The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1916-11-20
CITIZENS PLAN FIGHT
FOR DISPOSAL PLANT
Active Campaign to Be Waged
for an Appropriation From
Congress.
CONTINUED from First Page. }

CONTINUED from First Page.)
increase in efficiency, of street clean.
ing.
BY the present arrangement con.
tracts on these four classes of waste
removal are made every Ave years.
A new contractor would have to In.
clude the cost OF plant In his bid.
Duplication Of Work.
The old contractors take advantage
OF this fact to lower their bids enough
to keep new bidders from competing
with them, but they also include in
their bids a portion OF the price rspre.
scented In their original bids for equip
ment of plants.
Money Is now spent on inspection,
1t was stated. which could be spent
on those directly engaged in the work
of waste removal, II was stated.
When the street cleaning work was
taken out OF the hands of contractors
the city saved $4,000 at the outset
by converting its inspectors into fore.
men, and thus eliminating a duD.ica-
tion of employment.
Price Increasing Yearly.
Each year, It is argued, the cost OF
erecting municipal plants for garbage
and refuse will increase Price
OF material has advanced 80 per cent,
and that OF machinery even more,
since the estimates of cost of a mu-
nicipal plant were made by Mr.. Os-
born.
On the basis OF existing prices he
made the following estimate:
The net annual cost OF the District
| In 1925, as estimated for the recon-
mended project, amounts to $13I, 65S,
including interest and depreciation.
The amount required to collect and
| dispose OF municipal waste by present
contracts is $191 500 per year. Assum.
ing that the cost by contract under
| present conditions will not increase,
there would be n saving OF $50, 062 per
year II the. work was done by the Dis.
| trict at tho estimated cost for 1925.
IF this amount was set aside as a
sinking fund each year, with interest
| at 3b per cent, IL would only require
! approximately thirteen years to amor.
| tize the total capital investment OF
| $685.. 300, so that after this period not
only would the capital investment be
paid off. but the District would own
the plants in practically as good con-
dition as when new"
Points in Plan.
The proposed plan of municipal col.
lection and disposal includes the fol.
lowing points:
Separate collection OF each class OF
waste.
Improved collection equipment
from the standpoint of appearance
| and elimination of nuisance.
| CONSTRUCTION of two garbage trans,
| fer stations. one in the southeast sec.
tion and the other In the lower north
| east section OF the District.
| Disposal of garbage and dead ami
mails by the reduction process In q
plant located near Shepherds Ferry.
| l"Disposal of rubbish in utilization
and incinerating plant.
"Disposing of ashes by dumping as
I'LL on low ground.
Disposal OF night soil by contract
"Sale OF municipal by.products re
covered and materials reclaimed"
Could Almost Make Way.
From the last mentioned sales tn,
municipality could make its collection
and disposal of waste almost seIf-sup
porting, II Is believed. These by
products are apt to increase in price
It is believed, and to be greater in pro
portion to the garbage collected a
better means are found of extracting
them.
The principal by.products are tn,
grease, sold for use in oils, and thu
tankage," left after the grease is e,
tracted and sold to be mixed will
other substances to be utilized as fer
Several other projects also wer
considered, including that of an In
GENERATING plant for all garbage AM
refuse, but this was considered to-
costly because OF the waste of the by
products.