26

BRRMSER

Proceedings

collecting most residential refuse while private haulers collect from com-
mercial and industrial firms and residences not served by public agencies.
Experience demonstrates that satisfactory collection can be provided and
managed at the county, municipal, or local level. Regional management
of collection is not needed.

Disposal, although representing only a small part of the cost of refuse
service, is more critical. Lack of adequate facilities and space for disposal
are problems facing nearly every jurisdiction in this region. In the urban
core, disposal space is a pressing need.

Arlington County has no space that can be used for landfill and the
City of Alexandria and the District of Columbia are rapidly approaching
depletion of landfill space. Natural conditions are generally unfavorable
for landfill in Montgomery County. Because of the lack of landfill space,
these four jurisdictions have adopted incineration to reduce the volume of
solid wastes prior to final disposal. In addition, Alexandria and the District
of Columbia burn, on open dumps, large quantities of combustible wastes
which cannot be processed in existing incinerator plants.

Existing incineration facilities in Montgomery County, Arlington County,
and Alexandria have adequate capacity for present quantities of ordinary
incinerable refuse, but will need to be expanded if they are to process the
bulky combustible wastes now being landfilled and burned on open dumps.

The District of Columbia needs to double its incineration capacity to
handle combustible wastes. In the two to three years that will be required
to plan and construct new incineration facilities, the District must either
continue to burn combustible wastes on the Kenilworth Dump or must
sanitary landfill these wastes outside the District.

Most of the existing incinerator plants in the Washington metropolitan
region are not equipped with high-efficiency air pollution control devices.
Equipment is available to clean incinerator stack gases to meet air pollution
regulations. It is not inexpensive. Presumably, such equipment will have
to be added to enable these plants to meet more stringent air pollution
regulations expected in the future.

The other jurisdictioni in the study area, Prince Georges, Charles, Fairfax,
and Prince William Counties, contain land suitable for sanitary landfill. If
these four counties will obtain sites now, they can utilize economical sanitary
landfill disposal for many years.


Panel A                    DISPOSAL STUDY

27

Fairfax County operates a landfill which disposes of most of the refuse
generated in the county. In Prince Georges County, the Washington Sub-
urban Sanitary Commission's Anacostia sanitary landfill and a number
of small municipal and private landfills meet present disposal needs. In
both of these counties, however, the space dedicated to sanitary landfill is
adequate for overall needs for only a year or two. The Public Works
Department of Prince Georges County has developed a long-range County
refuse program which, if implemented, will provide a satisfactory solution
for disposal needs for many years.

Refuse Quantities

Population of the Washington metropolitan region was estimated at about
2.5 million in 1965. It is expected to increase to 3.8 million in 1980 and
to 5.4 million by the year 2000.

Per capita production of refuse for disposal at incinerator plants, landfills,
and burning dumps in 1965 was estimated as shown in Table I. Excavated
and dredged materials are not included.

A considerably higher per capita production of refuse is indicated for
the District of Columbia than for outside areas. This is due primarily to
the higher proportion of governmental and business activity and the re-
modeling and urban renewal work in the District. The relatively low
production of refuse in the suburbs reflects the general lack of industry
in these areas.

Refuse production for the entire region in 1965 was estimated at 1.3
million tons of incinerables and 0.5 million tons of bulky nonincinerables,
for a total of 1.8 million tons (Table I) . Here again, excavated and
dredged materials are not included.

TABLE I

PER CAPITA REFUSE PRODUCTION

  1965 Refuse Production
pounds I capita / calendar day

Type of refuse

Incincrable
Bulky Nonincinerable
  Combustible
  Noncombustible

Total

District of       Outside
Columbia       District

  3.60         2.50

  0.50          0.30
  1.50         0.45

  5.60     3.25

283-399 o-67-3


TABLE II

ANNUAL REFUSE QUANTITIES IN TONS                         s

jurisdiction

       1965                     1980                    2000

        Bulky non-              Bulky non-             Bulky non-
Incinerable      incincrable     Incinerable     incinerablc     Incinerable     incincrable

District of Columbia       535,500      297,000      757,900      42 1,000     1,079,900      600,000

Maryland
Charles County
Montgomery County
Prince Georges County

17,100        5,100       36,800       11,000      97,000       29,100
193,300       58,000      404,300       121,300      772,000      231,600
231,900       69,600      492,300      147,700      927,700      278,300

Virginia
Alexandria, City
Arlington County
Fairfax, City
Fairfax County
Falls Church, City
Loudoun County
Prince William County

52,300
78,700
  8,400
146,300
5,100
13,600
37,000      -
1,319,770

15,700
23,$00
2,500
43,900
1,500
4,100
11,100

107,800
127,900
21,400
364,800
7,700
47,600
119,000      -

32,300
38,400
6,400
109,400
2,300
14,300
35,700

Total

Combined total

532,100

2,487,500
    3,427,300

939,800

1,851,300

173,400       52,000
196,400       58,900
34,900       10,500
789,200      236,800
11,600       3,500
135,700       40,700
3 10,200       93,000

4,528,OOO     1,634,400
   6,162,406


Panel A

DISPOSAL STUDY

29

Table II shows projected annual refuse quantities by jurisdictions in
1980 and 2000 A.D. It is significant that total annual refuse is expected
to almost doubie by 1980 and to almost double again by 2000.

Alternative Disposal Methods

A national effort is being made to develop new and improved methods
of refuse disposal. It is entirely possible that better methods than those
currently employed will result.

At present, however, sanitary landfill and incineration with landfill of
residue and noncombustible wastes are the principal refuse disposal methods
available to the Washington metropolitan region. With proper sites, facili-
ties, and operation, either method of disposal will be satisfactory.

Sanitary landfill normally costs $0.70 to $2.00 per ton of refuse, while
incineration costs are usually in the range of $4.00 to $6.00 per ton.
because of its lower cost, sanitary landfill should be used where suitable
sites are available within economical haul distance.

In general, conditions `are suitable for sanitary landfill only in portions
of the southern half of the region, principally in Prince Georges County,
Charles County, and southern Fairfax and Prince William Counties. Poten-
tial sanitary landfill sites of sufficient capacity to dispose of a major portion
of the raw refuse from the study area are remote from the urban core
and outside the limits of the jurisdictions producing most of the refuse.
Such sites may be difficult to acquire, and their use will result in high
hauling costs.

Incineration of refuse to reduce the volume for final disposal by landfill
is the most practical means for disposing of combustible wastes generated
in jurisdictions lacking suitable sites for sanitary landfill. These include the
District of Columbia, Montgomery County, Alexandria, Arlington County,
and Loudoun County.

Disposal of bulky nonincinerable wastes, a difficult problem in jurisdictions
lacking landfill space, can be facilitated by shredding. Shredded material
can be processed in conventional incinerators and salvable ferrous metals
can be economically separated magnetically.

Land Requirements for Disposal

Landfill space is necessary for any refuse disposal method because all
methods leave a residue which can be disposed of only by dumping on
the land or in water. Landfill space requirements can be reduced materially


30                          BREYSER             Proceediqr

by incinerating combustible wastes, by shredding bulky wastes, by salvaging
and reusing materials where feasible, and by compacting wastes to the
minimum practical volume.

Projected maximum and minimum landfill space requirements, by juris-
dictions, are shown in Table III. Maximum requirements shown are for
sanitary landfill of refuse without processing for volume reduction. Min-
imum space requirements are premised on maximum volume reduction by
incineration or other processing methods prior to landfilling. The tabulation
indicates that sanitary landfilling of all refuse would require about 3.5 times
as much space as would be needed if wastes were processed for volume

      TABLE III

LANDFILL SPACE REQUIREMENTS

Jurisdiction

Cumulative landfill space requirementa in acre-feet

   Minimum            Maximum

1980       2000      1980      2000

District of Columbia      5,155    16,026    16,784    52,764

Maryland
Charler County
Montgomery County
Prince Georges County

158       709       584     2,630
1,771     6,916     6,575    25,688
2,167     8,355     8,044    31,032

Virginia
Alexandria
Arlington County
Fairfax County
Loudoun County
Prince William County

492     1,754     1,827     6,510
627     2,016     2,327     7,488
1,659     6,992     6,162    25,972
175       954       653     3,541
446     2,277     1,658     8,455

Total volume         12,650    45,999    44,614    164,080

Land area required for
average fill depth of
20 feet - square miles

1.0        3.6       3.5       12.8

reduction. In addition to requiring less disposal space, the residue of incin-
eration and other reduction processes will make a more stable and useful
landfill than raw refuse. Many sites that are not suitable for disposal of raw
refuse can be used for incinerator residue and other relatively inert wastes.

       Inventory Of Potential Disposal Sites
Land for landfills and incinerator plants is the greatest present and future


P.mel A                    DISPOSAL STUDY

31

refuse disposal need of the Washington metropolitan region. The region
does not have the natural conditions which make sanitary landfill an ideal
refuse disposal method for some large urban areas. For example, it does
not have the expanse of desert which offers economical and pollution-free
landfill sites for cities such as El Paso, Texas. Neither does it have the
deep, dry gravel pits and dry mountainous canyons within the urban area
and within the limits of the jurisdiction producing the refuse which provide
excellent landfill sites in Southern California.

Geological and hydrological conditions in the northern half of the region
are generally unfavorable for sanitary landfill. Soil is shallow; springs
outcrop in most valleys and ravines; and much of the area is within
watersheds of public water supplies.

Conditions are more favorabIe for sanitary landfill in the coastal plains
region comprising the southern half of the area. Here, soils are deeper;
less of the area is in watersheds of public water supplies; and there are
extensive marshlands which might be reclaimed by sanitary landfill. The
southern area contains sufficient suitable land to permit sanitary landfilling
of all refuse from Prince Georges, Charles, Fairfax, and Prince William
Counties for many years.

However, sanitary landfill sites could be difficult to acquire. Many of
the sites are planned for other uses and much of the land is expensive.
Gravel excavations are shallow and can be reclaimed for development.
Underwater excavations are not suitable for sanitary landfill. Most marsh
areas are planned and reserved for conservation and park use. Much of the
undeveloped land in Virginia is in watersheds of public water supplies
where sanitary landfills could pose a threat of water pollution. Much of the
land suitable for sanitary landfill is in outlying and sparsely populated
areas which produce little refuse.

Prince Georges County contains sufficient potential sanitary landfill sites
to meet its needs to the year 2000. But, space for long-term sanitary land-
filling of refuse from other jurisdictions, such as the District of Columbia,
is not available unless filling of marshland currently planned for conservation
and park use can be permitted.

The potential sanitary landfill sites in Fairfax County would be adequate
for the needs of the county and the cities of Falls Church and Fairfax until
about 1985. Fairfax County, however, could not provide long-term sanitary
landfill sites for other jurisdictions such as Arlington County and the District
of Columbia. It does contain several potential inert fill sites located on


32                          RREMSRR

Proceedings

Federal and other lands which could accommodate incinerator residue and
inert wastes from these jurisdictions for many years.

Isolated areas in the southern extremity of the Washington metropolitan
region could accommodate all refuse from the region until the year 2000.
However, transportation cost would be high and legislative and legal action
would probably be necessary to establish regional disposal facilities there.

Consideration of increasing refuse quantities and the limited amount of
landfill space in the Washington metropolitan region leads to the conclusion
that more incinerator plants will be needed in the future. Good incinerator
plant sites are limited now and will almost certainly become increasingly
difficult to find as the region develops. Therefore, those jurisdictions which
will need incinerator plants in the future should acquire plant sites now
while they are still available.

Tran.s@ortation of Solid Wastes

Hauling refuse from the collection route to the point of disposal is a
significant factor in the cost of refuse service and must be considered in
evaluating disposal methods and sites. Truck haul costs may range from
$0.10 to $0.50 per ton-mile (based on one-way distance and including the
cost of the return trip).

Best opportunities for reducing haul costs are: minimizing haul distance,
minimizing labor involved in hauling, and increasing payload. Transfer to,
and haul in, large capacity vehicles may be feasible under certain conditions.
Use of multiple disposal sites should also be considered as a means for
reducing haul costs.

The cost of hauling incinerator residue to distant disposal sites can be
minimized by the use of large, self-dumping, tractor-semitrailer units. All
jurisdictions operating incinerator plants should give consideration to econo-
mies afforded by larger ash haul vehicles.

Barging will be a feasible method for transporting incinerator residue
and nonincinerable wastes to landfill sites accessible from the Potomac
River and a considerable distance downstream.

Haul by rail also may be feasible. Railroads presently are investigating
the cost of providing this service.

Summary

The bulk of solid wastes operations can be managed at the local level
by proper application of present techniques. The problem has been defined.


Pate1 A                    DISPOSAL STUDY

33

~~ magic solutions are in sight. Each jurisdiction must initiate solutions
to as much of the problem as possible.
Some of the problems can be solved only by cooperation among major
jurisdictions. Interjurisdictional cooperation or a regional authority will be
needed to handle problems incapable of solution at lower levels. On the
other hand, the solid wastes problem cannot be escaped by total abdication
of local responsibility to a higher authority.

The time for local action is now.


   AIR POLLUTION AND
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES

John T. Middleton *

1 AM PLEASED to have an opportunity to participate in this conference.
I think we can all agree that, for the most part, current waste disposal
practices in the Washington area are not only obsolete, but are an insult
to our senses and a source of many problems affecting public health and
welfare. The refuse produced in this area is being disposed of in ways
that contribute to all of our environmental pollution problems, ways
that represent a sheer waste of valuable resources, and that make our
surroundings increasingly ugly and offensive.

Among the manjr problems associated with refuse disposal in the Wash-
ington area, air pollution is clearly the most obvious and the most serious.
I know, as I am sure all of you do, that many diverse factors must be
taken into consideration in developing a practical plan for disposal of
solid waste in this or any other urban area. Effective control of air pollution
is just one of those factors, but it is one which cannot be ignored. No
solution to the refuse disposal problems of our modern society can be truly
acceptable if it perpetuates those waste disposal practices which add
unnecessarily to the burden of air pollution.

No doubt, most of you know that the Secretary of the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, John W. Gardner, has called for Federal
action to abate interstate air pollution in the Washington area. An abate-
ment conference will be held later this year, probably within the next few
months. We are currently in the final stages of a technical investigation of
the sources and extent of the area's air pollution problem and of its impact
on public health and welfare in both the District of Columbia and the
suburbs. This investigation is providing, among other things, a full appraisal
of the extent to which open burning and incineration of refuse are con-
tributing to air pollution in the Washington area.

I believe that Secretary Gardner's reasons for initiating interstate air
pollution abatement action in this area and the Surgeon General's reasons
for calling this conference on solid waste management had one important
thing in common. That one thing was an awareness that both air pollution

* Director, National Center for Air Pollution Control, Bureau of Disease Prevention
and Environmental Control, Public Health Service, Washington, D.C.

35


36                         MIDDLE-CON

and refuse disposal are basically regional problems, whose solution will, in
very large measure, require coordinated regional action.

In the seven months that I have been in Washington, I have seen many
indications that this need for regional action is recognized to some extent
by local officials and citizens of the area; certainly, the activities of the
Metroblitan Washington Council of Governments are evidence of some
recognition that the various communities in the area cannot fully solve
their air pollution and refuse disposal problems on a do-it-themselves basis.

For the most part, however, these facts do not seem to be widely enough
appreciated to serve as a basis for constructive action. There seems to be
a marked tendency to believe that ail, or nearly all, of the area's air pollu-
tion, particularly air pollution arising from solid waste disposal, originates
in the District of Columbia. This is a myth; it is a myth that must be
dispelled, once and for all, if the people in the Washington area are to
succeed in ridding themselves of the air pollution problems associated with
refuse disposal.

Estimates based on preliminary data from our current technical investi-
gation indicate that an overwhelming share - about 80 percent - of all
the refuse produced in the Washington metropolitan area is currently burned.
Only 20 percent is buried in landfills. This means that of the estimated
1.5 million tons of refuse disposed of each year in the area, approximately
1.2 million tons are burned. Municipal incinerators, including the four in
the District of Columbia and those. in Alexandria, Arlington, and Mont-
gomery county bum 680,600 tons. Some 160,000 tons are burned in open
dumps - most of it, of course, in the Kenilworth Dump, and smaller
amounts in dumps located in Prince Georges County, in Maryland, and in
Prince William County and Alexandria, in Virginia. All other incineration
by commercial, industrial, and residential equipment scattered throughout
the area, poorly equipped, if at all, for control of air pollution, accounts for
206,000 tons. Backyard trash burning accounts for 108,000 tons.

Open burning and incineration of refuse are sources of several important
types of air pollutants, including carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and par-
ticulate matter. The most obvious, of course, is particulate matter - the
brown and gray smoke that shrouds the area and reduces visibility, and the
flying fragments of half-burned trash that accumulate on cars and window
sills and blacken buildings and monuments. But the obvious effects am
not the only effects. Not all of this airborne filth ends up on cars and
buildings; some of it inevitably ends up in our lungs and other parts of


panel A                   DISPOSAL PRACTICES

37

the human respiratory system, where it has been known to have irritating
or toxic effects, or both.

1n the Washington area, refuse burning accounts for an estimated 22
percent of all the particulate matter released into the air from all sources.
Among the various categories of air pqllution sources in the area, only
power plants account for a greater share of particulate pollution. The
actual amount of particulate matter released into the air from refuse disposal
operations of all kinds is estimated to be about 8,600 tons per year. About
two-thirds of the total comes from sources in the District of Columbia, with
the Kenilworth Dump contributing about half of that, while the other
one-third comes from sources in suburban Maryland and Virginia.

The most obvious conclusion we can draw from these figures is, of
course, that efforts to reduce air pollution from refuse disposal operations
in the Washington area can most profitably be concentrated in the District
of Columbia. This is indeed a valid conclusion. There can be no doubt
that closing of the archaic Kenilworth Dump is an essential first step. This
action would, in itself, keep more pollution out of the air than would any
other single step we can take. But it is important to recognize that
no such step will be truly fruitful, in the long run, if action is not also
taken to develop a coordinated regional plan for dealing with the solid
waste problem.

I believe that a brief look into the future will indicate what I mean.
As I said earlier, our estimate is that about 1.5 million tons of refuse
are currently discarded in a year's time in the Washington metropolitan
area. But this total will increase as the area's population grows and as
consumption of goods and services increases,  Furthermore, since most
of the area's growth is taking place in the suburbs, it is in Maryland and
Virginia that refuse disposal problems will inevitably grow at the fastest
rate. In the long run, then, the view that refuse disposal is strictly a local
problem will have its most serious effects in our suburban communities. This
one consideration is, in itself, a compelling argument in favor of regional
cooperation in dealing with this problem.

Exactly what form a plan for regional action might take is a basic question
which I hope this conference will consider very carefully. No matter what
YOU decide, however, there are several fundamental considerations that
cannot be ignored if you are to break the sinister link between refuse disposal
and air pollution.

The best solution is, of course, to stop all burning of refuse. This is


38                         MDDLBTON

no easy matter in an area such as this one, where 80 percent of all refuse
is disposed of by burning. I am certainly not suggesting that you place an
immediate ban on both open burning and incineration. But what I am
suggesting is that you explore all potentially practical ways of dealing
with the refuse problem without lighting any fires.

I, for one, cannot believe that this area is employing sanitary land8lling
to the fullest extent possible. I know that many people who would other-
wise have no objection to landfilling suddenly find it objectionable if a land-
fill `site is to be located in their own neighborhood. Their attitude is easily
understandable in an area where so little landfilling is done, where few
people have had an opportunity to see that landfilling need not be a public
nuisance or health hazard. To those people who are concerned about these
problems, I can only say that properly operated sanitary landfills make
better neighbors than even the best incinerators.

Though the Washington area, like any other in this eastern megalopolis,
must eventually run out of suitable space for landfilling, this approach will
at least give you enough time to experiment with other approaches. I assure
you that there are others, including some which are already in use and
some which are still experimental; you will undoubtedly hear about many
of them before this conference is over. I urge you to think at least as
much about the real possibilities inherent in each one as you do about the
seeming limitations. In this era of technological miracles, the ways of col-
lecting, transporting, and disposing of refuse can hardly be limited by our
ability to design and build the necessary hardware; the only real limitation
is the extent to which all of us are willing to accept, or at least examine,
new ideas.

We must also be ready and willing to give up some old and cherished
notions. One that may well have to go is the idea that every large building
should have its own incinerator. In particular, the installation of single-
chamber incinerators in new buildings is an obsolete practice that should no
longer be perpetuated. Though such incinerators may be relatively small
factors in the area's total air pollution problem, each one is a major source
of pollution in its own neighborhood. And where many buildings are
crowded together, even in areas far removed from the Kenilworth Dump,
the fallout from apartment-house incinerators must make many people
wonder whether it is so desirable, after all, to live in the city. It is likely
that until we recognize the true nature and extent of the growing waste
disposal problem and vigorously pursue more adequate solutions, some waste
will have to be disposed of by burning. If we must bum waste, it would be


Panel A                   DISPOSAL PRACTICES

39

far better to burn it in modern and well-operated municipal incinerators.
1 wi]] concede that there are not very many of those, either in this area or
&where in the country. But in the past few years, largely because of the
stimulus provided by the Solid Waste Disposal Act, incinerator technology
has begun moving forward; moreover, large municipal incinerators can be
         . .

equipped wrth highly efficrent secondary collectors such as precipitators or
scrubbers for the control of air pollution. No municipal incinerator any-
tvhere in the country is currently equipped with such devices; however,
under a grant from the Public Health Service, the District of Columbia
is developing plans for a new incinerator that will incorporate the best
available pollution control techniques, and New York City recently an-
nounced plans to add such equipment to its municipal incinerators.

In the future, if additional community incinerators prove necessary to
meet the Washington area's needs, regional cooperation will be essential.
In particular, it will be only through regional cooperation that full advantage
can be taken of opportunities to locate such facilities in outlying areas,
where conditions for diffusion of air pollutants are, as a rule, more favorable
than in congested urban areas, and where modern, well-operated inciner-
ators need not be a problem. Since increasing amounts of refuse will be
produced in the suburbs, hauling need not be burdensome, and a compelling
desire coupled with ingenuity will assure the development of new tech-
niques which will reduce the expense.

There are no quick and cheap ways to deal with the problem you have
come here to discuss. I believe that there is ample evidence in the Wash-
ington area to demonstrate that short-cut ways of disposing of refuse are
the most expensive, in the long run. I have also seen a great deal of evi-
dence which suggests that the people of the Washington area want cleaner
air. That goal can be reached only through conscious planning on a regional
scale. If a plan existed, we would not, be here today. If this group cannot
take at least the first steps toward the development of a rational and prac-
tical plan, then none of us should be surprised if the people of this area
eventually begin to insist upon drastic measures. The more than two million
People who live in this area ought to be able to discard their trash without
having it returned to them through the air.


SOLID WASTE HANDLING BY FEDERAL
      INSTALLATIONS

Fred W. Binnewies *

IN HIS NATURAL BEAUTY message on February 8, 1965, President Johnson
said, "The beauty of our land is a natural resource. Its preservation is
linked to the inner prosperity of the human spirit . . . Our land will be
attractive tomorrow only if we organize for action and rebuild and reclaim
the beauty we inherited." And Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall com-
mented in much the same vein, "Yesterday's conservation battles were for
superlative scenery, for wilderness, for wildlife. Today's conservation battles

. .

are for beauttful cities, for clean water and air, for tasteful architecture, for
the preservation of open space." We can hardly win the battle for beauti-
ful cities and clean water and air unless the problem of waste disposal is
solved. As the President said, we must organize for action and rebuild and
reclaim the beauty we inherited.

Waste disposal is certainly not a new problem but it has been with us in
increasing importance for many centuries.  The old cliff dwellers of the
Southwest merely threw their broken pots and trash, including a few bodies
now and then, out the front door. Often, enough fill accumulated so they
could build on top of it as much as we do now. This practice, 1 must say,
has been much to the delight of present day archeologists who depend on
trash dumps to give them clues to the culture and ways of life of the people
of those times. Think what a lot of fun archeologists of the future will have
delving in the dumps we are now creating. What kind of an impression
will they have of our civilization?

Our problem today is not to make it so easy for those future archeologists
but to devise better, more efficient, ways of getting rid of waste materials.
The challenge is nowhere greater than here, in the nation's capital, the home
of more than two million people, visited by an estimated 15 million more
each year. Almost all of the visitors use the National Capital Parks, ad-
ministered by the National Park Service of the Department of the Interior,
in one way or another, and many leave a calling card in the way of trash.
A great deal of our effort is spent just cleaning up after people. Over gOO,OOO
cans of trash were picked up and disposed of last year.

* Assistant Regional Director, Operations, National Capital Region, National Park
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

41


42                          BINNEWIES

Procaedhgr

Most of the waste collected in the National Capital Parks is disposed of
by burning in incinerators or dumps operated by the District of Columbia
or other municipalities. For example, we use the incinerator at Mt, Olivet
and West Virginia Avenue, N.E., dump unbumable material at Kenilworth,
and also use the incinerators at Georgetown and Alexandria. Tree trim-
mings, branches, and trunks that cannot be disposed of by chipping are
burned, in small quantities, 2.5 tons per day, at the District of Columbia
plant nursery.

A disposal problem for which there is no good solution at present is what
to do with trees affected by Dutch Elm disease. Many of the American Elms
in the District of Columbia are infected with the disease and unless the tree
is destroyed soon after the ehn disease is identified other trees can be in-
fected. Burning is the surest method of disposing of infected trees. Inciner-
ation has been tried but it does not work well due to the length of time it
takes to consume large tree trunks or stumps. An incinerator can be tied up
for days while other trash continues to accumulate. Considerable research
is being conducted in an effort to find an effective control for the disease
but until it is successful we must continue with open pit burning.

The disposal of waste needs to be a cooperative effort but this is not
always the case. Montgomery County, Maryland, has passed an ordinance
prohibiting the dumping of trash originating on Federal property on any
city or county dump. This affects portions of ethe C&O Canal National
Monument since it would be less costly and more efficient if county facilities
could be used. I understand from the newspapers that Prince Georges
County has passed a similar ordinance prohibiting trash trucks from the
District from operating in the county. This, of course, compounds the
problem in this highly concentrated metropolitan area.

Waste disposal is a costly business at best and it is going to get more so
as greater emphasis is given to clean air and water. The National Capital
Parks spend about $500,000 annually for sanitation activities and $200,000
for Dutch Elm disease control and other tree work. The cost goes up each
year despite the fact that the public is getting more litter conscious. We had
a good example of this public awareness just the other day. The morning
after the Fourth of July we found trash baskets overflowing, but the excess
litter was piled around the baskets and not scattered over the landscape.
This made our job much easier, and we really appreciated this kind of con-
cern on the part of the general public. There are two things that would
help immeasurably to reduce waste disposal problems - make paper so ex-
pensive we couldn't afford to throw it away, and develop a beer can that


Panel A                  SOLID WASTE HANDLING                   43

would disintegrate soon after it was discarded. Neither of these are very
practical, I'm afraid.

Some good can come from solid waste disposal. For example incinerator
ash is being deposited as fill in Kingman Lake and when completed it will
be used for a golf course. The Kenilworth Dump is gradually being covered
with dirt and it will be turned into an attractive park and outdoor recrea-
tion area when completed. Dyke Marsh is being filled with diit and it will
be developed for recreation. The problem, of course, is what is to be done
with the trash when these places have reached their limit. There are not
many places where landfill can be used to an advantage and they are be-
coming more scarce each year. With the scarcity of land available for parks
and recreation areas, however, cities, counties and states should not overlook
the potential of developing recreation facilities on reclaimed dump areas.
In fact this can be an incentive to help overcome local objections in order to
establish sanitary landfill sites.

Vast improvment can be made in waste disposal if we will only do it.
More efficient incinerators can take the place of open burning, scrap metals
can be reclaimed, and some method can be developed to pulverize and
reuse brick and concrete. I heard recently of a company in Florida that is
processing garbage into compost. Proposals have been made to use the
heat from incinerators for generating electricity or other beneficial use. This
can cut down the expense of waste disposal. I feel sure modern technology
can develop better methods for waste disposal if we will give the incentive.
Conferences such as this can provide that incentive.

283499 o-67-4


SOLID WASTE HANDLING BY FEDERAL
      INSTALLATIONS

William H. Eastman +

IT IS INDEED AN HONOR to participate in this conference which deals with
the enormous problems in the disposal of waste materials which we in the
Washington, D.C. area, generate during our daily activities.

Let me take a minute to give you a word picture of the mission of the
General Services Administration (GSA). From our GSA regional office in
Washington, the largest of ten throughout the nation, we service virtually
every United States Government agency in the states of Maryland, Virginia,
West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, with an organization that em-
ploys approximately 12,000 people. We served as landlord, purchasing agent,
and superintendent, with sundry other management functions. We have some
measure of management responsibility for almost 1,300 government-owned
buildings and leased facilities, representing approximately 55 million square-
feet of space.

Ladies and gentlemen: The people who occupy these 55 million square
feet generate tons of waste material daily. This waste manifests itself in
several forms: such as, waste paper, trash, debris, classified paper and films,
sewage, and other singular disposal items. Each of these items must be
handled in a special manner.

The practice and procedures used in the disposal of waste paper, trash,
and debris must be closely coordinated. For example, waste paper mixed
with trash increases the quantity of trash which we must pay to have re-
moved from our buildings and decreases the quantity of waste paper which
can be sold.

Let me take a few minutes to define some types of waste generated in
our buildings and how we in GSA handle the disposal of these materials.
Waste paper, scrap materials, and refuse are classified as follows:

Saleable paper.  When we talk about thii type of waste we refer to all
kinds of paper such as the waste paper deposited in the waste baskets located
at each of our desks - high-grade type paper generated in printing plants
- tabulating cards, books and corrugated containers. Through committee

* Regional Director, Public Buildings Service, Region III, General Services Ad-
  ministration, Washington, D.C.

45


46                          EASTMAN

Proceedings

studies, initiation of disposal practices, and, most important, education of
our employees, we were successful in recovering, in FY 1966, approximately
$350,000 from the sale of waste paper alone. As a point of interest, within
the past few years waste paper tonnage has jumped from about 50 tons
per day to about 90 tons per day (in the Washington area). The collection
and disposal of this type of waste paper is handled in several different ways.
In some of our buildings, many tons of the paper are baled by GSA em-
ployees, and these bales are picked up by contractors at regular established
times and dates. In other locations, saleable waste paper is placed in either
disposable paper bags or in reusable canvas bags and then picked up by
the paper company which has the waste paper collection contract.

Nonsaleable paper. We have an accumulation which consists of paper
cups, cartons, carbon paper, and the like. Since we must pay to have the
nonsaleable paper removed from our buildings, our buildings supervisors
conduct frequent inspections to ensure that the established handling pro-
cedures are being followed in order to minimize our trash problem.

Trash.  This includes all burnable refuse such as (but not limited to)
scrap, lumber, crates, boxes, and unsaleable paper. We must pay a Aat
monthly rate for the removal of trash. The removal of trash and debris is
let to the lowest contract bidder for a period of one year.

Debris. When we speak of debris, we are talking about nonburnable
trash such as plaster, wallboard, brick, stone, tile, and so forth. Debris from
our buildings is removed by commercial contractors. We pay by the cubic
yard for the removal of debris.

The scrap metal generated in our buildings is collected, classified, and
stored as ferrous and nonferrous metal. Both are disposed of by selling to
the highest bidder. Several years ago disposal of burned out fluorescent
light tubes was a very costly item, and a dangerous operation because these
tubes were thrown on the debris pile and disposed of by hauling to the
dump. We now have installed in several of our large buildings, a machine
which crushes the tubes, thereby permitting ease in handling the disposal
of these items. During the course of our monthly operations, we generate
hundreds of 55-gallon drums, these drums are collected at a main collection
point, as are old tires, tubes, and storage batteries and these items are also
sold by our property disposal people. By educating our employees and by
initiating sound disposal procedures and practices, we were successful in
recovering approximately $700,000 last year from the sales of all types of
waste, as compared with about $327,000 in fiscal year 1964.


Panel A                  SOLID WASTE HANDLtNG                  47

During the planning stages for the construction of new buildings, we in
public Buildings' Service review the proposed building plans and make rec-
ommendations for the installation of modern machinery such as paper
pulpers, paper maceraters and other types of waste disposal units to allevi-
ate or assist in the disposal problems. Classified papers and film for example
are disposed of by one of three different methods: incineration, wet-pulping,
and dry disintegration or hammermills.

There are 20 incinerators in GSA Region III buildings, all agency-operated.
TWO of them are equipped with afterburners and wet scrubbers for remov-
ing odors and fly ash. The remaining 18 are essentially natural draft instal-
lations without devices for fly ash control. Surveys have been made on these
18 units, and corrective measures, making them acceptable from an air
pollution standpoint, have been determined. Two incinerators are designed
for the destruction of animal wastes, 18 for the incineration of classified
wastepaper with several of these 18 for the burning of classified film as
well. The biggest problem encountered in the operation of these incinerators
is the discharge of fly ash to the atmosphere. Wet pulping installations are
used in some of our buildings for the destruction of classified wastepaper.
The largest wet pulping plant operates eight hours per day, five days per
week, and processes eight to ten tons of dry classified wastepaper per day.
Equipment of this kind destroys paper effectively and does not create an
air pollution problem. However, first costs are high, and there are problems
associated with corrosion, maintenance and disposition of the baled wet pulp.

Paper disintegrators or hammer-mills effectively destroy classified waste
paper by reducing it to a dry pulp with complete loss of identity. At the
same time they destroy items like paper clips, staples, rubber bands, film,
metal plates and glass slides. A hammermill installation requires a water
spray to control dust and explosion hazards. One such plant is in operation
three shifts a day, seven days per week and produces about 20 tons per
day of completely disintegrated classified wastepaper in the form of baled
dry pulp. This pulp is sold to a paper pulp processor for industrial reuse.
The great bulk of Federal buildings administered by General Services Ad-
minstration discharge their sanitary wastes to municipal sanitary sewers.
This sewage is then conveyed to municipal sewage treatment plants for
treatment, and does not constitute any .further solid waste disposal problem.

The Virginia sewage disposal plant is an exception to this rule in that it
is a self-contained plant, operated in its entirety by GSA Region III. It is
located about 500 feet southwest of the Potomac River boundary channel
and one-half mile northwest of the Potomac River lagoon. This plant treats


48                          EASTMAN

the sewage from the Pentagon, Federal Building 2, Naval Facilities engi-
neering command building and the South Post residence halls of Fort Myer.
An average of 1.1 million gallons per day ( MGD) of domestic wastes re-
ceives secondary treatment in the Virginia (Pentagon) sewage treatment
plant. Peak flow rates of 2 MOD occur, and are adequately handled since
the plant was designed for a flow rate of 3.2 MGD. Chlorine is added to the
effluent as it leaves the outfall pipe to the boundary channel which leads
into the Potomac River. The digested sludge after being dewatered in the
vacuum filter and air dried is used by the National Park Service as fertilizer
and soil conditioner in the numerous parks in the area.

Many `one time' disposal problems arise that require special attention.
For example, the Public Health Service, GSA emergency supply depot, at
Cheetam Annex, Williamsburg, Virginia, is responsible for the storage or
preposition hospital units. These preposition hospital units are completely
equipped field units which can be sent to selected emergency sites throughout
the country in times of need. PHS professional advisory committees con
tinuously make quality control checks on supplies and equipment which are
a part of these units and recommend the disposal of items which have
deteriorated and have been determined to be professionally unacceptable
for use. Disposal procedures guidelines for the disposition and destruction
of deteriorated items in the medical stockpile depots are issued by the Stock-
pile Management Branch, Division of Health Mobilization. On May 1, 1967,

a memorandum was sent from the PHS stockpile management branch to the
PHS/GSA emergency medical supply depot at Cheetam requesting the
disposal of intravenous injections sets. The Cheetam depot now has the
job of disposing of some 2.5 million injection sets. The guidelines as set by
the stockpile management branch state that all consumable items will be
completely destroyed by burning, crushing, and then burying, unless con-
tents are entirely consumed by incinerations. The GSA personnel at Cheetam
decided to dispose of the condemned injection sets by burning. However,
the attempts to dispose of these units by burning proved unsuccessful be-
cause of the large amount of air pollutants which were created and which
threatened surrounding countryside and the city of Williamsburg. It was
then decided that the most feasible and safe method to use for disposal of

these units would be crushing and burying. A potential health hazard was
thus aborted by careful implementation of approved disposal procedures.

Another `one-time' problem to which GSA is now seeking .a solution has
occurred at the GSA/PMDS depot at Curtis Bay, Maryland, where large
quantities of thorium nitrate, a rare low-level radioactive-chemical element,


Panel A

SOLID WASTE HANDLING                   49

are stored. These chemicals at the depot are both foreign and domestic in
origin. The domestic material was stored in fibre drums with polyethylene
liners, while the foreign material was stored in metal 55-gallon drums with
one or more liners. Both types of materials in their drums are then stocked
on pallets and placed in storage sheds at the depot. Over a period of time
it was discovered that the drums and liners in which the thorium nitrate
was stored had somewhat deteriorated and several of the drums were
leaking. The decision was made to repack the chemicals, and this was
accomplished by depot personnel using approved safety procedures. After
the repacking operations had transpired, tests were made to check for any
radiation contamination which may have resulted from the leakage and
the repacking operations. Contamination of a low-level intensity was found
on the pallets and also on the flooring where the drums had been located.
The disposal of the contaminated flooring and pallets has been a unique
problem. Fear of polluting the air with radioactive material prohibits
burning as a solution. At present the contaminated material, both pallets
and flooring, which have been removed from its original location have
been secured pending a solution to the disposal problem.

Yes, GSA is indeed involved in problems of solid waste disposal. Our realm
of responsibility extends from the relatively insignificant task of emptying
a trash can to the monumental aspects of preventing a potential health
hazard to large communities. We at GSA are extremely interested in con-
tributing to the development of modern disposal practices in each and
every one of the disposal activities in which we are involved.