste management for a long time. Historically, waste management efforts have been focused on the
end of the waste cycle, where waste collection, processing and disposal activities occur. The “Zero Waste”
approach is much broader, looks at the whole waste cycle, and envisions altering entire economies by changing
product manufacturing and producer responsibilities, consumption practices, regulations, recycling markets, and
using other mechanisms to make a society less wasteful. Basically, the goal of Zero Waste is to eliminate waste
at every level and push economies towards the target of sending no waste to landfills, combustion facilities, or the
ocean.
However, many issues can arise when the realities of modern solid waste management and the difficulties in
changing human behaviors are considered. Local municipalities have limited to no control over the factors
affecting waste generation outside their jurisdictions (i.e., entire societies or economies), such as Federal or state
regulations, general consumption practices, or many others, and this is where the “Zero Waste” concept has
historically encountered significant difficulties. The guiding principles of the “Zero Waste” movement tend to rely
on consistent and coordinated education, legislation, planning, and execution at all levels of government and in
significantly changing behaviors in all individuals for successful implementation. This can be a challenging
solution for many reasons, but primarily because the priorities, funding decisions, and approaches to solid waste
management at the various levels of government are dynamic over the long term, and human behaviors are very
difficult to change. As a result, virtually all decisions and activities related to solid waste (including waste
minimization efforts) default to the local level, because that is the end of the line, where the generated waste
arrives and must be promptly and effectively managed.
The definition of Zero Waste has varied over time and jurisdictions. For many municipalities that have adopted
Zero Waste as a management strategy, the generally accepted benchmark to achieve “Zero Waste” is the
diversion of 90% of a given solid waste stream from landfilling.
The State of Florida and Miami-Dade County have been working
towards some of the same principles as Zero Waste for many The generally accepted benchmark to
years, although those efforts were not termed “Zero Waste”
achieve “Zero Waste” is the diversion
specifically. In 2008, the Florida Legislature set a recycling goal of
75% by 2020 for Florida counties. While this goal has been of 90% of a given solid waste stream
challenging to meet, five counties within the state, as of 2021 from landfilling.
reporting, have met this 75% goal (inclusive of renewable energy
and beneficial use of landfill gas credits), but the average remains
under 50%.
Miami-Dade County, the most populous county in the state, generated approximately 4.6 million tons of solid
waste in 2021, with a reported recycling rate of 30% (including renewable energy recycling credits), which is
higher than some municipalities that have officially adopted a “Zero Waste” strategy for managing their solid
waste. Further, there are many opportunities to improve the County’s diversion and recycling rates, but careful
planning through the entire process, including detailed studies, funding for infrastructure and operational costs,
significant public education, and the development of secondary markets is needed for successful and sustainable
implementation. As we will discuss in the following sections, moving towards Zero Waste is a long-term,
incremental process that takes consistent policies, funding, and many years to develop.
Many cities and counties comparable in size to Miami-Dade County are in different stages of implementing Zero
Waste strategies. We reviewed several during this analysis (including Los Angeles, San Diego, King County (WA)
and others) and found that most had adopted a Zero Waste management strategy more than five years ago (San

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report ES-11
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Francisco more than 30 years ago), none had achieved their target milestone goals, and all were still reliant on
landfills and/or WTE facilities for waste disposal.
Understanding Miami-Dade County’s Solid Waste Stream
As reported to the FDEP, the total waste stream of Miami-Dade County was approximately 4.6 million tons in
Fiscal Year 2021. In order to consider how to control, reduce and manage a solid waste stream, it is important to
understand the contributing factors to both the quantity and composition of the generated waste materials.
Waste Quantity
There are several factors that affect the quantity of solid waste generated in a municipality, but generally it is
closely correlated with two primary factors, population and economic activity. As of December 2022, the
population of the County was estimated by the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research
(BEBR) at 2,757,792 and is projected to increase at a rate of approximately 0.5% per year through 2050.
The County also has the largest economy of any county in Florida, with a gross domestic product of
approximately $151.9 billion that is expected to steadily increase. The combination of a large population and
strong economic activity usually results in a high waste generation rate. However, the County generation rate of
approximately 9.2 pounds per person per day in FY 2021 is almost twice the national average as reported by
EPA, probably due in large part to the high tourist population and associated high consumption of convenience
and single-use items. In consideration of implementing a Zero Waste strategy, additional studies would be
recommended to better understand the waste generation factors specific to the County and determine the most
effective rate minimization strategies.
Waste Composition
In general, two distinct types of solid waste comprise the bulk of the waste generated in most municipalities,
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and Construction and Demolition Waste (C&D Waste). Understanding what
everyday waste materials are represented in these two main types of waste are important in determining how to
reduce their generation rate and how to effectively manage them and maximize diversion from disposal.
MSW is a very general type of material, and typically accounts for approximately 70-80% of the total
quantity of waste generated by a municipality. MSW is usually highly mixed, contains putrescible and
non-putrescible materials, and is primarily collected from residential and commercial properties.
C&D Waste is generally any non-putrescible waste associated with construction or demolition activity on a
given property. The quantity of this type of waste is significant and usually accounts for approximately 20-
30% of the total quantity of waste generated by a municipality. Also, C&D Waste components are
generally easier to separate and recycle than those in MSW.
For composition analysis, 2021 data was used, as it was the most recent year available in FDEP reports. Based
on FDEP estimates, the County’s waste was composed of approximately 81% MSW and 19% C&D Waste. A
more detailed breakdown of the overall waste composition by subcategory is shown in Figure ES.3 below.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report ES-12
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Figure ES.2 Miami-Dade County Solid Waste Composition (FDEP)

Existing County Solid Waste System Facilities and Operations

The County is comprised of 34 incorporated municipalities and the unincorporated County area. Each municipality
manages the collection, recycling, and disposal of solid waste within its boundaries. MSW and curbside
recyclables are typically collected either directly by a municipality, by contracts with private firms, or by interlocal
agreement with the County and transported to private recycling, transfer, or disposal facilities, or to County
disposal facilities. C&D waste is collected exclusively by private firms and transported to either private facilities for
recycling or disposal, or to County facilities for disposal.
The County’s Solid Waste System includes the following operations and facilities owned by the Department and
operated either directly by the Department or by others under contract. For more detailed information, see Section
3.2.2.
 Trash and Recycling Centers (13)
 Residential Garbage and Trash Collection
 Residential Curbside Recycling
 Transfer Stations (3)
 Home Chemical Collection Facilities (2)
 Landfills (3)
 Resources Recovery Facility (RRF)
 Transfer and Disposal Fleet
 Private Disposal Contracts
www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report ES-13
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Regulatory Considerations
As mentioned previously, the Zero Waste approach envisions altering entire economies by changing product
manufacturing and producer responsibilities, consumption practices, regulations, recycling markets, and using
other mechanisms to make a society less wasteful. This approach relies on consistent and coordinated
legislation, planning, and execution at all levels of government for successful implementation. The sections below
discuss Federal, State and local legislation that should be considered relative to Zero Waste planning and
implementation.
Federal
The Federal Government regulates solid waste primarily through RCRA Subtitles C and D and delegates
regulatory authority to the states. No new regulations regarding Zero Waste strategies on a national level have
been created. The federal government encourages waste minimization and recycling efforts through EPA grants
and other mechanisms, which provides financial assistance to states and municipalities to encourage
development of alternative solid waste programs and facilities.
State of Florida
Chapters 62-701 through 62-722, F.A.C. establish standards for the construction, operation, and closure of solid
waste management facilities to minimize their threat to public health and the environment. These regulations also
prohibit the landfilling of certain waste materials (i.e., lead-acid batteries, used oil, white goods, whole tires, etc.).
In 2020, the FDEP reported that Florida’s overall recycling rate was 50%, well short of the 75% goal set by the
Legislature. The FDEP has suggested ways to potentially increase recycling in Florida, including options for
focusing on markets, construction and demolition debris recycling, organics recycling, commercial recycling, and
education and outreach. Even though these actions have had some success and at least five counties have met
the 2020 75% goal (including renewable energy recycling credits), impactful changes to the statewide recycling
rate will likely not occur without programmatic and legislative changes.
The current practices in Florida are not expected to significantly increase the statewide recycling rate. However,
through partnership with Florida recycling stakeholders, there is an opportunity to transform Florida recycling from
an aspirational goal into a program that incorporates source reduction, diversion of waste, recycling, and
consideration of the full environmental impact of materials used from cradle to grave. Interestingly, many of these
same concepts are also Zero Waste concepts, but one primary difference is the State of Florida is a strong
advocate of the use of Waste-to-Energy facilities to convert solid waste to electricity.
In the Florida 2020 75% Recycling Goal Final Report (FDEP, 2021), the FDEP advocated for the development of
a Comprehensive Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan that will:

 Identify a set of recycling goals using both sustainable materials management (SMM) and waste diversion
concepts:
- Sustainable Materials Management - Alternative approaches that recognize the differences among waste
components with respect to environmental and resource outcomes are referred to as sustainable
materials management (SMM).
- Waste Diversion - Waste diversion (or waste reduction) is already an integral part of Florida’s MSW
management system. It can be defined as the amount of material that is reduced, reused, prevented
and/or recycled, per capita and can be measured based on the amount of waste not being disposed of in
a landfill.
 Develop objectives and propose a three-year plan to implement the following strategies:

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report ES-14
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

- Recycling Materials Market Development - There must be markets for finished goods that are
manufactured from recycled materials in order for the recycling industry to operate efficiently and to
provide for reasonable returns on investments.
 Propose statutory language to implement the revised recycling goals and the strategies.
Chapter 163.3180, Florida Statutes requires that all local government comprehensive plans require that public
facilities and services needed to support development be available concurrent with the impacts of such
development. Sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, and potable water are the only public facilities and services
subject to the concurrency requirement on a statewide basis.
The local government comprehensive plan must demonstrate, for required or optional concurrency requirements,
that the levels of service adopted can be reasonably met. Infrastructure needed to ensure that adopted level-of-
service standards are achieved and maintained for the 5-year period of the capital improvement schedule must be
identified pursuant to the requirements of s. 163.3177(3). The comprehensive plan must include principles,
guidelines, standards, and strategies for the establishment of a concurrency management system.
Miami-Dade County has established its Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) which provides for the
required guidelines and standards to meet this concurrency statute. The sections below provide a brief overview
of relevant CDMP requirements.
Miami-Dade County
Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP)
Chapter 163.3177(1), FS states “The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and
strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development
of the area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. These principles and
strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to ensure
comprehensive plans are implemented...” The following CDMP objectives and policies are relevant to the
discussion of the siting and operation of solid waste facilities. For more detailed descriptions, see Section 3.2.3.3.
 Objective SW-1: County shall plan and provide for solid waste disposal services on a countywide basis.
- Policy SW-1A. Provision of County solid waste facilities outside of the UDB or UEA shall be avoided.
- Policy SW-1C. County to assure that land in the vicinity of solid waste disposal facilities is developed for a
use that is compatible with the operation of said facilities.
 Objective SW-2: The County will ensure that adequate system capacity is available to meet future needs.
- Policy SW-2A. The County Solid Waste Management System shall maintain a solid waste disposal
capacity sufficient to accommodate waste flows for a minimum of five (5) years.
- Policy SW-2B. No development order shall be issued for any area of the County which is served by a
solid waste facility which does not meet the standard in Policy SW-2A or will not meet these standards
concurrent with the completion of the development.
 Objective SW-3: The County will provide an adequate level of service for solid waste facilities to meet both
existing and projected needs through implementation of those projects listed in the Capital Improvements
Element.
- Policy SW-3A. Solid Waste improvements funding evaluation criteria.
 Objective SW-4: Miami-Dade County shall provide for the management of solid waste in a manner which
places a high priority on the maintenance of environmental quality and community quality of life, with
emphasis on recycling and waste reduction.
- SW-4A. Miami-Dade County solid waste disposal facility operating requirements

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report ES-15
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

- SW-4B. Unless economically prohibitive, Miami-Dade County shall reduce the amount of waste disposal
through recycling programs or other alternative solid waste management strategies.
- SW-4C. Miami-Dade County shall promote the establishment and expansion of secondary markets.
- SW-4D. Miami-Dade County shall strive to reduce the per capita generation of solid waste.
- SW-4E. Miami-Dade County shall minimize the amount of yard trash disposed of in landfills.
 Objective SW-5: Miami-Dade County shall provide for the safe and efficient disposal of wastes through the
development and maintenance of an integrated solid waste disposal system utilizing proven technologies,
appropriate regulation, and equitable and responsible financing practices.
Regarding the concurrency requirement in Policy SW-2A, DSWM currently projects that the System will receive
2,000,534 tons of solid waste for disposal during FY 2023. At the end of FY 2023, the System is projected to have
approximately 6.9 million tons of remaining physical and contract disposal capacity. Assuming an annual growth
rate of 1.0%, the System appears to only have sufficient disposal capacity in place, under construction, or under
contract to satisfy the 5-year concurrency requirement through FY 2024. If the County proceeds with its current
plans for vertical expansion of the NDL, this will increase disposal capacity.
Reducing the waste stream through material diversion to C&D recycling facilities, composting facilities, and other
alternative facilities also improves concurrency, but considering the long lead time associated with the planning,
design and construction of capital projects, it is recommended that the County secure additional disposal capacity
as soon as possible to ensure continued concurrency compliance.
Considerations for a Miami-Dade Zero Waste Strategy
Development and implementation of a comprehensive Zero Waste strategy in the County will require careful
planning through the entire process including goals and objective setting, policy reviews, stakeholder
engagement, infrastructure and operational investments, significant public education, and development of
secondary markets for successful and sustainable implementation. As discussed in the following sections, Zero
Waste planning and strategy development is something that takes consistent policies, funding, and sufficient time
to develop, and there is not one “correct” approach - many different technologies and programs can be employed
to meet the desired goals. The development of a Zero Waste strategy is a detailed, iterative process that should
include the steps below, which are described in more detail in the sections that follow.

Prepare
Determine Public
Analyze Identify and Develop Zero Waste
Collection Analyze Communication
Waste Prioritize Materials Master Plan
Systems and Secondary and
Streams Materials for Control and
Processing Markets Stakeholder
Recovery Strategy Financial
Facilities Buy-In
Analysis

Analyze Waste Streams

The first step needed to move towards a Zero Waste type management strategy would be to conduct extensive
waste characterization studies of both the MSW and C&D Waste streams to determine the quantity and
composition of each. Such studies should be conducted over a full year to capture seasonal fluctuations and
material issues (i.e., wet loads during the rainy season) that could have significant
effects on processing facility equipment or operations and to achieve results with
What Do We Have sufficient accuracy for facility design.
and How Much Do
Please note that the waste quantity and composition analyses presented in this report
We Have? were taken from FDEP calculated estimates and from abbreviated waste
characterization studies conducted on a small sampling of waste arriving at County

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report ES-16
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

facilities during a short time span. While the results of such estimates and studies are useful for the purpose of
visualizing the basic quantities and composition of the MSW and C&D waste streams, these studies are for
conceptual planning level purposes only and should not be used for facility design purposes.
Identify and Prioritize Materials for Recovery
After the detailed waste characterization studies are completed, identify and prioritize
those waste stream components that 1) have potential for a significant quantity of What Should We
recovery, 2) can be readily separated and routed to processing facilities (i.e., C&D waste,
Recover, and
food waste, glass, etc.) through County actions, and 3) have an existing secondary
market or use for the end products of processing. What Will We Do
Waste streams that do not meet the above criteria should be placed on a secondary With It?
priority list to be addressed in future actions as the Zero Waste strategy progresses and
more improvements are made.
Develop Materials Control Strategy
One of the most common and difficult issues in the recovery of materials from a solid waste stream is how to
efficiently, effectively and economically separate the various materials from MSW or C&D waste and direct them
to appropriate facilities for processing. The processibility and value of the separated
materials depend greatly on the extent of contamination with other wastes. Materials
How Do We that are heavily contaminated will be rejected by processing facilities and will probably
Separate Out be sent to a landfill or other disposal facility. Therefore, maintaining the quality of the
separated material is critical for moving towards a circular economy.
What We Want To
Recover? Separation of materials by waste generators may be either voluntary or mandatory, but
in general if separation is not mandated then the participation rate is lower, which can
significantly affect per-ton costs. Local legislative action is therefore a very important
factor.
Determine Collection Equipment and Processing Facilities
For each waste material targeted for recovery, the method and equipment needed to How Will We Turn
collect and transport the material to an appropriate processing facility must be Recovered
determined. For some materials, such as C&D waste, private haulers already
Materials Into
perform this function. For others, such as source-separated food waste, new
collection systems including containers, vehicles, and drivers will be needed. A Something Usable?
detailed estimate of the capital, O&M and labor costs for each new system must be
calculated.
Similarly, the size and type of processing facility that will receive the collected materials must be determined and
a detailed estimate of the capital, O&M and labor costs must be calculated. Table ES-4 on page ES-19 includes
brief descriptions of potential collection and processing technologies that are commercially available for waste
materials that comprise the larger fractions of the County’s waste stream (Organics, MSW, and C&D Waste).
Analyze Secondary Markets
The feasibility of achieving Zero Waste is highly dependent on identifying secondary
markets that already exist or that can realistically be developed for the diverted
Who Is Going To material and end products of processing facilities. The market for recycled materials
Buy or Use What depends on the value of the virgin material, supply, the ability to meet market
specifications, costs to manage contamination and process materials, and local, state,
We Recover? national and international economies. Specific drivers of market demand include policy
incentives, research and development of new product or packaging applications,
www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report ES-17
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

specific incentives, and technical assistance for recycled material purchasers such as Environmentally Preferable
Purchasing programs.
There are many potentially recoverable materials in the County’s waste stream that are disposed because no
secondary markets exist or they are not cost-effective to recover. The lack of secondary markets and the difficult
economy of recoverable materials have been some of the biggest challenges for the recycling industry and for
communities attempting Zero Waste management strategies around the country. Ever since China’s National ban
of 24 types of solid waste and recyclable materials was implemented in 2018, market prices for recyclables
exponentially decreased as the Average Market Value (AMV) of commodities has declined by $100 per ton since
a high point in 2011 (Source: Kessler report 2022).
The recycling commodity markets are still recovering from the effects of China’s policy change in 2018, and the
situation with secondary markets and the economics of recycled materials remains challenging. Over the last few
years increased recycling costs have forced many communities to reduce their recycling programs, and some
were forced to eliminate them entirely. However, waste generation rates continue to increase, and there may be
significant opportunities for development of recycling industries and markets in the near future. Further studies
and thorough analysis and validation of the economic viability of specific waste commodities will be needed
before any selection of alternative processing technologies.
Prepare Zero Waste Master Plan and Detailed Financial Analysis
For each waste material that could potentially be recovered from a waste stream and routed to a secondary
market or end use, a detailed analysis should be conducted to determine if the recovery is financially feasible.
Such an analysis would involve determining the type, number and capacity of
processing facilities needed to recover the material and a long-term (10 years or more)
analysis of all expenses (educational, capital, facility operations and maintenance, How Much Is This
materials transfer and transport, etc.) and revenues (i.e., solid waste collection rates, Going To Cost?
tipping fees, material sales, etc.) to clearly understand the financial impacts resulting
from the recovery of that material.
The results of each material analysis could be used to develop a Zero Waste Master Plan which will be an
iterative process incorporating all resources needed to recover the materials deemed financially feasible to
recover. A Zero Waste Master Plan should also include a comprehensive long-term financial analysis for all
Collection and Disposal Fund expense and revenues to determine if the overall financial effects on the County’s
System, including debt service coverage requirements, Collection Fees, and Disposal rates are within acceptable
limits. The Zero Waste Master Plan would represent the maximum potential recovery of materials (and diversion
rate) that meets all the various financial requirements and political demands of the County and its residents.
In addition to the solid waste collection and processing systems, the County will need many new programs to
adopt a zero-waste approach to managing its solid waste. Such programs may include, but are not limited to,
significant public education programs in schools, community centers, and other government properties and
systems, regular advertising and resident outreach campaigns, increased compliance efforts to reduce
contamination, and increased legislative efforts at the local and state level. The scope and cost of these additional
programs may be substantial and must be factored into the total cost of a Zero Waste Master Plan.
Public Communication and Stakeholder Buy-In
In conjunction with the development of a Zero Waste Master Plan, significant
How Do We Get planning, coordinating, and executing effective public communications and
meetings with all stakeholders will be necessary. Those tasked with this critically
Everybody To Support important work must be able to explain current solid waste issues and proposed
This and Participate? System changes, address questions and concerns, and negotiate changes to the
Zero Waste Master Plan, as necessary. As the solid waste strategy for the
www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report ES-18
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

County will be heavily dependent on the participation of 34 municipalities, more than 2.7 million residents and
thousands of private companies for its success, it is of paramount importance that the stakeholders understand
and support the changes. Otherwise, as other municipalities have discovered, the resulting system will likely
experience significant political and operational difficulties and public resentment no matter how much planning
effort and funding is applied.
Zero Waste Master Plan Implementation Considerations
Local Legislation
Laws and programs surrounding waste management are typically handled at the state and local level. The federal
government regulates waste management primarily through the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) but does not yet mandate Zero Waste activities at a national level. Legislation and programs surrounding
specifically zero-waste are typically pursued at a local level (county, city, or municipality), with many states such
as California mandating diversion requirements at a state level but leaving much of the action towards those goals
to local regulators.
Funding Options
There are many sources of infrastructure funding that may be available for solid waste facilities and programs.
The following potential likely sources of funds for future solid waste facilities have been identified, but there may
be others that are applicable. Potential funding sources include:
1. Federal Grants and Tax Incentives
2. State Grants
3. Municipal Bonds
4. Private Activity Bonds
For additional information on each funding source is included section 3.3.12.
Federal Grants and Programs
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides $275,000,000 total from Fiscal Year 2022 to Fiscal Year 2026 for
grants authorized under the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act. Funding is intended for projects that implement the building a
circular economy for all strategy series, improve local post-consumer materials management programs, including
municipal recycling, or make improvements to local waste management systems.
Other potential Federal funding or revenue sources may be available for certain technologies through programs
such as the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which provides for Production Tax Credits (up to 2.6 cents/KwH,
escalating with inflation) and Investment Tax Credits (up to 30% on eligible property) for WTE facilities. The IRA
specifically makes local governments eligible to receive the tax credits as a direct payment.
State Grants
Chapter 377.814, FS - Municipal Solid Waste-to-Energy Program - The Municipal Solid Waste-to-Energy Program
was created to provide financial assistance grants and incentive grants to municipal solid waste-to-energy
facilities to assist with the planning and designing for constructing, upgrading, or expanding a municipal solid
waste-to-energy facility, including necessary legal or administrative expenses. To qualify for an incentive grant,
the owner of a municipal solid waste-to-energy facility must apply to the department for funding; provide matching
funds on a dollar-for-dollar basis; and demonstrate that the project is cost-effective, permittable, and
implementable and complies with s. 403.7061.
Municipal Revenue Bonds
Miami-Dade County can issue revenue bonds backed by Solid Waste System revenues to fund development of
future solid waste facilities. However, depending on the level of funding, the debt service on issued bonds may

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report ES-19
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

result in increased user rates. Detailed long-term financial analyses of the County’s Collection and Disposal
Funds would be required to determine the financial effects of additional issued debt.
Private Activity Bonds
A private activity bond (PAB) is a municipal bond issued by or on behalf of local or state governments for the
purpose of providing special financing benefits for qualified private projects that serve a public purpose. Solid
waste PABs are also termed industrial revenue bonds (IRBs) and may be used to finance the qualifying solid
waste capital expenditures for a variety of projects. Federal tax law imposes a number of restrictions and
requirements on PAB issuance, including the requirement that the project be allocated “volume cap” at the state
level for certain qualifying activities (including private solid waste IRBs). Each year, the states receive a volume
cap allocation from the federal government based on the state’s population. As of 2022, the state volume capacity
limit is the greater of $335 million or $110 per capita.
Summary of Siting Findings and Financial Considerations
As discussed in the preceding sections, shifting the current solid waste management system in the County
towards a Zero Waste approach would involve significant financial investment, both from a capital/infrastructure
standpoint, as well as longer term operational and policy modifications. These investments would primarily
consist of the addition of specialized collection systems and facilities, but also costs related to education
programs, legislative efforts, increased enforcement efforts, and others. In order to illustrate the high-level cost
implications, Tables ES.2 and ES.3 are presented to show the costs of the current County system and the
additional cost effects of alternative facilities that could be part of a future “Zero Waste” strategy using the
tonnage managed by the County in FY2021 as the frame of reference. It is important to note that the estimates
below are only for that portion of the waste stream managed by DSWM, about 45% of the approximately 4.6
million tons of solid waste generated in Miami-Dade County in 2021.

Table ES.2 FY2021 Material Tonnages and Costs for Selected Miami-Dade County Solid Waste Management System
Facilities and Operations

No. Per Ton Total Tons Total FY2021

Material
Facilities Cost Received Cost

MSW and C&D Waste 2,075,960

Collections N/A $72 756,502 $68.1M

Transfer Stations 3 $51 627,095 $32.4M

RRF (RDF) 1 $61 1,009,062 $62.2M

Landfills 3 $30 784,034 $23.4M

Trash and Recycling Centers

13 $27 188,914 $5.1M
(TRCs)

Contract Disposal N/A $31 354,316 $10.9M

Curbside and Commercial Recyclables

Private Contract Collections and

N/A $157 61,708 $9.7M
Processing

TOTAL $211.8M
Source: Annual Comprehensive Financial Report 2021 and DSWM records

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report ES-20
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Table ES.3 Estimated Additional Costs of Zero Waste Alternative Facilities Using FY2021 Tonnage Data

Est. Total Estimated

No. Facilities for
Material Estimated Per Ton Cost Potential Annual Additional
Full Capacity
Tons 1 Annual Cost

FY2021 DSWM Disposal Fund Total Tons = 2,075,960

Organics (Food and Yard Waste – 16.86% of Total Tons) 159,397

Organics Collection N/A $72 - $600 159,397 $11.5M - $95.6M

Composting (Windrow) 3 $72-80 159,397 $11.5-12.8M

Composting (ASP) 3 $74-80 159,397 $11.8-12.8M

Composting (In-Vessel) 3 $9 - $50 159,397 $1.4M - $8.0M

Anaerobic Digestion 2 $57-90 159,397 $9.1M-$14.3M

MSW (31.89% of Total Tons) 662,024

Mechanical/Biological Treatment 2 $123-184 412,0242 $50.7-75.8M

Waste-to Energy (Mass Burn) 1 $57-60 412,0242 $23.5-24.7M

Gasification 3-4 $154 412,0242 $63.5M

Mixed Waste Processing 1 $85-150 412,0242 $61.8M

Curbside and Commercial Recyclables (32.53% of Total Tons) 675,310

Material Recovery Facility 1 $87 - $154 675,310 $58.8M - $104M

Glass Processing 70-100 $23 - $28 145,659 $3.4M - $4.1M

Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste (18.72% of Total Tons) 388,620

C&D Recycling Facility 2 $76 - $137 388,620 $29.5M - $58.3M

TOTAL $125M – $352M

1
Potential recovered tonnage value for each material is the FY2021 DSWM Disposal Total Tons of 2,075,960 multiplied by the material’s
estimated percentage of the total waste stream from the composition data.
2
Tonnage reduced by 250,000 to account for contract disposal put-or-pay requirement.

Table ES.4 summarizes the findings associated with the siting of all alternative technologies, including WTE
(Mass Burn), at all six sites included for consideration in this report. The information presented is based on
research and documentation from existing facilities operating within the U.S. and emerging technologies from
around the world that were included in a State of the Industry report prepared for the DSWM in conjunction with
the original June 2022 Siting Report. A copy of the State of the Industry report is included as Appendix D.
Costs presented in Table ES.4 are planning-level costs based on industry studies, actual facility data, internal
database, or other publicly available sourced data. Potential revenues are not included in the costs presented in
Table ES.4.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report ES-21
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Table ES.4 – Preliminary Siting Alternatives Analysis Findings

Area Estimated Cost

Materials Processed Site-Specific Considerations
Required Per Ton
Example Photo
Processing Development Site 1 – Medley Site A3 –
Alternative RRF Site (157 Site 16 - Ingraham Site 17 - Ingraham Site A1 - Dolphin Site A2 - Opa-Locka
Capacity Time (320 Ac. ± , ~100 Ac. Okeechobee
Technology Considerations Ac. ±, ~60 Ac Highway Site 1 (159 Highway Site 2 (81 Expressway Site (416 West Airport Site
Currently Road Site (68
Process Description Developable) Ac. ±) Ac. ±) Ac. ±) (460 Ac. ±)
Developable) Ac.±)

Process is suited for large volumes

such as that generated by entire
10-450+ Ac $72-$80+ (1) communities and collected by local High groundwater
governments, and high volume food- Reduced potential Reduced potential Proximity to residential Potential permitting may cause
processing businesses. Likely public public concerns with public concerns with zoning increases and public concerns. operational
Requires separate organics collection. concerns with noise, odor and vector noise, odor and vector potential public High groundwater difficulties,
Potential public
Low complexity, low skill level needed noise, odor and issues. High issues. High concerns with noise, may cause especially during
5-8 tons per concerns with noise,
for most operations. Minimum 30-day vector issues. groundwater may groundwater may odor and vector issues. operational wet season.
acre per day. odor and vector issues.
3-5 years processing time. Processing capacity Estimated cause operational cause operational High groundwater may difficulties, especially Estimated
Organics Typically, 80- Estimated maximum
depends on available land area. Not maximum difficulties, especially difficulties, especially cause operational during wet season. maximum
Composting 500 TPD processing capacity at
well suited for urban areas, potential processing during wet season. during wet season. difficulties, especially Estimated maximum processing
(Windrow) this site approximately
public concerns with noise, odor and capacity at this Estimated maximum Estimated Maximum during wet season. processing capacity capacity at this
200,000 tons per year
vector issues. Challenging wet site processing capacity at processing capacity at Maximum processing at this site, if fully site, may be
without filling lake
season operations. Good quality approximately this site approximately this site approximately capacity depends on developed, may be up approximately
areas.
compost produced. End uses/markets 125,000 tons per 300,000 tons per year. 150,000 tons per year. parcel area acquired to 1M tpy. Utilities and 125,000 tpy.
and capacities may need year. Utilities and travel Utilities and travel and developed, could travel times are Utilities and travel
This method involves forming organic waste into rows of long piles called “windrows”
development. Additional fleet times are concerns. times are concerns. be 1M tpy or more. concerns. times are
and aerating them periodically by either manually or mechanically turning the piles.
equipment and operators would be concerns.
needed for organics collection, site
operation and disposal of residuals.

Process is suitable for a relatively

homogenous mix of organic waste and
5-450+ Ac $74-$80+ (1) works well for larger quantity
generators of yard trimmings and
compostable municipal solid waste
(e.g., food scraps, paper products),
High groundwater
1-10 tons per such as local governments,
Reduced potential Reduced potential Proximity to residential Potential permitting may cause
acre per day. landscapers, or farms. Does not work
3-5 years Likely public public concerns with public concerns with zoning increases and public concerns. operational
Typically, 80- well for composting animal byproducts
concerns with noise, odor and vector noise, odor and vector potential public High groundwater difficulties,
700 TPD or grease from food processing Potential public
noise, odor and issues. High issues. High concerns with noise, may cause especially during
industries concerns with noise,
vector issues. groundwater may groundwater may odor and vector issues. operational wet season.
Organics odor and vector issues.
Requires separate organics collection. Estimated cause operational cause operational High groundwater may difficulties, especially Estimated
Composting Estimated maximum
Moderate complexity, moderate skill maximum difficulties, especially difficulties, especially cause operational during wet season. maximum
(Aerated level needed for operation. More processing capacity at
processing during wet season. during wet season. difficulties, especially Estimated maximum processing
Static Pile compact process than conventional this site approximately
capacity at this Estimated maximum Estimated Maximum during wet season. processing capacity capacity at this
(ASP)) windrow, different turning equipment. 250,000 tons per year
ASP involves mixing and placing organic waste in a large pile. To aerate the pile, site processing capacity at processing capacity at Maximum processing at this site, if fully site, may be
Minimum 30-day processing time. without filling lake
layers of loosely piled bulking agents (e.g., wood chips, shredded newspaper) are approximately this site approximately this site approximately capacity depends on developed, may be up approximately
Processing capacity depends on areas.
added so that air can pass from the bottom to the top of the pile. The piles also can 180,000 tons per 400,000 tons per year. 200,000 tons per year. parcel area acquired to 1M tpy. Utilities and 125,000 tpy.
be placed over a network of pipes that deliver air into or draw air out of the pile. Air available land area. Potential public year. Utilities and travel Utilities and travel and developed, could travel times are Utilities and travel
blowers may be activated by a timer or temperature sensors. concerns with noise, odor and vector times are concerns. times are concerns. be 1M tpy or more. concerns. times are
issues. Challenging wet season concerns.
operations. End uses/markets and
capacities may need development.
Additional fleet equipment and
operators would be needed for
organics collection, site operation and
disposal of residuals.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report ES-22
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Area Estimated Cost

Materials Processed Site-Specific Considerations
Required Per Ton
Example Photo
Processing Development Site 1 – Medley Site A3 –
Alternative RRF Site (157 Site 16 - Ingraham Site 17 - Ingraham Site A1 - Dolphin Site A2 - Opa-Locka
Capacity Time (320 Ac. ± , ~100 Ac. Okeechobee
Technology Considerations Ac. ±, ~60 Ac Highway Site 1 (159 Highway Site 2 (81 Expressway Site (416 West Airport Site
Currently Road Site (68
Process Description Developable) Ac. ±) Ac. ±) Ac. ±) (460 Ac. ±)
Developable) Ac.±)

This process can accommodate

virtually any type of organic waste
<1-20+ Ac $9-$50+ (1),(2)
(e.g., meat, animal manure, biosolids, High groundwater
food scraps) and is unaffected by Potential permitting
Compact may cause some
weather conditions. Materials that do and public concerns.
footprint is a Reduced potential Reduced potential Potential permitting operational
not compost completely (i.e. bones) High groundwater
5-100 tpd per good option for public concerns with public concerns with and public concerns. difficulties,
can be easily reprocessed and may cause some
vessel, 15 to 3-5 years this location. noise, odor and vector noise, odor and vector High groundwater may especially during
completely broken down. operational
1200 TPD Reduced issues. High issues. High cause some wet season.
Reduced potential difficulties, especially
potential public groundwater may groundwater may operational difficulties, Floodplain and
public concerns with during wet season.
Requires separate organics collection. concerns with cause some cause some especially during wet wetland mitigation
Organics noise, odor and vector Floodplain and
Variable complexity, low skill level noise, odor and operational difficulties, operational difficulties, season. Floodplain and may increase
Composting issues. Could be co- wetland mitigation
needed for operation. Short 5-7 day vector issues. especially during wet especially during wet wetland mitigation may development
(In-Vessel) located with other may increase
This method involves feeding organic materials into a drum, silo, concrete-lined processing time. Compact process, Depending on season. Utilities and season. Utilities and increase development costs. Utilities will
alternative facility(ies) development costs.
trench, or similar equipment. This allows good control of the environmental conditions smaller facility footprint, expandable footprint area, travel times are travel times are costs. All utilities need to be
on this site. Utilities will need to
such as temperature, moisture, and airflow. The material is mechanically turned or capacity. Better suited for urban areas, could be co- concerns. Could be co- concerns. Could be co- available near site. extended to site.
be extended to site.
mixed to make sure the material is aerated. The size of the vessel can vary in size vessels can be enclosed in metal located with located with other located with other Could be co-located Could be co-
Could be co-located
and capacity. building to mitigate potential public other alternative alternative facility(ies) alternative facility(ies) with other alternative located with other
with other alternative
concerns with odor and vector issues facility(ies) on on this site. on this site. facility(ies) on this site. alternative
facility(ies) on this
from receiving areas. Additional fleet this site. facility(ies) on this
site.
equipment and operators would be site.
needed for organics collection, site
operation and disposal of residuals.

3-40+ acres The most common feedstocks for this

depending on $57-$90+(1),(2) process are fats, oils and greases
capacity (FOG), food waste, and manure.

Requires separate organics collection.

High complexity, high skill level Potential permitting Floodplain and
needed for operation. Processing Possible Potential permitting Reduced potential Reduced potential Potential permitting and public concerns. wetland mitigation
capacity depends on available land capacity issues and public public concerns with public concerns with and public concerns. Floodplain and may increase
270-600 TPD 5-7 years
area. Potential permitting issues and limitations due to concerns with noise, noise, odor and vector noise, odor and vector Floodplain and wetland wetland mitigation development
public concerns with noise, odor and limited site area. odor and vector issues. issues. Presence of issues. Presence of mitigation may may increase costs. Utilities will
Anaerobic vector issues. Fire risk from methane Likely permitting Some utilities may floodplain will increase floodplain will increase increase development development costs. need to be
Digestion production. Additional composting or issues and need to be extended to development costs. development costs. costs. All utilities Utilities will need to extended to site.
disposal of resulting digestate solids public concerns site. Could be co- Utilities will need to be Utilities will need to be available near site. be extended to site. Could be co-
would be required. Resulting digestate with noise, odor located with other extended to site and extended to site and Could be co-located Could be co-located located with other
liquids can be used for fertilizer in and vector alternative facility(ies) travel times are travel times are with other alternative with other alternative alternative
cover maintenance for landfills or on issues. on this site. concerns. concerns. facility(ies) on this site. facility(ies) on this facility(ies) on this
This method typically involves feeding pre-sorted organic waste into water tanks and
agricultural land. Additional fleet site. site.
forming a wet slurry via conveyors, pumps, and mechanized agitation. The slurry is
equipment and operators would be
processed by microorganisms in a series of sealed chambers that are maintained at
needed for organics collection, site
the optimum conditions for anaerobic digestion. The process is optimized for the
operation and disposal of residuals.
production of biogas, which is then captured and can be used for electricity
End uses/markets and capacities may
generation, sold to a local gas utility, or used as fuel. The remaining organic solids
need development.
from the digestion can be used as compost and liquids may be used as fertilizer.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report ES-23
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Area Estimated Cost

Materials Processed Site-Specific Considerations
Required Per Ton
Example Photo
Processing Development Site 1 – Medley Site A3 –
Alternative RRF Site (157 Site 16 - Ingraham Site 17 - Ingraham Site A1 - Dolphin Site A2 - Opa-Locka
Capacity Time (320 Ac. ± , ~100 Ac. Okeechobee
Technology Considerations Ac. ±, ~60 Ac Highway Site 1 (159 Highway Site 2 (81 Expressway Site (416 West Airport Site
Currently Road Site (68
Process Description Developable) Ac. ±) Ac. ±) Ac. ±) (460 Ac. ±)
Developable) Ac.±)

Raw MSW is not appropriate for the

gasification process. Process
performance depends greatly on the
unique characteristics of the MSW
5-60 Ac $154 (3)
feedstock. Delivered MSW requires Floodplain and
extensive preparation (including Difficult permitting, Good transportation Potential permitting wetland mitigation
shredding and separation of glass, Good Potential permitting Potential permitting
close to Everglades access, all utilities and public concerns. may increase
metals, and inert materials) or gasifier transportation issues and community issues and community
Class I area and available near site. Floodplain and development
feed system customization. MSW also access, all opposition at this opposition at this
existing large emitters. Difficult permitting due wetland mitigation costs. Difficult
may have characteristics like higher utilities available. location. Expected location. Expected
Significant impacts to to close proximity to may increase permitting due to
moisture content which may Permitting and very challenging very challenging
local traffic. Everglades Class I development costs. nearby large
necessitate pre-gasification drying. In public opposition permitting due to permitting due to
100 – 300+ Development at this area. Floodplain and Difficult permitting emitter (Titan
10+ years addition, the non-uniformity of MSW challenges. proximity to Everglades proximity to Everglades
TPD site may require wetland mitigation may due to nearby large Pennsuco
feedstocks and the variability of the Permitting Class I Area. Utilities Class I Area. Utilities
Gasification additional time and increase development emitter (Titan Complex) and
specific composition over time require schedule may be will need to be will need to be
costs for backfilling and costs. Could be co- Pennsuco Complex) Everglades Class
flexible and robust gasifiers. faster as site has extended to site. extended to site.
structure foundations. located with other and Everglades Class I area. Utilities will
existing Power Significantly increased Significantly increased
Could be co-located alternative facility(ies) I area. Utilities will need to be
Gasification is a starved-oxygen, limited combustion thermochemical process that Plant Site local traffic and hauling local traffic and hauling
Unproven technology, significant pre- with other alternative on this site. Rail access need to be extended extended to site
converts organic fuel or waste materials into the gaseous products of primarily carbon Certification. costs. Could be co- costs. Could be co-
processing of MSW required. High facility(ies) on this site. on the northern to site Could be co- Could be co-
monoxide, hydrogen, as well as carbon dioxide and methane, collectively often RRF Landfill on located with other located with other
complexity, high skill level needed for WM Medley landfill boundary could be located with other located with other
referred to as a ‘Synthesis gas’ or ‘Syn Gas’. The resulting gas is considered a fuel site for slag alternative facility(ies) alternative facility(ies)
operation. Possible capacity adjacent to site for slag used for slag hauling to alternative facility(ies) alternative
due to the flammability and energy content and can be converted into many different disposal. on this site. on this site.
limitations. Increased fire risk from disposal. out-of-county landfill. on this site. facility(ies) on this
liquid or gaseous fuel products, or directly combusted in a gas turbine. Any non- syngas production; however, syngas site.
organics in the chamber are melted and form a glass-like slag typically referred to as could be used for electrical generation.
obsidian. High capital and operating cost. Active
ash monofill required, preferably, on
site for slag disposal.

40-60
$57-60
Ac Difficult permitting,
Good Potential permitting Potential permitting
close to Everglades Good transportation Potential permitting
transportation issues and community issues and community Floodplain and
Class I area and access, all utilities and public concerns.
access, all opposition at this opposition at this wetland mitigation
Raw MSW and other wastes. existing large emitters. available near site. Floodplain and
utilities available. location. Expected location. Expected may increase
Significant impacts to Floodplain and wetland wetland mitigation
Permitting and very challenging very challenging development
4,000-5,000 local traffic. mitigation may may increase
8-10+ years public opposition permitting due to permitting due to costs. Difficult
TPD Development at this increase development development costs.
challenges. proximity to Everglades proximity to Everglades permitting due to
Waste-to- site may require costs. Difficult Difficult permitting
Permitting Class I Area. Utilities Class I Area. Utilities nearby large
Energy additional time and permitting due to close due to nearby
schedule may be will need to be will need to be emitter (Titan
(Mass Burn) costs for backfilling and proximity to Everglades Everglades Class I
faster as site has extended to site. extended to site. Pennsuco
No changes to existing collection structure foundations. Class I area. Could be area. Utilities will
existing Power Significantly increased Significantly increased Complex) and
This method involves receiving collected MSW and feeding it to boilers, where it is system needed. Highest capacity Could be co-located co-located with other need to be extended
Plant Site local traffic and hauling local traffic and hauling Everglades Class
converted at high temperature to gas and ash residue. The MSW combustion heats alternative. High complexity, high skill with other alternative alternative facility(ies) to site Could be co-
Certification. costs. Could be co- costs. Could be co- I area. Utilities will
boiler water to steam, which is routed to turbine generators to generate electricity to level needed for operation. Permitting facility(ies) on this site. on this site. Rail access located with other
RRF Landfill on located with other located with other need to be
power the facility and export for electrical revenue. Flue gas is routed through an air and public opposition challenges. WM Medley landfill on the northern alternative facility(ies)
site for ash alternative facility(ies) alternative facility(ies) extended to site.
pollution control system that uses lime slurry, activated carbon, baghouse filters, and High capital and operating cost. adjacent to site for ash boundary. on this site.
disposal. on this site. on this site.
other technologies to remove pollutants from the flue gas prior to exhaust. Ash Electrical generation for revenue or disposal.
residue is routed through magnetic and eddy current separators to recover up to 80% powering other facilities. Good metal
of metals from the ash. recovery possible from ash. Landfill
needed for ash disposal.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report ES-24
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Area Estimated Cost

Materials Processed Site-Specific Considerations
Required Per Ton
Example Photo
Processing Development Site 1 – Medley Site A3 –
Alternative RRF Site (157 Site 16 - Ingraham Site 17 - Ingraham Site A1 - Dolphin Site A2 - Opa-Locka
Capacity Time (320 Ac. ± , ~100 Ac. Okeechobee
Technology Considerations Ac. ±, ~60 Ac Highway Site 1 (159 Highway Site 2 (81 Expressway Site (416 West Airport Site
Currently Road Site (68
Process Description Developable) Ac. ±) Ac. ±) Ac. ±) (460 Ac. ±)
Developable) Ac.±)

Process is suited for low to moderate

5-15 Ac. $103-$133
MSW volumes.

Potential
Potential public
permitting and
concerns with noise, Potential permitting
Potential public Potential public public concerns.
Potential public odor and vector issues. and public concerns.
concerns with noise, concerns with noise, Floodplain and
concerns with Floodplain and wetland Floodplain and
Changes to existing collection system Potential public odor and vector issues. odor and vector issues. wetland mitigation
noise, odor and mitigation may wetland mitigation
may be needed if required by MBT concerns with noise, Significantly increased Significantly increased may increase
200-560 TPD 3-4 years vector issues. increase development may increase
project developer. High complexity, odor and vector issues. local traffic and hauling local traffic and hauling development
Could be co- costs. Could be co- development costs.
Mechanical high skill level needed for most Could be co-located costs. Utilities will need costs. Utilities will need costs. Could be
located with located with other Could be co-located
Biological operations. Pelletized SRF would need with other alternative to be extended to site. to be extended to site. co-located with
other alternative alternative facility(ies) with other alternative
Treatment to be loaded and transported to facility(ies) on this site. Could be co-located Could be co-located other alternative
facility(ies) on on this site. Local facility(ies) on this
another facility for firing. End Local concrete facilities with other alternative with other alternative facility(ies) on this
this site. Local concrete facilities may site. Local concrete
uses/markets and capacities may may be able to use facility(ies) on this site. facility(ies) on this site. site. Local
Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) is a combined approach to solid waste concrete be able to use SRF. facilities may be able
need development. High capital and SRF. Local concrete facilities Local concrete facilities concrete facilities
management that has both mechanical and biological treatment phases separately facilities may be Rail access on the to use SRF. Utilities
operating costs, few facilities in may be able to use may be able to use may be able to
processed to ultimately produce a pelletized solid fuel. The mechanical stage able to use SRF. northern boundary would have to be
operation. Additional fleet equipment SRF. SRF. use SRF. Utilities
comprises of automated mechanical sorting equipment such as via conveyors, could be used for SRF extended to site.
and operators would be needed for would have to be
magnets, trommels, shredders and eddy current separators to process combustible transport.
site operation and transport of SRF. extended to site.
materials, while the biological treatment stage of MBT could involve anaerobic
digestion, composting or bio drying. As a result of the mechanical and biological
separation and processing, waste is typically shredded, and converted into pelletized
solid recovered fuel (SRF).

An MWP facility can accept a wide

variety of waste materials. Modern
MWP facilities typically recover
20-60 Ac $85-$150
plastics, cardboard, paper, metals, and
in some cases the organic fraction of
the waste stream. Potential
Potential public
permitting and
Likely public Potential public Potential public concerns with noise, Potential permitting
public concerns.
concerns with concerns with noise, concerns with noise, odor and vector issues. and public concerns.
No changes to existing collection Floodplain and
noise, odor and Potential public odor and vector issues, odor and vector issues, Floodplain and wetland Floodplain and
system needed. High complexity, but wetland mitigation
vector issues. concerns with noise, but may be minimal at but may be minimal at mitigation may wetland mitigation
low skill level needed for most may increase
Mixed Depending on odor and vector issues. this location. Utilities this location. Utilities increase development may increase
200-1500 operations. Potential permitting issues development
Waste 5-7 years footprint area Significant impacts to will need to be will need to be costs. Could be co- development costs.
TPD and public concerns with noise, odor costs. Utilities
Processing could be co- local traffic. Could be extended to site. extended to site. located with other Utilities would have to
and vector issues. Additional would have to be
Facility located with co-located with other Significantly increased Significantly increased alternative facility(ies) be extended to site.
processing/disposal of post-processed extended to site.
another alternative facility(ies) hauling costs. Could be hauling costs. Could be on this site. Rail access Could be co-located
MSW would be required. Could be co-
alternative on this site. co-located with other co-located with other on the northern with other alternative
Contamination of recovered materials located with other
facility on this alternative facility(ies) alternative facility(ies) boundary could be facility(ies) on this
is significant issue, recovery rates for alternative
site. on this site. on this site. used for sorted MSW site.
marketable materials typically 30% or facility(ies) on this
hauling for disposal.
This method involves using a combination of mechanical and manual systems to less. End uses/markets and capacities site.
receive, separate, and process unsegregated municipal solid waste to separate may need development. Moderate
recyclables. An MWP facility requires no consumer participation, education, or sorting capital and operating costs, and
behavior. Odors, vectors, and contamination are significant issues, and these additional fleet equipment and
facilities typically have low recovery rates. operators would be needed for site
operations and transport of residuals.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report ES-25
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Area Estimated Cost

Materials Processed Site-Specific Considerations
Required Per Ton
Example Photo
Processing Development Site 1 – Medley Site A3 –
Alternative RRF Site (157 Site 16 - Ingraham Site 17 - Ingraham Site A1 - Dolphin Site A2 - Opa-Locka
Capacity Time (320 Ac. ± , ~100 Ac. Okeechobee
Technology Considerations Ac. ±, ~60 Ac Highway Site 1 (159 Highway Site 2 (81 Expressway Site (416 West Airport Site
Currently Road Site (68
Process Description Developable) Ac. ±) Ac. ±) Ac. ±) (460 Ac. ±)
Developable) Ac.±)

Materials recovery facilities sort a wide

array of recyclable materials,
including, but not limited to plastics,
cardboard (OCC), paper (including
20-60 Ac $87-154
newspapers, magazines, office paper,
mixed paper, etc.), glass bottles and
jars, and metal containers, including Potential
aluminum and steel cans. permitting and
Potential permitting
Modification of existing curbside public concerns.
Minimal and public concerns.
collection system needed. High Minimal expected Minimal expected Minimal expected Floodplain and
expected Floodplain and
complexity, but low skill level needed Minimal expected public concerns. public concerns. public concerns. wetland mitigation
permitting and wetland mitigation
for most operations. Capacity limited permitting and public Utilities will need to be Utilities will need to be Floodplain and wetland may increase
public concerns. may increase
Material 300-825 TPD 5-7 years by site area. Typical maximum concerns. Moderate extended to site. extended to site. mitigation may development
Could be co- development costs.
Recovery processing capacity for these facilities impacts to local traffic. Significantly increased Significantly increased increase development costs. Utilities
located with Utilities would have to
Facility is approximately 350-400 tons per day. Could be co-located hauling costs. Could be hauling costs. Could be costs. Could be co- would have to be
another be extended to site.
Minimal public concerns other than with another alternative co-located with another co-located with another located with other extended to site.
alternative Could be co-located
noise and odor. Additional facility on this site. alternative facility on alternative facility on alternative facility(ies) Could be co-
facility on this with another
processing/disposal of some post- this site this site on this site. located with
site. alternative facility on
processed materials (i.e., glass) would another
this site.
be required. Contamination of alternative facility
recovered materials is significant on this site.
A materials recovery facility (MRF) uses a combination of mechanical and manual issue. End uses/markets and
systems to receive, separate, and process collected recycling materials to be sold to capacities may need development.
end buyers. Moderate capital and operating costs,
and additional fleet equipment and
operators would be needed for site
operations.

5-20 Ac $76-150 C&D waste is defined in Chapter 62- Potential

701, FAC and generally includes a permitting and
Likely public Potential permitting
broad range of waste materials public concerns.
concerns with Potential public Potential public and public concerns.
generated from the construction, Floodplain and
noise, odor and concerns with noise, concerns with noise, Floodplain and
destruction, or renovation of a Likely public concerns wetland mitigation
dust issues. odor and dust issues. odor and dust issues. Potential public wetland mitigation
structure, including land development with noise, odor and may increase
Depending on Utilities will need to be Utilities will need to be concerns with noise, may increase
C&D operations. This type of waste typically dust issues. Depending development
300 – 825 footprint area extended to site. extended to site. odor and dust issues. development costs.
Recycling 3-7 years includes materials such as steel, on footprint area could costs. Utilities
TPD could be co- Significantly increased Significantly increased Could be co-located Utilities would have to
Facility glass, brick, concrete, asphalt be co-located with would have to be
located with hauling costs. Could be hauling costs. Could be with other alternative be extended to site.
material, pipe, gypsum wallboard, and another alternative extended to site.
another co-located with another co-located with another facility(ies) on this site. Could be co-located
lumber, but also includes rocks, soils, facility on this site. Could be co-
alternative alternative facility on alternative facility on with another
tree remains, trees, and other located with
facility on this this site. this site. alternative facility on
vegetative matter, clean cardboard, another
Processing of C&D waste is typically performed either indoors or outdoors at a site. this site.
paper, plastic, wood, and metal alternative facility
dedicated C&D recycling facility using mechanical and manual sorting systems similar
scraps, yard trash and other materials. on this site.
to those found in a Material Recovery Facility. The size, equipment, labor needs and
layout of a C&D recycling facility depends on its complexity and capacity

(1)
Sources: DC Study (2017 costs escalated) and NREL Study (2020 costs escalated). Cost does not include additional organics collection system costs.
(2)
Costs estimated from vendor quote, does not include building or land acquisition costs.
(3)
Costs based on 2017 article in Waste Management journal using developed country costs.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report ES-26
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

1 Introduction
The Miami-Dade County (County) Department of Solid Waste Management (Department or DSWM) provides waste
collection and recycling services for residents in the unincorporated areas of the County as well as several cities
that have signed Interlocal Agreements (ILAs) with the Department. The Department owns and operates 13
Neighborhood Trash and Recycling Centers, three Regional Transfer Stations, two Home Chemical Collection
Centers, three landfills and one Resource Recovery Facility (RRF). Chapter 15 of the County Code of Ordinances
(Code) defines the sum of these facilities as the Solid Waste System (System).
A major component of the System is the existing RRF, which can accept up to 3,000 tons per day (tpd) of solid
waste, processes approximately 1,000,000 tons of solid waste annually and produces approximately 77 megawatts
of electricity annually. The existing RRF was constructed in the early 1980’s, became operational in 1982 and due
to its age and declining physical and operational condition the Department, the Miami-Dade County Board of
County Commissioners (Commission) and the Miami-Dade County Mayor (Mayor) have been considering the
development of a new waste-to-energy (WTE) facility to replace the existing RRF.
In April 2022, the Department was tasked with identifying and analyzing potential sites within the County that would
be suitable for the development of a future WTE Facility, and to report findings within 60 days. Arcadis U.S., Inc.,
(Arcadis), as the Bond Engineer for DSWM, assisted the County with this preliminary analysis and prepared the
Future Waste-to-Energy Facility Siting Alternatives Analysis Report (“Siting Report”) that was completed in June
2022. The Siting Report identified four potential sites, and the Commission selected the existing RRF site for the
development of a future WTE facility.
On February 12, 2023, a serious fire occurred at the RRF that heavily damaged the facility and, more importantly,
destroyed both the processing equipment that converts incoming garbage to Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF) and the
conveyors that feed the RDF to the boilers. With no capacity to make RDF or feed it to the boilers, the fire rendered
the RRF inoperable and the facility has been offline since then. The RRF fire, and its effect on the Doral
community, prompted the Commission to reconsider the siting of a future WTE facility. The selection of the existing
RRF site was rescinded and the Department, per the Commission’s motion dated March 7, 2023, was tasked to:

 Analyze and recommend siting alternatives for a new WTE facility to replace the existing RRF
 Explore alternative technologies to a WTE facility; and
 Prepare a report regarding said analysis and recommendations, including costs and potential funding sources.
Based on discussions during the Commission meeting on March 7, 2023, our understanding is that the BCC
directed the DSWM to reconsider the four potential sites that were identified in the Siting Report as suitable for the
development of a future Waste-to-Energy facility and prepare a report of findings within 90 calendar days. The
report will include additional analysis and information on the four potential sites including environmental, traffic, and
public health effects, considering alternative technologies and facilities that may be needed to implement a Zero
Waste management strategy within the County, and high-level cost implications, a discussion of potential funding
sources, and potential Solid Waste System effects. Three additional sites (Sites A1 – Dolphin Expressway, A2 –
Opa-Locka West Airport, and A3 – Okeechobee Road) were added to the original four potential sites at the request
of the County over the course of the evaluation process and are included in this report for consideration.
In the June 2022 Siting Report, Arcadis performed a two-stage screening process to locate and evaluate potential
sites within the County that would be suitable for the development of a future Waste-to-Energy (WTE) facility. The
first screening stage identified parcels located in Miami-Dade County that met initial siting criteria and compared
them to agreed-upon Pass/Fail criteria. Parcels that passed the initial screening stage were further analyzed in the
second screening stage, which included the evaluation of additional, more extensive siting parameters.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 1-1
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

This analysis expands on the original Siting Report to provide the BCC and County staff with more detailed analysis
on the four final potential sites and the three additional sites, including a practical discussion regarding the
technologies and infrastructure, policy changes, and relative costs required to shift the County’s current system of
solid waste management toward a Zero Waste strategy.
Due to the expedited nature of this assignment, it should be noted that Arcadis’ services are preliminary in nature
and a more detailed review and investigation of the factors which may affect the potential development of any solid
waste processing facility at any proposed location is required and is assumed would be conducted in a future phase
of the County’s planning and implementation process. In addition, the information related to a future Zero Waste
management strategy is preliminary and intended to provide an introductory overview of the state of the industry
and the factors to be taken into consideration for the current System and County policies. It is recommended that a
much more detailed analysis be conducted and a comprehensive Zero Waste Master Plan be considered to give
the Board the accurate information needed to make informed policy decisions.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 1-2
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

2 Preliminary Future WTE Facility Siting Evaluation

Update
As mentioned previously, in the June 2022 Siting Report, Arcadis performed a two-stage screening process to
locate and evaluate potential sites within the County that would be suitable for the development of a future WTE
facility. For a detailed discussion of the screening methodology, please see the June 2022 Siting Report. This
section expands on the discussion of the screening criteria used in the original Siting Report to provide the
Commission and County staff with more information on the screening criteria rationale that resulted in the selection
of the four final identified sites. The three additional sites were added at the request of the County and evaluated
against the screening criteria for comparison.

2.1 Applied Screening Criteria

The screening criteria used in the Siting Report are detailed in Table 2.1 and include both the initial and detailed
screening criteria. These criteria were generated out of a collaborative effort between Arcadis and Department staff
and were applied during the screening analysis, and where possible, a more thorough explanation of the rationale
used in their development is provided. To aid with illustrating the extent of the siting limitations for a WTE facility
represented by the screening criteria, a map of Miami-Dade County showing the areas eliminated from
consideration due to the screening criteria was developed and is included as Appendix C. It should be noted that
some siting criteria were suspended for the RRF site, Site 1 - Medley, and Sites A1 – Dolphin Expressway, A2 –
Opa-Locka West Airport and A3 – Okeechobee Road, as they were directly requested by the County for detailed
review.
It is important to note that the screening criteria used in the Siting Report were intended solely for the development
of a future WTE facility on one of the seven identified sites. Other facility types would not have the identical siting
requirements and could possibly result in more options for siting locations in the County, and a separate siting
analysis should be considered for each type of facility. In this report, alternative technologies and facilities that may
be needed to implement a Zero Waste strategy were evaluated for the seven potential sites using the same
screening criteria, but no new alternative sites were identified or evaluated.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 2-1
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Table 2.1 Applied Site Screening Criteria

New WTE Facility Site Screening Criteria

Siting Criteria Criteria Description

Minimum site area sufficient for a mass-burn WTE facility with a throughput capacity of 4,000 tons per day (tpd), expandable to 5,000 tpd, if possible. The facility capacity is a major determining factor in the parcel area needed, and dictates the size of the
WTE Facility
buildings, areas for roads, stormwater facilities, parking, etc. In addition, setback requirements required by local building codes consume additional acreage. For a 4,000 ton per day WTE facility the minimum site area was determined to be approximately 40
Capacity
acres.

Minimum 40-acre site (as explained above) comprised of no more than two contiguous parcels and two owners, no limit on the maximum acreage of any site. In discussions with County staff it was determined that a screening criteria requiring a contiguous 40-
Site Area and acre parcel would be overly restrictive and rule out many possible siting options, but having more than two owners would likely result in a protracted property acquisition schedule, increase acquisition costs, and increase the likelihood that Eminent Domain
Ownership proceedings would have to be used to acquire one or more of the properties. Sites that were less than 40 acres were analyzed to confirm if any two adjacent parcels, with no more than two owners, could be combined into one site meeting the minimum 40-acre
size criteria.

Sites with parcel boundaries with shapes or dimensions incompatible with a 4,000 ton per day WTE facility were eliminated. In general, WTE facilities for this targeted throughput capacity plus expansion capabilities, if possible, require a parcel area that is at
Site Geometry
least 1,200 feet wide and approximately 1,500 feet long.

Site(s) must have the following zoning designations: Vacant, Industrial, Commercial, or Agricultural. Properties with existing abandoned building structures and Conservation, Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) Program properties, or Other Protected
Zoning
Lands not screened by the GIS tool were excluded. The exclusion of properties with existing abandoned building structures was due to concerns about potential contamination issues that the County would be required to remediate prior to construction, which
Considerations
could greatly affect both the schedule and cost of the facility.

Residential Distance to residential zoning was determined using Geographic Information System (GIS) tools and those sites that were within 1,500 feet of residential zoning were eliminated. This requirement was not applied to Site 1, which was submitted by the County for
Zoning Offset detailed screening consideration. The 1,500-foot offset distance proved to be overly restrictive in the initial screening, and after discussion with County staff, the decision was made to increase the minimum offset from residential zoning to one-half mile (2,640 ft).

Proximity to Arcadis reviewed County Code Chapter 33 Zoning, Article XXXVII – Airport Zoning, adopted November 19, 2019 (Airport Zoning Article) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations pertinent to land use and height restrictions in the proximity of airports
Airport and heliports. Sites less than four (4) miles from an airport were excluded from consideration.

Transportation /
Maximum travel time of 10 minutes to major (arterial) or collector roads as shown on the 2010 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Federal Functional Classification map was calculated using posted speed limits and online mapping tools.
Travel Time

Canal or Major
Roadways on Sites with a canal or major roadway located on the site parcel were precluded from further evaluation because they could not be abandoned and developed.
Site

Lake / Borrow Sites that included a lake or borrow pit in a portion of the parcel were included as they could be filled. However, sites that were mostly or entirely excavated as a lake or borrow pit were eliminated due to the significant additional time and expense associated with
Pit backfilling to create the developable area of the site.

County Parks
and other
County parks and other County properties (i.e., wellfields, etc.) that were not screened by the GIS tool were manually identified and eliminated
County
properties

Other Siting
Any properties recommended directly by the County to be evaluated as well as sites within and outside of the Urban Development Boundary were considered.
Considerations

The Location criteria includes the physical location of the site relative to existing Solid Waste System facilities, large air emissions sources, transportation routes, and expected impacts to the System if a proposed WTE facility were sited there. Distance to known
large emitters, such as the Titan Pennsuco Complex, WM Medley Landfill, CEMEX Miami Concrete Plant, FPL Turkey Point Power Plant, etc., were calculated for purposes of determining the potential effects on air permitting. Transportation routes were further
Location
evaluated for potential traffic conditions, physical and operational condition of roadways, truck queueing areas, and other features that may affect the routing or traffic patterns of vehicles entering and leaving the proposed site. Finally, an evaluation of the effects
on the County’s Solid Waste System was conducted to determine potential changes to System operations and costs resulting from the assumption of WTE operations at the site.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 2-2
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

New WTE Facility Site Screening Criteria

WTE facilities have high demand requirements on several utilities. This screening criteria evaluated the availability of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, electric utility substations, stormwater, and groundwater at each site. If a utility was not available,
the closest available service location was determined by a combination of on-line tools and information, service area maps, inspection of aerial and street-level photography, and discussions with County staff and utility services providers. The additional work
needed to extend utilities to the site was then included in the site evaluation. Brief discussions of the evaluation of needs and demands for the various utility types are as follows:

• Potable water is needed not only for normal human consumption and fire protection but may also be needed (if other sources are not available) for supply water for the boiler feedwater systems, lime slurry production in the Air Pollution Control (APC)
system, and many other uses at the facility. For a 4,000 ton per day WTE facility, a site would need a minimum 12” water main with sufficient service pressure to provide an 8” fire line and a 4” potable supply line to the proposed facility. If service pressure is
inadequate, a booster station must be added. If potable water utilities are unavailable, the construction of a typical 12” water main from the nearest service location (including valves and appurtenances) is needed, and depending on the site, additional easement
or right-of-way area may be needed.

• Wastewater (Sanitary Sewer) is needed for toilet facilities, boiler blowdown water, and several other facility processes. The proposed WTE facility would need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity of approximately 96,000 gallons per day.
Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives. Reuse of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE facilities, but for site
evaluation and comparative purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary sewer. If gravity sewer is not available, a lift station and 6” force main would have to be constructed to connect to the nearest sanitary sewer manhole or lift station
wetwell, and depending on the site, additional easement or right-of-way area may be needed.

• Natural Gas is the most economical fuel for the boiler auxiliary burners, which ignite the solid waste fuel fed to the boiler grates and allow for controlled startup and shutdown of the proposed facility. The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping
Utilities
to provide natural gas to the proposed facility. Online maps and other resources were used to determine the approximate location of gas service pipelines within the County. If gas service is unavailable, the construction of a typical 6” gas main from the nearest
pipeline location (including valves and appurtenances) is needed, and depending on the site, additional easement or right-of-way area may be needed.

• Electricity is used at WTE facilities to operate the various mechanical components. Once a WTE facility becomes operational, the steam generated from the boilers is typically used to drive a steam turbine connected to a generator to provide both the
internal electricity required to operate the facility as well as produce excess electricity that is sold to the local electric utility. For this evaluation, the nearest electrical substation was located and the shortest route for the transmission line along existing or
proposed access road right-of-way or FPL easements was determined. Additional analysis would need to be performed to verify substation/switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and available terminations.

• Stormwater management and controls in accordance with Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) rules are required for the proposed WTE site. For this evaluation, the site soils, groundwater elevations, presence of floodplains and
other information were analyzed to determine what effects the site conditions may have on the proposed WTE facility layout, construction issues, and if any connections to existing stormwater collection systems was available. If the site is located in a floodplain,
typically the stormwater system must include additional floodplain compensating storage, which increase both the cost and the site area used for the stormwater system.

• Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to
consume an average 552,000 gallons per day. Other innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive use permit from the South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD) would be required to withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will have to
provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil survey information was reviewed to confirm the type and potential suitability of soils located at each site. Soils information for all sites was obtained from the USDA’s Web Soil Survey (WSS), which provides
soil data and information produced by the National Cooperative Soil Survey. The soils data provides a wealth of information on the physical conditions at a site that can affect development, including previous site disturbance, groundwater levels, soil bearing
Soils capacities and foundation design requirements, depth to bedrock, presence of muck, and many others. If muck and other unsuitable soils were found on a site, they would need to be removed and structural fill imported and placed under affected building
foundations. Additional site preparation, such as additional fill for elevation of structures, vibro-compaction, or other work may also be needed. Additional geotechnical investigations and structural design work may also be needed to address poor soil
conditions.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 2-3
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

New WTE Facility Site Screening Criteria

Extensive environmental permitting is required to construct a WTE Facility, in any location. A brief listing of the Federal, State, and local environmental permitting requirements, policies and jurisdictional interfaces required to site, construct and operate a new
WTE facility in Miami-Dade County are provided below and were used to provide an estimated degree of permitting difficulty summary for each site. These parameters have not changed in this report. For more detailed explanations, please refer to the June
2022 Siting Report.

 FDEP’s Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) Program regulates activities involving the alteration of surface water flows. This includes new activities in uplands that generate stormwater runoff from upland construction, as well as dredging and filling in
wetlands and other surface waters.
 Threatened & Endangered Species - determine if any known Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species or critical habitat for endangered species were present on the sites being evaluated, such as the Florida bonneted bat, the Florida Panther, and the
Florida wood stork.
 Floodplains - Flood maps serve as critical decision-making tools in flood mitigation, land use planning, emergency management and general public awareness.
 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) Considerations - CERP is a framework for restoring, protecting and preserving the greater Everglades ecosystem. The plan is a 50-50 partnership between the State of Florida and the federal
government. The State of Florida and the South Florida Water Management District have so far invested approximately $2.3 billion in CERP-related land acquisition, project design and construction. The CERP project boundaries layer was used to identify
conservation lands, including the Everglades National Park, to determine if any parcel was adjacent to any known or existing CERP project.
 Code and Policy Considerations
o Miami-Dade County Wellfield Protection Areas - New activities that use or store hazardous materials or generate hazardous waste are prohibited within certain parts of the wellfield protection areas per Sec. 24-43 of the County Code.
o Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) Conservation Aquifer Recharge and Drainage Element (Element) - The intent of this Element is to identify, conserve, appropriately use, protect and restore as necessary the biological, geological
and hydrological resources of Miami-Dade County. The following policies were considered when conducting the screening analysis.
 Policy CON-7J - In evaluating applications that will result in alterations or adverse impacts to wetlands, those found to be inconsistent with CERP objectives, projects or features shall be denied.
 Policy CON-9A - All activities that adversely affect habitat that is critical to federal or State designated, endangered or threatened species shall be prohibited unless such activity(ies) are a public necessity and there are no possible
alternative sites where the activity(ies) can occur.
 Policy CON-9B - All nesting, roosting, and feeding habitats used by Federal or State designated endangered or threatened species, shall be protected and buffered from surrounding development or activities and further degradation or
destruction of such habitat shall not be authorized.
o Miami-Dade County Airport Zoning Code - The Airport Zoning Code describes the regulations to provide both airspace protection and land uses compatible with airport operations.
o Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Requirements - the FAA governing regulation is 14 CFR Part 77. In accordance with this regulation and the Miami-Dade County Airport Zoning System Checklist, revised August 5, 2015, the distance for the
FAA approach surface height restriction was determined to be approximately 3.4 miles. The existing RRF eastern-most stack is approximately four miles away from MIA along the centerline of the Runways 12-30. Therefore, for the purposes of the
Environment
preliminary siting analysis, parcels located within four miles of any of the airports governed by the Airport Zoning Code, including the Homestead Air Reserve Base, were not considered.
o Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act Certification - The Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA), Sections 403.501-.518, Florida Statute (F.S.), is the State of Florida centralized process for licensing large electrical power plants and is
administered by the FDEP Siting Coordination Office. The environmental permitting associated with siting, constructing, and operating a WTE facility falls under the PPSA. The PSD, NPDES, and other permits that the FDEP issues pursuant to
federal programs are issued separately from, and in addition to, the issuance of the PPSA certification. Permits issued by the USACE also are issued separately from the PPSA certification.
o Florida Transmission Line Act Certification - The Florida Transmission Line Siting Act (TLSA), Sections 403.52-.5365, Florida Statutes (F.S.), is the State of Florida centralized process for licensing electrical transmission lines that are 230 kilovolts
(kV) or larger; cross a county line; and are 15 miles or longer.
 Air Permitting

Air Quality Permitting Requirements

The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) required the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for common pollutants emitted from numerous and diverse sources considered harmful
to public health and the environment.

Based on preliminary estimates of potential emission levels, a new 4,000 tpd WTE Facility would constitute a new major emission source. As a proposed new major source, a 4,000 tpd WTE Facility would be subject to federal New Source Review (NSR)
requirements. NSR refers to the pre-construction review process that applies to new and modified major sources for the purpose of protecting air quality through a permitting framework that supports compliance with the NAAQS. NSR includes two permitting
programs: Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting and Nonattainment NSR (NNSR) permitting. Under NSR, a new 4,000 tpd WTE facility proposed for a location in Miami-Dade County would be subject to PSD permitting requirements in
recognition that PSD review applies to new major sources in NAAQS attainment areas.

PSD Permitting Program

PSD permitting provides for carefully managed economic growth in a manner consistent with preserving clean air resources. The primary objectives of the PSD permitting program are to protect public health and welfare and to limit degradation of air quality
in surrounding areas and within designated areas of special recreational, scenic, or historic value.

Siting a new 4,000 tpd WTE facility in Miami-Dade County presents unique challenges considering the complex pre-construction permitting requirements that apply under the PSD permitting regulation. In particular, the proximity of nearby sensitive areas
(Everglades National Park, which is a federally protected Class I area, and the Biscayne Bay sensitive Class II area) and the presence of existing facilities with high emission levels in the county, impart uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE Facility and make securing an air construction permit very challenging at the prospective sites. Extensive air dispersion modeling, additional analyses and correspondence with regulatory agencies is required in
order to definitively evaluate the feasibility and degree of difficulty of air permitting at any proposed site.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 2-4
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

New WTE Facility Site Screening Criteria

A proposed 4,000 ton per day WTE facility would be expected to receive approximately 300-400 inbound vehicles per day and provide for a typical queueing length suitable for between 50 and 100 vehicles during peak delivery periods. This transportation
Transportation demand requires, at a minimum, an FDOT standard two-lane road with paved shoulders and stormwater controls and sufficient area on site for vehicle queueing. Also, per the Initial Siting requirements, the travel time to an Arterial or Collector Road must be
less than 10 minutes. This report proposes no changes to the previous transportation evaluation results for the four potential sites.

According to the USEPA, the term environmental justice is defined as: “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of
Community environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” The USEPA EJScreen Tool was used in the June 2022 Siting Report to provide an initial estimate of environmental justice concerns at each site. This report makes no changes to the initial estimates for the four
potential sites.

The development of a WTE facility typically takes seven (7) to ten (10) years to complete. This time frame, which includes the preliminary planning stage, siting, permitting, financing, procurement, design, and construction, varies depending upon the complexity
Schedule of the project and extent of the regulatory and public concerns. For a detailed discussion of the methodology Arcadis used to develop preliminary high-level implementation schedules for the four final identified sites, please refer to the June 2022 Siting Report.
Considerations While the starting date for the development implementation schedules will need to be adjusted depending on when final decisions are made by the County, the project durations included in the Siting Report have not been changed. The duration for new WTE
facility implementation activities is estimated to be between 7 years, 9 months to 11 years, 6 months depending upon the ultimate site selected. See Table 2-2.

Arcadis developed a cost considerations table to approximate the difference in cost of the various components required to site, construct and operate a new WTE facility at the seven sites. This cost comparison includes planning level estimates for additional
costs associated with the facility construction, annual Operations and Maintenance (O&M), as well as the potential system impacts specific to each site option. The additional costs are compared to the costs of developing a new WTE facility on the existing site,
Cost which is considered the base case and reflects estimated stormwater lake fill costs and environmental considerations. The capital costs and first year O&M cost associated with a new WTE facility located on the Existing RRF site were developed previously by
Arcadis as part of a separate effort and represents the base case for comparative purposes.

For a detailed discussion of the cost estimation methodology for the seven identified sites, please refer to the June 2022 Siting Report.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 2-5
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

2.2 Evaluated Sites

The June 2022 Siting Report identified four
potentially viable sites for consideration, which Site 1 - Medley
are listed below and shown in Figure 2.1:

 Site 1 – Medley
 Site 16 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #1
 Site 17 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #2
 Existing RRF Site – Doral

Existing RRF Site - Doral

Site 16 – Ingraham Figure 2.1 Original Evaluated Sites Location

Hwy. Site #1 Maps

Site 17 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #2

As mentioned previously, three additional sites (Sites A1 – Dolphin Expressway, A2 – Opa-Locka West Airport and
A3 – Okeechobee Road) were added to the original four final sites at the request of the County over the course of
this evaluation process and are included in this report for consideration. The locations of these sites are shown in
Figure 2.2 below.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 2-6
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Site A1 – Dolphin Expressway

Site A2 – Opa-Locka West Airport

The June 2022 Siting Report was

prepared to support the County in
determining availability of sites within
the County for development of a new
WTE facility to replace the existing
RRF, and the findings of that report
remain the same, except for the
addition of Sites A1, A2 and A3. Based
upon the results of the preliminary
analysis, development of a new WTE
facility within the County is feasible for
all of the evaluated sites, pending
resolution of specific constraints
identified in the report. A brief
comparison of the seven sites with all
screening criteria is presented in Table
Site A3A3
Site – Okeechobee Road
– Okeechobee Road
2.2.
Full site packages for each of the seven
sites included in this evaluation were
prepared and updated with additional Figure 2.2 Additional Sites A1, A2 and A3 Location Maps
screening details and considerations for
several alternative processing
technologies and are included in
Appendix C. The locations of the seven
sites within Miami-Dade County are
shown in Figure 2.3 below.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 2-7
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Figure 2.3 Evaluated Sites Location Map

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 2-8
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Table 2.2 Site Comparison Summary

New WTE Facility Siting Summary

Site 16 Site 17 Site A2 – Opa-Locka

Siting Criteria Existing RRF Site 1 - Medley Site A1 – Dolphin Expressway Site A3 – Okeechobee Road
Ingraham Hwy. Site #1 Ingraham Hwy. Site #2 West Airport

Parcel size suitable for

Assuming the full parcel area can
development of a 4,000 or 5,000
Parcel size suitable for Parcel size suitable for Parcel size suitable for be developed, the parcel size is Assuming the full parcel area can
tpd WTE facility footprint as well There are many possible parcel
development of a 4,000 or 5,000 development of a 4,000 or 5,000 development of a 4,000 or 5,000 suitable for development of a be developed, the parcel size is
as additional acreage to combinations that would result in
tpd WTE facility footprint as well as tpd WTE facility footprint as well as tpd WTE facility footprint as well as 4,000 or 5,000 tpd WTE facility suitable for development of a 4,000
accommodate co-location of an area suitable for development
WTE Facility additional acreage to additional acreage to additional acreage to footprint as well as additional or 5,000 tpd WTE facility footprint
additional ash monofill capacity of a 4,000 or 5,000 tpd WTE
Capacity accommodate co-location of ash accommodate co-location of ash accommodate co-location of ash acreage to accommodate co- as well as additional acreage to
or other County facilities in facility as well as additional
monofill or other County facilities in monofill or other County facilities in monofill or other County facilities in location of ash monofill or other accommodate other County
consideration of future acreage to accommodate co-
consideration of future sustainable consideration of future sustainable consideration of future sustainable County facilities in consideration of facilities in consideration of future
sustainable campus concept location of other County facilities.
campus concept. campus concept. campus concept. future sustainable campus sustainable campus concept.
(after demolition of Existing
concept.
RRF).

Site area considered includes 147

parcels covering a total area of
864 acres. The County owns a few
parcels, but most are privately
owned. Portions of the site area
320.31-acre site, multiple parcels, 159.71-acre site consisting of two 81.11-acre site, single parcel, are within the UDB and the 2030 416-acre site consisting of two 68-acre site consisting of ten
Site Area and 157.16-acre site, single parcel,
inside the UDB. Single private parcels outside the UDB. Both located outside the UDB. Privately Urban Expansion Area Boundary parcels outside the UDB. Both parcels outside the UDB. Single
Ownership inside the UDB. County owned.
owner. parcels privately owned. owned. (UEA), as follows: parcels owned by the County. owner.

⦁ Outside UDB (±772 acres)

⦁ Inside UDB (±89 acres)

⦁ Inside UEA (±284 acres)

Variable, many possible parcel L-shaped, each leg approximately

Site Geometry Rectangular, 5,280 ft x 5,280 ft Irregular Rectangular, 1,320 ft x 2,640 ft Rectangular, 2,640 ft x 2,640 ft Irregular shape.
combinations one mile long, ½ mile wide.

Zoning Zoning District: GU (Interim Zoning District: M-1 (Light Zoning District: GU (Interim Zoning District: GU (Interim Zoning District: AU
Zoning District: AU (Agriculture) Zoning District: AU (Agriculture)
Considerations District) Industrial) District) District) (Agricultural/Residential)

Residential None – adjacent to residential

Less than 0.1 mile Greater than 0.5 mile Greater than 0.5 mile Varies, Minimum is 0.1 mile Greater than 0.5 mile Less than 0.5 mile
Zoning Offset zoning

Proximity to
4.0 miles from MIA Greater than four miles Greater than four miles Greater than four miles Greater than four miles Greater than four miles Greater than four miles
Airport

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 2-9
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

New WTE Facility Siting Summary

Travel time to major roads (i.e., Travel time to major roads (i.e.,
Travel time north to W Palm Drive Travel time north to W Palm Drive Travel time to SR 836 and Florida Travel time to US27 and Florida Travel time to US27 and Florida
58th Street, 74th Street) is less Florida Turnpike, US27) is less
is less than 10 minutes. is less than 10 minutes. Turnpike less than 10 minutes. Turnpike less than 10 minutes. Turnpike less than 10 minutes.
than 10 minutes. than 10 minutes.
Estimated travel distances and Estimated travel distances and Estimated travel distances and Estimated travel distances and Estimated travel distances and
Estimated travel distances and Estimated travel distances and
times from the site to the County’s times from the site to the County’s times from the site to the County’s times from the site to the County’s times from the site to the County’s
times from the site to the times from the site to the County’s
transfer stations and landfills are transfer stations and landfills are transfer stations and landfills are transfer stations and landfills are transfer stations and landfills are
County’s transfer stations and transfer stations and landfills are
as follows: as follows: as follows: as follows: as follows:
landfills are as follows: as follows:
Est. Travel Est. Travel Est. Travel Est. Travel Est. Travel
Est. Travel Est. Travel
Facility Dist/Time to Facility Dist/Time to Facility Dist/Time to Facility Dist/Time to Facility Dist/Time to
Transportation Facility Dist/Time to Facility Dist/Time to
Site 16 Site 17 Site A1 Site A2 Site A3
/ Travel Time RRF Site 1
West TS 35 mi/41 min West TS 35 mi/41 min West TS 10 mi/13 min West TS 22 mi/25 min West TS 20 mi/23 min
West TS 9 mi/16 min West TS 11 mi/18 min
Central TS 45 mi/53 min Central TS 45 mi/53 min Central TS 15 mi/19 min Central TS 26 mi/31 min Central TS 24 mi/29 min
Central TS 14 mi/21 min Central TS 11 mi/23 min
Northeast Northeast Northeast Northeast Northeast
Northeast Northeast 58 mi/63 min 58 mi/63 min 26 mi/30 min 23 mi/27 min 21 mi/25 min
18 mi/25 min 15 mi/25 min TS TS TS TS TS
TS TS
S. Dade LF 20 mi/31 min S. Dade LF 20 mi/31 min S. Dade LF 20 mi/27 min S. Dade LF 32 mi/37 min S. Dade LF 30 mi/35 min
S. Dade LF 25 mi/31 min S. Dade LF 26 mi/32 min
N. Dade LF 58 mi/59 min N. Dade LF 58 mi/59 min N. Dade LF 25 mi/25 min N. Dade LF 19 mi/19 min N. Dade LF 17 mi/17 min
N. Dade LF 21 mi/23 min N. Dade LF 18 mi/19 min

Canal or Major
Roadways on None None None None None None None
Site

Lake / Borrow Existing borrow pit over much of Existing stormwater ditches along
Existing stormwater pond on site None None None None
Pit the parcel area. both runways.

County Parks Site not selected by GIS Site selected by clearing GIS Site selected by clearing GIS
Site not selected by GIS screening Site not selected by GIS screening Site not selected by GIS screening
and other screening criteria. County screening criteria. Property is not a screening criteria. Property is not a Site not selected by GIS screening
criteria. Property is not a County criteria. WASD owns several criteria. County property, former
County property used for solid waste County Park or other County County Park or other County criteria.
Park or other County property. properties within the site area. small airport site.
properties management. property. property.

Outside the UDB. Entire site is Site requested by County for

Site requested by County for Site requested by County for
Other Siting Site requested by County for Site requested by County for within a proposed Mitigation Bank evaluation, outside the UDB.
Outside the UDB evaluation, parcels inside and evaluation, outside the UDB, inside
Considerations evaluation, inside the UDB evaluation, inside the UDB area currently under consideration Wetlands Mitigation Area on site.
outside the UDB. CERP Project Area.
by the BCC. Adjacent to CERP Project Area.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 2-10
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

New WTE Facility Siting Summary

416-acre site is located outside the 68-acre site is located outside the
UDB, at the northern edge of UDB, at the northern edge of
320.31-acre site, directly adjacent 864-acre site is centrally located in Miami Dade County. If this site Miami Dade County. If this site
to residential zoning, inside the the County and consists of 148 were selected for the development
159.71-acre site consisting of two 81.11-acre site is located outside were selected for the development
157.16-acre site, single parcel UDB, approximately two miles parcels with 70 different owners. of one or more of the alternative
parcels outside the UDB. the UDB. Considerable System of one or more of the alternative
inside the UDB. Minimal impact north of the existing RRF facility, Some parcels in the eastern facilities there would be impacts to
Considerable System effects if this effects if this site were selected. To facilities there would be impacts to
to System if selected, however, and adjacent to the Medley portion of the site are inside the the local traffic levels, but the
site were selected. To maintain maintain current collection patterns the local traffic levels, but the
construction phasing will need to Landfill. If this site were selected, UDB and the 2030 Urban effects on the County’s Solid
current collection patterns and and travel times, a new transfer effects on the County’s Solid
be considered in order to limit the overall effects on the County’s Expansion Area Boundary (UEA). Waste System would be minimal.
travel times, a new transfer station station would need to be Waste System would be minimal.
impact to RRF operations. Solid Waste System would be would need to be constructed at constructed at the RRF site if this There are many possible parcel To maintain current collection
relatively minimal.Also, the Medley To maintain current collection
Parcel size suitable for the RRF site if this site were site were selected for combinations that could be large patterns and travel times, a new
Landfill has a history of odor patterns and travel times, a new
development of WTE facility selected for development. development. enough to support any of the transfer station would need to be
complaints, and the WTE, if sited transfer station would need to be
Location footprint as well as additional alternative facilities and co-locate constructed at the RRF site if this
here, could be the subject of future Parcel size suitable for Parcel size suitable for constructed at the RRF site if this
acreage to accommodate co- multiple facilities into a solid waste site were selected for
odor complaints. development of WTE facility development of WTE facility site were selected for
location of additional ash monofill campus, depending on the development.
footprint as well as additional footprint as well as additional development.
capacity or other County facilities Parcel size suitable for constraints of the specific parcel(s)
acreage to accommodate co- acreage to accommodate co- The changes in travel times and
in consideration of future development of WTE facility selected for development. The changes in travel times and
location of ash monofill or other location of ash monofill or other distances from the RRF site,
sustainable campus concept footprint as well as additional distances from the RRF site,
County facilities in consideration of County facilities in consideration of To maintain current collection especially for the West TS, may
(after demolition of Existing acreage to accommodate co- especially for the West TS, may
future sustainable campus future sustainable campus patterns and travel times, a new affect some Collection and
RRF). location of ash monofill or other affect some Collection and
concept. concept. transfer station would need to be Transfer operations. Collection and
County facilities in consideration of Transfer operations. Collection and
constructed at the RRF site if this Transfer fleet labor, fuel
future sustainable campus Transfer fleet labor, fuel
site were selected for consumption and maintenance
concept. consumption and maintenance
development. costs may increase if this site were costs may increase if this site were
selected for development. selected for development.

All required utilities available on

137th Avenue. In general, the
parcels bordering NW 137th Ave
have good access to existing
Potable water and sanitary sewer
utilities, but access may become
utilities appear to be available at
All required utilities infrastructure All required utilities would have to All required utilities would have to more complicated for parcels All required utilities would have to All required utilities would have to
Utilities the site, electric and natural gas
available be extended to the site. be extended to the site. within the site. Depending on what be extended to the site. be extended to the site.
utilities would have to be extended
parcel(s) are selected for
to the site.
development, many additional
parcels or utility easements may
be needed to allow for the
extension of utilities

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 2-11
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

New WTE Facility Siting Summary

The USDA Soil Survey data for the

site and historical aerial photos (c.
1985) indicate the site area was
previously excavated and
subsequently backfilled. In order
Site soils are primarily muck and Site soils are primarily muck soil
for a WTE facility to be located at Site soils are not ideally suited for Site soils are not ideally suited for Site soils are not ideally suited for
Site has been used for WTE silty soil types and are not ideally type and are not ideally suited for
this site, the facility buildings and building foundations because of building foundations because of building foundations because of
Soils facility operations previously, no suited for building foundations building foundations because of
ancillary components would have water content and shallow depth to water content and shallow depth to water content and shallow depth to
known site soils issues exist. because of water content and water content and shallow depth to
to be constructed on backfill bedrock. bedrock. bedrock.
shallow depth to bedrock. bedrock.
material, which could present
significant geotechnical
engineering challenges for
foundation designs and additional
site preparation costs.

Air Permitting – May be

Floodplain – FEMA Flood Zones challenging, as site is located near
AE (El. 7) and AH (El. 7) Air Permitting – May be another large existing emitter, the
Floodplain – FEMA Zone A Titan Pennsuco Complex.
challenging, as site is located near
Air permitting expected to be
Air permitting expected to be another large existing emitter, the Floodplain – FEMA Flood Zone A
extremely difficult due to close
Floodplain – FEMA Zone A extremely difficult due to proximity Titan Pennsuco Complex.
proximity to Everglades Class I ERP required. The site has
to Everglades National Park.
Air permitting expected to be Area (approximately 4.1 miles) and Floodplain – FEMA Flood Zones potential habitat for the Florida
extremely difficult due to proximity ERP required, possible habitat an existing nearby large emitter AE (El. 7) and AH (El. 7) Panther, Swallow-Tailed Kite, and
to Everglades National Park. issues (Bonneted Bat). The site is (CEMEX Miami facility). Southern Bald Eagle. Additionally,
Air Permitting – May be National Wetlands Inventory
located within the Florida the site is also strategic habitat
challenging, as site is located ERP required, possible habitat National Wetlands Inventory mapping indicates most of the site
Air Permitting - May be Bonneted Bat and Everglades conservation area for the Florida
between two other large existing issues (Bonneted Bat). The site is mapping indicates most of the site is a Freshwater Emergent Wetland
challenging, other large emitters Snail Kite consultation area, has Panther. The site is within 2.5 and
emitters, the Medley Class I located within the Florida is a Freshwater Emergent Wetland habitat, possible habitat issues
(Medley Class I Landfill and Titan core foraging habitat for the 2.7 miles of active wood stork
Landfill and Titan Pennsuco Bonneted Bat and Everglades habitat, possible habitat issues (Wood Stork, Bonneted Bat). ERP
Pennsuco Complex) exist nearby federally endangered Wood Stork colonies and within five miles of
Complex. In addition, the adjacent Snail Kite consultation area, has (Wood Stork, Bonneted Bat). ERP required. The site is located within
Environment that were not present when RRF and Florida Bonneted Bat, and three currently known Southern
elevated (200 ft +) Medley Landfill core foraging habitat for the required. The site is located within the Florida Bonneted Bat and
was initially modeled and may contain habitat for species Bald Eagle nests.
may result in exhaust plume federally endangered Wood Stork the Florida Bonneted Bat and Everglades Snail Kite consultation
permitted. listed in Appendix B of the CDMP.
impaction during air emissions and Florida Bonneted Bat, and Everglades Snail Kite consultation area, has core foraging habitat for The site has jurisdictional wetland
Possible habitat issues dispersion modeling. may contain habitat for species ERP permitting at this site may be area, has core foraging habitat for the federally endangered Wood habitat and portions of the site are
(Bonneted Bat) listed in Appendix B of the CDMP. very challenging due to required the federally endangered Wood Stork and Florida Bonneted Bat, serving as wetland mitigation for
ERP required. Possible habitat
LEDPA (Least Environmentally Stork and Florida Bonneted Bat, and may contain habitat for on-site impacts. The northern
issues (Bonneted Bat) ERP permitting at this site may be
Damaging Practicable Alternative) and may contain habitat for species listed in Appendix B of the parcels (30-001-2910-0070, etc)
very challenging due to required
analysis. species listed in Appendix B of the CDMP. may contain jurisdictional wetlands
LEDPA (Least Environmentally
CDMP. and/or habitat for species listed in
Damaging Practicable Alternative) Entire site is within a proposed ERP permitting at this site may be
analysis. Mitigation Bank area currently ERP permitting at this site may be very challenging due to required Appendix B of the CDMP.
under consideration by the BCC. very challenging due to required LEDPA (Least Environmentally ERP permitting at this site may be
LEDPA (Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative) very challenging due to required
Damaging Practicable Alternative) analysis. LEDPA (Least Environmentally
analysis. Damaging Practicable Alternative)
analysis.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 2-12
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

New WTE Facility Siting Summary

The parcels bordering NW 137th

Ave have good access to the
Dolphin Expressway and the
Florida Turnpike, but access may
become more complicated for
The site has good access to Existing access to site is via parcels within the site.
Florida Turnpike and US-27 via Ingraham Hwy. and SW 222nd The volume of traffic that is
Ave. (see map below), but The volume of traffic that is
Beacon Station Blvd., but some The volume of traffic that is expected at the proposed WTE
Existing access to the site is via approximately 0.75 miles of two- expected at the proposed WTE
road areas need to be improved expected at the proposed WTE facility (400-500 trucks per day),
Ingraham Hwy. and no additional lane road with paved shoulders will facility (400-500 trucks per day),
Existing access to site is via NW and the Town of Medley may want facility (400-500 trucks per day), will increase traffic loads on the
offsite road improvements are need to be constructed for proper will increase traffic loads on the
97th Ave., which was recently the County to assume will increase traffic loads on the Florida Turnpike and US27, which
needed. The volume of traffic that site access. Additional ROW may Florida Turnpike and the Dolphin
four- laned and has sufficient maintenance of some or all of the Florida Turnpike and US27, which are already high traffic count
is expected at the proposed WTE have to be acquired. Expressway, which are already
capacity for the expected traffic access roads, which would are already high traffic count roadways.
facility (400-500 trucks per day), high traffic count roadways. Traffic
loadings of the proposed WTE increase the County’s costs. The The volume of traffic that is roadways.
Transportation will greatly increase the loads on increases would also be expected Traffic increases would also be
facility. Traffic impacts on local volume of traffic that is expected at expected at the proposed WTE
local roads so the traffic impacts on 8th Street, 12th Street, 137th Truck queuing will have to be expected on the frontage road at
roads would be unchanged from the proposed WTE facility (400- facility (400-500 trucks per day),
on Ingraham Hwy., W Palm Drive, Ave and other local roads. Truck accomplished on site to prevent the site. Truck queuing will have to
existing conditions. The site has 500 trucks per day), will greatly will greatly increase the loads on
and other local roads may be queuing will have to be congestion of local roads. be accomplished on site to prevent
sufficient area to accommodate increase the loads on local roads local roads so the traffic impacts
significant. Truck queuing will have accomplished on site to prevent congestion of local roads.
truck queueing. so the traffic impacts to local area on Ingraham Hwy., W Palm Drive, Selection of this site will prohibit
to be accomplished on site to congestion of local roads.
will likely be significant. Truck and other local roads may be future use of the Opa-Locka West Selection of this site will prohibit
prevent further congestion.
queuing will have to be significant. Truck queuing will have Depending on what parcel(s) are Airport site for aviation. future use of the Opa-Locka West
accomplished on site to prevent to be accomplished on site to selected for development, many Airport site for aviation.
further congestion. prevent further congestion additional parcels or access
easements may be needed to
establish road access sufficient for
heavy truck traffic. Also, rail
access may be available along
north side of site.

Residential developments have

encroached around the site in the Some parcels in the eastern and
The site is approximately half a The site is approximately half a
years since the Existing RRF southern portions of the site are The site is more than a mile from
The site is adjacent to residential mile from the nearest residential mile from the nearest residential
went into operation. The site is within 0.1 miles of residential residential zoning. Site contains The site is less than a mile from
zoning. The west edge of the site zoning and is approximately one zoning and is 1.28 miles from the
now less than a tenth of a mile zoning, and the site contains extensive wetland areas and is residential zoning. Site is adjacent
borders one trailer park owned by mile from the boundary of boundary of Everglades National
from the nearest residential wetlands and possible habitat for located within a CERP project to a CERP project area, so the
Community the Town of Medley, and another Everglades National Park, which Park, which suggests that the
zoning and the local population. multiple species. The siting of a area, so the siting of a WTE facility siting of a WTE facility may face
that is leased by the town. Siting of suggests that the siting of a WTE siting of a WTE facility may be
Community political leaders and WTE facility may face opposition may face opposition by opposition by environmental
a WTE facility may face community facility may be strongly opposed by strongly opposed by the
environmental groups have by the community, environmental environmental groups and groups and regulators.
opposition at this location. the community, environmental community, environmental groups,
indicated opposition to continued groups, and regulators at this regulators.
groups, and regulators. and regulators.
use of the site for WTE facility location.
operations.

Shortest schedule duration Long estimated schedule duration. Long estimated schedule duration. Longest estimated schedule
Short estimated schedule duration. Second shortest estimated Short estimated schedule duration.
because of existing PPSA, Land acquisition, PPSA permitting, Land acquisition, PPSA permitting, duration. Land and
Land acquisition, PPSA permitting, schedule duration. PPSA Land acquisition, PPSA permitting,
potentially reducing PPSA wetland, floodplain, and wildlife wetland, floodplain, and wildlife ROW/easement acquisition with
and some minor site work increase permitting, wetland, floodplain, and wetland, floodplain, and wildlife
permitting effort and minimal site mitigation, and significant site work mitigation, and significant site work multiple owners, PPSA permitting,
Schedule schedule duration. wildlife mitigation, and significant mitigation, and significant site and
preparation work required. increase schedule duration. increase schedule duration. wetland, floodplain, and wildlife
Considerations site and utility work increase utility work increase schedule
Coordination of construction Estimated Project Duration: 9- mitigation, and significant site work
Estimated Project Duration: 11- Estimated Project Duration: 11- schedule duration. duration.
during RRF operation required. years 9-months increase schedule duration.
years 3-months years 3-months Estimated Project Duration: 9- Estimated Project Duration: 10-
Estimated Project Duration: 7- Estimated Project Duration: 12-
years 3-months years 0-months
years 9-months years 3-months

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 2-13
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

New WTE Facility Siting Summary

Additional costs anticipated for

land acquisition*, on-site utility
facilities, stormwater
considerations and addition of fill Significant additional costs
for soil fortification, zoning and anticipated for land acquisition*
potential additional permitting Significant additional costs Significant additional costs due to number of parcels needed
efforts for new PPSA. anticipated for land acquisition*, on anticipated for land acquisition*, on and owners potentially involved,
and off-site utility facilities, and off-site utility facilities, flood and a new ($45M) transfer station Significant additional costs
A new transfer station facility at the Significant additional costs
floodplain, wetland, and wildlife plain, wetland, and wildlife facility at the RRF site. Minor anticipated for land acquisition*, on
RRF site is not anticipated anticipated for land acquisition*, on
mitigation, additional permitting mitigation, additional permitting impacts on Collection and Transfer and off-site utility facilities,
because of the minimal change in and off-site utility facilities,
efforts, and a new ($45M) transfer efforts, and a new ($45M) transfer costs due to changes in hauling floodplain, wetland, and wildlife
hauling distance to this site. floodplain, wetland, and wildlife
For comparative purposes, the station facility at the RRF site. station facility at the RRF site. distances and travel times. mitigation, additional permitting
Purchase of potable water may mitigation, additional permitting
existing RRF site is considered Significant impact on hauling Significant impact on hauling efforts, and a new ($45M) transfer
increase anticipated operational Floodplain and wetland mitigation efforts, and a new ($45M) transfer
the base cost condition and the system due to distance from other system due to distance from other station facility at the RRF site.
costs. It is also assumed that there may increase capital costs. station facility at the RRF site.
base capital cost includes System facilities would increase System facilities would increase Purchase of potable water and
may be impact fees or Purchase of potable water and
estimated stormwater detention capital and operational cost. capital and operational cost. Purchase of potable water and significant distance to haul ash for
improvements required to local significant distance to haul ash for
pond fill costs, environmental Purchase of potable water and Purchase of potable water and significant distance to haul ash for disposal will increase anticipated
roads that have not yet been disposal will increase anticipated
considerations and ash hauling significant distance to haul ash for significant distance to haul ash for disposal will increase anticipated operational costs.
factored into the capital cost for operational costs.
costs. disposal will increase anticipated disposal will increase anticipated operational costs. Rail haul of ash
Cost this site because the extent of Total Estimated Capital Cost (not
operational costs. operational costs. may be possible, further studies Total Estimated Capital Cost (not
Total Estimated Capital Cost (not roadway modifications is currently including land): $1,593,591,4611
needed to determine if that would including land): $1,582,443,5921
including land): $1,488,886,0001. not known. It is anticipated that Total Estimated Capital Cost (not Total Estimated Capital Cost (not (7.0% increase).
be cost-effective alternative to (6.3% increase).
these would be negotiated and including land): $1,574,370,3301 including land): $1,576,952,2271
Estimated Land Cost*: $0 truck hauling. Estimated Land Cost*:
further evaluated during the land (5.7% increase). (5.9% increase). Estimated Land Cost*: $0.
$29,370,858.
Total Estimated Capital Cost acquisition process. Total Estimated Capital Cost (not
Estimated Land Cost*: $8,976,790. Estimated Land Cost*: $4,118,620. Total Estimated Capital Cost of
(including land): $1,488,886,000 including land): $1,564,527,9241 Total Estimated Capital Cost of
Total Estimated Capital Cost (not $1,582,443,592 (6.3% increase)
Total Estimated Capital Cost of Total Estimated Capital Cost of (5.1% increase). $1,622,962,319 (9.0% increase)
including land): $1,498,497,2721 $1,583,347,120 (6.3% increase) $1,581,070,847 (6.2% increase) (Additional 97% annual operational
(0.6% increase). Estimated Land Cost*: (Additional 97% annual operational
cost for potable water purchase,
(Additional 103% annual (Additional 103% annual $12,877,260. cost for potable water purchase,
Estimated Land Cost*: significant ash hauling, and
operational cost for potable water operational cost for potable water significant ash hauling, and
$112,848,865. Total Estimated Capital Cost of additional System hauling costs.)
purchase, significant ash hauling, purchase, significant ash hauling, additional System hauling costs.)
$1,577,405,184 (5.9% increase)
Total Estimated Capital Cost and additional System hauling and additional System hauling
(including land): $1,611,346,137 costs.) costs.) (Additional 98% annual operational
(8.2% increase) cost for potable water purchase,
and significant ash hauling costs.)
(Additional 15% annual operational
cost for potable water purchase
and ash hauling.)
* Land acquisition cost estimated based upon 2023 Miami-Dade Property Appraiser Market Value plus 10%. For Site A1, the value of the largest parcel only was used.
1
Cost values shown escalated 3% from values in June 2022 Siting Report per BLS CPI index data.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 2-14
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

3 Considerations For A Zero Waste Management

Strategy

3.1 Zero Waste Overview

3.1.1 Concept and Goals

The concept of “Zero Waste” is not new - it is a version of comprehensive waste minimization, which has been a
fundamental principle of waste management for a long time. Historically, waste management efforts have been
focused on the end of the waste cycle, where waste collection, processing and disposal activities occur. “Zero
Waste” is a very broad set of guiding principles that envisions altering entire economies by changing product
manufacturing and producer responsibilities, consumption practices, regulations, recycling markets, and using other
mechanisms to make a
society less wasteful.
Basically, the goal of
zero waste is to
eliminate waste at
every level and push
economies towards the
target of sending no
waste to landfills,
combustion facilities,
or the ocean.
Waste management
efforts have historically
focused on the end of
the waste cycle
because that is where
local municipalities,
who are responsible
for the collection,
processing and Figure 3.1 Zero Waste Hierarchy (from ZWIA)
disposal of solid waste,
exert control over the system. Local governments have significant control over solid waste within their boundaries
and have been pursuing waste minimization efforts for many years, including enacting material bans, encouraging
and supporting reuse and recycling businesses and markets, providing for source separation of waste streams, and
developing and operating many types of processing facilities to improve the diversion of waste from disposal.
However, local municipalities have limited to no control over the factors affecting waste generation outside their
jurisdictions (i.e., entire societies or economies), such as Federal or state regulations, general consumption
practices, or many others, and this is where the “Zero Waste” concept has historically encountered significant
difficulties. The guiding principles of the “Zero Waste” movement tend to rely on consistent and coordinated
education, legislation, planning, and execution at all levels of government and in all individuals for successful
implementation and this can be a challenging solution for many reasons, but primarily because the priorities,
funding decisions, and approaches to solid waste management at the various levels of government are dynamic

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-15
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

over the long term. As a result, virtually all decisions and activities related to solid waste (including waste
minimization efforts) default to the local level, because that is the end of the line, where the generated waste arrives
and must be promptly and effectively managed.
These realities of the solid waste industry are reflected in the fact that the definition of Zero Waste has varied over
time and jurisdictions. For many municipalities that have adopted Zero Waste as a management strategy, the
generally-accepted benchmark to achieve “Zero Waste” is the diversion of 90% of a given solid waste stream from
landfilling. The Zero Waste International Alliance (ZWIA) currently defines Zero Waste as “the conservation of all
resources by means of responsible production, consumption, reuse, and recovery of products, packaging, and
materials without burning and with no discharges to land, water, or air that threaten the environment or human
health”, however, does not include a diversion benchmark to quantify the measure of success.
The State of Florida and Miami-Dade County have been working towards some of the same principles as Zero
Waste for many years, although those efforts were not termed “Zero Waste” specifically. In 2008, the Florida
Legislature set a recycling goal of 75% by 2020 for Florida counties. While this goal has been challenging to meet,
five counties within the state, as of 2021 reporting, have met this 75% goal, but the average remains under 50%
(inclusive of renewable energy and beneficial use of landfill gas credits). Miami-Dade County, the most populous
county in the state, generated approximately 4.6 million tons of solid waste in 2021, with a reported recycling rate of
30% (including renewable energy recycling credits), which is higher than several municipalities that have officially
adopted a “Zero Waste” strategy for managing their solid waste. Further, there are many opportunities to improve
the County’s diversion and recycling rates, but careful planning through the entire process, including funding for
infrastructure and operational costs, significant public education, and the development of secondary markets is
needed for successful and sustainable implementation. As discussed in the following sections, Zero Waste is
something that takes consistent policies, funding, and significant time to develop.

3.1.2 Zero Waste Strategy in U.S. Municipalities

Many cities and counties comparable in size to Miami-Dade County are in different stages of implementing Zero
Waste strategies. In Florida, the cities of Orlando, Gainesville, and Key West have adopted Zero Waste as their
solid waste management strategy and have begun implementation. Arcadis reviewed the solid waste programs for
several cities and counties in the U.S. with similar or larger populations and waste generation than Miami-Dade
County. A comparison study was then conducted to understand what solid waste programs were in place before
and after a Zero Waste strategy was implemented. Table 3.1 provides a snapshot of the current policies, programs,
facilities implemented to reach a goal of zero waste by these representative communities. This comparison table
provides a reference for the County to assess what facilities and collection infrastructure are in place in other
municipalities. New York City (NY) and King County (WA) have the most ambitious targets to reach “zero waste” or
90%+ diversion by 2030.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-16
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Table 3.1 Comparison of Miami-Dade Solid Waste Management to Zero Waste Strategies in Municipalities of Comparable Size

Municipality Miami-Dade New York King County Seattle City of LA San Diego
2007 (City Recycling Ordinance
Plan Released in 2015; from 2005 2007 (Zero waste resolution 30990)
Starting Year - Zero Waste Strategy N/A 2022 2006 went into effect)
Baseline Levels 6
2015 established Zero Waste Plan
Starting Year - Population 2,663,000 7,940,000 1.9 Million 4 592,856 3,768,645 11 1.4 million
Starting Year - Tons Per Year MSW 3.6 million tons public residential,
4,585,317 15 922,000 tons (2016) 4 850,000 tons 8 10 million (2010) 11 4,150,000 tons 12
Managed ~4 million tons private commercial
Starting Year - Per Capita Waste
1.68 tons/yr 16 Information not available Information not available Information not available 4.1 lbs/day 10 Information not available
Generation Rate

30% Paper, 14% Plastic, 39% 13.7% Paper, 11.8% Plastics, 6.2% MSW: 20% Paper, 17% Plastic.
25% Paper, 15% Metal, 11% 29% paper, 11% Plastics, 40% 17% Paper, 9% Plastics, 39%
Organics, 2% Appliance/Electronic, Metals, 17.8% Yard, 14.8% Food, 21% Compostable organics, 23%
Starting Year - Waste composition Plastic, 17% Organics, 19% C&D, Organics,8% C&D, 4% Special, 3% Organics, 4% Metals, 2% Glass,
4% Glass, 5% Metal, 5% C&D, 1% 17% Other organics, 2% Glass, Other organics
10 % Misc glass, 4% Metals, 1% electronics 11 25% C&D, 4% Other 12
Misc Inorganics, >1% HHW (2005) 1 14.9% Other wastes, 0.8% Recycling: 52% Paper, 26% Glass 9
Electronics, 0.9% HHW (2019) 5

Goal 1. Diversion Rate N/A 90% by 2030 Zero waste/2030 70% recycling/2022 7 75% by 2013 10 Divert 75% by 2020
Next goal will be based on
Goal 2. Diversion Rate N/A N/A N/A 90%+ by 2025 10 90%/2035
experience of last 5 years 6

Goal 3. Diversion Rate N/A N/A N/A N/A Zero waste by 2050 Zero waste/2040

66.3% recycling/2020
Current Diversion Rate N/A 19.6% in 2022 2 (WTE not counted) 52%/2019 76.4% in 2012 10 67% in 2019 14
73.5% Diversion/2020 9
Current Facilities
Residential: 4-Stream System.
Refuse, MGP, Paper/Cardboard,
and for some areas of NYC curbside
Residential: DSWM collects Organics. Single vs. dual bin
Residential: LA Sanitation collects
residential waste from five collection collection trucks are based on
residential waste from five collection
Districts. efficiency by Sanitation District. Collection provided by City and Provided by city. Garbage and
Collection provided by private Districts.
private waste haulers Waste organics collection 1x week.
Collections haulers Waste Management and
Commercial: 3-4-Stream System. Management and Recology. Comingled collection every other
Commercial: Private haulers provide Allied Waste Commercial: Private haulers provide
MGP and Paper/CB are allowed to Garbage collection 1x week. week 13
collection for commercial and multi- collection for commercial and multi-
be collected Single Stream by
family complexes family complexes
permitted haulers. Organics
separate is required for specified
business types. Mostly single-bin
trucks.

Northeast, West, Central Transfer 17 Transfer Stations for Putrescible 9 facilities

Transfer North and South Transfer Stations 17 transfer stations Several
Stations Waste 2 dropbox

21 landfills received waste from the

North Dade, Resource Recovery Various Landfills in NY, PA, OH, VA, Cedar Hills regional facility (closes City including Miramar, Sycamore, and Otay
Landfill Columbia Ridge Landfill
Ashfill, South Dade Landfill etc. 2040) Sunshine Canyon, Chiquita Canyon, Landfills
Simi Valley 10

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-17
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Municipality Miami-Dade New York King County Seattle City of LA San Diego

Existing facilities: Commerce

Refuse to Energy Facility and
Southeast resource recovery facility
10
WTE (i.e., mass burn, plasma arc,
Resources Recovery Facility NJ and Long Island N/A N/A Future Facilities evaluated: N/A
gasification, etc.)
Gasification
Pyrolysis (100-500 tpd)
Advanced thermal recycling (500-
2000 tpd)

Existing Facilities:
Griffith composting facility, Harbor
mulching facility and
Residential: Staten Island Compost Lopez canyon composting
Composting Facility + regional farms + private 1 facility at cedar grove Cedar Grove Future facilities evaluated: Miramar Greenery and others
micro-hauler composters Mulching facility
Aerobic compositing facility (100-
1000tpd)
Biomass to energy facility

Currently planning a 200-500 tpd

Newtown Creek Wastewater
Anaerobic Digestion N/A N/A capacity facility for organics and Information not available
Treatment Plant
black bin materials

Existing MRFs: Angelus Western

Paper fibers, Bestway recycling, city
fibers, CR&R, Potential industries,
Privately operated single stream RockTenn, Sun Valley paper stock
3 MRFS (owned and operated by
MRFs owned by Waste Residential Recycling: SIMS and etc.
Materials recovery facility (MRF) private collectors: Republic, WM, Rabanco Recycling center Several
Management and Waste VISY 3 Existing Processors: 11 major
Recology)
Connections. processors
Future Facility evaluated:
Clean MRF (50-600tpd) for
recyclables only.

Mixed Waste Processing Facility Currently looking at proposals for a Future facility being evaluated (200-
N/A Not sure, maybe commercially run N/A N/A
(MWPF) new MWPF 400 tpd)

Existing Facilities:
9 transfer facilities receive C&D
Recyclable C&D: DTG Renton,
8 Landfills process C&D for
United recycling
Construction & Demolition Debris beneficial use Three mixed C&D facilities and
N/A Cooper Recycling, may be others Non-recyclable C&D: Recycling Information not available
(C&D) Recycling 7 Inert Landfills dispose C&D several source separated facilities
Northwest, Eastmost Recycling
Future Facility evaluated:
station, Cascade Recycling center
C&D mixed processing facility (50-
500 tpd)

Existing Facilities:
Household Hazardous Waste 7 SAFE centers (solvents, One HHW Transfer Facility at
2 home chemical collection centers Information not available Information not available Two facilities (North and South)
(HHW) automotive, flammables, Miramar landfill
electronics)

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-18
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Municipality Miami-Dade New York King County Seattle City of LA San Diego

Future Facility evaluated:

Residential Dropoff Facilities 13 Trash and Recycling Centers Information not available Information not available Information not available Resource Recovery Park (10-200 Information not available
tpd)

1
https://dsny.cityofnewyork.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/about_2004-2005-waste-characterization_0815.pdf
2
https://www.nyc.gov/assets/dsny/site/resources/annual-dsny-non-dsny-collection
3
Screenshots from OpenData NYC Session on DSNY Data
4
WTE options and considerations
5
Waste composition study 2019
6
ZW Resolution 30990
7
2011 Solid Waste Plan revision
8
2020 Waste Prevention and Recycling Report
9
Chapter 3 2022 Solid Waste Plan Update
10
UCLA Zero Waste Progress Report (March 2013)
11
SWIRP October 2013 compact
12
City of San Diego Zero Waste Plan (2015)
13
https://www.sandiego.gov/environmental-services/recycling/residential/curbside
14
https://voiceofsandiego.org/2021/09/17/the-status-of-san-diegos-zero-waste-plan/
15
Tons Municipal Solid Waste Collected in Florida Counties (2021) posted by FDEP
16
2021 County Municipal Solid Waste Collected per Capita (2021) posted by FDEP

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-19
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Table 3.2 summarizes the common policies and associated programs that have been implemented by large cities
and municipalities that have a Zero Waste strategy and plan. Common policies that have been implemented in
multiple large municipalities include: an organics ordinance to separate organics from MSW, C&D ordinance to set
a diversion goal for projects, and Extended Producer responsibility (EPR) policies for electronic waste, carpet, and
paint. The table is not a comprehensive list of policies but rather shows a snapshot of policies and programs that
could be considered at a minimum/starting point to build out Miami-Dade’s Zero Waste strategy. Most policies or
programs do not explicitly state a diversion goal. Hence, the targeted diversion range is based on the waste
composition percentage of the respective material across the municipalities. The success rate of the policies and
programs have not been published and would require further analysis.
Table 3.2 Zero Waste Policies and Programs Implemented in Different Municipalities

Targeted
Policies Example Cities Programs
Diversion

-State of
-New York: mandatory recycling of
California
paper, mixed grade plastics, textiles.
-Washington, DC
Mandatory Recycling -Washington, DC : retailers to use
-Seattle
Ordinances - Commercial recyclable or compostable containers
-Orlando
-Seattle: zero waste at city special
-Miami-Dade
events
-New York 26% (San Diego)
Recycling - 40% (LA)

-State of
Mandatory multifamily recycling
California
Mandatory Recycling California, Orlando, Miami-Dade
-Seattle
Ordinances - Residential Single family recycling required in
-Orlando
Seattle and State of California.
-Miami-Dade

Projects expected
-State of
Source separation of C&D required in to divert 65%
C&D C&D Recycling Ordinance California
Washington, DC (State of CA)-
-Washington, DC
75% (LA)

-Seattle
-Los Angeles
Fee on single-use plastics shopping Data not
Single Use Plastic Bags -San Diego
bags available
-San Francisco
-New York

Material -New York

Bans -Washington, DC Typically implemented by ordinance Data not
Styrofoam
-Los Angeles to ban Styrofoam use available
-San Francisco

-Seattle -City drop-off programs

Organics/ Food Waste -State of -School food share
21% (Seattle) -
Ordinance (mandatory California -City provided rebate $35/ton food
40% (LA)
separation) -Washington, DC scraps diverted
(2023) -Restaurant food scraps pilot

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-20
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Targeted
Policies Example Cities Programs
Diversion

Computers, Laptops, TVs, -Washington, DC

0.3 - 2%
residential electronics -Seattle

-Green Energy Producer Bonus

-Green Purchasing Policy
-Green Business certification Program
-Business Waste Assessment
EPR
-E-Cycle voluntary program (DC)
-Battery Recycling Program
-State of
Data not
Carpet California
available
-New York

-State of
California Data not
Paint
-Washington, DC available
-Seattle

-State of
Data not
Pharmaceuticals California
available
-Seattle

-Residential placards
-Included in all -School composting programs
Recycling ordinances/ solid
Education major city solid -Digital community programs N/A
waste management plans
waste plans -Recycling contamination abatement
program (tagging carts, warnings)

3.2 Overview of the Current Miami-Dade Solid Waste

System

3.2.1 The County’s Waste Stream

As reported to the FDEP, the total waste stream of Miami-Dade County was approximately 4.6 million tons in Fiscal
Year 2021. In order to consider how to control, reduce and manage a solid waste stream, it is important to
understand the contributing factors to both the quantity and composition of the generated waste materials.
First, a discussion on what drives the quantity of solid waste. There are several factors that affect the quantity of
solid waste generated in a municipality, but generally it is closely correlated with two primary factors, population and
economic activity. The section below details these factors for Miami-Dade County.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-21
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Waste Quantity Factors - Population and Economic Activity

As of December 2022,
the population of the
County was estimated
by the University of
Florida Bureau of
Economic and
Business Research
(BEBR) at 2,757,792
and is projected to
increase at a rate of
approximately 0.5%
per year through 2050,
as shown in Figure 3.2
at right.
The County also has
the largest economy of Figure 3.2 Miami-Dade County Population Projection

any county in Florida, with a gross domestic product of

approximately $151.9 billion that is expected to steadily
increase. The combination of a large population and strong
economic activity usually results in a high waste generation
rate. Not surprisingly, the FDEP reported that the per
capita waste generation rate for the County has fluctuated
over the last several years but was approximately 9.2
pounds per person per day in FY 2021. The County’s
generation rate is significantly higher than reported national
averages, probably due in large part to the high tourist
population and associated high consumption of
Figure 3.3 Miami-Dade County Per Capita Waste
convenience and single-use items.
Generation Rate (FDEP)
For comparison, the EPA reported that the average US
generation rate in 1960 was just 2.68 pounds per person per day, which increased to 3.66 in 1980, reached 4.74 in
2000 and then 4.90 in 2018 and has leveled off since then. In consideration of implementing a Zero Waste strategy,
additional studies would be recommended to better understand the waste generation factors specific to the County
and determine the most effective rate minimization strategies.

Waste Composition
In general, two distinct types of solid waste comprise the bulk of the waste generated in most municipalities,
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and Construction and Demolition Waste (C&D Waste). Understanding what
everyday waste materials are represented in these two main types of waste are important in determining how to
reduce their generation rate and how to effectively manage them and maximize diversion from disposal.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-22
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

3.2.1.2.1 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)

MSW is a very general type of material, and typically accounts for approximately 70-80% of the total quantity of
waste generated by a municipality. MSW is usually highly mixed and primarily collected from residential and
commercial properties. The US EPA definition of municipal solid waste (MSW) is as follows:
“…MSW consists of everyday items such as product packaging, yard trimmings, furniture, clothing, bottles and
cans, food, newspapers, appliances, electronics and batteries. Sources of MSW include residential waste, as well
as waste from commercial and institutional locations, such as restaurants, grocery stores, other businesses,
schools, hospitals and industrial facilities. Industrial facility waste includes waste from sources such as offices,
cafeterias and packaging, but not process waste. The EPA definition of MSW does not include industrial process
waste, hazardous waste, or construction and demolition (C&D) waste.”

3.2.1.2.2 Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste

C&D waste is somewhat easier to define, as it is generally any non-putrescible waste associated with construction
or demolition activity on a given property. The quantity of this type of waste is significant and usually accounts for
approximately 20-30% of the total quantity of waste generated by a municipality. Also, C&D waste components are
generally easier to separate and recycle than those in MSW. Chapter 62-701.200, FAC defines C&D waste as
follows:
“Construction and demolition debris” means discarded materials generally considered to be not water soluble and
non-hazardous in nature, including but not limited to steel, glass, brick, concrete, asphalt material, pipe, gypsum
wallboard, and lumber, from the construction or destruction of a structure as part of a construction or demolition
project or from the renovation of a structure, including such debris from construction of structures at a site remote
from the construction or demolition project site. The term includes rocks, soils, tree remains, trees, and other
vegetative matter that normally results from land clearing or land development operations for a construction project;
clean cardboard, paper, plastic, wood, and metal scraps from a construction project; except as provided in Section
403.707(9)(j), F.S., yard trash and
unpainted, non-treated wood
scraps from sources other than
construction or demolition projects;
scrap from manufacturing facilities
that is the type of material
generally used in construction
projects and that would meet the
definition of construction and
demolition debris if it were
generated as part of a construction
or demolition project, including
debris from the construction of
manufactured homes and scrap
shingles, wallboard, siding
concrete, and similar materials
from industrial or commercial
facilities and de minimis amounts
Figure 3.4 Approximate C&D Composition (From Cochran, et al (2007)). of other non-hazardous wastes
that are generated at construction
or demolition projects, provided such amounts are consistent with best management practices of the construction

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-23
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

and demolition industries. Mixing of construction and demolition debris with other types of solid waste will cause it
to be classified as other than construction and demolition debris.
Previous studies on C&D material in Florida have indicated the approximate composition shown in Figure 3.4.

3.2.1.2.3 Miami-Dade County Waste Composition

For composition analysis, 2021 data was used, as it was the most recent year available in FDEP reports. Based on
FDEP estimates, the County generated approximately 4.6 million tons of solid waste in 2021, composed of
approximately 81% MSW and 19% C&D Waste, divided into seven major categories: Paper (24.88%), Plastic
(11.18%), Glass (3.18%), Metals (15.29%), Organics (16.86%), C&D Waste (18.72%), and Miscellaneous (9.88%).
A more detailed breakdown of the overall waste composition by subcategory is shown in Figure 3.5 below.

Figure 3.5 Miami-Dade County Solid Waste Composition (FDEP)

In 2021, the University of Florida conducted a composition study on the MSW fraction of the waste stream arriving
at the County’s disposal facilities. Their composition results are shown in Figure 3.6 below and demonstrate how
complex the MSW waste stream is and show some of the challenges involved in cleanly separating the various
waste materials so that those that can be reused or recycled are diverted from disposal. There may be several
possible diversion strategies for each material type, and matching the most appropriate available technologies with
the various waste streams to maximize diversion is one of the main objectives of a Zero Waste Master Plan.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-24
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Other Paper (Non-

Recyclable), 9.00%

Figure 3.6 Miami-Dade County MSW Composition (University of Florida)

3.2.2 Existing Solid Waste Operations and Facilities

The County is comprised of 34 incorporated municipalities and the unincorporated County area. Each municipality
manages the collection, recycling, and disposal of solid waste within its boundaries. MSW and curbside recyclables
are typically collected either directly by a municipality, by contracts with private firms, or by interlocal agreement
with the County and transported to private recycling, transfer, or disposal facilities, or to County disposal facilities.
C&D waste is collected exclusively by private firms and transported to either private facilities for recycling or
disposal, or to County facilities for disposal.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-25
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

The County’s Solid Waste System is defined as “The aggregate of those solid waste management facilities owned
by or operated under contract with Miami-Dade County.”
The County’s Collections System includes the following operations and facilities owned by the Department and
operated either directly by the Department or by others under contract:

 Trash and Recycling Centers - Thirteen Trash and Recycling Centers (TRCs) located throughout the County’s
service area.
 Residential Garbage and Trash Collection – County collection fleet including garbage and trash collection
vehicles, which includes both hybrid and conventionally powered vehicles.
 Residential Curbside Recycling – Recyclables are collected curbside from the Department’s residential
customers under contract with a private firm. Miami-Dade County currently provides biweekly, single stream
recycling collection service through contractual agreements to approximately 350,000 households in the
unincorporated county, nine municipalities included in the solid waste service area, and an additional nine
municipalities through Interlocal Agreements (ILAs). Currently, the County contracts with Waste Management
Incorporated (WMI) at their Reuter Recycling Facility in Pembroke Pines, FL for the processing of recyclable
materials.
The County’s Disposal System includes the following operations and facilities owned by the Department and
operated either directly by the Department or by others under contract:

 Transfer Stations – Three regional transfer stations (Central (CTS), Northeast (NETS), and West (WTS)) that
transfer garbage and trash to the County’s disposal facilities.
 Home Chemical Collection – Two Home Chemical Collection (HC2) sites.
 Landfills – Three active landfills and two closed landfills:
- The North Dade Landfill (NDL), which is a Class III landfill that receives only trash, construction and
demolition debris, and related materials. The NDL is nearing the end of its operational life and is projected
to run out of available disposal capacity by 2027. In accordance with its Master Plan, the County is currently
in the planning process for a vertical expansion of the NDL that will provide approximately eight million tons
of additional capacity, sufficient for more than 25 years of expected Class III disposal needs.
- The South Dade Landfill (SDL), which is a Class I landfill and receives MSW and special wastes for
disposal but can also accept C&D waste. The SDL is currently projected to run out of available disposal
capacity by 2032.
- The Resources Recovery Facility Ashfill (RRFAF) is a Class I landfill adjacent to the Resources Recovery
Facility that receives the ash residue from the combustion process.
- The 58th Street Main Landfill, which is closed.
- The Old South Dade Landfill (OSDL), which is closed.
 Resources Recovery Facility (RRF) – The RRF, which receives garbage and trash and combusts the waste
to generate electricity and recovers recyclable materials, is operated under contract by a private company
(Covanta Dade Renewable Energy, LLC). As mentioned previously, the RRF suffered a serious fire on
February 12, 2023 which destroyed the RDF processing equipment and rendered the facility inoperable. The
facility is currently offline and is expected to remain so for the near future. As a result, the County has adjusted
its operations and rerouted the waste that had been arriving at the RRF to the County’s three transfer stations,
the North and South Dade landfills, and private facilities.
 Transfer and Disposal Fleet – The waste transfer and disposal fleet, including transfer vehicles used to
transfer waste from the TRCs and Transfer Stations to the disposal facilities and heavy equipment used to
maintain landfills.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-26
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

 Private Disposal Contracts

- Contract with Waste Management, Inc. of Florida, Inc. (Waste Management), that allows for the County to
dispose of up to 1.75 million tons of garbage and trash per year at the Medley Landfill in Medley, Florida,
the Monarch Hill Facility (often referred to as Sample Road landfill) in Broward County, Florida, and the
Okeechobee Landfill in Okeechobee, Florida. This contract is effective until September 30, 2035, with
provision for two additional five-year mutual options for renewal.
- During FY 2021, the Department and Waste Management mutually consented to disposal of MSW at the
Waste Management Miami Transfer Station in accordance with the terms of the Second Amended and
Restated Non-Exclusive Agreement Between Miami-Dade County, Florida and Waste Management Inc. of
Florida for Provision of Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Services to conserve airspace volume at the
County’s landfills. Beginning September 1, 2021, a minimum of 600 tons per day and a maximum of 700
tons per day of MSW could be delivered to the Miami Transfer Station located at 2120 NW 11th Avenue,
Miami, FL 33125 from Monday through Saturday. The MSW is then loaded and transferred for disposal to
the Okeechobee Landfill by Waste Management.
- Contract with Progressive Waste Solutions of Florida, Inc. (Progressive Waste Solutions) DBA Waste
Connections, Inc. for use of the JED Landfill in St. Cloud, Florida for disposal of up to 500,000 tons per year
of County waste. The contract is effective until 2025, with provision for two additional five-year mutual
options for renewal.

3.2.3 Regulatory Considerations

Federal
The Federal Government regulates solid waste primarily through RCRA Subtitles C and D and delegates regulatory
authority to the states. No new regulations regarding Zero Waste strategies on a national level have been created.
The federal government encourages waste minimization and recycling efforts through EPA grants and other
mechanisms, which provides financial assistance to states and municipalities to encourage development of
alternative solid waste programs and facilities.

State of Florida
In 2020, the FDEP reported that Florida’s overall recycling rate was 50%, well short of the 75% goal set by the
Legislature. The FDEP has suggested ways to potentially increase recycling in Florida, including options for
focusing on markets, construction and demolition debris recycling, organics recycling, commercial recycling, and
education and outreach. Even though these actions have had some success and at least five counties have met the
2020 75% goal (including renewable energy recycling credits), impactful changes to the statewide recycling rate will
likely not occur without programmatic and legislative changes.
The current practices in Florida are not expected to significantly increase the statewide recycling rate. However,
through partnership with Florida recycling stakeholders, there is an opportunity to transform Florida recycling from
an aspirational goal into a program that incorporates source reduction, diversion of waste, recycling, and
consideration of the full environmental impact of materials used from cradle to grave. Interestingly, many of these
same concepts are also Zero Waste concepts, but one primary difference is the State of Florida is a strong
advocate of the use of Waste-to-Energy facilities to convert solid waste to electricity.
In the Florida and the 2020 75% Recycling Goal Final Report (FDEP, 2021), the FDEP advocated for the
development of a Comprehensive Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan. If directed by the Legislature, the FDEP
will convene a technical assistance group (TAG) that will include stakeholder groups and any other interested

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-27
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

parties. The TAG’s objective will be to develop a comprehensive waste reduction and recycling plan for Florida. The
plan will:

 Identify a set of recycling goals using both sustainable materials management (SMM) and waste diversion
concepts:
o Sustainable Materials Management - Alternative approaches that recognize the differences among
waste components with respect to environmental and resource outcomes are referred to as
sustainable materials management (SMM).
o Waste Diversion - Waste diversion (or waste reduction) is already an integral part of Florida’s MSW
management system. It can be defined as the amount of material that is reduced, reused,
prevented and/or recycled, per capita and can be measured based on the amount of waste not
being disposed of in a landfill.
 Develop objectives and propose a three-year plan to implement the following strategies:
o Recycling Materials Market Development - There must be markets for finished goods that are
manufactured from recycled materials in order for the recycling industry to operate efficiently and to
provide for reasonable returns on investments.
 Propose statutory language to implement the revised recycling goals and the strategies.

Concurrency (Chapter 163, FS)

163.3180 Concurrency.
(1) Sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, and potable water are the only public facilities and services subject
to the concurrency requirement on a statewide basis. Additional public facilities and services may not be made
subject to concurrency on a statewide basis without approval by the Legislature; however, any local
government may extend the concurrency requirement so that it applies to additional public facilities within its
jurisdiction.
(b) The local government comprehensive plan must demonstrate, for required or optional concurrency
requirements, that the levels of service adopted can be reasonably met. Infrastructure needed to ensure
that adopted level-of-service standards are achieved and maintained for the 5-year period of the capital
improvement schedule must be identified pursuant to the requirements of s. 163.3177(3). The
comprehensive plan must include principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies for the establishment of
a concurrency management system.
As discussed further in Section 3.2.3.3 below, the County has established its Comprehensive Development
Master Plan (CDMP) which provides for the required guidelines and standards to meet this concurrency statute.

Miami-Dade County

3.2.3.3.1 Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP)

Chapter 163.3177(1), FS states “The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards,
and strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal
development of the area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. These
principles and strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent manner and shall contain programs and
activities to ensure comprehensive plans are implemented...” The following sections describe those Objectives
and policies relevant to the discussion of the siting and operation of solid waste facilities.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-28
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

 Objective SW-1: In order to serve those areas where growth is encouraged and to discourage urban
sprawl, the County shall plan and provide for solid waste disposal services on a countywide basis as
provided for in this subelement in conformance with the future land use element of the Comprehensive
Development Master Plan (CDMP).
o Policy SW-1A. The area within the Urban Development Boundary of the adopted Land Use Plan
Map shall have the first priority in the provision of County solid waste management, and for
committing financial resources to these services. Future development in the designated Urban
Expansion Area shall have second priority in planning or investments for these services. Provision
of County solid waste facilities outside of these areas shall be avoided, except where essential to
eliminate or prevent a threat to public health, safety, or welfare.
o Policy SW-1C. Miami-Dade County shall use all practical means to assure that land in the vicinity of
solid waste disposal facilities is developed for a use that is compatible with the operation of said
facilities. The County shall discourage changes to the Land Use Plan Map or land development
regulations which would permit land uses that are incompatible with the continued operation or
planned expansion of these facilities. Residential uses shall be considered incompatible with these
public facilities where spillovers, particularly noise and odor, can reasonably be expected.
 Objective SW-2: The County will implement procedures to ensure that any existing solid waste system
deficiencies that may exist are corrected and that adequate system capacity is available to meet future
needs.
o Policy SW-2A. The County Solid Waste Management System, which includes County-owned solid
waste disposal facilities and those operated under contract with the County for disposal, shall
collectively maintain a solid waste disposal capacity sufficient to accommodate waste flows
committed to the System through long-term interlocal agreements or contracts with municipalities
and private waste haulers, and anticipated non-committed waste flows, for a minimum of five (5)
years.
o Policy SW-2B. Except as provided by Objective SW-1 and the supporting policies, no development
order authorizing new development or a significant expansion of an existing use shall be issued for
any area of the County which is served by a solid waste facility which does not meet the standard in
Policy SW-2A or will not meet these standards concurrent with the completion of the development.
In any case where the federal, state, or County standards referenced in Policy SW-2A are revised,
a reasonable time for compliance with the new standards shall be allowed.
 Objective SW-3: The County will provide an adequate level of service for solid waste facilities to meet both
existing and projected needs as identified in this plan through implementation of those projects listed in the
Capital Improvements Element. All improvements for replacement, expansion or increase in capacity of
facilities shall conform with the adopted policies of this Plan including level of service standards for the
facilities.
o Policy SW-3A. Solid Waste improvements will be evaluated for funding in accordance with the
following general criteria:
1) Improvements which are necessary to protect the health, safety and environmental
integrity of the community, consistent with the policies of this Plan and applicable
federal, state and County regulatory requirements.
2) Improvements which are necessary to meet existing deficiencies in capacity or in
performance. These include the retrofit of deteriorating facilities which fail or threaten to
fail to meet health, safety or environmental standards.
3) Improvements which promote the recycling or reuse of materials prior to disposal.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-29
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

4) Improvements which extend service to previously unserved developed areas within the
Urban Development Boundary (UDB).
5) Improvements which have been identified in adopted functional plans and address
system details which are beyond the scope of the comprehensive plan for solid waste
and are consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan.
6) Cost-effective improvements to expand capacity, maximize operational efficiency, and
increase productivity.
 Objective SW-4: Miami-Dade County shall provide for the management of solid waste in a manner which
places a high priority on the maintenance of environmental quality and community quality of life, with
emphasis on recycling and waste reduction.
o SW-4A. All Miami-Dade County solid waste disposal facilities shall be developed and operated
to:
o Meet all applicable federal, state, and County environmental health and safety rules
and regulations;
o Minimize adverse human and natural environmental impacts;
o Optimize capital and operating efficiencies;
o Minimize environmental and economic risk.
o SW-4B. Unless economically prohibitive, Miami-Dade County shall reduce the amount of waste
disposal through recycling programs or other alternative solid waste management strategies.
The County Waste Management System shall reduce the amount of municipal solid waste that
would be disposed of within the County and maintain a recycling rate consistent with the
requirements of the Florida State Solid Waste Management Act.
o SW-4C. Miami-Dade County shall promote the establishment and expansion of markets for
products and materials created from recycled wastes through cooperative state and federal
efforts, County purchasing policies, and by encouraging the purchase of such products by
County vendors, clients and citizens.
o SW-4D. Miami-Dade County shall strive to reduce the per capita generation of solid waste by
encouraging the use of waste reduction technologies and recyclable packaging materials, to
the extent possible.
o SW-4E. Miami-Dade County shall minimize the amount of yard trash disposed of in landfills
through the development of alternative means that include encouraging, among other
innovative programs, mulching or composting of yard waste or its diversion to a biomass fuel,
and diversion or composting of biodegradable materials other than yard waste.
 Objective SW-5: Miami-Dade County shall provide for the safe and efficient disposal of wastes through
the development and maintenance of an integrated solid waste disposal system utilizing proven
technologies, appropriate regulation, and equitable and responsible financing practices.
 Objective SW-6: Substantially reduce or minimize the amount of household chemical wastes and used
motor oil that are disposed of in an unsafe or improper manner.
o SW-6A. Develop and implement a household chemical waste management program to achieve
compliance with the provisions of Section 403.7265, F.S.
o SW-6B. Miami-Dade County shall promote the installation of sufficient facilities into the
County's Neighborhood Trash and Recycling Centers to accommodate the safe deposit of used
motor oil by households in moderate quantities.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-30
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

o SW-6C. Miami-Dade County shall seek funding and cooperation from the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection to provide a means of disposal for special wastes.
o SW-6D. Miami-Dade County shall seek to develop funding to establish a comprehensive public
education program to highlight the problems of household chemical waste and improper special
waste disposal.
o SW-6E. Miami-Dade County shall encourage public and private organizations which currently
collect and recycle used motor oil and lead acid batteries to accept moderate quantities of used
motor oil and lead acid batteries from households for recycling.

Regarding the concurrency requirement in Policy SW-2A, DSWM currently projects that the System will receive
2,000,534 tons of solid waste for disposal during FY 2023. At the end of FY 2023, the System is projected to have
approximately 6.9 million tons of remaining physical and contract disposal capacity. Assuming an annual growth
rate of 1.0%, the System appears to only have sufficient disposal capacity in place, under construction, or under
contract to satisfy the 5-year concurrency requirement through FY 2024. If the County proceeds with its current
plans for vertical expansion of the NDL, this will increase disposal capacity.
Reducing the waste stream through material diversion to C&D recycling facilities, composting facilities, and other
alternative facilities also improves concurrency, but considering the long lead time associated with the planning,
design and construction of capital projects, it is recommended that the County secure additional disposal capacity
as soon as possible to ensure continued concurrency compliance.

3.3 Considerations for a Miami-Dade Zero Waste Strategy

Development and implementation of a comprehensive Zero Waste strategy in the County will require careful
planning through the entire process including goals and objective setting, policy reviews, stakeholder engagement,
infrastructure and operational investments, significant public education, and development of secondary markets for
successful and sustainable implementation. As discussed in the following sections, Zero Waste planning and
strategy development is something that takes consistent policies, funding, and sufficient time to develop, and there
is not one “correct” approach - many different technologies and programs can be employed to meet the desired
goals. The following sections discuss some of the key aspects for development of a Zero Waste strategy.

Prepare
Determine Public
Analyze Identify and Develop Zero Waste
Collection Analyze Communication
Waste Prioritize Materials Master Plan
Systems and Secondary and
Streams Materials for Control and
Processing Markets Stakeholder
Recovery Strategy Financial
Facilities Buy-In
Analysis

3.3.1 Analyze Waste Streams

The first step needed to move towards a Zero Waste type management strategy would be to conduct extensive
waste characterization studies of both the MSW and C&D Waste streams to determine the quantity and composition
of each. Such studies should be conducted over a full year to capture seasonal fluctuations and material issues
(i.e., wet loads during the rainy season) that could have significant effects on processing facility equipment or
operations and to achieve results with sufficient accuracy for facility design.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-31
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Please note that the waste quantity and composition analyses presented in this report were taken from FDEP
calculated estimates and from abbreviated waste characterization studies conducted on a small sampling of waste
arriving at County facilities during a short time span. While the results of such estimates and studies are useful for
the purpose of visualizing the basic quantities and composition of the MSW and C&D waste streams, these studies
are for conceptual planning level purposes only and should not be used for facility design purposes.

3.3.2 Identify and Prioritize Materials for Recovery

After the detailed studies are completed, identify and prioritize those waste stream components that 1) have
potential for a significant quantity of recovery, 2) can be readily separated and routed to processing facilities (i.e.,
C&D waste, food waste, glass, etc.) through County actions, and 3) have an existing secondary market or use for
the end products of processing.
Waste streams that do not meet the above criteria should be placed on a secondary priority list to be addressed in
future actions as the Zero Waste strategy progresses and more improvements are made.

3.3.3 Develop Materials Control Strategy

One of the most common and difficult issues in the recovery of materials from a solid waste stream is how to
efficiently, effectively and economically separate the various materials from MSW or C&D waste and direct them to
appropriate facilities for processing. The processibility and value of the separated materials depend greatly on the
extent of contamination with other wastes. Materials that are heavily contaminated will be rejected by processing
facilities and will probably be sent to a landfill or other disposal facility. Therefore, maintaining the quality of the
separated material is critical for moving towards a circular economy.
Separation of materials by waste generators may be either voluntary or mandatory, but in general if separation is
not mandated then the participation rate is lower, which can significantly affect per-ton costs. Local legislative action
is therefore a very important factor.

3.3.4 Determine Collection Equipment and Processing Facilities

For each waste material targeted for recovery, the method and equipment needed to collect and transport the
material to an appropriate processing facility must be determined. For some materials, such as C&D waste, private
haulers already perform this function. For others, such as source-separated food waste, new collection systems
including containers, vehicles, and drivers will be needed. A detailed estimate of the capital, O&M and labor costs
for each new system must be calculated.
Similarly, the size and type of processing facility that will receive the collected materials must be determined and a
detailed estimate of the capital, O&M and labor costs must be calculated.
The sections below include brief discussions of potential collection and processing technologies that are
commercially available for waste materials that comprise the larger fractions of the County’s waste stream, along
with their approximate costs. For more detailed descriptions of the processing technologies, please see Appendix
D.

Organic Wastes (Yard and Food Waste)

“Organic waste” generally includes food, green material, landscape and pruning waste, organic textiles and carpets,
lumber, wood, paper products, printing and writing paper, manure, biosolids, digestate, and sludges. Organic
wastes were estimated at more than 1.9 million tons in FY 2021 and accounted for approximately 42% of the total
waste stream in the County (FDEP). Of that tonnage, yard and food wastes accounted for more than 773,000 tons,

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-32
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

or about 17% of the total waste stream. The generated waste amount alone suggests that organics may be a
suitable material for recovery, but the separation, collection, processing, and end use of yard and food waste
organic materials present many challenges and must be carefully analyzed before any recovery activities can be
implemented.

3.3.4.1.1 Separation and Collection

First and foremost, organic wastes must be separated from the MSW and C&D waste streams to minimize
contamination. Some organic waste, such as paper and lumber, is already being removed through curbside and
commercial recycling. The remaining organic waste may be more difficult to separate. Organic waste processing
facilities (i.e., composting, AD, etc.) are biologically driven processes and inherently sensitive to certain chemicals
and other contaminants that may be present in a waste stream feedstock. Nationwide, the best practice for
collecting organic wastes appears to be source separation - having generators place organics in a separate bin
away from typical municipal solid waste and recyclables. By separating organics from the start and during its
collection, chances of contamination are reduced. This approach would ensure higher quality organic products after
processing which could be sold as desirable products to agriculture, industry, and to the public for use.
To date, numerous cities have adopted separate organics collection, and the methods of collection vary from self-
hauling and drop-off facilities to curbside bin collection similar to recycling programs. Probably the most famous
example would be the three-cart system developed in
San Francisco (see Figure 3.7 at right), which has a
cart for recyclables, compost, and landfill waste. The
carts have lids to control vermin, flies, and odors, and
the sizes of the various carts can be different to
encourage generators towards recycling and
composting. The organics are collected and sent to a
composting facility where compost and soil
amendments are made and are marketed to the Figure 3.7 Three-Cart System (SF Public Works)
public and local agriculture. The system has worked
well for the City of San Francisco. New York and Baltimore have similarly adopted separate organics collection and
processing but have not yet met with the same level of success as San Francisco.
Collection vehicles for organic waste must also be considered. As segregated organic wastes are of a different
physical composition than municipal solid waste, different collection vehicles are required. Organic wastes generally
have a high liquid content, and as wastes are collected, the food waste and organic materials tend to take on a
slurry-like consistency that conventional collection vehicles simply are not designed to handle. Modern
manufacturers of organic waste collection trucks consider and optimize their designs for these specific waste
stream differences, including improvements such as watertight truck bodies, auger packing systems, sealed charge
hoppers, and others.
As an example, the ROTO PAC collection truck (see Figure 3.8) is specially designed for organics collection and is
able to exceed conventional packing capacity of typical trash vehicles — about 700 to 800 lbs/cubic yard (cy) —
and instead will pack 1,000 to 1,400 lbs/cy. According to the manufacturer, due to its unique design with no packing
blade, the vehicle is about 3,000 pounds less in overall weight, compared to other side loaders.
Organic waste is typically wet, heavy, and difficult and expensive to collect and transport. Not surprisingly,
collection is one of the most commonly reported difficulties in initiating organic waste diversion programs.
Collection costs for separated organic waste vary greatly, with some municipalities subsidizing collection so
residents do not pay fees and others relying on private collection services that typically charge residents $16-$32

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-33
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

per month for weekly pickups. On a per collected ton

basis, costs vary due to capital and labor costs,
participation rates and other factors. New York City,
which has struggled with low participation rates,
routing issues and other difficulties reported organics
collection costs as high as $602 per ton in 2019 (New
York City Independent Budget Office Fiscal Brief,
October 2021).
Once collected, the organic waste is routed to a
processing facility, which could use composting,
anaerobic digestion, or another technology to
transform the waste material into compost, fertilizer,
methane gas, or other usable products. Figure 3.8 ROTO PAC Organic Waste Collection Truck with
Auger Packing System
3.3.4.1.2 Organics Processing
The most common methods for processing organics are by composting and anaerobic digestion. Composting is an
aerobic biological process (where microorganisms break down biodegradable materials in the presence of oxygen)
and are generally one of the following three types: Windrow, Aerated Static Pile (ASP), and In-Vessel. Windrow
and ASP composting require large land areas for proper operations. Insufficient space and equipment, combined
with excessive quantities of incoming materials can cause significant odor and material management problems.
Most composting sites cannot efficiently manage more than 5,000 cubic yards per acre per year (cy/acre/yr) and
8,000 cy/acre/year is generally the upper limit for an intensely managed site. Too much material makes it difficult for
operators to mix and turn material in proper ratios and frequencies. The average density of collected organics (food
and yard waste) is approximately 750 pounds per cubic yard2, indicating the effective capacity limit for windrow and
ASR composting facilities is approximately 5-8 tons per acre per day depending on the intensity of operations.
In-vessel composting contains the composting process within a structure, usually a tank or rotary drum. For this
report, information for a rotary drum operation is presented. The processing capacity of the operation depends on
the number and size of the drum. Commercial drums can be up to 14 feet in diameter and up to 150 feet long, with
processing capacity ranging from 5 to 100 tons per day per unit.
Anaerobic Digestion is a common process typically used in the processing of sewage sludge at wastewater
treatment facilities but can also process organic solid wastes. Table 3.3 below gives a brief comparison of these
four processes and is based on information from the EPA and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).
As mentioned previously, the County generates a total of more than 1.9 million tons of organic waste per year and
may need more than one type of organic processing technology. More detailed studies will be needed to determine
the number and type of processing and end use facilities that will best serve the County’s needs.

1 Michigan Compost Operator Guidebook, Chapter 4

2 Minnesota Volume to Weight Report Sept 2021

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-34
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Table 3.3 Organic Waste Processing Types

Processing Type Windrow Aerated Static Pile (ASP) In-Vessel (Rotary Drum) Anaerobic Digestion (AD)

This method typically involves feeding

pre-sorted organic waste into water
tanks and forming a wet slurry via
conveyors, pumps, and mechanized
This method involves feeding agitation. The slurry is processed by
ASP involves mixing and placing organic
organic materials into a drum, silo, microorganisms in a series of sealed
waste in a large pile. To aerate the pile,
concrete-lined trench, or similar chambers that are maintained at the
This method involves forming layers of loosely piled bulking agents
equipment. This allows good control optimum conditions for anaerobic
organic waste into rows of long (e.g., wood chips, shredded newspaper)
of the environmental conditions digestion. The slurry remains in the
piles called “windrows” and are added so that air can pass from the
Process Description such as temperature, moisture, and chambers for a determined residence
aerating them periodically by bottom to the top of the pile. The piles
airflow. The material is time to optimize the production of
either manually or also can be placed over a network of
mechanically turned or mixed to biogas that is rich in methane and
mechanically turning the piles. pipes that deliver air into or draw air out
make sure the material is aerated. other organic gases. The biogas is
of the pile. Air blowers may be activated
The size of the vessel can vary in captured and can be used for
by a timer or temperature sensors.
size and capacity. electricity generation, sold to a local
gas utility, or used as fuel. The
remaining organic solids from the
digestion can be used as compost
and liquids may be used as fertilizer.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-35
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Processing Type Windrow Aerated Static Pile (ASP) In-Vessel (Rotary Drum) Anaerobic Digestion (AD)

Process is suitable for a relatively

This process can accommodate
homogenous mix of organic waste and
Process is suited for large virtually any type of organic waste
works well for larger quantity generators
volumes such as that (e.g., meat, animal manure,
of yard trimmings and compostable
generated by entire biosolids, food scraps) and is The most common feedstocks for this
Materials municipal solid waste (e.g., food scraps,
communities and collected by unaffected by weather conditions. process are fats, oils and greases
Processed paper products), such as local
local governments, and high Materials that do not compost (FOG), food waste, and manure.
governments, landscapers, or farms.
volume food-processing completely (i.e. bones) can be
Does not work well for composting
businesses. easily reprocessed and completely
animal byproducts or grease from food
broken down.
processing industries

Capacity 5-8 tons per acre per day Up to 10 tons per acre per day Up to 100 tons per day per vessel 270-300 TPD

Process Time 35-112 days 90-180 days 14 days 14-40 days depending on process

Curing Time 30-365 days 30-365 days 30-365 days 30-365 days

Land Area 1 350-425+ acres 5-425+ acres 3-40+ acres 3-40+ acres depending on capacity

Capital Cost $5-$11+ per ton $6-$11+ per ton $4-$21+ per ton $18-50+ per ton

O&M Cost $67 per ton $68 per ton $5-$26 per ton $39 per ton

Up to 26 depending on
Staffing Up to 26 depending on capacity 1-5 1 per 1,000 tons capacity
capacity

Dump trucks, Front Loaders, Dump trucks, Front Loaders, Trommels, Composting Vessel, Bobcat/Front
Equipment Bobcat/Front Loader, Dump Truck
Trommels, Compost Turner Compressors Loader, Dump Truck

Complexity Low Moderate Moderate-High High

Training Level Low Low Low High

Heavy. Odors also need to be Designed to contain odors, but odors

Odors Heavy-Moderate Low
controlled. are possible (digester spills)

Yes, animals and flies are Yes, rodents and flies are common Yes, animals and flies are common
Vectors No
common issues issues issues

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-36
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Processing Type Windrow Aerated Static Pile (ASP) In-Vessel (Rotary Drum) Anaerobic Digestion (AD)

Biogas and hazards No No No Yes

1
Land area needed to process total FY2021 organics waste stream of 773,000 tons per year for Miami-Dade County (FDEP)

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-37
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Municipal Solid Waste

As mentioned previously, MSW is a very general type of material, and typically accounts for approximately 70-80%
of the total quantity of waste generated by a municipality. MSW is usually highly mixed and primarily collected from
residential and commercial properties. In the County and its 24 municipalities, the collection of MSW is already well
established, so this section will focus on those facilities that are used to separate and process materials from the
MSW stream. Disposal of unprocessible or unrecyclable materials by landfilling or combustion is assumed and will
not be included in this analysis.
It should be noted that the Bond Engineer previously completed a State of the Industry report evaluating the status
of current solid waste technologies for the DSWM that are currently capable of processing MSW at commercial
sizes suitable for DSWM's consideration. That report includes detailed descriptions and information for each of the
MSW processing technologies presented. A copy of the report is included as Appendix D.
MSW Processing
Current commercially available methods for processing MSW include WTE (Mass Burn), gasification, mechanical
biological treatment (MBT), and mixed waste processing (MWP) facilities. WTE (Mass Burn) is a combustion
process that converts raw MSW into ash, recovers ferrous and nonferrous metals, and generates electricity. It
should be noted that the WTE (Mass Burn) process is very different from the current RRF, which must shred and
process MSW into Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF) prior to thermal conversion. Gasification is a limited combustion
process that converts waste materials into gaseous products and a glass-like slag, and producing synthetic gas
which can be used as a fuel. MBT is a combined approach to solid waste management that has both mechanical
and biological treatment phases separately processed to ultimately produce a pelletized solid fuel. MWP facilities
use a combination of mechanical and manual systems to receive, separate, and process unsegregated municipal
solid waste to separate recyclables. Table 3.4 below gives a brief comparison of these four methods. For more
information on these processing technologies, please refer to Appendix D.

(This section intentionally left blank)

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-38
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Table 3.4 MSW Waste Processing Types

Processing Type Waste-to-Energy (Mass Burn) Mechanical Biological Treatment Gasification/Plasma Arc Mixed Waste Processing

This method involves receiving collected Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) is a

MSW and feeding it to boilers, where it is combined approach to solid waste management Gasification is a starved-oxygen, limited This method involves using a
converted at high temperature to gas and ash that has both mechanical and biological treatment combustion thermochemical process that combination of mechanical and manual
residue. The MSW combustion heats boiler phases separately processed to ultimately converts organic fuel or waste materials into the systems to receive, separate, and
water to steam, which is routed to turbine produce a pelletized solid fuel. The mechanical gaseous products of primarily carbon monoxide, process unsegregated municipal solid
generators to generate electricity to power the stage comprises of automated mechanical sorting hydrogen, as well as carbon dioxide and waste to separate recyclables. An MWP
facility and export for electrical revenue. Flue equipment such as via conveyors, magnets, methane, collectively often referred to as a facility requires no consumer
Process Description gas is routed through an air pollution control trommels, shredders and eddy current separators ‘Synthesis gas’ or ‘Syn Gas’. The resulting gas is participation, education, or sorting
system that uses lime slurry, activated to process combustible materials, while the considered a fuel due to the flammability and behavior. Odors, vectors, and
carbon, baghouse filters, and other biological treatment stage of MBT could involve energy content and can be converted into many contamination are significant issues,
technologies to remove pollutants from the anaerobic digestion, composting or bio drying. As different liquid or gaseous fuel products, or and these facilities typically have low
flue gas prior to exhaust. Ash residue is a result of the mechanical and biological directly combusted in a gas turbine. Any non- recovery rates.
routed through magnetic and eddy current separation and processing, waste is typically organics in the chamber are melted and form a
separators to recover up to 80% of metals shredded, and converted into pelletized solid glass-like slag typically referred to as obsidian.
from the ash. recovered fuel (SRF)..

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-39
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Processing Type Waste-to-Energy (Mass Burn) Mechanical Biological Treatment Gasification/Plasma Arc Mixed Waste Processing

Raw MSW is not appropriate for the gasification

process. Process performance depends greatly
on the unique characteristics of the MSW
feedstock. Delivered MSW requires extensive An MWP facility can accept a wide
preparation (including shredding and separation variety of waste materials. Modern
Raw MSW and other wastes. No change to Process is suited for low to moderate MSW of glass, metals, and inert materials) or gasifier MWP facilities typically recover plastics,
Materials Processed
current collection system needed. volumes. feed system customization. MSW also may have cardboard, paper, metals, and in some
characteristics like higher moisture content which cases the organic fraction of the waste
may necessitate pre-gasification drying. In stream.
addition, the non-uniformity of MSW feedstocks
and the variability of the specific composition
over time require flexible and robust gasifiers.

Capacity High (up to 5,000 tpd) 200-560 TPD 100-300 TPD 200-1550 TPD

Land Area 40-60 acres acres 5-60 acres 20-60 acres

Capital Cost $35+ per ton $53 per ton $40+ per ton $15-$20 per ton

$70-$131 per ton (assumed similar to

O&M Cost $22-26 per ton $70-$130 per ton $116 per ton
Materials Recovery Facility)

Staffing 50-70 16 for a 110,000 tpy plant 50-70 (assumed similar to Waste to Energy) 1 per 1,000 tons capacity

Equipment (Rolling Stock) Dump trucks, Front Loaders, Others Dump trucks, Front Loaders, Others Dump trucks, Front Loaders, Others Front Loaders, Bobcats, Others

Complexity High High High Moderate-High

Training Level High Medium to High High Low

Odors Yes, in MSW storage areas Heavy. Odors will need to be controlled. Yes, in MSW storage and preparation areas Heavy. Odors will need to be controlled.

Yes, animals and flies are common

Vectors Yes, in MSW storage areas Yes Yes, in MSW storage and preparation areas
issues

Past studies have indicated only about

Unproven technology. Can be equipped for
Revenue from electricity generation counts Costs based on European facilities and one 10-30% of waste entering a MWP
Notes electrical generation, counts as recycling in
toward recycling goals in Florida recently closed facility in the U.S. facility is recovered as commodity-
Florida, fire hazards from syngas production
grade recyclables due to contamination.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-40
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Residential and Commercial Recyclables

3.3.4.3.1 Collection
In the County and its 24 municipalities, the collection of source-separated residential and commercial recyclable
materials is performed directly by the municipalities or by private haulers with automated recycling trucks and
conventional collection trucks. The County currently provides biweekly, single stream recycling collection service
through contractual agreements to approximately 350,000 households in the unincorporated County, nine
municipalities included in the solid waste service area, and an additional nine municipalities through Interlocal
Agreements (ILAs). Currently, the County contracts with Waste Management Incorporated (WMI) at their Reuter
Recycling Facility in Pembroke Pines, FL for the processing of recyclable materials.

3.3.4.3.2 Material Recovery Facility

A materials recovery facility (MRF) uses a combination of mechanical and manual systems to receive, separate,
and process collected recycling materials to be sold to end buyers (see Figure 3.9). A MRF is critical to any
municipal recycling program.
Materials recovery facilities sort a wide array of
recyclable materials, including, but not limited to:

 Plastics
 Cardboard (OCC)
 Paper including newspapers,
magazines, office paper, mixed paper,
etc.
 Glass bottles and jars
 Metal containers, including aluminum
and steel cans
Nonrecyclable or contaminated items are
Figure 3.9 Typical MRF Facility (Courtesy CP)
separated out and disposed, and typically are
less than 10% of the total processing stream.
The separated recyclable materials are then baled and loaded on trucks for transport to end users to be used as
raw materials for new products. The market availability and material prices are crucial to MRF economics and
operations. If the value of the materials is less than the processing cost, then MRFs will delay transporting them
until market prices improve or dispose of them to reduce costs.
Siting Considerations
As a result of ongoing efforts to increase capacity and efficiency while reducing labor costs, MRFs are becoming
larger facilities to accommodate larger and more complicated automated sorting equipment. Many newer facilities
are more than 100,000 square feet and need 10-20 acres of land. Older MRFs were typically located close to
collection routes to reduce travel times of collection vehicles, but new facilities are being planned as more “regional”
facilities that accept materials from many communities and can be located further away. This also helps to reduce
local traffic and noise, which are also associated with MRFs. Local collection vehicles would then take recyclables
to transfer stations, where they are transferred to long haul trucks for transport to the MRF. However, a MRF should
still be located within 10-15 minutes of a major road to reduce travel times as much as possible.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-41
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Costs
MRFs are capital and labor intensive, incurring capital costs of approximately $17-$23 per ton and O&M costs of
$70-$131 per ton. Revenue from the sale of recovered materials helps to offset some of the costs, but tipping fees
typically cover the bulk of the capital and operating costs.

3.3.4.3.3 Special Consideration – Glass

Glass is a particularly difficult material for the recycling
industry, as its bulk weight makes it expensive to
transport, glass remelt facilities are usually not locally
available, and broken glass contaminates cardboard and
other recyclables, presents hazards to workers, and
causes significant wear and tear on sorting and
processing equipment. For these reasons, many
communities simply crush collected glass and use it as
landfill road or cover material.
One consideration to help shift glass into a more circular
economy may be to add a glass crusher (see Figure
3.10 and 3.11) at a MRF (or by itself) to pulverize the
recycled glass and create both glass sand and glass
gravel, which can then be used as fill material, beach Figure 3.10 Glass Crushing Equipment (Courtesy City of
renourishment, cement additives, or other potential uses. Flagler Beach)
Many municipalities in Florida have begun glass
pulverizing operations, mostly as a measure to reduce
hauling and disposal costs. Most notably, as of March 1,
2023, Walt Disney World was conducting a pilot program
to pulverize collected glass and use it to fill holes on
roads and trails.
Commercial glass pulverizers can process up to 1,500
pounds of glass per hour, or more than 1,700 tons per
year. Capital costs average approximately $13 per ton,
and O&M costs are estimated at $10-15 per processed
ton.

Figure 3.11 Glass Crushed to Sand (Courtesy Aqua Tools)

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-42
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

C&D Wastes
C&D waste is defined in Chapter 62-701, FAC and generally includes a broad range of waste materials generated
from the construction, destruction, or renovation of a structure, including land development operations. This type of
waste typically includes materials such as steel, glass, brick, concrete, asphalt material, pipe, gypsum wallboard,
and lumber, but also includes rocks, soils, tree remains, trees, and other vegetative matter, clean cardboard, paper,
plastic, wood, and metal scraps, yard trash and other materials. C&D wastes were estimated at more than 858,000
tons in FY 2021 and accounted for approximately 19% of the total waste stream generated in the County (FDEP).
C&D waste may be a suitable material for recovery, as it
is usually separated from other waste streams and the
collection is already performed by private haulers.
Legislative controls on C&D waste through the building
permit process have proven effective in other
municipalities and could be implemented in the County.
The difficulty with C&D waste recycling stems from the
lack of processing capacity and secondary markets for
recovered materials. These aspects must be carefully
analyzed before any recovery activities can be
implemented. C&D recovery facilities are usually
designed to process up to 400 tons per day, or about
145,000 tons per year, but can be larger – the WM
Nashville C&D Facility reportedly can process up to
1,200 tpd. In 2021, FDEP estimated more than 700,000 Figure 3.12 C&D Recycling Facility (Courtesy Lee County)
tons of C&D waste was not being recycled in the County.
Therefore, the County could develop, either directly or by encouraging private facilities through grants and other
incentives, multiple C&D facilities to address the capacity shortfall.
Siting Considerations
Processing of C&D waste is typically performed either indoors or outdoors at a dedicated C&D recycling facility
using mechanical and manual sorting systems similar to those found in a MRF. The size, equipment, labor needs
and layout of a C&D recycling facility depends on its complexity and capacity and is explained in detail in Appendix
D. Most facilities only require an area of approximately 5-10 acres, but they generate high levels of noise, dust, and
traffic and should be located in industrial areas and other suitable sites well away from residential areas. Road
access is important, and major roads should be within a 10-minute drive.
Costs
Depending on the layout and complexity, capital costs for C&D recycling facilities range from $6 to $19 per ton, and
annual O&M costs are generally in the range of $70 to $131 per ton.

3.3.5 Analyze Secondary Markets

The feasibility of achieving Zero Waste is highly dependent on identifying secondary markets that already exist or
that can realistically be developed for the diverted material and end products of processing facilities. The market for
recycled materials depends on the value of the virgin material, supply, the ability to meet market specifications,
costs to manage contamination and process materials, and local, state, national and international economies.
Specific drivers of market demand include policy incentives, research and development of new product or
packaging applications, specific incentives, and technical assistance for recycled material purchasers such as
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing programs.
www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-43
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

There are many potentially recoverable materials in the County’s waste stream that are disposed because no
secondary markets exist or they are not cost-effective to recover. The lack of secondary markets and the difficult
economy of recoverable materials have been some of the biggest challenges for the recycling industry and for
communities attempting Zero Waste management strategies around the country. Ever since China’s National ban
of 24 types of solid waste and recyclable materials was implemented in 2018, market prices for recyclables
exponentially decreased as the Average Market Value (AMV) of commodities has declined by $100 per ton since a
high point in 2011 (Source: Kessler report 2022).
The recycling commodity markets are still recovering from the effects of China’s policy change in 2018, and the
situation with secondary markets and the economics of recycled materials remains challenging. Over the last few
years increased recycling costs have forced many communities to reduce their recycling programs, and some were
forced to eliminate them entirely. However, waste generation rates continue to increase, and there may be
significant opportunities for development of recycling industries and markets in the near future. Further studies and
thorough analysis and validation of the economic viability of specific waste commodities will be needed before any
selection of alternative processing technologies.

3.3.6 Zero Waste Plan and Detailed Financial Analysis

For each waste material that could potentially be recovered from a waste stream and routed to a secondary market
or end use, a detailed analysis should be conducted to determine if the recovery is financially feasible. Such an
analysis would involve determining the type, number and capacity of processing facilities needed to recover the
material and a long-term (10 years or more) analysis of all expenses (educational, capital, facility operations and
maintenance, materials transfer and transport, etc.) and revenues (i.e., solid waste collection rates, tipping fees,
material sales, etc.) to clearly understand the financial impacts resulting from the recovery of that material.
The results of each material analysis could be used to develop a Zero Waste Master Plan which will be an iterative
process incorporating all resources needed to recover the materials deemed financially feasible to recover. A Zero
Waste Master Plan should also include a comprehensive long-term financial analysis for all Collection and Disposal
Fund expense and revenues to determine if the overall financial effects on the County’s System, including debt
service coverage requirements, Collection Fees, and Disposal rates are within acceptable limits. The Zero Waste
Master Plan would represent the maximum potential recovery of materials (and diversion rate) that meets all the
various financial requirements and political demands of the County and its residents.

3.3.7 Additional Programs

In addition to the solid waste collection and processing systems, the County will need many new programs to adopt
a zero-waste approach to managing its solid waste. Such programs may include, but are not limited to, significant
public education programs in schools, community centers, and other government properties and systems, regular
advertising and resident outreach campaigns, increased compliance efforts to reduce contamination, and increased
legislative efforts at the local and state level. The scope and cost of these additional programs may be substantial
and must be factored into the total cost of a Zero Waste Master Plan.

3.3.8 Public Communication and Stakeholder Buy-In

In conjunction with the development of a Zero Waste Master Plan, significant planning, coordinating, and executing
effective public communications and meetings with all stakeholders will be necessary. Those tasked with this
critically important work must be able to explain current solid waste issues and proposed System changes, address
questions and concerns, and negotiate changes to the Zero Waste Master Plan, as necessary. As the solid waste
strategy for the County will be heavily dependent on the participation of 24 municipalities, more than 2.7 million
residents and thousands of private companies for its success, it is of paramount importance that the stakeholders
www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-44
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

understand and support the changes. Otherwise, as other municipalities have discovered, the resulting system will
likely experience significant political and operational difficulties and public resentment no matter how much planning
effort and funding is applied.

3.3.9 Legislation
Laws and programs surrounding waste management are typically handled at the state and local level. The federal
government regulates waste management primarily through the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
but does not yet mandate Zero Waste activities at a national level. Legislation and programs surrounding
specifically zero-waste are typically pursued at a local level (county, city, or municipality), with many states such as
California mandating diversion requirements at a state level but leaving much of the action towards those goals to
local regulators.
Examples of types of legislation or programs used to further Zero Waste include but are not limited to:

 Material Bans – One more public-facing type of legislation is material bans. Typical items targeted by material
bans include single-use plastics, plastic straws, polystyrene foam, and plastic bags. Bans such as these
typically do not reduce waste-to-landfill by a substantial tonnage but are none-the-less impactful in reducing
non-recyclable or non-compostable material from the waste stream. Florida state law currently prohibits local
municipalities from banning plastic bags, but in time that law may be changed.
 Diversion or Zero-Waste Mandates – State or local governments can set diversion or zero-waste mandates
that require diversion at a set goal. This is most easily applied to lower tier government bodies that the higher
level governmental entity has jurisdiction over, such as a state mandate applied to counties, or a local
government mandate applied to local governmental buildings. Those lower tier government bodies can then be
held accountable for reaching the proposed goal(s) and can justify spending on studies, programs for residents
and businesses, and facilities to reach those goal(s).
 Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) – EPR policies put the financial responsibility for a product’s end-of-
life on the producers of the product, rather than directly to ratepayers or taxpayers. EPR policies can be difficult
to pass due to the complexities of designing the regulations and setting the rates on materials, as well as
pushback from manufacturers. However, these policies can have a substantial impact by incentivizing
manufacturers to minimize waste or design for recycling, as well as incentivize the recycling of waste materials
by product users. An extremely successful example of EPR is deposit return schemes for beverage containers,
which allow for a higher return rate for plastic bottles and aluminum cans than other recyclable materials.
 Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) – PPPs can be an impactful way to develop the infrastructure necessary to
improve diversion, such as development of more up-to-date MRFs, anaerobic digestors, WTE facilities, transfer
stations, or other facilities. Even if a mandate increases the diversion at the point of generation, the materials
diverted will still need to have a facility where it will be processed and a market for the sale of the product.
 Contractor Performance Incentives – Contracts with operators can be designed so that financial incentives
exist for better performance. For example, a high diverter, San Jose’s contracts with waste haulers allow for
tiered higher rates to be paid to the hauler by the local government for higher diversion rates, as well as
incentives to minimize contamination as higher contamination requires the hauler to pay a higher rate to the
recycling or organics processor. Another example of a performance incentive is payment-sharing for
recyclables or compostable products sent to market, where operators are paid a portion of the sale value of the
materials to incentivize higher quality and quantity of outputs.
 Pay-as-You-Throw (PAYT) – PAYT is a type of incentive structure that encourages waste generators such as
residents or businesses to limit the amount of waste that they set out. PAYT programs often either charge
households by the size of bin that is used, or by the sale of certified bags for pickup.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-45
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

 Product Certification – A concept being explored by some municipalities is adhering to a certification standard
for products created by recycling or organics processors. For example, PAS 100 is a standard used the UK for
compost. Another example is standards for biogas to be used as Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) in pipelines.
These types of standards allow purchasers of these products produced from waste to know the quality of
material that they are purchasing, thus encouraging a market for those products.

3.3.10 Options for the Evaluated Sites

This report serves to provide information regarding the types of commercially available processing technologies and
high-level estimates of capital and operational costs and is focused only on the four identified sites from the
previous Siting Report, plus the three additional sites identified subsequently (Sites A1 – Dolphin Expressway, A2 –
Opa-Locka West Airport, and A3 – Okeechobee Road). Many of the alternate technologies discussed in this report
use facilities of different sizes than a WTE facility, and the same siting parameters do not necessarily apply. In
coordination with any Zero Waste Master Plan, it is recommended that a full county-wide siting analysis be
considered for each alternative technology which would most likely reveal many additional properties within the
County that could be considered.
While the details regarding the exact type, number, location, and capacity of facilities that may be used to achieve a
Zero Waste strategy in the County are anticipated to be the subject of a future Zero Waste Master Plan, for the
purposes of this report, the options below are offered as illustrations of what may be feasible for the seven sites,
based on the estimated quantity and composition of the waste generated in the County. These options were
selected using the assumption that the County, in the near term, will continue to rely on transfer hauling and landfills
to dispose of the majority of its waste, but will gradually implement new operations and facilities with sufficient
capacity to manage the entire county waste stream and move towards the goal of Zero Waste. Success will be
defined by a gradually increasing landfill diversion rate, with the ultimate goal of 90% or higher.

Table 3.5 Potential Development Options for the Seven Evaluated Sites

Processing
Site Waste Type Site Area
Capacity (tpy)

Existing RRF Site 60 Ac±

Option 1 WTE (Mass Burn) MSW 1.4M± – 1.8M± 40-60 Ac

Option 2 Mixed Waste Processing Facility MSW 140,000-180,000± 40-60 Ac.

Organics Composting (In-Vessel)1 Food and Yard Waste 5,000-400,000± 1-60 Ac±
Option 3
Material Recovery Facility (MRF) Curbside Recyclables 120,000-140,000± 40 Ac±

Option 4 C&D Recycling Facility C&D Waste 140,000-150,000± 40-60 Ac

Medley Site 320 Ac±

WTE (Mass Burn) MSW 1.4M± – 1.8M± 40-60 Ac

Option 1
Ash Monofill WTE Ash Variable 200 Ac.±

Organics Composting (In-Vessel)1 Food and Yard Waste 5,000-400,000± 1-60 Ac±

Option 2 Material Recovery Facility (MRF) Curbside Recyclables 120,000-140,000± 40 Ac±

C&D Recycling Facility C&D Waste 140,000-150,000± 40-60 Ac

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-46
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Processing
Site Waste Type Site Area
Capacity (tpy)

Site 16 - Ingraham Highway Site 1 159 Ac±

Option 1 WTE (Mass Burn) MSW 1.4M± – 1.8M± 40-60 Ac

Option 2 Mixed Waste Processing Facility MSW 140,000-180,000± 40-60 Ac.

Option 3 Organics Composting (In-Vessel)1 Food and Yard Waste 5,000-400,000± 1-60 Ac±

Option 4 C&D Recycling Facility C&D Waste 140,000-250,000± 40-60 Ac

Site 17 - Ingraham Highway Site 2 81 Ac±

Option 1 WTE (Mass Burn) MSW 1.4M± – 1.8M± 40-60 Ac

Option 2 Mixed Waste Processing Facility MSW 140,000-180,000± 40-60 Ac.

Option 3 Organics Composting (In-Vessel)1 Food and Yard Waste 5,000-400,000± 1-60 Ac±

Option 4 C&D Recycling Facility C&D Waste 140,000-250,000± 40-60 Ac

Site A1 – Dolphin Expressway 250+ Ac±

Option 1 WTE (Mass Burn) MSW 1.4M± – 1.8M± 40-60 Ac

Option 2 Mixed Waste Processing Facility MSW 140,000-180,000± 40-60 Ac.

Option 3 Organics Composting (In-Vessel)1 Food and Yard Waste 5,000-400,000± 1-60 Ac±

Option 4 C&D Recycling Facility C&D Waste 140,000-250,000± 40-60 Ac

Site A2 – Opa-Locka West Airport 416 Ac±

WTE (Mass Burn) MSW 1.4M± – 1.8M± 40-60 Ac

Option 1
Ash Monofill WTE Ash Variable 200 Ac.±

Option 2 Mixed Waste Processing Facility MSW 140,000-180,000± 40-60 Ac.

Option 3 Organics Composting (In-Vessel)1 Food and Yard Waste 5,000-400,000± 1-60 Ac±

Option 4 C&D Recycling Facility C&D Waste 140,000-250,000± 40-60 Ac

Site A3 – Okeechobee Road 68 Ac±

Option 1 WTE (Mass Burn) MSW 1.4M± – 1.8M± 40-60 Ac

Option 2 Mixed Waste Processing Facility MSW 140,000-180,000± 40-60 Ac.

Option 3 Organics Composting (In-Vessel)1 Food and Yard Waste 5,000-400,000± 1-60 Ac±

Option 4 C&D Recycling Facility C&D Waste 140,000-250,000± 40-60 Ac

1 Requires separate organics collection system.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-47
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Table 3.6 Alternative Siting Considerations for the Seven Evaluated Sites

Area Estimated Cost

Materials Processed Site-Specific Considerations
Required Per Ton
Example Photo
Processing Development Site 1 – Medley Site A3 –
Alternative RRF Site (157 Site 16 - Ingraham Site 17 - Ingraham Site A1 - Dolphin Site A2 - Opa-Locka
Capacity Time (320 Ac. ± , ~100 Ac. Okeechobee
Technology Considerations Ac. ±, ~60 Ac Highway Site 1 (159 Highway Site 2 (81 Expressway Site (416 West Airport Site
Currently Road Site (68
Process Description Developable) Ac. ±) Ac. ±) Ac. ±) (460 Ac. ±)
Developable) Ac.±)

Process is suited for large volumes

such as that generated by entire
10-450+ Ac $72-$80+ (1) communities and collected by local High groundwater
governments, and high volume food- Reduced potential Reduced potential Proximity to residential Potential permitting may cause
processing businesses. Likely public public concerns with public concerns with zoning increases and public concerns. operational
Requires separate organics collection. concerns with noise, odor and vector noise, odor and vector potential public High groundwater difficulties,
Potential public
Low complexity, low skill level needed noise, odor and issues. High issues. High concerns with noise, may cause especially during
5-8 tons per concerns with noise,
for most operations. Minimum 30-day vector issues. groundwater may groundwater may odor and vector issues. operational wet season.
acre per day. odor and vector issues.
3-5 years processing time. Processing capacity Estimated cause operational cause operational High groundwater may difficulties, especially Estimated
Organics Typically, 80- Estimated maximum
depends on available land area. Not maximum difficulties, especially difficulties, especially cause operational during wet season. maximum
Composting 500 TPD processing capacity at
well suited for urban areas, potential processing during wet season. during wet season. difficulties, especially Estimated maximum processing
(Windrow) this site approximately
public concerns with noise, odor and capacity at this Estimated maximum Estimated Maximum during wet season. processing capacity capacity at this
200,000 tons per year
vector issues. Challenging wet site processing capacity at processing capacity at Maximum processing at this site, if fully site, may be
without filling lake
season operations. Good quality approximately this site approximately this site approximately capacity depends on developed, may be up approximately
areas.
compost produced. End uses/markets 125,000 tons per 300,000 tons per year. 150,000 tons per year. parcel area acquired to 1M tpy. Utilities and 125,000 tpy.
and capacities may need year. Utilities and travel Utilities and travel and developed, could travel times are Utilities and travel
This method involves forming organic waste into rows of long piles called “windrows”
development. Additional fleet times are concerns. times are concerns. be 1M tpy or more. concerns. times are
and aerating them periodically by either manually or mechanically turning the piles.
equipment and operators would be concerns.
needed for organics collection, site
operation and disposal of residuals.

Process is suitable for a relatively

5-450+ Ac $74-$80+ (1) homogenous mix of organic waste and
works well for larger quantity
generators of yard trimmings and
compostable municipal solid waste
(e.g., food scraps, paper products),
High groundwater
1-10 tons per such as local governments,
Reduced potential Reduced potential Proximity to residential Potential permitting may cause
acre per day. landscapers, or farms. Does not work
3-5 years Likely public public concerns with public concerns with zoning increases and public concerns. operational
Typically, 80- well for composting animal byproducts
concerns with noise, odor and vector noise, odor and vector potential public High groundwater difficulties,
700 TPD or grease from food processing Potential public
noise, odor and issues. High issues. High concerns with noise, may cause especially during
industries concerns with noise,
vector issues. groundwater may groundwater may odor and vector issues. operational wet season.
Organics odor and vector issues.
Estimated cause operational cause operational High groundwater may difficulties, especially Estimated
Composting Requires separate organics collection. Estimated maximum
maximum difficulties, especially difficulties, especially cause operational during wet season. maximum
(Aerated Moderate complexity, moderate skill processing capacity at
processing during wet season. during wet season. difficulties, especially Estimated maximum processing
Static Pile level needed for operation. More this site approximately
capacity at this Estimated maximum Estimated Maximum during wet season. processing capacity capacity at this
(ASP)) compact process than conventional 250,000 tons per year
site processing capacity at processing capacity at Maximum processing at this site, if fully site, may be
ASP involves mixing and placing organic waste in a large pile. To aerate the pile, windrow, different turning equipment. without filling lake
approximately this site approximately this site approximately capacity depends on developed, may be up approximately
layers of loosely piled bulking agents (e.g., wood chips, shredded newspaper) are Minimum 30-day processing time. areas.
180,000 tons per 400,000 tons per year. 200,000 tons per year. parcel area acquired to 1M tpy. Utilities and 125,000 tpy.
added so that air can pass from the bottom to the top of the pile. The piles also can Processing capacity depends on
year. Utilities and travel Utilities and travel and developed, could travel times are Utilities and travel
be placed over a network of pipes that deliver air into or draw air out of the pile. Air available land area. Potential public
times are concerns. times are concerns. be 1M tpy or more. concerns. times are
blowers may be activated by a timer or temperature sensors. concerns with noise, odor and vector
concerns.
issues. Challenging wet season
operations. End uses/markets and
capacities may need development.
Additional fleet equipment and
operators would be needed for
organics collection, site operation and
disposal of residuals.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-48
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Area Estimated Cost

Materials Processed Site-Specific Considerations
Required Per Ton
Example Photo
Processing Development Site 1 – Medley Site A3 –
Alternative RRF Site (157 Site 16 - Ingraham Site 17 - Ingraham Site A1 - Dolphin Site A2 - Opa-Locka
Capacity Time (320 Ac. ± , ~100 Ac. Okeechobee
Technology Considerations Ac. ±, ~60 Ac Highway Site 1 (159 Highway Site 2 (81 Expressway Site (416 West Airport Site
Currently Road Site (68
Process Description Developable) Ac. ±) Ac. ±) Ac. ±) (460 Ac. ±)
Developable) Ac.±)

This process can accommodate

virtually any type of organic waste
<1-20+ Ac $9-$50+ (1),(2)
(e.g., meat, animal manure, biosolids, High groundwater
food scraps) and is unaffected by Potential permitting
Compact may cause some
weather conditions. Materials that do and public concerns.
footprint is a Reduced potential Reduced potential Potential permitting operational
not compost completely (i.e. bones) High groundwater
5-100 tpd per good option for public concerns with public concerns with and public concerns. difficulties,
can be easily reprocessed and may cause some
vessel, 15 to 3-5 years this location. noise, odor and vector noise, odor and vector High groundwater may especially during
completely broken down. operational
1200 TPD Reduced issues. High issues. High cause some wet season.
Reduced potential difficulties, especially
potential public groundwater may groundwater may operational difficulties, Floodplain and
public concerns with during wet season.
Requires separate organics collection. concerns with cause some cause some especially during wet wetland mitigation
Organics noise, odor and vector Floodplain and
Variable complexity, low skill level noise, odor and operational difficulties, operational difficulties, season. Floodplain and may increase
Composting issues. Could be co- wetland mitigation
needed for operation. Short 5-7 day vector issues. especially during wet especially during wet wetland mitigation may development
(In-Vessel) located with other may increase
This method involves feeding organic materials into a drum, silo, concrete-lined processing time. Compact process, Depending on season. Utilities and season. Utilities and increase development costs. Utilities will
alternative facility(ies) development costs.
trench, or similar equipment. This allows good control of the environmental conditions smaller facility footprint, expandable footprint area, travel times are travel times are costs. All utilities need to be
on this site. Utilities will need to
such as temperature, moisture, and airflow. The material is mechanically turned or capacity. Better suited for urban areas, could be co- concerns. Could be co- concerns. Could be co- available near site. extended to site.
be extended to site.
mixed to make sure the material is aerated. The size of the vessel can vary in size vessels can be enclosed in metal located with located with other located with other Could be co-located Could be co-
Could be co-located
and capacity. building to mitigate potential public other alternative alternative facility(ies) alternative facility(ies) with other alternative located with other
with other alternative
concerns with odor and vector issues facility(ies) on on this site. on this site. facility(ies) on this site. alternative
facility(ies) on this
from receiving areas. Additional fleet this site. facility(ies) on this
site.
equipment and operators would be site.
needed for organics collection, site
operation and disposal of residuals.

3-40+ acres The most common feedstocks for this

depending on $57-$90+(1),(2) process are fats, oils and greases
capacity (FOG), food waste, and manure.

Requires separate organics collection.

High complexity, high skill level Potential permitting Floodplain and
needed for operation. Processing Possible Potential permitting Reduced potential Reduced potential Potential permitting and public concerns. wetland mitigation
capacity depends on available land capacity issues and public public concerns with public concerns with and public concerns. Floodplain and may increase
270-600 TPD 5-7 years
area. Potential permitting issues and limitations due to concerns with noise, noise, odor and vector noise, odor and vector Floodplain and wetland wetland mitigation development
public concerns with noise, odor and limited site area. odor and vector issues. issues. Presence of issues. Presence of mitigation may may increase costs. Utilities will
Anaerobic vector issues. Fire risk from methane Likely permitting Some utilities may floodplain will increase floodplain will increase increase development development costs. need to be
Digestion production. Additional composting or issues and need to be extended to development costs. development costs. costs. All utilities Utilities will need to extended to site.
disposal of resulting digestate solids public concerns site. Could be co- Utilities will need to be Utilities will need to be available near site. be extended to site. Could be co-
would be required. Resulting digestate with noise, odor located with other extended to site and extended to site and Could be co-located Could be co-located located with other
liquids can be used for fertilizer in and vector alternative facility(ies) travel times are travel times are with other alternative with other alternative alternative
cover maintenance for landfills or on issues. on this site. concerns. concerns. facility(ies) on this site. facility(ies) on this facility(ies) on this
This method typically involves feeding pre-sorted organic waste into water tanks and
agricultural land. Additional fleet site. site.
forming a wet slurry via conveyors, pumps, and mechanized agitation. The slurry is
equipment and operators would be
processed by microorganisms in a series of sealed chambers that are maintained at
needed for organics collection, site
the optimum conditions for anaerobic digestion. The process is optimized for the
operation and disposal of residuals.
production of biogas, which is then captured and can be used for electricity
End uses/markets and capacities may
generation, sold to a local gas utility, or used as fuel. The remaining organic solids
need development.
from the digestion can be used as compost and liquids may be used as fertilizer.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-49
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Area Estimated Cost

Materials Processed Site-Specific Considerations
Required Per Ton
Example Photo
Processing Development Site 1 – Medley Site A3 –
Alternative RRF Site (157 Site 16 - Ingraham Site 17 - Ingraham Site A1 - Dolphin Site A2 - Opa-Locka
Capacity Time (320 Ac. ± , ~100 Ac. Okeechobee
Technology Considerations Ac. ±, ~60 Ac Highway Site 1 (159 Highway Site 2 (81 Expressway Site (416 West Airport Site
Currently Road Site (68
Process Description Developable) Ac. ±) Ac. ±) Ac. ±) (460 Ac. ±)
Developable) Ac.±)

Raw MSW is not appropriate for the

gasification process. Process
performance depends greatly on the
unique characteristics of the MSW
5-60 Ac $154 (3)
feedstock. Delivered MSW requires Floodplain and
extensive preparation (including Difficult permitting, Good transportation Potential permitting wetland mitigation
shredding and separation of glass, Good Potential permitting Potential permitting
close to Everglades access, all utilities and public concerns. may increase
metals, and inert materials) or gasifier transportation issues and community issues and community
Class I area and available near site. Floodplain and development
feed system customization. MSW also access, all opposition at this opposition at this
existing large emitters. Difficult permitting due wetland mitigation costs. Difficult
may have characteristics like higher utilities available. location. Expected location. Expected
Significant impacts to to close proximity to may increase permitting due to
moisture content which may Permitting and very challenging very challenging
local traffic. Everglades Class I development costs. nearby large
necessitate pre-gasification drying. In public opposition permitting due to permitting due to
100 – 300+ Development at this area. Floodplain and Difficult permitting emitter (Titan
10+ years addition, the non-uniformity of MSW challenges. proximity to Everglades proximity to Everglades
TPD site may require wetland mitigation may due to nearby large Pennsuco
feedstocks and the variability of the Permitting Class I Area. Utilities Class I Area. Utilities
Gasification additional time and increase development emitter (Titan Complex) and
specific composition over time require schedule may be will need to be will need to be
costs for backfilling and costs. Could be co- Pennsuco Complex) Everglades Class
flexible and robust gasifiers. faster as site has extended to site. extended to site.
structure foundations. located with other and Everglades Class I area. Utilities will
existing Power Significantly increased Significantly increased
Could be co-located alternative facility(ies) I area. Utilities will need to be
Gasification is a starved-oxygen, limited combustion thermochemical process that Plant Site local traffic and hauling local traffic and hauling
Unproven technology, significant pre- with other alternative on this site. Rail access need to be extended extended to site
converts organic fuel or waste materials into the gaseous products of primarily carbon Certification. costs. Could be co- costs. Could be co-
processing of MSW required. High facility(ies) on this site. on the northern to site Could be co- Could be co-
monoxide, hydrogen, as well as carbon dioxide and methane, collectively often RRF Landfill on located with other located with other
complexity, high skill level needed for WM Medley landfill boundary could be located with other located with other
referred to as a ‘Synthesis gas’ or ‘Syn Gas’. The resulting gas is considered a fuel site for slag alternative facility(ies) alternative facility(ies)
operation. Possible capacity adjacent to site for slag used for slag hauling to alternative facility(ies) alternative
due to the flammability and energy content and can be converted into many different disposal. on this site. on this site.
limitations. Increased fire risk from disposal. out-of-county landfill. on this site. facility(ies) on this
liquid or gaseous fuel products, or directly combusted in a gas turbine. Any non- syngas production; however, syngas site.
organics in the chamber are melted and form a glass-like slag typically referred to as could be used for electrical generation.
obsidian. High capital and operating cost. Active
ash monofill required, preferably, on
site for slag disposal.

40-60
$57-60
Ac Difficult permitting,
Good Potential permitting Potential permitting
close to Everglades Good transportation Potential permitting
transportation issues and community issues and community Floodplain and
Class I area and access, all utilities and public concerns.
access, all opposition at this opposition at this wetland mitigation
Raw MSW and other wastes. existing large emitters. available near site. Floodplain and
utilities available. location. Expected location. Expected may increase
Significant impacts to Floodplain and wetland wetland mitigation
Permitting and very challenging very challenging development
4,000-5,000 local traffic. mitigation may may increase
8-10+ years public opposition permitting due to permitting due to costs. Difficult
TPD Development at this increase development development costs.
challenges. proximity to Everglades proximity to Everglades permitting due to
Waste-to- site may require costs. Difficult Difficult permitting
Permitting Class I Area. Utilities Class I Area. Utilities nearby large
Energy additional time and permitting due to close due to nearby
schedule may be will need to be will need to be emitter (Titan
(Mass Burn) costs for backfilling and proximity to Everglades Everglades Class I
faster as site has extended to site. extended to site. Pennsuco
No changes to existing collection structure foundations. Class I area. Could be area. Utilities will
existing Power Significantly increased Significantly increased Complex) and
This method involves receiving collected MSW and feeding it to boilers, where it is system needed. Highest capacity Could be co-located co-located with other need to be extended
Plant Site local traffic and hauling local traffic and hauling Everglades Class
converted at high temperature to gas and ash residue. The MSW combustion heats alternative. High complexity, high skill with other alternative alternative facility(ies) to site Could be co-
Certification. costs. Could be co- costs. Could be co- I area. Utilities will
boiler water to steam, which is routed to turbine generators to generate electricity to level needed for operation. Permitting facility(ies) on this site. on this site. Rail access located with other
RRF Landfill on located with other located with other need to be
power the facility and export for electrical revenue. Flue gas is routed through an air and public opposition challenges. WM Medley landfill on the northern alternative facility(ies)
site for ash alternative facility(ies) alternative facility(ies) extended to site.
pollution control system that uses lime slurry, activated carbon, baghouse filters, and High capital and operating cost. adjacent to site for ash boundary. on this site.
disposal. on this site. on this site.
other technologies to remove pollutants from the flue gas prior to exhaust. Ash Electrical generation for revenue or disposal.
residue is routed through magnetic and eddy current separators to recover up to 80% powering other facilities. Good metal
of metals from the ash. recovery possible from ash. Landfill
needed for ash disposal.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-50
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Area Estimated Cost

Materials Processed Site-Specific Considerations
Required Per Ton
Example Photo
Processing Development Site 1 – Medley Site A3 –
Alternative RRF Site (157 Site 16 - Ingraham Site 17 - Ingraham Site A1 - Dolphin Site A2 - Opa-Locka
Capacity Time (320 Ac. ± , ~100 Ac. Okeechobee
Technology Considerations Ac. ±, ~60 Ac Highway Site 1 (159 Highway Site 2 (81 Expressway Site (416 West Airport Site
Currently Road Site (68
Process Description Developable) Ac. ±) Ac. ±) Ac. ±) (460 Ac. ±)
Developable) Ac.±)

Process is suited for low to moderate

5-15 Ac. $103-$133
MSW volumes.

Potential
Potential public
permitting and
concerns with noise, Potential permitting
Potential public Potential public public concerns.
Potential public odor and vector issues. and public concerns.
concerns with noise, concerns with noise, Floodplain and
concerns with Floodplain and wetland Floodplain and
Changes to existing collection system Potential public odor and vector issues. odor and vector issues. wetland mitigation
noise, odor and mitigation may wetland mitigation
may be needed if required by MBT concerns with noise, Significantly increased Significantly increased may increase
200-560 TPD 3-4 years vector issues. increase development may increase
project developer. High complexity, odor and vector issues. local traffic and hauling local traffic and hauling development
Could be co- costs. Could be co- development costs.
Mechanical high skill level needed for most Could be co-located costs. Utilities will need costs. Utilities will need costs. Could be
located with located with other Could be co-located
Biological operations. Pelletized SRF would need with other alternative to be extended to site. to be extended to site. co-located with
other alternative alternative facility(ies) with other alternative
Treatment to be loaded and transported to facility(ies) on this site. Could be co-located Could be co-located other alternative
facility(ies) on on this site. Local facility(ies) on this
another facility for firing. End Local concrete facilities with other alternative with other alternative facility(ies) on this
this site. Local concrete facilities may site. Local concrete
uses/markets and capacities may may be able to use facility(ies) on this site. facility(ies) on this site. site. Local
Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) is a combined approach to solid waste concrete be able to use SRF. facilities may be able
need development. High capital and SRF. Local concrete facilities Local concrete facilities concrete facilities
management that has both mechanical and biological treatment phases separately facilities may be Rail access on the to use SRF. Utilities
operating costs, few facilities in may be able to use may be able to use may be able to
processed to ultimately produce a pelletized solid fuel. The mechanical stage able to use SRF. northern boundary would have to be
operation. Additional fleet equipment SRF. SRF. use SRF. Utilities
comprises of automated mechanical sorting equipment such as via conveyors, could be used for SRF extended to site.
and operators would be needed for would have to be
magnets, trommels, shredders and eddy current separators to process combustible transport.
site operation and transport of SRF. extended to site.
materials, while the biological treatment stage of MBT could involve anaerobic
digestion, composting or bio drying. As a result of the mechanical and biological
separation and processing, waste is typically shredded, and converted into pelletized
solid recovered fuel (SRF).

An MWP facility can accept a wide

variety of waste materials. Modern
MWP facilities typically recover
20-60 Ac $85-$150
plastics, cardboard, paper, metals, and
in some cases the organic fraction of
the waste stream. Potential
Potential public
permitting and
Likely public Potential public Potential public concerns with noise, Potential permitting
public concerns.
concerns with concerns with noise, concerns with noise, odor and vector issues. and public concerns.
No changes to existing collection Floodplain and
noise, odor and Potential public odor and vector issues, odor and vector issues, Floodplain and wetland Floodplain and
system needed. High complexity, but wetland mitigation
vector issues. concerns with noise, but may be minimal at but may be minimal at mitigation may wetland mitigation
low skill level needed for most may increase
Mixed Depending on odor and vector issues. this location. Utilities this location. Utilities increase development may increase
200-1500 operations. Potential permitting issues development
Waste 5-7 years footprint area Significant impacts to will need to be will need to be costs. Could be co- development costs.
TPD and public concerns with noise, odor costs. Utilities
Processing could be co- local traffic. Could be extended to site. extended to site. located with other Utilities would have to
and vector issues. Additional would have to be
Facility located with co-located with other Significantly increased Significantly increased alternative facility(ies) be extended to site.
processing/disposal of post-processed extended to site.
another alternative facility(ies) hauling costs. Could be hauling costs. Could be on this site. Rail access Could be co-located
MSW would be required. Could be co-
alternative on this site. co-located with other co-located with other on the northern with other alternative
Contamination of recovered materials located with other
facility on this alternative facility(ies) alternative facility(ies) boundary could be facility(ies) on this
is significant issue, recovery rates for alternative
site. on this site. on this site. used for sorted MSW site.
marketable materials typically 30% or facility(ies) on this
hauling for disposal.
This method involves using a combination of mechanical and manual systems to less. End uses/markets and capacities site.
receive, separate, and process unsegregated municipal solid waste to separate may need development. Moderate
recyclables. An MWP facility requires no consumer participation, education, or sorting capital and operating costs, and
behavior. Odors, vectors, and contamination are significant issues, and these additional fleet equipment and
facilities typically have low recovery rates. operators would be needed for site
operations and transport of residuals.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-51
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Area Estimated Cost

Materials Processed Site-Specific Considerations
Required Per Ton
Example Photo
Processing Development Site 1 – Medley Site A3 –
Alternative RRF Site (157 Site 16 - Ingraham Site 17 - Ingraham Site A1 - Dolphin Site A2 - Opa-Locka
Capacity Time (320 Ac. ± , ~100 Ac. Okeechobee
Technology Considerations Ac. ±, ~60 Ac Highway Site 1 (159 Highway Site 2 (81 Expressway Site (416 West Airport Site
Currently Road Site (68
Process Description Developable) Ac. ±) Ac. ±) Ac. ±) (460 Ac. ±)
Developable) Ac.±)

Materials recovery facilities sort a wide

array of recyclable materials,
including, but not limited to plastics,
cardboard (OCC), paper (including
20-60 Ac $87-154
newspapers, magazines, office paper,
mixed paper, etc.), glass bottles and
jars, and metal containers, including Potential
aluminum and steel cans. permitting and
Potential permitting
Modification of existing curbside public concerns.
Minimal and public concerns.
collection system needed. High Minimal expected Minimal expected Minimal expected Floodplain and
expected Floodplain and
complexity, but low skill level needed Minimal expected public concerns. public concerns. public concerns. wetland mitigation
permitting and wetland mitigation
for most operations. Capacity limited permitting and public Utilities will need to be Utilities will need to be Floodplain and wetland may increase
public concerns. may increase
Material 300-825 TPD 5-7 years by site area. Typical maximum concerns. Moderate extended to site. extended to site. mitigation may development
Could be co- development costs.
Recovery processing capacity for these facilities impacts to local traffic. Significantly increased Significantly increased increase development costs. Utilities
located with Utilities would have to
Facility is approximately 350-400 tons per day. Could be co-located hauling costs. Could be hauling costs. Could be costs. Could be co- would have to be
another be extended to site.
Minimal public concerns other than with another alternative co-located with another co-located with another located with other extended to site.
alternative Could be co-located
noise and odor. Additional facility on this site. alternative facility on alternative facility on alternative facility(ies) Could be co-
facility on this with another
processing/disposal of some post- this site this site on this site. located with
site. alternative facility on
processed materials (i.e., glass) would another
this site.
be required. Contamination of alternative facility
recovered materials is significant on this site.
A materials recovery facility (MRF) uses a combination of mechanical and manual issue. End uses/markets and
systems to receive, separate, and process collected recycling materials to be sold to capacities may need development.
end buyers. Moderate capital and operating costs,
and additional fleet equipment and
operators would be needed for site
operations.

5-20 Ac $76-150 C&D waste is defined in Chapter 62- Potential

701, FAC and generally includes a permitting and
Likely public Potential permitting
broad range of waste materials public concerns.
concerns with Potential public Potential public and public concerns.
generated from the construction, Floodplain and
noise, odor and concerns with noise, concerns with noise, Floodplain and
destruction, or renovation of a Likely public concerns wetland mitigation
dust issues. odor and dust issues. odor and dust issues. Potential public wetland mitigation
structure, including land development with noise, odor and may increase
Depending on Utilities will need to be Utilities will need to be concerns with noise, may increase
C&D operations. This type of waste typically dust issues. Depending development
300 – 825 footprint area extended to site. extended to site. odor and dust issues. development costs.
Recycling 3-7 years includes materials such as steel, on footprint area could costs. Utilities
TPD could be co- Significantly increased Significantly increased Could be co-located Utilities would have to
Facility glass, brick, concrete, asphalt be co-located with would have to be
located with hauling costs. Could be hauling costs. Could be with other alternative be extended to site.
material, pipe, gypsum wallboard, and another alternative extended to site.
another co-located with another co-located with another facility(ies) on this site. Could be co-located
lumber, but also includes rocks, soils, facility on this site. Could be co-
alternative alternative facility on alternative facility on with another
tree remains, trees, and other located with
facility on this this site. this site. alternative facility on
vegetative matter, clean cardboard, another
Processing of C&D waste is typically performed either indoors or outdoors at a site. this site.
paper, plastic, wood, and metal alternative facility
dedicated C&D recycling facility using mechanical and manual sorting systems similar
scraps, yard trash and other materials. on this site.
to those found in a Material Recovery Facility. The size, equipment, labor needs and
layout of a C&D recycling facility depends on its complexity and capacity

(1) Sources: DC Study (2017 costs escalated) and NREL Study (2020 costs escalated). Cost does not include additional organics collection system costs.
(2) Costs estimated from vendor quote, does not include building or land acquisition costs.
(3) Costs based on 2017 article in Waste Management journal using developed country costs.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-52
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

3.3.11 Financial Impacts

As discussed in the preceding sections, shifting the current solid waste management system in the County towards
a Zero Waste approach would involve significant financial investment, both from a capital/infrastructure standpoint,
as well as longer term operational and policy modifications. These investments would primarily consist of the
addition of specialized collection systems and facilities, but also costs related to education programs, legislative
efforts, increased enforcement efforts, and others. In order to illustrate the high-level cost implications, Tables 3.3
and 3.4 are presented to show the costs of the current County system and the additional cost effects of alternative
facilities that could be part of a future Zero Waste strategy using the tonnage managed by the County in FY2021 as
the frame of reference.
Table 3.7 FY 2021 Material Tonnages and Costs for Selected Miami-Dade County Solid Waste Management System Facilities
and Operations

Per
No. Total Tons Total FY
Material Ton
Facilities Received 2021 Cost
Cost

MSW and C&D Waste 2,075,960

Collections N/A $72 756,502 $68.1M

Transfer Stations 3 $51 627,095 $32.4M

RRF (RDF) 1 $61 1,009,062 $62.2M

Landfills 3 $30 784,034 $23.4M

Trash and Recycling Centers

13 $27 188,914 $5.1M
(TRCs)

Contract Disposal N/A $31 354,316 $10.9M

Curbside and Commercial Recyclables

Private Contract Collections

N/A $157 61,708 $9.7M
and Processing

TOTAL $211.8M
Source: Annual Comprehensive Financial Report 2021

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-53
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

Table 3.8 Estimated Additional Costs of Zero Waste Alternative Facilities Using FY2021 Tonnage Data

No.
Est. Total Estimated
Facilities
Material Estimated Per Ton Cost Potential Additional
for Full
Annual Tons1 Annual Cost
Capacity

FY2021 DSWM Disposal Fund Total Tons = 2,075,960

Organics (Food and Yard Waste – 16.86% of Total Tons) 159,397

$11.5M -
Organics Collection N/A $72 - $600 159,397
$95.6M

Composting
3 $72-80 159,397 $11.5 -12.8M
(Windrow)

Composting (ASP) 3 $74-80 159,397 $11.8 -12.8M

Composting (In-
3 $9 - $50 159,397 $1.4M - $8.0M
Vessel)

Anaerobic Digestion 2 $57-90 159,397 $9.1M - $14.3M

MSW (31.89% of Total Tons) 662,024

Mechanical/Biological
2 $123-184 412,0242 $50.7-75.8M
Treatment

Waste-to Energy
1 $57-60 412,0242 $23.5 - 24.7M
(Mass Burn)

Gasification 3-4 $154 412,0242 $63.5M

Mixed Waste
1 $85-150 412,0242 $61.8M
Processing

Curbside and Commercial Recyclables (32.53% of Total Tons) 675,310

Material Recovery
1 $87 - $154 675,310 $58.8M - $104M
Facility

Glass Processing 70-100 $23 - $28 145,659 $3.4M - $4.1M

Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste (18.72% of Total Tons) 388,620

C&D Recycling $29.5M -

2 $76 - $137 388,620
Facility $58.3M

TOTAL $125M – $352M

1
Potential recovered tonnage value for each material is the FY2021 DSWM Disposal Total Tons of 2,075,960 multiplied by the
material’s estimated percentage of the total waste stream from the composition data.
2
Tonnage reduced by 250,000 to account for contract disposal put-or-pay requirement.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-54
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

3.3.12 Potential Funding Sources

There are many sources of infrastructure funding that may be available for solid waste facilities and programs. The
following potential likely sources of funds for future solid waste facilities have been identified, but there may be
others that are applicable. Potential funding sources include:
1. Federal Grants and Tax Credits
2. State Grants
3. Municipal Bonds
4. Private Activity Bonds
The sections below provide additional information on each funding source.
Federal Grants and Tax Credits
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides $275,000,000 total from Fiscal Year 2022 to Fiscal Year 2026 for grants
authorized under the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act. Funding is intended for projects that implement the building a circular
economy for all strategy series, improve local post-consumer materials management programs, including municipal
recycling, or make improvements to local waste management systems.
All applications must achieve one or more of the following objectives:

 Establish, increase, expand, or optimize collection and improve materials management infrastructure.
 Fund the creation and construction of tangible infrastructure, technology, or other improvements to reduce
contamination in the recycled materials stream.
 Establish, increase, expand, or optimize capacity for materials management.
 Establish, improve, expand, or optimize end-markets for the use of recycled commodities.
 Demonstrate a significant and measurable increase in the diversion, recycling rate, and quality of materials
collected for municipal solid waste.
Applications may include (but are not limited to) projects that fund:

 Innovative solutions and/or programs that provide or increase access to prevention, reuse, and recycling in
areas that currently do not have access; including development of and/or upgrades to drop-off and transfer
stations (including but not limited to a hub-and-spoke model in rural communities), etc.
 The purchase of recycling equipment, including but not limited to sorting equipment, waste metering, trucks,
processing facilities, etc.
 Upgrades to material recovery facilities (MRFs) such as optical sorters, artificial intelligence, etc.
 Development of and/or upgrades to composting facilities or anaerobic digesters to increase capacity for
organics recycling.
 Development of and/or upgrades to curbside collection programs or drop-off stations for organics.
 Development of and/or upgrades to reuse infrastructure such as online reuse platforms, community repair
spaces, technology and equipment to improve materials management reuse options, food donation, and
upcycling, staging areas for material reuse/donation, reuse warehouses, and reuse centers, and electronic
waste and computer recycling and refurbishing.
The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), signed into law on August 16, 2022, contains $500 billion in new
spending and tax breaks and is intended to encourage investments in domestic manufacturing capacity,
procurement of critical supplies domestically or from free-trade partners, and jump-start R&D and commercialization
of leading-edge technologies such as carbon capture and storage and clean hydrogen. The IRA provides for
Production Tax Credits (up to 2.6 cents/KwH, escalating with inflation) and Investment Tax Credits (up to 30% on

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-55
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

eligible property) for WTE facilities and specifically makes local governments eligible to receive the tax credits as a
direct payment.
Additional funding programs may become available through the Department of Energy, EPA, or other federal
agencies and we will continue to monitor and evaluate potential funding sources for the County’s future solid waste
facilities and operations.
State Grants
Chapter 377.814, FS - Municipal Solid Waste-to-Energy Program
The Municipal Solid Waste-to-Energy Program was created to provide financial assistance grants and incentive
grants to municipal solid waste-to-energy facilities to incentivize the production and sale of energy from municipal
solid waste-to-energy facilities while also reducing the amount of waste that would otherwise be disposed of in a
landfill.
The department, subject to appropriation, shall provide incentive grants to municipal solid waste-to-energy facilities
to assist with the planning and designing for constructing, upgrading, or expanding a municipal solid waste-to-
energy facility, including necessary legal or administrative expenses.
To qualify for an incentive grant, the owner of a municipal solid waste-to-energy facility must apply to the
department for funding; provide matching funds on a dollar-for-dollar basis; and demonstrate that the project is cost-
effective, permittable, and implementable and complies with s. 403.7061.
This program has not yet been funded and the implementation details have yet to be released.
Municipal Revenue Bonds
Miami-Dade County can issue revenue bonds backed by Solid Waste System revenues to fund development of
future solid waste facilities. However, depending on the level of funding, the debt service on issued bonds may
result in increased user rates. Detailed long-term financial analyses of the County’s Collection and Disposal Funds
would be required to determine the financial effects of additional issued debt.
Private Activity Bonds
A private activity bond (PAB) is a municipal bond issued by or on behalf of local or state governments for the
purpose of providing special financing benefits for qualified private projects that serve a public purpose. Companies
with qualifying activities, which include solid waste disposal facilities, are eligible to issue tax-exempt PABs through
a third-party organization.
Solid waste PABs are also referred to as industrial revenue bonds (IRBs). For IRBs, solid waste disposal facilities
are defined as “any property or a portion thereof used for the collection, storage, treatment, utilization, processing or
final disposal of solid waste.” Recycling facilities also qualify under this definition.
Further, the Internal Revenue Code defines solid waste as “property which is useless, unused, unwanted or
discarded solid material, which has no market or other value at the place where it is located.” This definition may
include a broad array of solid waste capital expenditures, including carts, trucks, transfer stations, material recovery
facilities (MRFs) and landfills.
Solid waste IRBs are flexible and may be used to finance the qualifying solid waste capital expenditures for projects
at a single location (e.g., a new MRF), multiple locations, and/or the qualifying portions of much larger projects. In
addition, a variety of assets may be bundled within a single IRB.
Federal tax law imposes a number of restrictions and requirements on PAB issuance, including the requirement that
the project be allocated “volume cap” at the state level for certain qualifying activities (including private solid waste

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-56
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

IRBs). Each year, the states receive a volume cap allocation from the federal government based on the state’s
population. As of 2022, the state volume capacity limit is the greater of $335 million or $110 per capita.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 3-57
Preliminary Solid Waste System Siting Alternatives Report

4 Conclusions
The main purposes of this report were to analyze and recommend siting alternatives for a new WTE facility to
replace the existing RRF and explore alternative technologies to a WTE facility. To that end, Arcadis revisited the
evaluations of the four potential sites that were identified as feasible options for further consideration in the
Preliminary Future Waste-to-Energy Facility Siting Alternatives Analysis Report completed in June 2022 and have,
at the request of the County, added three additional sites (Sites A1 – Dolphin Expressway, A2 – Opa-Locka West
Airport and A3 – Okeechobee Road) for consideration.
Each of the seven sites were analyzed, applying the WTE screening criteria developed with Department staff, and
additional analysis and information on the sites including environmental considerations, expected traffic impacts,
Solid Waste System effects, and others were included. For each site, Arcadis also considered the suitability of
WTE and several alternative technologies and facilities that could be developed and may be needed to implement a
Zero Waste management strategy within the County and included high-level cost implications of adding each
alternative technology to the County’s existing Solid Waste System. An overview of the planning and
implementation steps recommended for consideration of a Zero Waste management strategy was also included.
Arcadis’ goal was to provide the BCC and County staff with as much information as possible on the seven sites
evaluated and present a realistic discussion regarding the technologies and infrastructure, policy changes, and
relative costs required to shift the County’s current system of solid waste management towards Zero Waste. In
closing, any of the seven sites could be selected for development of one or more of the alternative technologies to
support the County’s Solid Waste System, depending on resolution of any specific limitations of each site. If
focusing solely on the WTE (Mass Burn) option, the existing RRF site appears to still be the site with the shortest
development schedule and lowest cost, recognizing there are many other factors to be considered when evaluating
the long-term future of the County’s Solid Waste System.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report 4-58
Appendix A
Preliminary Future Waste-to-Energy Facility Siting Alternatives
Analysis Report

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report A
Miami-Dade County
Department of Solid Waste Management

Preliminary Siting
Alternatives Report
June 2022
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

Contents
Executive Summary........................................................................................................................................... ES-1
1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 1
2 Preliminary Siting Evaluation Process .......................................................................................................... 1
2.1 Initial Screening Stage Methodology..................................................................................................... 2
2.1.1 Initial Screening Analysis ................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Detailed Screening Stage Methodology ................................................................................................ 3
2.2.1 Detailed Screening Analysis .............................................................................................................. 3
2.2.2 Detailed Screening Criteria ................................................................................................................. 4
Location ........................................................................................................................................ 4
Utilities .......................................................................................................................................... 4
Soils .............................................................................................................................................. 5
Environment ................................................................................................................................. 6
2.2.2.4.1 Environmental Resource Permit (ERP)................................................................................. 6
2.2.2.4.2 Threatened & Endangered Species....................................................................................... 6
2.2.2.4.3 Floodplain ................................................................................................................................ 6
2.2.2.4.4 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) Considerations ............................ 6
2.2.2.4.5 Code and Policy Considerations ........................................................................................... 7
2.2.2.4.6 Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act Certification ..................................................... 10
2.2.2.4.7 Florida Transmission Line Act Certification ...................................................................... 11
2.2.2.4.8 Air Permitting ........................................................................................................................ 11
Transportation ........................................................................................................................... 14
Community ................................................................................................................................. 14
2.2.3 Detailed Screening Findings ............................................................................................................ 15
Schedule Considerations.......................................................................................................... 16
2.2.3.1.1 Assumptions ......................................................................................................................... 16
2.2.3.1.2 Siting/Planning ...................................................................................................................... 17
2.2.3.1.3 Financing ............................................................................................................................... 17
2.2.3.1.4 Regulatory/Permitting........................................................................................................... 17
2.2.3.1.5 Procurement .......................................................................................................................... 18
2.2.3.1.6 Design and Construction ..................................................................................................... 18
2.2.3.1.7 Summary ................................................................................................................................ 19

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx ii
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

Cost Considerations .................................................................................................................. 20

2.2.3.2.1 Identification of Costs .......................................................................................................... 21
2.2.3.2.2 Capital Costs ......................................................................................................................... 21
2.2.3.2.3 Operations and Maintenance Costs .................................................................................... 22
2.2.3.2.4 Cost Considerations Summary ........................................................................................... 23
3 Preliminary WTE Facility Site Analysis Summary...................................................................................... 24

Tables
Table ES-1 – Preliminary Siting Alternatives Analysis Findings .................................................................. ES-5
Table 2.1 Schedule Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 16
Table 2.2 Summary of Schedule Tasks with Estimated Durations ................................................................... 19
Table 2.3 Estimated Additional Costs for Each Site Option ............................................................................. 23
Table 3.1 Site Comparison Summary .................................................................................................................. 25

Figures
Figure ES-1 Potential Sites Location Map....................................................................................................... ES-4
Figure 2.1 Wellfield Protection Areas .................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 2.2 Miami International Airport - Airport Height Restriction Zone Map ................................................. 9
Figure 2.3 Potential Sites Location Maps ........................................................................................................... 15

Appendices
Site Packages
Preliminary Implementation Schedule
Cost Considerations Table

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx iii
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

Executive Summary
Purpose and Scope
The Miami-Dade County (County) Department of Solid Waste Management (DSWM or Department), in
accordance with the Mayor’s letter dated April 13, 2022, has been tasked with identifying and analyzing potential
sites within the County that would be suitable for the development of a future Waste-to-Energy (WTE) facility, and
to report findings within 60 days. Arcadis U.S., Inc., (Arcadis), as the Bond Engineer for DSWM, assisted the
County with this preliminary analysis. Arcadis is a global engineering consulting firm with extensive experience
assisting clients in the development and oversight of modern WTE facilities for over 40 years. Most recently,
Arcadis served as the owner’s representative and design criteria professional for the development of the Solid
Waste Authority of Palm Beach County’s new WTE facility, the only new facility to be built in the United States in
the last 20 years, in operation since 2015.
Arcadis commenced the preliminary siting evaluations on May 9, 2022, which were performed in two stages, an
initial screening stage and a detailed screening stage, as summarized below.
1. Initial Screening Stage: The initial screening stage identified parcels located in Miami-Dade County that met
initial siting criteria and compared them to agreed-upon Pass/Fail criteria.
2. Detailed Screening Stage: Parcels that passed the initial screening stage were further analyzed in the
detailed screening stage, which included the evaluation of additional, more extensive siting parameters.
Due to the expedited nature of the assignment, it should be noted that Arcadis’ services were preliminary in
nature and were conducted consistent with prudent industry practice under similar circumstances and timelines to
provide a screening-level analysis of the availability of potential sites within the County. A more detailed review
and investigation (including onsite visits, surveys, geotechnical testing, etc.) of the factors which may affect the
potential development of a WTE facility at any proposed location is required and is assumed would be conducted
in a future phase of the County’s planning and implementation process.
Initial Screening Evaluation
Arcadis conducted a kick-off meeting with DSWM staff on May 13, 2022, in order to present and confirm the
minimum screening criteria to be used in the Initial Screening evaluation process. The site criteria below were
generated out of a collaborative effort between Arcadis and Department staff.
Initial Screening Criteria
• WTE Facility Capacity – Minimum site area sufficient for a mass-burn WTE facility with capacity of 4,000 tons
per day (tpd), expandable to 5,000 tpd, if possible.
• Site Area and Ownership – Minimum 40-acre site comprised of no more than two contiguous parcels and two
site owners.
• Zoning Considerations – Have the following zoning designations: Vacant, Industrial, Commercial, or
Agricultural.
• Residential Zoning – Distance to residential zoning was determined using Geographic Information System
(GIS) tools and those sites that were within 1,500-feet of residential zoning were eliminated. This criterion was
not applied to Site 1, which was submitted by the County for detailed screening consideration.
• Transportation/Travel Time – Maximum travel time of 10 minutes to major (arterial) or collector roads.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx ES-1
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

• Canal or Major Roadways – Sites with a canal or major roadway located on the site parcel were precluded
from further evaluation because they could not be abandoned and developed.
• Lake/Borrow Pit – Sites that included a lake or borrow pit were included as they could be filled.
• Other Site Considerations – Any properties recommended directly by the County to be evaluated as well as
sites within and outside of the Urban Development Boundary were considered.

A GIS database was developed using layers provided by the County and acquired from external sources. The
Initial Screening criteria were entered into a GIS-based screening tool, which resulted in approximately 235
parcels being identified from the GIS database. Additional analyses were conducted including the following:

• Site Area and Ownership – Sites that were less than 40 acres were analyzed to confirm if any two adjacent
parcels, with no more than two owners, could be combined into one site, meeting the minimum 40-acre size
criteria.
• Site Geometry – Sites with parcel boundaries with shapes or dimensions incompatible with a 4,000 tpd WTE
facility were eliminated.
• Zoning Considerations – Properties with existing abandoned building structures and Conservation,
Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) Program, or Other Protected Lands not screened by the GIS tool
were excluded.
• Proximity to Airport – Sites within 4.0 miles of an existing airport were eliminated.
• Lake/Borrow Pit – Sites that were mostly or entirely excavated as a lake or borrow pit were eliminated due to
the significant additional time and expense associated with backfilling to create the developable area of the
site.
• County parks and other County properties (i.e., wellfields, etc.) that were not screened by the GIS tool were
manually identified and eliminated.

At the end of the Initial Screening process, 24 sites remained and were presented to DSWM staff for discussion at
a meeting on May 20, 2022. After discussion, the decision was made to increase the minimum offset from
residential zoning to one-half mile (2,640 ft), which eliminated an additional two sites. The remaining 22 sites were
approved to proceed to the Detailed Screening process.

Detailed Screening Evaluation

The approved 22 sites were then evaluated against Detailed Screening criteria, which are briefly summarized
below.
Detailed Screening Criteria
• Location – physical location of the site relative to existing Solid Waste System (System) facilities,
transportation routes, and expected impacts to the System if a proposed WTE facility were sited there.
• Wetlands and Surface Waters – Arcadis utilized GIS in order to identify sites with existing wetlands and
surface waters.
• Threatened and Endangered (T&E) Species – Arcadis utilized existing T&E data from federal, regional, and
local agencies to identify critical habitat for protected species, where development may be difficult.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx ES-2
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

• Air Emissions – The United States (US) Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permitting program determines the amount of air quality deterioration allowed for a
proposed project. Current National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and PSD increments were
reviewed and other nearby large emitters of air pollution and proximity to nearby Class I area (Everglades
National Park) and sensitive Class II area (Biscayne Bay National Park) were also identified.
• Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) Projects – CERP is a framework for restoring,
protecting and preserving the greater Everglades ecosystem. The plan is a 50-50 partnership between the
State of Florida and the federal government. The CERP project boundaries layer was used to identify
conservation lands, including Everglades National Park, to determine if any parcel was adjacent to any known
or existing CERP project.
• Miami-Dade County (MDC) Wellfield Protection Areas (WPA) – WPA boundaries were reviewed in order to
identify whether any parcel was within or contained protected areas.
• Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) Conservation Aquifer Recharge and Drainage Element –
The intent of this Element is to identify, conserve, appropriately use, protect and restore as necessary the
biological, geological and hydrological resources of Miami-Dade County. CDMP Element policies were
reviewed in order to identify whether the parcels were consistent and/or compliant.
• Utility Availability – Proximity and availability of water, wastewater, natural gas and electric utilities were
reviewed and identified.
• Soils/Geology – United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil survey was reviewed to confirm the type
and potential suitability of soils.
• Floodplain – The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zone map was reviewed to
determine flood zone designation and flood hazard probability.

For each site, a site package was developed to document the analysis of the site relative to the Initial and
Detailed Screening criteria. The criteria were then separated into six general categories, as follows:

• Location – Site location within the County relative to the existing Miami Dade Resources Recovery Facility
(RRF), proximity to residential zoning, and expected effects on the County’s Solid Waste System if selected
for a future WTE facility.
• Utilities – Availability of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas and electric utilities, as well as any
stormwater and groundwater issues at the site.
• Soils – Identification of soil types at the site and potential effects on site development.
• Environment – Consideration of a range of environmental factors.
• Transportation – Proximity to major roads, available road access to the site and improvements needed, if any.
• Community – Estimate of public response to potential construction of a WTE facility.
Two additional criteria were applied only to the sites that were remaining after the Detailed Screening criteria were
applied:
• Cost – Arcadis developed the capital cost and first year operations and maintenance (O&M) cost associated
with developing a new WTE facility at the existing RRF site as part of a previous effort. Utilizing this cost as
the base case, evaluated the three sites remaining after the detailed analysis criteria were applied.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx ES-3
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

• Schedule – Arcadis developed a preliminary high-level implementation schedule in evaluating the three sites
remaining after the detailed analysis criteria were applied.

A simple stoplight rating was employed to illustrate the relative difficulty for each category (i.e., green/slight
difficulty, yellow/moderate difficulty, red/significant difficulty) at each site.

Summary Findings
A meeting was held on June 7, 2022, to review the Detailed Screening process findings. Ultimately, 19 sites were
eliminated due to several factors, such as roadway access and utility availability, site development and
availability, permitting considerations, and conflicts with existing County policies.
DSWM staff then requested that a comparison be conducted of the existing RRF facility site to the three
remaining potential sites found as part of this preliminary analysis. For comparison purposes, Arcadis conducted
an analysis of the existing WTE Facility site, the RRF, using the same methodology for the other sites.
The four remaining sites are: the Existing RRF Facility Site – Doral; Site 1 – Medley; Site 16 – Ingraham Highway
Site 1; and Site 17 - Ingraham Highway Site 2 as illustrated in the map provided below.

Figure ES-1 Potential Sites Location Map

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx ES-4
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

The matrix below summarizes the findings associated with the Preliminary Siting Alternatives Analysis.
Table ES-1 – Preliminary Siting Alternatives Analysis Findings

Siting
Existing RRF Site Site 1 Medley Site 16 Ingraham Hwy. Site #1 Site 17 Ingraham Hwy. Site #2
Parameter
157.16-acre site, single parcel 320.31-acre site, directly 159.71-acre site consisting of two 81.11-acre site located outside the
inside the UDB. Minimal adjacent to residential zoning, parcels outside the UDB. UDB. Considerable System effects if
impact to System if selected, inside the UDB, two-miles north Considerable System effects if selected.
however, construction phasing of the existing RRF facility, and selected.
will need to be considered in adjacent to the Medley Landfill. Parcel size suitable for development
order to limit impact to existing Overall effects on the System Parcel size suitable for of WTE facility footprint as well as
RRF operations. would be relatively minimal if development of WTE facility additional acreage to accommodate
selected. footprint as well as additional co-location of ash monofill or other
Parcel size suitable for acreage to accommodate co- County facilities in consideration of
development of WTE facility Parcel size suitable for location of ash monofill or other future sustainable campus concept.
Location footprint as well as additional development of WTE facility County facilities in consideration of
acreage to accommodate co- footprint as well as additional future sustainable campus concept.
location of additional ash acreage to accommodate co-
monofill capacity or other location of ash monofill or other
County facilities in County facilities in
consideration of future consideration of future
sustainable campus concept sustainable campus concept.
(after demolition of Existing
RRF).

All required utilities Potable water and sanitary All required utilities would have to All required utilities would have to be
infrastructure available. sewer utilities appear to be be extended to the site. extended to the site.
Utilities available, electric and natural
gas utilities would have to be
extended to the site.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx ES-5
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

Siting
Existing RRF Site Site 1 Medley Site 16 Ingraham Hwy. Site #1 Site 17 Ingraham Hwy. Site #2
Parameter
Site has been used for WTE The USDA Soil Survey data for Site soils are not ideally suited for Site soils are not ideally suited for
facility operations previously, the site and historical aerial building foundations because of building foundations because of
no known site soils issues photos (c. 1985) indicate the water content and shallow depth to water content and shallow depth to
exist. site area was previously bedrock. bedrock.
excavated and subsequently
Soils
backfilled which could present
geotechnical engineering
challenges for foundation
designs and result in additional
site preparation costs.
Air Permitting – May be Air Permitting – May be Floodplain – FEMA Zone A Floodplain – FEMA Zone A
challenging, due to other challenging, due to nearby Air permitting expected to be Air permitting expected to be
nearby large emitters that were large emitters. extremely difficult due to proximity extremely difficult due to proximity to
not present when the RRF was Possible habitat issues for to Everglades National Park Everglades National Park
Environment
originally permitted. Bonneted Bat. Additional permitting required Additional permitting required
Possible habitat issues for because of wetlands on site, because of wetlands on site, possible
Bonneted Bat. possible Bonneted Bat habitat Bonneted Bat habitat issues.
issues.
Existing access to arterial and Good access to Florida Good access to arterial and Existing access to site is via
collector roads Turnpike and US27 via Beacon collector roads. Ingraham Hwy. and SW 222nd Ave.,
Station Blvd., local traffic however proper site access will need
Transportation impacts will need to be to be constructed. Additional ROW
considered due to road may be needed.
orientations and close proximity
of intersections.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx ES-6
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

Siting
Existing RRF Site Site 1 Medley Site 16 Ingraham Hwy. Site #1 Site 17 Ingraham Hwy. Site #2
Parameter
Residential developments The site is directly adjacent to The site is approximately half a mile The site is approximately half a mile
have encroached around the residential zoning. The west from the nearest residential zoning from the nearest residential zoning
site in the years since the edge of the site borders one and is approximately one mile from and is 1.28 miles from the boundary
existing RRF went into trailer park owned by the Town the boundary of Everglades of Everglades National Park, which
operation. The site is now less of Medley, and another that is National Park, which suggests that suggests that the siting of a WTE
than a tenth of a mile from the leased by the town. Siting of a the siting of a WTE facility may face facility may face community
Community nearest residential zoning and WTE facility may face community opposition at this opposition at this location.
the local population. community opposition at this location.
Community political leaders location.
and environmental groups
have indicated opposition to
continued use of the site for
WTE facility operations.
Shortest schedule duration
because of existing
Second shortest schedule Longest estimated schedule Longest estimated schedule duration.
environmental permits and
duration. Land acquisition, duration. Land acquisition, Land acquisition, PPSA permitting,
Schedule minimal site work.
environmental permitting significant environmental permitting wetland, floodplain, and wildlife
(Preliminary Coordination of construction to
required, and site work increase required, and significant site work mitigation, and significant site work
Planning to maintain continued existing
schedule duration. increase schedule duration. increase schedule duration.
Construction RRF operation required.
Estimated Project Duration: 9- Estimated Project Duration: 11- Estimated Project Duration: 11 years
Completion) Estimated Project Duration: 7-
years 9-months years 3-months 3 months
years 9-months
Possible CO by April 2032 Possible CO by October 2033 Possible CO by October 2033
Possible Commercial
Operations (CO) by April 2030

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx ES-7
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

Siting
Existing RRF Site Site 1 Medley Site 16 Ingraham Hwy. Site #1 Site 17 Ingraham Hwy. Site #2
Parameter
For comparative purposes, the Additional costs anticipated for Significant additional costs anticipated Significant additional costs anticipated
existing RRF site is considered land acquisition*, on-site utility for land acquisition*, on and off-site for land acquisition*, on and off-site
the base condition and the base facilities, stormwater utility facilities, flood plain, wetland, utility facilities, flood plain, wetland, and
capital cost includes estimated considerations and addition of fill and wildlife mitigation, and additional wildlife mitigation, and additional
stormwater detention pond fill for soil fortification, zoning and permitting efforts. Significant impact permitting efforts. Significant impact on
costs and environmental potential additional permitting on hauling system due to distance hauling system due to distance from
considerations and the ash efforts for new PPSA. Purchase from other System facilities would other System facilities would increase
hauling costs as noted in of potable water may increase increase capital and operational cost. capital and operational cost. Purchase
Appendix C. anticipated operational costs. It Purchase of potable water and of potable water and significant
Total Estimated Capital Cost of is also assumed that there may significant distance to haul ash for distance to haul ash for disposal will
$1,450,000,000 be impact fees or improvements disposal will increase anticipated increase anticipated operational costs.
required to local roads that have operational costs.
Total annual net operational cost Additional Capital Cost of $84.7M
not yet been factored into the
Cost is $11.22 per ton of waste Additional Capital Cost of $80.4M (6.7% increase)
capital cost for this site because
processed (estimated for Year (6.4% increase)
the extent of roadway Additional 119% annual operational
1). This does not include debt
modifications is currently not Additional 119% annual operational cost for potable water purchase,
service payment for capital
known. It is anticipated that these cost for potable water purchase, significant ash hauling, and additional
costs.
would be negotiated and further significant ash hauling, and additional System hauling costs.
evaluated during the land System hauling costs.
acquisition process.

Additional Capital Cost of $48.3M

(4.2% increase)

Additional 19% annual

operational cost for potable water
purchase and ash hauling.

* Land acquisition cost estimated based upon current Miami-Dade Property Appraiser Market Value plus 10%.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx ES-8
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

1 Introduction
The Miami-Dade County (County) Department of Solid Waste Management (Department or DSWM) provides waste
collection and recycling services for residents in the unincorporated areas of the County as well as several cities
that have signed Interlocal Agreements (ILAs) with the Department. The Department owns and operates 13
Neighborhood Trash and Recycling Centers, three Regional Transfer Stations, two Home Chemical Collection
Centers, three landfills and one Resource Recovery Facility (RRF). Chapter 15 of the County Code of Ordinances
(Code) defines the sum of these facilities as the Solid Waste System (System).
A major component of the System is the existing RRF, which can accept up to 3,000 tons per day (tpd) of solid
waste, processes approximately 1,000,000 tons of solid waste annually and produces approximately 77 megawatts
of electricity annually. The existing RRF was constructed in the early 1980’s, became operational in 1982 and is
reaching the end of its useful life without significant additional investment in retrofits and improvements, which is
driving the Department, Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners (Commission) and the Miami-Dade
County Mayor (Mayor) to consider the development of a new waste-to-energy (WTE) facility to replace the existing
RRF.
In accordance with the County Mayor’s letter, dated April 13, 2022, the Department was tasked with identifying and
analyzing potential sites within the County that would be suitable for the development of a future WTE Facility, and
to report findings within 60 days. Arcadis U.S., Inc., (Arcadis), as the Bond Engineer for DSWM, assisted the
County with this preliminary analysis. Arcadis is a global engineering consulting firm with extensive experience
assisting clients in the development and oversight of modern WTE facilities for over 40 years. Most recently,
Arcadis served as the owner’s representative and design criteria professional for the development of the Solid
Waste Authority of Palm Beach County’s new WTE facility, the only new facility to be built in the United States in the
last 20 years, in operation since 2015.
Due to the expedited nature of the assignment, it should be noted that Arcadis’ services were preliminary in nature
and were conducted consistent with prudent industry practice under similar circumstances and timelines to provide
a screening-level analysis of the availability of potential sites within the County. A more detailed review and
investigation (including onsite visits, surveys, geotechnical testing, etc.) of the factors which may affect the potential
development of a new WTE facility at any proposed location is required and is assumed would be conducted in a
future phase of the County’s planning and implementation process. Additionally, Arcadis relied on readily available
data and/or reports that were provided by DSWM. The preliminary analysis was desktop in nature and did not
include site visits or on-site surveys.

2 Preliminary Siting Evaluation Process

Arcadis commenced the preliminary siting evaluation on May 9, 2022, which was performed in two stages, an initial
screening stage and a detailed screening stage, as summarized below.
1. Initial Screening Stage – The initial screening stage identified parcels located in the County that met initial siting
criteria and compared them to agreed-upon Pass/Fail criteria.
2. Detailed Screening Stage – Parcels that passed the initial screening stage were further analyzed in the detailed
screening stage, which included the evaluation of additional, more extensive siting parameters.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 1
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

2.1 Initial Screening Stage Methodology

Arcadis conducted a kick-off meeting with DSWM staff on May 13, 2022 to present and confirm the minimum
screening criteria to be used in the Initial Screening evaluation process. The site criteria below were generated out
of a collaborative effort between Arcadis and Department staff and were applied during the Initial Screening
analysis.
Initial Screening Criteria
• WTE Facility Capacity – Minimum site area sufficient for a mass-burn WTE facility with a throughput capacity of
4,000 tons per day (tpd), expandable to 5,000 tpd, if possible.
• Site Area and Ownership – Minimum 40-acre site comprised of no more than two contiguous parcels and two
owners, no limit on the maximum acreage of any site.
• Zoning Considerations – Site(s) must have the following zoning designations: Vacant, Industrial, Commercial,
or Agricultural.
• Residential Zoning – Distance to residential zoning was determined using Geographic Information System
(GIS) tools and those sites that were within 1,500 feet of residential zoning were eliminated. This requirement
was not applied to Site 1, which was submitted by the County for detailed screening consideration.
• Transportation/Travel Time – Maximum travel time of 10 minutes to major (arterial) or collector roads as shown
on the 2010 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Federal Functional Classification map was calculated
using posted speed limits and online mapping tools.
• Canal or Major Roadways – Sites with a canal or major roadway located on the site parcel were precluded from
further evaluation because they could not be abandoned and developed.
• Lake/Borrow Pit – Sites that included a lake or borrow pit were included as they could be filled.
• Other Site Considerations – Any properties recommended directly by the County to be evaluated as well as
sites within and outside of the Urban Development Boundary were considered.

2.1.1 Initial Screening Analysis

A GIS database was developed using layers provided by the County and acquired from external sources (i.e.,
National Wetlands Inventory; South Florida Water Management District; etc.). The Initial Screening criteria were
entered into a GIS-based screening tool, which resulted in approximately 235 parcels being identified from the GIS
database. Additional analyses were then conducted to address additional site considerations, including the
following:

• Site Area and Ownership – Sites that were less than 40-acres were analyzed to confirm if any two adjacent
parcels, with no more than two owners, could be combined into one site meeting the minimum 40-acre size
criteria.
• Site Geometry – Sites with parcel boundaries with shapes or dimensions incompatible with a 4,000 ton per day
WTE facility were eliminated. In general, WTE facilities for this targeted throughput capacity plus expansion
capabilities, if possible, due to the size of the buildings and components, truck queueing lengths, and the
minimum radii for the access roads, require a parcel area that is at least 1,200 feet wide and approximately
1,500 feet long.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 2
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

• Zoning Considerations – Properties with existing abandoned building structures and Conservation,
Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) Program properties, or Other Protected Lands not screened by the
GIS tool were excluded.
• Proximity to Airport – Arcadis reviewed County Code Chapter 33 Zoning, Article XXXVII – Airport Zoning,
adopted November 19, 2019 (Airport Zoning Article) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations
pertinent to land use and height restrictions in the proximity of airports and heliports. Sites less than four (4)
miles from an airport were excluded from consideration.
• Lake/Borrow Pit – Sites that were mostly or entirely excavated as a lake or borrow pit were eliminated due to
the significant additional time and expense associated with backfilling to create the developable area of the site.
• County Parks and other County properties – (i.e., wellfields, etc.) that were not screened by the GIS tool were
manually identified and eliminated.

At the end of the Initial Screening process, 24 sites remained and were presented to DSWM staff for discussion at a
meeting on May 20, 2022. After discussion, the decision was made to increase the minimum offset from residential
zoning to one-half mile (2,640 ft), which eliminated two sites. The remaining 22 sites were approved to proceed to
the Detailed Screening process.

2.2 Detailed Screening Stage Methodology

2.2.1 Detailed Screening Analysis

The approved 22 sites were then evaluated against Detailed Screening criteria, which considered many additional
Federal, State, and County programs, policies, and legislation that can affect the siting of a future WTE facility. For
each site, a site package was developed to document the analysis of the site relative to the Initial and Detailed
Screening criteria. The criteria were then separated into six general categories, as follows:

• Location – Site location within the County relative to the existing RRF, proximity to residential zoning, and
expected effects on the County’s Solid Waste System if selected for a future WTE facility.
• Utilities – Availability of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas and electric utilities, and any stormwater and
groundwater considerations at the site.
• Soils – Identification of soil types at the site and potential effects on site development.
• Environment – Consideration of a range of environmental factors, including floodplains, wetlands, threatened
and endangered species, and permitting issues.
• Transportation – Proximity to major roads, available road access to the site and improvements needed, if any.
• Community – Estimate of public response to potential construction of a WTE Facility at the site considering
proximity to residential zoning, environmentally sensitive areas, and environmental justice concerns.
Two additional criteria were applied only to the sites that were remaining after the Detailed Screening criteria were
applied:

• Cost – Arcadis developed the capital cost and first year O&M cost associated with developing a new WTE
facility at the existing RRF site as part of a previous effort. Utilizing this cost as the base case, evaluated
differential cost associated with development of a new WTE facility on each of the three sites remaining after
the detailed analysis criteria were applied.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 3
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

• Schedule – Arcadis developed a preliminary high-level implementation schedule in order to compare the
implementation timeline associated with development of a new WTE facility on each of the three sites remaining
after the detailed analysis criteria were applied.
To assist decision makers, such as the County Commission, Mayor and Department leaders in determining the
results of the screening analysis, the Site Packages employed a simple stoplight rating to identify the relative
difficulty for each category (i.e., green/slight difficulty, yellow/moderate difficulty, red/significant difficulty) at each
site. The Site Packages are provided in Appendix A.
The Detailed Screening criteria and the background information related to their application in this process are
presented in the sections below.

2.2.2 Detailed Screening Criteria

Location
The Location criteria includes the physical location of the site relative to existing Solid Waste System facilities, large
air emissions sources, transportation routes, and expected impacts to the System if a proposed WTE facility were
sited there. Distance to known large emitters, such as the Titan Pennsuco Complex, WM Medley Landfill, CEMEX
Miami Concrete Plant, FPL Turkey Point Power Plant, etc., were calculated for purposes of determining the
potential effects on air permitting. Transportation routes were further evaluated for potential traffic conditions,
physical and operational condition of roadways, truck queueing areas, and other features that may affect the routing
or traffic patterns of vehicles entering and leaving the proposed site. Finally, an evaluation of the effects on the
County’s Solid Waste System was conducted to determine potential changes to System operations and costs
resulting from the assumption of WTE operations at the site.

Utilities
WTE facilities have high demand requirements on several utilities. This screening criteria evaluated the availability
of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, electric utility substations, stormwater, and groundwater at each site.
If a utility was not available, the closest available service location was determined by a combination of on-line tools
and information, service area maps, inspection of aerial and street-level photography, and discussions with County
staff and utility services providers. The additional work needed to extend utilities to the site was then included in the
site evaluation. Brief discussions of the evaluation of needs and demands for the various utility types are as
follows:

• Potable water is needed not only for normal human consumption and fire protection but may also be needed (if
other sources are not available) for supply water for the boiler feedwater systems, lime slurry production in the
Air Pollution Control (APC) system, and many other uses at the facility. For a 4,000 ton per day WTE facility, a
site would need a minimum 12” water main with sufficient service pressure to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. If service pressure is inadequate, a booster station must be added.
If potable water utilities are unavailable, the construction of a typical 12” water main from the nearest service
location (including valves and appurtenances) is needed, and depending on the site, additional easement or
right-of-way area may be needed.
• Wastewater (Sanitary Sewer) is needed for toilet facilities, boiler blowdown water, and several other facility
processes. The proposed WTE facility would need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity of
approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be considered

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 4
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives. Reuse of process wastewater
is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE facilities, but for site evaluation and comparative
purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary sewer. If gravity sewer is not available, a lift
station and 6” force main would have to be constructed to connect to the nearest sanitary sewer manhole or lift
station wetwell, and depending on the site, additional easement or right-of-way area may be needed.
• Natural Gas is the most economical fuel for the boiler auxiliary burners, which ignite the solid waste fuel fed to
the boiler grates and allow for controlled startup and shutdown of the proposed facility. The site would need a
minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility. Online maps and other resources
were used to determine the approximate location of gas service pipelines within the County. If gas service is
unavailable, the construction of a typical 6” gas main from the nearest pipeline location (including valves and
appurtenances) is needed, and depending on the site, additional easement or right-of-way area may be
needed.
• Electricity is used at WTE facilities to operate the various mechanical components. Once a WTE facility
becomes operational, the steam generated from the boilers is typically used to drive a steam turbine connected
to a generator to provide both the internal electricity required to operate the facility as well as produce excess
electricity that is sold to the local electric utility. For this evaluation, the nearest electrical substation was
located and the shortest route for the transmission line along existing or proposed access road right-of-way or
FPL easements was determined. Additional analysis would need to be performed to verify
substation/switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and available terminations.
• Stormwater management and controls in accordance with Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) rules are required for the proposed WTE site. For this evaluation, the site soils, groundwater
elevations, presence of floodplains and other information were analyzed to determine what effects the site
conditions may have on the proposed WTE facility layout, construction issues, and if any connections to
existing stormwater collection systems was available. If the site is located in a floodplain, typically the
stormwater system must include additional floodplain compensating storage, which increase both the cost and
the site area used for the stormwater system.
• Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water service and provide industrial
supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE
facility is expected to consume an average 552,000 gallons per day. Other innovative and sustainable solutions,
such as reuse and rainwater harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements.
A consumptive use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not available at a
site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will have to provide for WTE
facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soils
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil survey information was reviewed to confirm the type and
potential suitability of soils located at each site. Soils information for all sites was obtained from the USDA’s Web
Soil Survey (WSS), which provides soil data and information produced by the National Cooperative Soil Survey.
The soils data provides a wealth of information on the physical conditions at a site that can affect development,
including previous site disturbance, groundwater levels, soil bearing capacities and foundation design requirements,
depth to bedrock, presence of muck, and many others. If muck and other unsuitable soils were found on a site, they
would need to be removed and structural fill imported and placed under affected building foundations. Additional
site preparation, such as additional fill for elevation of structures, vibro-compaction, or other work may also be
www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 5
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

needed. Additional geotechnical investigations and structural design work may also be needed to address poor soil
conditions.

Environment
Extensive environmental permitting is required to construct a WTE Facility, in any location. A summary of the
Federal, State and regional environmental permitting requirements, policies and jurisdictional interfaces required to
site, construct and operate a new WTE facility in Miami-Dade County are provided in the below subsections and
were used to provide an estimated degree of permitting difficulty summary for each site.

2.2.2.4.1 Environmental Resource Permit (ERP)

The FDEP’s Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) Program regulates activities involving the alteration of surface
water flows. This includes new activities in uplands that generate stormwater runoff from upland construction, as
well as dredging and filling in wetlands and other surface waters. Wetlands and Surface Waters were analyzed
using the National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and South Florida Water Management
District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 GIS layers in order to identify existing wetlands and surface waters
including streams, canals, ponds, lakes, impoundments, rivers, sloughs, and other watercourses that are present on
the sites being evaluated.

2.2.2.4.2 Threatened & Endangered Species

In order to determine if any known Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species or critical habitat for endangered
species were present on the sites being evaluated, Arcadis utilized the following resources:
• United States Fish and Wildlife Information for Planning and Consultation tool and designated and proposed
critical habitat
• Florida bonneted bat consultation area for the South Florida Urban Bat Area in Miami-Dade County
• Florida Panther consultation areas, Florida wood stork colonies, and Florida Natural Areas Inventory datasets

2.2.2.4.3 Floodplain
Flood maps serve as critical decision-making tools in flood mitigation, land use planning, emergency management
and general public awareness. Arcadis conducted a review of the FEMA Flood Zone map to determine flood zone
designation and flood hazard probability for each site being evaluated.

2.2.2.4.4 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) Considerations

CERP is a framework for restoring, protecting and preserving the greater Everglades ecosystem. The plan is a 50-
50 partnership between the State of Florida and the federal government. The State of Florida and the South Florida
Water Management District have so far invested approximately $2.3 billion in CERP-related land acquisition, project
design and construction. The CERP project boundaries layer was used to identify conservation lands, including the
Everglades National Park, to determine if any parcel was adjacent to any known or existing CERP project.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 6
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

2.2.2.4.5 Code and Policy Considerations

Miami-Dade County Wellfield Protection Areas
In Miami-Dade County, drinking water is drawn
from the Biscayne Aquifer, which is a porous
limestone rock formation that gives the aquifer
excellent capacity. However, the rapid
movement of water in the aquifer and the high-
water table within many areas of the County
make it vulnerable to pollution. Pollutants that are
discharged onto the ground or in surface waters
can contaminate the groundwater and be drawn
into wells that supply drinking water.
For these reasons, Miami-Dade County has
policies and programs in place to protect the
Biscayne Aquifer from potential sources of
contamination, especially in specific areas around
the network of drinking water wellfields
designated as wellfield protection areas (WPA).
The WPAs were designated based on geological
characteristics of the aquifer and the flow of water
through it. New activities that use or store
hazardous materials or generate hazardous
waste are prohibited within certain parts of the
wellfield protection areas. WPA requirements are
included in Sec. 24-43 of the County Code.
Arcadis reviewed the WPA boundaries in order to
identify whether any parcel was within or
contained protected areas.

Figure 2.1 Wellfield Protection Areas

Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) Conservation Aquifer Recharge and Drainage Element
(Element)
The intent of this Element is to identify, conserve, appropriately use, protect and restore as necessary the biological,
geological and hydrological resources of Miami-Dade County. The following policies were considered when
conducting the Detailed Screening analysis.

• Policy CON-7J of this Element States - In evaluating applications that will result in alterations or adverse
impacts to wetlands, Miami-Dade County shall consider the applications’ consistency with CERP objectives.
Applications that are found to be inconsistent with CERP objectives, projects or features shall be denied.
• Policy CON-9A of this Element States - All activities that adversely affect habitat that is critical to federal or
State designated, endangered or threatened species shall be prohibited unless such activity(ies) are a
public necessity and there are no possible alternative sites where the activity(ies) can occur.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 7
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

• Policy CON-9B of this Element States - All nesting, roosting, and feeding habitats used by Federal or State
designated endangered or threatened species, shall be protected and buffered from surrounding development
or activities and further degradation or destruction of such habitat shall not be authorized.

Miami-Dade County Airport Zoning Code

The Airport Zoning Code describes the regulations to provide both airspace protection and land uses compatible
with airport operations. The Airport Zoning Code requirements provide the regulations that describe such items as
Critical Approach Zones and height restrictions that could impact the ability to develop a WTE facility. The areas
governed by this Code include airports owned by the County and managed by the Miami-Dade Aviation Department
(MDAD) or its successor agency, and the incorporated and unincorporated areas that surround the following
airports:

• Miami International Airport (MIA);

• Miami Executive Airport (TMB);
• Miami-Opa Locka Executive Airport (OPF);
• Miami Homestead General Aviation Airport (X51); and
• Any other County-owned or operated airports that may be hereafter established.
Note that the regulations in the Airport Zoning Code do not apply to, or govern, Dade-Collier Training and Transition
Airport (TNT).
The Critical Approach Zone (CAZ) is a trapezoidal area extending outward from the Runway Protection Zone to a
point that is 10,200 feet from the runway end. One of the uses prohibited within this zone is “establishments or uses
that emit smoke, gases, or dust in quantities or densities sufficient to jeopardize the safe use of the airport. In no
event shall these prohibitions be varied”. The Airport Zoning Article may be open to some interpretation about
whether the stack emissions from a new WTE facility located within the CAZ are in sufficient quantities or densities
to jeopardize the safe use of the airport. However, additional analysis and discussions with MDAD and the FAA
would be required to determine if parcels within the CAZ may require more detailed analysis such as a thermal
exhaust plume analysis. Therefore, for the purpose of this preliminary siting analysis, parcels located within the CAZ
of any of the airports governed by the Airport Zoning Code were not considered.
The Airport Zoning Code also describes Airport Height Variance Eligible Areas (HVEAs) that are areas surrounding
airports where variances of the applicable height restrictions may be applied for in accordance with the Airport
Zoning Article. For the purposes of this siting analysis, parcels located within the HVEAs of any of the airports
governed by the Airport Zoning Code were not considered.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 8
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

Figure 2.2 Miami International Airport - Airport Height Restriction Zone Map

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Requirements

The FAA governing regulation is 14 CFR Part 77. In accordance with this regulation and the Miami-Dade
County Airport Zoning System Checklist, revised August 5, 2015 (Microsoft PowerPoint - Airport System Zoning
Checklist 8-5-15 (white background) [Compatibility Mode] (miami-airport.com)) (County Airport Zoning
Checklist) and the Airport Zoning Code (ARTICLE XXXVII. - AIRPORT ZONING | Code of Ordinances | Miami -
Dade County, FL | Municode Library), the following approach areas to governed airports are used to determine
height restrictions:
• 10,000 feet at a slope of 34 to 1 for all non-precision instrument runways other than utility; and
• 10,000 feet at a slope of 50 to 1 with an additional 40,000 feet at a slope of 40 to 1 for all precision
instrument runways
• For MIA Runways 8R, 26L and 30 only, the initial 10,000 feet at a slope of 65 to 1 with an additional 40,000
feet at a slope of 40 to 1
The stack heights for modern U.S.-based WTE facilities ranges from 200-350 feet above grade. Using a
conservatively tall 400 ft height stack, the distance for the FAA approach surface height restriction is
approximately 18,000 feet from the RPZ or 3.4 miles. Note that the existing RRF eastern-most stack is
approximately four miles away from MIA along the centerline of the Runways 12-30. Therefore, for the
purposes of this siting analysis, parcels located within four miles of any of the airports governed by the Airport
Zoning Code, including the Homestead Air Reserve Base, were not considered.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 9
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

2.2.2.4.6 Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act Certification

The Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA), Sections 403.501-.518, Florida Statute (F.S.), is the State of
Florida centralized process for licensing large electrical power plants and is administered by the FDEP Siting
Coordination Office. Section 403.503 (14) F.S., defines an electrical power plant, for the purpose of PPSA
certification, as any steam or solar electrical generating facility using any process or fuel, that produces 75
megawatts or more of electrical capacity. PPSA certification may also be used to obtain approval for smaller
capacity electrical power plants, if the applicant elects to use the PPSA process. A WTE facility utilizes solid waste
as the process fuel to generate steam and produce electricity, therefore the environmental permitting associated
with siting, constructing, and operating a WTE facility falls under the PPSA.
One license — a certification — replaces all local and state permits and is issued by the Siting Board (Florida
Governor and their Cabinet Members). Since certification is a life-of-the facility authorization, the considerations
involved in the PPSA application review are extensive. Local governments and state agencies within whose
jurisdiction the WTE facility is to be constructed participate in the process. Certification addresses permitting, land
use and zoning, and property interests. A certification grants approval for the location of the WTE facility and its
associated facilities such as roadways and electrical transmission lines carrying power to the electrical grid, among
others which are collectively referred to as a PPSA Certified Site.
PPSA certification covers almost every aspect of the facility as an all-in-one license for construction and operation.
The PPSA creates a procedure that allows the local, regional, and state agencies to review a proposed electrical
power plant within a single, coordinated process. State and local government permit requirements are typically
included within the Conditions of Certification (COC) issued under the PPSA. As such, the state pre-empts the
issuance of any other type of permit for the facility, except for local zoning and building.

Power Plant Site Certification - Existing and New Site

A PPSA Application was submitted for the existing RRF, and the COC PA 77-08, approving siting, construction and
operation was issued by the FDEP on January 9, 1978. PPSA COCs can be modified during the life cycle of the
facility through either an Amendment or Modification, which are defined below.
1. PPSA Amendment - a material change to the application for site certification that does not require a change in
the final order or Conditions of Certification. Amendments can be authorized by the FDEP Siting Coordination
Office.
2. PPSA Modification - a substantive change in the certification order including any substantive change in the
Conditions of Certification. Proposed modifications are reviewed by all affected agencies and are issued by
DEP or the Siting Board after public notice.
Construction of a new WTE facility at the existing RRF site would likely be considered a Modification to the COC.
However, a pre-application meeting with the FDEP would be required in order to confirm this assumption.
Construction of a new WTE Facility at a new site, would require the development of a new PPSA Application for
approval.

Other Permits Included in PPSA Application

A Modification to an existing PPSA COC or development of a new PPSA Application also requires the development
of applicable Federal, State and regional permit applications, that are ultimately provided in the appendices of the
Modification or new Application submittal. Filing federal permit applications concurrently with the PPSA Application
is advantageous because it helps ensure that the Federal permits and the PPSA certification are issued at or about

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 10
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

the same time. A summary of the other permit applications to be submitted as part of the PPSA Modification or
Application are noted below.

• National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Application/Permit

• Hazardous Waste Disposal Application/Permit
• 404 Application/Permit
• Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Application/Permit
• Air Operation Application/Permit
• Coastal Zone Management Certification (as applicable)
• Zoning Descriptions and Concurrence
• Environmental Resource Permit Application
• Monitoring Programs
The PSD, NPDES, and other permits that the FDEP issues pursuant to federal programs are issued separately
from, and in addition to, the issuance of the PPSA certification. Permits issued by the USACE also are issued
separately from the PPSA certification.

2.2.2.4.7 Florida Transmission Line Act Certification

The Florida Transmission Line Siting Act (TLSA), Sections 403.52-.5365, Florida Statutes (F.S.), is the State of
Florida centralized process for licensing electrical transmission lines that are 230 kilovolts (kV) or larger; Cross a
county line; and are 15 miles or longer. The TLSA can also be used for transmission lines that are less than 15
miles long or if within one county. The TLSA is also administered by the FDEP and one license — a certification —
replaces all local and state permits, and provides for construction, operation, and maintenance of electric
transmission lines for the life of the transmission line. State and local government permit requirements are typically
included within the COC issued under the TLSA.
The TLSA is similar to the PPSA in that both require Siting Board certification and the FDEP acts as lead agency as
well as addresses its own jurisdictional interests. In both laws, certification covers all state and local permits and is
for the life-of-the-facility. Public involvement opportunities are also provided in both laws. The two main differences
between the TLSA and PPSA are that there is no Land Use and Zoning hearing for transmission line siting
certification and alternative transmission line corridor locations can be proposed.

Florida Transmission Line Act Certification - Existing and New Site

The transmission line infrastructure was developed as part of the initial permitting and construction of the existing
RRF, however, if reconfiguration is required, an amendment or modification to the COC would be required. Site
specific transmission line infrastructure associated with the other parcels being considered would need to be
evaluated as part of a future effort to determine if the County or the utility would be responsible for the permitting of
the needed transmission lines.

2.2.2.4.8 Air Permitting

Air Quality Permitting Requirements
The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) required the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to
set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for common pollutants emitted from numerous and diverse
sources considered harmful to public health and the environment. There are currently NAAQS designated for six
www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 11
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

pollutants: sulfur dioxide (SO 2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), ozone (O 3), and
particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). The CAAA also established two types of national air quality standards.
Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of "sensitive" populations such as
asthmatics, young children, and the elderly. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including
protection against visibility impairment, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. Florida has
incorporated the NAAQS by reference into the state’s air quality regulations.
The USEPA tracks compliance with the NAAQS (not to exceed ambient air concentration) for each criteria
pollutant by designating each area of the country as either “attainment” if the area meets the NAAQS or
“nonattainment” if the area does not meet the NAAQS. A separate determination of attainment status is made for
each criteria pollutant. Miami-Dade County is currently classified as an attainment area for all criteria pollutants.

Based on preliminary estimates of potential emission levels, a new 4,000 tpd WTE Facility would constitute a new
major emission source. As a proposed new major source, a 4,000 tpd WTE Facility would be subject to federal New
Source Review (NSR) requirements. NSR refers to the pre-construction review process that applies to new and
modified major sources for the purpose of protecting air quality through a permitting framework that supports
compliance with the NAAQS. NSR includes two permitting programs: Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
permitting and Nonattainment NSR (NNSR) permitting. Under NSR, a new 4,000 tpd WTE facility proposed for a
location in Miami-Dade County would be subject to PSD permitting requirements in recognition that PSD review
applies to new major sources in NAAQS attainment areas.

PSD Permitting Program

PSD permitting provides for carefully managed economic growth in a manner consistent with preserving clean air
resources. The primary objectives of the PSD permitting program are to protect public health and welfare and to
limit degradation of air quality in surrounding areas and within designated areas of special recreational, scenic, or
historic value. The PSD permitting regulation specifies that the following analyses be completed to address air
pollution control technology requirements and to demonstrate that proposed projects will not adversely impact air
quality:
• Air pollution control technology analyses are required on a pollutant-specific basis to define Best Available
Control Technology (BACT) for project related emission units. BACT is an emission limitation or standard
established on a case-by-case basis and reflects the maximum degree of emissions control that can be
achieved considering energy, environmental, and economic impacts. If establishing an emissions limitation or
standard is not feasible, BACT may be a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard.
• An evaluation of ambient air impacts resulting from project related emissions is required with respect to PSD
increments and the NAAQS. PSD increments represent increases in pollution allowed in an area and they
prevent air quality in clean areas (i.e., attainment areas) from deteriorating to the level set by the NAAQS for a
pollutant. The NAAQS is a maximum allowable concentration "ceiling." In contrast, a PSD increment is the
maximum increase in concentration that is allowed to occur above a baseline concentration for a pollutant. PSD
increments are established for three land use classifications: Class I, Class II, and Class III.
• Class I areas are areas of special national or regional value, such as national parks, and are afforded the
greatest degree of air quality protection.
• Class II areas are areas where normal, well-managed growth is allowed. The Miami-Dade County area is
designated as a Class II area.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 12
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

• Class III areas industrialized attainment areas with limited restrictions on emissions. No area of the country
has been designated as a Class III area.
To evaluate ambient air quality impacts for proposed projects subject to PSD permitting, dispersion modeling
analyses must be completed. For each pollutant subject to PSD review, an initial dispersion modeling analysis
referred to as a “significance analysis” is completed considering emissions from only the proposed project. If
results from the “significance analysis” demonstrates that a proposed facility’s impacts are below established
PSD significant impact levels (SILs), then “full impact” (multi-source) dispersion modeling analyses including
emissions from other offsite sources in the vicinity of the project site are not required. Results from dispersion
modeling analyses for emissions associated with a new 4,000 tpd WTE facility are expected to exceed PSD
significant impact levels (for one or more pollutants). Therefore, extensive, multi-source modeling analyses
would likely be required as part of the PSD permitting process for a proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility.
• An evaluation of project related impacts with respect to PSD increments and Air Quality Related Values
(AQRVs) at any Class I area within close proximity to the site is required. Class I areas, such as Everglades
National Park, are federally designated areas of special national or regional value which receive distinct
protections under the PSD regulations. For each Class I area, the Federal Land Manager (FLM) is responsible
for defining and protecting specific AQRVs and for establishing criteria to determine an adverse impact on the
AQRVs. The AQRVs are resources that have the potential to be affected by air pollution and may include
visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive areas.
• The specific analyses and recommended air dispersion model(s) that may be required are dependent on the
distance a proposed project is from protected Class I and/or sensitive Class II areas. For proposed facilities
located within 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) of a Class I area and based on an assessment of 24-hour ambient
impacts, PSD review may even be required for certain pollutants with emissions at minor levels (i.e., levels
below PSD emission thresholds). In order to obtain a construction permit for these proposed sources, a
vigorous evaluation would need to be completed to show its proposed operation would not degrade air quality
and AQRVs. Given the proximity of the Everglades National Park (Class I area) and Biscayne Bay National
Park (sensitive Class II area) to prospective sites in Miami-Dade County, demonstrating no adverse impacts to
these protected areas from the operation of a new WTE facility presents uniquely difficult challenges.
• An assessment of project impacts on soils, vegetation, and visibility and an evaluation of air quality impacts
relative to general growth (industrial, commercial, and residential) associated with the proposed project are also
required.

In Florida, the permitting authority for issuance of air construction permits is the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP). Construction permits for projects subject to PSD permitting requirements are
processed by FDEP’s Division of Air Resource Management office in Tallahassee. The PSD permitting regulation
provides for public participation and input from the USEPA and designated FLMs for Class I areas and sensitive
Class II areas in the vicinity of the project site. Input from these entities is given special consideration and concerns
are typically required to be addressed by an applicant during the permit review process. As the permitting authority,
FDEP makes the final decision on whether to issue or deny issuance of an air construction permit.

Air Permitting Summary

Siting a new 4,000 tpd WTE facility in Miami-Dade County presents unique challenges considering the complex pre-
construction permitting requirements that apply under the PSD permitting regulation. In particular, the proximity of
nearby sensitive areas (Everglades National Park, which is a federally protected Class I area, and the Biscayne Bay
sensitive Class II area) and the presence of existing facilities with high emission levels in the county, impart

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 13
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable impacts from the operation of a new WTE Facility and make
securing an air construction permit very challenging at the prospective sites. Extensive air dispersion modeling,
additional analyses and correspondence with regulatory agencies is required in order to definitively evaluate the
feasibility and degree of difficulty of air permitting at any proposed site.

Transportation
A proposed 4,000 ton per day WTE facility would be expected to receive approximately 300-400 inbound vehicles
per day and provide for a typical queueing length suitable for between 50 and 100 vehicles during peak delivery
periods. This transportation demand requires, at a minimum, an FDOT standard two-lane road with paved
shoulders and stormwater controls and sufficient area on site for vehicle queueing. Also, per the Initial Siting
requirements, the travel time to an Arterial or Collector Road must be less than 10 minutes.
For this analysis, the Arterial and Collector Roads were identified from the 2010 Federal Functional Classification
Map published by the FDOT District Six Intermodal Systems Office. Travel time from each site to an identified
Arterial or Collector Road was then determined using online mapping tools and calculated travel times based on
data in the 2020 Miami-Dade County Mobility Profile published by the FDOT Forecasting and Trends Office. For
each site, the existing access road size, capacity, and physical condition were evaluated to determine its suitability
for the demands of a proposed WTE facility, along with expected traffic impacts on area roads and intersections. If
an access road is either inadequate or unavailable at a site, then a new two-lane road with paved shoulder and
stormwater controls will need to be constructed for proper site access. Additional easement/ROW may have to be
acquired. Local area traffic impacts were evaluated based on published FDOT Level of Service data and known
traffic conditions.

Community
According to the USEPA, the term environmental justice is defined as: “the fair treatment and meaningful
involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” The USEPA EJScreen Tool was
used to provide an initial estimate of environmental justice concerns at each site. According to the USEPA website,
EJScreen is an environmental justice mapping and screening tool that provides the EPA with a nationally consistent
dataset and approach for combining environmental and demographic indicators. EJScreen users choose a
geographic area; the tool then provides demographic and environmental information for that area. All of the
EJScreen indicators are publicly available data. EJScreen simply provides a way to display this information and
includes a method for combining environmental and demographic indicators into EJ indexes.
It is important to note that EJScreen is not a detailed risk analysis. It is a screening tool that examines some of the
relevant issues related to environmental justice, and there is uncertainty in the data included. EJScreen cannot
provide data on every environmental impact and demographic factor that may be important to any location.
Therefore, its initial results should be supplemented with additional information and local knowledge whenever
appropriate, for a more complete picture of a location.
Based on the information provided by the EJScreen Standard Report, proximity of the site to residential zoning and
populations, and proximity to sensitive environmental areas (i.e., Everglades National Park, wetland and wildlife
areas, etc.) a relative rating of expected community opposition to the siting of a new WTE facility was applied.
Results of the EJScreen Standard Report, developed for each site, are included in the Site Packages found in
Appendix A.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 14
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

2.2.3 Detailed Screening Findings

A meeting was held on June 7, 2022, to review the findings of the Detailed Screening process. After discussion and
agreement by DSWM and Arcadis, 19 sites were eliminated from consideration due to several factors, such as
roadway access and utility availability, parcel development and availability, permitting considerations, and conflicts
with existing County policies (i.e., located in WPA or CERP site, wetland/wildlife habitat issues, etc.).
DSWM staff then requested that a comparison
be conducted of the existing RRF site to the
three remaining potential sites found as part
Site 1 - Medley
of this preliminary analysis, using the same
methodology as the other sites.
The four remaining sites are listed below and
are illustrated in the map at right.

• Site 1 – Medley
• Site 16 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #1
• Site 17 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #2
• Existing RRF Site – Doral

Existing RRF Site - Doral

Figure 2.3 Potential Sites Location Maps

Site 16 – Ingraham
Hwy. Site #1

Site 17 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #2

The full site packages for each of the 22 sites that were evaluated in the Detailed Screening process are included in
Attachment B. A brief comparison of the four remaining sites is presented below and on the following pages for
quick reference. For these four final sites, an estimate of the schedule and cost differentiators was also developed
to provide the County with additional comparative analysis for consideration.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 15
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

Schedule Considerations
The development of a WTE facility typically takes seven (7) to ten (10) years to complete. This time frame, which
includes the preliminary planning stage, siting, permitting, financing, procurement, design, and construction, varies
depending upon the complexity of the project and extent of the regulatory and public concerns. Arcadis has
developed a preliminary high-level implementation schedule, included as Appendix B, for the four selected sites for
use in evaluating different project development schedule impacts related to each site: the Existing RRF site, the
Medley site, Ingraham Highway Site 1 and Ingraham Highway Site 2. Each potential site has unique schedule
impact considerations, which are discussed in the subsections below. Task durations are estimates and may
change once activities begin, which could extend or compress the schedule duration. Future phases of the County’s
planning and implementation process will include more detailed review of the factors which may affect the potential
development of a new WTE facility at any proposed location and as such, the anticipated timelines and schedule
impacts will be further refined as the process proceeds.

2.2.3.1.1 Assumptions
Several common assumptions were used in developing the new WTE facility preliminary implementation schedule.
There are also many assumptions specific to an individual site option that differentiate their respective
implementation timeframe from one another. The assumptions used for the purposes of this Report are identified in
the following table:
Table 2.1 Schedule Assumptions

Assumptions Applicable Site Option

The durations used for design and construction are generally based on the
schedule for construction of the most-recently developed facility in the
All Site Options
United States, referred to as reference facility (Palm Beach County’s
Renewable Energy Facility No. 2, completed in 2015).

To avoid waste diversion, the existing RRF would continue operations during
construction of the new WTE facility, with shutdown and decommissioning Existing RRF Site
occurring after construction completion.

Development of the existing RRF site includes time for permitting and filling
the onsite stormwater lake, planning and construction of temporary
Existing RRF Site
stormwater retainage during construction, and logistical planning for
construction during operation of the existing RRF.

The Medley site includes time for land acquisition, zoning and permitting of a
Medley Site
greenfield site as well as additional site preparation work.

Ingraham Highway Site 1 and Ingraham Highway Site 2 include additional

time for land acquisition, zoning permitting of a greenfield site, and extended
environmental permitting due to proximity of Class I area. There will also be
Ingraham Highway Site 1
additional site preparation work required including wetland mitigation, flood
Ingraham Highway Site 2
plain mitigation (elevating finished floor elevation of structures one foot
above grade and additional stormwater requirements), and wildlife
mitigation.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 16
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

2.2.3.1.2 Siting/Planning
Several activities are identified for the siting of a new WTE facility that are required to support the regulatory,
permitting, design, and construction phases. Siting/Planning includes the following activities:

• Siting selection and land acquisition, if applicable

• Power purchase and interconnect agreement negotiations
• Public outreach activities
The Medley site, Ingraham Highway Site 1, and Ingraham Highway Site 2 require land acquisition to commence
prior to the other activities listed above. It has been assumed that land acquisition may take approximately 18
months to 2 years.

2.2.3.1.3 Financing
Construction of a large capital project, such as a WTE facility, is most often financed, as most entities do not have
the available funds to pay for the capital costs when constructed. A number of financing options exist for funding
large capital projects, with the most common being municipal bond financing. It is anticipated that the County would
most likely use a form of long-term revenue bond financing. Bond financing terms can vary and are determined
during agreement development. For the purposes of this Report, it is assumed that a 30-year revenue bond would
be used.
First, a financial plan for bond issue would be developed to determine the bond issue method and schedule. This
would include bond issue support and a cash flow analysis at the commencement of the project and possibly a
phased financing strategy, with interim and final financing. The interim financing could correspond with initial
planning, permitting and procurement activities required prior to contractor notice to proceed. The final financing
would likely correspond with the contractor notice to proceed and/or receipt of all regulatory approvals for
construction.
Note that the financing tasks are not consecutive, and do not occur directly one after the other. There is time
allotted in the schedule between these tasks when no financing activities occur. Therefore, the total duration for the
financing tasks, commencing with the bond issue support and cash flow analysis and ending with the final financing,
is estimated to be between four and six years. The financing tasks typically take place concurrently with the
permitting and procurement tasks.

2.2.3.1.4 Regulatory/Permitting
The preliminary schedule reflects the permitting process including application preparation, submission, clarification,
and issuance of permits and approvals required for the construction and start-up of a new WTE facility. These
activities are discussed in more detail in Section 2.2.4 Environment. The critical path includes preparation of the
dredge and fill permit, PSD, and PPSA permitting processes. It is also assumed that the PPSA and other permitting
efforts would be accelerated, through the concurrent development of permit application packages. It is anticipated
that the overall permitting duration will range from approximately three and a half years to four and a half years from
preliminary application development through issuance of all required permits. It is assumed that permitting activities
would occur concurrently with financing and procurement efforts, in order to accelerate the schedule.
There are many variables associated with the permitting process that could affect the duration of the permitting
effort. The schedule presents what would be considered a typical scenario and assumes that significant regulatory

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 17
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

delays such as multiple requests for information (RFIs), significant public opposition and protest, or change in law
would not occur.

2.2.3.1.5 Procurement
The procurement process outlined in the preliminary schedule consists of the following main tasks:

• Design criteria development

• Procurement strategy development
• RFI development, response, and response evaluation (it should be noted that DSWM has already initiated
development of a RFI to be issued to the vendor community in the near future)
• Request for Qualifications (RFQ) development, response, and response evaluation
• Request for Proposals (RFP) development, response, and response evaluation
• Legal activities associated with development of the draft and final Construction and Operating Agreements.
The design criteria development is required prior to RFQ/RFP procurement process and is estimated to take
approximately 6 months to one year. The RFQ/RFP procurement process is estimated to take approximately two to
three years and would occur concurrently with the permitting and financing activities.

2.2.3.1.6 Design and Construction

The construction period outlined in the preliminary schedule is a general overview of the construction process. As
the project moves forward, detailed construction schedules will be developed as part of the planning and
procurement process by DSWM’s consultants and/or the successful contractor. Typical construction-related
activities would include:

• Preliminary construction activities, such as initial site work and preparation

• Detailed design
• Preliminary site and utilities work
• Procurement of major equipment
• Procurement of long lead time items
• Construction
• Start-up and commissioning
• Acceptance testing
• Final inspection and contract close-out

Preliminary Construction Activities

Considerations are made in the preliminary schedule based on specific activities associated with each site. For the
Existing RRF site, it is assumed that shutdown of the existing RRF will not occur until after construction of a new
WTE facility to avoid waste diversion. Planning activities will be required in consideration of specific site constraints
associated with construction equipment laydown area, temporary stormwater storage, and stormwater pond fill
activities.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 18
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

The Medley site is assumed to require additional time prior to construction for placement of fill and site preparation
work to fortify the site soils for construction. The Ingraham sites may require additional time prior to construction for
wetland mitigation, removal of muck soils, replacement with fill, and fill placement for elevation to meet floodplain
requirements. The duration of these additional efforts is estimated to be approximately 9 months to one and a half
years, to be completed before other site and utility work can commence for a new WTE facility.
New WTE Facility Design and Construction Activities
It is currently anticipated that the design and construction duration for a new WTE facility is approximately four to
five years from the contractor NTP through acceptance testing and Commercial Operations.

2.2.3.1.7 Summary
In summary, the duration for new WTE facility implementation activities is estimated to be between 7 years 9
months to 11 and a half years depending upon the ultimate site selected. For the purposes of this Report, it is
assumed that work would commence in January 2023 for any of the site options. For the Existing RRF site, design
and construction is estimated to start in October 2026 with Commercial Operations beginning in April 2030. For the
Medley site, design and construction is estimated to start in January 2028 with Commercial Operations
approximately in April 2032. For the Ingraham Highway Sites, design and construction is estimated to start in April
2029 with Commercial Operations in approximately October 2033.
The estimated project durations for the Medley site and Ingraham Highway sites are longer than the Existing RRF
site because they include additional time for land acquisition as well as additional permitting time required as non-
PPSA certified sites, additional air permitting considerations, and preliminary site work needed including soils
stabilization or removal and wetland and wildlife mitigation. In contrast, the Existing RRF site does not require time
to acquire new land, is currently a site certified under the PPSA, and would only require minimal preparatory site
work.
Table 2-2 provides a summary of major tasks and the estimated durations for each of the selected site options. A
graphical summary schedule showing the concurrent activities is provided in Appendix B.
Table 2.2 Summary of Schedule Tasks with Estimated Durations

Estimated Duration of Activity

Task
Existing RRF Site Medley Site Ingraham Hwy Sites

Total Project Duration 7 years 9 months 9 years 9 months 11 years 3 months

Estimated Commercial
April 2030 April 2032 October 2033
Operation

Siting/Planning * 1.5 years 2.5 years 2.5 years

Siting Analysis and Land

N/A 1.5 years 2 years
Acquisition

Financing * 1.5 years

Permitting * 3.5 years 3 years 9 months 4.5 years

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 19
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

Estimated Duration of Activity

Task
Existing RRF Site Medley Site Ingraham Hwy Sites

Army Corps of Engineers

1 year N/A 1 year
Dredge and Fill Permit

Environmental Resource Permit 1 year 1 year 3 months 2 years

PSD Air Construction Permit 2 years 2 years 3 months 3 years

PPSA Process Activities 2.5 years 2 years 9 months 4 years

Procurement * 2 - 3 years

Design Criteria Development 6 months – 1 year

RFQ / RFP Process 1.5 - 2 years

Design and Construction 4 years 4 years 9 months 5 years

Design 3 years

Procurement of Major
3 years
Equipment

Preliminary Site and Utilities

9 months 1 year 3 months 1.5 years
Work

Construction 2.5 years

Start-up and Commissioning 6 months

Acceptance Testing to
2 months
Commercial Operations

Final Inspection and Contract

6 months
Closeout

Shutdown and Demolition of RRF 1 – 1.5 years

* These tasks occur concurrently.

Cost Considerations
Arcadis developed a cost considerations table to approximate the difference in cost of the various components
required to site, construct and operate a new WTE facility at the four remaining sites. This cost comparison includes
planning level estimates for additional costs associated with the facility construction, annual Operations and
Maintenance (O&M), as well as the potential system impacts specific to each site option. The additional costs are
compared to the costs of developing a new WTE facility on the existing site, which is considered the base case and
reflects estimated stormwater lake fill costs and environmental considerations noted in Appendix C. The capital
costs and first year O&M cost associated with a new WTE facility located on the Existing RRF site were developed
previously by Arcadis as part of a separate effort and represents the base case for comparative purposes.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 20
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

The cost considerations table provided in Appendix C identifies the item, unit cost, units for the unit cost, if the
additional site condition applies to each site, the unit quantity needed for each site option, the cost, and the cost
percentage increase compared to the base capital or annual O&M costs.

2.2.3.2.1 Identification of Costs

Many of the siting evaluation criteria and associated site conditions will require additional costs to address or
mitigate the unique site conditions of each site. Arcadis conducted a preliminary analysis to identify the potential
additional costs associated with the various site conditions that would likely apply to the selected sites,
subsequently developed unit costs for those site conditions, and quantified the amount of work or units required for
the individual sites reviewed. These conditions and costs were identified only for the four sites remaining after the
Detailed Screening criteria were applied:

• Existing RRF Site

• Site 1 Medley Site
• Site 16 Ingraham Highway Site 1
• Site 17 Ingraham Highway Site 2
These different site conditions may impact both facility capital cost and ongoing annual O&M cost. Appendix C
provides the cost differential comparison table and the Basis of Cost summary, which identifies information used to
determine unit costs and calculate required quantities associated with each site.

2.2.3.2.2 Capital Costs

The following additional capital costs and associated assumptions were considered for the selected sites, when
applicable:

• Land acquisition utilizing the current Miami Dade Property Appraiser value plus 10%
• Off-site road development when an access road to the site is not yet available
• Off-site utilities construction for interconnection to the nearest pipeline including:
- 12-inch ductile iron pipeline for potable water
- Potable water booster pump station
- 6-inch PVC force main for wastewater
- Natural gas pipeline
- Electrical transmission mains
- An industrial water supply well, where permittable, or rehabilitation of existing wells
- Additional right of ways or easements required for off-site utilities or access, assumed to be 60-feet wide
• Additional stormwater requirements for high groundwater levels or floodplain mitigation, assumed a four-foot-tall
site perimeter berm
• Additional stormwater requirements for temporary retainage during construction
• Geotechnical site preparation work including:
- Lake fill costs
- Removal of muck soils

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 21
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

- Replacement with select fill

- Additional geotechnical requirements, such as vibrocompaction of fill or other structural requirements
• Floodplain mitigation by elevating structures, assuming one foot above grade for Zone A.
• Wildlife mitigation including wood stork, bonneted bat, and Florida panther
• Permanent wetland mitigation
• Additional zoning and permitting cost possibly required for greenfield sites
• Additional permitting cost associated with difficulty due to site location or constraints
• Waste hauling and transfer system impacts including construction of a transfer station and additional transfer
trailers if collection and hauling system significantly changes compared to current System

Existing RRF Site

The identified site conditions requiring capital cost for the existing RRF include industrial supply well rehabilitation,
temporary stormwater retainage during construction, potential filling of the site stormwater detention pond and some
additional geotechnical work, such as vibrocompaction of the detention pond fill area, as well as potential bonneted
bat mitigation.
Medley Site
For the Medley site, the identified site conditions requiring potential capital costs include land acquisition, water
booster pump station, wastewater lift station, natural gas pipeline, electrical transmission mains, right-of-way and/or
easements for those utilities, additional stormwater management due to high groundwater levels, placing select fill
and additional geotechnical requirements required to help stabilize existing soils, such as vibrocompaction or other
method as selected by contractor, additional zoning and permitting for a greenfield site, and moderate
environmental permitting difficulties due to location and proximity to existing industrial facilities. It is assumed that
there may be impact fees or improvements required to local roads that have not yet been factored into the capital
cost for this site because the extent of roadway modifications is currently not known. It is anticipated that these
would be negotiated and further evaluated during the land acquisition process.
Ingraham Highway Sites 1 and 2
For the Ingraham Highway sites, the identified site conditions requiring potential capital costs include the land
acquisition, potable water pipeline, water booster pump station, wastewater force main, wastewater lift station,
natural gas pipeline, electrical transmission mains, right-of-way and/or easements for utilities or access, additional
stormwater management due to floodplain mitigation, removal of muck soils, placing select fill and additional
geotechnical requirements required to help stabilize existing soils, such as vibrocompaction, embankment fill
required for floodplain mitigation elevation, bonneted bat mitigation, wetland mitigation, additional zoning and
permitting for a greenfield site, extremely challenging environmental permitting due to location and proximity to
Class I areas, and System impact due to increased hauling distance, which will likely include construction of a new
transfer station and purchase of additional tractor trailers. Ingraham Highway Site 2 will also require development of
an offsite access road and Florida panther mitigation in addition to the items listed above.

2.2.3.2.3 Operations and Maintenance Costs

The following additional annual O&M costs and associated assumptions were considered for the selected sites,
when applicable:

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 22
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

Medley Site

• Purchase of potable water as industrial supply well development is likely not permittable, will result in additional
costs.
• Cost for ash hauling to a landfill assumed to be near the existing RRF.
Ingraham Highway Sites

• Purchase of potable water would be an additional operations cost

• Cost for ash hauling to a landfill assumed to be near the existing RRF would be significant as the distance is
much longer than the other sites.
• Transfer system O&M cost required for the additional hauling of waste to these locations.

2.2.3.2.4 Cost Considerations Summary

The following table summarizes the estimated additional capital cost associated with each site option and the
additional annual operations and maintenance cost impact.
Table 2.3 Estimated Additional Costs for Each Site Option

Estimated Total Percentage of Base

Additional Cost Cost

Existing RRF Site (Base Cost for Comparison)

Capital $1,450,000,000 N/A

Annual Net O&M (cost per ton *) $11.22 N/A

Medley Site

Additional Capital $48,300,000 4.2%

Additional Annual Net O&M

$2.10 19%
(cost per ton*)

Ingraham Highway Site 1

Additional Capital $80,400,000 6.4%

Additional Annual Net O&M

$13.40 119%
(cost per ton*)

Ingraham Highway Site 2

Additional Capital $84,700,000 6.7%

Additional Annual Net O&M

$13.40 119%
(cost per ton*)
* Does not include debt service payment for capital costs

The site option with the lowest anticipated impact on capital cost and annual operations and maintenance cost is
the Existing RRF site (base case). This is much less than the highest anticipated impact, Ingraham Highway Site 2,

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 23
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

which is anticipated to have a 6.7% increase in capital costs and 119% increase in annual operational costs due to
the significant waste hauling distance required.

3 Preliminary WTE Facility Site Analysis Summary

This preliminary siting analysis was prepared to support the County in determining availability of sites within the
County for development of a new WTE facility to replace the existing RRF. Based upon the results of this
preliminary analysis, development of a new WTE facility within the County is feasible, based on the criteria
investigated for each site. Following completion of this preliminary siting analysis, it is recommended that the
County consider pursuing a comprehensive siting evaluation, inclusive of site-visits, geotechnical investigations,
preliminary air modeling, informal discussions with FDEP staff, as well as other efforts necessary to move forward
with the selection of a site and implementation of a new WTE Facility.
Table 3-1 below provides an overall comparative summary of the four sites evaluated in the detailed screening
analyses.

(Remainder of Page Left Blank)

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 24
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

Table 3.1 Site Comparison Summary

Siting
Existing RRF Site 1 Medley Site 16 Ingraham Hwy. Site #1 Site 17 Ingraham Hwy. Site #2
Parameter

157.16-acre site, single 320.31-acre site, directly adjacent 159.71-acre site consisting of two 81.11-acre site is located outside the
parcel inside the UDB. to residential zoning, inside the parcels outside the UDB. UDB. Considerable System effects if
Minimal impact to System if UDB, approximately two miles Considerable System effects if this this site were selected.
selected, however, north of the existing RRF facility, site were selected.
Parcel size suitable for development
construction phasing will and adjacent to the Medley
Parcel size suitable for development of WTE facility footprint as well as
need to be considered in Landfill. If this site were selected,
of WTE facility footprint as well as additional acreage to accommodate
order to limit impact to the overall effects on the County’s
additional acreage to accommodate co-location of ash monofill or other
existing RRF operations. Solid Waste System would be
co-location of ash monofill or other County facilities in consideration of
relatively minimal. However, the
Parcel size suitable for County facilities in consideration of future sustainable campus concept.
Medley Landfill has a history of
development of WTE facility future sustainable campus concept.
Location odor complaints, and the WTE, if
footprint as well as
sited here, could be the subject of
additional acreage to
future odor complaints.
accommodate co-location of
additional ash monofill Parcel size suitable for
capacity or other County development of WTE facility
facilities in consideration of footprint as well as additional
future sustainable campus acreage to accommodate co-
concept (after demolition of location of ash monofill or other
Existing RRF). County facilities in consideration
of future sustainable campus
concept.

All required utilities Potable water and sanitary sewer All required utilities would have to be All required utilities would have to be
infrastructure available utilities appear to be available at extended to the site. extended to the site.
Utilities the site, electric and natural gas
utilities would have to be extended
to the site.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 25
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

Siting
Existing RRF Site 1 Medley Site 16 Ingraham Hwy. Site #1 Site 17 Ingraham Hwy. Site #2
Parameter

Site has been used for WTE The USDA Soil Survey data for Site soils are not ideally suited for Site soils are not ideally suited for
facility operations previously, the site and historical aerial building foundations because of building foundations because of water
no known site soils issues photos (c. 1985) indicate the site water content and shallow depth to content and shallow depth to
exist. area was previously excavated bedrock. bedrock.
and subsequently backfilled. In
order for a WTE facility to be
located at this site, the facility
Soils buildings and ancillary
components would have to be
constructed on backfill material,
which could present significant
geotechnical engineering
challenges for foundation designs
and additional site preparation
costs.

Air Permitting - May be Air Permitting – May be Floodplain – FEMA Zone A Floodplain – FEMA Zone A
challenging, other large challenging, as site is located
Air permitting expected to be Air permitting expected to be
emitters (Medley Class I between two other large existing
extremely difficult due to proximity to extremely difficult due to proximity to
Landfill and Titan Pennsuco emitters, the Medley Class I
Everglades National Park. Everglades National Park.
Complex) exist nearby that Landfill and Titan Pennsuco
were not present when RRF Complex. In addition, the adjacent ERP required because of minor ERP required because of minor
Environment was initially modeled and elevated (200 ft +) Medley Landfill wetlands on site, possible habitat wetlands on site, possible habitat
permitted. may result in exhaust plume issues (Bonneted Bat) issues (Bonneted Bat)
impaction during air emissions
Possible habitat issues
dispersion modeling.
(Bonneted Bat)
Possible habitat issues (Bonneted
Bat)

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 26
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

Siting
Existing RRF Site 1 Medley Site 16 Ingraham Hwy. Site #1 Site 17 Ingraham Hwy. Site #2
Parameter

Existing access to arterial Good access to Florida Turnpike Good access to arterial and collector Existing access to site is via
and collector roads and US27 via Beacon Station roads Ingraham Hwy. and SW 222nd Ave.,
Blvd., however traffic impacts to however approximately 0.75 miles of
Transportation local area may be significant due two-lane road with paved shoulders
to road orientations and close will need to be constructed for proper
proximity of intersections. site access. Additional ROW may
have to be acquired.

Residential developments The site is adjacent to residential The site is approximately half a mile The site is approximately half a mile
have encroached around the zoning. The west edge of the site from the nearest residential zoning from the nearest residential zoning
site in the years since the borders one trailer park owned by and is approximately one mile from and is 1.28 miles from the boundary
Existing RRF went into the Town of Medley, and another the boundary of Everglades National of Everglades National Park, which
operation. The site is now that is leased by the town. Siting Park, which suggests that the siting suggests that the siting of a WTE
less than a tenth of a mile of a WTE facility may face of a WTE facility may be strongly facility may be strongly opposed by
from the nearest residential community opposition at this opposed by the community at this the community at this location.
Community
zoning and the local location. location.
population. Community
political leaders and
environmental groups have
indicated opposition to
continued use of the site for
WTE facility operations.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 27
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

Siting
Existing RRF Site 1 Medley Site 16 Ingraham Hwy. Site #1 Site 17 Ingraham Hwy. Site #2
Parameter

Shortest schedule duration Second shortest schedule Longest estimated schedule Longest estimated schedule duration.
because of existing PPSA, duration. Land acquisition, PPSA duration. Land acquisition, PPSA Land acquisition, PPSA permitting,
potentially reducing PPSA permitting, and some minor site permitting, wetland, floodplain, and wetland, floodplain, and wildlife
permitting effort and minimal work increase schedule duration. wildlife mitigation, and significant mitigation, and significant site work
Schedule site preparation work site work increase schedule increase schedule duration.
Estimated Project Duration: 9-
(Preliminary required. Coordination of duration.
years 9-months Estimated Project Duration: 11-years
Planning to construction during MDRRF
Estimated Project Duration: 11- 3-months
Construction operation required. Possible Commercial Operations
years 3-months
Completion) by April 2032 Possible Commercial Operations by
Estimated Project Duration:
Possible Commercial Operations by October 2033
7-years 9-months
October 2033
Possible Commercial
Operations by April 2030

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 28
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

Siting
Existing RRF Site 1 Medley Site 16 Ingraham Hwy. Site #1 Site 17 Ingraham Hwy. Site #2
Parameter

For comparative purposes, Additional costs anticipated for Significant additional costs Significant additional costs
the existing RRF site is land acquisition*, on-site utility anticipated for land acquisition*, on anticipated for land acquisition*, on
considered the base cost facilities, stormwater and off-site utility facilities, flood and off-site utility facilities, flood plain,
condition and the base considerations and addition of fill plain, wetland, and wildlife wetland, and wildlife mitigation, and
capital cost includes for soil fortification, zoning and mitigation, and additional permitting additional permitting efforts.
estimated stormwater potential additional permitting efforts. Significant impact on hauling Significant impact on hauling system
detention pond fill costs and efforts for new PPSA. Purchase of system due to distance from other due to distance from other System
environmental potable water may increase System facilities would increase facilities would increase capital and
considerations and the ash anticipated operational costs. It is capital and operational cost. operational cost. Purchase of potable
hauling costs as noted in also assumed that there may be Purchase of potable water and water and significant distance to haul
Appendix C. impact fees or improvements significant distance to haul ash for ash for disposal will increase
required to local roads that have disposal will increase anticipated anticipated operational costs.
Total Estimated Capital Cost
not yet been factored into the operational costs.
Cost of $1,450,000,000. Additional Capital $84.7M (6.7%
capital cost for this site because
Additional Capital $80.4M (6.4% increase)
Total annual net operational the extent of roadway
increase)
cost is $11.22 per ton of modifications is currently not Additional 119% annual operational
waste processed (estimated known. It is anticipated that these Additional 119% annual operational cost for potable water purchase,
for Year 1). Does not include would be negotiated and further cost for potable water purchase, significant ash hauling, and additional
debt service payment for evaluated during the land significant ash hauling, and System hauling costs.
capital costs. acquisition process. additional System hauling costs.

Additional Capital $48.3M (4.2%

increase)

Additional 19% annual operational

cost for potable water purchase
and ash hauling.
* Land acquisition cost estimated based upon current Miami-Dade Property Appraiser Market Value plus 10%.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 29
Appendix A
Site Packages

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx A
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Existing RRF Site - Doral

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

This 157.16-acre site is a single parcel inside the UDB, located in the Folio No: 35-3017-001-0120
City of Doral. The site area is sufficient to support the proposed 4,000
tpd WTE facility and is co-located with an active 80-acre Ash Monofil. Owner: Miami Dade County DSWM
The property is less than a 10-minute travel time to major roads, is less
than 0.1 miles from the nearest residential zoning, and 9.87 miles 2021 MDPA Market Value: $176,631,573
(15.88 km) from the Class I boundary of Everglades National Park.
Zoning District: GU

www.arcadis.com
1/5
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Existing RRF Site - Doral

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located at 6990 NW 97th Avenue, Miami, FL 33178, less than 0.1 miles from the nearest
residential zoning, and 9.87 miles from the boundary of Everglades National Park. If this site were
selected, the short-term effects on the County’s Solid Waste System would be minimal. Over the short
term, redeveloping this site with a new WTE facility while maintaining the existing RRF operations
could be challenging and would require close coordination between the contractor and operator.
Construction phasing will need to be considered and planned in order to limit impact to the existing RRF
operations, which if impacted, could result in additional costs and extend the duration of the project
schedule.
In the long term, the number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations,
and Trash & Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE
facility, but their travel patterns and travel times would be unaltered. Although additional transfer fleet
vehicles and drivers would be routed to the site in order to maximize WTE processing capacity, they
may be rerouted from deliveries to non-DSWM disposal sites and the acquisition of additional fleet
vehicles and driver staffing may not be needed. Transfer fleet fuel consumption and maintenance costs
would increase due to the additional deliveries, while similar collection fleet costs would be virtually
unchanged. Additionally, the existing RRF site is in close proximity to route power to the 58th Street
Fleet Facility and could provide for charging stations for electric fleet vehicles, which are currently being
procured.
Ash from the new WTE facility may be disposed of at the existing Ash Monofill, if capacity is available,
or may be disposed either at the adjacent WM Medley landfill or hauled out of County. Either off-site
option will significantly increase ash disposal costs from current levels.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. According to WASD data, there is a 4” potable supply
line at the property, and a 16” water main available on NW 97th Ave.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives.
Reuse of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE
facilities, but for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary
sewer. Available at the site on NW 97th Ave., on-site lift station and leachate storage tank. WASD
data indicates there is a 16” gravity sewer available on NW 97th Ave.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. An 8” gas service line is available at the site, and the
transmission main is available on 97th Ave.

• Electric – Substation available approximately 0.15 miles SE of the site on NW 97th Ave. Need to
verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and available terminations.
www.arcadis.com
2/5
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Existing RRF Site - Doral

• Stormwater – An existing stormwater system is on site serving both the existing RRF and the Ash
Monofill. If a new WTE facility is constructed over the stormwater detention pond on the northeast
quadrant of the site, allowing the existing RRF to maintain operations during construction,
providing required stormwater quantity and quality controls for the site may be challenging.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. Three industrial
supply wells are currently used at the RRF for source water for boiler feedwater, cooling
tower/condenser feedwater, truck wheel wash, and irrigation water. If reused for a new WTE
facility on site, the wells would need to be redeveloped.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the predominant site soils as Udorthents-Water-
Urban land complex, 0 to 60 percent slopes and Cooper Town muck, ponded-Urban land complex, 0 to
1 percent slopes. Udorthents soils consist of unconsolidated or heterogeneous geologic material
removed during the excavation of ditches, canals, lakes, ponds, and quarries. This is consistent with
the development of the RRF and Ash Monofill at the site.
The presence of muck soils in the northeast quadrant of the site indicates the seasonal high
groundwater elevation is typically 0-6 inches below existing grade but would have to be confirmed by
geotechnical investigations. The high groundwater makes stormwater control more challenging and will
result in the need for elevating the tipping floor pit, similar to the existing tipping floor.

Environment
• Floodplains – Most of the site is in FEMA Flood Zone X (Minimal Flood Hazard), portions of the
NE area (stormwater ponds) are in FEMA Flood Zone AE (El. 5).

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – The existing RRF is currently permitted under the
Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Conditions of Certification PA 77-08. In order to construct a new
WTE facility on the site, a complete PPSA Modification Application would need to be developed,
inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP, Stormwater
Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.). The PSC “need determination” filing process is also
required.

• New Source Review (NSR) - Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 9.87 miles (15.88 km) NE of the Everglades Class I Area, 14.77 miles (23.8 km) NW
of the Biscayne Class II Area, one mile south of the Medley Landfill, 4.7 miles NE of the CEMEX
Miami Cement Plant and about 2.2 miles SE of the Titan Pennsuco Complex, which are all large
sources of emissions.
As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
www.arcadis.com
3/5
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Existing RRF Site - Doral

PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay National Park (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side border having
more stringent air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with
demonstrating acceptable impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility, and thus will make air
permitting challenging. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
areas.

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory indicates the site contains minor
wetlands surrounding a large treatment pond and four surface waters. The National Hydrography
Dataset shows three surface waters. The South Florida Water Management District Land Cover
and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site contains one stormwater treatment pond. The site
appears completely disturbed. The site is not within a Florida panther focus area for consultation or
critical habitat for endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The site is
within the Florida bonneted bat and individual consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is
required. The site is not within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and does not appear to
contain suitable foraging habitat; therefore, wood stork mitigation is not anticipated. Impacts to
wetlands and surface waters designed and permitted as stormwater treatment areas are generally
not regulated by the State of Florida, however, additional studies and analysis are required to
determine if wetland permitting such as a State 404 Permit would be required.

Transportation
Travel time north to major roads (i.e., 58th Street, 74th Street) is less than 10 minutes. Existing access to
site is via NW 97th Ave., which appears to be in relatively good physical condition and has sufficient
capacity for the expected traffic loadings of the proposed WTE facility. Traffic impacts on local roads
would be unchanged from existing conditions. The site has sufficient area to accommodate truck
queueing.

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated elevated values for Particulate Matter 2.5 (µg/m3) and
several other pollutants. The site is less than a tenth of a mile from the nearest residential zoning, and
the local population, community political leaders and environmental groups have indicated opposition to
continued use of the site for WTE facility operations.

www.arcadis.com
4/5
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Existing RRF Site - Doral

Schedule
The existing RRF site is currently permitted under the PPSA Certification as well as PSD and Title V Air
Operating Permits, which reduce the duration of the environmental permitting effort. Additionally, the
site work required as compared to other sites is minimal because of existing RRF facility operations and
infrastructure. However, there are existing conditions that affect the duration of the new WTE facility
implementation including the following:

• PSD Permitting – The nearby Everglades National Park’s (sensitive Class I area) location along
the western border of the County and the Biscayne Bay National Park (sensitive Class II area)
located on the eastern border of the County, both having more stringent AQRVs provide
uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable impacts from the operation of a new WTE
facility and will make air permitting challenging at this site.

• PPSA Permitting – This site was previously permitted and under the PPSA Certification and
potentially reduces the duration needed for environmental permitting as a PPSA Certification
modification and not a new application will be developed.

• Community –Opposition from the community is expected which could increase the duration of the
new WTE facility implementation schedule.

• Construction – Additional planning and coordination is required in order to construct the new WTE
facility at the existing RRF site, while the existing RRF continues to operate.

Cost
For comparative purposes, the existing RRF site was considered the base case, which includes the
following costs:

• Site Preparation – Stormwater detention pond fill costs, environmental permitting costs and ash
hauling.

• System Effects – If this site were selected, the effects on the County’s Solid Waste System would
be minimal, however, construction phasing will need to be considered in order to limit impact to
existing RRF operations.

Site Differentiators Overview

• The existing RRF facility and site is currently permitted under the PPSA and is operating under an existing Conditions
of Certification PA 77-08, which can be modified to provide for the construction and operation of a new WTE facility. A
Modification to an existing Conditions of Certification is typically faster than developing an entirely new PPSA
Application for an unpermitted site.

• Existing utilities suitable for a WTE facility are readily available and the site could route power to nearby System
facilities.

• Construction phasing will need to be considered in order to limit impact to existing RRF operations, which could result
in additional costs and extend project schedule.

• Expected significant opposition from the community could affect the project schedule.
www.arcadis.com
5/5
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 1 - Medley

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

This 320.31-acre site is inside the UDB, located in the Town of Medley. Owner: F77 1 F77 2 & F77 3 LLC, F00 1
The site is composed of several parcel areas and is large enough to LLC
support the proposed 4,000 ton per day (tpd) Waste-to-Energy (WTE)
facility, expansion to 5,000 tpd capacity, and other co-located solid 2021 MDPA Market Value: $38,621,504
waste facilities such as an ash monofill, recycling center or an
education center. The property is less than a 10-minute travel time to Zoning District: M-1
US-27 or the Turnpike, is located adjacent to residential zoning and
11.38 (18.31 km) miles from the boundary of the Everglades Class I PA Zone: Industrial – Light
area.
Folio No: 22-3004-001-0470, others.

www.arcadis.com
1/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 1 - Medley

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 2.0 miles north of the existing RRF, more than four miles from any
active airport, adjacent to residential zoning, and more than 11 miles from the boundary of Everglades
National Park. If this site were selected, the effects on the County’s Solid Waste System would be
minimal. Direct hauls from some of the collection routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF would divert
to the West transfer station for disposal due to shorter travel times. Incoming waste at that station
would increase and may result in capacity issues, as it is currently operating at approximately 80% of
design capacity.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility.
Their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would increase due to longer travel distances
and expected traffic congestion. Additional transfer fleet vehicles and drivers may be needed. Transfer
fleet fuel consumption and maintenance costs would increase due to the additional deliveries, while
similar Collection fleet costs would also increase due to longer travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be higher than at the
existing RRF, and options for limiting ash hauling distances could be considered. If disposed at a non-
County facility, costs for ash disposal would significantly increase from current levels.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. Potable water mains appear to be available at the site
on NW 95th Ave. and NW 106th Street, but additional analysis will be needed to determine pipe
size, service pressure, and available system capacity. A booster station may be needed to
increase system pressure. Soils data indicates shallow depth to bedrock in some locations, rock
removal may be required for pipe trench excavation for new lines in those areas.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives.
Reuse of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE
facilities, but for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary
sewer.
Sanitary sewer appears to be available at the site on NW 95th Ave. and NW 106th Street, but
additional analysis will be needed to determine pipe size and available system capacity. A lift
station and force main to gravity sewer may be required. Soils data indicates shallow depth to
bedrock in some locations, rock removal may be required for pipe trench excavation for new lines
in those areas.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. There is a gas transmission main on Krome Ave/US-

www.arcadis.com
2/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 1 - Medley

1. Additional ROW/easement may be needed. Soils data indicates shallow depth to bedrock, rock
removal may be required for pipe trench excavation.

• Electric – Nearest substation/ switchyard is FPL Substation located 1.9 miles away at 10800 NW
107th Avenue. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and available
terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations may result in slightly larger stormwater ponds on site,
but there appears to be sufficient area for a stormwater system that meets regulatory
requirements.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soils
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site and historical aerial photos (c. 1985) indicate the site area was
previously excavated as a quarry and subsequently backfilled. This is consistent with the USDA Soil
Survey data for the site, which classifies the site soils as 9—Udorthents-Water-Urban land complex, 0
to 60 percent slopes. Udorthents soils consist of unconsolidated or heterogeneous geologic material
removed during the excavation of ditches, canals, lakes, ponds, and quarries.
In order for the facility to be located at this site, the facility buildings and ancillary components would
have to be constructed on fill material, which could present geotechnical engineering challenges for
foundation designs and additional site preparation costs.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is not in a floodplain, it is within FEMA Flood Zone X (Minimal Flood
Hazard).

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 11.38 mi (18.31 km) NE of the Everglades Class I Area, 16.19 mi (26.05 km) NW of
the Biscayne Class II Area, and between two large existing emitters, the Medley Class I Landfill and
Titan Pennsuco Complex. The adjacent Medley Landfill may result in elevated receptors (200ft+)
and exhaust plume impaction during air emissions modeling.
www.arcadis.com
3/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 1 - Medley

As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting challenging at
this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s).

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates no
wetlands are present. The site appears disturbed. The site is not within a Florida panther focus area
for consultation or critical habitat for endangered or threatened species under the Endangered
Species Act. The site is within the urban development boundary in Miami-Dade County for the
Florida bonneted bat and individual consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required
but is assumed to be minimal as there is no roosting or foraging habitat remaining. The site is also
within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony; however, the lack of apparent suitable foraging
habitat precludes wood stork mitigation. No permit triggers exist for wetlands.

Transportation
The site has good access to Florida Turnpike and US-27 via Beacon Station Blvd., but some road areas
need to be improved and the Town of Medley may want the County to assume maintenance of some or
all of the access roads, which would increase the County’s costs. The volume of traffic that is expected
at the proposed WTE facility (400-500 trucks per day), will greatly increase the loads on local roads so
the traffic impacts to local area will likely be significant. Truck queuing will have to be accomplished on
site to prevent further congestion.

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated elevated values for Particulate Matter 2.5 (µg/m3 and
several other pollutants. The site is adjacent to residential zoning, which suggests that the siting of a
WTE facility may be opposed by the community at this location.

www.arcadis.com
4/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 1 - Medley

Schedule
There are a few site issues that could affect the schedule of the project, including:

• Land Acquisition – siting analysis and land acquisition will increase schedule duration.

• Utilities – Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water,

sanitary sewer, natural gas, and electric utility infrastructure.

• Soils – Additional geotechnical testing will be needed to determine the full extent of soil preparation
needed (i.e., vibro-compaction, consolidation, etc.) and additional requirements for building
foundations at the site, which may increase design and construction time.

• Permitting – Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The site is located 11.38 mi
(18.31 km) NE of the Everglades Class I Area, 16.19 mi (26.05 km) NW of the Biscayne Class II
Area, and between two large existing emitters, the Medley Class I Landfill and Titan Pennsuco
Complex. The adjacent Medley Landfill may result in elevated receptors (200ft+) and exhaust
plume impaction during air emissions modeling. The nearby Everglades National Park’s location
along the western border of the County and the Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located
on the eastern border of the County both having more stringent air quality related values (AQRVs)
provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable impacts from the operation of a
new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting challenging at this prospective site.

• Community – The site is adjacent to residential zoning. Therefore, siting of a new WTE facility may
face community opposition at this location, which could affect the project schedule.

Cost
Overall, the cost of developing a WTE Facility on this site is expected to be higher than at the base
alternative site, the Existing RRF. There are several site issues and additional Solid Waste System
changes that could affect the total cost to the Department, including:

• Land Acquisition – siting analysis and land acquisition will increase project costs.

• Utilities
- Construction of a potable water booster station may be required.
- Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station will likely be required.
- Construction of approximately 2.2 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners.
- Soils data indicates shallow depth to bedrock, rock removal may be required in some areas for
utility pipe trench excavation.
- Construction of approximately 1.9 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing
ROW/ FPL easements. Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.
- Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary
sewer, natural gas, and electric utility infrastructure.

www.arcadis.com
5/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 1 - Medley

- On-site water wells are likely not permittable, therefore potable water will need to be purchased,
increasing anticipated operations and maintenance costs.

• Soils – Additional geotechnical testing will be needed to determine the full extent of soil preparation
needed (i.e., vibro-compaction, consolidation, etc.) and additional requirements for building
foundations at the site, which may increase design and construction costs.

• Stormwater – due to high groundwater levels, additional stormwater considerations or facilities

may be required.

• Zoning and Permitting – because this is a greenfield site, additional zoning and permitting efforts
may be required which could impact cost and schedule.

• Solid Waste System

- Some collection routes that currently direct haul to the existing RRF would likely reroute to
dispose at the West or Northeast Transfer Station to minimize travel times, which may
increase traffic at those stations.
- Collection and Transfer vehicles routed to this site would have slightly increased costs for fuel
consumption, driver time, and vehicle wear related to the additional travel distance from the
existing RRF.
- Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be higher than at
the existing RRF, however, options for limiting ash hauling distances could be considered. If
disposed at a non-County facility, costs for ash disposal would significantly increase from
current levels.
- It is also assumed that there may be impact fees or improvements required to local roads that
have not yet been factored into the capital cost for this site because the extent of roadway
modifications is currently not known. It is anticipated that these would be negotiated and
further evaluated during the land acquisition process.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Construction of a potable water booster station may be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and 6” force main may be required.

• Construction of approximately 2.2 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Soils data indicates shallow depth to bedrock, rock removal may be required for utility pipe trench excavation.

• Additional geotechnical testing will be needed to determine the full extent of soil preparation needed (i.e., vibro-
compaction, consolidation, etc.) and additional requirements for building foundations at the site, which may increase
design and construction costs and extend the project schedule.

• Construction of approximately 1.9 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

www.arcadis.com
6/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 1 - Medley

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, and
electric utility infrastructure.

• Due to potential adverse effects to wetlands on site, groundwater may not be available for use as source water for
boiler feedwater, cooling tower/condenser feedwater, truck wheel wash, and irrigation water.

www.arcadis.com
7/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 16 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #1

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

Folio No: 30-8808-000-0030

This 159.71-acre site consists of two parcels outside the UDB, located
Owner: P Acursio Partnership LTD
in unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The combined site area is
2021 MDPA Market Value: $2,160,760
sufficient to support the proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Waste-to-
Zoning District: AU
Energy (WTE) facility and expansion to 5,000 TPD capacity or the
PA Zone: Interim - Agricultural
addition of other facilities such as an ash monofill, recycling center or
an education center. The property is less than a 10-minute travel time
to W Palm Drive, is 0.51 miles from the nearest residential zoning, and Folio No: 30-8808-000-0020
1.02 miles from the boundary of Everglades National Park. Owner: Everglades Fruit, Inc.
2021 MDPA Market Value: $133,720
Zoning District: AU
PA Zone: Interim - Agricultural

www.arcadis.com
1/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 16 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #1

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 32.5 miles SW of the existing RRF, slightly more than half a mile
from the nearest residential zoning, and approximately one mile from the boundary of Everglades
National Park. If this site were selected, the effects on the County’s Solid Waste System would be
considerable. Direct hauls from the collection routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF would divert to
the three transfer stations for disposal. Incoming waste at those stations would increase and may
result in capacity issues, especially at the West Transfer Station, which is currently operating at
approximately 80% of design capacity. A new transfer station would need to be constructed at or near
the site of the existing RRF to maintain the current collection patterns and transfer station loadings.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility.
Their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would significantly increase due to longer travel
distances and expected traffic congestion. Transfer fleet round trip times would increase and would
likely result in the need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes. Transfer fleet
fuel consumption and maintenance costs would significantly increase due to the additional deliveries
and travel times and distances, while similar Collection fleet costs would also increase due to longer
travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be significantly higher than
at the existing RRF. If disposed at a non-County facility, expected costs for ash disposal would
increase even further.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. Potable water mains appear to be available
approximately 3.3 miles NE of the site on Ingraham Hwy., but further analysis is needed to verify
service pressure and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to provide adequate
service pressure at the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives.
Reuse of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE
facilities, but for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary
sewer. Appears to be available approximately 3.3 miles NE of the site on Ingraham Hwy., on-site
lift station and about 3.3 miles of force main will likely be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest transmission main is approximately 5.5
miles NE of the site on Krome Ave/US-1. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is assumed
to be within existing ROW and easements.

www.arcadis.com
2/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 16 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #1

• Electric – Nearest substation/switchyard is Florida City Substation located 6.5 miles away at
33800 SW 202nd Avenue. Need to verify substation/switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and
available terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/FPL Easements
is assumed. New legal easements may need to be established to complete this routing.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the predominant site soils as Krome very gravelly
marly loam, 1 to 2 percent slopes, Biscayne marly silt loam, drained, 0 to 1 percent slopes, and
Chekika very gravelly marly loam, 1 to 2 percent slopes. Generally, these soils are not well suited for
building foundations because of water content and shallow depth to bedrock (typically 5-7 inches).
The presence of Biscayne marl soils indicates the seasonal high groundwater elevation is typically
within 10 inches of the ground surface, but would have to be confirmed by geotechnical investigations.
These soils are severely limited for building foundations because of water content and shallow depth
to bedrock, and areas under building foundations would need to be removed and replaced with
structural fill. The high groundwater may result in the need for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will
also increase project costs due to the need for additional structural fill.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone A.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.). The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 1.02 mi (1.7 km) E of the Everglades Class I Area, 13.00 mi (21.0 km) W of the
Biscayne Class II Area, and about 13.0 miles WSW of the FPL Turkey Point Power Plant, a large
source of emissions.
As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
www.arcadis.com
3/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 16 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #1

PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the County and the
Biscayne Bay National Park (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern border of the County
both having more stringent Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs) and provide uncertainties
associated with demonstrating acceptable impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and
thus will make air permitting very challenging at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources,
identified by the Class I area land manager agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the
potential to be affected by air pollution. These resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural,
physical, or ecological resources for sensitive area(s). Based on projected emissions for a 4,000
tpd facility, preliminary evaluation indicates that this parcel may be too close to sensitive receptors
in the nearby Class I area thus making it extremely difficult to demonstrate acceptable impacts for
PSD permit issuance.

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site
contains minor wetlands. The site is not within a Florida panther focus area for consultation or
critical habitat for endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The site is
within the urban development boundary in Miami-Dade County for the Florida bonneted bat and
individual consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required.

Transportation
Travel time north to W Palm Drive is less than 10 minutes. Existing access to the site is via Ingraham
Hwy. (see map below), and no additional offsite road improvements are needed. The volume of traffic
that is expected at the proposed WTE facility (400-500 trucks per day), will greatly increase the loads
on local roads so the traffic impacts on Ingraham Hwy., W Palm Drive, and other local roads may be
significant. Truck queuing will have to be accomplished on site to prevent further congestion.

www.arcadis.com
4/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 16 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #1

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no existing environmental justice issues for this site.
However, the site is about half a mile from the nearest residential zoning and is approximately a mile
from the boundary of Everglades National Park, which suggests that siting of a WTE facility may be
strongly opposed by environmental groups and community organizations.

Schedule
Development of this site has the longest duration and is the same as Site 17. The main issues affecting
the duration of the new WTE facility implementation schedule include:

• Land Acquisition – siting analysis and land acquisition will increase schedule duration.

• Soils – The removal and replacement of site muck soils with structural fill and/or rock removal in
development areas. Additional structural fill will be needed to elevate the tipping floor and pit due to
the high groundwater table and floodplain mitigation.

www.arcadis.com
5/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 16 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #1

• Permitting – Based on projected emissions for a 4,000 tpd facility, preliminary evaluation indicates
that this parcel may be too close to sensitive receptors in the nearby Class I area thus making it
extremely difficult to demonstrate acceptable impacts for PSD permit issuance.

• Mitigation – Wetland, floodplain, and wildlife mitigation will likely increase the duration of the
implementation schedule.

• Community – The close proximity of the site to Everglades National Park may result in significant
opposition from environmental groups and community organization, which could impact the duration
of the implementation schedule.

Cost
Overall, the cost of developing a WTE facility on this site is expected to be higher than at the existing
RRF site, which was used as the base case in comparing the cost of developing a new WTE facility.
Issues that could affect the cost include:

• Land Acquisition – siting analysis and land acquisition will increase costs.

• Soils – The removal and replacement of site soils with structural fill and/or rock removal in
development areas. Additional structural fill will be needed to elevate the tipping floor and pit due to
high groundwater.

• Utilities
- Construction of a potable water booster station and 3.3 miles of water main will likely be
required.
- Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and 3.3 miles of force main will likely be
required.
- Construction of approximately 5.5 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners.
- Soils data indicates shallow depth to bedrock, rock removal may be required in some areas for
utility pipe trench excavation.
- Construction of approximately 6.5 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing
ROW/ FPL easements. Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.
- Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary
sewer, natural gas, and electric utility infrastructure.
- On-site water wells are likely not permittable, therefore potable water will need to be purchased,
increasing anticipated operations and maintenance costs.

• Permitting – Based on projected emissions for a 4,000 tpd facility, preliminary evaluation indicates
that this parcel may be too close to sensitive receptors in the nearby Class I area thus making it
extremely difficult to demonstrate acceptable impacts for PSD permit issuance.

• Stormwater – High groundwater table and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area required for stormwater retention.

www.arcadis.com
6/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 16 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #1

• Solid Waste System

- Collection and Transfer vehicles routed to this site would have significantly increased costs for
fuel consumption, driver time, and vehicle wear related to the additional travel distance from
the existing RRF.
- Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be much higher
than the existing RRF. An option to keep ash hauling distances short - there appears to be
sufficient area on site to co-locate a new ash monofil, if permittable. If disposed at a non-
County facility, costs for ash disposal would significantly increase from current levels.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Removal of soils and replacement with structural fill

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage

• Extremely difficult PSD permitting

• Long extensions of utilities

• Close proximity to Everglades National Park – anticipated environmental group and community organization
opposition

www.arcadis.com
7/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 17

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

Folio No: 30-8808-000-0040

This 81.11-acre site is a single parcel outside the UDB, located in
unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The combined site area is
Owner: EIP IV FL Round Hammock Land
sufficient to support the proposed 4,000 ton per day (tpd) Waste-to-
Co., LLC
Energy (WTE) facility and expansion to 5,000 tpd capacity or the
addition of other facilities such as an ash monofil, recycling center or an
2021 MDPA Market Value: $924,826
education center. The property is less than a 10-minute travel time to
W Palm Drive, is 0.53 miles from the nearest residential zoning, and is
Zoning District: AU
1.28 miles from the boundary of Everglades National Park.

PA Zone: Interim - Agricultural

www.arcadis.com
1/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 17

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 33.0 miles SW of the existing RRF site, slightly more than half a mile
from the nearest residential zoning, and approximately one mile from the boundary of Everglades
National Park. If this site were selected, the effects on the County’s Solid Waste System would be
considerable. Direct hauls from the collection routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF would divert to
the three transfer stations for disposal. Incoming waste at those stations would increase and may result
in capacity issues, especially at the West Transfer Station, which is currently operating at approximately
80% of design capacity. A new transfer station would need to be constructed at or near the site of the
existing RRF to maintain the current collection patterns and transfer station loadings.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility. Their
travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would significantly increase due to longer travel
distances and expected traffic congestion. Transfer fleet round trip times would increase and would
likely result in the need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes. Transfer fleet
fuel consumption and maintenance costs would significantly increase due to the additional deliveries
and travel times and distances, while similar Collection fleet costs would also increase due to longer
travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be significantly higher than
at the existing RRF. If disposed at a non-County facility, expected costs for ash disposal would
increase even further.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. Potable water mains appear to be available
approximately 4.0 miles NE of the site on Ingraham Hwy., but further analysis is needed to verify
service pressure and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to provide adequate
service pressure at the site.
• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives.
Reuse of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE
facilities, but for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary
sewer. Appears to be available approximately 4.0 miles NE of the site on Ingraham Hwy., on-site
lift station and about 4.0 miles of force main will likely be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest transmission main is approximately 6.0
miles NE of the site on Krome Ave/US-1. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is assumed
to be within existing ROW and easements.

www.arcadis.com
2/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 17

• Electric – Nearest substation/ switchyard is Florida City Substation located 6.5 miles away at
33800 SW 202nd Avenue. Need to verify substation/switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and
available terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/FPL Easements.
New legal easements may need to be established to complete this routing.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the predominant site soils as Krome very gravelly
marly loam, 1 to 2 percent slopes, Biscayne marly silt loam, drained, 0 to 1 percent slopes, and
Chekika very gravelly marly loam, 1 to 2 percent slopes. Generally, these soils are not well suited for
building foundations because of water content and shallow depth to bedrock (typically 5-7 inches).
The presence of Biscayne marl soils indicates the seasonal high groundwater elevation is typically
within 10 inches of the ground surface, but would need to be confirmed by geotechnical investigations.
These soils are severely limited for building foundations because of water content and shallow depth to
bedrock, and areas under building foundations would need to be removed and replaced with structural
fill. The high groundwater may result in the need for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will also
increase project costs due to the need for additional structural fill

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone A.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.). The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 1.28 mi (2.1 km) E of the Everglades Class I Area, 13.12 mi (21.2 km) W of the
Biscayne Class II Area, and about 12.8 miles WSW of the FPL Turkey Point Power Plant, a large
source of emissions.
As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
www.arcadis.com
3/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 17

PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the County and the
Biscayne Bay National Park (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern border of the County
both have more stringent air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with
demonstrating acceptable impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air
permitting very challenging at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the
Class I area land manager agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be
affected by air pollution. These resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or
ecological resources for sensitive area(s). Based on projected emissions for a 4,000 tpd facility,
preliminary evaluation indicates that this parcel may be too close to sensitive receptors in the
nearby Class I area thus making it extremely difficult to demonstrate acceptable impacts for PSD
permit issuance.

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site
contains wetlands. The site is within a Florida panther focus area for consultation or critical habitat
for endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The site is within the
urban development boundary in Miami-Dade County for the Florida bonneted bat and individual
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required.

Transportation
Travel time north to W Palm Drive is less than 10 minutes. Existing access to site is via Ingraham Hwy.
and SW 222nd Ave. (see map below), but approximately 0.75 miles of two-lane road with paved
shoulders will need to be constructed for proper site access. Additional ROW may have to be acquired.
The volume of traffic that is expected at the proposed WTE facility (400-500 trucks per day), will greatly
increase the loads on local roads so the traffic impacts on Ingraham Hwy., W Palm Drive, and other
local roads may be significant. Truck queuing will have to be accomplished on site to prevent further
congestion.

www.arcadis.com
4/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 17

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no existing environmental justice issues for this site.
However, the site is about half a mile from the nearest residential zoning and is approximately 1.28
miles from the boundary of Everglades National Park, which suggests that the siting of a WTE facility
may be strongly opposed by environmental groups and community organizations at this location.

Schedule
There are a few site issues that could affect the schedule of the project, including:

• Soils – The removal and replacement of site soils with structural fill and/or rock removal in
development areas. Additional structural fill will be needed to elevate the tipping floor and pit due to
high groundwater.

www.arcadis.com
5/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 17

• Permitting – Based on projected emissions for a 4,000 tpd facility, preliminary evaluation indicates
that this parcel may be too close to sensitive receptors in the nearby Class I area thus making it
extremely difficult to demonstrate acceptable impacts for PSD permit issuance.

• Community – The close proximity of the site to Everglades National Park may result in significant
opposition from the community and could significantly affect the project schedule.

• Mitigation – Wetland, floodplain, and wildlife mitigation will likely increase project schedule.

Cost
Overall, the cost of developing a WTE facility on this site is expected to be higher than at the existing
RRF site, which was used as the base case in comparing the cost of developing a new WTE facility.
Issues that could affect the cost include:

• Land Acquisition – siting analysis and land acquisition will increase costs.

• Soils – The removal and replacement of site soils with structural fill and/or rock removal in
development areas. Additional structural fill will be needed to elevate the tipping floor and pit due to
high groundwater.

• Utilities
- Construction of a potable water booster station and 4.0 miles of water main will likely be
required.
- Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and 4.0 miles of force main will likely be
required.
- Construction of approximately 6.0 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners.
- Soils data indicates shallow depth to bedrock, rock removal may be required in some areas for
utility pipe trench excavation.
- Construction of approximately 6.0 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing
ROW/ FPL easements. Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.
- Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary
sewer, natural gas, and electric utility infrastructure.
- On-site water wells are likely not permittable, therefore potable water will need to be purchased,
increasing anticipated operations and maintenance costs.

• Permitting – Based on projected emissions for a 4,000 tpd facility, preliminary evaluation indicates
that this parcel may be too close to sensitive receptors in the nearby Class I area thus making it
extremely difficult to demonstrate acceptable impacts for PSD permit issuance.

• Stormwater – High groundwater table and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area required for stormwater retention.

• Solid Waste System

www.arcadis.com
6/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 17

- Collection and Transfer vehicles routed to this site would have significantly increased costs for
fuel consumption, driver time, and vehicle wear related to the additional travel distance from
the existing RRF.
- Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be much higher
than the existing RRF. An option to keep ash hauling distances short - there appears to be
sufficient area on site to co-locate a new ash monofil, if permittable. If disposed at a non-
County facility, costs for ash disposal would significantly increase from current levels

Site Differentiators Overview

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage

• Construction of 0.75 mile of access road

• Extremely difficult PSD permitting

• Long extensions of utilities

• Close proximity to Everglades National Park – anticipated environmental group and community organization
opposition

www.arcadis.com
7/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 2

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

This 302.52-acre site is a single parcel outside the UDB, located in Folio No: 30-2901-001-0040
unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The combined site area is
sufficient to support the proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Waste-to- Owner: Vecellio and Grogan, Inc.
Energy (WTE) facility and expansion to 5,000 TPD capacity or the
addition of other facilities such as an ash monofil, recycling center or an 2021 MDPA Market Value: $1,383,917
education center. The property is less than a 10-minute travel time to
US-27, is 0.57 miles from the nearest residential zoning, and 13.78 mi Zoning District: GU
(22.2 km) from the boundary of Everglades National Park.
PA Zone: Interim - Awaiting Specific
Zoning

www.arcadis.com
1/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 2

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 8.0 miles NW of the existing RRF, more than four miles from any
active airport, 0.57 miles from the nearest residential zoning, and 13.8 miles from the boundary of
Everglades National Park. If this site were selected, the expected effects on the County’s Solid Waste
System may be significant. Direct hauls from the collection routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF
would likely decline, as some collection trucks would reroute to the Northeast and West Transfer
Stations for disposal to reduce travel times. Incoming waste at those stations would increase and may
result in capacity issues, especially at the West Transfer Station, which is currently operating at
approximately 80% of design capacity. Transfer deliveries from those facilities would increase. A new
transfer station may need to be constructed at or near the site of the existing RRF to maintain the
current collection patterns and transfer station loadings.
The deliveries by transfer trucks from the landfills, transfer stations, and TRCs that are currently routed
to the RRF would adjust to rebalance loadings at the transfer stations. The number of deliveries by
transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash & Recycling Centers (TRCs)
would likely increase, their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would significantly
increase due to longer travel distances and expected traffic congestion. As a result, additional transfer
fleet vehicles and drivers may be needed to maintain waste delivery volumes. Also, collection and
transfer fleet fuel consumption and costs would increase.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. Potable water mains appear to be available
approximately 4.0 miles east of the site on NW 186th St., but further analysis is needed to verify
pipe size, service pressure, and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to provide
adequate service pressure at the site. Soils data indicates shallow depth to bedrock, rock removal
may be required for pipe trench excavation.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives.
Reuse of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE
facilities, but for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary
sewer. The closest sanitary sewer collection system appears to be approximately 4.0 miles east
of the site on NW 186th St., but further analysis is needed to verify capacity and system impacts.
An on-site lift station and about 4.0 miles of 6” force main will likely be required. Soils data
indicates shallow depth to bedrock, rock removal may be required for pipe trench excavation.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest gas transmission main is approximately
6.0 miles southeast of the site on SR 826. Additional ROW/easement may be needed. Soils data
indicates shallow depth to bedrock, rock removal may be required for pipe trench excavation.

www.arcadis.com
2/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 2

▪ Electric – Nearest substation/ switchyard is FPL Substation located 6.7 miles away at 10800 NW
107th Avenue. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and available
terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements. New
legal easements may need to be established to complete this routing.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soils
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site and historical aerial photos indicate all but approximately 24
acres of the site area was previously excavated as a quarry and subsequently backfilled. This is
consistent with the USDA Soil Survey data for the site, which classifies the predominant site soils as
9—Udorthents-Water-Urban land complex, 0 to 60 percent slopes. Udorthents soils consist of
unconsolidated or heterogeneous geologic material removed during the excavation of ditches, canals,
lakes, ponds, and quarries.
In order for the facility to be located at this site, the facility buildings and ancillary components would
have to be constructed on fill material, which would present significant geotechnical engineering
challenges for foundation designs and additional site preparation costs.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone A.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 7.13 mi (11.5 km) E of the Everglades Class I Area, 6.68 mi (10.8 km) W of the
Biscayne Class II Area, and about 6.5 miles WSW of the FPL Turkey Point Power Plant, a large
source of emissions.
As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
www.arcadis.com
3/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 2

Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance

with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s).

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory and National Hydrography Dataset
indicate surface waters are present and no wetlands are present. The South Florida Water
Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site is comprised of rock
quarry and upland shrub and brushland. The site appears disturbed with minimal vegetation cover.
The site is not within a Florida panther focus area for consultation or critical habitat for endangered
or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The site is within the urban development
boundary in Miami-Dade County for the Florida bonneted bat and individual consultation with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required but is assumed to be minimal as there is minimal to no
roosting or foraging habitat remaining. The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork
colony; however, the lack of apparent suitable foraging habitat precludes wood stork mitigation. An
Environmental Resource Permit and State 404 Permit is likely required.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J. The site is within the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) area and development at this location will have wetland
impacts. MDC Policy CON-7J states the County is to review development applications that include
wetland impacts for consistency with CERP objectives. Applications inconsistent with CERP
objectives, projects or features shall be denied.

Transportation
Travel time to US-27 from the site is less
than 10 minutes. Existing access to site is
via unpaved single-lane road, as shown at
right. Approximately 1.5 miles of two-lane
road with paved shoulder and stormwater
controls will need to be constructed for proper site access.
Additional easement/ROW will have to be acquired. The
volume of traffic that is expected at the proposed WTE facility
(400-500 trucks per day), will greatly increase the loads on
local roads so the traffic impacts to US-27 and the local area
will likely be significant. Truck queuing will have to be
accomplished on site to prevent further congestion.
www.arcadis.com
4/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 2

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no existing issues for this site. However, the site is
0.58 miles from the nearest residential zoning and is a SFWMD CERP site, which suggests that the
siting of a WTE facility may be strongly opposed by the community at this location.

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

www.arcadis.com
5/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 2

Site Differentiators Overview

• New transfer station in the vicinity of the existing RRF to maintain current collection patterns and loadings on the
existing transfer stations, with associated O&M and staffing costs

• Additional transfer fleet and staff, additional fuel and fleet maintenance costs

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Construction of approximately 1.5 miles of two-lane road with paved shoulder and stormwater controls for proper site
access.

• Construction of approximately 4.0 miles of 12” water main and possibly a booster station will be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and about 4.0 miles of 6” force main will likely be required.

• Construction of approximately 6.0 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Soils data indicates shallow depth to bedrock, rock removal may be required for utility pipe trench excavation.

• Construction of approximately 6.7 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, and
electric utility infrastructure.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J.

www.arcadis.com
6/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 3

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information
MDPA Parcel Data
This 73.31-acre site is located inside the UDB, in the City of Hialeah,
0.52 miles from residential zoning and 13.11 miles from the Everglades Folio No: 04-2017-003-0010
Class I Area. The site measures approximately 1,300 feet x 2,650 feet, Owner: Countyline 2, LLC
large enough to support the proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Waste-
to-Energy (WTE) facility, and expansion to 5,000 TPD capacity or the 2021 MDPA Market Value: $76,651,656
addition of smaller facilities such as a recycling center or an education Zoning District: A
center. The property is less than a 10-minute travel time to I-75 or the
PA Zone: Agriculture
Turnpike and is located 0.52 miles from the nearest residential zoning.

www.arcadis.com
1/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 3

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 5.2 miles north of the existing RRF, more than four miles from any
active airport, and 0.52 miles from the nearest residential zoning. If this site were selected, the
expected effects on the County’s Solid Waste System may be less than other sites. Direct hauls from
the collection routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF would likely decline, as some collection trucks
would reroute to the Northeast and West Transfer Stations for disposal to reduce travel times.
Incoming waste at those stations would increase and may result in capacity issues, especially at the West Transfer
Station, which is currently operating at approximately 80% of design capacity.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash & Recycling Centers
(TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility. Their travel patterns would be altered,
and travel times would increase due to longer travel distances and expected traffic congestion. Although additional
transfer fleet vehicles and drivers would be routed to the site to maximize WTE processing capacity, they would be
rerouting from deliveries to non-DSWM disposal sites and the acquisition of additional fleet vehicles and driver staffing
may not be needed. Transfer fleet fuel consumption and maintenance costs would increase due to the additional
deliveries, while similar Collection fleet costs would also increase due to longer travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be higher than at the existing RRF. There are
multiple options to keep ash hauling distances short - the existing RRF site could be converted to an ash monofill, or ash
generated at this location may be landfilled at the adjacent Medley Landfill, or there appears to be sufficient area on site to
co-locate a new ash monofill. If disposed at a non-County facility, costs for ash disposal would significantly increase from
current levels.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. Potable water mains appear to be available at the site,
but further analysis is needed to verify pipe size, service pressure, and system capacity. A booster
station may be needed to provide adequate service pressure at the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives. Reuse
of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE facilities, but
for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary sewer.
Sanitary sewer appears to be available at the site, but further analysis is needed to verify capacity
and system impacts. An on-site lift station 6” force main may be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest gas transmission main is approximately 3.5
miles east of the site. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is assumed to be within existing
ROW and easements.

• Electric – Nearest substation/ switchyard is FPL Substation located 4.9 miles away at 10800 NW
107th Avenue. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and available
www.arcadis.com
2/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 3

terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements. New
easements may need to be established to complete this routing.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the predominant site soils as Cooper Town muck and
Shark Valley muck. They are not suitable for foundations and would need to be removed and replaced
with structural fill for foundation areas, which will increase project costs.
In these soils the seasonal high groundwater elevation is typically 0-6 inches below existing grade but
would have to be confirmed by geotechnical investigations. The high groundwater will result in the need
for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will also increase project costs due to the need for additional
structural fill.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone AE (El. 6 ft). High
groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will significantly increase
both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 13.11 miles (21.1 km) NE of the Everglades Class I Area, 19.56 miles (31.5 km) NW
of the Biscayne Class II Area, and about 2.5 miles NNE of the Titan Pennsuco Complex, a large
source of emissions.
As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
www.arcadis.com
3/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 3

vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s).

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site
contains no wetlands. Apparent previous clearing and grubbing was done, could still be considered
wetland if no previous permit to impact. Cooper town muck is hydric soil. The site is not within a
Florida panther focus area for consultation or critical habitat for endangered or threatened species
under the Endangered Species Act. The site is not within the urban development boundary in
Miami-Dade County for the Florida bonneted bat. Site development underway - site was recently
cleared, permit review indicated Class I well under construction.

Transportation
Travel time to the Florida Turnpike and I-75
is less than 10 minutes. Existing access to
site is via NW 136th St./97th Ave., roads are
well developed, as shown at right. The
volume of traffic that is expected at the
proposed WTE facility (400-500 trucks per day), will greatly
increase the loads on local roads so the traffic impacts to local
area will likely be significant. Truck queuing will have to be
accomplished on site to prevent further congestion. Traffic
impacts to local area may be significant due to single point of
access on 97th Ave. Truck queuing will have to be
accomplished on site to prevent further congestion of local
roads.

www.arcadis.com
4/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 3

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no community impacts for this site. However, the site
is just over half a mile from the nearest residential zoning, which suggests that the siting of a WTE
facility may face community opposition at this location.

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Existing access to site is via NW 136th St./97th Ave., roads are well developed.

www.arcadis.com
5/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 3

• Potable water and sanitary sewer appear to available at the site.

• Construction of approximately 3.5 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Construction of approximately 4.9 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of natural gas and electric utility infrastructure.

• Site development underway - site was recently cleared, permit review indicated Class I well under
construction.

www.arcadis.com
6/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 4

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

This 559.05-acre property is a single parcel outside the UDB, located in
Folio No: 30-2921-001-0020
unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The site is composed of several
parcel areas and measures approximately one mile square, large Owner: CEMEX Construction Materials
enough to support the proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Waste-to- Florida, LLC
Energy (WTE) facility, and expansion to 5,000 TPD capacity or the 2021 MDPA Market Value: $10,664,225
addition of other facilities such as an ash monofil, recycling center or an
education center. The property is less than a 10-minute travel time to Zoning District: GU
US-27 or the Florida Turnpike and is located 1.93 miles from the PA Zone: Interim - Awaiting Specific
nearest residential zoning. The north boundary of the site borders ME Zoning
Thompson Park.

www.arcadis.com
1/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 4

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 7.0 miles northeast of the existing RRF, almost two miles from the
nearest residential zoning, and 9.94 miles northeast of the boundary of Everglades National Park. If
this site were selected, the expected effects on the County’s Solid Waste System may be significant.
Direct hauls from the collection routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF would likely decline, as many
collection trucks would reroute to the Northeast and West Transfer Stations for disposal to reduce
travel times. Incoming waste at those stations would increase and may result in capacity issues,
especially at the West Transfer Station, which is currently operating at approximately 80% of design
capacity. A new transfer station in the vicinity of the existing RRF facility would likely be needed to
maintain current collection and transfer flow patterns.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility.
Their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would increase due to longer travel distances
and expected traffic congestion. Transfer fleet round trip times would increase and may result in the
need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes. Transfer fleet fuel consumption
and maintenance costs would increase due to the additional deliveries, while similar Collection fleet
costs would also increase due to longer travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be higher than at the
existing RRF. There are options to keep ash hauling distances relatively short - the existing RRF site
could be converted to an ash monofill, or ash generated at this location may be landfilled at the Medley
Landfill. If disposed at a non-County facility, costs for ash disposal would significantly increase from
current levels.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. Potable water mains appear to be available
approximately 3.0 miles east of the site, but further analysis is needed to verify pipe size, service
pressure, and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to provide adequate service
pressure at the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives. Reuse
of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE facilities, but
for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary sewer. The
closest sanitary sewer collection system appears to be approximately 3.0 miles east of the site, but
further analysis is needed to verify capacity and system impacts. An on-site lift station and about
3.0 miles of force main will likely be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest gas transmission main is approximately 7.0
www.arcadis.com
2/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 4

miles east of the site. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is assumed to be within existing
ROW and easements.

• Electric – Nearest substation/ switchyard is FPL Substation located 7.4 miles away at 10800 NW
107th Avenue. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and available
terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements. New legal
easements may need to be established to complete this routing.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the site
soils as Shark Valley muck, 0 to 1 percent slopes. These
soils are high in organics content and may extend 20-40
inches below grade, even to the bedrock layer. They are
not suitable for foundations and would need to be removed
and replaced with structural fill for foundation areas, which will increase
project costs. USDA aerial photo (right) indicated that an active quarry
operation is present at the site.
In these soils the seasonal high groundwater elevation is typically 0-6 inches
below existing grade but would have to be confirmed by geotechnical
investigations. The high groundwater will result in the need for elevating the
tipping floor pit, which will also increase project costs due to the need for
additional structural fill

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone AE (El. 8 ft). High
groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will significantly increase
both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Modification Application would
need to be developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air
www.arcadis.com
3/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 4

Construction/PSD, ERP, Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need
determination” filing process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 9.94 miles (15 km) NE of the Everglades Class I Area, 21.56 miles (35 km) NW of the
Biscayne Class II Area, and about 4.1 miles NW of the Titan Pennsuco Complex, a large source of
emissions.
As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s).

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site is
entirely wetlands. The site appears predominantly undisturbed. The site is not within a Florida
panther focus area for consultation or critical habitat for endangered or threatened species under
the Endangered Species Act. The site is within the urban development boundary in Miami-Dade
County for the Florida bonneted bat and individual consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service is required. The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and will
potentially disturb greater than one-half acre of suitable foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially
require wood stork mitigation. Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an
Individual Environmental Permit, a State 404 Permit from the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, and wetland mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with Policy CON-9A. MDC Policy CON-9A states that all activities that
adversely affect habitat that is critical to Federal, or State designated, endangered or threatened
species shall be prohibited unless such activity(ies) are a public necessity and there are no possible
alternative sites where the activity(ies) can occur.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B. MDC Policy CON-9B states that all
nesting, roosting and feeding habitats used by federal or State designated endangered or
threatened species, shall be protected and buffered from surrounding development or activities and
further degradation or destruction of such habitat shall not be authorized.

www.arcadis.com
4/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 4

• Within the Northwest Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G. MDC Policy
LU-8G states that when considering land areas to add to the UDB, after demonstrating that a need
exists, the following areas shall not be considered:
- The Northwest Wellfield Protection Area and the West Wellfield Protection Area west of SW
157 Avenue between SW 8 Street and SW 42 Street

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J. The site is within the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) area and development at this location will have wetland
impacts. MDC Policy CON-7J states the County is to review development applications that include
wetland impacts for consistency with CERP objectives. Applications inconsistent with CERP
objectives, projects or features shall be denied.

Transportation
Travel time to the Florida Turnpike and US-27 is less than
10 minutes. Existing access to site is via unpaved single-
lane road (see picture at right), approximately 3.3 miles of
two-lane road with paved shoulder and stormwater
controls will need to be constructed for proper site access
(see the access route below). Additional easement/ROW will have to be
aquired for almost 1.5 miles of the access road from FPL and other property
owners. The volume of traffic that is expected at the proposed WTE facility
(400-500 trucks per day) will greatly increase the loads on local roads so the
traffic impacts to local area will likely be significant. Additional traffic impacts
on US-27 and to local area may result due to single point of access at NW
112th Ct/NW 136th St. Truck queuing will have to be accomplished on site to
prevent further congestion of local roads.

www.arcadis.com
5/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 4

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no community impacts for this site. The site is almost
two miles from the nearest residential zoning and adjacent to industrial mining operations, but the
presence of wetlands, wildlife habitat and other environmental issues suggests that the siting of a WTE
facility may be met with opposition by the community at this location.

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Construction of approximately 3.3 miles of two-lane road with paved shoulder and stormwater controls for proper site
access

• Construction of approximately three miles of 12” water main and possibly a booster station will be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and about three miles of 4” force main will likely be required.

• Construction of approximately 7 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for boiler
auxiliary burners.

• Construction of approximately 7.4 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, and
electric utility infrastructure.

• The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and will potentially disturb greater than one-half acre
of suitable foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially require wood stork mitigation.

• Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Permit, a State 404 Permit from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland mitigation.

www.arcadis.com
6/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 4

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9A and CON-9B.

• Within the Northwest Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J.

www.arcadis.com
7/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 5

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

Folio No: 30-2926-000-0010

This 156.97-acre property is a single parcel outside the UDB, located in
unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The site measures approximately Owner: CEMEX Construction Materials
one mile square, large enough to support the proposed 4,000 ton per Florida, LLC
day (TPD) Waste-to-Energy (WTE) facility, and expansion to 5,000 TPD 2021 MDPA Market Value: $2,843,062
capacity or the addition of other facilities such as an ash monofil,
recycling center or an education center. The property is less than a 10- Zoning District: GU
minute travel time to US-27 or the Turnpike and is located 1.07 miles PA Zone: Interim - Awaiting Specific
from the nearest residential zoning. Zoning

www.arcadis.com
1/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 5

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 5.2 miles northwest of the existing RRF, more than a mile from the
nearest residential zoning. If this site were selected, the expected effects on the County’s Solid Waste
System may be significant. Direct hauls from the collection routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF
would likely decline, as many collection trucks would reroute to the Northeast and West Transfer
Stations for disposal to reduce travel times. Incoming waste at those stations would increase and may
result in capacity issues, especially at the West Transfer Station, which is currently operating at approximately 80% of
design capacity. A new transfer station in the vicinity of the existing RRF facility would likely be needed to maintain
current collection and transfer flow patterns.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash & Recycling Centers
(TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility. Their travel patterns would be altered,
and travel times would increase due to longer travel distances and expected traffic congestion. Transfer fleet round trip
times would increase and may result in the need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes. Transfer
fleet fuel consumption and maintenance costs would increase due to the additional deliveries, while similar Collection fleet
costs would also increase due to longer travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be higher than at the existing RRF. There are
options to keep ash hauling distances relatively short - the existing RRF site could be converted to an ash monofill, or ash
generated at this location may be landfilled at the Medley Landfill. If disposed at a non-County facility, costs for ash
disposal would significantly increase from current levels.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. Potable water mains appear to be available
approximately one mile east of the site, but further analysis is needed to verify pipe size, service
pressure, and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to provide adequate service
pressure at the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives.
Reuse of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE
facilities, but for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary
sewer. The closest sanitary sewer collection system appears to be approximately one mile east of
the site, but further analysis is needed to verify capacity and system impacts. An on-site lift station
and about one mile of 6” force main will likely be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest gas transmission main is approximately
5.0 miles east of the site. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is assumed to be within
existing ROW and easements.

www.arcadis.com
2/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 5

• Electric – Nearest substation/ switchyard is FPL Substation located 4.5 miles away at 10800 NW
107th Avenue. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and available
terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements. New
easements may need to be established to complete this routing.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention. An existing
inactive quarry borders the site to the west, could be purchased and used as stormwater retention
for the site.

• Groundwater – Groundwater may not be usable as source water for boiler feedwater, cooling
tower/condenser feedwater, truck wheel wash, and irrigation water.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the site soils as Shark Valley muck, 0 to 1 percent
slopes. These soils are high in organics content and may extend 20-40 inches below grade, even to the
bedrock layer. They are not suitable for foundations and would need to be removed and replaced with
structural fill for foundation areas, which will increase project costs.
In these soils the seasonal high groundwater elevation is typically 0-6 inches below existing grade, but
would have to be confirmed by geotechnical investigations. The high groundwater will result in the need
for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will also increase project costs due to the need for additional
structural fill.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone AE (El. 8 ft). High
groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will significantly increase
both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Modification Application would
need to be developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air
Construction/PSD, ERP, Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need
determination” filing process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 10.48 miles (17 km) NE of the Everglades Class I Area, 19.93 miles (32 km) NW of
the Biscayne Class II Area, and about 1.7 miles NW of the Titan Pennsuco Complex, a large source
of emissions.
As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
www.arcadis.com
3/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 5

The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s).

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory and National Hydrography Dataset
indicate no wetlands or surface waters are present; however, the South Florida Water Management
District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 shows wetlands hardwood forest are present. The
site appears undisturbed. The site is not within a Florida panther focus area for consultation or
critical habitat for endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The site is
within the urban development boundary in Miami-Dade County for the Florida bonneted bat and
individual consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required. The site is also within
18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and will potentially disturb greater than one-half acre of
suitable foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially require wood stork mitigation.
Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Resource
Permit, State 404 Permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland
mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with Policy CON-9A. MDC Policy CON-9A states that all activities that
adversely affect habitat that is critical to Federal, or State designated, endangered or threatened
species shall be prohibited unless such activity(ies) are a public necessity and there are no possible
alternative sites where the activity(ies) can occur.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B. MDC Policy CON-9B states that all
nesting, roosting and feeding habitats used by federal or State designated endangered or
threatened species, shall be protected and buffered from surrounding development or activities and
further degradation or destruction of such habitat shall not be authorized.

• Within the Northwest Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G. MDC Policy
LU-8G states that when considering land areas to add to the UDB, after demonstrating that a need
exists, the following areas shall not be considered:
- The Northwest Wellfield Protection Area and the West Wellfield Protection Area west of SW
157 Avenue between SW 8 Street and SW 42 Street

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J. The site is within the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) area and development at this location will have wetland
impacts. MDC Policy CON-7J states the County is to review development applications that include
wetland impacts for consistency with CERP objectives. Applications inconsistent with CERP
objectives, projects or features shall be denied.

www.arcadis.com
4/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 5

Transportation
Travel time to Turnpike and US 27 is less than 10
minutes. Existing access to site is via unpaved single-lane
road (see picture at right), approximately 1.8 miles of two-
lane road with paved shoulder and stormwater controls will
need to be constructed for proper site access (see the
access route below). The volume of traffic that is expected at the proposed
WTE facility (400-500 trucks per day) will greatly increase the loads on local
roads and the single point of access at NW 112th Ct/NW 136th St. will likely
result in significant traffic impacts to the local area. Truck queuing will have to
be accomplished on site to prevent further congestion of local roads. .

www.arcadis.com
5/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 5

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no community impacts for this site. The site is 1.07
miles from the nearest residential zoning and adjacent to industrial mining operations, but the presence
of wetlands, wildlife habitat and other environmental issues suggests that the siting of a WTE facility
may be met with opposition by the community at this location.

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Construction of approximately 1.8 miles of two-lane road with paved shoulder and stormwater controls for proper site
access

• Construction of approximately one mile of 12” water main and possibly a booster station will be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and about one mile of 6” force main will likely be required.

• Construction of approximately 5.0 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Construction of approximately 4.5 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, and
electric utility infrastructure.

• The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and will potentially disturb greater than one-half acre
of suitable foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially require wood stork mitigation.

• Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Permit, a State 404 Permit from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland mitigation.

www.arcadis.com
6/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 5

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9A and CON-9B.

• Within the Northwest Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J.

www.arcadis.com
7/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 6

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

Folio No: 30-2928-000-0010

This 628.69-acre property is a single parcel outside the UDB, located in
unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The site is large enough to Owner: Southeastern Materials, Inc.
support the proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Waste-to-Energy (WTE) 2021 MDPA Market Value: $5,805,800
facility, and expansion to 5,000 TPD capacity or the addition of other
facilities such as an ash monofil, recycling center or an education Zoning District: GU
center. The property is less than a 10-minute travel time to US-27 and PA Zone: Interim - Awaiting Specific
is located 2.32 miles from the nearest residential zoning. Zoning

www.arcadis.com
1/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 6

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 6.5 miles northeast of the existing RRF, and more than two miles
from the nearest residential zoning. If this site were selected, the expected effects on the County’s
Solid Waste System may be significant. Direct hauls from the collection routes in the vicinity of the
existing RRF would likely decline, as many collection trucks would reroute to the Northeast and West
Transfer Stations for disposal to reduce travel times. Incoming waste at those stations would increase
and may result in capacity issues, especially at the West Transfer Station, which is currently operating
at approximately 80% of design capacity. A new transfer station in the vicinity of the existing RRF
facility would likely be needed to maintain current collection and transfer flow patterns.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility.
Their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would increase due to longer travel distances
and expected traffic congestion. Transfer fleet round trip times would increase and may result in the
need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes. Transfer fleet fuel consumption
and maintenance costs would increase due to the additional deliveries, while similar Collection fleet
costs would also increase due to longer travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be higher than at the
existing RRF. There are options to keep ash hauling distances relatively short - the existing RRF site
could be converted to an ash monofill, or ash generated at this location may be landfilled at the Medley
Landfill. If disposed at a non-County facility, costs for ash disposal would significantly increase from
current levels.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. Potable water mains appear to be available
approximately 3.0 miles east of the site, but further analysis is needed to verify pipe size, service
pressure, and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to provide adequate service
pressure at the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives. Reuse
of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE facilities, but
for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary sewer. The
closest sanitary sewer collection system appears to be approximately 3.0 miles east of the site, but
further analysis is needed to verify capacity and system impacts. An on-site lift station and about
3.0 miles of force main will likely be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest gas transmission main is approximately 7.0

www.arcadis.com
2/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 6

miles east of the site. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is assumed to be within existing
ROW and easements.

• Electric – Nearest substation/ switchyard is FPL Substation located 6.7 miles away at 10800 NW
107th Avenue. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and available
terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements. New legal
easements may need to be established to complete this routing.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the site soils as Shark Valley muck, 0 to 1 percent
slopes. These soils are high in organics content and may extend 20-40 inches below grade, even to the
bedrock layer. They are not suitable for foundations and would need to be removed and replaced with
structural fill for foundation areas, which will increase project costs.
In these soils the seasonal high groundwater elevation is typically 0-6 inches below existing grade but
would have to be confirmed by geotechnical investigations. The high groundwater will result in the need
for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will also increase project costs due to the need for additional
structural fill.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone AE (El. 8 ft). High
groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will significantly increase
both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 9.48 miles (15.26 km) NE of the Everglades Class I Area, 21.08 miles (33.92 km) NW
of the Biscayne Class II Area, and about 4.0 miles W of the Titan Pennsuco Complex, a large
source of emissions.
www.arcadis.com
3/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 6

As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s).

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site is
entirely wetlands. The site appears predominantly undisturbed. The site is not within a Florida
panther focus area for consultation or critical habitat for endangered or threatened species under
the Endangered Species Act. The site is within the urban development boundary in Miami-Dade
County for the Florida bonneted bat and individual consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service is required. The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and will
potentially disturb greater than one-half acre of suitable foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially
require wood stork mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with Policy CON-9A. MDC Policy CON-9A states that all activities that
adversely affect habitat that is critical to Federal, or State designated, endangered or threatened
species shall be prohibited unless such activity(ies) are a public necessity and there are no possible
alternative sites where the activity(ies) can occur.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B. MDC Policy CON-9B states that all
nesting, roosting and feeding habitats used by federal or State designated endangered or
threatened species, shall be protected and buffered from surrounding development or activities and
further degradation or destruction of such habitat shall not be authorized.

• Within the Northwest Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G. MDC Policy
LU-8G states that when considering land areas to add to the UDB, after demonstrating that a need
exists, the following areas shall not be considered:
- The Northwest Wellfield Protection Area and the West Wellfield Protection Area west of SW
157 Avenue between SW 8 Street and SW 42 Street

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J. The site is within the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) area and development at this location will have wetland
impacts. MDC Policy CON-7J states the County is to review development applications that include

www.arcadis.com
4/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 6

wetland impacts for consistency with CERP objectives. Applications inconsistent with CERP
objectives, projects or features shall be denied.

Transportation
Travel time to US-27 is less than 10 minutes. Existing
access to site is via unpaved single-lane road (see picture
at right). Approximately 3.6 miles of two-lane road with
paved shoulder and stormwater controls will need to be
constructed for proper site access (see the access route
below). An additional 1.8 miles of easement/ROW will have to be acquired.
The volume of traffic that is expected at the proposed WTE facility (400-500
trucks per day), will greatly increase the loads on local roads so the traffic
impacts to local area will likely be significant. Additional traffic impacts on
US-27 and to local area may result due to single point of access at NW 112th
Ct/NW 136th St. Truck queuing will have to be accomplished on site to
prevent further congestion of local roads.

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no community impacts for this site. The site is more
than two miles from the nearest residential zoning and adjacent to industrial mining operations, but the
presence of wetlands, wildlife habitat and other environmental issues suggests that the siting of a WTE
facility may be met with opposition by the community at this location.

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

www.arcadis.com
5/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 6

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Approximately 3.6 miles of two-lane road with paved shoulder and stormwater controls will need to be constructed for
proper site access (see the access route below). An additional 1.8 miles of easement/ROW will have to be acquired.

• Construction of approximately 3.0 miles of 12” water main and possibly a booster station will be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and about 3.0 miles of 6” force main will likely be required.

• Construction of approximately 7.0 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Construction of approximately 6.7 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, and
electric utility infrastructure.

• The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and will potentially disturb greater than one-half acre
of suitable foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially require wood stork mitigation.

• Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Permit, a State 404 Permit from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9A and CON-9B.

• Within the Northwest Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J.

www.arcadis.com
6/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 7

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

Folio No: 30-2928-000-0020

This 144.24-acre property is a single parcel outside the UDB, located in
unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The site is large enough to Owner: TARMAC Florida, Inc.
support the proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Waste-to-Energy (WTE) 2021 MDPA Market Value: $2,534,330
facility, and expansion to 5,000 TPD capacity or the addition of other
Zoning District: GU
facilities such as an ash monofil, recycling center or an education
center. The property is less than a 10-minute travel time to US-27 and PA Zone: Interim - Awaiting Specific
is located 2.59 miles from the nearest residential zoning. Zoning

www.arcadis.com
1/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 7

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 6.6 miles northwest of the existing RRF, and more than 2.5 miles
from the nearest residential zoning. If this site were selected, the expected effects on the County’s
Solid Waste System may be significant. Direct hauls from the collection routes in the vicinity of the
existing RRF would likely decline, as many collection trucks would reroute to the Northeast and West
Transfer Stations for disposal to reduce travel times. Incoming waste at those stations would increase
and may result in capacity issues, especially at the West Transfer Station, which is currently operating
at approximately 80% of design capacity. A new transfer station in the vicinity of the existing RRF
facility would likely be needed to maintain current collection and transfer flow patterns.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility.
Their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would increase due to longer travel distances
and expected traffic congestion. Transfer fleet round trip times would increase and may result in the
need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes. Transfer fleet fuel consumption
and maintenance costs would increase due to the additional deliveries, while similar Collection fleet
costs would also increase due to longer travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be higher than at the
existing RRF. There are options to keep ash hauling distances relatively short - the existing RRF site
could be converted to an ash monofill, or ash generated at this location may be landfilled at the Medley
Landfill. If disposed at a non-County facility, costs for ash disposal would significantly increase from
current levels.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. Potable water mains appear to be available
approximately 3.6 miles east of the site, but further analysis is needed to verify pipe size, service
pressure, and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to provide adequate service
pressure at the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives. Reuse
of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE facilities, but
for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary sewer. The
closest sanitary sewer collection system appears to be approximately 3.6 miles east of the site, but
further analysis is needed to verify capacity and system impacts. An on-site lift station and about
3.6 miles of 6” force main may be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest gas transmission main is approximately 7.7

www.arcadis.com
2/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 7

miles east of the site. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is assumed to be within existing
ROW and easements.

• Electric – Nearest substation/ switchyard is FPL Substation located 7.1 miles away at 10800 NW
107th Avenue. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and available
terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements. New legal
easements may need to be established to complete this routing.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the site soils as Shark Valley muck, 0 to 1 percent
slopes. These soils are high in organics content and may extend 20-40 inches below grade, even to the
bedrock layer. They are not suitable for foundations and would need to be removed and replaced with
structural fill for foundation areas, which will increase project costs.
In these soils the seasonal high groundwater elevation is typically 0-6 inches below existing grade, but
would have to be confirmed by geotechnical investigations. The high groundwater will result in the need
for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will also increase project costs due to the need for additional
structural fill.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone AE (El. 8 ft). High
groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will significantly increase
both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 9.22 miles (14.9 km) NE of the Everglades Class I Area, 20.86 miles (33.7 km) NW of
the Biscayne Class II Area, and about 3.5 miles NNW of the Titan Pennsuco Complex, a large
source of emissions.

www.arcadis.com
3/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 7

As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s).

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site is
entirely wetlands. The site appears predominantly undisturbed. The site is not within a Florida
panther focus area for consultation or critical habitat for endangered or threatened species under
the Endangered Species Act. The site is within the urban development boundary in Miami-Dade
County for the Florida bonneted bat and individual consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service is required. The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and will
potentially disturb greater than one-half acre of suitable foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially
require wood stork mitigation.
Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Resource
Permit, State 404 Permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland
mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with Policy CON-9A. MDC Policy CON-9A states that all activities that
adversely affect habitat that is critical to Federal, or State designated, endangered or threatened
species shall be prohibited unless such activity(ies) are a public necessity and there are no possible
alternative sites where the activity(ies) can occur.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B. MDC Policy CON-9B states that all
nesting, roosting and feeding habitats used by federal or State designated endangered or
threatened species, shall be protected and buffered from surrounding development or activities and
further degradation or destruction of such habitat shall not be authorized.

• Within the Northwest Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G. MDC Policy
LU-8G states that when considering land areas to add to the UDB, after demonstrating that a need
exists, the following areas shall not be considered:
- The Northwest Wellfield Protection Area and the West Wellfield Protection Area west of SW
157 Avenue between SW 8 Street and SW 42 Street

www.arcadis.com
4/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 7

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J. The site is within the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) area and development at this location will have wetland
impacts. MDC Policy CON-7J states the County is to review development applications that include
wetland impacts for consistency with CERP objectives. Applications inconsistent with CERP
objectives, projects or features shall be denied.

Transportation
Travel time to US-27 is less than 10 minutes. Existing
access to site is via unpaved single-lane road (see picture
at right), approximately 4.1 miles of two-lane road with
paved shoulder and stormwater controls will need to be
constructed for proper site access (see the access route
below). Additional easement/ROW will have to be aquired for almost 2.3
miles of the access road from FPL and other property owners. The volume of
traffic that is expected at the proposed WTE facility (400-500 trucks per day),
will greatly increase the loads on local roads so the traffic impacts to local
area will likely be significant. Additional traffic impacts on US-27 and to local
area may result due to single point of access at NW 112th Ct/NW 136th St.
Truck queuing will have to be accomplished on site to prevent further
congestion of local roads.

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no community impacts for this site. The site is more
than two miles from the nearest residential zoning and adjacent to industrial mining operations, but the
presence of wetlands, wildlife habitat and other environmental issues suggests that the siting of a WTE
facility may be met with opposition by the community at this location.

www.arcadis.com
5/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 7

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Approximately 4.1 miles of two-lane road with paved shoulder and stormwater controls will need to be constructed for
proper site access (see the access route below). An additional 2.3 miles of easement/ROW will have to be acquired.

• Construction of approximately 3.6 miles of 12” water main and possibly a booster station will be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and about 3.6 miles of 6” force main will likely be required.

• Construction of approximately 7.7 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Construction of approximately 7.1 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, and
electric utility infrastructure.

• The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and will potentially disturb greater than one-half acre
of suitable foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially require wood stork mitigation.

• Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Permit, a State 404 Permit from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9A and CON-9B.

• Within the Northwest Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J.

www.arcadis.com
6/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 8

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

Folio No: 30-2928-000-0030

This 150.75-acre property is a single parcel outside the UDB, located in
unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The site is large enough to Owner: TARMAC Florida, Inc.
support the proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Waste-to-Energy (WTE) 2021 MDPA Market Value: $2,908,000
facility, and expansion to 5,000 TPD capacity or the addition of other
facilities such as an ash monofil, recycling center or an education Zoning District: GU
center. The property is less than a 10-minute travel time to US-27 and PA Zone: Interim - Awaiting Specific
is located 2.74 miles from the nearest residential zoning. Zoning

www.arcadis.com
1/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 8

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 6.0 miles northwest of the existing RRF, and more than 2.7 miles
from the nearest residential zoning. If this site were selected, the expected effects on the County’s
Solid Waste System may be significant. Direct hauls from the collection routes in the vicinity of the
existing RRF would likely decline, as many collection trucks would reroute to the Northeast and West
Transfer Stations for disposal to reduce travel times. Incoming waste at those stations would increase
and may result in capacity issues, especially at the West Transfer Station, which is currently operating
at approximately 80% of design capacity. A new transfer station in the vicinity of the existing RRF
facility would likely be needed to maintain current collection and transfer flow patterns.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility.
Their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would increase due to longer travel distances
and expected traffic congestion. Transfer fleet round trip times would increase and may result in the
need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes. Transfer fleet fuel consumption
and maintenance costs would increase due to the additional deliveries, while similar Collection fleet
costs would also increase due to longer travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be higher than at the
existing RRF. There are options to keep ash hauling distances relatively short - the existing RRF site
could be converted to an ash monofill, or ash generated at this location may be landfilled at the Medley
Landfill. If disposed at a non-County facility, costs for ash disposal would significantly increase from
current levels.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. Potable water mains appear to be available
approximately 4.0 miles east of the site, but further analysis is needed to verify pipe size, service
pressure, and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to provide adequate service
pressure at the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives. Reuse
of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE facilities, but
for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary sewer. The
closest sanitary sewer collection system appears to be approximately 4.0 miles east of the site, but
further analysis is needed to verify capacity and system impacts. An on-site lift station and about
4.0 miles of 6” force main may be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest gas transmission main is approximately 8.0

www.arcadis.com
2/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 8

miles east of the site. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is assumed to be within existing
ROW and easements.

• Electric – Nearest substation/ switchyard is FPL Substation located 7.4 miles away at 10800 NW
107th Avenue. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and available
terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements. New legal
easements may need to be established to complete this routing.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the site soils as Shark Valley muck, 0 to 1 percent
slopes. These soils are high in organics content and may extend 20-40 inches below grade, even to the
bedrock layer. They are not suitable for foundations and would need to be removed and replaced with
structural fill for foundation areas, which will increase project costs.
In these soils the seasonal high groundwater elevation is typically 0-6 inches below existing grade, but
would have to be confirmed by geotechnical investigations. The high groundwater will result in the need
for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will also increase project costs due to the need for additional
structural fill.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone AE (El. 8 ft). High
groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will significantly increase
both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 8.99 miles (14.5 km) NE of the Everglades Class I Area, 20.62 miles (33.2 km) NW of
the Biscayne Class II Area, and about 3.5 miles NNW of the Titan Pennsuco Complex, a large
source of emissions.
www.arcadis.com
3/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 8

As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s).

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site is
entirely wetlands. The site appears predominantly undisturbed. The site is not within a Florida
panther focus area for consultation or critical habitat for endangered or threatened species under
the Endangered Species Act. The site is within the urban development boundary in Miami-Dade
County for the Florida bonneted bat and individual consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service is required. The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and will
potentially disturb greater than one-half acre of suitable foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially
require wood stork mitigation.
Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Resource
Permit, State 404 Permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland
mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with Policy CON-9A. MDC Policy CON-9A states that all activities that
adversely affect habitat that is critical to Federal, or State designated, endangered or threatened
species shall be prohibited unless such activity(ies) are a public necessity and there are no possible
alternative sites where the activity(ies) can occur.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B. MDC Policy CON-9B states that all
nesting, roosting and feeding habitats used by federal or State designated endangered or
threatened species, shall be protected and buffered from surrounding development or activities and
further degradation or destruction of such habitat shall not be authorized.

• Within the Northwest Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G. MDC Policy
LU-8G states that when considering land areas to add to the UDB, after demonstrating that a need
exists, the following areas shall not be considered:
- The Northwest Wellfield Protection Area and the West Wellfield Protection Area west of SW
157 Avenue between SW 8 Street and SW 42 Street

www.arcadis.com
4/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 8

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J. The site is within the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) area and development at this location will have wetland
impacts. MDC Policy CON-7J states the County is to review development applications that include
wetland impacts for consistency with CERP objectives. Applications inconsistent with CERP
objectives, projects or features shall be denied.

Transportation
Travel time to US-27 is less than 10 minutes. Existing
access to site is via unpaved single-lane road (see picture
at right). Approximately 4.25 miles of two-lane road with
paved shoulder and stormwater controls will need to be
constructed for proper site access (see the access route
below). An additional 2.5 miles of easement/ROW will have to be acquired.
The volume of traffic that is expected at the proposed WTE facility (400-500
trucks per day), will greatly increase the loads on local roads so the traffic
impacts to local area will likely be significant. Additional traffic impacts on
US-27 and to local area may result due to single point of access at NW 112th
Ct/NW 136th St. Truck queuing will have to be accomplished on site to
prevent further congestion of local roads.

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no community impacts for this site. The site is more
than 2.7 miles from the nearest residential zoning and adjacent to industrial mining operations, but the
presence of wetlands, wildlife habitat and other environmental issues suggests that the siting of a WTE
facility may be met with opposition by the community at this location.

www.arcadis.com
5/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 8

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Approximately 4.25 miles of two-lane road with paved shoulder and stormwater controls will need to be constructed
for proper site access (see the access route below). An additional 2.5 miles of easement/ROW will have to be
acquired.

• Construction of approximately 4.0 miles of 12” water main and possibly a booster station will be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and about 4.0 miles of 6” force main will likely be required.

• Construction of approximately 8.0 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Construction of approximately 7.4 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, and
electric utility infrastructure.

• The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and will potentially disturb greater than one-half acre
of suitable foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially require wood stork mitigation.

• Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Permit, a State 404 Permit from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9A and CON-9B.

• Within the Northwest Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J.

www.arcadis.com
6/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 9

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

Folio No: 30-2933-000-0010

This 628.69-acre property is a single parcel outside the UDB, located in Owner: TARMAC Florida, Inc.
unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The site is large enough to
2021 MDPA Market Value: $11,579,000
support the proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Waste-to-Energy (WTE)
facility, and expansion to 5,000 TPD capacity or the addition of other Zoning District: GU
facilities such as an ash monofil, recycling center or an education
PA Zone: Interim - Awaiting Specific
center. The property is less than a 10-minute travel time to US-27 and
Zoning
is located 2.93 miles from the nearest residential zoning.

www.arcadis.com
1/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 9

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 5.5 miles northwest of the existing RRF, and more than 2.9 miles
from the nearest residential zoning. If this site were selected, the expected effects on the County’s
Solid Waste System may be significant. Direct hauls from the collection routes in the vicinity of the
existing RRF would likely decline, as many collection trucks would reroute to the Northeast and West
Transfer Stations for disposal to reduce travel times. Incoming waste at those stations would increase
and may result in capacity issues, especially at the West Transfer Station, which is currently operating
at approximately 80% of design capacity. A new transfer station in the vicinity of the existing RRF
facility would likely be needed to maintain current collection and transfer flow patterns.

The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility.
Their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would increase due to longer travel distances
and expected traffic congestion. Transfer fleet round trip times would increase and may result in the
need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes. Transfer fleet fuel consumption
and maintenance costs would increase due to the additional deliveries, while similar Collection fleet
costs would also increase due to longer travel distances and traffic congestion.

Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be higher than at the
existing RRF. There are options to keep ash hauling distances relatively short - the existing RRF site
could be converted to an ash monofill, or ash generated at this location may be landfilled at the Medley
Landfill. If disposed at a non-County facility, costs for ash disposal would significantly increase from
current levels.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. Potable water mains appear to be available
approximately 5.0 miles east of the site, but further analysis is needed to verify pipe size, service
pressure, and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to provide adequate service
pressure at the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives. Reuse
of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE facilities, but
for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary sewer. The
closest sanitary sewer collection system appears to be approximately 5.0 miles east of the site, but
further analysis is needed to verify capacity and system impacts. An on-site lift station and about
5.0 miles of 6” force main may be required.
www.arcadis.com
2/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 9

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest gas transmission main is approximately 9.0
miles east of the site. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is assumed to be within existing
ROW and easements.

• Electric – Nearest substation/ switchyard is FPL Substation located 8.3 miles away at 10800 NW
107th Avenue. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and available
terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements. New legal
easements may need to be established to complete this routing.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the site soils as Shark Valley muck, 0 to 1 percent
slopes. These soils are high in organics content and may extend 20-40 inches below grade, even to the
bedrock layer. They are not suitable for foundations and would need to be removed and replaced with
structural fill for foundation areas, which will increase project costs.

In these soils the seasonal high groundwater elevation is typically 0-6 inches below existing grade, but
would have to be confirmed by geotechnical investigations. The high groundwater will result in the need
for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will also increase project costs due to the need for additional
structural fill.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone AH (El. 7 ft). High
groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will significantly increase
both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,

www.arcadis.com
3/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 9

Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 8.08 miles (13 km) NE of the Everglades Class I Area, 19.69 miles (31.7 km) NW of
the Biscayne Class II Area, and about 3.4 miles W of the Titan Pennsuco Complex, a large source
of emissions.

As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).

The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s).

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site is
entirely wetlands. The site appears predominantly undisturbed. The site is not within a Florida
panther focus area for consultation or critical habitat for endangered or threatened species under
the Endangered Species Act. The site is within the urban development boundary in Miami-Dade
County for the Florida bonneted bat and individual consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service is required. The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and will
potentially disturb greater than one-half acre of suitable foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially
require wood stork mitigation.

Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Resource

Permit, State 404 Permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland
mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with Policy CON-9A. MDC Policy CON-9a states that all activities that
adversely affect habitat that is critical to Federal, or State designated, endangered or threatened
species shall be prohibited unless such activity(ies) are a public necessity and there are no possible
alternative sites where the activity(ies) can occur.

www.arcadis.com
4/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 9

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B. MDC Policy CON-9B states that all
nesting, roosting and feeding habitats used by federal or State designated endangered or
threatened species, shall be protected and buffered from surrounding development or activities and
further degradation or destruction of such habitat shall not be authorized.

• Within the Northwest Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G. MDC Policy
LU-8G states that when considering land areas to add to the UDB, after demonstrating that a need
exists, the following areas shall not be considered:
- The Northwest Wellfield Protection Area and the West Wellfield Protection Area west of SW
157 Avenue between SW 8 Street and SW 42 Street

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J. The site is within the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) area and development at this location will have wetland
impacts. MDC Policy CON-7J states the County is to review development applications that include
wetland impacts for consistency with CERP objectives. Applications inconsistent with CERP
objectives, projects or features shall be denied.

Transportation
Travel time to US-27 is less than 10 minutes. Existing
access to site is via unpaved single-lane road (see picture
at right). Approximately 5.25 miles of two-lane road with
paved shoulder and stormwater controls will need to be
constructed for proper site access (see the access route
below). An additional 3.5 miles of easement/ROW will have to be acquired.
The volume of traffic that is expected at the proposed WTE facility (400-500
trucks per day), will greatly increase the loads on local roads so the traffic
impacts to local area will likely be significant. Additional traffic impacts on
US-27 and to local area may result due to single point of access at NW 112th
Ct/NW 136th St. Truck queuing will have to be accomplished on site to
prevent further congestion of local roads.

www.arcadis.com
5/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 9

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no community impacts for this site. The site is more
than 2.9 miles from the nearest residential zoning and adjacent to industrial mining operations, but the
presence of wetlands, wildlife habitat and other environmental issues suggests that the siting of a WTE
facility may be met with opposition by the community at this location.

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Approximately 5.25 miles of two-lane road with paved shoulder and stormwater controls will need to be constructed
for proper site access (see the access route below). An additional 3.5 miles of easement/ROW will have to be
acquired.

• Construction of approximately 5.0 miles of 12” water main and possibly a booster station will be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and about 5.0 miles of 6” force main will likely be required.

• Construction of approximately 9.0 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Construction of approximately 8.3 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, and
electric utility infrastructure.

• The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and will potentially disturb greater than one-half acre
of suitable foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially require wood stork mitigation.

www.arcadis.com
6/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 9

• Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Permit, a State 404 Permit from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policies CON-9A and CON-9B.

• Within the Northwest Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J.

www.arcadis.com
7/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 10

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

Folio No: 30-3916-000-0010

This 590.71-acre property is a single parcel outside the UDB, located in
unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The site is large enough to Owner: APAC Southeast, Inc.
support the proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Waste-to-Energy (WTE) 2021 MDPA Market Value: $10,560,268
facility, and expansion to 5,000 TPD capacity or the addition of other
facilities such as an ash monofil, recycling center or an education Zoning District: GU
center. The property is less than a 10-minute travel time to the PA Zone: Interim - Awaiting Specific
Turnpike via 41st Street and is located 2.84 miles from the nearest Zoning
residential zoning.

www.arcadis.com
1/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 10

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 5.4 miles W of the existing RRF, and more than 2.8 miles from the
nearest residential zoning. If this site were selected, the expected effects on the County’s Solid Waste
System may be significant. Direct hauls from the collection routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF
would likely decline, as many collection trucks would reroute to the Northeast and West Transfer
Stations for disposal to reduce travel times. Incoming waste at those stations would increase and may
result in capacity issues, especially at the West Transfer Station, which is currently operating at
approximately 80% of design capacity. A new transfer station in the vicinity of the existing RRF facility
would likely be needed to maintain current collection and transfer flow patterns.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility.
Their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would increase due to longer travel distances
and expected traffic congestion. Transfer fleet round trip times would increase and may result in the
need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes. Transfer fleet fuel consumption
and maintenance costs would increase due to the additional deliveries, while similar Collection fleet
costs would also increase due to longer travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be higher than at the
existing RRF. There are options to keep ash hauling distances relatively short - the existing RRF site
could be converted to an ash monofill, or ash generated at this location may be landfilled at the Medley
Landfill. If disposed at a non-County facility, costs for ash disposal would significantly increase from
current levels.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. Potable water mains appear to be available
approximately 2.0 miles southeast of the site, but further analysis is needed to verify pipe size,
service pressure, and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to provide adequate
service pressure at the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives. Reuse
of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE facilities, but
for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary sewer. The
closest sanitary sewer collection system appears to be approximately 2.0 miles southeast of the
site, but further analysis is needed to verify capacity and system impacts. An on-site lift station and
about 2.0 miles of 6” force main may be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest gas transmission main is approximately 4.0

www.arcadis.com
2/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 10

miles southeast of the site. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is assumed to be within
existing ROW and easements.

• Electric – Nearest substation/ switchyard is FPL Substation located 2.1 miles away at 52444-
139954 NW 41st Street. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and
available terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements.
New legal easements may need to be established to complete this routing.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the site soils as Shark Valley muck, 0 to 1 percent
slopes. These soils are high in organics content and may extend 20-40 inches below grade, even to the
bedrock layer. They are not suitable for foundations and would need to be removed and replaced with
structural fill for foundation areas, which will increase project costs.
In these soils the seasonal high groundwater elevation is typically 0-6 inches below existing grade, but
would have to be confirmed by geotechnical investigations. The high groundwater will result in the need
for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will also increase project costs due to the need for additional
structural fill.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone AH (El. 7 ft). High
groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will significantly increase
both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 5.44 miles (8.75 km) NE of the Everglades Class I Area, 16.95 miles (27.28 km) NW
of the Biscayne Class II Area, and about 3 mi NNW of the CEMEX Miami facility, a large source of
emissions.
www.arcadis.com
3/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 10

As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s).

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site is
entirely wetlands. Minor disturbances include prior excavation and ditching, but most of the site
appears undisturbed. The site is not within a Florida panther focus area for consultation or critical
habitat for endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The site is within
the urban development boundary in Miami-Dade County for the Florida bonneted bat and individual
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required. The site is also within 18.6 miles of
an active wood stork colony and will potentially disturb greater than one-half acre of suitable
foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially require wood stork mitigation.
Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Resource
Permit, State 404 Permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland
mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with Policy CON-9A. MDC Policy CON-9B states that all activities that
adversely affect habitat that is critical to Federal, or State designated, endangered or threatened
species shall be prohibited unless such activity(ies) are a public necessity and there are no possible
alternative sites where the activity(ies) can occur.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B. MDC Policy CON-9B states that all
nesting, roosting and feeding habitats used by federal or State designated endangered or
threatened species, shall be protected and buffered from surrounding development or activities and
further degradation or destruction of such habitat shall not be authorized.

• Within the Northwest Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G. MDC Policy
LU-8G states that when considering land areas to add to the UDB, after demonstrating that a need
exists, the following areas shall not be considered:
- The Northwest Wellfield Protection Area and the West Wellfield Protection Area west of SW
157 Avenue between SW 8 Street and SW 42 Street

www.arcadis.com
4/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 10

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J. The site is within the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) area and development at this location will have wetland
impacts. MDC Policy CON-7J states the County is to review development applications that include
wetland impacts for consistency with CERP objectives. Applications inconsistent with CERP
objectives, projects or features shall be denied.

Transportation
Travel time to the Turnpike is less than 10 minutes. Existing
access to site is via 41st Street, then 1.5 miles of unpaved
single-lane road. Approximately 1.5 miles of two-lane road
with paved shoulder and stormwater controls will need to be
constructed for proper site access. Additional
easement/ROW will have to be aquired for almost 1.5 miles
of the access road from FPL and/or other property owners.
The volume of traffic that is expected at the proposed WTE
facility (400-500 trucks per day), will greatly increase the
loads on local roads so the traffic impacts to local area will
likely be significant. Additional traffic impacts due to single
point of access at Turnpike/41st St. Truck queuing will have
to be accomplished on site to prevent further congestion of
local roads.

www.arcadis.com
5/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 10

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no community impacts for this site. The site is more
than 2.8 miles from the nearest residential zoning and adjacent to industrial mining operations, but the
presence of wetlands, wildlife habitat and other environmental issues suggests that the siting of a WTE
facility may be met with opposition by the community at this location.

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Approximately 1.5 miles of two-lane road with paved shoulder and stormwater controls will need to be constructed for
proper site access (see the access route below). An additional 1.5 miles of easement/ROW will have to be acquired.

• Construction of approximately 2.0 miles of 12” water main and possibly a booster station will be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and about 2.0 miles of 6” force main will likely be required.

• Construction of approximately 4.0 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Construction of approximately 2.1 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, and
electric utility infrastructure.

• The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and will potentially disturb greater than one-half acre
of suitable foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially require wood stork mitigation.

• Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Permit, a State 404 Permit from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland mitigation.

www.arcadis.com
6/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 10

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9A and CON-9B.

• Within the Northwest Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J.

www.arcadis.com
7/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 11

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

This 1,425.59-acre property is a single parcel outside the UDB, located Folio No: 30-3920-000-0020
in unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The site is large enough to Owner: CEMEX Construction Materials
support the proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Waste-to-Energy (WTE)
facility, and expansion to 5,000 TPD capacity or the addition of other 2021 MDPA Market Value: $18,710,559
facilities such as an ash monofil, recycling center or an education Zoning District: GU
center. The property is less than a 10-minute travel time to the
PA Zone: Interim - Awaiting Specific
Turnpike via 41st Street and is located 0.52 miles from the nearest
Zoning
residential zoning.

www.arcadis.com
1/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 11

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 4.8 miles SW of the existing RRF but is 0.52 miles from the nearest
residential zoning. If this site were selected, the expected effects on the County’s Solid Waste System
may be significant. Direct hauls from the collection routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF would
likely decline, as many collection trucks would reroute to the Northeast and West Transfer Stations for
disposal to reduce travel times. Incoming waste at those stations would increase and may result in
capacity issues, especially at the West Transfer Station, which is currently operating at approximately
80% of design capacity. A new transfer station in the vicinity of the existing RRF facility would likely be
needed to maintain current collection and transfer flow patterns.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility.
Their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would increase due to longer travel distances
and expected traffic congestion. Transfer fleet round trip times would increase and may result in the
need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes. Transfer fleet fuel consumption
and maintenance costs would increase due to the additional deliveries, while similar Collection fleet
costs would also increase due to longer travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be higher than at the
existing RRF. There are options to keep ash hauling distances relatively short - the existing RRF site
could be converted to an ash monofill, or ash generated at this location may be landfilled at the Medley
Landfill. If disposed at a non-County facility, costs for ash disposal would significantly increase from
current levels.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. Potable water mains appear to be available
approximately 0.75 miles east of the site on 41st Street, but further analysis is needed to verify pipe
size, service pressure, and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to provide adequate
service pressure at the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives. Reuse
of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE facilities, but
for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary sewer. The
closest sanitary sewer collection system appears to be approximately 0.75 miles east of the site on
41st Street, but further analysis is needed to verify capacity and system impacts. An on-site lift
station and about 0.75 miles of 6” force main may be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest gas transmission main is approximately 2.9

www.arcadis.com
2/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 11

miles east of the site. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is assumed to be within existing
ROW and easements.

• Electric – Nearest substation/ switchyard is the Levee Substation located 1.1 miles away at 52444-
139954 NW 41st Street. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and
available terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements.
New legal easements may need to be established to complete this routing.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the site soils as Shark Valley muck, 0 to 1 percent
slopes. These soils are high in organics content and may extend 20-40 inches below grade, even to
the bedrock layer. They are not suitable for foundations and would need to be removed and replaced
with structural fill for foundation areas, which will increase project costs.
In these soils the seasonal high groundwater elevation is typically 0-6 inches below existing grade, but
would have to be confirmed by geotechnical investigations. The high groundwater will result in the
need for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will also increase project costs due to the need for
additional structural fill.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone AH (El. 7 ft). High
groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will significantly increase
both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 3.45 miles (5.55 km) NE of the Everglades Class I Area, 14.24 miles (22.92 km) NW
of the Biscayne Class II Area, and about 1.5 miles NNW of the CEMEX Miami facility, a large
source of emissions.
www.arcadis.com
3/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 11

As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s).
Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site is
comprised of wetlands and excavated ponds. Minor disturbances include prior excavation and
ditching, but portions of the site appear undisturbed. The site is not within a Florida panther focus
area for consultation. The site is within the proposed critical habitat and within the urban
development boundary in Miami-Dade County for the Florida bonneted bat and individual
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required. The site is also within 18.6 miles of
an active wood stork colony and will potentially disturb greater than one-half acre of suitable
foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially require wood stork mitigation.
Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Resource
Permit, State 404 Permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland
mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with Policy CON-9A. All activities that adversely affect habitat that is
critical to Federal, or State designated, endangered or threatened species shall be prohibited
unless such activity(ies) are a public necessity and there are no possible alternative sites where the
activity(ies) can occur.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B. MDC Policy CON-9B states that all
nesting, roosting and feeding habitats used by federal or State designated endangered or
threatened species, shall be protected and buffered from surrounding development or activities and
further degradation or destruction of such habitat shall not be authorized.

• Within the Northwest Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G. MDC Policy
LU-8G states that when considering land areas to add to the UDB, after demonstrating that a need
exists, the following areas shall not be considered:
- The Northwest Wellfield Protection Area and the West Wellfield Protection Area west of SW
157 Avenue between SW 8 Street and SW 42 Street

www.arcadis.com
4/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 11

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J. The site is within the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) area and development at this location will have wetland
impacts. MDC Policy CON-7J states the County is to review development applications that include
wetland impacts for consistency with CERP objectives. Applications inconsistent with CERP
objectives, projects or features shall be denied.

Transportation
Travel time to the Turnpike is less than 10 minutes.
Existing access to site is via 41st Street, then 1.5 miles of
unpaved single-lane road (see picture at right) .
Approximately 1.5 miles of two-lane road with paved
shoulder and stormwater controls will need to be
constructed for proper site access. Additional
easement/ROW will have to be aquired for almost 1.5
miles of the access road from FPL and/or other property
owners. The volume of traffic that is expected at the
proposed WTE facility (400-500 trucks per day) will greatly
increase the loads on local roads so the traffic impacts to
local area will likely be significant. Additional traffic impacts
on 41st Street and to the local area may be significant due
to single point of access at Turnpike/41st St. Truck queuing
will have to be accomplished on site to prevent further congestion of local roads.

www.arcadis.com
5/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 11

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no community impacts for this site. However, the site
is 0.52 miles from the nearest residential zoning. Even though it is adjacent to an industrial cement
manufacturing operation, the close proximity of the site to a residential area and the presence of
wetlands, wildlife habitat and other environmental issues suggests that the siting of a WTE facility may
be met with opposition by the community at this location.

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Approximately 1.5 miles of two-lane road with paved shoulder and stormwater controls will need to be constructed for
proper site access (see the access route below). An additional 1.5 miles of easement/ROW will have to be acquired.

• Construction of approximately 0.75 miles of 12” water main and possibly a booster station will be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and about 0.75 miles of 6” force main will likely be required.

• Construction of approximately 2.9 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Construction of approximately 1.1 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, and
electric utility infrastructure.

• The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and will potentially disturb greater than one-half acre
of suitable foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially require wood stork mitigation.

• Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Permit, a State 404 Permit from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9A.

www.arcadis.com
6/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 11

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B.

• Within the Northwest Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J.

www.arcadis.com
7/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 12

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

This 561.18-acre property is a single parcel outside the UDB, located in Folio No: 30-4813-000-0010
unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The site is large enough to support Owner: ALA NV
the proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Waste-to-Energy (WTE) facility, % LA PRIMERA INTN'L CORP
and expansion to 5,000 TPD capacity or the addition of other facilities
such as an ash monofil, recycling center or an education center. The 2021 MDPA Market Value: $1,251,057
property is less than a 10-minute travel time to Krome Ave. and US 41
and is located 1.03 miles from the nearest residential zoning and Zoning District: GU
approximately 0.1 mile from the boundary of the Everglades National PA Zone: Interim - Awaiting Specific
Park. Zoning

www.arcadis.com
1/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 12

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 10.5 miles SW of the existing RRF and is more than a mile from the
nearest residential zoning, but is approximately 0.1 mile from the boundary of the Everglades National
Park. If this site were selected, the expected effects on the County’s Solid Waste System may be
significant. Direct hauls from the collection routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF would likely
decline, as many collection trucks would reroute to the three transfer stations for disposal to reduce
travel times. Incoming waste at those stations would increase and may result in capacity issues,
especially at the West Transfer Station, which is currently operating at approximately 80% of design
capacity. A new transfer station in the vicinity of the existing RRF facility would likely be needed to
maintain current collection and transfer flow patterns.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility.
Their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would increase due to longer travel distances
and expected traffic congestion. Transfer fleet round trip times would increase and may result in the
need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes. Transfer fleet fuel consumption
and maintenance costs would increase due to the additional deliveries, while similar Collection fleet
costs would also increase due to longer travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be higher than at the
existing RRF. There are options to keep ash hauling distances relatively short - the existing RRF site
could be converted to an ash monofill, or ash generated at this location may be landfilled at the Medley
Landfill. If disposed at a non-County facility, costs for ash disposal would significantly increase from
current levels.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. Potable water mains appear to be available
approximately 0.4 miles north of the site, but further analysis is needed to verify pipe size, service
pressure, and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to provide adequate service
pressure at the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives. Reuse
of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE facilities, but
for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary sewer. There
is a 30” sanitary sewer along Krome Ave., but further analysis is needed to verify capacity and
system impacts. An on-site lift station and force main may be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest gas transmission main is approximately 4.0

www.arcadis.com
2/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 12

miles northeast of the site on US41. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is assumed to be
within existing ROW and easements.

• Electric – Nearest substation/switchyard is FPL Substation located 4.7 miles away at 8905 Krome
Avenue. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and available terminations.
Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements. New legal easements
may need to be established to complete this routing.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the predominant site soils as Perrine marly silt loam,
0 to 1 percent slopes and Tamiami muck, 0 to 1 percent slopes. These hydric soils are high in organics
content and may extend 31-41 inches below grade, even to the bedrock layer. They are not suitable
for foundations and would need to be removed and replaced with structural fill for foundation areas,
which will increase project costs.
In these soils the seasonal high groundwater elevation is typically 0-6 inches below existing grade, but
would have to be confirmed by geotechnical investigations. The high groundwater will result in the
need for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will also increase project costs due to the need for
additional structural fill.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone AH (El. 8 ft). High
groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will significantly increase
both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 0.1 miles (0.16 km) E of the Everglades Class I Area, 13.72 miles (22.08 km) W of

www.arcadis.com
3/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 12

the Biscayne Class II Area, and about 5.0 miles SW of the CEMEX Miami Cement Plant, a large
source of emissions.
As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s). Based on projected emissions for a 4000 tpd facility, preliminary evaluation
indicates that this parcel is too close to sensitive receptors in the nearby Class I area thus
making it extremely difficult to demonstrate acceptable impacts for PSD permit issuance.
Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site is
comprised of wetlands. The site appears predominantly undisturbed`. The site is not within a
Florida panther focus area for consultation. The site is within the proposed critical habitat and within
the urban development boundary in Miami-Dade County for the Florida bonneted bat and individual
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required. The site is also within 18.6 miles of
an active wood stork colony and will potentially disturb greater than one-half acre of suitable
foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially require wood stork mitigation.
Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Resource
Permit, State 404 Permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland
mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with Policy CON-9A. All activities that adversely affect habitat that is
critical to Federal, or State designated, endangered or threatened species shall be prohibited
unless such activity(ies) are a public necessity and there are no possible alternative sites where the
activity(ies) can occur.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B. MDC Policy CON-9B states that all
nesting, roosting and feeding habitats used by federal or State designated endangered or
threatened species, shall be protected and buffered from surrounding development or activities and
further degradation or destruction of such habitat shall not be authorized.

• Within the West Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G. MDC Policy LU-
8G states that when considering land areas to add to the UDB, after demonstrating that a need
exists, the following areas shall not be considered:
www.arcadis.com
4/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 12

- The Northwest Wellfield Protection Area and the West Wellfield Protection Area west of SW
157 Avenue between SW 8 Street and SW 42 Street

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J. The site is within the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) area and development at this location will have wetland
impacts. MDC Policy CON-7J states the County is to review development applications that include
wetland impacts for consistency with CERP objectives. Applications inconsistent with CERP
objectives, projects or features shall be denied.

Transportation
Travel time to US 41 (SW 8th Street) is less than 10 minutes. Existing access to site is via Krome Ave.
(see map below), and no additional offsite access roadway is required. The volume of traffic that is
expected at the proposed WTE facility (400-500 trucks per day), will greatly increase the loads on local
roads so the traffic impacts on Krome Ave., US 41 (SW 8th Street), and to local area may be
significant. Truck queuing will have to be accomplished on site to prevent further congestion on Krome
Ave.

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated elevated values for Particulate Matter 2.5 (µg/m3),
2017 Air Toxics Cancer Risk, and 2017 Air Toxics Respiratory HI for this site. Although the site is
more than a mile from the nearest residential zoning, it is approximately 0.1 mile from the boundary of
the Everglades National Park, which suggests that the siting of a WTE facility may be strongly
opposed by the community at this location.

www.arcadis.com
5/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 12

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Construction of approximately 0.4 miles of 12” water main and possibly a booster station will be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and 6” force main may be required.

• Construction of approximately 4.0 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Construction of approximately 4.7 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, natural gas, and electric utility
infrastructure.

• The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and will potentially disturb greater than one-half acre
of suitable foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially require wood stork mitigation.

• Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Permit, a State 404 Permit from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland mitigation.

• Based on projected emissions for a 4000 tpd facility, preliminary evaluation indicates that this parcel is too
close to sensitive receptors in the nearby Class I area thus making it extremely difficult to demonstrate
acceptable impacts for PSD permit issuance.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9A.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B.

• Within the West Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J.

www.arcadis.com
6/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 13

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

This 63.07-acre property is a single parcel outside the UDB, located in Folio No: 30-4835-000-0010
unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The site is large enough to Owner: Kendall Properties and
support the proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Waste-to-Energy (WTE) Investments
facility, and expansion to 5,000 TPD capacity or the addition of other
facilities such as an ash monofil, recycling center or an education 2021 MDPA Market Value: $1,576,700
center. The property is less than a 10-minute travel time to US-41 and
is located 1.08 miles from the nearest residential zoning and Zoning District: GU
approximately 0.7 miles from the boundary of the Everglades National PA Zone: Interim - Awaiting Specific
Park. Zoning

www.arcadis.com
1/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 13

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 11.8 miles SW of the existing RRF and is more than a mile from the
nearest residential zoning, but is less than a mile from the boundary of the Everglades National Park. If
this site were selected, the expected effects on the County’s Solid Waste System may be significant.
Direct hauls from the collection routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF would likely decline, as many
collection trucks would reroute to the Northeast and West Transfer Stations for disposal to reduce
travel times. Incoming waste at those stations would increase and may result in capacity issues,
especially at the West Transfer Station, which is currently operating at approximately 80% of design
capacity. A new transfer station in the vicinity of the existing RRF facility would likely be needed to
maintain current collection and transfer flow patterns.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility.
Their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would increase due to longer travel distances
and expected traffic congestion on US-41 and SW 88th Street. Transfer fleet round trip times would
increase and may result in the need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes.
Transfer fleet fuel consumption and maintenance costs would increase due to the additional deliveries,
while similar Collection fleet costs would also increase due to longer travel distances and traffic
congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be higher than at the
existing RRF. There are options to keep ash hauling distances relatively short - the existing RRF site
could be converted to an ash monofill, or ash generated at this location may be landfilled at the Medley
Landfill. If disposed at a non-County facility, costs for ash disposal would significantly increase from
current levels.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. A 12” potable water main appears to be available at the
site on Krome Ave., but further analysis is needed to verify service pressure and system capacity.
A booster station may be needed to provide adequate service pressure at the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives. Reuse
of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE facilities, but
for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary sewer. There
is a 30” sanitary sewer on Krome Ave., but further analysis is needed to verify capacity and system
impacts. An on-site lift station and force main may be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest gas transmission main is approximately 7.0

www.arcadis.com
2/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 13

miles northeast of the site on US-41. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is assumed to be
within existing ROW and easements.

• Electric – Nearest substation/switchyard is FPL Substation located 1.8 miles away at 8905 Krome
Avenue. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and available terminations.
Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements. New legal easements
may need to be established to complete this routing.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the predominant site soils as Udorthents-Water-
Urban land complex, 0 to 60 percent slopes and Cooper Town muck. Udorthents soils consist of
unconsolidated or heterogeneous geologic material removed during the excavation of ditches, canals,
lakes, ponds, and quarries. This suggests that the site was previously excavated as a borrow pit and
backfilled to its present land area. If this is confirmed, the site soils may present significant
geotechnical engineering challenges for foundation designs.
The presence of muck soils indicates the seasonal high groundwater elevation is typically 0-6 inches
below existing grade, but would have to be confirmed by geotechnical investigations. The high
groundwater will result in the need for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will also increase project
costs due to the need for additional structural fill.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone AH (El. 8 ft). The
remainder of the site is in FEMA Flood Zone X (Minimal Flood Hazard).

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

www.arcadis.com
3/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 13

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 0.68 miles (1.09 km) E of the Everglades Class I Area, 12.52 miles (20.15 km) W of
the Biscayne Class II Area, and about 6.3 miles SW of the CEMEX Miami Cement Plant, a large
source of emissions.
As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s). Based on projected emissions for a 4000 tpd facility, preliminary evaluation
indicates that this parcel is too close to sensitive receptors in the nearby Class I area thus
making it extremely difficult to demonstrate acceptable impacts for PSD permit issuance.

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory and National Hydrography Dataset
indicate a surface water is present and no wetlands are present. The South Florida Water
Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site is comprised of
upland mixed forests, improved pasture, and holding ponds. The site appears developed with
minimal trees and maintained lawn. The site is not within a Florida panther focus area for
consultation or critical habitat for endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species
Act. The site is within the urban development boundary in Miami-Dade County for the Florida
bonneted bat and individual consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required but is
assumed to be minimal as there is minimal to no roosting or foraging habitat remaining. The site is
also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and minor wood stork mitigation may be
required.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B. MDC Policy CON-9B states that all
nesting, roosting and feeding habitats used by federal or State designated endangered or
threatened species, shall be protected and buffered from surrounding development or activities and
further degradation or destruction of such habitat shall not be authorized.

• Within the West Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G. MDC Policy LU-
8G states that when considering land areas to add to the UDB, after demonstrating that a need
exists, the following areas shall not be considered:
- The Northwest Wellfield Protection Area and the West Wellfield Protection Area west of SW
157 Avenue between SW 8 Street and SW 42 Street
www.arcadis.com
4/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 13

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J. The site is within the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) area and development at this location will have wetland
impacts. MDC Policy CON-7J states the County is to review development applications that include
wetland impacts for consistency with CERP objectives. Applications inconsistent with CERP
objectives, projects or features shall be denied.

Transportation
Travel time north to US 41 (SW 8th Street) and south to SW 88th Street is less than 10 minutes.
Existing access to site is via Krome Ave. (see map below), and no additional offsite access roadway is
required. The volume of traffic that is expected at the proposed WTE facility (400-500 trucks per day),
will greatly increase the loads on local roads. Traffic impacts on Krome Ave., US 41 (SW 8th Street),
SW 88th Street, and to local area may be significant due to only two points of access on Krome Ave.
Truck queuing will have to be accomplished on site to prevent further congestion on Krome Ave.

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated elevated values for Particulate Matter 2.5 (µg/m3),
2017 Air Toxics Cancer Risk, and 2017 Air Toxics Respiratory HI for this site. Although the site is more
than a mile from the nearest residential zoning, it is less than a mile from the boundary of the
Everglades National Park, which suggests that the siting of a WTE facility may be strongly opposed by
the community at this location.

www.arcadis.com
5/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 13

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Construction of a water booster station may be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and 6” force main may be required.

• Construction of approximately 7.0 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Construction of approximately 1.8 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of natural gas and electric utility infrastructure.

• The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and will potentially disturb greater than one-half acre
of suitable foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially require wood stork mitigation.

• Based on projected emissions for a 4000 tpd facility, preliminary evaluation indicates that this parcel is too
close to sensitive receptors in the nearby Class I area thus making it extremely difficult to demonstrate
acceptable impacts for PSD permit issuance.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B.

• Within the West Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J.

www.arcadis.com
6/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 14

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

Folio No: 30-4835-000-0013

This 42.68-acre property is a single parcel outside the UDB, located in
unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The site area is minimal but Owner: Kendall Properties and
appears sufficient to support the proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Investments
Waste-to-Energy (WTE) facility, but no additional expansion capacity or
2021 MDPA Market Value: $1,072,500
other facilities. The property is less than a 10-minute travel time north
to US-41 and south to SW 88th Street, is 1.05 miles from the nearest Zoning District: GU
residential zoning, and approximately 0.75 miles from the boundary of
the Everglades National Park. PA Zone: Interim - Awaiting Specific
Zoning

www.arcadis.com
1/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 14

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 11.8 miles SW of the existing RRF and is more than a mile from the
nearest residential zoning but is less than a mile from the boundary of the Everglades National Park. If
this site were selected, the expected effects on the County’s Solid Waste System may be significant.
Direct hauls from the collection routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF would likely decline, as many
collection trucks would reroute to the Northeast and West Transfer Stations for disposal to reduce
travel times. Incoming waste at those stations would increase and may result in capacity issues,
especially at the West Transfer Station, which is currently operating at approximately 80% of design
capacity. A new transfer station in the vicinity of the existing RRF facility would likely be needed to
maintain current collection and transfer flow patterns.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility. Their
travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would increase due to longer travel distances and
expected traffic congestion on US-41 and SW 88th Street. Transfer fleet round trip times would
increase and may result in the need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes.
Transfer fleet fuel consumption and maintenance costs would increase due to the additional deliveries,
while similar Collection fleet costs would also increase due to longer travel distances and traffic
congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be higher than at the
existing RRF. There are options to keep ash hauling distances relatively short - the existing RRF site
could be converted to an ash monofill, or ash generated at this location may be landfilled at the Medley
Landfill. If disposed at a non-County facility, costs for ash disposal would significantly increase from
current levels.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. A 12” potable water main appears to be available at the
site on Krome Ave., but further analysis is needed to verify service pressure and system capacity.
A booster station may be needed to provide adequate service pressure at the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives. Reuse
of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE facilities, but
for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary sewer. There
is a 30” sanitary sewer on Krome Ave., but further analysis is needed to verify capacity and system
impacts. An on-site lift station and force main may be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest gas transmission main is approximately 7.0

www.arcadis.com
2/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 14

miles northeast of the site on US-41. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is assumed to be
within existing ROW and easements.

• Electric – Nearest substation/switchyard is FPL Substation located 2.1 miles away at 8905 Krome
Avenue. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and available terminations.
Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements. New legal easements
may need to be established to complete this routing.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the predominant site soils as Udorthents-Water-
Urban land complex, 0 to 60 percent slopes and Biscayne marly silt loam, ponded-Urban land complex,
0 to 1 percent slopes. Udorthents soils consist of unconsolidated or heterogeneous geologic material
removed during the excavation of ditches, canals, lakes, ponds, and quarries. This suggests that the
site was previously excavated as a borrow pit and backfilled to its present land area. If this is
confirmed, the site soils may present significant geotechnical engineering challenges for foundation
designs. Removal and replacement of these soils with structural fill and/or additional compactive effort
on existing soils in development areas may be required.
The presence of Biscayne marl soils indicates the seasonal high groundwater elevation is typically
within 10 inches of the ground surface, but would have to be confirmed by geotechnical investigations.
These soils are severely limited for building foundations because of water content and shallow depth to
bedrock, and areas under building foundations would need to be removed and replaced with structural
fill. The high groundwater will result in the need for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will also
increase project costs due to the need for additional structural fill.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone AH (El. 8 ft). The
remainder of the site is in FEMA Flood Zone X (Minimal Flood Hazard).

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,

www.arcadis.com
3/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 14

Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 0.75 miles (1.2 km) E of the Everglades Class I Area, 12.74 miles (20.5 km) W of the
Biscayne Class II Area, and about 6.0 miles SW of the CEMEX Miami Cement Plant, a large source
of emissions.
As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s). Based on projected emissions for a 4000 tpd facility, preliminary evaluation
indicates that this parcel is too close to sensitive receptors in the nearby Class I area thus
making it extremely difficult to demonstrate acceptable impacts for PSD permit issuance.

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory and National Hydrography Dataset
indicate a surface water is present and no wetlands are present. The South Florida Water
Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site is comprised of a
holding pond, spoil area, and improved pasture. The site appears to be disturbed. The site is not
within a Florida panther focus area for consultation or critical habitat for endangered or threatened
species under the Endangered Species Act. The site is within the urban development boundary in
Miami-Dade County for the Florida bonneted bat and individual consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is required but is assumed to be minimal as there is minimal to no roosting or
foraging habitat remaining. The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and
minor wood stork mitigation may be required.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B. MDC Policy CON-9B states that all
nesting, roosting and feeding habitats used by federal or State designated endangered or
threatened species, shall be protected and buffered from surrounding development or activities and
further degradation or destruction of such habitat shall not be authorized.

• Within the West Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G. MDC Policy LU-
8G states that when considering land areas to add to the UDB, after demonstrating that a need
exists, the following areas shall not be considered:

www.arcadis.com
4/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 14

- The Northwest Wellfield Protection Area and the West Wellfield Protection Area west of SW
157 Avenue between SW 8 Street and SW 42 Street

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J. The site is within the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) area and development at this location will have wetland
impacts. MDC Policy CON-7J states the County is to review development applications that include
wetland impacts for consistency with CERP objectives. Applications inconsistent with CERP
objectives, projects or features shall be denied.

Transportation
Travel time north to US 41 (SW 8th Street) and south to SW 88th Street is less than 10 minutes.
Existing access to site is via Krome Ave. (see map below), and no additional offsite access roadway is
required. The volume of traffic that is expected at the proposed WTE facility (400-500 trucks per day),
will greatly increase the loads on local roads. Traffic impacts on Krome Ave., US 41 (SW 8th Street),
SW 88th Street, and to local area may be significant due to only two points of access on Krome Ave.
Truck queuing will have to be accomplished on site to prevent further congestion on Krome Ave.

www.arcadis.com
5/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 14

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated elevated values for Particulate Matter 2.5 (µg/m3),
2017 Air Toxics Cancer Risk, and 2017 Air Toxics Respiratory HI for this site. Although the site is more
than a mile from the nearest residential zoning, it is less than a mile from the boundary of the
Everglades National Park, which suggests that the siting of a WTE facility may be strongly opposed by
the community at this location.

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Construction of a water booster station may be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and 6” force main may be required.

• Construction of approximately 7.0 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Construction of approximately 2.1 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of natural gas and electric utility infrastructure.

• The site is within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and will potentially disturb greater than one-half acre of
suitable foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially require wood stork mitigation.

• Based on projected emissions for a 4000 tpd facility, preliminary evaluation indicates that this parcel is too
close to sensitive receptors in the nearby Class I area thus making it extremely difficult to demonstrate
acceptable impacts for PSD permit issuance.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B.

• Within the West Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G.

www.arcadis.com
6/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 14

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J.

www.arcadis.com
7/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 15

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

Folio No: 30-7832-000-0030

This 164.83-acre property is a single parcel outside the UDB, located in
unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The site area is sufficient to Owner: Krupalu, Inc.
support the proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Waste-to-Energy (WTE)
facility and expansion to 5,000 TPD capacity or the addition of other 2021 MDPA Market Value: $2,097,000
facilities such as an ash monofil, recycling center or an education
Zoning District: GU
center. The property is less than a 10-minute travel time north to W
Palm Drive, is 0.58 miles from the nearest residential zoning, and 1.02 PA Zone: Interim - Awaiting Specific
miles from the boundary of Everglades National Park. This parcel is Zoning
under contract with several adjacent parcels in a pending
development.

www.arcadis.com
1/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 15

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 31.0 miles SW of the existing RRF, slightly more than half a mile
from the nearest residential zoning, and approximately one mile from the boundary of Everglades
National Park. If this site were selected, the effects on the County’s Solid Waste System would be
considerable. Direct hauls from the collection routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF would divert to
the three transfer stations for disposal. Incoming waste at those stations would increase and may
result in capacity issues, especially at the West Transfer Station, which is currently operating at
approximately 80% of design capacity. A new transfer station would need to be constructed at or near
the site of the existing RRF to maintain the current collection patterns and transfer station loadings.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility.
Their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would significantly increase due to longer travel
distances and expected traffic congestion. Transfer fleet round trip times would increase and would
likely result in the need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes. Transfer fleet
fuel consumption and maintenance costs would significantly increase due to the additional deliveries
and travel times and distances, while similar Collection fleet costs would also increase due to longer
travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be significantly higher than
at the existing RRF even if the existing RRF site could be converted to an ash monofill, or ash
generated at this location was landfilled at the Medley Landfill. If disposed at a non-County facility,
expected costs for ash disposal would increase even further.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. Potable water mains appear to be available
approximately 5.0 miles east of the site on SW 360th Street., but further analysis is needed to
verify pipe size, service pressure, and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to
provide adequate service pressure at the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives.
Reuse of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE
facilities, but for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary
sewer. The closest sanitary sewer collection system appears to be approximately 5.0 miles east of
the site on SW 360th Street., but further analysis is needed to verify capacity and system impacts.
An on-site lift station and about 5.0 miles of 6” force main will likely be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest gas transmission main is approximately

www.arcadis.com
2/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 15

5.0 miles NE of the site on Krome Ave/US-1. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is
assumed to be within existing ROW and easements.

• Electric – Nearest substation/ switchyard is Florida City Substation located 5 miles away at 33800
SW 202nd Avenue. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and available
terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements. New
legal easements may need to be established to complete this routing.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

• Due to expected shallow depth to bedrock, rock excavation may be required to install utility
pipelines, which will significantly increase utility construction costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the predominant site soils as Krome very gravelly
marly loam, 1 to 2 percent slopes, Biscayne marly silt loam, drained, 0 to 1 percent slopes, and
Chekika very gravelly marly loam, 1 to 2 percent slopes. Generally, these soils are not well suited for
building foundations because of water content and shallow depth to bedrock (typically 5-7 inches).
The presence of Biscayne marl soils indicates the seasonal high groundwater elevation is typically
within 10 inches of the ground surface, but would have to be confirmed by geotechnical investigations.
These soils are severely limited for building foundations because of water content and shallow depth
to bedrock, and areas under building foundations would need to be removed and replaced with
structural fill. The high groundwater may result in the need for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will
also increase project costs due to the need for additional structural fill.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone A. High groundwater
elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will significantly increase both the cost
and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.
www.arcadis.com
3/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 15

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 1.02 miles (1.64 km) E of the Everglades Class I Area, 12.75 miles (20.51 km) W of
the Biscayne Class II Area, and about 12.7 miles WSW of the FPL Turkey Point Power Plant, a
large Title V emitter.
As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s). Based on projected emissions for a 4000 tpd facility, preliminary evaluation
indicates that this parcel is too close to sensitive receptors in the nearby Class I area thus
making it extremely difficult to demonstrate acceptable impacts for PSD permit issuance.

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site
contains wetlands and stream with riparian habitat. The site appears predominantly undisturbed.
The site is not within a Florida panther focus area for consultation or critical habitat for endangered
or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The site is within the urban development
boundary in Miami-Dade County for the Florida bonneted bat and individual consultation with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required. The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork
colony and will potentially disturb greater than one-half acre of suitable foraging habitat; therefore,
would potentially require wood stork mitigation.
Permanent impacts to wetlands and streams would potentially require an Individual Environmental
Resource Permit, State 404 Permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and
wetland mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B. MDC Policy CON-9B states that all
nesting, roosting and feeding habitats used by federal or State designated endangered or
threatened species, shall be protected and buffered from surrounding development or activities and
further degradation or destruction of such habitat shall not be authorized.

www.arcadis.com
4/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 15

Transportation
Travel time north to W Palm Drive is less than 10
minutes. Existing access to site is via SW 367th Street
and Loveland Road (see map below), but as shown in
the picture of Loveland Road at right, construction of
approximately 2.75 miles of two-lane roadway with
paved shoulders will be required for proper site access.
Additional ROW may have to be acquired for access
roads.
The volume of traffic that is expected at the proposed
WTE facility (400-500 trucks per day), will greatly
increase the loads on local roads so the traffic impacts
to local area will likely be significant. Additional traffic
impacts on Loveland Road, W Palm Drive, and other
local roads may be significant due to only two points of access and limited road capacity. Truck
queuing will have to be accomplished on site to prevent further congestion.

www.arcadis.com
5/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 15

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no existing issues for this site. However, the site is
about half a mile from the nearest residential zoning and is approximately a mile from the boundary of
Everglades National Park, which suggests that the siting of a WTE facility may be strongly opposed by
the community at this location.

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Site Differentiators Overview

• This parcel is under contract with several adjacent parcels in a pending development.

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Approximately 2.75 miles of two-lane road with paved shoulder and stormwater controls will need to be constructed
for proper site access. Additional easement/ROW may have to be acquired.

• Construction of approximately 5.0 miles of 12” water main and possibly a booster station will be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and about 5.0 miles of 6” force main will likely be required.

• Construction of approximately 5.0 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Construction of approximately 5.0 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, and
electric utility infrastructure.

• Due to expected shallow depth to bedrock, rock excavation may be required to install utility pipelines, which will
significantly increase utility construction costs.

www.arcadis.com
6/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 15

• The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and will potentially disturb greater than one-half acre
of suitable foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially require wood stork mitigation.

• Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Permit, a State 404 Permit from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland mitigation.

• Based on projected emissions for a 4000 tpd facility, preliminary evaluation indicates that this parcel is too
close to sensitive receptors in the nearby Class I area thus making it extremely difficult to demonstrate
acceptable impacts for PSD permit issuance.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B.

www.arcadis.com
7/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 18

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

This 81.44-acre site is a single parcel outside the UDB, located in Folio No: 16-7932-001-0025
unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The combined site area is
sufficient to support the proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Waste-to- Owner: CEMEX Construction Materials
Energy (WTE) facility and expansion to 5,000 TPD capacity or the Florida, LLC
addition of other facilities such as an ash monofil, recycling center or an
education center. The property is less than a 10-minute travel time to 2021 MDPA Market Value: $1,581,860
Card Sound Road, is 0.77 miles from the nearest residential zoning,
and 7.13 miles from the boundary of Everglades National Park. Zoning District: GU

PA Zone: Interim - Awaiting Specific

Zoning

www.arcadis.com
1/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 18

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 33.0 miles SW of the existing RRF, 0.77 miles from the nearest
residential zoning, and more than seven miles from the boundary of Everglades National Park. If this
site were selected, the effects on the County’s Solid Waste System would be considerable. Direct
hauls from the collection routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF would divert to the three transfer
stations for disposal. Incoming waste at those stations would increase and may result in capacity
issues, especially at the West Transfer Station, which is currently operating at approximately 80% of
design capacity. A new transfer station would need to be constructed at or near the site of the existing
RRF to maintain the current collection patterns and transfer station loadings.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility.
Their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would significantly increase due to longer travel
distances and expected traffic congestion. Transfer fleet round trip times would increase and would
likely result in the need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes. Transfer fleet
fuel consumption and maintenance costs would significantly increase due to the additional deliveries
and travel times and distances, while similar Collection fleet costs would also increase due to longer
travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be significantly higher than
at the existing RRF even if the existing RRF site could be converted to an ash monofill, or ash
generated at this location was landfilled at the Medley Landfill. If disposed at a non-County facility,
expected costs for ash disposal would increase even further. .

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. A 12” potable water main is available approximately
0.25 miles N of the site on SW 167th Ave., but further analysis is needed to verify pipe size, service
pressure, and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to provide adequate service
pressure at the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives.
Reuse of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE
facilities, but for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary
sewer. The closest sanitary sewer collection system appears to be available approximately 0.75
miles N of the site on SW 167th Ave., but further analysis is needed to verify capacity and system
impacts. An on-site lift station and about 0.75 miles of 6” force main will likely be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest transmission main is approximately 2.0

www.arcadis.com
2/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 18

miles NW of the site on Krome Ave/US-1. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is
assumed to be within existing ROW and easements.

• Electric – Nearest substation/ switchyard is FPL Farmlife Substation located 0.93 miles away at
35600 SW 162nd Street. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and
available terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater may not be used as source water for boiler feedwater, cooling
tower/condenser feedwater, truck wheel wash, and irrigation water.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the predominant site soils as Biscayne marly silt
loam, drained, 0 to 1 percent slopes. The presence of Biscayne marl soils indicates the seasonal high
groundwater elevation is typically within 10 inches of the ground surface but would have to be
confirmed by geotechnical investigations.
These soils are severely limited for building foundations because of water content and shallow depth
to bedrock, and areas under building foundations would need to be removed and replaced with
structural fill. The high groundwater may result in the need for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will
also increase project costs due to the need for additional structural fill.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone AE (El. 8 ft). High
groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will significantly increase
both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 7.13 mi (11.5 km) E of the Everglades Class I Area, 6.68 mi (10.8 km) W of the
Biscayne Class II Area, and about 6.5 miles WSW of the FPL Turkey Point Power Plant, a large
Title V emitter.
As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
www.arcadis.com
3/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 18

The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s).

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site
contains minor wetlands. The site appears predominantly undisturbed. The site is within a Florida
panther focus area for consultation or critical habitat for endangered or threatened species under
the Endangered Species Act. The site is within the urban development boundary in Miami-Dade
County for the Florida bonneted bat and individual consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service is required.
Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Resource
Permit, State 404 Permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland
mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B. MDC Policy CON-9B states that all
nesting, roosting and feeding habitats used by federal or State designated endangered or
threatened species, shall be protected and buffered from surrounding development or activities and
further degradation or destruction of such habitat shall not be authorized.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J. The site is within the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) area and development at this location will have wetland
impacts. MDC Policy CON-7J states the County is to review development applications that include
wetland impacts for consistency with CERP objectives. Applications inconsistent with CERP
objectives, projects or features shall be denied.

www.arcadis.com
4/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 18

Transportation
Travel time north to Card Sound Road and US-1 is less than 10
minutes. Existing access to site is via SW 360th Street and SW
167th Ave. (see map below), but approximately 1.2 miles of two-
lane road with paved shoulders will need to be constructed for
proper site access (see existing SW 360th Street picture at right).
Additional ROW may have to be acquired.
The volume of traffic that is expected at the proposed WTE facility
(400-500 trucks per day), will greatly increase the loads on local
roads so the traffic impacts on Card Sound Road, SW 360th Street
and SW 167th Ave., and other local roads will likely be significant.
Truck queuing will have to be accomplished on site to prevent
further congestion.

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no existing issues for this site. However, the site is
less than a mile from the nearest residential zoning and the presence of wetlands, wildlife habitat and
other environmental issues suggests that the siting of a WTE facility may be met with opposition by the
community at this location.

www.arcadis.com
5/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 18

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Approximately 1.2 miles of two-lane road with paved shoulder and stormwater controls will need to be constructed for
proper site access. Additional ROW may have to be acquired.

• Construction of approximately 0.25 miles of 12” water main and possibly a booster station will be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and about 0.75 miles of 6” force main will likely be required.

• Construction of approximately 2.0 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Construction of approximately 0.93 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL
easements. Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Due to shallow depth to bedrock, rock excavation may be required to install utility pipelines, which could significantly
increase utility construction costs.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, and
electric utility infrastructure.

• Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Permit, a State 404 Permit from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J.

www.arcadis.com
6/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 19

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

Folio No: 16-7932-001-0030

This 161.81-acre site is located outside the UDB, in unincorporated
Miami-Dade County. The combined site area is sufficient to support the Owner: CEMEX Construction Materials
proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Waste-to-Energy (WTE) facility and Florida, LLC
expansion to 5,000 TPD capacity or the addition of other facilities such
as an ash monofil, recycling center or an education center. The 2021 MDPA Market Value: $3,127,500
property is less than a 10-minute travel time to Card Sound Road, 1.02
miles from residential zoning and 7.11 miles from the boundary of Zoning District: GU
Everglades National Park.
PA Zone: Interim - Awaiting Specific
Zoning

www.arcadis.com
1/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 19

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 29.0 miles southwest of the existing RRF, 1.02 miles from residential
zoning and 7.11 miles from the boundary of Everglades National Park. If this site were selected, the
effects on the County’s Solid Waste System would be considerable. Direct hauls from the collection
routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF would divert to the three transfer stations for disposal.
Incoming waste at those stations would increase and may result in capacity issues, especially at the
West Transfer Station, which is currently operating at approximately 80% of design capacity. A new
transfer station would need to be constructed at or near the site of the existing RRF to maintain the
current collection patterns and transfer station loadings.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility.
Their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would significantly increase due to longer travel
distances and expected traffic congestion. Transfer fleet round trip times would increase and would
likely result in the need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes. Transfer fleet
fuel consumption and maintenance costs would significantly increase due to the additional deliveries
and travel times and distances, while similar Collection fleet costs would also increase due to longer
travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be significantly higher than
at the existing RRF even if the existing RRF site could be converted to an ash monofill, or ash
generated at this location was landfilled at the Medley Landfill. If disposed at a non-County facility,
expected costs for ash disposal would increase even further.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. A 12” potable water main is available approximately
0.5 miles N of the site on SW 167th Ave., but further analysis is needed to verify pipe size, service
pressure, and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to provide adequate service
pressure at the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives.
Reuse of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE
facilities, but for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary
sewer. The closest sanitary sewer collection system appears to be available approximately 1.1
miles N of the site on SW 167th Ave., but further analysis is needed to verify capacity and system
impacts. An on-site lift station and about 1.1 miles of 6” force main will likely be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest transmission main is approximately 2.3

www.arcadis.com
2/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 19

miles NW of the site on Krome Ave/US-1. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is
assumed to be within existing ROW and easements.

• Electric – Nearest substation/ switchyard is FPL Farmlife Substation located 1.4 miles away at
35600 SW 162nd Street. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and
available terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the predominant site soils as Biscayne marly silt
loam, drained, 0 to 1 percent slopes. The presence of Biscayne marl soils indicates the seasonal high
groundwater elevation is typically within 10 inches of the ground surface but would have to be
confirmed by geotechnical investigations.
These soils are severely limited for building foundations because of water content and shallow depth
to bedrock, and areas under building foundations would need to be removed and replaced with
structural fill. The high groundwater may result in the need for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will
also increase project costs due to the need for additional structural fill.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone A. High groundwater
elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will significantly increase both the cost
and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 7.11 mi (11.5 km) E of the Everglades Class I Area, 6.68 mi (10.8 km) W of the
Biscayne Class II Area, and about 6.8 miles WSW of the FPL Turkey Point Power Plant, a large
Title V emitter.

www.arcadis.com
3/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 19

As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s).

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site
contains minor wetlands. The site appears predominantly undisturbed. The site is within a Florida
panther focus area for consultation or critical habitat for endangered or threatened species under
the Endangered Species Act. The site is within the urban development boundary in Miami-Dade
County for the Florida bonneted bat and individual consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service is required.
Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Resource
Permit, State 404 Permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland
mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B. MDC Policy CON-9B states that all
nesting, roosting and feeding habitats used by federal or State designated endangered or
threatened species, shall be protected and buffered from surrounding development or activities and
further degradation or destruction of such habitat shall not be authorized.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J. The site is within the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) area and development at this location will have wetland
impacts. MDC Policy CON-7J states the County is to review development applications that include
wetland impacts for consistency with CERP objectives. Applications inconsistent with CERP
objectives, projects or features shall be denied.

www.arcadis.com
4/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 19

Transportation
Travel time north to Card Sound Road and US-1 is less than 10
minutes. Existing access to site is via SW 360th Street and SW
167th Ave. (see map below), but approximately 1.4 miles of two-
lane road with paved shoulders will need to be constructed for
proper site access (see existing SW 360th Street picture at right).
Additional ROW may have to be acquired.
The volume of traffic that is expected at the proposed WTE facility
(400-500 trucks per day), will greatly increase the loads on local
roads so the traffic impacts on Card Sound Road, SW 360th Street
and SW 167th Ave., and other local roads will likely be significant.
Truck queuing will have to be accomplished on site to prevent
further congestion.

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no existing issues for this site. However, the site is
less than a mile from the nearest residential zoning and the presence of wetlands, wildlife habitat and
other environmental issues suggests that the siting of a WTE facility may be met with opposition by the
community at this location.

www.arcadis.com
5/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 19

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Approximately 1.2 miles of two-lane road with paved shoulder and stormwater controls will need to be constructed for
proper site access. Additional ROW may have to be acquired.

• Construction of approximately 0.5 miles of 12” water main and possibly a booster station will be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and about 1.1 miles of 6” force main will likely be required.

• Construction of approximately 2.3 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Construction of approximately 1.4 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Due to shallow depth to bedrock, rock excavation may be required to install utility pipelines, which could significantly
increase utility construction costs.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, and
electric utility infrastructure.

• Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Permit, a State 404 Permit from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J.

www.arcadis.com
6/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 20

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

This 156.56-acre site is located outside the UDB, in unincorporated Folio No: 16-7933-001-0020
Miami-Dade County. The combined site area is sufficient to support the
proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Waste-to-Energy (WTE) facility and Owner: SDI Aggregates, LLC
expansion to 5,000 TPD capacity or the addition of other facilities such
as an ash monofil, recycling center or an education center. The 2021 MDPA Market Value: $3,375,575
property is less than a 10-minute travel time to Card Sound Road, 0.61
miles from residential zoning and 8.16 miles from the boundary of Zoning District: GU
Everglades National Park.
PA Zone: Interim - Awaiting Specific
Zoning

www.arcadis.com
1/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 20

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 28.2 miles southwest of the existing RRF, 0.61 miles from residential
zoning and 8.16 miles from the boundary of Everglades National Park. If this site were selected, the
effects on the County’s Solid Waste System would be considerable. Direct hauls from the collection
routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF would divert to the three transfer stations for disposal.
Incoming waste at those stations would increase and may result in capacity issues, especially at the
West Transfer Station, which is currently operating at approximately 80% of design capacity. A new
transfer station would need to be constructed at or near the site of the existing RRF to maintain the
current collection patterns and transfer station loadings.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility.
Their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would significantly increase due to longer travel
distances and expected traffic congestion. Transfer fleet round trip times would increase and would
likely result in the need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes. Transfer fleet
fuel consumption and maintenance costs would significantly increase due to the additional deliveries
and travel times and distances, while similar Collection fleet costs would also increase due to longer
travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be significantly higher than
at the existing RRF even if the existing RRF site could be converted to an ash monofill, or ash
generated at this location was landfilled at the Medley Landfill. If disposed at a non-County facility,
expected costs for ash disposal would increase even further.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. A 12” potable water main is available approximately
1.25 miles NW of the site on SW 167th Ave., but further analysis is needed to verify service
pressure and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to provide adequate service
pressure at the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives.
Reuse of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE
facilities, but for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary
sewer. The closest sanitary sewer collection system appears to be available approximately 1.5
miles NW of the site on SW 167th Ave., but further analysis is needed to verify capacity and
system impacts. An on-site lift station and about 1.5 miles of 6” force main may be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest transmission main is approximately 3.2

www.arcadis.com
2/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 20

miles NW of the site on Krome Ave/US-1. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is
assumed to be within existing ROW and easements.

• Electric – Nearest substation/ switchyard is FPL Farmlife Substation located 1.6 miles away at
35600 SW 162nd Street. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and
available terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the predominant site soils as Biscayne marly silt
loam, drained, 0 to 1 percent slopes. The presence of Biscayne marl soils indicates the seasonal high
groundwater elevation is typically within 10 inches of the ground surface but would have to be
confirmed by geotechnical investigations.
These soils are severely limited for building foundations because of water content and shallow depth
to bedrock, and areas under building foundations would need to be removed and replaced with
structural fill. The high groundwater may result in the need for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will
also increase project costs due to the need for additional structural fill.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone A. High groundwater
elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will significantly increase both the cost
and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 8.16 miles (13.1 km) E of the Everglades Class I Area, 5.63 mi (9.1 km) W of the
Biscayne Class II Area, and about 5.5 miles WSW of the FPL Turkey Point Power Plant, a large
Title V emitter.

www.arcadis.com
3/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 20

As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s).

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site
contains no wetlands. The site appears predominantly undisturbed. The site is within a Florida
panther focus area for consultation or critical habitat for endangered or threatened species under
the Endangered Species Act. The site is within the urban development boundary in Miami-Dade
County for the Florida bonneted bat and individual consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service is required.
Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Resource
Permit, State 404 Permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland
mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B. MDC Policy CON-9B states that all
nesting, roosting and feeding habitats used by federal or State designated endangered or
threatened species, shall be protected and buffered from surrounding development or activities and
further degradation or destruction of such habitat shall not be authorized.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J. The site is within the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) area and development at this location will have wetland
impacts. MDC Policy CON-7J states the County is to review development applications that include
wetland impacts for consistency with CERP objectives. Applications inconsistent with CERP
objectives, projects or features shall be denied.

www.arcadis.com
4/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 20

Transportation
Travel time north to Card Sound Road and US-1 is less than 10
minutes. Existing access to site is via SW 360th Street, SW 167th
Ave., and SW 356th St. (see map below), but approximately 2.4
miles of two-lane road with paved shoulders will need to be
constructed for proper site access (see existing SW 360th Street
picture at right). Additional ROW may have to be acquired.
The volume of traffic that is expected at the proposed WTE facility
(400-500 trucks per day), will greatly increase the loads on local
roads so the traffic impacts on Card Sound Road, SW 360th Street
and SW 167th Ave., and other local roads will likely be significant.
Truck queuing will have to be accomplished on site to prevent
further congestion.

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no existing issues for this site. However, the site is
less than a mile from the nearest residential zoning and the presence of wetlands, wildlife habitat and
other environmental issues suggests that the siting of a WTE facility may be met with opposition by the
community at this location.

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

www.arcadis.com
5/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 20

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Approximately 2.4 miles of two-lane road with paved shoulder and stormwater controls will need to be constructed for
proper site access. Additional ROW may have to be acquired.

• Construction of approximately 1.25 miles of 12” water main and possibly a booster station will be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and about 1.5 miles of 6” force main may be required.

• Construction of approximately 3.2 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Construction of approximately 1.6 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Due to shallow depth to bedrock, rock excavation may be required to install utility pipelines, which could significantly
increase utility construction costs.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, and
electric utility infrastructure.

• Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Permit, a State 404 Permit from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J.

www.arcadis.com
6/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 21

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

Folio No: 16-7933-001-0031

This 57.85-acre site is located outside the UDB, in unincorporated
Miami-Dade County. The combined site area is sufficient to support the Owner: SDI Aggregates, LLC
proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Waste-to-Energy (WTE) facility and
expansion to 5,000 TPD capacity or the addition of other facilities such 2021 MDPA Market Value: $1,421,500
as a recycling center or an education center. The property is less than a
10-minute travel time to Card Sound Road, 1.09 miles from residential Zoning District: GU
zoning and 8.14 miles from the boundary of Everglades National Park.
PA Zone: Interim - Awaiting Specific
Zoning

www.arcadis.com
1/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 21

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 28.6 miles southwest of the existing RRF, 1.09 miles from residential
zoning and 8.14 miles from the boundary of Everglades National Park. If this site were selected, the
effects on the County’s Solid Waste System would be considerable. Direct hauls from the collection
routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF would divert to the three transfer stations for disposal.
Incoming waste at those stations would increase and may result in capacity issues, especially at the
West Transfer Station, which is currently operating at approximately 80% of design capacity. A new
transfer station would need to be constructed at or near the site of the existing RRF to maintain the
current collection patterns and transfer station loadings.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility.
Their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would significantly increase due to longer travel
distances and expected traffic congestion. Transfer fleet round trip times would increase and would
likely result in the need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes. Transfer fleet
fuel consumption and maintenance costs would significantly increase due to the additional deliveries
and travel times and distances, while similar Collection fleet costs would also increase due to longer
travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be significantly higher than
at the existing RRF even if the existing RRF site could be converted to an ash monofill, or ash
generated at this location was landfilled at the Medley Landfill. If disposed at a non-County facility,
expected costs for ash disposal would increase even further.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. A 12” potable water main is available approximately
2.0 miles NW of the site on SW 167th Ave., but further analysis is needed to verify service pressure
and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to provide adequate service pressure at
the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives.
Reuse of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE
facilities, but for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary
sewer. The closest sanitary sewer collection system appears to be available approximately 2.7
miles NW of the site on SW 167th Ave., but further analysis is needed to verify capacity and
system impacts. An on-site lift station and about 2.7 miles of 6” force main may be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest transmission main is approximately 5.1

www.arcadis.com
2/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 21

miles NW of the site on Krome Ave/US-1. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is
assumed to be within existing ROW and easements.

• Electric – Nearest substation/ switchyard is FPL Farmlife Substation located 2.3 miles away at
35600 SW 162nd Street. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and
available terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the predominant site soils as Biscayne marly silt
loam, drained, 0 to 1 percent slopes. The presence of Biscayne marl soils indicates the seasonal high
groundwater elevation is typically within 10 inches of the ground surface but would have to be
confirmed by geotechnical investigations.
These soils are severely limited for building foundations because of water content and shallow depth
to bedrock, and areas under building foundations would need to be removed and replaced with
structural fill. The high groundwater may result in the need for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will
also increase project costs due to the need for additional structural fill.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone A. High groundwater
elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will significantly increase both the cost
and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 8.14 miles (13.1 km) E of the Everglades Class I Area, 5.98 mi (9.6 km) W of the
Biscayne Class II Area, and about 5.8 miles WSW of the FPL Turkey Point Power Plant, a large
Title V emitter.

www.arcadis.com
3/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 21

As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s).

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site
contains minor wetlands. The site appears predominantly undisturbed. The site is within a Florida
panther focus area for consultation or critical habitat for endangered or threatened species under
the Endangered Species Act. The site is within the urban development boundary in Miami-Dade
County for the Florida bonneted bat and individual consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service is required.
Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Resource
Permit, State 404 Permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland
mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B. MDC Policy CON-9B states that all
nesting, roosting and feeding habitats used by federal or State designated endangered or
threatened species, shall be protected and buffered from surrounding development or activities and
further degradation or destruction of such habitat shall not be authorized.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J. The site is within the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) area and development at this location will have wetland
impacts. MDC Policy CON-7J states the County is to review development applications that include
wetland impacts for consistency with CERP objectives. Applications inconsistent with CERP
objectives, projects or features shall be denied.

www.arcadis.com
4/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 21

Transportation
Travel time north to Card Sound Road and US-1 is less than 10 minutes. Existing access to site is via
SW 167th Ave. and SW 376th Street (see map below), but approximately 1.4 miles of two-lane road
with paved shoulders will need to be constructed for proper site access. Additional ROW may have to
be acquired.
The volume of traffic that is expected at the proposed WTE facility (400-500 trucks per day), will
greatly increase the loads on local roads so the traffic impacts on Card Sound Road, SW 376th Street
and SW 167th Ave. will likely be significant. Truck queuing will have to be accomplished on site to
prevent further congestion.

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no existing issues for this site. However, the site is
less than a mile from the nearest residential zoning and the presence of wetlands, wildlife habitat and
other environmental issues suggests that the siting of a WTE facility may be met with opposition by the
community at this location.

www.arcadis.com
5/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 21

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Approximately 1.4 miles of two-lane road with paved shoulder and stormwater controls will need to be constructed for
proper site access. Additional ROW may have to be acquired.

• Construction of approximately 2.0 miles of 12” water main and possibly a booster station will be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and about 2.7 miles of 6” force main may be required.

• Construction of approximately 5.1 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Construction of approximately 2.3 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Due to shallow depth to bedrock, rock excavation may be required to install utility pipelines, which could significantly
increase utility construction costs.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, and
electric utility infrastructure.

• Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Permit, a State 404 Permit from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J.

www.arcadis.com
6/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 22

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

This 98.43-acre site is located outside the UDB, in unincorporated Folio No: 16-7933-001-0031
Miami-Dade County. The combined site area is sufficient to support the
proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Waste-to-Energy (WTE) facility and Owner: SDI Aggregates, LLC
expansion to 5,000 TPD capacity or the addition of other facilities such
as a recycling center or an education center. The property is less than a 2021 MDPA Market Value: $335,825
10-minute travel time to Card Sound Road, 1.17 miles from residential
zoning and 8.26 miles from the boundary of Everglades National Park. Zoning District: GU

PA Zone: Interim - Awaiting Specific

Zoning

www.arcadis.com
1/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 22

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 29.0 miles southwest of the existing RRF, 1.17 miles from residential
zoning and 8.26 miles from the boundary of Everglades National Park. If this site were selected, the
effects on the County’s Solid Waste System would be considerable. Direct hauls from the collection
routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF would divert to the three transfer stations for disposal.
Incoming waste at those stations would increase and may result in capacity issues, especially at the
West Transfer Station, which is currently operating at approximately 80% of design capacity. A new
transfer station would need to be constructed at or near the site of the existing RRF to maintain the
current collection patterns and transfer station loadings.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility.
Their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would significantly increase due to longer travel
distances and expected traffic congestion. Transfer fleet round trip times would increase and would
likely result in the need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes. Transfer fleet
fuel consumption and maintenance costs would significantly increase due to the additional deliveries
and travel times and distances, while similar Collection fleet costs would also increase due to longer
travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be significantly higher than
at the existing RRF even if the existing RRF site could be converted to an ash monofill, or ash
generated at this location was landfilled at the Medley Landfill. If disposed at a non-County facility,
expected costs for ash disposal would increase even further.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. A 12” potable water main is available approximately
2.2 miles NW of the site on SW 167th Ave., but further analysis is needed to verify service pressure
and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to provide adequate service pressure at
the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives.
Reuse of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE
facilities, but for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary
sewer. The closest sanitary sewer collection system appears to be available approximately 2.7
miles NW of the site on SW 167th Ave., but further analysis is needed to verify capacity and
system impacts. An on-site lift station and about 2.7 miles of 6” force main may be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest transmission main is approximately 5.7

www.arcadis.com
2/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 22

miles NW of the site. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is assumed to be within existing
ROW and easements.

• Electric – Nearest substation/ switchyard is FPL Farmlife Substation located 2.3 miles away at
35600 SW 162nd Street. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and
available terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the predominant site soils as Biscayne marly silt
loam, drained, 0 to 1 percent slopes. The presence of Biscayne marl soils indicates the seasonal high
groundwater elevation is typically within 10 inches of the ground surface but would have to be
confirmed by geotechnical investigations.
These soils are severely limited for building foundations because of water content and shallow depth
to bedrock, and areas under building foundations would need to be removed and replaced with
structural fill. The high groundwater may result in the need for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will
also increase project costs due to the need for additional structural fill.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone A. High groundwater
elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will significantly increase both the cost
and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 8.26 miles (13.3 km) E of the Everglades Class I Area, 5.74 mi (9.2 km) W of the
Biscayne Class II Area, and about 5.7 miles WSW of the FPL Turkey Point Power Plant, a large
Title V emitter.

www.arcadis.com
3/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 22

As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s).

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory and National Hydrography Dataset
indicates wetlands are present. The South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and
Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site is comprised wet prairie wetlands. The site appears to be
partially disturbed. The site is within the Florida panther primary focus area for consultation and will
potentially require panther mitigation. The site is within the proposed critical habitat and within the
urban development boundary in Miami-Dade County for the Florida bonneted bat and individual
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required. The site is not within the 18.6 miles
buffer of an active wood stork colony and does not appear to require wood stork mitigation.
Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Resource
Permit, State 404 Permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland
mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with Policy CON-9A. MDC Policy CON-9A states that all activities that
adversely affect habitat that is critical to Federal, or State designated, endangered or threatened
species shall be prohibited unless such activity(ies) are a public necessity and there are no possible
alternative sites where the activity(ies) can occur.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J. The site is within the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) area and development at this location will have wetland
impacts. MDC Policy CON-7J states the County is to review development applications that include
wetland impacts for consistency with CERP objectives. Applications inconsistent with CERP
objectives, projects or features shall be denied.

www.arcadis.com
4/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 22

Transportation
Travel time north to Card Sound Road and US-1 is less than 10 minutes. Existing access to site is via
SW 167th Ave. and SW 376th Street (see map below), but approximately 1.4 miles of two-lane road
with paved shoulders will need to be constructed for proper site access. Additional ROW may have to
be acquired.
The volume of traffic that is expected at the proposed WTE facility (400-500 trucks per day), will
greatly increase the loads on local roads so the traffic impacts on Card Sound Road, SW 376th Street
and SW 167th Ave. will likely be significant. Truck queuing will have to be accomplished on site to
prevent further congestion.

www.arcadis.com
5/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 22

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no existing issues for this site. However, the site is
less than a mile from the nearest residential zoning and the presence of wetlands, wildlife habitat and
other environmental issues suggests that the siting of a WTE facility may be met with opposition by the
community at this location.

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Approximately 1.4 miles of two-lane road with paved shoulder and stormwater controls will need to be constructed for
proper site access. Additional ROW may have to be acquired.

• Construction of approximately 2.2 miles of 12” water main and possibly a booster station will be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and about 2.7 miles of 6” force main may be required.

• Construction of approximately 5.2 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Construction of approximately 2.3 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Due to shallow depth to bedrock, rock excavation may be required to install utility pipelines, which could significantly
increase utility construction costs.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, and
electric utility infrastructure.

• Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Permit, a State 404 Permit from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland mitigation.

www.arcadis.com
6/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 22

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9A.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J.

www.arcadis.com
7/7
Appendix B
Preliminary Implementation Schedule

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx B
 Miami‐Dade Department of Solid Waste Management
Future WTE Facility Siting Evaluation
Appendix B ‐ Preliminary Implementation Schedule

Task Activity Duration of Activity Total Task Duration (Start Date to 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Finish Date) Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q3Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
Summary 7 years 9 months ‐ 11 years 3 months 7 years 9 months ‐ 11 years 3 months
*demo not included in duration *demo not included in duration

1 Siting / Planning 1.5 ‐ 2.5 years 1.5 ‐ 2.5 years

2 Financing 1.5 years 3 years 9 months ‐ 6 years 3 months

3 Regulatory / Permitting 3.5 ‐ 4.5 years 3.5 ‐ 4.5 years

4 Procurement 2 ‐ 3 years 3 years ‐ 4 years 9 months

5 Notice to Proceed / Design and Construction 4 ‐ 5 years 4 ‐ 5 years

6 System Operational Impacts and Demolition 1 ‐ 1.5 years for Shutdown and Demo 1.5 years ‐ 7 years 9 months

Legend
Existing Site
Site 1: Medley
Site 16: Ingraham Hwy Site 1
Site 17: Ingraham Hwy Site 2

Note:
‐Tasks identified in this high‐level implementation schedule represent the Early Start Date, the earliest date a scheduled activity can be started. Certain tasks may be started earlier or later or extend or compressed to shorten or extend the
schedule.
‐Duration of Activity indicates the time that activity is occurring for the task and is included in report Table 2‐2 Summary of Schedule Tasks with Estimated Durations
‐Total Task Duration (Start Date to Finish Date) indicates the total time from the beginning of the first task or subtask to the end of the last task or subtask.
‐Task durations provided are preliminary best estimates based on our professional judgement and experience with other facilities and processes.
‐Demolition of the existing RRF included as lighter‐colored durations.

Schedule Considerations for New Miami WTE.xlsx Page 1 of 1 Printed: 6/30/2022

Appendix C
Cost Considerations Table

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx C
 Miami-Dade Department of Solid Waste Management
Future WTE Facility Siting Evaluation
Appendix C - Cost Considerations - Basis of Costs

Costs (Unit
Site Existing MDRRF Site (Doral) Site 1 - Medley Site 16 - Ingraham Hwy. Site #1 Site 17 - Ingraham Hwy. Site #2
Costs, when Units for Unit
available) Cost
Unit Unit Unit
Checklist Unit Quantity Cost % of BASE Checklist Quantity Cost % of BASE Checklist Quantity Cost % of BASE Checklist Quantity Cost % of BASE
Additional Site Estimates
Parcel Area acres 157.16 320.31 159.71 81.11
WTE Site Area acres 50 50 50 50
Building areas for vibrocompaction square feet 871,200 871,200 871,200 871,200
Soils Removal/Replace with Select Fill depth (feet) 0.25 0.58 0.58
volume (CY) 8,067 18,822 18,822
Embankment Fill (for elevation) volume (CY) for one foot elevation required 32,267 32,267 32,267

Estimated Cost Differentials

Location
percentage
above market
1
Land Acquisition - MDPA Market Value Plus 10% value N $0 0.0% Y $42,483,287 2.9% Y 1 $2,523,928 0.2% Y $1,017,309 0.1%
Offsite Access Road development $2,546,993 per mile N 0.0% N 0.0% N Y 0.75 $1,910,245 0.1%
Utilities
Off-Site Utilities Construction
Water
12-inch DIP pipeline $475,200 per mile N 0.0% N 0.0% Y 3.3 $1,568,160 0.1% Y 4.0 $1,900,800 0.1%
Booster Pump Station, MGD (if no ISW) $200,644 per booster statio N 0.0% Y 1 $200,644 0.0% Y 1 $200,644 0.0% Y 1 $200,644 0.0%
Wastewater
6-inch PVC force main $386,338 per mile N 0.0% N 0.0% Y 3.3 $1,274,914 0.1% Y 4.0 $1,545,350 0.1%
Lift station $45,936 per station N Y 1 $45,936 0.0% Y 1 $45,936 0.0% Y 1 $45,936 0.0%
Natural Gas
Distance $500,000 per mile N 0.0% Y 2.2 $1,100,000 0.1% Y 5.5 $2,750,000 0.2% Y 6.0 $3,000,000 0.2%
Electric
Distance $1,000,000 per mile N 0.0% Y 1.9 $1,900,000 0.1% Y 6.5 $6,500,000 0.4% Y 6.5 $6,500,000 0.4%
Industrial Supply Well Development $1,200,000 per well N 0.0% N 0.0% N 0.0% N 0.0%
Industrial Supply Well Rehabilitation - 25% of well d $300,000 per well Y 3 $900,000 0.1% N N N
Additional ROW/Easement for Utilities - 60 foot wideMarket Value N 0.0% Y 2.2 $2,122,109 0.1% Y 6.5 $747,060 0.1% Y 6.5 $592,910 0.0%
Stormwater2
Additional for site, above typical, 4 foot perimet $30.13 per CY N 0.0% Y 16,800 $506,184 0.0% Y 16,800 $506,184 0.0% Y 16,800 $506,184 0.0%
Additional for temporary stormwater retainage d $500,000 per site Y 1 $500,000 0.0% N 0.0% N 0.0% N 0.0%
Special Construction (i.e., Elevate Pit)
Additional Elevation of Pit due to high ground water elevation (5 foot included in re N 0.0% N 0.0% N 0.0% N 0.0%
Lake fill costs $56.43 per CY Y 114,060 $6,436,201 0.4% N 0.0% N 0.0% N 0.0%
Soil
Removal of Muck Soils $14.43 CY N 0 0.0% N 0.0% Y 18,822 $271,605 0.0% Y 18,822 $271,605 0.0%
Replace with Select Fill $25.00 CY N 0 0.0% Y 8,067 $201,667 0.0% Y 18,822 $470,556 0.0% Y 18,822 $470,556 0.0%
Geotechnical Issues (Vibrocompaction) $7.83 per square foot Y 500,000 $3,915,000 0.3% Y 871,200 $6,821,496 0.5% Y 871,200 $6,821,496 0.5% Y 871,200 $6,821,496 0.5%
Environment
Flood plain mitigation if required feet of elevation r N N Y 1 Y 1
Embankment Fill $30.13 per CY N 0.0% N 0.0% Y 32,267 $972,195 0.1% Y 32,267 $972,195 0.1%
Wildlife Mitigation / Relocation
Wood Stork $65,000 per acre N 0.0% N 0.0% N 0.0% N 0.0%
Bonneted Bat - developed $5,000 per acre Y 50 $250,000 0.0% N 0.0% N 0.0% N 0.0%
Bonneted Bat - undeveloped $200,000 per acre N 0.0% N 0.0% Y 50 $10,000,000 0.7% Y 50 $10,000,000 0.7%
Florida Panthers $65,000 per acre N 0.0% N 0.0% N 0.0% Y 50 $3,250,000 0.2%
Environmental Mitigation 0.0%
Permanent Wetlands Mitigation - low $65,000 per acre N 0.0% N 0.0% Y 50 $3,250,000 0.2% Y 50 $3,250,000 0.2%
Permanent Wetlands Mitigation - high $120,000 per acre N 0.0% N 0.0% N 0.0% N 0.0%
Zoning and Permitting Cost Differential $3,074,668 per site N 0.0% Y 1 $3,074,668 0.2% Y 1 $3,074,668 0.2% Y 1 $3,074,668 0.2%
Permitting Difficulty (percentage of)3 $3,074,668 per site N $0 0.0% Moderate $1,844,801 0.1% Severe 1 $3,382,135 0.2% Severe $3,382,135 0.2%
State 404 N Y Y
Environmental Resources Permit Y Y
Air PSD/NSR Permitting Y Y Y Y
PPSA Y
Consumptive Use Permit
System
Ash Disposal
Monofill Development (if feasible and space ava $1,000,000 per acre N 0.0% N 0.0% N 0.0% N 0.0%
System Effects - Capital4
Transfer Station Construction $45,000,000 per station N 0.0% N 0.0% Y 1 $45,000,000 3.1% Y 1 $45,000,000 3.1%
Fleet vehicles - Transfer Trailers $300,000 per trailer N 0.0% N 0.0% Y 10 $3,000,000 0.2% Y 10 $3,000,000 0.2%
Waste Diversion for Construction5 see Basis of Cos total cost N 0.0% N 0.0% N 0.0% N 0.0%
TOTAL SITE COST DIFFERENTIATORS - Capital $12,001,201 0.8% $60,300,792 4.2% $92,359,480 6.4% $96,712,032 6.7%
ESTIMATED TOTAL CAPITAL COST $1,445,520,543 $1,493,820,134 $1,525,878,822 $1,530,231,374
ESTIMATED TOTAL CAPITAL COST DIFFERENTIAL WITH BASE COST Base - Least Cost Alt $48,300,000 $80,400,000 $84,700,000

Page 1 of 5
 Miami-Dade Department of Solid Waste Management
Future WTE Facility Siting Evaluation
Appendix C - Cost Considerations - Basis of Costs

Costs (Unit
Site Existing MDRRF Site (Doral) Site 1 - Medley Site 16 - Ingraham Hwy. Site #1 Site 17 - Ingraham Hwy. Site #2
Costs, when Units for Unit
available) Cost
Unit Unit Unit
Checklist Unit Quantity Cost % of BASE Checklist Quantity Cost % of BASE Checklist Quantity Cost % of BASE Checklist Quantity Cost % of BASE
Operational Impacts6 $10.83 per ton, Year 1
Utilities - Water
Purchase of Potable $1.72 cost per ton wast N Y 1 $1.72 15% Y 1 $1.72 15% Y 1 $1.72 15%
System Effects - Operational
Ash Disposal7,8
Ash Hauling - landfill near RRF site see Basis of Cos cost per ton wast Y 1 $0.39 Y 1 $0.39 3% Y 1 $3.08 27% Y 1 $3.08 27%
O&M Cost Impacts9
Transfer O&M (staffing, utilities, maintenance fo $8.61 cost per ton wast N N Y 1 $8.61 77% Y 1 $8.61 77%

TOTAL SITE COST DIFFERENTIATORS - Operational, cost per ton waste processed Year 1 $0.39 $2.10 19% $13.40 119% $13.40 119%
ESTIMATED TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST per ton waste processed - Year 1 $11.22 $12.93 $24.23 $24.23

Notes:
1 Property acquisition based on 2021 MDPA Market Value plus markup identified on same row
2 Stormwater above typical assumes construction of berm around perimeter of WTE site for stormwater containment.
3 Permitting Difficulty - Rated as minor (25%), moderate (60%), and severe difficulty (110%) with percentage of Zoning and permitting cost differential to account for additional consultant cost.
4 System Effects - Capital Cost Impacts estimated to be transfer station development and additional transfer trailers
5 Waste Diversion for Construction on existing site - estimated cost differential between hauling and disposal at Okeechobee and disposal at MDRRF.
6 Operational Impacts are estimated on a per ton of waste processed basis and compared to base operational costs per ton waste processed, per the estimates developed for the WTE Facility Cost Estimate Project
7 Ash Hauling - assuming ash would be hauled off-site for disposal at a Landfill near RRF site. Cost differential is in hauling distance/cost.
8 Regular MSW that may be sent to nearby landfill would have to be diverted to allow ash to be disposed at nearby landfill.
9 System Effect - O&M Cost Impacts estimated to be additional drivers, equipment replacement, additional consumables for waste hauling

Page 2 of 5
 Miami-Dade Department of Solid Waste Management
Future WTE Facility Siting Evaluation
Appendix C - Cost Considerations - Basis of Costs

Basis of Costs
CAPITAL Assumptions
Water and Wastewater Utility Costs Site Information Unit Conversion
12" DIP $83.99 per lineal foot 2022 FDOT summary cost data Overall WTE site area - 4,000 TPD 50 acres 1 cubic yards
12" DIP rounded up to include fittings, valves, etc. (water supply) $90.00 per lineal foot 2022 FDOT summary cost data 2,178,000 square feet 27 cubic feet
6" PVC pipe (wastewater force main) $73.17 per lineal foot 2022 FDOT summary cost data Percent of site for buildings (area of 40% 1 mile
wastewater lift station $500,000 per MGD flow 2022 recent project cost estimate 5280 feet
assumed wastewater flow 0.09 MGD see Water, WW, and NG Needs sheet CPI 3% 1 acre 0
wastewater lift station cost per lift station $45,936 per lift station 43560 square feet
water booster pump station $500,000 per MGD flow 2022 recent project cost estimate 1 square miles
water booster pump station cost per pump station $200,644 per pump station without ISW 640 acre
Industrial Supply Well development, 6-inch $1,200,000 per well 2022 recent project cost estimate, to be verified 1 ccf
Industrial Supply Well rehabilitation (25% of development) $300,000 per well existing site has 3 wells on-site. Would need review and repair 748 gallons

Road Development Costs

Undivided 2-lane rural road, 5' shoulders, new construction $2,546,993 per mile 2022 FDOT summary cost data, includes required stormwater for road

Site Development Costs

Regular excavation (removal of soils) $14.43 per cubic yard 2022 FDOT summary cost data
Embankment fill (for elevating site) $30.13 per cubic yard 2022 FDOT summary cost data
Regular fill $25.00 per cubic yard 2022 recent project cost estimate
Vibrocompaction, 450 probes per acre at 40ft depth $5.52 per square foot 2010 PBREF 2 change order 5 (see separate sheet for breakdown)
Vibrocompaction, 450 probes per acre at 40ft depth $7.83 per square foot 2022 PBREF 2 change order 5, escalated per ENR cost index

Stormwater
Assumes construction of 4 foot berm around site perimeter, 3:1 side slope, 2 feet top width
Perimeter (linear feet) 8100 on average, can update based on siPerimeter
Foot print (square feet) 26 per linear foot Existing Site 5713 linear feet
Total foot print, on average 4.83 acres Site 16 8218.54 linear feet
Volume of soils for berm (cubic feet) 56 per linear foot Site 17 8055.11 linear feet
Volume of soils for berm (cubic yards) 6.22 per linear yard Average 8136.825
Volume of soils for berm (cubic yards) 16800 CY per site
Cost for berm construction $30.13 per cubic yard similar to embankment fill cost
Cost per site $506,184 per site

Lake Fill
Reference Facility Lake Fill Cost Estimate (2020) $13,000,000 2020
Lake Fill Cost Estimate (CY) - South Lake 338,323
Estimated Cost Per CY $38.42 2020
Estimated Cost Per CY $56.43 2033

Date of Cost
Ash Monofill Unit Cost unit Estimate Source:
Ash Monofill Expansion cost per acre $800,000 per acre Sep-18 recent project cost estimate
Ash Monofill Expansion cost per acre $1,000,000 per acre May-22 recent project cost estimate
Ash disposal per acre ton per acre data from existing ash monofill?
existing ash monofill disposal capacity until 2028. Expansion may be possible
System Effects - Capital
Capital Cost
Transfer Station Construction $45,000,000 Tampa ($34M, 2021, 50K sq ft), SWA (2013), DSWM CIP $45M
Fleet vehicles - Transfer Trailers $300,000 per trailer 10 units needed based on recent 2021/2022 quote
Fleet vehicles - Collection Vehicles $350,000 per vehicle 0 units needed

OPERATIONAL
Waste Processed per year 1,333,333 tons per year
Ash disposal per year 120,051 tons per year
Year 1 Net O&M Cost $14,439,872
Year 1 Net O&M Cost per Ton (Base) $10.83 per ton 2033
Potable Water Purchased
Potable water cost $8.20 per ccf 2021 MD DSWM WTE cost estimate
Potable water cost $11.69 per ccf 2033
Potable water cost $10,962.57 per million gallons 2021
Potable water cost $15,630.00 per million gallons 2033
assumed potable water usage without ISW 0.40 MGD see Water, WW, and NG Needs sheet
assumed potable water usage without ISW 146.47 MG per year see Water, WW, and NG Needs sheet
Total assumed potable water cost without ISW - Year 1 $2,289,332 per year 2033
Total potable water cost without ISW per ton waste processed $1.72 per ton of waste processed

Page 3 of 5
 Miami-Dade Department of Solid Waste Management
Future WTE Facility Siting Evaluation
Appendix C - Cost Considerations - Basis of Costs

Ash hauling and disposal costs:

Medley Landfill (Waste Management) 9350 NW 89th Ave, Medley, FL will need to verify capacity for past 2033
Tipping Fee ($/ton) $34.17 per ton 2021 MD DSWM WTE cost estimate, Medley Landfill
$48.72 per ton 2033
Distance from existing site 3 miles
Haul Cost ($/ton) - near existing site $3.00 per ton ash 2021
Haul Cost ($/ton) - near existing site - Year 1 $4.28 per ton ash 2033
Total ash haul cost -near existing site - Year 1 $513,491 per year
Ash Haul Cost per ton processed waste - Year 1 (near existing) $0.39 cost per ton waste processed
Distance to Site 16 and 17 43 miles
Haul Cost ($/ton) - Sites 16 and 17 $9.36 per ton ash 2021
Haul Cost ($/ton) - Sites 16 and 17 - Year 1 $13.35 per ton ash 2033
Total ash haul cost - Year 1 $4,102,133 per year
Ash Haul Cost per ton processed waste - Year 1 (Site 16 and 17) $3.08 cost per ton waste processed

Okeechobee Landfill (Waste Management) 10800 NE 128th Ave, Okeechobee, FL

Tipping Fee ($/ton) $30.00 per ton 2021 MD DSWM WTE cost estimate, Okeechobee Landfill
$42.77 per ton 2033
Estimated tipping fee percent increase due to demand 17.00% assume renegotiate with Okeechobee at a higher rate because of need and higher waste disposal tonnage contract
Renegotiated Tipping Fee ($/ton) $50.04 per ton 2033 not used SWA Diverted Waste Basis of Cost for reference
Distance from existing site 135 miles Diverted Waste Disposal Location Okeechobee LandfiN/A N/A Current Agreements
Haul Cost ($/ton) - near existing site $17.80 per ton 2021 Waste Disposal Location Distance fr 56 N/A N/A miles
Haul Cost ($/ton) - near existing site - Year 1 $25.38 per ton 2033 Hauling Cost per mile $ 4.15 N/A $ 4.15 $/mile
Total ash haul cost -near existing site - Year 1 $3,046,712 per year Haul Cost per ton $ 7.27 N/A $ 7.27 $/ton
Ash Haul Cost per ton processed waste - Year 1 (near existing) $2.29 cost per ton waste processed Year of Hauling Cost Estimate 2018 N/A 2018 year
Distance to Site 16 and 17 160 miles Tipping Fee - Solid Waste (per ton) $ 39.75 N/A N/A $/ton
Haul Cost ($/ton) - Sites 16 and 17 $21.18 per ton 2021 estimated 19% more because distance is 19% greater than from existingTipping Fee - C&D (per ton) $ 31.25 N/A N/A $/ton
Haul Cost ($/ton) - Sites 16 and 17 - Year 1 $30.20 per ton 2033 Tipping Fee - Vegetation (per ton) $ 31.25 N/A N/A $/ton
Total ash haul cost - Year 1 $3,601,522 per year Year of Tipping Fee Used 2019 N/A N/A year
Ash Haul Cost per ton processed waste - Year 1 (Site 16 and 17) $2.70 cost per ton waste processed Tons per Load - Garbage $ 21.70 N/A $ 21.70 tons/load
Tons per Load - Ash N/A N/A $ 21.70 tons/load
System Effects - Operational Operational costs are compared to projected O&M base cost PBREF 3 Distance from PBREP (mi N/A N/A 30 miles
O&M Costs
Transfer Station O&M (staffing, utilities, maintenance) $7,000,000 per year 2021 based on SWAPBC and Hillsborough data SWAPBC Component Cost SummAvg TS Cost Per ToTransportation Cost per ton Annual Tonnage Total Expenses
Drivers $75,000 per driver per year 2021 estimates Belle Glade TS $67.29 $23.40 2012 31,285 $2,097,110
Transfer Trailer O&M - Fuel, Maintenance, Equipment Replaceme $30,000 per unit per year 2021 estimates Delray TS $28.49 $8.13 2012 194,213 $5,413,202
Transfer trailer units needed 10 units needed Lantana TS $26.44 $11.35 2012 176,938 $8,883,190
Cost per year $8,050,000 per year 2021 similar to SWAPBC and Hillsborough data Jupiter TS $20.87 $8.68 2012 376,658 $9,910,933
$11,477,375.14 per year 2033 Royal Palm Beach TS $22.36 $6.70 2012 211,726 $4,382,320
Cost per year per ton waste processed $8.61 cost per ton waste processed Southwest TS $51.24 $7.61 2012 273,305 $6,098,259
Overall $29.38 $8.77 2012 1,264,125 $6,130,836 average
Miami-Dade System Costs Hillsborough County - Transfer Station Costs $39.48 $11.79 2022 $8,239,330
Transfer Station Operations Expenses $28,801,000 FY 2020 ActuaNWTS and CCC FY23 Total Budget $6,622,909 $54.66 $16.31 2033 $11,405,160
Transfer Fee Tonnage 647,655 tons per year FY 2022 ProjecNWTS and CCC FY21 Tonnage 246,807.54
Transfer Station Operations Cost per Ton (Estimate) $44.47 per ton 2020 Estimated cost per ton $26.83
Transfer Station Operations Cost per Ton (Estimate) $47.18 2022 SCTS and 3CCC FY23 Total Budget $5,546,013 ATRI Study (2019) - Hauling costs https://truckingresearch.org/wp‐content/uploads/2019/11/ATRI‐Operational‐Costs‐of‐Trucking‐2019‐1.pdf
Transfer Station Operations Cost per Ton (Estimate) $65.31 2033 SCTS and 3CCC FY21 Tonnage 173,314.75 Average Marginal Cost per Mile $1.82 2018 includes fuel, R&M, insurance, driver wages and benefits, permits and tolls
Estimated cost per ton (2023) $32.00
Estimated cost per ton (2033) $43.00 Average Marginal Cost per Hour $71.78 2018 includes fuel, R&M, insurance, driver wages and benefits, permits and tolls
Waste Diversion for Construction (additional cost compared to MDRRF disposal) not used
Months of waste diversion 0 months
Years of waste diversion 0 years 2028-2032 assumes MDRRF will continue operations during construction of new WTE Facility
Waste processed per year 1,000,000 tons MDRRF capacity
Total waste diverted - tons

Medley Landfill (Waste Management) Medley cannot take all of diverted waste
Existing Site
Diverted waste hauling $4,277,283 per year 2033
Diverted waste hauling $0 total for construction period
Diverted waste disposal $34,170,000 per year 2033
Diverted waste disposal $0 total for construction period
Total waste hauling and disposal $0
Okeechobee Landfill (Waste Management)
Existing Site
Diverted waste hauling $25,378,544 per year 2033
Diverted waste hauling $0 total for construction period
Diverted waste disposal $50,044,207 per year 2033
Diverted waste disposal $0 total for construction period
Total waste hauling and disposal $0 2033
Total waste hauling and disposal #DIV/0! per ton 2033

Page 4 of 5
 Miami-Dade Department of Solid Waste Management
Future WTE Facility Siting Evaluation
Appendix C - Cost Considerations - Basis of Costs

Year capacity Year capacity

reached (Current reached (Current
Capacity, No Capacity, With Draft Arcadis
Expansion, With Expansion, With Estimates as of Sept
County Landfill miles from RRF RRF) RRF) 2021
Existing Site North Dade LF 15.00 2024 2048 2030
Diverted waste hauling per year 2033 South Dade LF 25.00 2033 2042 2030
Diverted waste hauling total for construction period RRF LF 0.00 2031 N/A 2030
Diverted waste disposal per year 2033
Diverted waste disposal total for construction period
Total waste hauling and disposal

RRF 2021 Operating Cost per Ton Processed (Gross) $61.34 per ton 2021 does not include electrical revenues. Rates and Charges Report
RRF Operating Cost per Ton Processed (Gross) $87.46 per ton 2033
RRF 2021 Operating Cost $62,203,174 2021 Rates and Charges Report likely $79M once 5th amendment approved
Electrical Revenues 2021 $8,640,000 2021 Rates and Charges Report
RRF Tonnage FY 2021 1,014,050 tons 2021 Rates and Charges Report
RRF 2021 Operating Cost per Ton Processed (Net) $52.82 per ton 2021 including electrical revenues
RRF Operating Cost per Ton Processed (Net) $75.31 per ton 2033

Waste Diversion for Construction - Cost Difference to send to

Okeechobee vs MDRRF #DIV/0! per ton
Total Waste Diversion Cost Difference #DIV/0!

Easement/ROW Access
use market value per acre
60 foot wide easement 0.011363636 miles

Demolition Cost applies to all not used

Page 5 of 5
Arcadis U.S., Inc.
701 Waterford Way
Suite 420
Miami
Florida 33126
Phone: 305 913 1316
Fax: 305 913 1301
www.arcadis.com

Arcadis. Improving quality of life.

Appendix B
Screening Criteria Map

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report B
Appendix C
Site Packages

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report C
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Existing RRF Site - Doral

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

MDPA Parcel Data

Site Information
Folio No: 35-3017-001-0120
This 157.16-acre site is a single parcel inside the UDB, located in the Owner: Miami Dade County DSWM
City of Doral. The developable site area is sufficient to support any of 2023 MDPA Market Value: $176,644,467
the alternative facilities and is co-located with an active 80-acre Ash Zoning District: GU
Landfill. The property is less than a 10-minute travel time to major
roads, is less than 0.1 miles from the nearest residential zoning, and 9.87 miles (15.88 km) from the Class I boundary of
Everglades National Park.

Site Alternatives Summary

Considerations for the selection of each alternative technology at this site are shown on the pages that follow.

www.arcadis.com
1/9
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Existing RRF Site - Doral

Site Alternatives Summary

Annual
Potential Development
Alternative Capacity Cost Per Technology Considerations Site-Specific Considerations
Site Area Time
Ton
5-8 tons Requires separate organics collection. Low complexity, low skill level needed for most operations.
Likely public concerns with noise, odor and
per acre Minimum 30-day processing time. Processing capacity depends on available land area. Not well suited
Organics vector issues. Estimated maximum processing
per day, $72-$80+ for urban areas, potential public concerns with noise, odor and vector issues. Challenging wet season
Composting 10-60 Ac 3-5 years capacity at this site approximately 125,000 tons
typically (1) operations. Good quality compost produced. End uses/markets and capacities may need development.
(Windrow) per year. Could be co-located with other
80-500 Additional fleet equipment and operators would be needed for organics collection, site operation and
alternative facility(ies) on this site.
TPD. disposal of residuals.
1-10 tons
Requires separate organics collection. Moderate complexity, moderate skill level needed for operation. Likely public concerns with noise, odor and
per acre
Organics Minimum 30-day processing time. Processing capacity depends on available land area. Potential vector issues. Estimated maximum processing
per day. $74-$80+
Composting 5-60 Ac 3-5 years public concerns with noise, odor and vector issues. Challenging wet season operations. End capacity at this site approximately 180,000 tons
Typically, (1)
(ASP) uses/markets and capacities may need development. Additional fleet equipment and operators would per year. Could be co-located with other
80-700
be needed for organics collection, site operation and disposal of residuals. alternative facility(ies) on this site.
TPD
5-100 tpd Requires separate organics collection. Variable complexity, low skill level needed for operation. Short Compact footprint is a good option for this
Organics per 5-7 day processing time. Compact process, smaller facility footprint, expandable capacity. Better suited location. Reduced potential public concerns with
$9-$50+
Composting 1-60 Ac vessel, 15 (1), (2)
3-5 years for urban areas, vessels can be enclosed in metal building to mitigate potential public concerns with noise, odor and vector issues. Depending on
(In-Vessel) to 1200 odor and vector issues from receiving areas. Additional fleet equipment and operators would be footprint area, could be co-located with other
TPD needed for organics collection, site operation and disposal of residuals. alternative facility(ies) on this site.
Requires separate organics collection. High complexity, high skill level needed for operation.
3-40+ Processing capacity depends on available land area. Potential permitting issues and public concerns Possible capacity limitations due to limited site
acres with noise, odor and vector issues. Fire risk from methane production. Additional composting or area. Likely permitting issues and public
Anaerobic 270-600 $57-$90+
depending 5-7 years disposal of resulting digestate solids would be required. Resulting digestate liquids can be used for concerns with noise, odor and vector issues.
Digestion TPD (1), (2)
on fertilizer in cover maintenance for landfills or on agricultural land. Additional fleet equipment and Could be co-located with other alternative
capacity operators would be needed for organics collection, site operation and disposal of residuals. End facility(ies) on this site.
uses/markets and capacities may need development.
Good transportation access, all utilities available.
Unproven technology, significant pre-processing of MSW required. High complexity, high skill level
Permitting and public opposition challenges.
100-300+ needed for operation. Possible capacity limitations. Increased fire risk from syngas production but can
Gasification 5-60+ Ac $154+(3) 10+ years Permitting schedule may be faster as site has
TPD fuel turbines for electrical generation. High capital and operating cost. Active ash monofil on site for
existing Power Plant Site Certification. RRF
slag disposal.
Landfill on site for slag disposal.

www.arcadis.com
2/9
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Existing RRF Site - Doral

Site Alternatives Summary

Annual
Potential Development
Alternative Capacity Cost Per Technology Considerations Site-Specific Considerations
Site Area Time
Ton
Good transportation access, all utilities available.
No changes to existing collection system needed. Highest capacity alternative. High complexity, high
Waste-to- Permitting and public opposition challenges.
40-60 4,000- skill level needed for operation. Permitting and public opposition challenges. High capital and operating
Energy $57-60+ 8-10+ years Permitting schedule may be faster as site has
Ac 5,000 TPD cost. Electrical generation for revenue or powering other facilities. Good metal recovery possible from
(Mass Burn) existing Power Plant Site Certification. RRF
ash. Landfill needed for ash disposal.
Landfill on site for ash disposal.
No changes to existing collection system needed. High complexity, high skill level needed for operation.
Potential public concerns with noise, odor and
Mechanical High capital and operating cost. High-capacity alternative, but waste is typically shredded and
200-560 vector issues. Could be co-located with other
Biological 5-15 Ac $123-183 3-4 years converted into pelletized solid recovered fuel (SRF) that must be transported and fired at another
TPD alternative facility(ies) on this site. Local concrete
Treatment facility capable of using the SRF. Additional fleet equipment and operators would be needed for site
facilities may be able to use SRF.
operation and transport of SRF.
No changes to existing collection system needed. High complexity, but low skill level needed for most
operations. Capacity limited to approximately 3,000 tpd. Potential permitting issues and public concerns
Likely public concerns with noise, odor and
Mixed Waste with noise, odor and vector issues. Additional processing/disposal of post-processed MSW would be
200-1500 vector issues. Depending on footprint area could
Processing 20-60 Ac $85-$150 5-7 years required. Contamination of recovered materials is significant issue, recovery rates for marketable
TPD be co-located with another alternative facility on
Facility materials typically 30% or less. End uses/markets and capacities may need development. Moderate
this site.
capital and operating costs, and additional fleet equipment and operators would be needed for site
operations and transport of residuals.
Modification of existing curbside collection system needed. High complexity, but low skill level needed
for most operations. Capacity limited by site area. Typical maximum processing capacity for these
Material Minimal expected permitting and public
300-400 facilities is approximately 350-400 tons per day. Minimal public concerns. Additional
Recovery 20-60 Ac $87-154 5-7 years concerns. Could be co-located with another
TPD processing/disposal of some post-processed materials (i.e., glass) would be required. Contamination of
Facility alternative facility on this site.
recovered materials is significant issue. End uses/markets and capacities may need development.
Moderate capital and operating costs, and additional fleet equipment and operators would be needed.
No change to existing collection system needed. Can be low or high complexity, but low skill level
Likely public concerns with noise, odor and dust
C&D needed for most operations. Capacity limited by site area. Potential public concerns with noise, odor,
300–825 issues. Depending on footprint area could be co-
Recycling 5-20 Ac $76-150 3-7 years and dust. Additional processing/disposal of some post-processed materials (i.e., mixed fines) would be
TPD located with another alternative facility on this
Facility required. End uses/markets and capacities may need development. Moderate capital and operating
site.
costs, and additional fleet equipment and operators would be needed.
(1)
Sources: DC Study (2017 costs escalated) and NREL Study (2020 costs escalated). Cost does not include additional organics collection system costs.
(2)
Costs estimated from vendor quote, does not include building or land acquisition costs.
(3)
Costs based on 2017 article in Waste Management journal using developed country costs.

www.arcadis.com
3/9
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Existing RRF Site - Doral

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located at 6990 NW 97th Avenue, Miami, FL 33178, less than 0.1 miles from the nearest
residential zoning, and 9.87 miles from the boundary of Everglades National Park. If this site were
selected, the short-term effects on the County’s Solid Waste System would be minimal. Over the short
term, redeveloping this site with a new WTE facility while maintaining the existing RRF operations
could be challenging and would require close coordination between the contractor and operator.
Construction phasing will need to be considered and planned in order to limit impact to the existing RRF
operations, which if impacted, could result in additional costs and extend the duration of the project
schedule.
In the long term, the number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations,
and Trash & Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE
facility, but their travel patterns and travel times would be unaltered. Estimated travel distances and
times from the site to the County’s transfer stations and landfills are as follows:

Est. Travel
Facility Distance/Time to
RRF

West TS 9 mi/16 min

Central TS 14 mi/21 min

Northeast TS 18 mi/25 min

South Dade LF 25 mi/31 min

North Dade LF 21 mi/23 min

Although additional transfer fleet vehicles and drivers would be routed to the site in order to maximize
WTE processing capacity, they may be rerouted from deliveries to non-DSWM disposal sites and the
acquisition of additional fleet vehicles and driver staffing may not be needed. Transfer fleet fuel
consumption and maintenance costs would increase due to the additional deliveries, while similar
Collection fleet costs would be virtually unchanged. Additionally, the existing RRF site is in close
proximity to route power to the 58th Street Fleet Facility and could provide for charging stations for
electric fleet vehicles, which are currently being procured.
Ash from the new WTE facility may be disposed of at the existing Ash Monofill, if capacity is available,
or may be disposed either at the adjacent WM Medley landfill or hauled out of County. Either off-site
option will significantly increase ash disposal costs from current levels.

www.arcadis.com
4/9
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Existing RRF Site - Doral

Utilities
 Potable water – The potable water capacity required for fire lines and supply lines will depend on
the type of alternative facility(ies) selected. According to WASD data, there is a 4” potable supply
line at the property and a 16” water main available on NW 97th Ave.

 Wastewater – The minimum sanitary sewer capacity requirements will depend on the type of
alternative facility(ies) selected. Sanitary sewer is available at the site on NW 97th Ave., on-site lift
station and leachate storage tank. WASD data indicates there is a 16” gravity sewer available on
NW 97th Ave.

 Natural gas – The minimum natural gas capacity requirements will depend on the type of
alternative facility(ies) selected. If needed for facility operations, there is an 8” gas service line
available at the site, and the transmission main is available on 97th Ave.

 Electric – The electrical service capacity required will depend on the type of alternative facility(ies)
selected. Standard 120V/230A electrical service is available at the site. The nearest substation
available approximately 0.15 miles SE of the site on NW 97th Ave. Need to verify substation/
switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and available terminations.

 Stormwater – An existing stormwater system is on site serving both the existing RRF and the Ash
Monofill.

 Groundwater – If necessary for facility operations, a consumptive use permit from the South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to withdraw any groundwater
from the aquifer. If a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for all facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.
Three industrial supply wells are currently used at the RRF for source water for boiler feedwater,
cooling tower/condenser feedwater, truck wheel wash, and irrigation water. If reused for a new
alternative facility on site, the wells may need to be redeveloped.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the predominant site soils as Udorthents-Water-
Urban land complex, 0 to 60 percent slopes and Cooper Town muck, ponded-Urban land complex, 0 to
1 percent slopes. Udorthents soils consist of unconsolidated or heterogeneous geologic material
removed during the excavation of ditches, canals, lakes, ponds, and quarries. This is consistent with
the development of the RRF and Ash Monofill at the site.
The presence of muck soils in the northeast quadrant of the site indicates the seasonal high
groundwater elevation is typically 0-6 inches below existing grade but would have to be confirmed by
geotechnical investigations. Depending on the type of alternative facility(ies) selected for this site, the
facility buildings and ancillary components would have to be constructed on fill material, which could
present geotechnical engineering challenges for foundation designs and additional site preparation
costs.

www.arcadis.com
5/9
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Existing RRF Site - Doral

Environment
 Floodplains – Most of the site is in FEMA Flood Zone X (Minimal Flood Hazard), portions of the
NE area (stormwater ponds) are in FEMA Flood Zone AE (El. 5).

 Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

 Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – The existing RRF is currently permitted under the
Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Conditions of Certification PA 77-08. In order to construct a new
WTE or gasification facility on the site, a complete PPSA Modification Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.). The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

 New Source Review (NSR) - Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 9.87 miles (15.88 km) NE of the Everglades Class I Area, 14.77 miles (23.8 km) NW
of the Biscayne Class II Area, one mile south of the Medley Landfill, 4.7 miles NE of the CEMEX
Miami Cement Plant and about 2.2 miles SE of the Titan Pennsuco Complex, which are all large
sources of emissions.
As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE or gasification facility would be
subject to PSD permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction
approval under the PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best
Available Control Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to
demonstrate compliance with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors
located in the immediate vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at
sensitive receptors located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II
areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay National Park (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side border having
more stringent air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with
demonstrating acceptable impacts from the operation of a new WTE or gasification facility, and thus
will make air permitting challenging. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land
manager agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air
pollution. These resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources
for sensitive areas.

www.arcadis.com
6/9
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Existing RRF Site - Doral

 Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory indicates the site contains minor
wetlands surrounding a large treatment pond and four surface waters. National Wetlands Inventory
mapping indicates most of the
site is a Freshwater Emergent
Wetland habitat classified as a
PEM1C, as shown in Figure 1.
The National Hydrography
Dataset shows three surface
waters. The South Florida Water
Management District Land
Cover and Land Use 2017-2019
indicates the site contains one
stormwater treatment pond. The
site appears completely
disturbed.
The site is not within a Florida
panther focus area for
consultation or critical habitat for
endangered or threatened
species under the Endangered
Species Act. The site is within
the Florida bonneted bat and
individual consultation with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is
Fig. 1 - Wetlands area on RRF Site (from NWI data)
required. The site is not within
18.6 miles of an active wood
stork colony and does not appear to contain suitable foraging habitat; therefore, wood stork
mitigation is not anticipated. Impacts to wetlands and surface waters designed and permitted as
stormwater treatment areas are generally not regulated by the State of Florida, however, additional
studies and analysis are required to determine if wetland permitting such as a State 404 Permit
would be required.

Transportation
Travel time north to major roads (i.e., 58th Street, 74th Street) is less than 10 minutes. Existing access to
site is via NW 97th Ave., which was recently four-laned and has sufficient capacity for the expected
traffic loadings of any of the proposed alternative facilities. Traffic impacts on local roads would be
unchanged from existing conditions. The site has sufficient area to accommodate truck queueing.

www.arcadis.com
7/9
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Existing RRF Site - Doral

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated elevated values for Particulate Matter 2.5 (µg/m3) and
several other pollutants. The site is less than a tenth of a mile from the nearest residential zoning, and
the local population, community political leaders and environmental groups have indicated opposition to
continued use of the site for WTE facility operations.

Schedule
The existing RRF site is currently permitted under the PPSA Certification as well as PSD and Title V Air
Operating Permits, which reduce the duration of the environmental permitting effort. Additionally, the
site work required as compared to other sites is minimal because of existing RRF facility operations and
infrastructure. However, there are existing conditions that affect the duration of a new WTE or
gasification facility implementation including the following:

 PSD Permitting – The nearby Everglades National Park’s (sensitive Class I area) location along
the western border of the County and the Biscayne Bay National Park (sensitive Class II area)
located on the eastern border of the County, both having more stringent AQRVs provide
uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable impacts from the operation of a new WTE
or gasification facility and will make air permitting challenging at this site.

 PPSA Permitting – This site was previously permitted and under the PPSA Certification and
potentially reduces the duration needed for environmental permitting as a PPSA Certification
modification and not a new application will be developed.

 Community –Opposition from the community is expected which could increase the duration of the
new WTE facility implementation schedule.

 Construction – Additional planning and coordination is required in order to construct the new WTE
facility at the existing RRF site, assuming the existing RRF continues to operate.

Cost
For comparative purposes, the existing RRF site was considered the base case, which includes the
following costs:

 Site Preparation – Stormwater detention pond fill costs, environmental permitting costs and ash
hauling.

 System Effects – If this site were selected, the effects on the County’s Solid Waste System would
be minimal, however, construction phasing will need to be considered in order to limit impact to
assumed ongoing RRF operations.

www.arcadis.com
8/9
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Existing RRF Site - Doral

Site Differentiators Overview

 The existing RRF facility and site is currently permitted under the PPSA and is operating under an existing Conditions
of Certification PA 77-08, which can be modified to provide for the construction and operation of a new WTE or
gasification facility. A Modification to an existing Conditions of Certification is typically faster than developing an
entirely new PPSA Application for an unpermitted site.

 Existing utilities suitable for any of the alternative facilities are readily available and the site could potentially route
power to nearby System facilities.

 Depending on the alternative facility(ies) selected for this site, construction phasing may need to be considered in
order to limit impact to assumed ongoing RRF operations, which could result in additional costs and extend project
schedule.

 Expected significant opposition from the community could affect the project schedule.

www.arcadis.com
9/9
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 1 - Medley

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

MDPA Parcel Data

Site Information Owner: F77 1 F77 2 & F77 3 LLC, F00 1
This 320.31-acre site is inside the UDB, located in the Town of Medley. LLC
The site is composed of several parcel areas and is large enough to 2023 MDPA Market Value: $102,589,877
support any of the alternative facilities and co-locate multiple facilities Zoning District: M-1
into a solid waste campus, depending on the constraints of the specific PA Zone: Industrial – Light
parcel(s) selected for development. The property is less than a 10- Folio No: 22-3004-001-0470, others.
minute travel time to US-27 or the Turnpike, is located adjacent to
residential zoning and 11.38 (18.31 km) miles from the boundary of the Everglades Class I area.

Site Alternatives Summary

Considerations for the selection of each alternative technology at this site are shown on the pages that follow.

www.arcadis.com
1/9
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 1 - Medley

Site Alternatives Summary
Potential Cost Per Development
Alternative Capacity Technology Considerations Site-Specific Considerations
Site Area Ton Time
5-8 tons Requires separate organics collection. Low complexity, low skill level needed for most operations. Potential public concerns with noise, odor and
per acre Minimum 30-day processing time. Processing capacity depends on available land area. Not well suited vector issues. Estimated maximum processing
Organics
per day, $72-$80+ for urban areas, potential public concerns with noise, odor and vector issues. Challenging wet season capacity at this site approximately 200,000 tons
Composting 10-300 Ac 3-5 years
typically (1) operations. Good quality compost produced. End uses/markets and capacities may need development. per year without filling lake areas. Could be co-
(Windrow)
80-500 Additional fleet equipment and operators would be needed for organics collection, site operation and located with other alternative facility(ies) on this
TPD. disposal of residuals. site.
1-10 tons Potential public concerns with noise, odor and
Requires separate organics collection. Moderate complexity, moderate skill level needed for operation.
per acre vector issues. Estimated maximum processing
Organics Minimum 30-day processing time. Processing capacity depends on available land area. Potential
per day. $74-$80+ capacity at this site approximately 250,000 tons
Composting 5-300 Ac 3-5 years public concerns with noise, odor and vector issues. Challenging wet season operations. End
Typically, (1) per year without filling lake areas. Could be co-
(ASP) uses/markets and capacities may need development. Additional fleet equipment and operators would
80-700 located with other alternative facility(ies) on this
be needed for organics collection, site operation and disposal of residuals.
TPD site.
5-100 tpd Requires separate organics collection. Variable complexity, low skill level needed for operation. Short
Organics per 5-7 day processing time. Compact process, smaller facility footprint, expandable capacity. Better suited Reduced potential public concerns with noise,
$9-$50+
Composting 1-60 Ac vessel, 15 (1), (2)
3-5 years for urban areas, vessels can be enclosed in metal building to mitigate potential public concerns with odor and vector issues. Could be co-located
(In-Vessel) to 1200 odor and vector issues from receiving areas. Additional fleet equipment and operators would be with other alternative facility(ies) on this site.
TPD needed for organics collection, site operation and disposal of residuals.
Requires separate organics collection. High complexity, high skill level needed for operation.
3-40+ Processing capacity depends on available land area. Potential permitting issues and public concerns Potential permitting issues and public concerns
acres with noise, odor and vector issues. Fire risk from methane production. Additional composting or with noise, odor and vector issues. Some
Anaerobic 270-600 $57-$90+
depending 5-7 years disposal of resulting digestate solids would be required. Resulting digestate liquids can be used for utilities may need to be extended to site. Could
Digestion TPD (1), (2)
on fertilizer in cover maintenance for landfills or on agricultural land. Additional fleet equipment and be co-located with other alternative facility(ies)
capacity operators would be needed for organics collection, site operation and disposal of residuals. End on this site.
uses/markets and capacities may need development.
Difficult permitting, close to Everglades Class I
area and existing large emitters. Significant
Unproven technology, significant pre-processing of MSW required. High complexity, high skill level impacts to local traffic. Development at this site
100-300+ needed for operation. Possible capacity limitations. Increased fire risk from syngas production but can may require additional time and costs for
Gasification 5-60+ Ac $154+(3) 10+ years
TPD fuel turbines for electrical generation. High capital and operating cost. Active ash monofil on site for backfilling and structure foundations. Could be
slag disposal. co-located with other alternative facility(ies) on
this site. WM Medley landfill adjacent to site for
slag disposal.

www.arcadis.com
2/9
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 1 - Medley

Site Alternatives Summary
Potential Cost Per Development
Alternative Capacity Technology Considerations Site-Specific Considerations
Site Area Ton Time
Difficult permitting, close to Everglades Class I
area and existing large emitters. Significant
No changes to existing collection system needed. Highest capacity alternative. High complexity, high
Waste-to- impacts to local traffic. Site development may
40-60 4,000- skill level needed for operation. Permitting and public opposition challenges. High capital and operating
Energy $57-60+ 8-10+ years require additional time and costs for backfilling
Ac 5,000 TPD cost. Electrical generation for revenue or powering other facilities. Good metal recovery possible from
(Mass Burn) and structure foundations. Could be co-located
ash. Landfill needed for ash disposal.
with other alternative facility(ies) on this site. WM
Medley landfill adjacent to site for ash disposal.
No changes to existing collection system needed. High complexity, high skill level needed for operation.
Potential public concerns with noise, odor and
Mechanical High capital and operating cost. High-capacity alternative, but waste is typically shredded and
200-560 vector issues. Could be co-located with other
Biological 5-15 Ac $123-183 3-4 years converted into pelletized solid recovered fuel (SRF) that must be transported and fired at another
TPD alternative facility(ies) on this site. Local concrete
Treatment facility capable of using the SRF. Additional fleet equipment and operators would be needed for site
facilities may be able to use SRF.
operation and transport of SRF.
No changes to existing collection system needed. High complexity, but low skill level needed for most
operations. Capacity limited to approximately 3,000 tpd. Potential permitting issues and public concerns
Potential public concerns with noise, odor and
Mixed Waste with noise, odor and vector issues. Additional processing/disposal of post-processed MSW would be
200-1500 vector issues. Significant impacts to local traffic.
Processing 20-60 Ac $85-$150 5-7 years required. Contamination of recovered materials is significant issue, recovery rates for marketable
TPD Could be co-located with other alternative
Facility materials typically 30% or less. End uses/markets and capacities may need development. Moderate
facility(ies) on this site.
capital and operating costs, and additional fleet equipment and operators would be needed for site
operations and transport of residuals.
Modification of existing curbside collection system needed. High complexity, but low skill level needed
for most operations. Capacity limited by site area. Typical maximum processing capacity for these
Material Minimal expected public concerns. Moderate
300-400 facilities is approximately 350-400 tons per day. Minimal public concerns. Additional
Recovery 20-60 Ac $87-154 5-7 years impacts to local traffic. Could be co-located with
TPD processing/disposal of some post-processed materials (i.e., glass) would be required. Contamination of
Facility another alternative facility on this site.
recovered materials is significant issue. End uses/markets and capacities may need development.
Moderate capital and operating costs, and additional fleet equipment and operators would be needed.
No change to existing collection system needed. Can be low or high complexity, but low skill level
Likely public concerns with noise, odor and dust
C&D needed for most operations. Capacity limited by site area. Potential public concerns with noise, odor,
300–825 issues. Depending on footprint area could be co-
Recycling 5-20 Ac $76-150 3-7 years and dust. Additional processing/disposal of some post-processed materials (i.e., mixed fines) would be
TPD located with another alternative facility on this
Facility required. End uses/markets and capacities may need development. Moderate capital and operating
site.
costs, and additional fleet equipment and operators would be needed.
(1)
Sources: DC Study (2017 costs escalated) and NREL Study (2020 costs escalated). Cost does not include additional organics collection system costs.
(2)
Costs estimated from vendor quote, does not include building or land acquisition costs.
(3)
Costs based on 2017 article in Waste Management journal using developed country costs.

www.arcadis.com
3/9
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 1 - Medley

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 2.0 miles north of the existing RRF, more than four miles from any
active airport, adjacent to residential zoning, and more than 11 miles from the boundary of Everglades
National Park. If this site were selected, the effects on the County’s Solid Waste System would be
minimal. Direct hauls from some of the collection routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF would divert
to the West transfer station for disposal due to shorter travel times. Incoming waste at that station
would increase and may result in capacity issues, as it is currently operating at approximately 80% of
design capacity.
The number of deliveries by collection vehicles and transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer
stations, and Trash & Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the capacity and material
types processed by the alternative facility(ies) developed at the site. Their travel patterns would be
slightly altered, and travel times would change slightly due to changes in travel distances and expected
traffic congestion. Estimated travel distances and times from the site to the County’s transfer stations
and landfills as compared to the RRF site are as follows:

Est. Travel Est. Travel

Facility Distance/Time to Distance/Time to
Site 1 - Medley RRF

West TS 11 mi/18 min 9 mi/16 min

Central TS 11 mi/23 min 14 mi/21 min

Northeast TS 15 mi/25 min 18 mi/25 min

South Dade LF 26 mi/32 min 25 mi/31 min

North Dade LF 18 mi/19 min 21 mi/23 min

The changes in travel times and distances from the RRF site do not appear to be sufficient to
significantly affect Collection and Transfer operations. Provided no other operational changes are
made, Collection and Transfer fleet labor, fuel consumption and maintenance costs are expected to
have only minor changes if this site were selected for development.
Ash/slag hauling costs for a new WTE or gasification facility located at this site are expected to be
higher than at the existing RRF, and options for limiting hauling distances could be considered. If
disposed at a non-County facility, costs for disposal would significantly increase from current levels.

www.arcadis.com
4/9
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 1 - Medley

Utilities
 Potable water – The potable water capacity required for fire lines and supply lines will depend on
the type of alternative facility(ies) selected. Potable water mains appear to be available at the site
on NW 95th Ave. and NW 106th Street, but additional analysis will be needed to determine pipe
size, service pressure, and available system capacity. A booster station may be needed to
increase system pressure. Soils data indicates shallow depth to bedrock in some locations, rock
removal may be required for pipe trench excavation for new lines in those areas.

 Wastewater – The minimum sanitary sewer capacity requirements will depend on the type of
alternative facility(ies) selected. Sanitary sewer appears to be available at the site on NW 95th
Ave. and NW 106th Street, but additional analysis will be needed to determine pipe size and
available system capacity. A lift station and force main to gravity sewer may be required. Soils
data indicates shallow depth to bedrock in some locations, rock removal may be required for pipe
trench excavation for new lines in those areas.

 Natural gas – The minimum natural gas capacity requirements will depend on the type of
alternative facility(ies) selected. If needed for facility operations, service lines will need to be
extended to the site. According to the National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) there is a gas
transmission main approximately 2.0 miles away near the intersection of NW 90th Street and NW
79th Avenue. Additional ROW/easement may be needed. Soils data indicates shallow depth to
bedrock, rock removal may be required for pipe trench excavation.

 Electric – The electrical service capacity required will depend on the type of alternative facility(ies)
selected. Standard 120V/230A electrical service appears to be available at the site. The nearest
substation/ switchyard is an FPL Substation located 1.9 miles away at 10800 NW 107th Street.
Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and available terminations.
Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements.

 Stormwater – High groundwater elevations may result in slightly larger stormwater ponds on site,
but there appears to be sufficient area for a stormwater system that meets regulatory
requirements.

 Groundwater – If necessary for facility operations, a consumptive use permit from the South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to withdraw any groundwater
from the aquifer. If a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for all facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soils
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site and historical aerial photos (c. 1985) indicate the site area was
previously excavated as a quarry and subsequently backfilled. This is consistent with the USDA Soil
Survey data for the site, which classifies the site soils as 9—Udorthents-Water-Urban land complex, 0
to 60 percent slopes. Udorthents soils consist of unconsolidated or heterogeneous geologic material
removed during the excavation of ditches, canals, lakes, ponds, and quarries.

www.arcadis.com
5/9
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 1 - Medley

Depending on the type of alternative facility(ies) selected.for this site, the facility buildings and ancillary
components would have to be constructed on fill material, which could present geotechnical
engineering challenges for foundation designs and additional site preparation costs.

Environment
 Floodplains – The site is not in a floodplain, it is within FEMA Flood Zone X (Minimal Flood
Hazard).

 Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

 Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

 New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 11.38 mi (18.31 km) NE of the Everglades Class I Area, 16.19 mi (26.05 km) NW of
the Biscayne Class II Area, and between two large existing emitters, the Medley Class I Landfill and
Titan Pennsuco Complex. The adjacent Medley Landfill may result in elevated receptors (200ft+)
and exhaust plume impaction during air emissions modeling.
As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE or gasification facility would be
subject to PSD permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction
approval under the PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best
Available Control Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to
demonstrate compliance with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors
located in the immediate vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at
sensitive receptors located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II
areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE or gasification facility and thus will make air permitting
challenging at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land
manager agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air
pollution. These resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources
for sensitive area(s).

 Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates no
wetlands are present. The site appears disturbed. The site is not within a Florida panther focus area
for consultation or critical habitat for endangered or threatened species under the Endangered
Species Act. The site is within the urban development boundary in Miami-Dade County for the
Florida bonneted bat and individual consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required
but is assumed to be minimal as there is no roosting or foraging habitat remaining. The site is also

www.arcadis.com
6/9
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 1 - Medley

within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony; however, the lack of apparent suitable foraging
habitat precludes wood stork mitigation. No permit triggers exist for wetlands.

Transportation
The site has good access to Florida Turnpike and US-27 via Beacon Station Blvd., but some road areas
need to be improved and the Town of Medley may want the County to assume maintenance of some or
all of the access roads, which would increase the County’s costs. The volume of traffic that is expected
at the proposed WTE facility (400-500 trucks per day), will greatly increase the loads on local roads
(i.e., NW 106th Terrace and NW 106th Street) so the traffic impacts to local area will likely be significant.
Truck queuing will have to be accomplished on site to prevent further congestion.

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated elevated values for Particulate Matter 2.5 (µg/m3) and
several other pollutants. The site is adjacent to residential zoning, which suggests that the siting of a
WTE facility may be opposed by the community at this location.

Schedule
There are a few site issues that could affect the schedule of any alternative facility project, including:

 Land Acquisition – siting analysis and land acquisition will increase schedule duration.

 Utilities – Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water,

sanitary sewer, natural gas, and electric utility infrastructure.

 Soils – Depending on the type of alternative facility(ies) selected for this site, additional
geotechnical testing will be needed to determine the full extent of soil preparation needed (i.e.,
vibro-compaction, consolidation, etc.) and additional requirements for building foundations at the
site, which may increase design and construction time.

 Permitting – If a WTE or gasification facility is selected for this site, the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) Permitting will be difficult. The site is located 11.38 mi (18.31 km) NE of the
Everglades Class I Area, 16.19 mi (26.05 km) NW of the Biscayne Class II Area, and between two
large existing emitters, the Medley Class I Landfill and Titan Pennsuco Complex. The adjacent
Medley Landfill may result in elevated receptors (200ft+) and exhaust plume impaction during air
emissions modeling. The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of
the County and the Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern border of the
County both having more stringent air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties
associated with demonstrating acceptable impacts from the operation of a new WTE or gasification
facility and thus will make air permitting challenging at this prospective site.

 Community – The site is adjacent to residential zoning. Therefore, siting of new alternative
facility(ies) may face community opposition at this location, which could affect the project schedule.

www.arcadis.com
7/9
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 1 - Medley

Cost
Overall, the site area is sufficient for any of the alternative facilities, and more than one depending on
the property area acquired. There are many different possible combinations of facilities and processing
capacities that could be developed at this location, and the total redevelopment costs could range from
$20 million for a low-tech outdoor C&D recycling facility to more than $1.5 billion for a state-of the art
mass burn WTE facility and ash landfill. The optimal selection, sizing and arrangement of alternative
facilities will require additional studies to more accurately determine the total development costs. If a
WTE or gasification facility is selected for this site, development costs are expected to be higher than at
the existing RRF site, primarily due to geotechnical and operational issues. Depending on the
alternative facility(ies) selected, there are several site issues and additional Solid Waste System
changes that could affect the total cost to the Department, including:

 Land Acquisition – siting analysis and land acquisition will increase project costs.

 Utilities
- Construction of a potable water booster station may be required.
- Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station will likely be required.
- Construction of approximately 2.2 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners.
- Soils data indicates shallow depth to bedrock, rock removal may be required in some areas for
utility pipe trench excavation.
- Construction of approximately 1.9 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing
ROW/ FPL easements. Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.
- Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary
sewer, natural gas, and electric utility infrastructure.
- On-site water wells are likely not permittable, therefore potable water will need to be purchased,
increasing anticipated operations and maintenance costs.

 Soils – Additional geotechnical testing will be needed to determine the full extent of soil preparation
needed (i.e., vibro-compaction, consolidation, etc.) and additional requirements for building
foundations at the site, which may increase design and construction costs.

 Stormwater – due to high groundwater levels, additional stormwater considerations or facilities

may be required.

 Zoning and Permitting – because this is a greenfield site, additional zoning and permitting efforts
may be required which could impact cost and schedule.

 Solid Waste System

- Some collection routes that currently direct haul to the existing RRF would likely reroute to
dispose at the West or Northeast Transfer Station to minimize travel times, which may
increase traffic at those stations.

www.arcadis.com
8/9
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 1 - Medley

- Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be higher than at
the existing RRF, however, options for limiting ash hauling distances could be considered. If
disposed at a non-County facility, costs for ash disposal would significantly increase from
current levels.
- It is also assumed that there may be impact fees or improvements required to local roads that
have not yet been factored into the capital cost for this site because the extent of roadway
modifications is currently not known. It is anticipated that these would be negotiated and
further evaluated during the land acquisition process.

Site Differentiators Overview

Depending on the alternative facility(ies) selected, the following differentiators from the RRF site may affect the cost and
schedule of development at this site:

 Construction of a potable water booster station may be required.

 Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and 6” force main may be required.

 Construction of approximately 2.2 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas.

 Soils data indicates shallow depth to bedrock, rock removal may be required for utility pipe trench excavation.

 Additional geotechnical testing will be needed to determine the full extent of soil preparation needed (i.e., vibro-
compaction, consolidation, etc.) and additional requirements for building foundations at the site, which may increase
design and construction costs and extend the project schedule.

 Construction of approximately 1.9 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing FPL substation may be needed.

 Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, and
electric utility infrastructure.

 There may be impact fees or improvements required to local roads that have not yet been factored into the capital
cost for this site because the extent of roadway modifications is currently not known.

www.arcadis.com
9/9
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 16 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #1

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

This 159.71-acre site consists of two parcels outside the UDB, located in Folio No: 30-8808-000-0030
unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The combined site area is sufficient Owner: P Acursio Partnership LTD
to support is large enough to support any of the alternative facilities and 2023 MDPA Market Value: $8,160,718
potentially co-locate multiple facilities. The property is less than a 10- Zoning District: AU
minute travel time to W Palm Drive, is 0.51 miles from the nearest PA Zone: Interim - Agricultural
residential zoning, and 1.02 miles from the boundary of Everglades
National Park. Folio No: 30-8808-000-0020
Owner: Everglades Fruit, Inc.
2022 MDPA Market Value: $139,014
Site Alternatives Summary Zoning District: AU
PA Zone: Interim - Agricultural
Considerations for the selection of each alternative technology at this
site are shown on the pages that follow.

www.arcadis.com
1/10
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 16 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #1

Site Alternatives Summary

Annual
Potential Development
Alternative Capacity Cost Per Technology Considerations Site-Specific Considerations
Site Area Time
Ton
Reduced potential public concerns with noise,
5-8 tons Requires separate organics collection. Low complexity, low skill level needed for most operations. odor and vector issues. High groundwater may
per acre Minimum 30-day processing time. Processing capacity depends on available land area. Not well suited cause operational difficulties, especially during
Organics
per day, $72-$80+ for urban areas, potential public concerns with noise, odor and vector issues. Challenging wet season wet season. Estimated maximum processing
Composting 10-150 Ac 3-5 years
typically (1) operations. Good quality compost produced. End uses/markets and capacities may need development. capacity at this site approximately 300,000 tons
(Windrow)
80-500 Additional fleet equipment and operators would be needed for organics collection, site operation and per year. Significantly increased hauling costs.
TPD. disposal of residuals. Could be co-located with other alternative
facility(ies) on this site.
Reduced potential public concerns with noise,
1-10 tons odor and vector issues. High groundwater may
Requires separate organics collection. Moderate complexity, moderate skill level needed for operation.
per acre cause operational difficulties, especially during
Organics Minimum 30-day processing time. Processing capacity depends on available land area. Potential
per day. $74-$80+ wet season. Estimated maximum processing
Composting 5-150 Ac 3-5 years public concerns with noise, odor and vector issues. Challenging wet season operations. End
Typically, (1) capacity at this site approximately 400,000 tons
(ASP) uses/markets and capacities may need development. Additional fleet equipment and operators would
80-700 per year. Significantly increased hauling costs.
be needed for organics collection, site operation and disposal of residuals.
TPD Could be co-located with other alternative
facility(ies) on this site.
Reduced potential public concerns with noise,
5-100 tpd Requires separate organics collection. Variable complexity, low skill level needed for operation. Short
odor and vector issues. High groundwater may
Organics per 5-7 day processing time. Compact process, smaller facility footprint, expandable capacity. Better suited
$9-$50+ cause some operational difficulties, especially
Composting 1-60 Ac vessel, 15 3-5 years for urban areas, vessels can be enclosed in metal building to mitigate potential public concerns with
(1), (2) during wet season. Utilities and travel times are
(In-Vessel) to 1200 odor and vector issues from receiving areas. Additional fleet equipment and operators would be
concerns. Could be co-located with other
TPD needed for organics collection, site operation and disposal of residuals.
alternative facility(ies) on this site.
Requires separate organics collection. High complexity, high skill level needed for operation.
3-40+ Processing capacity depends on available land area. Potential permitting issues and public concerns Reduced potential public concerns with noise,
acres with noise, odor and vector issues. Fire risk from methane production. Additional composting or odor and vector issues. Presence of floodplain
Anaerobic 270-600 $57-$90+
depending 5-7 years disposal of resulting digestate solids would be required. Resulting digestate liquids can be used for will increase development costs. Utilities will
Digestion TPD (1), (2)
on fertilizer in cover maintenance for landfills or on agricultural land. Additional fleet equipment and need to be extended to site and travel times are
capacity operators would be needed for organics collection, site operation and disposal of residuals. End concerns.
uses/markets and capacities may need development.

www.arcadis.com
2/10
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 16 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #1

Site Alternatives Summary

Annual
Potential Development
Alternative Capacity Cost Per Technology Considerations Site-Specific Considerations
Site Area Time
Ton
Potential permitting issues and community
opposition at this location. Expected very
Unproven technology, significant pre-processing of MSW required. High complexity, high skill level
challenging permitting due to proximity to
100-300+ needed for operation. Possible capacity limitations. Increased fire risk from syngas production but can
Gasification 5-60+ Ac $154+(3) 10+ years Everglades Class I Area. Utilities will need to be
TPD fuel turbines for electrical generation. High capital and operating cost. Active ash monofil on site for
extended to site. Significantly increased local
slag disposal.
traffic and hauling costs. Could be co-located
with other alternative facility(ies) on this site.
Potential permitting issues and community
opposition at this location. Expected very
No changes to existing collection system needed. Highest capacity alternative. High complexity, high
Waste-to- challenging permitting due to proximity to
40-60 4,000- skill level needed for operation. Permitting and public opposition challenges. High capital and operating
Energy $57-60+ 8-10+ years Everglades Class I Area. Utilities will need to be
Ac 5,000 TPD cost. Electrical generation for revenue or powering other facilities. Good metal recovery possible from
(Mass Burn) extended to site. Significantly increased local
ash. Landfill needed for ash disposal.
traffic and hauling costs. Could be co-located
with other alternative facility(ies) on this site.
Potential public concerns with noise, odor and
No changes to existing collection system needed. High complexity, high skill level needed for operation.
vector issues. Significantly increased local traffic
Mechanical High capital and operating cost. High-capacity alternative, but waste is typically shredded and
200-560 and hauling costs. Utilities will need to be
Biological 5-15 Ac $123-183 3-4 years converted into pelletized solid recovered fuel (SRF) that must be transported and fired at another
TPD extended to site. Could be co-located with other
Treatment facility capable of using the SRF. Additional fleet equipment and operators would be needed for site
alternative facility(ies) on this site. Local concrete
operation and transport of SRF.
facilities may be able to use SRF.
No changes to existing collection system needed. High complexity, but low skill level needed for most
Potential public concerns with noise, odor and
operations. Capacity limited to approximately 3,000 tpd. Potential permitting issues and public concerns
vector issues, but may be minimal at this
Mixed Waste with noise, odor and vector issues. Additional processing/disposal of post-processed MSW would be
200-1500 location. Utilities will need to be extended to site.
Processing 20-60 Ac $85-$150 5-7 years required. Contamination of recovered materials is significant issue, recovery rates for marketable
TPD Significantly increased hauling costs. Could be
Facility materials typically 30% or less. End uses/markets and capacities may need development. Moderate
co-located with other alternative facility(ies) on
capital and operating costs, and additional fleet equipment and operators would be needed for site
this site.
operations and transport of residuals.

www.arcadis.com
3/10
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 16 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #1

Site Alternatives Summary

Annual
Potential Development
Alternative Capacity Cost Per Technology Considerations Site-Specific Considerations
Site Area Time
Ton
Modification of existing curbside collection system needed. High complexity, but low skill level needed
for most operations. Capacity limited by site area. Typical maximum processing capacity for these Minimal expected public concerns. Utilities will
Material
300-400 facilities is approximately 350-400 tons per day. Minimal public concerns. Additional need to be extended to site. Significantly
Recovery 20-60 Ac $87-154 5-7 years
TPD processing/disposal of some post-processed materials (i.e., glass) would be required. Contamination of increased hauling costs. Could be co-located
Facility
recovered materials is significant issue. End uses/markets and capacities may need development. with another alternative facility on this site.
Moderate capital and operating costs, and additional fleet equipment and operators would be needed.
No change to existing collection system needed. Can be low or high complexity, but low skill level Potential public concerns with noise, odor and
C&D needed for most operations. Capacity limited by site area. Potential public concerns with noise, odor, dust issues. Utilities will need to be extended to
300–825
Recycling 5-20 Ac $76-150 3-7 years and dust. Additional processing/disposal of some post-processed materials (i.e., mixed fines) would be site. Significantly increased hauling costs. Could
TPD
Facility required. End uses/markets and capacities may need development. Moderate capital and operating be co-located with another alternative facility on
costs, and additional fleet equipment and operators would be needed. this site.
(1)
Sources: DC Study (2017 costs escalated) and NREL Study (2020 costs escalated). Cost does not include additional organics collection system costs.
(2)
Costs estimated from vendor quote, does not include building or land acquisition costs.
(3)
Costs based on 2017 article in Waste Management journal using developed country costs.

www.arcadis.com
4/10
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 16 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #1

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 32.5 miles SW of the existing RRF, slightly more than half a mile
from the nearest residential zoning, and approximately one mile from the boundary of Everglades
National Park. If this site were selected for siting alternative facility(ies), the effects on the County’s
Solid Waste System would be considerable.
To maintain the current collection patterns and travel times, a new transfer station would need to be
constructed at the RRF site if this site was selected for development. The number of deliveries by
transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash & Recycling Centers (TRCs)
would increase to meet the capacity of the alternative facility(ies) developed on the site. Their travel
patterns would be altered, and travel times would significantly increase due to longer travel distances
and expected traffic congestion. Estimated travel distances and times from the site to the County’s
transfer stations and landfills as compared to the RRF site are as follows:

Est. Travel Est. Travel

Facility Distance/Time to Distance/Time to
Site 16 RRF

West TS 35 mi/41 min 9 mi/16 min

Central TS 45 mi/53 min 14 mi/21 min

Northeast TS 58 mi/63 min 18 mi/25 min

South Dade LF 20 mi/31 min 25 mi/31 min

North Dade LF 58 mi/59 min 21 mi/23 min

Transfer fleet round trip times would increase and would likely result in the need for additional vehicles
and drivers to manage transfer volumes. Transfer fleet fuel consumption and maintenance costs would
significantly increase due to the additional deliveries and travel times and distances, while similar
Collection fleet costs would also increase due to longer travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash/slag hauling costs for a new WTE or gasification facility located at this site are expected to be
significantly higher than at the existing RRF. If disposed at a non-County facility, expected costs for
disposal would increase even further.

Utilities
 Potable water – The potable water capacity required for fire lines and supply lines will depend on
the type of alternative facility(ies) selected. Potable water mains appear to be available
approximately 3.3 miles NE of the site on Ingraham Hwy., but further analysis is needed to verify
service pressure and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to provide adequate
service pressure at the site.
www.arcadis.com
5/10
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 16 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #1

 Wastewater – The minimum sanitary sewer capacity requirements will depend on the type of
alternative facility(ies) selected. Sanitary sewer appears to be available approximately 3.3 miles
NE of the site on Ingraham Hwy., an on-site lift station and about 3.3 miles of force main will likely
be required.

 Natural gas – The minimum natural gas capacity requirements will depend on the type of
alternative facility(ies) selected. If needed for facility operations, service lines will need to be
extended to the site. According to the National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) the closest
transmission main is approximately 5.5 miles NE of the site on Old Dixie Hwy. Construction of the
service line to the site is assumed to be within existing ROW and easements.

 Electric – The electrical service capacity required will depend on the type of alternative facility(ies)
selected. Standard 120V/230A electrical service appears to be available at the site. Nearest
substation/switchyard is Florida City Substation located approximately 6.5 miles away at 33800
SW 202nd Avenue. For WTE and gasification facilities, would need to verify substation/switchyard
spare capacity, voltage, and available terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through
existing ROW/FPL easements is assumed. New legal easements may need to be established to
complete this routing.

 Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and area used for stormwater retention.

 Groundwater – If necessary for facility operations, a consumptive use permit from the South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to withdraw any groundwater
from the aquifer. If a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for all facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the predominant site soils as Krome very gravelly
marly loam, 1 to 2 percent slopes, Biscayne marly silt loam, drained, 0 to 1 percent slopes, and
Chekika very gravelly marly loam, 1 to 2 percent slopes. Generally, these soils are not well suited for
building foundations because of water content and shallow depth to bedrock (typically 5-7 inches).
The presence of Biscayne marl soils indicates the seasonal high groundwater elevation is typically
within 10 inches of the ground surface, but would have to be confirmed by geotechnical investigations.
These soils are severely limited for building foundations because of water content and shallow depth
to bedrock, and areas under building foundations would need to be removed and replaced with
structural fill. Depending on the type of alternative facility(ies) selected for the site, the high
groundwater and the presence of a 100-year floodplain on the site will result in the need for elevating
building foundations, which will also increase project costs due to the need for additional structural fill.

Environment
 Floodplains – The entire site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone A.

 Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

www.arcadis.com
6/10
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 16 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #1

 Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – If a WTE or gasification facility were selected for
this site, a complete PPSA Application would need to be developed, inclusive of the associated
individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP, Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting
(if needed), etc.). The PSC “need determination” filing process would also be also required.

 New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 1.02 mi (1.7 km) E of the Everglades Class I Area, 13.00 mi (21.0 km) W of the
Biscayne Class II Area, and about 13.0 miles WSW of the FPL Turkey Point Power Plant, a large
source of emissions.
If a WTE or gasification facility were selected for this site, it would be a proposed major source of
air pollutant emissions and subject to PSD permitting requirements under the NSR permitting
program. Pre-construction approval under the PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon
application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling
analyses to demonstrate compliance with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at
both receptors located in the immediate vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality
related criteria at sensitive receptors located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or
sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the County and the
Biscayne Bay National Park (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern border of the County
both having more stringent Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs) and provide uncertainties
associated with demonstrating acceptable impacts from the operation of a new WTE or gasification
facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging at this prospective site. The AQRVs are
resources, identified by the Class I area land manager agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that
have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These resources may include visibility, scenic,
cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive area(s). Based on projected emissions for a
4,000 tpd WTE facility, preliminary evaluation indicates that this parcel may be too close to
sensitive receptors in the nearby Class I area thus making it extremely difficult to demonstrate
acceptable impacts for PSD permit issuance.

 Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site
contains minor wetlands. The site is not within a Florida panther focus area for consultation or
critical habitat for endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The site is
within the urban development boundary in Miami-Dade County for the Florida bonneted bat and
individual consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required.

Transportation
Travel time north to W Palm Drive is less than 10 minutes. Existing access to the site is via Ingraham
Hwy. (see map below), and no additional offsite road improvements are needed. Depending on the type
of alternative facility(ies) selected for the site, the volume of traffic could increase to 400-500 trucks per
day, which will greatly increase the loads on local roads. The traffic impacts on Ingraham Hwy., W Palm
Drive, and other local roads may be significant. Truck queuing will have to be accomplished on site to
prevent further congestion.

www.arcadis.com
7/10
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 16 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #1

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no existing environmental justice issues for this site.
However, the site is about half a mile from the nearest residential zoning and is approximately a mile
from the boundary of Everglades National Park, which suggests that siting that the siting of any
alternative facility(ies) that may have potential noise, odor, or other objectionable characteristics may be
opposed by the community at this location.

Schedule
There are a few site issues that could affect the schedule of any alternative facility project, including:

 Land Acquisition – The land acquisition process will increase schedule duration.

 Soils – Depending on the type of alternative facility(ies) selected for the site, the removal and
replacement of site muck soils with structural fill and/or rock removal in development areas may be
needed. Additional structural fill will be needed to elevate buildings due to the high groundwater
table and floodplain mitigation.

www.arcadis.com
8/10
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 16 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #1

 Permitting – Due to the presence of floodplains, minor wetlands, and the close proximity of the site
to the Everglades Class I Area, permitting at this site may be very challenging, especially if a WTE
or gasification facility is selected. Based on projected emissions for a 4,000 tpd WTE facility,
preliminary evaluation indicates that this parcel may be too close to sensitive receptors in the
nearby Class I area, thus making it extremely difficult to demonstrate acceptable impacts for PSD
permit issuance.

 Mitigation – Wetland, floodplain, and wildlife mitigation will likely increase the duration of the
implementation schedule.

 Community – The close proximity of the site to Everglades National Park may result in significant
opposition from environmental groups and community organizations, which could impact the
duration of the implementation schedule.

Cost
Overall, the site area is sufficient for any of the alternative facilities, and more than one depending on
the property area acquired. There are many different possible combinations of facilities and processing
capacities that could be developed at this location, and the total redevelopment costs could range from
$20 million for a low-tech outdoor C&D recycling facility to more than $1.5 billion for a state-of the art
mass burn WTE facility and ash landfill. The optimal selection, sizing and arrangement of alternative
facilities will require additional studies to more accurately determine the total development costs. If a
WTE or gasification facility is selected for this site, development costs are expected to be significantly
higher than at the existing RRF site, primarily due to floodplain and wetland mitigation issues.
Depending on the alternative facility(ies) selected, there are several site issues and additional Solid
Waste System changes that could affect the total cost to the Department, including:

 Land Acquisition – siting analysis and land acquisition will increase costs.

 Soils – Depending on the type of alternative facility(ies) selected for the site, the removal and
replacement of site muck soils with structural fill and/or rock removal in development areas may be
needed. Additional structural fill will be needed to elevate buildings due to the high groundwater
table and floodplain mitigation.

 Utilities
- Construction of a potable water booster station and 3.3 miles of water main may be required.
- Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and 3.3 miles of force main may be required.
- Construction of approximately 5.5 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
site may be required.
- Soils data indicates shallow depth to bedrock, rock removal may be required in some areas for
utility pipe trench excavation.
- If a WTE or gasification facility is selected for this site, construction of approximately 6.5 miles
of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements will be needed.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.
- Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary
sewer, natural gas, and electric utility infrastructure.
www.arcadis.com
9/10
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 16 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #1

- On-site water wells are likely not permittable; therefore potable water will need to be purchased,
increasing anticipated operations and maintenance costs.

 Permitting – Due to the presence of floodplains, minor wetlands, and the close proximity of the site
to the Everglades Class I Area, permitting at this site may be very challenging, especially if a WTE
or gasification facility is selected. Permitting difficulties are expected to increase costs at this site.

 Stormwater – High groundwater table and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area required for stormwater retention.

 Solid Waste System

- Collection and Transfer vehicles routed to this site would have significantly increased costs for
fuel consumption, driver time, and vehicle wear related to the additional travel distance from
the existing RRF.
- Ash/slag hauling costs for a new WTE or gasification facility located at this site are expected to
be much higher than the existing RRF. An option to keep hauling distances short - there
appears to be sufficient area on site to co-locate a new ash monofil, if permittable. If disposed
at a non-County facility, costs for disposal would significantly increase from current levels.

Site Differentiators Overview

 Removal of soils and replacement with structural fill

 Additional structural fill for elevation of buildings due to high groundwater

 Floodplain compensating storage

 Extremely difficult PSD permitting

 Long extensions of utilities

 Close proximity to Everglades National Park – anticipated environmental group and community organization
opposition

 Collection and Transfer vehicles routed to this site would have significantly increased costs for fuel consumption,
driver time, and vehicle wear related to the additional travel distance from existing System facilities.

www.arcadis.com
10/10
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 17 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #2

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

This 81.11-acre site is a single parcel outside the UDB, located in Folio No: 30-8808-000-0040
unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The site area is sufficient to Owner: EIP IV FL Round Hammock Land
support is large enough to support any of the alternative facilities and Co., LLC
potentially co-locate multiple facilities. The property is less than a 10- 2023 MDPA Market Value: $3,744,200
minute travel time to W Palm Drive, is 0.53 miles from the nearest Zoning District: AU
residential zoning, and is 1.28 miles from the boundary of Everglades PA Zone: 9000 - Agricultural
National Park. The entire site is within a proposed Mitigation Bank area
currently under consideration by the BCC.

Site Alternatives Summary

Considerations for the selection of each alternative technology at this site are shown on the pages that follow.

www.arcadis.com
1/12
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 17 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #2

Site Alternatives Summary

Annual
Potential Development
Alternative Capacity Cost Per Technology Considerations Site-Specific Considerations
Site Area Time
Ton
Reduced potential public concerns with noise,
5-8 tons Requires separate organics collection. Low complexity, low skill level needed for most operations. odor and vector issues. High groundwater may
per acre Minimum 30-day processing time. Processing capacity depends on available land area. Not well suited cause operational difficulties, especially during
Organics
per day, $72-$80+ for urban areas, potential public concerns with noise, odor and vector issues. Challenging wet season wet season. Estimated maximum processing
Composting 10-70 Ac 3-5 years
typically (1) operations. Good quality compost produced. End uses/markets and capacities may need development. capacity at this site approximately 150,000 tons
(Windrow)
80-500 Additional fleet equipment and operators would be needed for organics collection, site operation and per year. Significantly increased hauling costs.
TPD. disposal of residuals. Could be co-located with other alternative
facility(ies) on this site.
Reduced potential public concerns with noise,
1-10 tons odor and vector issues. High groundwater may
Requires separate organics collection. Moderate complexity, moderate skill level needed for operation.
per acre cause operational difficulties, especially during
Organics Minimum 30-day processing time. Processing capacity depends on available land area. Potential
per day. $74-$80+ wet season. Estimated Maximum processing
Composting 5-70 Ac 3-5 years public concerns with noise, odor and vector issues. Challenging wet season operations. End
Typically, (1) capacity at this site approximately 200,000 tons
(ASP) uses/markets and capacities may need development. Additional fleet equipment and operators would
80-700 per year. Significantly increased hauling costs.
be needed for organics collection, site operation and disposal of residuals.
TPD Could be co-located with other alternative
facility(ies) on this site.
Reduced potential public concerns with noise,
5-100 tpd Requires separate organics collection. Variable complexity, low skill level needed for operation. Short
odor and vector issues. High groundwater may
Organics per 5-7 day processing time. Compact process, smaller facility footprint, expandable capacity. Better suited
$9-$50+ cause some operational difficulties, especially
Composting 1-70 Ac vessel, 15 3-5 years for urban areas, vessels can be enclosed in metal building to mitigate potential public concerns with
(1),(2) during wet season. Utilities and travel times are
(In-Vessel) to 1200 odor and vector issues from receiving areas. Additional fleet equipment and operators would be
concerns. Could be co-located with other
TPD needed for organics collection, site operation and disposal of residuals.
alternative facility(ies) on this site.
Requires separate organics collection. High complexity, high skill level needed for operation.
3-40+ Processing capacity depends on available land area. Potential permitting issues and public concerns Reduced potential public concerns with noise,
acres with noise, odor and vector issues. Fire risk from methane production. Additional composting or odor and vector issues. Presence of floodplain
Anaerobic 270-600 $57-$90+
depending 5-7 years disposal of resulting digestate solids would be required. Resulting digestate liquids can be used for will increase development costs. Utilities will
Digestion TPD (1),(2)
on fertilizer in cover maintenance for landfills or on agricultural land. Additional fleet equipment and need to be extended to site and travel times are
capacity operators would be needed for organics collection, site operation and disposal of residuals. End concerns.
uses/markets and capacities may need development.

www.arcadis.com
2/12
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 17 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #2

Site Alternatives Summary

Annual
Potential Development
Alternative Capacity Cost Per Technology Considerations Site-Specific Considerations
Site Area Time
Ton
Potential permitting issues and community
opposition at this location. Expected very
Unproven technology, significant pre-processing of MSW required. High complexity, high skill level
challenging permitting due to proximity to
100-300+ needed for operation. Possible capacity limitations. Increased fire risk from syngas production but can
Gasification 5-60+ Ac $154+(3) 10+ years Everglades Class I Area. Utilities will need to be
TPD fuel turbines for electrical generation. High capital and operating cost. Active ash monofil on site for
extended to site. Significantly increased local
slag disposal.
traffic and hauling costs. Could be co-located
with other alternative facility(ies) on this site.
Potential permitting issues and community
opposition at this location. Expected very
No changes to existing collection system needed. Highest capacity alternative. High complexity, high
Waste-to- challenging permitting due to proximity to
40-60 4,000- skill level needed for operation. Permitting and public opposition challenges. High capital and operating
Energy $57-60+ 8-10+ years Everglades Class I Area. Utilities will need to be
Ac 5,000 TPD cost. Electrical generation for revenue or powering other facilities. Good metal recovery possible from
(Mass Burn) extended to site. Significantly increased local
ash. Landfill needed for ash disposal.
traffic and hauling costs. Could be co-located
with other alternative facility(ies) on this site.
Potential public concerns with noise, odor and
No changes to existing collection system needed. High complexity, high skill level needed for operation.
vector issues. Significantly increased local traffic
Mechanical High capital and operating cost. High-capacity alternative, but waste is typically shredded and
200-560 and hauling costs. Utilities will need to be
Biological 5-15 Ac $123-183 3-4 years converted into pelletized solid recovered fuel (SRF) that must be transported and fired at another
TPD extended to site. Could be co-located with other
Treatment facility capable of using the SRF. Additional fleet equipment and operators would be needed for site
alternative facility(ies) on this site. Local concrete
operation and transport of SRF.
facilities may be able to use SRF.
No changes to existing collection system needed. High complexity, but low skill level needed for most
Potential public concerns with noise, odor and
operations. Capacity limited to approximately 3,000 tpd. Potential permitting issues and public concerns
vector issues, but may be minimal at this
Mixed Waste with noise, odor and vector issues. Additional processing/disposal of post-processed MSW would be
200-1500 location. Utilities will need to be extended to site.
Processing 20-60 Ac $85-$150 5-7 years required. Contamination of recovered materials is significant issue, recovery rates for marketable
TPD Significantly increased hauling costs. Could be
Facility materials typically 30% or less. End uses/markets and capacities may need development. Moderate
co-located with other alternative facility(ies) on
capital and operating costs, and additional fleet equipment and operators would be needed for site
this site.
operations and transport of residuals.

www.arcadis.com
3/12
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 17 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #2

Site Alternatives Summary

Annual
Potential Development
Alternative Capacity Cost Per Technology Considerations Site-Specific Considerations
Site Area Time
Ton
Modification of existing curbside collection system needed. High complexity, but low skill level needed
for most operations. Capacity limited by site area. Typical maximum processing capacity for these Minimal expected public concerns. Utilities will
Material
300-400 facilities is approximately 350-400 tons per day. Minimal public concerns. Additional need to be extended to site. Significantly
Recovery 20-60 Ac $87-154 5-7 years
TPD processing/disposal of some post-processed materials (i.e., glass) would be required. Contamination of increased hauling costs. Could be co-located
Facility
recovered materials is significant issue. End uses/markets and capacities may need development. with another alternative facility on this site.
Moderate capital and operating costs, and additional fleet equipment and operators would be needed.
No change to existing collection system needed. Can be low or high complexity, but low skill level Potential public concerns with noise, odor and
C&D needed for most operations. Capacity limited by site area. Potential public concerns with noise, odor, dust issues. Utilities will need to be extended to
300–825
Recycling 5-20 Ac $76-150 3-7 years and dust. Additional processing/disposal of some post-processed materials (i.e., mixed fines) would be site. Significantly increased hauling costs. Could
TPD
Facility required. End uses/markets and capacities may need development. Moderate capital and operating be co-located with another alternative facility on
costs, and additional fleet equipment and operators would be needed. this site.
(1)
Sources: DC Study (2017 costs escalated) and NREL Study (2020 costs escalated). Cost does not include additional organics collection system costs.
(2)
Costs estimated from vendor quote, does not include building or land acquisition costs.
(3)
Costs based on 2017 article in Waste Management journal using developed country costs.

www.arcadis.com
4/12
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 17 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #2

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 33.0 miles SW of the existing RRF site, slightly more than half a mile
from the nearest residential zoning, and approximately one mile from the boundary of Everglades
National Park. If this site were selected for siting alternative facility(ies), the effects on the County’s
Solid Waste System would be considerable.
To maintain the current collection patterns and travel times, a new transfer station would need to be
constructed at the RRF site if this site was selected for development. The number of deliveries by
transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash & Recycling Centers (TRCs)
would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility. Their travel patterns would be
altered, and travel times would significantly increase due to longer travel distances and expected traffic
congestion. Estimated travel distances and times from the site to the County’s transfer stations and
landfills as compared to the RRF site are as follows:

Est. Travel Est. Travel

Facility Distance/Time to Distance/Time to
Site 17 RRF

West TS 35 mi/41 min 9 mi/16 min

Central TS 45 mi/53 min 14 mi/21 min

Northeast TS 58 mi/63 min 18 mi/25 min

South Dade LF 20 mi/31 min 25 mi/31 min

North Dade LF 58 mi/59 min 21 mi/23 min

Transfer fleet round trip times would increase and would likely result in the need for additional vehicles
and drivers to manage transfer volumes. Transfer fleet fuel consumption and maintenance costs would
significantly increase due to the additional deliveries and travel times and distances, while similar
Collection fleet costs would also increase due to longer travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash/slag hauling costs for a new WTE or gasification facility located at this site are expected to be
significantly higher than at the existing RRF. If disposed at a non-County facility, expected costs for
disposal would increase even further.

Utilities
 Potable water – The potable water capacity required for fire lines and supply lines will depend on
the type of alternative facility(ies) selected. Potable water mains appear to be available
approximately 3.3 miles NE of the site on Ingraham Hwy., but further analysis is needed to verify
service pressure and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to provide adequate
service pressure at the site.
www.arcadis.com
5/12
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 17 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #2

 Wastewater – The minimum sanitary sewer capacity requirements will depend on the type of
alternative facility(ies) selected. Sanitary sewer appears to be available approximately 3.3 miles
NE of the site on Ingraham Hwy., an on-site lift station and about 3.3 miles of force main will likely
be required.

 Natural gas – The minimum natural gas capacity requirements will depend on the type of
alternative facility(ies) selected. If needed for facility operations, service lines will need to be
extended to the site. According to the National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) the closest
transmission main is approximately 5.5 miles NE of the site on Old Dixie Hwy. Construction of the
service line to the site is assumed to be within existing ROW and easements.

 Electric – The electrical service capacity required will depend on the type of alternative facility(ies)
selected. Standard 120V/230A electrical service appears to be available at the site. Nearest
substation/switchyard is Florida City Substation located approximately 6.5 miles away at 33800
SW 202nd Avenue. For WTE and gasification facilities, would need to verify substation/switchyard
spare capacity, voltage, and available terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through
existing ROW/FPL easements is assumed. New legal easements may need to be established to
complete this routing.

 Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and area used for stormwater retention.

 Groundwater – If necessary for facility operations, a consumptive use permit from the South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to withdraw any groundwater
from the aquifer. If a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for all facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the predominant site soils as Krome very gravelly
marly loam, 1 to 2 percent slopes, Biscayne marly silt loam, drained, 0 to 1 percent slopes, and
Chekika very gravelly marly loam, 1 to 2 percent slopes. Generally, these soils are not well suited for
building foundations because of water content and shallow depth to bedrock (typically 5-7 inches).
The presence of Biscayne marl soils indicates the seasonal high groundwater elevation is typically
within 10 inches of the ground surface, but would have to be confirmed by geotechnical investigations.
These soils are severely limited for building foundations because of water content and shallow depth to
bedrock, and areas under building foundations would need to be removed and replaced with structural
fill. Depending on the type of alternative facility(ies) selected for the site, the high groundwater and the
presence of a 100-year floodplain on the site will result in the need for elevating building foundations,
which will also increase project costs due to the need for additional structural fill.

Environment
 Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone A.

 Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

www.arcadis.com
6/12
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 17 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #2

 Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.). The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

 New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 1.28 mi (2.1 km) E of the Everglades Class I Area, 13.12 mi (21.2 km) W of the
Biscayne Class II Area, and about 12.8 miles WSW of the FPL Turkey Point Power Plant, a large
source of emissions.
As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE or gasification facility would be
subject to PSD permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction
approval under the PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best
Available Control Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to
demonstrate compliance with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors
located in the immediate vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at
sensitive receptors located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II
areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of
the County and the Biscayne Bay National Park (sensitive Class II area)
located on the eastern border of the County both have more stringent air
quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with
demonstrating acceptable impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility
and thus will make air permitting very challenging at this prospective site. The
AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager agencies
(i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air
pollution. These resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or
ecological resources for sensitive area(s). Based on projected emissions for a
4,000 tpd facility, preliminary evaluation indicates that this parcel may be too
close to sensitive receptors in the nearby Class I area thus making it extremely
difficult to demonstrate acceptable impacts for PSD permit issuance.

 Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps

of Engineers (USACE) Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands
Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and South Florida Water
Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site
contains wetlands. National Wetlands Inventory mapping indicates the
presence of a 0.96 acre Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland habitat classified
as a PFO1Ad, a 4.19 acre Freshwater Emergent Wetland habitat classified as
a PEM1A, and a 10.41 acre Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland habitat
classified as a PSS1/3A, as shown in Figure 1. Additionally, there is an active
application to amend the Land Use Element’s Land Use Plan (LUP) Map of the
Miami-Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) Code
for a portion of Site 17 from Agricultural to Environmental Protection to restore
Fig. 1 - Wetland areas on Site 17 (from
the land and establish a private Wetland Mitigation Bank. Should the LUP
NWI data)
Amendment be successful, a portion of Site 17 will be turned into a Wetland
www.arcadis.com
7/12
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 17 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #2

Mitigation Bank. Wetland Mitigation banking is a practice in which an environmental enhancement and
preservation project is conducted by a public agency or private entity to provide mitigation for unavoidable
wetland impacts within a defined region. The entire site is within a proposed Mitigation Bank area currently under
consideration by the BCC. The site is within a Florida panther focus area for consultation or critical habitat for
endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The site is within the urban development
boundary in Miami-Dade County for the Florida bonneted bat and individual consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is required.

Transportation
Travel time north to W Palm Drive is less than 10 minutes. Existing access to site is via Ingraham Hwy.
and SW 222nd Ave. (see map below), but approximately 0.75 miles of two-lane road with paved
shoulders will need to be constructed for proper site access. Additional ROW may have to be acquired.
Depending on the type of alternative facility(ies) selected for the site, the volume of traffic could
increase to 400-500 trucks per day, which will greatly increase the loads on local roads. Traffic impacts
on Ingraham Hwy., W Palm Drive, and other local roads may be significant. Truck queuing will have to
be accomplished on site to prevent further congestion.

www.arcadis.com
8/12
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 17 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #2

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no existing environmental justice issues for this site.
However, the site is about half a mile from the nearest residential zoning and is approximately 1.28
miles from the boundary of Everglades National Park, which suggests that the siting of any alternative
facility(ies) that may have potential noise, odor, or other objectionable characteristics may be opposed
by the community at this location.

www.arcadis.com
9/12
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 17 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #2

Schedule
There are a few site issues that could affect the schedule of any alternative facility project, including:

 Land Acquisition – The land acquisition process will increase schedule duration.

 Soils – Depending on the type of alternative facility(ies) selected for the site, the removal and
replacement of site muck soils with structural fill and/or rock removal in development areas may be
needed. Additional structural fill will be needed to elevate buildings due to the high groundwater
table and floodplain mitigation.

 Permitting – Due to the presence of floodplains, minor wetlands, wildlife habitat, and the close
proximity of the site to the Everglades Class I Area, permitting at this site may be very challenging,
especially if a WTE or gasification facility is selected. Based on projected emissions for a 4,000 tpd
WTE facility, preliminary evaluation indicates that this parcel may be too close to sensitive
receptors in the nearby Class I area, thus making it extremely difficult to demonstrate acceptable
impacts for PSD permit issuance.

 Mitigation – Wetland, floodplain, and wildlife mitigation will likely increase the duration of the
implementation schedule.

 Community – The close proximity of the site to Everglades National Park may result in significant
opposition from environmental groups and community organizations, which could impact the
duration of the implementation schedule.

Cost
Overall, the site area is sufficient for any of the alternative facilities, and more than one depending on
which facilities are selected. There are a few different possible combinations of facilities and
processing capacities that could be developed at this location, and the total redevelopment costs could
range from $20 million for a low-tech outdoor C&D recycling facility to more than $1.5 billion for a state-
of the art mass burn WTE facility. The optimal selection, sizing and arrangement of alternative facilities
will require additional studies to more accurately determine the total development costs. If a WTE or
gasification facility is selected for this site, development costs are expected to be significantly higher
than at the existing RRF site, primarily due to floodplain and wetland mitigation issues. Depending on
the alternative facility(ies) selected, there are several site issues and additional Solid Waste System
changes that could affect the total cost to the Department, including:

 Land Acquisition – siting analysis and land acquisition will increase costs.

 Soils – Depending on the type of alternative facility(ies) selected for the site, the removal and
replacement of site muck soils with structural fill and/or rock removal in development areas may be
needed. Additional structural fill will be needed to elevate buildings due to the high groundwater
table and floodplain mitigation.

 Utilities
- Construction of a potable water booster station and 3.3 miles of water main may be required.
- Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and 3.3 miles of force main may be required.

www.arcadis.com
10/12
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 17 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #2

- Construction of approximately 5.5 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
site may be required.
- Soils data indicates shallow depth to bedrock, rock removal may be required in some areas for
utility pipe trench excavation.
- If a WTE or gasification facility is selected for this site, construction of approximately 6.5 miles
of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements will be needed.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.
- Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary
sewer, natural gas, and electric utility infrastructure.
- On-site water wells are likely not permittable; therefore potable water will need to be purchased,
increasing anticipated operations and maintenance costs.

 Permitting – Due to the presence of floodplains, wetlands, wildlife habitat, and the close proximity
of the site to the Everglades Class I Area, permitting at this site may be very challenging, especially
if a WTE or gasification facility is selected. Permitting difficulties are expected to increase costs at
this site.

 Stormwater – High groundwater table and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area required for stormwater retention.

 Solid Waste System

- Collection and Transfer vehicles routed to this site would have significantly increased costs for
fuel consumption, driver time, and vehicle wear related to the additional travel distance from
the existing RRF.
- Ash/slag hauling costs for a new WTE or gasification facility located at this site are expected to
be much higher than the existing RRF. An option to keep hauling distances short - there
appears to be sufficient area on site to co-locate a new ash monofil, if permittable. If disposed
at a non-County facility, costs for disposal would significantly increase from current levels.

www.arcadis.com
11/12
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 17 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #2

Site Differentiators Overview

 Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill

 Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

 Floodplain compensating storage

 Construction of 0.75 mile of access road

 Extremely difficult PSD permitting

 Long extensions of utilities

 Close proximity to Everglades National Park – anticipated environmental group and community organization
opposition

 Collection and Transfer vehicles routed to this site would have significantly increased costs for fuel consumption,
driver time, and vehicle wear related to the additional travel distance from existing System facilities.

www.arcadis.com
12/12
 Future Solid Waste Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site A1 – Dolphin Expressway

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

MDPA Parcel Data

Site Information See Table 1 starting on page 11.

This 864-acre site is centrally located in the County, with NW 137th Ave
on the east side, SW 8th Street on the south side and is approximately 6.5 miles west of Miami International Airport. The
site consists of 148 parcels, with 70 different owners. Some parcels (±89 acres) in the eastern portion of the site are
inside the UDB, but most parcels (±772 acres) are outside it. Approximately 284 acres of the site are outside the UDB but
within the 2030 Urban Expansion Area Boundary (UEA).
There are many possible parcel combinations that could be large enough to support any of the alternative facilities and
co-locate multiple facilities into a solid waste campus, depending on the constraints of the specific parcel(s) selected for
development. Multiple owners, some being other County departments, will likely be involved in any site development effort
and may result in increased costs, protracted schedules, interdepartmental negotiations, and other issues that will have to
be resolved. The site is less than a 10-minute travel time to SR-836 or the Florida Turnpike, and some parcels are located
less than 0.5 mi from residential zoning. The site is approximately 4.1 miles (6.6 km) ENE of the boundary of the
Everglades Class I area.

Site Alternatives Summary

Considerations for the selection of each alternative technology at this site are shown on the pages that follow.

www.arcadis.com
1/15
 Future Solid Waste Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site A1 – Dolphin Expressway

Site Alternatives Summary

Cost Per Development
Alternative Area Capacity Technology Considerations Site-Specific Considerations
Ton Time
Proximity to residential zoning increases
5-8 tons Requires separate organics collection. Low complexity, low skill level needed for most operations.
potential public concerns with noise, odor and
per acre Minimum 30-day processing time. Processing capacity depends on available land area. Not well suited
Organics vector issues. High groundwater may cause
10-450+ per day, $72-$80+ for urban areas, potential public concerns with noise, odor and vector issues. Challenging wet season
Composting 3-5 years operational difficulties, especially during wet
Ac typically (1) operations. Good quality compost produced. End uses/markets and capacities may need development.
(Windrow) season. Maximum processing capacity depends
80-500 Additional fleet equipment and operators would be needed for organics collection, site operation and
on parcel area acquired and developed, could be
TPD. disposal of residuals.
1M tpy or more.
Proximity to residential zoning increases
1-10 tons
Organics Requires separate organics collection. Moderate complexity, moderate skill level needed for operation. potential public concerns with noise, odor and
per acre
Composting Minimum 30-day processing time. Processing capacity depends on available land area. Potential vector issues. High groundwater may cause
per day. $74-$80+
(Aerated 5-450+ Ac 3-5 years public concerns with noise, odor and vector issues. Challenging wet season operations. End operational difficulties, especially during wet
Typically, (1)
Static Pile uses/markets and capacities may need development. Additional fleet equipment and operators would season. Maximum processing capacity depends
80-700
(ASP)) be needed for organics collection, site operation and disposal of residuals. on parcel area acquired and developed, could be
TPD
1M tpy or more.
Potential permitting and public concerns. High
5-100 tpd Requires separate organics collection. Variable complexity, low skill level needed for operation. Short groundwater may cause some operational
Organics per 5-7 day processing time. Compact process, smaller facility footprint, expandable capacity. Better suited difficulties, especially during wet season.
$9-$50+
Composting <1-20+ Ac vessel, 15 (1), (2)
3-5 years for urban areas, vessels can be enclosed in metal building to mitigate potential public concerns with Floodplain and wetland mitigation may increase
(In-Vessel) to 1200 odor and vector issues from receiving areas. Additional fleet equipment and operators would be development costs. All utilities available near
TPD needed for organics collection, site operation and disposal of residuals. site. Could be co-located with other alternative
facility(ies) on this site.
Requires separate organics collection. High complexity, high skill level needed for operation.
3-40+ Processing capacity depends on available land area. Potential permitting issues and public concerns Potential permitting and public concerns.
acres with noise, odor and vector issues. Fire risk from methane production. Additional composting or Floodplain and wetland mitigation may increase
Anaerobic 270-600 $57-$90+
depending 5-7 years disposal of resulting digestate solids would be required. Resulting digestate liquids can be used for development costs. All utilities available near
Digestion TPD (1), (2)
on fertilizer in cover maintenance for landfills or on agricultural land. Additional fleet equipment and site. Could be co-located with other alternative
capacity operators would be needed for organics collection, site operation and disposal of residuals. End facility(ies) on this site.
uses/markets and capacities may need development.

www.arcadis.com
2/15
 Future Solid Waste Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site A1 – Dolphin Expressway

Site Alternatives Summary

Cost Per Development
Alternative Area Capacity Technology Considerations Site-Specific Considerations
Ton Time
Good transportation access, all utilities available
near site. Difficult permitting due to close
Unproven technology, significant pre-processing of MSW required. High complexity, high skill level proximity to Everglades Class I area. Floodplain
100-300+ needed for operation. Possible capacity limitations. Increased fire risk from syngas production but can and wetland mitigation may increase
Gasification 5-60+ Ac $154+(3) 10+ years
TPD fuel turbines for electrical generation. High capital and operating cost. Active ash monofil on site for development costs. Could be co-located with
slag disposal. other alternative facility(ies) on this site. Rail
access on the northern boundary could be used
for slag hauling to out-of-county landfill.
Good transportation access, all utilities available
near site. Difficult permitting due to close
No changes to existing collection system needed. Highest capacity alternative. High complexity, high proximity to Everglades Class I area. Floodplain
Waste-to-
40-60 4,000- skill level needed for operation. Permitting and public opposition challenges. High capital and operating and wetland mitigation may increase
Energy $57-60+ 8-10+ years
Ac 5,000 TPD cost. Electrical generation for revenue or powering other facilities. Good metal recovery possible from development costs. Could be co-located with
(Mass Burn)
ash. Landfill needed for ash disposal. other alternative facility(ies) on this site. Rail
access on the northern boundary could be used
for ash hauling to out-of-county landfill.
Potential public concerns with noise, odor and
No changes to existing collection system needed. High complexity, high skill level needed for operation. vector issues. Floodplain and wetland mitigation
Mechanical High capital and operating cost. High-capacity alternative, but waste is typically shredded and may increase development costs. Could be co-
200-560
Biological 5-15 Ac $123-183 3-5 years converted into pelletized solid recovered fuel (SRF) that must be transported and fired at another located with other alternative facility(ies) on this
TPD
Treatment facility capable of using the SRF. Additional fleet equipment and operators would be needed for site site. Local concrete facilities may be able to use
operation and transport of SRF. SRF. Rail access on the northern boundary
could be used for SRF transport.
No changes to existing collection system needed. High complexity, but low skill level needed for most
Potential public concerns with noise, odor and
operations. Capacity limited to approximately 3,000 tpd. Potential permitting issues and public concerns
vector issues. Floodplain and wetland mitigation
Mixed Waste with noise, odor and vector issues. Additional processing/disposal of post-processed MSW would be
200-1500 may increase development costs. Could be co-
Processing 20-60 Ac $85-$150 5-7 years required. Contamination of recovered materials is significant issue, recovery rates for marketable
TPD located with other alternative facility(ies) on this
Facility materials typically 30% or less. End uses/markets and capacities may need development. Moderate
site. Rail access on the northern boundary could
capital and operating costs, and additional fleet equipment and operators would be needed for site
be used for sorted MSW hauling for disposal.
operations and transport of residuals.

www.arcadis.com
3/15
 Future Solid Waste Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site A1 – Dolphin Expressway

Site Alternatives Summary

Cost Per Development
Alternative Area Capacity Technology Considerations Site-Specific Considerations
Ton Time
Modification of existing curbside collection system needed. High complexity, but low skill level needed
for most operations. Capacity limited by site area. Typical maximum processing capacity for these Minimal expected public concerns. Floodplain
Material
300-825 facilities is approximately 350-400 tons per day. Minimal public concerns. Additional and wetland mitigation may increase
Recovery 20-60 Ac $87-154 5-7 years
TPD processing/disposal of some post-processed materials (i.e., glass) would be required. Contamination of development costs. Could be co-located with
Facility
recovered materials is significant issue. End uses/markets and capacities may need development. other alternative facility(ies) on this site.
Moderate capital and operating costs, and additional fleet equipment and operators would be needed.
No change to existing collection system needed. Can be low or high complexity, but low skill level
C&D needed for most operations. Capacity limited by site area. Potential public concerns with noise, odor, Potential public concerns with noise, odor and
300–825
Recycling 5-20 Ac $76-150 3-7 years and dust. Additional processing/disposal of some post-processed materials (i.e., mixed fines) would be dust issues. Could be co-located with other
TPD
Facility required. End uses/markets and capacities may need development. Moderate capital and operating alternative facility(ies) on this site.
costs, and additional fleet equipment and operators would be needed.
(1)
Sources: DC Study (2017 costs escalated) and NREL Study (2020 costs escalated). Cost does not include additional organics collection system costs.
(2)
Costs estimated from vendor quote, does not include building or land acquisition costs.
(3)
Costs based on 2017 article in Waste Management journal using developed country costs.

www.arcadis.com
4/15
 Future Solid Waste Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site A1 – Dolphin Expressway

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is centrally located in the County, approximately 5.0 miles southwest of the existing RRF site,
more than four miles from any active airport, approximately 0.1 miles (at closest) to residential zoning,
and approximately 4.1 miles from the boundary of Everglades National Park. If this site were selected
for the development of one or more of the alternative facilities there would be impacts to the local traffic
levels, but the effects on the County’s Solid Waste System would be minimal.
To maintain the current collection patterns and travel times, a new transfer station would need to be
constructed at the RRF site if this site was selected for development. The number of deliveries by
collection vehicles and transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the capacity and material types processed by the
alternative facility(ies) developed at the site. Their travel patterns would be slightly altered, and travel
times would change slightly due to changes in travel distances and expected traffic congestion.
Estimated travel distances and times from the site to the County’s transfer stations and landfills as
compared to the RRF site are as follows:

Est. Travel Est. Travel

Facility Distance/Time to Distance/Time to
Site A1 RRF

West TS 10 mi/13 min 9 mi/16 min

Central TS 15 mi/19 min 14 mi/21 min

Northeast TS 26 mi/30 min 18 mi/25 min

South Dade LF 20 mi/27 min 25 mi/31 min

North Dade LF 25 mi/25 min 21 mi/23 min

The changes in travel times and distances from the RRF site do not appear to be sufficient to
significantly affect Collection and Transfer operations. Provided no other operational changes are
made, Collection and Transfer fleet labor, fuel consumption and maintenance costs are expected to
have only minor changes if this site were selected for development.

Utilities
In general, the parcels bordering NW 137th Avenue have good access to the existing utilities along NW
137th Avenue, but access may become more complicated for parcels within the site. Depending on what
parcel(s) are selected for development, many additional parcels or utility easements may be needed to
allow for the extension of utilities.

 Potable water – The potable water capacity required for fire lines and supply lines will depend on
the type of alternative facility(ies) selected. A 16” potable water main appears to be available on
www.arcadis.com
5/15
 Future Solid Waste Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site A1 – Dolphin Expressway

NW 137th Avenue, but additional analysis will be needed to verify the pipe size, service pressure,
and available system capacity. A booster station may be needed to increase system pressure.
Soils data indicates shallow depth to bedrock in some locations, rock removal may be required for
pipe trench excavation for new lines in those areas.
Wastewater – The minimum sanitary sewer capacity requirements will depend on the type of
alternative facility(ies) selected. Sanitary sewer appears to be available on NW 137th Avenue, but
additional analysis will be needed to determine pipe size and available system capacity. A lift
station and force main to gravity sewer may be required. Soils data indicates shallow depth to
bedrock in some locations, rock removal may be required for pipe trench excavation for new lines
in those areas.

 Natural gas – The minimum natural gas capacity requirements will depend on the type of
alternative facility(ies) selected. If needed for facility operations, service lines will need to be
extended to the site. According to the National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) there is a gas
transmission main on NW 137th Avenue, but additional analysis will be needed to determine pipe
size and available system capacity. Additional ROW/easement may be needed. Soils data
indicates shallow depth to bedrock, rock removal may be required for pipe trench excavation.

 Electric – The electrical service capacity required will depend on the type of alternative facility(ies)
selected. Standard 120V/230A electrical service appears to be available at the site. The nearest
substation/switchyard is the FPL South Transmission facility located less than 0.25 miles away at
13655 NW 6th Street. Substation/switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and available terminations
will need to be evaluated.

 Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and floodplain mitigation measures may result in
significantly larger stormwater pond areas on the site.

 Groundwater – If necessary for facility operations, a consumptive use permit from the South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to withdraw any groundwater
from the aquifer. If a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for all facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soils
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the site soils as primarily Shark Valley Muck,
Coopertown Muck, Perrine Marly Silt Loam, Biscayne Marly Silt Loam, and Udorthents. The presence
of muck soils indicates high groundwater conditions. Udorthents soils consist of unconsolidated or
heterogeneous geologic material removed during the excavation of ditches, canals, lakes, ponds, and
quarries.
While this may not present an issue for some alternative facilities, any facility(ies) having buildings and
ancillary components with slab-on-grade foundations located at this site would have to be constructed
on fill material, which could present geotechnical engineering challenges for the foundation designs and
additional site preparation costs.

www.arcadis.com
6/15
 Future Solid Waste Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site A1 – Dolphin Expressway

Environment
 Floodplains – Almost the entire site area is located within FEMA Flood Zones AE (El. 7) and AH
(El. 7). Floodplain compensating storage and other mitigation and site development measures will
likely have to be addressed.

 Environmental Assessments – Based on a review of the Miami-Dade County Environmental

Resources Access Portal, several biological and wetland assessments have been conducted for
several of the parcels located within Site A1. The findings of these biological and wetlands
assessments noted the presence of jurisdictional wetlands and the potential presence of
endangered species; however, due to the age of the existing assessments, these studies would
need to repeated for the portions of the Site A1 that the County is interested in exploring for
development

 Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – If a large WTE or gasification facility were selected
for this site, a complete PPSA Application would need to be developed, inclusive of the associated
individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP, Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting
(if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing process would also be required.

 New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
SW corner of the site is located approximately 4.1 mi (6.6 km) NE of the Everglades Class I Area
and the northern edge of the site is adjacent to the CEMEX Miami Facility, a large existing emitter.
The adjacent CEMEX facility may result in elevated receptors (200ft+) and exhaust plume
impaction during air emissions modeling.
As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE or gasification facility would be
subject to PSD permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction
approval under the PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best
Available Control Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to
demonstrate compliance with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors
located in the immediate vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at
sensitive receptors located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II
areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting challenging at
this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s).

 Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – As mentioned previously, almost the entire site area is located within a
100-year floodplain (FEMA Flood Zones AE (El. 7) and AH (El. 7)). In addition, the National
Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and South Florida Water Management District
Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates wetlands are present. National Wetlands Inventory
www.arcadis.com
7/15
 Future Solid Waste Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site A1 – Dolphin Expressway

mapping indicates most of the site is a Freshwater Emergent Wetland habitat classified as a
PEM1/SS3Cd, as shown in Figure 1. Development at this site may conflict with County Policies
CON-7A and/or CON-7B.
The site is not within a Florida panther focus
area for consultation or critical habitat for
endangered or threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act. Eastern portions of
the site are within the urban development
boundary, while western portions are outside
of the urban development boundary. The
Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission
Terrestrial Resources Geographic Information
System database notes that within this site,
there are strategic habitat conservation areas
for the Florida Panther, Snail Kite, and
Swallow-Tailed Kite. Additionally, the site is
located within the Florida bonneted bat
consultation area and individual consultation
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is
required. The site is also within 5.3 miles of an
active wood stork colony.

Transportation
The parcels bordering NW 137th Ave have good
access to the Dolphin Expressway and the Florida Figure 1 - Wetlands area on Site A1 (from NWI data)
Turnpike, but access may become more
complicated for parcels within the site. Depending on what parcel(s) are selected for development,
many additional parcels or access easements may be needed to establish road access sufficient for
heavy truck traffic. There are three existing road access points to NW 137th Ave in the northern (at 12th
Street) and central (at Dolphin Expressway and NW 6th St.) areas of the site, but parcels south of NW
6th Street would need to construct road access to either NW 137th Ave or NW 8th Street. Additionally, if
County right of way or access easements are not present, they will have to be acquired or additional
parcels purchased to establish access corridors in the site.
The volume of traffic that is expected at the site will depend on the type of facility(ies) selected but will
increase the loads on local roads. Significant traffic increases would be expected on the Florida
Turnpike and the Dolphin Expressway, which are already high traffic count roadways according to the
Florida Department of Transportation's Florida Traffic Online Web Application. Traffic increases would
also be expected on 8th Street, 12th Street, 137th Avenue and other local roads. Truck queuing will have
to be accomplished on site to prevent congestion of local roads, which has important effects on the
number and arrangement of parcels needed. A typical WTE facility layout was overlaid on the northern,
central and southern parcel areas on the site and, depending on the parcel(s) selected for development
between one and 22 parcels were needed, along with additional ROW and/or access easements.

www.arcadis.com
8/15
 Future Solid Waste Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site A1 – Dolphin Expressway

Also, CSX rail lines run along the northern edge of the site and may be available for connection with the
selected site. Additional evaluation and investigation is needed.

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated elevated values for Particulate Matter 2.5 (µg/m3) and
Diesel Particulate Matter (µg/m3) and several other pollutants. However, these pollutants may be more
closely associated with the adjacent CEMEX facility and the Dolphin Expressway rather than the Site
A1 area. Some parcels in the eastern and southern portions of the site are within 0.1 miles of residential
zoning, which suggests that the siting of any alternative facility(ies) that may have potential noise, odor,
or other objectionable characteristics may be opposed by the community at this location.

Schedule
There are a few site constraints that could affect the schedule of any alternative facility project,
including:

 Land Acquisition – Depending on what facility(ies) and parcel(s) are selected for development,
many additional parcels and/or ROW or access/utility easements may be needed, increasing the
number and schedule associated with parcel and/or easement acquisition.

 Utilities – Additional ROW/easements will be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary
sewer, natural gas, and electric utility infrastructure.

 Soils – Additional geotechnical testing will be needed to determine the full extent of soil preparation
needed (i.e., vibro-compaction, consolidation, etc.) and additional requirements for building
foundations at the site (f needed), which may increase design and construction time. Also, soils
data indicates shallow depth to bedrock in some locations, so rock removal may be required for
pipe trench excavation for new utility lines in those areas and may affect construction schedules.

 Permitting – Due to the presence of floodplains, wetlands, and the close proximity of the site to the
Everglades Class I Area, permitting at this site will be very challenging. In addition, development at
this site may conflict with Miami-Dade County policies CON-9A, CON-9B, and others. If a WTE or
gasification facility is selected for this site, the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
Permitting will be difficult. The site is located approximately 4.1 mi (18.31 km) ENE of the
Everglades Class I Area and about 0.25 miles south of a large existing emitter, the CEMEX Miami
Facility, which may result in elevated receptors and exhaust plume impaction during air emissions
modeling. The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the County
and the Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern border of the County both
having more stringent air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with
demonstrating acceptable impacts from the operation of any new large emitter and thus will make
air permitting challenging at this prospective site. For these reasons, this site has the longest
estimated development time for a WTE or gasification facility for the six evaluated sites.

 Community – Portions of the site are within 0.1 miles of residential zoning. Therefore, siting of new
alternative facility(ies) may face community opposition at this location, which could affect the project
schedule.

www.arcadis.com
9/15
 Future Solid Waste Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site A1 – Dolphin Expressway

Cost
Overall, the site area is sufficient for any of the alternative facilities, and more than one depending on
the property area acquired. There are many different possible combinations of facilities and processing
capacities that could be developed at this location, and the total redevelopment costs could range from
$20 million for a low-tech outdoor C&D recycling facility to more than $1.5 billion for a state-of the art
mass burn WTE facility and ash landfill. The optimal selection, sizing and arrangement of alternative
facilities will require additional studies to more accurately determine the total development costs. If a
WTE or gasification facility is selected for this site, development costs are expected to be higher than at
the existing RRF site, primarily due to floodplain and wetland mitigation costs. Depending on the
alternative facility(ies) selected, there are several site constraints and additional Solid Waste System
changes that could affect the total cost to the Department, including:

 Land Acquisition – Depending on what facility(ies) and parcel(s) are selected for development,
many additional parcels and/or ROW or access/utility easements may be needed, increasing the
number and costs associated with parcel and/or easement acquisition.

 Utilities
- Depending on what parcel(s) are selected for development, many additional parcels or utility
easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas,
and electric utility infrastructure.
- Construction of approximately 0.5-1.25 miles of potable water piping will be needed. A booster
station may be required to provide adequate water service pressure.
- Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and approximately 0.5-1.25 miles of force main
will likely be required.
- Construction of approximately 0.5-1.25 miles of gas service piping to provide natural gas
service to the site.
- Soils data indicates shallow depth to bedrock, rock removal may be required in some areas for
utility pipe trench excavation, which may increase construction costs.
- For WTE and gasification alternatives, construction of approximately 0.5-1.25 miles of electrical
transmission line routing through ROW or utility easements.
- On-site water wells are likely not permittable. All potable water will probably need to be
purchased, increasing anticipated operational costs.

 Soils – If buildings are needed, additional geotechnical testing will be needed to determine the full
extent of soil preparation needed (i.e., vibro-compaction, consolidation, etc.) and additional
requirements for building foundations at the site, which may increase design and construction
costs.

 Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and floodplain mitigation measures may result in
significantly larger stormwater pond areas on the site.

 Permitting – Due to the presence of floodplains, wetlands, and the close proximity of the site to the
Everglades Class I Area, permitting at this site will be very challenging and will significantly
increase the associated permitting costs.
www.arcadis.com
10/
 Future Solid Waste Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site A1 – Dolphin Expressway

Site Differentiators Overview

From a solid waste standpoint, Site A1 has many very positive attributes, but from a permitting perspective development
on this site would be more challenging. Specific differentiators of this site include the following:

 Large 864-acre site area, centrally located in the County, consisting of 148 parcels, with 70 different owners. Some
parcels in the eastern portion of the site are inside the UDB and the 2030 UEA. There are many possible parcel
combinations that could be large enough to support any of the alternative facilities and co-locate multiple facilities into
a solid waste campus, depending on the constraints of the specific parcel(s) selected for development. Multiple
owners, including some major corporations and other County departments, will likely be involved in any site
development effort and may result in increased costs, protracted schedules, interdepartmental negotiations, and other
issues that will have to be resolved.

 Good access to high-capacity road and rail transportation infrastructure, available potable water, sanitary sewer,
electrical and natural gas utilities. The FPL South Substation is almost adjacent to the site, located on the east side of
SW 137th Avenue.

 Parcels bordering NW 137th Ave have good access to the Dolphin Expressway and the Florida Turnpike, but access
may become more complicated for parcels within the site. Depending on what parcel(s) are selected for development,
many additional parcels or access easements may be needed to establish road access sufficient for heavy truck traffic
and for the extension of utility infrastructure.

 Soils on the site are primarily muck soils and generally unsuitable for construction. Additional geotechnical testing will
be needed to determine the full extent of soil preparation needed (i.e., vibro-compaction, consolidation, etc.) and
additional requirements for building foundations at the site, which may increase design and construction costs and
extend the project schedule. Also, soils data indicates shallow depth to bedrock, so rock removal may be required for
utility pipe trench excavation.

 The site is almost entirely within the 100-year floodplain (FEMA Flood Zones AE (El. 7) and AH (El. 7) and within a
Special Flood Hazard Area. High groundwater elevations and floodplain mitigation measures may result in
significantly larger stormwater pond areas on the site and increased costs for elevating buildings.

 National Wetlands Inventory mapping indicates most of the site is a Freshwater Emergent Wetland habitat. Also, due
to potential adverse effects to wetlands on site, groundwater may not be available for use as source water for non-
potable uses such as boiler feedwater, cooling tower/condenser feedwater, truck wheel wash, and irrigation water.

 The site contains habitat area for the Wood Stork, Florida Panther, and other protected species.

 Due to the presence of floodplains, wetlands, and the close proximity of the site to the Everglades Class I Area
(approximately 4.1 miles) and an existing large emitter (CEMEX Miami facility), permitting at this site will be very
challenging. If a WTE or gasification facility is selected for this site, the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
Permitting will be difficult. In addition, development at this site may conflict with Miami-Dade County policies CON-9A,
CON-9B, and others.

www.arcadis.com
11/
 Future Solid Waste Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site A1 – Dolphin Expressway

Table 1 - Parcel Ownership Information (from MDPA)

Folio No. Owner Area (Ac) 2023 MDPA Market Value

3039530000130 MDXQ LLC 234.13 $11,706,600
3039530000134 PROLOGIS EXCHANGE BEACON LAKES 2.50
3039530000135 MIAMI DADE 4.40
3039530000136 PROLOGIS EXCHANGE FL2003 LLC 20.00
3039530000137 PROLOGIS EXCHANGE FL2003 LLC 33.75
3039530000138 MDXQ LLC 11.36
3039530000139 DOBA INVESTMENT CORP 11.99
3039530000142 ROLANDO BARRERO TRS 1.25
3039530000145 BEACON VILLAGE LLC 2.50
3039530000146 BEACON VILLAGE LLC 1.25
3039530000147 PROLOGIS EXCHANGE 1.25
3039530000148 PROLOGIS EXCHANGE 2.50
3039530000149 JBR LLC 2.50
3039530000150 PROXIMITY WAREHOUSES INC 1.85
3039530000151 JBR LLC 1.25
3039530000152 CARADEL VENTURES INC & 4.20
3039530000154 PROLOGIS EXCHANGE BEACON LAKES 2.17
3039530000156 PROLOGIS EXCHANGE FL 2002 LLC 2.50
3039530000157 PROLOGIS EXCHANGE BEACON LAKES 1.25
3039530000158 SRM INVESTMENTS LLC 1.40
3039530000159 BEACON VILLAGE LLC 2.50
3039530000161 MIAMI DADE EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY 0.72
3039530000162 PROLOGIS EXCHANGE BEACON LAKES 2.50
3039530000163 PROLOGIS EXCHANGE BEACON LAKES 6.25
3039530000164 PROLOGIS EXCHANGE 3.75
3039530000165 YARITZA GARCIA 0.45
3039530000166 BEACON VILLAGE LLC 0.53
3039530000167 MIAMI DADE EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY 0.11
3039530000170 MIAMI DADE 0.33
3039530000180 DOBA INVESTMENT CORP 2.50
3039530000190 JAMES JOHN STENGER 1.25
3039530000200 DOBA INVESTMENT CORP 4.04
3039530000201 MIAMI‐DADE EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY 5.00
3039530000210 DOBA INVESTMENT CORP 7.93
3039530000210 DOBA INVESTMENT CORP 7.93
3039530000220 DOBA INVESTMENT CORP 1.25
3039530000230 BARCORP OF MIAMI INC 3.75
3039530000250 PROLOGIS EXCHANGE BEACON LAKES 6.25
3049030030012 EW SB FL MIAMI 400 LLC 1.78
www.arcadis.com
12/
 Future Solid Waste Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site A1 – Dolphin Expressway

Folio No. Owner Area (Ac) 2023 MDPA Market Value

3049030030015 EW SB FL MIAMI 400 LLC 1.29
3049030030017 GERMICO 137 LLC 2.47
3049030030019 EW SB FL MIAMI 400 LLC 0.50
3049030030020 BLUE HERON 6137 LLC 9.62
3049030030030 836 HEC LLC 25.00
3049030030040 CHRISTINE PARKES 10.00
3049030030050 MIAMI‐DADE COUNTY 10.00
3049030030060 MIAMI PROPERTY LLC 20.00
3049030030070 MIAMI DADE COUNTY 12.27
3049030030080 MIAMI DADE COUNTY 2.32
3049030030081 MIAMI DADE COUNTY 5.00
3049030030100 MIAMI DADE COUNTY 4.93
3049030030101 THE SUN LAND COMPANY 4.93
3049030030110 JONATHAN HALE KROSLEY 5.00
3049030030111 MIAMI‐DADE EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY 5.00
3049030030120 GONZALO ESTEVEZ 4.63
3049030030130 BLUE HERON 6137 LLC 10.00
3049030030160 BLUE HERON 6137 LLC 10.00
3049030030180 8TH STREET LAND HOLDINGS LLC 10.00
3049030030190 MIAMI‐DADE COUNTY 20.00
3049030030191 MIAMI DADE COUNTY 19.02
3049030030200 ALFREDO LAMADRIZ TRS 10.00
3049030030210 MIAMI DADE COUNTY 10.00
3049030030220 MIAMI DADE COUNTY 10.00
3049030030230 E R TRUCK & EQUIP CORP 10.00
3049030030250 KIN YEN CHU & 10.00
3049030030260 THREE I CORP 10.00
3049030030270 137 AVE 8TH ST HOLDINGS LLC 28.75
3049030030280 BLUE HERON 6137 LLC 10.00
3049030030290 ATLAS HIALEAH 1031 LLC 3.91
3049030030291 ATLAS HIALEAH 1031 LLC 2.60
3049030030292 ATLAS HIALEAH 1031 LLC 2.60
3049030030300 ATLAS HIALEAH 1031 LLC 3.91
3049030030301 TARGET CORPORATION 3.10
3049030030310 TARGET CORPORATION 4.32
3049030030320 ATLAS HIALEAH 1031 LLC 5.68
3049030030330 NC CAPITAL GROUP L L C 10.00
3049030030340 ATP XXXII LLC 10.00
3049030030350 JOSE TEJEDO JR &W GLADYS 10.00
3049030030370 MIAMI DADE ESPRESSWAY AUTHORITY 10.00
www.arcadis.com
13/
 Future Solid Waste Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site A1 – Dolphin Expressway

Folio No. Owner Area (Ac) 2023 MDPA Market Value

3049030030380 MIAMI‐DADE EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY 7.13
3049030030400 ATP XXXII LLC 7.50
3049030030410 MIAMI‐DADE EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY 8.20
3049030030420 NC CAPITAL GROUP L L C 8.50
3049030030440 TARGET CORPORATION 9.25
3049030030450 TARGET CORPORATION 7.87
3049030030470 TARGET CORPORATION 0.16
3049030030480 TARGET CORPORATION 0.25
3049030030490 TARGET CORPORATION 0.25
3049030030500 TARGET CORPORATION 0.25
3049030030510 TARGET CORPORATION 0.25
3049030030520 TARGET CORPORATION 0.25
3049030030530 TARGET CORPORATION 0.25
3049030030540 TARGET CORPORATION 0.25
3049030030550 TARGET CORPORATION 0.25
3049030030560 TARGET CORPORATION 0.25
3049030030570 TARGET CORPORATION 0.25
3049030030580 137 AVE 8TH ST HOLDINGS LLC 0.25
3049030030590 137 AVE 8TH ST HOLDINGS LLC 0.25
3049030030600 137 AVE 8TH ST HOLDINGS LLC 0.25
3049030030610 137 AVE 8TH ST HOLDINGS LLC 0.25
3049030030620 137 AVE 8TH ST HOLDINGS LLC 0.25
3049030030630 137 AVE 8TH ST HOLDINGS LLC 0.25
3049030030640 JATHAN SUED 0.25
3049030030650 MARIA I BOXER 1.23
3049030030660 EDWILLA JENKS 0.25
3049030030670 DEBRAH DEMIRZA 0.25
3049030030680 KIN YEN CHU & 0.25
3049030030690 ULISES ARIAS 0.25
3049030030700 ULISES ARIAS 0.25
3049030030710 ULISES ARIAS 0.25
3049030030720 JUDITH STONE 0.25
3049030030730 JUDITH STONE 0.25
3049030030740 JUDITH STONE 0.25
3049030030750 ROBERTO HERNANDEZ 0.50
3049030030770 RAYMOND E PARKER 0.25
3049030030790 JOSE M JORGE &W 0.50
3049030030800 LILLIAN GONZALEZ 0.98
3049030040010 CHRISTINE PARKES 1.81
3049030040016 MIAMI DADE EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY 1.81
www.arcadis.com
14/
 Future Solid Waste Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site A1 – Dolphin Expressway

Folio No. Owner Area (Ac) 2023 MDPA Market Value

3049030040020 ALICE C AVARD 0.19
3049030040030 ARLENE COHEN TRS 0.16
3049030040040 MELISSA ORTS 0.16
3049030040050 MELISSA ORTS 0.16
3049030040060 ANGEL RAFAEL RIVERA SANCHEZ 0.16
3049030040070 LIGHT RAY INVESTMENTS LLC 0.16
3049030040080 LIGHT RAY INVESTMENTS LLC 0.16
3049030040090 ENGEL RIVERA 0.16
3049030040100 PEDRO FORTE 0.16
3049030040110 PEDRO FORTE 0.16
3049030040120 EST OF HILDA STIEREN 0.35
3049030040130 PROXIMITY WAREHOUSE INC 0.19
3049030040140 PROXIMITY WAREHOUSE INC 0.16
3049030040150 PROXIMITY WAREHOUSE INC 0.16
3049030040160 PROXIMITY WAREHOUSE INC 0.16
3049030040170 PROXIMITY WAREHOUSE INC 0.16
3049030040180 ALEAGA S EMPIRE LLC 0.16
3049030040181 JULIO O MECHOSO 0.16
3049030040182 DIMAS RODRIGUEZ 0.16
3049030040183 JOHN H FERREIRA & 0.32
3049030040185 LEON SIEV 0.32
3049030040190 JOSE M JORGE &W LOLA C 0.51
3049030040200 MIAMI DADE EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY 3.45
3049030040270 MIAMI‐ DADE EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITHY 3.96
3049030040340 MIAMI‐ DADE EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY 3.95
3049030040440 MIAMI ‐ DADE EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY 2.94
3049030040540 MIAMI DADE EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY 1.01
3049030280010 STOR ALL NW 137TH AVE LLC 2.47

www.arcadis.com
15/
 Future Solid Waste Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site A2 – Opa-Locka West Airport

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

This site consists of two parcels totaling approximately 416 acres in the Owner: Miami-Dade County Aviation
northwest portion of Miami-Dade County, outside the UDB, with US27 on Department - Finance
the western border and approximately 7.8 miles northwest of the RRF. 2023 MDPA Market Value: $10,794,603
The site is owned by the County, but approximately 377 acres consists of Zoning District: GU
wetland preserve areas. The site is less than a 10-minute travel time to PA Zone: GU - INTERIM DISTRICT -
US27 or the Florida Turnpike, is located more than 0.5 miles from USES DEPEND ON CHARACTER OF
residential zoning and approximately 13.4 miles (21.6 km) northeast of NEIGHBORHOOD, OTHERWISE EU-2
the boundary of the Everglades Class I area. This site is located in a STANDARDS APPLY
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program (CERP) project area. Folio Nos: 30-2903-000-0010, 30-2902-
000-0010
Site Alternatives Summary
Considerations for the selection of each alternative technology at this site are shown on the pages that follow.

www.arcadis.com
 Future Solid Waste Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site A2 – Opa-Locka West Airport

Site Alternatives Summary

Potential Cost Per Development
Alternative Capacity Technology Considerations Site-Specific Considerations
Site Area Ton Time
5-8 tons Requires separate organics collection. Low complexity, low skill level needed for most operations. Potential permitting and public concerns. High
per acre Minimum 30-day processing time. Processing capacity depends on available land area. Not well suited groundwater may cause operational difficulties,
Organics
per day, $72-$80+ for urban areas, potential public concerns with noise, odor and vector issues. Challenging wet season especially during wet season. Estimated
Composting 10-60 Ac 3-5 years
typically (1) operations. Good quality compost produced. End uses/markets and capacities may need development. maximum processing capacity at this site, if fully
(Windrow)
80-500 Additional fleet equipment and operators would be needed for organics collection, site operation and developed, may be up to 1M tpy. Utilities and
TPD. disposal of residuals. travel times are concerns.
1-10 tons Potential permitting and public concerns. High
Requires separate organics collection. Moderate complexity, moderate skill level needed for operation.
per acre groundwater may cause operational difficulties,
Organics Minimum 30-day processing time. Processing capacity depends on available land area. Potential
per day. $74-$80+ especially during wet season. Estimated
Composting 5-60 Ac 3-5 years public concerns with noise, odor and vector issues. Challenging wet season operations. End
Typically, (1) maximum processing capacity at this site, if fully
(ASP) uses/markets and capacities may need development. Additional fleet equipment and operators would
80-700 developed, may be up to 1M tpy. Utilities and
be needed for organics collection, site operation and disposal of residuals.
TPD travel times are concerns.
Potential permitting and public concerns. High
5-100 tpd
Requires separate organics collection. Variable complexity, low skill level needed for operation. Short groundwater may cause some operational
per
Organics 5-7 day processing time. Compact process, smaller facility footprint, expandable capacity. Better suited difficulties, especially during wet season.
vessel, $9-$50+
Composting 1-60 Ac 3-5 years for urban areas, vessels can be enclosed in metal building to mitigate potential public concerns with Floodplain and wetland mitigation may increase
15 to (1),(2)
(In-Vessel) odor and vector issues from receiving areas. Additional fleet equipment and operators would be development costs. Utilities will need to be
1200
needed for organics collection, site operation and disposal of residuals. extended to site. Could be co-located with other
TPD
alternative facility(ies) on this site.
Requires separate organics collection. High complexity, high skill level needed for operation.
3-40+ Processing capacity depends on available land area. Potential permitting issues and public concerns Potential permitting and public concerns.
acres with noise, odor and vector issues. Fire risk from methane production. Additional composting or Floodplain and wetland mitigation may increase
Anaerobic 270-600 $57-$90+
depending 5-7 years disposal of resulting digestate solids would be required. Resulting digestate liquids can be used for development costs. Utilities will need to be
Digestion TPD (1),(2)
on fertilizer in cover maintenance for landfills or on agricultural land. Additional fleet equipment and extended to site. Could be co-located with other
capacity operators would be needed for organics collection, site operation and disposal of residuals. End alternative facility(ies) on this site.
uses/markets and capacities may need development.
Potential permitting and public concerns.
Unproven technology, significant pre-processing of MSW required. High complexity, high skill level Floodplain and wetland mitigation may increase
100-300+ needed for operation. Possible capacity limitations. Increased fire risk from syngas production but can development costs. Difficult permitting due to
Gasification 5-60+ Ac $154+(3) 10+ years
TPD fuel turbines for electrical generation. High capital and operating cost. Active ash monofil on site for nearby Everglades Class I area. Utilities will
slag disposal. need to be extended to site. Could be co-located
with other alternative facility(ies) on this site.
www.arcadis.com
2/10
 Future Solid Waste Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site A2 – Opa-Locka West Airport

Site Alternatives Summary

Potential Cost Per Development
Alternative Capacity Technology Considerations Site-Specific Considerations
Site Area Ton Time
Potential permitting and public concerns.
No changes to existing collection system needed. Highest capacity alternative. High complexity, high Floodplain and wetland mitigation may increase
Waste-to- 4,000-
40-60 skill level needed for operation. Permitting and public opposition challenges. High capital and operating development costs. Difficult permitting due to
Energy 5,000 $57-60+ 8-10+ years
Ac cost. Electrical generation for revenue or powering other facilities. Good metal recovery possible from nearby Everglades Class I area. Utilities will
(Mass Burn) TPD
ash. Landfill needed for ash disposal. need to be extended to site Could be co-located
with other alternative facility(ies) on this site.
No changes to existing collection system needed. High complexity, high skill level needed for operation.
Potential public concerns with noise, odor and
Mechanical High capital and operating cost. High-capacity alternative, but waste is typically shredded and
200-560 vector issues. Could be co-located with other
Biological 5-15 Ac $123-183 3-5 years converted into pelletized solid recovered fuel (SRF) that must be transported and fired at another
TPD alternative facility(ies) on this site. Local concrete
Treatment facility capable of using the SRF. Additional fleet equipment and operators would be needed for site
facilities may be able to use SRF.
operation and transport of SRF.
No changes to existing collection system needed. High complexity, but low skill level needed for most
operations. Capacity limited to approximately 3,000 tpd. Potential permitting issues and public concerns Potential permitting and public concerns.
Mixed Waste with noise, odor and vector issues. Additional processing/disposal of post-processed MSW would be Floodplain and wetland mitigation may increase
200-1500
Processing 20-60 Ac $85-$150 5-7 years required. Contamination of recovered materials is significant issue, recovery rates for marketable development costs. Utilities would have to be
TPD
Facility materials typically 30% or less. End uses/markets and capacities may need development. Moderate extended to site. Could be co-located with other
capital and operating costs, and additional fleet equipment and operators would be needed for site alternative facility(ies) on this site.
operations and transport of residuals.
Modification of existing curbside collection system needed. High complexity, but low skill level needed
Potential permitting and public concerns.
for most operations. Capacity limited by site area. Typical maximum processing capacity for these
Material Floodplain and wetland mitigation may increase
300-400 facilities is approximately 350-400 tons per day. Minimal public concerns. Additional
Recovery 20-60 Ac $87-154 5-7 years development costs. Utilities would have to be
TPD processing/disposal of some post-processed materials (i.e., glass) would be required. Contamination of
Facility extended to site. Could be co-located with
recovered materials is significant issue. End uses/markets and capacities may need development.
another alternative facility on this site.
Moderate capital and operating costs, and additional fleet equipment and operators would be needed.
No change to existing collection system needed. Can be low or high complexity, but low skill level Potential permitting and public concerns.
C&D needed for most operations. Capacity limited by site area. Potential public concerns with noise, odor, Floodplain and wetland mitigation may increase
300–825
Recycling 5-20 Ac $76-150 3-7 years and dust. Additional processing/disposal of some post-processed materials (i.e., mixed fines) would be development costs. Utilities would have to be
TPD
Facility required. End uses/markets and capacities may need development. Moderate capital and operating extended to site. Could be co-located with
costs, and additional fleet equipment and operators would be needed. another alternative facility on this site.
(1)
Sources: DC Study (2017 costs escalated) and NREL Study (2020 costs escalated). Cost does not include additional organics collection system costs.
(2)
Costs estimated from vendor quote, does not include building or land acquisition costs.
(3)
Costs based on 2017 article in Waste Management journal using developed country costs.

www.arcadis.com
3/10
 Future Solid Waste Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site A2 – Opa-Locka West Airport

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 7.8 miles northwest of the existing RRF site, more than four miles
from any active airport, more than 0.5 miles from residential zoning, and approximately 13.4 miles
northeast of the boundary of Everglades National Park. If this site were selected for the development
of one or more of the alternative facilities there would be impacts to the local traffic levels, but the
effects on the County’s Solid Waste System would be minimal. Significant traffic increases would be
expected on the Florida Turnpike and US27, which are already high traffic count roadways according to
the Florida Department of Transportation's Florida Traffic Online Web Application.
To maintain the current collection patterns and travel times, a new transfer station would need to be
constructed at the RRF site if this site was selected for development. The number of deliveries by
collection vehicles and transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the capacity and material types processed by the
alternative facility(ies) developed at the site. Their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times
would generally increase due to changes in travel distances and expected traffic congestion. Estimated
travel distances and times from Site A2 to the County’s transfer so and landfills as compared to the
RRF site are as follows:

Est. Travel Est. Travel

Facility Distance/Time to Distance/Time to
Site A2 RRF

West TS 22 mi/25 min 9 mi/16 min

Central TS 26 mi/31 min 14 mi/21 min

Northeast TS 23 mi/27 min 18 mi/25 min

South Dade LF 32 mi/37 min 25 mi/31 min

North Dade LF 19 mi/19 min 21 mi/23 min

The changes in travel times and distances from the RRF site, especially for the West TS, may affect
some Collection and Transfer operations. Collection and Transfer fleet labor, fuel consumption and
maintenance costs may increase if this site were selected for development.

Utilities
 Potable water – The potable water capacity required for fire lines and supply lines will depend on
the type of alternative facility(ies) selected. No potable water service appears to be available at the
site, and the closest connection point appears to be approximately 5.0 miles to the south in the
City of Hialeah Gardens. Additional analysis will be needed to determine pipe size and available
system capacity, and a booster station may be needed to increase system pressure. Soils data

www.arcadis.com
 Future Solid Waste Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site A2 – Opa-Locka West Airport

indicates shallow depth to bedrock in some locations, rock removal may be required for pipe
trench excavation for new lines in those areas.
Wastewater – The minimum sanitary sewer capacity requirements will depend on the type of
alternative facility(ies) selected. No sanitary sewer service appears to be available at the site, and
the closest connection point appears to be approximately 5.0 miles south in the City of Hialeah
Gardens. Additional analysis will be needed to determine pipe size and available system capacity,
and a lift station and force main to gravity sewer may be required. Soils data indicates shallow
depth to bedrock in some locations, rock removal may be required for pipe trench excavation for
new lines in those areas.

 Natural gas – The minimum natural gas capacity requirements will depend on the type of
alternative facility(ies) selected. No natural gas service is available at the site. According to the
National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) the closest gas transmission main is located
approximately 9.7 miles south on the north side of US27, but additional analysis will be needed to
determine pipe size and available system capacity. Additional ROW/easement may be needed.
Soils data indicates shallow depth to bedrock, rock removal may be required for pipe trench
excavation.

 Electric – The electrical service capacity required will depend on the type of alternative facility(ies)
selected. Standard 120V/230A electrical service appears to be available at the site. The nearest
substation/switchyard is the FPL substation approximately 5.6 miles southeast of the site, near the
Titan Pennsuco complex. Substation/switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and available
terminations will need to be evaluated.

 Stormwater – The presence of floodplains and high groundwater elevations may result in slightly
larger stormwater ponds on site, but there may be sufficient area for a stormwater system that
meets regulatory requirements.

 Groundwater – If necessary for facility operations, a consumptive use permit from the South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to withdraw any groundwater
from the aquifer or surface water bodies. If a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then
potable water service will have to provide for all facility water consumption needs, which will
increase operating costs.

Soils
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the site soils as primarily Shark Valley Muck,
Coopertown Muck, Perrine Marly Silt Loam, Biscayne Marly Silt Loam, and Udorthents. The presence
of muck soils indicates high groundwater conditions. Udorthents soils consist of unconsolidated or
heterogeneous geologic material removed during the excavation of ditches, canals, lakes, ponds, and
quarries.
While this may not present an issue for some alternative facilities, any facility(ies) having buildings and
ancillary components with slab-on-grade foundations located at this site would have to be constructed
on fill material, which could present geotechnical engineering challenges for the foundation designs and
additional site preparation costs.

www.arcadis.com
 Future Solid Waste Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site A2 – Opa-Locka West Airport

Environment
 Floodplains – Almost the entire site area is located within FEMA Flood Zones A.

 Environmental Assessments – Based on a review of the Miami-Dade County Environmental

Resources Access Portal, several biological and wetland assessments have been conducted for
Site A2. The findings of these biological and wetlands assessments noted the presence of
jurisdictional wetlands and the potential presence of endangered species, however, due to the age
of the existing assessments, these studies would need to repeated.

 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) Considerations – This site is included in

a CERP project area. CERP is a framework for restoring, protecting and preserving the greater
Everglades ecosystem. The plan is a 50-50 partnership between the State of Florida and the
federal government. The State of Florida and the South Florida Water Management District have so
far invested approximately $2.3 billion in CERP-related land acquisition, project design and
construction. During the screening process the CERP project boundaries GIS layer was used to
identify conservation lands, including the Everglades National Park, to determine if any parcel was
adjacent to any known or existing CERP project. Any development at this site will take additional
regulatory coordination and discussion and may conflict with County policy CON-7J and others.

 Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – If a WTE or gasification facility were selected for
this site, a complete PPSA Application would need to be developed, inclusive of the associated
individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP, Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting
(if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing process would also be required.

 New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located approximately 13.4 mi (21.6 km) NE of the Everglades Class I Area.
As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE or gasification facility would be
subject to PSD permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction
approval under the PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best
Available Control Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to
demonstrate compliance with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors
located in the immediate vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at
sensitive receptors located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II
areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE or gasification facility and thus will make air permitting
challenging at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land
manager agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air
pollution. These resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources
for sensitive area(s).

www.arcadis.com
 Future Solid Waste Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site A2 – Opa-Locka West Airport

 Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates wetlands
are present. National Wetlands Inventory mapping indicates most of the site is a Palustrine
Emergent wetland habitat classified as a PEM1, as shown in Figure 1. Development at this site may
conflict with County Policies CON-7A and/or CON-7B.
The site is not within a Florida
panther focus area for consultation
or critical habitat for endangered or
threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act. The
Florida Fish and Wildlife
Commission Terrestrial Resources
Geographic Information System
database notes that within this site,
there are strategic habitat
conservation areas for the Florida
Panther and Swallow-Tailed Kite.
Additionally, the site is located within
the Florida Bonneted Bat and
Everglades Snail Kite consultation
area and individual consultation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is
required. The site is within 8.3 and
8.5 miles of active wood stork Figure. 1 - Wetlands area on Site A2 (from NWI data)
colonies; and based on previous
environmental assessments found on the Miami-Dade County Environmental Resources Access
Portal, this site has core foraging habitat for the federally endangered Wood Stork and Florida
Bonneted Bat.

Transportation
The site has good access to US27 and the Florida Turnpike. The volume of traffic that is expected at
the site will depend on the type of facility(ies) selected but will increase the loads on the Florida
Turnpike and US27, which are already high traffic count roadways. Traffic impacts to the local area
could be significant. Truck queuing will have to be accomplished on site to prevent congestion of US27
and local roads. It should be noted that if a WTE or gasification facility is developed on the site it may
preclude the use of the site for aviation purposes.

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated slightly elevated values for Diesel Particulate Matter.
The site is more than 0.5 miles from residential zoning, but has extensive wetland preserve areas on
site, which suggests that the siting of any alternative facility(ies) may be opposed by the community or
environmental groups at this location.

www.arcadis.com
 Future Solid Waste Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site A2 – Opa-Locka West Airport

Schedule
There are a several site constraints that could affect the schedule of any alternative facility project,
including:

 Utilities – Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water,

sanitary sewer, natural gas, and electric utility infrastructure.

 Soils – Additional geotechnical testing will be needed to determine the full extent of soil preparation
needed (i.e., vibro-compaction, consolidation, etc.) and additional requirements for building
foundations at the site (f needed), which may increase design and construction time.

 Permitting – The presence of floodplains, wetlands, and threatened and endangered species
habitat are expected to extend the project schedule. In addition, if a WTE or gasification facility is
selected for this site, the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting will be difficult.
The site is located approximately 13.4 mi (21.6 km) NE of the Everglades Class I Area. The nearby
Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the County and the Biscayne Bay
NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern border of the County both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE or gasification facility and thus will make air permitting
challenging at this prospective site.

 Community – The site is more than 0.5 miles from residential zoning, but has extensive wetland
preserve areas on site, which suggests that the siting of any alternative facility(ies) may be opposed
by the community or environmental groups at this location, which could affect the project schedule.

Cost
Overall, the site area is sufficient for any of the alternative facilities, and more than one if smaller
facilities are co-located. There are many different possible combinations of facilities and processing
capacities, and the total redevelopment costs could range from $20 million for a low-tech outdoor C&D
recycling facility to more than $1.5 billion for a state-of the art mass burn WTE facility and ash landfill.
The optimal selection, sizing and arrangement of alternative facilities will require additional studies to
more accurately determine the total development costs. If a WTE or gasification facility is selected for
this site, development costs are expected to be higher than at the existing RRF site. Depending on the
alternative facility(ies) selected, there are several site constraints and additional Solid Waste System
changes that could affect the total cost to the Department, including:

 Utilities
- Construction of approximately 5.0 miles of potable water piping and a potable water booster
station may be required.
- Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and approximately 5.0 miles of sanitary sewer
forcemain may be required.
- Construction of approximately 9.7 miles of gas service piping to provide natural gas to the site.

www.arcadis.com
 Future Solid Waste Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site A2 – Opa-Locka West Airport

- Soils data indicates shallow depth to bedrock, rock removal may be required in some areas for
utility pipe trench excavation.
- For WTE and gasification alternatives, construction of approximately 5.6 miles of electrical
transmission line routing through existing ROW/FPL easements. Also, upgrades to the existing
substation may be needed.
- Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary
sewer, natural gas, and electric utility infrastructure.
- On-site water wells are likely not permittable. All potable water will probably need to be
purchased, increasing anticipated operations and maintenance costs.

 Soils – If buildings are needed, additional geotechnical testing will be needed to determine the full
extent of soil preparation needed (i.e., vibro-compaction, consolidation, etc.) and additional
requirements for building foundations at the site, which may increase design and construction
costs.

 Stormwater – due to the presence of floodplains and high groundwater levels, additional
stormwater considerations or facilities may be required.

 Permitting – Due to the presence of floodplains, wetlands, threatened and endangered species
habitat and the location of the site in a CERP project area, additional permitting efforts will be
required which could impact cost and schedule.

Site Differentiators Overview

 Construction of approximately 5.0 miles of potable water service piping and a booster station may be required.
 Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and approximately 5.0 miles of force main piping may be required.
 If natural gas service is required, construction of approximately 9.7 miles of gas service piping will be necessary.
 Soils data indicates shallow depth to bedrock, rock removal may be required for utility pipe trench excavation.
 Additional geotechnical testing will be needed to determine the full extent of soil preparation needed (i.e., vibro-
compaction, consolidation, etc.) and additional requirements for building foundations at the site, which may increase
design and construction costs and extend the project schedule.
 If a WTE or gasification facility is selected, construction of approximately 5.6 miles of electrical transmission line
routing through existing ROW/FPL easements would be necessary. Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be
needed.
 Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, and
electric utility infrastructure.
 Due to potential adverse effects to wetlands on site, groundwater may not be available for use as source water.
 The Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission Terrestrial Resources Geographic Information System database notes that
within this site, there are strategic habitat conservation areas for the Florida Panther and Swallow-Tailed Kite.
Additionally, The site is within 8.3 and 8.5 miles of active wood stork colonies; and based on previous environmental
assessments found on the Miami-Dade County Environmental Resources Access Portal, this site has core foraging
habitat for the federally endangered Wood Stork and Florida Bonneted Bat. Development at this site may conflict with
County Policies CON-7A and/or CON-7B.
www.arcadis.com
 Future Solid Waste Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site A2 – Opa-Locka West Airport

 The site is in a CERP project area. Any development at this site will take additional regulatory coordination and
discussion and may conflict with County policy CON-7J and others.

www.arcadis.com
 Future Solid Waste Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site A3 – Okeechobee Road

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

This site consists of ten parcels totaling approximately 68 acres in the Owner: West Dade Nurseries, LLC
northwest portion of Miami-Dade County, outside the UDB, with US27 on 2023 MDPA Market Value: $26,700,780
the western border and approximately 7.5 miles northwest of the RRF. Zoning District: AU
The site is less than a 10-minute travel time to US27 or the Florida PA Zone: 9000 - AGRICULTURE
Turnpike, is located more than a mile from residential zoning and Folio Nos: 30-2910-002-0020, 30-2910-
approximately 12.6 miles (20.3 km) northeast of the boundary of the 002-0030, 30-2910-001-0130, 30-2910-
Everglades Class I area. This site borders a Comprehensive Everglades 001-0131, 30-2910-001-0140, 30-2910-
Restoration Program (CERP) project area (North Lake Belt Storage 001-0141, 30-2910-001-0150, 30-2910-
Area). 001-0151, 30-2910-001-0160, 30-2910-
001-0170.
Site Alternatives Summary
Considerations for the selection of each alternative technology at this site are shown on the pages that follow.

www.arcadis.com
 Future Solid Waste Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site A3 – Okeechobee Road

Site Alternatives Summary

Potential Cost Per Development
Alternative Capacity Technology Considerations Site-Specific Considerations
Site Area Ton Time
5-8 tons Requires separate organics collection. Low complexity, low skill level needed for most operations. Potential permitting and public concerns. High
per acre Minimum 30-day processing time. Processing capacity depends on available land area. Not well suited groundwater may cause operational difficulties,
Organics
per day, $72-$80+ for urban areas, potential public concerns with noise, odor and vector issues. Challenging wet season especially during wet season. Estimated
Composting 10-60 Ac 3-5 years
typically (1) operations. Good quality compost produced. End uses/markets and capacities may need development. maximum processing capacity at this site, if fully
(Windrow)
80-500 Additional fleet equipment and operators would be needed for organics collection, site operation and developed, may be up to 125,000 tpy. Utilities
TPD. disposal of residuals. and travel times are concerns.
1-10 tons Potential permitting and public concerns. High
Requires separate organics collection. Moderate complexity, moderate skill level needed for operation.
per acre groundwater may cause operational difficulties,
Organics Minimum 30-day processing time. Processing capacity depends on available land area. Potential
per day. $74-$80+ especially during wet season. Estimated
Composting 5-60 Ac 3-5 years public concerns with noise, odor and vector issues. Challenging wet season operations. End
Typically, (1) maximum processing capacity at this site, if fully
(ASP) uses/markets and capacities may need development. Additional fleet equipment and operators would
80-700 developed, may be up to 125,000 tpy. Utilities
be needed for organics collection, site operation and disposal of residuals.
TPD and travel times are concerns.
Potential permitting and public concerns. High
5-100 tpd
Requires separate organics collection. Variable complexity, low skill level needed for operation. Short groundwater may cause some operational
per
Organics 5-7 day processing time. Compact process, smaller facility footprint, expandable capacity. Better suited difficulties, especially during wet season.
vessel, $9-$50+
Composting 1-60 Ac 3-5 years for urban areas, vessels can be enclosed in metal building to mitigate potential public concerns with Floodplain and wetland mitigation may increase
15 to (1),(2)
(In-Vessel) odor and vector issues from receiving areas. Additional fleet equipment and operators would be development costs. Utilities will need to be
1200
needed for organics collection, site operation and disposal of residuals. extended to site. Could be co-located with other
TPD
alternative facility(ies) on this site.
Requires separate organics collection. High complexity, high skill level needed for operation.
3-40+ Processing capacity depends on available land area. Potential permitting issues and public concerns Potential permitting and public concerns.
acres with noise, odor and vector issues. Fire risk from methane production. Additional composting or Floodplain and wetland mitigation may increase
Anaerobic 270-600 $57-$90+
depending 5-7 years disposal of resulting digestate solids would be required. Resulting digestate liquids can be used for development costs. Utilities will need to be
Digestion TPD (1),(2)
on fertilizer in cover maintenance for landfills or on agricultural land. Additional fleet equipment and extended to site. Could be co-located with other
capacity operators would be needed for organics collection, site operation and disposal of residuals. End alternative facility(ies) on this site.
uses/markets and capacities may need development.
Potential permitting and public concerns.
Unproven technology, significant pre-processing of MSW required. High complexity, high skill level Floodplain and wetland mitigation may increase
100-300+ needed for operation. Possible capacity limitations. Increased fire risk from syngas production but can development costs. Difficult permitting due to
Gasification 5-60+ Ac $154+(3) 10+ years
TPD fuel turbines for electrical generation. High capital and operating cost. Active ash monofil on site for nearby Everglades Class I area. Utilities will
slag disposal. need to be extended to site. Could be co-located
with other alternative facility(ies) on this site.
www.arcadis.com
2/9
 Future Solid Waste Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site A3 – Okeechobee Road

Site Alternatives Summary

Potential Cost Per Development
Alternative Capacity Technology Considerations Site-Specific Considerations
Site Area Ton Time
Potential permitting and public concerns.
No changes to existing collection system needed. Highest capacity alternative. High complexity, high Floodplain and wetland mitigation may increase
Waste-to- 4,000-
40-60 skill level needed for operation. Permitting and public opposition challenges. High capital and operating development costs. Difficult permitting due to
Energy 5,000 $57-60+ 8-10+ years
Ac cost. Electrical generation for revenue or powering other facilities. Good metal recovery possible from nearby Everglades Class I area. Utilities will
(Mass Burn) TPD
ash. Landfill needed for ash disposal. need to be extended to site Could be co-located
with other alternative facility(ies) on this site.
No changes to existing collection system needed. High complexity, high skill level needed for operation.
Potential public concerns with noise, odor and
Mechanical High capital and operating cost. High-capacity alternative, but waste is typically shredded and
200-560 vector issues. Could be co-located with other
Biological 5-15 Ac $123-183 3-5 years converted into pelletized solid recovered fuel (SRF) that must be transported and fired at another
TPD alternative facility(ies) on this site. Local concrete
Treatment facility capable of using the SRF. Additional fleet equipment and operators would be needed for site
facilities may be able to use SRF.
operation and transport of SRF.
No changes to existing collection system needed. High complexity, but low skill level needed for most
operations. Capacity limited to approximately 3,000 tpd. Potential permitting issues and public concerns Potential permitting and public concerns.
Mixed Waste with noise, odor and vector issues. Additional processing/disposal of post-processed MSW would be Floodplain and wetland mitigation may increase
200-1500
Processing 20-60 Ac $85-$150 5-7 years required. Contamination of recovered materials is significant issue, recovery rates for marketable development costs. Utilities would have to be
TPD
Facility materials typically 30% or less. End uses/markets and capacities may need development. Moderate extended to site. Could be co-located with other
capital and operating costs, and additional fleet equipment and operators would be needed for site alternative facility(ies) on this site.
operations and transport of residuals.
Modification of existing curbside collection system needed. High complexity, but low skill level needed
Potential permitting and public concerns.
for most operations. Capacity limited by site area. Typical maximum processing capacity for these
Material Floodplain and wetland mitigation may increase
300-400 facilities is approximately 350-400 tons per day. Minimal public concerns. Additional
Recovery 20-60 Ac $87-154 5-7 years development costs. Utilities would have to be
TPD processing/disposal of some post-processed materials (i.e., glass) would be required. Contamination of
Facility extended to site. Could be co-located with
recovered materials is significant issue. End uses/markets and capacities may need development.
another alternative facility on this site.
Moderate capital and operating costs, and additional fleet equipment and operators would be needed.
No change to existing collection system needed. Can be low or high complexity, but low skill level Potential permitting and public concerns.
C&D needed for most operations. Capacity limited by site area. Potential public concerns with noise, odor, Floodplain and wetland mitigation may increase
300–825
Recycling 5-20 Ac $76-150 3-7 years and dust. Additional processing/disposal of some post-processed materials (i.e., mixed fines) would be development costs. Utilities would have to be
TPD
Facility required. End uses/markets and capacities may need development. Moderate capital and operating extended to site. Could be co-located with
costs, and additional fleet equipment and operators would be needed. another alternative facility on this site.
(1)
Sources: DC Study (2017 costs escalated) and NREL Study (2020 costs escalated). Cost does not include additional organics collection system costs.
(2)
Costs estimated from vendor quote, does not include building or land acquisition costs.
(3)
Costs based on 2017 article in Waste Management journal using developed country costs.

www.arcadis.com
3/9
 Future Solid Waste Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site A3 – Okeechobee Road

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 7.5 miles northwest of the existing RRF site, more than four miles
from any active airport, more than a mile from residential zoning, and approximately 12.6 miles
northeast of the boundary of Everglades National Park. If this site were selected for the development
of one or more of the alternative facilities there would be impacts to the local traffic levels, but the
effects on the County’s Solid Waste System would be minimal. Significant traffic increases would be
expected on the Florida Turnpike and US27, which are already high traffic count roadways according to
the Florida Department of Transportation's Florida Traffic Online Web Application.
To maintain the current collection patterns and travel times, a new transfer station would need to be
constructed at the RRF site if this site was selected for development. The number of deliveries by
collection vehicles and transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the capacity and material types processed by the
alternative facility(ies) developed at the site. Their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times
would generally increase due to changes in travel distances and expected traffic congestion. Estimated
travel distances and times from Site A3 to the County’s transfer stations and landfills as compared to
the RRF site are as follows:

Est. Travel Est. Travel

Facility Distance/Time to Distance/Time to
Site A3 RRF

West TS 20 mi/23 min 9 mi/16 min

Central TS 24 mi/29 min 14 mi/21 min

Northeast TS 21 mi/25 min 18 mi/25 min

South Dade LF 30 mi/35 min 25 mi/31 min

North Dade LF 17 mi/17 min 21 mi/23 min

The changes in travel times and distances from the RRF site, especially for the West TS, may affect
some Collection and Transfer operations. Collection and Transfer fleet labor, fuel consumption and
maintenance costs may increase if this site were selected for development.

Utilities
 Potable water – The potable water capacity required for fire lines and supply lines will depend on
the type of alternative facility(ies) selected. No potable water service appears to be available at the
site, and the closest connection point appears to be approximately 3.9 miles to the south in the
City of Hialeah Gardens. Additional analysis will be needed to determine pipe size and available
system capacity, and a booster station may be needed to increase system pressure. Soils data

www.arcadis.com
 Future Solid Waste Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site A3 – Okeechobee Road

indicates shallow depth to bedrock in some locations, rock removal may be required for pipe
trench excavation for new lines in those areas.
Wastewater – The minimum sanitary sewer capacity requirements will depend on the type of
alternative facility(ies) selected. No sanitary sewer service appears to be available at the site, and
the closest connection point appears to be approximately 3.9 miles south in the City of Hialeah
Gardens. Additional analysis will be needed to determine pipe size and available system capacity,
and a lift station and force main to gravity sewer may be required. Soils data indicates shallow
depth to bedrock in some locations, rock removal may be required for pipe trench excavation for
new lines in those areas.

 Natural gas – The minimum natural gas capacity requirements will depend on the type of
alternative facility(ies) selected. No natural gas service is available at the site. According to the
National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) the closest gas transmission main is located
approximately 8.2 miles south on the north side of US27, but additional analysis will be needed to
determine pipe size and available system capacity. Additional ROW/easement may be needed.
Soils data indicates shallow depth to bedrock, rock removal may be required for pipe trench
excavation.

 Electric – The electrical service capacity required will depend on the type of alternative facility(ies)
selected. Standard 120V/230A electrical service appears to be available at the site. The nearest
substation/switchyard is the FPL substation approximately 5.4 miles southeast of the site, near the
Titan Pennsuco complex. Substation/switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and available
terminations will need to be evaluated.

 Stormwater – The presence of floodplains and high groundwater elevations may result in slightly
larger stormwater ponds on site, but there may be sufficient area for a stormwater system that
meets regulatory requirements.

 Groundwater – If necessary for facility operations, a consumptive use permit from the South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to withdraw any groundwater
from the aquifer or surface water bodies. If a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then
potable water service will have to provide for all facility water consumption needs, which will
increase operating costs.

Soils
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the site soils as primarily Coopertown Muck. The
presence of muck soils indicates high groundwater conditions.
While this may not present an issue for some alternative facilities, any facility(ies) having buildings and
ancillary components with slab-on-grade foundations located at this site would have to be constructed
on fill material, which could present geotechnical engineering challenges for the foundation designs and
additional site preparation costs.

www.arcadis.com
 Future Solid Waste Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site A3 – Okeechobee Road

Environment
 Floodplains – The entire site area is located within FEMA Flood Zone A.

 Environmental Assessments – Based on a review of the Miami-Dade County Environmental

Resources Access Portal, several wetland assessments have been conducted for portions of Site
A3. The findings of the wetlands assessments noted the presence of jurisdictional wetlands. A
covenant between Miami-Dade County and the landowner of approximately 25-acres of the 68-acre
site was executed in 2000. The convent requires that the landowner maintain an on-site wetland
mitigation area and preserve natural areas of portions of the site. The covenant is perpetual in that
it has a 30-year initial duration and is automatically renewed every 10-years, however, it could be
amended by the County Commission.

 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) Considerations – This site is adjacent to

a CERP project area, the North Lake Belt Storage Area. CERP is a framework for restoring,
protecting and preserving the greater Everglades ecosystem. The plan is a 50-50 partnership
between the State of Florida and the federal government. The State of Florida and the South
Florida Water Management District have so far invested approximately $2.3 billion in CERP-related
land acquisition, project design and construction. During the screening process the CERP project
boundaries GIS layer was used to identify conservation lands, including the Everglades National
Park, to determine if any parcel was adjacent to any known or existing CERP project. Any
development at this site will take additional regulatory coordination and discussion and may conflict
with County policy CON-7J and others.

 Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – If a WTE or gasification facility were selected for
this site, a complete PPSA Application would need to be developed, inclusive of the associated
individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP, Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting
(if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing process would also be required.

 New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located approximately 12.6 mi (20.3 km) northeast of the Everglades Class I Area.
As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE or gasification facility would be
subject to PSD permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction
approval under the PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best
Available Control Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to
demonstrate compliance with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors
located in the immediate vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at
sensitive receptors located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II
areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE or gasification facility and thus will make air permitting
challenging at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land
manager agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air

www.arcadis.com
 Future Solid Waste Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site A3 – Okeechobee Road

pollution. These resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources
for sensitive area(s).
Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land
Use 2017-2019 indicates that wetlands are present on portions of the site.
The site is not within a Florida panther focus area for consultation or critical habitat for endangered
or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The Florida Fish and Wildlife
Commission Terrestrial Resources Geographic Information System database notes that within this
site, there is potential habitat for the Florida Panther, Swallow-Tailed Kite, and Southern Bald
Eagle. Additionally, the site is also strategic habitat conservation area for the Florida Panther. The
site is within 2.5 and 2.7 miles of active wood stork colonies and within five miles of three currently
known Southern Bald Eagle nests.
Based on previous environmental assessments found on the Miami-Dade County Environmental
Resources Access Portal, the site has jurisdictional wetland habitat and portions of the site are
serving as wetland mitigation for on-site impacts. It should be noted that we were unable to locate
any formal assessments for the northern parcels (30-001-2910-0070, etc) but they may contain
jurisdictional wetlands and/or habitat for species listed in Appendix B of the CDMP. ERP permitting
at this site may be very challenging due to required LEDPA (Least Environmentally Damaging
Practicable Alternative) analysis.

Transportation
The site has good access to US27 and the Florida Turnpike. The volume of traffic that is expected at
the site will depend on the type of facility(ies) selected but will increase the loads on the Florida
Turnpike and US27, which are already high traffic count roadways. Traffic impacts to the local area
could be significant. Truck queuing will have to be accomplished on site to prevent congestion of US27
and local roads. Also, it should be noted that development of a WTE or gasification facility at this site
may preclude the use of Site A2 – Opa Locka West Airport for future aviation purposes.

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated slightly elevated values for Particulate Matter, Diesel
Particulate Matter, and elevated values for traffic proximity and air toxics. The site has an active
wetland mitigation area on site and may contain jurisdictional wetlands and/or threatened and
endangered species habitat, which suggests that the siting of any alternative facility(ies) may be
opposed by the community or environmental groups at this location.

Schedule
There are a several site constraints that could affect the schedule of any alternative facility project,
including:

 Utilities – Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water,

sanitary sewer, natural gas, and electric utility infrastructure.

www.arcadis.com
 Future Solid Waste Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site A3 – Okeechobee Road

 Soils – Additional geotechnical testing will be needed to determine the full extent of soil preparation
needed (i.e., vibro-compaction, consolidation, etc.) and additional requirements for building
foundations at the site (f needed), which may increase design and construction time.

 Permitting – If a WTE or gasification facility is selected for this site, the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) Permitting will be difficult. The site is located approximately 13.4 mi (6.6 km)
NE of the Everglades Class I Area. The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the
western border of the County and the Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the
eastern border of the County both having more stringent air quality related values (AQRVs) provide
uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable impacts from the operation of a new WTE
or gasification facility and thus will make air permitting challenging at this prospective site.

 Community – The site is more than a mile from residential zoning, but has extensive wetland
preserve areas on site, which suggests that the siting of any alternative facility(ies) may be opposed
by the community or environmental groups at this location, which could affect the project schedule.

Cost
Overall, the site area is sufficient for any of the alternative facilities, and more than one if smaller
facilities are co-located. There are many different possible combinations of facilities and processing
capacities, and the total redevelopment costs could range from $20 million for a low-tech outdoor C&D
recycling facility to more than $1.5 billion for a state-of the art mass burn WTE facility and ash landfill.
The optimal selection, sizing and arrangement of alternative facilities will require additional studies to
more accurately determine the total development costs. If a WTE or gasification facility is selected for
this site, development costs are expected to be higher than at the existing RRF site. Depending on the
alternative facility(ies) selected, there are several site constraints and additional Solid Waste System
changes that could affect the total cost to the Department, including:

 Utilities
- Construction of approximately 3.9 miles of potable water piping and a potable water booster
station may be required.
- Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and approximately 3.9 miles of sanitary sewer
forcemain may be required.
- Construction of approximately 8.3 miles of gas service piping to provide natural gas to the site.
- Soils data indicates shallow depth to bedrock, rock removal may be required in some areas for
utility pipe trench excavation.
- For WTE and gasification alternatives, construction of approximately 5.4 miles of electrical
transmission line routing through existing ROW/FPL easements. Also, upgrades to the existing
substation may be needed.
- Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary
sewer, natural gas, and electric utility infrastructure.
- On-site water wells may not be permittable. All potable water may need to be purchased,
increasing anticipated operations and maintenance costs.

www.arcadis.com
 Future Solid Waste Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site A3 – Okeechobee Road

 Soils – If buildings are needed, additional geotechnical testing will be needed to determine the full
extent of soil preparation needed (i.e., vibro-compaction, consolidation, etc.) and additional
requirements for building foundations at the site, which may increase design and construction
costs.

 Stormwater – due to the presence of floodplains and high groundwater levels, additional
stormwater considerations or facilities may be required.

 Permitting – because the site is adjacent to a CERP project area, additional coordination efforts
will be required which could impact cost and schedule.

Site Differentiators Overview

 Construction of approximately 3.9 miles of potable water service piping and a booster station may be required.
 Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and approximately 3.9 miles of force main piping may be required.
 If natural gas service is required, construction of approximately 8.2 miles of gas service piping will be necessary.
 Soils data indicates shallow depth to bedrock, rock removal may be required for utility pipe trench excavation.
 Additional geotechnical testing will be needed to determine the full extent of soil preparation needed (i.e., vibro-
compaction, consolidation, etc.) and additional requirements for building foundations at the site, which may increase
design and construction costs and extend the project schedule.
 If a WTE or gasification facility is selected, construction of approximately 5.4 miles of electrical transmission line
routing through existing ROW/FPL easements would be necessary. Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be
needed.
 Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, and
electric utility infrastructure.
 Due to potential adverse effects to wetlands north of the site, groundwater may not be available for use as source
water.
 The Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission Terrestrial Resources Geographic Information System database notes that
within this site, there is potential habitat for the Florida Panther, Southern Bald Eagle and Swallow-Tailed Kite as well
as strategic habitat for the Florida Panther. Additionally, The site is within 2.5 miles of active wood stork colonies and
within 5.0 miles of three known Southern Bald Eagle nests; and based on previous environmental assessments found
on the Miami-Dade County Environmental Resources Access Portal, this site has jurisdictional wetlands.
Development at this site may conflict with County Policies CON-7A and/or CON-7B.
 The site is adjacent to a CERP project area. Any development at this site will take additional regulatory coordination
and discussion and may conflict with County policy CON-7J and others.

www.arcadis.com
Appendix D
State of the Industry Report

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary SWS Siting Alternatives Report D
Miami-Dade County Department of Solid Waste
Management

State of the Waste Processing

Technology Industry
Final Report

June 2022
Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations................................................................................................................................ iv
1 Introduction and Background ........................................................................................................................ 1
2 WTE Historical Perspective ............................................................................................................................ 2
3 Environmental Characteristics of Waste Processing Technologies .......................................................... 2
3.1 Air Quality Regulations ........................................................................................................................... 2
3.2 Greenhouse Gases .................................................................................................................................. 7
3.3 Water ......................................................................................................................................................... 9
3.4 Residue Disposal ................................................................................................................................... 10
4 Proven Waste Processing Technologies .................................................................................................... 11
4.1 Mass-Burn/Waterwall Combustion ...................................................................................................... 12
4.1.1 Process Description .......................................................................................................................... 12
4.1.2 US and International Experience ..................................................................................................... 13
4.1.3 Suitability for Miami-Dade County ................................................................................................... 13
4.2 Modular Technologies........................................................................................................................... 13
4.2.1 Process Description .......................................................................................................................... 13
4.2.2 International and US Based Experience .......................................................................................... 14
4.2.3 Suitability for Miami-Dade County ................................................................................................... 15
4.3 Refuse-derived Fuel .............................................................................................................................. 15
4.3.1 Process Description .......................................................................................................................... 15
4.3.2 International and US Based Experience .......................................................................................... 16
4.3.3 Suitability for Miami-Dade County ................................................................................................... 17
5 Emerging Waste Technologies .................................................................................................................... 18
5.1 Gasification / Plasma Arc...................................................................................................................... 18
5.1.1 International and US Based Experience .......................................................................................... 19
5.1.2 Suitability for Miami-Dade County ................................................................................................... 20
5.2 Anaerobic Digestion .............................................................................................................................. 21
5.2.1 International and US Based Experience .......................................................................................... 23
5.2.2 Suitability for Miami-Dade County ................................................................................................... 23
5.3 Mechanical Biological Treatment / Solid Recovered Fuel Technologies ........................................ 23
5.3.1 International and US Based Experience .......................................................................................... 24
5.3.2 Suitability for Miami-Dade County ................................................................................................... 24

www.arcadis.com
Miami-Dade_State of the Waste Processing Technology Industry_FINAL ii
6 Recent Waste Processing Technology Procurements and Facility Expansions .................................... 26
6.1 Procurements ......................................................................................................................................... 26
6.1.1 St. Lucie County, FL .......................................................................................................................... 26
6.1.2 New York City, NY .............................................................................................................................. 27
6.1.3 Hartford, CT ........................................................................................................................................ 27
6.1.4 Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County, Florida .................................................................. 27
6.2 Florida Waste-to-Energy Facility Expansions .................................................................................... 28
7 Summary and Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 30
7.1 Summary and Comparison for Use at Miami-Dade ............................................................................ 30
7.2 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 32

Tables
Table 3-1. Clean Air Act Emission Limits .............................................................................................................. 3
Table 3-2. Initial Permit Limits ................................................................................................................................ 5
Table 3-3. Example Permit Limits and Emissions from PBREF No. 2................................................................ 6
Table 3-4. GHG Results for WTE using Method 2 in King County, WA for a 4,000 TPD WTE facility ............. 8
Table 3-5. GHG Evaluation for Disposal of MSW at Out-Of-County Landfill in King County, WA .................. 8
Table 7-1. Technology Comparison Table .......................................................................................................... 30

Figures
Figure 4-1. Profile Configuration of the most recently built mass-burn facility in the U.S., PBREF No. 2 ... 13
Figure 4-2. Typical Modular Starved-Air Combustor with Transfer Rams....................................................... 14
Figure 4-3. Typical RDF-Fired Spreader Stoker Boiler ...................................................................................... 16
Figure 5-1. Department of Energy diagram of Gasification processes & products ....................................... 18
Figure 5-2. EPA Diagram of Anaerobic Digestion Process ............................................................................... 22

www.arcadis.com
Miami-Dade_State of the Waste Processing Technology Industry_FINAL iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
APC Air pollution control

B&W Babcock and Wilcox

CCS Carbon capture and sequestration

Cd Cadmium

CO Carbon Monoxide

County Miami-Dade County

Covanta Covanta Energy Corporation

CSWSP CT Solid Waste System Project

CT Connecticut
CSWS RRF Connecticut Solid Waste System Resource Recovery Facility

CTDEEP Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection

DSWM Department of Solid Waste Management or Department

FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection
FOG Fats, Oils and Greases

G3P Green3Power St. Lucie, LLC

GHG greenhouse gas

GWP global warming potential

HAPs hazardous air pollutants

HCl Hydrogen Chloride

Hg Mercury

JSE Jacoby Synergy Renewables

LAER lowest achievable emissions rate

MACT maximum achievable control technology

MBT Mechanical Biological Treatment

MIRA Materials Innovation Recycling Authority

MSW Municipal Solid Waste

MTCE metric tons of carbon equivalent
MTCO2E metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
MWCs Municipal Waste Combustors

www.arcadis.com
Miami-Dade_State of the Waste Processing Technology Industry_FINAL iv
NESHAPs National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NH3 Ammonia

NOx Nitrogen Oxides

NSPS New Source Performance Standards

Pb Lead

PBF Power Block Facility

PEF processed engineered fuel

PM Particulate Matter

RDF Refuse-derived fuel

RFQ Request for Qualifications

RFI Request for Information

RFP Request for Proposals

RNG renewable natural gas

RRA Resource Recovery Act

SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction

SIP state implementation plan

SNCR Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide

SOI State of the Industry

SWA Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County, Fl

TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure

TPD or tpd Tons per day

US or USA United States of America
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USPHS US Public Health Service
WARM Waste Reduction Model

WPF Waste Processing Facility

WTE Waste-to-Energy

www.arcadis.com
Miami-Dade_State of the Waste Processing Technology Industry_FINAL v
1 Introduction and Background
The purpose of this state of the industry (SOI) report is to provide Miami-Dade County (County) Department of
Solid Waste Management (DSWM or Department) a summary of the latest commercially-available processing
technologies used in the solid waste industry that may be suitable for handling the County’s municipal solid waste
stream. This report will review the history of waste to energy (WTE) facilities in the solid waste industry,
environmental characteristics of WTE and waste processing facilities, proven waste processing technologies at a
commercial scale, emerging waste processing technologies, recent procurements of WTE facilities and
recommendations of waste technologies to be used by the County. The information presented in this report is
based on data and information that is available from published sources and vendor information and is augmented
by general industry experience. Specific vendors for each general technology type are not reviewed in detail in
this report.
The County requires a new waste processing or disposal facility to replace an existing WTE facility that, without
significant refurbishment, is approaching the end of its useful life. The County’s landfills are nearing capacity in
the next few decades and transporting the County’s waste to central Florida landfills has been determined by the
County to be inefficient, unsustainable, and not resilient. The County plans to issue a Request for Information
(RFI) to obtain information to determine the current best practices, industry standards, available technologies,
supplier availability, vendor capabilities and interest, supplier recommendations for a successful project and
location, and input on the procurement process for a new WTE facility. The new WTE facility is anticipated to
have a throughput capacity of 4,000 tons per day (tpd) of municipal solid waste (MSW) with a possible future
expansion capability of up to 5,000 tpd of MSW.
This SOI report will provide the County additional background information regarding the solid waste processing
industry to assist the County when reviewing responses to the RFI as well as when considering technology
options for the potential new WTE facility. It is important to note that this report only provides information that is
publicly and readily available at the time of issuance of this report, and the County should be aware that
responses to the RFI may include additional waste technologies and specific technology suppliers that were not
discussed in this SOI report. Additionally, overviews of technologies reviewed are limited to (a) technologies that
are capable of processing municipal solid waste (MSW) or portions of the MSW stream on a commercial basis
(demonstrated technologies) or (b) technologies that are reported to be developing the capability to become
commercially viable for processing MSW (emerging technologies). Both demonstrated and emerging technologies
are included to provide an appropriate perspective of the range of potential alternatives that may be available.
As the County has already evaluated recycling and waste diversion technologies1, the focus of this SOI report is
on processing and disposal technologies that process municipal solid waste, after residential and commercial
recycling and diversion efforts, commonly referred to as post-recycled MSW. The evaluated technologies must
provide some type of volume or weight reduction to reduce impact to both the County’s existing landfills and
disposal options at other private landfills within the region or state. As an example, this report may include
technologies that can only process certain subsections of MSW, such as: woody waste or yard waste, food waste
and other organics, refined or processed MSW to remove non-combustibles also referred to as refuse-derived
fuel (RDF), and technologies that focus on the entire remaining post-recycled MSW stream such as mass-burn.

1 Refer to Board Memo, dated February 11, 2022, summarizing efforts related to evaluating options for Countywide recycling (Directive 192055) and the “Recycling Analysis and

Program Planning” report, dated July 2021.

www.arcadis.com
Miami-Dade_State of the Waste Processing Technology Industry_FINAL 1
2 WTE Historical Perspective
The first solid waste incinerator facility or waste to energy (WTE) facility in the United States that combusted
municipal solid waste (MSW) was constructed in New York in 1885. The use of incineration grew during the early
decades of the 20th century until the 1930s, when there were more than 700 units in operation.
In the early 1960s the US Public Health Service (USPHS) solid waste program began to study problems with
incineration as a means of disposal. At that time, many major US cities depended on those antiquated, poorly
designed, and operated WTE facilities to manage a major portion of their waste disposal. With the assistance of
USPHS, the industry began to develop new concepts in design, materials, and operation. New designs included
the installation of scales to help monitor and control the waste feed throughput of the facility, and larger tipping
floors and pits designed to handle the volume of the facilities. Hoppers were designed to allow gravity flow of
MSW into furnaces and to provide a seal at the charging end of the unit. Bridge cranes became the main means
for charging furnace hoppers, while terminology became more standard with design terms. Several
advancements in air pollution control technology and improved combustion practices continued.
In 1970, the Resource Recovery Act (RRA) amended the federal solid waste legislation and developed a broader
solid waste role for the federal government. RRA defined resource recovery as the recovery of both materials and
energy recovery from MSW. Many old incinerators were shut down due to pressures of the Clean Air Act as well
as the emergence of sanitary landfills. The RRA gave federal solid waste program opportunities to address WTE
with financial and staffing resources and to expand the efforts that began during the 1960’s to enhance and
increase the efficiencies of WTE facilities. Throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s federal solid waste programs
studied many new MSW combustion concepts, specifically, ones that would allow for the recovery of both
materials and energy.2
In accordance with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) data from 2020 as updated for
the Bay County, FL WTE Facility closure in 20213, there are 73 WTE facilities in operation in the United States, 57
of those facilities use mass burn technologies, 12 facilities use RDF technologies, and four facilities used modular
technologies (a type of mass burn technology).4 In July 2015, the Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County
achieved commercial operations of the 3,000 tpd Palm Beach Renewable Energy Facility No. 2, which was the
last new WTE facility constructed in the United States.

3 Environmental Characteristics of Waste Processing

Technologies

3.1 Air Quality Regulations

The purpose of this section is to discuss the regulations related to solid waste combustion facilities that are
expected to include WTE, RDF, pyrolysis and gasification facilities except for certain technologies related that

2 https://www.mswmanagement.com/collection/article/13001185/a-brief-history-of-solid-waste-management-during-the-last-50-years-part-9a

3 https://www.wastedive.com/news/florida-incinerator-bay-county-shutting-down-wte/584718/#:~:text=The%20Bay%20County%20Waste-to-

Energy%20Facility%20operated%20by%20Engen,vote%20by%20county%20commissioners%20to%20wind%20down%20operations.

4 “Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Energy Recovery Technologies – Final Report”, dated December 2020, prepared for the USEPA.

www.arcadis.com
Miami-Dade_State of the Waste Processing Technology Industry_FINAL 2
may be dependent on how the fuel is used to generate the power such as anaerobic digestion. Solid waste
combustion facilities, commonly referred to as incinerators, which the EPA refers to as Municipal Waste
Combustors (MWCs), are regulated under the federal Clean Air Act, originally passed by Congress in 1963, and
amended in 1990. The Clean Air Act directs EPA to establish pollution control requirements for criteria air
pollutants, which are known as the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). The NSPS includes limits on
emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed MWCs. In 2015, the EPA issued final regulations to also limit
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from new sources5. For facilities performing thermal destruction of solid waste,
the NSPS include limits for sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrogen
chloride (HCl), dioxins/furans, particulate matter (PM), cadmium, lead, mercury, fugitive ash, and opacity. NSPS
regulations are detailed in Chapter 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60 (40 CFR 60), and are intended
primarily to establish minimum nationwide requirements for new and existing MWCs (under 40 CFR 60 Subpart
Eb for new MWCs and 40 CFR 60 Subpart Cb for existing MWCs).
The Clean Air Act also regulates hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). These pollutants include asbestos, benzene,
beryllium, inorganic arsenic, mercury, radionuclides, and vinyl chloride. National emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPs) are detailed in 40 CFR Part 61 and establish minimum nationwide
requirements for existing and new facilities. NESHAPs require an evaluation of the maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) for controlling HAPs and are often referred to as "MACT standards”. NESHAP regulations can
be found in 40 CFR Part 63 and establish nationwide requirements for existing and new facilities.
Under the Clean Air Act sections, the EPA may implement and enforce the requirements of these standards or
may delegate such authority to state, local, or tribal regulatory agencies. For the purposes of a facility within
Miami-Dade County, the EPA would delegate permitting actions and enforcement authority to the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). This delegation is typically limited to allowing the FDEP to draft
specific rules for managing permits and monitoring emissions, including potentially making more stringent
regulatory requirements, but does not allow the FDEP any authority to lower requirements to below the minimum
federal regulatory standards. The Clean Air Act emissions limits applicable to new MWCs are shown below:
Table 3-1. Clean Air Act Emission Limits

Emissions Limit1,2
Air Pollutant

Cadmium (Cd) 10 µg/dscm

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 100 ppmvd

Dioxin/furan (Total Mass Basis) 13 ng/dscm

Visible emissions for no more than 5 percent of the

Fugitive Ash
hourly observation period

Opacity 10 %

Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) 25 ppmvd

Lead (Pb) 140 µg/dscm

5 https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/nsps-ghg-emissions-new-modified-and-reconstructed-electric-utility

www.arcadis.com
Miami-Dade_State of the Waste Processing Technology Industry_FINAL 3
 Emissions Limit1,2
Air Pollutant

Mercury (Hg) 50 µg/dscm

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 150 ppmvd

Particulate Matter (PM) 20 mg/dscm

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 30 ppmvd

Notes:
1. Emission limits reflect the NSPS for new MWCs (40 CFR 60 Subpart Eb).
2. All concentrations are corrected to 7% O2.

Air permitting for a WTE facility can be a lengthy process and requires a multitude of analysis and
correspondence with a variety of regulatory agencies. Any new WTE facility would be considered a new major
source of air pollutant emissions and be required to obtain a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit
under the New Source Review (NSR) permitting program. The PSD permitting process is complex, includes
public participation, and requires completion of various air quality analyses. These analyses include BACT
analyses for the air pollutants associated with the planned emission units, dispersion modeling analyses to
determine air quality impacts at nearby receptors and at receptor locations within federally protected Class I
areas, visibility analyses to determine impacts at the Class I areas, and a toxic air contaminant impact analysis.
Prior to issuance of a final air construction permit, multiple iterations of these analyses will likely be required to
address any adverse impacts and to satisfy concerns of the permitting authorities, Federal Land Managers
responsible for the Class I areas, and the public. As the Everglades National Park is a designated Class I area
and close to any location within Miami-Dade County, this process could be lengthy for any new facility within the
County.
All sources at the facility must comply with applicable federal standards mentioned above. These regulations
prescribe emission standards as shown in the table above, require monitoring and performance testing, and
include siting requirements. The siting requirements specify that a detailed Materials Separation Plan be
completed (preliminary and final draft versions) with a defined public review process.
As a major source, the Facility will also be required to obtain a Title V operating permit. A Title V permit
application can be submitted after the PSD construction permit is issued or concurrently with the PSD
construction permit application. Considering the complexities associated with the Facility and anticipated
construction schedule, it is recommended to prepare and submit the Title V permit application after the PSD
construction permit is issued. The southeast Florida airshed, Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach Counties,
were previously a non-attainment area for ozone, which would have imposed additional permitting requirements
on the facility. However, at the time of this SOI report, that status is currently revoked. If this revocation reverses
before the attempt to permit a new facility, any new facility (new source) will be required to adhere to the lowest
achievable emissions rate (LAER). This will be the lowest emissions rate achieved by a similar source or the
lowest rate for a similar source in a state implementation plan (SIP) anywhere in the country. The two pollutants
impacted by this are oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC). These analyses would
raise the development cost and increase the time required to go through the permit process for a waste
conversion facility. The most common control technology for NOx, Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR),
can reduce emissions to 100 ppm, below required limits. Additional reduction in NOx is achieved by urea or
ammonia injection into the furnace. The only recently permitted MWC for a new source in Florida in the last

www.arcadis.com
Miami-Dade_State of the Waste Processing Technology Industry_FINAL 4
twenty (20) years was the Palm Beach Renewable Energy Facility No. 2 (PBREF No. 2) in Palm Beach County,
which became commercially operable in 2015. Permitting efforts for that facility were required by the FDEP to
include Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) technology for NOx reduction, so it is likely that any facility in Miami-
Dade would be required to be at least as stringent as that facility from a permitting perspective. The initial permit
limits for the PBREF No. 2 facility are listed below for reference in Table 3-2. Table 3-3 shows the permit limit and
recent stack testing results to demonstrate the ability to operate below such limits.
Table 3-2. Initial Permit Limits

Pollutant Emission Standard/Limit1 lb/hour3 Basis

50 ppmvd – 24-hour block arithmetic 37.4 BACT
NOx mean
45 ppmvd – 12-month rolling average BACT

100 ppmvd – 4-hr block arithmetic mean 45.5 Subpart Eb

CO
80 ppmvd – 30-day rolling average BACT

SO2 24 ppmvd – 24-hour geometric mean 25.0 BACT

HCl3 20 ppmvd 11.9 BACT

VOC (as propane) 7 ppmvd 5.0 BACT

PM/PM10/PM2.5 12.0 mg/dscm 4.7 BACT

(filterable)
Lead (Pb) 125 µg/dscm 0.049 Avoid PSD
N/A5 37.7 lb/yr6 Avoid PSD
Hg4
25 µg/dscm 0.0098 Applicant Request

Cadmium (Cd) 10 µg/dscm 3.91E-03 Subpart Eb

13.0 ng/dscm Subpart Eb

Dioxins/Furans7 10 ng/dscm during initial two years Initial Test

0.75 to 10 ng/dscm 3rd year and

BACT
thereafter

Opacity 10% - 6-minute average N/A5 BACT

Ammonia Slip 10 ppmvd 2.76 PM, Opacity

Notes:

1. All concentration values are corrected to 7% O2: µg/dscm = micrograms per dry standard cubic meter; mg/dscm = milligrams
per dry standard cubic meter; ng/dscm = nanograms per dry standard cubic meter; and ppmvd = part per million dry volume.
2. Mass emission limits reflect maximum values calculated at 110% of 24 hours steam production limit of 291,000 lb steam/hr for
each MWC. The 110% steam limit is 320,100 lb steam/hr for each MWC.
3. HCl is not a BACT pollutant. However, it must be limited together with SO2 because they both comprise MWC-Acid Gases
which has its own PSD threshold.
4. Within 60 days after achieving the maximum production rate, but not later than 180 days after the initial startup, PBREF No. 2
shall commence quarterly performance Hg stack test events for each MWC exhaust flue to show compliance with the 25

www.arcadis.com
Miami-Dade_State of the Waste Processing Technology Industry_FINAL 5
 Pollutant Emission Standard/Limit1 lb/hour3 Basis
µg/dscm emission limit. The 25 µg/dscm quarterly stack-based standard is based on the applicant's request. By meeting the
quarterly stack test standard, PBREF No. 2 will show compliance with Subpart Eb Hg emission standard of 50 µg/dscm.
5. N/A = not applicable
6. The 37.7 lb/yr emission limit is a 12-month rolled monthly average based on CEMS data. The Hg CEMS must become
operational within 60 days after PBREF No. 2 achieves its maximum production rate, but not later than 180 days after the initial
startup. During the first four quarters of Hg CEMS availability, the CEMS must achieve an 80% data availability rate.
Subsequently, an 85% data availability rate is required.
7. Dioxins/furans: Total tetra through octa-chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans. During the first year of the PBREF No.
2 operation of the 10 ng/dscm limit applies. Subsequently, the To Be Determined (TBD) limit will govern based on initial
performance and efficiency tests at the inlet and outlet of the SCR.

Table 3-3. Example Permit Limits and Emissions from PBREF No. 2

Test Result 6
Sample Type Limit Units 1

Unit #3 Unit #4 Unit #5

10 ppmvd3 2.59 5.01 2.40

Ammonia Slip (NH3)
2.76 lb / hr 0.78 1.58 0.77

12 mg / dscm2 1.93 3.04 2.59

Particulate Matter (PM)
(filterable) 4.7 lb / hr 0.82 1.32 1.16

20 ppmvd3 6.18 6.78 4.19

Hydrogen Chloride
(HCl)
11.9 lb / hr 3.99 4.43 2.85

Volatile Organic 7 ppmvd3 0.96 0.26 0.18

Compounds (VOC) (as
propane) 5.0 lb / hr 0.74 0.21 0.15

125 µg / dscm2 1.20 8.32 1.29

Lead (Pb)
4.9 E-02 lb / hr 5.14E-04 3.55E-03 5.64E-04

10 µg / dscm2 <0.50 1.86 0.43

Cadmium (Cd)
3.91 E-03 lb / hr <2.10E-04 7.97E-04 1.88E-04

25 µg / dscm2 <0.67 0.72 1.10

Mercury (Hg)
9.8 E-03 lb / hr <2.89E-04 3.08E-04 4.81E-04

Outlet Dioxins / Furans5 4.2 ng / dscm4 0.67 0.21 0.44

www.arcadis.com
Miami-Dade_State of the Waste Processing Technology Industry_FINAL 6
 Test Result 6
Sample Type Limit Units 1

Unit #3 Unit #4 Unit #5

Visible Emissions 10 % 0.0 0.0 0.00

100 ppmvd3 31.9 15.5 13.6

Carbon Monoxide
45.5 lb / hr 8.74 6.51 5.64

50 ppmvd3 36.7 39.9 37.6

Nitrogen Oxides
37.4 lb / hr 30.1 26.2 26.3

24 ppmvd3 20.3 20.7 21.4

Sulfur Dioxide
25.0 lb / hr 19.4 20.3 19.9

Opacity 10 % 0.9 2.1 0.8

Notes:
1. All concentrations are corrected to 7% O2.
2. Micrograms per cubic meter on a dry basis at standard conditions.
3. Parts per million on a dry volume basis.
4. Nanograms per cubic meter on a dry basis at standard conditions.
5. Based on stack testing performed over the first two full years of commercial operation, the dioxin/furan emission limit was set to 4.2
ng/dscm @ 7% O2, which is equivalent to 1.7 x 10-6 lb/hr.
6. Testing results are from the March 2018 stack testing program.

3.2 Greenhouse Gases

Combustion of MSW in a WTE facility results in the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrous oxide (N2O).
Carbon dioxide is the most significant GHG emitted by WTE. Nitrous oxide is produced at much lower
concentrations in a WTE facility compared to CO2, but is a more potent GHG with a global warming potential
(GWP) 298 times that of CO2. Carbon dioxide from WTE is primarily emitted as a product of combustion and from
transporting the residual waste ash to a landfill. Furthermore, GHG emissions (primarily CO2) would be generated
from WTE facility construction activities (e.g., worker transportation, truck delivery of supplies, raw materials, etc.)
and from operations of the WTE facility (e.g., truck deliveries of supplies, worker transportation, etc.).
Construction and miscellaneous operational-GHG emissions (e.g., raw materials, delivery of supplies, worker
commute) from a WTE facility are currently difficult to estimate. However, GHG emissions associated with these
activities should be a relatively small component of the overall lifetime GHG emissions considering the long-term
duration of a WTE facility.
The U.S. EPA has developed a Waste Reduction Model (WARM) to help solid waste planners and organizations
estimate greenhouse gas emission reductions from several different waste management practices. WARM
calculates GHG emissions for baseline and alternative waste management practices, including source reduction,
recycling, combustion, composting, and landfilling. The model calculates emissions in metric tons of carbon
equivalent (MTCE) and metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2E) across a wide range of material types
www.arcadis.com
Miami-Dade_State of the Waste Processing Technology Industry_FINAL 7
commonly found in municipal solid waste (MSW). In addition, the model calculates energy use for each of the
options. This tool could be used by Miami-Dade to estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from a new
WTE facility and how it would compare to alternative MSW management approaches. WARM models require data
inputs related to waste generation, waste characterization, and recycling rates in addition to waste
management/disposal alternatives.
Arcadis performed a recent WARM analysis for King County, Washington as part of a comparison of a new WTE
facility of similar size to the proposed facility for Miami-Dade County vs rail (and truck) hauling and ultimate
landfilling of MSW as shown in Tables 3-4 and 3-5 below, respectively.
Table 3-4. GHG Results for WTE using Method 2 in King County, WA for a 4,000 TPD WTE facility

Description MTCO2E/ton1

CO2 and N2O from MSW Combustion2 0.42

Truck transport of ash from WTE to IMF 0.008

Rail transport of ash from IMF to landfill 0.002

Avoided Utilities - Washington -0.26

Avoided emissions – steel recovery -0.04

Avoided emissions – AMP -0.11

Avoided emissions – ash recycling -0.07

Total -0.05
Notes:

1. MTCO2E/ton = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per short ton of MSW
2. The gross GHG emissions from MSW Combustion are based on national average values which include older WTE technologies. The
GHG emissions from a new WTE facility would presumably be less due to advances in combustion technology. Additionally, the
percentage of plastics in MSW is reportedly higher nationally than in King County (e.g., 18.3% versus 12.2%, suggesting that the WTE
GHG emissions for the King County waste composition may be less than national averages).

Table 3-5. GHG Evaluation for Disposal of MSW at Out-Of-County Landfill in King County, WA

Description MTCO2E/ton1

Methane not captured by LFG recovery2 0.32

Landfill equipment operation 0.02

Rail transport of ash from IMF to landfill 0.03

Avoided Utilities - Washington -0.08

Avoided emissions – carbon sequestration -0.21

www.arcadis.com
Miami-Dade_State of the Waste Processing Technology Industry_FINAL 8
 Description MTCO2E/ton1

Total 0.08 – 0.29

Notes:

1. Methane not captured by LFG recovery system assumes methane generation from anaerobic generation is 1.62MTCO2E per ton of
MSW and 80% LFG recovery. The 80% is based on professional judgment and EPA efficiency testing performed in 2012 and assumes
aggressive landfill gas capture.
2. MTCO2E/ton = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per short ton of MSW

While these comparisons are not a perfect comparison for Miami-Dade County based on transportation and
hauling differences and potential waste composition differences, the waste tonnages under consideration are
similar and the analysis does illustrate an overall net reduction in GHG based on WTE compared to landfilling with
aggressive landfill gas capture and re-use.
At the time of this report, there is no large-scale commercial success of carbon dioxide capture and sequestration
out of WTE flue gas. However, carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies are currently being explored
and tested at multiple WTE facilities outside of the United States. While this technology may not be fully
commercial at the inception of any new facility by Miami-Dade County, the technology is on the cusp of
commercial viability and may become sufficiently commercial to include during the design and inception process.6

3.3 Water
Mass-burn and RDF combustion technologies utilize water in order to generate steam to rotate the turbine and
produce electricity as well as for standard potable uses. Water is also a key necessary resource for facility
process functions such as cooling functions on heat exchangers and desuperheaters, quenching bottom ash after
combustion, and mixing with air pollution control chemicals for air pollution control usage. While detailed
engineering can occur to clean and re-use existing internal water sources in an attempt to create a “zero-
discharge” facility during normal operations, generally all types of WTE facilities have a wastewater discharge or
the ability to discharge wastewater during atypical operating periods.
Non-potable water may also be used as cooling water for the steam condensers, but the large cooling water
supplies necessary for condenser cooling are normally not available, and cooling towers or cooling water ponds
are often provided as part of the facility. However, due to water availability and restrictions, it has become more
common on construction of recent WTE facilities to utilize air-cooled condensers to lower overall water usage
requirements. Air cooled condensers increase the internal electrical demand and reduce net exports to the grid,
which can be balanced against water use restrictions or space availability for ponds or other source restrictions.
It is also common in Europe and in northern portions of the United States for some projects to cogenerate steam
and electricity for sale, such as district heating/cooling projects or those with a significant steam user in proximity
of the WTE facility site.
Other technologies such as gasification and anaerobic digestion will not necessarily use a boiler and do not
typically require a large condenser for cooling. However, they would still typically require potable water use, as
well as have internal process requirements for cooling water and air pollution control.

6 https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Waste-to-energy-with-CCS_A-pathway-to-carbon-negative-power-generation_Oct2019-4.pdf

www.arcadis.com
Miami-Dade_State of the Waste Processing Technology Industry_FINAL 9
3.4 Residue Disposal
Ash will be generated by non-high temperature thermal waste options such as mass-burn combustion, RDF
combustion, gasification and pyrolysis. In 2016, United States WTE facilities generated approximately seven
million tons of ash, which can be categorized as either bottom ash or fly ash. Bottom ash is the material that is
either falls through a furnace grate or remains on the grate after the waste is combusted. Bottom ash also
includes heat recovery ash that is collected in the heat recovery system of the facility. Fly ash refers to ash that
becomes entrained in flue gas that is collected by an air pollution system. The bottom ash/fly ash split is
approximately 15% fly ash by weight compared to 85% bottom ash by weight, but can vary based on the
combustion technology and waste composition. 7 Bottom ash typically represents a 75% reduction by weight of
the MSW processed by WTE facilities and is typically a reduction in volume of 90%. Bottom ash is typically not
classified as a hazardous material, subject to ash testing and analysis. Fly ash, however, when collected
separately, will have a higher concentration of heavy metals. Fly ash is typically treated as a hazardous material
unless it is combined with bottom ash, prior to testing, which is the current practice utilized at most United States
WTE facilities. However, based on Arcadis’ experience and observations, most recent testing of fly ash at WTE
facilities in Florida has shown a downward trend in heavy metals concentrations (speculatively due to the
changing waste composition and better recycling programs) and show that the ash is often not testing as
hazardous. Laws and regulations, both by the EPA and the FDEP, require WTE operators to test this ash to
ensure it is non-hazardous through a test called Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). In Florida,
this results in an initial characterization of the ash streams and requires further testing if any substantial changes
occur in the average waste composition or processing or air pollution control equipment technology. If the fly ash
is separated, often for purposes of increased metals recovery in the bottom ash and ash recycling efforts, it can
be treated, if necessary, with a fixative to prevent leaching of hazardous constituents so it can be classified as
non-hazardous.
WTE facilities are capable of recovering ferrous and non-ferrous metals in bottom ash from products and
packaging discards that are not collected in source-separation recycling. There are two approaches that are being
used on a commercial scale to recover these metals; wet ash dry processing systems and dry ash processing
systems. Wet ash dry processing systems quench the bottom ash following combustion. Recovery is performed
based on the particle size and density of the wet bottom ash. This is the system that is most common in United
State WTE facilities. Dry ash processing systems do not quench bottom ash, but use air to cool the ash and use
magnetic systems to recover metals.8
Florida regulations require applications for construction permits of WTE facilities to include an ash management
plan. The plan must describe measures to control dispersion of ash residue and location of ash disposal. The plan
must include ash quantity estimates and recycled material estimates.9 WTE ash in Florida has typically been used
as a cover for sanitary landfills. Other applications of ash have included landfill shaping and grading material,
landfill gas venting layers, as well as construction and road fill applications. States may have different laws and
regulations that limit how WTE ash can be applied.
In recent years, Florida has been on the forefront of additional post-recovery metals capture technologies to
improve collection efforts and performing pilot testing of bottom and combined ash re-use projects. These efforts,

7 https://www.mswmanagement.com/home/article/13026561/innovations-in-wastetoenergy-ash-management

8 https://www.mswmanagement.com/home/article/13026561/innovations-in-wastetoenergy-ash-management

9 Florida Statutes, Chapter 62-702 Solid Waste Combustor Ash Management

www.arcadis.com
Miami-Dade_State of the Waste Processing Technology Industry_FINAL 10
in coordination and with the approval of the FDEP, have resulted in significant quantities of additional ferrous and
non-ferrous metals removal, and successful ash re-use projects for roadway construction and testing for use as
aggregate in concrete and asphalt mixes. Miami-Dade’s current RDF processing facility currently performs post-
recovery of metals on WTE ash from its facility as well as on ash from other facilities in the south Florida area and
has been working with FDEP to test future ash re-use opportunities.
For gasification and plasma-arc technologies, inorganic materials such as metals and glass melt in the pyrolysis
chamber and forms a gravel-like black substance called frit or obsidian that can be used as an aggregate for
building roads or sold as a secondary product for other processes. Char is additionally produced and exits from
the bottom chamber, where it can be processed for metals recovery. Typical residue percentage is greater than
10% by weight of incoming processed material.
For anaerobic digestion technologies, the organic substrate after the digestion process, digestate, may also be
beneficially processed and recovered as a compost-like soil conditioner. The residue then remaining from
anaerobic consists of stones, glass or similar items, which is normally directed to a solid waste landfill. If not
beneficially processed, the residue quantity and characteristics are substantially similar to MSW with organic
materials removed. Assuming all digestate is utilized as compost, the remaining residue is approximately 5% to
10% by weight of incoming processed material.

4 Proven Waste Processing Technologies

Municipal solid waste (MSW) consists of energy-rich material such as paper, plastics, yard wastes, and wood,
and inorganics such as metals. Most large waste processing technologies in the United States primarily utilize
post-recycled MSW, which is MSW that remains after typical residential and commercial recycling has occurred.
For this reason, this report does not focus on certain specific technologies, such as chemical decomposition of
paper and plastics or other gasification efforts for recyclable materials. Large-scale waste processing methods
focused for inclusion in this report include the following:
1. Mass-Burn/Waterwall Combustion: This is the controlled combustion of post-recycled, unprocessed,
mixed MSW. The furnace is constructed with water/steam tubes to efficiently capture energy. Waterwall
systems are fabricated on-site and generally have larger unit sizes (200-1000 tpd) in the United States.10
2. Modular Technologies: Modular technologies typically burn unprocessed, mixed MSW and differ from
mass burn facilities in that they are typically much smaller (5-140 tpd) and utilize standard sizes for
construction. Modular technologies are often built off-site and hauled to site rather than built in place.11
3. Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF)/Dedicated Boiler: This process uses mechanical methods to shred incoming
MSW. The shredded MSW is then sorted and all non-combustible materials such as glass, metals, and
stones under a certain size fraction are removed. A combustible mixture is produced that has a higher
heating value than traditional mixed MSW and is utilized as fuel in a dedicated furnace or as a
supplemental fuel in a conventional boiler system.12
It is important to note that there are other methods of MSW disposal practiced in the United States such as mixed-
waste composting and landfills, however, neither of these technologies are focused on within this report due to

10 https://wasteadvantagemag.com/the-resurgence-of-waste-to-energy-and-conversion-technologies-wheres-the-risk/

11 https://www.epa.gov/smm/energy-recovery-combustion-municipal-solid-waste-msw

12 https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/refuse-derived-

fuel#:~:text=RDF%20is%20the%20product%20of%20the%20treatment%20of%20MSW%20to,as%20glass%2C%20metal%20and%20stone.

www.arcadis.com
Miami-Dade_State of the Waste Processing Technology Industry_FINAL 11
specific technical limitations in Miami-Dade County. Mixed-waste composting requires large land areas and/or
high capital investment. It is typically difficult to site due to the strong odor and has limited applications for
remaining compost. Landfilling also requires large land areas and are becoming more difficult to site within Florida
due to potential groundwater impacts with the high groundwater table and sinkhole risks. Additionally, landfills
produce methane, a greenhouse gas that is 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide, even with aggressive landfill
gas capture systems in place.
Due to some of these limitations, the Florida legislature incentivized WTE facilities in the 1980s to encourage less
reliance on landfill technologies. Due to those incentives, many facilities were built, and Florida currently has ten
(10) operational WTE facilities that process MSW or RDF of which eight (8) facilities use mass-burn technologies
and two (2) facilities use RDF technologies. These ten (10) facilities have the largest capacity to burn MSW of any
state in the United States.

4.1 Mass-Burn/Waterwall Combustion

4.1.1 Process Description

Mass-burn/waterwall combustion is one of the most common commercially viable technologies for conversion of
MSW to energy. Refuse typically does not require pre-processing before it can be combusted using this method.
However, some pre-processing typically still occurs, including separation of oversized materials and removal of
hazardous or potentially explosive materials. Refuse is stored in a loading bay and moved via an overhead crane
or hydraulic ram onto a reciprocating or roller grate. The grate moves the refuse through a combustion furnace on
the grate until combustion is complete. Combustion air in excess of stoichiometric amounts is supplied both below
and above the grate. Water-filled tubes in the furnace walls are used to recover heat to produce steam and/or
electricity. Generally, mass burn units range from 50 to 1,000 tons per day, and multiple units can be installed at a
single facility. Bottom ash, usually about 10% of the initial volume (25% of the weight) of the incoming MSW,
remains after the combustibles in the waste are burned. In addition, this process produces flue gas, which
includes pollutants that must be strictly treated via air pollution control devices.13 An example side profile of a
mass-burn WTE facility is shown below.

13 https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch02/final/c02s01.pdf

www.arcadis.com
Miami-Dade_State of the Waste Processing Technology Industry_FINAL 12
Figure 4-1. Profile Configuration of the most recently built mass-burn facility in the U.S., PBREF No. 2

Note: Image used with permission from the Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County

4.1.2 US and International Experience

In 2018 there were 75 operational WTE facilities within 21 states in the United States. Of these 75 facilities, 58
facilities used mass burn technologies.14 As of 2019, there were approximately 2,179 WTE facilities in operation
worldwide. Asian countries such as Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, and China have the largest number of WTE
facilities in operation. Economic development and rapid urbanization in China over the past several decades have
resulted in a rapid generation of over 200 million tons of MSW requiring disposal. In 2016, China had 259 WTE
mass burn facilities in operation. Japan has put a heavy emphasis on WTE facilities as the country as a whole
has a minimal amount of land available for landfills. Japan processes approximately 70% of its MSW in WTE
facilities.15
Florida currently has eight (8) operating mass-burn/waterwall combustion facilities that process MSW, the most
recent being the 3,000 ton-per-day Palm Beach Renewable Energy Facility No. 2 located in Palm Beach County,
which entered commercial operations in 2015.

4.1.3 Suitability for Miami-Dade County

Mass-burn technologies typically have the least number of technical restrictions for waste processing. Site
footprint is limited compared to other processing technologies and can be managed with additional costs. Total
cost per ton of MSW processed is typically lower than most other types of processing facilities except for landfills.
As the facilities typically process MSW with limited pre-processing, transfer hauling can be more efficiently routed
and additional space for fuel processing is not required. Mass-burn facility sizes typically have not exceeded
3,000 tons per day of single-facility capacity in the United States due to fuel availability and flexibility for
maintenance without large diversions; however, international vendors in areas like China have built single
facilities as large as 5,000 tons per day. For the proposed 4,000 tons per day of MSW processing capacity as
envisioned in Miami-Dade County, mass-burn technologies are both commercially available and suitable.

4.2 Modular Technologies

4.2.1 Process Description

Modular combustion units provide a smaller scale commercial option for MSW to energy conversion. They
generally range from 5 to 140 tons per day, and similar to mass-burn, do not typically require refuse to be pre-
processed before combustion with exceptions for oversized and hazardous or explosive materials. Two common
types of modular combustors are 1) starved air or controlled air type and 2) excess air type. For starved air
combustion, air is supplied to the first of two combustion chambers at sub-stoichiometric levels. This results in
incomplete combustion, generating CO and organic compounds. This feeds into a secondary combustion changer

14 http://energyrecoverycouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ERC-2018-directory.pdf

15 https://www.mswmanagement.com/collection/article/13036128/the-current-worldwide-wte-trend

www.arcadis.com
Miami-Dade_State of the Waste Processing Technology Industry_FINAL 13
where additional air is added and combustion is completed. The process produces bottom ash and flue gas. A
few newer models have acid gas/PM controls but many existing modular systems do not use air pollution controls.
In the modular excess air combustor, two chambers are also used, but excess air is used in the primary chamber.
Emissions from modular excess air combustors are similar to that of mass burn combustors but generally with
lower NOx.16

Figure 4-2. Typical Modular Starved-Air Combustor with Transfer Rams17

4.2.2 International and US Based Experience

As of 2020, there are four (4) operating modular facilities in the United States.18 No modular facilities currently
operate in Florida. As the facilities are typically small and not always captured on lists with traditional mass-burn

16 https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch02/final/c02s01.pdf

17 https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch02/final/c02s01.pdf

18 EPA December 2020 Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Energy Recovery Technologies Report

www.arcadis.com
Miami-Dade_State of the Waste Processing Technology Industry_FINAL 14
and RDF technologies, it is difficult to quantify the number of facilities operating internationally. However, modular
facilities are commercial and viable, within their typical size limitations.

4.2.3 Suitability for Miami-Dade County

Modular technologies typically have a very low number of technical restrictions for waste processing, but as they
are sized to be mobile or constructed off-site, they are typically limited by maximum sizing. Site footprint is limited
compared to other processing technologies. Total cost per ton of MSW processed is typically on par or less than
traditional mass-burn WTE facilities for smaller-sized facilities, but more expensive when compared to larger
facilities. As the facilities typically process MSW with limited pre-processing, transfer hauling can be more
efficiently routed and additional space for fuel processing is not required. Modular WTE facility sizes typically have
not exceeded 150 tons per day of single-facility capacity in the United States due restrictions on transportation for
off-site construction. For the proposed 4,000 tons per day of MSW processing capacity as envisioned in Miami-
Dade County, modular technologies would likely not be financially viable or easily scalable.

4.3 Refuse-derived Fuel

4.3.1 Process Description

Refuse-derived fuel combustion is another large-scale commercially viable MSW to energy technology. Refuse
processed via this method usually requires pre-processing, including removal of non-combustibles and shredding
of waste. This makes the feedstock more uniform for the combustion process and generally raises its heating
value to improve combustion efficiency and electricity output; however, typically results in much less volume
reduction than mass-burn and higher residuals remaining to be landfilled. Sometimes, RDF may be co-fired with
pulverized coal. Due to these reasons, RDF facilities were typically built in the past to maximize energy output
rather than maximize waste throughput. Generally, RDF combustor units can range from 320 to 1,400 tons per
day.
The primary style of RDF boilers usually utilizes spreader stokers and combust RDF in a mixture of semi-
suspension and traditional grate burnout. An air swept distributor blows the lighter portion of the RDF into the air
which combusts in suspension while the heavier portions combust after falling on a horizontal traveling grate.
Underfire air and overfire air are supplied to support mixing and completion of the combustion process. The
process creates bottom ash as well as flue gas. PM levels from RDF combustion are typically double at the inlet
to pollution control devices of mass-burn systems, but actual stack emissions tend to be comparable to mass-
burn systems.19
RDF can also be combusted in a fluidized bed combustor. In this type of combustor, fluff or pelletized RDF is
combusted on a turbulent bed of noncombustible materials such as limestone, sand, or silica. The combustor
vessel has a gas distribution plate and underfire air windbox. The underfire air is introduced at a high flow rate,
suspending/fluidizing the combustion bed. RDF, other wastes, and supplemental fuel can be injected via openings
in the combustor wall. Overfire air completes the combustion process. Fluidized bed combustors utilize very

19 https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch02/final/c02s01.pdf

www.arcadis.com
Miami-Dade_State of the Waste Processing Technology Industry_FINAL 15
uniform gas temperatures and mass compositions, which allows them to operate at lower excess air and
temperature levels than mass burn systems.20

Figure 4-3. Typical RDF-Fired Spreader Stoker Boiler21

4.3.2 International and US Based Experience

As of 2020, there were currently thirteen (13) RDF WTE facilities operating in the United States.22 There are
currently two (2) of these facilities in operation in Florida, including Miami-Dade’s existing RDF WTE facility.
Internationally the number of RDF facilities is difficult to determine as they are often not differentiated from mass-
burn style systems. However, a general estimate would be that roughly a fifth to a quarter of the almost 500 WTE
facilities in Europe may be RDF facilities. These numbers are likely lower in new growth areas such as China as

20 https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch02/final/c02s01.pdf

21 https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch02/final/c02s01.pdf

22 EPA December 2020 Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Energy Recovery Technologies Report

www.arcadis.com
Miami-Dade_State of the Waste Processing Technology Industry_FINAL 16
mass-burn has become the much more common choice for new facilities due to lowered MSW processing
requirements and overall costs.

4.3.3 Suitability for Miami-Dade County

RDF technologies typically require a much larger site footprint in order to manage the additional processing lines
to create RDF from MSW. Due to the additional processing requirements, RDF facilities typically cost more to
both construct and operate than a mass-burn facility or modular facility. Due to their history of previous mixes of
RDF with coal and the higher operating and construction costs, most existing RDF facilities are above 2,000 tons
per day and were built to achieve maximum electrical output rather than maximum MSW volume reduction. For
the proposed 4,000 tons per day of MSW processing capacity as envisioned in Miami-Dade County, RDF
technologies are both commercially available and suitable, but would likely cost more to both construct and
maintain than a mass-burn system and result in less volume reduction of MSW streams and more landfill
requirements for residuals.

www.arcadis.com
Miami-Dade_State of the Waste Processing Technology Industry_FINAL 17
5 Emerging Waste Technologies

5.1 Gasification / Plasma Arc

Gasification is a thermochemical process that converts organic fuel or waste materials into the gaseous products
of primarily carbon monoxide, hydrogen, as well as carbon dioxide and methane, collectively often referred to as a
‘Synthesis gas’ or ‘Syn Gas’. The resulting gas is considered a fuel due to the flammability and energy content
and can be converted into many different liquid or gaseous fuel products, or directly combusted in a gas turbine.
Unlike typical combustion that relies on a continuous supply of oxygen, gasification occurs under a limited
combustion where not enough oxygen is entering the system for a complete combustion reaction. In addition,
most gasification occurs at higher temperatures and pressures than a standard combustion system. These higher
temperatures and pressures, along with starved-air conditions allow fuel to break apart into their constituents
instead of undergoing oxidation (combustion). Those constituent gases, mostly hydrogen, methane, carbon
dioxide, carbon monoxide and water vapor, can then be separated and any non-organics in the chamber are
melted and form a glass-like slag typically referred to as obsidian. Once the gas is produced, it needs to be
cleaned to prevent contamination issues with the fuel being developed, any water vapor is extracted, and the syn
gas is cooled down. Once the syn gas is produced, there are various options on how to utilize or process it further
into more valuable products. It is most commonly burned directly in internal combustion engines or combustion
turbines; however, it can also be used to produce hydrogen as a natural gas alternative, or it can be used to
produce methanol and other various chemicals or synthetic fuels via commercially available and typical oil/gas
reformation systems.

Figure 5-1. Department of Energy diagram of Gasification processes & products

www.arcadis.com
Miami-Dade_State of the Waste Processing Technology Industry_FINAL 18
There are variations in gasification system designs. Pyrolysis is considered the second stage of gasification,
some facilities operate on pyrolysis to produce biochar and synthesis gas, which primarily gets condensed into a
bio-oil that generally has 50-70% of the fuel value of petroleum-based oils. The bio-oil is however chemically
unstable and requires refining into various fuels23. Another variation of gasification system design is plasma
gasification. This variant relies on a plasma torch powered by an electric arc to catalyze organic matter and ionize
gas into syn gas. The benefits of plasma gasification are the effective production of syn gas with minimal harmful
emissions due to the extreme temperatures and a reduction in ash volume compared to traditional mass-burn
technology. However, the operation of the plasma torch is energy intensive and reduces the net energy output.
Several other variations of gasification technologies include moving bed, fluidized bed reactor, and entrained-flow
gasifiers.
The gasifier process is chosen by the composition, quantity, and parameters of the feedstock or waste stream.
Depending on the gasification process chosen, there are varying feedstock & processing restrictions. Regardless
of the gasification process, a highly processed and homogeneous feedstock is required. Coal is a common
feedstock for larger commercial gasifiers. There has been significant interest in co-gasifying biomass with coal to
process waste. MSW can be gasified with all the main gasification processes24, however the variations in MSW
composition can influence the gasification efficiency and the caloric value of the syn gas. Higher moisture
contents can also reduce the efficiency25. Excessive tar content from inorganic materials in MSW that creates slag
can have adverse effects on the process efficiency and cause fouling of various system components such as the
gas sulfur removal system. Reactor temperature can also become affected by the MSW composition. Separation
of inert materials is important prior to the gasification of residual MSW, as they melt, can create excessive tar or
slag which will foul the gasifier system26. Because of these concerns, for gasification of MSW to be successful it
typically requires front-end processing, similar to RDF technologies to shred the waste, remove metals and other
contaminants, and often to dry the waste to a lower moisture value. While there are plasma gasification vendors
that claim they can utilize mass-burn style MSW, most technologies that Arcadis has reviewed in the past only
had bench or demonstration-scale tests of waste, not full-scale tests with extremely varied waste streams.

5.1.1 International and US Based Experience

Internationally, numerous plasma gasification plants have been in operation in Japan, Korea, and Europe. The
Hitachi plant in Utashinai, which was able to process 300 tons per day of MSW but had to shut down in 2013 due
to increased recycling rates and limited availability of feedstock27. Other plasma gasification facilities in Japan,
Korea, and Europe remain in operation at various smaller capacities.
US company Air Products had commissioned the world’s largest capacity gasification facility, TV1 and nearly
completed TV2, for the Tees Valley authority in England. The facility had sourced presorted MSW, or RDF that
would fuel the facilities which were rated to have a combined capacity of 700,000 tons per year. Shortly after
commissioning TV1, Air Products sold the two facilities due to design and operational challenges. The Tees

23 https://www.ars.usda.gov/northeast-area/wyndmoor-pa/eastern-regional-research-center/docs/biomass-pyrolysis-research-1/what-is-pyrolysis/

24 https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/waste

25 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780444639929000197

26 https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/59269

27 https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/Coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/westinghouse

www.arcadis.com
Miami-Dade_State of the Waste Processing Technology Industry_FINAL 19
Valley authority is currently in the procurement process for a new 450,000 tons per year WTE facility to process
the waste of 1.5 million residents.28
In the United States, there have been several attempts to build large gasification technologies from a variety of
vendors, but none have successfully reached commercialization at a large scale and continued operations at full
load for more than a short period of time. Notable failures include the Ineos facility in Vero Beach, Florida which
was intended to process both biomass and MSW, which reached preliminary commercial status but ultimately
shut down and sold due to ongoing operations issues that could not be resolved. In Nevada, the Sierra biofuels
facility is a 175,000-ton per year facility located in Storey County capable of creating 11 million gallons per year of
renewable synthetic crude oil, or “Syncrude,” that will be processed by Marathon Petroleum into transportation
fuel. The facility is owned by Fulcrum BioEnergy, Inc. and works on modern gasification techniques with a
proprietary Fischer-Tropsch (FT) fuel process29. At the time of this report, the Fulcrum BioEnergy facility has
publicly announced successful production of syn gas during commissioning, but is not yet operating at a full
commercial capacity to create transportation fuel.
In Canada, the Enerkem/ Suncor Alberta Biofuels facility is the first commercial scale biorefinery in North
America. The 100,000 tons per year facility produces a syngas platform capable of converting MSW to methanol,
ethanol, drop-in fuels and circular chemicals, such as acetic acid, acrylic acid, and olefins. The facility uses a low
oxygen gasifier and other proprietary processes to produce its fuels and chemicals30. However, while it has been
publicly announced to have achieved commercial operation and is producing fuel, the facility has had multiple
reports of shutdowns and re-designs to address ongoing operations and capacity issues and its full commercial
status when compared to design is not known at this time.

5.1.2 Suitability for Miami-Dade County

Gasification has some advantages over combustion for emissions control, as gasifiers produce synthesis gas at
higher temperatures and pressures than in typical combustion. These higher temperatures and pressures allow
for easier removal of SOx, NOx & CO2 from emissions. Once the synthesis gas is produced from the gasification
chamber, it needs to be cooled and cleaned to prevent fouling. Particulates are filtered out using a baghouse or
cyclone, and the gas may need to be scrubbed for acids due to potential sulfur content. Because the syn gas Is
directly captured during the gasification process, there is reduced emissions when compared with traditional WTE
technologies. However, if the syn gas is burned directly (unless it is converted or cleaned to pure hydrogen) to
generate power such as via a combustion engine or gas turbine, there could be criteria pollutants emitted.
Aside from the potential various products and benefits of gasification, when considering gasification as a primary
method of processing MSW in Miami-Dade, there are some problems that require consideration. The major
limitation of the gasification technology to Miami Dade County, would be the limited daily processing tonnage
capacity. Existing facilities for plasma gasification, which appear to be the ideal for MSW, all have very low
capacities and have reported higher operating costs. Most facilities in operation internationally are under 100 tons
per day, which would not be an appropriate scale-up to the 4,000 tons per day of processing capacity required by
Miami-Dade County. For non-plasma systems a significant challenge remains for the design and process
optimization, as the thermochemical reactions must be optimized under the varying feedstock compositions and
feedstock processing requirements would increase the cost and reduce the throughput of a gasification facility.

28 https://www.letsrecycle.com/news/air-products-to-halt-tees-valley-gasification-project/

29 https://fulcrum-bioenergy.com/facilities/

30 https://www.oilandgasiq.com/decarbonization/interviews/from-our-archives-turning-garbage-to-ethanol-to-reduce-albertas-co2-footprint

www.arcadis.com
Miami-Dade_State of the Waste Processing Technology Industry_FINAL 20
There are no large-scale traditional gasification technologies utilizing MSW that have stayed in operation over 10
years or not reported significant processing and maintenance issues that caused cost increases.

5.2 Anaerobic Digestion

In anaerobic digestion for MSW, the feedstock input would be pre-sorted organic MSW such as food and yard
waste which gets fed into water tanks and formed into a wet slurry via conveyors, pumps, and mechanized
agitation. Insoluble inorganics such as glass, plastics, and metals are discharged for separate processing or
disposal. The resulting slurry, or “black water”, has a high organic content that is broken down and consumed by
microorganisms such as methanogens, which generate methane in environments of no oxygen. The slurry stream
is sent to be processed by these organisms in a series of sealed chambers/digesters that are designed to remain
at the optimum conditions for anaerobic digestion. The slurry remains in the chambers for a determined residence
time to optimize the production of gas. The resulting biogas that has been produced is rich in methane and other
organic gases that are captured and can be used for electricity generation, sold to a local gas utility, or used as
fuel. The remaining organic solids from the digestion can be used as compost and liquids may be used as
fertilizer.
Anaerobic Digestion is a common type of organic waste facility used in the processing of sewage sludge at water
resource recovery facilities which is considered liquid waste digestion. Also commonly used to process manure at
large livestock facilities, and in the processing of food waste. A 2021 EPA report covering 209 facilities shows the
top feedstock sources for anaerobic digestion to be Fats, Oils and Greases (FOG), and food waste31. Some
digesters are designed to process one specific type of feedstock such as sludge in a water resource recovery
facility, while others that can digest varying compositions of organic waste, such as is found in MSW, are called
co-digestion. The biogas created can be further processed into renewable natural gas (RNG) with investment into
a biofuel processing facility.
Anaerobic digesters have been increasingly used to combat the emissions issue of food waste by diverting it from
landfills, where it decomposes and creates methane, a greenhouse gas with 25 times greater global warming
potential than carbon dioxide32. Biogas production creates additional income and can reduce the overall costs of
operating waste handling facilities if organics can be presorted from MSW. Figure 5-2 below shows an EPA
process diagram of anaerobic digestion. The organic feedstock becomes processed and creates the two
coproducts of solid compost and a liquid concentrate fertilizer which may be sold for agricultural purposes. It is
critical that the presorting is efficient at removing nonorganic waste to prevent contamination and ensure quality
coproducts that can be sold.

31 https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-02/documents/2021_final_ad_report_feb_2_with_links.pdf

32 https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases

www.arcadis.com
Miami-Dade_State of the Waste Processing Technology Industry_FINAL 21
Figure 5-2. EPA Diagram of Anaerobic Digestion Process

Air pollution control (APC) is an important consideration to meet air quality permitting requirements for any waste
processing facility, however, anaerobic digestion plants capture most gases produced when the facility collects
biogas. Emission sources for this facility are primarily if combustion of the biogas is commenced such as with an
internal combustion engine to generate electricity at the facility, thus requiring APC devices to ensure the
emissions meet air quality permitting requirements. Potential APC devices required would include baghouses for
particulates, scrubbers for SO2, oxidation catalysts and/or selective catalytic reduction for various other air
pollutants. A flare may also be an additional source of emissions when the facility has reached capacity of gas
storage and is required to burn any excess that is produced.
As the process of anaerobic digestion is biologically driven, it requires time for the microorganisms to start up the
digestion process and manage the organic waste. Due to the processing time requirement, anaerobic digesters
require large chambers and processing vessels that requires a high level of investment & increased land use.
Contamination from non-organics, and hazardous materials in MSW can have a detrimental inhibition on the
digestion process or biogas production, therefore it is important to have an efficient sorting system.

www.arcadis.com
Miami-Dade_State of the Waste Processing Technology Industry_FINAL 22
5.2.1 International and US Based Experience
A recent EPA report showed 33 operating anaerobic digester facilities in the US as of 2020. Almost all of the
facilities are processing waste streams where organics were separated from MSW through either source-side or
mechanical processing means prior to supply to the facility (not directly coupled with the facility).
While the facilities can vary in size, they are easily scalable with sufficient available organic feedstock and land
availability for the digesters. The city of Surrey, Canada recently built a biofuel facility that processes organic solid
waste through anaerobic digestion. The facility handles approximately 115,000 tons of organic waste per year and
converts its biogas into RNG that is used to power the city’s fleet of natural gas-powered vehicles. The facility also
markets the residual solids from digestion as compost for additional income33.

5.2.2 Suitability for Miami-Dade County

When considering anaerobic digestion as a primary method of processing MSW in Miami-Dade, there are some
problems that should be considered. Due to the processing time, biological sensitivity to contaminants and large
land footprint, anaerobic digestion is best suited for areas with a smaller population, as the daily processing
capacity in tons are significantly lower when compared to more commonly adopted technologies such as waste to
energy facilities that can handle large daily tonnage capacities of incoming MSW. The Surrey biofuel facility is
ideal choice for the city of Surrey, as there are lower amounts of solid waste generated due to a smaller
population of 568,322 34 compared to a large metropolitan area of Miami-Dade County with a population of
2,662,777 35 and high tourism. Another concern is how the separation of organics from nonorganic materials can
be successfully implemented at either collection or preprocessing with high efficiency. Contamination of non-
organics and hazardous materials in MSW can have a detrimental inhibition on the digestion process or biogas
production. Contamination would also lower the value of the compost and liquid concentrate fertilizer coproducts
that may have given additional revenue. This required separation would still require a more traditional processing
or disposal facility (i.e., WTE or landfilling) for the remaining inorganic materials. Ideally, if Miami-Dade built an
organics separation facility coupled with anaerobic digestion, it would be a way to divert a portion of the MSW
stream; however, it would likely be best used as a hedge against future MSW increases and removing necessity
of building additional WTE or landfills, not as a primary disposal or processing technology.

5.3 Mechanical Biological Treatment / Solid Recovered

Fuel Technologies
Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) is a combined approach to solid waste management that has both
mechanical and biological treatment phases separately processed to ultimately produce a pelletized solid fuel.
The mechanical stage comprises of automated mechanical sorting equipment such as via conveyors, magnets,
trommels, shredders and eddy current separators to process combustible materials, while the biological treatment
stage of MBT could involve anaerobic digestion, composting or bio drying. Use of anaerobic digestion would

33 https://www.surrey.ca/services-payments/waste-collection/surrey-biofuel-facility/about-surrey-biofuel

34 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-
pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&SearchText=Surrey&DGUIDlist=2021A00055915004&GENDERlist=1&STATISTIClist=1&HEADERlist=0
35 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/miamidadecountyflorida/POP060210

www.arcadis.com
Miami-Dade_State of the Waste Processing Technology Industry_FINAL 23
reduce the organics content, stabilize the waste and produce biogas for collection, bio drying serves to stabilize
the organics by reducing the moisture, where later they are combined with the other processed waste and formed
into SRF pellets. This method involves the separation of waste without requiring the generator to separate the
MSW at waste collection points. The biological stage is effective at processing the organics in MSW and
producing products like biogas and compost. As a result of the mechanical and biological separation and
processing, both fractions of waste are combined, shredded, and converted into pelletized solid recovered fuel
(SRF). These separated components of MSW are dried, shredded and blended to meet fuel specifications and
quality standards. An additional product of MBT is a compost-like output which usually is of low value due to
concerns of contamination36.
The benefits of MBT and processing MSW into SRF, is an improved quality pelletized feedstock fuel that can
serve as a renewable substitute for coal or other solid fossil fuels. An additional benefit is the reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions from the displacement of fossil fuels. Some European MBT facilities have agreements
with cement manufacturers to provide SRF as a replacement for coal or petroleum coke to fire up cement kilns
and coal power plants. Some concerns regarding the usage of SRF was the fuel specifications. Issues such as
fouling, increased mercury emissions and ash production, and increased oxidation & corrosion of equipment.37

5.3.1 International and US Based Experience

MBT has higher adoption in Europe, where it is widely used for processing MSW. One study of six European
facilities concluded that a MBT plant must have a very efficient sorting and recyclables recovery line with sufficient
gate fees. It also found that including a stream to recover fuel materials for power plant or cement plant use can
increase revenue, landfill diversion, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In this study, the six European
facilities processed between 16,500 to 350,000 tons of MSW per year.38
MBT has not received wide adoption in the US, however there are numerous facilities in Europe to study. Facility
capacities for MBT are typically in range from 25,000 – 200,000 tons per year.39 In 2017, Entsorga West Virginia
LLC began operation on the first MBT facility built in the U.S. The facility had a capacity of 110,000 tons per year,
and produced SRF for the Essroc cement plant nearby to heat up the Portland cement kiln.40 Just recently after 3
years of operation, the facility closed due to a reported intellectual property lawsuit. Entsorga states the shutdown
is temporary.41

5.3.2 Suitability for Miami-Dade County

When considering MBT/SRF technologies as a primary method of processing MSW in Miami-Dade, there are
some problems that should be considered. The biggest limitation to this technology regarding Miami-Dade’s
needs would be that the tonnage capacity for existing facilities is not nearly enough to handle the amount of MSW
generated within the county. Approximately 200,000 tons per year is the higher end on the range of typical
existing MBT facilities. Another consideration is analyzing the existing MSW composition and determining what

36 https://www.swim-h2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/3a-Part2-Ben-Amor-Long-Term-Solutions-for-Solid-Waste-Management.pdf

37 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281905251_MBT-derived_SRF_State-of-the-art_in_Europe_Will_Quality_Management_Deliver

38 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0956053X22000253

39 https://www.ciwem.org/assets/pdf/Policy/Policy%20Position%20Statement/Mechanical-biological-treatment-of-waste.pdf

40 https://renovareenv.com/entsorgawv/

41 https://morgancountyusa.org/?p=5451

www.arcadis.com
Miami-Dade_State of the Waste Processing Technology Industry_FINAL 24
the SRF fuel specifications need to be to sell the product. Additionally, the facility would need efficient removal of
contaminants and hazardous materials prior to mechanical and biological separation, especially if bio drying will
be utilized. Additionally, as MBT/SRF technology is primarily a processing, it still needs a partner to use the
product as fuel or a facility to burn the fuel created. If coupled with RDF or other combustion technologies, this
process would be much more expensive than a technology such as mass-burn.

www.arcadis.com
Miami-Dade_State of the Waste Processing Technology Industry_FINAL 25
6 Recent Waste Processing Technology
Procurements and Facility Expansions
As previously stated, the US currently uses 73 WTE facilities to combust MSW and recover energy. While several
have expanded to manage additional waste, the last new facility opened was in West Palm Beach, Florida in
201542. Since that time, no new greenfield commercial plant has been implemented in the US. The following
sections describe select initiatives that occurred in the last ten (10) years related to evaluating and choosing
waste processing technologies – WTE and others – to handle significant waste streams in the future for certain
jurisdictions.

6.1 Procurements

6.1.1 St. Lucie County, FL

In May 2006, the Board of County Commissioners, St. Lucie County, Florida solicited offers to design, permit,
finance, construct, and operate a Plasma Arc Gasification Facility to process MSW for St. Lucie County. There
were two respondents to the RFQ: Alternative Resources, Inc. and Geoplasma, LLC that resulted in Geoplasma
LLC as the highest ranking respondent.43 The developer planned to process 3,000 TPD, generating 120
megawatts of electricity. The plant was to cost over $425 million.44 The size of the facility was reduced to 600
TPD with an estimated export of 18 MW of electricity. FDEP issued a final air permit in July 2010.45
In 2012, St. Lucie County terminated the agreement with Geoplasma. The St. Lucie County solid waste division
director stated that Geoplasma could not finance the project due to inability to obtain a technology guaranty from
the technology owner, Westinghouse Plasma. The County also could not commit to deliver Fort Pierce, FL MSW
to the proposed plant, leaving only the County and Port St. Lucie MSW for processing throughput46.
In April 2012, St. Lucie County authorized issuance of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) from firms to design,
permit, finance and operate a thermal conversion facility for the processing MSW. Six firms responded with
Covanta Energy Corporation (Covanta) ranked highest and Jacoby Synergy Renewables (JSE) ranked second
highest. Negotiations with Covanta and the County could not be completed due to the processing fee within four
years would be substantially higher than the St. Lucie County’s processing fee. In 2013, the County entered into
negotiations with JSE but the two parties were also unable to agree to a revised JSE proposal.
In 2014, St. Lucie County issued an RFQ to utilize a thermal conversion facility to process MSW. Of 331
companies notified, 27 copies of the RFQ were issued and six (6) proposals were received. In 2015, St. Lucie
County approved entering into contract with Green3Power St. Lucie, LLC (G3P) to build and operate a
gasification facility at the St. Lucie County site.47 Available literature related to the proposed facility indicated that

42 https://www.epa.gov/smm/energy-recovery-combustion-municipal-solid-waste-msw

43 Approval of Short-Listed Firms for RFQ No. 14-057 - Utilization of a Conversion Facility to Process Municipal Solid Waste for St. Lucie County - St Lucie County, Florida

(iqm2.com)

44 Company plans $425 million gasification plant to recycle trash (starnewsonline.com)

45 GeoPlasma-St. Lucie - Energy Resources Group, Inc. (energyresourcesgrp.com)

46 https://www.floridatrend.com/article/14356/trashed-plan-to-use-plasma-technology-for-garbage-disposal
47 Lease and Contract with Green3Power St. Lucie, LLC - Development of a Gasification Facility to Process Municipal Solid Waste for St. Lucie County - St Lucie County, Florida (iqm2.com)

www.arcadis.com
Miami-Dade_State of the Waste Processing Technology Industry_FINAL 26
in 2018 St. Lucie County is exploring alternative waste conversion technologies. No further documentation could
be located regarding the implementation of this facility.

6.1.2 New York City, NY

In 2012, a request for proposals (RFP) for a pilot program to process 450 tons of waste per day (capable of
doubling capacity if successful) was issued. The RFP called for constructing a WTE facility near or within New
York City. The pilot program implementation process was eventually stopped. However, as of 2019, New York
City sends approximately 25% of collected waste to existing WTE facilities outside of New York City.

6.1.3 Hartford, CT
In November 2015, the Connecticut (CT) Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP) issued
the Phase 1 RFP for financing, design, construction, operation and maintenance of a Waste Recycling and
Disposal Project to qualify firms and technologies to re-develop the CT Solid Waste System Project (CSWSP).
The CSWSP includes recycling facility, four transfer stations, and the 2,850 tpd RDF facility known as the
Connecticut Solid Waste System Resource Recovery Facility (CSWS RRF) in Hartford, CT. The CSWS RRF
includes a Waste Processing Facility (WPF) and Power Block Facility (PBF). Technologies submitted included:

 Mixed waste processing facilities

 Anaerobic digestion
 Composting
 Gasification (pyrolysis, plasma arc, etc.)
 Other conversion technologies to create renewable fuels, chemicals, electricity or other usable products
CT DEEP selected three firms to receive the Phase 2 RFP:

 Covanta Energy, LLC – source separated organics processing through anaerobic digestion and haul to
Covanta WTE facilities with potential expansion of existing Covanta Bristol, CT WTE facility.
 Mustang Renewables Power Ventures, LLC – organics processing through composting and anaerobic
digestion; mixed waste processing to remove recyclables and deliver processed engineered fuel (PEF) to
cement kilns.
 Sacyr Rooney Recovery Team, LLC. (Sacyr Rooney or SRRT) – refurbish existing PBF and construct new
sorting lines at the WPF to extract recyclables and organics; organics processed through enclosed, aerobic
composting and anaerobic digestion.
In December 2017, CT DEEP selected Sacyr Rooney to modernize the CSWS RRF and directed the Materials
Innovation Recycling Authority (MIRA) to enter into agreement with Sacyr Rooney. MIRA and SRRT entered into
a memorandum of understanding to further negotiations in July 2019. In July 2020, CT DEEP rejected the $330M
refurbishment of the existing facility. At this time, the CSWS RRF is planning to be closed between mid-2022 to
2023 and waste will be transported for disposal in other resource recovery facilities or out-of-state landfills.

6.1.4 Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County, Florida

In December 2008, the Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County, Fl (SWA) issued an RFQ to identify qualified
firms to design, build and operate a new waste-to- energy facility for the County. The SWA was seeking mass-

www.arcadis.com
Miami-Dade_State of the Waste Processing Technology Industry_FINAL 27
burn technology that demonstrated success in the efficient and feasible conversion of MSW into marketable
steam, thermal energy, fuel and electricity. The SWA Governing Board selected three firms that responded to the
RFQ to receive a Request for Proposals (RFP): (1) Babcock and Wilcox (B&W); (2) Covanta Energy; and (3)
Wheelabrator Technologies to receive the Request for Proposals (RFP). The RFP first RFP was released in
February 2010 after receipt of comments on the draft RFP from qualified firms. Because the new WTE facility is
to model the best practices of the industry, SWA developed a Conceptual Planning Report and an Aesthetic
Conceptual Design along with the draft RFP to establish SWA’s objectives with respect to achieving the highest
standards of sustainable “green” design. The first RFP was cancelled in August 2010 to address additional
permitting requirements from the FDEP to incorporate selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology for
enhanced NOx emissions control. The second RFP was issued in September 2010. Proposals were received in
December 2010. SWA entered into agreement with the joint venture of KBR and B&W in April 2011. The new
3,000 tpd Palm Beach Renewable Energy Facility No. 2 (PBREF No. 2) WTE facility is located on the SWA Energy
Park Campus and achieved commercial operations in July 2015.

6.2 Florida Waste-to-Energy Facility Expansions

Since the 2015 start of operations for the SWA of Palm Beach County PBREF No. 2, there have not been any
new waste-to-energy facilities built in the United States. We are aware of other communities that are further
investigating innovative waste processing technologies or building new waste-to-energy capacity in areas outside
of Florida. For example, the Port of Seattle, WA in conjunction with King County, WA commenced a study in 2022
to review the state of the industry in converting the MSW stream or portion of the MSW stream into sustainable
aviation fuel.
However, the majority of the efforts related to waste processing facilities have been focused in several
communities with existing waste-to-energy facilities that have or are planning to expand their existing WTE
facilities. Other than the 2012 completion of the mass-burn expansion of Covanta’s H-Power facility in Honolulu,
HI and the 2010 completion of permitting for the planned expansion of the existing York County, PA mass-burn
combustion facility, the completed WTE expansions have primarily focused on the Florida facilities.
The following represents a summary of the status of completed expansions to existing waste-to-energy facilities in
Florida:
Hillsborough County, FL
In 2007, Hillsborough County sole-sourced to Covanta for a new 600-TPD line to add to the existing 1200-TPD
facility which consists of three operating 400-TPD lines. There was no RFP issued for the expansion that was
completed in 2009. The expansion increased the facility capacity from 1,200 to 1,800 TPD and also included an
additional turbine generator. The electricity that is produced is used to power residential homes as well as the
adjacent wastewater treatment plant. In 2022, Hillsborough County noted plans in a recent capital improvement
project planning document to build a new facility with at least 1,950 tpd processing capacity.48
Lee County, FL
In 2006, Lee County contracted with Covanta to add a third line with a 636-TPD capacity to the existing 1200 TPD
facility. The expansion continued to use the same Martin technology. The Lee County Solid Waste Division
finished its expansion project in the late summer of 2007. The facility processes more than 622,000 tons of waste

48 FY22 - FY27 Adopted Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) (hillsboroughcounty.org)

www.arcadis.com
Miami-Dade_State of the Waste Processing Technology Industry_FINAL 28
per year and produces 57 MW of electricity. In February 2022, Lee County and Covanta reached an agreement to
extend their public-private partnership of the facility through 2031. The agreement also included an optional four-
year extension49.
Pasco County, FL
In February 2022, Pasco County filed with the FDEP the Unit 4 supplemental application through the Florida
Power Plant Siting Act to expand their existing WTE facility with the addition of a fourth unit of 475 tpd processing
capacity.50 Prior to the submission of the permit application, Covanta was selected to design and build the
expansion and continued operation of the existing facility and the expanded facility after completion.51

49 https://www.covanta.com/news/press-releases/covanta-lee-county-fla.-extend-waste-to-energy-partnership-to-2031?hsLang=en

50 Pasco County Resource Recovery Facility Expansion - Unit 4 Supplemental Application | Florida Department of Environmental Protection

51 Pasco takes first step to expand its trash-to-energy incinerator (tampabay.com)

www.arcadis.com
Miami-Dade_State of the Waste Processing Technology Industry_FINAL 29
7 Summary and Conclusions

7.1 Summary and Comparison for Use at Miami-Dade

The table below provides a limited break-down of technology types, including some not specifically reviewed in
this report to assist in a qualitative understanding of the variety of technology types that may be available. It is
important to note that within each of these technologies are often specific proprietary equipment and operating
practices that vary all of the overall specifics, so references provided are for generic averages based on Arcadis’
experience in the industry and do not reflect a specific vendor or design for each technology.
Table 7-1. Technology Comparison Table

Miami-Dade
Facility Facility Cost
Technology Waste Input Implementation Additional Notes
Sizing1 vs Mass-Burn2
Recommendations
Pre- or Post- Unlimited For MSW and residue
Lower than Technology not
Recycled capacity, but disposal after diversion
Landfill mass-burn analyzed in this
MSW, limited by and processing
cost/ton report.
Residue space to site technologies.
Unlimited
capacity, but
limited by For organics diversion
space to site Greater than before processing and Technology not
Composting Organics and source mass-burn disposal technologies. analyzed in this
separation or cost/ton Not a primary disposal report.
mechanical center.
separation
volumes
Limited by
For waste diversion
source
Source Greater than before processing and Technology not
separation or
Recycling Separated mass-burn disposal technologies. analyzed in this
mechanical
Recyclables cost/ton Not a primary disposal report.
separation
center.
volumes
Viable from 0 Viable as a primary
Mass-Burn Post-Recycled to 5,000 tons processing and disposal
N/A
WTE MSW per day in a technology for 4,000
single facility tons per day capacity.
Not viable for primary
Viable from 0 Greater than Scale-up not
Modular Post-Recycled processing and disposal
to 200 tons mass-burn feasible due to
WTE MSW at 4,000 tons per day
per day cost/ton cost.
capacity.

www.arcadis.com
Miami-Dade_State of the Waste Processing Technology Industry_FINAL 30
 Miami-Dade
Facility Facility Cost
Technology Waste Input Implementation Additional Notes
Sizing1 vs Mass-Burn2
Recommendations
Requires larger
Post- Viable from 0 Viable as a primary
Greater than site footprint and
Recycled, to 5,000+ tons processing and disposal
RDF WTE mass-burn larger residuals
Processed per day in a technology for 4,000
cost/ton stream than mass-
MSW single facility tons per day capacity.
burn.
Larger size units
not commercially
proven. Further
Post- Not currently viable for scale-up may not
Viable from 0 Greater than
Recycled, primary processing and be feasible due to
Gasification to 500 tons mass-burn
Processed disposal at 4,000 tons costs. Pre-
per day cost/ton
MSW per day capacity. processing for
viable units could
be extensive and
costly.
Unlimited Site area required
capacity, but Not viable for primary and separation
limited by processing and disposal may limit ability to
space to site Less than at 4,000 tons per day use. Not
Anaerobic Contaminated
and source mass-burn capacity. Better use as commercially
Digestion Organics
separation or cost/ton waste diversion before proven at higher
mechanical processing and disposal scales, but most
separation technologies. technology is
volumes modular.
Requires
extensive pre-
Not a true disposal site
processing and
as its primary use is for
Post- would still need a
Greater than pre-processing and fuel
Recycled, Unlimited disposal site for
MBT/SRF mass-burn preparation. Not viable
Processed capacity fuel. Could be
cost/ton for primary processing
MSW coupled with
and disposal at 4,000
gasification to
tons per day capacity.
increase viability,
but at high cost.
Notes:

1. Sizing roughly estimated based on existing large-scale commercial technology availability.

2. Costs roughly compared to mass-burn technology. Each technology price could vary considerably depending on specific technology and
vendor, so specific quantifiable numbers or ranges are not provided.

www.arcadis.com
Miami-Dade_State of the Waste Processing Technology Industry_FINAL 31
7.2 Conclusions
Based on the review of the technologies noted in this report, the largest limiting factor for waste processing and
disposal technology viability at a 4,000 ton-per-day size is the commercial availability of scaled up units. Mass-
burn technology and RDF technology are the only large-scale volume reduction technologies that are technically
feasible for the sizing required for the County. While both could be utilized to meet the throughput criteria, mass-
burn would be considerably less expensive and take up a smaller site footprint than RDF. In addition to not being
commercially viable at the required throughput capacity, the remaining available technologies (except landfilling)
would all require more available land area and would be at a greater cost point than mass-burn or RDF
technologies.

www.arcadis.com
Miami-Dade_State of the Waste Processing Technology Industry_FINAL 32
Arcadis U.S., Inc.
701 Waterford Way, Suite 420
Miami
Florida 33126
Phone: 305 913 1316
Fax: 305 913 1301
www.arcadis.com

Arcadis. Improving quality of life.

Arcadis U.S., Inc.
701 Waterford Way
Suite 420
Miami
Florida 33126
Phone: 305 913 1316
Fax: 305 913 1301
www.arcadis.com

Arcadis. Improving quality of life.

 Date: July 11, 2022

To: Honorable Chairman Jose “Pepe” Diaz

and Members, Board of County Commissioners
From: Daniella Levine Cava
Mayor
Subject: Future Waste-to-Energy Facility Siting Alternatives
Report to the Board – Directive #221140

Executive Summary

On April 13, 2022, in anticipation of Resolution No. R-432-22, sponsored by Chairman Jose “Pepe” Diaz, I
provided the Chairman and the Board of County Commissioners (Board) with a report on the steps being
taken by the administration regarding the plans for a new waste to energy plant (WTE).

The Department of Solid Waste Management (DSWM) subsequently engaged Arcadis, who then identified
over 235 parcels as potential locations for the development of a future WTE. That list, through multiple rounds
of screening and consideration of several factors detailed below and in the report attached, has been refined
to four recommended locations – three alternative sites and the current County WTE facility property.

The summary below provides you with the steps taken to date by the Department and Arcadis on the
screening process for potential sites for the replacement WTE, as well as the Request for Information process
that will help further inform our evaluation efforts. My administration is also committed to engaging directly
with residents on this critical topic, and we ask for the opportunity to conduct community outreach with
respect to the potential sites as we move forward.

Background

On May 3, 2022, the Board approved Resolution No. R-432-22. The Resolution asked the Administration to
provide the following within 60 days of the effective date of the resolution: (1) Develop and issue a solicitation
for a design criteria professional to prepare a design criteria package for a new waste to energy plant to
replace the County’s RRF on the same site or a similar site, that meets all the land use, zoning and permitting
requirements; (2) Upon the conclusion of any negotiations, place the recommendation on the solicitation for
the design criteria professional on an agenda of the full Board without committee review for the Board’s
consideration and approval; and (3) To use all legally available and budgeted funding to accomplish the
directive set forth herein. The Resolution also provided that if there is insufficient budgeted and legally
available funding to accomplish the foregoing directive, the County Mayor or County Mayor’s designee shall
set forth in its recommendation what additional funding is required to obtain the services of the design criteria
professional. As part of the motion approving the Resolution, the Board also granted my request that we be
able to assess multiple sites and explore alternative methods for delivery of the WTE project.

Department of Solid Waste Management (DSWM or Department) staff and Internal Services Department
(ISD) staff have worked closely to develop a Request for Information (RFI) which will help gather market
information from businesses in the industry with respect to technology, alternative delivery models, financing
options and other relevant information. The RFI was issued on July 1, 2022 and the responses are due no
later than August 5, 2022. Additionally, DSWM has drafted the Request to Advertise (RTA) for Design Criteria
Professional and Owner’s Representative Services, which was reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office for
legal sufficiency and has been advertised for proposals.
Honorable Chairman Jose “Pepe” Diaz
and Members, Board of County Commissioners
Page No. 2

Summary

In accordance with the Mayor’s letter dated April 13, 2022, DSWM was tasked with identifying and analyzing
potential sites within the County that would be suitable for the development of a future WTE facility. Arcadis
was tasked with assisting the County with this preliminary analysis. Arcadis commenced the preliminary
siting evaluations on May 9, 2022, which, in consideration of the expedited timeframe required, were
performed in two stages, an Initial Screening stage and a Detailed Screening stage, utilizing a desktop
evaluation approach. Arcadis conducted a kick-off meeting with DSWM staff on May 13, 2022, to discuss
and confirm the minimum screening criteria to be used in the Initial Screening evaluation process. The site
criteria were generated through a collaborative effort between Arcadis and DSWM staff and were applied in
the Initial Screening process, and included minimum site area, zoning, transportation access, and other
considerations.

The Initial Screening criteria search resulted in approximately 235 parcels being identified. Further desktop
analyses were then conducted to address additional site considerations, including parcel combinations, site
geometry, proximity to airports, current site usage/availability, site area used as borrow pits, and others. At
the conclusion of the Initial Screening process, 24 sites remained and were presented to DSWM staff for
review and consideration on May 20, 2022. After discussion, the decision was made to increase the minimum
offset from residential zoning to half a mile, which eliminated an additional two sites. The remaining 22 sites
were approved for the Detailed Screening process, where they were evaluated against more extensive site
development criteria, including expected impacts to the County’s Solid Waste System, presence of wetlands,
floodplains, threatened and endangered species, soil characteristics, utilities availability, air permitting
issues, conflicts with County policies, and many others. For each site, a site package was developed to
document the analysis of the site relative to the Initial and Detailed Screening criteria. The criteria were then
separated into six general categories (Location, Utilities, Soils, Environment, Transportation, Community)
and a simple stoplight rating identified the relative difficulty for each category.

Arcadis reviewed the findings of the Detailed Screening process with DSWM on June 7, 2022, and after
discussion and agreement by DSWM and Arcadis, 19 sites were eliminated from consideration due to several
factors such as roadway access and utility availability, parcel development and availability, permitting
considerations, and conflicts with existing County policies (e.g., located in Wellfield Protection Areas or
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan site, wetland/wildlife habitat issues, etc.). DSWM staff then
requested that a comparison be conducted of the existing WTE Facility site to the three remaining potential
sites found as part of this preliminary analysis. For comparison purposes, Arcadis conducted an analysis of
the existing WTE Facility site, the Miami-Dade Resources Recovery Facility (RRF), using the same
methodology as for the other sites.

The four remaining sites are listed below and presented in more detail on the attached Preliminary Siting
Alternatives Report.

• Site 1 – Medley • Site 16 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #1

• Site 17 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #2 • Existing RRF Site – Doral

The Report provides a summary of the entirety of the analysis, including evaluation methodology, preliminary
site layouts, conceptual-level cost estimates to serve as a decision-making tool for the purpose of evaluating
the relative financial impact of developing a WTE Facility at any of the sites identified, and a summary of
comparative considerations for each potential site, such as schedule and regulatory approval process.

Based on the environmental sensitivity of Site 16 and Site 17 and their location outside the Urban
Development Boundary, my recommendation is that the Board shortlist two sites: Site 1 Medley and the
Existing RRF Site. Furthermore, we would ask for the opportunity to (i) conduct community outreach with
Honorable Chairman Jose “Pepe” Diaz
and Members, Board of County Commissioners
Page No. 3

respect to the potential sites, and (ii) evaluate whether any information received in response to the RFI might
inform the ultimate selection.

If you have any questions or concerns on this report, please contact DSWM Director Michael J. Fernandez,
305-514-6609.

Per Ordinance No. 14-65, this report shall be placed on the next available Board meeting agenda.

c: Geri Bonzon-Keenan, County Attorney

Gerald Sanchez, First Assistant County Attorney
Jess McCarty, Executive Assistant County Attorney
Office of the Mayor Senior Staff
Michael J. Fernandez, Director, Department of Solid Waste
Yinka Majekodunmi, Commission Auditor
Jennifer Moon, Chief, Office of Policy and Budgetary Affairs
Basia Pruna, Director, Clerk of the Board
Eugene Love, Agenda Coordinator
Miami-Dade County
Department of Solid Waste Management

Preliminary Siting
Alternatives Report
June 2022
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

Contents
Executive Summary........................................................................................................................................... ES-1
1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 1
2 Preliminary Siting Evaluation Process .......................................................................................................... 1
2.1 Initial Screening Stage Methodology..................................................................................................... 2
2.1.1 Initial Screening Analysis ................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Detailed Screening Stage Methodology ................................................................................................ 3
2.2.1 Detailed Screening Analysis .............................................................................................................. 3
2.2.2 Detailed Screening Criteria ................................................................................................................. 4
Location ........................................................................................................................................ 4
Utilities .......................................................................................................................................... 4
Soils .............................................................................................................................................. 5
Environment ................................................................................................................................. 6
2.2.2.4.1 Environmental Resource Permit (ERP)................................................................................. 6
2.2.2.4.2 Threatened & Endangered Species....................................................................................... 6
2.2.2.4.3 Floodplain ................................................................................................................................ 6
2.2.2.4.4 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) Considerations ............................ 6
2.2.2.4.5 Code and Policy Considerations ........................................................................................... 7
2.2.2.4.6 Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act Certification ..................................................... 10
2.2.2.4.7 Florida Transmission Line Act Certification ...................................................................... 11
2.2.2.4.8 Air Permitting ........................................................................................................................ 11
Transportation ........................................................................................................................... 14
Community ................................................................................................................................. 14
2.2.3 Detailed Screening Findings ............................................................................................................ 15
Schedule Considerations.......................................................................................................... 16
2.2.3.1.1 Assumptions ......................................................................................................................... 16
2.2.3.1.2 Siting/Planning ...................................................................................................................... 17
2.2.3.1.3 Financing ............................................................................................................................... 17
2.2.3.1.4 Regulatory/Permitting........................................................................................................... 17
2.2.3.1.5 Procurement .......................................................................................................................... 18
2.2.3.1.6 Design and Construction ..................................................................................................... 18
2.2.3.1.7 Summary ................................................................................................................................ 19

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx ii
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

Cost Considerations .................................................................................................................. 20

2.2.3.2.1 Identification of Costs .......................................................................................................... 21
2.2.3.2.2 Capital Costs ......................................................................................................................... 21
2.2.3.2.3 Operations and Maintenance Costs .................................................................................... 22
2.2.3.2.4 Cost Considerations Summary ........................................................................................... 23
3 Preliminary WTE Facility Site Analysis Summary...................................................................................... 24

Tables
Table ES-1 – Preliminary Siting Alternatives Analysis Findings .................................................................. ES-5
Table 2.1 Schedule Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 16
Table 2.2 Summary of Schedule Tasks with Estimated Durations ................................................................... 19
Table 2.3 Estimated Additional Costs for Each Site Option ............................................................................. 23
Table 3.1 Site Comparison Summary .................................................................................................................. 25

Figures
Figure ES-1 Potential Sites Location Map....................................................................................................... ES-4
Figure 2.1 Wellfield Protection Areas .................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 2.2 Miami International Airport - Airport Height Restriction Zone Map ................................................. 9
Figure 2.3 Potential Sites Location Maps ........................................................................................................... 15

Appendices
Site Packages
Preliminary Implementation Schedule
Cost Considerations Table

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx iii
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

Executive Summary
Purpose and Scope
The Miami-Dade County (County) Department of Solid Waste Management (DSWM or Department), in
accordance with the Mayor’s letter dated April 13, 2022, has been tasked with identifying and analyzing potential
sites within the County that would be suitable for the development of a future Waste-to-Energy (WTE) facility, and
to report findings within 60 days. Arcadis U.S., Inc., (Arcadis), as the Bond Engineer for DSWM, assisted the
County with this preliminary analysis. Arcadis is a global engineering consulting firm with extensive experience
assisting clients in the development and oversight of modern WTE facilities for over 40 years. Most recently,
Arcadis served as the owner’s representative and design criteria professional for the development of the Solid
Waste Authority of Palm Beach County’s new WTE facility, the only new facility to be built in the United States in
the last 20 years, in operation since 2015.
Arcadis commenced the preliminary siting evaluations on May 9, 2022, which were performed in two stages, an
initial screening stage and a detailed screening stage, as summarized below.
1. Initial Screening Stage: The initial screening stage identified parcels located in Miami-Dade County that met
initial siting criteria and compared them to agreed-upon Pass/Fail criteria.
2. Detailed Screening Stage: Parcels that passed the initial screening stage were further analyzed in the
detailed screening stage, which included the evaluation of additional, more extensive siting parameters.
Due to the expedited nature of the assignment, it should be noted that Arcadis’ services were preliminary in
nature and were conducted consistent with prudent industry practice under similar circumstances and timelines to
provide a screening-level analysis of the availability of potential sites within the County. A more detailed review
and investigation (including onsite visits, surveys, geotechnical testing, etc.) of the factors which may affect the
potential development of a WTE facility at any proposed location is required and is assumed would be conducted
in a future phase of the County’s planning and implementation process.
Initial Screening Evaluation
Arcadis conducted a kick-off meeting with DSWM staff on May 13, 2022, in order to present and confirm the
minimum screening criteria to be used in the Initial Screening evaluation process. The site criteria below were
generated out of a collaborative effort between Arcadis and Department staff.
Initial Screening Criteria
• WTE Facility Capacity – Minimum site area sufficient for a mass-burn WTE facility with capacity of 4,000 tons
per day (tpd), expandable to 5,000 tpd, if possible.
• Site Area and Ownership – Minimum 40-acre site comprised of no more than two contiguous parcels and two
site owners.
• Zoning Considerations – Have the following zoning designations: Vacant, Industrial, Commercial, or
Agricultural.
• Residential Zoning – Distance to residential zoning was determined using Geographic Information System
(GIS) tools and those sites that were within 1,500-feet of residential zoning were eliminated. This criterion was
not applied to Site 1, which was submitted by the County for detailed screening consideration.
• Transportation/Travel Time – Maximum travel time of 10 minutes to major (arterial) or collector roads.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx ES-1
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

• Canal or Major Roadways – Sites with a canal or major roadway located on the site parcel were precluded
from further evaluation because they could not be abandoned and developed.
• Lake/Borrow Pit – Sites that included a lake or borrow pit were included as they could be filled.
• Other Site Considerations – Any properties recommended directly by the County to be evaluated as well as
sites within and outside of the Urban Development Boundary were considered.

A GIS database was developed using layers provided by the County and acquired from external sources. The
Initial Screening criteria were entered into a GIS-based screening tool, which resulted in approximately 235
parcels being identified from the GIS database. Additional analyses were conducted including the following:

• Site Area and Ownership – Sites that were less than 40 acres were analyzed to confirm if any two adjacent
parcels, with no more than two owners, could be combined into one site, meeting the minimum 40-acre size
criteria.
• Site Geometry – Sites with parcel boundaries with shapes or dimensions incompatible with a 4,000 tpd WTE
facility were eliminated.
• Zoning Considerations – Properties with existing abandoned building structures and Conservation,
Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) Program, or Other Protected Lands not screened by the GIS tool
were excluded.
• Proximity to Airport – Sites within 4.0 miles of an existing airport were eliminated.
• Lake/Borrow Pit – Sites that were mostly or entirely excavated as a lake or borrow pit were eliminated due to
the significant additional time and expense associated with backfilling to create the developable area of the
site.
• County parks and other County properties (i.e., wellfields, etc.) that were not screened by the GIS tool were
manually identified and eliminated.

At the end of the Initial Screening process, 24 sites remained and were presented to DSWM staff for discussion at
a meeting on May 20, 2022. After discussion, the decision was made to increase the minimum offset from
residential zoning to one-half mile (2,640 ft), which eliminated an additional two sites. The remaining 22 sites were
approved to proceed to the Detailed Screening process.

Detailed Screening Evaluation

The approved 22 sites were then evaluated against Detailed Screening criteria, which are briefly summarized
below.
Detailed Screening Criteria
• Location – physical location of the site relative to existing Solid Waste System (System) facilities,
transportation routes, and expected impacts to the System if a proposed WTE facility were sited there.
• Wetlands and Surface Waters – Arcadis utilized GIS in order to identify sites with existing wetlands and
surface waters.
• Threatened and Endangered (T&E) Species – Arcadis utilized existing T&E data from federal, regional, and
local agencies to identify critical habitat for protected species, where development may be difficult.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx ES-2
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

• Air Emissions – The United States (US) Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permitting program determines the amount of air quality deterioration allowed for a
proposed project. Current National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and PSD increments were
reviewed and other nearby large emitters of air pollution and proximity to nearby Class I area (Everglades
National Park) and sensitive Class II area (Biscayne Bay National Park) were also identified.
• Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) Projects – CERP is a framework for restoring,
protecting and preserving the greater Everglades ecosystem. The plan is a 50-50 partnership between the
State of Florida and the federal government. The CERP project boundaries layer was used to identify
conservation lands, including Everglades National Park, to determine if any parcel was adjacent to any known
or existing CERP project.
• Miami-Dade County (MDC) Wellfield Protection Areas (WPA) – WPA boundaries were reviewed in order to
identify whether any parcel was within or contained protected areas.
• Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) Conservation Aquifer Recharge and Drainage Element –
The intent of this Element is to identify, conserve, appropriately use, protect and restore as necessary the
biological, geological and hydrological resources of Miami-Dade County. CDMP Element policies were
reviewed in order to identify whether the parcels were consistent and/or compliant.
• Utility Availability – Proximity and availability of water, wastewater, natural gas and electric utilities were
reviewed and identified.
• Soils/Geology – United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil survey was reviewed to confirm the type
and potential suitability of soils.
• Floodplain – The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zone map was reviewed to
determine flood zone designation and flood hazard probability.

For each site, a site package was developed to document the analysis of the site relative to the Initial and
Detailed Screening criteria. The criteria were then separated into six general categories, as follows:

• Location – Site location within the County relative to the existing Miami Dade Resources Recovery Facility
(RRF), proximity to residential zoning, and expected effects on the County’s Solid Waste System if selected
for a future WTE facility.
• Utilities – Availability of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas and electric utilities, as well as any
stormwater and groundwater issues at the site.
• Soils – Identification of soil types at the site and potential effects on site development.
• Environment – Consideration of a range of environmental factors.
• Transportation – Proximity to major roads, available road access to the site and improvements needed, if any.
• Community – Estimate of public response to potential construction of a WTE facility.
Two additional criteria were applied only to the sites that were remaining after the Detailed Screening criteria were
applied:
• Cost – Arcadis developed the capital cost and first year operations and maintenance (O&M) cost associated
with developing a new WTE facility at the existing RRF site as part of a previous effort. Utilizing this cost as
the base case, evaluated the three sites remaining after the detailed analysis criteria were applied.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx ES-3
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

• Schedule – Arcadis developed a preliminary high-level implementation schedule in evaluating the three sites
remaining after the detailed analysis criteria were applied.

A simple stoplight rating was employed to illustrate the relative difficulty for each category (i.e., green/slight
difficulty, yellow/moderate difficulty, red/significant difficulty) at each site.

Summary Findings
A meeting was held on June 7, 2022, to review the Detailed Screening process findings. Ultimately, 19 sites were
eliminated due to several factors, such as roadway access and utility availability, site development and
availability, permitting considerations, and conflicts with existing County policies.
DSWM staff then requested that a comparison be conducted of the existing RRF facility site to the three
remaining potential sites found as part of this preliminary analysis. For comparison purposes, Arcadis conducted
an analysis of the existing WTE Facility site, the RRF, using the same methodology for the other sites.
The four remaining sites are: the Existing RRF Facility Site – Doral; Site 1 – Medley; Site 16 – Ingraham Highway
Site 1; and Site 17 - Ingraham Highway Site 2 as illustrated in the map provided below.

Figure ES-1 Potential Sites Location Map

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx ES-4
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

The matrix below summarizes the findings associated with the Preliminary Siting Alternatives Analysis.
Table ES-1 – Preliminary Siting Alternatives Analysis Findings

Siting
Existing RRF Site Site 1 Medley Site 16 Ingraham Hwy. Site #1 Site 17 Ingraham Hwy. Site #2
Parameter
157.16-acre site, single parcel 320.31-acre site, directly 159.71-acre site consisting of two 81.11-acre site located outside the
inside the UDB. Minimal adjacent to residential zoning, parcels outside the UDB. UDB. Considerable System effects if
impact to System if selected, inside the UDB, two-miles north Considerable System effects if selected.
however, construction phasing of the existing RRF facility, and selected.
will need to be considered in adjacent to the Medley Landfill. Parcel size suitable for development
order to limit impact to existing Overall effects on the System Parcel size suitable for of WTE facility footprint as well as
RRF operations. would be relatively minimal if development of WTE facility additional acreage to accommodate
selected. footprint as well as additional co-location of ash monofill or other
Parcel size suitable for acreage to accommodate co- County facilities in consideration of
development of WTE facility Parcel size suitable for location of ash monofill or other future sustainable campus concept.
Location footprint as well as additional development of WTE facility County facilities in consideration of
acreage to accommodate co- footprint as well as additional future sustainable campus concept.
location of additional ash acreage to accommodate co-
monofill capacity or other location of ash monofill or other
County facilities in County facilities in
consideration of future consideration of future
sustainable campus concept sustainable campus concept.
(after demolition of Existing
RRF).

All required utilities Potable water and sanitary All required utilities would have to All required utilities would have to be
infrastructure available. sewer utilities appear to be be extended to the site. extended to the site.
Utilities available, electric and natural
gas utilities would have to be
extended to the site.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx ES-5
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

Siting
Existing RRF Site Site 1 Medley Site 16 Ingraham Hwy. Site #1 Site 17 Ingraham Hwy. Site #2
Parameter
Site has been used for WTE The USDA Soil Survey data for Site soils are not ideally suited for Site soils are not ideally suited for
facility operations previously, the site and historical aerial building foundations because of building foundations because of
no known site soils issues photos (c. 1985) indicate the water content and shallow depth to water content and shallow depth to
exist. site area was previously bedrock. bedrock.
excavated and subsequently
Soils
backfilled which could present
geotechnical engineering
challenges for foundation
designs and result in additional
site preparation costs.
Air Permitting – May be Air Permitting – May be Floodplain – FEMA Zone A Floodplain – FEMA Zone A
challenging, due to other challenging, due to nearby Air permitting expected to be Air permitting expected to be
nearby large emitters that were large emitters. extremely difficult due to proximity extremely difficult due to proximity to
not present when the RRF was Possible habitat issues for to Everglades National Park Everglades National Park
Environment
originally permitted. Bonneted Bat. Additional permitting required Additional permitting required
Possible habitat issues for because of wetlands on site, because of wetlands on site, possible
Bonneted Bat. possible Bonneted Bat habitat Bonneted Bat habitat issues.
issues.
Existing access to arterial and Good access to Florida Good access to arterial and Existing access to site is via
collector roads Turnpike and US27 via Beacon collector roads. Ingraham Hwy. and SW 222nd Ave.,
Station Blvd., local traffic however proper site access will need
Transportation impacts will need to be to be constructed. Additional ROW
considered due to road may be needed.
orientations and close proximity
of intersections.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx ES-6
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

Siting
Existing RRF Site Site 1 Medley Site 16 Ingraham Hwy. Site #1 Site 17 Ingraham Hwy. Site #2
Parameter
Residential developments The site is directly adjacent to The site is approximately half a mile The site is approximately half a mile
have encroached around the residential zoning. The west from the nearest residential zoning from the nearest residential zoning
site in the years since the edge of the site borders one and is approximately one mile from and is 1.28 miles from the boundary
existing RRF went into trailer park owned by the Town the boundary of Everglades of Everglades National Park, which
operation. The site is now less of Medley, and another that is National Park, which suggests that suggests that the siting of a WTE
than a tenth of a mile from the leased by the town. Siting of a the siting of a WTE facility may face facility may face community
Community nearest residential zoning and WTE facility may face community opposition at this opposition at this location.
the local population. community opposition at this location.
Community political leaders location.
and environmental groups
have indicated opposition to
continued use of the site for
WTE facility operations.
Shortest schedule duration
because of existing
Second shortest schedule Longest estimated schedule Longest estimated schedule duration.
environmental permits and
duration. Land acquisition, duration. Land acquisition, Land acquisition, PPSA permitting,
Schedule minimal site work.
environmental permitting significant environmental permitting wetland, floodplain, and wildlife
(Preliminary Coordination of construction to
required, and site work increase required, and significant site work mitigation, and significant site work
Planning to maintain continued existing
schedule duration. increase schedule duration. increase schedule duration.
Construction RRF operation required.
Estimated Project Duration: 9- Estimated Project Duration: 11- Estimated Project Duration: 11 years
Completion) Estimated Project Duration: 7-
years 9-months years 3-months 3 months
years 9-months
Possible CO by April 2032 Possible CO by October 2033 Possible CO by October 2033
Possible Commercial
Operations (CO) by April 2030

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx ES-7
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

Siting
Existing RRF Site Site 1 Medley Site 16 Ingraham Hwy. Site #1 Site 17 Ingraham Hwy. Site #2
Parameter
For comparative purposes, the Additional costs anticipated for Significant additional costs anticipated Significant additional costs anticipated
existing RRF site is considered land acquisition*, on-site utility for land acquisition*, on and off-site for land acquisition*, on and off-site
the base condition and the base facilities, stormwater utility facilities, flood plain, wetland, utility facilities, flood plain, wetland, and
capital cost includes estimated considerations and addition of fill and wildlife mitigation, and additional wildlife mitigation, and additional
stormwater detention pond fill for soil fortification, zoning and permitting efforts. Significant impact permitting efforts. Significant impact on
costs and environmental potential additional permitting on hauling system due to distance hauling system due to distance from
considerations and the ash efforts for new PPSA. Purchase from other System facilities would other System facilities would increase
hauling costs as noted in of potable water may increase increase capital and operational cost. capital and operational cost. Purchase
Appendix C. anticipated operational costs. It Purchase of potable water and of potable water and significant
Total Estimated Capital Cost of is also assumed that there may significant distance to haul ash for distance to haul ash for disposal will
$1,450,000,000 be impact fees or improvements disposal will increase anticipated increase anticipated operational costs.
required to local roads that have operational costs.
Total annual net operational cost Additional Capital Cost of $84.7M
not yet been factored into the
Cost is $11.22 per ton of waste Additional Capital Cost of $80.4M (6.7% increase)
capital cost for this site because
processed (estimated for Year (6.4% increase)
the extent of roadway Additional 119% annual operational
1). This does not include debt
modifications is currently not Additional 119% annual operational cost for potable water purchase,
service payment for capital
known. It is anticipated that these cost for potable water purchase, significant ash hauling, and additional
costs.
would be negotiated and further significant ash hauling, and additional System hauling costs.
evaluated during the land System hauling costs.
acquisition process.

Additional Capital Cost of $48.3M

(4.2% increase)

Additional 19% annual

operational cost for potable water
purchase and ash hauling.

* Land acquisition cost estimated based upon current Miami-Dade Property Appraiser Market Value plus 10%.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx ES-8
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

1 Introduction
The Miami-Dade County (County) Department of Solid Waste Management (Department or DSWM) provides waste
collection and recycling services for residents in the unincorporated areas of the County as well as several cities
that have signed Interlocal Agreements (ILAs) with the Department. The Department owns and operates 13
Neighborhood Trash and Recycling Centers, three Regional Transfer Stations, two Home Chemical Collection
Centers, three landfills and one Resource Recovery Facility (RRF). Chapter 15 of the County Code of Ordinances
(Code) defines the sum of these facilities as the Solid Waste System (System).
A major component of the System is the existing RRF, which can accept up to 3,000 tons per day (tpd) of solid
waste, processes approximately 1,000,000 tons of solid waste annually and produces approximately 77 megawatts
of electricity annually. The existing RRF was constructed in the early 1980’s, became operational in 1982 and is
reaching the end of its useful life without significant additional investment in retrofits and improvements, which is
driving the Department, Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners (Commission) and the Miami-Dade
County Mayor (Mayor) to consider the development of a new waste-to-energy (WTE) facility to replace the existing
RRF.
In accordance with the County Mayor’s letter, dated April 13, 2022, the Department was tasked with identifying and
analyzing potential sites within the County that would be suitable for the development of a future WTE Facility, and
to report findings within 60 days. Arcadis U.S., Inc., (Arcadis), as the Bond Engineer for DSWM, assisted the
County with this preliminary analysis. Arcadis is a global engineering consulting firm with extensive experience
assisting clients in the development and oversight of modern WTE facilities for over 40 years. Most recently,
Arcadis served as the owner’s representative and design criteria professional for the development of the Solid
Waste Authority of Palm Beach County’s new WTE facility, the only new facility to be built in the United States in the
last 20 years, in operation since 2015.
Due to the expedited nature of the assignment, it should be noted that Arcadis’ services were preliminary in nature
and were conducted consistent with prudent industry practice under similar circumstances and timelines to provide
a screening-level analysis of the availability of potential sites within the County. A more detailed review and
investigation (including onsite visits, surveys, geotechnical testing, etc.) of the factors which may affect the potential
development of a new WTE facility at any proposed location is required and is assumed would be conducted in a
future phase of the County’s planning and implementation process. Additionally, Arcadis relied on readily available
data and/or reports that were provided by DSWM. The preliminary analysis was desktop in nature and did not
include site visits or on-site surveys.

2 Preliminary Siting Evaluation Process

Arcadis commenced the preliminary siting evaluation on May 9, 2022, which was performed in two stages, an initial
screening stage and a detailed screening stage, as summarized below.
1. Initial Screening Stage – The initial screening stage identified parcels located in the County that met initial siting
criteria and compared them to agreed-upon Pass/Fail criteria.
2. Detailed Screening Stage – Parcels that passed the initial screening stage were further analyzed in the detailed
screening stage, which included the evaluation of additional, more extensive siting parameters.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 1
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

2.1 Initial Screening Stage Methodology

Arcadis conducted a kick-off meeting with DSWM staff on May 13, 2022 to present and confirm the minimum
screening criteria to be used in the Initial Screening evaluation process. The site criteria below were generated out
of a collaborative effort between Arcadis and Department staff and were applied during the Initial Screening
analysis.
Initial Screening Criteria
• WTE Facility Capacity – Minimum site area sufficient for a mass-burn WTE facility with a throughput capacity of
4,000 tons per day (tpd), expandable to 5,000 tpd, if possible.
• Site Area and Ownership – Minimum 40-acre site comprised of no more than two contiguous parcels and two
owners, no limit on the maximum acreage of any site.
• Zoning Considerations – Site(s) must have the following zoning designations: Vacant, Industrial, Commercial,
or Agricultural.
• Residential Zoning – Distance to residential zoning was determined using Geographic Information System
(GIS) tools and those sites that were within 1,500 feet of residential zoning were eliminated. This requirement
was not applied to Site 1, which was submitted by the County for detailed screening consideration.
• Transportation/Travel Time – Maximum travel time of 10 minutes to major (arterial) or collector roads as shown
on the 2010 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Federal Functional Classification map was calculated
using posted speed limits and online mapping tools.
• Canal or Major Roadways – Sites with a canal or major roadway located on the site parcel were precluded from
further evaluation because they could not be abandoned and developed.
• Lake/Borrow Pit – Sites that included a lake or borrow pit were included as they could be filled.
• Other Site Considerations – Any properties recommended directly by the County to be evaluated as well as
sites within and outside of the Urban Development Boundary were considered.

2.1.1 Initial Screening Analysis

A GIS database was developed using layers provided by the County and acquired from external sources (i.e.,
National Wetlands Inventory; South Florida Water Management District; etc.). The Initial Screening criteria were
entered into a GIS-based screening tool, which resulted in approximately 235 parcels being identified from the GIS
database. Additional analyses were then conducted to address additional site considerations, including the
following:

• Site Area and Ownership – Sites that were less than 40-acres were analyzed to confirm if any two adjacent
parcels, with no more than two owners, could be combined into one site meeting the minimum 40-acre size
criteria.
• Site Geometry – Sites with parcel boundaries with shapes or dimensions incompatible with a 4,000 ton per day
WTE facility were eliminated. In general, WTE facilities for this targeted throughput capacity plus expansion
capabilities, if possible, due to the size of the buildings and components, truck queueing lengths, and the
minimum radii for the access roads, require a parcel area that is at least 1,200 feet wide and approximately
1,500 feet long.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 2
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

• Zoning Considerations – Properties with existing abandoned building structures and Conservation,
Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) Program properties, or Other Protected Lands not screened by the
GIS tool were excluded.
• Proximity to Airport – Arcadis reviewed County Code Chapter 33 Zoning, Article XXXVII – Airport Zoning,
adopted November 19, 2019 (Airport Zoning Article) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations
pertinent to land use and height restrictions in the proximity of airports and heliports. Sites less than four (4)
miles from an airport were excluded from consideration.
• Lake/Borrow Pit – Sites that were mostly or entirely excavated as a lake or borrow pit were eliminated due to
the significant additional time and expense associated with backfilling to create the developable area of the site.
• County Parks and other County properties – (i.e., wellfields, etc.) that were not screened by the GIS tool were
manually identified and eliminated.

At the end of the Initial Screening process, 24 sites remained and were presented to DSWM staff for discussion at a
meeting on May 20, 2022. After discussion, the decision was made to increase the minimum offset from residential
zoning to one-half mile (2,640 ft), which eliminated two sites. The remaining 22 sites were approved to proceed to
the Detailed Screening process.

2.2 Detailed Screening Stage Methodology

2.2.1 Detailed Screening Analysis

The approved 22 sites were then evaluated against Detailed Screening criteria, which considered many additional
Federal, State, and County programs, policies, and legislation that can affect the siting of a future WTE facility. For
each site, a site package was developed to document the analysis of the site relative to the Initial and Detailed
Screening criteria. The criteria were then separated into six general categories, as follows:

• Location – Site location within the County relative to the existing RRF, proximity to residential zoning, and
expected effects on the County’s Solid Waste System if selected for a future WTE facility.
• Utilities – Availability of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas and electric utilities, and any stormwater and
groundwater considerations at the site.
• Soils – Identification of soil types at the site and potential effects on site development.
• Environment – Consideration of a range of environmental factors, including floodplains, wetlands, threatened
and endangered species, and permitting issues.
• Transportation – Proximity to major roads, available road access to the site and improvements needed, if any.
• Community – Estimate of public response to potential construction of a WTE Facility at the site considering
proximity to residential zoning, environmentally sensitive areas, and environmental justice concerns.
Two additional criteria were applied only to the sites that were remaining after the Detailed Screening criteria were
applied:

• Cost – Arcadis developed the capital cost and first year O&M cost associated with developing a new WTE
facility at the existing RRF site as part of a previous effort. Utilizing this cost as the base case, evaluated
differential cost associated with development of a new WTE facility on each of the three sites remaining after
the detailed analysis criteria were applied.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 3
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

• Schedule – Arcadis developed a preliminary high-level implementation schedule in order to compare the
implementation timeline associated with development of a new WTE facility on each of the three sites remaining
after the detailed analysis criteria were applied.
To assist decision makers, such as the County Commission, Mayor and Department leaders in determining the
results of the screening analysis, the Site Packages employed a simple stoplight rating to identify the relative
difficulty for each category (i.e., green/slight difficulty, yellow/moderate difficulty, red/significant difficulty) at each
site. The Site Packages are provided in Appendix A.
The Detailed Screening criteria and the background information related to their application in this process are
presented in the sections below.

2.2.2 Detailed Screening Criteria

Location
The Location criteria includes the physical location of the site relative to existing Solid Waste System facilities, large
air emissions sources, transportation routes, and expected impacts to the System if a proposed WTE facility were
sited there. Distance to known large emitters, such as the Titan Pennsuco Complex, WM Medley Landfill, CEMEX
Miami Concrete Plant, FPL Turkey Point Power Plant, etc., were calculated for purposes of determining the
potential effects on air permitting. Transportation routes were further evaluated for potential traffic conditions,
physical and operational condition of roadways, truck queueing areas, and other features that may affect the routing
or traffic patterns of vehicles entering and leaving the proposed site. Finally, an evaluation of the effects on the
County’s Solid Waste System was conducted to determine potential changes to System operations and costs
resulting from the assumption of WTE operations at the site.

Utilities
WTE facilities have high demand requirements on several utilities. This screening criteria evaluated the availability
of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, electric utility substations, stormwater, and groundwater at each site.
If a utility was not available, the closest available service location was determined by a combination of on-line tools
and information, service area maps, inspection of aerial and street-level photography, and discussions with County
staff and utility services providers. The additional work needed to extend utilities to the site was then included in the
site evaluation. Brief discussions of the evaluation of needs and demands for the various utility types are as
follows:

• Potable water is needed not only for normal human consumption and fire protection but may also be needed (if
other sources are not available) for supply water for the boiler feedwater systems, lime slurry production in the
Air Pollution Control (APC) system, and many other uses at the facility. For a 4,000 ton per day WTE facility, a
site would need a minimum 12” water main with sufficient service pressure to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. If service pressure is inadequate, a booster station must be added.
If potable water utilities are unavailable, the construction of a typical 12” water main from the nearest service
location (including valves and appurtenances) is needed, and depending on the site, additional easement or
right-of-way area may be needed.
• Wastewater (Sanitary Sewer) is needed for toilet facilities, boiler blowdown water, and several other facility
processes. The proposed WTE facility would need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity of
approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be considered

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 4
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives. Reuse of process wastewater
is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE facilities, but for site evaluation and comparative
purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary sewer. If gravity sewer is not available, a lift
station and 6” force main would have to be constructed to connect to the nearest sanitary sewer manhole or lift
station wetwell, and depending on the site, additional easement or right-of-way area may be needed.
• Natural Gas is the most economical fuel for the boiler auxiliary burners, which ignite the solid waste fuel fed to
the boiler grates and allow for controlled startup and shutdown of the proposed facility. The site would need a
minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility. Online maps and other resources
were used to determine the approximate location of gas service pipelines within the County. If gas service is
unavailable, the construction of a typical 6” gas main from the nearest pipeline location (including valves and
appurtenances) is needed, and depending on the site, additional easement or right-of-way area may be
needed.
• Electricity is used at WTE facilities to operate the various mechanical components. Once a WTE facility
becomes operational, the steam generated from the boilers is typically used to drive a steam turbine connected
to a generator to provide both the internal electricity required to operate the facility as well as produce excess
electricity that is sold to the local electric utility. For this evaluation, the nearest electrical substation was
located and the shortest route for the transmission line along existing or proposed access road right-of-way or
FPL easements was determined. Additional analysis would need to be performed to verify
substation/switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and available terminations.
• Stormwater management and controls in accordance with Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) rules are required for the proposed WTE site. For this evaluation, the site soils, groundwater
elevations, presence of floodplains and other information were analyzed to determine what effects the site
conditions may have on the proposed WTE facility layout, construction issues, and if any connections to
existing stormwater collection systems was available. If the site is located in a floodplain, typically the
stormwater system must include additional floodplain compensating storage, which increase both the cost and
the site area used for the stormwater system.
• Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water service and provide industrial
supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE
facility is expected to consume an average 552,000 gallons per day. Other innovative and sustainable solutions,
such as reuse and rainwater harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements.
A consumptive use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not available at a
site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will have to provide for WTE
facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soils
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil survey information was reviewed to confirm the type and
potential suitability of soils located at each site. Soils information for all sites was obtained from the USDA’s Web
Soil Survey (WSS), which provides soil data and information produced by the National Cooperative Soil Survey.
The soils data provides a wealth of information on the physical conditions at a site that can affect development,
including previous site disturbance, groundwater levels, soil bearing capacities and foundation design requirements,
depth to bedrock, presence of muck, and many others. If muck and other unsuitable soils were found on a site, they
would need to be removed and structural fill imported and placed under affected building foundations. Additional
site preparation, such as additional fill for elevation of structures, vibro-compaction, or other work may also be
www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 5
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

needed. Additional geotechnical investigations and structural design work may also be needed to address poor soil
conditions.

Environment
Extensive environmental permitting is required to construct a WTE Facility, in any location. A summary of the
Federal, State and regional environmental permitting requirements, policies and jurisdictional interfaces required to
site, construct and operate a new WTE facility in Miami-Dade County are provided in the below subsections and
were used to provide an estimated degree of permitting difficulty summary for each site.

2.2.2.4.1 Environmental Resource Permit (ERP)

The FDEP’s Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) Program regulates activities involving the alteration of surface
water flows. This includes new activities in uplands that generate stormwater runoff from upland construction, as
well as dredging and filling in wetlands and other surface waters. Wetlands and Surface Waters were analyzed
using the National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and South Florida Water Management
District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 GIS layers in order to identify existing wetlands and surface waters
including streams, canals, ponds, lakes, impoundments, rivers, sloughs, and other watercourses that are present on
the sites being evaluated.

2.2.2.4.2 Threatened & Endangered Species

In order to determine if any known Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species or critical habitat for endangered
species were present on the sites being evaluated, Arcadis utilized the following resources:
• United States Fish and Wildlife Information for Planning and Consultation tool and designated and proposed
critical habitat
• Florida bonneted bat consultation area for the South Florida Urban Bat Area in Miami-Dade County
• Florida Panther consultation areas, Florida wood stork colonies, and Florida Natural Areas Inventory datasets

2.2.2.4.3 Floodplain
Flood maps serve as critical decision-making tools in flood mitigation, land use planning, emergency management
and general public awareness. Arcadis conducted a review of the FEMA Flood Zone map to determine flood zone
designation and flood hazard probability for each site being evaluated.

2.2.2.4.4 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) Considerations

CERP is a framework for restoring, protecting and preserving the greater Everglades ecosystem. The plan is a 50-
50 partnership between the State of Florida and the federal government. The State of Florida and the South Florida
Water Management District have so far invested approximately $2.3 billion in CERP-related land acquisition, project
design and construction. The CERP project boundaries layer was used to identify conservation lands, including the
Everglades National Park, to determine if any parcel was adjacent to any known or existing CERP project.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 6
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

2.2.2.4.5 Code and Policy Considerations

Miami-Dade County Wellfield Protection Areas
In Miami-Dade County, drinking water is drawn
from the Biscayne Aquifer, which is a porous
limestone rock formation that gives the aquifer
excellent capacity. However, the rapid
movement of water in the aquifer and the high-
water table within many areas of the County
make it vulnerable to pollution. Pollutants that are
discharged onto the ground or in surface waters
can contaminate the groundwater and be drawn
into wells that supply drinking water.
For these reasons, Miami-Dade County has
policies and programs in place to protect the
Biscayne Aquifer from potential sources of
contamination, especially in specific areas around
the network of drinking water wellfields
designated as wellfield protection areas (WPA).
The WPAs were designated based on geological
characteristics of the aquifer and the flow of water
through it. New activities that use or store
hazardous materials or generate hazardous
waste are prohibited within certain parts of the
wellfield protection areas. WPA requirements are
included in Sec. 24-43 of the County Code.
Arcadis reviewed the WPA boundaries in order to
identify whether any parcel was within or
contained protected areas.

Figure 2.1 Wellfield Protection Areas

Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) Conservation Aquifer Recharge and Drainage Element
(Element)
The intent of this Element is to identify, conserve, appropriately use, protect and restore as necessary the biological,
geological and hydrological resources of Miami-Dade County. The following policies were considered when
conducting the Detailed Screening analysis.

• Policy CON-7J of this Element States - In evaluating applications that will result in alterations or adverse
impacts to wetlands, Miami-Dade County shall consider the applications’ consistency with CERP objectives.
Applications that are found to be inconsistent with CERP objectives, projects or features shall be denied.
• Policy CON-9A of this Element States - All activities that adversely affect habitat that is critical to federal or
State designated, endangered or threatened species shall be prohibited unless such activity(ies) are a
public necessity and there are no possible alternative sites where the activity(ies) can occur.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 7
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

• Policy CON-9B of this Element States - All nesting, roosting, and feeding habitats used by Federal or State
designated endangered or threatened species, shall be protected and buffered from surrounding development
or activities and further degradation or destruction of such habitat shall not be authorized.

Miami-Dade County Airport Zoning Code

The Airport Zoning Code describes the regulations to provide both airspace protection and land uses compatible
with airport operations. The Airport Zoning Code requirements provide the regulations that describe such items as
Critical Approach Zones and height restrictions that could impact the ability to develop a WTE facility. The areas
governed by this Code include airports owned by the County and managed by the Miami-Dade Aviation Department
(MDAD) or its successor agency, and the incorporated and unincorporated areas that surround the following
airports:

• Miami International Airport (MIA);

• Miami Executive Airport (TMB);
• Miami-Opa Locka Executive Airport (OPF);
• Miami Homestead General Aviation Airport (X51); and
• Any other County-owned or operated airports that may be hereafter established.
Note that the regulations in the Airport Zoning Code do not apply to, or govern, Dade-Collier Training and Transition
Airport (TNT).
The Critical Approach Zone (CAZ) is a trapezoidal area extending outward from the Runway Protection Zone to a
point that is 10,200 feet from the runway end. One of the uses prohibited within this zone is “establishments or uses
that emit smoke, gases, or dust in quantities or densities sufficient to jeopardize the safe use of the airport. In no
event shall these prohibitions be varied”. The Airport Zoning Article may be open to some interpretation about
whether the stack emissions from a new WTE facility located within the CAZ are in sufficient quantities or densities
to jeopardize the safe use of the airport. However, additional analysis and discussions with MDAD and the FAA
would be required to determine if parcels within the CAZ may require more detailed analysis such as a thermal
exhaust plume analysis. Therefore, for the purpose of this preliminary siting analysis, parcels located within the CAZ
of any of the airports governed by the Airport Zoning Code were not considered.
The Airport Zoning Code also describes Airport Height Variance Eligible Areas (HVEAs) that are areas surrounding
airports where variances of the applicable height restrictions may be applied for in accordance with the Airport
Zoning Article. For the purposes of this siting analysis, parcels located within the HVEAs of any of the airports
governed by the Airport Zoning Code were not considered.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 8
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

Figure 2.2 Miami International Airport - Airport Height Restriction Zone Map

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Requirements

The FAA governing regulation is 14 CFR Part 77. In accordance with this regulation and the Miami-Dade
County Airport Zoning System Checklist, revised August 5, 2015 (Microsoft PowerPoint - Airport System Zoning
Checklist 8-5-15 (white background) [Compatibility Mode] (miami-airport.com)) (County Airport Zoning
Checklist) and the Airport Zoning Code (ARTICLE XXXVII. - AIRPORT ZONING | Code of Ordinances | Miami -
Dade County, FL | Municode Library), the following approach areas to governed airports are used to determine
height restrictions:
• 10,000 feet at a slope of 34 to 1 for all non-precision instrument runways other than utility; and
• 10,000 feet at a slope of 50 to 1 with an additional 40,000 feet at a slope of 40 to 1 for all precision
instrument runways
• For MIA Runways 8R, 26L and 30 only, the initial 10,000 feet at a slope of 65 to 1 with an additional 40,000
feet at a slope of 40 to 1
The stack heights for modern U.S.-based WTE facilities ranges from 200-350 feet above grade. Using a
conservatively tall 400 ft height stack, the distance for the FAA approach surface height restriction is
approximately 18,000 feet from the RPZ or 3.4 miles. Note that the existing RRF eastern-most stack is
approximately four miles away from MIA along the centerline of the Runways 12-30. Therefore, for the
purposes of this siting analysis, parcels located within four miles of any of the airports governed by the Airport
Zoning Code, including the Homestead Air Reserve Base, were not considered.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 9
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

2.2.2.4.6 Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act Certification

The Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA), Sections 403.501-.518, Florida Statute (F.S.), is the State of
Florida centralized process for licensing large electrical power plants and is administered by the FDEP Siting
Coordination Office. Section 403.503 (14) F.S., defines an electrical power plant, for the purpose of PPSA
certification, as any steam or solar electrical generating facility using any process or fuel, that produces 75
megawatts or more of electrical capacity. PPSA certification may also be used to obtain approval for smaller
capacity electrical power plants, if the applicant elects to use the PPSA process. A WTE facility utilizes solid waste
as the process fuel to generate steam and produce electricity, therefore the environmental permitting associated
with siting, constructing, and operating a WTE facility falls under the PPSA.
One license — a certification — replaces all local and state permits and is issued by the Siting Board (Florida
Governor and their Cabinet Members). Since certification is a life-of-the facility authorization, the considerations
involved in the PPSA application review are extensive. Local governments and state agencies within whose
jurisdiction the WTE facility is to be constructed participate in the process. Certification addresses permitting, land
use and zoning, and property interests. A certification grants approval for the location of the WTE facility and its
associated facilities such as roadways and electrical transmission lines carrying power to the electrical grid, among
others which are collectively referred to as a PPSA Certified Site.
PPSA certification covers almost every aspect of the facility as an all-in-one license for construction and operation.
The PPSA creates a procedure that allows the local, regional, and state agencies to review a proposed electrical
power plant within a single, coordinated process. State and local government permit requirements are typically
included within the Conditions of Certification (COC) issued under the PPSA. As such, the state pre-empts the
issuance of any other type of permit for the facility, except for local zoning and building.

Power Plant Site Certification - Existing and New Site

A PPSA Application was submitted for the existing RRF, and the COC PA 77-08, approving siting, construction and
operation was issued by the FDEP on January 9, 1978. PPSA COCs can be modified during the life cycle of the
facility through either an Amendment or Modification, which are defined below.
1. PPSA Amendment - a material change to the application for site certification that does not require a change in
the final order or Conditions of Certification. Amendments can be authorized by the FDEP Siting Coordination
Office.
2. PPSA Modification - a substantive change in the certification order including any substantive change in the
Conditions of Certification. Proposed modifications are reviewed by all affected agencies and are issued by
DEP or the Siting Board after public notice.
Construction of a new WTE facility at the existing RRF site would likely be considered a Modification to the COC.
However, a pre-application meeting with the FDEP would be required in order to confirm this assumption.
Construction of a new WTE Facility at a new site, would require the development of a new PPSA Application for
approval.

Other Permits Included in PPSA Application

A Modification to an existing PPSA COC or development of a new PPSA Application also requires the development
of applicable Federal, State and regional permit applications, that are ultimately provided in the appendices of the
Modification or new Application submittal. Filing federal permit applications concurrently with the PPSA Application
is advantageous because it helps ensure that the Federal permits and the PPSA certification are issued at or about

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 10
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

the same time. A summary of the other permit applications to be submitted as part of the PPSA Modification or
Application are noted below.

• National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Application/Permit

• Hazardous Waste Disposal Application/Permit
• 404 Application/Permit
• Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Application/Permit
• Air Operation Application/Permit
• Coastal Zone Management Certification (as applicable)
• Zoning Descriptions and Concurrence
• Environmental Resource Permit Application
• Monitoring Programs
The PSD, NPDES, and other permits that the FDEP issues pursuant to federal programs are issued separately
from, and in addition to, the issuance of the PPSA certification. Permits issued by the USACE also are issued
separately from the PPSA certification.

2.2.2.4.7 Florida Transmission Line Act Certification

The Florida Transmission Line Siting Act (TLSA), Sections 403.52-.5365, Florida Statutes (F.S.), is the State of
Florida centralized process for licensing electrical transmission lines that are 230 kilovolts (kV) or larger; Cross a
county line; and are 15 miles or longer. The TLSA can also be used for transmission lines that are less than 15
miles long or if within one county. The TLSA is also administered by the FDEP and one license — a certification —
replaces all local and state permits, and provides for construction, operation, and maintenance of electric
transmission lines for the life of the transmission line. State and local government permit requirements are typically
included within the COC issued under the TLSA.
The TLSA is similar to the PPSA in that both require Siting Board certification and the FDEP acts as lead agency as
well as addresses its own jurisdictional interests. In both laws, certification covers all state and local permits and is
for the life-of-the-facility. Public involvement opportunities are also provided in both laws. The two main differences
between the TLSA and PPSA are that there is no Land Use and Zoning hearing for transmission line siting
certification and alternative transmission line corridor locations can be proposed.

Florida Transmission Line Act Certification - Existing and New Site

The transmission line infrastructure was developed as part of the initial permitting and construction of the existing
RRF, however, if reconfiguration is required, an amendment or modification to the COC would be required. Site
specific transmission line infrastructure associated with the other parcels being considered would need to be
evaluated as part of a future effort to determine if the County or the utility would be responsible for the permitting of
the needed transmission lines.

2.2.2.4.8 Air Permitting

Air Quality Permitting Requirements
The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) required the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to
set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for common pollutants emitted from numerous and diverse
sources considered harmful to public health and the environment. There are currently NAAQS designated for six
www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 11
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

pollutants: sulfur dioxide (SO 2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), ozone (O 3), and
particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). The CAAA also established two types of national air quality standards.
Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of "sensitive" populations such as
asthmatics, young children, and the elderly. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including
protection against visibility impairment, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. Florida has
incorporated the NAAQS by reference into the state’s air quality regulations.
The USEPA tracks compliance with the NAAQS (not to exceed ambient air concentration) for each criteria
pollutant by designating each area of the country as either “attainment” if the area meets the NAAQS or
“nonattainment” if the area does not meet the NAAQS. A separate determination of attainment status is made for
each criteria pollutant. Miami-Dade County is currently classified as an attainment area for all criteria pollutants.

Based on preliminary estimates of potential emission levels, a new 4,000 tpd WTE Facility would constitute a new
major emission source. As a proposed new major source, a 4,000 tpd WTE Facility would be subject to federal New
Source Review (NSR) requirements. NSR refers to the pre-construction review process that applies to new and
modified major sources for the purpose of protecting air quality through a permitting framework that supports
compliance with the NAAQS. NSR includes two permitting programs: Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
permitting and Nonattainment NSR (NNSR) permitting. Under NSR, a new 4,000 tpd WTE facility proposed for a
location in Miami-Dade County would be subject to PSD permitting requirements in recognition that PSD review
applies to new major sources in NAAQS attainment areas.

PSD Permitting Program

PSD permitting provides for carefully managed economic growth in a manner consistent with preserving clean air
resources. The primary objectives of the PSD permitting program are to protect public health and welfare and to
limit degradation of air quality in surrounding areas and within designated areas of special recreational, scenic, or
historic value. The PSD permitting regulation specifies that the following analyses be completed to address air
pollution control technology requirements and to demonstrate that proposed projects will not adversely impact air
quality:
• Air pollution control technology analyses are required on a pollutant-specific basis to define Best Available
Control Technology (BACT) for project related emission units. BACT is an emission limitation or standard
established on a case-by-case basis and reflects the maximum degree of emissions control that can be
achieved considering energy, environmental, and economic impacts. If establishing an emissions limitation or
standard is not feasible, BACT may be a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard.
• An evaluation of ambient air impacts resulting from project related emissions is required with respect to PSD
increments and the NAAQS. PSD increments represent increases in pollution allowed in an area and they
prevent air quality in clean areas (i.e., attainment areas) from deteriorating to the level set by the NAAQS for a
pollutant. The NAAQS is a maximum allowable concentration "ceiling." In contrast, a PSD increment is the
maximum increase in concentration that is allowed to occur above a baseline concentration for a pollutant. PSD
increments are established for three land use classifications: Class I, Class II, and Class III.
• Class I areas are areas of special national or regional value, such as national parks, and are afforded the
greatest degree of air quality protection.
• Class II areas are areas where normal, well-managed growth is allowed. The Miami-Dade County area is
designated as a Class II area.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 12
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

• Class III areas industrialized attainment areas with limited restrictions on emissions. No area of the country
has been designated as a Class III area.
To evaluate ambient air quality impacts for proposed projects subject to PSD permitting, dispersion modeling
analyses must be completed. For each pollutant subject to PSD review, an initial dispersion modeling analysis
referred to as a “significance analysis” is completed considering emissions from only the proposed project. If
results from the “significance analysis” demonstrates that a proposed facility’s impacts are below established
PSD significant impact levels (SILs), then “full impact” (multi-source) dispersion modeling analyses including
emissions from other offsite sources in the vicinity of the project site are not required. Results from dispersion
modeling analyses for emissions associated with a new 4,000 tpd WTE facility are expected to exceed PSD
significant impact levels (for one or more pollutants). Therefore, extensive, multi-source modeling analyses
would likely be required as part of the PSD permitting process for a proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility.
• An evaluation of project related impacts with respect to PSD increments and Air Quality Related Values
(AQRVs) at any Class I area within close proximity to the site is required. Class I areas, such as Everglades
National Park, are federally designated areas of special national or regional value which receive distinct
protections under the PSD regulations. For each Class I area, the Federal Land Manager (FLM) is responsible
for defining and protecting specific AQRVs and for establishing criteria to determine an adverse impact on the
AQRVs. The AQRVs are resources that have the potential to be affected by air pollution and may include
visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive areas.
• The specific analyses and recommended air dispersion model(s) that may be required are dependent on the
distance a proposed project is from protected Class I and/or sensitive Class II areas. For proposed facilities
located within 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) of a Class I area and based on an assessment of 24-hour ambient
impacts, PSD review may even be required for certain pollutants with emissions at minor levels (i.e., levels
below PSD emission thresholds). In order to obtain a construction permit for these proposed sources, a
vigorous evaluation would need to be completed to show its proposed operation would not degrade air quality
and AQRVs. Given the proximity of the Everglades National Park (Class I area) and Biscayne Bay National
Park (sensitive Class II area) to prospective sites in Miami-Dade County, demonstrating no adverse impacts to
these protected areas from the operation of a new WTE facility presents uniquely difficult challenges.
• An assessment of project impacts on soils, vegetation, and visibility and an evaluation of air quality impacts
relative to general growth (industrial, commercial, and residential) associated with the proposed project are also
required.

In Florida, the permitting authority for issuance of air construction permits is the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP). Construction permits for projects subject to PSD permitting requirements are
processed by FDEP’s Division of Air Resource Management office in Tallahassee. The PSD permitting regulation
provides for public participation and input from the USEPA and designated FLMs for Class I areas and sensitive
Class II areas in the vicinity of the project site. Input from these entities is given special consideration and concerns
are typically required to be addressed by an applicant during the permit review process. As the permitting authority,
FDEP makes the final decision on whether to issue or deny issuance of an air construction permit.

Air Permitting Summary

Siting a new 4,000 tpd WTE facility in Miami-Dade County presents unique challenges considering the complex pre-
construction permitting requirements that apply under the PSD permitting regulation. In particular, the proximity of
nearby sensitive areas (Everglades National Park, which is a federally protected Class I area, and the Biscayne Bay
sensitive Class II area) and the presence of existing facilities with high emission levels in the county, impart

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 13
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable impacts from the operation of a new WTE Facility and make
securing an air construction permit very challenging at the prospective sites. Extensive air dispersion modeling,
additional analyses and correspondence with regulatory agencies is required in order to definitively evaluate the
feasibility and degree of difficulty of air permitting at any proposed site.

Transportation
A proposed 4,000 ton per day WTE facility would be expected to receive approximately 300-400 inbound vehicles
per day and provide for a typical queueing length suitable for between 50 and 100 vehicles during peak delivery
periods. This transportation demand requires, at a minimum, an FDOT standard two-lane road with paved
shoulders and stormwater controls and sufficient area on site for vehicle queueing. Also, per the Initial Siting
requirements, the travel time to an Arterial or Collector Road must be less than 10 minutes.
For this analysis, the Arterial and Collector Roads were identified from the 2010 Federal Functional Classification
Map published by the FDOT District Six Intermodal Systems Office. Travel time from each site to an identified
Arterial or Collector Road was then determined using online mapping tools and calculated travel times based on
data in the 2020 Miami-Dade County Mobility Profile published by the FDOT Forecasting and Trends Office. For
each site, the existing access road size, capacity, and physical condition were evaluated to determine its suitability
for the demands of a proposed WTE facility, along with expected traffic impacts on area roads and intersections. If
an access road is either inadequate or unavailable at a site, then a new two-lane road with paved shoulder and
stormwater controls will need to be constructed for proper site access. Additional easement/ROW may have to be
acquired. Local area traffic impacts were evaluated based on published FDOT Level of Service data and known
traffic conditions.

Community
According to the USEPA, the term environmental justice is defined as: “the fair treatment and meaningful
involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” The USEPA EJScreen Tool was
used to provide an initial estimate of environmental justice concerns at each site. According to the USEPA website,
EJScreen is an environmental justice mapping and screening tool that provides the EPA with a nationally consistent
dataset and approach for combining environmental and demographic indicators. EJScreen users choose a
geographic area; the tool then provides demographic and environmental information for that area. All of the
EJScreen indicators are publicly available data. EJScreen simply provides a way to display this information and
includes a method for combining environmental and demographic indicators into EJ indexes.
It is important to note that EJScreen is not a detailed risk analysis. It is a screening tool that examines some of the
relevant issues related to environmental justice, and there is uncertainty in the data included. EJScreen cannot
provide data on every environmental impact and demographic factor that may be important to any location.
Therefore, its initial results should be supplemented with additional information and local knowledge whenever
appropriate, for a more complete picture of a location.
Based on the information provided by the EJScreen Standard Report, proximity of the site to residential zoning and
populations, and proximity to sensitive environmental areas (i.e., Everglades National Park, wetland and wildlife
areas, etc.) a relative rating of expected community opposition to the siting of a new WTE facility was applied.
Results of the EJScreen Standard Report, developed for each site, are included in the Site Packages found in
Appendix A.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 14
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

2.2.3 Detailed Screening Findings

A meeting was held on June 7, 2022, to review the findings of the Detailed Screening process. After discussion and
agreement by DSWM and Arcadis, 19 sites were eliminated from consideration due to several factors, such as
roadway access and utility availability, parcel development and availability, permitting considerations, and conflicts
with existing County policies (i.e., located in WPA or CERP site, wetland/wildlife habitat issues, etc.).
DSWM staff then requested that a comparison
be conducted of the existing RRF site to the
three remaining potential sites found as part
Site 1 - Medley
of this preliminary analysis, using the same
methodology as the other sites.
The four remaining sites are listed below and
are illustrated in the map at right.

• Site 1 – Medley
• Site 16 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #1
• Site 17 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #2
• Existing RRF Site – Doral

Existing RRF Site - Doral

Figure 2.3 Potential Sites Location Maps

Site 16 – Ingraham
Hwy. Site #1

Site 17 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #2

The full site packages for each of the 22 sites that were evaluated in the Detailed Screening process are included in
Attachment B. A brief comparison of the four remaining sites is presented below and on the following pages for
quick reference. For these four final sites, an estimate of the schedule and cost differentiators was also developed
to provide the County with additional comparative analysis for consideration.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 15
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

Schedule Considerations
The development of a WTE facility typically takes seven (7) to ten (10) years to complete. This time frame, which
includes the preliminary planning stage, siting, permitting, financing, procurement, design, and construction, varies
depending upon the complexity of the project and extent of the regulatory and public concerns. Arcadis has
developed a preliminary high-level implementation schedule, included as Appendix B, for the four selected sites for
use in evaluating different project development schedule impacts related to each site: the Existing RRF site, the
Medley site, Ingraham Highway Site 1 and Ingraham Highway Site 2. Each potential site has unique schedule
impact considerations, which are discussed in the subsections below. Task durations are estimates and may
change once activities begin, which could extend or compress the schedule duration. Future phases of the County’s
planning and implementation process will include more detailed review of the factors which may affect the potential
development of a new WTE facility at any proposed location and as such, the anticipated timelines and schedule
impacts will be further refined as the process proceeds.

2.2.3.1.1 Assumptions
Several common assumptions were used in developing the new WTE facility preliminary implementation schedule.
There are also many assumptions specific to an individual site option that differentiate their respective
implementation timeframe from one another. The assumptions used for the purposes of this Report are identified in
the following table:
Table 2.1 Schedule Assumptions

Assumptions Applicable Site Option

The durations used for design and construction are generally based on the
schedule for construction of the most-recently developed facility in the
All Site Options
United States, referred to as reference facility (Palm Beach County’s
Renewable Energy Facility No. 2, completed in 2015).

To avoid waste diversion, the existing RRF would continue operations during
construction of the new WTE facility, with shutdown and decommissioning Existing RRF Site
occurring after construction completion.

Development of the existing RRF site includes time for permitting and filling
the onsite stormwater lake, planning and construction of temporary
Existing RRF Site
stormwater retainage during construction, and logistical planning for
construction during operation of the existing RRF.

The Medley site includes time for land acquisition, zoning and permitting of a
Medley Site
greenfield site as well as additional site preparation work.

Ingraham Highway Site 1 and Ingraham Highway Site 2 include additional

time for land acquisition, zoning permitting of a greenfield site, and extended
environmental permitting due to proximity of Class I area. There will also be
Ingraham Highway Site 1
additional site preparation work required including wetland mitigation, flood
Ingraham Highway Site 2
plain mitigation (elevating finished floor elevation of structures one foot
above grade and additional stormwater requirements), and wildlife
mitigation.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 16
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

2.2.3.1.2 Siting/Planning
Several activities are identified for the siting of a new WTE facility that are required to support the regulatory,
permitting, design, and construction phases. Siting/Planning includes the following activities:

• Siting selection and land acquisition, if applicable

• Power purchase and interconnect agreement negotiations
• Public outreach activities
The Medley site, Ingraham Highway Site 1, and Ingraham Highway Site 2 require land acquisition to commence
prior to the other activities listed above. It has been assumed that land acquisition may take approximately 18
months to 2 years.

2.2.3.1.3 Financing
Construction of a large capital project, such as a WTE facility, is most often financed, as most entities do not have
the available funds to pay for the capital costs when constructed. A number of financing options exist for funding
large capital projects, with the most common being municipal bond financing. It is anticipated that the County would
most likely use a form of long-term revenue bond financing. Bond financing terms can vary and are determined
during agreement development. For the purposes of this Report, it is assumed that a 30-year revenue bond would
be used.
First, a financial plan for bond issue would be developed to determine the bond issue method and schedule. This
would include bond issue support and a cash flow analysis at the commencement of the project and possibly a
phased financing strategy, with interim and final financing. The interim financing could correspond with initial
planning, permitting and procurement activities required prior to contractor notice to proceed. The final financing
would likely correspond with the contractor notice to proceed and/or receipt of all regulatory approvals for
construction.
Note that the financing tasks are not consecutive, and do not occur directly one after the other. There is time
allotted in the schedule between these tasks when no financing activities occur. Therefore, the total duration for the
financing tasks, commencing with the bond issue support and cash flow analysis and ending with the final financing,
is estimated to be between four and six years. The financing tasks typically take place concurrently with the
permitting and procurement tasks.

2.2.3.1.4 Regulatory/Permitting
The preliminary schedule reflects the permitting process including application preparation, submission, clarification,
and issuance of permits and approvals required for the construction and start-up of a new WTE facility. These
activities are discussed in more detail in Section 2.2.4 Environment. The critical path includes preparation of the
dredge and fill permit, PSD, and PPSA permitting processes. It is also assumed that the PPSA and other permitting
efforts would be accelerated, through the concurrent development of permit application packages. It is anticipated
that the overall permitting duration will range from approximately three and a half years to four and a half years from
preliminary application development through issuance of all required permits. It is assumed that permitting activities
would occur concurrently with financing and procurement efforts, in order to accelerate the schedule.
There are many variables associated with the permitting process that could affect the duration of the permitting
effort. The schedule presents what would be considered a typical scenario and assumes that significant regulatory

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 17
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

delays such as multiple requests for information (RFIs), significant public opposition and protest, or change in law
would not occur.

2.2.3.1.5 Procurement
The procurement process outlined in the preliminary schedule consists of the following main tasks:

• Design criteria development

• Procurement strategy development
• RFI development, response, and response evaluation (it should be noted that DSWM has already initiated
development of a RFI to be issued to the vendor community in the near future)
• Request for Qualifications (RFQ) development, response, and response evaluation
• Request for Proposals (RFP) development, response, and response evaluation
• Legal activities associated with development of the draft and final Construction and Operating Agreements.
The design criteria development is required prior to RFQ/RFP procurement process and is estimated to take
approximately 6 months to one year. The RFQ/RFP procurement process is estimated to take approximately two to
three years and would occur concurrently with the permitting and financing activities.

2.2.3.1.6 Design and Construction

The construction period outlined in the preliminary schedule is a general overview of the construction process. As
the project moves forward, detailed construction schedules will be developed as part of the planning and
procurement process by DSWM’s consultants and/or the successful contractor. Typical construction-related
activities would include:

• Preliminary construction activities, such as initial site work and preparation

• Detailed design
• Preliminary site and utilities work
• Procurement of major equipment
• Procurement of long lead time items
• Construction
• Start-up and commissioning
• Acceptance testing
• Final inspection and contract close-out

Preliminary Construction Activities

Considerations are made in the preliminary schedule based on specific activities associated with each site. For the
Existing RRF site, it is assumed that shutdown of the existing RRF will not occur until after construction of a new
WTE facility to avoid waste diversion. Planning activities will be required in consideration of specific site constraints
associated with construction equipment laydown area, temporary stormwater storage, and stormwater pond fill
activities.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 18
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

The Medley site is assumed to require additional time prior to construction for placement of fill and site preparation
work to fortify the site soils for construction. The Ingraham sites may require additional time prior to construction for
wetland mitigation, removal of muck soils, replacement with fill, and fill placement for elevation to meet floodplain
requirements. The duration of these additional efforts is estimated to be approximately 9 months to one and a half
years, to be completed before other site and utility work can commence for a new WTE facility.
New WTE Facility Design and Construction Activities
It is currently anticipated that the design and construction duration for a new WTE facility is approximately four to
five years from the contractor NTP through acceptance testing and Commercial Operations.

2.2.3.1.7 Summary
In summary, the duration for new WTE facility implementation activities is estimated to be between 7 years 9
months to 11 and a half years depending upon the ultimate site selected. For the purposes of this Report, it is
assumed that work would commence in January 2023 for any of the site options. For the Existing RRF site, design
and construction is estimated to start in October 2026 with Commercial Operations beginning in April 2030. For the
Medley site, design and construction is estimated to start in January 2028 with Commercial Operations
approximately in April 2032. For the Ingraham Highway Sites, design and construction is estimated to start in April
2029 with Commercial Operations in approximately October 2033.
The estimated project durations for the Medley site and Ingraham Highway sites are longer than the Existing RRF
site because they include additional time for land acquisition as well as additional permitting time required as non-
PPSA certified sites, additional air permitting considerations, and preliminary site work needed including soils
stabilization or removal and wetland and wildlife mitigation. In contrast, the Existing RRF site does not require time
to acquire new land, is currently a site certified under the PPSA, and would only require minimal preparatory site
work.
Table 2-2 provides a summary of major tasks and the estimated durations for each of the selected site options. A
graphical summary schedule showing the concurrent activities is provided in Appendix B.
Table 2.2 Summary of Schedule Tasks with Estimated Durations

Estimated Duration of Activity

Task
Existing RRF Site Medley Site Ingraham Hwy Sites

Total Project Duration 7 years 9 months 9 years 9 months 11 years 3 months

Estimated Commercial
April 2030 April 2032 October 2033
Operation

Siting/Planning * 1.5 years 2.5 years 2.5 years

Siting Analysis and Land

N/A 1.5 years 2 years
Acquisition

Financing * 1.5 years

Permitting * 3.5 years 3 years 9 months 4.5 years

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 19
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

Estimated Duration of Activity

Task
Existing RRF Site Medley Site Ingraham Hwy Sites

Army Corps of Engineers

1 year N/A 1 year
Dredge and Fill Permit

Environmental Resource Permit 1 year 1 year 3 months 2 years

PSD Air Construction Permit 2 years 2 years 3 months 3 years

PPSA Process Activities 2.5 years 2 years 9 months 4 years

Procurement * 2 - 3 years

Design Criteria Development 6 months – 1 year

RFQ / RFP Process 1.5 - 2 years

Design and Construction 4 years 4 years 9 months 5 years

Design 3 years

Procurement of Major
3 years
Equipment

Preliminary Site and Utilities

9 months 1 year 3 months 1.5 years
Work

Construction 2.5 years

Start-up and Commissioning 6 months

Acceptance Testing to
2 months
Commercial Operations

Final Inspection and Contract

6 months
Closeout

Shutdown and Demolition of RRF 1 – 1.5 years

* These tasks occur concurrently.

Cost Considerations
Arcadis developed a cost considerations table to approximate the difference in cost of the various components
required to site, construct and operate a new WTE facility at the four remaining sites. This cost comparison includes
planning level estimates for additional costs associated with the facility construction, annual Operations and
Maintenance (O&M), as well as the potential system impacts specific to each site option. The additional costs are
compared to the costs of developing a new WTE facility on the existing site, which is considered the base case and
reflects estimated stormwater lake fill costs and environmental considerations noted in Appendix C. The capital
costs and first year O&M cost associated with a new WTE facility located on the Existing RRF site were developed
previously by Arcadis as part of a separate effort and represents the base case for comparative purposes.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 20
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

The cost considerations table provided in Appendix C identifies the item, unit cost, units for the unit cost, if the
additional site condition applies to each site, the unit quantity needed for each site option, the cost, and the cost
percentage increase compared to the base capital or annual O&M costs.

2.2.3.2.1 Identification of Costs

Many of the siting evaluation criteria and associated site conditions will require additional costs to address or
mitigate the unique site conditions of each site. Arcadis conducted a preliminary analysis to identify the potential
additional costs associated with the various site conditions that would likely apply to the selected sites,
subsequently developed unit costs for those site conditions, and quantified the amount of work or units required for
the individual sites reviewed. These conditions and costs were identified only for the four sites remaining after the
Detailed Screening criteria were applied:

• Existing RRF Site

• Site 1 Medley Site
• Site 16 Ingraham Highway Site 1
• Site 17 Ingraham Highway Site 2
These different site conditions may impact both facility capital cost and ongoing annual O&M cost. Appendix C
provides the cost differential comparison table and the Basis of Cost summary, which identifies information used to
determine unit costs and calculate required quantities associated with each site.

2.2.3.2.2 Capital Costs

The following additional capital costs and associated assumptions were considered for the selected sites, when
applicable:

• Land acquisition utilizing the current Miami Dade Property Appraiser value plus 10%
• Off-site road development when an access road to the site is not yet available
• Off-site utilities construction for interconnection to the nearest pipeline including:
- 12-inch ductile iron pipeline for potable water
- Potable water booster pump station
- 6-inch PVC force main for wastewater
- Natural gas pipeline
- Electrical transmission mains
- An industrial water supply well, where permittable, or rehabilitation of existing wells
- Additional right of ways or easements required for off-site utilities or access, assumed to be 60-feet wide
• Additional stormwater requirements for high groundwater levels or floodplain mitigation, assumed a four-foot-tall
site perimeter berm
• Additional stormwater requirements for temporary retainage during construction
• Geotechnical site preparation work including:
- Lake fill costs
- Removal of muck soils

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 21
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

- Replacement with select fill

- Additional geotechnical requirements, such as vibrocompaction of fill or other structural requirements
• Floodplain mitigation by elevating structures, assuming one foot above grade for Zone A.
• Wildlife mitigation including wood stork, bonneted bat, and Florida panther
• Permanent wetland mitigation
• Additional zoning and permitting cost possibly required for greenfield sites
• Additional permitting cost associated with difficulty due to site location or constraints
• Waste hauling and transfer system impacts including construction of a transfer station and additional transfer
trailers if collection and hauling system significantly changes compared to current System

Existing RRF Site

The identified site conditions requiring capital cost for the existing RRF include industrial supply well rehabilitation,
temporary stormwater retainage during construction, potential filling of the site stormwater detention pond and some
additional geotechnical work, such as vibrocompaction of the detention pond fill area, as well as potential bonneted
bat mitigation.
Medley Site
For the Medley site, the identified site conditions requiring potential capital costs include land acquisition, water
booster pump station, wastewater lift station, natural gas pipeline, electrical transmission mains, right-of-way and/or
easements for those utilities, additional stormwater management due to high groundwater levels, placing select fill
and additional geotechnical requirements required to help stabilize existing soils, such as vibrocompaction or other
method as selected by contractor, additional zoning and permitting for a greenfield site, and moderate
environmental permitting difficulties due to location and proximity to existing industrial facilities. It is assumed that
there may be impact fees or improvements required to local roads that have not yet been factored into the capital
cost for this site because the extent of roadway modifications is currently not known. It is anticipated that these
would be negotiated and further evaluated during the land acquisition process.
Ingraham Highway Sites 1 and 2
For the Ingraham Highway sites, the identified site conditions requiring potential capital costs include the land
acquisition, potable water pipeline, water booster pump station, wastewater force main, wastewater lift station,
natural gas pipeline, electrical transmission mains, right-of-way and/or easements for utilities or access, additional
stormwater management due to floodplain mitigation, removal of muck soils, placing select fill and additional
geotechnical requirements required to help stabilize existing soils, such as vibrocompaction, embankment fill
required for floodplain mitigation elevation, bonneted bat mitigation, wetland mitigation, additional zoning and
permitting for a greenfield site, extremely challenging environmental permitting due to location and proximity to
Class I areas, and System impact due to increased hauling distance, which will likely include construction of a new
transfer station and purchase of additional tractor trailers. Ingraham Highway Site 2 will also require development of
an offsite access road and Florida panther mitigation in addition to the items listed above.

2.2.3.2.3 Operations and Maintenance Costs

The following additional annual O&M costs and associated assumptions were considered for the selected sites,
when applicable:

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 22
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

Medley Site

• Purchase of potable water as industrial supply well development is likely not permittable, will result in additional
costs.
• Cost for ash hauling to a landfill assumed to be near the existing RRF.
Ingraham Highway Sites

• Purchase of potable water would be an additional operations cost

• Cost for ash hauling to a landfill assumed to be near the existing RRF would be significant as the distance is
much longer than the other sites.
• Transfer system O&M cost required for the additional hauling of waste to these locations.

2.2.3.2.4 Cost Considerations Summary

The following table summarizes the estimated additional capital cost associated with each site option and the
additional annual operations and maintenance cost impact.
Table 2.3 Estimated Additional Costs for Each Site Option

Estimated Total Percentage of Base

Additional Cost Cost

Existing RRF Site (Base Cost for Comparison)

Capital $1,450,000,000 N/A

Annual Net O&M (cost per ton *) $11.22 N/A

Medley Site

Additional Capital $48,300,000 4.2%

Additional Annual Net O&M

$2.10 19%
(cost per ton*)

Ingraham Highway Site 1

Additional Capital $80,400,000 6.4%

Additional Annual Net O&M

$13.40 119%
(cost per ton*)

Ingraham Highway Site 2

Additional Capital $84,700,000 6.7%

Additional Annual Net O&M

$13.40 119%
(cost per ton*)
* Does not include debt service payment for capital costs

The site option with the lowest anticipated impact on capital cost and annual operations and maintenance cost is
the Existing RRF site (base case). This is much less than the highest anticipated impact, Ingraham Highway Site 2,

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 23
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

which is anticipated to have a 6.7% increase in capital costs and 119% increase in annual operational costs due to
the significant waste hauling distance required.

3 Preliminary WTE Facility Site Analysis Summary

This preliminary siting analysis was prepared to support the County in determining availability of sites within the
County for development of a new WTE facility to replace the existing RRF. Based upon the results of this
preliminary analysis, development of a new WTE facility within the County is feasible, based on the criteria
investigated for each site. Following completion of this preliminary siting analysis, it is recommended that the
County consider pursuing a comprehensive siting evaluation, inclusive of site-visits, geotechnical investigations,
preliminary air modeling, informal discussions with FDEP staff, as well as other efforts necessary to move forward
with the selection of a site and implementation of a new WTE Facility.
Table 3-1 below provides an overall comparative summary of the four sites evaluated in the detailed screening
analyses.

(Remainder of Page Left Blank)

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 24
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

Table 3.1 Site Comparison Summary

Siting
Existing RRF Site 1 Medley Site 16 Ingraham Hwy. Site #1 Site 17 Ingraham Hwy. Site #2
Parameter

157.16-acre site, single 320.31-acre site, directly adjacent 159.71-acre site consisting of two 81.11-acre site is located outside the
parcel inside the UDB. to residential zoning, inside the parcels outside the UDB. UDB. Considerable System effects if
Minimal impact to System if UDB, approximately two miles Considerable System effects if this this site were selected.
selected, however, north of the existing RRF facility, site were selected.
Parcel size suitable for development
construction phasing will and adjacent to the Medley
Parcel size suitable for development of WTE facility footprint as well as
need to be considered in Landfill. If this site were selected,
of WTE facility footprint as well as additional acreage to accommodate
order to limit impact to the overall effects on the County’s
additional acreage to accommodate co-location of ash monofill or other
existing RRF operations. Solid Waste System would be
co-location of ash monofill or other County facilities in consideration of
relatively minimal. However, the
Parcel size suitable for County facilities in consideration of future sustainable campus concept.
Medley Landfill has a history of
development of WTE facility future sustainable campus concept.
Location odor complaints, and the WTE, if
footprint as well as
sited here, could be the subject of
additional acreage to
future odor complaints.
accommodate co-location of
additional ash monofill Parcel size suitable for
capacity or other County development of WTE facility
facilities in consideration of footprint as well as additional
future sustainable campus acreage to accommodate co-
concept (after demolition of location of ash monofill or other
Existing RRF). County facilities in consideration
of future sustainable campus
concept.

All required utilities Potable water and sanitary sewer All required utilities would have to be All required utilities would have to be
infrastructure available utilities appear to be available at extended to the site. extended to the site.
Utilities the site, electric and natural gas
utilities would have to be extended
to the site.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 25
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

Siting
Existing RRF Site 1 Medley Site 16 Ingraham Hwy. Site #1 Site 17 Ingraham Hwy. Site #2
Parameter

Site has been used for WTE The USDA Soil Survey data for Site soils are not ideally suited for Site soils are not ideally suited for
facility operations previously, the site and historical aerial building foundations because of building foundations because of water
no known site soils issues photos (c. 1985) indicate the site water content and shallow depth to content and shallow depth to
exist. area was previously excavated bedrock. bedrock.
and subsequently backfilled. In
order for a WTE facility to be
located at this site, the facility
Soils buildings and ancillary
components would have to be
constructed on backfill material,
which could present significant
geotechnical engineering
challenges for foundation designs
and additional site preparation
costs.

Air Permitting - May be Air Permitting – May be Floodplain – FEMA Zone A Floodplain – FEMA Zone A
challenging, other large challenging, as site is located
Air permitting expected to be Air permitting expected to be
emitters (Medley Class I between two other large existing
extremely difficult due to proximity to extremely difficult due to proximity to
Landfill and Titan Pennsuco emitters, the Medley Class I
Everglades National Park. Everglades National Park.
Complex) exist nearby that Landfill and Titan Pennsuco
were not present when RRF Complex. In addition, the adjacent ERP required because of minor ERP required because of minor
Environment was initially modeled and elevated (200 ft +) Medley Landfill wetlands on site, possible habitat wetlands on site, possible habitat
permitted. may result in exhaust plume issues (Bonneted Bat) issues (Bonneted Bat)
impaction during air emissions
Possible habitat issues
dispersion modeling.
(Bonneted Bat)
Possible habitat issues (Bonneted
Bat)

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 26
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

Siting
Existing RRF Site 1 Medley Site 16 Ingraham Hwy. Site #1 Site 17 Ingraham Hwy. Site #2
Parameter

Existing access to arterial Good access to Florida Turnpike Good access to arterial and collector Existing access to site is via
and collector roads and US27 via Beacon Station roads Ingraham Hwy. and SW 222nd Ave.,
Blvd., however traffic impacts to however approximately 0.75 miles of
Transportation local area may be significant due two-lane road with paved shoulders
to road orientations and close will need to be constructed for proper
proximity of intersections. site access. Additional ROW may
have to be acquired.

Residential developments The site is adjacent to residential The site is approximately half a mile The site is approximately half a mile
have encroached around the zoning. The west edge of the site from the nearest residential zoning from the nearest residential zoning
site in the years since the borders one trailer park owned by and is approximately one mile from and is 1.28 miles from the boundary
Existing RRF went into the Town of Medley, and another the boundary of Everglades National of Everglades National Park, which
operation. The site is now that is leased by the town. Siting Park, which suggests that the siting suggests that the siting of a WTE
less than a tenth of a mile of a WTE facility may face of a WTE facility may be strongly facility may be strongly opposed by
from the nearest residential community opposition at this opposed by the community at this the community at this location.
Community
zoning and the local location. location.
population. Community
political leaders and
environmental groups have
indicated opposition to
continued use of the site for
WTE facility operations.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 27
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

Siting
Existing RRF Site 1 Medley Site 16 Ingraham Hwy. Site #1 Site 17 Ingraham Hwy. Site #2
Parameter

Shortest schedule duration Second shortest schedule Longest estimated schedule Longest estimated schedule duration.
because of existing PPSA, duration. Land acquisition, PPSA duration. Land acquisition, PPSA Land acquisition, PPSA permitting,
potentially reducing PPSA permitting, and some minor site permitting, wetland, floodplain, and wetland, floodplain, and wildlife
permitting effort and minimal work increase schedule duration. wildlife mitigation, and significant mitigation, and significant site work
Schedule site preparation work site work increase schedule increase schedule duration.
Estimated Project Duration: 9-
(Preliminary required. Coordination of duration.
years 9-months Estimated Project Duration: 11-years
Planning to construction during MDRRF
Estimated Project Duration: 11- 3-months
Construction operation required. Possible Commercial Operations
years 3-months
Completion) by April 2032 Possible Commercial Operations by
Estimated Project Duration:
Possible Commercial Operations by October 2033
7-years 9-months
October 2033
Possible Commercial
Operations by April 2030

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 28
Preliminary Siting Alternatives Report

Siting
Existing RRF Site 1 Medley Site 16 Ingraham Hwy. Site #1 Site 17 Ingraham Hwy. Site #2
Parameter

For comparative purposes, Additional costs anticipated for Significant additional costs Significant additional costs
the existing RRF site is land acquisition*, on-site utility anticipated for land acquisition*, on anticipated for land acquisition*, on
considered the base cost facilities, stormwater and off-site utility facilities, flood and off-site utility facilities, flood plain,
condition and the base considerations and addition of fill plain, wetland, and wildlife wetland, and wildlife mitigation, and
capital cost includes for soil fortification, zoning and mitigation, and additional permitting additional permitting efforts.
estimated stormwater potential additional permitting efforts. Significant impact on hauling Significant impact on hauling system
detention pond fill costs and efforts for new PPSA. Purchase of system due to distance from other due to distance from other System
environmental potable water may increase System facilities would increase facilities would increase capital and
considerations and the ash anticipated operational costs. It is capital and operational cost. operational cost. Purchase of potable
hauling costs as noted in also assumed that there may be Purchase of potable water and water and significant distance to haul
Appendix C. impact fees or improvements significant distance to haul ash for ash for disposal will increase
required to local roads that have disposal will increase anticipated anticipated operational costs.
Total Estimated Capital Cost
not yet been factored into the operational costs.
Cost of $1,450,000,000. Additional Capital $84.7M (6.7%
capital cost for this site because
Additional Capital $80.4M (6.4% increase)
Total annual net operational the extent of roadway
increase)
cost is $11.22 per ton of modifications is currently not Additional 119% annual operational
waste processed (estimated known. It is anticipated that these Additional 119% annual operational cost for potable water purchase,
for Year 1). Does not include would be negotiated and further cost for potable water purchase, significant ash hauling, and additional
debt service payment for evaluated during the land significant ash hauling, and System hauling costs.
capital costs. acquisition process. additional System hauling costs.

Additional Capital $48.3M (4.2%

increase)

Additional 19% annual operational

cost for potable water purchase
and ash hauling.
* Land acquisition cost estimated based upon current Miami-Dade Property Appraiser Market Value plus 10%.

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx 29
Appendix A
Site Packages

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx A
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Existing RRF Site - Doral

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

This 157.16-acre site is a single parcel inside the UDB, located in the Folio No: 35-3017-001-0120
City of Doral. The site area is sufficient to support the proposed 4,000
tpd WTE facility and is co-located with an active 80-acre Ash Monofil. Owner: Miami Dade County DSWM
The property is less than a 10-minute travel time to major roads, is less
than 0.1 miles from the nearest residential zoning, and 9.87 miles 2021 MDPA Market Value: $176,631,573
(15.88 km) from the Class I boundary of Everglades National Park.
Zoning District: GU

www.arcadis.com
1/5
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Existing RRF Site - Doral

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located at 6990 NW 97th Avenue, Miami, FL 33178, less than 0.1 miles from the nearest
residential zoning, and 9.87 miles from the boundary of Everglades National Park. If this site were
selected, the short-term effects on the County’s Solid Waste System would be minimal. Over the short
term, redeveloping this site with a new WTE facility while maintaining the existing RRF operations
could be challenging and would require close coordination between the contractor and operator.
Construction phasing will need to be considered and planned in order to limit impact to the existing RRF
operations, which if impacted, could result in additional costs and extend the duration of the project
schedule.
In the long term, the number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations,
and Trash & Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE
facility, but their travel patterns and travel times would be unaltered. Although additional transfer fleet
vehicles and drivers would be routed to the site in order to maximize WTE processing capacity, they
may be rerouted from deliveries to non-DSWM disposal sites and the acquisition of additional fleet
vehicles and driver staffing may not be needed. Transfer fleet fuel consumption and maintenance costs
would increase due to the additional deliveries, while similar collection fleet costs would be virtually
unchanged. Additionally, the existing RRF site is in close proximity to route power to the 58th Street
Fleet Facility and could provide for charging stations for electric fleet vehicles, which are currently being
procured.
Ash from the new WTE facility may be disposed of at the existing Ash Monofill, if capacity is available,
or may be disposed either at the adjacent WM Medley landfill or hauled out of County. Either off-site
option will significantly increase ash disposal costs from current levels.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. According to WASD data, there is a 4” potable supply
line at the property, and a 16” water main available on NW 97th Ave.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives.
Reuse of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE
facilities, but for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary
sewer. Available at the site on NW 97th Ave., on-site lift station and leachate storage tank. WASD
data indicates there is a 16” gravity sewer available on NW 97th Ave.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. An 8” gas service line is available at the site, and the
transmission main is available on 97th Ave.

• Electric – Substation available approximately 0.15 miles SE of the site on NW 97th Ave. Need to
verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and available terminations.
www.arcadis.com
2/5
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Existing RRF Site - Doral

• Stormwater – An existing stormwater system is on site serving both the existing RRF and the Ash
Monofill. If a new WTE facility is constructed over the stormwater detention pond on the northeast
quadrant of the site, allowing the existing RRF to maintain operations during construction,
providing required stormwater quantity and quality controls for the site may be challenging.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. Three industrial
supply wells are currently used at the RRF for source water for boiler feedwater, cooling
tower/condenser feedwater, truck wheel wash, and irrigation water. If reused for a new WTE
facility on site, the wells would need to be redeveloped.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the predominant site soils as Udorthents-Water-
Urban land complex, 0 to 60 percent slopes and Cooper Town muck, ponded-Urban land complex, 0 to
1 percent slopes. Udorthents soils consist of unconsolidated or heterogeneous geologic material
removed during the excavation of ditches, canals, lakes, ponds, and quarries. This is consistent with
the development of the RRF and Ash Monofill at the site.
The presence of muck soils in the northeast quadrant of the site indicates the seasonal high
groundwater elevation is typically 0-6 inches below existing grade but would have to be confirmed by
geotechnical investigations. The high groundwater makes stormwater control more challenging and will
result in the need for elevating the tipping floor pit, similar to the existing tipping floor.

Environment
• Floodplains – Most of the site is in FEMA Flood Zone X (Minimal Flood Hazard), portions of the
NE area (stormwater ponds) are in FEMA Flood Zone AE (El. 5).

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – The existing RRF is currently permitted under the
Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Conditions of Certification PA 77-08. In order to construct a new
WTE facility on the site, a complete PPSA Modification Application would need to be developed,
inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP, Stormwater
Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.). The PSC “need determination” filing process is also
required.

• New Source Review (NSR) - Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 9.87 miles (15.88 km) NE of the Everglades Class I Area, 14.77 miles (23.8 km) NW
of the Biscayne Class II Area, one mile south of the Medley Landfill, 4.7 miles NE of the CEMEX
Miami Cement Plant and about 2.2 miles SE of the Titan Pennsuco Complex, which are all large
sources of emissions.
As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
www.arcadis.com
3/5
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Existing RRF Site - Doral

PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay National Park (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side border having
more stringent air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with
demonstrating acceptable impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility, and thus will make air
permitting challenging. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
areas.

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory indicates the site contains minor
wetlands surrounding a large treatment pond and four surface waters. The National Hydrography
Dataset shows three surface waters. The South Florida Water Management District Land Cover
and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site contains one stormwater treatment pond. The site
appears completely disturbed. The site is not within a Florida panther focus area for consultation or
critical habitat for endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The site is
within the Florida bonneted bat and individual consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is
required. The site is not within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and does not appear to
contain suitable foraging habitat; therefore, wood stork mitigation is not anticipated. Impacts to
wetlands and surface waters designed and permitted as stormwater treatment areas are generally
not regulated by the State of Florida, however, additional studies and analysis are required to
determine if wetland permitting such as a State 404 Permit would be required.

Transportation
Travel time north to major roads (i.e., 58th Street, 74th Street) is less than 10 minutes. Existing access to
site is via NW 97th Ave., which appears to be in relatively good physical condition and has sufficient
capacity for the expected traffic loadings of the proposed WTE facility. Traffic impacts on local roads
would be unchanged from existing conditions. The site has sufficient area to accommodate truck
queueing.

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated elevated values for Particulate Matter 2.5 (µg/m3) and
several other pollutants. The site is less than a tenth of a mile from the nearest residential zoning, and
the local population, community political leaders and environmental groups have indicated opposition to
continued use of the site for WTE facility operations.

www.arcadis.com
4/5
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Existing RRF Site - Doral

Schedule
The existing RRF site is currently permitted under the PPSA Certification as well as PSD and Title V Air
Operating Permits, which reduce the duration of the environmental permitting effort. Additionally, the
site work required as compared to other sites is minimal because of existing RRF facility operations and
infrastructure. However, there are existing conditions that affect the duration of the new WTE facility
implementation including the following:

• PSD Permitting – The nearby Everglades National Park’s (sensitive Class I area) location along
the western border of the County and the Biscayne Bay National Park (sensitive Class II area)
located on the eastern border of the County, both having more stringent AQRVs provide
uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable impacts from the operation of a new WTE
facility and will make air permitting challenging at this site.

• PPSA Permitting – This site was previously permitted and under the PPSA Certification and
potentially reduces the duration needed for environmental permitting as a PPSA Certification
modification and not a new application will be developed.

• Community –Opposition from the community is expected which could increase the duration of the
new WTE facility implementation schedule.

• Construction – Additional planning and coordination is required in order to construct the new WTE
facility at the existing RRF site, while the existing RRF continues to operate.

Cost
For comparative purposes, the existing RRF site was considered the base case, which includes the
following costs:

• Site Preparation – Stormwater detention pond fill costs, environmental permitting costs and ash
hauling.

• System Effects – If this site were selected, the effects on the County’s Solid Waste System would
be minimal, however, construction phasing will need to be considered in order to limit impact to
existing RRF operations.

Site Differentiators Overview

• The existing RRF facility and site is currently permitted under the PPSA and is operating under an existing Conditions
of Certification PA 77-08, which can be modified to provide for the construction and operation of a new WTE facility. A
Modification to an existing Conditions of Certification is typically faster than developing an entirely new PPSA
Application for an unpermitted site.

• Existing utilities suitable for a WTE facility are readily available and the site could route power to nearby System
facilities.

• Construction phasing will need to be considered in order to limit impact to existing RRF operations, which could result
in additional costs and extend project schedule.

• Expected significant opposition from the community could affect the project schedule.
www.arcadis.com
5/5
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 1 - Medley

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

This 320.31-acre site is inside the UDB, located in the Town of Medley. Owner: F77 1 F77 2 & F77 3 LLC, F00 1
The site is composed of several parcel areas and is large enough to LLC
support the proposed 4,000 ton per day (tpd) Waste-to-Energy (WTE)
facility, expansion to 5,000 tpd capacity, and other co-located solid 2021 MDPA Market Value: $38,621,504
waste facilities such as an ash monofill, recycling center or an
education center. The property is less than a 10-minute travel time to Zoning District: M-1
US-27 or the Turnpike, is located adjacent to residential zoning and
11.38 (18.31 km) miles from the boundary of the Everglades Class I PA Zone: Industrial – Light
area.
Folio No: 22-3004-001-0470, others.

www.arcadis.com
1/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 1 - Medley

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 2.0 miles north of the existing RRF, more than four miles from any
active airport, adjacent to residential zoning, and more than 11 miles from the boundary of Everglades
National Park. If this site were selected, the effects on the County’s Solid Waste System would be
minimal. Direct hauls from some of the collection routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF would divert
to the West transfer station for disposal due to shorter travel times. Incoming waste at that station
would increase and may result in capacity issues, as it is currently operating at approximately 80% of
design capacity.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility.
Their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would increase due to longer travel distances
and expected traffic congestion. Additional transfer fleet vehicles and drivers may be needed. Transfer
fleet fuel consumption and maintenance costs would increase due to the additional deliveries, while
similar Collection fleet costs would also increase due to longer travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be higher than at the
existing RRF, and options for limiting ash hauling distances could be considered. If disposed at a non-
County facility, costs for ash disposal would significantly increase from current levels.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. Potable water mains appear to be available at the site
on NW 95th Ave. and NW 106th Street, but additional analysis will be needed to determine pipe
size, service pressure, and available system capacity. A booster station may be needed to
increase system pressure. Soils data indicates shallow depth to bedrock in some locations, rock
removal may be required for pipe trench excavation for new lines in those areas.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives.
Reuse of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE
facilities, but for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary
sewer.
Sanitary sewer appears to be available at the site on NW 95th Ave. and NW 106th Street, but
additional analysis will be needed to determine pipe size and available system capacity. A lift
station and force main to gravity sewer may be required. Soils data indicates shallow depth to
bedrock in some locations, rock removal may be required for pipe trench excavation for new lines
in those areas.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. There is a gas transmission main on Krome Ave/US-

www.arcadis.com
2/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 1 - Medley

1. Additional ROW/easement may be needed. Soils data indicates shallow depth to bedrock, rock
removal may be required for pipe trench excavation.

• Electric – Nearest substation/ switchyard is FPL Substation located 1.9 miles away at 10800 NW
107th Avenue. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and available
terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations may result in slightly larger stormwater ponds on site,
but there appears to be sufficient area for a stormwater system that meets regulatory
requirements.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soils
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site and historical aerial photos (c. 1985) indicate the site area was
previously excavated as a quarry and subsequently backfilled. This is consistent with the USDA Soil
Survey data for the site, which classifies the site soils as 9—Udorthents-Water-Urban land complex, 0
to 60 percent slopes. Udorthents soils consist of unconsolidated or heterogeneous geologic material
removed during the excavation of ditches, canals, lakes, ponds, and quarries.
In order for the facility to be located at this site, the facility buildings and ancillary components would
have to be constructed on fill material, which could present geotechnical engineering challenges for
foundation designs and additional site preparation costs.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is not in a floodplain, it is within FEMA Flood Zone X (Minimal Flood
Hazard).

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 11.38 mi (18.31 km) NE of the Everglades Class I Area, 16.19 mi (26.05 km) NW of
the Biscayne Class II Area, and between two large existing emitters, the Medley Class I Landfill and
Titan Pennsuco Complex. The adjacent Medley Landfill may result in elevated receptors (200ft+)
and exhaust plume impaction during air emissions modeling.
www.arcadis.com
3/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 1 - Medley

As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting challenging at
this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s).

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates no
wetlands are present. The site appears disturbed. The site is not within a Florida panther focus area
for consultation or critical habitat for endangered or threatened species under the Endangered
Species Act. The site is within the urban development boundary in Miami-Dade County for the
Florida bonneted bat and individual consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required
but is assumed to be minimal as there is no roosting or foraging habitat remaining. The site is also
within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony; however, the lack of apparent suitable foraging
habitat precludes wood stork mitigation. No permit triggers exist for wetlands.

Transportation
The site has good access to Florida Turnpike and US-27 via Beacon Station Blvd., but some road areas
need to be improved and the Town of Medley may want the County to assume maintenance of some or
all of the access roads, which would increase the County’s costs. The volume of traffic that is expected
at the proposed WTE facility (400-500 trucks per day), will greatly increase the loads on local roads so
the traffic impacts to local area will likely be significant. Truck queuing will have to be accomplished on
site to prevent further congestion.

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated elevated values for Particulate Matter 2.5 (µg/m3 and
several other pollutants. The site is adjacent to residential zoning, which suggests that the siting of a
WTE facility may be opposed by the community at this location.

www.arcadis.com
4/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 1 - Medley

Schedule
There are a few site issues that could affect the schedule of the project, including:

• Land Acquisition – siting analysis and land acquisition will increase schedule duration.

• Utilities – Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water,

sanitary sewer, natural gas, and electric utility infrastructure.

• Soils – Additional geotechnical testing will be needed to determine the full extent of soil preparation
needed (i.e., vibro-compaction, consolidation, etc.) and additional requirements for building
foundations at the site, which may increase design and construction time.

• Permitting – Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The site is located 11.38 mi
(18.31 km) NE of the Everglades Class I Area, 16.19 mi (26.05 km) NW of the Biscayne Class II
Area, and between two large existing emitters, the Medley Class I Landfill and Titan Pennsuco
Complex. The adjacent Medley Landfill may result in elevated receptors (200ft+) and exhaust
plume impaction during air emissions modeling. The nearby Everglades National Park’s location
along the western border of the County and the Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located
on the eastern border of the County both having more stringent air quality related values (AQRVs)
provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable impacts from the operation of a
new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting challenging at this prospective site.

• Community – The site is adjacent to residential zoning. Therefore, siting of a new WTE facility may
face community opposition at this location, which could affect the project schedule.

Cost
Overall, the cost of developing a WTE Facility on this site is expected to be higher than at the base
alternative site, the Existing RRF. There are several site issues and additional Solid Waste System
changes that could affect the total cost to the Department, including:

• Land Acquisition – siting analysis and land acquisition will increase project costs.

• Utilities
- Construction of a potable water booster station may be required.
- Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station will likely be required.
- Construction of approximately 2.2 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners.
- Soils data indicates shallow depth to bedrock, rock removal may be required in some areas for
utility pipe trench excavation.
- Construction of approximately 1.9 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing
ROW/ FPL easements. Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.
- Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary
sewer, natural gas, and electric utility infrastructure.

www.arcadis.com
5/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 1 - Medley

- On-site water wells are likely not permittable, therefore potable water will need to be purchased,
increasing anticipated operations and maintenance costs.

• Soils – Additional geotechnical testing will be needed to determine the full extent of soil preparation
needed (i.e., vibro-compaction, consolidation, etc.) and additional requirements for building
foundations at the site, which may increase design and construction costs.

• Stormwater – due to high groundwater levels, additional stormwater considerations or facilities

may be required.

• Zoning and Permitting – because this is a greenfield site, additional zoning and permitting efforts
may be required which could impact cost and schedule.

• Solid Waste System

- Some collection routes that currently direct haul to the existing RRF would likely reroute to
dispose at the West or Northeast Transfer Station to minimize travel times, which may
increase traffic at those stations.
- Collection and Transfer vehicles routed to this site would have slightly increased costs for fuel
consumption, driver time, and vehicle wear related to the additional travel distance from the
existing RRF.
- Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be higher than at
the existing RRF, however, options for limiting ash hauling distances could be considered. If
disposed at a non-County facility, costs for ash disposal would significantly increase from
current levels.
- It is also assumed that there may be impact fees or improvements required to local roads that
have not yet been factored into the capital cost for this site because the extent of roadway
modifications is currently not known. It is anticipated that these would be negotiated and
further evaluated during the land acquisition process.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Construction of a potable water booster station may be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and 6” force main may be required.

• Construction of approximately 2.2 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Soils data indicates shallow depth to bedrock, rock removal may be required for utility pipe trench excavation.

• Additional geotechnical testing will be needed to determine the full extent of soil preparation needed (i.e., vibro-
compaction, consolidation, etc.) and additional requirements for building foundations at the site, which may increase
design and construction costs and extend the project schedule.

• Construction of approximately 1.9 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

www.arcadis.com
6/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 1 - Medley

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, and
electric utility infrastructure.

• Due to potential adverse effects to wetlands on site, groundwater may not be available for use as source water for
boiler feedwater, cooling tower/condenser feedwater, truck wheel wash, and irrigation water.

www.arcadis.com
7/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 16 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #1

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

Folio No: 30-8808-000-0030

This 159.71-acre site consists of two parcels outside the UDB, located
Owner: P Acursio Partnership LTD
in unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The combined site area is
2021 MDPA Market Value: $2,160,760
sufficient to support the proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Waste-to-
Zoning District: AU
Energy (WTE) facility and expansion to 5,000 TPD capacity or the
PA Zone: Interim - Agricultural
addition of other facilities such as an ash monofill, recycling center or
an education center. The property is less than a 10-minute travel time
to W Palm Drive, is 0.51 miles from the nearest residential zoning, and Folio No: 30-8808-000-0020
1.02 miles from the boundary of Everglades National Park. Owner: Everglades Fruit, Inc.
2021 MDPA Market Value: $133,720
Zoning District: AU
PA Zone: Interim - Agricultural

www.arcadis.com
1/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 16 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #1

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 32.5 miles SW of the existing RRF, slightly more than half a mile
from the nearest residential zoning, and approximately one mile from the boundary of Everglades
National Park. If this site were selected, the effects on the County’s Solid Waste System would be
considerable. Direct hauls from the collection routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF would divert to
the three transfer stations for disposal. Incoming waste at those stations would increase and may
result in capacity issues, especially at the West Transfer Station, which is currently operating at
approximately 80% of design capacity. A new transfer station would need to be constructed at or near
the site of the existing RRF to maintain the current collection patterns and transfer station loadings.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility.
Their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would significantly increase due to longer travel
distances and expected traffic congestion. Transfer fleet round trip times would increase and would
likely result in the need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes. Transfer fleet
fuel consumption and maintenance costs would significantly increase due to the additional deliveries
and travel times and distances, while similar Collection fleet costs would also increase due to longer
travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be significantly higher than
at the existing RRF. If disposed at a non-County facility, expected costs for ash disposal would
increase even further.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. Potable water mains appear to be available
approximately 3.3 miles NE of the site on Ingraham Hwy., but further analysis is needed to verify
service pressure and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to provide adequate
service pressure at the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives.
Reuse of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE
facilities, but for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary
sewer. Appears to be available approximately 3.3 miles NE of the site on Ingraham Hwy., on-site
lift station and about 3.3 miles of force main will likely be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest transmission main is approximately 5.5
miles NE of the site on Krome Ave/US-1. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is assumed
to be within existing ROW and easements.

www.arcadis.com
2/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 16 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #1

• Electric – Nearest substation/switchyard is Florida City Substation located 6.5 miles away at
33800 SW 202nd Avenue. Need to verify substation/switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and
available terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/FPL Easements
is assumed. New legal easements may need to be established to complete this routing.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the predominant site soils as Krome very gravelly
marly loam, 1 to 2 percent slopes, Biscayne marly silt loam, drained, 0 to 1 percent slopes, and
Chekika very gravelly marly loam, 1 to 2 percent slopes. Generally, these soils are not well suited for
building foundations because of water content and shallow depth to bedrock (typically 5-7 inches).
The presence of Biscayne marl soils indicates the seasonal high groundwater elevation is typically
within 10 inches of the ground surface, but would have to be confirmed by geotechnical investigations.
These soils are severely limited for building foundations because of water content and shallow depth
to bedrock, and areas under building foundations would need to be removed and replaced with
structural fill. The high groundwater may result in the need for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will
also increase project costs due to the need for additional structural fill.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone A.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.). The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 1.02 mi (1.7 km) E of the Everglades Class I Area, 13.00 mi (21.0 km) W of the
Biscayne Class II Area, and about 13.0 miles WSW of the FPL Turkey Point Power Plant, a large
source of emissions.
As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
www.arcadis.com
3/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 16 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #1

PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the County and the
Biscayne Bay National Park (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern border of the County
both having more stringent Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs) and provide uncertainties
associated with demonstrating acceptable impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and
thus will make air permitting very challenging at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources,
identified by the Class I area land manager agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the
potential to be affected by air pollution. These resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural,
physical, or ecological resources for sensitive area(s). Based on projected emissions for a 4,000
tpd facility, preliminary evaluation indicates that this parcel may be too close to sensitive receptors
in the nearby Class I area thus making it extremely difficult to demonstrate acceptable impacts for
PSD permit issuance.

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site
contains minor wetlands. The site is not within a Florida panther focus area for consultation or
critical habitat for endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The site is
within the urban development boundary in Miami-Dade County for the Florida bonneted bat and
individual consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required.

Transportation
Travel time north to W Palm Drive is less than 10 minutes. Existing access to the site is via Ingraham
Hwy. (see map below), and no additional offsite road improvements are needed. The volume of traffic
that is expected at the proposed WTE facility (400-500 trucks per day), will greatly increase the loads
on local roads so the traffic impacts on Ingraham Hwy., W Palm Drive, and other local roads may be
significant. Truck queuing will have to be accomplished on site to prevent further congestion.

www.arcadis.com
4/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 16 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #1

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no existing environmental justice issues for this site.
However, the site is about half a mile from the nearest residential zoning and is approximately a mile
from the boundary of Everglades National Park, which suggests that siting of a WTE facility may be
strongly opposed by environmental groups and community organizations.

Schedule
Development of this site has the longest duration and is the same as Site 17. The main issues affecting
the duration of the new WTE facility implementation schedule include:

• Land Acquisition – siting analysis and land acquisition will increase schedule duration.

• Soils – The removal and replacement of site muck soils with structural fill and/or rock removal in
development areas. Additional structural fill will be needed to elevate the tipping floor and pit due to
the high groundwater table and floodplain mitigation.

www.arcadis.com
5/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 16 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #1

• Permitting – Based on projected emissions for a 4,000 tpd facility, preliminary evaluation indicates
that this parcel may be too close to sensitive receptors in the nearby Class I area thus making it
extremely difficult to demonstrate acceptable impacts for PSD permit issuance.

• Mitigation – Wetland, floodplain, and wildlife mitigation will likely increase the duration of the
implementation schedule.

• Community – The close proximity of the site to Everglades National Park may result in significant
opposition from environmental groups and community organization, which could impact the duration
of the implementation schedule.

Cost
Overall, the cost of developing a WTE facility on this site is expected to be higher than at the existing
RRF site, which was used as the base case in comparing the cost of developing a new WTE facility.
Issues that could affect the cost include:

• Land Acquisition – siting analysis and land acquisition will increase costs.

• Soils – The removal and replacement of site soils with structural fill and/or rock removal in
development areas. Additional structural fill will be needed to elevate the tipping floor and pit due to
high groundwater.

• Utilities
- Construction of a potable water booster station and 3.3 miles of water main will likely be
required.
- Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and 3.3 miles of force main will likely be
required.
- Construction of approximately 5.5 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners.
- Soils data indicates shallow depth to bedrock, rock removal may be required in some areas for
utility pipe trench excavation.
- Construction of approximately 6.5 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing
ROW/ FPL easements. Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.
- Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary
sewer, natural gas, and electric utility infrastructure.
- On-site water wells are likely not permittable, therefore potable water will need to be purchased,
increasing anticipated operations and maintenance costs.

• Permitting – Based on projected emissions for a 4,000 tpd facility, preliminary evaluation indicates
that this parcel may be too close to sensitive receptors in the nearby Class I area thus making it
extremely difficult to demonstrate acceptable impacts for PSD permit issuance.

• Stormwater – High groundwater table and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area required for stormwater retention.

www.arcadis.com
6/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 16 – Ingraham Hwy. Site #1

• Solid Waste System

- Collection and Transfer vehicles routed to this site would have significantly increased costs for
fuel consumption, driver time, and vehicle wear related to the additional travel distance from
the existing RRF.
- Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be much higher
than the existing RRF. An option to keep ash hauling distances short - there appears to be
sufficient area on site to co-locate a new ash monofil, if permittable. If disposed at a non-
County facility, costs for ash disposal would significantly increase from current levels.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Removal of soils and replacement with structural fill

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage

• Extremely difficult PSD permitting

• Long extensions of utilities

• Close proximity to Everglades National Park – anticipated environmental group and community organization
opposition

www.arcadis.com
7/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 17

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

Folio No: 30-8808-000-0040

This 81.11-acre site is a single parcel outside the UDB, located in
unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The combined site area is
Owner: EIP IV FL Round Hammock Land
sufficient to support the proposed 4,000 ton per day (tpd) Waste-to-
Co., LLC
Energy (WTE) facility and expansion to 5,000 tpd capacity or the
addition of other facilities such as an ash monofil, recycling center or an
2021 MDPA Market Value: $924,826
education center. The property is less than a 10-minute travel time to
W Palm Drive, is 0.53 miles from the nearest residential zoning, and is
Zoning District: AU
1.28 miles from the boundary of Everglades National Park.

PA Zone: Interim - Agricultural

www.arcadis.com
1/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 17

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 33.0 miles SW of the existing RRF site, slightly more than half a mile
from the nearest residential zoning, and approximately one mile from the boundary of Everglades
National Park. If this site were selected, the effects on the County’s Solid Waste System would be
considerable. Direct hauls from the collection routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF would divert to
the three transfer stations for disposal. Incoming waste at those stations would increase and may result
in capacity issues, especially at the West Transfer Station, which is currently operating at approximately
80% of design capacity. A new transfer station would need to be constructed at or near the site of the
existing RRF to maintain the current collection patterns and transfer station loadings.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility. Their
travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would significantly increase due to longer travel
distances and expected traffic congestion. Transfer fleet round trip times would increase and would
likely result in the need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes. Transfer fleet
fuel consumption and maintenance costs would significantly increase due to the additional deliveries
and travel times and distances, while similar Collection fleet costs would also increase due to longer
travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be significantly higher than
at the existing RRF. If disposed at a non-County facility, expected costs for ash disposal would
increase even further.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. Potable water mains appear to be available
approximately 4.0 miles NE of the site on Ingraham Hwy., but further analysis is needed to verify
service pressure and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to provide adequate
service pressure at the site.
• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives.
Reuse of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE
facilities, but for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary
sewer. Appears to be available approximately 4.0 miles NE of the site on Ingraham Hwy., on-site
lift station and about 4.0 miles of force main will likely be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest transmission main is approximately 6.0
miles NE of the site on Krome Ave/US-1. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is assumed
to be within existing ROW and easements.

www.arcadis.com
2/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 17

• Electric – Nearest substation/ switchyard is Florida City Substation located 6.5 miles away at
33800 SW 202nd Avenue. Need to verify substation/switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and
available terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/FPL Easements.
New legal easements may need to be established to complete this routing.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the predominant site soils as Krome very gravelly
marly loam, 1 to 2 percent slopes, Biscayne marly silt loam, drained, 0 to 1 percent slopes, and
Chekika very gravelly marly loam, 1 to 2 percent slopes. Generally, these soils are not well suited for
building foundations because of water content and shallow depth to bedrock (typically 5-7 inches).
The presence of Biscayne marl soils indicates the seasonal high groundwater elevation is typically
within 10 inches of the ground surface, but would need to be confirmed by geotechnical investigations.
These soils are severely limited for building foundations because of water content and shallow depth to
bedrock, and areas under building foundations would need to be removed and replaced with structural
fill. The high groundwater may result in the need for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will also
increase project costs due to the need for additional structural fill

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone A.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.). The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 1.28 mi (2.1 km) E of the Everglades Class I Area, 13.12 mi (21.2 km) W of the
Biscayne Class II Area, and about 12.8 miles WSW of the FPL Turkey Point Power Plant, a large
source of emissions.
As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
www.arcadis.com
3/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 17

PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the County and the
Biscayne Bay National Park (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern border of the County
both have more stringent air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with
demonstrating acceptable impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air
permitting very challenging at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the
Class I area land manager agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be
affected by air pollution. These resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or
ecological resources for sensitive area(s). Based on projected emissions for a 4,000 tpd facility,
preliminary evaluation indicates that this parcel may be too close to sensitive receptors in the
nearby Class I area thus making it extremely difficult to demonstrate acceptable impacts for PSD
permit issuance.

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site
contains wetlands. The site is within a Florida panther focus area for consultation or critical habitat
for endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The site is within the
urban development boundary in Miami-Dade County for the Florida bonneted bat and individual
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required.

Transportation
Travel time north to W Palm Drive is less than 10 minutes. Existing access to site is via Ingraham Hwy.
and SW 222nd Ave. (see map below), but approximately 0.75 miles of two-lane road with paved
shoulders will need to be constructed for proper site access. Additional ROW may have to be acquired.
The volume of traffic that is expected at the proposed WTE facility (400-500 trucks per day), will greatly
increase the loads on local roads so the traffic impacts on Ingraham Hwy., W Palm Drive, and other
local roads may be significant. Truck queuing will have to be accomplished on site to prevent further
congestion.

www.arcadis.com
4/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 17

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no existing environmental justice issues for this site.
However, the site is about half a mile from the nearest residential zoning and is approximately 1.28
miles from the boundary of Everglades National Park, which suggests that the siting of a WTE facility
may be strongly opposed by environmental groups and community organizations at this location.

Schedule
There are a few site issues that could affect the schedule of the project, including:

• Soils – The removal and replacement of site soils with structural fill and/or rock removal in
development areas. Additional structural fill will be needed to elevate the tipping floor and pit due to
high groundwater.

www.arcadis.com
5/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 17

• Permitting – Based on projected emissions for a 4,000 tpd facility, preliminary evaluation indicates
that this parcel may be too close to sensitive receptors in the nearby Class I area thus making it
extremely difficult to demonstrate acceptable impacts for PSD permit issuance.

• Community – The close proximity of the site to Everglades National Park may result in significant
opposition from the community and could significantly affect the project schedule.

• Mitigation – Wetland, floodplain, and wildlife mitigation will likely increase project schedule.

Cost
Overall, the cost of developing a WTE facility on this site is expected to be higher than at the existing
RRF site, which was used as the base case in comparing the cost of developing a new WTE facility.
Issues that could affect the cost include:

• Land Acquisition – siting analysis and land acquisition will increase costs.

• Soils – The removal and replacement of site soils with structural fill and/or rock removal in
development areas. Additional structural fill will be needed to elevate the tipping floor and pit due to
high groundwater.

• Utilities
- Construction of a potable water booster station and 4.0 miles of water main will likely be
required.
- Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and 4.0 miles of force main will likely be
required.
- Construction of approximately 6.0 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners.
- Soils data indicates shallow depth to bedrock, rock removal may be required in some areas for
utility pipe trench excavation.
- Construction of approximately 6.0 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing
ROW/ FPL easements. Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.
- Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary
sewer, natural gas, and electric utility infrastructure.
- On-site water wells are likely not permittable, therefore potable water will need to be purchased,
increasing anticipated operations and maintenance costs.

• Permitting – Based on projected emissions for a 4,000 tpd facility, preliminary evaluation indicates
that this parcel may be too close to sensitive receptors in the nearby Class I area thus making it
extremely difficult to demonstrate acceptable impacts for PSD permit issuance.

• Stormwater – High groundwater table and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area required for stormwater retention.

• Solid Waste System

www.arcadis.com
6/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 17

- Collection and Transfer vehicles routed to this site would have significantly increased costs for
fuel consumption, driver time, and vehicle wear related to the additional travel distance from
the existing RRF.
- Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be much higher
than the existing RRF. An option to keep ash hauling distances short - there appears to be
sufficient area on site to co-locate a new ash monofil, if permittable. If disposed at a non-
County facility, costs for ash disposal would significantly increase from current levels

Site Differentiators Overview

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage

• Construction of 0.75 mile of access road

• Extremely difficult PSD permitting

• Long extensions of utilities

• Close proximity to Everglades National Park – anticipated environmental group and community organization
opposition

www.arcadis.com
7/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 2

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

This 302.52-acre site is a single parcel outside the UDB, located in Folio No: 30-2901-001-0040
unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The combined site area is
sufficient to support the proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Waste-to- Owner: Vecellio and Grogan, Inc.
Energy (WTE) facility and expansion to 5,000 TPD capacity or the
addition of other facilities such as an ash monofil, recycling center or an 2021 MDPA Market Value: $1,383,917
education center. The property is less than a 10-minute travel time to
US-27, is 0.57 miles from the nearest residential zoning, and 13.78 mi Zoning District: GU
(22.2 km) from the boundary of Everglades National Park.
PA Zone: Interim - Awaiting Specific
Zoning

www.arcadis.com
1/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 2

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 8.0 miles NW of the existing RRF, more than four miles from any
active airport, 0.57 miles from the nearest residential zoning, and 13.8 miles from the boundary of
Everglades National Park. If this site were selected, the expected effects on the County’s Solid Waste
System may be significant. Direct hauls from the collection routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF
would likely decline, as some collection trucks would reroute to the Northeast and West Transfer
Stations for disposal to reduce travel times. Incoming waste at those stations would increase and may
result in capacity issues, especially at the West Transfer Station, which is currently operating at
approximately 80% of design capacity. Transfer deliveries from those facilities would increase. A new
transfer station may need to be constructed at or near the site of the existing RRF to maintain the
current collection patterns and transfer station loadings.
The deliveries by transfer trucks from the landfills, transfer stations, and TRCs that are currently routed
to the RRF would adjust to rebalance loadings at the transfer stations. The number of deliveries by
transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash & Recycling Centers (TRCs)
would likely increase, their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would significantly
increase due to longer travel distances and expected traffic congestion. As a result, additional transfer
fleet vehicles and drivers may be needed to maintain waste delivery volumes. Also, collection and
transfer fleet fuel consumption and costs would increase.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. Potable water mains appear to be available
approximately 4.0 miles east of the site on NW 186th St., but further analysis is needed to verify
pipe size, service pressure, and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to provide
adequate service pressure at the site. Soils data indicates shallow depth to bedrock, rock removal
may be required for pipe trench excavation.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives.
Reuse of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE
facilities, but for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary
sewer. The closest sanitary sewer collection system appears to be approximately 4.0 miles east
of the site on NW 186th St., but further analysis is needed to verify capacity and system impacts.
An on-site lift station and about 4.0 miles of 6” force main will likely be required. Soils data
indicates shallow depth to bedrock, rock removal may be required for pipe trench excavation.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest gas transmission main is approximately
6.0 miles southeast of the site on SR 826. Additional ROW/easement may be needed. Soils data
indicates shallow depth to bedrock, rock removal may be required for pipe trench excavation.

www.arcadis.com
2/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 2

▪ Electric – Nearest substation/ switchyard is FPL Substation located 6.7 miles away at 10800 NW
107th Avenue. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and available
terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements. New
legal easements may need to be established to complete this routing.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soils
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site and historical aerial photos indicate all but approximately 24
acres of the site area was previously excavated as a quarry and subsequently backfilled. This is
consistent with the USDA Soil Survey data for the site, which classifies the predominant site soils as
9—Udorthents-Water-Urban land complex, 0 to 60 percent slopes. Udorthents soils consist of
unconsolidated or heterogeneous geologic material removed during the excavation of ditches, canals,
lakes, ponds, and quarries.
In order for the facility to be located at this site, the facility buildings and ancillary components would
have to be constructed on fill material, which would present significant geotechnical engineering
challenges for foundation designs and additional site preparation costs.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone A.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 7.13 mi (11.5 km) E of the Everglades Class I Area, 6.68 mi (10.8 km) W of the
Biscayne Class II Area, and about 6.5 miles WSW of the FPL Turkey Point Power Plant, a large
source of emissions.
As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
www.arcadis.com
3/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 2

Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance

with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s).

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory and National Hydrography Dataset
indicate surface waters are present and no wetlands are present. The South Florida Water
Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site is comprised of rock
quarry and upland shrub and brushland. The site appears disturbed with minimal vegetation cover.
The site is not within a Florida panther focus area for consultation or critical habitat for endangered
or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The site is within the urban development
boundary in Miami-Dade County for the Florida bonneted bat and individual consultation with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required but is assumed to be minimal as there is minimal to no
roosting or foraging habitat remaining. The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork
colony; however, the lack of apparent suitable foraging habitat precludes wood stork mitigation. An
Environmental Resource Permit and State 404 Permit is likely required.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J. The site is within the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) area and development at this location will have wetland
impacts. MDC Policy CON-7J states the County is to review development applications that include
wetland impacts for consistency with CERP objectives. Applications inconsistent with CERP
objectives, projects or features shall be denied.

Transportation
Travel time to US-27 from the site is less
than 10 minutes. Existing access to site is
via unpaved single-lane road, as shown at
right. Approximately 1.5 miles of two-lane
road with paved shoulder and stormwater
controls will need to be constructed for proper site access.
Additional easement/ROW will have to be acquired. The
volume of traffic that is expected at the proposed WTE facility
(400-500 trucks per day), will greatly increase the loads on
local roads so the traffic impacts to US-27 and the local area
will likely be significant. Truck queuing will have to be
accomplished on site to prevent further congestion.
www.arcadis.com
4/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 2

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no existing issues for this site. However, the site is
0.58 miles from the nearest residential zoning and is a SFWMD CERP site, which suggests that the
siting of a WTE facility may be strongly opposed by the community at this location.

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

www.arcadis.com
5/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 2

Site Differentiators Overview

• New transfer station in the vicinity of the existing RRF to maintain current collection patterns and loadings on the
existing transfer stations, with associated O&M and staffing costs

• Additional transfer fleet and staff, additional fuel and fleet maintenance costs

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Construction of approximately 1.5 miles of two-lane road with paved shoulder and stormwater controls for proper site
access.

• Construction of approximately 4.0 miles of 12” water main and possibly a booster station will be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and about 4.0 miles of 6” force main will likely be required.

• Construction of approximately 6.0 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Soils data indicates shallow depth to bedrock, rock removal may be required for utility pipe trench excavation.

• Construction of approximately 6.7 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, and
electric utility infrastructure.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J.

www.arcadis.com
6/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 3

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information
MDPA Parcel Data
This 73.31-acre site is located inside the UDB, in the City of Hialeah,
0.52 miles from residential zoning and 13.11 miles from the Everglades Folio No: 04-2017-003-0010
Class I Area. The site measures approximately 1,300 feet x 2,650 feet, Owner: Countyline 2, LLC
large enough to support the proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Waste-
to-Energy (WTE) facility, and expansion to 5,000 TPD capacity or the 2021 MDPA Market Value: $76,651,656
addition of smaller facilities such as a recycling center or an education Zoning District: A
center. The property is less than a 10-minute travel time to I-75 or the
PA Zone: Agriculture
Turnpike and is located 0.52 miles from the nearest residential zoning.

www.arcadis.com
1/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 3

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 5.2 miles north of the existing RRF, more than four miles from any
active airport, and 0.52 miles from the nearest residential zoning. If this site were selected, the
expected effects on the County’s Solid Waste System may be less than other sites. Direct hauls from
the collection routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF would likely decline, as some collection trucks
would reroute to the Northeast and West Transfer Stations for disposal to reduce travel times.
Incoming waste at those stations would increase and may result in capacity issues, especially at the West Transfer
Station, which is currently operating at approximately 80% of design capacity.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash & Recycling Centers
(TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility. Their travel patterns would be altered,
and travel times would increase due to longer travel distances and expected traffic congestion. Although additional
transfer fleet vehicles and drivers would be routed to the site to maximize WTE processing capacity, they would be
rerouting from deliveries to non-DSWM disposal sites and the acquisition of additional fleet vehicles and driver staffing
may not be needed. Transfer fleet fuel consumption and maintenance costs would increase due to the additional
deliveries, while similar Collection fleet costs would also increase due to longer travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be higher than at the existing RRF. There are
multiple options to keep ash hauling distances short - the existing RRF site could be converted to an ash monofill, or ash
generated at this location may be landfilled at the adjacent Medley Landfill, or there appears to be sufficient area on site to
co-locate a new ash monofill. If disposed at a non-County facility, costs for ash disposal would significantly increase from
current levels.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. Potable water mains appear to be available at the site,
but further analysis is needed to verify pipe size, service pressure, and system capacity. A booster
station may be needed to provide adequate service pressure at the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives. Reuse
of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE facilities, but
for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary sewer.
Sanitary sewer appears to be available at the site, but further analysis is needed to verify capacity
and system impacts. An on-site lift station 6” force main may be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest gas transmission main is approximately 3.5
miles east of the site. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is assumed to be within existing
ROW and easements.

• Electric – Nearest substation/ switchyard is FPL Substation located 4.9 miles away at 10800 NW
107th Avenue. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and available
www.arcadis.com
2/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 3

terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements. New
easements may need to be established to complete this routing.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the predominant site soils as Cooper Town muck and
Shark Valley muck. They are not suitable for foundations and would need to be removed and replaced
with structural fill for foundation areas, which will increase project costs.
In these soils the seasonal high groundwater elevation is typically 0-6 inches below existing grade but
would have to be confirmed by geotechnical investigations. The high groundwater will result in the need
for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will also increase project costs due to the need for additional
structural fill.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone AE (El. 6 ft). High
groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will significantly increase
both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 13.11 miles (21.1 km) NE of the Everglades Class I Area, 19.56 miles (31.5 km) NW
of the Biscayne Class II Area, and about 2.5 miles NNE of the Titan Pennsuco Complex, a large
source of emissions.
As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
www.arcadis.com
3/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 3

vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s).

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site
contains no wetlands. Apparent previous clearing and grubbing was done, could still be considered
wetland if no previous permit to impact. Cooper town muck is hydric soil. The site is not within a
Florida panther focus area for consultation or critical habitat for endangered or threatened species
under the Endangered Species Act. The site is not within the urban development boundary in
Miami-Dade County for the Florida bonneted bat. Site development underway - site was recently
cleared, permit review indicated Class I well under construction.

Transportation
Travel time to the Florida Turnpike and I-75
is less than 10 minutes. Existing access to
site is via NW 136th St./97th Ave., roads are
well developed, as shown at right. The
volume of traffic that is expected at the
proposed WTE facility (400-500 trucks per day), will greatly
increase the loads on local roads so the traffic impacts to local
area will likely be significant. Truck queuing will have to be
accomplished on site to prevent further congestion. Traffic
impacts to local area may be significant due to single point of
access on 97th Ave. Truck queuing will have to be
accomplished on site to prevent further congestion of local
roads.

www.arcadis.com
4/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 3

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no community impacts for this site. However, the site
is just over half a mile from the nearest residential zoning, which suggests that the siting of a WTE
facility may face community opposition at this location.

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Existing access to site is via NW 136th St./97th Ave., roads are well developed.

www.arcadis.com
5/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 3

• Potable water and sanitary sewer appear to available at the site.

• Construction of approximately 3.5 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Construction of approximately 4.9 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of natural gas and electric utility infrastructure.

• Site development underway - site was recently cleared, permit review indicated Class I well under
construction.

www.arcadis.com
6/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 4

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

This 559.05-acre property is a single parcel outside the UDB, located in
Folio No: 30-2921-001-0020
unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The site is composed of several
parcel areas and measures approximately one mile square, large Owner: CEMEX Construction Materials
enough to support the proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Waste-to- Florida, LLC
Energy (WTE) facility, and expansion to 5,000 TPD capacity or the 2021 MDPA Market Value: $10,664,225
addition of other facilities such as an ash monofil, recycling center or an
education center. The property is less than a 10-minute travel time to Zoning District: GU
US-27 or the Florida Turnpike and is located 1.93 miles from the PA Zone: Interim - Awaiting Specific
nearest residential zoning. The north boundary of the site borders ME Zoning
Thompson Park.

www.arcadis.com
1/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 4

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 7.0 miles northeast of the existing RRF, almost two miles from the
nearest residential zoning, and 9.94 miles northeast of the boundary of Everglades National Park. If
this site were selected, the expected effects on the County’s Solid Waste System may be significant.
Direct hauls from the collection routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF would likely decline, as many
collection trucks would reroute to the Northeast and West Transfer Stations for disposal to reduce
travel times. Incoming waste at those stations would increase and may result in capacity issues,
especially at the West Transfer Station, which is currently operating at approximately 80% of design
capacity. A new transfer station in the vicinity of the existing RRF facility would likely be needed to
maintain current collection and transfer flow patterns.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility.
Their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would increase due to longer travel distances
and expected traffic congestion. Transfer fleet round trip times would increase and may result in the
need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes. Transfer fleet fuel consumption
and maintenance costs would increase due to the additional deliveries, while similar Collection fleet
costs would also increase due to longer travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be higher than at the
existing RRF. There are options to keep ash hauling distances relatively short - the existing RRF site
could be converted to an ash monofill, or ash generated at this location may be landfilled at the Medley
Landfill. If disposed at a non-County facility, costs for ash disposal would significantly increase from
current levels.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. Potable water mains appear to be available
approximately 3.0 miles east of the site, but further analysis is needed to verify pipe size, service
pressure, and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to provide adequate service
pressure at the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives. Reuse
of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE facilities, but
for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary sewer. The
closest sanitary sewer collection system appears to be approximately 3.0 miles east of the site, but
further analysis is needed to verify capacity and system impacts. An on-site lift station and about
3.0 miles of force main will likely be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest gas transmission main is approximately 7.0
www.arcadis.com
2/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 4

miles east of the site. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is assumed to be within existing
ROW and easements.

• Electric – Nearest substation/ switchyard is FPL Substation located 7.4 miles away at 10800 NW
107th Avenue. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and available
terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements. New legal
easements may need to be established to complete this routing.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the site
soils as Shark Valley muck, 0 to 1 percent slopes. These
soils are high in organics content and may extend 20-40
inches below grade, even to the bedrock layer. They are
not suitable for foundations and would need to be removed
and replaced with structural fill for foundation areas, which will increase
project costs. USDA aerial photo (right) indicated that an active quarry
operation is present at the site.
In these soils the seasonal high groundwater elevation is typically 0-6 inches
below existing grade but would have to be confirmed by geotechnical
investigations. The high groundwater will result in the need for elevating the
tipping floor pit, which will also increase project costs due to the need for
additional structural fill

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone AE (El. 8 ft). High
groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will significantly increase
both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Modification Application would
need to be developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air
www.arcadis.com
3/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 4

Construction/PSD, ERP, Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need
determination” filing process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 9.94 miles (15 km) NE of the Everglades Class I Area, 21.56 miles (35 km) NW of the
Biscayne Class II Area, and about 4.1 miles NW of the Titan Pennsuco Complex, a large source of
emissions.
As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s).

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site is
entirely wetlands. The site appears predominantly undisturbed. The site is not within a Florida
panther focus area for consultation or critical habitat for endangered or threatened species under
the Endangered Species Act. The site is within the urban development boundary in Miami-Dade
County for the Florida bonneted bat and individual consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service is required. The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and will
potentially disturb greater than one-half acre of suitable foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially
require wood stork mitigation. Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an
Individual Environmental Permit, a State 404 Permit from the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, and wetland mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with Policy CON-9A. MDC Policy CON-9A states that all activities that
adversely affect habitat that is critical to Federal, or State designated, endangered or threatened
species shall be prohibited unless such activity(ies) are a public necessity and there are no possible
alternative sites where the activity(ies) can occur.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B. MDC Policy CON-9B states that all
nesting, roosting and feeding habitats used by federal or State designated endangered or
threatened species, shall be protected and buffered from surrounding development or activities and
further degradation or destruction of such habitat shall not be authorized.

www.arcadis.com
4/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 4

• Within the Northwest Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G. MDC Policy
LU-8G states that when considering land areas to add to the UDB, after demonstrating that a need
exists, the following areas shall not be considered:
- The Northwest Wellfield Protection Area and the West Wellfield Protection Area west of SW
157 Avenue between SW 8 Street and SW 42 Street

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J. The site is within the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) area and development at this location will have wetland
impacts. MDC Policy CON-7J states the County is to review development applications that include
wetland impacts for consistency with CERP objectives. Applications inconsistent with CERP
objectives, projects or features shall be denied.

Transportation
Travel time to the Florida Turnpike and US-27 is less than
10 minutes. Existing access to site is via unpaved single-
lane road (see picture at right), approximately 3.3 miles of
two-lane road with paved shoulder and stormwater
controls will need to be constructed for proper site access
(see the access route below). Additional easement/ROW will have to be
aquired for almost 1.5 miles of the access road from FPL and other property
owners. The volume of traffic that is expected at the proposed WTE facility
(400-500 trucks per day) will greatly increase the loads on local roads so the
traffic impacts to local area will likely be significant. Additional traffic impacts
on US-27 and to local area may result due to single point of access at NW
112th Ct/NW 136th St. Truck queuing will have to be accomplished on site to
prevent further congestion of local roads.

www.arcadis.com
5/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 4

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no community impacts for this site. The site is almost
two miles from the nearest residential zoning and adjacent to industrial mining operations, but the
presence of wetlands, wildlife habitat and other environmental issues suggests that the siting of a WTE
facility may be met with opposition by the community at this location.

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Construction of approximately 3.3 miles of two-lane road with paved shoulder and stormwater controls for proper site
access

• Construction of approximately three miles of 12” water main and possibly a booster station will be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and about three miles of 4” force main will likely be required.

• Construction of approximately 7 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for boiler
auxiliary burners.

• Construction of approximately 7.4 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, and
electric utility infrastructure.

• The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and will potentially disturb greater than one-half acre
of suitable foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially require wood stork mitigation.

• Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Permit, a State 404 Permit from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland mitigation.

www.arcadis.com
6/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 4

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9A and CON-9B.

• Within the Northwest Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J.

www.arcadis.com
7/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 5

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

Folio No: 30-2926-000-0010

This 156.97-acre property is a single parcel outside the UDB, located in
unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The site measures approximately Owner: CEMEX Construction Materials
one mile square, large enough to support the proposed 4,000 ton per Florida, LLC
day (TPD) Waste-to-Energy (WTE) facility, and expansion to 5,000 TPD 2021 MDPA Market Value: $2,843,062
capacity or the addition of other facilities such as an ash monofil,
recycling center or an education center. The property is less than a 10- Zoning District: GU
minute travel time to US-27 or the Turnpike and is located 1.07 miles PA Zone: Interim - Awaiting Specific
from the nearest residential zoning. Zoning

www.arcadis.com
1/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 5

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 5.2 miles northwest of the existing RRF, more than a mile from the
nearest residential zoning. If this site were selected, the expected effects on the County’s Solid Waste
System may be significant. Direct hauls from the collection routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF
would likely decline, as many collection trucks would reroute to the Northeast and West Transfer
Stations for disposal to reduce travel times. Incoming waste at those stations would increase and may
result in capacity issues, especially at the West Transfer Station, which is currently operating at approximately 80% of
design capacity. A new transfer station in the vicinity of the existing RRF facility would likely be needed to maintain
current collection and transfer flow patterns.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash & Recycling Centers
(TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility. Their travel patterns would be altered,
and travel times would increase due to longer travel distances and expected traffic congestion. Transfer fleet round trip
times would increase and may result in the need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes. Transfer
fleet fuel consumption and maintenance costs would increase due to the additional deliveries, while similar Collection fleet
costs would also increase due to longer travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be higher than at the existing RRF. There are
options to keep ash hauling distances relatively short - the existing RRF site could be converted to an ash monofill, or ash
generated at this location may be landfilled at the Medley Landfill. If disposed at a non-County facility, costs for ash
disposal would significantly increase from current levels.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. Potable water mains appear to be available
approximately one mile east of the site, but further analysis is needed to verify pipe size, service
pressure, and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to provide adequate service
pressure at the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives.
Reuse of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE
facilities, but for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary
sewer. The closest sanitary sewer collection system appears to be approximately one mile east of
the site, but further analysis is needed to verify capacity and system impacts. An on-site lift station
and about one mile of 6” force main will likely be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest gas transmission main is approximately
5.0 miles east of the site. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is assumed to be within
existing ROW and easements.

www.arcadis.com
2/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 5

• Electric – Nearest substation/ switchyard is FPL Substation located 4.5 miles away at 10800 NW
107th Avenue. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and available
terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements. New
easements may need to be established to complete this routing.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention. An existing
inactive quarry borders the site to the west, could be purchased and used as stormwater retention
for the site.

• Groundwater – Groundwater may not be usable as source water for boiler feedwater, cooling
tower/condenser feedwater, truck wheel wash, and irrigation water.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the site soils as Shark Valley muck, 0 to 1 percent
slopes. These soils are high in organics content and may extend 20-40 inches below grade, even to the
bedrock layer. They are not suitable for foundations and would need to be removed and replaced with
structural fill for foundation areas, which will increase project costs.
In these soils the seasonal high groundwater elevation is typically 0-6 inches below existing grade, but
would have to be confirmed by geotechnical investigations. The high groundwater will result in the need
for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will also increase project costs due to the need for additional
structural fill.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone AE (El. 8 ft). High
groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will significantly increase
both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Modification Application would
need to be developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air
Construction/PSD, ERP, Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need
determination” filing process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 10.48 miles (17 km) NE of the Everglades Class I Area, 19.93 miles (32 km) NW of
the Biscayne Class II Area, and about 1.7 miles NW of the Titan Pennsuco Complex, a large source
of emissions.
As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
www.arcadis.com
3/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 5

The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s).

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory and National Hydrography Dataset
indicate no wetlands or surface waters are present; however, the South Florida Water Management
District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 shows wetlands hardwood forest are present. The
site appears undisturbed. The site is not within a Florida panther focus area for consultation or
critical habitat for endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The site is
within the urban development boundary in Miami-Dade County for the Florida bonneted bat and
individual consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required. The site is also within
18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and will potentially disturb greater than one-half acre of
suitable foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially require wood stork mitigation.
Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Resource
Permit, State 404 Permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland
mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with Policy CON-9A. MDC Policy CON-9A states that all activities that
adversely affect habitat that is critical to Federal, or State designated, endangered or threatened
species shall be prohibited unless such activity(ies) are a public necessity and there are no possible
alternative sites where the activity(ies) can occur.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B. MDC Policy CON-9B states that all
nesting, roosting and feeding habitats used by federal or State designated endangered or
threatened species, shall be protected and buffered from surrounding development or activities and
further degradation or destruction of such habitat shall not be authorized.

• Within the Northwest Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G. MDC Policy
LU-8G states that when considering land areas to add to the UDB, after demonstrating that a need
exists, the following areas shall not be considered:
- The Northwest Wellfield Protection Area and the West Wellfield Protection Area west of SW
157 Avenue between SW 8 Street and SW 42 Street

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J. The site is within the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) area and development at this location will have wetland
impacts. MDC Policy CON-7J states the County is to review development applications that include
wetland impacts for consistency with CERP objectives. Applications inconsistent with CERP
objectives, projects or features shall be denied.

www.arcadis.com
4/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 5

Transportation
Travel time to Turnpike and US 27 is less than 10
minutes. Existing access to site is via unpaved single-lane
road (see picture at right), approximately 1.8 miles of two-
lane road with paved shoulder and stormwater controls will
need to be constructed for proper site access (see the
access route below). The volume of traffic that is expected at the proposed
WTE facility (400-500 trucks per day) will greatly increase the loads on local
roads and the single point of access at NW 112th Ct/NW 136th St. will likely
result in significant traffic impacts to the local area. Truck queuing will have to
be accomplished on site to prevent further congestion of local roads. .

www.arcadis.com
5/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 5

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no community impacts for this site. The site is 1.07
miles from the nearest residential zoning and adjacent to industrial mining operations, but the presence
of wetlands, wildlife habitat and other environmental issues suggests that the siting of a WTE facility
may be met with opposition by the community at this location.

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Construction of approximately 1.8 miles of two-lane road with paved shoulder and stormwater controls for proper site
access

• Construction of approximately one mile of 12” water main and possibly a booster station will be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and about one mile of 6” force main will likely be required.

• Construction of approximately 5.0 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Construction of approximately 4.5 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, and
electric utility infrastructure.

• The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and will potentially disturb greater than one-half acre
of suitable foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially require wood stork mitigation.

• Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Permit, a State 404 Permit from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland mitigation.

www.arcadis.com
6/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 5

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9A and CON-9B.

• Within the Northwest Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J.

www.arcadis.com
7/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 6

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

Folio No: 30-2928-000-0010

This 628.69-acre property is a single parcel outside the UDB, located in
unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The site is large enough to Owner: Southeastern Materials, Inc.
support the proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Waste-to-Energy (WTE) 2021 MDPA Market Value: $5,805,800
facility, and expansion to 5,000 TPD capacity or the addition of other
facilities such as an ash monofil, recycling center or an education Zoning District: GU
center. The property is less than a 10-minute travel time to US-27 and PA Zone: Interim - Awaiting Specific
is located 2.32 miles from the nearest residential zoning. Zoning

www.arcadis.com
1/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 6

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 6.5 miles northeast of the existing RRF, and more than two miles
from the nearest residential zoning. If this site were selected, the expected effects on the County’s
Solid Waste System may be significant. Direct hauls from the collection routes in the vicinity of the
existing RRF would likely decline, as many collection trucks would reroute to the Northeast and West
Transfer Stations for disposal to reduce travel times. Incoming waste at those stations would increase
and may result in capacity issues, especially at the West Transfer Station, which is currently operating
at approximately 80% of design capacity. A new transfer station in the vicinity of the existing RRF
facility would likely be needed to maintain current collection and transfer flow patterns.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility.
Their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would increase due to longer travel distances
and expected traffic congestion. Transfer fleet round trip times would increase and may result in the
need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes. Transfer fleet fuel consumption
and maintenance costs would increase due to the additional deliveries, while similar Collection fleet
costs would also increase due to longer travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be higher than at the
existing RRF. There are options to keep ash hauling distances relatively short - the existing RRF site
could be converted to an ash monofill, or ash generated at this location may be landfilled at the Medley
Landfill. If disposed at a non-County facility, costs for ash disposal would significantly increase from
current levels.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. Potable water mains appear to be available
approximately 3.0 miles east of the site, but further analysis is needed to verify pipe size, service
pressure, and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to provide adequate service
pressure at the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives. Reuse
of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE facilities, but
for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary sewer. The
closest sanitary sewer collection system appears to be approximately 3.0 miles east of the site, but
further analysis is needed to verify capacity and system impacts. An on-site lift station and about
3.0 miles of force main will likely be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest gas transmission main is approximately 7.0

www.arcadis.com
2/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 6

miles east of the site. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is assumed to be within existing
ROW and easements.

• Electric – Nearest substation/ switchyard is FPL Substation located 6.7 miles away at 10800 NW
107th Avenue. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and available
terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements. New legal
easements may need to be established to complete this routing.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the site soils as Shark Valley muck, 0 to 1 percent
slopes. These soils are high in organics content and may extend 20-40 inches below grade, even to the
bedrock layer. They are not suitable for foundations and would need to be removed and replaced with
structural fill for foundation areas, which will increase project costs.
In these soils the seasonal high groundwater elevation is typically 0-6 inches below existing grade but
would have to be confirmed by geotechnical investigations. The high groundwater will result in the need
for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will also increase project costs due to the need for additional
structural fill.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone AE (El. 8 ft). High
groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will significantly increase
both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 9.48 miles (15.26 km) NE of the Everglades Class I Area, 21.08 miles (33.92 km) NW
of the Biscayne Class II Area, and about 4.0 miles W of the Titan Pennsuco Complex, a large
source of emissions.
www.arcadis.com
3/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 6

As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s).

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site is
entirely wetlands. The site appears predominantly undisturbed. The site is not within a Florida
panther focus area for consultation or critical habitat for endangered or threatened species under
the Endangered Species Act. The site is within the urban development boundary in Miami-Dade
County for the Florida bonneted bat and individual consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service is required. The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and will
potentially disturb greater than one-half acre of suitable foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially
require wood stork mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with Policy CON-9A. MDC Policy CON-9A states that all activities that
adversely affect habitat that is critical to Federal, or State designated, endangered or threatened
species shall be prohibited unless such activity(ies) are a public necessity and there are no possible
alternative sites where the activity(ies) can occur.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B. MDC Policy CON-9B states that all
nesting, roosting and feeding habitats used by federal or State designated endangered or
threatened species, shall be protected and buffered from surrounding development or activities and
further degradation or destruction of such habitat shall not be authorized.

• Within the Northwest Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G. MDC Policy
LU-8G states that when considering land areas to add to the UDB, after demonstrating that a need
exists, the following areas shall not be considered:
- The Northwest Wellfield Protection Area and the West Wellfield Protection Area west of SW
157 Avenue between SW 8 Street and SW 42 Street

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J. The site is within the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) area and development at this location will have wetland
impacts. MDC Policy CON-7J states the County is to review development applications that include

www.arcadis.com
4/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 6

wetland impacts for consistency with CERP objectives. Applications inconsistent with CERP
objectives, projects or features shall be denied.

Transportation
Travel time to US-27 is less than 10 minutes. Existing
access to site is via unpaved single-lane road (see picture
at right). Approximately 3.6 miles of two-lane road with
paved shoulder and stormwater controls will need to be
constructed for proper site access (see the access route
below). An additional 1.8 miles of easement/ROW will have to be acquired.
The volume of traffic that is expected at the proposed WTE facility (400-500
trucks per day), will greatly increase the loads on local roads so the traffic
impacts to local area will likely be significant. Additional traffic impacts on
US-27 and to local area may result due to single point of access at NW 112th
Ct/NW 136th St. Truck queuing will have to be accomplished on site to
prevent further congestion of local roads.

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no community impacts for this site. The site is more
than two miles from the nearest residential zoning and adjacent to industrial mining operations, but the
presence of wetlands, wildlife habitat and other environmental issues suggests that the siting of a WTE
facility may be met with opposition by the community at this location.

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

www.arcadis.com
5/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 6

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Approximately 3.6 miles of two-lane road with paved shoulder and stormwater controls will need to be constructed for
proper site access (see the access route below). An additional 1.8 miles of easement/ROW will have to be acquired.

• Construction of approximately 3.0 miles of 12” water main and possibly a booster station will be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and about 3.0 miles of 6” force main will likely be required.

• Construction of approximately 7.0 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Construction of approximately 6.7 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, and
electric utility infrastructure.

• The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and will potentially disturb greater than one-half acre
of suitable foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially require wood stork mitigation.

• Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Permit, a State 404 Permit from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9A and CON-9B.

• Within the Northwest Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J.

www.arcadis.com
6/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 7

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

Folio No: 30-2928-000-0020

This 144.24-acre property is a single parcel outside the UDB, located in
unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The site is large enough to Owner: TARMAC Florida, Inc.
support the proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Waste-to-Energy (WTE) 2021 MDPA Market Value: $2,534,330
facility, and expansion to 5,000 TPD capacity or the addition of other
Zoning District: GU
facilities such as an ash monofil, recycling center or an education
center. The property is less than a 10-minute travel time to US-27 and PA Zone: Interim - Awaiting Specific
is located 2.59 miles from the nearest residential zoning. Zoning

www.arcadis.com
1/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 7

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 6.6 miles northwest of the existing RRF, and more than 2.5 miles
from the nearest residential zoning. If this site were selected, the expected effects on the County’s
Solid Waste System may be significant. Direct hauls from the collection routes in the vicinity of the
existing RRF would likely decline, as many collection trucks would reroute to the Northeast and West
Transfer Stations for disposal to reduce travel times. Incoming waste at those stations would increase
and may result in capacity issues, especially at the West Transfer Station, which is currently operating
at approximately 80% of design capacity. A new transfer station in the vicinity of the existing RRF
facility would likely be needed to maintain current collection and transfer flow patterns.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility.
Their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would increase due to longer travel distances
and expected traffic congestion. Transfer fleet round trip times would increase and may result in the
need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes. Transfer fleet fuel consumption
and maintenance costs would increase due to the additional deliveries, while similar Collection fleet
costs would also increase due to longer travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be higher than at the
existing RRF. There are options to keep ash hauling distances relatively short - the existing RRF site
could be converted to an ash monofill, or ash generated at this location may be landfilled at the Medley
Landfill. If disposed at a non-County facility, costs for ash disposal would significantly increase from
current levels.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. Potable water mains appear to be available
approximately 3.6 miles east of the site, but further analysis is needed to verify pipe size, service
pressure, and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to provide adequate service
pressure at the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives. Reuse
of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE facilities, but
for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary sewer. The
closest sanitary sewer collection system appears to be approximately 3.6 miles east of the site, but
further analysis is needed to verify capacity and system impacts. An on-site lift station and about
3.6 miles of 6” force main may be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest gas transmission main is approximately 7.7

www.arcadis.com
2/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 7

miles east of the site. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is assumed to be within existing
ROW and easements.

• Electric – Nearest substation/ switchyard is FPL Substation located 7.1 miles away at 10800 NW
107th Avenue. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and available
terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements. New legal
easements may need to be established to complete this routing.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the site soils as Shark Valley muck, 0 to 1 percent
slopes. These soils are high in organics content and may extend 20-40 inches below grade, even to the
bedrock layer. They are not suitable for foundations and would need to be removed and replaced with
structural fill for foundation areas, which will increase project costs.
In these soils the seasonal high groundwater elevation is typically 0-6 inches below existing grade, but
would have to be confirmed by geotechnical investigations. The high groundwater will result in the need
for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will also increase project costs due to the need for additional
structural fill.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone AE (El. 8 ft). High
groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will significantly increase
both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 9.22 miles (14.9 km) NE of the Everglades Class I Area, 20.86 miles (33.7 km) NW of
the Biscayne Class II Area, and about 3.5 miles NNW of the Titan Pennsuco Complex, a large
source of emissions.

www.arcadis.com
3/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 7

As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s).

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site is
entirely wetlands. The site appears predominantly undisturbed. The site is not within a Florida
panther focus area for consultation or critical habitat for endangered or threatened species under
the Endangered Species Act. The site is within the urban development boundary in Miami-Dade
County for the Florida bonneted bat and individual consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service is required. The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and will
potentially disturb greater than one-half acre of suitable foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially
require wood stork mitigation.
Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Resource
Permit, State 404 Permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland
mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with Policy CON-9A. MDC Policy CON-9A states that all activities that
adversely affect habitat that is critical to Federal, or State designated, endangered or threatened
species shall be prohibited unless such activity(ies) are a public necessity and there are no possible
alternative sites where the activity(ies) can occur.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B. MDC Policy CON-9B states that all
nesting, roosting and feeding habitats used by federal or State designated endangered or
threatened species, shall be protected and buffered from surrounding development or activities and
further degradation or destruction of such habitat shall not be authorized.

• Within the Northwest Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G. MDC Policy
LU-8G states that when considering land areas to add to the UDB, after demonstrating that a need
exists, the following areas shall not be considered:
- The Northwest Wellfield Protection Area and the West Wellfield Protection Area west of SW
157 Avenue between SW 8 Street and SW 42 Street

www.arcadis.com
4/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 7

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J. The site is within the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) area and development at this location will have wetland
impacts. MDC Policy CON-7J states the County is to review development applications that include
wetland impacts for consistency with CERP objectives. Applications inconsistent with CERP
objectives, projects or features shall be denied.

Transportation
Travel time to US-27 is less than 10 minutes. Existing
access to site is via unpaved single-lane road (see picture
at right), approximately 4.1 miles of two-lane road with
paved shoulder and stormwater controls will need to be
constructed for proper site access (see the access route
below). Additional easement/ROW will have to be aquired for almost 2.3
miles of the access road from FPL and other property owners. The volume of
traffic that is expected at the proposed WTE facility (400-500 trucks per day),
will greatly increase the loads on local roads so the traffic impacts to local
area will likely be significant. Additional traffic impacts on US-27 and to local
area may result due to single point of access at NW 112th Ct/NW 136th St.
Truck queuing will have to be accomplished on site to prevent further
congestion of local roads.

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no community impacts for this site. The site is more
than two miles from the nearest residential zoning and adjacent to industrial mining operations, but the
presence of wetlands, wildlife habitat and other environmental issues suggests that the siting of a WTE
facility may be met with opposition by the community at this location.

www.arcadis.com
5/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 7

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Approximately 4.1 miles of two-lane road with paved shoulder and stormwater controls will need to be constructed for
proper site access (see the access route below). An additional 2.3 miles of easement/ROW will have to be acquired.

• Construction of approximately 3.6 miles of 12” water main and possibly a booster station will be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and about 3.6 miles of 6” force main will likely be required.

• Construction of approximately 7.7 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Construction of approximately 7.1 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, and
electric utility infrastructure.

• The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and will potentially disturb greater than one-half acre
of suitable foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially require wood stork mitigation.

• Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Permit, a State 404 Permit from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9A and CON-9B.

• Within the Northwest Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J.

www.arcadis.com
6/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 8

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

Folio No: 30-2928-000-0030

This 150.75-acre property is a single parcel outside the UDB, located in
unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The site is large enough to Owner: TARMAC Florida, Inc.
support the proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Waste-to-Energy (WTE) 2021 MDPA Market Value: $2,908,000
facility, and expansion to 5,000 TPD capacity or the addition of other
facilities such as an ash monofil, recycling center or an education Zoning District: GU
center. The property is less than a 10-minute travel time to US-27 and PA Zone: Interim - Awaiting Specific
is located 2.74 miles from the nearest residential zoning. Zoning

www.arcadis.com
1/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 8

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 6.0 miles northwest of the existing RRF, and more than 2.7 miles
from the nearest residential zoning. If this site were selected, the expected effects on the County’s
Solid Waste System may be significant. Direct hauls from the collection routes in the vicinity of the
existing RRF would likely decline, as many collection trucks would reroute to the Northeast and West
Transfer Stations for disposal to reduce travel times. Incoming waste at those stations would increase
and may result in capacity issues, especially at the West Transfer Station, which is currently operating
at approximately 80% of design capacity. A new transfer station in the vicinity of the existing RRF
facility would likely be needed to maintain current collection and transfer flow patterns.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility.
Their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would increase due to longer travel distances
and expected traffic congestion. Transfer fleet round trip times would increase and may result in the
need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes. Transfer fleet fuel consumption
and maintenance costs would increase due to the additional deliveries, while similar Collection fleet
costs would also increase due to longer travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be higher than at the
existing RRF. There are options to keep ash hauling distances relatively short - the existing RRF site
could be converted to an ash monofill, or ash generated at this location may be landfilled at the Medley
Landfill. If disposed at a non-County facility, costs for ash disposal would significantly increase from
current levels.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. Potable water mains appear to be available
approximately 4.0 miles east of the site, but further analysis is needed to verify pipe size, service
pressure, and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to provide adequate service
pressure at the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives. Reuse
of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE facilities, but
for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary sewer. The
closest sanitary sewer collection system appears to be approximately 4.0 miles east of the site, but
further analysis is needed to verify capacity and system impacts. An on-site lift station and about
4.0 miles of 6” force main may be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest gas transmission main is approximately 8.0

www.arcadis.com
2/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 8

miles east of the site. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is assumed to be within existing
ROW and easements.

• Electric – Nearest substation/ switchyard is FPL Substation located 7.4 miles away at 10800 NW
107th Avenue. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and available
terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements. New legal
easements may need to be established to complete this routing.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the site soils as Shark Valley muck, 0 to 1 percent
slopes. These soils are high in organics content and may extend 20-40 inches below grade, even to the
bedrock layer. They are not suitable for foundations and would need to be removed and replaced with
structural fill for foundation areas, which will increase project costs.
In these soils the seasonal high groundwater elevation is typically 0-6 inches below existing grade, but
would have to be confirmed by geotechnical investigations. The high groundwater will result in the need
for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will also increase project costs due to the need for additional
structural fill.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone AE (El. 8 ft). High
groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will significantly increase
both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 8.99 miles (14.5 km) NE of the Everglades Class I Area, 20.62 miles (33.2 km) NW of
the Biscayne Class II Area, and about 3.5 miles NNW of the Titan Pennsuco Complex, a large
source of emissions.
www.arcadis.com
3/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 8

As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s).

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site is
entirely wetlands. The site appears predominantly undisturbed. The site is not within a Florida
panther focus area for consultation or critical habitat for endangered or threatened species under
the Endangered Species Act. The site is within the urban development boundary in Miami-Dade
County for the Florida bonneted bat and individual consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service is required. The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and will
potentially disturb greater than one-half acre of suitable foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially
require wood stork mitigation.
Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Resource
Permit, State 404 Permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland
mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with Policy CON-9A. MDC Policy CON-9A states that all activities that
adversely affect habitat that is critical to Federal, or State designated, endangered or threatened
species shall be prohibited unless such activity(ies) are a public necessity and there are no possible
alternative sites where the activity(ies) can occur.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B. MDC Policy CON-9B states that all
nesting, roosting and feeding habitats used by federal or State designated endangered or
threatened species, shall be protected and buffered from surrounding development or activities and
further degradation or destruction of such habitat shall not be authorized.

• Within the Northwest Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G. MDC Policy
LU-8G states that when considering land areas to add to the UDB, after demonstrating that a need
exists, the following areas shall not be considered:
- The Northwest Wellfield Protection Area and the West Wellfield Protection Area west of SW
157 Avenue between SW 8 Street and SW 42 Street

www.arcadis.com
4/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 8

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J. The site is within the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) area and development at this location will have wetland
impacts. MDC Policy CON-7J states the County is to review development applications that include
wetland impacts for consistency with CERP objectives. Applications inconsistent with CERP
objectives, projects or features shall be denied.

Transportation
Travel time to US-27 is less than 10 minutes. Existing
access to site is via unpaved single-lane road (see picture
at right). Approximately 4.25 miles of two-lane road with
paved shoulder and stormwater controls will need to be
constructed for proper site access (see the access route
below). An additional 2.5 miles of easement/ROW will have to be acquired.
The volume of traffic that is expected at the proposed WTE facility (400-500
trucks per day), will greatly increase the loads on local roads so the traffic
impacts to local area will likely be significant. Additional traffic impacts on
US-27 and to local area may result due to single point of access at NW 112th
Ct/NW 136th St. Truck queuing will have to be accomplished on site to
prevent further congestion of local roads.

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no community impacts for this site. The site is more
than 2.7 miles from the nearest residential zoning and adjacent to industrial mining operations, but the
presence of wetlands, wildlife habitat and other environmental issues suggests that the siting of a WTE
facility may be met with opposition by the community at this location.

www.arcadis.com
5/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 8

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Approximately 4.25 miles of two-lane road with paved shoulder and stormwater controls will need to be constructed
for proper site access (see the access route below). An additional 2.5 miles of easement/ROW will have to be
acquired.

• Construction of approximately 4.0 miles of 12” water main and possibly a booster station will be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and about 4.0 miles of 6” force main will likely be required.

• Construction of approximately 8.0 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Construction of approximately 7.4 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, and
electric utility infrastructure.

• The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and will potentially disturb greater than one-half acre
of suitable foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially require wood stork mitigation.

• Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Permit, a State 404 Permit from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9A and CON-9B.

• Within the Northwest Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J.

www.arcadis.com
6/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 9

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

Folio No: 30-2933-000-0010

This 628.69-acre property is a single parcel outside the UDB, located in Owner: TARMAC Florida, Inc.
unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The site is large enough to
2021 MDPA Market Value: $11,579,000
support the proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Waste-to-Energy (WTE)
facility, and expansion to 5,000 TPD capacity or the addition of other Zoning District: GU
facilities such as an ash monofil, recycling center or an education
PA Zone: Interim - Awaiting Specific
center. The property is less than a 10-minute travel time to US-27 and
Zoning
is located 2.93 miles from the nearest residential zoning.

www.arcadis.com
1/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 9

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 5.5 miles northwest of the existing RRF, and more than 2.9 miles
from the nearest residential zoning. If this site were selected, the expected effects on the County’s
Solid Waste System may be significant. Direct hauls from the collection routes in the vicinity of the
existing RRF would likely decline, as many collection trucks would reroute to the Northeast and West
Transfer Stations for disposal to reduce travel times. Incoming waste at those stations would increase
and may result in capacity issues, especially at the West Transfer Station, which is currently operating
at approximately 80% of design capacity. A new transfer station in the vicinity of the existing RRF
facility would likely be needed to maintain current collection and transfer flow patterns.

The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility.
Their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would increase due to longer travel distances
and expected traffic congestion. Transfer fleet round trip times would increase and may result in the
need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes. Transfer fleet fuel consumption
and maintenance costs would increase due to the additional deliveries, while similar Collection fleet
costs would also increase due to longer travel distances and traffic congestion.

Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be higher than at the
existing RRF. There are options to keep ash hauling distances relatively short - the existing RRF site
could be converted to an ash monofill, or ash generated at this location may be landfilled at the Medley
Landfill. If disposed at a non-County facility, costs for ash disposal would significantly increase from
current levels.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. Potable water mains appear to be available
approximately 5.0 miles east of the site, but further analysis is needed to verify pipe size, service
pressure, and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to provide adequate service
pressure at the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives. Reuse
of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE facilities, but
for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary sewer. The
closest sanitary sewer collection system appears to be approximately 5.0 miles east of the site, but
further analysis is needed to verify capacity and system impacts. An on-site lift station and about
5.0 miles of 6” force main may be required.
www.arcadis.com
2/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 9

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest gas transmission main is approximately 9.0
miles east of the site. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is assumed to be within existing
ROW and easements.

• Electric – Nearest substation/ switchyard is FPL Substation located 8.3 miles away at 10800 NW
107th Avenue. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and available
terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements. New legal
easements may need to be established to complete this routing.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the site soils as Shark Valley muck, 0 to 1 percent
slopes. These soils are high in organics content and may extend 20-40 inches below grade, even to the
bedrock layer. They are not suitable for foundations and would need to be removed and replaced with
structural fill for foundation areas, which will increase project costs.

In these soils the seasonal high groundwater elevation is typically 0-6 inches below existing grade, but
would have to be confirmed by geotechnical investigations. The high groundwater will result in the need
for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will also increase project costs due to the need for additional
structural fill.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone AH (El. 7 ft). High
groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will significantly increase
both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,

www.arcadis.com
3/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 9

Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 8.08 miles (13 km) NE of the Everglades Class I Area, 19.69 miles (31.7 km) NW of
the Biscayne Class II Area, and about 3.4 miles W of the Titan Pennsuco Complex, a large source
of emissions.

As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).

The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s).

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site is
entirely wetlands. The site appears predominantly undisturbed. The site is not within a Florida
panther focus area for consultation or critical habitat for endangered or threatened species under
the Endangered Species Act. The site is within the urban development boundary in Miami-Dade
County for the Florida bonneted bat and individual consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service is required. The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and will
potentially disturb greater than one-half acre of suitable foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially
require wood stork mitigation.

Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Resource

Permit, State 404 Permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland
mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with Policy CON-9A. MDC Policy CON-9a states that all activities that
adversely affect habitat that is critical to Federal, or State designated, endangered or threatened
species shall be prohibited unless such activity(ies) are a public necessity and there are no possible
alternative sites where the activity(ies) can occur.

www.arcadis.com
4/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 9

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B. MDC Policy CON-9B states that all
nesting, roosting and feeding habitats used by federal or State designated endangered or
threatened species, shall be protected and buffered from surrounding development or activities and
further degradation or destruction of such habitat shall not be authorized.

• Within the Northwest Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G. MDC Policy
LU-8G states that when considering land areas to add to the UDB, after demonstrating that a need
exists, the following areas shall not be considered:
- The Northwest Wellfield Protection Area and the West Wellfield Protection Area west of SW
157 Avenue between SW 8 Street and SW 42 Street

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J. The site is within the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) area and development at this location will have wetland
impacts. MDC Policy CON-7J states the County is to review development applications that include
wetland impacts for consistency with CERP objectives. Applications inconsistent with CERP
objectives, projects or features shall be denied.

Transportation
Travel time to US-27 is less than 10 minutes. Existing
access to site is via unpaved single-lane road (see picture
at right). Approximately 5.25 miles of two-lane road with
paved shoulder and stormwater controls will need to be
constructed for proper site access (see the access route
below). An additional 3.5 miles of easement/ROW will have to be acquired.
The volume of traffic that is expected at the proposed WTE facility (400-500
trucks per day), will greatly increase the loads on local roads so the traffic
impacts to local area will likely be significant. Additional traffic impacts on
US-27 and to local area may result due to single point of access at NW 112th
Ct/NW 136th St. Truck queuing will have to be accomplished on site to
prevent further congestion of local roads.

www.arcadis.com
5/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 9

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no community impacts for this site. The site is more
than 2.9 miles from the nearest residential zoning and adjacent to industrial mining operations, but the
presence of wetlands, wildlife habitat and other environmental issues suggests that the siting of a WTE
facility may be met with opposition by the community at this location.

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Approximately 5.25 miles of two-lane road with paved shoulder and stormwater controls will need to be constructed
for proper site access (see the access route below). An additional 3.5 miles of easement/ROW will have to be
acquired.

• Construction of approximately 5.0 miles of 12” water main and possibly a booster station will be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and about 5.0 miles of 6” force main will likely be required.

• Construction of approximately 9.0 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Construction of approximately 8.3 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, and
electric utility infrastructure.

• The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and will potentially disturb greater than one-half acre
of suitable foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially require wood stork mitigation.

www.arcadis.com
6/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 9

• Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Permit, a State 404 Permit from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policies CON-9A and CON-9B.

• Within the Northwest Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J.

www.arcadis.com
7/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 10

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

Folio No: 30-3916-000-0010

This 590.71-acre property is a single parcel outside the UDB, located in
unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The site is large enough to Owner: APAC Southeast, Inc.
support the proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Waste-to-Energy (WTE) 2021 MDPA Market Value: $10,560,268
facility, and expansion to 5,000 TPD capacity or the addition of other
facilities such as an ash monofil, recycling center or an education Zoning District: GU
center. The property is less than a 10-minute travel time to the PA Zone: Interim - Awaiting Specific
Turnpike via 41st Street and is located 2.84 miles from the nearest Zoning
residential zoning.

www.arcadis.com
1/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 10

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 5.4 miles W of the existing RRF, and more than 2.8 miles from the
nearest residential zoning. If this site were selected, the expected effects on the County’s Solid Waste
System may be significant. Direct hauls from the collection routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF
would likely decline, as many collection trucks would reroute to the Northeast and West Transfer
Stations for disposal to reduce travel times. Incoming waste at those stations would increase and may
result in capacity issues, especially at the West Transfer Station, which is currently operating at
approximately 80% of design capacity. A new transfer station in the vicinity of the existing RRF facility
would likely be needed to maintain current collection and transfer flow patterns.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility.
Their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would increase due to longer travel distances
and expected traffic congestion. Transfer fleet round trip times would increase and may result in the
need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes. Transfer fleet fuel consumption
and maintenance costs would increase due to the additional deliveries, while similar Collection fleet
costs would also increase due to longer travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be higher than at the
existing RRF. There are options to keep ash hauling distances relatively short - the existing RRF site
could be converted to an ash monofill, or ash generated at this location may be landfilled at the Medley
Landfill. If disposed at a non-County facility, costs for ash disposal would significantly increase from
current levels.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. Potable water mains appear to be available
approximately 2.0 miles southeast of the site, but further analysis is needed to verify pipe size,
service pressure, and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to provide adequate
service pressure at the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives. Reuse
of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE facilities, but
for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary sewer. The
closest sanitary sewer collection system appears to be approximately 2.0 miles southeast of the
site, but further analysis is needed to verify capacity and system impacts. An on-site lift station and
about 2.0 miles of 6” force main may be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest gas transmission main is approximately 4.0

www.arcadis.com
2/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 10

miles southeast of the site. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is assumed to be within
existing ROW and easements.

• Electric – Nearest substation/ switchyard is FPL Substation located 2.1 miles away at 52444-
139954 NW 41st Street. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and
available terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements.
New legal easements may need to be established to complete this routing.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the site soils as Shark Valley muck, 0 to 1 percent
slopes. These soils are high in organics content and may extend 20-40 inches below grade, even to the
bedrock layer. They are not suitable for foundations and would need to be removed and replaced with
structural fill for foundation areas, which will increase project costs.
In these soils the seasonal high groundwater elevation is typically 0-6 inches below existing grade, but
would have to be confirmed by geotechnical investigations. The high groundwater will result in the need
for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will also increase project costs due to the need for additional
structural fill.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone AH (El. 7 ft). High
groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will significantly increase
both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 5.44 miles (8.75 km) NE of the Everglades Class I Area, 16.95 miles (27.28 km) NW
of the Biscayne Class II Area, and about 3 mi NNW of the CEMEX Miami facility, a large source of
emissions.
www.arcadis.com
3/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 10

As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s).

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site is
entirely wetlands. Minor disturbances include prior excavation and ditching, but most of the site
appears undisturbed. The site is not within a Florida panther focus area for consultation or critical
habitat for endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The site is within
the urban development boundary in Miami-Dade County for the Florida bonneted bat and individual
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required. The site is also within 18.6 miles of
an active wood stork colony and will potentially disturb greater than one-half acre of suitable
foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially require wood stork mitigation.
Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Resource
Permit, State 404 Permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland
mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with Policy CON-9A. MDC Policy CON-9B states that all activities that
adversely affect habitat that is critical to Federal, or State designated, endangered or threatened
species shall be prohibited unless such activity(ies) are a public necessity and there are no possible
alternative sites where the activity(ies) can occur.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B. MDC Policy CON-9B states that all
nesting, roosting and feeding habitats used by federal or State designated endangered or
threatened species, shall be protected and buffered from surrounding development or activities and
further degradation or destruction of such habitat shall not be authorized.

• Within the Northwest Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G. MDC Policy
LU-8G states that when considering land areas to add to the UDB, after demonstrating that a need
exists, the following areas shall not be considered:
- The Northwest Wellfield Protection Area and the West Wellfield Protection Area west of SW
157 Avenue between SW 8 Street and SW 42 Street

www.arcadis.com
4/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 10

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J. The site is within the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) area and development at this location will have wetland
impacts. MDC Policy CON-7J states the County is to review development applications that include
wetland impacts for consistency with CERP objectives. Applications inconsistent with CERP
objectives, projects or features shall be denied.

Transportation
Travel time to the Turnpike is less than 10 minutes. Existing
access to site is via 41st Street, then 1.5 miles of unpaved
single-lane road. Approximately 1.5 miles of two-lane road
with paved shoulder and stormwater controls will need to be
constructed for proper site access. Additional
easement/ROW will have to be aquired for almost 1.5 miles
of the access road from FPL and/or other property owners.
The volume of traffic that is expected at the proposed WTE
facility (400-500 trucks per day), will greatly increase the
loads on local roads so the traffic impacts to local area will
likely be significant. Additional traffic impacts due to single
point of access at Turnpike/41st St. Truck queuing will have
to be accomplished on site to prevent further congestion of
local roads.

www.arcadis.com
5/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 10

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no community impacts for this site. The site is more
than 2.8 miles from the nearest residential zoning and adjacent to industrial mining operations, but the
presence of wetlands, wildlife habitat and other environmental issues suggests that the siting of a WTE
facility may be met with opposition by the community at this location.

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Approximately 1.5 miles of two-lane road with paved shoulder and stormwater controls will need to be constructed for
proper site access (see the access route below). An additional 1.5 miles of easement/ROW will have to be acquired.

• Construction of approximately 2.0 miles of 12” water main and possibly a booster station will be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and about 2.0 miles of 6” force main will likely be required.

• Construction of approximately 4.0 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Construction of approximately 2.1 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, and
electric utility infrastructure.

• The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and will potentially disturb greater than one-half acre
of suitable foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially require wood stork mitigation.

• Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Permit, a State 404 Permit from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland mitigation.

www.arcadis.com
6/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 10

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9A and CON-9B.

• Within the Northwest Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J.

www.arcadis.com
7/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 11

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

This 1,425.59-acre property is a single parcel outside the UDB, located Folio No: 30-3920-000-0020
in unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The site is large enough to Owner: CEMEX Construction Materials
support the proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Waste-to-Energy (WTE)
facility, and expansion to 5,000 TPD capacity or the addition of other 2021 MDPA Market Value: $18,710,559
facilities such as an ash monofil, recycling center or an education Zoning District: GU
center. The property is less than a 10-minute travel time to the
PA Zone: Interim - Awaiting Specific
Turnpike via 41st Street and is located 0.52 miles from the nearest
Zoning
residential zoning.

www.arcadis.com
1/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 11

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 4.8 miles SW of the existing RRF but is 0.52 miles from the nearest
residential zoning. If this site were selected, the expected effects on the County’s Solid Waste System
may be significant. Direct hauls from the collection routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF would
likely decline, as many collection trucks would reroute to the Northeast and West Transfer Stations for
disposal to reduce travel times. Incoming waste at those stations would increase and may result in
capacity issues, especially at the West Transfer Station, which is currently operating at approximately
80% of design capacity. A new transfer station in the vicinity of the existing RRF facility would likely be
needed to maintain current collection and transfer flow patterns.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility.
Their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would increase due to longer travel distances
and expected traffic congestion. Transfer fleet round trip times would increase and may result in the
need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes. Transfer fleet fuel consumption
and maintenance costs would increase due to the additional deliveries, while similar Collection fleet
costs would also increase due to longer travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be higher than at the
existing RRF. There are options to keep ash hauling distances relatively short - the existing RRF site
could be converted to an ash monofill, or ash generated at this location may be landfilled at the Medley
Landfill. If disposed at a non-County facility, costs for ash disposal would significantly increase from
current levels.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. Potable water mains appear to be available
approximately 0.75 miles east of the site on 41st Street, but further analysis is needed to verify pipe
size, service pressure, and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to provide adequate
service pressure at the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives. Reuse
of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE facilities, but
for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary sewer. The
closest sanitary sewer collection system appears to be approximately 0.75 miles east of the site on
41st Street, but further analysis is needed to verify capacity and system impacts. An on-site lift
station and about 0.75 miles of 6” force main may be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest gas transmission main is approximately 2.9

www.arcadis.com
2/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 11

miles east of the site. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is assumed to be within existing
ROW and easements.

• Electric – Nearest substation/ switchyard is the Levee Substation located 1.1 miles away at 52444-
139954 NW 41st Street. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and
available terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements.
New legal easements may need to be established to complete this routing.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the site soils as Shark Valley muck, 0 to 1 percent
slopes. These soils are high in organics content and may extend 20-40 inches below grade, even to
the bedrock layer. They are not suitable for foundations and would need to be removed and replaced
with structural fill for foundation areas, which will increase project costs.
In these soils the seasonal high groundwater elevation is typically 0-6 inches below existing grade, but
would have to be confirmed by geotechnical investigations. The high groundwater will result in the
need for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will also increase project costs due to the need for
additional structural fill.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone AH (El. 7 ft). High
groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will significantly increase
both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 3.45 miles (5.55 km) NE of the Everglades Class I Area, 14.24 miles (22.92 km) NW
of the Biscayne Class II Area, and about 1.5 miles NNW of the CEMEX Miami facility, a large
source of emissions.
www.arcadis.com
3/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 11

As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s).
Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site is
comprised of wetlands and excavated ponds. Minor disturbances include prior excavation and
ditching, but portions of the site appear undisturbed. The site is not within a Florida panther focus
area for consultation. The site is within the proposed critical habitat and within the urban
development boundary in Miami-Dade County for the Florida bonneted bat and individual
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required. The site is also within 18.6 miles of
an active wood stork colony and will potentially disturb greater than one-half acre of suitable
foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially require wood stork mitigation.
Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Resource
Permit, State 404 Permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland
mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with Policy CON-9A. All activities that adversely affect habitat that is
critical to Federal, or State designated, endangered or threatened species shall be prohibited
unless such activity(ies) are a public necessity and there are no possible alternative sites where the
activity(ies) can occur.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B. MDC Policy CON-9B states that all
nesting, roosting and feeding habitats used by federal or State designated endangered or
threatened species, shall be protected and buffered from surrounding development or activities and
further degradation or destruction of such habitat shall not be authorized.

• Within the Northwest Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G. MDC Policy
LU-8G states that when considering land areas to add to the UDB, after demonstrating that a need
exists, the following areas shall not be considered:
- The Northwest Wellfield Protection Area and the West Wellfield Protection Area west of SW
157 Avenue between SW 8 Street and SW 42 Street

www.arcadis.com
4/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 11

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J. The site is within the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) area and development at this location will have wetland
impacts. MDC Policy CON-7J states the County is to review development applications that include
wetland impacts for consistency with CERP objectives. Applications inconsistent with CERP
objectives, projects or features shall be denied.

Transportation
Travel time to the Turnpike is less than 10 minutes.
Existing access to site is via 41st Street, then 1.5 miles of
unpaved single-lane road (see picture at right) .
Approximately 1.5 miles of two-lane road with paved
shoulder and stormwater controls will need to be
constructed for proper site access. Additional
easement/ROW will have to be aquired for almost 1.5
miles of the access road from FPL and/or other property
owners. The volume of traffic that is expected at the
proposed WTE facility (400-500 trucks per day) will greatly
increase the loads on local roads so the traffic impacts to
local area will likely be significant. Additional traffic impacts
on 41st Street and to the local area may be significant due
to single point of access at Turnpike/41st St. Truck queuing
will have to be accomplished on site to prevent further congestion of local roads.

www.arcadis.com
5/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 11

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no community impacts for this site. However, the site
is 0.52 miles from the nearest residential zoning. Even though it is adjacent to an industrial cement
manufacturing operation, the close proximity of the site to a residential area and the presence of
wetlands, wildlife habitat and other environmental issues suggests that the siting of a WTE facility may
be met with opposition by the community at this location.

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Approximately 1.5 miles of two-lane road with paved shoulder and stormwater controls will need to be constructed for
proper site access (see the access route below). An additional 1.5 miles of easement/ROW will have to be acquired.

• Construction of approximately 0.75 miles of 12” water main and possibly a booster station will be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and about 0.75 miles of 6” force main will likely be required.

• Construction of approximately 2.9 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Construction of approximately 1.1 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, and
electric utility infrastructure.

• The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and will potentially disturb greater than one-half acre
of suitable foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially require wood stork mitigation.

• Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Permit, a State 404 Permit from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9A.

www.arcadis.com
6/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 11

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B.

• Within the Northwest Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J.

www.arcadis.com
7/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 12

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

This 561.18-acre property is a single parcel outside the UDB, located in Folio No: 30-4813-000-0010
unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The site is large enough to support Owner: ALA NV
the proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Waste-to-Energy (WTE) facility, % LA PRIMERA INTN'L CORP
and expansion to 5,000 TPD capacity or the addition of other facilities
such as an ash monofil, recycling center or an education center. The 2021 MDPA Market Value: $1,251,057
property is less than a 10-minute travel time to Krome Ave. and US 41
and is located 1.03 miles from the nearest residential zoning and Zoning District: GU
approximately 0.1 mile from the boundary of the Everglades National PA Zone: Interim - Awaiting Specific
Park. Zoning

www.arcadis.com
1/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 12

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 10.5 miles SW of the existing RRF and is more than a mile from the
nearest residential zoning, but is approximately 0.1 mile from the boundary of the Everglades National
Park. If this site were selected, the expected effects on the County’s Solid Waste System may be
significant. Direct hauls from the collection routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF would likely
decline, as many collection trucks would reroute to the three transfer stations for disposal to reduce
travel times. Incoming waste at those stations would increase and may result in capacity issues,
especially at the West Transfer Station, which is currently operating at approximately 80% of design
capacity. A new transfer station in the vicinity of the existing RRF facility would likely be needed to
maintain current collection and transfer flow patterns.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility.
Their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would increase due to longer travel distances
and expected traffic congestion. Transfer fleet round trip times would increase and may result in the
need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes. Transfer fleet fuel consumption
and maintenance costs would increase due to the additional deliveries, while similar Collection fleet
costs would also increase due to longer travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be higher than at the
existing RRF. There are options to keep ash hauling distances relatively short - the existing RRF site
could be converted to an ash monofill, or ash generated at this location may be landfilled at the Medley
Landfill. If disposed at a non-County facility, costs for ash disposal would significantly increase from
current levels.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. Potable water mains appear to be available
approximately 0.4 miles north of the site, but further analysis is needed to verify pipe size, service
pressure, and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to provide adequate service
pressure at the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives. Reuse
of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE facilities, but
for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary sewer. There
is a 30” sanitary sewer along Krome Ave., but further analysis is needed to verify capacity and
system impacts. An on-site lift station and force main may be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest gas transmission main is approximately 4.0

www.arcadis.com
2/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 12

miles northeast of the site on US41. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is assumed to be
within existing ROW and easements.

• Electric – Nearest substation/switchyard is FPL Substation located 4.7 miles away at 8905 Krome
Avenue. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and available terminations.
Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements. New legal easements
may need to be established to complete this routing.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the predominant site soils as Perrine marly silt loam,
0 to 1 percent slopes and Tamiami muck, 0 to 1 percent slopes. These hydric soils are high in organics
content and may extend 31-41 inches below grade, even to the bedrock layer. They are not suitable
for foundations and would need to be removed and replaced with structural fill for foundation areas,
which will increase project costs.
In these soils the seasonal high groundwater elevation is typically 0-6 inches below existing grade, but
would have to be confirmed by geotechnical investigations. The high groundwater will result in the
need for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will also increase project costs due to the need for
additional structural fill.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone AH (El. 8 ft). High
groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will significantly increase
both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 0.1 miles (0.16 km) E of the Everglades Class I Area, 13.72 miles (22.08 km) W of

www.arcadis.com
3/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 12

the Biscayne Class II Area, and about 5.0 miles SW of the CEMEX Miami Cement Plant, a large
source of emissions.
As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s). Based on projected emissions for a 4000 tpd facility, preliminary evaluation
indicates that this parcel is too close to sensitive receptors in the nearby Class I area thus
making it extremely difficult to demonstrate acceptable impacts for PSD permit issuance.
Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site is
comprised of wetlands. The site appears predominantly undisturbed`. The site is not within a
Florida panther focus area for consultation. The site is within the proposed critical habitat and within
the urban development boundary in Miami-Dade County for the Florida bonneted bat and individual
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required. The site is also within 18.6 miles of
an active wood stork colony and will potentially disturb greater than one-half acre of suitable
foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially require wood stork mitigation.
Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Resource
Permit, State 404 Permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland
mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with Policy CON-9A. All activities that adversely affect habitat that is
critical to Federal, or State designated, endangered or threatened species shall be prohibited
unless such activity(ies) are a public necessity and there are no possible alternative sites where the
activity(ies) can occur.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B. MDC Policy CON-9B states that all
nesting, roosting and feeding habitats used by federal or State designated endangered or
threatened species, shall be protected and buffered from surrounding development or activities and
further degradation or destruction of such habitat shall not be authorized.

• Within the West Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G. MDC Policy LU-
8G states that when considering land areas to add to the UDB, after demonstrating that a need
exists, the following areas shall not be considered:
www.arcadis.com
4/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 12

- The Northwest Wellfield Protection Area and the West Wellfield Protection Area west of SW
157 Avenue between SW 8 Street and SW 42 Street

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J. The site is within the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) area and development at this location will have wetland
impacts. MDC Policy CON-7J states the County is to review development applications that include
wetland impacts for consistency with CERP objectives. Applications inconsistent with CERP
objectives, projects or features shall be denied.

Transportation
Travel time to US 41 (SW 8th Street) is less than 10 minutes. Existing access to site is via Krome Ave.
(see map below), and no additional offsite access roadway is required. The volume of traffic that is
expected at the proposed WTE facility (400-500 trucks per day), will greatly increase the loads on local
roads so the traffic impacts on Krome Ave., US 41 (SW 8th Street), and to local area may be
significant. Truck queuing will have to be accomplished on site to prevent further congestion on Krome
Ave.

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated elevated values for Particulate Matter 2.5 (µg/m3),
2017 Air Toxics Cancer Risk, and 2017 Air Toxics Respiratory HI for this site. Although the site is
more than a mile from the nearest residential zoning, it is approximately 0.1 mile from the boundary of
the Everglades National Park, which suggests that the siting of a WTE facility may be strongly
opposed by the community at this location.

www.arcadis.com
5/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 12

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Construction of approximately 0.4 miles of 12” water main and possibly a booster station will be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and 6” force main may be required.

• Construction of approximately 4.0 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Construction of approximately 4.7 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, natural gas, and electric utility
infrastructure.

• The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and will potentially disturb greater than one-half acre
of suitable foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially require wood stork mitigation.

• Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Permit, a State 404 Permit from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland mitigation.

• Based on projected emissions for a 4000 tpd facility, preliminary evaluation indicates that this parcel is too
close to sensitive receptors in the nearby Class I area thus making it extremely difficult to demonstrate
acceptable impacts for PSD permit issuance.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9A.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B.

• Within the West Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J.

www.arcadis.com
6/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 13

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

This 63.07-acre property is a single parcel outside the UDB, located in Folio No: 30-4835-000-0010
unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The site is large enough to Owner: Kendall Properties and
support the proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Waste-to-Energy (WTE) Investments
facility, and expansion to 5,000 TPD capacity or the addition of other
facilities such as an ash monofil, recycling center or an education 2021 MDPA Market Value: $1,576,700
center. The property is less than a 10-minute travel time to US-41 and
is located 1.08 miles from the nearest residential zoning and Zoning District: GU
approximately 0.7 miles from the boundary of the Everglades National PA Zone: Interim - Awaiting Specific
Park. Zoning

www.arcadis.com
1/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 13

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 11.8 miles SW of the existing RRF and is more than a mile from the
nearest residential zoning, but is less than a mile from the boundary of the Everglades National Park. If
this site were selected, the expected effects on the County’s Solid Waste System may be significant.
Direct hauls from the collection routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF would likely decline, as many
collection trucks would reroute to the Northeast and West Transfer Stations for disposal to reduce
travel times. Incoming waste at those stations would increase and may result in capacity issues,
especially at the West Transfer Station, which is currently operating at approximately 80% of design
capacity. A new transfer station in the vicinity of the existing RRF facility would likely be needed to
maintain current collection and transfer flow patterns.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility.
Their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would increase due to longer travel distances
and expected traffic congestion on US-41 and SW 88th Street. Transfer fleet round trip times would
increase and may result in the need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes.
Transfer fleet fuel consumption and maintenance costs would increase due to the additional deliveries,
while similar Collection fleet costs would also increase due to longer travel distances and traffic
congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be higher than at the
existing RRF. There are options to keep ash hauling distances relatively short - the existing RRF site
could be converted to an ash monofill, or ash generated at this location may be landfilled at the Medley
Landfill. If disposed at a non-County facility, costs for ash disposal would significantly increase from
current levels.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. A 12” potable water main appears to be available at the
site on Krome Ave., but further analysis is needed to verify service pressure and system capacity.
A booster station may be needed to provide adequate service pressure at the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives. Reuse
of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE facilities, but
for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary sewer. There
is a 30” sanitary sewer on Krome Ave., but further analysis is needed to verify capacity and system
impacts. An on-site lift station and force main may be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest gas transmission main is approximately 7.0

www.arcadis.com
2/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 13

miles northeast of the site on US-41. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is assumed to be
within existing ROW and easements.

• Electric – Nearest substation/switchyard is FPL Substation located 1.8 miles away at 8905 Krome
Avenue. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and available terminations.
Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements. New legal easements
may need to be established to complete this routing.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the predominant site soils as Udorthents-Water-
Urban land complex, 0 to 60 percent slopes and Cooper Town muck. Udorthents soils consist of
unconsolidated or heterogeneous geologic material removed during the excavation of ditches, canals,
lakes, ponds, and quarries. This suggests that the site was previously excavated as a borrow pit and
backfilled to its present land area. If this is confirmed, the site soils may present significant
geotechnical engineering challenges for foundation designs.
The presence of muck soils indicates the seasonal high groundwater elevation is typically 0-6 inches
below existing grade, but would have to be confirmed by geotechnical investigations. The high
groundwater will result in the need for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will also increase project
costs due to the need for additional structural fill.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone AH (El. 8 ft). The
remainder of the site is in FEMA Flood Zone X (Minimal Flood Hazard).

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

www.arcadis.com
3/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 13

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 0.68 miles (1.09 km) E of the Everglades Class I Area, 12.52 miles (20.15 km) W of
the Biscayne Class II Area, and about 6.3 miles SW of the CEMEX Miami Cement Plant, a large
source of emissions.
As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s). Based on projected emissions for a 4000 tpd facility, preliminary evaluation
indicates that this parcel is too close to sensitive receptors in the nearby Class I area thus
making it extremely difficult to demonstrate acceptable impacts for PSD permit issuance.

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory and National Hydrography Dataset
indicate a surface water is present and no wetlands are present. The South Florida Water
Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site is comprised of
upland mixed forests, improved pasture, and holding ponds. The site appears developed with
minimal trees and maintained lawn. The site is not within a Florida panther focus area for
consultation or critical habitat for endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species
Act. The site is within the urban development boundary in Miami-Dade County for the Florida
bonneted bat and individual consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required but is
assumed to be minimal as there is minimal to no roosting or foraging habitat remaining. The site is
also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and minor wood stork mitigation may be
required.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B. MDC Policy CON-9B states that all
nesting, roosting and feeding habitats used by federal or State designated endangered or
threatened species, shall be protected and buffered from surrounding development or activities and
further degradation or destruction of such habitat shall not be authorized.

• Within the West Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G. MDC Policy LU-
8G states that when considering land areas to add to the UDB, after demonstrating that a need
exists, the following areas shall not be considered:
- The Northwest Wellfield Protection Area and the West Wellfield Protection Area west of SW
157 Avenue between SW 8 Street and SW 42 Street
www.arcadis.com
4/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 13

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J. The site is within the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) area and development at this location will have wetland
impacts. MDC Policy CON-7J states the County is to review development applications that include
wetland impacts for consistency with CERP objectives. Applications inconsistent with CERP
objectives, projects or features shall be denied.

Transportation
Travel time north to US 41 (SW 8th Street) and south to SW 88th Street is less than 10 minutes.
Existing access to site is via Krome Ave. (see map below), and no additional offsite access roadway is
required. The volume of traffic that is expected at the proposed WTE facility (400-500 trucks per day),
will greatly increase the loads on local roads. Traffic impacts on Krome Ave., US 41 (SW 8th Street),
SW 88th Street, and to local area may be significant due to only two points of access on Krome Ave.
Truck queuing will have to be accomplished on site to prevent further congestion on Krome Ave.

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated elevated values for Particulate Matter 2.5 (µg/m3),
2017 Air Toxics Cancer Risk, and 2017 Air Toxics Respiratory HI for this site. Although the site is more
than a mile from the nearest residential zoning, it is less than a mile from the boundary of the
Everglades National Park, which suggests that the siting of a WTE facility may be strongly opposed by
the community at this location.

www.arcadis.com
5/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 13

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Construction of a water booster station may be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and 6” force main may be required.

• Construction of approximately 7.0 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Construction of approximately 1.8 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of natural gas and electric utility infrastructure.

• The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and will potentially disturb greater than one-half acre
of suitable foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially require wood stork mitigation.

• Based on projected emissions for a 4000 tpd facility, preliminary evaluation indicates that this parcel is too
close to sensitive receptors in the nearby Class I area thus making it extremely difficult to demonstrate
acceptable impacts for PSD permit issuance.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B.

• Within the West Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J.

www.arcadis.com
6/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 14

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

Folio No: 30-4835-000-0013

This 42.68-acre property is a single parcel outside the UDB, located in
unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The site area is minimal but Owner: Kendall Properties and
appears sufficient to support the proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Investments
Waste-to-Energy (WTE) facility, but no additional expansion capacity or
2021 MDPA Market Value: $1,072,500
other facilities. The property is less than a 10-minute travel time north
to US-41 and south to SW 88th Street, is 1.05 miles from the nearest Zoning District: GU
residential zoning, and approximately 0.75 miles from the boundary of
the Everglades National Park. PA Zone: Interim - Awaiting Specific
Zoning

www.arcadis.com
1/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 14

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 11.8 miles SW of the existing RRF and is more than a mile from the
nearest residential zoning but is less than a mile from the boundary of the Everglades National Park. If
this site were selected, the expected effects on the County’s Solid Waste System may be significant.
Direct hauls from the collection routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF would likely decline, as many
collection trucks would reroute to the Northeast and West Transfer Stations for disposal to reduce
travel times. Incoming waste at those stations would increase and may result in capacity issues,
especially at the West Transfer Station, which is currently operating at approximately 80% of design
capacity. A new transfer station in the vicinity of the existing RRF facility would likely be needed to
maintain current collection and transfer flow patterns.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility. Their
travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would increase due to longer travel distances and
expected traffic congestion on US-41 and SW 88th Street. Transfer fleet round trip times would
increase and may result in the need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes.
Transfer fleet fuel consumption and maintenance costs would increase due to the additional deliveries,
while similar Collection fleet costs would also increase due to longer travel distances and traffic
congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be higher than at the
existing RRF. There are options to keep ash hauling distances relatively short - the existing RRF site
could be converted to an ash monofill, or ash generated at this location may be landfilled at the Medley
Landfill. If disposed at a non-County facility, costs for ash disposal would significantly increase from
current levels.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. A 12” potable water main appears to be available at the
site on Krome Ave., but further analysis is needed to verify service pressure and system capacity.
A booster station may be needed to provide adequate service pressure at the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives. Reuse
of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE facilities, but
for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary sewer. There
is a 30” sanitary sewer on Krome Ave., but further analysis is needed to verify capacity and system
impacts. An on-site lift station and force main may be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest gas transmission main is approximately 7.0

www.arcadis.com
2/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 14

miles northeast of the site on US-41. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is assumed to be
within existing ROW and easements.

• Electric – Nearest substation/switchyard is FPL Substation located 2.1 miles away at 8905 Krome
Avenue. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and available terminations.
Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements. New legal easements
may need to be established to complete this routing.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the predominant site soils as Udorthents-Water-
Urban land complex, 0 to 60 percent slopes and Biscayne marly silt loam, ponded-Urban land complex,
0 to 1 percent slopes. Udorthents soils consist of unconsolidated or heterogeneous geologic material
removed during the excavation of ditches, canals, lakes, ponds, and quarries. This suggests that the
site was previously excavated as a borrow pit and backfilled to its present land area. If this is
confirmed, the site soils may present significant geotechnical engineering challenges for foundation
designs. Removal and replacement of these soils with structural fill and/or additional compactive effort
on existing soils in development areas may be required.
The presence of Biscayne marl soils indicates the seasonal high groundwater elevation is typically
within 10 inches of the ground surface, but would have to be confirmed by geotechnical investigations.
These soils are severely limited for building foundations because of water content and shallow depth to
bedrock, and areas under building foundations would need to be removed and replaced with structural
fill. The high groundwater will result in the need for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will also
increase project costs due to the need for additional structural fill.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone AH (El. 8 ft). The
remainder of the site is in FEMA Flood Zone X (Minimal Flood Hazard).

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,

www.arcadis.com
3/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 14

Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 0.75 miles (1.2 km) E of the Everglades Class I Area, 12.74 miles (20.5 km) W of the
Biscayne Class II Area, and about 6.0 miles SW of the CEMEX Miami Cement Plant, a large source
of emissions.
As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s). Based on projected emissions for a 4000 tpd facility, preliminary evaluation
indicates that this parcel is too close to sensitive receptors in the nearby Class I area thus
making it extremely difficult to demonstrate acceptable impacts for PSD permit issuance.

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory and National Hydrography Dataset
indicate a surface water is present and no wetlands are present. The South Florida Water
Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site is comprised of a
holding pond, spoil area, and improved pasture. The site appears to be disturbed. The site is not
within a Florida panther focus area for consultation or critical habitat for endangered or threatened
species under the Endangered Species Act. The site is within the urban development boundary in
Miami-Dade County for the Florida bonneted bat and individual consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is required but is assumed to be minimal as there is minimal to no roosting or
foraging habitat remaining. The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and
minor wood stork mitigation may be required.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B. MDC Policy CON-9B states that all
nesting, roosting and feeding habitats used by federal or State designated endangered or
threatened species, shall be protected and buffered from surrounding development or activities and
further degradation or destruction of such habitat shall not be authorized.

• Within the West Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G. MDC Policy LU-
8G states that when considering land areas to add to the UDB, after demonstrating that a need
exists, the following areas shall not be considered:

www.arcadis.com
4/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 14

- The Northwest Wellfield Protection Area and the West Wellfield Protection Area west of SW
157 Avenue between SW 8 Street and SW 42 Street

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J. The site is within the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) area and development at this location will have wetland
impacts. MDC Policy CON-7J states the County is to review development applications that include
wetland impacts for consistency with CERP objectives. Applications inconsistent with CERP
objectives, projects or features shall be denied.

Transportation
Travel time north to US 41 (SW 8th Street) and south to SW 88th Street is less than 10 minutes.
Existing access to site is via Krome Ave. (see map below), and no additional offsite access roadway is
required. The volume of traffic that is expected at the proposed WTE facility (400-500 trucks per day),
will greatly increase the loads on local roads. Traffic impacts on Krome Ave., US 41 (SW 8th Street),
SW 88th Street, and to local area may be significant due to only two points of access on Krome Ave.
Truck queuing will have to be accomplished on site to prevent further congestion on Krome Ave.

www.arcadis.com
5/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 14

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated elevated values for Particulate Matter 2.5 (µg/m3),
2017 Air Toxics Cancer Risk, and 2017 Air Toxics Respiratory HI for this site. Although the site is more
than a mile from the nearest residential zoning, it is less than a mile from the boundary of the
Everglades National Park, which suggests that the siting of a WTE facility may be strongly opposed by
the community at this location.

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Construction of a water booster station may be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and 6” force main may be required.

• Construction of approximately 7.0 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Construction of approximately 2.1 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of natural gas and electric utility infrastructure.

• The site is within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and will potentially disturb greater than one-half acre of
suitable foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially require wood stork mitigation.

• Based on projected emissions for a 4000 tpd facility, preliminary evaluation indicates that this parcel is too
close to sensitive receptors in the nearby Class I area thus making it extremely difficult to demonstrate
acceptable impacts for PSD permit issuance.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B.

• Within the West Wellfield Protection Area – Conflict with MDC Policy LU-8G.

www.arcadis.com
6/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 14

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J.

www.arcadis.com
7/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 15

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

Folio No: 30-7832-000-0030

This 164.83-acre property is a single parcel outside the UDB, located in
unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The site area is sufficient to Owner: Krupalu, Inc.
support the proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Waste-to-Energy (WTE)
facility and expansion to 5,000 TPD capacity or the addition of other 2021 MDPA Market Value: $2,097,000
facilities such as an ash monofil, recycling center or an education
Zoning District: GU
center. The property is less than a 10-minute travel time north to W
Palm Drive, is 0.58 miles from the nearest residential zoning, and 1.02 PA Zone: Interim - Awaiting Specific
miles from the boundary of Everglades National Park. This parcel is Zoning
under contract with several adjacent parcels in a pending
development.

www.arcadis.com
1/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 15

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 31.0 miles SW of the existing RRF, slightly more than half a mile
from the nearest residential zoning, and approximately one mile from the boundary of Everglades
National Park. If this site were selected, the effects on the County’s Solid Waste System would be
considerable. Direct hauls from the collection routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF would divert to
the three transfer stations for disposal. Incoming waste at those stations would increase and may
result in capacity issues, especially at the West Transfer Station, which is currently operating at
approximately 80% of design capacity. A new transfer station would need to be constructed at or near
the site of the existing RRF to maintain the current collection patterns and transfer station loadings.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility.
Their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would significantly increase due to longer travel
distances and expected traffic congestion. Transfer fleet round trip times would increase and would
likely result in the need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes. Transfer fleet
fuel consumption and maintenance costs would significantly increase due to the additional deliveries
and travel times and distances, while similar Collection fleet costs would also increase due to longer
travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be significantly higher than
at the existing RRF even if the existing RRF site could be converted to an ash monofill, or ash
generated at this location was landfilled at the Medley Landfill. If disposed at a non-County facility,
expected costs for ash disposal would increase even further.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. Potable water mains appear to be available
approximately 5.0 miles east of the site on SW 360th Street., but further analysis is needed to
verify pipe size, service pressure, and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to
provide adequate service pressure at the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives.
Reuse of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE
facilities, but for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary
sewer. The closest sanitary sewer collection system appears to be approximately 5.0 miles east of
the site on SW 360th Street., but further analysis is needed to verify capacity and system impacts.
An on-site lift station and about 5.0 miles of 6” force main will likely be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest gas transmission main is approximately

www.arcadis.com
2/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 15

5.0 miles NE of the site on Krome Ave/US-1. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is
assumed to be within existing ROW and easements.

• Electric – Nearest substation/ switchyard is Florida City Substation located 5 miles away at 33800
SW 202nd Avenue. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and available
terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements. New
legal easements may need to be established to complete this routing.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

• Due to expected shallow depth to bedrock, rock excavation may be required to install utility
pipelines, which will significantly increase utility construction costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the predominant site soils as Krome very gravelly
marly loam, 1 to 2 percent slopes, Biscayne marly silt loam, drained, 0 to 1 percent slopes, and
Chekika very gravelly marly loam, 1 to 2 percent slopes. Generally, these soils are not well suited for
building foundations because of water content and shallow depth to bedrock (typically 5-7 inches).
The presence of Biscayne marl soils indicates the seasonal high groundwater elevation is typically
within 10 inches of the ground surface, but would have to be confirmed by geotechnical investigations.
These soils are severely limited for building foundations because of water content and shallow depth
to bedrock, and areas under building foundations would need to be removed and replaced with
structural fill. The high groundwater may result in the need for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will
also increase project costs due to the need for additional structural fill.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone A. High groundwater
elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will significantly increase both the cost
and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.
www.arcadis.com
3/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 15

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 1.02 miles (1.64 km) E of the Everglades Class I Area, 12.75 miles (20.51 km) W of
the Biscayne Class II Area, and about 12.7 miles WSW of the FPL Turkey Point Power Plant, a
large Title V emitter.
As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s). Based on projected emissions for a 4000 tpd facility, preliminary evaluation
indicates that this parcel is too close to sensitive receptors in the nearby Class I area thus
making it extremely difficult to demonstrate acceptable impacts for PSD permit issuance.

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site
contains wetlands and stream with riparian habitat. The site appears predominantly undisturbed.
The site is not within a Florida panther focus area for consultation or critical habitat for endangered
or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The site is within the urban development
boundary in Miami-Dade County for the Florida bonneted bat and individual consultation with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required. The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork
colony and will potentially disturb greater than one-half acre of suitable foraging habitat; therefore,
would potentially require wood stork mitigation.
Permanent impacts to wetlands and streams would potentially require an Individual Environmental
Resource Permit, State 404 Permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and
wetland mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B. MDC Policy CON-9B states that all
nesting, roosting and feeding habitats used by federal or State designated endangered or
threatened species, shall be protected and buffered from surrounding development or activities and
further degradation or destruction of such habitat shall not be authorized.

www.arcadis.com
4/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 15

Transportation
Travel time north to W Palm Drive is less than 10
minutes. Existing access to site is via SW 367th Street
and Loveland Road (see map below), but as shown in
the picture of Loveland Road at right, construction of
approximately 2.75 miles of two-lane roadway with
paved shoulders will be required for proper site access.
Additional ROW may have to be acquired for access
roads.
The volume of traffic that is expected at the proposed
WTE facility (400-500 trucks per day), will greatly
increase the loads on local roads so the traffic impacts
to local area will likely be significant. Additional traffic
impacts on Loveland Road, W Palm Drive, and other
local roads may be significant due to only two points of access and limited road capacity. Truck
queuing will have to be accomplished on site to prevent further congestion.

www.arcadis.com
5/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 15

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no existing issues for this site. However, the site is
about half a mile from the nearest residential zoning and is approximately a mile from the boundary of
Everglades National Park, which suggests that the siting of a WTE facility may be strongly opposed by
the community at this location.

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Site Differentiators Overview

• This parcel is under contract with several adjacent parcels in a pending development.

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Approximately 2.75 miles of two-lane road with paved shoulder and stormwater controls will need to be constructed
for proper site access. Additional easement/ROW may have to be acquired.

• Construction of approximately 5.0 miles of 12” water main and possibly a booster station will be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and about 5.0 miles of 6” force main will likely be required.

• Construction of approximately 5.0 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Construction of approximately 5.0 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, and
electric utility infrastructure.

• Due to expected shallow depth to bedrock, rock excavation may be required to install utility pipelines, which will
significantly increase utility construction costs.

www.arcadis.com
6/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 15

• The site is also within 18.6 miles of an active wood stork colony and will potentially disturb greater than one-half acre
of suitable foraging habitat; therefore, would potentially require wood stork mitigation.

• Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Permit, a State 404 Permit from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland mitigation.

• Based on projected emissions for a 4000 tpd facility, preliminary evaluation indicates that this parcel is too
close to sensitive receptors in the nearby Class I area thus making it extremely difficult to demonstrate
acceptable impacts for PSD permit issuance.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B.

www.arcadis.com
7/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 18

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

This 81.44-acre site is a single parcel outside the UDB, located in Folio No: 16-7932-001-0025
unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The combined site area is
sufficient to support the proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Waste-to- Owner: CEMEX Construction Materials
Energy (WTE) facility and expansion to 5,000 TPD capacity or the Florida, LLC
addition of other facilities such as an ash monofil, recycling center or an
education center. The property is less than a 10-minute travel time to 2021 MDPA Market Value: $1,581,860
Card Sound Road, is 0.77 miles from the nearest residential zoning,
and 7.13 miles from the boundary of Everglades National Park. Zoning District: GU

PA Zone: Interim - Awaiting Specific

Zoning

www.arcadis.com
1/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 18

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 33.0 miles SW of the existing RRF, 0.77 miles from the nearest
residential zoning, and more than seven miles from the boundary of Everglades National Park. If this
site were selected, the effects on the County’s Solid Waste System would be considerable. Direct
hauls from the collection routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF would divert to the three transfer
stations for disposal. Incoming waste at those stations would increase and may result in capacity
issues, especially at the West Transfer Station, which is currently operating at approximately 80% of
design capacity. A new transfer station would need to be constructed at or near the site of the existing
RRF to maintain the current collection patterns and transfer station loadings.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility.
Their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would significantly increase due to longer travel
distances and expected traffic congestion. Transfer fleet round trip times would increase and would
likely result in the need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes. Transfer fleet
fuel consumption and maintenance costs would significantly increase due to the additional deliveries
and travel times and distances, while similar Collection fleet costs would also increase due to longer
travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be significantly higher than
at the existing RRF even if the existing RRF site could be converted to an ash monofill, or ash
generated at this location was landfilled at the Medley Landfill. If disposed at a non-County facility,
expected costs for ash disposal would increase even further. .

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. A 12” potable water main is available approximately
0.25 miles N of the site on SW 167th Ave., but further analysis is needed to verify pipe size, service
pressure, and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to provide adequate service
pressure at the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives.
Reuse of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE
facilities, but for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary
sewer. The closest sanitary sewer collection system appears to be available approximately 0.75
miles N of the site on SW 167th Ave., but further analysis is needed to verify capacity and system
impacts. An on-site lift station and about 0.75 miles of 6” force main will likely be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest transmission main is approximately 2.0

www.arcadis.com
2/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 18

miles NW of the site on Krome Ave/US-1. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is
assumed to be within existing ROW and easements.

• Electric – Nearest substation/ switchyard is FPL Farmlife Substation located 0.93 miles away at
35600 SW 162nd Street. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and
available terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater may not be used as source water for boiler feedwater, cooling
tower/condenser feedwater, truck wheel wash, and irrigation water.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the predominant site soils as Biscayne marly silt
loam, drained, 0 to 1 percent slopes. The presence of Biscayne marl soils indicates the seasonal high
groundwater elevation is typically within 10 inches of the ground surface but would have to be
confirmed by geotechnical investigations.
These soils are severely limited for building foundations because of water content and shallow depth
to bedrock, and areas under building foundations would need to be removed and replaced with
structural fill. The high groundwater may result in the need for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will
also increase project costs due to the need for additional structural fill.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone AE (El. 8 ft). High
groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will significantly increase
both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 7.13 mi (11.5 km) E of the Everglades Class I Area, 6.68 mi (10.8 km) W of the
Biscayne Class II Area, and about 6.5 miles WSW of the FPL Turkey Point Power Plant, a large
Title V emitter.
As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
www.arcadis.com
3/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 18

The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s).

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site
contains minor wetlands. The site appears predominantly undisturbed. The site is within a Florida
panther focus area for consultation or critical habitat for endangered or threatened species under
the Endangered Species Act. The site is within the urban development boundary in Miami-Dade
County for the Florida bonneted bat and individual consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service is required.
Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Resource
Permit, State 404 Permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland
mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B. MDC Policy CON-9B states that all
nesting, roosting and feeding habitats used by federal or State designated endangered or
threatened species, shall be protected and buffered from surrounding development or activities and
further degradation or destruction of such habitat shall not be authorized.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J. The site is within the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) area and development at this location will have wetland
impacts. MDC Policy CON-7J states the County is to review development applications that include
wetland impacts for consistency with CERP objectives. Applications inconsistent with CERP
objectives, projects or features shall be denied.

www.arcadis.com
4/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 18

Transportation
Travel time north to Card Sound Road and US-1 is less than 10
minutes. Existing access to site is via SW 360th Street and SW
167th Ave. (see map below), but approximately 1.2 miles of two-
lane road with paved shoulders will need to be constructed for
proper site access (see existing SW 360th Street picture at right).
Additional ROW may have to be acquired.
The volume of traffic that is expected at the proposed WTE facility
(400-500 trucks per day), will greatly increase the loads on local
roads so the traffic impacts on Card Sound Road, SW 360th Street
and SW 167th Ave., and other local roads will likely be significant.
Truck queuing will have to be accomplished on site to prevent
further congestion.

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no existing issues for this site. However, the site is
less than a mile from the nearest residential zoning and the presence of wetlands, wildlife habitat and
other environmental issues suggests that the siting of a WTE facility may be met with opposition by the
community at this location.

www.arcadis.com
5/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 18

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Approximately 1.2 miles of two-lane road with paved shoulder and stormwater controls will need to be constructed for
proper site access. Additional ROW may have to be acquired.

• Construction of approximately 0.25 miles of 12” water main and possibly a booster station will be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and about 0.75 miles of 6” force main will likely be required.

• Construction of approximately 2.0 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Construction of approximately 0.93 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL
easements. Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Due to shallow depth to bedrock, rock excavation may be required to install utility pipelines, which could significantly
increase utility construction costs.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, and
electric utility infrastructure.

• Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Permit, a State 404 Permit from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J.

www.arcadis.com
6/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 19

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

Folio No: 16-7932-001-0030

This 161.81-acre site is located outside the UDB, in unincorporated
Miami-Dade County. The combined site area is sufficient to support the Owner: CEMEX Construction Materials
proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Waste-to-Energy (WTE) facility and Florida, LLC
expansion to 5,000 TPD capacity or the addition of other facilities such
as an ash monofil, recycling center or an education center. The 2021 MDPA Market Value: $3,127,500
property is less than a 10-minute travel time to Card Sound Road, 1.02
miles from residential zoning and 7.11 miles from the boundary of Zoning District: GU
Everglades National Park.
PA Zone: Interim - Awaiting Specific
Zoning

www.arcadis.com
1/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 19

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 29.0 miles southwest of the existing RRF, 1.02 miles from residential
zoning and 7.11 miles from the boundary of Everglades National Park. If this site were selected, the
effects on the County’s Solid Waste System would be considerable. Direct hauls from the collection
routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF would divert to the three transfer stations for disposal.
Incoming waste at those stations would increase and may result in capacity issues, especially at the
West Transfer Station, which is currently operating at approximately 80% of design capacity. A new
transfer station would need to be constructed at or near the site of the existing RRF to maintain the
current collection patterns and transfer station loadings.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility.
Their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would significantly increase due to longer travel
distances and expected traffic congestion. Transfer fleet round trip times would increase and would
likely result in the need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes. Transfer fleet
fuel consumption and maintenance costs would significantly increase due to the additional deliveries
and travel times and distances, while similar Collection fleet costs would also increase due to longer
travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be significantly higher than
at the existing RRF even if the existing RRF site could be converted to an ash monofill, or ash
generated at this location was landfilled at the Medley Landfill. If disposed at a non-County facility,
expected costs for ash disposal would increase even further.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. A 12” potable water main is available approximately
0.5 miles N of the site on SW 167th Ave., but further analysis is needed to verify pipe size, service
pressure, and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to provide adequate service
pressure at the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives.
Reuse of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE
facilities, but for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary
sewer. The closest sanitary sewer collection system appears to be available approximately 1.1
miles N of the site on SW 167th Ave., but further analysis is needed to verify capacity and system
impacts. An on-site lift station and about 1.1 miles of 6” force main will likely be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest transmission main is approximately 2.3

www.arcadis.com
2/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 19

miles NW of the site on Krome Ave/US-1. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is
assumed to be within existing ROW and easements.

• Electric – Nearest substation/ switchyard is FPL Farmlife Substation located 1.4 miles away at
35600 SW 162nd Street. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and
available terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the predominant site soils as Biscayne marly silt
loam, drained, 0 to 1 percent slopes. The presence of Biscayne marl soils indicates the seasonal high
groundwater elevation is typically within 10 inches of the ground surface but would have to be
confirmed by geotechnical investigations.
These soils are severely limited for building foundations because of water content and shallow depth
to bedrock, and areas under building foundations would need to be removed and replaced with
structural fill. The high groundwater may result in the need for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will
also increase project costs due to the need for additional structural fill.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone A. High groundwater
elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will significantly increase both the cost
and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 7.11 mi (11.5 km) E of the Everglades Class I Area, 6.68 mi (10.8 km) W of the
Biscayne Class II Area, and about 6.8 miles WSW of the FPL Turkey Point Power Plant, a large
Title V emitter.

www.arcadis.com
3/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 19

As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s).

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site
contains minor wetlands. The site appears predominantly undisturbed. The site is within a Florida
panther focus area for consultation or critical habitat for endangered or threatened species under
the Endangered Species Act. The site is within the urban development boundary in Miami-Dade
County for the Florida bonneted bat and individual consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service is required.
Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Resource
Permit, State 404 Permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland
mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B. MDC Policy CON-9B states that all
nesting, roosting and feeding habitats used by federal or State designated endangered or
threatened species, shall be protected and buffered from surrounding development or activities and
further degradation or destruction of such habitat shall not be authorized.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J. The site is within the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) area and development at this location will have wetland
impacts. MDC Policy CON-7J states the County is to review development applications that include
wetland impacts for consistency with CERP objectives. Applications inconsistent with CERP
objectives, projects or features shall be denied.

www.arcadis.com
4/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 19

Transportation
Travel time north to Card Sound Road and US-1 is less than 10
minutes. Existing access to site is via SW 360th Street and SW
167th Ave. (see map below), but approximately 1.4 miles of two-
lane road with paved shoulders will need to be constructed for
proper site access (see existing SW 360th Street picture at right).
Additional ROW may have to be acquired.
The volume of traffic that is expected at the proposed WTE facility
(400-500 trucks per day), will greatly increase the loads on local
roads so the traffic impacts on Card Sound Road, SW 360th Street
and SW 167th Ave., and other local roads will likely be significant.
Truck queuing will have to be accomplished on site to prevent
further congestion.

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no existing issues for this site. However, the site is
less than a mile from the nearest residential zoning and the presence of wetlands, wildlife habitat and
other environmental issues suggests that the siting of a WTE facility may be met with opposition by the
community at this location.

www.arcadis.com
5/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 19

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Approximately 1.2 miles of two-lane road with paved shoulder and stormwater controls will need to be constructed for
proper site access. Additional ROW may have to be acquired.

• Construction of approximately 0.5 miles of 12” water main and possibly a booster station will be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and about 1.1 miles of 6” force main will likely be required.

• Construction of approximately 2.3 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Construction of approximately 1.4 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Due to shallow depth to bedrock, rock excavation may be required to install utility pipelines, which could significantly
increase utility construction costs.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, and
electric utility infrastructure.

• Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Permit, a State 404 Permit from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J.

www.arcadis.com
6/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 20

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

This 156.56-acre site is located outside the UDB, in unincorporated Folio No: 16-7933-001-0020
Miami-Dade County. The combined site area is sufficient to support the
proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Waste-to-Energy (WTE) facility and Owner: SDI Aggregates, LLC
expansion to 5,000 TPD capacity or the addition of other facilities such
as an ash monofil, recycling center or an education center. The 2021 MDPA Market Value: $3,375,575
property is less than a 10-minute travel time to Card Sound Road, 0.61
miles from residential zoning and 8.16 miles from the boundary of Zoning District: GU
Everglades National Park.
PA Zone: Interim - Awaiting Specific
Zoning

www.arcadis.com
1/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 20

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 28.2 miles southwest of the existing RRF, 0.61 miles from residential
zoning and 8.16 miles from the boundary of Everglades National Park. If this site were selected, the
effects on the County’s Solid Waste System would be considerable. Direct hauls from the collection
routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF would divert to the three transfer stations for disposal.
Incoming waste at those stations would increase and may result in capacity issues, especially at the
West Transfer Station, which is currently operating at approximately 80% of design capacity. A new
transfer station would need to be constructed at or near the site of the existing RRF to maintain the
current collection patterns and transfer station loadings.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility.
Their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would significantly increase due to longer travel
distances and expected traffic congestion. Transfer fleet round trip times would increase and would
likely result in the need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes. Transfer fleet
fuel consumption and maintenance costs would significantly increase due to the additional deliveries
and travel times and distances, while similar Collection fleet costs would also increase due to longer
travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be significantly higher than
at the existing RRF even if the existing RRF site could be converted to an ash monofill, or ash
generated at this location was landfilled at the Medley Landfill. If disposed at a non-County facility,
expected costs for ash disposal would increase even further.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. A 12” potable water main is available approximately
1.25 miles NW of the site on SW 167th Ave., but further analysis is needed to verify service
pressure and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to provide adequate service
pressure at the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives.
Reuse of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE
facilities, but for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary
sewer. The closest sanitary sewer collection system appears to be available approximately 1.5
miles NW of the site on SW 167th Ave., but further analysis is needed to verify capacity and
system impacts. An on-site lift station and about 1.5 miles of 6” force main may be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest transmission main is approximately 3.2

www.arcadis.com
2/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 20

miles NW of the site on Krome Ave/US-1. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is
assumed to be within existing ROW and easements.

• Electric – Nearest substation/ switchyard is FPL Farmlife Substation located 1.6 miles away at
35600 SW 162nd Street. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and
available terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the predominant site soils as Biscayne marly silt
loam, drained, 0 to 1 percent slopes. The presence of Biscayne marl soils indicates the seasonal high
groundwater elevation is typically within 10 inches of the ground surface but would have to be
confirmed by geotechnical investigations.
These soils are severely limited for building foundations because of water content and shallow depth
to bedrock, and areas under building foundations would need to be removed and replaced with
structural fill. The high groundwater may result in the need for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will
also increase project costs due to the need for additional structural fill.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone A. High groundwater
elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will significantly increase both the cost
and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 8.16 miles (13.1 km) E of the Everglades Class I Area, 5.63 mi (9.1 km) W of the
Biscayne Class II Area, and about 5.5 miles WSW of the FPL Turkey Point Power Plant, a large
Title V emitter.

www.arcadis.com
3/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 20

As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s).

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site
contains no wetlands. The site appears predominantly undisturbed. The site is within a Florida
panther focus area for consultation or critical habitat for endangered or threatened species under
the Endangered Species Act. The site is within the urban development boundary in Miami-Dade
County for the Florida bonneted bat and individual consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service is required.
Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Resource
Permit, State 404 Permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland
mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B. MDC Policy CON-9B states that all
nesting, roosting and feeding habitats used by federal or State designated endangered or
threatened species, shall be protected and buffered from surrounding development or activities and
further degradation or destruction of such habitat shall not be authorized.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J. The site is within the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) area and development at this location will have wetland
impacts. MDC Policy CON-7J states the County is to review development applications that include
wetland impacts for consistency with CERP objectives. Applications inconsistent with CERP
objectives, projects or features shall be denied.

www.arcadis.com
4/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 20

Transportation
Travel time north to Card Sound Road and US-1 is less than 10
minutes. Existing access to site is via SW 360th Street, SW 167th
Ave., and SW 356th St. (see map below), but approximately 2.4
miles of two-lane road with paved shoulders will need to be
constructed for proper site access (see existing SW 360th Street
picture at right). Additional ROW may have to be acquired.
The volume of traffic that is expected at the proposed WTE facility
(400-500 trucks per day), will greatly increase the loads on local
roads so the traffic impacts on Card Sound Road, SW 360th Street
and SW 167th Ave., and other local roads will likely be significant.
Truck queuing will have to be accomplished on site to prevent
further congestion.

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no existing issues for this site. However, the site is
less than a mile from the nearest residential zoning and the presence of wetlands, wildlife habitat and
other environmental issues suggests that the siting of a WTE facility may be met with opposition by the
community at this location.

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

www.arcadis.com
5/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 20

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Approximately 2.4 miles of two-lane road with paved shoulder and stormwater controls will need to be constructed for
proper site access. Additional ROW may have to be acquired.

• Construction of approximately 1.25 miles of 12” water main and possibly a booster station will be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and about 1.5 miles of 6” force main may be required.

• Construction of approximately 3.2 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Construction of approximately 1.6 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Due to shallow depth to bedrock, rock excavation may be required to install utility pipelines, which could significantly
increase utility construction costs.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, and
electric utility infrastructure.

• Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Permit, a State 404 Permit from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J.

www.arcadis.com
6/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 21

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

Folio No: 16-7933-001-0031

This 57.85-acre site is located outside the UDB, in unincorporated
Miami-Dade County. The combined site area is sufficient to support the Owner: SDI Aggregates, LLC
proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Waste-to-Energy (WTE) facility and
expansion to 5,000 TPD capacity or the addition of other facilities such 2021 MDPA Market Value: $1,421,500
as a recycling center or an education center. The property is less than a
10-minute travel time to Card Sound Road, 1.09 miles from residential Zoning District: GU
zoning and 8.14 miles from the boundary of Everglades National Park.
PA Zone: Interim - Awaiting Specific
Zoning

www.arcadis.com
1/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 21

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 28.6 miles southwest of the existing RRF, 1.09 miles from residential
zoning and 8.14 miles from the boundary of Everglades National Park. If this site were selected, the
effects on the County’s Solid Waste System would be considerable. Direct hauls from the collection
routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF would divert to the three transfer stations for disposal.
Incoming waste at those stations would increase and may result in capacity issues, especially at the
West Transfer Station, which is currently operating at approximately 80% of design capacity. A new
transfer station would need to be constructed at or near the site of the existing RRF to maintain the
current collection patterns and transfer station loadings.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility.
Their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would significantly increase due to longer travel
distances and expected traffic congestion. Transfer fleet round trip times would increase and would
likely result in the need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes. Transfer fleet
fuel consumption and maintenance costs would significantly increase due to the additional deliveries
and travel times and distances, while similar Collection fleet costs would also increase due to longer
travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be significantly higher than
at the existing RRF even if the existing RRF site could be converted to an ash monofill, or ash
generated at this location was landfilled at the Medley Landfill. If disposed at a non-County facility,
expected costs for ash disposal would increase even further.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. A 12” potable water main is available approximately
2.0 miles NW of the site on SW 167th Ave., but further analysis is needed to verify service pressure
and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to provide adequate service pressure at
the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives.
Reuse of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE
facilities, but for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary
sewer. The closest sanitary sewer collection system appears to be available approximately 2.7
miles NW of the site on SW 167th Ave., but further analysis is needed to verify capacity and
system impacts. An on-site lift station and about 2.7 miles of 6” force main may be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest transmission main is approximately 5.1

www.arcadis.com
2/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 21

miles NW of the site on Krome Ave/US-1. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is
assumed to be within existing ROW and easements.

• Electric – Nearest substation/ switchyard is FPL Farmlife Substation located 2.3 miles away at
35600 SW 162nd Street. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and
available terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the predominant site soils as Biscayne marly silt
loam, drained, 0 to 1 percent slopes. The presence of Biscayne marl soils indicates the seasonal high
groundwater elevation is typically within 10 inches of the ground surface but would have to be
confirmed by geotechnical investigations.
These soils are severely limited for building foundations because of water content and shallow depth
to bedrock, and areas under building foundations would need to be removed and replaced with
structural fill. The high groundwater may result in the need for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will
also increase project costs due to the need for additional structural fill.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone A. High groundwater
elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will significantly increase both the cost
and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 8.14 miles (13.1 km) E of the Everglades Class I Area, 5.98 mi (9.6 km) W of the
Biscayne Class II Area, and about 5.8 miles WSW of the FPL Turkey Point Power Plant, a large
Title V emitter.

www.arcadis.com
3/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 21

As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s).

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory, National Hydrography Dataset, and
South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site
contains minor wetlands. The site appears predominantly undisturbed. The site is within a Florida
panther focus area for consultation or critical habitat for endangered or threatened species under
the Endangered Species Act. The site is within the urban development boundary in Miami-Dade
County for the Florida bonneted bat and individual consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service is required.
Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Resource
Permit, State 404 Permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland
mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B. MDC Policy CON-9B states that all
nesting, roosting and feeding habitats used by federal or State designated endangered or
threatened species, shall be protected and buffered from surrounding development or activities and
further degradation or destruction of such habitat shall not be authorized.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J. The site is within the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) area and development at this location will have wetland
impacts. MDC Policy CON-7J states the County is to review development applications that include
wetland impacts for consistency with CERP objectives. Applications inconsistent with CERP
objectives, projects or features shall be denied.

www.arcadis.com
4/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 21

Transportation
Travel time north to Card Sound Road and US-1 is less than 10 minutes. Existing access to site is via
SW 167th Ave. and SW 376th Street (see map below), but approximately 1.4 miles of two-lane road
with paved shoulders will need to be constructed for proper site access. Additional ROW may have to
be acquired.
The volume of traffic that is expected at the proposed WTE facility (400-500 trucks per day), will
greatly increase the loads on local roads so the traffic impacts on Card Sound Road, SW 376th Street
and SW 167th Ave. will likely be significant. Truck queuing will have to be accomplished on site to
prevent further congestion.

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no existing issues for this site. However, the site is
less than a mile from the nearest residential zoning and the presence of wetlands, wildlife habitat and
other environmental issues suggests that the siting of a WTE facility may be met with opposition by the
community at this location.

www.arcadis.com
5/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 21

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Approximately 1.4 miles of two-lane road with paved shoulder and stormwater controls will need to be constructed for
proper site access. Additional ROW may have to be acquired.

• Construction of approximately 2.0 miles of 12” water main and possibly a booster station will be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and about 2.7 miles of 6” force main may be required.

• Construction of approximately 5.1 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Construction of approximately 2.3 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Due to shallow depth to bedrock, rock excavation may be required to install utility pipelines, which could significantly
increase utility construction costs.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, and
electric utility infrastructure.

• Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Permit, a State 404 Permit from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9B.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J.

www.arcadis.com
6/6
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 22

Site Scorecard
Location Utilities Soils Environment Transportation Community Schedule Cost

N/A N/A

MDPA Parcel Map Location Map

Site Information MDPA Parcel Data

This 98.43-acre site is located outside the UDB, in unincorporated Folio No: 16-7933-001-0031
Miami-Dade County. The combined site area is sufficient to support the
proposed 4,000 ton per day (TPD) Waste-to-Energy (WTE) facility and Owner: SDI Aggregates, LLC
expansion to 5,000 TPD capacity or the addition of other facilities such
as a recycling center or an education center. The property is less than a 2021 MDPA Market Value: $335,825
10-minute travel time to Card Sound Road, 1.17 miles from residential
zoning and 8.26 miles from the boundary of Everglades National Park. Zoning District: GU

PA Zone: Interim - Awaiting Specific

Zoning

www.arcadis.com
1/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 22

Operational, Engineering, and Regulatory Considerations

Location
The site is located approximately 29.0 miles southwest of the existing RRF, 1.17 miles from residential
zoning and 8.26 miles from the boundary of Everglades National Park. If this site were selected, the
effects on the County’s Solid Waste System would be considerable. Direct hauls from the collection
routes in the vicinity of the existing RRF would divert to the three transfer stations for disposal.
Incoming waste at those stations would increase and may result in capacity issues, especially at the
West Transfer Station, which is currently operating at approximately 80% of design capacity. A new
transfer station would need to be constructed at or near the site of the existing RRF to maintain the
current collection patterns and transfer station loadings.
The number of deliveries by transfer trucks from the County’s landfills, transfer stations, and Trash &
Recycling Centers (TRCs) would increase to meet the increased capacity of the new WTE facility.
Their travel patterns would be altered, and travel times would significantly increase due to longer travel
distances and expected traffic congestion. Transfer fleet round trip times would increase and would
likely result in the need for additional vehicles and drivers to manage transfer volumes. Transfer fleet
fuel consumption and maintenance costs would significantly increase due to the additional deliveries
and travel times and distances, while similar Collection fleet costs would also increase due to longer
travel distances and traffic congestion.
Ash hauling costs for a new WTE facility located at this site are expected to be significantly higher than
at the existing RRF even if the existing RRF site could be converted to an ash monofill, or ash
generated at this location was landfilled at the Medley Landfill. If disposed at a non-County facility,
expected costs for ash disposal would increase even further.

Utilities
• Potable water – The site would need a minimum 12” water main to provide an 8” fire line and a 4”
potable supply line to the proposed facility. A 12” potable water main is available approximately
2.2 miles NW of the site on SW 167th Ave., but further analysis is needed to verify service pressure
and system capacity. A booster station may be needed to provide adequate service pressure at
the site.

• Wastewater – The proposed facility will need a minimum wastewater reuse or discharge capacity
of approximately 96,000 gallons per day. Wastewater reuse or discharge options will need to be
considered depending upon sewer system capacity and injection well permitting alternatives.
Reuse of process wastewater is commonly used to minimize sanitary sewer usage at WTE
facilities, but for site evaluation purposes all wastewater was assumed to be discharged to sanitary
sewer. The closest sanitary sewer collection system appears to be available approximately 2.7
miles NW of the site on SW 167th Ave., but further analysis is needed to verify capacity and
system impacts. An on-site lift station and about 2.7 miles of 6” force main may be required.

• Natural gas – The site would need a minimum 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the
proposed facility for boiler auxiliary burners. The closest transmission main is approximately 5.7

www.arcadis.com
2/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 22

miles NW of the site. Construction of the 6” service line to the site is assumed to be within existing
ROW and easements.

• Electric – Nearest substation/ switchyard is FPL Farmlife Substation located 2.3 miles away at
35600 SW 162nd Street. Need to verify substation/ switchyard spare capacity, voltage, and
available terminations. Proposed transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL Easements.

• Stormwater – High groundwater elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will
significantly increase both the cost and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Groundwater – Groundwater is typically used at WTE facilities to supplement the potable water
service and provide industrial supply water for cooling towers, condensers, and other high-volume
water uses. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility is expected to consume an average of 552,000
gallons per day. Other more innovative and sustainable solutions, such as reuse and rainwater
harvesting, are also available to reduce potable water consumption requirements. A consumptive
use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be required to
withdraw any groundwater from the aquifer or from a canal, lake or river. If groundwater is not
available at a site, or a consumptive use permit cannot be obtained, then potable water service will
have to provide for WTE facility water consumption needs, which will increase operating costs.

Soil
The USDA Soil Survey data for the site classifies the predominant site soils as Biscayne marly silt
loam, drained, 0 to 1 percent slopes. The presence of Biscayne marl soils indicates the seasonal high
groundwater elevation is typically within 10 inches of the ground surface but would have to be
confirmed by geotechnical investigations.
These soils are severely limited for building foundations because of water content and shallow depth
to bedrock, and areas under building foundations would need to be removed and replaced with
structural fill. The high groundwater may result in the need for elevating the tipping floor pit, which will
also increase project costs due to the need for additional structural fill.

Environment
• Floodplains – The site is in a 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Flood Zone A. High groundwater
elevations and required floodplain compensating storage will significantly increase both the cost
and site area used for stormwater retention.

• Environmental Assessments – No known existing Environmental Assessments for this site.

• Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification – A complete PPSA Application would need to be
developed, inclusive of the associated individual permitting processes (Air Construction/PSD, ERP,
Stormwater Permitting, UIC Permitting (if needed), etc.) The PSC “need determination” filing
process is also required.

• New Source Review (NSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting – The
site is located 8.26 miles (13.3 km) E of the Everglades Class I Area, 5.74 mi (9.2 km) W of the
Biscayne Class II Area, and about 5.7 miles WSW of the FPL Turkey Point Power Plant, a large
Title V emitter.

www.arcadis.com
3/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 22

As a proposed major source of air pollutant emissions, a new WTE facility would be subject to PSD
permitting requirements under the NSR permitting program. Pre-construction approval under the
PSD permitting program is primarily contingent upon application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and completion of dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance
with ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at both receptors located in the immediate
vicinity of the site (Class II areas) and stricter air quality related criteria at sensitive receptors
located within nearby federally protected Class I areas (or sensitive Class II areas).
The nearby Everglades National Park’s location along the western border of the county and the
Biscayne Bay NP (sensitive Class II area) located on the eastern side both having more stringent
air quality related values (AQRVs) provide uncertainties associated with demonstrating acceptable
impacts from the operation of a new WTE facility and thus will make air permitting very challenging
at this prospective site. The AQRVs are resources, identified by the Class I area land manager
agencies (i.e., National Parks Service), that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These
resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for sensitive
area(s).

• Environmental Resources Permitting and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Dredge & Fill Permitting – The National Wetlands Inventory and National Hydrography Dataset
indicates wetlands are present. The South Florida Water Management District Land Cover and
Land Use 2017-2019 indicates the site is comprised wet prairie wetlands. The site appears to be
partially disturbed. The site is within the Florida panther primary focus area for consultation and will
potentially require panther mitigation. The site is within the proposed critical habitat and within the
urban development boundary in Miami-Dade County for the Florida bonneted bat and individual
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required. The site is not within the 18.6 miles
buffer of an active wood stork colony and does not appear to require wood stork mitigation.
Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Resource
Permit, State 404 Permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland
mitigation.

• Species Habitat – Conflict with Policy CON-9A. MDC Policy CON-9A states that all activities that
adversely affect habitat that is critical to Federal, or State designated, endangered or threatened
species shall be prohibited unless such activity(ies) are a public necessity and there are no possible
alternative sites where the activity(ies) can occur.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J. The site is within the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) area and development at this location will have wetland
impacts. MDC Policy CON-7J states the County is to review development applications that include
wetland impacts for consistency with CERP objectives. Applications inconsistent with CERP
objectives, projects or features shall be denied.

www.arcadis.com
4/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 22

Transportation
Travel time north to Card Sound Road and US-1 is less than 10 minutes. Existing access to site is via
SW 167th Ave. and SW 376th Street (see map below), but approximately 1.4 miles of two-lane road
with paved shoulders will need to be constructed for proper site access. Additional ROW may have to
be acquired.
The volume of traffic that is expected at the proposed WTE facility (400-500 trucks per day), will
greatly increase the loads on local roads so the traffic impacts on Card Sound Road, SW 376th Street
and SW 167th Ave. will likely be significant. Truck queuing will have to be accomplished on site to
prevent further congestion.

www.arcadis.com
5/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 22

Community
The USEPA EJScreen Standard Report indicated no existing issues for this site. However, the site is
less than a mile from the nearest residential zoning and the presence of wetlands, wildlife habitat and
other environmental issues suggests that the siting of a WTE facility may be met with opposition by the
community at this location.

Schedule
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of schedule effects
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Cost
This site was eliminated from consideration during the Detailed Screening stage. No evaluation of differential costs
resulting from site conditions was performed.

Site Differentiators Overview

• Larger site area for stormwater control due to high groundwater

• Floodplain compensating storage required

• Removal of muck soils and replacement with structural fill required in development areas

• Additional structural fill for tipping floor pit due to high groundwater

• Approximately 1.4 miles of two-lane road with paved shoulder and stormwater controls will need to be constructed for
proper site access. Additional ROW may have to be acquired.

• Construction of approximately 2.2 miles of 12” water main and possibly a booster station will be required.

• Construction of an on-site wastewater lift station and about 2.7 miles of 6” force main may be required.

• Construction of approximately 5.2 miles of 6” gas service piping to provide natural gas to the proposed facility for
boiler auxiliary burners.

• Construction of approximately 2.3 miles of electrical transmission line routing through existing ROW/ FPL easements.
Also, upgrades to the existing substation may be needed.

• Due to shallow depth to bedrock, rock excavation may be required to install utility pipelines, which could significantly
increase utility construction costs.

• Additional ROW/easements may be needed to complete routing of potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, and
electric utility infrastructure.

• Permanent impacts to wetlands would potentially require an Individual Environmental Permit, a State 404 Permit from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and wetland mitigation.

www.arcadis.com
6/7
 Future Waste-To-Energy Facility
Siting Alternatives Analysis

Analysis Summary – Alternative Site No. 22

• Species Habitat – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-9A.

• SFWMD CERP Site – Conflict with MDC Policy CON-7J.

www.arcadis.com
7/7
Appendix B
Preliminary Implementation Schedule

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx B
 Miami‐Dade Department of Solid Waste Management
Future WTE Facility Siting Evaluation
Appendix B ‐ Preliminary Implementation Schedule

Task Activity Duration of Activity Total Task Duration (Start Date to 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Finish Date) Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q3Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
Summary 7 years 9 months ‐ 11 years 3 months 7 years 9 months ‐ 11 years 3 months
*demo not included in duration *demo not included in duration

1 Siting / Planning 1.5 ‐ 2.5 years 1.5 ‐ 2.5 years

2 Financing 1.5 years 3 years 9 months ‐ 6 years 3 months

3 Regulatory / Permitting 3.5 ‐ 4.5 years 3.5 ‐ 4.5 years

4 Procurement 2 ‐ 3 years 3 years ‐ 4 years 9 months

5 Notice to Proceed / Design and Construction 4 ‐ 5 years 4 ‐ 5 years

6 System Operational Impacts and Demolition 1 ‐ 1.5 years for Shutdown and Demo 1.5 years ‐ 7 years 9 months

Legend
Existing Site
Site 1: Medley
Site 16: Ingraham Hwy Site 1
Site 17: Ingraham Hwy Site 2

Note:
‐Tasks identified in this high‐level implementation schedule represent the Early Start Date, the earliest date a scheduled activity can be started. Certain tasks may be started earlier or later or extend or compressed to shorten or extend the
schedule.
‐Duration of Activity indicates the time that activity is occurring for the task and is included in report Table 2‐2 Summary of Schedule Tasks with Estimated Durations
‐Total Task Duration (Start Date to Finish Date) indicates the total time from the beginning of the first task or subtask to the end of the last task or subtask.
‐Task durations provided are preliminary best estimates based on our professional judgement and experience with other facilities and processes.
‐Demolition of the existing RRF included as lighter‐colored durations.

Schedule Considerations for New Miami WTE.xlsx Page 1 of 1 Printed: 6/30/2022

Appendix C
Cost Considerations Table

www.arcadis.com
FINAL Preliminary WTE Facility Siting Analysis Report.docx C
 Miami-Dade Department of Solid Waste Management
Future WTE Facility Siting Evaluation
Appendix C - Cost Considerations - Basis of Costs

Costs (Unit
Site Existing MDRRF Site (Doral) Site 1 - Medley Site 16 - Ingraham Hwy. Site #1 Site 17 - Ingraham Hwy. Site #2
Costs, when Units for Unit
available) Cost
Unit Unit Unit
Checklist Unit Quantity Cost % of BASE Checklist Quantity Cost % of BASE Checklist Quantity Cost % of BASE Checklist Quantity Cost % of BASE
Additional Site Estimates
Parcel Area acres 157.16 320.31 159.71 81.11
WTE Site Area acres 50 50 50 50
Building areas for vibrocompaction square feet 871,200 871,200 871,200 871,200
Soils Removal/Replace with Select Fill depth (feet) 0.25 0.58 0.58
volume (CY) 8,067 18,822 18,822
Embankment Fill (for elevation) volume (CY) for one foot elevation required 32,267 32,267 32,267

Estimated Cost Differentials

Location
percentage
above market
1
Land Acquisition - MDPA Market Value Plus 10% value N $0 0.0% Y $42,483,287 2.9% Y 1 $2,523,928 0.2% Y $1,017,309 0.1%
Offsite Access Road development $2,546,993 per mile N 0.0% N 0.0% N Y 0.75 $1,910,245 0.1%
Utilities
Off-Site Utilities Construction
Water
12-inch DIP pipeline $475,200 per mile N 0.0% N 0.0% Y 3.3 $1,568,160 0.1% Y 4.0 $1,900,800 0.1%
Booster Pump Station, MGD (if no ISW) $200,644 per booster statio N 0.0% Y 1 $200,644 0.0% Y 1 $200,644 0.0% Y 1 $200,644 0.0%
Wastewater
6-inch PVC force main $386,338 per mile N 0.0% N 0.0% Y 3.3 $1,274,914 0.1% Y 4.0 $1,545,350 0.1%
Lift station $45,936 per station N Y 1 $45,936 0.0% Y 1 $45,936 0.0% Y 1 $45,936 0.0%
Natural Gas
Distance $500,000 per mile N 0.0% Y 2.2 $1,100,000 0.1% Y 5.5 $2,750,000 0.2% Y 6.0 $3,000,000 0.2%
Electric
Distance $1,000,000 per mile N 0.0% Y 1.9 $1,900,000 0.1% Y 6.5 $6,500,000 0.4% Y 6.5 $6,500,000 0.4%
Industrial Supply Well Development $1,200,000 per well N 0.0% N 0.0% N 0.0% N 0.0%
Industrial Supply Well Rehabilitation - 25% of well d $300,000 per well Y 3 $900,000 0.1% N N N
Additional ROW/Easement for Utilities - 60 foot wideMarket Value N 0.0% Y 2.2 $2,122,109 0.1% Y 6.5 $747,060 0.1% Y 6.5 $592,910 0.0%
Stormwater2
Additional for site, above typical, 4 foot perimet $30.13 per CY N 0.0% Y 16,800 $506,184 0.0% Y 16,800 $506,184 0.0% Y 16,800 $506,184 0.0%
Additional for temporary stormwater retainage d $500,000 per site Y 1 $500,000 0.0% N 0.0% N 0.0% N 0.0%
Special Construction (i.e., Elevate Pit)
Additional Elevation of Pit due to high ground water elevation (5 foot included in re N 0.0% N 0.0% N 0.0% N 0.0%
Lake fill costs $56.43 per CY Y 114,060 $6,436,201 0.4% N 0.0% N 0.0% N 0.0%
Soil
Removal of Muck Soils $14.43 CY N 0 0.0% N 0.0% Y 18,822 $271,605 0.0% Y 18,822 $271,605 0.0%
Replace with Select Fill $25.00 CY N 0 0.0% Y 8,067 $201,667 0.0% Y 18,822 $470,556 0.0% Y 18,822 $470,556 0.0%
Geotechnical Issues (Vibrocompaction) $7.83 per square foot Y 500,000 $3,915,000 0.3% Y 871,200 $6,821,496 0.5% Y 871,200 $6,821,496 0.5% Y 871,200 $6,821,496 0.5%
Environment
Flood plain mitigation if required feet of elevation r N N Y 1 Y 1
Embankment Fill $30.13 per CY N 0.0% N 0.0% Y 32,267 $972,195 0.1% Y 32,267 $972,195 0.1%
Wildlife Mitigation / Relocation
Wood Stork $65,000 per acre N 0.0% N 0.0% N 0.0% N 0.0%
Bonneted Bat - developed $5,000 per acre Y 50 $250,000 0.0% N 0.0% N 0.0% N 0.0%
Bonneted Bat - undeveloped $200,000 per acre N 0.0% N 0.0% Y 50 $10,000,000 0.7% Y 50 $10,000,000 0.7%
Florida Panthers $65,000 per acre N 0.0% N 0.0% N 0.0% Y 50 $3,250,000 0.2%
Environmental Mitigation 0.0%
Permanent Wetlands Mitigation - low $65,000 per acre N 0.0% N 0.0% Y 50 $3,250,000 0.2% Y 50 $3,250,000 0.2%
Permanent Wetlands Mitigation - high $120,000 per acre N 0.0% N 0.0% N 0.0% N 0.0%
Zoning and Permitting Cost Differential $3,074,668 per site N 0.0% Y 1 $3,074,668 0.2% Y 1 $3,074,668 0.2% Y 1 $3,074,668 0.2%
Permitting Difficulty (percentage of)3 $3,074,668 per site N $0 0.0% Moderate $1,844,801 0.1% Severe 1 $3,382,135 0.2% Severe $3,382,135 0.2%
State 404 N Y Y
Environmental Resources Permit Y Y
Air PSD/NSR Permitting Y Y Y Y
PPSA Y
Consumptive Use Permit
System
Ash Disposal
Monofill Development (if feasible and space ava $1,000,000 per acre N 0.0% N 0.0% N 0.0% N 0.0%
System Effects - Capital4
Transfer Station Construction $45,000,000 per station N 0.0% N 0.0% Y 1 $45,000,000 3.1% Y 1 $45,000,000 3.1%
Fleet vehicles - Transfer Trailers $300,000 per trailer N 0.0% N 0.0% Y 10 $3,000,000 0.2% Y 10 $3,000,000 0.2%
Waste Diversion for Construction5 see Basis of Cos total cost N 0.0% N 0.0% N 0.0% N 0.0%
TOTAL SITE COST DIFFERENTIATORS - Capital $12,001,201 0.8% $60,300,792 4.2% $92,359,480 6.4% $96,712,032 6.7%
ESTIMATED TOTAL CAPITAL COST $1,445,520,543 $1,493,820,134 $1,525,878,822 $1,530,231,374
ESTIMATED TOTAL CAPITAL COST DIFFERENTIAL WITH BASE COST Base - Least Cost Alt $48,300,000 $80,400,000 $84,700,000

Page 1 of 5
 Miami-Dade Department of Solid Waste Management
Future WTE Facility Siting Evaluation
Appendix C - Cost Considerations - Basis of Costs

Costs (Unit
Site Existing MDRRF Site (Doral) Site 1 - Medley Site 16 - Ingraham Hwy. Site #1 Site 17 - Ingraham Hwy. Site #2
Costs, when Units for Unit
available) Cost
Unit Unit Unit
Checklist Unit Quantity Cost % of BASE Checklist Quantity Cost % of BASE Checklist Quantity Cost % of BASE Checklist Quantity Cost % of BASE
Operational Impacts6 $10.83 per ton, Year 1
Utilities - Water
Purchase of Potable $1.72 cost per ton wast N Y 1 $1.72 15% Y 1 $1.72 15% Y 1 $1.72 15%
System Effects - Operational
Ash Disposal7,8
Ash Hauling - landfill near RRF site see Basis of Cos cost per ton wast Y 1 $0.39 Y 1 $0.39 3% Y 1 $3.08 27% Y 1 $3.08 27%
O&M Cost Impacts9
Transfer O&M (staffing, utilities, maintenance fo $8.61 cost per ton wast N N Y 1 $8.61 77% Y 1 $8.61 77%

TOTAL SITE COST DIFFERENTIATORS - Operational, cost per ton waste processed Year 1 $0.39 $2.10 19% $13.40 119% $13.40 119%
ESTIMATED TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST per ton waste processed - Year 1 $11.22 $12.93 $24.23 $24.23

Notes:
1 Property acquisition based on 2021 MDPA Market Value plus markup identified on same row
2 Stormwater above typical assumes construction of berm around perimeter of WTE site for stormwater containment.
3 Permitting Difficulty - Rated as minor (25%), moderate (60%), and severe difficulty (110%) with percentage of Zoning and permitting cost differential to account for additional consultant cost.
4 System Effects - Capital Cost Impacts estimated to be transfer station development and additional transfer trailers
5 Waste Diversion for Construction on existing site - estimated cost differential between hauling and disposal at Okeechobee and disposal at MDRRF.
6 Operational Impacts are estimated on a per ton of waste processed basis and compared to base operational costs per ton waste processed, per the estimates developed for the WTE Facility Cost Estimate Project
7 Ash Hauling - assuming ash would be hauled off-site for disposal at a Landfill near RRF site. Cost differential is in hauling distance/cost.
8 Regular MSW that may be sent to nearby landfill would have to be diverted to allow ash to be disposed at nearby landfill.
9 System Effect - O&M Cost Impacts estimated to be additional drivers, equipment replacement, additional consumables for waste hauling

Page 2 of 5
 Miami-Dade Department of Solid Waste Management
Future WTE Facility Siting Evaluation
Appendix C - Cost Considerations - Basis of Costs

Basis of Costs
CAPITAL Assumptions
Water and Wastewater Utility Costs Site Information Unit Conversion
12" DIP $83.99 per lineal foot 2022 FDOT summary cost data Overall WTE site area - 4,000 TPD 50 acres 1 cubic yards
12" DIP rounded up to include fittings, valves, etc. (water supply) $90.00 per lineal foot 2022 FDOT summary cost data 2,178,000 square feet 27 cubic feet
6" PVC pipe (wastewater force main) $73.17 per lineal foot 2022 FDOT summary cost data Percent of site for buildings (area of 40% 1 mile
wastewater lift station $500,000 per MGD flow 2022 recent project cost estimate 5280 feet
assumed wastewater flow 0.09 MGD see Water, WW, and NG Needs sheet CPI 3% 1 acre 0
wastewater lift station cost per lift station $45,936 per lift station 43560 square feet
water booster pump station $500,000 per MGD flow 2022 recent project cost estimate 1 square miles
water booster pump station cost per pump station $200,644 per pump station without ISW 640 acre
Industrial Supply Well development, 6-inch $1,200,000 per well 2022 recent project cost estimate, to be verified 1 ccf
Industrial Supply Well rehabilitation (25% of development) $300,000 per well existing site has 3 wells on-site. Would need review and repair 748 gallons

Road Development Costs

Undivided 2-lane rural road, 5' shoulders, new construction $2,546,993 per mile 2022 FDOT summary cost data, includes required stormwater for road

Site Development Costs

Regular excavation (removal of soils) $14.43 per cubic yard 2022 FDOT summary cost data
Embankment fill (for elevating site) $30.13 per cubic yard 2022 FDOT summary cost data
Regular fill $25.00 per cubic yard 2022 recent project cost estimate
Vibrocompaction, 450 probes per acre at 40ft depth $5.52 per square foot 2010 PBREF 2 change order 5 (see separate sheet for breakdown)
Vibrocompaction, 450 probes per acre at 40ft depth $7.83 per square foot 2022 PBREF 2 change order 5, escalated per ENR cost index

Stormwater
Assumes construction of 4 foot berm around site perimeter, 3:1 side slope, 2 feet top width
Perimeter (linear feet) 8100 on average, can update based on siPerimeter
Foot print (square feet) 26 per linear foot Existing Site 5713 linear feet
Total foot print, on average 4.83 acres Site 16 8218.54 linear feet
Volume of soils for berm (cubic feet) 56 per linear foot Site 17 8055.11 linear feet
Volume of soils for berm (cubic yards) 6.22 per linear yard Average 8136.825
Volume of soils for berm (cubic yards) 16800 CY per site
Cost for berm construction $30.13 per cubic yard similar to embankment fill cost
Cost per site $506,184 per site

Lake Fill
Reference Facility Lake Fill Cost Estimate (2020) $13,000,000 2020
Lake Fill Cost Estimate (CY) - South Lake 338,323
Estimated Cost Per CY $38.42 2020
Estimated Cost Per CY $56.43 2033

Date of Cost
Ash Monofill Unit Cost unit Estimate Source:
Ash Monofill Expansion cost per acre $800,000 per acre Sep-18 recent project cost estimate
Ash Monofill Expansion cost per acre $1,000,000 per acre May-22 recent project cost estimate
Ash disposal per acre ton per acre data from existing ash monofill?
existing ash monofill disposal capacity until 2028. Expansion may be possible
System Effects - Capital
Capital Cost
Transfer Station Construction $45,000,000 Tampa ($34M, 2021, 50K sq ft), SWA (2013), DSWM CIP $45M
Fleet vehicles - Transfer Trailers $300,000 per trailer 10 units needed based on recent 2021/2022 quote
Fleet vehicles - Collection Vehicles $350,000 per vehicle 0 units needed

OPERATIONAL
Waste Processed per year 1,333,333 tons per year
Ash disposal per year 120,051 tons per year
Year 1 Net O&M Cost $14,439,872
Year 1 Net O&M Cost per Ton (Base) $10.83 per ton 2033
Potable Water Purchased
Potable water cost $8.20 per ccf 2021 MD DSWM WTE cost estimate
Potable water cost $11.69 per ccf 2033
Potable water cost $10,962.57 per million gallons 2021
Potable water cost $15,630.00 per million gallons 2033
assumed potable water usage without ISW 0.40 MGD see Water, WW, and NG Needs sheet
assumed potable water usage without ISW 146.47 MG per year see Water, WW, and NG Needs sheet
Total assumed potable water cost without ISW - Year 1 $2,289,332 per year 2033
Total potable water cost without ISW per ton waste processed $1.72 per ton of waste processed

Page 3 of 5
 Miami-Dade Department of Solid Waste Management
Future WTE Facility Siting Evaluation
Appendix C - Cost Considerations - Basis of Costs

Ash hauling and disposal costs:

Medley Landfill (Waste Management) 9350 NW 89th Ave, Medley, FL will need to verify capacity for past 2033
Tipping Fee ($/ton) $34.17 per ton 2021 MD DSWM WTE cost estimate, Medley Landfill
$48.72 per ton 2033
Distance from existing site 3 miles
Haul Cost ($/ton) - near existing site $3.00 per ton ash 2021
Haul Cost ($/ton) - near existing site - Year 1 $4.28 per ton ash 2033
Total ash haul cost -near existing site - Year 1 $513,491 per year
Ash Haul Cost per ton processed waste - Year 1 (near existing) $0.39 cost per ton waste processed
Distance to Site 16 and 17 43 miles
Haul Cost ($/ton) - Sites 16 and 17 $9.36 per ton ash 2021
Haul Cost ($/ton) - Sites 16 and 17 - Year 1 $13.35 per ton ash 2033
Total ash haul cost - Year 1 $4,102,133 per year
Ash Haul Cost per ton processed waste - Year 1 (Site 16 and 17) $3.08 cost per ton waste processed

Okeechobee Landfill (Waste Management) 10800 NE 128th Ave, Okeechobee, FL

Tipping Fee ($/ton) $30.00 per ton 2021 MD DSWM WTE cost estimate, Okeechobee Landfill
$42.77 per ton 2033
Estimated tipping fee percent increase due to demand 17.00% assume renegotiate with Okeechobee at a higher rate because of need and higher waste disposal tonnage contract
Renegotiated Tipping Fee ($/ton) $50.04 per ton 2033 not used SWA Diverted Waste Basis of Cost for reference
Distance from existing site 135 miles Diverted Waste Disposal Location Okeechobee LandfiN/A N/A Current Agreements
Haul Cost ($/ton) - near existing site $17.80 per ton 2021 Waste Disposal Location Distance fr 56 N/A N/A miles
Haul Cost ($/ton) - near existing site - Year 1 $25.38 per ton 2033 Hauling Cost per mile $ 4.15 N/A $ 4.15 $/mile
Total ash haul cost -near existing site - Year 1 $3,046,712 per year Haul Cost per ton $ 7.27 N/A $ 7.27 $/ton
Ash Haul Cost per ton processed waste - Year 1 (near existing) $2.29 cost per ton waste processed Year of Hauling Cost Estimate 2018 N/A 2018 year
Distance to Site 16 and 17 160 miles Tipping Fee - Solid Waste (per ton) $ 39.75 N/A N/A $/ton
Haul Cost ($/ton) - Sites 16 and 17 $21.18 per ton 2021 estimated 19% more because distance is 19% greater than from existingTipping Fee - C&D (per ton) $ 31.25 N/A N/A $/ton
Haul Cost ($/ton) - Sites 16 and 17 - Year 1 $30.20 per ton 2033 Tipping Fee - Vegetation (per ton) $ 31.25 N/A N/A $/ton
Total ash haul cost - Year 1 $3,601,522 per year Year of Tipping Fee Used 2019 N/A N/A year
Ash Haul Cost per ton processed waste - Year 1 (Site 16 and 17) $2.70 cost per ton waste processed Tons per Load - Garbage $ 21.70 N/A $ 21.70 tons/load
Tons per Load - Ash N/A N/A $ 21.70 tons/load
System Effects - Operational Operational costs are compared to projected O&M base cost PBREF 3 Distance from PBREP (mi N/A N/A 30 miles
O&M Costs
Transfer Station O&M (staffing, utilities, maintenance) $7,000,000 per year 2021 based on SWAPBC and Hillsborough data SWAPBC Component Cost SummAvg TS Cost Per ToTransportation Cost per ton Annual Tonnage Total Expenses
Drivers $75,000 per driver per year 2021 estimates Belle Glade TS $67.29 $23.40 2012 31,285 $2,097,110
Transfer Trailer O&M - Fuel, Maintenance, Equipment Replaceme $30,000 per unit per year 2021 estimates Delray TS $28.49 $8.13 2012 194,213 $5,413,202
Transfer trailer units needed 10 units needed Lantana TS $26.44 $11.35 2012 176,938 $8,883,190
Cost per year $8,050,000 per year 2021 similar to SWAPBC and Hillsborough data Jupiter TS $20.87 $8.68 2012 376,658 $9,910,933
$11,477,375.14 per year 2033 Royal Palm Beach TS $22.36 $6.70 2012 211,726 $4,382,320
Cost per year per ton waste processed $8.61 cost per ton waste processed Southwest TS $51.24 $7.61 2012 273,305 $6,098,259
Overall $29.38 $8.77 2012 1,264,125 $6,130,836 average
Miami-Dade System Costs Hillsborough County - Transfer Station Costs $39.48 $11.79 2022 $8,239,330
Transfer Station Operations Expenses $28,801,000 FY 2020 ActuaNWTS and CCC FY23 Total Budget $6,622,909 $54.66 $16.31 2033 $11,405,160
Transfer Fee Tonnage 647,655 tons per year FY 2022 ProjecNWTS and CCC FY21 Tonnage 246,807.54
Transfer Station Operations Cost per Ton (Estimate) $44.47 per ton 2020 Estimated cost per ton $26.83
Transfer Station Operations Cost per Ton (Estimate) $47.18 2022 SCTS and 3CCC FY23 Total Budget $5,546,013 ATRI Study (2019) - Hauling costs https://truckingresearch.org/wp‐content/uploads/2019/11/ATRI‐Operational‐Costs‐of‐Trucking‐2019‐1.pdf
Transfer Station Operations Cost per Ton (Estimate) $65.31 2033 SCTS and 3CCC FY21 Tonnage 173,314.75 Average Marginal Cost per Mile $1.82 2018 includes fuel, R&M, insurance, driver wages and benefits, permits and tolls
Estimated cost per ton (2023) $32.00
Estimated cost per ton (2033) $43.00 Average Marginal Cost per Hour $71.78 2018 includes fuel, R&M, insurance, driver wages and benefits, permits and tolls
Waste Diversion for Construction (additional cost compared to MDRRF disposal) not used
Months of waste diversion 0 months
Years of waste diversion 0 years 2028-2032 assumes MDRRF will continue operations during construction of new WTE Facility
Waste processed per year 1,000,000 tons MDRRF capacity
Total waste diverted - tons

Medley Landfill (Waste Management) Medley cannot take all of diverted waste
Existing Site
Diverted waste hauling $4,277,283 per year 2033
Diverted waste hauling $0 total for construction period
Diverted waste disposal $34,170,000 per year 2033
Diverted waste disposal $0 total for construction period
Total waste hauling and disposal $0
Okeechobee Landfill (Waste Management)
Existing Site
Diverted waste hauling $25,378,544 per year 2033
Diverted waste hauling $0 total for construction period
Diverted waste disposal $50,044,207 per year 2033
Diverted waste disposal $0 total for construction period
Total waste hauling and disposal $0 2033
Total waste hauling and disposal #DIV/0! per ton 2033

Page 4 of 5
 Miami-Dade Department of Solid Waste Management
Future WTE Facility Siting Evaluation
Appendix C - Cost Considerations - Basis of Costs

Year capacity Year capacity

reached (Current reached (Current
Capacity, No Capacity, With Draft Arcadis
Expansion, With Expansion, With Estimates as of Sept
County Landfill miles from RRF RRF) RRF) 2021
Existing Site North Dade LF 15.00 2024 2048 2030
Diverted waste hauling per year 2033 South Dade LF 25.00 2033 2042 2030
Diverted waste hauling total for construction period RRF LF 0.00 2031 N/A 2030
Diverted waste disposal per year 2033
Diverted waste disposal total for construction period
Total waste hauling and disposal

RRF 2021 Operating Cost per Ton Processed (Gross) $61.34 per ton 2021 does not include electrical revenues. Rates and Charges Report
RRF Operating Cost per Ton Processed (Gross) $87.46 per ton 2033
RRF 2021 Operating Cost $62,203,174 2021 Rates and Charges Report likely $79M once 5th amendment approved
Electrical Revenues 2021 $8,640,000 2021 Rates and Charges Report
RRF Tonnage FY 2021 1,014,050 tons 2021 Rates and Charges Report
RRF 2021 Operating Cost per Ton Processed (Net) $52.82 per ton 2021 including electrical revenues
RRF Operating Cost per Ton Processed (Net) $75.31 per ton 2033

Waste Diversion for Construction - Cost Difference to send to

Okeechobee vs MDRRF #DIV/0! per ton
Total Waste Diversion Cost Difference #DIV/0!

Easement/ROW Access
use market value per acre
60 foot wide easement 0.011363636 miles

Demolition Cost applies to all not used

Page 5 of 5
Arcadis U.S., Inc.
701 Waterford Way
Suite 420
Miami
Florida 33126
Phone: 305 913 1316
Fax: 305 913 1301
www.arcadis.com

Arcadis. Improving quality of life.

EXHIBIT B
 EXHIBIT B

Date: August 29, 2024

To: Honorable Chairman Oliver G. Gilbert, III

and Members, Board of County Commissioners

From: Daniella Levine Cava

Mayor

Subject: Update on the Site Selection for the Replacement Waste-to-Energy Facility

The administration has been analyzing three potential replacement sites for a new waste-to-energy (WTE)
facility including a location in Medley, the Airport West site, and the existing Doral site. This is an
important decision for the future of our community and the administration is committed to collaborating
with this Board, local leaders, community stakeholders and residents to chart the best course forward, to
provide the County critically needed disposal capacity while minimizing impact to our residents.

On April 19, 2024, an Arcadis US, Inc. report was presented to the Board of County Commissioners on the
results of a preliminary air quality and human health and ecological analysis for all three sites. This
report detailed that the potential air emissions at all three sites are minimal and should have no effect on
the health of the surrounding ecological communities.

The County received an unsolicited proposal (attached) from TAF Okeechobee Solutions, LLC, and
West Dade Nurseries, LLC, outlining a land swap to redevelop and revitalize county-owned land along
NW 58th Street between NW 87th and 97th Avenues in exchange for land held by the developer that may
accommodate a new WTE. Based on preliminary review, the proposal offers an alternative site located
further away from residential communities and in an already industrial area and this potential site warrants
a thorough review. The Department of Solid Waste Management (DSWM) will work with Arcadis to
perform similar preliminary air modeling and human health risk assessments at this location. We will
continue working with stakeholders and residents to hear directly from the community about all the
potential sites.

In parallel to our work to identify a location for a replacement WTE facility, the County continues to
advance "Zero-Waste" policies to help reduce the amount of waste going to landfills while also reusing and
repurposing as much waste as possible. To that end, the County will shortly begin reviewing
proposals received for the services of a Zero-Waste consultant to develop a master plan.

It is important that site selection proceed as planned in September. To ensure the process can proceed while
allowing for a thorough assessment of the unsolicited proposal, I request that a WTE facility site selection
discussion item be added to the Board’s September 17 agenda and a copy of this memorandum be placed
at the next available Board Agenda.

Attachment

c: Geri Bonzon-Keenan, County Attorney

Gerald Sanchez, First Assistant County Attorney
Jess McCarty, Executive Assistant County Attorney
Office of the Mayor Senior Staff
Dr. Aneisha Daniel, Director, Department of Solid Waste Management
Yinka Majekodunmi, Commission Auditor
Theresa Therilus, Interim Chief, Office of Policy and Budgetary Affairs
Basia Pruna, Director, Clerk of the Board
Eugene Love, Agenda Coordinator
Docusign Envelope ID: 9143F721-5C14-4299-B931-1139EC952A18

August 29, 2024

RE: Land Swap Proposal For New Public Facility Campus
The Hon. Daniella Levine Cava
Miami-Dade County Mayor
111 NW 1st Street, 29th Floor
Miami, FL 33128

Dear Mayor Levine Cava,

In accordance with Miami-Dade County Implementing Order 8-4 (“IO 8-4”), TAF
Okeechobee Solutions, LLC (the “Developer”), together with West Dade Nurseries, LLC (“WDN”),
recently initiated the unsolicited proposal application process, as provided by IO 8-4, via the
District Commissioner, for your review and consideration.
We are honored to put forth the attached application to revitalize County-owned property
currently utilized by the Departments of Solid Waste Management and Transit and Public Works,
and provide the County with a new ~65-acre County Public Facility campus, at a location which
we respectfully submit is worthy of your consideration as the preferred site for the County’s
planned new waste-to-energy facility.
We look forward to your review of the proposal and to engaging in more detailed
discussions with your Administration to bring this proposal to life. Thank you for your leadership
and your efforts to prioritize public infrastructure solutions for the benefit of the Miami-Dade
County community.
Sincerely,

David Martin
TAF Okeechobee Solutions, LLC

c: Johanna Cervone, Chief of Staff, Office of the Mayor

EXHIBIT C
 EXHIBIT C

Okeechobee Solutions
August 2024

Terra International Services, LLC

3310 Mary Street, #302
Coconut Grove, FL 33133
305.416.4556
1.2 Cover Letter
1.3 Executive Summary | Key Points

EQUAL VALUE

The Developer and its teams of architects, engineers

and consultants desire to convey to the County a new
Proposed Public Facility Campus Proposed Development on NW 58 Street
65 + acre Public Facility Campus located south of NW
182nd Street, directly north of Okeechobee Road, in

65 73
The proposed 65 acres to be conveyed to the
County consist of a 49 acre development-ready Approximately 73 acres of underutilized County
exchange for a portion of County-owned land located pad and 16 acres for the construct of new facilities, owned land will be transformed into a Master
to be determined by the County. The County may Development featuring garden-style apartments and
west of N.W. 87th Avenue and north of N.W. 58 Street. This ACRES choose to relocate the existing uses to any other
ACRES a new industrial park just north of the heart of Doral.
County owned property at their discretion.
proposal aims to deliver a new Public Facility Campus,
including Replacement Facilities and an Expansion

49 47
The 49 acre pad will be delivered with all necessary
Pad, located in an area further away from residential site work and proper permits in place, allowing the
Approximately 47 acres will be for industrial park
consisting of over one-million square feet to be
County to proceed with planning and developing developed in two phases. This development
development that can potentially enhance the operational a waste-to-energy facility or any other project the will lead to job creation, economic growth and
ACRES County determines appropriate. ACRES increased tax revenues for the County.
capacities of various Miami-Dade County departments,
including, but not limited to, the Department of Solid Waste Approximately 16 acres of the 65 acres will be allocated for
The remaining 26 acres will be used to develop

16 26
the relocation of approximately 110,000 square feet of new
Management. Additionally, the project on the property flex-office space to accommodate the relocation of the existing
approximately 1,000 garden-style residential units,
totaling around 955,000 square feet. The development
uses at NW 57th avenue. The County may also choose to
currently owned by the County will provide new multi-family ACRES relocate this uses elsewhere and us the full 65 acres for the ACRES is planned in two phases, with each phase consisting of
about 500 units
new Solid Waste Management or other new County facilities.
residential housing and industrial facilities, consistent with
the existing mix of uses along the N.W. 58th Street Corridor.

L AN
D EXCHANGE
1.4 Ownership Disclosure Affidavit
2.1 Land Exchange

Proposed Public Facility Campus Proposed Development on NW 58 Street

NW 97th Ave
65
ACR ES
73
AC R ES
2.1 Land Exchange

75
The Developer proposes an equal value exchange based on the value of the land as determined by appraised 95 values as determined by
Proposed Public independent third-party appraisals. To equalize the value of the exchange, an allowance will be provided to the County for the design and
Facility Campus constructions of the replacement facilities.

Proposed Public Facility Campus Proposed Development

915 on NW 58 Street

95 + Multi Family Master Development

Industrial
Potential Solid Waste Campus
The proposed 65 acres to be conveyed to the County will The 73 acres of land currently owned by Miami-Dade County,
enable the County to move forward with selecting a site that can under this proposal, will be developed into an industrial park
accommodate both existing and future needs. Having a selected and multi-family garden-style residences. The development
site will also allow the County to proceed with the procurement will be divided by 40 acres for an approved by Miami-Dade
75
process needed to find the appropriate candidate to develop County Regional Soccer park, which is not part of the
the much-needed waste-to-energy facility. Additionally, the proposed exchange. The integration of these three uses
Developer has the ability to secure and provide additional land in will revitalize the area, providing significant benefits to both
the event that the County’s desired program for the Public Facility Miami-Dade County and the neighboring City of Doral.
Campus requires more than 65 acres.
924 Industrial Park
75 Development Ready Pad The planned industrial park within the Urban Development
924 The 65 acres included in the land exchange can accommodate Boundary offers sustainable growth, protects natural
a waste-to-energy facility that aligns with the County’s vision resources, and enhances economic opportunities.
for its Solid Waste Program. Located over two miles from any Strategically located less than two miles from the 826 and
residential development, less than 10 minutes from the Florida Florida Turnpike, it e ciently utilizes existing infrastructure,
Turnpike, and with future rail development directly south of the making it an ideal site for development.
826 site, this location is optimal for such a development.
Multi-Family
Design-to-Budget
The development of 1,000 residential units on underutilized
Using a design-to-budget approach based on the difference 95
Miami-Dade County land north of Doral o ers significant
in appraised land values, the Developer will design and build
benefits, including meeting high housing demand, optimizing
replacement facilities for the County’s current uses on N.W. 58th
land use, and generating economic growth. This project would
Street. These facilities may be accommodated on the 16 acres of
enhance community connectivity and take advantage of the
the Public Facility Campus, leaving 49 acres for a waste-to-energy
strategic location near Doral’s commercial hub, making it a
facility or other County projects. Alternatively, the replacement
valuable addition to the region’s development
facilities could be built on any other County-owned site, freeing the
entire Public Facility Campus for new County uses.

95

Proposed
Development
on NW 58 Street

826

95
Proposed Public
Facility Campus
2.2 Location | Location

Sunset Lakes
Development

Opa-Locka West
Airport (Historical)

10
MINUTES
To Turnpike
The site is less than 10 minutes away
from the Florida Turnpike and is accessible
through Okeechobee Road.

NW 117th AVENUE
27

2
MILES
From Residential
The nearest residential development is 2
miles from the site. This distance is enough to
prevent any human health or ecological risks
Caballero Rivero
Woodland West
Cemetery
Proposed Public
Facility Campus

NW 186th STREET
White Rock
Quarries
NW 127th AVENUE
NW

associated with air emissions.

NW
NW 182nd STREET

117
NW 127th AVE

NW 122nd AVE

th
AV
E NU
E
Ranger

10
NW 178th Street Construction
To US-27 Railway Muslim Cemetery South
of South Florida

NW 137th AVE
The proposed rail will run directly in front of the

NW 132nd AVE
propety. This access will significantly reduce any
MILES environment impact and assist with minimizing
the carbon footprint.
General Asphalt
West Dade Facility NW 170th STREET

27
 2.2 Proposed Public Facility Campus | Site Development and Strategy

The entitlement strategy for the proposed Public Facility Campus in unincorporated Miami-Dade County focuses
on key steps involving planning, regulatory compliance, and community engagement, along with potential path-
27 ways for obtaining the necessary approvals to advance the development.

Site Entitlement Strategy:

The entitlement strategy for the proposed Accelerated Time-Line

Solid Waste Campus involves several key steps:

$200
The speed-to-market of this land swap enables
Miami-Dade County to meet its procurement
Current Site and Zoning:
and permitting deadlines, as well as manage
The site is in unincorporated Miami-Dade County, outside
capital and operational expenses e ectively.
the Urban Development Boundary, and is designated
Accelerating the construction of the new waste-
Public Infrastructure Pad as Open Land Subarea 1 under the Miami-Dade County
MILLION to-energy facility is crucial for leveraging up to
Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP).
(49 Acres) The site is currently zoned as an AU, Agricultural District.
$200 million in potential insurance proceeds.

Land Use Compatibility:

The Land Use Element of the CDMP allows for public
facilities and utility facilities within the Open Land Subarea
1 area, which aligns with the proposed Solid Waste
Campus.
Infrastructure Pad
Approval Process: The development-ready pad is designed to

4K-5K
If the County approves the Exchange Agreement, there accommodate a state-of-the-art waste-to-
are two main options for processing a public hearing energy facility, along with other solid waste
application. operations, meeting both current and future
MDC Replacement
Facilities/ Expansion Pad Unusual Use Approval: PER DAY needs. It has the capacity to process 4,000 to
5,000 tons of waste daily, aligning operational
(16 Acres) An application can be made for Unusual Use Approval for requirements to manage increasing waste
public utilities or similar uses under Section 33-13(e)(i) of volumes efficiently and sustainably.
the Miami-Dade County Code.

These steps provide a framework for securing the

necessary entitlements for the Public Facility Campus
within the existing land use and zoning regulations. Replacement Site
Up to 65,000 square feet has been allocated

65K
Alternatively, an application can be submitted for a district for replacement facilities to meet the County’s
boundary change from AU District to a GP, Governmental needs, following a Design-to-Budget approach as
Property overlay zoning district, under Section 33-284.22 determined by the County. Additionally, the 16-acre
of the Miami-Dade County Code. SF site may also be utilized by the County to expand the
waste-to-energy plant capacity, aligning with the
vision for the master Solid Waste Campus
27
2.4 Proposed Development | Milestones and Schedule

TASK NAME FINISH

PUBLIC FACILITY CAMPUS

ENVIROMENTAL SITE ASSESMENT & REMEDIATOIN Q2 2025

ENVIROMENTAL PERMITS Q2 2025

ZONING ENTITLEMENTS Q2 2025

PERMITS Q2 2026

CONSTRUCTION Q2 2027
2.2 Proposed Public Facility Campus | Miamy Dade County Facilities

Opa Locka

Zero Waste Vision

West Airport
(Historical)

826 • 4.6 Million Tons of Solid Waste a year. The largest government owned and
operated waste management program in the South East
924 • Aim to reduce waste at the source by promoting sustainable product design,
responsible consumption, and comprehensive waste reduction practices.

• Enhance recycling programs, composting, and other waste diversion efforts to

achieve a 90% diversion rate from landfills and incineration.

826

112 Integrated Approach

• Combine waste reduction, recycling, composting, and waste-to-energy strategies to
836 create a comprehensive and efficient waste management system.

• Involve public agencies, private sector partners, and community stakeholders in

coordinated efforts to optimize waste management practices and infrastructure.
826
• Invest in modern facilities and technologies that support waste diversion, resource
recovery, and environmental protection, ensuring long-term sustainability and efficiency.

Sustainable
Opa Locka
West Airport
(Historical)

874
826
836
924
• Generate renewable energy from waste that can be used to power homes and
businesses, thereby reducing reliance on fossil fuels.
County’s Solid Waste Program
826 • Implement state-of-the-art emission control technologies to minimize air pollutants,
112 PROPOSED PUBLIC FACILITY CAMPUS including particulates, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and dioxins.
836 TRASH & RECYCLING CENTERS • Create a financially viable facility that supports local economies through job creation
MDC LANDFILLS
and revenue generation from energy sales and waste processing
826

PREVIOUSLY SUGGESTED SOLID WASTE ALTERNATIVES

Selecting the Okeechobee Solutions site positions Miami-Dade County to successfully
874
836 achieve these sustainable goals
NW 97th Ave

Proposed Development
on NW 58 Street
 Proposed Development
2.1 Doral 87: Existing Uses
2.3 Proposed Development | Existing County-Owned Site Future MDC Regional Soccer Park
(Soccer Park is not part of the proposed exchange)

South Florida Water Management District

73
Proposed Development
2.1 Doral 87: Existing Uses Existing 96,300 SF of Future MDC Regional Soccer Park
(Soccer Park is not part of the proposed exchange)

ACRES Workshops & Office Space South Florida Water Management District

40 acres
40 acres

47 acres
26
47 acres
26 Acres

9 acres

9 acres
2.3 Proposed Development | Master Development

Proposer’s Vision Industrial Development Multi-Family Development

Okeechobee Solutions and the Developer’s vision is to transform The proposed industrial park addresses the needs for industrial space in within the Urban The 1,002 units (approximately 954,000 square feet) garden-style multi-family development
underutilized land north of Doral into a vibrant economic and Development Boundary. The development includes four industrial buildings (building four is is designed to o er a serene and community-focused living environment. It consists of several

> +
residential hub, featuring over 1 million square feet of industrial part of a separate application to the South Florida Water Management District) totaling over three-story buildings with walk-up units, arranged in clusters to create inviting courtyards
space and 1,000 garden-style residential units. This development 1 million square feet of usable space. The project will be executed in two phases, focusing and green spaces. Each unit features a private entrances and includes balconies or patios to
will stimulate the local economy, provide new job opportunities, and on efficient land use, modern infrastructure and sustainability. Strategically located, the park extend living spaces outdoors. Extensive green spaces with native plants, central courtyards
offer sustainable living options, setting a new standard for urban provides easy access to major transportation routes, enhancing logistics and minimizing and central clubhouse with fitness facilities and pool enhances the living experience. The
planning in Miami-Dade County environmental impact. By integrating industrial activities within the urban core, the park development emphasizes walkability and connectivity, with well-lit pathways, bike storage, and
supports economic growth, job creation, and sustainable urban development. proximity to local shops, restaurants, public transportation, and the soccer park.

Building 1

Miami-Dade County
Regional Soccer Park

Building 2

Multi-Family
Development

Building 3 Building 4
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
Okeechobee Site
Pros Cons
• ±64.5-acre site, privately owned, consisting of 9 • SFWMD owns part of requested swap parcel on 58th Street.
parcels: • Site location creates operational and logistical challenges for relocated
30-2910-001-0130, 30-2910-001-0131, 30-2910- 58th Street facilities and is not of sufficient size for all operations (DPTW,
001-0140, 30-2910-001-0141, 30-2910-001-0150, DSWM, etc.).
30-2910-001-0151, 30-2910-001-0160, 30-2910- • Parcel geometry presents site configuration challenges related to access
001-0170, 30-2910-002-0030. roads, turning radii, and other issues which may result in additional
• Approximately 1.6 miles from closest Broward development costs
County (Miramar) residential property. • Property is located outside the UDB.
• Site appears large enough to site a WTE facility. - Water & Sewer infrastructure allowed only to protect public health and safety
Good road access to US-27 and Turnpike. - Active parks facilities not allowed outside UDB
• Site consists primarily of muck soils. Per swap • CDMP Designation - “Open Land” (Subarea 1)
proposal, Developer will make site "pad ready". - WTE facility allowed if compatible
• Air Emissions and Human Health Impacts not - Prohibition on potential groundwater contaminating uses
- Land swap proposal implies uses (parks facility and offices) on the property
evaluated, but do not anticipate significant
that would require a CDMP amendment to be allowed and relocation of DTPW
variation from Airport West results. Slightly closer facility that may be restricted in its operations.
to Everglades National Park. - Commercial vehicle/truck parking uses allowed but prohibited from
• Access to Utilities – Electrical service available, conducting maintenance and repair
No potable water, sanitary sewer, or natural gas - Truck washing allowed at parking facilities only in fully enclosed buildings, with
utilities available at the site, however, all utilities 100% recyclable water systems and with secondary containment surrounding
will be constructed by Developer per swap all storage tanks.
proposal. Total estimated utility infrastructure • Site less than 0.5 miles from Miami-Dade County Agricultural zoning
cost is approximately $8.1M. with Primary Land Use code 5001 (IMPR AGRI : RESIDENTIAL - SINGLE
- Potable Water, Sanitary Sewer and Natural Gas FAMILY) that allows for single family housing for farm labor personnel.
pipelines expected to be directionally drilled under • Site is located within FEMA Flood Zone A (Undefined) – need engineering
Turnpike along US-27 ROW. Will need to ensure study. County Flood criteria approximately elevation 6.0 feet N.A.V.D.
utilities to be installed are sufficient for WTE Site will involve more technical challenges with stormwater retention
operations, including booster station and 12" and discharge. May not be sufficient room for relocated
potable water main (extended 3.9 miles), SS lift
facilities. Consider option of relocating County facilities to RRF Site.
station and FM with 90,000 gpd capacity (extended
4.4 miles) and 6" natural gas service (extended 8.4 • Traffic impacts on local roads will be significant, roadway improvements
miles). New electrical substation expected to be and additional intersection signaling may be required.
constructed on site as part of WTE development, • Potential impacts to CERP however given privately owned parcel, likely
Developer would need to construct 138kV line from not considered in CERP planning/modeling. Compatibility with CERP
new substation to agreed-upon tie in point to FPL and rock mining to be demonstrated
transmission line. • Site bifurcated by NW 178 Street right-of-way, which may need to be
- Utility construction would require FDOT approval to
vacated to unify properties
build along W Okeechobee Rd. Unknown amount of
ROW available for construction of utility lines. • Potential for tree island archaeological resources on site. CRAS required.
- Sanitary sewer forcemain may require permission • Wetlands - WTE would impact wetlands. Site is located within the C-9
from Hialeah Gardens. Wetland Basin. Wetlands of Regional Significance are on site.
• Sea Level Rise requirements in Western C-9 Canal Basin, Rule 40E-
41.063 Endangered Species - USFWS consultation area for Florida
Bonneted Bat and Everglades Snail Kite, as well as the core foraging area
for federally threatened wood stork colonies and may contain habitat for
species listed in Appendix B of the CDMP. Development at this site may
conflict with County Policies CON-7A and/or CON-7B.
• Contamination - No DERM records -- Phase 1 and Phase 2
Environmental Site Assessment would be required.
• Estimated Construction Cost of $1,593,591,461 does not include value
of land being swapped or additional development costs for demolition of
existing RRF building foundations, pits, underground infrastructure, etc.
to relocate County buildings to RRF site.
• New Transfer Station required, estimated to add $50M in capital costs
and approximately $11.8M annually in additional operational and waste
transfer costs.
• Greater GHG impacts to be considered given NW location and longer
transportation distance for waste deliveries and relocated operations.
• No on-site disposal possible – all WTE ash disposed offsite.
• Site not sized for sustainable campus concept, nor relocation of
facilities from swapped 58th Street parcel. Stericycle agreement requires
reimbursement of 30% of relocation cost for their 58th Street facility.
Total cost for relocation of existing County 58th Street facilities
estimated at approximately $389M, including acquisition of 47 ac for
DPW facilities and loss of 62 ac of land value at RRF site.
• Longest estimated development schedule of approximately 10 years
(pending land swap negotiations and confirmation of utilities and “pad
ready” definition). Timing of swap dependent on permitting and could
affect schedule – consideration of risk associated with proceeding with
development prior to receipt of all regulatory approvals for WTE facility.
• Very limited space to accommodate for carbon capture.
EXHIBIT D
Airport West Site
Pros Cons
• ±416-acre site, two parcels, both parcels owned • Property is located outside the UDB.
by the County. Folios 30-2902-000-0010, 30-2903- - Water & Sewer infrastructure allowed only to protect public health and
000-0010. 180 acres available to DSWM for safety
campus. • CDMP Designation - “Open Land” (Subarea 1)
• Site appears large enough to site a WTE facility, - WTE facility allowed if compatible
- Prohibition on potential groundwater contaminating uses
with space for additional solid waste campus
facilities. Good road access to US-27 and • Site is closest to Miramar residents, approximately 0.5 miles from the
Turnpike. nearest residential property. Site is less than 0.5 miles from Miami-Dade
• On site ash disposal may be feasible. County Agricultural zoning with Primary Land Use code 5001 (IMPR AGRI
: RESIDENTIAL - SINGLE FAMILY) that allows for single family housing for
• Furthest from Everglades National Park boundary,
farm labor personnel.
produced most favorable preliminary air modeling
results of the three sites evaluated (Existing RRF, • Site consists primarily of muck soils. Existing soils not well suited for
Medley, and Airport West). WTE - additional site preparation required.
• Access to Utilities – Electrical service available, No potable water,
sanitary sewer, or natural gas utilities available at the site.
• Site is located within FEMA Flood Zone A (Undefined) – need engineering
study. County Flood criteria approximately elevation 7.0 feet N.A.V.D.
Site will involve more technical challenges with stormwater retention
and discharge.
• Traffic impacts on local roads will be significant, roadway improvements
and additional intersection signaling may be required.
• Potential impacts to CERP. Compatibility with CERP and rock mining to
be demonstrated.
• Potential for tree island archaeological resources on site. CRAS required.
• Wetlands - WTE would impact wetlands. Site is located within the C-9
Wetland Basin. Wetlands of Regional Significance are on site.
• Sea Level Rise requirements in Western C-9 Canal Basin, Rule 40E-
41.063
• Endangered Species - USFWS consultation area for Florida Bonneted Bat
and Everglades Snail Kite, as well as the core foraging area for federally
threatened wood stork colonies and may contain habitat for species
listed in Appendix B of the CDMP. Development at this site may conflict
with County Policies CON-7A and/or CON-7B.
• Contamination - No DERM records -- Phase 1 and Phase 2
Environmental Site Assessment would be required
• Estimated Construction Cost of $1,602,000,000, which includes the
cost to extend the required utilities (water, sanitary sewer, natural gas).
Potable Water, Sanitary Sewer and Natural Gas pipelines expected to be
directionally drilled under Turnpike along US-27 ROW.
• Additional annual operational cost for potable water purchase, ash
hauling, and additional System hauling costs.
• New Transfer Station required, estimated to add $50M in capital costs
and approximately $11.8M annually in additional operational and waste
transfer costs.
• Greater GHG impacts to be considered given NW location and longer
transportation distance for waste deliveries.
• Environmental groups exercise concern that the facility is within the
BBSEER and adjacent to the Broward County Water Preserve Area
(BCWPA) Project.
• Long estimated development schedule of 9 years, 3 months.
EXHIBIT D
Medley Site
Pros Cons
• ±320.31-acre site, two parcels, single private • Private ownership, land acquisition required.
owner. Folio • Residential communities to the southwest of the site.
22-3005-001-0010 • Site consists primarily of muck soils. Existing soils not well suited for
• Property is located inside the UDB. WTE - additional site preparation required.
• CDMP Designation - “Industrial and Office” • No natural gas utilities available at the site.
- WTE facility allowed • Site is located within FEMA Flood Zone AE (5ft). County Flood criteria
- Lake on site may be filled and developed approximately elevation 6.0 feet N.A.V.D.
• Site appears large enough to site a WTE facility, • Most complicated site for preliminary air modeling due to adjacent large
with space for additional solid waste campus emitters (Medley Landfill and Titan Pennsuco Facility)
facilities. Road access to US-27 and Turnpike. • Traffic impacts on local roads will be significant, roadway improvements
• Utilities – Electrical, potable water and sanitary and additional intersection signaling may be required.
sewer available at site. • Potential archaeological target identified on site. HP staff could conduct
- City of Medley 12-inch water main abutting initial visual field assessment to determine need for a Cultural Resource
the property at NW 104 ST & NW 95 Ave. Assessment Survey.
- City of Medley 8-inch gravity sewer line at NW • Contamination - No DERM records -- Phase 1 and Phase 2
104 ST & NW 95 Ave. Environmental Site Assessment would be required
• No wetlands or endangered species concerns. • Highest Estimated Construction Cost of $1,610,850,000 plus
• No CERP impacts. Annualized Host Fees ($6M-$9M)
• No new Transfer Station costs. • Long estimated development schedule of 9 years, 9 months.
EXHIBIT D
RRF Site
Pros Cons
• ±157.16-acre site, County owned. Folio 35-3017- • Residential communities adjacent to the site on the north and west
001-0120 sides.
• Existing site with history of WTE operations prior to •
residential development. New WTE would be built • Demolition of existing RRF building foundations, pits, parking areas,
to current state of the art standards and underground infrastructure, etc. required prior to redevelopment.
aesthetics. • WASD pump station serving ash monofill must be retained on site.
• Property is located inside the UDB. • Contamination – DERM records indicate documented contamination at
• CDMP Designation - “Institutions, Utilities and the site. This will be addressed during closure of the RRF with the
Communication” removal of the above-grade structures.
- WTE facility allowed
• 55-acre developable area of site is large enough to
site a WTE facility, may be large enough to
accommodate additional facilities. Modification of
existing stormwater system on site to reduce
retention area footprint and increase developable
area to approximately 60-70 acres may be
possible.
• Adjacent 58th Street Landfill property, with existing
DSWM and DPW operations, may be an option for
redevelopment with additional solid waste/zero
waste facilities. Could be combined with RRF site
facilities into an integrated solid waste campus.
• Good access to major roads, no significant traffic
impacts.
• All utilities are available at the site. Electrical
substation adjacent to site.
• No floodplains
• No wetlands or endangered species concerns.
• No CERP impacts.
• No new Transfer Station costs
• Existing 80-acre ash monofill on site with
remaining airspace capacity.
• Previous Air permit and possible emissions credit.
• Lowest Estimated Construction Cost of
$1,489,000,000. However, this cost does not
include additional development costs for
demolition of existing RRF building foundations,
pits, parking areas, underground infrastructure,
etc.
• Shortest estimated development schedule of 7
years, 9 months. Compatible with concurrency
requirements. This schedule includes 1 year and 6
months for demolition work.
EXHIBIT D
Status Quo (Transfer and Landfill Operations)
Pros Cons
• Current operations, already underway – no major • If no new WTE facility is constructed, once the County’s landfills reach
changes to existing operations needed. capacity the County will not have any active disposal facilities. Disposal
• Avoids public opposition and costs of potential Fund revenues will be limited primarily to transfer and facility fees, which
legal challenges to WTE development. will have to be set to generate revenue sufficient to offset the County’s
• Avoids expenses associated with development and Disposal Fund expenses, including all contract transfer and disposal
operation of the proposed WTE facility. costs. Price pressures on transfer and facility fees may have significant
• Contract transfer and disposal costs for about 60- effects on the County’s ability to generate Disposal Fund revenues.
65% of the County’s waste tonnage will be Further analysis is needed to fully evaluate the potential financial
incurred whether or not a WTE facility is effects.
developed. The proposed 4,000 tpd WTE facility • Ultimately outsources the management of all County waste to private
would only manage about half the waste arriving at entities and out-of-County facilities. The County will be dependent on
the Department’s facilities. Further, if the WTE private entities for solid waste disposal and would have little or no
facility is developed, any unprocessible waste and leverage in future contract negotiations or transfer and disposal pricing.
the WTE ash, which is typically about 25-30% of • The County would need to construct a new transfer station at the RRF
the weight of the processed waste, would be site with additional fleet and ops personnel (approximately $50M
managed through contract transfer and disposal CAPEX, $11M annual OPEX).
operations. • Potential odor issues along rail haul corridor.
• Satisfies Concurrency requirements. • May need to modify the Central TS to accommodate loading of
intermodal containers, which cannot be loaded by compactors.
• May disincentivize Contract Municipalities from renewing long-term
disposal agreements with the County, which could lead to significant
adverse financial effects on the Collection Fund and Disposal fund.
• Overall GHG emissions from additional long-haul transport by truck and
rail and landfilling of municipal solid waste may be higher than WTE.
• Most costly option over the long-term planning horizon (total cost in
2024 dollars TBD).
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E

Figure 1: Aerial View of DSWM Facilities

EXHIBIT E

Figure 2: Aerial View of DTPW Facilities