176                     SUMMARY OF PANEL A

Proceedings

his personal opinion, however, that such a regional authority should have
responsibility for all of the metropolitan environmental health problems
rather than be established solely to solve the solid waste problem. From the
outset, such an interstate authority should be the joint agency of the local
governments in the area and its governing body should be composed of
local elected officials rather than state appointed officials.

The six speakers yesterday afternoon placed clearly in perspective the
nature of the solid waste disposal problems of the metropolitan area. The
consultant's report recommending specific solutions will become available
within a month or two. By considering carefully both what we have learned
in the past two days and the recommendations of the consultant, we will
be in an excellent position to join efforts and reach a solution to this very
pressing problem which will benefit us all.

I want to thank the speakers who appeared on the panel with me, and
I want to thank the Surgeon General for convening this conference so that
we would have this excellent opportunity to review the solid waste problems
of the region.


SUMMARY OF PANEL 6: TECHNOLOGY TODAY

Abraham Michaels, Panel Chairman

THE TECHNOLOGY TODAY session concerned itself with solid waste col-
lection, transportation, and disposal methods currently in use in this country
and abroad and with newly developed or developing technology in refuse
processing. Clear indications that the technology is currently available to
solve the refuse disposal problems for the Washington metropolitan area
were offered. Both sanitary landfilling and incineration techniques suitable
for use in this area were discussed, and refuse transfer systems which would
be used in conjunction with disposal methods were described, The recycling
and utilization of refuse particularly by salvaging and composting were also
reviewed and discussed in detail.

The first speaker, Mr. Bugher, stated that Solid Waste transportation
systems for a given area require answers to the following questions: (a) HOW
large is the area to be served ? (b) Should the removal system handle all
the solid wastes generated in the area? (c) What is the distribution of the
various kinds of waste generating units in the area? (d) What is the area's
existing and the potentially available total transportation system? ; and
(e) Who will finance and administer the system?

Mr. Bugher noted that "the present Washington transportation system,
with its highways, railroads and the Potomac River, allows the waste removal
planner a wide range of alternatives for system development in terms of both
the mode of transportation and the ultimate destination." He based his
opinion on the knowledge that "(a) wastes can and must be disposed of in
an unobjectional manner; and (b) wastes can often be used to increase
the value of marginal land."

The author discussed waste transportation methods in terms of those
currently available and developing, and suggested that research efforts now
being undertaken will develop improved systems in this field. Existing trans-
portation systems mentioned included: (a) pipelines - operated hydrau-
lically or pneumatically - originating at the point of waste origin; (b) rail-
roads and barges for long-distance transportation; (c) integrated transfer
stations; and (d) truck and trailer systems with their potential for increasing
their pay loads.

Mr. Bowerman said that aside from unacceptable open dumping and open
burning, the most commonly practiced,&d waste disposal method in the

177


178                     SUMMARY OF PANEL B

Proceedings

U.S. is that of sanitary landfilling. This is so because it has widespread
applicability, low operating cost, freedom from nuisance and pollution, and
opportunity for reclamation and enhancement of land. In addition, sani-
tary landfilling may often be the quickest and most convenient means for
transforming an open dump or open burning operation into an acceptable
procedure. Suitable equipment for sanitary landfilling is readily available.
The operating techniques are well proved and the required skills are well
within the range of operating agencies. In other words, it's easy.

Certain minimum functions must be performed in order that the opera-
tion be truly classified as a sanitary landfill; the solid wastes must be de-
posited, compacted, and covered promptly; blowing .paper, flies, rats, fires,
and other nuisances must be avoided through the rigorous maintenance of
a tight cover to seal in the compacted wastes; protection must be afforded
against rain erosion, and ground water pollution. The ultimate land use
must be planned, preferably before the commencement of operation, so that
maximum benefit will be derived from available cover material and final
topography will be developed at minimum cost. Some examples of final
use are as follows: golf courses; regional parks, playgrounds; skeet ranges ;
archery ranges; ski mountains with planned slopes for skiing, tobogganing,
and sledding; heliports; parking areas; and offshore islands for recreational
or airport use.

Six "refuse" reduction processes were reviewed by Mr. Kaiser: ( 1) open
burning at dump sites; (2) burning in conical metal chambers; (3) land-
filling, sanitary or otherwise; (4) composting, with sale of compost; (5)
incineration without heat recovery; (6) incineration with heat recovery.
Reduction in volume is basic to any of these processes while any reduction
of weight is of lesser importance.

Open burning has been banned in some six states while in others limita-
tions of open burning are in effect. Volume reduction by open burning is
poor and incomplete, causing air pollution and leaving nuisance causing
organic and putrescible matter in the residue.

Conical metal burners which were designed to burn sawmill wastes have
been used to burn industrial and municipal refuse. Although proper opera-
tion may achieve a greater reduction in refuse weight and volume than
open burning, this device creates appreciable air pollution and produces a
poor quality residue.

The art and science of incineration in America have developed to such
a degree that large incinerators currently in operation do meet reasonable


Third Session               TECHNOLOGY TODAY                   179

air pollution and residue quality standards. Some European incineration
plants have been constructed as refuse fired boilers utilizing more sophisti-
cated air pollution control equipment than is currently used in the U.S.
The gaseous effluents of these European plants is reported. to be of better
quality than of the good American plants.

Dr. Harding said that composting, or aerobic stabilization of putrescible
material in refuse, can be achieved under controlled conditions, which in-
clude grinding, moisture control, and adjustment of the carbon-to-nitrogen
ratio.

Three mechanical composting systems and the PHS-TVA Johnson City
Plant were discussed in some detail.

Arrangements for the salvage of paper, cardboard, rags, ferrous metal,
and glass should be made in advance with local brokers. Prices vary widely
and are often not sufficient to pay for the cost of separation.

The author suggests that dumping fees be adequate to cover the disposal
phase including capital outlays, a sinking fund to replace equipment, oper-
ating costs and disposing of the compost for at least two years while a market
is developed for the product. The revenue derived from the sale of the
compost should cover the by-product costs including final grinding, up-
grading, marketing, granulating, bagging, etc. He noted that the principle
use of compost is for agricultural purposes. It is expected that much useful
information will be produced as a result of the Johnson City demonstration
plant.

We had a very interesting question and answer period. Many pertinent
questions were raised during the discussion period relative to the air pollution
contributions of incinerators and tepee burners, the disposal of abandoned
automobiles, the salvageability of refuse, the disposal of plastic wastes, the
percentages of solid waste which is noncompostable, the potential heat value
of refuse for use as a fuel, and the characteristic differences between Ameri-
can and European refuse. The importance of properly trained and com-
pensated personnel was emphasized.

It is apparent that the technology is now available for the development
of a nuisance-free solid wastes handling and disposal system for the Wash-
ington metropolitan area, and the Public Health Service, Solid Wastes
Program which provides for research, demonstration grants, personnel train-
ing, et=., should further stimulate significant advances to the benefit of the
Washington metropolitan area and the rest of the nation. This is the
report of Technology Today.


  SUMMARY OF PANEL C: DEVELOPMENT
OF A REGIONAL SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL PLAN
   Walter A. Scheiber, Panel Chairman

AN ANALYSIS OF THE CONFERENCE PROGRAM makes it clear that the three
panels are designed to complement each other, so that taken together, they
kvill provide a comprehensive picture of the entire solid waste problem in
the Washington metropolitan area.

Yesterday Mr. Tuchtan's panel dealt with the scope of our solid waste
problem. Mr. Michaels' panel this morning provided a review of the state
of our technology. And in Panel C, upon which I am reporting to you
now, we discussed the factors to be considered in the development and in
the implementation of a regional solid waste disposal plan.

In a sense, this facet of the problem is the most complex and the most
delicate part of the entire equation, because it involves not only technical
factors, but political, economic, and human considerations as well. AS Dr.
Stewart has said: "There is no technical barrier to sanitary and acceptable
solid waste disposal. The barriers are chiefly political and economic."

In discussing the need for long-range planning to surmount these barriers,
Paul Reid, Executive Director of the Detroit Metropolitan Area Regional
Planning Commission, described the efforts in his metropolitan area to de-
velop and implement an effective long-range solid waste management plan.
Hc suggested that there were a number of general principles to be drawn
from the Detroit experience which might be applicable within the Wash-
ington area, as well. Among these were the following: ( 1) that only a
region-wide long-range plan, properly implemented, can work; (2) that a
combination of landfill and incineration is a most appropriate disposal ar-
rangement for a major urban area, such as the Detroit area or the Wash-
ington area; (3) that collection and transfer stations be spotted in the core
area, and that highway and rail transportation be utilized to deliver waste
and incinerator ash to landfills on the fringe; and (4) that a metropolitan-
wide service agency be established to implement the plan.

Mr. Reid stated that in looking back on the Detroit experience since 1954
he believed that although their effort has been generally successful, there
would be certain things the Detroit people might do differently if they were

l-81


182

SUMMARY OF PANEL C          Proceeding*

given a second chance: ( 1) they would seek the aegis of a region-wide policy
body such as the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments and
the new Council of Governments in the Detroit area as a sponsor for their
efforts; (2) they would ask for joint and active support from the Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development and Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare in terms both of technical and financial assistance;
(3) they would make greater use of citizens' advisory groups to work in
parallel with the technical advisory committee in order to generate greater
community cooperation; (4) they would work in closer conjunction with
park and recreation specialists in developing landfill sites.

Our second speaker, Mr. Clark, who is Director of Works of the munici-
pality of Metropolitan Toronto, described the experience of his city over the
past fourteen years in developing an effective solid waste disposal program
for a metropolitan region with almost exactly the same population as that
of our area, that is approximately 2.5 million people. He described the
structure of Metropolitan Toronto, which was created in 1953, and which is
essentially a confederation of local governments in the Toronto region with
operational and with regulatory powers significantly greater than those en-
joyed by most American cities not excluding the District of Columbia. He
pointed out that it had been recognized shortly after Metropolitan Toronto
was created that solid waste disposal was a problem which should be solved
on a regional basis. Notwithstanding this fact, during the first years of the
Toronto experience refuse disposal remained the responsibility of the mem-
ber municipalities. By 1965, however, the problems of solid waste disposal
had become so great that the individual municipalities could no longer
properly handle the waste disposal system. A Royal Commission was ap-
pointed in that year to study the problem and it recommended that the
Metropolitan Corporation assume responsibility for all waste disposal in the
area.

On January 1, 1967 solid waste disposal became the responsibility of the
Metropolitan Corporation. All properties and equipment in use for solid
waste purposes were transferred by the local governments to the Metro-
politan Corporation without cost. And this is certainly a novelty for those
of us who participate in American local government. The Corporation was
given authority to acquire land for solid waste disposal purposes anywhere
in the metropolitan area, which consists of approximately 700 square miles,
subject to the approval of the municipality in which the land is located.

The major lesson to be learned from the Toronto experience, we think,
is that a high degree of cooperation between this local community and the


Third Session          DEVELOPMENT OF A REGIONAL PLAN

183

regional body is an absolute must in a successful operation. Although the
Canadian political and organizational structure is considerably simpler than
ours in the United States, the Toronto experience demonstrates the high
le\.el of cooperation to which we in the Washington area must aspire.

Mr. Hugh Mields, our third speaker, a consultant associated with the
6i-m of Harold F. Wise/Robert Gladstone, Associates of Washington, spoke
about the public administration aspects of regional solid waste planning. He
espressed the belief that mere cooperation among the local governments of
the Washington area would not be a sufficient basis for the development of
a comprehensive waste management program and he urged that immediate
consideration be given to the creation of a new Interstate Compact Agency
for the National Capital Area. He expressed the belief that such an agency
must be structured to be jointly responsible to the local governments of the
region, as did John Bosley in his remarks in Panel A. He indicated, how-
e\.er, that the creation of such an agency would take between two and four
years to accomplish in,his judgment and urged that work be begun irnmedi-
atcly as a special project of the Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments.

While long-range work on a new compact agency, which requires the
approval of the state legislatures of Maryland and Virginia as well as the
Congress of the United States is under way, he suggested that interim action
be taken by the Council of Governments in two directions: ( 1) getting the
Kenilworth Dump closed, beginning the preparation of a comprehensive
health plan for the Metropolitan area and developing abatement plans on
stack emissions; (2) providing basic information regarding the range and
intensity of existing and potential environmental health hazards.

Mr. Mields strongly urged that any compact agency created pursuant to
the long-range negotiations should be associated with and a part of the
Council of Governments, if possible.

Our final panel speaker, Richard D. Vaughan, Chief of the Environ-
mental Sanitation Program of the National Center for Urban and Industrial
Health, described Federal assistance available under the Solid Waste Disposal
Act of 1965.

He told of the accelerated research and development program of grants in
the field of solid waste, and various types of technical and financial assistance
available to state, local and area-wide bodies.

Among the features of the Act which he felt to be important, he described
the following: (1) demonstration grants for economic and technical innova-


184                     SUMMARY OF PANEL C

Proceedings

tions in the solid waste field; (2) grants to develop area-wide solid waste
systems; (3) grants for state surveys and the development of state-wide
plans; (4) grants `for research to establish new approaches in solid waste
handling; (5) training grants; and (6) technical assistance to local and
state governments with solid waste problems.

Mr. Vaughan reported on two grants recently made to the District of
Columbia in connection with the design of Incinerator No. 5. He also re-
ported that the states of Maryland and Virginia as well as the District had
received grants to develop state surveys and state plans.

In closing, Mr. Vaughan stated that the Solid Wastes Program would
welcome a proposal for a demonstration grant which would result in the
replacement of the Kenilworth Dump with a model sanitary landfill opera-
tion and land reclamation project which would result in the development of
an architecturally pleasing recreation site as well as the immediate cessation
of open burning. He also told the panel that the Solid Wastes Program
would welcome a proposal for design and demonstration of a modern solid
waste management system for Metropolitan Washington, and suggested that
such a proposal could be submitted by a body representative of the area,.
such as the Council of Governments. Such a project, he pointed out, would
be eligible for up to two-thirds grant support under the Solid Waste
Disposal Act.

As Panel C concluded, the panel chairman indicated his belief that the
Council of Governments would respond affirmatively to this suggestion.


CONFERENCE SUMMARY -A PATTERN FOR ACTION

Leo Weaver

X FEW SHORT WEEKS AGO, when we began the planning for this con-
ference, we decided to list these concluding remarks in the program under
the heading, A Pattern for Action.

Frankly, it somewhat worried me: how I or anyone else could presume
to stand up here and spell out a pattern for action when our discussions and
deliberations are barely concluded.

As it turns out this is not really such a difficult assignment. I think it is
abundantly clear that the pattern for action to solve the solid waste man-
agement problem of the metropolitan Washington area is inherent in the
problem itself. Our task is to remove whatever blinders may prevent us
from taking a realistic look at this problem. When we do that, I think the
outlines of a pattern for action become unmistakably clear.

This is a time to be realistic, We are striving to find a solution for a real,
tangible, sordid, and worsening problem. But, we are no closer to solving
it today than we were yesterday morning when Mr. Svore opened this
Conference.

This afternoon and tomorrow afternoon, next week, next month, and
perhaps next year, a match will kindle the fire at Kenilworth and prove
once again that we have not yet begun to see and understand the solid
waste problem of this community.

The fact that the District of Columbia has had to rely on an outrageous
open burning dump for nearly a quarter of a century to meet much of its
solid waste disposal needs proves beyond any doubt that this community is
playing a dangerous game of self-deception.

And not only the Federal City is playing the game. The communities
in Maryland and Virginia that ring the City of Washington are equally
guilty of self-deception when they blithely berate the District for the Kenil-
worth disaster, and yet do virtually nothing to help bring it to an end.

And the self-deception goes deeper than that for these same surrounding
jurisdictions - some of the most rapidly growing urban areas in the country
- will face the same kind of problem which now plagues the District of
Columbia.

185


186                          WEAVER

Proceedings

Where will these suburban areas turn when their waste disposal problems
equal or dwarf those of the District. ? The time when we will be forced to
answer that question is not far off.

And while we are being realistic, let's not kid ourselves into the com-
fortable notion that the Kenilworth Dump is the sum and substance of the
Metropolitan Washington solid waste problem. The dump is the scapegoat.
It is the most obvious, tangible proof. But it is not the whole problem.

What about outmoded and poorly operated municipal incinerators? What
about single-chamber, flue-fed incinerators? What about open dumping
and open burning in all parts of this region. 2 Can we turn our backs on these
offenses as though the plume of smoke from Kenilworth hid them all?

The answer is obvious.

If there has been one overriding viewpoint taken by speakers at this Con-
ference it is that solid waste management is a regional problem which must
be solved by a systematic, regional approach. Some speakers have given lip
service to this idea - others have made it the major premise of their
remarks.

.But regionalism is not a pattern for action. What I want to do in the
few minutes before the fire at Kenilworth obscures our view is try to suggest
what seemed to me to be transcendent goals that will have to be carved out
and met both for the short- and long-term solution of the solid waste
problems of this area.

Goal number one: stop forever the burning at Kenilworth. Put the fire
out 30 days from today and let it never be lighted again.

It is incredible that every single person, be he public official or not, who
has any knowledge of or responsibility for the Kenilworth Dump wants the
burning to stop. And yet it goes on. I say our first goal must be an end
to the fire at Kenilworth no more than one month from today.

Goal number two: as soon as the fire is out, begin a sanitary land reclama-
tion operation at Kenilworth that will demonstrate to the entire community
what can be accomplished when the best available technology moves in to
replace the worst. Let the District of Columbia, with whatever outside help
it needs, make Kenilworth a symbol to the people of this entire region of
what can be accomplished when the problem of solid waste disposal is dealt
with scientifically and in the best public interest.

We need more parks and recreational facilities in Washington. Let's make


Third Session              CONFERENCE SUMMARY                   187

one out of the disgrace that is the Kenilworth Dump. The Public Health
Semite is ready to do whatever it can toward this goal.

For goal number three the District of Columbia should proceed im-
mediately with the development of plans for an interim replacement for
the Kenilworth Dump. If that replacement is to be located at Muirkirk,
Maryland, let the District develop and submit for public scrutiny a plan
to use that site for the benefit of the people.

I have to say in all candor that the residents of Muirkirk have every
reason to fear what might happen if their community is used for disposal
of solid wastes from the District of Columbia. But we know that a landfill
operation at Muirkirk, or anyplace else in this area, can be conducted in
a way that will enhance, rather than degrade, the surrounding community.

Let us begin now to earn the confidence of the people whose help and
understanding are needed. And then let us repay that confidence with a
waste disposal operation that is of the highest possible calibre.

It can be done.

Goal number four: the governments serving the people of the metropolitan
ivashington area, which share what we all agree is a regional solid waste
management problem, should immediately come together, probably under
the auspices of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, to
create a permanent commission responsible for coordinating the solid waste
disposal programs of the region, monitoring operations, reviewing plans,
setting immediate and long-term goals, and promoting a coordinated re-
gional system for solid waste management in the metropolitan Washington
area.

Such a commission should undertake, as one of its major tasks, the
development of an interstate compact governing solid waste disposal and
perhaps other environmental health problems in the metropolitan area of
Washington. I see no reason why such a commission could not be operating
by the first of the year. I assure you the Public Health Service will provide
every ounce of assistance it can to make this goal possible.

In a few minutes this conference will be over. It can have accomplished
a great deal - or nothing. It can have been. the first, long overdue step
toward control of one of this area's most serious environmental health prob-
lems. Or it can have been only an exercise in futility.

But let me say only this. If a realistic look at the solid waste problem

263-399 O-67-13


188                          WEAVER

Proceedings

brings into sharp focus a pattern for action, it also shows us with painful
clarity what will happen if we fail to act.

Each of us knows what his professional training, political acumen, and
good common sense tell him must be done to solve the solid waste problems
of this community. Our pattern for action is to do what is right, and do
it now.


CONFERENCE ADJOURNMENT

Jerome H. Svore

IN THE AREA of water polhrtion control in the past few years we have
heard various figures of what it is going to take to clean up the water
environment of this nation. Just to separate sanitary sewers from the storm
sewers is estimated to require about 30 billion dollars. Treatment plant
construction alone calls for grants on the Federal level of 3 to 6 billion
dollars which will be matched locally. This doesn't even begin to solve the
pollution problems of agricultural drainage, return flows from irrigation,
and the idustrial wastes of the nation. This indicates the level that we are
talking about as far as this type of pollution is concerned; and that's only
one pollution!

We had an esample of the Senate's indication of how they felt about air
pollution when they authorized a 700-million-dollar program on a matching
basis with regional areas, municipalities and others. This does not include
the cost of what industry is going to have to do to solve their problem;
and that's the second pollution.

Certainly, the third pollution is going to require similar resources. I think
that many of us in the professional business of pollution control over the
years have been lagging behind public opinion in many instances. I certainly
hope that as a result of this conference the necessary impetus will be given
to the situation in the' Metropolitan Washington Area, so that we can go
forward with correcting the present situation.

Are there any comments from anyone from the floor? I give you an
opportunity at this time.

`NORMAN E. JACKSON* :  I have no prepared speech, nor do I have a place
on this program. But I felt that there should be someone from the District
of Columbia to say just a word in parting that we are not really what you
may have been led to believe we are. We are just as much interested in
solving this problem as you, I am a resident of the District of Columbia.
I take no great pride in Kenilworth, nor, do I think, does the Engineer
Commissioner or any other officials of the District of Columbia. We are very
much interested in getting your help.

Let me assure you that the people in the District of Columbia are work-

* Norman E. Jackson, Government of the District of Columbia, Washington, D.C.

189


190

WORE             Psoceedingr

ing toward this problem. We have been at it quite a while. We suggested
undulating the contours of Kenilworth landfill - some years ago - that was
unacceptable; maybe we did not have the proper persuasiveness. But we do
need the help of not only the people in the District, but those in the out-
lying areas. We proposed the use of Muirkirk as you heard today. Prince
Georges County has our proposal before it for consideration at the present
time. But I think that of all things we need to point out, the most important
is that those areas or those portions of the District which cannot go any
further than their present bounds for those areas needed to solve its prob-
lems and in this we must have the help of the outside areas. We have much
work to do on our part as well; to better our operation, to improve our
methods of doing things. This we are willing to do.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity of letting these
people know that we are interested in this, and that the District, at least in
the closing moments, has had opportunity to present its viewpoint. Thank
you very much.

MR. SORE:  We sincerely appreciate those words of your Mr. Jack-
son, and I am sure that any support that this conference ultimately gives
you will be appreciated. If there are no further comments, this meeting will
stand adjourned and we thank you all for coming.