PROCEEDINGS

The Surgeon General's Conference
      t/r
  on Solid Wuste Management

FOR METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON
        July 19-20, 1967

Edited by Leo Weaver

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
             Public Health Service

    NATIONAL CENTER FOR URBAN AND INDUSTRIAL HEALTH
               Solid Wastes Program

                         CINCINNATI

                        I967


Public Health Service Publication No. 1729

Library of Congress Catalog No. 67432888

For sale by tbe Saperintmdeat of Dcmmmta, U.S. Qovemmeat Printing OflIce
         Wmht#m,D.C.2S4O2-~7Scanta


FOREWORD

SEVERAL MONTHS HAVE GONE BY since we met to discuss Metropolitan
Washington's area-wide solid waste management problems. Since that time,
much has happened and I believe significant progress has been made toward
the solution of these problems. One important action was the announce-
ment by the Secretary of the Interior and the Engineer Commissioner of
the District of Columbia of a timetable of 60 to 90 days for the conversion
of Kenilworth from an open burning dump to a sanitary landfilling demon-
stration for community improvement.

The Kenilworth Dump has long been an ugly, enormous, burning pile of
solid waste, befouling the air of our nation's capital with great plumes of
smoke. It has been a menace to health in Washington, D.C. and its environs.
Unfortunately, in other cities and towns across the nation, similiar dumps
pose the same problem.

The idea of getting rid of the Kenilworth Dump was a top priority sub-
ject for discussion in the proceedings that make up the subject of this
volume. It is a pleasure to be able to report, so soon after the conference,
that the meeting stirred prompt action.

But much remains to be done. In calling the conference I stressed that
lack of technology is not the real barrier to safe and sanitary solid waste dis-
posal. The barriers are chiefly political and economic. The local govern-
ments of the Washington area, working together toward a common solution,
constitute the vital force required to achieve the environmental health bene-
fits inherent in effective solid wastes management. The many salutary com-
ments received indicate the conference answered both a regional and a
national need. Certainly it has put the Washington area problems of solid
waste management in better perspective and created a more favorable
environment for innovative solutions.

The conference approach itself is applicable to our many metropolitan
areas. The conference format, together with input from the well-chosen
speakers with various viewpoints, present in these proceedings a valuable
dialogue concerning the problem here in the Washington area and elsewhere
in the country.

November 1967
Bethesda, Maryland

WILLIAM H. STEWART
Surgeon General

. . .
111


CONFERENCE STAFF

JEROME H. SVORE
General Chairman

LEO WEAVER
Executive Secretary

    G.LAMAR HUBBS            KENNETH FLIEGER
Deputy Executive Secretary       Information Ofiicer

LEROY STONE and JOHN T. TALTY      JOAN F. TUDOR
   Program Oficers         Administrative Oficer

               Secretaries and Aides

BARBARA K. APO~TOL                       GERRI METSCH
JACQUELYN S.JORDAN                    ERNESTINEROGERS
SANDRA L.Loos                          LINDA TRAVERS

Special appreciation for assistance and cooperation is extended to the staff
of the Naticnal Center for Air Pollution Control and the Training Program
of the National Center for Urban and Industrial Health.

iv


CONTENTS

PAGE

First Plenary Session

WELCOME TO THE CONFERENCE, Leo Weaver. . . . . . . . . . 1
INTRODUCTION OF KEYNOTE SPEAKERS, ]erome H. Svore . . . . . 3
KEYNOTE ADDRESS, William H. Stewart . . . . . . . . . . . 5
KEYNOTE ADDRESS, Joseph D. Tydings . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
HEALTH ASPECTS OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL, Richard A. Prindle . .I5
LUNCHEON ADDRESS: POLITICS AND TRASH, Royce Hanson . . . . .21

Second Plenary Session

PANEL A: PRESENT PRACTICES AND NEEDS IN THE
  METROPOLITAN AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL STUDY FOR THE WASHINGTON
METROPOLITAN AREA, L. W. Bremser . . . . . . . . . . .25

AIR POLLUTION AND SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES
]ohn T. Middleton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
SOLID WASTE HANDLING BY FEDERAL INSTALLATIONS
  Fred W. Binnewies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

SOLID WASTE HANDLING BY FEDERAL INSTALLATIONS
  William H. Eastman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

ABANDONED AND SCRAP AUTOMOBILES, William A. Vogely . . . . .51

LEGISLATIVE NEEDS FOR A METROPOLITAN SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL PROGRAM, John J. Bosley . . . . . . . . . . .61
OPEN DISCUSSION: PANEL A . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65

PANEL B: TECHNOLOGY TODAY   ..........  .73

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, Robert D. Bugher  ........  .73

LAND RECLAMATION, Frank R. Bowerman   .........  .87

REFUSE REDucnoN PROCESSES, Elmer R. Kaiser  .......  .93

V


PAGE

RECYCLING AND UTILIZATION, C. I. Harding  .........  105

OPEN DISCUSSION: PANEL B  ..............  121

PANEL C: DEVELOPMENT OF A REGIONAL SOLID WASTE
  DISPOSAL PLAN . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

THE NEED FOR LONG-RANGE PLANNING FOR A SOLID
  WASTE DISPOSAL PLAN, Paul M. Reid . . . . . . . . . 131

ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS IN THE REGIONAL APPROACH
  To SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT, Ross L. Clark . . . . . . 139

PUBLIC ADMINIST~TION ASPECTS OF AREA-WIDE PIZANNING
Hugh Mields, Jr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . 149

ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE UNDER THE SOLO, WASTE DISPOSAL ACT
Richard D. Vaughan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
OPEN DISCUSSION: PANEL C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
LUNCHEON ADDRESS, William B. Spong, Jr. . . . . . . . . . 167

Third Plenary Session

SUMMARIES BY PANEL CHAIRMEN, Achilles M. Tuchtan,
Abraham Michaels, and Walter A. Scheiber . . . . . . . 173

CONFERENCE SUMMARY - A PATTERN FOR ACTION, Leo Weaver .   .  185

CONFERENCE ADJOURNMENT, Jerome H. Svore . . . . . . . . 189

vi


WELCOME TO THE CONFERENCE

Leo Weauer *

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN :  Welcome to the Surgeon General's Conference
on Solid Waste Management for Metropolitan Washington.

I have only a few brief remarks to make before we turn to the major
business of the conference.

We have some preliminary information on attendance figures based on
the list of people who had pre-registered for the conference by yesterday
afternoon. These figures are a little out of date by now, but they give some
indication of the wide-ranging interest in the subject of this conference.

Of the 310 persons who had pre-registered as of yesterday, 130 represented
citizens' organizations, business and professional groups, private industry,
and other segments of the community outside of official government agencies.
Sixteen Members of Congress or their representatives were pre-registered,
38 State officials, 53 officials of Iocal and regional government agencies,
and 73 persons representing the Federal Government.

We will have more up-to-date registration figures as soon as they can
be compiled.

Now I would like to say just a word about the organization of the program.

The first plenary session this morning is intended as an introduction to
the conference by the two people who had most to do with its being called

- the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service, Dr. William H.
Stewart, and Senator Joseph D. Tydings of Maryland.

Following these two keynote addresses, Dr. Richard A. Prindle, who is an
Assistant Surgeon General of the Public Health Service, will discuss the
health implications of the solid waste management problem, a subject that
is, of course, of vital interest to us in the Public Health Service, but certainly
no less vital to the people of Metropolitan Washington.

The panel session this afternoon is designed to present a status report on
the solid waste problem of the Washington area as a background against

* Chief, Solid Wastes Program, National Center for Urban and Industrial Health,
Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Washington, D.C. On August 1 the Solid Wastes Program moved to the new
headquarters of the National Center for Urban and Industrial Health in Cin-
cinnati, Mr. Richard D. Vaughan became Chief of the Solid Wastes Program
at that time.

1


which the two concurrent panel sessions scheduled for tomorrow morning
will proceed to explore the technological and the planning aspects of the
overall effort to control the solid waste problems of this metropolitan area.
Finally tomorrow afternoon we will hear the reports of the panel chair-
men and then I will attempt to summarize what has been said at this
conference in terms of a pattern for future action.
In addition to these formal sessions, we have been fortunate in arranging
two luncheon meetings at which we will hear two distinguished speakers,
Dr. Royce Hanson, President of the Washington Center for Metropolitan
Studies, and Senator William B. Spong, Jr., of Virginia, who, with Senator
Tydings, has been keenly interested in the development of this conference.
I do not want to delay the business at hand any longer. Let me just say
that we are very glad to welcome you to this conference. We are assembled
to discuss a subject of urgent importance to the people of the metropolitan
Washington area and to the entire nation. I earnestly hope that what we
do and say here in the next two days can help to provide a pattern for
action that will serve as a model of the best that can be accomplished when
people with a common problem come together to figure out how to meet
that problem.


INTRODUCTION OF KEYNOTE SPEAKERS

Jerome H. Gore *

THE SURGEON GENERAL has said many times that one of the most serious
threats to the health of the nation lies in the environmental hazards of the
American cities. This, of course, is where the majority of the people in
the United States live today. Thus, he has directed that top priority be
given to the work of the Public Health Service in this new center of Urban
and Industrial Health.

One of the programs within the Center deals with the subject that we
will be talking about here today - namely, solid wastes. The Surgeon
General, working closely with Senator Joseph Tydings of Maryland, has
convened this conference on solid wastes problems of the Washington
Metropolitan area for two reasons: In the first place, he has stated that the
time to cope with the serious pollution problems in the District of Columbia
and in neighboring Maryland and Virginia, is long overdue. Secondly, he
has said that Washington should serve as a model for other cities through-
out the nation. to emulate in ridding themselves of pollution hazards. I am
honored to be able to introduce to you the Surgeon General of the Public
Health Service, Dr. William H. Stewart.

* General Chairman of the Conference, and Director, National Center for Urban
and Industrial Health.

3


CONFERENCE KEYNOTE ADDRESS

   William H. Stewart *

I AM PLEASED to welcome you to this conference and to share with Senator
Tydings the job of sounding a keynote for your deliberations during the
next two days. I haven't checked with the Senator to make sure that his
keynote and mine are tuned to precisely the same pitch, but I know that
he and I agree as to the theme.

Metropolitan Washington shares with every American community the
tough, practical problem of what to do with megatons of wastes generated
by the processes of modem living. It, shares with the larger urban centers
the confrontation between the fact of jurisdictional boundaries and the
necessity of metropolitan unity.

In addition, Metroplitan Washington bears a unique burden. Our mantle
of smoke from smoldering refuse is more than a local nuisance. The dirt
and refuse in our alleys is more than a local disgrace. This is the nation's
showcase city. The millions who come here should find a model environ-
ment. Instead, when they look behind the monuments, they find some-
thing less.

I hope that this meeting may represent a step toward that model city
we all want for our nation's capital. I hope. that in the years ahead we
can look back to this day and say that here and now Metropolitan Wash-
ington began to create for itself a truly healthful environment.

What kind of a healthful environment are we after? It seems to me that
it has two important dimensions.

The first, of course, is the dimension of safety. Later this morning
Dr. Prindle is going to talk about the specific health hazards inherent in
the unsuccessful disposal of wastes. They are, as you know, numerous.
Some of these hazards relate to the familiar public health problems of
communicable disease, the problems associated with filth, rats, and vermin
which we know how to control but can never afford to overlook.

Others are newer, less completely understood, harder to handle. These
stem from the increasing quantity and variety of chemicals released into
the air from many sources including the imperfect burning of solid wastes.

* Surgeon General, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare.

5


6                           STEWART

Proceedings

Every year we are learning more about the damage done when we breathe
this kind of air, day in and day out. Everything we learn makes control
of this kind of pollution increasingly urgent.

Thus the first objective is an environment that is safe, free of specific
hazard to health. No individual, no family should be exposed to unnecessary,
preventable risk as the price they pay for urban living. This, I submit, is
an absolutely minimal objective. Yet in very few places have we achieved
even this minimum. Certainly we have not done it here.

Meanwhile we are beginning to aspire to a higher definition of the health-
ful environment. We have recognized that the healthy person is not merely
m-r-sick. And we are beginning to envision an environment that is not merely
safe, but positively conducive to productive and self-fulfilling existence.

The Congress, in its declaration of purpose accompanying the Compre-
hensive Health Planning Amendments enacted last year, stated this higher
goal in these terms: "The fulfillment of our national purpose depends on
promoting and assuring the highest level of health attainable for every
person, in an environment which contributes positively to healthful indi-
vidual and family living . . . ".

Where does the Kenilworth Dump fit in that context? Can we find
ways of jurisdictional cooperation that will move Metroplitan Washington
forward in reaching this national purpose?

This is the second dimension of the healthful environment. It demands
concern for sanity as well as sanitation. It involves us in combat with
ugliness as well as with hazard.

Happily, the successful disposal of solid wastes moves us forward in
both dimensions at once. Unhappily, neither motivation alone nor both
combined has yet moved us to the kind of action the situation requires.

What kind of action? It seems to me that two major thrusts are needed.
One is national in scope - a serious, large-scale effort to generate new and
better ways of disposing of solid wastes. The other is local - a serious,
large-scale effort to put into practice, here in the Washington metropolitan
area, the best methods now available.

The national thrust is essentially one of research and development. The
basic technologies for waste collection and disposal have remained rela-
tively unchanged during a quarter-century in which the size of the problem
has magnified enormously.  The methods used - incineration, landfill,
cornposting, salvage and reclamation - have heen studied here and there,


Pirrt Session                 KEYNOTE ADDRESS                     7

refined in certain ways, occasionally used in an imaginative way. But to
my knowledge there has been no great advance.

Neither has there been an effort to achieve such an advance on a scale
commensurate with the size of the problem. We spend in the United States
upwards of $3 billion to collect and dispose of refuse and other solid wastes.
How much have we, as a nation, spent to find a better way of doing it?

This, it seems to me, poses a special sort of challenge for our nation's
engineering schools. Increasingly over the years, and at a very rapid rate
since World War II, we have looked to the universities and their pro-
fessional schools for the new knowledge and techniques that change the
face of the world. This has been notably true in medicine and in chemistry
and physics. It is also significantly true in the behavioral and social sciences.

Is there a partnership evolving in the engineering world between the uni-
versity and society, similar to these others? My impression is that there
is an excellent partnership in improving the means of production and in-
creasing output. What we urgently need in addition is a partnership de-
voted to problems of consumption and disposal of unconsumed wastes.
Having engineered a beer can that is easier to open, we need to engineer
a better way of getting rid of the can afterwards.

This is a facetious example of a deadly serious problem. Every day our
urban communities produce more than 800 million pounds of solid wastes.
I have not the slightest doubt that American science and technology can
develop better disposal methods, if we can find a way to harness them to
the task. How can we stimulate high priority attention to a problem that
has been accorded the lowest of low priorities in the past?

Let us turn now to the local challenge, here in the Washington area.
It differs from the national challenge in nature and scope. But it is no
less complex, and it is certainly no less urgent. This is the challenge of
doing something now to make the Washington area a better place in which
to live. For if it is true that existing methods need to be improved, it is equally
true that these existing methods, whatever their shortcomings, can be applied
to far better effect than they are now, right here in this city and its environs.

YOU will be spending today and tomorrow searching for ways of doing
just that. In your discussions I hope you will base your thinking on the
fact that the Washington metropolitan area is essentially indivisible.

I can understand, and even sympathize with, the suburban attitude
summed up in the phrase, "Not in my back yard." Unfortunately, how-


8                           STEWART

Proceedings

ever, life in the metropolis is not that simple. The city of Washington is
everybody's front yard. Whether or not the smoke from Kenilworth or
one of the old incinerators ever blows our way, every one of us partakes of
the total environment of the Washington community. This is true of the
air we breathe, the water we drink, the transportation we use, and the
wastes we accumulate. Going it alone means going it badly; in the long
run it also means going it expensively.

The situation here is complicated in many ways - by the unique political
nature of the Federal City; by the fact that the District is completely
hemmed in with nowhere to expand, nothing to annex; and by other
special circumstances added onto the normal complexities of any major
metropolitan area.

Yet despite these obstacles there are beginnings of effective metropolitan
cooperation in some fields - sewage disposal, water supply, and others. I
see no reason why solid waste disposal cannot be added to the list, from
this day forward. In fact I see no reason why it might not set a pattern
for improved collaboration in other areas as well.

We in the Public Health Service are eager to help in any way we can.
The Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 has given us specific mechanisms for
assistance for the first time.  Our new National Center for Urban and
Industrial Health will provide the strongest central focus yet developed for
work in this field.

Needed now is a focus and a determination to build a more healthful
environment for our national capital and all its people. That, I hope and
believe, is what you are here to develop.


KEYNOTE ADDRESS

Joseph D. Tydings *

MR. CHAIRMAN, DR. STEWART, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN :  I am delighted
that, under Dr. Stewart's direction, the United States Public Health Service
has convened this conference on solid waste management for the Wash-
ington metropolitan area. And I am equally delighted at the impressive
response shown here today by the leadership of the community. This con-
ference hopefully will mark the beginning of wide-ranging community
effort to anticipate, and to find solutions for the burgeoning problems of
solid waste disposal in the Metropolitan area.

It seems to me that there are three vital ingredients to successfully
meeting these problems. The first ingredient - and in many ways, the
most important - is public awareness that the problem exists and public
demand that the problem be solved. Recently - but only recently - this
public attitude has been evident regarding solid waste problems. The growth
of national awareness regarding the hazard of air pollution has been the
key. And this growing public awareness has been quite remarkable.

Ten years ago, air pollution activities in most areas of thi country were
limited to smoke control ordinances. The prevailing national opinion was
"if you can't see it, it can't hurt you." In a brief decade, we have realized
how short-sighted - how dangerously short-sighted - this view was. In-
creasing public attention has been focused on the serious health hazards
created by pollutants and gaseous wastes in our atmosphere. And the eco-
nomic consequences of pollution - losses to business and farms - have
become clear.

As public concern about air pollution has grown, the link between solid
waste disposal and air pollution has become evident. In terms of arousing
public opinion, you might even say that we in the Washington area are
`fortunate' to have the Kenilworth Dump in our midst as an object lesson
in the link between solid waste problems and air pollution problems. After
seeing the full-page pictures of the dump in Time magazine a few months
ago, some of my colleagues in the Senate suggested to me that my campaign
to end the fires might deprive the rest of the nation of a valuable example
of what must be avoided. This suggestion could initiate the formation of
a national committee to preserve the Kenilworth Dump. I have some
different ideas about this, which I'll discuss later.

* United States Senator from the State of Maryland.

9


10

TYDINGS             Proceedings

But we must acknowledge that the Kenilworth Dump has served one
constructive purpose - it has dramatized the problem of solid waste
disposal for the citizens of this area. And the general national concern
regarding the dangers of air pollution has also dramatized the problem
for us. Earlier this year, I conducted six days of hearings on air pollution
in the Washington area, and one particular incident from those hearings
illustrated for me the growth of public awareness of these problems. One
of the witnesses at the hearings was S. Smith Griswold, an Associate
Director of the National Center for Air Pollution Control. In response to
a leading question from me, Mr. Griswold stated that Washington, D.C.,
was the fourth dirtiest city in the United States. This statement -
as I am sure many of you recall - caused something of a furor in the area.
The press immediately picked it up, and denials were forthcoming from
many sources. "Washington is not fourth dirtiest," some said. "It's the
fourteenth dirtiest, or the fortieth dirtiest." But this numbers game didn't
fool anyone. The businessman going to his office - where the windows
had been washed last month and were now streaked with dirt again - and
the housewife taking down her drapes again this year because they were
covered with soot - suddenly realized that Washington was a dirty city.
And most importantly, they realized that this dirt was not necessary. Some-
thing could be done. From that conclusion, it is a short step to say,
"Something must be done."

I think that step has been taken in the Washington area. That is why
all of you are here today. You are here because you are willing to
acknowledge our public responsibility to build on citizen awareness of the
problem of air pollution and solid waste disposal. You are here to do
something about the problems.

Now we must search out the second vital ingredient for meeting the
problem. That is the existence of an adequate technology. The basic
purpose of this conference is to bring forward the latest technology for
meeting the solid waste disposal problem.

We in this area have much to learn. It is obvious to me, from simply
reading through the program for this conference, that the participants at
this conference have a great deal that they can teach to us.

One lesson is obvious. We must put ourselves in a position to examine
the problem, and po&ible solutions to the problem, from all possible angles.
It is not enough for us to assume that the recent trends of vastly expanding
per capita production of solid waste must continue. We cannot simply
say, "In the next ten years public authorities will be responsible for disposing


First session                 KEYNOTE ADDRESS                    11

of an amount of solid waste which will grow at the same rate as has occurred
in the last ten years." We must make a determined effort, first of all, to
stop the production of waste before it becomes a public responqibility.

For example, when the container industry in the last several years, moved
almost exclusively to "throwaway" bottles, cans and cartons to replace the
returnable bottles, it had much greater impact than simply removing a
good source of income for young boys who were energetic enough to round
up a collection of bottles to exchange for the two-cent deposit. Of course,
I don't want to minimize that unfortunate result of the movement to
"throwaways." But the container industry also brought the nation a vastly
expanded public problem of solid waste disposal. I am sure that this con-
sequence was not brought dramatically enough to the attention of the con-
tainer industry in order to prevent considerable investment in new facilities.
In the future, we must be able to anticipate these problems.

Dealing with the container industry was perhaps necessarily a responsi-
bility for the Federal government, in view of the national character of the
issue. But whenever new construction, or new production methods, are
brought to any locality, local officials must be alert to the possible problems
of solid waste disposal that these new methods or new buildings can bring
with them. Both through consultation and through regulation, authorities
must focus attention on ways to avoid production of more mountains of
solid waste.

In short, we must engage in farsighted planning to meet our problems

- in this area as in all others. And we must bring to bear all possible
technical assistance.  The architects who design buildings, the engineers
who design equipment, those active in the construction trades who make
waste in the process of constructing buildings, and whose buildings in turn
make more waste - all of these experts, and many more, must be involved
in planning to meet solid waste prdblems. To paraphrase a famous state-
ment about war, solid waste disposal problems are too complex and too
interrelated to the whole functioning of our industrial society to leave
exclusively to the sanitation engineers.

Public awareness of the problem is the first step. We have that now.
The second step in meeting the problem is tapping all possible technological
assistance. We are making an excellent beginning - though only a begin-
ning - at this conference today. The third step which I want to discuss
as a vital ingredient in meeting the problem is to ensure that our institutions
of government are properly organized to use the available technology for
meeting the problem.

283-399 O-67-2


12

TYDlNGS             PI ocdings

To many people, the political problems appear the most intractable. But
unless we can solve these problems, we cannot solve our problems at all.
The Kenilworth Dump serves, once again, as a dramatic example. After
burning and polluting there since 1942, public awareness has finally become
sharply focused on the need to eliminate the dump. A variety of tech-
nological means were immediately evident for solving the problem - and,
as at least a short-run and rapid solution, a sanitary landfill seemed the
best candidate. Congress has acted to make funds available. But today
the fires still bum.

I do. not wish in any way to belittle the difficulties that stand in the way
of ending the fires. I don't want to suggest that those citizens who live
near the proposed site for the sanitary landfill are in any way wrong to
insist that one public nuisance - the dump - must not be replaced by
another, closer to their homes. These citizens have legitimate interests which
must be satisfied.

Of course, the citizens of the metropolitan area generally have equally
legitimate interests in ending the fires and the resultant air pollution at the
dump. It is a truism that these fires are a regional problem. The pollution
they cause is not restricted to the boundaries of the District of Columbia.
Prevailing winds don't restrict themselves to one jurisdiction rather than
another.

But even though the Kenilworth Dump is obviously a regional problem,
our political institutions at least at the moment seem incapable of viewing,
and acting on, the problem with a true regional perspective. Each day that
the fires at the dump bum is another indictment of the inadequacy of our
institutions of government. If we can't solve this blatant, outrageous prob-
lem, I can't see how we can hope to meet any of the regional problems of
air pollution control and solid waste disposal, that will confront us in a
very short time.

This conference is not only an opportunity for learning, and anticipation
of future problems. It is also an occasion for informal consultation, and
solution of present problems. I am hopeful that, during the course of these
two days, some solution toward ending the fires at Kenilworth will be begun.

The problem does not rest solely on the shoulders of the District officials.
Nor should it rest exclusively at the door of the Prince Georges County
government. And the problem must clearly not be `solved' at the expense
of the legitimate interests of the citizens liv&g near Muirkirk. The pollu-
tion from the fires does not end in the District, nor in Prince Georges County.


Firs; Session                 KEYNOTE ADDRESS                    13

The air of the entire Metropolitan Washington area is polluted by the fire.
It is inconceivable to me that somewhere among the many resources of this
area, we cannot find the means to solve this problem.

For the long run, I believe you should explore the question of whether
our regional solid waste disposal problems can best be solved by some
formalized system of regional cooperation - perhaps a compact arrange-
ment, or an outgrowth of the Council of Governments, or some other form
of regional consultation and cooperation. We cannot depend on improvisa-
tion and makeshift arrangements indefinitely. The problems are too great
for that. But at the moment, regarding Kenilworth, we have only the
possibility of improvisation. And I hope that some inspired improvisation
will take place here during the next two days.

Once again, I congratulate the Surgeon General, and the Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare, for having convened this invaluable
conference. And I congratulate all of you participating in the conference
for your awareness of the problems of solid waste management, and your
willingness to commit yourselves to solve these problems.


HEALTH ASPECTS OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

       Richard A. Prindle +

BY THE YEAR 2000, the population of the United States is expected to
double. Our cities and their surrounding urbanized areas are already bear-
ing the brunt of this explosive growth with its accompanying increase in
industrial activities. This growth, coupled with the rising per capita rate
of refuse production, results in an ever increasing volume of solid wastes
that must be regularly collected, transported, and disposed.

Refuse disposal facilities in urbanized areas must be operated without
creating public health hazards or nuisances. Too often, however, refuse
disposal operations are open dumps - festering scars on the landscape.
Flies, rats, and other disease-carrying pests find large quantities of food, a
favored breeding medium, in the piles of exposed refuse. The polluted
drainage from open dumps is an additional insult to ground and surface
water supplies in the area. The characteristic foul odors, produced by
decomposition, together with the smoke created by open burning, are often
identifiable for miles.

Unless an objectionable dump is nearby, the average citizen's interest
is limited to having his refuse collected regularly. This lack of public con-
cern is a real handicap to responsible local officials in obtaining the neces-
sary funds to operate adequate refuse collection and disposal systems. With-
out sufficient funds it is extremely difficult to plan and construct needed
facilities in time to prevent them from being overloaded. The technical
problems involved have appeared so deceptively simple compared with
other environmental problems that only a handful of communities have
maintained sufficient records to enable them to determine the costs of pro-
viding this service or to make realistic plans for needed facilities.

Each day, urban communities across our nation produce more than 800
million pounds of solid wastes, and by 1980 that figure is expected to be
three times higher. What exactly are solid wastes? They include food
wastes (garbage) ; paper, paper products, wood, bedding, metals, tin cans,
crockery, glass, dirt (rubbish) and ashes; dead cats and dogs, sweepings
and leaves, and abandoned cars and trucks; food processing wastes, lumber

* Assistant Surgeon General and Director, Bureau of Disease Prevention and En-
vironmental Control, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare, Washington, D.C.

15


16                           PRINDLE

Proceedings

and metal scraps, and cinders from factories and plants; such residue as
lumber, masonry, metals, paints, and concrete from demolition and new
construction projects; some radioactive materials, explosives, pathologic
wastes from hospitals, and so on, from hotels, institutions, stores, and
industries.

Collecting and disposing all these wastes is extremely costly. According
to the American Public Works Association, the annual outlay for refuse
collection and disposal services - more than $3 billion - is exceeded only
by expenditures for schools and roads. And still the disposal effort is in-
adequate. There are only slight improvements in disposal practices now in
wide use over those of a quarter-century ago.

The United States Public Health Service recently reported the startling
fact that less than half of the cities and towns in the United States with
populations of more than 2,500 dispose of community refuse by approved
sanitary and nuisance-free methods. Open dumps still flourish, contributing
to air pollution and serving as feeding and breeding places for rats and flies.
Improperly designed municipal incinerators spew huge quantities of con-
taminants into the atmosphere. A great number of sanitary landfills are
sanitary in name only; they have been allowed to deteriorate and pollute
the ground water.

It is necessary to remind ourselves that disposal of solid wastes is funda-
mentally a health problem. Just as we who are concerned with this problem
are conscious of the fact that no really new or radically different ideas have
emerged in waste disposal operations for half a century, so we must also
remember that 46 years ago one of the pioneers in the field laid down three
basic requirements for waste disposal. The first was "the absence of danger
to public health." And it still holds true. In other words, the barriers and
difficulties we face here are, economic and engineering and jurisdictional,
but the reason we are concerned is for the protection of the public health.

Let us examine the nature of the various health factors that create our

concern.

The most common disposal system of serious danger to health is, of
course, the open dump with its flies and rats. Among the diseases that have
been directly or indirectly associated with the insanitary open dump are
typhoid fever, cholera, summer diarrhea, dysentery, anthrax, trachoma,
plague, and trichinosis.  Th e importance of adequate refuse handling in
controlling communicable disease was long ago recognized.

Of more important current significance is the fact that in a large propor-


HEALTH ASPECTS OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

17

tion of open dumps, the volume of solid wastes is reduced by regular burning
and thus adds significantly to the air pollution problem. Improperly de-
signed and operated municipal incinerators also contribute significant quanti-
ties of objectionable air contaminants. Added to these sources, backyard
trash burners, on-site incinerators, and on-site open burning of bulky refuse
contribute additional air contaminants in most communities.

One scientist noted a few years ago that according to data collected in
Statewide air pollution surveys "burning dumps cause air pollution prob-
lems in about 25 percent of the urban communities of the country. . . .
They are the most frequently reported cause for localized air pollution
problems."

Water pollution is also becoming a serious factor in the solid wastes prob-
lem. Wherever refuse is deposited `on land, the impact on surface waters
or subterranean aquifers may be significant. The available information con-
cerning the effects of refuse fdls on the quality of the adjacent ground
water has been organized and reviewed by a research contractor for the
California State Water Pollution Control Board. This study was done be-
cause the drinking water supply of a major city was becoming objectionable.
The study showed that there are three basic mechanisms by which refuse
fills can pollute the ground water: (a) horizontal leaching of the refuse by
ground water; (b) vertical leaching by percolating water; and (c) the
transfer of gases produced during refuse. decomposition by diffusion and
convection.

From an occupational health and accident prevention standpoint, solid
waste handling presents additional formidable problems. A study of the
Department of Sanitation of New York City found that arthritis, cardio-
vascular disease, muscle and tendon diseases (particularly muscle ailments
affecting the back), skin diseases, and hernia could all be classified as occu-
pational diseases of refuse collectors.. Sanitation workers were also found
to have an extremely high injury frequency rate, exceeding that of all other
occupations previously studied, with the exception of Iogging. The study
report also observed that "the rate was more than twice as high as that
for firemen and policemen, and surpasses even that of stevedores."

Many fires and home accidents are caused by poor refuse handling prac-
tices. Discarded items that are not properly stored for collection are also
particularly attractive to children. Unsanitary and unsafe conditions in
yards and family refuse storage areas have resulted in literally thousands
of minor and severe accidents.


18                          PRINDLE

Proceedings

While the accident aspect of the problem is in a sense minor, it illustrates
the manner in which the problem is growing. If we carelessly bury our solid
wastes we run the risk of polluting drinking water supplies, and we also
begin to run out of convenient burial plots. If we throw it on burning
dumps, we create air pollution and odor nuisances. If we bum it in poorly
designed and operated incinerators, we pollute the air, and we must still
dispose of the ash.

In an effort to learn more about the public health aspects or disease
relationships of solid wastes, the Public Health Service contracted with the
Life Systems Division of Aerojet-General Corporation, Azusa, California,
to conduct a comprehensive literature survey of the field. Although there
is a paucity of past work on the etiologic factors of solid wastes, an attempt
has been made to cover the field comprehensively enough to meet the needs
of public health practitioners1 From the 1,236 articles, books, reports,
proceedings, and other sources perused, 755 abstracts were chosen for refer-
ence and inclusion in the annotated bibliography.

No single treatise in the past has attempted to correlate the available in-
formation as to various diseases directly or indirectly related to solid wastes.
Such a work was obviously desirable due to the complexity of the solid
waste public health interface.

Solid wastes have been demonstrated conclusively to be associated with
some diseases in the United States. Although the incidence of disease due
to wastes is low in the country as a whole, it is demonstrably higher in cer-
tain population groups - particularly those suffering from a lack of general
sanitation, including proper waste disposal means. In the chain of disease
leading from waste to humans, the major point of attack must be those
wastes which contain disease agents or serve as sources of propagation for
carriers of disease. Wastes must be so handled or treated that the pathogens
they contain are destroyed, not merely reduced in numbers, and carriers of
pathogens denied access to the wastes for breeding or sustenance. To the
extent that known effective measures are not feasible at this time, research
should be directed at the development of effective, yet practical, methods.

Since lack of data is extensive in regard to chemical wastes, two major
paths are advised by the Aerojet-General report: (a) delineation of the
type and degree of contamination of the environment due to chemical

`Hanks, T. G. Solid waste/disease relationships; a literature survey. Public Health
Service Publication No. 999-UIH-6. Cincinnati, National Center for Urban and
Industrial Health, 1967. 179 p.


First Session        HEALTH ASPECTS OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

19

Tvastes, and (b) accelerated and long-range studies on &ects of chemical
waste materials common to the environment in the concentrations found
there. The knowledge needed is that of the effect of decades of exposure to
trace amounts of waste substances.

Correction measures against disease cannot deal exclusively with a rela-
tively limited aspect of a health problem as complex as that associated with
solid wastes. Educational and legal weapons are required. Considering the
deficiencies of health education as a whole in America's school system, it is
not entirely appropriate to select the public and personal health aspects
of solid wastes as the focus of expanded instruction on health. Yet from a
system of education developed on this aspect of health, an inclusive health
education program of value might arise. Certainly some means developed
for use in the schools is needed for breaking some children from the cultural
morass of insanitary practice to which their early environment commits them.

Education of industry, the general public, the medical profession, and
government officials is an added requirement. Educational and motivational
materials and techniques need to be developed for the accomplishment of
these goals. Strict legal controls and their enforcement are mandatory.
However, regulations must be based on reasonable standards. At the present
level of knowledge, it is not possible to adopt standards directed at al1
aspects of environmental contamination, including sources of solid wastes.
For example, research is needed to permit the development of standards
on chemical and other contamination arising from solid wastes. In the
interim, considering the tendency of contaminants to ignore jurisdictional
boundaries, the legal and governmental means necessary for the effective
application of regulatory standards need to be developed.

The Aerojet-General report refers pointedly to the hazard arising from
compartmentalized approaches to the control of environmental pollution.
In almost every action to be recommended for the management of solid
wastes there is a parallel requirement which relates to water- and air-
pollution control measures. That is, corrective measures (or research
directed at their development) cannot be considered separately from
overall waste management problems.  The obvious conclusion is that en-
vironmental health is not a subject for dissection. Specialists may be re-
quired for diagnosis, but the therapy must be unified, and even the diagnostic
effort must be integrated. The basic requirement, therefore, is an integrated'
program of study, analysis, and action.

It is reassuring that at last the nation's solid waste problem is becoming
the subject of so much high-powered thinking and planning, as evidenced


20

PRINDLE              Proceedings

by the conferees attending thii meeting. The attention is long overdue. As
President Johnson observed when he signed the Solid Waste Disposal Act
in 1965, "Rachel Carson once wrote, `In biological history, no organism
has survived long if its environment became in some way unfit for it, but
no organism before man deliberately polluted its own environment.' "     _


POLITICS AND TRASH

Royce Hanson *

ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS in my career as an after-dinner or luncheon
speaker, I have been accused of talking trash. This, however, is the only
occasion where I am willing to concede the point. I hasten to add that
my expertise in this subject is limited to my generation of it, and not to its
disposal. I assume, however, because I wish so to assume, that the invita-
tion to me to speak at this conference is based not on my contributions
to the problem, but on my interest in regional solutions to regional problems,
and that the planners of this conference harbored some vague hope that
I would find a clever means of fitting their problem into some framework
that I felt overconfident about. Inasmuch as I am the region's foremost
authority on what voters will not accept in regional ideas, I have decided
to talk with you about the political aspects of solid waste management.

That the subject is one fit for political controversy few here would deny.
The hearings on air pollution and this conference itself testify to the political
miIeage and the political misery inherent in such things as the Kenilworth
Dump. The problem is how to meet the political problem of solid waste
management. I assume that the technical problems are solvable.

What, then, constitutes the political problem? Let me enumerate a few
of the factors in the equation. First, there is the factor of money. Political
money is different from economic money. Political money is what people
visualize something costing, not its cost as measured against t*e and
benefits. Unfortunately for solid waste, its management costs more than
a street-crossing light or another policeman, but not as much as a nuclear
power plant or a major dam. Waste management falls within that range
of public expenditures which is too large to be considered trivial and yet
not large enough to be beyond the comprehension of the average house-
holder. There is also something ludicrous about a society spending more
to rid itself of its wastes than to feed its poor. It thus falls prey to ridicule.
I recall some years ago the defeat, in a state which shall remain anonymous,
of legislation to require the cooking of municipal garbage destined for hogs.
It progressed well until one of its opponents tagged it the "Hot Lunch for
Hogs" bill. I might add that the same legislature wrecked the school lunch
program*

* Luncheon address by the President, Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies.

21


22

HANSON             Proceedings

In light of these impediments to financing and to a serious debate of
the problem, the devising of political strategy becomes very important. A
countervailing factor which has already been introduced into the discus-
sion in this area is the contribution made by present outmoded practices
of waste management to air pollution. This is a dramatic and potent
weapon. Unfortunately, for the ambitions of the solid waste disposers, the
fallout from Kenilworth is relatively limited geographically, and hence it
is limited politically.

Finding technically acceptable landfill or incinerator locations is suffi-
ciently difficult in itself. Finding locations that are politically acceptable
is even more difficult. In some area jurisdiction there is no suitable space.
This means two easily recognized political problems arise. We must ask
our neighbors to accommodate our refuse . There is, throughout our country
a stout resistance to the intergovernmental commingling of waste -
especially illicit commingling - such as now occurs when refuse trucks
bootleg one jurisdiction's waste to another's disposal facility. Legalizing
this traffic will be a problem of some consequence, but convincing some
jurisdictions that it is in their own interest to accept other's debris is
more difficult. A major job remains to be done by the region and its
governments in developing public acceptance of required facilities. The
recent concern of residents in Prince Georges County only underscores
this point.

A second, even more difficult political problem relates to the hauling
problem. I realize that hauling distance and hauling methods are important
technical problems. The hauling route is the political problem. What will
the trucks pass? What streets will be used? What will their effect be on
appearance, on levels of noise, on the safety of the neighborhoods they
traverse? No one really likes to live on the road to the dump. The type
of vehicle may also be an important consideration in final development
of the long-range system. Large, enclosed vans may be politically preferable,
as well as technically preferable, to a constant stream of load packers or
open trucks. This in turn raises other questions about the adequacy of
existing regulations of both public and private refuse collection vehicles
in the metropolitan area.

We can anticipate a period of agitation by local neighborhood associations
sufficient to kill important projects unless the ground is well prepared
politically through an extensive information and education campaign, and
through sensitive accommodation of local feeling. Otherwise, community
response to receiving the regional landfill award will be less than enthusiastic.


First Session                PoLxTlcs AND TRASH                  2s

An intelligent and sensitive public program can, however, abate if not
prevent much damaging hostility.

In conferences of this type there is always much talk of subjecting the
problem to a systems approach. I heartily endorse this view, and urge
upon you consideration of politics as a part of the system. The key to the
politics of the system is the average household, which we often overlook
in our focus on delivery and disposal. It is the household, however, which
generates the work, and which must be politically satisfied to pay for the
technical system. Now, let us look at solid waste management from the
household point of view, in the context of our regional waste management
objectives.

First of all, the household does not ordinarily view waste management
in regional terms, except in the rare case where the head of the house
finds it necessary to go to the incinerator or landfill himself. The household
is primarily concerned with two politically critical aspects of waste manage-
ment - getting the stuff off its premises as fast as possible and the neatness
of the collection service. There is substantial evidence in many cities that
good sanitary services to households is good politics. "Backward" cities
such as Lima, Peru, provide daily refuse collection. Local communities
in the Washington area have cheerfully paid added taxes for better trash
collections. I think these lessons ought not be ignored in developing a
regional waste management system or improved local systems. Only a
very few ever see the landfill, or comprehend its later uses as a regional
asset. Everyone sees and smells his own refuse can, and the litter in his
yard or the street. I suggest, therefore, that from a very practical political
as well as sanitary engineering and public health point of view, there may
be considerable utility in linking new programs to better household service
as well as to grand objectives such as abatement of air pollution and ex
urban golf courses. Most of us can exist with Kenilworth's fires, but not
with a heap of trash composting on the back step. Aside from the
political values, it does seem unfortunate that the world's most disposable
society can't dispose of its throwaways more efficiently.

Finally, there is the problem of the political responsibility and organi-mtion
for development and operation of a regional system of waste management.
The initial impulse will probably be to create a special purpose authority
to handle the problem, give it eminent domain and a protected source of
revenue. For myself, I am innately suspicious of this approach, partly
because of some of the political considerations I have raised. In addition,
a regional system of landfills and incinerators should be developed in the


24                          HANSON

PfoceedingJ

context of a regional plan and regional.and local capital budgets. Otherwise,
additional political difficulties are certain to occur. The staging of housing
development and the planning of transportation facilities is important to
both the technical and political success.

In addition, local officials will remain the principal focus of political
action, and they should therefore be directly involved in finding a solution
and pursuing it. They will probably retain responsibility for what matters
to the household - collection. They should therefore retain control over
what matters to society - disposal.

It would seem to me, then, that as a minimum, the Council of Govern-
ments (COG) is the appropriate organization to provide general policy
guidance for development of the system. Since there is, from my point
of view at least, a need for immediate action to put out the fires at Kenil-
worth and to provide other needed planning for the long-range program,
there may be a need for a temporary nonprofit corporation, composed of
COG directors and staff, to begin the work, prior to the necessary statutes
or interstate compacts.

It is in this context that the necessary quid pro quos can be developed
between refuse producing and refuse disposing jurisdictions. It is in this
context that effective planning and staging can take place. And it is in
this context that political saleability for the needed system is most likely
to occur.

If COG cannot respond quickly and effectively, another approach will
have to be devised, but I am confident that the political climate is now
conducive to positive and progressive action. Moreover, there is no quicker,
surer way presently at hand. I see no reason why, with the work now
in progress and the threat of Congressional action, a decision could not
be reached within a few months - or even sooner on immediate problems
such as Kenilworth. We should, and can, avoid another regional special
purpose authority. If we cannot, we will have to undergo another confer-
ence at some future date, on the disposal of our governmental waste
products, and the answers to that kind of problem are even more complex
than those you are considering today.


Panel A: Present Practices aad Needs in rbe Metropohan Area

    SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL STUDY
FOR THE WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA

L. W. Bremser +

TYPICAL OF MANY large metropolitan areas, the Washington metropolitan
region has refuse disposal problems which virtually defy solution except
by cooperation between, or among, jurisdictions. Recognizing this, the
three principal planning agencies for the metropolitan area, in July, 1965,
authorized a study of refuse disposal covering the entire region. The
Northern Virginia Regional Planning Commission, the Metropolitan Wash-
ington Council of Governments, and the Maryland-National Capital Park
and Planning Commission jointly sponsored the study which was partially
financed by a grant from the Home and Housing Finance Agency (HHFA) .
The study has been completed and a review report has been submitted.

The Washington metropolitan region, shown in the frontispiece includes
the District of Columbia; Charles, Montgomery, and Prince Georges Coun-
ties in Maryland; Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William Counties,
and the cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, and Falls Church in Virginia.

Solid wastes considered included normal residential and commercial
refuse plus excavated and dredged materials. Sewage solids, agricultural
wastes, and discarded automobiles were specifically excluded.

Principal phases of the study included: ( 1) determination of the current
status of solid waste programs in the region; (2) projection of population
and refuse quantities by jurisdictions; (3) study of alternative disposal
methods and land requirements for disposal; (4) inventory and evaluation
of possible disposal sites; (5) study of transportation methods and costs;
(6) recommendations for a long-range refuse disposal program, including
specific alternative sites for disposal facilities, areas to be served by each,
and comparative overall costs; (7) consideration of administrative and finan-
cial arrangements, including possible cooperative . or joint management
arrangements between jurisdictions.

Current Stcrtw

Acceptable refuse collection service is provided in most urban areas of
the metropolitan region. Public agencies have assumed responsibility for

* Partner, Black & Veatch, Consulting Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri.

25


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.


ABANDONED AND SCRAP AUTOMOBILES

William A. Vogely *

THE AUTOMOBILE has greatly changed life in the United States in the
past 50 years. From a luxury in the early days which only a few could
afford, the automobile today has become a necessity which brings many
benefits to all of our people. It has brought us problems too, one of which
is the problem of disposal of abandoned and scrap automobiles, and about
which I wish to talk today.

The rate at which cars are being junked has become so great that the
esthetic problem of unsightly "graveyards" and abandoned and rusting
hulks is now a matter of public concern.

Old, neglected cars are very durable and difficult to conceal. Abandoned
on the streets or on public or private property, they detract from the appear-
ance of urban neighborhoods and the rural countryside. When gathered
together in dumps or graveyards, they create an eyesore which, in recent
years, has grown to the point where steps are being taken to control it in
many communities.

From the national viewpoint, these vehicles, in the aggregate are a major
raw material resource. They provide a source of millions of tons of remelted
metals each year and hereby reduce the rate of depletion of nonrenewable
mineral reserves. Automobile scrap has been processed and sold by the scrap
metal industry for decades past, but in recent years this operation has not
kept pace with the rate of accumulation of junked automobiles. Although
the production of steel is at a record level, the use of scrap iron has
declined substantially because of changes in steel technology.

The Bureau of Mines Survey

In order to provide basic factual information on the scope and size of
the problem, the Bureau of Mines in 1965 made a fact-finding survey of the
auto wrecking industry, the ferrous scrap processing industry and other
elements pertinent to the problem. The primary objective was to identify
the factors that influence the accumulation and movement of automobile

scrap. Because of the desire to obtain reliable information as quickly as
possible, and because the problem is not only complex, but also nationwide
in scope, a sample surevy was made rather than a comprehensive mail

* Assistant Director, Mineral Resource Development, Unit4 States Bureau of
Mines.

51


52                           VOCELY

Proceedings

canvass. Fifty-four districts representing a variety of urban, suburban and
rural conditions throughout the United States were selected. These districts
were classified into the following general categories: ( 1) urban areas with
iron and steel based industrial economies; (2) urban areas with commercial
or other than iron and steel economies; (3) suburban areas adjacent to each
of the two types of urban areas just mentioned; (4) rural areas in proximity
to industrial complexes, and (5) rural areas an appreciable distance from
any urban economy.

In carrying out the survey, Bureau engineers interviewed 186 scrap proc-
essors and 1,075 auto wreckers throughout the country. Police, county and
state officials also supplied comprehensive information on auto graveyards,
abandoned cars, junk cars on private property, and local laws and regula-
tions. The interview data were used to prepare a complete analysis and
factual report on each study area.

The information obtained in the interviews was used to prepare a report
titled Automobile Disposal-A National Problem which can now be
purchased from the Government Printing Office. This report sets forth the
factors which influence the movement of auto scrap from the auto wrecker,
through the scrap processor and to the steel mill for use in the production
of new steel. Major scrap consumers, brokers and trade associations pro-
vided significant information on technologic factors and their influence on
the competitive position of automotive scrap relative to other types of steel
scrap. Additional information on statutory regulations that affect scrap
operations was obtained from officials of certain cities having more than
100,000 population.

A compilation of some of the vital statistics obtained in the survey
indicated that the total population of the 54 areas surveyed was about 15.8
million, annual car registrations totaled 6.5 million, or 1 car to about every
2.5 people, and a total junk car inventory of 510,000 of which 73 percent
was in auto wreckers' hands, the remainder being abandoned in auto grave-
yards and elsewhere and consequently outside the normal industrial flow.
One of the most interesting facts uncovered was that the annual rate of
acquisition of junk cars by the auto wreckers in the survey areas was only
about 1.3 percent in excess of their rate of disposal to scrap processors. In
other words, the junked autos which move into the industrial flow through
the auto wreckers yard apparently are accumulating at a low rate.

   Factors Causing the Accumulation of ]unk Automobiles
There are many factors influencing the accumulation of junk automobiles
and during the course of the Bureau survey, a list of over 80 such factors


Pasef A             ABANDONED AND SCRAP AUTOMOBILES

53

was compiled. A given factor may be predominant in one area and relatively
insignificant in another. Conditions vary so widely throughout the country
that each area must be considered individually.

Before we review some of the more important causes of `junk auto ac-
cumulation, let US pause for a moment and briefly review the process which
takes a junked or abandoned car off the streets and through the auto
wreckers yard until it disappears from public view. If an old car has been
abandoned on a public street, the owner probably didn't leave the car's
title in the glove compartment for the convenience of the police. In many
jurisdictions, the junk car must be held for a period of time, usually from
30 to 90 days, while an attempt is made to locate the owner. Consequently
a wrecker truck is called to haul it off to the police impounding lot, - at
the expense of the local government, of course. After the waiting period is
over and no owner has been found, the legal paper work of clearing the
title must be completed and the car auctioned off at public auction or
turned over to an auto wrecker. The latter often has a contract with the
local government and gets paid to take the car away to his lot where he
lines it up with all the other junked automobiles. That is where the general
public usually sees it and where it may sit for more than a year, perhaps
several years, before it is finally stripped of reusable parts or salvageable
metals, such as the carburetor, starter, generator, battery, wheels, doors,
radiator and radiator grill, bumpers, and so on. Once stripped, it is passed
on to the scrap processor and finally out of public view.

Auto wreckers usually operate in one of two ways: (1) park the vehicles
in yards and strip the parts as they are required for sale, or permit the
customer to remove them; and, (2) strip the vehicles to the bare hulk im-
mediately, and either place the parts in storage, or sell them to rebuilders
or wholesale outlets, the stripped hulk being passed on to the scrap processor
in a minimum of time. Economic factors such as the local demand for parts,
inventory taxes, land values, storage space, and community pressures in-
fluence the method of operation. The size and location of the yard are
of major concern to the operator and the cost of land usually is dependent
on land utilization in the surrounding area. The expansion of a yard, the
establishment of a new yard, or even the continued existence of a yard may
often be subject to control by zoning ordinances. Rural areas usually have
few restrictions pertaining to land use and in general rural land is relatively
inexpensive and easily acquired.

Individual owners sell, give, or sometimes pay an auto wrecker to take a
junk car. The transaction depends on the auto wrecker's appraisal of the


54

VOGELY              Proceedings

value of the car for reusable parts and on the prevailing prices for auto-
motive scrap. Many wreckers dislike to take old model vehicles which have
little or no parts value, and can only be resold as scrap. The preparation of
a junked car for sale to a scrap processor often involves the stripping of
copper wiring, copper radiator, generator and other copper containing items,
removal of zinc die cast parts such as carburetor, door handles, and trim,
the battery for recovery of lead, the nonmetal parts, and other similar items.
In studying some of the technical problems of auto wrecking, the Salt Lake
City Laboratory of the Bureau of Mines dismantled two typical vehicles to
determine their metal content. To give you an example, a 1954 Chevrolet
hulk yielded over 2,700 pounds of ferrous metal, 35 pounds of copper and
copper alloys, 21 pounds of lead, 41 pounds of zinc alloys, 8 pounds of
aluminum alloys, and 363 pounds of nonmetals.   '

Most of the combustible materials such as upholstery fabrics, plastics,
rubber, grease, undercoating, fibreboard, felt and insulation on wiring are
generally removed by burning in the open where no air pollution laws are
in effect. Open burning is prohibited in many areas and consequently hulks
must be transported outside of the restricted zone for burning. In some
metropolitan areas processors have installed special incinerators but these
installations are expensive and hand stripping may be the chosen method.
However, hand stripping also is time consuming and consequently expensive
and the stripped material must be trucked to a public dump, an incinerator
or an open burning area for disposal.

An important element in vehicle disposition costs is transportation. An
old car may be delivered to the auto wrecker by the owner under its own
power or it may be towed behind another car or tow truck. The auto wrecker
himself may purchase late model wrecks and haul them to his yard with
his own equipment. Some large operators travel long distances using auto
transport trailers and acquire six or seven vehicles on one trip.

The processor usually receives from one to seven hulks at a time from
the wrecker by truck delivery depending upon the type of truck used. If
the hulks have been flattened, as many as 20 or 30 can be loaded on a
flatbed truck or trailer.

Independent collectors in some areas obtain junked autos from owners,
municipal pounds and elsewhere and deliver them to the scrap processor,
thereby providing an important service especially in areas where the auto
wrecker refuses to accept older model vehicles.

Sometimes the collector will take stripped hulks from the auto wrecker's
lot and deliver them to the scrap processors thereby providing transportation


Panel A             ABANDONED AND SCRAP AUTOMOBILES

55

facilities. The collector often will be required to haul the.stripped hulk out
of an area where burning is prohibited, and bum it elsewhere before de-
livering it to the processor. Occasionally it is necessary for the collector to
flatten hulks for the shredder market especially when long-distance trans-
portation is involved.

Such factors as the prevailing prices of scrap, availability of flatteners,
transportation rates, and the existence of price allowances for long-distance
shipments determine the distance that hulks can be transported.

Scrap processors sort scrap into various grades, cut or shred it into usable
sizes and bail or press lighter gauge material into bundles of proper diien-
sion and density. The processed scrap is sold either directly to the steel
mills, to foundries or to brokers in carIoad lots.

Brokers usually handle the purchase of scrap by locating and supplying
adequate quantities of scrap of the quailty needed by the steel mills. The
mill determines whether the scrap is satisfactory and acceptable for re-
melting. The brokers also represent scrap processors in negotiations for any
adjustments proposed by the mill.

Processed scrap is generally transported by rail, barge, or ship. The
processors located far from consuming mills and foundries find themselves
at a definite transportation cost disadvantage in competing with prices near
the steel mills, The cost of transporting materials which compete with
scrap such as pig iron, iron ore, and iron pellets also has an effect on
scrap movement.

The legal framework within which the disp&al of worn-out automobiles
takes place has a strong influence on their movement and on disposal facili-
ties. Many municipalities have regulations prohibiting the abandoning of
automobiles on public property, but often times state laws are the only re-
strictions. Ordinarily no penalty is provided for leaving a vehicle on ones
own private property, but occasionally abandonment on another persons'
private property is prohibited. The mode of enforcement and penalties
vary widely.

The zoning regulations applying to auto wreckers and scrap processors
are many and varied. In urban areas operations usually are restricted to
special industrialized zones. Some zoning regulations require fencing or
camouflage for new operations and also for nonconforming establishments.
New auto wrecking operations are prohibited in some urban areas and many
cities limit expansion of current facilities while others require issuance of
a permit by the zoning board. Auto wrecker and processor license fees are


56                           VOGELY

Proceedings

required by some municipalities and charges may range from $10 to $650
a year depending upon yard size, inventory, or gross sales. Many cities have
occasional or periodic inspection systems. In some cases restrictions are also
placed on other nuisances such as dust, noise, air and water pollution.

Ordinances, laws and regulations in existence today contain many features
which encourage the movement of automotive scrap. There is one de-
ficiency in the legal framework which aids in the accumulation of junk
cars and that is the fact that the owner of the vehicle usually can abandon
his vehicle on his own property without penalty or financial expense. This
problem is now being solved in some areas by enacting license requirements,
abandonment penalties, by special provisions in zoning laws or by levying
of personal property taxes on all automobiles in possession of the owner
irrespective of their operating condition. A statutory requirement which
places inescapable responsibility on the vehicle owner, whether a private
citizen, operator of a wrecking yard, or scrap processor, and gives him an
incentive to pay the cost of moving vehicles toward consumption as auto-
motive scrap could effectively prevent the further accumulation of junk
cars and could lead to the gradual reduction of the total inventory of junked
vehicles in the nation.

The Bureau of Mines survey obtained data which can be used in a number
of ways to estimate the magnitude and other characteristics of the national
junk car problem. The survey indicated clearly that a large number of
junk cars are in the United States, that they are widely distributed, that a
large proportion is visible to the public and that the bulk of the inventory
of junk cars is in the yards of auto wreckers and scrap processors. Estimates
of the total number of junked cars in the United States vary widely and
statements in the press from time to time have implied that the total may
be of the order of 20 to 40 million. The Bureau of Mines Survey indicates
that the number may not be that large. Based on the 54 representative
areas surveyed, the figures indicate an average of 83 junk cars per 1,000
population in rural areas and 26 cars per 1,000 population in urban and
suburban areas. If these figures are assumed to be valid nationally, the
national total of junk cars approximates 9 million.

In summary, the evidence obtained in the case studies made by the Bureau
of Mines indicates: ( 1) a large number of factors influence the accumula-
tion of automobile scrap and conditions differ so greatly from area to area
that the local influence of individual factors varies widely; (2) junk auto-
mobiles are being salvaged and remelted at a high rate, but there are
many areas in which economic and technical factors are so disadvantageous


Panel A             ABANDONED AND SCRAP ALITOMOBILES

57

that movement of automotive scrap is being impeded; (3) price has a strong
effect on the prompt movement of scrap from the automobile salvager to
the ultimate consumer under present use patterns. Price of scrap also has
an effect on the auto parts salvage industry in determining the payment at
which the market for scrap becomes so attractive that the movement of
autos in and out of the auto wreckers' yards is speeded up and the volume
of vehicles that bypass the wrecker is increased. Distance from wrecker to
processor which is reflected in transportation costs is a critical factor in this
pricing situation. Higher scrap prices especially would stimulate the move-
ment of vehicles having little or no used parts value; (4) changing tech-
nology is affecting the structure of the scrap processing industry itself
particularly in the areas in which shredders have been built. Introduction
of shears suitable for the production of automotive slab, and improved
systems of stripping and baling automotive scrap also are having effects not
only on industry structure, but also on markets. These methods are making
available to the steel mills processed scrap with improved chemical quali-
ties and in a variety of physical forms; (5) changes in automotive design
and material specifications could have an effect on auto scrap accumulation
rates. Commonly copper and other nonferrous metals contaminate iron and
steel in a manner that renders them difficult and expensive to remove and
tends to degrade the quality of ferrous automotive scrap; (6) the high
scrappage rate and existing inventories of junked cars in wreckers and proc-
essors yards, auto graveyards and elsewhere continue to keep the disposal
problem in the public eye. Junked `cars cannot be eliminated from the
scene, but almost complete utilization can be achieved and the esthetic
problems reduced to a minimum. Existing laws and regulations or en-
forcement practices often permit the owner to abandon or neglect the dis-
posal of his vehicle without penalty. This deficiency results in esthetic and
public disposal problems. Statutory requirements that place financial re-
sponsibility for disposal of the vehicle on the owner provides an incentive
to movement toward consumption as automotive scrap; (7) if consumption
of the entire supply of junk vehicles is to be an objective of public policy,
automotive scrap must be given competitive advantages over other types
of ferrous scrap through price reduction, quality improvement, or develop
ment of new markets.

The automobile disposal problem is but one of the solid waste problems.
I would like to take a moment to apprise you of other aspects of the work
going forward in this area.

The Solid Waste Act of 1965 spelled out the scope of the activities of
the Department of the Interior as follows:


58

VOGELY              Proceedings

"The Secretary shall conduct, and encourage, cooperate with, and render
financial and other assistance to appropriate public authorities, agencies, and
individuals in the conduct of, and promote the coordination of, research, in-
vestigation, experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys, and studies re-
lating to the operation and financing of solid waste disposal programs, the
development and application of new and improved methods of solid waste
disposal and the reduction of the amount of such waste and unsalvageable
waste materials." For Interior, this mandate relates to the problems of solid
waste resulting from the extraction, processing, or utilization of minerals or
fossil fuels where the generation, production, or reuse of such waste is or
may be controlled within the extraction, processing, or utilization facility or
facilities and where such control is a feature of the technology or economy
of the operation of such facility or facilities.

In order to implement the intent of the Solid Waste Disposal Act the
Department of the Interior, through the Bureau of Mines, has embarked on
a two-pronged program. One is to define the solid waste problem and
suggest some avenues of attack for solving the problem and the other is to
conduct and stimulate research activities in an attempt to substantially re-
duce the mounting burden stemming from our society's propensity to
generate solid waste.

By July 1968 we will have published a comparable study to the junked
car, on solid waste generation from mining and processing activities. This
effort will be a case study report which will highlight the major geographic
locations with solid waste problems of this type.

Based on this latter effort, the Bureau has selected certain `representa-
tive' problem areas and will, during this fiscal year, conduct an engineering-
economic study to delineate more specifically the generation of solid waste
from mining and processing operations and the costs involved in present
disposal practices.

We expect, through such study efforts, to be able to suggest ways to mini-
mize waste disposal environmental problems.

Many of you are aware of the efforts of Bureau scientists at our College
Park Metallurgical Research Center who are searching for possible solu-
tions to the problem of disposal of some 125 million tons of municipal refuse
generated in the United States each year. Before beginning work on de-
velopment of salvage methods for this refuse, it was necessary to know the
,composition of the residues. The immediate task was to establish reliable
method,; for sampling and analyzing these materials. This problem, which


Pmel A             ABANDONED AND SCRAP AUTOMOBILES

59

was the initial phase of the College Park project, has now been completed
with studies having been made on residues from five incinerators in
metropolitan Washington, D.C.

The conclusions of this study were: ( 1) techniques used in these studies
indicate that sampling of incinerator residues can be accomplished on a
relatively small scale with good results; (2) glass constitutes the major frac-
tion in all of the samples and averages about 44 percent by weight; (3)
relatively large amounts of unburned paper in some residue samples, as
much as 12 percent, points up the need for more efficient burning; (4)
salvage of all metallic values in the residues, which averages nearly 30 per-
cent by weight, could provide a source of revenue for municipalities and aid
in conservation of our natural resources; (5) salvage would also reduce the
volume of landfill required for disposal of the balance of the residues by as
much as 50 percent. This would double the life expectancy of residue
landfill sites and reduce haulage costs by half.

The Bureau is highly optimistic about a process that utilizes steel scrap
in an entirely different manner. Chopped-up scrap is heated in a rotary
kiln with nonmagnetic taconite 1 a material that previously has resisted
treatment for recovery of its iron content. The iron in both the ore and the
scrap is converted to a magnetic iron oxide which can be readily concen-
trated. At this stage, a conventional iron-oxide pellet can be made contain-
ing more than 63 percent iron, or another Bureau technique can be applied
to yield a prereduced pellet with an iron content of more than 80 percent.
By late 1968 a prototype plant will begin operation near the western end of
the Mesabi Range to demonstrate the process. The plant will have a daily
capacity of 600 tons of crude ore. A commercial processing plant turning
out 5 million tons of high-grade ore concentrates a year would consume
600,000 tons of scrap.

The Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 further provides authority for
Federal agencies to establish a contract and grant program. Section 204 of
the Act permits the Department of the Interior to make grants to and
contract with public or private agencies, institutions, and individuals for
research, training projects, surveys, and demonstrations relating to solid
waste disposal. With very modest funding the Bureau is operating these
programs at a level of $600,000 per year.

Study grants totaling $395,000 have been made with the eleven universi-
ties. These studies range from the recovery of mineral constituents to how
to make plants grow on piles of mill wastes.

263-399 O-67-5


60                           VOGE LY

Proceedings

Five contracts, amounting to $212,000, have been executed covering re-
search efforts ranging from developing a new technology of recovering fly
ash from gases discharged from coal-fired electric power plants to a search
for methods of converting red mud residues from aluminum processing into
lightweight porous ceramics.

This brief outline should give you an insight into the range of interests
the Department of the Interior has developed in solid waste disposal. We
have barely scratched the surface. It has taken many generations for the
problem of solid waste to reach national importance. It necessarily follows
that it will take time and substantially more money to reduce this problem
to a tolerable level.

Let me close by emphasizing that solid wastes are a very important factor
in our resource base. We must recycle our resources if we are to meet the
rising demands for materials as the world population grows and living
standards rise. Junk cars are a resource. We must use them constructively.


LEGISLATIVE NEEDS FOR A METROPOLITAN
  SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM

John J. Bosley *

HISTORICALLY, solid waste collection and disposal in the Washington
Metropolitan Area have been carried out by local jurisdictions and private
firms. Because disposal of solid waste has been manageable at the local level,
the necessity for cooperative endeavors between local governmental units
has been minimal. But, in the last few years, the magnitude of the problem
has reached crisis proportions in some jurisdictions and is becoming acute
in others. Recognizing this, the Council of Governments (COG) in 1965
provided the major portion of local funds for a joint study with the Northern
Virginia Regional Planning Commission and the Maryland-National Capital
Park and Planning Commission on the metropolitan Washington solid waste
disposal problem. A consultant was hired and the report is nearing comple-
tion. At this time it would be premature to cite any of the detailed findings
and recommendations. It is certain to demonstrate, however, that the problem
has metropolitan dimensions requiring the cooperative efforts of the local
jurisdictions. In turn, this raises the question of developing an organizational
arrangement under which such cooperative efforts could be adminstered.
Morcover, the severity of the problem in the District of Columbia already
has prompted it to request that coo investigate the feasibility of estab-
lishing an organizational entity to administer a regional solid waste disposal
program.
         Existing Legislative Authority

Federal and state legislation has been enacted which enables local jurisdic-
tions in the Washington.Metropolitan Area to enter into cooperative agree-
ments for sewerage disposal and water supply purposes. And, the authoriza-
tions in these statutes have been used. For example, the District of Columbia
has entered into agreements with numerous local jurisdictions for the treat-
ment of sewerage at its Blue Plains Plant. ironically, there was a Federal
statute enacted in 1930 which authorizes the District to enter into agree-
ments with neighboring jurisdictions for the disposal of their combustible
solid waste in the D.C. incinerators. Of course, this is academic; the Dis-
trict's own needs are in excess of the capacity of its existing incinerators.

* Deputy Executive Director and General Counsel, Metropolitan Washington
Councrl of Governments.

61


62                           BOSLEY

Legislative Alternatives

While authorization for cooperative agreements in the functional areas
mentioned above have been useful, such arrangements also have limitations.
The disposal of solid waste is a good example. As we know, no existing
methods of disposing of solid waste are wholly unobtrusive to a community.
Local governments attempting to negotiate arrangements to alleviate their
individual solid waste problems come under great pressures from local
citizens. However, the pressures inherent in such piecemeal negotiations can
be substantially reduced if there is a metropolitan plan and program for
the disposal of solid waste. Such planning and programming places the
problem in a broader context, and, therefore, ameliorates much of the local
objections that might ordinarily arise.

But, is, there an adequate legislative basis to implement a metropolitan
solid waste plan and program? No unequivocal answer can be given to this
question. The consultant's recommendations and the degree to which the
local jurisdictions accept them for implementation will ultimately determine
the nature and scope of any metropolitan solid waste program. And, al-
though definitive legislative formula cannot be proposed at this time, we
can make certain assumptions.

Initially, it must be recognized that the metropolitan aspects of the
problem cannot be solved by existing legislation. The District of Columbia
does not have Congressional authority to enter into agreements with other
political jurisdictions for the disposal of its solid waste. Although Virginia
has a joint exercise of power statute, it does not apply to jurisdictions out-
side the State. Maryland has no specific statutory provisions pertaining to
extraterritorial solution of its solid waste problems. Under these circum-
stances, we must look for other mechanisms for dealing with the short range
solid waste problems in the metropolitan area.

Such an interim mechanism could be the creation of a nonprofit corpora-
tion composed of the local governments of the metropolitan area. This
agency could undertake a modest metropolitan solid waste disposal program.
Of course, such an approach would be premised on the authority of local
governments to enter into contracts with nongovernmental entities for
services.

This would only be a temporary solution. The corporation would not
have the financial capacity to undertake a substantial program since service
charges would be its main source of revenue. This would severely limit its
acquisition of capital equipment and its ability to obtain long range
financing. Moreover, it would not have the power of eminent domain and


Pad A                    LEGISLATIVE NEEDS                    63

therefore could not acquire sufficient areas for landfill or incinerator oper-
ations. Nevertheless, this type of entity might provide a stopgap program
if the situation warrants.

jvhen substantial capital investment for metropolitan solid waste facilities
becomes necessary, consideration will have to be given to legislation creating
a metropolitan authority, probably by interstate compact. But, in my
opinion, any proposed regional authority should not be established solely
to solve the metropolitan solid waste problem. Rather, it should have
responsibility for all of the metropolitan environmental health problems.
And, we are all aware that solid waste disposal is only one facet of the
total waste management problem confronting the metropolitan area. The
solution of the solid waste problem must be directly related to the region's
efforts to abate air and water pollution and to provide an adequate water
supply. Furthermore, any compact legislation could not be enacted without
consensus of agreement of the local governments and approval of Congress.
Therefore, the structure, functions and powers of such an organization will
be subject to debate and controversy. Obtaining a consensus on these ques-
tions will require lengthy negotiations. But I believe such complex negotia-
tions could be facilitated by adhering to certain basic principles. Of para-
mount importance would be the recognition, from the outset, that such
an interstate authority would be the joint agency of the local governments
in the area. Its governing body should be composed of local elected officials
from these governments and not state appointed officials. If it is structured
in this manner, it can be the vehicle to implement the policies and plans
developed by the local governments through their cooperative efforts in
COG. To assure this, the compact authority and COG should have an inter-
locking directorate or the organizations should be merged. Such an organ-
izational structure would assure to the maximum extent possible, that the
agency's programs would be carried out in accordance with the needs and
desires of the citizens of the metropolitan area.

As I have already indicated, this would be a delicate and arduous task.
But this is the nature of the legislative process. It must embody the desires
of the majority and protect the rights of the minority. To a limited extent,
this process has already begun. The local elected officials participating in
the Council of Governments are aware of and concerned with these en-
vironmental problems. The metropolitan solid waste study now underway
and COG'S preliminary investigations of the institutional requirements for
implementation of a metropolitan solid waste program are concrete evidence
of their desire to take affirmative action to solve such metropolitan en-
vironmental health problems.


OPEN DISCUSSION: PANEL A

Achilles M. Tuchtan,* Panel Chairman

)fR. PHILIP B. HALLt:  What are the immediate or relatively immediate
prospects of solving the problems of scrap automobiles? Is there any thought
being gi\.en to a regional facility or facilities to solve this very pressing
problem?

bf)/iR. VOGELY:  I'll tackle the first part of the question. The junk car
problem is many things to many people. I think that the accumulation of
scrap automobiles outside of the industrial stream will be solved over the
period of the nest few years by either better technologies or by local action
in places where the problem is really acute. This will be done in the form
that I indicated, that is, making the owner of the car responsible in some
\vay for its disposal into the industrial stream. The handling, however, of
scrap cars - the winning of the reusable parts and then the remelting of
the scrap body itself - is a process that is industrial in nature and will never
be beautiful. What must happen is that it gets confined to areas wherein
such industrial processes are acceptable to the population as a whole. Thus,
I think the problem will be solved. It will take a combination of technology
and local effort. As far as regional compacts are concerned, I cannot address
myself to that. Perhaps you can, Mr. Tuchtan.

MR.TIJCHTAN:  Well, I have a comment here from Dr. Jack Lentz who
is on the staff of the Washington Council of Governments. He says, "Shred-
ding and incineration plant in the planning stage in Baltimore reported to
be able to handle 2,500 cars a day." and COG'S Regional Sanitary Advisory
board is investigating this and other techniques with the objective of adding
to the best possible technology, the political mechanism to provide a region-
wide approach. We are now in the studying stages.

MR. VOGELY:  Yes, most of the scrap cars from Washington now flow
to Baltimore, and if you improve the scrap processing facilities there you
provide an outlet. This still doesn't solve the problem of the car that's
abandoned on private property that never gets into the industrial stream.

MR. TUCHTAN: That is true. I know that in the jurisdiction from
which 1 come - the city of Rockville - we have an ordinance regarding

* Chairman of the Board of Directors in the Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments and Member of City Council, Rockville, Maryland.
t Philip B. Hall, Public Works, Alexandria, Virginia.

65


66

PANEL A             Procrrdingr

this problem. We have made it very clear, for example, to our citizens that
we will remove gladly all vehicles that are abandoned on their property.
It costs us, but from the health welfare and sanitation points of view, we
want to do it, and have so advised them in a newsletter. That doesn't mean
we're inviting everybody here to come out and leave junk cars on our city
streets or lots.

ANONYMOUS :  Does GSA refer to the method of solid waste disposal in
solid waste collection contracts?

MR. EASTMAN :  I believe that question is directed at the end act of
disposal of the material that is collected by any contractor. If that is the
intended question, we do not speak to the method in which solid wastes are
disposed. Presumably, any contracting firm licensed to collect waste material
must have a satisfactory means of disposing of that material. Possibly it's
not satisfactory in light of the present acts of today. Maybe it's using Kenil-
worth Dump. But we do not speak in our contracts to the method of dis-
posing those materials that are collected by contracting companies.

MR. PHILIP B. WISMAN*:  Have you considered the alternative to land-
fills and incineration namely the recently perfected commercial cornposting
method sponsored by waste conversion science foundation? They have units
to handle 500 tons per day. This involves no landfills, no air pollution.
Why not look into it, especially in view of the impending world shortage
of fertilizer?

MR. BREM SER :  Let me say `yes.' We have looked into this, and as a
small-scale operation, it's quite feasible. But to compost the refuse produced
by upwards of 2 million people creates a very large marketing problem with
what you do with a compost once you have it.

MR. ALEX F. PERGEt:  Is there a rule of thumb figure for landfill needs
per population unit, such as acre-feet per 10,000 people?

MR. H. LANIER HICKMAN, JR.~:  One acre per 10,000 population per
year per 8-foot layer of fill. Has anyone considered a separate collection,
say once a month of only newspapers for possible reuse.?

MR. EASTMAN :  I commented on that with respect to the collection of
saleable paper. The government does segregate paper that is resaleable and
that would be bond paper, letter paper; there would be paper that is scrap

* Philip B. Wisman, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
t Alex F. Perge, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, DC.
Z H. Lanier Hickman, Jr., U.S. Public Health Service, Cincinnati.


Second Session                OPEN DISCUSSION

67

from printing processes, high-grade paper; it would be IBM cards used in the
numerous data processing centers that are no longer required. These are
all collected, segregated, filled, and sold to paper people for reuse purposes.
1 don't know whether that goes far enough ta answer the question.

MR. TUCHTAN :  Rockville has a program whereby all of our refuse is
picked up in the backyard. We find that our citizens don't like to carry
their garbage cans to the curb. We do not tell them what to put in those
cans. They put anything of a refuse nature that goes into a garbage can.
Hokvever, we do have a once a month repickup of anything they cannot
dispose of. And that includes refrigerators, washing machines, springs, and
mattresses, and what have you. And it's a service that the city renders to its
citizens. I would say that if our community - the one I live in - is any
example, if you were to ask the citizens to segregate and separate out their
refuse, we would have a rough time on our hands. I wouldn't be standing
here; I wouldn't be elected I can assure you. So, I think this is one of the
problems we would have to consider, it's perhaps of a political nature, but
people don't want to b e pinned down to sorting their refuse.

FRANCIS A. GOVAN*:  "Good incinerator sites are hard to find today and
should be bought quickly." That's a quote of yours. Does the site selection
criteria require the possibility of heat conversion plans as used in Europe
and proposed in the U.S.A.?

MR. BREMSER:  Not necessarily, the criteria for incinerator sites are
basically that they be in a neighborhood where they're not offensive. This
tneans generally a heavy industrial type neighborhood with access by high-
ways, and streets in which heavy truck traflic is not offensive. These con-
siderations are the most important issues. But a location where steam may
be sold certainly should be a consideration.

*MRS. E. JONES~:  Is another interstate joint agency necessary to ad-
minister solid waste disposal ? Isn't COG set up to function in this area now?

MR. BOSLEY:  The determination of whether you would need additional
institutional arrangements for implementation of programs for solid waste
disposal largely will be determined by the type of regional program that is
agreed upon. Certainly if the program is right to require large capital in-
vestment and the power of eminent domain, a metropolitan agency having
a legislative basis will be required. This does not, in any way, indicate that
the organization must be another special-purpose agency. If we have to

* Francis A. Govan, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.
t Elizabeth Jones, League of Women Voters of the United States, Washington, D.C.


68

PANEL A              Proceedinp

consider a formal interstate organizationual arrangement, I believe that this
region has reached the point where it mus't consider not only the solid waste
disposal problem, but the other Metropolitan area problems that might in
the future require &me sort of organizational arrangement to effectively
solve them. What I am really saying is that if we have to go to an
organizational structure, let's go to the optimum one. Develop one that is
going to reflect the needs of the region. We should establish an organiza-
tional structure complementary and supplementary to the local government
activity in the region, not one which would compete with the local govem-
ment. These are the decisions that we must consider in the next several
months. It would be premature at this time to say that we must have an
interstate compact agency because we just don't' k?ow; we don't know
definitely what can be agreed upon to solve metropolitan-wide programs
such as solid waste disposal. And until that is determined, we will not be
able to establish any criteria or suggestions with regard to organizational
structure for the carrying out of such programs.

ANONYMOUS: . . . Can the District of Columbia participate?

MR. BOSLEY:  Well, there is some precedence for this. In 1958 and `59,
there was a joint committee of the Congress, House and Senate, that studied
Metropolitan affairs and problems in the Washington Area. Portions of
recommendations of this committee, were enacted into law. One of the
recommendations established was the Washington Metropolitan Regional
Development Act. This legislation states that it is the policy of the United
States Congress to encourage the District of Columbia and Federal depart-
ments and agencies to act in concert and to work together with the local
governments in the Metropolitan area for unified solutions to those problems
which are regional in scope. Further, it sets forth certain priorities that
should be considered. Among priority items delineated is the solid and liquid
waste disposal problem. The second recommendation of the joint commit-
tee concerned the development of a rapid rail transit authority for this
region. Of course, this has come to fruition with the establishment of the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. The legislative authority
to establish this agency - The National Capital Transportation Act of 1960
admonished that in negotiation of the compact other metropolitan problems
requiring a unified approach to their solution should be studied. This was
a recognition in effect, of the need for the District to participate in an organ-
ization having more than transit powers. I think it is significant here to
indicate that the Washington  Metropolitan Area Transit Compact
(WMATA) also sets a precedent that justifies some of the suggestions that


Second Session                OPEN DtSCUSStON

69

l've made here today. For example, Congress permitted deviation from the
normal compact organizational structure. The governing body of WMATA
is not composed of individuals appointed by the governors of the States.
Instead, the compact recognizes that the decision making process for this
metropolitan region should incorporate the people that live within this
area. Therefore, the compact specifically provides for the participation of
the District Commissioners and the locally elected officials from Virginia
and Maryland are its governing body. Consequently, there is ample prece-
dence for the District's participation.

The more important questions really concern the type of structure which
might be suggested and what its duties, powers, and responsibilities would
he. Naturally there is bound to be a great deal of debate and dialogue on
this issue. But I think that there's no doubt that back in 1960 Congress
envisioned that there would be conditions requiring the District to partici-
pate in a joint agency with other local governments in this area to solve
metropolitan problems.

MR. MICHAELS :  Do you have information on the cost of installing
air pollution controls in existing office building incinerators?

MR. EASTMAN :  I do not have offhand, but I mentioned the fact
that 18 of our incinerators have been surveyed to ascertain what corrective
measures must be taken. Generally the measure will consist of water
scrubbers. I do not recall what this will cost to accomplish. I have that
information in the office. I do not have it readily at hand here.

MR. TIJCHTAN :  I believe that your study on this, too, Mr. Eastman, is
in connection with the District of Columbia's efforts to pass an air pollution
control ordinance.

MR. EASTMAN: That is correct.

MR. TUCHTAN :  We have two jurisdictions in this area which have had
ordinances. The District is working on it, and seven others are now in the
del.eloping stage. So of the 15 participating jurisdictions in the Council of
Governments we hope that certainly by the start of the next year we will
have standardized our air pollution control ordinances in the region and
have a region-wide program in effect.

MRS. E. JONES:  In your opinion, is the air pollution bill passed by the
Senate yesterday sufficiently comprehensive and enforceable to have real
and/or immediate impact nationally ? Is the House favorably disposed
towards its passing?


70

PANEL A             Proceedings

MR. MIDDLETON :  The Senate action represents a significant step
forward, adopting, in essence, the Administration proposal on the Air Quality
Act of 1967. I'm hopeful that passage in the House will allow us to proceed
further in cleaning UP the air in the United States.

MR. FREDERICK A. MORAN* :  He's from Baltimore, and this is concerning
burning stumps as "the cheapest method of disposal of stumps is burning"
according to Mr. Bremser. This creates a spirit of mutual harassment be-
tween land developers and residential neighbors. If open burning were
more closely controlled, what is the speaker's opinion of the ready use of
other than the `cheapest method,' i.e. mobile mechanical cutters and so on?

MR. BINNEWIES:  I'm not sure I quite understand . . , I think that the
emphasis of the question is why not the use of mobile mechanical cutters
rather than the burning of stumps as the cheapest method of disposal. Did
I interpret the question correctly? . . . We do use cutters quite a bit. The
thing that I referred to particularly was the disposal of stumps from the
Dutch Elm disease. We just about have to do this by burning, because if
you distribute the wood by chipping or anyway like that, there's a very high
danger of infecting other trees. In other cases of stump disposal, you can
use chippers. As a matter of economics, it takes a while to chip up a stump;
they're full of cross-grain, you know, and not very easy to get rid of, but it
can be done. It takes longer than just to haul them out to a dump and
throw them on a pile and eventually burn them up. They are usually not
suitable for campground wood; the difficulty in splitting generally makes
them not desirable. Stumps are probably the toughest part of the tree to
dispose of.

FROM THE FLOOR:  I wonder whether one of the panel would address
himself to the problems of disposal of demolition debris.

  MR. EASTMAN:  I can only refer very briefly to this type of material
as far as our program is concerned. I will allude to that accumulation of
debris resulting from construction of our own forces which would constitute
such items as plaster, wallboard, bricks, mortar, etc. This is the type of
debris that we collect and then must contract with some contracting company
to dispose of. Presumably this same contracting firm has some permit for
disposing of these unbumable items in a suitable sanitary landfill area. With
respect to major demolition, we let a contract whereby a wrecking company
agrees to demolish and dispose of any of the demolished items he accumu-
lates through that process.

i Frederick A. Moran, Maryland Department of Health, Balti~~~ore, Maryland.


Second Sesrion

OPEN DISCUSSION                     71

Again, our contracts do not speak to how a contractor will dispose of
these materials. Maybe, this is something that we should speak to in terms
of the overall problem. However, it has not been our practice within the
demolition contract to specify the ultimate method of ,disposing of those
materiais.

MR.BREMSER:  The normal practice, of course, is to take the demolition
material which consists of lumber and broken concrete, brick, glass, and
e\.erything else generally knocked down by a headache ball and pushed
over by a bulldozer and load it onto a truck and dump it somewhere. It's
not a practical matter from the demolition contractor's point of view to
try to separate the materials. If the material is from, say, a frame house
and basically combustible, there is no reason why if you had a large-,scale
shredding installation, you could not put this material through a shredder
and burn it in a normal incineration plant. Barring this, about the only
thing to do with it is to burn it in the open. You may know that in Detroit,
they have bbilt some incinerators within the last few years specifically for the
purpose of burning brush and tree debris and this sort of thing. There's no
reason why this type of incinerator which provides a long retention time
could not be used to handle basically combustible demolition debris.

MR. TUCHTAN:  The Council of Government's model air pollution ordi-
nance has a provision pertinent to demolition debris. I think the City of
Rockville and Montgomery County employ this provision for construction
of new structures. For example in housing areas where a developer comes
in and builds a number of homes, open burning is a permitted but con-
trolled practice. Scrap lumber and stumps can be burned on site. The
control is applied to the kind of fire. For example there is the direct pro-
hibition to the use of tires as a source of heat. An open burning permit is
required.

We must also recognize that we cannot stand in the way of certain
normal business or construction practices which in themselves do not create
an air pollution problem of any magnitude. So we should permit business
to be able to operate in those instances, such as construction where open
burning can be undertaken without any material increase in air pollution.
The problem in air pollution is to tackle it at the greatest source, and
the burning of stumps is a very minor one.
MR. G. DERRICKSON*:  This is on the subject of junk and abandoned
motor vehicle problems. I should like to supplement Dr. Vogely's statement

* Gardiner Derrickson, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.


72

PANEL A              Pfoceedingr

by calling the attention of this conference to the publication of two valuable
reports in this area by the Business and Defense Services Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce as follows:

1. Iron and steel scrap, consumption problems. Business and Defense
Services Administration. U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Washington, D.C.,
1966, 52 p.

2. Motor Lnelzicle abandonment in the U. S. urban areas. Business and
Defense Services Administration. U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Wash-
ington, D.C., 1967, 51 p.


Panel 8: Technology Today

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

Robert D. Bugher *

\VASTE DISPOSAL has been with man throughout his history. Every human
existence produces waste and man's attitude throughout the ages has been:

(a) to get away from it as far as possible, "to take it down the road," or

t b) to change it into forms which are not objectionable.

Thus waste disposal involves both transformation and transport of refuse.

The subject of this presentation concerning the utilization of transport
systems deals only with one of the two very basic approaches to waste dis-
posal. Waste transformation processes are discussed in other papers con-
cerning waste reduction, incineration, composting and waste recycling op-
portunities. It must be recognized, however, that waste handling and dis-
posal technologies are intimately related and that transportation is a key
element of virtually all waste removal systems. Thus, to establish a frame-
work for this presentation, it might be stated that efficient waste removal
requires a tailor-made integration of both: (a) the waste collection and
disposal efforts, and (b) the transportation system.

One cannot talk about a transportation system for solid wastes without
consideration of the happenings at the point-of-waste origin. Both the type
and quantities of waste are of concern.  On-site reduction of solid wastes
through home incineration, grinding, or pulping and salvage might reduce
the quantities drastically.

Furthermore, the transportation system actually begins at the point of
the waste origin. The waste originator is already part of the system if he
must bring his garbage can to the curbside at a given time which corresponds
to the collection schedules. Costs increase drastically - up to 50 percent
in time per pickup stop, if the collection crews must get the cans from
backyard storing places or out of garages. To reduce the handling and
transportation costs at the point of origin it has become advantageous for
some locations to use disposable paper sacks instead of the metal or plastic
garbage can. Paper sacks are light weight, necessitate only a one way pickup
trip, prevent the wastes from being blown around by high winds, reduce
noise, and provide for an improvment in sanitary procedures. Paper sacks
currently are sold at about 8 to 12 cents each with about a 3.5 cubic foot

* Executive Director, American Public Works Association, Chicago, Illinois.

73


74

BUGHER             Proceedings

capacity. Some European countries, including Sweden, Denmark and Great
Britain have begun to experiment with compression devices particularly in
apartment buildings to increase the quantity of refuse that is fed into the
sacks.

On the other hand, disposal efforts are of equal importance for the estab-
lishment of tailor-made transportation systems. Acceptable incineration
placed in strategic locations will reduce or eliminate long distance hauling;
effective composting, in turn, might require long distance hauling to be
beneficial to areas where the basic soil needs improvement before fertilizers
can be used with maximum advantage. In looking at waste disposal systems
and their transportation elements it must be recognized that relative in-
sufficiencies in one building block of the system may be more than offset
through advantages gained by other considerations.

Historically, all means of transportation have been used for the removal
of man's waste. At one time people carried the wastes or used slaves to
remove it from the immediate environment. Waste also has been trans-
ported on horse back, by horse and wagon, by ship, by rail, by car and by
truck. Improvements in transportation technology usually led to an improve-
ment in the waste handling methods. The size of waste collection trucks,
for example, has increased from 9 cubic yards in the 1920's or 1930's to up
to 50-cubic-yard vehicles experimented with today which are equipped to
empty and load heavy containers automatically.

It is estimated that currently about 40,000 vehicles are used exclusively
in the United States for the collection of solid wastes. These vehicles repre-
sent an investment value of about $400 million. Refuse collection trucks,
varying in size from 10 to 30 cubic yards can cost anywhere from $10,000
to $30,000 per unit. In addition, equipment storage and maintenance
facilities amount to about 12 percent or $48 million of the mobile equipment
value according to a recent APWA survey.

There are several different types of collection trucks in use at the present
time. The increase in the quantity of paper wastes and the decrease in
ashes has .resulted in a high-volume low-density refuse which lends itself
readily to compaction. Rubbish may be as light as 200 lbs per cubic yard
while garbage or ashes may weigh more than 1,000 lbs a cubic yard. The
18-cubic-yard to 20-cubic-yard capacity vehicles are the most popular ones
today. There are several different types of compaction trucks in use
including: (a) rear loading hopper type bodies which use either a single
blade.or a flight conveyor for sweeping refuse into the body; (b) a side


pd?nd B                 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

75

loading unit in a rectangular or cylindrical body which uses a movable
hydraulic bulkhead for both compaction and ejection; and, (c) a special
container collection vehicle which is a top loading unit which uses the
movable bulkhead for compaction and ejection.

The cost per ton of refuse collected varies, of course, considerably, depend-
ing upon local wage rates, equipment cost, collection policies, the spatial
distribution of pickups and the respective refuse amounts, traffic density on
streets used by the collection trucks and the route and haul distances. Costs
per ton of refuse are quoted from $3.90 to about $14.00 for normal com-
bined refuse excluding bulk objects.

Unfortunately, waste disposal has always been saddled with considerable
socio economic burdens. Being at best a nuisance, waste disposal had
to make do with absolute minimum amounts of money, manpower, and
equipment. As a result waste disposal frequently has been and in some in-
stances is still handled in a rather pedestrian manner.

Solid waste disposal in the United States today is estimated to represent a
$3~billion industry with about 70 to 75 percent of that amount spent on
waste transport alone. Furthermore, the total production of solid wastes
calculated on a per capita basis has grown from 2 lbs per capita per day in
the 1920's to more than 4 lbs per capita per day today. It is estimated to grow
at an annual rate of about 4 percent. It appears already safe to say that in
the near future, on the average, nearly 1 ton of solid wastes per person per
year must be collected and disposed of. Also, while our environment once
was capable of absorbing and digesting all of man's wastes, it is no longer
able to do so. Environmental pollution has become a major threat to all
urbanized settlements. Yet the task and challenge of waste disposal still
will continue to grow.

The population of the United States is expected to double by the year
2000. It is forecast that much of this explosive growth will take place in
urbanized areas, such as Washington, D.C. Coupled with an increase in
industrial and commercial activities as well as the direct per capita con-
sumption, such growth will result in staggering problems for solid waste
disposal and management. Considering the amounts of solid wastes in-
volved plus the spatial concentration of the waste generation, it becomes
obvious that solid waste management involves most operating factors gen-
erally found in mass production, mass transportation and mass service. This
"mass" aspect of waste removal activities requires that well and thoroughly
developed system approaches be used to handle the removal in an adequate,
efficient and economical manner.

263-399 O-67-6


76                          BUGHER

Proceedings

To set then the stage for an analysis of transportation systems with respect
to waste removal, one has to recognize that waste by definition has no eco-
nomic value. This suggests that high-tonnage low-cost transportation car-
riers be utilized as much as possible. Constant cost reduction must be made
the only objective for progressive waste management, if mere disposal and
not utilization is the primary waste management goal.

Furthermore, all currently known waste disposal methods ultimately re-
quire land for a disposal ground. But in urban areas land is in short supply
and in demand for more attractive and productive uses. In turn, waste has
to be shipped out of such areas over ever-increasing distances and, conse-
quently, bulk transportation facilities become more and more important as
the backbone of waste removal efforts.

What then are the basic elements of transportation systems that must be
considered in waste removal applications?

In a nutshell, and this is important, transportation can be highlighted as
a material- or people-handling system. In this presentation, of course, we
deal only with the movement of materials, although materials are and can
be moved over pure "people" transportation systems such as local transit
lines.

A transportation system can be described as a method of movement by
which things Ylow" through a system. In terms of movement, things may
be handled: (a) horizontally, by such means as trucks, trains or barges;
(b) vertically, by elevators or chutes; and, (c) vertically as well as hori-
zontally, by helicopters, conveyors, and pipelines operated either hydraul-
ically or pneumatically.

The actual movement of things is constrained by the physical facilities
of a transport system, i.e., the channels of the network. The physical facil-
ities, in turn, may be grouped into the fixed installations of the network,
e.g., railroad tracks, roads, and river channels, and the mobile equipment.
Thus the available transportation capabilities determine, to a large degree,
what kind of transport system can be used in handling the wastes for a
given area.

Not all transportation systems, of course, have mobile equipment as such.
Pipelines and conveyors as a rule do not have "vehicles," and there is a
direct interface between the materials being moved and the fixed system
installations. On the other hand, in transportation systems having mobile


~mtel B                 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS                  77

equipment, the vehicles might be considered containers which provide the
interface between the items transported and the fixed installations. The
kind of transportation vehicles that are available carries considerable
systemic implications. The "vehicles" available determine, for example,
whether wastes ought to be Iiquified, baled, containerized and/or reduced
in size in order to obtain maximum system benefits.

The interface structure of a transportation system is of utmost importance
in determining the suitability of a given system for waste removal purposes.
Whether, for example, industrial, commercial and special wastes such as
hospital wastes can be included. Commonly, refuse transportation requires
a system to handle a wide variety of materials of all sizes, capable, to
various degrees, of %ontaminating" the environment. Public health and
sanitation aspects must therefore be of overriding concern.

The transportation network itself may be viewed in a building block
fashion. It consists of links and transfer points. A link corresponds to a
specific transportation channel and may be well defined as, for example,
in the case of a rail line or highway. Links of the same, similar, or different
modes of transportation may cross each other as, for example, by a rail-
road crossing or a bridge, or they may provide an interchange as, for ex-
ample, in a road junction, airline terminal or railroad switching yard. Con-
sidering transportation as a building block system, it becomes obvious that
the waste management system planner must evaluate many transport altema-
tives to develop an approach which is tailor-made for a given area.

Ultimately, of course, links to transfer stations where the materials are
moved on or off a given transport network. Such a transfer might involve
either a change from one mode of transport to another, for example, from
trucks to rails or the original loading and final unloading operations. The
transfer of materials frequently represents a major share of the total direct
operating cost of transportation systems,

Finally, the path of materials being moved through one or more trans-
portation networks might involve a succession of links and transfer stations.
In this way networks and/or vehicles interact over space and time, and the
selection of an optimum total .transportation system might require a con-
siderable amount of network balancing. Factors, such as the following,
typically are involved: total trip time, reliability of service, time and effort
spent at transfer points, safety considerations, direct operating costs and in-
direct expenditures such as insurance, interest and storage and impact on
the environment and its inhabitants..


78                          BIJGHER

ProreedingJ

Thus, in analyzing existing and potential transportation systems for refuse
removal applications, one must consider: the types and amounts of the
materials to be transported; the feasibility of transforming the wastes to
facilitate transport, and the point of storage and collection; the vehicles
and/or ways in which the materials are conveyed; the networks through
which the materials move ; the number and type of transfer stations
needed; the public health, sanitation and safety requirements; and, of
course, the time and cost charges.

In dimensioning the waste material handling or transportation system
for a given area, it is necessary to make, first, some basic decisions con-
cerning the local refuse removal policies. Questions such as the following
must be answered a priori:

( 1) How large is the area to be served by the system? Are we concerned
with only Washington, D.C., proper, which had a population of 764,000
people in 1960 (according to the U.S. Census) ? Or is the system to serve the
Washington Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, which had a population
of more than two million at the time indicated and was growing at a rate
of 36.7 percent per Census decade?

(2) Should the refuse removal system handle all the wastes generated in-
cluding residential, commercial, industrial and special wastes, or should it
deal only with selected categories of refuse such as the residential/municipal
wastes?

The composition of residential wastes alone - those generated by the
householder - already provides considerable transportation problems. Ex-
chiding abandoned automobiles, for example, Washington trucks annually
have to remove about 6,700 bulky metal objects such as refrigerators, wash-
ing machines, bed springs and oil drums. It is estimated that appliance
dealers and private collectors haul an equal quantity of such objects to the
disposal sites. In addition, there are putrescible materials, paper, glass bottles,
aerosol cans, paint containers, tires, rags, and, of course, automobiles.

Furthermore, the District of Columbia ranks among the major in-
dustrial/commercial centers in the United States. In 1965 it had almost
17,900 commercial/industrial establishments covered by the Federal Insur-
ance Contribution Act. This means at least one and probably several
pick-ups from each of such establishments every week. These provide em-
ployment for almost 305,000 persons. Major business groups in the District
produce a variety of waste materials and in 1965 included the following:


panel B                 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

79

TABLEI

BUSINESS GROUPS IN THE DISTRICT PRODUCING WASTE MATERIALS

      Business group

Total
General construction (demolition wastes)
X$anufacturing
Food and kindred products (garbage)
Printing and publishing (paper)
Wholesale trade

Retail trade
Eating and drinking places (garbage)
Services (paper, garbage and medical wastes)
Hotels and other lodgings
Misc. busi ness services
Medical and other health services

Number of    Reporting
employees       units

304,941      17,879
26,262       1,015
23,495         689
4,559          54

13,861         343

21,848       1,334
65,839      3,850
18,938       1,002
104,483      7,038
10,810         253
15,311         849
11,539       1,241

It must be remembered in this context, that types of employment not
covered by the Social Security Program a~ not included in the above data.
Thus, government employees, self-employed persons, farm workers, and
domestic service workers are not covered in the foregoing tabulation.

Finally, the amounts of wastes to be handled through a transportation
system depend also upon the waste disposal practices utilized or required at
the point of waste origin. Grinding transfers the wastes into the sewer
system and home incineration reduces the volume and the frequency with
which wastes have to be picked up.

(3) The third set of questions addresses itself to the spatial distribution of
waste generating units. A high concentration of such units as, for example,
in high-rise buildings or large city apartment blocks, might suggest the
establishment of vacuum, chute, or similar collection and transport systems.
One-family housing settlement patterns, on the other hand, probably require
that the collection and at least part of the total transport be handled by
truck. Data from the 1960 Census of Population and Housing indicate wide
spread density patterns for Washington, D.C. proper on a Census Tract
basis. Correspondingly, they suggest some significant spatial differences in
residential waste generation. Data for selected census tract settlements range
as follows:

Number of rooms per housing unit: 1.2 to 7.5 rooms


80

BUGHER             Proceedings

Number of persons per housing unit : 1.1 to 4.1
Median family income: $2,912 to $19,8i5

Consequently, the intracity waste handling and transportation require-
ments might vary considerably if a system is to be devised which serves all
areas on a tailor-made and highly desirable basis. High density areas, for
example, might suggest the application of an integrated container system
starting at the point of waste origin while low density areas might continue
to do with the common garbage can or disposable paper or plastic sack. In-
dustry has developed various types of waste collection and transport equip-
ment to meet the requirements of different urban settlement patterns.

(4) The fourth set of questions, of course, must `deal with the area's
existing and the potentially available total transportation systems. The
Washington transportation system reflects the fact that the District of
Columbia is the seat of the Federal government.

The Washington, D.C., area is traversed by three railroads and the
Potomac River. In addition, there are many highways leading in and out
of the area. A 25-mile subway system costing some $431 million is planned
for the metropolitan area. It is conceivable that it could be used during the
night-time hours as part of a waste transportation system. The existing in-
cinerators and landfills might also provide readymade locations for transfer
stations.

The existing mass transportation system of railroads and rivers serving
the Capital connects the area effectively with the outlying regions in which
the ultimate disposal of wastes might take place. This could conceivably be
accomplished on a long-range basis by all-round desirable and advantageous
methods. The present Washington transportation system, with its highways,
railroads and the Potomac River, thus 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. This view is based on the
belief that: (a) wastes can ultimately be disposed of in an unobjectionable
manner; (b) wastes can often be used to increase the value of marginal
land; and, (c) since there is widespread public opposition and fear to the
mere thought of living near a waste disposal facility - as if it were an
ammunition dump - they should be located as far away from high-density
population centers as is economically feasible.

(5) The fifth and final set of major questions concerns the system partici-
pants. It must determine who is to operate which part of the system, who
is responsible in what way for total system performance, how the burden of


panel B                 TRANSPORTATION sysnms                   81

cost is to be distributed, who might provide the waste inputs, for example,
private collectors, municipal forces, and/or self-disposers such as a private
citizen coming with his station wagon and a can of grass clippings on a
Sunday afternoon. Last but not least, it must be determined how the wastes
must be delivered to conform to specific system requirements, for example:
should the wastes be packaged, baled, or pre-containerized. Should they
be put in paper sacks or metal and/or plastic cans, etc.? This involves the
regulation of human behavior so the system can function with a reasonable
degree of efficiency.

It is obvious that answers to the above questions and subquestions do
have considerable systematic implications regardless of what transport and
material handling system one uses.

It is also obvious that the selection and development of any system will
materially affect the livability of any given area. Every community repre-
sents, however imperfectly, a system for living and simultaneously an engi-
neering system. Only the interaction of both systems make the parameters of
community life and growth.

Furthermore, it is obvious from the presentation thus far that refuse-
removal-material handling and/or transport systems are very complex and
have numerous ramifications. The transport system begins with the on-site
storage of wastes at the point of origin. The refuse originator is part of the
transportation system if he has to bring his garbage can to the curbside at
a predetermined time.

In view of the many system elements and the potentially large number of
system performance factors, it is impossible for me to cover the subject in
great detail.  Time limitations suggest that this presentation's primary
purpose is to discuss the subject in terms of current knowledge and suggest
promising areas for imaginative research. Only system development work,
including techno-economic and socio-economic as well as management
analyses, will produce results which will make this area's waste removal a
showcase for the nation and for the world as well.

In looking, then, at specific transportation systems with respect to waste
removal operations, it must be. recognized that basically three system de-
velopment approaches are involved : (a) The transfer of existing tech-
nologies "as is" into the waste removal field. Such technologies might come
from other fields of commercial/industrial endeavor or the vast U.S.
Government research and development efforts including, in particular,
Public Health, NASA, and Department of Defense projects; (b) The develop-


82                           BUGHER

Proceedings

ment of these technologies in terms of specifically tailor-made waste removal
applications; and, (c) The long-term development of perhaps completely
new technologies which would turn the current nuisance of wastes into a
useful national resource. It does no harm to apply visionary thinking and
objectives to a mundane problem such as refuse removal. We must have
the courage to direct the promise of research wholeheartedly toward the
solution of our everyday problems, and we also must have the stamina to
back up our courage through generous action. It is a sorry situation and
a poor reflection on our sense of values that we stand on the threshold of
putting a man on the moon but still handle the wastes we produce using
methods developed during the horse-and-buggy era. The state-of-the-art
has not yet advanced to the point where it can be regarded as a sophisticated
waste disposal management science. But with the &pact of the Solid
Wastes Program things have begun to move and significant progress is being
made to employ the opportunities modern science and technology do offer.
The success of research in other areas, given only firm and urgent objectives,
most certainly justifies any conviction or hope we might dare to have.

Specific existing material handling and transportation system can, of
course, cover a potentially wide area and only some selected highlights can
be given here.

There are pipelines, for example, and piping systems could, considering
the community as an engineering system, originate right in the housewife's
kitchen. Existing technology in the field is highly developed. Even solids in
the state of slurries are moved with success. However, initial capital costs
are high and efforts toward the acquisition of right-of-ways may be
frustrating. On the other hand, operating costs are quite low, amounting
to roughly pennies per ton/mile for all kinds of materials moved.

Piping systems can be operated pneumatically or hydraulically. The
Federal government, through the Public Health Service Solid Waste
Program, currently is sponsoring research which considers a water/sewage
borne system and a 30 to 40 percent solid slurry for center city applications
and a pneumatic system for the outskirts of settlements. The systems, of
course, must operate tmder pressure since refuse loading changes water and
sewage into a very comples fluid. In principle, materials can be piped over
unlimited distances and it has to be determined where economics require
cutoff points.

Pipelines are used or considered for all kinds of materials which are
transported in large volumes. Coal, f or example, is moved 110 miles by
pipe into the Cleveland area. Today, there are about 20 phosphate rock


panel B                 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS                  83

pipelines in the U.S. handling over 30 million tons of rock per year. These
lines are 14 to 16 inches in diameter and range in length up to 5 miles.
Solids lines have also been built to move gilsonite, limestone and borax.
hccording to present technology, however, it is required. that the solids do
not undergo any undesirable change, including flow characteristics, as a
result of the mixing of the solids and liquids or of the transportation
process itself.

Pneumatic systems have been tested in Sweden. A system has been
recently established in a large housing project which wiI1 ultimately in-
clude 2,600 dwellings. This system moves refuse, by suction, at a speed
of about 90 feet per second in pipes of about 2 feet in diameter. The vacuum
in the system is created by electrically-driven turbines. It moves the refuse
from selected system channels at predetermined times and one vacuum
unit thus can serve a great number of channels depending, of course, upon
the rate of channel loading. Pipe systems extending a distance of up to
about 2,500 yards are currently visualized. This concept is currently being
considered for installation in a large housing project in Westminster,
England. The capital cost per flat (apartment unit) is calculated to run
about $3 10, while the annual operating costs are estimated to range from
$12 to $1.5 per unit.

The advantages of pipe systems for local collection activity are numerous
despite the heavy original investment requirements. Pipe systems require
little labor, they can move the wastes to storage areas which are conveni-
cntly accessible through a 24-hour day including weekends, and there is no
spillage, smell or noise. Although pipe systems may not be economical today
if compared with other more conventional collection systems, the picture
may change in the near future as refuse quantities and collection cost con-
tin\le to increase. In waste disposal transportation systems we deal with
scrlicc life spans of 5 to 8 years for refuse trucks and 20 to 30 years for
incinerators.

I might also point out, in passing, that other factors besides cost alone
should be considered in determining the type of waste disposal system that
would ser1.e the best interests of the community. For example, the pneu-
matic pipes referred to above could conceivably be installed in utiladors
which would contain water mains, electric power lines, telephone lines,
setvers and drains as well as postal tubes. They could be designed for easy
access by covering them with prefabricated slabs which could serve as side..
walks. This would eliminate the need to inconvenience the motorist by noisy
toad opening operations when it becomes necessary to repair utility lines


84

BUGHER              Proceedings

and also eliminate the garbage container and the noisy refuse collection
operations. This concept, it seems to me, should be tried out at an early
date in a high density urban area under the Model Cities Act.

Another means of moving wastes from high density and highly congested
areas may be cargo helicopters. Helicopters capable of conveying payloads
of several tons are available. Their operating costs range around $3 to $5
per aircraft per mile depending, of course, upon the total amount of miles
flown. Cost per ton per mile may amount to only $1.50 to $2.00 and per-
haps even less, if helicopter advances developed for use in Viet Nam reach
the civilian market. Helicopter transport already is employed successfully
and profitably for industrial applications in the building of power trans-
mission lines.

However, the purchase price of helicopters is rather high. Many heli-
copters are still made to order. Helicopters which are most commonly
used by the Marine Corps in Viet Nam and by the Viet Air Corps cost
about $225,000 per unit in civilian markets. By contrast, crane-type heli-
copters which are not yet commercially available and which are capable of
carrying 50 people or a IO-ton payload may cost up to $2 million per unit.
Twin-turbine helicopters capable of flying 25 people and already in com-
mercial use cost about $600,000 to $800,000.

Thus, helicopters may be utilized in only specific operating conditions
where, for example, traffic density and congestion does not permit the
operation of collection vehicles at an acceptable pick-up and transport
performance level.

The long-distance transportation of bulk materials is primarily the domain
of railroads and barges. Comparing in turn the spatial service restraints of
barges and railroads one finds that railroads are more ubiquitous. Thus
railroads offer more options in terms of both the communities and people
to be served directly and the selection of diverse disposal sites. Railroads are
also capable of moving large tonnages, generally up to 150 tons per vehicle,
and thousands of tons per train, at high speeds. However, the District is
situated along the Anacostia and Potomac rivers. Depending upon land
reclamation opportunities along the river or the advancement of ocean
disposal techniques, barges might provide waste removal service, perhaps
for a selected part of the materials such as demolition wastes.

To give an order of magnitude for the ton-mile cost of barging, it may
be stated that depending upon the number of barges being towed, speed,
upstream or downstream transport of wastes, the ton-mile cost may range
from $0.005 to $0.025.


p.d B              TRANSPORT@ION SYSTEMS

85

Barges cost about $90 per ton of carrying capacity. The most commonly
used barge is about 195 feet long and 35 feet wide and has about a 3-foot
draft. However, there are also jumbo barges which are considered most
efficient for large-scale operations because they have a carrying capacity
from 1,000 to 1,500 tons. In evaluating barge cost as well as highway and
air transport cost, one must recognize of course, that a significant share of
the actual transportation cost is borne by the national investment in each
form of transportation.

Railroads, of course, have a varied experience in the mass transport of
materials and the corresponding loading and unloading of cars. Goods are
handled through roll-on/roll-off, lift-on/lift-off containers through unitiz-
ing or the stacking of containers, through gravity loading or unloading, and
through hydraulic or pneumatic pressure. Railroads are characterized by
a high fixed investment in trackage while the rolling stock needed for the
handling of refuse might be relatively inexpensive. A covered hopper car
capable of carrying a payload of about 80 tons costs about $25,000. Rail
transportation costs depend, of course, to a large degree, upon the tonnage
hauled. Recent proposals made for the hauling of refuse over a distance of
80 to 100 miles quote a rail rate of $2.75 per ton at the rate of 1,000 tons
per day and $2.15 at 3,000 tons per day. The latter is based on the use of
three transfer stations, but excludes the transfer and disposal costs.

Transfer stations appear to be. the key to the "long-distance" transport
of refuse since the loading operations start the long-distance section of a
transport system. Transfer stations can be designed as stationery or mobil
units and they might utilize a variety of material handling techniques such
as conveyors, presses and rams, pumps, air power systems, vibrators, con-
tainers including the corresponding loading and unloading devices, the
air-cushion handling of unitized loads, automated storage and retrieval of
containers including dockside prepositioning devices and the necessary
instrumentation such as weighing and identification devices to aid manage-
ment in running the system at peak efficiency, Depending upon the equip-
ment used and the amount of refuse to be handled transfer stations may
require investments from $80,000 up to $1 million excluding land cost.
Operating cost, of course, vary with the volume. A recent'railroad proposal
estimated the transfer station cost at $0.42 per ton at a handling volume
of 500 tons daily and at $0.22 per ton at a 1,5OO-ton daily volume.

Finally, almost everyone is familiar with the U.S. truck and trailer systems.
The existing state of technology offers vehicles capable of carrying 120,000-lb
payloads. But few states permit these .60-ton payload rigs on their roads,


86

BUGHER             Pvocredings

and highways designed to carry heavier loads will be required if greater
loads are to be carried by this mode of transportation.

Gross operating cost per vehicle mile for gasoline and diesel engine
powered trailer combinations range from about $0.35 at a loaded gross
weight of about 22,000 pounds to about $0.65 at 120,000 pounds and
$0.90 at 180,000 pounds. The average payload for a 22,000-pound trailer
combination is about 7 tons; for 120,000 pounds loaded gross weight, about
40 tons; and for 180,000 pounds, about 60 tons. The cost per ton-mile for
freight-hauling trailer combinations, traveling at a minimum average speed
of 50 mph, range from about $0.05 to about $0.015 if the trailers are
fully loaded. Trailer combinations, of course, are a, means for long distance
hauling and total transport system cost must include the transfer station
cost as well as the local collection cost. The transportation cost, excluding
depreciation of equipment, of a typical 18- to 22-cubic-yard packer truck
carrying from 3 to 4 tons of compacted refuse, is estimated at $0.35 to $0.40
per mile.

The available basic means of transportation offer a large number of appli-
cation alternatives for refuse material handling and transport systems. Local
waste piping systems, for example, might be integrated with railroad tank
cars. Helicopters may be used in conjunction with railroad or highway
vehicles. Each system, of course, can be operated independent of the other.
The coordinated management of transportation systems might lead to salvage
.opportunities which will not exist if wastes continue to be handled by a
multiplicity of small-scale operations.

In the end: of course, every solution will be a local solution. Today's
existing and potential available technology offers many alternatives for
imaginative applications. Not all solutions will cost out the same, and
economics must play an important role in system acceptability. But cost
and objectives are relative and vary from locale to locale. What may be
prohibitive for one area might provide the very remedy for another area.

In conclusion, I would like to commend the equipment manufacturers
for the ingenuity they have displayed in developing new and improved
products to serve this important field of activity. The Solid Wastes Act of
1965 has helped to generate the kind of constructive thinking that will,
I am sure, lead to some significant breakthroughs in the development of new
concepts, as well as, the application of technology used in other fields to
the age-old problem of handling and disposing of solid wastes.


LAND RECLAMATION

Frank R. Bowerman *

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. Ladies and gentlemen: 1 would like t0
direct my comments this morning toward the theme that has grasped me
with increasing conviction during these past 20 years of fairly CROSS familiar-
ity \vith solid wastes problems.  That theme is that solid wastes can be
considered an asset, rather than a liability if we will only release our thinking
from older stereotyped patterns. A profound change occurs in our con-
sideration of solid wastes when we turn from an assessment of the problems
attendant upon routine collection and disposal, and start thinking about
the potential solutions that can be found in the imaginative and construc-
tive use of solid wastes. Some of these potential solutions lie in sanitary
landfilling. That is the focus of my discussion this morning. But that is not
to say that we cannot find plus values for solid wastes in other areas of
disposal: For example, the recovery of waste heat from incineration; the
obtaining of useful humus for soil building through composting; and the
salvage and recovery for further use of metals, glass, rags, and other dis-
cards from our affluent society: Note how different our approach becomes
when we start to consider the possibilities that lie in such planning. I would
very much hope that the theme of this conference becomes much more
than a consideration of the problems and solutions for solid wastes manage-
ment in the District of Columbia;, rather, that the conference direct its
attention toward the optimization of solid wastes management here and in
the region surrounding the District, so that this area becomes the national
showcase for solid wastes management and points the way for the rest
of our nation. Is this an impossible dream? I don't think so. We dreamed
a dream in Los Angeles County in 1949 and by 1956, some seven years
later. we had converted that dream into a reality. You see, dreams only
provide the challenge; it is hard work and perseverance that provide the
reality. But dreams can become real, and I'd like to show you by way of
some slides the simple but effective techniques that I helped develop in using
sanitary landfilling for the construction of parks, golf courses, and botanic
gardens in Southern California.

One of our prime criteria was that the sanitary landfills would be operated
just as though they were a private business. Governmental agencies can

* .4ssistant to the Vice-President - Development. Aerojet-Ceneral Corporation.
Mr. Bowerman's entire presentation was made while using slides for illustration.

87


88

BOWERMAN             Proceedings

do this if they set their minds to it. In our case, each of the sites became
self-sufficient through the charging of prices for disposal. The hours were
established just as with any business establishment. In the interest of the
people around the various landfills we closed on Sundays, so that there
would not be any activity on those weekend days when most refuse collection
activities have ceased. The hours of opening were such as to protect the
people during the evening and early morning hours against the noise that
comes from a sanitary landfill. Each site has its own weigh-scale facilities,
so that the charges are assessed directly on a tonnage basis. A distinction
was made between "difficult-to-handle" materials, such as tree trunks, re-
frigerators and the like; the price for that is double the normal price.
Currently in Los Angeles County the cost for refuse disposal is $1.25 per
ton - that's the charge, not the cost; most of the large landfills in Los
Angeles County are operating at costs of around 60 to 70 cents per ton,
including overhead and all charges. So these are actually making money;
government makes a profit. But the Sanitation Districts commit that profit
back to a useful public purpose and the moneys which are surplus to the
needs of the operation are being put into a reserve fund for buying more
land as the existing landfills are used up. At the larger landfills there are
two, and in one case at a very large landfill, three, weigh-scales, since if
the customer is to be well served he must be provided with the means for
prompt weighing. We cannot have costly collection vehicles and drivers
standing in long lines of traffic waiting to be served.

The L. A. County Sanitation Districts have specially designed transfer-
trailer rigs for use at their transfer station. A diesel tractor pulls a semi-
trailer which in turn pulls a full trailer. The two trailers are identical, the
second one being converted from a semi- to full trailer by the use of a dolly.
These units can carry up to 24 tons per trip, and the present state of eco-
nomics in Los Angeles, and I would guess that it's not far different in the
Washington area, is that by the use of this transfer equipment, remote
landfill sites up to 50 miles distant from the transfer station, can be used
economically as compared with costs for incineration. By that I mean a 50-
mile trip out and a .50-mile trip back is about the breakpoint in Southern
California for comparing the costs for transfer and landfill with the current
costs for incineration. You see this extends the possibility for sanitary land-
filling to a very large area.

The basic operation at Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts' Landfills
calls for the dumping of the solid wastes at the base of the hill; the hill is
created artificially at the commencement of the operation. By pushing the
. material upward, the bulldozer tracks grind, pulverize and compact the


~ml B                   LAND RECLAMATION                    89

material much more effectively than if the material is placed on the top and
the bulldozer simply runs over the larger, deeper mass. Good landfilling
practice requires each day's operation to be sealed tightly with an earth
cover of at least one-foot thickness. For areas that are to be left for a year
or more between filling, two feet of earth cover are placed and for a final
cover, where the operation is to be terminated with a golf course or a park
or arboretum, three feet of earth are placed. as final cover.

The piece of equipment that is standard on the Districts' sanitary land-
fills is the Caterpillar D-8 bulldozer or its equivalent. The operator is fur-
nished an air-conditioned helmet. This has a small cooling and heating
unit attached to a flexible piece of hose that leads into- a helmet which
serves as a safeguard as well as to prevent the breathing of dusty air. It has
been a very important factor in the operation and has protected the men
against a number of otherwise bad injuries.

At the larger sites, a number of bulldozers, which weigh about 25 tons
apiece, are used, and the operators become very skilled in their performance.
It is necessary to go through a training period to show the men how to
operate the equipment in this type of environment. It is different than the
normal type of earthmoving. Many different types of vehicles are serviced
at sanitation district landfills. Los Angeles County sites may be a little
more difficult to operate than most of the municipal operations because they
are open to the general public. When Jane and John Doe come in with a
trailer load of material, they may occupy the dumping space for quite a
hit of time while they push the wastes off with a shovel; special provisions
must be made at a public site, which is open to everyone, as compared to
municipal sites where the truckloads arrive in 3- to 5-ton lots.

The Mission Canyon Landfill site is in one of the finest residential areas
in that part of Los Angeles. Homes have been constructed on undisturbed
land and the fill is being carried on in the immediately adjacent area. It is
interesting that the landfill was in operation before any nearby homes came
into existence. When this site was planned, ridges of land were deliberately
left in the hands of the private subdividers, because they were far too ex-
pensive for the Districts' purposes and earth was not needed for cover. When
these pieces of land were subdivided, the question arose as to whether they
would be readily saleable. The answer is that the subdividers sold most of
those parcels of land at prices upwards of $35,000 per lot, averaging about
three lots per acre, and the homes that have been constructed on these
lots are in the $75,000- to $125,000-class. These homes immediately over-
look a sanitary landfill. It sounds incredible but homeowners are well aware


90

BOWERMAN             Proceedings

of the fact that the planned use for this site - and the plan is actually in
the form of a legal document which cannot be revoked - is the finished
landfill will become a golf course, and the residents will have a beautiful
view lot overlooking the golf course. The golf course will be terraced and
interesting terrain will be provided so that the golfer won't have an easy
go of it; that will be done after the plans are finished for the ultimate golf
course configuration.

There are probably about 35 different cities using this sanitation dis-
trict's sites at present. In order to make use of some canyon sites, access
roads have to be built and they should be well maintained. Pipelines with
high pressure water supply are essential for keeping down the dust and for
fire protection. A basic earth mover is a twin-powered scraper - these are
rubber-tired so that they can move rapidly and can carry a lot of dirt with
just one driver. A water-wagon (6,000-gallon capacity) with a nozzle on
the front and sprinklers on the front and rear is used for keeping down the
dust, for fire prevention and for keeping papers from blowing around. It is
very important that rainfall drainage be provided. Completed portions of
the fill should have adequate surface drainage to keep the rainfall from
percolating down through the rubbish and maintain it in a drier condition.
One of the Sanitation Districts' finished landfills is now called the South
Coast Botanic Garden. `Before the commencement of the fill the bottom
of the mined-out pit was actually 100 feet below street level. The plan called
`for the reestablishing of an original ridge line, and there is now a total of
about 140 feet of fill. Homes were on one side of the street at the time that
the landfill started; there were vociferous protests, but those same people
are now very good friends of the Sanitation Districts and happy to have a
botanic garden across the street instead of an old mined-out pit. One of the
"bonuses" built at one of the more remote sites was an overnight camping
facility along the side of the road. When you give people proof of a plus
benefit, it rather sugarcoats the entire proposal. In this case there was an
approximate lo-acre roadside rest camp provided to show the people in the
area that the District had good intentions and that the ultimate use of the
landfill would be for park purposes. People don't want to wait until the land-
filling is all done before they get some use of the property. Many people
don't trust government anyhow, thus it's just as well that you show them
right at the beginning that you're honest ! At another site two "little league"
ball diamonds have been constructed on a landfill in the center of a large
canyon; only a portion of the canyon had been filled at the time and the
ballparks were built in order to get that area under use without waiting for
the' entire canyon to be filled, since the complete filling of that very large


panel B                   LAND RECLAMATION                    91

canyon was estimated to take another fifteen years. When the fill is com-
piet.ed the ball diamonds will have been covered up and no longer useable,
but two 18-hole golf courses will be provided on the final surface. Since
the city of Glendale owned the canyon site, the Districts worked out an
arrangement whereby they leased the property at a 25 cents-per-ton charge.
During the life of the operation of the sanitary landfill at this site, the
City of Glendale will net 3.75 million dollars from their part of the charges
for disposal. The city has ,been willing to commit, in writing, those funds
to the construction of the future regional park to be built at the location.

As part of the public relations efforts, the Districts conducted Rotary and
Kiwanis Club luncheons, right on the surface of the fill with the operation
being conducted in the background. The men enjoyed it and were com-
pletely convinced that the operation was innocuous. These men went back
into their community and convinced other people that the operation was
just as had been promised.

On one of the hills in Los Angeles County a landslide occurred and three
homes were destroyed. The lots on which those homes rested slid down into
the bottom of the small canypn. The people further up the canyon were
worried that the same thing would happen to their homes. As a result, the
City staff and District engineers obtained from these people free access
rights to their backyards for sanitary fill purposes.

By landfilling the canyon, the people obtained security against further
landslides, as well as usable backyards. The only thing that the property
owners contributed other than the use of their property was that they each
chipped in about $100 per lot to buy the drainage pipe that was installed
for draining rainwater through the canyon. It's an area with a good many
horse lovers, and so a good number of the backyards were converted into
corrals. There are many many instances where such things can be done, and
once you have done one or two, then the invitations start rolling in asking
YOU to assist in other such operations. It's a good partnership between
government and citizens.

In order to make sure that the landfills did not contaminate the ground
water, the State Water Quality Control Board in cooperation with a local
sanitary engineering firm conducted a study on gases and percolating
effluents. A full-scale test was made using various materials to "seal off"
simulated disposal sites. In going from laboratory to full scale, a pit was
dug in the ground, lined with burlap and then lined with polyvinyl chloride
plastic sheets. Gas probes were placed down through the polyvinyl into the

283-399 O-67-1


92

BOWERMAN            Proceedings

outer area; also gas probes were placed inside so that a check could be made
on the difference in the concentrations of gas. The pit was then filled with
refuse in a normal compaction procedure; that test was a failure. When we
dug down to find out why the gas concentration was as high outside as
inside, we found that one thing that had been overlooked was that as the
material settled, it stretched the polyvinyl, scratching the sidewalls and
perforating the plastic. So, back to the drawing boards and the next attempt
produced much better results with an asphaltic material. I confidently pre-
dict that with more development we will come up with ways and means of
making sanitary landfills secure in almost any type of a ground water
environment.

In conclusion, may I respectfully suggest that the technologies that are
available today are ever so much better than in 1949 when we set out to
develop a countywide program in Los Angeles County. Then we had to
cut and fit as we went along; today, a wealth of know-how exists, ready and
waiting to be applied. Can we not dream another dream? Is it possible
that from the fires and ashes of Kenilworth will rise, like the phoenix bird,
a system for solid wastes management that will be the pride and not the
disgrace of our beautiful capital city?


REFUSE REDUCTION PROCESSES

Elmer R. Kaiser *

THE SOLID WASTES of our society comprise two basic types, which can be
distinguished at the outset. The first, which we call refuse is the household,
trade, and industrial waste which contains organic combustible matter and
usually a lesser but important fraction of noncombustibles, such as glass,
ceramics, metals and mineral matter (ash). This paper relates to the reduc-
tion in volume and weight of such material. A second . . . important type
that will be excluded from discussion, but which is nevertheless an associ-
ated municipal problem, we call rubble, such as broken pavement, concrete,
stone, bricks and excavation materials. Such material is sufficiently devoid
of organic or putrescible matter as not to require processing beyond trans-
portation and compaction at suitable sites. A third type, excluded for the
present purpose, is the metal scrap that normally moves to scrap processors
for recycling in the metal trades.

The refuse of a metropolitan area of the size and population of the Dis-
trict of Columbia is so voluminous that reduction in volume is basic to any
practical method of disposal. Reduction in weight is secondary. Reduction
in both volume and weight is ideal. This paper treats the subject without
special reference to any specific urban area.

A community's refuse varies daily, weekly, and seasonally within important
limits, and should be investigated for specific areas. However, much can be
learned from a near-average mixture, as the principles of waste reduction
apply broadly and can be adapted to given situations.

The composition of a municipal refuse, which represents average condi-
tions, at least for an East Coast area, is presented in Table I. The data were
obtained by hand sorting of 4 lots of 1,500 to 2,000 lb each, taken at
different times of the year from an incinerator plant bunker. They have
been found to compare closely with data from other U.S. sources.

The daily solid wastes collected from residences, parks, trade and in-
dustrial establishments may be considered to weigh 150 lb per cubic yard
(5.5 lb per cu ft) in receptacles or piles, prior to loading into vehicles.
This is a good base point to begin a discussion of reduction processes, be-
cause it is from this point on that the refuse leaves the public or customers
to be served.

* Senior Research Scientist, Department of Chemical Engineering, New York Uni-
versity, Bronx, New York.

93


94

KNSER

EXAMPLE REFUSE COMPOSITION IN WEIGHT PERCENT

Cardboard                   7
Newspaper
Miscellaneous paper     ::
Plastic film
Leather, molded plastics, rubber  f
Garbage                   12
Grass and dirt                10
Textiles                     3
WOOd                       7
Glass, ceramics, stones           10
Mctallics                    8

    Total          100

Assuming 4.5 lb waste per capita day, a generally .accepted figure, the
volume at the source of such.waste from a community of one million per-
sons is 30,000 cubic yd per day.

Compaction-type vehicles will temporarily reduce the volume depending
on the pressures produced, because the air voids in the refuse charged to
the vehicles are about 95 percent of the space occupied. Compaction in the
vehicles is ordinarily not over a factor of 2 or 3 because of the forces re-
quired. The vehicles then deliver the refuse to reduction sites or plants,
where partial restoration to the initial volume results from unloading.

REDUCTION PROCESSES

Refuse reduction is practiced by several processes: ( 1) Open burning at
dump sites; (2) Burning in conical metal chambers; (3) Landfilling, sani-
tary or otherwise; (4) Composting, with sale of compost; (5) Inciner-
ation without heat recovery; (6) Incineration with heat recovery.

On a pilot scale, at least one municipal plant in Demark is pyrolyzing
the refuse by destructive distillation to reduce it and to produce useful
products.

To the extent that salvaging of solids is practiced in conjunction with each
of these processes, or the conversion of the solid residue of burning to useful
products, the reduction of refuse is enhanced. In each case, solid matter is
left for disposal by burial.

         Open Burning at Dump Sites
The reduction of refuse volume and weight by open burning is practiced
today where public and private funds have not been provided for more
acceptable methods. The objections are numerous. The practice results in


panel B                REFUSE REDUCTION PROCESSES                 95

serious air pollution from smoke, fly ash, noxious gases and vapors, and
odors.' The combustion of organics in the residue is not complete, leaving
putrescible matter for decay, as food for vermin, rodents and birds. The
fires are influenced by wind and rain; they smoulder for long periods, if
not continually, depending on how well they are managed and on restric-
tions as to the type of material burned.

Because of the lack of complete burnout of the solids, incomplete decrepi-
tation of glass bottles, little or no melting of aluminum articles, etc. the
resulting residue would probably be 35 percent of the weight of the example
refuse. The reduction in volume is hence not so complete as might other-
wise be possible.

Variations of open burning are in use, such as in dish-shaped excavations,
and even in refractory-lined pits, the latter with a system of overfire air
no7zles. Modern air pollution criteria cannot be met by such methods
as fundamental laws of combustion, heat transfer, and fluid mechanics
are violated.

Open burning of refuse has been outlawed by six states and should be
replaced by sanitary procedures.

Burning in Conical Metal Chambers

A number of conical metal burners have been installed in the United
States to burn sawmill wastes, industrial and municpal rubbish. These
burners are low in first cost and' are an improvement over open burning
because they confine the burning zone and prevent paper from blowing
around the site.*

A high excess of air is introduced into the chambers to prevent temper-
atures that would be destructive to the metal shell and liner, and to the
screen at the top where the combustion gases are emitted to the atmosphere.
Forced air is supplied under the burning pile in the chamber, when the units
are so equipped.

Because of the limited temperatures, and the direct path of the gases
and entrained particles to the outside, the result is more smoke and fly ash
than can be tolerated in populated areas. The reduction in refuse weight
and volume can be greater than by open burning, depending on the care
exercised in managing the fire. However, where the noncombustibles are
allowed to accumulate and choke the porosity of the burning pile, and where
quenching with water is used to expedite removal of the residue, some
combustibles will be present.


96                           KAISER

Pfocce&agr

Recently, one or more conical burners have been equipped with gas
washers to trap fly ash from the gases. This is a step in the right direction,
the evaluation of which will be of interest.

Sanitary Landfilling

The deposition of refuse in or on an engineered site, followed by com-
paction with tractors, and later by soil cover, results in a density of 750
to 900 lb per cubic yard. The densities vary, as would be expected, with the
amount of bulky refuse with a high void content. Assuming 900 lb per cubic
yard, the daily refuse from one million inhabitants would occupy a volume of
5,000 cubic yards or 3.1 acre feet. The refuse volume in landfill is thus one-
sixth of the volume it had when it left the generating source, while the
weight remains essentially the same. The total for the year would be a
volume of 1,130 acre-feet or a 45-acre plot filled 25 feet deep.

Of course, it is possible to build a hill with sides sloped to 20 to 25 de-
grees, as is being done near Frankfurt, Germany, with trees planted on the
slopes, and with a restaurant and viewing area at the top. The 15-year
accumulation of refuse from one million inhabitants would build such a hill
in the shape of a 150-foot truncated cone, with top 404 feet in diameter
and base of 1,130 feet in diameter. Cover material would be extra, but would
probably be excavated at the site. This example is offered to illustrate the
magnitude of waste accumulation, and not as a proved solution to the
problem.
              Corn posting

The degradation of the organic fraction of municipal refuse by bacterial
action may be classed as a reduction process, The weight loss of organic
solids is about 40 percent through its partial conversion to carbon dioxide
and water vapor, which diffuse harmlessly into the atmosphere.s"

Wood, rubber, plastics, oily rags, metals, glass, stones, and minerals are
not altered and are removed, more or less, from the material to be composed
or from the final product.

The process depends for economics upon a market for the compost as
a soil conditioner or humus. Composted refuse is not fertilizer because of its
' low nitrogen content, but it is useful in farming and horticulture. The
experience to date here and abroad is that the market will accept limited
tonnages, but not nearly as much as can be produced from the refuse of
a large metropolitan area.

As a reduction process, composting is in a special category. Magnetic
devices, picking belts and products sieves remove noncompostable reject


Pdnel B                REFUSE REDUCTION PROCESSES                 97

materials which are disposable in landfill sites. Depending on the process,
more or less of the sand, ash, glass and plastics appear in the final product
in shredded or ground material. The volume occupied by the uncomposted
residue depends on the weight, degree of shredding, and compaction. The
l.olume will be at least as much as from a good refuse combustion process,
both considered on the same basis of no salvage.

Incineration

Incineration is a refuse reduction process, the objective of which is to
convert refuse moisture and organics to normal components of the atmos-
phere by enclosed and controlled combustion. The primary products are
chimney gases consisting of carbon dioxide (CO,), water vapor (H,O) , and
nitrogen (N) , and a solid residue of glass, ceramics, metals and mineral ash.
Escess air supplied for complete combustion, consisting of nitrogen, oxygen
and water vapor, passes through the incinerator and exits with the gaseous
products of combustion. The carbon dioxide and water vapor from the
combustion of the cellulose and other organic matter thus return to the
ecological cycle from which they came.

It should be remembered that plants are the source of wood, paper, food,
textiles and organic matter, and that plants require atmospheric carbon
dioxide and rain water for growth. Whether by combustion or natural
decay, essentially the same amount of CO2 and H,O are recycled to nature.

The chemical and thermal processes by which reduction is achieved
through combustion is readily explained by a few simple tabulations. The
refuse composition of Table I becomes the refuse analysis of Table II below:

     TABLE II

TYPICAL REFUSE ANALYSIS

Weight,
percent

Lb per ton
of refuse

Moisture
Carbon
Hydrogen
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Sulfur
Glass, ceramics, etc.
Metals
Ash, other inerts

The calorific valve (HHV) :

   28.0         560
   25.0         500
    3.3          66
   21.1         422
    0.5           10
    0.1           2
    9.3         186
    7.2          144
    5.5          110

   100.0       2,000
4500 British thermal units (BTU)
ner nound.


98

KAISER

Proceedings

In a well designed and operated U.S. incinerator, the refuse is burned
on moving grates in refractory-lined furnaces with ample air supplies both
through and over the, burning bed of refuse. Furnace temperatures are
controlled in the 1,400 to 1,800 F range, with temperatures in the bed of up
to 2,500 F.

The ingredients that join in the combustion process include refuse,
stoichiometric air, 200 percent excess air, and air moisture, in the amounts
shown in Table III. Part of the excess air enters the system after the
primary combustion chamber.

            TABLE III

INPUT FOR COMBUSTION AT 200 PERCENT EXCESS AIR

Lb per ton refuse

Refuse, mixed        2,000
Dry air           18,930
Air moisture            250

Total lb

21,180

The refuse moisture is evaporated during the initial stage, after which
ignition proceeds through the charge. Combustion and distillation occur in
the burning layer, with over 96 percent completion of combustion in the
gas space above and beyond. Even the metals present are partly oxidized,
with corresponding gain in weight.5 The resulting products, including pri-
mary products, air contaminants and unburned carbon, are listed in Table
IV below:

                         TABLE IV

                     PRODUCTS OF INCINERATION

Stack Gases

Lb/ton

Volume, cf

Dry vol, %

Carbon dioxide    =   1,738        14,856          6.05
Sulfur dioxide     =      1             6      (22
Carbon monoxide  =     10           135    ;P;)
Oxygen         =   2,980        35,209      14:32
Nitrogen oxides    =      3            23
Nitrogen         =  14,557       195,690   W7gPg'
  Total dry gas      19,289       245,919         100.00
Water vapor        1,400        29,424
   Total          20,689       275,343
Solids, dry basis
  Grate residue          471
Collected fly ash         17
Emitted fly ash          3
                  -
Grand total, lb per ton
`of refuse         21,180


panel B                REFUSE REDUCTION PROCESSES

99

Hence, the 2,000 lb of refuse is reduced to 488 lb, of which 21 lb or 4.3
percent is carbonaceous char and other combustibles. Putrescible matter
should be under one percent of the residue.

Volume Reduction by Incineration

The ton of refuse had a volume of 13.3 cubic yard ( 150 lb/cubic yd) at
the generating source. As the result of compaction in the collection trucks,
and later when loaded into the 25- to 30-foot deep bunkers of the municipal
incinerator, the refuse volume decreased to 5.7 cubic yards (350 lb/cu yd) .
The loose incinerator residue of 488 lb (dry basis) leaving the furnaces
occupies about 1.0 cubic yard, of which 75 percent is the volume of the
tin cans, wire and metallic items. The residue is saturated with water from
quenching, which merely adds weight but not volume.

When the residue is deposited in landfill, compacted by tractor in the
usual manner and left for a year, the tin cans disintegrate to rust. The final
bulk density is 2,700 lb per cubic yard of dry matter.8 Allowing for the gain
in weight of the metal converted to oxide, the residue from the original ton
of refuse occupies 523/2,700 =, 0.194 cubic yard. The material contains
voids because of the granular nature of .glass shards, fused clinker, loose ash
with a minor amount of combustibles.

The volume reduction by incineration is indeed impressive. Starting with
2.000 lb of refuse, the comparable volumes are indicated below:

                   As collected     Raw refuse    Incinerated and
                       at source      landfilled    residue landfilled

       Cu vd           13.3          2.22        0.194
       Vol ratio         68.5          11.5         1.0

Where incineration leaves more unburned matter in the residue than the
4.3 percent allowed for in this example, the residue volume is greater and
the volume ratios less favorable. The ratio is also influenced directly by the
proportion of inerts in the refuse.

Metals salvaging from the incinerator residue is practiced at some in-
cinerators, with shipments of the shredded tin cans to the copper industry.
In France and Germany, the steel is baled and sold to the blast furnaces,
where it is converted to molten pig iron. The residual tin content has
discouraged the U.S. steel industry from purchasing such scrap.

The nonmetallic fraction of the residue can be sintered into concrete
aggregate, as is done in Berlin-Ruhleben, but such material must ordinarily


100

compete with stone and sand. A sized fraction of the residue grit would
also be useful for sanding streets during icy weather.

Attention is called to the demonstrated possibility of oxidizing and melting
the incinerator residue.' The glass component is liquid at 1,800 F and most
of the ash is molten at 2,350 F. The mutual solution of the oxide assists
the melting process. The molten magma can be flowed into simple molds
to harden into large pieces with a density of 2.40. When the slag stream
is run into water, a coarse black glassy sand is produced, which would have
use as a road or concrete aggregate. The bulk density of this glassy sand is
1.47 lb per cubic foot (2,500 lb per cu yd) . The bulk density of a 50-50
weight mixture of larger and smaller aggregates is about 102 lb per cubic
foot (2,760 lb per cu yd) uncompacted.

We thus have the technical possibilities for reducing to nil the volume
of land required for incinerator residue.  Economic factors will control the
ultimate solution in any area.

Air Pollution Control of Large Incinerators

Incinerators of over one ton per hour input employ forced underfire air
to develop economical rates of operation and effective operating temper-
atures. As the material burns the minerals are released as ash. Particles of
dust and bits of paper are carried upward and out of the primary combustion
chamber in amounts ranging from 10 to 40 lb per ton of refuse. About
half of the weight of these entrained solids is carbon, which largely burns
to carbon dioxide in secondary combustion zones and refractory-lined flues;
the remainder stays in suspension or is trapped.

The "filtering" of the solid particles from the final combustion gases is
usually preceded or accompanied by a gas cooling stage employing water
sprays, the addition of air, or both. The gases may take an irregular path
through sets of wetted baffles which trap dust. The gases may also be
swirled intensively in cyclonic dust collectors which remove solids from the
gases by centrifugal force. Gas scrubbing by intimate contact and turbulent
mixing with water is another method for efficient dust removal. In the
United States tests have been run in recent years with electrostatic precipita-
tors and bag filters, both highly effective in industrial applications. Electro-
`static precipitators of 98 to 99.5 i percent efficiency are used in many large
new incinerators in Europe. In other words, the means are available for
reducing incinerator dust emissions to meet the new dust-emission standards.

Referring again to our example refuse and incineration process, we
indicated a dust emission of 3 pounds per ton of refuse. Such determina-


pm1 B

REFUSE REDUCTION PROCESSES                 101

tions are made by actually sampling the flue gas in a scientific manner,
filtering the dust from the sampling stream, drying and weighing the dust,
and comparing the dust weight with the weight or volume of gas flowing.
Correction is made to a constant excess air content of the stack gases, so
that the comparison with a standard or results from other plants would
be on the same basis and thus meaningful. For this purpose the flue gas is
analyzed for the volumetric proportions of the principal gases.

The example dust loading may be expressed in several equivalent ways:

Lb per ton of refuse charged   =   3.0 lb

Lb per 1,000 lb actual flue gas
corrected to 50% excess air  =   0.270

Grains per cu ft of actual flue
gas at 50% excess air, 68 F,
29.92 in. Hg             =   0.139

Milligrams per cubic meter at
0 deg C, 760 mm Hg and
7.0 percent COn          =   211

U.S. dust emissions standards rake from 0.85 to 0.20 lb per 1,000 lb of
Rue gas at 50 percent excess air. The standard applicable throughout West
Germany is 150 mg per standard cubic meter, which is equivalent to 0.192 lb
per 1,000 lb of flue gas at 50 percent excess air, or 0.099 grains per cubic
foot. To meet the West German standard, the example incinerator would
have to have a dust emission of 2.13 lb per ton of refuse.

The more restrictive new U.S. and European standards can be met by
the use of electrostatic precipitators, gas scrubbers, arid bag filters of high
cfficicncy. Such equipment has been in industrial use for years. Gas
scrubbers have been applied to several large incinerators. It is expected
that electrostatic precipitators will soon be installed on incinerators in this
country.

European Incinerator Art

In Europe under conditions of high fuels costs, lower labor costs, and a
high technological level of construction and plant operation, as well as the
desire to conserve land area, the incinerator art has flourished since 1962.
The objective of reducing refuse to minimum volume has been combined
with the desires for heat economy and low air pollutipn. The combination
is mutually assisting. As a member of the U.S. Study Team of June-July,
1967, led by Mr. Leo Weaver, Chief of the Solid Wastes Program, Public
Health Service, it was my privilege to see several of these plants. Descrip-


102

KAISER              Proceedings

tions and technical information are also available in several excellent papers
published by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers in the proceed-
ings of the 1964 and. 1966 National Incinerator Conferences.

These new-type refuse reduction plants consist of refuse receiving pits,
cranes with grapples to elevate the refuse to hoppers, stoker-fired boilers,
electrostatic precipitators to trap the flue dust, and chimneys 260 to 390
feet high.

Because of the water-tubed furnaces, the refuse can be burned with 1.6
times the stoichiometric air, instead of 3 times as in U.S. practice; the weight
and volume of flue gas to be cleaned is reduced considerably. The cooling
of the gases to 500 to 600 F in the boiler-superheater-economizer contracts
the gas `volume without the addition of spray water. The electrostatic pre-
cipitators, although large, are half the volume that would be required
without the boiler.a The precipitators are guaranteed at 98 to 99 percent
collection efficiency, with test results exceeding guarantees. Finally, the
gases are dispersed from high chimneys.

The steam generated is used for the production of electric power and for
district heating, in conjunction with the local electric utility. For district
heating, high-pressure hot water can also be produced for circulation
through mains. U.S. refuse is lower in moisture and ash, higher in calorific
value, and hence capable of generating more steam per ton of refuse.

American Incinerator Art

The U.S. incinerator art is on the threshold of a rapid evolution to meet
rising requirements for capacity to consume refuse, better plant appearance,
low emission of odor and air pollutants, minimum putrescibles in the residue,
and less effluent water. The possibilities for steam and power generation
from refuse are being restudied. The disposal of incinerator residue, salvage
of metals, and utilization of residue are also under investigation. The plants
will be more highly engineered, and will require better control and operating
personnel to match. Close engineering ties are maintained with European
progress.

The burning of oversized burnable waste with or without prior shredding
is being developed. Trees, furniture, pallets, mattresses, truck and auto tires,
and demolition lumber reduce to even less final residue volume than does
the equivalent weight of normal refuse.

A major stimulation is the Solid Wastes Program of the Public Health
Service. Through research and demonstration grants, conferences, educa-


Panel B                REFUSE REDUCTION PROCESSES

103

tional and field efforts, and allied activities, new advances and trained
personnel are resulting.

AS public officials and the general public become aware of the long-range
implications and opportunities of waste management programs, larger capital
investments will become available for incineration plants and allied facilities.
The regional approach to waste disposal will lead to larger and better in-
cinerators. Engineers look forward to the opportunity to design plants which
are in the long-range interest of the public, rather than to satisfy minimum
first cost. The total annual cost of refuse incineration will thereby not
cscced about $6 per inhabitant served.

Destructive Distillation and Gasification of Refuse

Esperimentation here and abroad indicates that the organic matter in
municipal refuse can be converted to gaseous, liquid and solid products by
heating to 1,300 to 1,500 F out of contact with air. After the distillation of
the moisture, the organic matter is converted to roughly equal weight per-
centages of water vapor, gases, liquids and char.

In descending order of volumes, the fixed gases are mainly CO,, CO, CH,
plus higher hydrocarbons, hydrogen, and nitrogen. The liquids range from
alcohols to tars. The char is primarily carbon and ash.D

Refuse can also be gasified in a deep bed gas producer supplied by air
at less than half the stoichiometric combustion requirement.

Pilot-scale work is in progress to determine yields and costs. It is too
early for predictions of the outcome. However, as a method of reducing
waste, the residue would require the same landfill space as the residue from
incineration.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This paprr is a result of investigations conducted at New York University under
rrsrarch grant support of the Solid Wastes Program of the National Center for
Urban and Industrial Health of the U.S. Public Health Service, Grant NOS.
SWOOO27, SW00035 and SWOOO43. The Leonard S. Wegman engineering firm of
New York City kindlv provided incinerator illustrations used in the presentation of
the paper. The American Design and Development Corporation of Whitman, Mass.,
supplied slag samples for density determinations.

REFERENCES

1. Crrstle, R. W., and D. A. Kemnitz. Atmospheric emissions from open burning.
Paper 67-135. Presented by Air Pollution Control Association, Clevrland, June
16, 1967.

2. Kaiser, E. R., and J. Tolciss. Incineration of automobile bodies and bulky waste
materials. 111 American Public Works Association Yearbook. Chicago, American
Public Works Association, 1960. p. 178-192.


104

KAISER              Proceedings

3. Wiley, J. S., and 0. W. Kochtitzky. Composting developments in the United
States, Comport Science, 6(2) :5-9, Summer 1965.
4. Wiley, J. S. A discussion of cornposting of refuse with sewage sludge. In Amer-
ican Public Works Association Yearbook. Chicago, American Public Works Asso-
ciation, 1966. p. 198-201.

5. Kaiser, E. R. Combustion and heat calculations for incinerators. In Proceedings.
National Incinerator Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
1964, New York. p. 81-89.

6. Requardt, G. J., and W. M. Harrington, Jr.  Utilization of incinerator ash as
landfill cover material. In American Public Works Association Yearbook. Chicago.
American Public Works Association, 1962. p. 216-225.
7. Bump, R. L. The use of electrostatic precipitators for incinerator gas cleaning
in Europe. In Proceedings, National Incinerator Conference, American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, 1966. New York. p. 161-166.
8. Kaiser, E. R. Prospects for reducing particulate emissions from large incinerators.
Combusrion, 38(2) :27-29, Aug. 1966.

9. Kaiser, E. R., and S. B. Friedman. The pyrolysis of refuse components. Paper
to be presented at 60th Meeting, American Institute of Chemical Engineers. New
York, Nov. 26-30, 1967.


RECYCLlNG AND UTILIZATION

C. I. Harding *

MOST RECYCLING and utilization schemes involve some type of Salvage
and composting. A working definition of refuse composting is "the aerobic,
thermophilic degradation of putrescible material in refuse by micro-organ-
isms." There is no clear definition at this time of when a material becomes
"compost " nor is there any general agreement upon the composition of the
material which is referred to as compost. Operationally, the stabilized refuse
or compost should not go anaerobic during storage either in bags or in bulk.
I\`ith this crude criterion for what constitutes refuse compost we can examine
the bases for the various composting systems available today.

Anaerobic decomposition of waste materials has been practiced to produce
soil additi\.es in Asia for centuries. Aerobic cornposting has been practiced
in Europe since the 1920's and 1930's but the European practices are not
directly applicable to refuse composting in the United States because of the
difference of refuse composition in the two areas.1 Studies by Wiley 2 and
Schultze " showed that the majority of putrescible material in U.S. refuse
can be stabilized in five to seven days with aerated bin processes. This work
and subsequent commercial developments served as a basis for the selecting
of five to six days as the average decomposition time for the ground refuse
in U.S. mechanical composting processes. Windrow systems require a much
longer composting period. From two weeks to three months are required
for adequate stabilization of refuse in a windrow operation.

The temperature achieved during composting should exceed 140' F for
a minimum of four days to insure adequate stabilization. The refuse shouId
be ground to a particle size less than one inch, the moisture content of the
ground refuse should be increased to about 55 percent (based on total
weight) and the carbon-to-nitrogen ratio should be adjusted to approxi-
mately 40 for most rapid stabilization. Mixed refuse has a very high paper
content. The carbon-to-nitrogen ratio of this material can be expected to
exceed 70 most of the time. This requires the addition of either sewage
solids or nitrogen solutions to adjust the carbon-to-nitrogen ratio prior to
digestion.

Mixed refuse has a wide variation ;n chemical and physical composition.
Data on composition are found in the book entitIed Municipal Refuse

* Dr. Harding is Assistant Professor of Environmental Engineering at the Uni-
versity of Florida in Gainesville, Florida.

105


106                         HARDING

Proceedings

Disposal prepared jointly at APWA and APHA.4 Recently contracts have
been let by the Public Health Service for development of current data on
refuse composition and quantities. The composition data presented in
Table I is of primary interest to designers and operators of compost plants.

                      TABLE I
COMPOSITION OF MIXED REFUSE RECEIVED AT TWO MECHANICAL COMPOSTINC PLANTS
        (TARLE ENTRIES ARE WEIGHT PERCENTAGE)

  Component

Newsprint
Corrigated cardboard
Ferrous metal, total
Ferrous metal, cans
Ferrous metal, tramp
Rags
Noncompostable (tailings)
Compostable

Metrowaste plant '
Houston, Texas

     1.7
     0.5

     7.1
     1.8
     0.2
     2.1

    86.6

  IDC plant '
St. Petersburg, Florida
  Not separated
  Not separated
      10
       -
       -
  Not separated
      10

      80

U.S. COMPOSTING SYSTEMS

All composting operations can be broken into three basic steps: refuse
preparation; stabilization; and product upgrading. The preparation includes
receiving, sorting and salvaging operations, grinding, and the addition of
moisture and nitrogen. Stability or aerobic digestion can be accomplished
either in windrows in the open or in mechanical plants. Product upgrading
consists of grinding, enrichment, granulation, shipment, and marketing. The
details of refuse preparation, product upgrading and the composting systems
available will be discussed separately.

            Refuse Preparation
Some degree of hand and mechanical sorting of the incoming refuse is
required in any of the cornposting operations in use in the United States.
This sorting is required to remove noncompostable material, bulky items, and
items which may have some salvage value. Most U.S. systems use hand
picking from a slowly moving belt and magnetic separation of ferrous metals.
Some systems include inertial separation in an attempt to further separate
noncompostable items from the organic matter.

Grinding is required for efficient cornposting. This can be accomplished
in either hammermills, chainmills, a rasp type grinder, or with wet pulping
followed by screw-press dewatering. This latter method of grinding would
be successful with only one of the four types of cornposting systems in use
in the U.S. today. The power required to operate the grinders varies from


panel B                RECYCLING AND UTlLlZATlON                 107

:; to about 30 hp. per ton per hour grinder capacity. In most plants now
l,c*ing constructed, grinders are sized large enough to permit all grinding to
be accomplished on a one-shift operating basis. Thus the capacity of the
plant could be tripled by simply adding additional digester capacity and
operating the pre-and post-treatment units on a three-shift basis.

Figure 1 shows the inertial separation phase planned for the Gainesville
Compost Plant. The primary grinder is a Centriblast unit which does impart
a certain trajectory to the materials leaving the unit. A secondary, inertial
separation is imparted by the jet slinger located on the Centriblast exit. The
material leaving the Centriblast will then pass through magnetic separation.

Two stages of grinding are usually used. The first stage or coarse grinding
reduces particle size to about 2 to 3 inches. The second stage grinding
usually produces particle size of approximately 0.25 to 1 inch. After grind-
ing, the material is moistened with either sewage sludge, water or dilute
ammonium nitrate solution, then conveyed to the digestion phase.

Product Upgrading

The upgrading operations which follow digestion consist of some or all
of the following: curing, grinding, screening, pelletizing or granulating,
drying, magnetic separation, and bagging. Storage of refuse which has been
stabilized to compost by high temperature for 5 to 7 days results in a slow
curing or maturing process. This has the net result of producing a darker
color material with a shorter fiber length, both changes make the material
esthetically more desirable. Curing can be omitted in some plants providing
the carbon-to-nitrogen ratio is adjusted to insure that a minimum of 1.5 to
2 percent nitrogen will be in the material when it is used for agricultural
purposes. Most plants cure from 10 days to 2 months. When properly
stabilized by high-temperature cornposting the material can be piled 15
to 20 feet high and left without turning for up to six months without
going anaerobic. During this curing the temperature in the pile will remain
near 140" F. The material removed from this type of pile will be very dark
brown in color and should serve as an excellent soil conditioner or fertilizer
filler.

Granulation can be accomplished by use of a short granulator followed
by a dryer. The best example of an operating system of this type is found
in the Altoona, Pennsylvania, plant where an attractive granular product is
produced. The moisture content of the material as shipped in granular
form averages about 10 percent versus the 40 to 50 percent moisture which
is found in the run-of-the-plant compost produced in most other systems.

263-399 O-67-8


E

HEAD PULLEY

t-SECONDARY

FIGURE 1

Section through the grinders and ballistic separator at the Gainesville, Florida, Metrowastc plant.


p.dneI B                RECYCLING AND UTILIZATION                109

Windtow Composting

The new TVA-PHS Demonstration Compost Plant at Johnson City, Ten-
uessee, is of the windrow type. Refuse is brought into the plant, hand
sorted, ground in either a Williams hammermill or a Dorr Oliver rasping
machine, then is moistened and conveyed to the outdoor decomposition area
w,bere it is placed in windrows. The windrows are turned 5 to 10 times
with a Cobey-Windrow turner during about 5 weeks of cornposting. After
composting, the material is cured for 2 to 4 weeks. Windrow composting of
this type has been practiced successfully in many locations. This process
requires a moderately large area since the windrows are outside and the
material is retained on-site in discrete windrows from one to two months.
Calculations contained in Appendix A indicate that about 30 acres will be
required for a windrow plant to serve a city of 100,000 population. This
type of compost operation should be best suited for smaller cities with
adequate land available and around which there exists a strong market for
the compost produced.

Mechanical Composting Systems

Three mechanical systems have proved successful in composting U.S.
refuse. They are: the Fairfield system; the Intemationl Disposal Corpora-
tion (IDC) system (formerly known as the Naturizer system) ; and the
Mctrowaste system. The land required for these plants is much less than
that required for windrow plants of comparable capacity. A 5-acre site
should serve a city of 100,000 population.

The Fairfield System

A pilot plant which receives approximately 25 tons of segregated refuse
from the city of Altoona, Pennsylvania, has been operating using this type
of digestion equipment for several years. A schematic diagram of the process
is shown in Figure 2. A Williams hammermill is used as a primary grinder
with no prior hand sorting since trash and rubbish are supposedly collected
separately. The secondary grinding is done in a wet pulper or hydro pulper.
In this unit, sewage solids can be added as the moistening agent and the
filtrate from the screw press which follows the hydro pulper can be re-
turned to the sewage plant. A bar screen is located between the hydro
pulper and the screw press to remove film plastics, tin cans, and other non-
compostable items. The wet pulp at 55 percent moisture is fed into a
circular digester. This digester is the only one of the three mechanical
digesters mentioned in this paper which is a continuous process unit. Air
is blown through the perforated bottom to keep the mixture aerobic. Differ-
ing amounts of air are fed to various sections of the digester to provide any


GRINDING PROCESS

METAL WPSHER AND

METAL WASHER
AND MAGNETIC

MATERIAL TO
SALVAGE OR
LANDFILL,                  WET PULPING
                                      CGNTROL mNEL                      TO STORAGE
                                      FAIRFIELD-HARDY DIGESTER

GAGGING

FICWRE 2

Typical design for Fairfield Hardy Digester installation and related equipment.


pmef B                RECYCLING AND UTILlZATION                111

desired temperature profile. The augers which operate on a revolving arm,
continuously mix the material and immediately integrate the wet pulp into
the composting mixture. Only this digester arrangement is suited for the
acceptance of ground refuse from the hydro pulper. After a nominal 5-day
detention time in the digester the material is removed and cured' in windrows
for about three weeks. The cured material is moistened with a starch
suspension, granulated, and dried to provide an excellent quality granular
product. For much larger installations it is anticipated that a picking belt
k<ill be installed as an integral part of the pre-treatment operations. The
horsepower requirements for this type of digester are relatively high as are
the operating costs since the agitation operates continuously. Expansion of
capacity would require the construction of a complete new digester since
the through-put of a digester is limited.

The International Disposal Corporation System

A 105-ton-per-day IDC plant has been in operation for approximately
one year in St. Petersburg, Florida. Incoming refuse is sorted to remove
large noncompostable items, then is run through a magnetic separator to
remove ferrous metals and cans. The next unit, as shown in Figure 3, is a
rotary mixer called a pulveriator into which is fed the refuse and a moisten-
ing agent, ammonium nitrate solution. The refuse leaving the pulveriator
enters a patented flail mill grinder which shreds the refuse effectively but
does not remove or shred rags and plastic items which enter the composting
process almost intact. The plug flow digester is housed in a vertical building
with horizontal, moving belts on which the ground refuse composts. Air is
blown into the pile just above the belt to provide adequate aeration. Tem-
pcratures are in the thermophilic range. The material is reground after 2
day of the process. Then, at the end of 5 days detention time the material is
removed, passed through a pentagonal trommel screen with 0.75~inch
openings. This screen provides an excellent separation of noncompostable
materials such as rags and plastics from the compost which is then ground
and conveyed to outdoor curing piles. The material is cured for approxi-
mately ten days. It is then sold in bulk or enriched for bag sale. Expansion of
digester capacity will require construction of a complete new digestion unit
or the reduction of detention time in the digestion units which may result
in improperly stabilized refuse if the time is cut too short.

The Metrowaste System

A 350-ton-per-day plant of this design has been in operation for approxi-
mately seven months at Houston, Texas. A 150-ton-per-day Metrowaste
plant is under construction in Gainesville, Florida, scheduled to begin


112

HARDING

Proceedings

&it3 REJECT CHUTE

DIGESTE

RECf

RETURN TO
RECEIVING AREA

_..._-                 SALVAGE

BALERU

FIGURE 3

Schematic diagram of the Naturizcr System.


p.meL B                RECYCLING AND UTILIZATION                113

operation October 1967. In this process, shown schematically in Figure 4,
the incoming refuse is hand sorted, ground in either a hammermill or a
~~~ Centriblast unit which provides inertial separation, passed through a
magnetic separator, a secondary grinder, and is moistened with sewage solids
or nitrogen solution prior to composting. The batch digesters used in this
process are horizontal tanks with perforated bottoms. The ground refuse
is kept in the tanks for 4 to 6 days depending on plant operating conditions.
.\ir can be blown through the bottom either on a periodic cycle or con-
tinuously. A special agitator-unloader is used to mix the material or to
unload it at the completion of the composting period. These tanks are
usually built in pairs with a center belt serving for both feed and take off
from each pair. One agitator can be used for the two tanks with a transfer
table to shift from one tank to the other.

Experiments conducted with the use of oxygen enrichment during the
first 12 to 24 hours of composting with this system have shown that en-
richment materially reduces the time required to reach thermophilic tem-
perature ranges. The oxygen content of the inlet air is increased to about
30 volume percent. This reduces the necessary detention time in the digester
by one to two days.

Expansion of digestion capacity can be accomplished by adding addi-
tional digester length and still using the same agitator for the tank. This
provides the cheapest additional capacity of any of the three mechanical
systems. Upon completion of cornposting in the Metrowaste system the
material is passed through secondary grinders, screened and either cured
or granulated for sale.

A process utilized in the Metrowaste system which is not being utilized
currently by other compost operators, is the use of air suction on the dis-
charge side of the primary grinders to remove film plastics. Some quantities
of the dryer paper and many glass fragments are removed also by this suc-
tion. These materials are burned in a suspension dryer to provide heat for
burning out cans and drying of the material after curing and/or granulating.
The manpower required for operation of compost plants can vary between
1 man per each 6 tons of refuse processed per day to 1 man for each 15
tons of refuse processed per day. Capital costs, energy and labor require-
ments for the three mechanical systems are compared in Table II. A major
operating cost which is not well documented at this time is the cost of
hammerwear for grinding operations. This is reported to vary from 65
cents to $1.25 per ton of refuse processed.s* 7 All three of the mechanical
systems use forced aeration. The aeration requirements vary between 0.2
and 2 cfm per cubic foot of digester capacity.


TRUCK UNLOADING PLATFORM
  RECEIVING CONVEYOR

-SORTING AREA PLATFORM

SALVAGE COLLECTOR CONVEYOR

BAILER         SCR-R

PRIMARY GRINDER

SECONDARY GRINDER-

STORAGE HOPPER
SEWAGE SLUDGE THICKENER

    MIXING SCREW CONVEYOR

       TRIPPER CONVEYOR

           AGITATOR
          r UNLOAEiNG CONVEYOR

BLOWER

                         BULK STORAGE
FIGURE 4

Compost plant schematic flow diagram, Gainesville Municipal Waste Conversion Authority Incorporated,


P.?nrl B

RECYCLING AND IJTJLLZATION

115

TABLE II

          COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS a
ENERGY AND MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS FOR MECHANICAL COMPOST PLANTS

Capacity (t/d)      Fairfield '        Metrowaste '       ID? '
        $x lo8  HP Labor $ x 10' HP Labor % x 10' HP Labor

  100     1.4b  ,900" 8" 0.9   1,250 12   1.4    600 20
  200     2.1 b  1,400b 11 b 1.2   1,700 17   2.1 b   800b 28"
  300      2.5   1,700 14    1.5   1,900 25   2.7 b   950" 36b
400      3.2   2,500 20 1.6   2,000 30   3.2b 1,100" 45b

a Exclusive of cost or land and special foundation problems (fill and/or piling).
11 Author's estimate based on chemical engineering estimating procedures.

SALVAGE RECOVERY AND MARKETING

-Most salvage is accomplished by hand `sortings and magnetic separation.
The items which have salvage value are newsprint, corrugated cardboard,
certain classes of rags, ferrous metal, cans, nonferrous metal (when sepa-
rated) and glass. The market for any and all of these items is subject to
wide variation from time to time and from location to location. Whenever
salvage is being considered, it is best to contact the Executive Director of the
National Association of Secondary Material Industries, Inc., whose address
is 330 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017, and request the name of
salvage dealers in the vicinity under consideration. The salvage market is
old and reasonably well established so nearly all salvaged material is sold
through salvage brokers.

At this time the sale of paper salvaged from compost plants is meeting
resistance because of "psychological warfare" being waged by long-time
suppliers of salvaged paper through implication that the paper is somehow
unsatisfactory.!' Only dry, clean paper should be sorted and recovered for
salvage purposes. It has been successfully used in food containers and other
applications. The instability of the paper market and the psychological
factor are the only drawbacks on the salvage of paper goods. The paper
market is depressed at this time so the prices quoted are nominal only.
Baled newsprint may sell for $12 to $15 per ton and baled corrugated boxes
from $7 to $12 per ton.`O

Mixed rags are now at their lowest value in years.l* Prices vary from $2
Lo $30 per ton." lz Wiping rags, which iri general are large garments of
absorbant characteristics such as cotton, have a much higher value which
can vary between $40 to $200 per ton. Assistance of a local textile salvage
tkalcr should be sought in training personnel to pi& only the proper types
of rags for wiping purposes.


116                         HARDING

Proceedings

Glass or cullet can be sold in special circumstanctes to glass plants. Since
glass is a supercooled liquid rather than a crystalline material, it melts at
a much lower temperature than does silica (sand) ; hence some glass is
recycled in glass manufacture to reduce the heat necessary to melt the
sand. Again specific details should be worked out with a purchdser of the
glass concerning the color and characteristics desired prior to attempting any
salvage of glass at a compost plant. Usually glass is left in the compost and
is abraided sufficiently during the process to be reasonably safe in the final
product.

  The only domestic market for tin cans is in the copper smelting industry
located in the Western States. Unless there are special circumstances or
special needs close by, it is impractical to consider salGaging of cans any-
where east of a north-south line passing through Chicago.`* The closer the
cans are to the mines in Arizona and New Mexico, the higher the price
they will bring. Cans must be burned out and shredded prior to use in
copper smelting. Much of this work is usually done by a salvage broker.
Shredded, burned and baled cans may be suitable for export buyers at East

Coast ports. This requires the seller to seek out possible markets. Routine
scrap ferrous metals, known as tramp metal, can be sold in bales through
normal scrap dealers located all over the country. Prices for properly baled
material can reach $25 per ton. lo Periodic prices can be found for all salvage
material in the journal published by the National Association of Secondary
Material Industries, Inc., published by Market News Publishing Corp., 156
Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10010.

Some hand sorting to remove noncompostable items is mandatory in most
composting plants. The use of extended hand sorting should be weighed
against the probable market for the materials separated by this process.
Decisions to enter extensive sorting should be made only on the basis of
firm contractual commitments for purchase of the products produced.

Compost Production and Marketing

From one-third to one-half of the materials entering a compost plant will
become compost. Over three-fourths of the material entering the plant will
enter the digester and a certain portion of this will be lost through biological
activity. The length of curing, the type of upgrading operations, and the
moisture content of the material as shipped determine what the ratio of
fmal product to incoming refuse might be. At the present time, undried
compost is being sold by Metrowaste and by International Disposal Corp.
fqr approximately $16 per ton F.O.B. plant site."' The Altoona-FAM Co.


P.meI B.

RECYCLING AND UTILIZATION                117

markets their granular compost at 10 percent moisture for approximately
$16 per ton F.O.B. the plant. B Bag sales have not proved successful at the
three plants now successfully cornposting municipal refuse in the U.S. The
best potential bulk market for compost is as a building material in the
fertilizer industry. The increasing popularity of organic fillers in fertilizers
sl,ould provide an ample developmental market for compost. Some manu-
facturers of compost consider enrichment as the most desirable method to
follow. The enriched compost can then compete directly with the fertilizer
compound. Once enrichment is undertaken and a labeled material is being
produced, fertilizer laws must be followed in the production of the material.
The marketing work necessary for a large plant to move compost success-
fully is extensive. This is beyond the scope of most municipalities. A large
private company would appear to have a potential advantage to providing
adequate marketing services to move the final product.

Recently some rail carriers have established a new classification for com-
post materials.7 The classification, "waste products," carries a 30 percent
lower freight rate than fertilizer products. There still remains room for im-
provement since earth or stone can be moved by rail 60 percent cheaper
than fertilizer products. If lower rates could be,provided by rail carriers to
compost producers this would make possible distribution of compost to
a much larger area. At the fertilizer shipping rates the compost must be
distributed within 50 to 100 miles of its point of production. With the
reduced freight rates the radius of distribution can be extended considerably
and still the product can be marketed ptifitably.

Financing Composting Plants

Financial personnel and engineers have worked together to develop a
concept on which most of the current compost plant financing is based.la
Since composting is a municipal refuse disposal function it should be under-
written by adequate dumping fees. These fees should cover the disposal
phase of the operation which includes amortization of all capital outlays,
;I sinking or equipment replacement fund, all operating costs including the
cost of transporting the compost to an ultimate disposal site for at least two
years while market development is progressing, and a safety factor to pro-
vide for adequate charges for an alternate method of disposal during com-
post plant downtime. The alternate method may be landfill or incineration
and would have to be conducted by contract or at standby facilities. All of
these items should be covered by a guaranteed minimum dumping fee for
the contract's period. A realistic escalation clause should be included in the
contract to cover increase in labor and operating costs. The materials and


118

HARDING              Proceedings

the plant can be amortized over as much as a 30-year period if engineering
data can substantiate the successful operation of the equipment for that
length of time. In financing the plants no credit is given for sale of salvage
material and an incineration cost should be included in the disposal phase
to handle the disposal of plastics and other noncompostable but combustible
items which are undesirable in the final product.

The second phase of the financing operation is the by-product phase. This
includes final grinding, upgrading, marketing, granulating, etc., and should
be financed by revenue received from the sale of the compost. Should this
venture be undertaken by a private concern, the sale of the product would
also serve to provide the profit for the operation. By separating the financing
of cornposting into two phases - disposal phase under&itten by dumping
fees and by-product phase paid for by compost sales, a realistic approach
to financing composting plants can be taken.

For moderate-to-large size communities where space is a problem and
pollution is a problem, composting can compete effectively with incineration
particularly if the operators of the compost system have initiative and
ingenuity in developing markets for the compost and salvageable items. The
most advantageous situation for refuse composting is when it can be com-
bined with sewage treatment. A city can save about 30 percent of the cost
of sewage treatment by pumping raw sludge to a compost plant for use as
a -moistening agent and a source of nitrogen in the compost. When the
savings in sewage treatment cost are taken as a credit against the cost of
refuse cornposting, the economics of composting become attractive. This is
particularly true when the process also eliminates a potential air pollution
problem.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

REFERENCES

Reclamation of municipal refuse by composting. Technical Bulletin NO. 9.
Sanitary Engineering Research Projects, University of California. Richmond,
California, 1953. 89 p.

Wiley, J. S., and G. W. Pearce. A preliminary study of high-rate cornposting.
Paper 846. In Transactions, American Society of Civil Engineers, v. 81, Dec.
1955.

Schulze, K. L. Continuous thermophilic composting. Applied Microbiology,
lO(2) :108-122, Mar. 1962.

Committee on Solid Wastes, American Public Works Association.  Municipal
=?.uJe disposal. Chicago, Public Administration Service, 1961. 506 p.

Vaughn, G. Plant Manager, Metrowaste, Houston, Texas. Personal communi-
cation, July 13, 1967.

Lynn, R. A. Plant Manager, International Disposal Corporation, St. Petersburg,
Florida. Personal communication, June 21, 1967.


panel B                RECYCLING AND UTILlZATION                119

7. Brown, V. President, Metropolitan Waste Conversion Corporation, Whcaton,
Illinois. Personal communication, July 13, 1967.
8. Coulson, J. S. Sales Manager, Digester Division, Fairfield Engineering Company,
Marion, Ohio. Personal communication, June 15, 1967.
9. Williams, L. Container Corporation of America, Chicago, Illinois. Personal
communication, July 10, 1967.

10. Market reviews and prices. Serondary Raw Material!, 5(4) :38-43, Apr. 1967.
11. Schapiro, D. Schapiro and Whitehouse, Inc., Baltimore, Maryland. Personal
  communication, July 11, 1967.

I 2. Proler, S. President, Proler Steel Company, Houston, Texas. Personal communi-
cation, July 3, 1967.

13. McCall, J. H. Goodbody and Company, Chicago, Illinois. Personal communi-
cation, July 14, 1967.

APPENDIX

Calculation of Area Required for a Windrow Composting Plant
      To Serve a Population of lOO,OOO

Quantity of refuse =  (4 lb/c/d) (lOW'O0)
              (2,000 lb/ton)    = 2oo t,d

Compostable quantity (80% from Table I) = (200 t/d) (0.8) = 160 t/d if
drnsity = 400 lb/yd*

Volume =  (160 t/d) (2,000 lb/ton)
         (400 lblyd')     .= 800 yds/d

With a windrow 5.5' high, 10' wide at the base and 6' wide at the top, the cross-
sectional area = 5 yd'

Daily length of windrow =  800 yd'/d
               5 yds   - 160 yd/d = 480 ft/d

.Assumc : 60-day composting period
    20'-gap between piles
    1.5'-driveway between windrows
Total daily length = 480' + 20' = 500'
Total length on plant site - (60 days) (500 ft/day) = 30,000 ft
Area per foot or windrow = (10 + 15) (1) = 25 ft*/ft

Total windrow area = (25 fw (30,000 ft) _ 17 2 acreS
             (43,560 ft'/acre) '

Add a 60% safety factor - 10.2 acres
Add area for buildings, etc.

   Total area required

== 10.2 acres

= 2.5 acres

  30.0 acres


OPEN DISCUSSION: PANEL B

Abraham Michaels, * Panel Chairman

SfR. R. R. DALTON?:  What do you know about tepee buiners with
afterburners?

MR. ELMER R. KAISER:  I had a paper in the American Public Works AS-
,ociation Yearbook of 1960 in which that point was discussed. I made
calculations at that time and as I remember it takes about 125 or so gallons
of oil to heat the flue gas from a ton of refuse burned in the tepee unit to
l.jOO" F for the afterburning effect. Now, that's entirely too much oil. The
reason there is such a high excess of air, 400 or more percent is to protect
the tepee and not burn out the screen at the top. An afterburner is only
klscful when you can keep the excess air quantities in a low range. And then,
1 dare say, if you do that, you would need a refractory furnace, and you
would get enough temperature automatically without the afterburner. There-
fore. they have had to go to the scrubber concept in order to clean up the
flue gas.

MR. W. HARRINGTON~: What percentage of the total refuse quantity as
delivered is finally converted to compost?

DR. CHARLES I. HARDING:  Let's take that on dry solids basis, because I
think we are going to have to ultimately get to that. If you take refuse
rcccived in a plant, it is about 25 percent moisture. Then about 80 percent
of this material (possibly with good film plastic and artifacts removal, 65
pcrccnt) will go to the digester.

There is about one-third loss in the digester of the material going in. Thus,
on a dry solids basis you would come out with about 30 percent of the dry
solids delivered to the plant as product. If you sell it at 100 percent moisture
on a dry solids basis, then you are going to have about 60 percent of the
material delivered to the plant which would be product by weight. By
volume it would be much smaller; the density received from packer trucks
is somewhere around a low of 10 to a high of 20 pounds per cubic foot and
the compost is sold from 32 to 44J pounds per cubic foot. So there is a
marked volume reduction in the material:

* Consulting Engineer, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
t Russell R. Dalton, Alexandria Health Department, Virginia.
2 William M. Harrington, Whitman, Requardt and Associates, Baltimore, Maryland.

121


122

PANEL B             Proceedings

MR. HARRINGTON :  I am quite interested in the percentage as de-
livered that actually gets converted. I don't care what the end product is.
But if you get 5 tons, how much of that on a dry solids basis, or however
you want to put it, how much of that do you actually compost? Because
you are salvaging, you are getting rid of your plastic and some of your paper.

DR. HARDING :  Of the material that enters the composting process?
About two-thirds.

DR. G. C. &EGO*:  How about burning by using natural gas jets buried
by the rubbish being combusted?

MR. BOWERMAN :  This is a process that comes up for consideration from
time to time because "in-place" burning sounds as though it might be really
cheap, and maybe an efficient way of getting volume reduction. The one
attempt that I am personally familiar with was done in the San Francisco
area on buried demolition wastes with an earth cover. An attempt was made
to control the combustion process, but frankly, the manner in which you
can control an underground burning operation is rather limited. You don't
have many controls, once you ignite the solid wastes. You're pretty well at
the whim of the way it was put together, and if that wasn't quite right, then
there's nothing much you can do about it. In this one instance, the operation
seemed to start off fairly well.  Th en it started smoking, and the smoke
brought the fire department; the fire department hosed down the earth
cover and made holes in it. The whole thing then went up in one grand
debacle.

A controlled burning operation was tried on a much smaller scale at one
of the Los Angeles District sanitary landfills. We built a pyramid, about
20 feet high and provided open space on the bottom by putting in a bunch
of palm-tree logs, crisscrossed. The rubbish pile was placed on top of that,
and an earth cover placed on top to create a virtual Vesuvius. A hole was
left in the top for a chimney, and the material was allowed to decompose
aerobically. Eventually it spontaneously combusted and burned so well that
it was still burning about three months later. It just doesn't appear that
under these field conditions you can hope to get the type of combustion
that's going to meet air pollution control standards.

MR. T. W. BEmmmt :  What will incineration do to reduce oxides of
nitrogen, when air pollution control authorities require control of nitrogen
oxide?

*.Dr. G. C. Szego, Inter Technology Corporation, Warrenton, Virginia.
t Thomas W. Bendixen, U.S. Public Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio.


Stcond Session

OPEN DISCUSSION

123

h4R. KAISER:  In the example I gave you, the nitrogen oxides were 93
parts per million. We get less nitrogen oxides in incineration than they do
in the burning of coal or oil in power boilers. The reason is that we operate
at lower temperatures. In the first place, our fuel has more moisture and
inerts, which take up heat; secondly, we try to stay below 1,800" F in the
refractory line units, in order not to have the ash form slag on the walls.
.\nd that is a big help in holding down the nitrogen oxides. What to do
about them to get a further reduction, I certainly don't know. Whether
the tvater spray treatment that we often give the gases afterwards will take
some of it out, I am not sure either. But certainly with stacks that extend
200 to 300 feet high, the dispersion of that little nitrogen oxide is not going
to be any problem. That subject is being researched in connection with the
big oil- and coal-fired power boilers, and after they work it out, perhaps we
ran adopt something if that is still necessary.

MR. WAREI BARSTOW*:  How does the quality and quantity of refuse in
Europe differ from that in the United States?

MR. ROBERT D. BUGHER:  It's difficult to generalize on that kind of a
question. I can say this:  Last month Abe and I had the pleasure of
attending the Ninth International Public Cleansing Association meeting in
Paris. James Sumner of Great Britain presented a paper which summarized
the characteristics of waste in different countries. As I recall it indicated
that the percentage of organics in the northern countries was in the neigh-
borhood of 20 to 30 percent, but one of the striking things that I recall was
that some southern countries, particularly Israel, reported that their per-
centage of organics was as high as 70 percent. The percentage of paper
obviously is much greater here in this country. They are much more thrifty
in Europe and do not produce as much waste. I asked this question of one
gentleman from England and he told me that their refuse is becoming more
like ours - they are getting a Iot more paper. He also indicated that the
quantity and quality of their wastes is similar to what ours was about 20
to 30 years ago. Incidently, if you want more specific information on this
vestion we will be glad to make it available.

FROM AUDIENCE:  I'd just like to ask if you don't consider paper as
organic; it composts perfectly well.

MR. BUGHER:  When I use the term organics, I mean mostly vegetable
wastes, i.e., putrescible organics.
FROM AUDIENCE:  I think the paper and the organics would be con-

* Ward Barstow, State Department of Health, Baltimore, Maryland.

   283-399 O-67-9


124                          PANEL B

Proceedings

sidered one, don't you, along with leather and anything else which is organic,
anything which will compost?

MR. MICHAELS:  Yes, it's true. The amount of paper certainly affects
the carbon:nitrogen ratio which affects the quality of the compost. The
numbers (paper percentages) that I remember that are significant are that
in Europe about 30 percent of the refuse was paper, whereas in the United
States paper or paper products are over 50 percent. I think this represents
the significant difference between the two types of refuse.

MR. WISMAN: Why, if you believe in recycling metals back to in-
dustry, do you not believe in recycling organics back to the soil which
feeds us and which we are depleting?               ,

MR. KAISER :  Personally, I intend to remain objective about such
matters. If the compost people can develop their processes and a market
for the product, more power to them. Refuse not disposed of as compost
will be incinerated and landfilled. I happen to specialize in incineration,
which takes all of my time, which means I can only try to encompass that
much of the field. If there is also a place for compost, the judgment as to
its future must be made in the marketplace.

DR. HARDING :  We have been working with some pretty sharp agri-
cultural people and they tell me (although I'm not a farmer and I couldn't
grow anything if I had to) that if you want to show a net increase
in organic content particularly in a sandy soil, you'd have to put into the
top two inches of the sandy soil each year a six-inch layer of compost. So
this is somewhat of a myth - that you're going to increase the organic
content of the soil by adding compost to it. It sounds good, and that's what
I referred to at the very beginning - it's a romantic idea that really ap-
peals to people. I don't want to play it down, but I want to be realistic
about it. We aren't going to increase the organic content of our soils which
we are depleting, materially in this way. In my opinion, the way composting
has a reasonable chance of success is by courtship and marriage with the
fertilizer industry. There is now a big move to use organic fillers in ferti-
lizers. Compost has rather low nitrogen and so it doesn't compete very well
with waste-activated sludge; but I think the future of composting on a
`bulk, large-scale basis, is intimately involved with the future of the fertilizer
business. In that way I think there will be some recycling.

MR. S. ErraLrcnt:  When do you expect the slag-tap process, which you
touched on, to become commerci$? Could you briefly give us more details?

* Shelton Ehrlich, Pope, Evans and Robbins, Alexandria, Virginia.


Second Session                OPENDISCUSSION

125

MR. KAISER:  Taking up a few details first - the slag has a density of
about 2.4, which is about the same as glass. I have measured the density of
this material - if you could cast large chunks of it and bury those, you
\vottld get up to this 3,000 to 3,800 pounds per cubic yard. However, if it
is run into water it breaks up into a black, glassy sand. So `there are voids.
The slag sand would have a density of approximately 2,500 pounds per
cubic yard. If you have a mixture of chunks and fines you will have an
intermediate density. When will this become commercial? I can't predict
that. More demonstration work must be done on it and studies made of it.
In Europe at the Volkswagen Works they have had a slag-tap operation
for quite some time. In regard to the Melt-Zit process in Massachusetts,
there will be some tests a little later this year.

ANONYMOUS:  What progress can be reported in the problem of making
beer (and other disposable) cans from early-deteriorating materials?

MR. BOWERMAN:  Well, my good friend, Dr. McGauhey of the Univer-
sity of California, Berkeley, says that the ideal container is the ice cream
cone. Maybe someday somebody is going to come up with a container for
hcer that's edible, but I think that in the meantime the transition will be
from a metal to a fiber; I think we'll find that we cannot afford to use
our mineral resemes in a non-conservative manner, and go over to fibers
where we can grow and regrow and continue to grow new resources in-
definitely. Thus, I think that we'll see more fiber containers and less metal.

MR. MICHAELS:  Actually the container industry is probably the one
industry that is more responsible for the predicament we are in today than
any other industry. All reports that I have heard are that they have no
intrntion at the present time of concerning themselves with the waste
disl>osal problem; that, in fact, their job is to sell more and more containers.
llol~fully, they will come up with something that will be degradable but
as of now I don't think there is any indication that the industry contem-
l~latcs changes that will significantly reduce the refuse disposal problem.

ANONYMOUS:  Why are not private utilities, that is, electric and gas
and particularly electric, regulated as closely as other industrial entities
on waste disposal?

MR. MICHAELS:  I don't know that this is so, necessarily. Certainly,
recent legislation in New York City and legislation in other major com-
munitics which set limits on air pollution emissions, indicates, considerable
control of public utilities; I don't know whether anybody else in the Panel
or in the audience has any comments to make on this . . . I'm inclined to
feel the premise is not a correct one. Any comments at all?


126                         PANEL B

Proceedings

MR. KAISER:  In New York City we have a large enough area, and bum
so much fuel of rather high sulfur content - heavy oil and coal, 2 to 3
percent sulfur - that sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere is a definite problem.
We are said to be the nation's worst in that respect. And so legislation has
gone in to reduce the sulfur content of these fuels. Now, it's hard to get that
kind of fuel, and it will be at a higher price, of course. You notice from
the analyses that refuse is extremely low in sulfur. In fact, I say without
hesitation, that we have in refuse "the sweetest fuel this side of natural
gas." That's true! So, if we would bum refuse and generate power there,
we would need that much less of the higher-sulfur fuels, and thus, in a sense,
help ourselves to a degree, only because of the tonnages involved, in reducing
the content of SO, in the atmosphere. On the matter of fly ash, I think
we can reduce our dustloadings as low as is done with the coal fire boilers.
There is a move underway, therefore, to build a big refuse burning plant in
the old Brooklyn Navy Yard. It would generate steam, send that steam to
Con Edison, a big electric utility, which has distribution mains in the streets
for district steam. Con Edison says that refuse could be used to generate
steam for district heating - as, of course, is done in Europe. And, I think
behind that question, is the thought that a marriage there could help the
community. Instead of everybody going his own independent way, if we can
work at these things together, again as they do abroad, it should help the
overall picture.

.MR. MICHAELS :  Thank you. I would like to make one observation with
respect to the use of refuse as a fuel. One of the things that I did when I
was in Paris was to present a paper on incineration without waste heat
utilization. I had occasion to determine the relative heat value available in
refuse throughout the United States, and compare it to the heat value of the
fuels currently used for power generation, or for all energy, as amatter of fact.
As I recall, if all of the refuse were converted to power, to energy, we would
provide somewhere on the order of 2 percent of the energy that the nation
is currently using. If we took the energy that goes into automobiles and
other modes of transportation using self-powered vehicles, this would pro-
vide somewhere on the order of 5 or 6 percent of the heat value required.
So, even if all of our refuse were converted to energy, the best we could do
is reduce the air pollution effect by this 5 or 6 percent. Which, of course,
is the approach that we take; that is, that we nibble away at these problems;
we don't attack them and solve them by changing our way of living
overnight.

MR. KAISER :  Because the quantities are so great, even that percentage
is quite substantial.


St.L-ovd Sessron                OPEN DISCUSSION

127

~\IR. MICHAELS :  Well, that's the point.

FROM AUDIENCE:  Did you figure what percent of energy coal supplies
ut the present?

MR. MICHAELS :  The total energy output in the United States was con-
sidered in this study. This includes, coal, fuel oil, natural gas and even the
small amount of atomic energy that's currently used.

DR. HARDING :  I think that the argument, if you want to use an argu-
lllent for combined power generation and refuse disposal, is this. As was
pointed out very efficiently by the luncheon speaker yesterday, cities, most
municipalities, do not give adequate attention to incineration operations.
ln mv opinion, electrical generation facilities are some of the best-run
operations in the country. If we then have a combined refuse disposaI and
clcctrical generation system under the control of the utilities system, I would
think that we would have much more efficient combustion and much better
disposal of refuse.

MR. MICHAELS :  That's a very sound observation; I agree completely.

MR. HALL:  Is there any hope of early solution to incineration and
reduction of scrap and junk automobiles ? My particular interest is the
rlimination of open burning of vehicles in volumes up to 40 to 50,000
cars per year.

MR. KAISER :  A study was made a few years ago with Public Health
Scrx+c funds on the smokeless burning of automobile bodies in closed
furnaces. Copies of the report are available from my office. You can also
obtain a set of plans for a unit that would burn up to 28 auto bodies a day,
if you send me $5 in a check made out to New York University. We have
scant out about 150 sets of those plans. There have not been that many
(Inits built? but the principles have been well demonstrated. There are
;lutornobile incinerators in this country that bum up to (and there is only
one at this size which has been operating since 1959) 400 auto bodies in
c@ht hours. It is in Brooklyn. At the moment, or at the last I heard, they
were operating above 300 cars per 8 hours only for the reason that their
haling press was able to handle only that many while making a small bale,
which the present market calls for. When they made the larger bales they
could burn at the 400-car rate. Burning in the open produces voluminous
black smoke. By burning in a closed unit with an afterburner to burn up
that smoke, you can have virtually a clear stack and a satisfactory operation.

bfR. MICHAELS:  Actually, incineration or burning of cars is not the only
bvay of handling this waste product, Frank Bowerman has had some ex-


128

PANEL B             Proceedings

perience out on the West Coast with another device. Will you tell us about
it, please?

MR. BOWERMAN :  Yes. Interestingly enough, in the western part of the
United States abandoned automobiles are disappearing. The reason is
that a nonburning process has been developed. Two very large companies
are working with this process. It's strictly a grinding process, but the unit
is so large that the grinders can take an entire car body and knock it down
to sizes of metal about as big as your fist. The radiator is removed for its
copper value. The gas tank is removed, so that it won't explode. The
engine is removed. The normal stripping required before you bum a body
so that you get, the copper wire, upholstery, and similar things out, isn't
necessary. Once the parts with a higher value are removed, the rest of the
car body simply drops down into a monstrous grinder and comes out the
other end as relatively small chunks of metal with the paint largely knocked
off. The debris is easily separated out on a screen and sent to landfills.
The hunks of metal are baled and are going overseas.

MR. MICHAELS :  I think that the manufacturer of the third unit might
be upset if he heard you refer to only two of them. There are several
companies producing this machine.

MR. CHARLES KENAHAN*:  Why are you so certain that metal salvage
is not feasible or profitable? Because nobody has designed or devised a
system for recovering metal from refuse or residue? At the same time you
have great confidence in camposting, which has failed after many attempts.

DR. HARDING:  That's a good question. Tramp metal or regular scrap,
either ferrous or nonferrous, if you are going to hand separate it, does have
an outiet through the regular scrap brokers. In our attempt to abbreviate
the comments, I left out much of that information. That can be handled.
The thing that is the big headache is the tin cans; this is the metal that I
am referring to which has the limited market, based on comments from
scrap dealers, such as Sam Proler with Proler Steel in Houston, and other
people with the secondary materials industries. They just seemed to think
that cans do not have a future, unless you can develop export markets, or
unless you are geographically close to the copper mines. As far as the
cornposting goes, I think that the fertilizer people are looking for reasonable
quality organics. And if the compost operation is a combined sewage
disposal and cornposting refuse disposal facility, if properly operated it can
provide a bulk organic reservoir for fertilizer.

,* Charles B. Kenahan, U.S. Department of the Interior, College Park, Maryland.


serond Session                OPEN DISCUSSION

129

DR. A. VIEHOEVER":  What is the most effective method of disposal of
plastic refuse? What is the most effective temperature without gumming?
ft'tlat are the prominent combustion products of polyethylene plastics?

~~R.KAIsER:  That's an easy question. Polyethylene is a carbon-hydrogen
con~pound. It's a beautiful fuel. Sure, it will get gummy if you've got a
lot of it and you're trying to ignite it all at once. But in the refuse, as it
rrornrally comes where it is only one or two percent, it bums nicely. It will
burn clean to carbon dioxide and to water vapor. It's the polyvinyl
cllloride which gives us hydrochloric acid on burning, or chlorides. PVC is
used in the insulation of copper wire, where it is compounded with a number
of metallo-organic compounds. On burning the wire, zinc chloride, mercuric
chloride, aluminum chloride, titanium chloride, and so on are produced
and probably some free hydrochloric acid. In refractory lined equipment,
that isn't a problem. But, when the chlorides come in contact with metal
cqulpment, such as fans, and cyclones, and boiler tubes, then we can have
a problem. We are observing some trouble that way. The fortunate thing
is that to date, the percentage present in refuse is very small. If more and
more polyvinyl chlorides are produced, then my recommendation would be
to take it out and bury it!

F~ohr .\UDIENCE:  What effect does it have on the public when these
gases come out?

MR. KAISER:  Again, we are saved by the dilution in the atmosphere.
.4 scrubber, however, does take it out. We have burned copper wire alone
in tonnage lots. The chlorides in the combustion gases are removed readily
by means of a scrubber. They are soluble in water, and are taken out
&cctively by scrubbing.

ANONYMOUS:  No incinerator today is meeting air pollution require-
ments.

MR. MICHAELS:  I don't think that is a correct statement.

* .Arno W. Viehoever, Viehoever and Campbell Associates, Oxon Hill, Marylnd.


Panel C: Development of a Regional Solid Wasre Disposal Plan

THE NEED FOR LONG-RANGE PLANNING
FOR A SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL PLAN

Paul M. Reid *

IT IS A DISTINCT PLEASURE to meet in Washhgton on a metropditan
[-ather than a national basis. We don't often have the opportunity to meet
for the purpose of facing common problems of metropolitan regions. It is
gratifying that the Detroit region's experience in developing a long-range
plan for solid waste disposal is called upon here to aid in the metropolitan
\1.ashington situation. I have responded to the call, not as an expert who
krro\~s at1 the answers but does not understand the questions, but rather
3s a practicing planner, persistently perplexed by the continuation of perti-
nent and sometimes impertinent questions regarding solid waste disposal.
Let me at the outset confess our progressive sophistication in the use of the
concept "solid waste." We started out in the Detroit region being con-
ccrned about disposal of garbage and rubbish. By the time we completed
our plan, we called it refuse disposal. And now, we have adopted the
tcrrninology of the Public Health Service and the environmental health
engineers - solid waste disposal!

In pursuit of rapport, let me check off quickly some helpful comparisons
bcatween metropolitan Washington and the Detroit region. In common with
all such urban areas in the nation, both are beset by growth and expansion
problems that not only override jurisdictional boundaries but also constantly
tend to change the content, character and conformation of each unit of
government involved. The Detroit region in 1966 contained an estimated
population of 4,359,OOO; Metropolitan Washington had 2,600,OOO people.
hottt have a significant background of metropolitan-regional planning, and
both pioneered early in intergovernmental cooperation. In our area, the
Supervisors Inter-County Committee dates back to 1954; in the Washington
area, the Metropolitan Regional Conference was formed in 1957. The
economies of the two areas differ, the Detroit region having a larger share
of its employment in manufacturing and the Washington area having a
heavier portion of its employment in government services. Both areas are
still engaged in transportation studies of critical consequence.  In the
Detroit region, we have developed a regional recreational lands plan, while
here in the Washington area, progress is being made on a regional open
space plan. Both areas are deeply concerned in a metropolitan solution of

* Executive Director, Detroit Metropolitan Area Regional Planning Commission.

131


132                           REID

Proceedings

the solid waste disposal issue. The metropolitan Washington area has suc-
cessfully established a Council of Governments, while in the Detroit region
the final phases of a six-county Council of Governments are now being
undertaken.

Detroit Region's Approach to Solid Waste Disposal Plan

Six years ago, an ad hoc committee of supervisors from our then five
member counties recommended that our regional planning agency place
more emphasis on facility planning. Garbage and rubbish disposal stood
high on their list of urgent priorities. Our Supervisors Inter-County Com-
mittee - which is made up of representatives of the six southeastern Michi-
gan counties of which the Regional Planning Commission now embraces
four - not only supported this recommendation, but offered to take a major
part in the implementing of a regional refuse disposal plan. This back-
ground for our work is important. It reveals that local and county officials
stressed the need for such a study and plan. It also insured that at the outset
the Regional Planning Commission had intergovernmental support for the
project. In contrast, our planning agency for some years had cited the
need and urged that funds be provided for a regional transportation study,
with emphasis on mass transportation and trucking, but got little response
due to a lack of feeling of need among officials and government agencies.
It took the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1962 to arouse local and county
officials enough to launch this needed project.

As wisely provided in our planning agency's Rules of Procedure, once the
need for a refuse disposal study was realized and support was forthcoming,
we set up a large technical advisory committee of local, county and state
officials, planners, engineers, and sanitation people to counsel and assist our
staff in this project. These people were unhappily aware that the collection
and disposal of solid waste in the Detroit region was on a makeshift basis.
They recognized that steps of expediency only tempered the current an-
archial situation and that chaos was the ultimate result unless an organized,
area-wide approach were developed to handle' the mounting problems of
the efficient collection, transport, and sanitary disposal of solid waste. We
all agreed that in our urban areas the key feature of the solid waste disposal
problem is that it is intergovernmental. Hence, its resolution must be at the
intergovernmental level. A common recognition of the extent and mutuality
of the problem among officials of the beleaguered units of government is a
primary step in setting up the apparatus for attacking the problem.

A project work program was developed and finally passed muster for a
Section 701 planning assistance grant from the then Housing and Home


Panel C                SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL PLAN

133

Finance Agency. The project was questioned at first by some HHFA officials
as merely a "housekeeping" study. We anticipated, however, that the sani-
tav disposal of solid waste would require large areas of land, and that such
land use would have to be related to other land uses, now on the ground or
anticipated. Further, we saw the opportunity and potential ior the reuse
of sanitary landfill areas as park facilities, on a local, county or even regional
hasis. Thus, we finally convinced the HHFA people of the value and cogency
of our project.

Our planning agency employed a professional engineer to direct the study
and established him in the position of Deputy Director for Facility Planning.
\\`e were smart enough to recognize that as planners we had neither the
technical skills nor the experience to handle the engineering aspects of the
study and plan.

Most of the basic information was obtained from a mailed questionnaire,
with some follow-up, of course, and from field surveys of existing and poten-
tial landfill and incinerator sites. The findings of this survey work fortified
and dramatized the sense of need that had instigated the study.

Indicators of Need

The measure of need for an area-wide solid disposal plan and operation
is highlighted, we found, by the size and scope of solid waste materials to
bc handled. The amount of garbage daily accumulated by the average
family in a metropolitan area has been increasing, in spite of the pre-
packaging of prepared foods and some increase in the use of home garbage
grinders and incinerators. The raising of living standards tends to affect
both the quantity and character of garbage. In regard to rubbish, we
found in the Detroit area that communities with a higher economic level
also tended to produce more rubbish per household. The average family in
our area accumulated about 1.5 tons of garbage and rubbish per year. This
was exclusive of demolition materials rubbish, resulting from the razing of
houses and buildings in the course of residential and commercial redevelop-
ment, and freeway construction, and also exclusive of major industrial
rubbish. And the Detroit region has been growing at the rate of about
t8.000 families per year! That means 27,000 more dons of solid waste per
year!

Another vivid index of need that we uncovered was the alarming short-
range capacity of existing disposal areas for solid waste. Out of 149 units
of government responding to the question of length of future life of their
landfill sites, this is what we discovered:


134

REID              Proceedings

Forty-five answered : 3 months to 10 years. Of these: 30 had 2 years or
less ; 15 had 3 to 10 years ; 15 said that they had sites for 10 or more years;
85 did not know how long their sites would last; 4 said their sites would
last for an "indefinite'. period. To put it bluntly, only 15 out of 149 govern-
mental units reported they had landfill sites expected to last 10 years or
more. For the overwhelming majority, their provisions for solid waste
disposal were either dangerously short-range or nonexistent.

Our survey revealed that 82 of the 178 units of government (cities,
villages and townships) that had collection systems were disposing of their
solid wastes outside their own borders, within the territory of another unit
of government. There is an ironic rationale in this situation. We import
into our communities - largely from far-distant places - much of the
                                            I
material that produces our solid waste: food in tin cans, glass jars, and
paper containers; liquids (alcoholic and nonalcoholic, like milk!) in glass
bottles and paper containers; paper sacks, cardboard boxes and wooden
containers resulting from the purchase of a variety of personal, household
and clothing items. Then, each community in the urban complex seeks to
export these refuse materials to another nearby community that has a handy
landfill or convenient dump! The staff got to calling our regional map of
origin and place of disposal of refuse the "worm map." The worm lines
often ran from four communities to a fill site in one community. Or a
single community might export its solid waste to three or four communities.

The range of prices that private collectors charged to units of government
and to private households and business for collection and disposal of their
solid waste was still another indication of a crying need for a region-wide sys-
tem. Since our report and plan were published in early 1964, there has been a
series of rises in the contract prices of private haulers in the Detroit region.
Some of these collectors have gone out of business for want of disposal
areas within economic distance of their customers. In most cases where the
community took over from private contract collectors and instituted a public
collection system, costs went up. Several individual local units of govern-
ment took steps toward construction of their own incinerators, planning to
build them with large enough capacity to accommodate the needs of adjacent
communities - at a price that would help pay off the incinerator costs,
of course.

Still another pressing need factor was consistently confirmed by our re-
gional survey. The expanding rings and stub arms of urban growth into rural
townships and undeveloped territory forced the location of disposal sites
farther and farther from the more heavily populated central parts of the


Panel C                SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL PLAN

135

region. Economicwise, this meant higher and higher haulage costs to both
private contractors and municipal collection and disposal services. Traffic-
wise, it meant heavy refuse trucks were wearing out minor and only semi-
improved roads giving access to these rural disposal sites., The pattern of
small disposal areas spread farther and farther out, due to expediency and
the lack of an area-wide plan.

Results of Suruey Study

Our staff and technical advisory committee developed some very definite
con\.ictions on the basis of our intensive study of existing conditions re-
garding refuse disposal :

( 1) Only a region-wide, long-range plan put into effective operation could
provide a solution on the basis of sanitary disposal, economy, and rational
land uses.

(2) Disposal by a combined system of incinerators - located at strategic
sites in the region - and sanitary landfill sites, also properly located, was
the most effective method. We recognized that both incinerators and sani-
tary landfill sites were needed.. Neither alone could serve the needs of the
region.  The ash residue from incinerators required disposal in sanitary
landfills. Not all rubbish or refuse could be put through an incinerator,
such as, bricks and stone from buildings. The cost of putting all garbage
and burnable refuse through incinerators and depositing only the resulting
ash in landfills was deemed too great. In addition, the use of sanitary land-
fill sites by the outlying low-density population and rural areas was entirely
feasible, until they attained significant urban densities. Hence the five-
county region was divided into a core area of population concentration and
outlying sectors of sparse population, with the incinerators to handle a signifi-
cant part of the burnable solid waste from the central core area of three of
the five counties. In addition to two large sanitary landfill sites to serve the
core area (one until 1980 and the other beyond that date), a number of
small sanitary landfill sites were selected and spaced in the outlying areas.
Both of the major landfill sites are worked-out gravel pit areas. The No. 1
site for the period to 1980 has pits of 90 feet in depth, dry, with ample
adjacent cover.

13) We proposed that collection and transfer stations be constructed at
selected sites in the core area, and that rail transport by means of vans on
flat cars he utilized to get the solid waste and incinerator ash to the major
landfill site. (In the course of our study, I visited and examined your trans-
fer station here in the District, and was very favorably impressed.)


136                           REID

Proceedings

(4) We recommended that a metropolitan service agency be established to
run the operation in the core urban area and that existing county agencies
(road commissions and .departments of public works) carry on the sanitary
landfill services in the outlying areas.

(5) To back up our recommendations, we hired a well-established midwest
firm of consulting engineers to develop basic data on costs and financing of
the two alternative plans. One plan put a heavier emphasis on incineration,
requiring some additional plants, the other depended on the existing plants
and put more emphasis on sanitary landfill operations.

In line with our concern (as planners and conservers of natural resources)
for the reuse of sanitary landfill areas, we employed as firm of landscape
architects to develop a series of sketches to show how both large and small
sanitary landfill areas might be developed in a variety of parks for different
types of outdoor recreation. Since the publication of our report, a private
recreational enterprise has taken steps to use solid waste to build ski runs!

Implementing the Plan

As soon as our report was off the press, we made a full-dress presentation
to the Supervisors Inter-County Committee. On the basis of this report, that
body at once urged its member counties to examine the report carefully
and then begin to develop the necessary steps of implementation. In time,
all five counties involved had special committees of their Boards of Super-
visors at work on this matter.

The Metropolitan Fund, Incorporated, our voluntary regional research
agency, was deeply concerned with implementing a regional refuse disposal
plan, and underwrote $12,000 for the production of a series of scale models
of the plan, for use in informing citizens and local officials as to its need and
workings. These models include an incinerator, a transfer and loading
station, and a sanitary landfill operation, with a huge contour map of the
region in the background of the display. The models have already been
displayed in four of the five counties and at a local chapter meeting of the
American Public Works Association and at the National League of Cities
Conference in Detroit. They will be further utilized throughout the five-
county area, at county seats and in the various cities and townships.

I have here with me copies of the brochure, explaining the waste disposal
models, which are distributed when the models are displayed.

As .a further step in implementation, the Metropolitan Fund - at the
request of the Supervisors Inter-County Committee - undertook a legal


Panel C

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL PLAN

137

study of just how to set up a regional solid waste disposal authority. Under
our new constitution, the establishment of such metropolitan service author-
ities is permitted, but enabling legislation by the state lawmakers is required
for this end.

Our legislature last year, the first one under the new constitution and
redistricting, passed a law to license and regulate garbage and refuse dis-
posal. Several of the members of the advisory committee that assisted in
our study are on the State committee set up by the State Health Department
to \vrite the standards and regulations for sanitary landfills.

At this stage in the long drawn-out and often frustrating implementation
process, probably the major point to be made is that at least communities
and officials are thinking on a county basis, instead of a local civil division
basis. Some of our counties are willing to make an inter-county approach,
hut not all. But we are moving, and in the right direction! We have also
had an assist from the Solid Waste Program administration in being re-
quested to review applications for demonstration grants in our region.

What would we have done differently? Make no mistake, we would have
done it again!

( 1) But if we had to do it again, at the outset we would seek to put the
project of developing the study and the plan under the aegis of a region-
wide policy body. You have such a body; your Council of Governments is
just the instrument. Our Supervisors Inter-County Committee was help-
ful but not equal to the tough task of effectuation. I expect our new
Council of Governments will attain such a position.

(2) I would seek for the project the joint support of the Department of
Mousing and Urban Development and Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare for the undertaking. Both Federal agencies have a stake in
the development and effectuation of a region-wide solid waste disposal
plan - one from the planning and land use standpoint, the other from the
environmental health standpoint.

(3) Another urgent step to add would be the formation of a citizens'
advisory committee to work parallel to the technical advisory committee.
Elected officials need the push and the informed support of a significant
body of citizens to achieve legislatibn and financing.

(4) And finally, I would add to the technical advisory committee - of
engineers, environmental health people and planners - representatives of
recreational agencies - regional, county and municipal. They should have


138                           REID

Proceedings

a part in the development of plans for the recreational reuse of sanitary
landfill areas.

Conclusion

One of the unanticipated by-products of our study and work on a regional
solid waste disposal plan has been a better understanding among urban
planners, environmental health engineers, public health and public works
officials. We had worked together before, sporadically, on little things here
and there. In this case, it meant some intensive work on a big project with
rather serious implications. It has created a better environment for pro-
fessional cooperation in the interests of sound and healthful metropolitan
development.


ADMINSTRATIVE PROBLEMS IN THE
   REGIONAL APPROACH
TO SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

Ross L. Clark *

THJS 16 CENTENNIAL YEAR IN CANADA - the passing of one-hundred
years having taken place since Confederation in 1867. Celebrations are
llnderway in the many communities of our ten Provinces for the 20 million
persons resident in the land, to focus attention on accomplishments, short-
comings and historical events which have brought the country to its present
state of progress.

The various activities are permitting the citizens to reflect on traditions
of the past, and to pause and assess the many problems - social, environ-
mental, physical, and others - which must be met as we enter our second
century.

The nation's birthday is highlighted by EXPO in Montreal, where the
peoples of the world have recorded- in steel, concrete and technical-social
presentations, the great symbols of progress and the many wonders of the
20th century, to conform with the theme of the Fair - Man and His World.

Man's environment is constituted from the three traditional elements
mentioned frequently in Greek writings and mythology, namely land,
water and air. It would serve little purpose to explore the relative im-
portance of each, for all play a significant part, and are essential to the
existence of life. Indeed, it was the very presence of these ingredients which
brought the early explorers to Lake Ontario, and provided them with
plentiful agricultural and forest products, transportation and a healthy
atmosphere.

Growth and development came quickly, and by 1849, when the city was
incorporated, the population had reached a level of 9,000 persons. Today,
- after the passing of 120 years - our citizens in the core City of Toronto
and its environs number some 2.5 millions.

The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto is a relative newcomer to the
Canadian scene. However, in the brief period of 13 years, it has attracted
widespread interest because of its governmental format, and in the con-

* Commissionrr of Works, The Municipality of Mrtropolitan Toronto.

139 *

263-3990-67-10


140

CLARK              Proceedingr

siderable success achieved in overcoming many of the regional problems
associated with the .burgeoning growth of urban complexes.

Metropolitan Toronto is a federation of the central core City of Toronto
and its surrounding suburbs, embracing 240 square miles and 1,850,OOO
people within its environs. The municipality was originally constitued in
1953 through enactment of Provincial legislation following a comprehensive
study of the municipal problems in the Toronto area, by the Ontario Muni-
cipal Board - a body charged with responsibility to control capital expendi-
tures by municipalities in Ontario, and which also exercises certain powers
in planning, zoning, and other related matters.

The O.M.B. as it is more commonly known, received arguments pro and
con by the city and each of its suburbs, on the suggested amalgamation of
the entire area under one government, and the Hearing culminated in a
recommendation that a new level of government be instituted in which the
city, and its suburbs, would become partners for certain purposes.

Originally the Metropolitan Council was composed of 12 representatives
from the city, and the mayors or reeves of the 12 suburbs. Mr. F. G.
Gardiner, Q.c., L.L.D., was the original chairman, initially appointed by the
Province for the first year, but subsequently selected for reappointment by
the Council members. He retired in 1962, and his successor, Mr. William
R. Allen, Q.C., was chosen by his colleagues from their ranks, and has been
returned to office at each annual inaugural Council Meeting since that time.

The new Council was charged with defined responsibility for: uniform
assessment; financing; water supply; sewage disposal; arterial roads; public
transportation; welfare (certain functions) ; capital costs of education;
administration of justice ; housing; regional planning; and parks.

The member municipalities retained considerable autonomy and assumed
responsibility for local services such as: distribution of water; operation of
sewers; local streets and sidewalks; schools; fire protection; district parks
and recreation; garbage collection and disposal; street cleaning; snow
removal; libraries; local planning, etc.

In 1956, police, licensing, air pollution control and civil defense were
integrated as regional activities.

Typical of the accomplishments of the Regional government in its initial
years are: expansions of the water supply and pollution control facilities,
with expenditures in excess of $200,000,000 *; a rapidly developing system


pare1 C

ADMINISTJlATIVE PROBLEMS                  141

of expressways and arterial roads, costing over $365,000,000*, generally
financed 50 percent by the Province; extension of the rapid transit subway
$ystem into the eastern and western suburbs at a cost in excess of $2m,-
000.000, partly financed by the Province; ever-increasing investment in
schools (current rqX!StS are $30 to $50 million a year) ; similar expansions
in parks, recreational and conservation lands and buildings, as well as
housing for the aged, and low-rental accommodation.
During the period from 1954 to 1966, refuse disposal remained the re-
sponsibility of the member municipalities and the private and industrial
concerns involved. Metropolitan Toronto did operate, through its Depart-
ment of Works, sanitary landfills at a number of locations, partly to provide
a needed service at a cost, but also with an end result in view - usually
the transition of low-lying, wet or swampy areas into useful parks, although,
in at least one case, selected fill was utilized to reduce the degree of slope
on a high bank behind private houses, where land slippage appeared
imminent.

These operations had no official legislative status, and required a great
&al of cooperation from officials, both elected and appointed, in the munici-
palities involved. In 1965, the time arrived, as a report prepared some ten
yrars earlier had predicted, when there simply was no more land available
within `Metro' where operating procedures of the past seemed possible.

Several of the member municipalities, with inadequate or no incinerator
cal'acity, found themselves approaching a state of crisis. The refuse disposal
problem was one of the major concerns of a Royal Commission t investi-
gating the Metropolitan form of government which had been appointed in
June 1963, as a result of agitation by officials and citizens over certain in-
rquitics which began to develop in the government system originally estab-
lishcd. Chief among them was "representation by population" - some
suburbs, whose population was 15,000 or less, had equal votes on `Metro
Council' with those well in excess of 200,000, and the suburban population,
absorbing most of the Municipality's annual increment of over 50,000 people,
had grown to approximately l,OOO,OOO, with the core city's population re-
rnaining relatively static at some 675,000.

* This figure does not include expenditures made by member municipalities on local
services.
t .A Royal Commission may be appointed in Canada, either by the Federal or
Provincial government, to explore whatever subject may be assigned under its
terms of refrrencr. Evidence is presented in the form of briefs and testimony,
similar to a court of law. The government concerned may decide to follow the
advice of a Royal Commission Reporq or to accept only part, or none of its
Conclusions.


142                          CLARK

Proceedingr

The Commission noted: "As locally operated sites in almost every munici-
pality are quickly being filled, there is now an urgent need to locate new
sites to provide disposal and incineration facilities on an area-wide basis."
Reference was made to a brief presented by the Metropolitan Toronto and
Regional Conservation Authority, which submitted that Metro alone should
assume respon,sibility for all waste disposal. The Commission agreed, stating
in its Recommendation 5 (vi) : "The Metropolitan Corporation should as-
sume responsibility for all waste disposal in the Metropolitan area." The
Government of Ontario received the Commission Report in June, 1965.

During this same period, organizations such as the City Engineers As-
sociation of Ontario were endeavouring to impress government with the
urgency of the waste disposal problem, not only in the Toronto area, but
in the Province as a whole. Their advisory committee had prepared and
published the following resolution in December, 1964, which is pertinent to
this presentation :

"Whereas the disposal of refuse, both household and commercial/industrial is a
matter of growing concern and economic cost to the municipalities of the Province.
  "And whereas the cheapest method of disposal available at this time appears to
be the sanitary landfill, the present economy of which is dependent on the availabilit!
and proximity of suitable sites, which in many areas are rapidly disappearing, or
where available, their use may be objectionable to conservationists, or may become
sources of pollution to water courses or to underground water supplies,
  "And whereas, at present, control of landfilling is under several Legislative Acts
including the Conservation Authorities Act, Section 20 (1) (e), the Public Health
Act, Section 6 (43), the Ontario Water Resources Commission Act, Section 26 (3),
and under thr jurisdiction of several provincial departments and/or commissions,
  "And whereas incineration, which appears to be the next most common method,
also needs areas for disposal of residue and requires care to avoid excessive air pollution,
  "And whereas disposal of volatile chemical and industrial wastes is not entire11
arccptablr either in conventional sanitary landfills or incinerators,
  "Therefore be it Resolved that the City Engineers Association Advisory Com-
mittee to the Ontario Water Resources Commission requests the Commission to in-
stitute, or to investigate which provincial agency should institutr studies into the long-
range methods and economics thereof, for disposal of thrse tvpes of wastes, as control
would be prrferable on a regional basis rather than on a limited municipal basis, and
an rffort should be made to centralize all regulation and control under the jurisdiction
of one provincial agency."

A similar resolution was later forwarded by the Association directly to
the Premier of Ontario.

In amendments to the Metropolitan Toronto Act introduced in 1966,
the Ontario Legislature made significant changes in the Metropolitan
Toronto format, creating 6 municipalities, into which the former 13 were
absorbed. The land area remained essentially the same. The Council was
cspanded to 32 members plus the chairman to give more equal representa-


Panel C

ADMINlSTRATIVE PROBLEMS

143

tion ( 20 from suburbs, 12 from city). Waste disposal became the responsibility
of the Metropolitan Corporation after January 1, 1967, and all properties
and equipment in use for disposal purposes as of March 3 1, 1966, were
transferred without cost to the Corporation. The Act gave Metro authority
to acquire land anywhere within the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area
( sfetro area plus its continguous municipalities is 720 square miles), subject
to the approval of the municipality in which the land is located, or, if such
approval is not forthcoming, subject to a hearing before the O.M.B. whose
approx-al is necessary, and who may impose such restrictions, limitations and
conditions respecting the acquisition or use of such land as may be deemed
necessary or expedient. The Act further provided that no fee could be
charged area municipalities or their agents for their utilization of the
regional disposal facilities.

On announcement of the foregoing terms of reference, Metropolitan
Toronto engaged the consulting engineering firm of James F. MacLaren Ltd.
in association with Black and Veatch of Kansas City to make an exhaustive
study of the waste disposal problem, including: (a) the volumes and types
of wastes collected now and forecast to 1985 ; (b) the need to equalize col-
lection costs for each of the six member municipalities as much as possible
by establishment of disposal points or transfer stations within reasonable
haulage distances; (c) recommendations relative to the use of landfill, in-
cineration, or a combination thereof; (d) the study and selection of sites
suitable for these purposes; (e) consideration of special wastes such as
sewage sludge, flammable and volatile liquids, construction demolition wastes,
bulky objects, trees, leaves, street sweepings and catchbashin wastes, etc.

Mr. L. W. Bremser of Black and Veatch, who addressed your Panel A
yesterday afternoon, will have dealt with these study factors in his paper on
"Regional Solid Waste Study."

The recent report of the consultants recommends a blending of sanitary
landfill and incineration methods and Metropolitan Council has approved
inclusion in its five-year capital works budget of the sum of $31,8OO,OOO to
meet the needs of the area in waste disposal, for land acquisition, develop
ment of sites, and incinerator construction. At present hearings before the
O.M.B. are underway relating to acquisition of a major site in a neighboring
municipahty. Planning and development of another site in one of the
member municipalities is well advanced. These are expected to serve for
upwards of ten years.

Another development affecting the picture involves establishment by
the Province of a new branch of the Department of Public Health, and


144

CLARK              Proceedings

the introduction of amendments to the Public Health Act, bringing control
of all sanitary landfill operations in the Province under that Department.
A copy of Bill 71, containing the pertinent sections of this proposed legisla-
tion, is attached as a supplement to this paper. The effect of the Bill is to
prohibit operation of any new landfills unless the following procedures are
undertaken: (a) engineering studies as to possible adverse affect on ground-
water, surface flow, and the soil; (b) preparation of engineering plans and
specifications showing the projected development of the site; and (c) obtain-
ing approval and certification of the Department of Public Health.

Provision is included for inspection of active sites, and for correction of
any unsatisfactory conditions at the operator's expense, subject to court
action and a fine of not less than $100, or more than $2,000 if convicted. A
completed site may not be utilized for any other purpose for a period of
25 years without the approval of the Minister of Public Health. Regulations
prescribing conduct of operations will be published later, under authority
of the Act.

It is noteworthy, that perhaps as a result of the resolution by the City
Engineers Association, the Prime Minister established an Advisory Com-
mittee on Pollution Control, composed of the following: Chairman, Deputy
Minister of Energy and Resources Management; Deputy Minister of Agri-
culture and Food ; Deputy Minister of Public Health ; Deputy Minister of
Lands and Forests; Deputy Minister of Mines; and General Manager of
Ontario Water Resources Commission.

A full-time Secretary has been appointed to record activities and the
Committee functions and reports to the Minister of Energy and Resources
Management under the following terms of reference: ( 1) to ensure coordi-
nation of the activities of the various Departments of the Government re-
sponsible for pollution control ; (2) to foster and coordinate technical and
economic research of pollution problems; (3) to formulate training pro-
grams; (4) to establish technical subcommittees for the purpose of studying
specific pollution problems; and (5) to make recommendations.

In the Federal and Provincial Governments of Canada, Departments of
government are placed under the supervision of a Minister who is an elected
official and a member of the Cabinet. He reports on all Departmental
matters to the House. Administration of the Departments is performed by
a Deputy Minister, who is generally an expert in the particular field, ap
pointed to the post, and the senior civil servant in the Department. Thus,
*it will be seen that a very high-ranking Committee is bringing its attention


Pllld c

ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS

145

10 bear on the problems of coordination of activities in this vexing sphere of
pollution control in Ontario, in which refuse disposal must be regarded as
a major consideration.

Under the laws of Ontario, municipalities are the creatures of the
Province, and are subject to extensive Provincial surveillance. Much of it
is an aftermath of the depression in the `30's, when many municipalities
XI-oss the globe declared bankruptcy. Today, no municipal council may
commit its successors to future expenditure without the sanction of the
o..\I.B., which has an obligation to ensure that the debt structure of any
municipality remains within the ability of its financial resources to repay.
.\dditionally, because of subsidies from the Province in education, roads,
Lvelfare and others, controls in the form of audits, reports to the Department
of Municipal Affairs, and a number of others are required. When the
Provincial government passes legislation affecting municipalities, therefore,
observance is required. Their only recourse is an expression of opinion at
the polls at the next general election. In this manner, the opposition or
unwillingness of some to cooperate in solving regional problems may be re-
moved, while at the same time, consideration has to be given in planning
\vorks to eliminate or minimize the features which may have disturbed
citizens, or caused their opposition.

The fact that, by simple passage of amendments to the Metropolitan
Toronto Act, the Provincial legislature transferred all existing waste disposal
facilities and equipment to metropolitan control, with no compensation
necessary, other than assumption of any outstanding debt, thus giving effect
to the Toronto regional approach, may not assist you here in the Washington
area, under a different set of laws, even though circumstances and problems
may be similar. You are far more familiar with your legislative procedures
and problems than the writer, and perhaps only by comparison with our
approach can the best combination of the two be made. However, irrespec-
tive of the advantages seemingly available in our legislation we have no
lack of problems, both tangible and intangible. The protective clauses,
written in our Act regarding use of lands in neighboring municipalities, en-
able aggrieved persons to call for an O.M.B. hearing, requiring presentation
of all facts and aspects to justify the proposals. Irrespective of problems this
is a healthy situation for in a democratic form of government, all sides have
the right of expression, and we are not permitted to become so enthused
over the obvious righteousness of our regional position that we are blinded
to what our objectors may feel is the equal or superior righteousness of their
case.


146

CLARK

Proceeding,

One thing stands out above all others. No matter how badly it is needed
for the regional good, no sanitary landfill or refuse incinerator is welcomed
with open arms as a prospective neighbor. Everybody agrees they are es-
sential, as long as they are located someplace else. As administrators, we have
to be conscious of this reaction and do everything possible to design our
facilities to fit into their surroundings as pleasantly as possible, with house-
keeping of the highest order, and prompt attention to, and correction of,
any source of complaint. In this, conservation of the elements - our natural
resources - air - water and soil - must be given paramount attention.

APPEND=

          WEATHER DATA

Average rainfall per year
Average snowfall per year
Average yearly temperature

.

22.61"

60.4"

47.7"
71"

Average summer temperature
    (high)

80"

Average winter temperature

31"
19"
(mean)
during day
high
low

The Municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto Act

                           PART IV-A
                 Waste Disposal
Interpretation
  73a.-( 1) In this Part,
     (a) "area municipality" includes a local board ;
     (b)  "waste" includes ashes, garbage, refuse and domestic or industrial
      waste of any kind.

Waste disposal

  (2) The Metropolitan Corporation may acquire and use land within the Metro-
politan Toronto Planning Area and may erect, maintain and operate buildings, struc-
tures, machinery or equipment for the purposes of receiving, dumping and disposing
of waste, and may contract with any person for such purposes, and may prohibit or
regulate the dumping and disposing of waste or any class or classes thereof upon any
such land, and may charge fees for the use of such property, which fees may vary
in respect of different classes of waste, but no such fees shall be charged to any
area municipality or its agent.


Panel C                     TORONTO ACT                     147

Jpprocal re acquisition of land

  (3) The power to acquire land under subsection 2 shall not be exercised
without,

(a) the approval of the municipality in which the land is situate, which
approval may be granted upon such terms and conditions as may be
  agreed upon ; or

(b) failing such approval or agreement, the approval of the Municipal
  Board.

.ipprovaL of O.M.B.

  (4) The Municipal Board, before giving its approval under clause b of sub-
section 3, shall hold a public hearing and shall give or cause to be given at least ten
days notice of the hearing to the clerk of the municipality concerned and to such
other persons in such manner as the Municipal Board may direct, and the Municipal
Board, as a condition of giving any such approval, may by its order impose such
rtstrictions, limitations and conditions respecting the acquisition or use of such land
as to the Municipal Board may appear necessary or expedient.

POIWTS of area municipalities

  (5) On and after the 1st day of January, 1967, no area municipality shall
rxercise any of its powers with respect to the matters provided for in subsection 2
without the consent of the Metropolitan Council.

.J.rsumption of lands for waste disposal
  (6) The Metropolitan Council shall, before the 1st day of January, 1967, pass
by-laws, which shall be effective on the 1st day of January, 1967, assuming for the
use of the Metropolitan Corporation any land, building, structure, machinery or
equipment, including vehicles used primarily for the disposal of waste, that the
Metropolitan Corporation may require for the purposes of subsection 2 that is
vested on the 31st day of March, 1966, in any arca municipality and is used on such
date for the purposes set out in subsection 2 or that is acquired by any area munici-
pality after the 31st day of March, 1966, and before the 1st day of January, 1967,
for such use, and on the day any such by-law becomes effective the property
designated therein vests in the Metropolitan Corporation.

Sale by area municipalities limited
  (7) No area municipality, after the 31st day of March, 1966, and before the
1st day of January, 1967, shall without the consent of the Metropolitan Council
sell, lease or otherwise dispose of or encumber any property mentioned in subsection 6.

i:`xtension of time

  (8) Notwithstanding subsection 6, a by-law for assuming any property men-
tioned in subsection 6, with the approval of the Municipal Board, may be passed
after the 1st day of January, 1967, and in that cr3e the by-law shall become effective
on the date provided therein.

Liability of Metropolitan Corporation
  (9) Where the Metropolitan Corporation assumes any property under sub-
section 6 or 8,

(a) no compensation or damage shall be payable to the area municipality
  except as provided in this subsection ;

(h) the Metropolitan Corporation shall thereafter pay to the area munici-
pality before the due date all amounts of principal and interest be-
coming due upon any outstanding debentures issued by the area munici-
pality in respect of any property vested in the Metropolitan Corpora-
tion under subsection 6 or 8; and


148                          CLARK

Proceedings

(c) notwithstanding any order of the Municipal Board or any debenture
  by-law passed pursuant thereto, all amounts of principal and interest
becoming due thereafter with respect to any debentures theretofore
issued by the Metropolitan Corporation in respect of any property
vested in the Metropolitan Corporation under subsection 6 or 8 shall
be repaid by levies against all the area municipalities.

Default

(10) If the Metropolitan Corporation fails to make any payment as required
by clause b of subsection 9, the area municipality may charge the Metropolitan Cor-
poration interest at the rate of one-half of 1 percent for each month or fraction
thereof that the payment is overdue.

Settling of doubts

( 11) In the event of any doubt as to whether,
   (a) any outstanding debenture or portion thereof was issued in respect of
     any property assumed under subsection 6 or .8 ; or
    (b) any vehicle was used primarily for the disposal of waste,
the Municipal Board, upon application, may determine the matter, and its decision
is final.

Local by-laws not applicable to Metropolitan Corporation
operations R.S.O. 1960, c. 249

(12) No by-law of any municipality heretofore or hereafter passed pursuant to
paragraph 112 of subsection 1 of section 379 of The Municipal Act or a predecessor
thereof shall apply to the operations of the Metropolitan Corporation pursuant to
subsection 2.

Existing contracts for disposal of waste

(13) Nothing in this Part shall affect any contract for the disposal of waste that
is now existing between any person and any area municipality, but the Metropolitan
Corporation and any such area municipality may enter into an agreement providing
`that the Metropolitan Corporation shall assume all or part of the liability created
by such contract in respect of the disposal of waste. 1966, c. 96, s. 10.


PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ASPECTS
  OF AREA-WIDE PLANNING

Hugh Mields, Jr."

THE SURGEON GENEIUL as he announced this conference remarked that
.-The solid waste problems of the metropolitan Washington area will not
be rffectively dealt with until the District of Columbia, the states of Mary-
land and Virginia, and the cities and towns surrounding Washington join
together in a cooperative effort . . ."

That may very well be the understatement of the decade. It will take
more than a cooperative effort on the part of all the governments in the
metropolitan area - including the Federal Government - to develop a
solution to the problem of adequately protecting our urban environment
from the hazards and pollutants that threaten to inundate us.

It will take no less than an unqualified political commitment on the part
of all the local governments in the area to convince the state legislatures
to pass the laws, raise and spend the money, and delegate (relinquish) the
authority necessary to restore our physical environment.

It will take, moreover, imagination, skill, dedication and drive on the
part of the bureaucrats involved to make the need for action now more
meaningful to the political policyniakers involved. So far our local public
servants have demonstrated their great defensive skills only.

A cooperative effort may be enough to indulge in area-wide planning as
an exercise - but planning for program implementation must be the product
of an institutional arrangement capable of making political decisions to act
affirmatively over the long haul.

Action oriented area-wide planning can only be initiated after the govern-
ments of the metropolitan area agree on the nature of the problem threaten-
ing their jurisdictions and that it has regional significance. Also they must
generally agree on the means they need to employ to meet the threat and
they must agree on the kind of urban condition they want to achieve in the
process.

Only after these decisions have been made and the regional goals agreed

*Consultant, Wise/Gladstone & Associates.

149 -


150

MIELDS              Proceedingr

upon can "public administration" take hold, and the administrators and
technicians undertake area-wide planning for appropriate action programs.

The Critical Nature of the Problem

Secretary Gardner's Task Force on Environmental Health & Related
Problems in its report A Strategy for Livable Environment released in June
states : "Man lives in delicate equilibrium with the biosphere - on the
precious Earth-crust, using and reusing the waters, drawing breath from the
shallow sea of air. While these can cleanse themselves, they can do so only to
a finite point. That point is being reached and passed in many places in the
United States. It is not only necessary that we take preventive action, it is
also urgent that we take steps to restore the quality of our environment." l

The Task Force Report effectively communicates a great sense of urgency.
It is a sense of urgency which needs to be communicated to the governments
of this metropolitan area.

The Task Force Report documents at some length the extent to which our
expanding and aflluent urban populations are generating vast quantities
of progressively more complex gaseous, liquid and solid waste products.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that the sources of these waste prod-
ucts are interrelated and that the whole approach to the protection of the
public health and well-being must be undertaken on a broad and coordinated
basis. The development of adequate environmental protection system for
the Washington Metropolitan area will require that we direct our attention
to the full range of existing hazards and that we recognize the interrelation-
ships between solid, gaseous and liquid wastes.

If we are to restore and to protect and enhance our physical environment,
a comprehensive approach to the problem is essential. The program we
must construct must be concerned with not only solid waste disposal prob-
lems but air quality, water pollution, water quality and supply, chemical
and pesticide hazard control and all other threats to our environment and
our physical well-being.

Setting Program Goals

The Task Force Report A Strategy for Livable Environment recom-
mends that HEW's purpose for environmental concern be: "To ensure that
every American can thrive in an attractive, comfortable, convenient and
healthy environment by :

controlling pollution at its source,
reducing hazards


Panel C               ASPECTS OF AREA-WIDE PLANNING

151

converting waste to use, and

improving the aesthetic value of man's surroundings." 2

Having set this general goal the Task Force urges that this primary goal
be related to a policy commitment toward the elimination of environmental
contamination and that in addition program goals must be set for the reduc-
tion of specific contaminants. I b e ieve
                      1   that it is reasonable to suggest that
this same set of goals can and should be acceptable to the governments,
local, state, and Federal in the Washington metropolitan area and that there
is no valid reason why these same governments cannot make the necessary
policy commitment.

Setting Regional Goals

The kind of environmental protection system recommended by Secretary
Gardner's Task Force has as its immediate objectives the establishment of
criteria and standards for elements discharged into the air, water, and soil,
and the creation of a sui-veillance system, nationwide for all pollutants in
air. water, and soil.

The Task Force contains this admonition: "And compliance must be
based on more than abatement action. There must be an inducement so
strong for State and local governments to do comprehensive planning on an
appropriate geographic scale and to conform with national goals and ob-
jectives that it is politically and economically unpalatable for them to do
otherwise." 3

The Task Force Report goes on to say "Participation on the part of local
government in any regional environmental program should be as great as
possible, but it must be recognized that environmental protection problems
will have to be solved on the metropolitan or regional scale.

"We must engage in experimentation and research in order to increase our
capacity to make decisions at the metropolitan or regional level." *

An Interstate Compact Agency Required

For the Washington metropolitan area it seems obvious that some kind
of new institutional arrangement will have to be created to carry out an
cfrcctive emironmental protection program. It seems inevitable at this
point that to mount the kind of environmental protection system needed
to most adequately meet the problems of this area, an interstate compact
agency will have to be created. The creation of such an agency will involve
agreement on behalf of the states of Maryland and Virginia, the Congress
and should be fully supported by the Executive Branch. Also it must be


152                          M~ELDS

Proceedings

so structured so as to be genuinely responsive to the local governments in
the area. As a matter of fact, I would urge that the Compact Agency be
a component part of the Washington COG, which has already created an
intergovernmental decision-making process.

The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences in
its report Waste Management and Control stated that "Public policies and
institutional arrangements, and the extent to which they are supported will
largely determine the effectiveness with which the challenge of pollution
is met." 5

"Law and public policy establish the environment that will determine
the response of private activities and individual public agencies to the prob-
lems of pollution. Because of the strategic role of governmental agencies
at all levels in establishing this environment, or climate, their organization,
staffing, financial support, and authority are critical to a successful attack
on the problems of pollution." 6

Neither the individual governments in the D.C. metropolitan area nor in
any other metropolitan area are adequately equipped to deal with the
problem on the scale required. The scale makes it impossible to solve on
an individual basis, and jurisdictional problems effectively preclude any
real hope for effective confederation. If the local governments in the area
are to act responsibly, they must assume the obligation of supporting the
creation of a new institutional arrangement or governmental entity which
can meet the problem on the scale required to adequately protect and
enhance the physical environment of the metropolitan area. And at the
same time they must be sure that such an arrangement is not special pur-
pose, but part of a general decision-making process for the region - one
that deals with highways, outdoor recreation, health and all the other things
that create an environment of excellence on the intergovernmental regional
scale.

   Area Wide Planning for an Environmental Protection System
The creation of a compact agency will take, however, at least from two
to four years to accomplish. Much will depend on the zeal with which the
local governments take on the job. But in any event, planning for the
creation of the compact agency itself should begin now and should be under-
taken as a specific goal of the Washington Metropolitan Council of
Governments.

The principal talk of the compact agency committee would be to secure
agreement amongst member governments as to: ( 1) the compact agency's


Panel C               ASPECTS OF AREA-WIDE PLANNING

153

specific responsibilities; (2) the kinds of powers, police, taxes, eminent
domain, etc., to be placed at its disposal; (3) how it is to be organized,
staffed and funded; (4) the kinds of standards it should impose and over
Lvhat period of time; (5) how it should enforce such standards and secure
compliance; (6) its relationships to the states and federal governments and
most importantly - its relationship to the local governments within the
metropolitan area.

But while the COG compact agency committee is pursuing its responsibilities
COG itself should be working with the governments of the region in develop
ing agreement on interim goals and an action program to meet those goals
in the most constructive and effective way until the compact agency is a
fact and is working.

This work, it would seem to me, would fall into two categories:

First, trying to meet the short term problems of eliminating the most
obnoxious hazards to the metropolitan environment:

Shooting for a target of closing down all the open burning in the metro-
politan area and particularly the. Kenilworth Dump within the next six
months.

Begin preparing for completion in 1969 a comprehensive environmental
health program plan for the metropolitan area.

Begin to develop abatement plans to reduce plant stack emissions by
90 percent by 1970. In other words implement the recommendations made
by COG in its model Air Pollution Ordinance.

Second, providing the basic information regarding the range and intensity
of esisting and potential hazards to the environment for purposes of further
refining the area's short-term goals and to be used by the compact agency
once it is created as a basis for its compliance and enforcement program.

Work undertaken in this regard would consist of the following: (1) a
metropolitan wide monitoring system for Gr and water pollution; this would
require an expansion of cot existing I I stations air pollution monitoring
network; (2) the development of a source inventory for solid, gaseous and
liquid waste for the entire metropolitan area; (3) area wide solid waste
disposal site survey; (4) analysis of the nature of the total solid waste loads
along with the development of methods of analysis for alternative mixes of
treatment. For example, how much waste should be burned, how much
should be ground up, and discharged through the sewer system, how much
should be buried, how much should be subject to salvage; (5) examination


154

MELDS             Proceedings

of existing private and public collection methods, etc. ; (6) an intense and
in depth examination of the total existing and projected impact of current
prevaient environmental hazards on the ecologue of the metropolitan area;
(7) undertaking a comprehensive analysis of the projected cost involved
in the development of an effective environmental protection system and the
examination of possible sources of revenue to support the protection program
including recommendations as to the appropriate role in terms of financing
to be played by the state and Federal governments.

Summary

The development of an effective environmental protection system will
                                         *
require a comprehensive approach involving all aspects of waste generation
and taking into account the full range of environmental hazards within
the framework of broad and responsible political decision making.

o It will have to operate on a regional scale
o It will require the full commitment and support on the part of all
the governments in the area

o The work on the creation of an appropriate compact agency should
begin now under the auspices of the Washington Metropolitan
Council of Governments

o At the same time the governments of the metropolitan area should
be working through WASH coo to develop short-term abatement goals

- and programs to achieve those goals during interim between now
and the creation of the compact agency

o Finally, every effort should be made on the part of the individual
governments within the metropolitan area acting individually and in
concert to secure and utilize all available resources and powers
through the States and the Federal government to assist them in a
truly cooperative effort to restore the Metropolitan area's physical
environment.

`The Task Force on Environmental Health and Related Problems. A rrrategy for
a livable environment; a report to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967. p. 1.
' Ibid. p. xv.
a Ibid. p. xii.
`Ibid. p. xiii.
`National Academy pf Sciences - National Research Council, Committee on
Pollution. WIT Waste management and cont;oF A report :o the Federal Corrncil for
Science and Technology.   Publication No. 1400. Washington, D.C., National
Academy of Sciences - National Research Council, 1966. p. 222.
`Ibid. p. 222.


ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE UNDER THE
  SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT

Richard D. Vaughan *

MAN HAS BEEN POLLUTING his environment for centuries. But recently in
this country, as in other parts of the world, a rapidly growing population,
increasingly concentrated in urban areas, has made pollution a critical
problem. The metropolitan area of Washington, the point of focus for this
conference, provides a concrete example of a highly concentrated urban
area with increasingly severe pollution problems.

Until the last few years, pollution to most people meant unclean air and
water. Few were concerned about contamination from solid wastes as long
as their garbage and trash were routinely removed from their premises, and
the disposal site was beyond the senses of sight and smell. Yet, in communi-
tics throughout the country, the burning of wastes in the open or in anti-
quated equipment is a major cause of air pollution. Moreover, open dumps
often seriously pollute surface and ground waters.

Only today are we beginning to realize that our three waste repositories
contain all we shall ever have of the basic life resources of land, air, and
water and that these repositories are interconnected so that to pollute one
may be to pollute all three.

In economic terms, as a nation we are now paying about $3 billion a year
for solid waste handling systems which are less than adequate in many cases.
The expenditure of local funds for solid waste is exceeded only by expendi-
tures for schools and roads.

Although there is a great and pressing need for research and development
in the technology of solid waste management, it must be emphasized that
knowledge is now available for the development of safe and efficient solid
waste handling systems. No community need wait for research results be-

* Chief, Environmental Sanitation Program, National Center for Urban and Indus-
trial Health, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Weliare. On August 1, 1967, the National Center for Urban and Industrial
Health moved its headquarters to Cincinnati, At that time Mr. Vaughan became
Chief, Solid Wastes Program, NCUIH.

155

283-399 O-67- 11


156                         VAUGHAN

Proceedings

fore improving waste management.  Most municipalities, unfortunately,
have lacked money to spend on available sanitary collection and disposal
equipment and facilities, much less to risk on disposal methods not yet
wholly tried. Furthermore, many communities now undertaking to dispose
of solid wastes, are too small to afford to do much more than dump wastes
in the open or burn them in the open or in primitive equipment.

The Solid Waste Disposal Act

There are reasons for optimism for the long-term outlook for effective solid
waste management. One of the most important reasons is that, for the first
time, we have a Federal commitment to support and assist in a coordinated
national effort to solve solid waste problems. This commitment is embodied
in Title II of Public Law 89-272, The Solid Waste Disposal Act. On
October 20, 1965, the President signed the Act into Law.

The Act directs the Secretary of the Interior to aid in solving solid waste
problems resulting from extracting, processing or using minerals or fossil
fuels. All other responsibilities under the Act are assigned to the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare. On December 3, 1965, the Surgeon
General of the Public Health Service established an organizational entity
which is now designated as the Solid Wastes Program of the National Center
.for Urban and Industrial Health to carry out the HEW provisions of the
Act, which are : ". . . ( 1) to initiate and accelerate a national research and
development program for new and improved methods of proper and eco-
nomic solid waste disposal, including studies directed toward the conserva-
tion of natural resources by reducing the amount of waste and unsalvageable
materials and by recovery and utilization of potential resources in solid
wastes; and (2) to provide technical and financial assistance to State and
local governments and interstate agencies in the planning, development, and
conduct of solid wastes disposal programs."

The Act authorizes specific action in six areas of need: ( 1) grant support
for local and State projects to demonstrate new and improved waste disposal
technology; (2) grant support for the development of area-wide solid waste
management systems to end fragmentation of responsibilities among small
communities; (3) grant support for State surveys of solid waste handling
needs and the development of Statewide plans for meeting needs; (4) re-
search, both direct and grant-supported, to establish the basis for new ap-
proaches to solid waste handling; (5) training programs, both direct and
grant-supported, to alleviate critical shortages of trained personnel; (6)
technical assistance to local and State governments with solid waste problems.


Panel C                  ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE                   157

Clearly, the Act casts the Federal government in the role of supporting
partner with local and State agencies in solving solid waste problems. Pri-
mary responsibility for solid waste handling and for carrying out programs
for improved practices remains at the local and State levels.

Assistance Provided by the Solid Wastes Program

During the 19 months of existence of the Solid Wastes Program of the
Public Health Service, and in the context of the purposes and specific actions
authorized by the Solid Waste Disposal Act, much progress has been made,
but much more remains to be accomplished.

The Solid Wastes Program, operating with a budget of about $12 million
during F.Y. 1967, has emphasized fundamental approaches to the solution
of solid waste problems. This is exemplified by the many communities which
are attacking the basis of their disposal problems in projects, aided by
Federal grants, to replace uneconomic and insanitary small community
operations with area or regional waste management systems. Such systems
will make it possible for communities cooperatively to avail themselves of
the health-safeguarding techriology and economies inherent in large-scale
disposal operations. The projects would merge operations now being con-
ductcd individually by many - in one case, more than 50 - communities.

Demonstration Projects

Projects receiving grants to demonstrate new and improved disposal
technology also are oriented toward basic solutions of the solid waste prob-
km, such as demonstrating constructive uses for wastes. The use of wastes
in reclaiming worthless land, for example, is to be demonstrated in a number
of projects. One of these will show that wastes can be compacted to as
little as one-tenth their original volume as they are being deposited in a
sanitary landfill. Another project is to demonstrate long-distance rail trans-
portation of wastes to abandoned strip mines and other land needing recla-
mation. Economic recovery of incineration heat to desalinate or purify
water or generate power is to be established by several projects. To date
approsimately $7 million in grant funds have been or are in the process
of being awarded for the support of 50 demonstration and study and in-
\.estigation projects which are active across the nation.

In the Metropolitan Washington area a study and investigation project
has been recently completed covering special studies leading to the design
of Incinerator No. 5 for the District of Columbia. The total project cost
was $94,000 of which $62,000 in grant funds were awarded by the Solid


158

VAUGHAN             Proceedings

Wastes Program. Presently, a study and investigation project covering the
design of Incinerator No. 5 of the District of Columbia is active. This
project will have a total cost of $390,000 of which $260,000 will be provided
by a Solid Wastes Program grant.

Demonstration grants are awarded primarily to test the economic and
technical feasibility of proposed methods. Study and investigation grants
are awarded for the study of solid waste handling problems and practices.
Work under this second category of grants leads to the demonstration of
improved waste handling practices or may provide solutions for regional
solid waste management problems. Up to two-thirds of the total cost of
projects may be financed by Federal funds.

Recent administrative action resulted in the removal of a limitation on
the amount-of demonstration project funds that could be awarded to any
one State. There is now no restriction, other than the budget of course, of
funds to any one State for demonstration and study and investigation
projects.
        State Survey and Planning Projects

States across the country are surveying their solid waste needs and de-
veloping disposal programs with 50 percent of the costs provided by Solid
Wastes Program grants. In many instances, this work has never been done
before on a Statewide basis. Regional and even interstate systems are ex-
pected to be developed through this activity.

Planning grants are awarded to State and interstate agencies which have
been designated or established as the sole agencies responsible for such State
or interstate planning. The more important objectives of this type of grant
include the enactment and strengthening of legislation, a data collection
system to pinpoint solid waste problems and devise means of dealing with
them, and the setting and enforcement of standards for the design and
operation of solid waste management facilities and equipment. To date
approximately $1.5 million in grant funds have been awarded for the sup-
port of 32 State survey and planning projects. The State health agencies
in Maryland and Virginia both have active survey and planning projects.
Recent administrative action also resulted in the removal of a limitation
on the amount of survey and planning project funds that could be awarded
to any one State.

Research Projects

Research projects supported by Solid Wastes Program grants are aimed
at sdch basic solutions as the reduction of wastes at the source or their con-


panel C                  ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE                  159

\.ersion into marketable products. One project, for example, seeks knowl-
edge which would lead to the reduction of food wastes through the develop-
ment of spoilage-resistant fruits and vegetables. Another is studying the
conversion of wastes from citrus fruit processing into citrid acid. The trans-
formation of cottage cheese and tomato wastes into human and animal
foods is the objective of another project.  Several researchers seek to con-
vert wastes into marketable carbon and chemicals. A number of new routes
to incinerator heat recovery are being explored. One project is studying
gassification of wastes to produce fuel for power generation. Over $2 million
has been committed for grant-supported research in the 19 months since
the Solid Wastes Program was established. Thirty-nine research projects are
now active under grants awarded by the Program.

The Solid Wastes Program is developing a research capability of its own
in facilities at Cincinnati. Arrangements have been completed for the con-
struction in Cincinnati of the first field laboratory for general research on
solid waste pollution abatement.

Training

The Solid Wastes Program %.ponsors or conducts training for all types of
solid waste personnel. Shortages of technical personnel are being alleviated
through grants to institutions of higher education to train graduate students
in engineering and science. Operating and administrative personnel are
being trained in courses conducted by the Program,

Training grants are awarded to institutions of higher education to estab-
lish and/or expand graduate training programs in solid waste technology
and management. I might point out that very few graduate school candi-
dates in the environmental health disciplines in the past have elected to do
graduate work in the solid waste field because of the tendency of the engi-
ncering profession as well as public officials to give solid waste programs low
priorities. It is believed that, through financial help to universities for en-
larging solid waste educational programs and by assisting graduate students,
the critical need for qualified personnel will be eased.
To date nearly $0.5 million have been awarded for solid waste training to
the following institutions of higher education: Drexel Institute of Tech-
nology; University of Florida; Georgia Institute of Technology; University
of Kansas; University of Michigan; Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Uni-
versity of Texas; and the University of West Virginia.

              Technical Assistance
Engineers and scientists of the Solid Wastes Program are developing


160                         VAUGHAN

Proceedings

technical assistance capabilities as provided for by the Act for both public
and private agencies. Members of the staff work on such tasks as the develop-
ment of disposal performance criteria. These will form a basis for estab-
lishing performance standards and will be helpful to industry in designing
equipment and techniques for meeting such standards.

An example of the technical assistance available is the study of the four
District of Columbia incinerators which was made during the week of April
2, 1967, at the request of Senator Tydings of Maryland. A full report of
the study was transmitted to Senator Tydings in June.

The Future

Not only is refuse increasing in volume, its characteristics are also changing
rapidly. And the problems will unquestionably become more severe. The
165 million tons of solid waste polluting the air and discarded and spread
over the nation's landscape in 1966 will increase to 260 million tons in a
decade. Wastes which heretofore have been of a degradable organic nature
have become mainly nondegradable inorganic material.

The Task Force on Environmental Health and Related Problems in their
recently published report to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare entitled A Strategy for a Livable Environment clearly identified future
needs in waste disposal as follows:  "Basic research into the health effects of
waste and waste disposal techniques; the study of wastes as an element of
disruption in the ecology of natural systems; a stepped-up research effort to
secure breakthroughs in the reuse and disposal of solid, liquid, and gaseous
wastes; a greater public awareness of its role and responsibility in curbing
waste; a grant-in-aid program to assist State and local governments and
private industry in establishing and maintaining adequate waste disposal
systems; achievement of reduced levels of waste through improved packag-
ing methods." l

Of a more specific nature are two identical bills which were introduced
in the Senate on April 27 by Senator Muskie of Maine (s. 1646) and
in the House of Representatives on April 28 by Representative Ryan of
New York ( H.R. 9477). The proposed legislation would amend the Solid
Waste Disposal Act to provide for the construction of solid waste disposal
facilities and for other purposes. Hearings have not been scheduled for
either of the bills.

`The Task Force on Environmental Health and Related Problems. A rlruregy for
a livable environment; G report to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967. p. 16.


Panel C                  ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE                  161

Comlusion

Imagination and innovation are being manifested in action to solve the
solid waste problem. It is clear, however, that the problem is of such in-
creasing magnitude as to demand long-term application of the utmost in
imaginative thinking and willingness to venture away from conventional
approaches and develop new and improved methods for solid waste hand-
ling. The problems we are facing are more than those of technology and
economics. They involve the American attitude toward wastes, which is
one that generates a vast public disinterest in the proper management of
tvastes. As Dr. Stewart mentioned earlier the citizenry appears to be inter-
ested in solving their solid waste problem but only if the disposal site is
located in someone else's backyard far, far away. This attitude is under-
standable if one correlates it with the opinion of Mr. John Q. Public of
what solid waste management is or should be. In far too many cases the
term solid waste disposal in the mind of the average citizen is associated
with burning and smelly dumps or antiquated incinerators belching forth
black and odorous smoke in gigantic quantities. Both images are not only
insults to man's environment but are unnecessary. Solid waste disposal
should be associated in the public's mind with immaculate operation, with
the reclamation of land and other resources, with the development of parks
and recreational areas, and with the beautification and improvement of
the community. People must realize that proper solid waste management
can result in an asset for their municipality not a liability. The complex
technology of today's complex world has created solid waste problems which
must be met straightforwardly and effectively by the professionals in this
held with the full support of an enlightened and positive thinking citizenry.
On the other hand to be content with the status quo - or to put it another
way to be satisfied with yesterday's solution to today's and tomorrow's prob-
lems will most certainly lead to disaster for the community and the nation.

Much unfavorable publicity during recent months has resulted from
the operation of the disposal site in the Washington metropolitan area
known as the Kenilworth Dump. Such notoriety has certainly not been
of value in associating in the minds of the populace what proper solid waste
management should be. The Solid Wastes Program would welcome a pro-
posal in the form of a demonstration grant application which would result
in the replacement of the present Kenilworth Dump with a model sanitary
landfill operation and land reclamation project resulting in the development
of an architecturally pleasing recreation site as well as the immediate cessa-
tion of burning. This, I believe, would `demonstrate to a large segment of


162                         VAUGHAN

Proceedings

the population, the transformation of a civic shame into something of which
the entire metropolitan area can be proud.

If any area-wide approach to solid waste management and utilization of
these wastes is to be successful, public attitudes must be improved. This
conference is one large step in that direction. I hope that this conference
will focus regional attention on solid waste management and the Metro-
politan Washington area and tools available for solving the problems.

The Solid Wastes Program would welcome a proposal for the design and
demonstration of a modern, efficient and safe solid waste management
system for the Metropolitan Washington area. A proposal could be sub-
mitted by a body representative of the area, such as the Metropolitan Wash-
ington Council of Governments. Such a project would be eligible for up
to two-thirds grant support as authorized by the Solid Waste Disposal Act.

The Public Health Service believes that through the Federal government's
partnership with industry, State and local agencies, the challenge of solving
one of the nation's more vexing environmental health problems - pollution-
free disposal and utilization of solid wastes - will be achieved.


OPEN DISCUSSION: PANEL C

Walter A. Scheiber,", Panel Chairman

MR. J. H. MCCALL?:  Mr. Reid, please define the data.developed by your
consulting engineers for the financing of your regional plan in the Detroit

area.

MR. REID:  The firm we employed was Consoer, Townsend and As-
sociates. Let me just read from my report. I brought this along to fortify
myself since I'm not an engineer. I have instructions to say this is out of
llrint. It was put out in 1964 and we've had almost as big a demand for
it from outside the Detroit region as we've had in the region. If you're
I'rorn around this area, I know there are three or four copies in various
counties, regional and city offices around here, that you might refer to. In
this report, we have tables of various types of financial data gathered. In
order to arrive at costs, it was necessary to set up schedules of collection
truck arrivals, number and size of unloading hoppers needed, size of trans-
fer buildings, size of scale house, amount of railroad siding, number of load-
ing ramps, amount of paved areas, number of lights in area, acreage required
for loading stations and so forth. In the several tables we made for our two
alternative plans, we cover such finance costs as transfer buildings, scale
house and scales, railroad loading, vehicle storage, maintenance garage,
paving, truck fueling items, exterior lighting, land acquisition, compactor
trailers, fodder trailers, road tractors, service trucks, and so on. These
specifications were also developed for the major sites recommended as re-
gional disposal sites, and for the trucks and equipment needed to carry on
those operations.

MR. MCCALL :  Mr. Reid, that is not the answer we were looking for.
We're interested in the financing of the two alternative plans. Not in the
l&c cost saving and development thereof, but we're interested in how your
engineers were recommending that these plans be financed.

MR. REID:  Since we do not have an operating agency in the region
Aat can implement this plan, it goes back to the counties through our
suljervisors intercounty committee for their first consideration. We just
don't have any basis for saying any more than we ought to have a metro-
Plitan service agency to carry on this operation and develop the cost. In

* Executive Director, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Wash-
ington, D.C.
t lames H. McCall, Goodbody and Company, Chicago, Illinois.

163


164                          PANEL C

Proceedings

general the operating cost would be paid by the cost per ton of refuse
delivered at the various points or at the disposal sites by the companies
involved. The initial cost I presume would have to be raised either by a
bonding or by a capital financing program. That's the best answer I can
give to it. We are pushing for the creation of an agency capable of doing
this.

MR. S. PROFILET*:  Do you anticipate that the Program of Solid Wastes
will generate any public information material aimed at increasing public
acceptance of solid waste disposal practices as the practices ideally should
be pursued?

MR. VAUGHAN:  Yes. This will be accomplished through several mechan-
isms, - through publicity connected with the demonstration grants and
through straight public information which is aimed toward the house-
wife or the fellow next door. Wide distribution will be made of this material,
through the Center office of public information, National Center of Urban
and Industrial Health.

MR. W. SULLIVAN+:  Are there any direct aids to industry under the
Solid Waste Disposal Act to perform research and development on solid
waste treatment?

MR. VAUGHAN :  There are no direct aids as far as the grants are con-
cerned. However, we do work a great deal with industry through the
contract mechanism.

MR. SULLIVAN :  How about money being used as state government aid
then given to industry for work for the state government as a grant?

MR. VAUGHAN :  The money that is given to the state government for
state planning grants, the state could in turn use a portion of (these funds)
for consultant purposes.
MR. HENRY EPPES~:  Does the Metropolitan Toronto area include any
unincorporated area?

MR. Ross L. CLARK: The answer is no. Metropolitan Toronto as we
said comprises six municipalities, one core city and five boroughs. It also
has surrounding it, and included in the Metropolitan Planning area, five
townships. Each of these townships is quite extensive in size, but under the
provincial statutes each is incorporated.

* Stephen B. Profilet, Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, Hyattsville,
Maryland.
t William E. Sullivan, Electronic Associates, Inc., Rockville, Maryland.
$ M. Henry Eppes, Maryland Technical Advisory Service, University of Maryland.


Second Session               OPEN DISCUSSION

165

Going back to the question of Mr. Reid. We finance operation of our
refuse disposal system now, simply by presenting a budget for the year at
the Metro-Council level. This year, it will be $4 million. Capital cost
payments are also added to the metro-levy. This total levy is then prorated
against each member municipality in relation to its assessment over the
c
whole assessment of the metro area.

&'f~. E. F. MENKE":  The question is `In the greater Metropolitan Area,
\vould it require a new agency for solid waste disposal or would the existing
structure of the Metropolitan Washington government suffice?'

MR. SCHEIBER:  The Council of Governments is a voluntary association
assisting major local governments in the Metropolitan Area including the
District and 14 suburban governments. It does not have the kind of legal
standing in our opinion which would suffice to make it adequate for the
kind of solid waste disposal programs which we've discussed during this
t\vo-day conference. Mr. Mields suggested this morning that in all likelihood
it would be necessary to negotiate and enact an interstate compact. This
would create an organization with legal power, such as the power to con-
demn land, the power to borrow money by bond issue and other similar
powers which are generally thought to be necessary in order to develop a
viable solid waste disposal program. COG at the present time does not
have such powers and we do not envisage that we will receive them in a
general way in the foreseeable future. Therefore, I think those of us on the
coo staff generally would subscribe to the suggestions made by Mr. Mields
during the previous statement.

MR. 0. SUTERMEISTER~:  I have two short questions. The first is about
-Mr. Clark's comment on the new section of the Public Health Act governing
landfill site use.

MR. CLARK:  Perhaps, when I was quoting the Public Health Act in
talking about the finished site, I didn't finish my statement. There shall be
no utilization of a finished landfill site for a period of 25 years unless a
specific proposal is put forward and is accepted by the Provincial Depart-
ment of Health. For instance, we don't like to see any buildings or struc-
tures put on top of a finished landfill site. But a new approach to develop-
ment is to put buildings on piles to keep two or three floors clear and open
for parking with no basement boiler rooms. Boiler rooms, of course, are

* Eric F. Menke, Washington Citizens for Clear Air, Washington, D.C.
t Oscar Sutermeister, U.S. Public Health Service, Washington, D.C.


166                         PANEL C

ProceedingJ

starting to appear on the top part of some of our buildings rather than the
basement.

MR. SUTERMEISTER:  Where does the authority to approve the future
use lie?

MR. CLARK:  With the province of Ontario under the new Public
Health Act.

MR. SUTERMEISTER :  Not with the metro area?

MR: CLARK:  We must conform with provincial requirements.

COMMENT:  This is not a direct question, but I'm afraid that some of
those who are here might be under the impression that there are no properly
operated sanitary landfill? in the Metropolitan Washington area. There is
one old sanitary landfill in Fairfax County, in the Bailey's Crossroads area,
which is now the center of a very concentrated commercial area. We did
have some probIems with construction here (methane). We had to do some
mucking out, which was not the most pleasant thing in the world. It was
concentrated under one large high-rise type building. We have another
sanitary landfill, which was closed down about three years ago. It's in the
grand process of being converted into a recreational area. We have a police
rifle range and training center there. We have a currently operated sanitary
landfill. It is not without problems and we do have the usual citizen opposi-
tion that everyone has mentioned in the location of landfills.

MR. SUTERMEISTER:  Mr. Clark showed slides of a watercourse in a
completed landfill. The watercourse seemed to me as a mere channel of
concrete. A landscape architect in designing the plan for recreational usage
might have some objections to this type of structure. Is there any alternative
to such structures?

MR. CLARK:  Actually, if you noticed on the left side of that slide there
was rubble stonework laid in concrete. That was all done in ground aesthetic
color to blend in with the park approach of using natural wood and things
like this. In the other part it was like concrete and eventually it will be lined
on top in brown stone to blend in much more naturally. There are twenty-
two feet of refuse underneath that area. We did have to carry the water-
course through in concrete because this is part of our water pollution control
program. We don't want the old watercourse seeping down through the
refuse and then leaching through underneath into the adjacent river.


LUNCHEON ADDRESS

William B. Spong, Jr.*

I AM VERY PLEASED to be here with you. I assure you that as slowly as I
speak, I won't speak very long; I will speak rather informally to you. I will
talk a little about air pollution, which of course is related to solid wastes
disposal.

I commend this subject as a dinner conversation piece for you. When I
was first married, my wife used to take me off to dinner parties and I would
find myself seated with nice ladies with whom I couldn't possibly find any-
thing to talk about. When I returned home, I would say, "Well, Virginia,
1 did the best I could; I just couldn't seem to strike up any conversation
that we had a mutual interest in." She said, "Well, I'll tell you; I learned
a long time ago that the one thing you can talk about is termites - every-
body has had some experience with termites; it's amazing - you can just
sit there and the evening will be cool and you just say something about
termites and you will just be amazed - everybody knows something about
termites." And so I tried this for 15 or 16 years. Since I have been in the
Senate of the United States, which is now just under seven months, I have
found that air pollution works almost as well as termites - everyone has
some opinion about it, the cause of it, the cure of it; everyone has had
some experience with it, and therefore I commend to you on any evening
when the conversation is pretty dull as far as you are concerned, just (you
don't have to talk about the Kenilworth Dump) - just talk about air
pollution, and you will be amazed to see what opinions and reactions that
it brings forth.

The day before yesterday, the Senate, by a vote of 88 to 0, passed the
Air Quality Act of 1967. The bill as passed was far different from the bill
initially introduced and recommended by the Administration. I think that
Senator Muskie, who was the chief patron of the bill, and the chairman of
the subcommittee, should be commended for getting the bill through the
Senate in the manner that he did. What the House will do with the bill
remains to be seen.

I thought that for 10 or 12 minutes, I would review informally the prin-
ciple thrust of the Bill in its present form. This will allow you to become

* United States Senator from Virginia.

167


168

SPONG             Proceedings

acquainted with what the Congress - or at least the Senate - is trying
to do insofar as Federal participation in attacking the problem of air pllu-
tion is concerned. I think one of the foremost provisions is money for re-
search. We know, of course, that the burning of low-grade fuel is one of
the chief causes of the pollutants in the air that have been adjudged most
harmful to individuals. And we know that a great deal of meaningful re-
search is already being done. We visited Riverside at the University of
California, and saw what they are doing in terms of the effects of air
pollution on plant life and the effects on animal life. We know that a great
deal can be done insofar as low-grade fuel burning is, concerned. Much is
being done in many other parts of the world that should be helpful to us
in attacking this cause of air pollution. I will talk now about what the
Bill provides insofar as motor vehicles are concerned. Many States do not
have mandatory inspection of automobiles; they have spot checks in Cali-
fornia to determine if the anti-pollution equipment, which must be installed
in every automobile beginning next year, is continuing to function properly;
they can spot check it. They can stop the car and check to see if the equip-
ment is in the car, and if it is connected. They cannot determine (unless
they test the vehicle) whether the equipment actually is functioning properly
and whether that equipment and the other equipment in the automobile is
being properly maintained. I would hope that the research funds will pro-
duce not only economic hardware which can be installed in every auto-
mobile, but also testing equipment which will make it easier and cheaper
to follow up a spot check or used as part of a mandatory inspection.

The greatest problem in our deliberations on the Air Quality Act of 1967
was determining how standards would be determined. We in the United
States are free and independent and we don't want somebody from Wash-
ington, regardless of how attractive and personable he may be, sniffing at
every smokestack in the United States to find out what's going on. It was
decided that the best thing to do was to allow the states to determine the
minimum standards that they wanted enacted in this field.

The principle thing that this bill provides insofar as the role of the Federal
government is concerned is the research that HEW can do to inform people
throughout the United States about the problems, dangers and types of air
pollution, and about the regions in the United States where the greatest
problems exist. Then, within a period of a year to fifteen months, the indi-
vidual States can enact minimum standards of their own.

.The only field that the Federal government has pre-empted for the setting
of emission standards is the area of motor vehicle pollution. The one excep-


Poe1 C                   LUNCHEON ADDRESS                   169

tion to this is the State of California, which has had its own standards for

two years. But each State will have a reasonable period of time in which
to enact minimum standards. I am hopeful that each and every one - the
States of Maryland and Virginia have both moved forward in this direction
already - will adopt their own standards and come in under this Act.

Insofar as automobiles are concerned, it's impractical not to have national

standards. If we allowed each individual State to set its own emission
standards for motor vehicles, then the manufacturers of motor vehicles would
have to manufacture different hardware for the different localities in which
their automobiles are operated. The cost of this would certainly be passed
on to the automobile purchaser, and I think it is completely unrealistic not
to approach the problem of motor vehicle air pollution from the basis of
national standards.

In this particular area, regardless of the Kenilworth Dump, the motor
vehicle remains the greatest, problem. Here in Washington we have the
heaviest concentration of automobiles I believe of any metropolitan area in
the United States. In Los Angeles, where they pride themselves about the
number of automobiles they have, they were very surprised when we advised
them that there are more automobiles per capita here in the Washington
Metropolitan area than in Los Angeles County or in the immediate Los
Angeles area.

NOW, the Secretary of HEW will. set forth regional airsheds. He will
designate the regions where air pollution is a problem, and certainly Metro-
politan Washington is a region that will be designated. There will be hear-
ings on Senator Tydings' bill this afternoon. It seeks to set up a control
board for the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. All three of
these political subdivisions will be in a position to work together within a
designated region to attack this problem.

The first stage, an inventory of the potential causes of air pollution, has
already been underway in the District of Columbia for some time. In Los
Angeles County they say that the only problem that they have in air pollu-
tion is the result of the motor vehicle. They say they have inventoried,
identified, cataloged and done everything necessary to control 90 to 95
percent of the air pollution from stationary sources in the Los Angeles area.
They have secured convictions in 90 percent of the cases initiated and they
say that stationary sources of air pollution, unlike most metropolitan areas,
are the least of their worries and problems. The four main things that the
Air Quailty Act of 1967 seeks to do is: ( 1) to provide research immediately


170

SPONG             Proceedings

in this area; (2) to encourage the States and the localities within the States
to adopt standards that will enable that particular region or that State to
combat air pollution in its own way, but which will meet minimum require-
ments; (3) to encourage States, through grants, to provide for inspection
of automobiles to determine that the equipment installed in the automobile
and required under previous legislation is operating to combat air pollution;
and (4) to set up regional air-sheds. If there is an emergency, such as
happened at Donora, Pennsylvania, or last Thanksgiving in New York City,
and a locality and a State have not set up sufficient legislation and admin-
istration to meet that problem, then the Federal government can move in
immediately.

I think there should be some exploration in the field of tax incentives
to encourage industries to install equipment to combat the problem, and I
think that Congress will be considering this in the near future.

The thing that has impressed me about the Bill the Senate passed unani-
mously day before yesterday is that it follows in many respects the pattern
set in the Clean Water Act. It enables the States and the localities to take
the initiative without pre-empting very much from them. It provides scien-
tific and technical data to the localities and to the States.

Now, we have, both in the House and in the Senate, a Solid Wastes
Disposal Bill which I predict ultimately will follow this same pattern. The
pattern recognizes the necessity for local and State initiative, for local, State
and Federal cooperation, and for regional planning.

We are mindful that America is becoming rapidly urbanized. I live in
the southernmost part of one great urban complex, which extends from
north of Boston down into Virginia. I live in Hampton Roads, the southem-
most portion of that complex. And whether we are talking about solid wastes
disposal, mass transit, air pollution, or planning or zoning or noise abatement,
we are coming to realize that an entire new concept of the environment Of
the individual of tomorrow is going to take place. It will require the utmost
cooperation between the various experts in these fields, because they all
relate to each other whether they be engineers or architects or planners, or
health officers. They must see a total concept in which we begin to under-
stand and deal with all of these things at one time. We have also come to
realize that man is not on an island. The District of Columbia can't proceed
with solid wastes disposal plans or with air pollution plans unless those in the
neighboring communities in Maryland and in Virginia are planning and
working with them on this problem.


Panel C                   LUNCHEON ADDRESS                   171

I think the most meaningful thmg about the legislation I have discussed
is that it sets a pattern which is consistent with the American concept and
yet recognizes the role that the Federal government must play. It demands
initiative by the States if the problems are to be met, and it encourages
regional planning and regional cooperation. As a Virginia Senator I have
had a great deal of fun in the last four or five months advising my con-
stituents in Richmond that whether they know it or not they are polluting
the District of Columbia; they don't always take that too kindly, but it's
true - depending on the prevailing winds, we are either doing damage to
Baltimore or Richmond or they are doing damage to us here in the District
of Columbia.

1 commend you upon this conference ; I believe Senator Tydings' legis-
lation for the District in this area will pass. I know that the Solid Wastes
Disposal Bills are going to have full hearings. But the success of any of these
undertakings in the world in which we live today demands the cooperation
and the planning of many people in many different walks of life and of
many, many political subdivisions.

283-399 O-67-12


  SUMMARY OF PANEL A
PRESENT PRACTICES AND NEEDS
IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA

Achilles M. Tuchtan, Panel Chairman

k1.i~. SV.ORE, LADIES, AND GENTLEMEN:  Yesterday afternoon in the Panel
on Present Practices and Needs in the Metropolitan Area we had the op-
portunity to hear six well-qualified speakers, who have had broad experience
\vith the problem, discuss individual aspects of the solid waste problem in
the metropolitan area.

I\fr. Bremser, whose firm has studied the problem for the Northern
Virginia Regional Planning Commission, the Maryland National Capital
Park and Planning Commission, and the Metropolitan Washington Council
of Governments, told us of the quantities of waste now being produced in
the area, and of the means used to dispose of that waste. He estimated the
quantities of waste that will be produced in the future, and told us some-
thing of what will be required to dispose of that waste.
Dr. Middleton discussed the present relationship between solid waste dis-
posal and air pollution.  Mr. Binnewies and Mr. Eastman told US of the
prohlcms and accomplishments of the Federal Government in disposing of
the solid wastes that arise as the result of Federal government activities in
the metropolitan area.

Mr. William Vogely analyzed for us some of the asthetic aspects of the
problem of removing junk automobiles from the streets and vacant lots of
the region and returning them to the channel of available natural resources.

Mr. Bosley, recognizing the fact that many persons have realized that solid
wastes disposal is now becoming a regional problem, discussed some of the
legislative measures that will be necessary to bring about a regional solution
to the problem,

Mr. Vogely's remarks on the magnitude of the junk automobile problem
were truly enlightening. It appears that the rate of recycling of scrap metal
from junked automobiles just about equals the rate at which cars are being
abandoned, so that a large backlog of abandoned vehicles continues to re-
main almost untouched. If the entire supply of junk automobiles is to be
removed from our communities, Mr. Vogely recommended that automotive
scrap be given competitive advantage over other types of scrap. I might
add here that the Council of Governments has begun to seek a solution to

173


174

SUMMARY OF PANEL A          Proceedings

the problem in the metropolitan area, and has requested assistance from the
Bureau of Mines in obtaining some of the specific information it must
have if a sound policy is to be developed.

There is no question, however, that the major solid wastes disposal
problem in the metropolitan area at present is the disposal of ordinary
residential and commercial refuse. Refuse production for the entire region
in 1965 was estimated at 1.3 million tons of incinerable refuse and 0.5
million tons of nonincinerable refuse. Mr. Bremser estimated that by the
year 2000 the region would be producing 4.5 million tons of incinerable
refuse and 1.6 million tons of nonincinerable refuse.
                                            <

Nearly one half of that waste arises in the District of Columbia and much
of that half comes from Federal installations. Mr. Eastman of the General
Services Administration told us of the extensive problems, and of the monu-
mental accomplishments, of his agency in dealing with the wastes collected
from 55 million square feet of office space in 1,300 separate buildings. Wastes
are segregated, and sold wherever possible. Ingenious solutions have been
provided for the specialized problems presented by classified documents,
flourescent light tubes, and medical supplies, but much of the Federal solid
wastes still find their way into the normal municipal solid waste disposal
channels. These wastes include the nonsaleable wastes from the General
Services Administration, Blong with the over 300,000 cans of trash which
Mr. Binnewies reported were collected in the National Parks of the region
last year.

Mr. Bremser described the present manner of the disposing of solid wastes
within the region. Three methods are used for waste disposal: incineration,
sanitary landfilling, and open burning.

Because of the lack of landfill space, Arlington County, Montgomery
County, the City of Alexandria, and the District of Columbia use incinera-
tion to reduce the volume of solid waste prior to final disposal. Alexandria
and the District of Columbia are also required to use open dumps to dispose
of wastes which cannot be processed in their existing incinerators. Sanitary
landfilling is employed in Prince Georges, Charles, Fairfax, and Prince
William counties.

Because it has been necessary to rely on open burning to dispose of those
wastes which exceed incineration and landfill capacity, the solid waste dis-
posal problem has also become an air pollution problem.

Dr: Middleton noted that almost 900,000 tons of refuse are burned
annually in municipal and private incinerators and that approximately


Third Session    PRESENT PRACTICES AND NEEDS IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA

175

160,000 tons of refuse are burned in open dumps, mostly at the Kenilworth
Dump. He declared that efforts to reduce air pollution from refuse disposal
can at present most profitably be concentrated in the District of Columbia.
He stated that closing of the archaic Kenilworth Dump is an essential
first step. In order to close down the Kenilworth Dump as well as other
open burning in the region, it is necessary that alternate facilities be provided.

Mr. Bremser stated unequivocably that land for landfills and incinerator
plants is the greatest present and future refuse disposal need of the Wash-
ington metropolitan region. He noted that the region does not have the
natural conditions which make sanitary landfilling the ideal refuse disposal
method that it is for some other large urban areas. Geological and hydro-
logical conditions in the northern half of the region are generally unfavorable
for sanitary landfill; conditions are more favorable in the costal plains region
of the southern half of the area but that transportation costs to the region
would be high.

Mr. Bremser concluded that more incinerator plants will be needed in
the future.

Dr. Middleton, on the contrary, expressed the belief that the best solution
to the problem is to stop all burning of refuse. However, he recognized that
the Washington area must eventually run out of suitable space for land-
filling. In view of this, he suggested that incinerators in each building be
dispensed with. He suggested that if wastes must be burned they should be
burned in modem, well-operated municipal incinerators equipped with the
best available air pollution control devices. Both Mr. Bremser and Dr.
Middleton agreed that effective solution of the solid waste problem, ac-
companied by the elimination of air pollution, will require extensive cooper-
ation among the individual jurisdictions concerned.

Mr. Bosley described some of the mechanisms by which such cooperation
could be established. He noted that the District of Columbia had already
requested the Council of Governments to investigate a means of establishing
a regional solid waste disposal program. As a result he had determined that,
as an interim mechanism, it would be possible to create a nonprofit corpora-
tion to undertake the disposal of solid wastes. However, such a corporation
would have neither the power of eminent domain nor the ability to obtain
kg-range financing. As a result, it could not engage in long-term landfill
or incinerator operations.

An alternative to the nonprofit corporation would be the establishment
of a metropolitan authority under interstate compact. Mr. Bosley expressed


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.


accidents, home, 17
Aerojet-General Report, 18
administrative aspects, regional
  approach, 139,149
aesthetics, 6,35,41,51
air pollution,35, 186
interstate, 35
motor vehicle, 168
studies at University of
  California, 168
tax incentives, 170
ten years ago, activities, 9
Air Quality Act, 70, 168
alternative disposal methods, 29
American irlcinerato$art, 102
American Public Health
  Association, 106
American Public Works
  Association, 16, 74, 106, 136
anaerobic decomposition, 105
architects, 11
landscape, 136
autowreckers,
automobile abandonment, 128
penalties, 56
automobile bodies, 51, 71
smokeless burning of, 127
grinding of, 128
average household, key to
  politics, 23
barging, 32, 84
bulky metal wastes, 78,88
shredding, 29
Bureau of Mines Survey, 51,56,174
C 8~ 0 Canal National
  Monument, 42
California State Water Pollution
Control Board, 17

INDEX

Carson,Rachel,20
chemical wastes, 5,19
collection truck size, 74
communicable disease, 5
composition of refuse, 93,105
compost, 43, 105
production, marketing, 116
composting, 66, 74, 105, I2 I
commercial method, 66
competition with incineration, 118
Fairfield System, 109
International Disposal System
  (IDC), 109
Metrowaste System, 111
U.S. systems, 106     ,
windrow systems, 109
cornposting plants
area required, 119
energy and manpower
  requirements, 115
financing, 117
manpower required, 113
container industry, 125
containers, 7,11,23,42,125, 128
Council of Governments, 13, 24, 25,
  36, 61, 69, 137, 152, 165, 174,
   182
costs, haul, 32,75
incineration, 29
sanitary landfill, 29,88
demolition debris, 11,70
density. patterns, Washington,
  D.C., 79
Detroit Regional Planning
  Commission, 131,182
disease, Dutch Ehn, 42
disease, vectors, 5,15,16
education, 19

191


engineering, schools, 7
England, 123
environmental health engineers, 138
European incinerator art, 101
Expo in Montreal, 139
Federal Aid Highway Act, 132
Federal Insurance Contribution
  Act (FICA), 78
fuel, 126
General Services Administration, 45
governmental waste
  products,24,41,45
grinding wastes, 79, 105
ground water, 16, 17, 91
hauling, 22, 32, 74, 84
cost of, 32, 75
health aspects, solid wastes
  management, 5,15
health, threats to, 3,6, 36
healthful environment, higher
  definition, 6

Housing and Home Finance
Agency, 25,133
imagination, need for, 7, 149, 161
incineration
control of nitrogen oxides, 122
costs, 29

slag-tap process, 124
incinerator

residue, 43,97, 100
sites, 32, 67

technology, 39
incinerator heat
for generating electricity, 43, 126
conversion, 67
Incinerator No. 5, District of
  Columbia, 5, 39, 157, 184
incinerators

air pollution controls, 100

District of Columbia, 26,42
dust emission, 100
GSA, 47
high-rise buildings, 38,69
home, 17,79
municipal, 17, 26, 39, 98
products of, 98
tepee, 121
injury rate, sanitation workers, 17
interstate compact agency, 15 1
Israel, 123
jurisdictional cooperation, illegal, 22
Kenilworth Dump, 186
Kingman Lake; 43
land requirements, all disposal
  methods, 29, 76
landfill (See also, reclamation, land,
  and sanitary landfill), 193
to prevent landslides, 91
legislative authority, existing,
  District of Columbia, 61
legislative needs, metropolitan
  disposal system, 61
Los Angeles County Sanitation
  Districts' landfills, 88
marshlands, 3 1
Maryland-National Capital Park and
  Planning Commission, 25,61
Metropolitan Toronto Act,
  1966,142,146
Metropolitan Washington solid
  waste disposal study, 25
Model Cities Act, 84
National Academy of Sciences
Report, 152
National League of Cities
  Conference, 136
Natural Beauty Message, President
  Johnson, 20,41
National Capital Parks, 41

192


Yew York City, Department of
  Sanitation, 17
yorthem Virginia Regional
  Planning Commission, 25,61
`one time' disposal problems, 48
Ontario Municipal Board, 140
paper
classified and film, 47
in compost, 124
IBM cards, 67
nonsaleable, 46
saleable, 45,66
political implications, solid wastes
  management, 9,21
polyethylene, 129
polyvinyl chloride, 129
potential disposal sites
Metropolitan Washington, 30
production, solid wastes, 15
per capita, 10
D.C. business groups, 79
public awareness, solid wastes
  problems, 9,42, 161
Public Health Act, 144
sanitary landfill
  operations, 144, 165
public health officials, 138
radioactive materials, 16,48
rail haul, 32,81,84
reclamation, 105
solid wastes from mining
  activities, 58
steel scrap, 41
reclamation, land, 87,90, 136, 186
Kenilworth Dump, 186
  golf course, 43, 161
  wastelands, 3 1,43
reduction of refuse, 93
by incineration, 99, 102
"in-place" burning, 122

controlled burning, 122
refuse
carbon-to-nitrogen ratio, 105
collection, 135
composition of, 93, 106
compression devicks, 74
distillation and gasification, 103
separation, 67, 106
refuse production per capita
Metropolitan Washington, 27
  projected, 28
refuse quantities, annual
District of Columbia, 28
regional management of solid wastes,
  need for planning, 131
Metropolitan Washington, 187
research, for development of
  standards, 19,168
restoring quality of environment, 150
safely, 5
salvaging, 105,115
metal, 29,99, 124
paper, 45, 115
sanitary landfill
Anacostia, 27
costs, 29
equipment, 86
  air conditioned helmets, 89
gas probes, 91
Kenilworth, 186
Los Angeles, costs, 88
  noise, 22
operated as private enterprise, 87
space requirements, 29,33,66,76
sanitary IandfiU sites, 22
Metropolitan Detroit, 133
Metropolitan Los Angeles, 90
Metropolitan Toronto, 142
Metropolitan Washington, 30
sanitation workers, 17

193


scrap
brokers, 55

processors, 55
solid waste/disease ielationships, 18
Solid Waste Disposal Act, 8, 20, 39,
  57, 59, 86, 156, 183
Solid Waste Disposal Bill, 170
solid wastes

definition of, 15
demonstrations, grants, 156, 183
solid wastes management in Federal
  installations, 41, 45
Solid Wastes Program, 157
State

initiative, 17 1
survey and planning projects, 158
Water Quality Control Board, 91
systems approach, 23
Task Force Report to Secretary of
  HEW, 150, 160
temperature, during composting, 105
Toronto, 139
training, 159
transportation, waste, 74
bulky objects, 78
conveyors, 76
costs, 75
neiwork, 77

pipelines, 76
rail, 32, 81
transfer stations, 77,85, 135
transportation, waste, systems, 73
elements and factors, 81
helicopters, 84, 86
piping, 82
pneumatic, Sweden, 83
subway, 80
truck-trailer, 85
trees, disposal of, 42, 70, 88
university and society, 7
urban
areas, related to various economic
  factors, 52
complexes, 38, 170
planners, 138
vehicles
for waste systems, 76
Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Compact (WMATA), 68
Washington Metropolitan Regional
  Development Act, 68
Washington Suburban Sanitary
  Commission, 27
water pollution, 15, 17, 91
weather data, Toronto, 146

194