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 Bu