PROCEEDINGS The Surgeon General’s Conference we on Solid Waste 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 1967 Public Health Service Publication No. 1729 Library of Congress Catalog No. 67-62888 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 75 cents 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. Wiiuiam H. STEwartT Surgeon General November 1967 Bethesda, Maryland iil CONFERENCE STAFF JEROME H. Svore General Chairman Leo WEAVER Executive Secretary G.LaMar Husss KENNETH FLIEGER Deputy Executive Secretary Information Officer Leroy Stone and Joun T. Tatty Joan F. Tupor Program Officers Administrative Officer Secretaries and Aides Barpara K. Apostout Gerrit MeTscu JACQUELYN S. JORDAN ERNESTINE ROGERS Sanpra L. Loos Linpa 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. CONTENTS First Plenary Session WELCOME TO THE CONFERENCE, Leo Weaver. INTRODUCTION OF KEYNOTE SPEAKERS, Jerome H. Svore Keynote Appress, William H. Stewart Keynote Appress, Joseph D. Tydings . Heattn Aspects oF Souip Waste Disposat, Richard A. Prindle LuncHEON Appress: Po.itics anD TrasH, Royce Hanson . Second Plenary Session PANEL A: PRESENT PRACTICES AND NEEDS IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA Sot WasTE DisposaL STuDY FOR THE WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA, L. W. Bremser . Air PoLLuTION AND SoLiIp WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES John T. Middleton SoLtip WasTE HANDLING BY FEDERAL INSTALLATIONS Fred W. Binnewies Sotw Waste HANDLING BY FEDERAL INSTALLATIONS William H. Eastman ABANDONED AND ScRAP AUTOMOBILES, William A. Vogely LEGISLATIVE NEEDS FOR A METROPOLITAN SOLID WASTE DisrosaL Procram, John J. Bosley Oren Discussion: PANEL A PANEL B: TECHNOLOGY TODAY TRANSPORTATION SysTEMS, Robert D. Bugher Lanp RecramatTion, Frank R. Bowerman Reruse RepucTion Processes, Elmer R. Kaiser v PAGE © wn wu 215 .21 .25 .25 .35 . 41 245 31 .61 .65 73 .73 .87 . 93 PAGE Recyciine anp Utiuization, C. I. Harding . . . . . . . . . 105 Open Discussion: PaneLB . .......... =. + + 212i PANEL C: DEVELOPMENT OF A REGIONAL SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL PLAN . +. ............. . 1! Tue NeEep For Lonc-RaNncE PLANNING For A So_p Waste Disposat Puan, Paul M. Retd . . . . ..... 11 ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS IN THE REGIONAL APPROACH To Sot Waste MANAGEMENT, Ross L. Clark . 2 2...) .) 139 Pusiic ADMINISTRATION ASPECTS OF AREA-WIDE PLANNING Hugh Mields, Jr. > «- 149 ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE UNDER THE SOLID Waste DisposaL ACT Richard D. Vaughan . . . . 2. 2 1 we ee ee ee 155 Oren Discussion: PANELC . . 2. . 1 1 we ee ee ee «168 LuncHeon Appress, 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 WELCOME TO THE CONFERENCE Leo Weaver * 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 local 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. 2 ‘WEAVER Proceedings 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. Svore * Ture 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. 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 modern 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. 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 un-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, composting, salvage and reclamation — have been studied here and there, First 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, Lapies 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 this 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 possible 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 il 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 responsibility. 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 problems. 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 TYDINGS Proceedings 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 burn. 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 poliution 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 burn 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 living near Muirkirk. The pollu- tion from the fires does not end in the District, nor in Prince Georges County. First 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 ‘; 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. The 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- First Session 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 fills 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 logging. 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 burn 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 practitioners. 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 wastes, and (b) accelerated and long-range studies on effects 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 all 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 this 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 mileage 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 time 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 POLITICS AND TRASH 23 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 organization 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 Proceedings 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 coc 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 coc 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 and Needs in the Metropolitan 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 Status 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 BREMSER 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 jurisdictions 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 9.5 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 / capita / calendar day District of Outside Type of refuse Columbia District Incinerable 3.60 2.50 Bulky Nonincinerable Combustible 0.50 0.30 Noncombustible 1.50 0.45 Total 5.60 3.25 283-399 O-67—3 TABLE II ANNUAL REFUSE QUANTITIES IN TONS 82 1965 1980 2000 Bulky non- Bulky non- Bulky non- Jurisdiction Incinerable incinerable Incinerable incinerable Incinerable incinerable District of Columbia 535,500 297,000 757,900 421,000 1,079,900 600,000 Maryland Charles County 17,100 5,100 36,800 11,000 97,000 29,100 Montgomery County 193,300 58,000 404,300 121,300 772,000 231,600 Prince Georges County 231,900 69,600 492,300 147,700 927,700 278,300 Virginia Alexandria, City 52,300 15,700 107,800 32,300 173,400 52,000 Arlington County 78,700 23,600 127,900 38,400 196,400 58,900 Fairfax, City 8,400 2,500 21,400 6,400 34,900 10,500 Fairfax County 146,300 43,900 364,800 109,400 789,200 236,800 Falls Church, City 5,100 1,500 7,700 2,300 11,600 3,500 Loudoun County 13,600 4,100 47,600 14,300 135,700 40,700 Prince William County 37,000 11,100 119,000 35,700 310,200 93,000 Total 1,319,770 532,100 2,487,500 939,800 4,528,000 1,634,400 Combined total 1,851,300 3,427,300 6,162,400 YWISW AU SF urpasIosg 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 double 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 BREMSER Proceedings 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 Cumulative landfill space requirements in acre-feet Minimum Maximum Jurisdiction _ 1980 2000 1980 2000 District of Columbia 5,155 16,026 16,784 52,764 Maryland Charles County 158 709 584 2,630 Montgomery County 1,771 6,916 6,575 25,688 Prince Georges County 2,167 8,355 8,044 31,032 Virginia Alexandria 492 1,754 1,827 6,510 Arlington County 627 2,016 2,327 7,488 Fairfax County 1,659 6,992 6,162 25,972 Loudoun County 175 954 653 3,541 Prince William County 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 Panel 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 favorable 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 BREMSER 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. Transportation 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. Panel A DISPOSAL STUDY 33 No 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 * I 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 many 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 MIDDLETON Proceedings 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 Metropolitan 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 all, 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 burn 680,000 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 are 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. In 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 pollution 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 MIDDLETON Proceedings 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 landfilling 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 burn waste, it would be Panel A DISPOSAL PRACTICES 39 far better to burn it in modern and well-operated municipal incinerators. | will concede that there are not very many of those, either in this area or elsewhere 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 with highly efficient secondary collectors such as precipitators or scrubbers for the control of air pollution. No municipal incinerator any- where 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 nis 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 beautiful 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 uriless 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, I 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 300,000 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 Proceedings 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 unburnable 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 elm 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 -the 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 dirt 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. 283-399 O-67—4 SOLID WASTE HANDLING BY FEDERAL INSTALLATIONS William H. Eastman * Ir 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 csa handle the disposal of these materials. Waste paper, scrap materials, and refuse are classified as follows: Saleable paper. When we talk about this 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 csa 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 whieh 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 flat 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 HANDLING 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 m1 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 hammermills 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 MI. 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 Proceedings 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 (Mcp) of domestic wastes re- ceives secondary treatment in the Virginia (Pentagon) sewage treatment plant. Peak flow rates of 2 Mcp occur, and are adequately handled since the plant was designed for a flow rate of 3.2 mep. 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 pre-position hospital units. These pre-position 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 csa 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 csa is now seeking a solution has occurred at the csa/pmps 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 +t 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, csa 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 “sraveyards” 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, United States Bureau of Mines. 51 52 VOGELY 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 Junk 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 Panel 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 ‘34 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 jot 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 burn 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 fiatteners, 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 dimen- sion and density. The processed scrap is sold either directly to the steel mills, to foundries or to brokers in carload 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 disposal 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 AUTOMOBILES ; 57 that movement of automotive scrap is being impeded; (3) price has a strong effect on the prompt movement of scrap from the automobile salvager to the ultimate consumer under present use patterns. Price of scrap also has an effect on the auto parts salvage industry in determining the payment at which the market for scrap becomes so attractive that the movement of autos in and out of the auto wreckers’ yards is speeded up and the volume of vehicles that bypass the wrecker is increased. Distance from wrecker to processor which is reflected in transportation costs is a critical factor in this pricing situation. Higher scrap prices especially would stimulate the move- ment of vehicles having little or no used parts value; (4) changing tech- nology is affecting the structure of the scrap processing industry itself particularly in the areas in which shredders have been built. Introduction of shears suitable for the production of automotive slab, and improved systems of stripping and baling automotive scrap also are having effects not only on industry structure, but also on markets. These methods are making available to the steel mills processed scrap with improved chemical quali- ties and in a variety of physical forms; (5) changes in automotive design and material specifications could have an effect on auto scrap accumulation rates. Commonly copper and other nonferrous metals contaminate iron and steel in a manner that renders them difficult and expensive to remove and tends to degrade the quality of ferrous automotive scrap; (6) the high scrappage rate and existing inventories of junked cars in wreckers and proc- essors yards, auto graveyards and elsewhere continue to keep the disposal problem in the public eye. Junked ‘cars cannot be eliminated from the scene, but almost complete utilization can be achieved and the esthetic problems reduced to a minimum. Existing laws and regulations or en- forcement practices often permit the owner to abandon or neglect the dis- posal of his vehicle without penalty. This deficiency results in esthetic and public disposal problems. Statutory requirements that place financial re- sponsibility for disposal of the vehicle on the owner provides an incentive to movement toward consumption as automotive scrap; (7) if consumption of the entire supply of junk vehicles is to be an objective of public policy, automotive scrap must be given competitive advantages over other types of ferrous scrap through price reduction, quality improvement, or develop- ment of new markets. The automobile disposal problem is but one of the solid waste problems. I would like to take a moment to apprise you of other aspects of the work going forward in this area. The Solid Waste Act of 1965 spelled out the scope of the activities of the Department of the Interior as: follows: 58 VOGELY Proceedings “The Secretary shall conduct, and encourage, cooperate with, and render financial and other assistance to appropriate public authorities, agencies, and individuals in the conduct of, and promote the coordination of, research, in- vestigation, experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys, and studies re- lating to the operation and financing of solid waste disposal programs, the development and application of new and improved methods of solid waste disposal and the reduction of the amount of such waste and unsalvageable waste materials.” For Interior, this mandate relates to the problems of solid waste resulting from the extraction, processing, or utilization of minerals or fossil fuels where the generation, production, or reuse of such waste is or may be controlled within the extraction, processing, or utilization facility or facilities and where such control is a feature of the technology or economy of the operation of such facility or facilities. In order to implement the intent of the Solid Waste Disposal Act the Department of the Interior, through the Bureau of Mines, has embarked on a two-pronged program. One is to define the solid waste problem and suggest some avenues of attack for solving the problem and the other is to conduct and stimulate research activities in an attempt to substantially re- duce the mounting burden stemming from our society’s propensity to generate solid waste. By. July 1968 we will have published a comparable study to the junked car, on solid waste generation from mining and processing activities. This effort will be a case study report which will highlight the major geographic locations with solid waste problems of this type. Based on this latter effort, the Bureau has selected certain ‘representa- tive’ problem areas and will, during this fiscal year, conduct an engineering- economic study to delineate more specifically the generation of solid waste from mining and processing operations and the costs involved in present disposal practices. We expect, through such study efforts, to be able to suggest ways to mini- mize waste disposal environmental problems. Many of you are aware of the efforts of Bureau scientists at our College Park Metallurgical Research Center who are searching for possible solu- tions to the problem of disposal of some 125 million tons of municipal refuse generated in the United States each year. Before beginning work on de- velopment of salvage methods for this refuse, it was necessary to know the composition of the residues. The immediate task was to establish reliable method’ for sampling and analyzing these. materials. This problem, which Panel A ABANDONED AND SCRAP AUTOMOBILES 59 was the initial phase of the College Park project, has now been completed with studies having been made on residues from five incinerators in metropolitan Washington, D.C. The conclusions of this study were: (1) techniques used in these studies ‘ndicate that sampling of incinerator residues can be accomplished on a relatively small scale with good results; (2) glass constitutes the major frac- tion in all of the samples and averages about 44 percent by weight; (3) relatively large amounts of unburned paper in some residue samples, as much as 12 percent, points up the need for more efficient burning; (4) salvage of all metallic values in the residues, which averages nearly 30 per- cent by weight, could provide a source of revenue for municipalities and aid in conservation of our natural resources; (5) salvage would also reduce the volume of landfill required for disposal of the balance of the residues by as much as 30 percent. This would double the life expectancy of residue landfill sites and reduce haulage costs by half. The Bureau is highly optimistic about a process that utilizes steel scrap in an entirely different manner: Chopped-up scrap is heated in a rotary kiln with nonmagnetic taconite — a material that previously has resisted treatment for recovery of its iron content. The iron in both the ore and the scrap is converted to a magnetic iron oxide which can be readily concen- trated. At this stage, a conventional iron-oxide pellet can be made contain- ing more than 63 percent iron, or another Bureau technique can be applied to yield a prereduced pellet with an iron content of more than 80 percent. By late 1968 a prototype plant will begin operation near the western end of the Mesabi Range to demonstrate the process. The plant will have a daily capacity of 600 tons of crude ore. A commercial processing plant turning out 5 million tons of high-grade ore concentrates a year would consume 600,000 tons of scrap. The Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 further provides authority for Federal agencies to establish a contract and grant program. Section 204 of the Act permits the Department of the Interior to make grants to and contract with public or private agencies, institutions, and individuals for research, training projects, surveys, and demonstrations relating to solid waste disposal. With very modest funding the Bureau is operating these programs at a level of $600,000 per year. Study grants totaling $395,000 have been made with the eleven universi- ties. These studies range from the recovery of mineral constituents to how to make plants grow on piles of mill wastes. 283-399 O-67—5 60 VOGELY . Proceedings Five contracts, amounting to $212,000, have been executed covering re- search efforts ranging froni developing a new technology of recovering fly ash from gases discharged from coal-fired electric power plants to a search for methods of converting red mud residues from aluminum processing into lightweight porous ceramics. This brief outline should give you an insight into the range of interests the Department of the Interior has developed in solid waste disposal. We have barely scratched the surface. It has taken many generations for the problem of solid waste to reach national importance. It necessarily follows that it will take time and substantially more money to reduce this problem to a tolerable level. , Let me close by emphasizing that solid wastes are a very important factor in our resource base. We must recycle our resources if we are to meet the rising demands for materials as the world population grows and living standards rise. Junk cars are a resource. We must use them constructively. LEGISLATIVE NEEDS FOR A METROPOLITAN SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM John J. Bosley * HisToricaLLy, solid waste collection and disposal in the Washington Metropolitan Area have been carried out by local jurisdictions and private firms. Because disposal of solid waste has been manageable at the local level, the necessity for cooperative endeavors between local governmental units has been minimal. But, in the last few years, the magnitude of the problem has reached crisis proportions in some jurisdictions and is becoming acute in others. Recognizing this, the Council of Governments (COG) in 1965 provided the major portion of local funds for a joint study with the Northern Virginia Regional Planning Commission and the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission on the metropolitan Washington solid waste disposal problem. A consultant was hired and the report is nearing comple- tion, At this time it would be premature to cite any of the detailed findings and recommendations. It is certain to demonstrate, however, that the problem has metropolitan dimensions requiring the cooperative efforts of the local jurisdictions. In turn, this raises the question of developing an organizational arrangement under which such cooperative efforts could be adminstered. Morcover, the severity of the problem in the District of Columbia already has prompted it to request that coc investigate the feasibility of estab- lishing an organizational entity to administer a regional solid waste disposal program. Existing Legislative Authority Federal and state legislation has been enacted which enables local jurisdic- tions in the Washington. Metropolitan Area to enter into cooperative agree- ments for sewerage disposal and water supply purposes. And, the authoriza- tions in these statutes have been used. For example, the District of Columbia has entered into agreements with numerous local jurisdictions for the treat- ment of sewerage at its Blue Plains Plant. Ironically, there was a Federal statute enacted in 1930 which authorizes the District to enter into agree- ments with neighboring jurisdictions for the disposal of their combustible solid waste in the D.C. incinerators. Of course, this is academic; the Dis- trict’s own needs are in excess of the capacity of its existing incinerators. * Deputy Executive Director and General Counsel, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. 61 62 BOSLEY Proceedings Legislative Alternatives While authorization for cooperative agreements in the functional areas mentioned above have been useful, such arrangements also have limitations. The disposal of solid waste is a good example. As we know, no existing methods of disposing of solid waste are wholly unobtrusive to a community. Local governments attempting to negotiate arrangements to alleviate their individual solid waste problems come under great pressures from local citizens. However, the pressures inherent in such piecemeal negotiations can be substantially reduced if there is a metropolitan plan and program for the disposal of solid waste. Such planning and programming places the problem in a broader context, and, therefore, ameliorates much of the local objections that might ordinarily arise. But, is: there an adequate legislative basis to implement a metropolitan solid waste plan and program? No unequivocal answer can be given to this question. The consultant’s recommendations and the degree to which the local jurisdictions accept them for implementation will ultimately determine - the nature and scope of any metropolitan solid waste program. And, al- though definitive legislative formula cannot be proposed at this time, we can make certain assumptions. Initially, it must be recognized that the metropolitan aspects of the problem cannot be solved by existing legislation. The District of Columbia does not have Congressional authority to enter into agreements with other _political jurisdictions for the disposal of its solid waste. Although Virginia has a joint exercise of power statute, it does not apply to jurisdictions out- side the State. Maryland has no specific statutory provisions pertaining to extraterritorial solution of its solid waste problems. Under these circum- stances, we must look for other mechanisms for dealing with the short range solid waste problems in the metropolitan area. Such an interim mechanism could be the creation of a nonprofit corpora- tion composed of the local governments of the metropolitan area. This agency could undertake a modest metropolitan solid waste disposal program. Of course, such an approach would be premised on the authority of local governments to enter into contracts with nongovernmental entities for services. This would only be a temporary solution. The corporation would not have the financial capacity to undertake a substantial program since service charges would be its main source of revenue. This would severely limit its acquisition of capital equipment and its ability to obtain long range financing. Moreover, it would not have the power of eminent domain and Panel A LEGISLATIVE NEEDS - 63 therefore could not acquire sufficient areas for landfill or incinerator oper- ations. Nevertheless, this type of entity might provide a stopgap program if the situation warrants. When substantial capital investment for metropolitan solid waste facilities becomes necessary, consideration will have to be given to legislation creating a metropolitan authority, probably by interstate compact. But, in my opinion, any proposed regional authority should not be established solely to solve the metropolitan solid waste problem. Rather, it should have responsibility for all of the metropolitan environmental health problems. And, we are all aware that solid waste disposal is only one facet of the total waste management problem confronting the metropolitan area. The solution of the solid waste problem must be directly related to the region’s efforts to abate air and water pollution and to provide an adequate water supply. Furthermore, any compact legislation could not be enacted without consensus of agreement of the local governments and approval of Congress. Therefore, the structure, functions and powers of such an organization will be subject to debate and controversy. Obtaining a consensus on these ques- tions will require lengthy negotiations. But I believe such complex negotia- tions could be facilitated by adhering to certain basic principles. Of para- mount importance would be the recognition, from the outset, that such an interstate authority would be the joint agency of the local governments in the area. Its governing body should be composed of local elected officials from these governments and not state appointed officials. If it is structured in this manner, it can be the vehicle to implement the policies and plans developed by the local governments through their cooperative efforts in coc. To assure this, the compact authority and coc should have an inter- locking directorate or the organizations should be merged. Such an organ- wzational structure would assure to the maximum extent possible, that the agency’s programs would be carried out in accordance with the needs and desires of the citizens of the metropolitan area. As I have already indicated, this would be a delicate and arduous task. But this is the nature of the legislative process. It must embody the desires of the majority and protect the rights of the minority. To a limited extent, this process has already begun. The local elected officials participating in the Council of Governments are aware of and concerned with these en- vironmental problems. The metropolitan solid waste study now underway and coc’s preliminary investigations of the institutional requirements for implementation of a metropolitan solid waste program are concrete evidence of their desire to take affirmative action to solve such metropolitan en- vironmental health problems. OPEN DISCUSSION: PANEL A Achilles M. Tuchtan,* Panel Chairman Mr. Pump B. Hartt: What are the immediate or relatively immediate prospects of solving the problems of scrap automobiles? Is there any thought being given to a regional facility or facilities to solve this very pressing problem? Mr. Vocety: I'll tackle the first part of the question. The junk car problem is many things to many people. I think that the accumulation of scrap automobiles outside of the industrial stream will be solved over the period of the next few years by either better technologies or by local action in places where the problem is really acute. This will be done in the form that I indicated, that is, making the owner of the car responsible in some way for its disposal into the industrial stream. The handling, however, of scrap cars — the winning of the reusable parts and then the remelting of the scrap body itself — is a process that is industrial in nature and will never be beautiful. What must happen is that it gets confined to areas wherein such industrial processes are acceptable to the population as a whole. Thus, I think the problem will be solved. It will take a combination of technology and local effort. As far as regional compacts are concerned, I cannot address myself to that. Perhaps you can, Mr. Tuchtan. Mr. TucHTan: Well, I have a comment here from Dr. Jack Lentz who is on the staff of the Washington Council of Governments. He says, “Shred- ding and incineration plant in the planning stage in Baltimore reported to be able to handle 2,500 cars a day.” and coc’s Regional Sanitary Advisory Board is investigating this and other techniques with the objective of adding to the best possible technology, the political mechanism to provide a region- wide approach. We are now in the studying stages. Mr. Vocety: Yes, most of the scrap cars from Washington now flow to Baltimore, and if you improve the scrap processing facilities there you provide an outlet. This still doesn’t solve the problem of the car that’s abandoned on private property that never gets into the industrial stream. Mr. Tucutan; That is true. I know that in the jurisdiction from which I come — the city of Rockville — we have an ordinance regarding * Chairman of the Board of Directors in the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments and Member of City Council, Rockville, Maryland. + Philip B. Hall, Public Works, Alexandria, Virginia. a) 66 PANEL A Proceedings this problem. We have made it very clear, for example, to our citizens that we will remove gladly all vehicles that are abandoned on their property. It costs us, but from the health welfare and sanitation points of view, we want to do it, and have so advised them in a newsletter. That doesn’t mean we're inviting everybody here to come out and leave junk cars on our city streets or lots. ANonyMous: Does cosa refer to the method of solid waste disposal in solid waste collection contracts? Mr. Eastman: I believe that question is directed at the end act of disposal of the material that is collected by any contractor. If that is the intended question, we do not speak to the method in which solid wastes are disposed. Presumably, any contracting firm licensed to collect waste material must have a satisfactory means of disposing of that material. Possibly it’s not-satisfactory in light of the present acts of today. Maybe it’s using Kenil- worth Dump. But we do not speak in our contracts to the method of dis- posing those materials that are collected by contracting companies. Mr. Pumir B. Wisman*: Have you considered the alternative to land- fills and incineration namely the recently perfected commercial composting method sponsored by waste conversion science foundation? They have units to handle 500 tons per day. This involves no landfills, no air pollution. Why not look into it, especially in view of the impending world shortage - of fertilizer? Mr. Bremser: Let me say ‘yes.’ We have looked into this, and as a small-scale operation, it’s quite feasible. But to compost the refuse produced by upwards of 2 million people creates a very large marketing problem with what you do with a compost once you have it. Mr. Avex F. Percet: Is there a rule of thumb figure for landfill needs per population unit, such as acre-feet per 10,000 people? Me. H. Lanter Hickman, Jr.t: One acre per 10,000 population per year per 8-foot layer of fill. Has anyone considered a separate collection, say once a month of only newspapers for possible reuse? Mr. EastMAN: I commented on that with respect to the collection of saleable paper. The government does segregate paper that is resaleable and that would be bond paper, letter paper; there would be paper that is scrap * Philip B. Wisman, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. -+ Alex F. Perge, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C. +H. Lanier Hickman, Jr., U.S. Public Health Service, Cincinnati. Second Session OPEN DISCUSSION 67 from printing processes, high-grade paper; it would be 18M cards used in the numerous data processing centers that are no longer required. These are all collected, segregated, filled, and sold to paper people for reuse purposes. { don’t know whether that goes far enough to answer the question. Mr. Tucutan: Rockville has a program whereby all of our refuse is picked up in the backyard. We find that our citizens don’t like to carry their garbage cans to the curb. We do not tell them what to put in those cans. They put anything of a refuse nature that goes into a garbage can. However, we do have a once a month repickup of anything they cannot dispose of. And that includes refrigerators, washing machines, springs, and mattresses, and what have you. And it’s a service that the city renders to its citizens. I would say that if our community — the one I live in — is any example, if you were to ask the citizens to segregate and separate out their refuse, we would have a rough time on our hands. I wouldn’t be standing here; I wouldn’t be elected I can assure you. So, I think this is one of the problems we would have to consider, it’s perhaps of a political nature, but people don’t want to be pinned down to sorting their refuse. Francis A. Govan*: “Good incinerator sites are hard to find today and should be bought quickly.” That’s a quote of yours. Does the site selection criteria require the possibility of heat conversion plans as used in Europe and proposed in the U.S.A.? Mr. Bremser: Not necessarily, the criteria for incinerator sites are basically that they be in a neighborhood where they’re not offensive. This means generally a heavy industrial type neighborhood with access by high- ways, and streets in which heavy truck traffic is not offensive. These con- siderations are the most important issues. But a location where steam may be sold certainly should be a consideration. Mrs. E. Jonest: Is another interstate joint agency necessary to ad- minister solid waste disposal? Isn’t coc set up to function in this area now? Mr. BosLey: The determination of whether you would need additional institutional arrangements for implementation of programs for solid waste disposal largely will be determined by the type of regional program that is agreed upon. Certainly if the program is right to require large capital in- vestment and the power of eminent domain, a metropolitan agency having a legislative basis will be required. This does not, in any way, indicate that the organization must be another special-purpose agency. If we have to * Francis A. Govan, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. + Elizabeth Jones, League of Women Voters of the United States, Washington, D.C. 68 PANEL A Proceedings consider a formal interstate organizationual arrangement, I believe that this region has reached the point where it must consider not only the solid waste disposal problem, but the other Metropolitan area problems that might in the future require some sort of organizational arrangement to effectively solve them. What I am really saying is that if we have to go to an organizational structure, let’s go to the optimum one. Develop one that is going to reflect the needs of the region. We should establish an organiza- tional structure complementary and supplementary to the local government | activity in the region, not one which would compete with the local govern- ment. These are the decisions that we must consider in the next several months. It would be premature at this time to say that we must have an interstate compact agency because we just don’t know; we don’t know definitely what can be agreed upon to solve metropolitan-wide programs such as solid waste disposal. And until that is determined, we will not be able to establish any criteria or suggestions with regard to organizational structure for the carrying out of such programs. Anonymous: ... Can the District of Columbia participate? Mr. Bostey: Well, there is some precedence for this. In 1958 and ’59, there was a joint committee of the Congress, House and Senate, that studied Metropolitan affairs and problems in the Washington Area. Portions of recommendations of this committee, were enacted into law. One of the recommendations established was the Washington Metropolitan Regional Development Act. This legislation states that it is the policy of the United States Congress to encourage the District of Columbia and Federal depart- ments and agencies to act in concert and to work together with the local governments in the Metropolitan area for unified solutions to those problems which are regional in scope. Further, it sets forth certain priorities that should be considered. Among priority items delineated is the solid and liquid waste disposal problem. The second recommendation of the joint commit- tee concerned the development of a rapid rail transit authority for this region. Of course, this has come to fruition with the establishment of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. The legislative authority to establish this agency — The National Capital Transportation Act of 1960 admonished that in negotiation of the compact other metropolitan problems requiring a unified approach to their solution should be studied. This was a recognition in effect, of the need for the District to participate in an organ- ization having more than transit powers. I think it is significant here to indicate that the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Compact (WMATA) also sets a precedent that justifies some of the suggestions that Second Session OPEN DISCUSSION 69 I’ve made here today. For example, Congress permitted deviation from the normal compact organizational structure. The governing body of WMATA i; not composed of individuals appointed by the governors of the States. Instead, the compact recognizes that the decision making process for this metropolitan region should incorporate the people that live within this area. Therefore, the compact specifically provides for the participation of the District Commissioners and the locally elected officials from Virginia and Maryland are its governing body. Consequently, there is ample prece- dence for the District’s participation. The more important questions really concern the type of structure which might be suggested and what its duties, powers, and responsibilities would be. Naturally there is bound to be a great deal of debate and dialogue on this issue. But I think that there’s no doubt that back in 1960 Congress envisioned that there would be conditions requiring the District to partici- pate in a joint agency with other local governments in this area to solve metropolitan problems. , Mr. MicHaets: Do you have information on the cost of installing: air pollution controls in existing office building incinerators? Mr. EastMAN: I do not have offhand, but I mentioned the fact that 18 of our incinerators have been surveyed to ascertain what corrective inecasures must be taken. Generally the measure will consist of water scrubbers. I do not recall what this will cost to accomplish. I have that information in the office. I do not have it readily at hand here. Mr. TucuTan: I believe that your study on this, too, Mr. Eastman, is in connection with the District of Columbia’s efforts to pass an air pollution control ordinance. Mr. EASTMAN: That is correct. Mr. TucHTan: We have two jurisdictions in this area which have had ordinances. The District is working on it, and seven others are now in the developing stage. So of the 15 participating jurisdictions in the Council of Governments we hope that certainly by the start of the next year we will have standardized our air pollution control ordinances in the region and have a region-wide program in effect. Mrs. E. Jones: In your opinion, is the air pollution bill passed by the. Senate yesterday sufficiently comprehensive and enforceable to have real and/or immediate impact nationally? Is the House favorably disposed towards its passing? 70 PANEL A Proceedings Mr. MippteTon: The Senate action represents a significant step forward, adopting, in essence, the Administration proposal on the Air Quality Act of 1967. I’m hopeful that passage in the House will allow us to proceed further in cleaning up the air in the United States. Mr. FREDERICK A. Moran*: He’s from Baltimore, and this is concerning burning stumps as “the cheapest method of disposal of stumps is burning” according to Mr. Bremser. This creates a spirit of mutual harassment be- tween land developers and residential neighbors. If open burning were more closely controlled, what is the speaker’s opinion of the ready use of other than the ‘cheapest method,’ i.e. mobile mechanical cutters and so on? Mr. Binnewtes: I’m not sure I quite understand . . . I think that the emphasis of the question is why not the use of mobile mechanical cutters rather than the burning of stumps as the cheapest method of disposal. Did I interpret the question correctly? . . - We do use cutters quite a bit. The thing that I referred to particularly was the disposal of stumps from the Dutch Elm disease. We just about have to do this by burning, because if you distribute the wood by chipping or anyway like that, there’s a very high danger of infecting other trees. In other cases of stump disposal, you can use chippers. As a matter of economics, it takes a while to chip up a stump; they’re full of cross-grain, you know, and not very easy to get rid of, but it can be done. It takes longer than just to haul them out to a dump and throw them on a pile and eventually burn them up. They are usually not suitable for campground wood; the difficulty in splitting generally makes them not desirable. Stumps are probably the toughest part of the tree to dispose of. From THE Fioor: I wonder whether one of the panel would address himself to the problems of disposal of demolition debris. Mr. Eastman: I can only refer very briefly to this type of material as far as our program is concerned. I will allude to that accumulation of debris resulting from construction of our own forces which would constitute such items as plaster, wallboard, bricks, mortar, etc. This is the type of debris that we collect and then must contract with some contracting company to dispose of. Presumably this same contracting firm has some permit for ’ disposing of these unburnable items in a suitable sanitary landfill area. With respect to major demolition, we let a contract whereby a wrecking company agrees to demolish and dispose of any of the demolished items he accumu- lates through that process. # Frederick A. Moran, Maryland Department of Health, Baltimore, Maryland. Second Session OPEN DISCUSSION 71 Again, our contracts do not speak to how a contractor will dispose of these materials. Maybe, this is something that we should speak to in terms of the overall problem. However, it has not been our practice within the demolition contract to specify the ultimate method of disposing of those materials. Mr. BREMSER: The normal practice, of course, is to take the demolition material which consists of lumber and broken concrete, brick, glass, and everything else generally knocked down by a headache ball and pushed over by a bulldozer and load it onto a truck and dump it somewhere. It’s not a practical matter from the demolition contractor’s point of view to try to separate the materials. If the material is from, say, a frame house and basically combustible, there is no reason why if you had a large-scale shredding installation, you could not put this material through a shredder and burn it in a normal incineration plant. Barring this, about the only thing to do with it is to burn it in the open. You may know that in Detroit, they have built some incinerators within the last few years specifically for the purpose of burning brush and tree debris and this sort of thing. There’s no reason why this type of incinerator which provides a long retention time could not be used to handle basically combustible demolition debris. Mr. TucHTan: The Council of Government’s model air pollution ordi- nance has a provision pertinent to demolition debris. I think the City of Rockville and Montgomery County employ this provision for construction of new structures. For example in housing areas where a developer comes in and builds a number of homes, open burning is a permitted but con- trolled practice. Scrap lumber and stumps can be burned on site. The control is applied to the kind of fire. For example there is the direct pro- hibition to the use of tires as a source of heat. An open burning permit is required. We must also recognize that we cannot stand in the way of certain normal business or construction practices which in themselves do not create an air pollution problem of any magnitude. So we should permit business to be able to operate in those instances, such as construction where open burning can be undertaken without any material increase in air pollution. The problem in air pollution is to tackle it at the greatest source, and the burning of stumps is a very minor one. Mr. G. Derricxson*: This is on the subject of junk and abandoned motor vehicle problems. I should like to supplement Dr. Vogely’s statement * Gardiner Derrickson, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 72 PANEL A Proceedings by calling the attention of this conference to the publication of two valuable reports in this area by the Business and Defense Services Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce as follows: 1. Iron and steel scrap, consumption problems. Business and Defense Services Administration. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Washington, D.C., 1966, 52 p. 2. Motor vehicle abandonment in the U. S. urban areas. Business and Defense Services Administration. U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Wash- ington, D.C., 1967, 51 p. Panel B: Technology Today TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS Robert D. Bugher * \WASTE DISPOSAL has been with man throughout his history. Every human existence produces waste and man’s attitude throughout the ages has been: (a) to get away from it as far as possible, “to take it down the road,” or (b) to change it into forms which are not objectionable. Thus waste disposal involves both transformation and transport of refuse. The subject of this presentation concerning the utilization of transport systems deals only with one of the two very basic approaches to waste dis- posal. Waste transformation processes are discussed in other papers con- cerning waste reduction, incineration, composting and waste recycling op- portunities. It must be recognized, however, that waste handling and dis- posal technologies are intimately related and that transportation is a key element of virtually all waste removal systems. Thus, to establish a frame- work for this presentation, it might be stated that efficient waste removal requires a tailor-made integration of both: (a) the waste collection and disposal efforts, and (b) the transportation system. One cannot talk about a transportation system for solid wastes without consideration of the happenings at the point-of-waste origin. Both the type and quantities of waste are of concern. On-site reduction of solid wastes through home incineration, grinding, or pulping and salvage might reduce the quantities drastically. Furthermore, the transportation system actually begins at the point of the waste origin. The waste originator is already part of the system if he must bring his garbage can to the curbside at a given time which corresponds to the collection schedules. Costs increase drastically — up to 50 percent in time per pickup stop, if the collection crews must get the cans from backyard storing places or out of garages. To reduce the handling and transportation costs at the point of origin it has become advantageous for some locations to use disposable paper sacks instead of the metal or plastic garbage can. Paper sacks are light weight, necessitate only a one way pickup trip, prevent the wastes from being blown around by high winds, reduce noise, and provide for an improvment in sanitary procedures. Paper sacks currently are sold at about 8 to 12 cents each with about a 3.5 cubic foot * Executive Director, American Public Works Association, Chicago, Illinois. 73 74 BUGHER Proceedings capacity. Some European countries, including Sweden, Denmark and Great Britain have begun to experiment with compression devices particularly in apartment buildings to increase the quantity of refuse that is fed into the sacks. On the other hand, disposal efforts are of equal importance for the estab- lishment of tailor-made transportation systems. Acceptable incineration placed in strategic locations will reduce or eliminate long distance hauling; effective composting, in turn, might require long distance hauling to be beneficial to areas where the basic soil needs improvement before fertilizers can be used with maximum advantage. In looking at waste disposal systems and their transportation elements it must be recognized that relative in- sufficiencies in one building block of the system may be more than offset through advantages gained by other considerations. Historically, all means of transportation have been used for the removal of man’s waste. At one time people carried the wastes or used slaves to remove it from the immediate environment. Waste also has been trans- ported on horse back, by horse and wagon, by ship, by rail, by car and by truck. Improvements in transportation technology usually led to an improve- ment in the waste handling methods. The size of waste collection trucks, for example, has increased from 9 cubic yards in the 1920’s or 1930’s to up ‘to 50-cubic-yard vehicles experimented with today which are equipped to empty and load heavy containers automatically. It is estimated that currently about 40,000 vehicles are used exclusively in the United States for the collection of solid wastes. These vehicles repre- sent an investment value of about $400 million. Refuse collection trucks, varying in size from 10 to 30 cubic yards can cost anywhere from $10,000 to $30,000 per unit. In addition, equipment storage and maintenance facilities amount to about 12 percent or $48 million of the mobile equipment value according to a recent APWA survey. There are several different types of collection trucks in use at the present time. The increase in the quantity of paper wastes and the decrease in ashes has -resulted in a high-volume low-density refuse which lends itself readily to compaction. Rubbish may be as light as 200 lbs per cubic yard while garbage or ashes may weigh more than 1,000 lbs a cubic yard. The. 18-cubic-yard to 20-cubic-yard capacity vehicles are the most popular ones today. There are several different types of compaction trucks in use . including: (a) rear loading hopper type bodies which use either a single © blade.or a flight conveyor for sweeping refuse into the body; (b) a side Panel B TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 75 loading unit in a rectangular or cylindrical body which uses a movable hydraulic bulkhead for both compaction and ejection; and, (c) a special container collection vehicle which is a top loading unit which uses the movable bulkhead for compaction and ejection. . The cost per ton of refuse collected varies, of course, considerably, depend- ing upon local wage rates, equipment cost, collection policies, the spatial distribution of pickups and the respective refuse amounts, traffic density on streets used by the collection trucks and the route and haul distances. Costs per ton of refuse are quoted from $3.90 to about $14.00 for normal com- bined refuse excluding bulk objects. Unfortunately, waste disposal has always been saddled with considerable socio economic burdens. Being at best a nuisance, waste disposal had to make do with absolute minimum amounts of money, manpower, and equipment. As a result waste disposal frequently has been and in some in- stances is still handled in a rather pedestrian manner. Solid waste disposal in the United States today is estimated to represent a $3-billion industry with about 70 to 75 percent of that amount spent on waste transport alone. Furthermore, the total production of solid wastes calculated on a per capita basis has grown from 2 lbs per capita per day in the 1920’s to more than 4 lbs per capita per day today. It is estimated to grow at an annual rate of about 4 percent. It appears already safe to say that in the near future, on the average, nearly 1 ton of solid wastes per person per year must be collected and disposed of. Also, while our environment once was capable of absorbing and digesting all of man’s wastes, it is no longet able to do so. Environmental pollution has become a major threat to all urbanized settlements. Yet the task and challenge of waste disposal still will continue to grow. The population of the United States is expected to double by the year 2000. It is forecast that much of this explosive growth will take place in urbanized areas, such as Washington, D.C. Coupled with an increase in industrial and commercial activities as well as the direct per capita con- sumption, such growth will result in staggering problems for solid waste disposal and management. Considering the amounts of solid wastes in- volved plus the spatial concentration of the waste generation, it becomes obvious that solid waste management involves most operating factors gen- erally found in mass production, mass transportation and mass service. This “mass” aspect of waste removal activities requires that well and thoroughly developed system approaches be used to handle the removal in an adequate, efficient and economical manner. 283-399 O-67—6 76 BUGHER © Proceedings To set then the stage for an analysis of transportation systems with respect to waste removal, one has to recognize that waste by definition has no eco- nomic value. This suggests that high-tonnage low-cost transportation car- riers be utilized as much as possible. Constant cost reduction must be made the only objective for progressive waste management, if mere disposal and not utilization is the primary waste management goal. Furthermore, all currently known waste disposal methods ultimately re- quire land for a disposal ground. But in urban areas land is in short supply and in demand for more attractive and productive uses. In turn, waste has to be shipped out of such areas over ever-increasing distances and, conse- quently, bulk transportation facilities become more and more important as the backbone of waste removal efforts. What then are the basic elements of transportation systems that must be considered in waste removal applications? In a nutshell, and this is important, transportation can be highlighted as a material- or people-handling system. In this presentation, of course, we deal only with the movement of materials, although materials are and can be moved over pure “people” transportation systems such as local transit lines. A transportation system can be described as a method of movement by which things “flow” through a system. In terms of movement, things may be handled: (a) horizontally, by such means as trucks, trains or barges; (b) vertically, by elevators or chutes; and, (c) vertically as well as hori- zontally, by helicopters, conveyors, and pipelines operated either hydraul- ically or pneumatically. The actual movement of things is constrained by the physical facilities of a transport system, i.e., the channels of the network. The physical facil- ities, in turn, may be grouped into the fixed installations of the network, e.g., railroad tracks, roads, and river channels, and the mobile equipment. Thus the available transportation capabilities determine, to a large degree, what kind of transport system can be used in handling the wastes for a given area. Not all transportation systems, of course, have mobile equipment as such. Pipelines and conveyors as a rule do not have “vehicles,” and there is a direct interface between the materials being moved and. the fixed system installations. On the other hand, in transportation systems having mobile Panel B TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 77 equipment, the vehicles might be considered containers which provide the interface between the items transported and the fixed installations. The kind of transportation vehicles that are available carries considerable systemic implications. The “vehicles” available determine, for example, whether wastes ought to be liquified, baled, containerized and/or reduced in size in order to obtain maximum system benefits. ‘The interface structure of a transportation system is of utmost importance in determining the suitability of a given system for waste removal purposes. Whether, for example, industrial, commercial and special wastes such as hospital wastes can be included. Commonly, refuse transportation requires a system to handle a wide variety of materials of all sizes, capable, to various degrees, of “contaminating” the environment. Public health and sanitation aspects must therefore be of overriding concern. The transportation network itself may be viewed in a building block fashion. It consists of links and transfer points. A link corresponds to a specific transportation channel and may be well defined as, for example, in the case of a rail line or highway. Links of the same, similar, or different modes of transportation may cross each other as, for example, by a rail- road crossing or a bridge, or they may provide an interchange as, for ex- ample, in a road junction, airline terminal or railroad switching yard. Con- sidering transportation as a building block system, it becomes obvious that the waste management system planner must evaluate many transport alterna- tives to develop an approach which is tailor-made for a given area. Ultimately, of course, links to transfer stations where the materials are moved on or off a given transport network. Such a transfer might involve either a change from one mode of transport to another, for example, from trucks to rails or the original loading and final unloading operations. The transfer of materials frequently represents a major share of the total direct operating cost of transportation systems. Finally, the path of materials being moved through one or more trans- portation networks might involve a succession of links and transfer stations. In this way networks and/or vehicles interact over space and time, and the selection of an optimum total transportation system might require a con- siderable amount of network balancing. Factors, such as the following, typically are involved: total trip time, reliability of service, time and effort spent at transfer points, safety considerations, direct operating costs and in- direct expenditures such as insurance, interest and storage and impact on the environment and its inhabitants.- 78 BUGHER Proceedings Thus, in analyzing existing and potential transportation systems for refuse removal applications, one must consider: the types and amounts of the materials to be transported; the feasibility of transforming the wastes. to facilitate transport, and the point of storage and collection; the vehicles and/or ways in which the materials are conveyed; the networks through which the materials move; the number and type of transfer stations needed; the public health, sanitation and safety requirements; and, of course, the time and cost charges. In dimensioning the waste material handling or transportation system for a given area, it is necessary to make, first, some basic decisions con- cerning the local refuse removal policies. Questions such as the following must be answered a priori: (1) How large is the area to be served by the system? Are we concerned with only Washington, D.C., proper, which had a population of 764,000 people in 1960 (according to the U.S. Census) ? Or is the system to serve the Washington Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, which had a population of more than two million at the time indicated and was growing at a rate of 36.7 percent per Census decade? (2) Should the refuse removal system handle all the wastes generated in- cluding residential, commercial, industrial and special wastes, or should it deal only with selected categories of refuse such as the residential/municipal wastes? The composition of residential wastes alone — those generated by the householder — already provides considerable transportation problems. Ex- cluding abandoned automobiles, for example, Washington trucks annually have to remove about 6,700 bulky metal objects such as refrigerators, wash- ing machines, bed springs and oil drums. It is estimated that appliance dealers and private collectors haul an equal quantity of such objects to the disposal sites. In addition, there are putrescible materials, paper, glass bottles, aerosol cans, paint containers, tires, rags, and, of course, automobiles. Furthermore, the District of Columbia ranks among the major in- . dustrial/commercial centers in the United States. In 1965 it had almost 17,900 commercial/industrial establishments covered by the Federal Insur- ance Contribution Act. This means at least one and probably several pick-ups from each of such establishments every week. These provide em- ployment for almost 305,000 persons. Major business groups in the District produce a variety of waste materials and in 1965 included the following: Panel B TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 79 TABLE I BUSINESS GROUPS IN THE DISTRICT PRODUCING WASTE MATERIALS Number of Reporting Business group employees units Total 304,941 17,879 General construction (demolition wastes) 26,262 1,015 Manufacturing 23,495 689 Food and kindred products (garbage) 4,559 54 Printing and publishing (paper) 13,861 343 Wholesale trade 21,848 1,334 Retail trade 65,839 3,850 Eating and drinking places (garbage) 18,938 1,002 Services (paper, garbage and medical wastes) 104,483 7,038 Hotels and other lodgings 10,810 253 Misc. business services 15,311 849 Medical and other health services 11,539 1,241 It must be remembered in this context, that types of employment not covered by the Social Security Program are not included in the above data. Thus, government employees, self-employed persons, farm workers, and domestic service workers are not covered in the foregoing tabulation. Finally, the amounts of wastes to be handled through a transportation system depend also upon the waste disposal practices utilized or required at the point of waste origin. Grinding transfers the wastes into the sewer system and home incineration reduces the volume and the frequency with which wastes have to be picked up. (3) The third set of questions addresses itself to the spatial distribution of waste generating units. A high concentration of such units as, for example, in high-rise buildings or. large city apartment blocks, might suggest the establishment of vacuum, chute, or similar collection and transport systems. One-family housing settlement patterns, on the other hand, probably require that the collection and at least part of the total transport be handled by truck. Data from the 1960 Census of Population and Housing indicate wide spread density patterns for Washington, D.C. proper on a Census Tract hasis. Correspondingly, they suggest some significant spatial differences in residential waste generation. Data for selected census tract settlements range as follows: Number of rooms per housing unit: 1.2 to 7.5 rooms 80 BUGHER Proceedings Number of persons per housing unit: 1.1 to 4.1 Median family income: $2,912 to $19,815 Consequently, the intracity waste handling and transportation require- ments might vary considerably if a system is to be devised which serves all areas on a tailor-made and highly desirable basis. High density areas, for example, might suggest the application of an integrated container system starting at the point of waste origin while low density areas might continue to do with the common garbage can or disposable paper or plastic sack. In- dustry has developed various types of waste collection and transport equip- ment to meet the requirements of different urban settlement patterns. (4) The fourth set of questions, of course, must “deal with the area’s existing and the potentially available total transportation systems. The Washington transportation system reflects the fact that the District of Columbia is the seat of the Federal government. The Washington, D.C., area is traversed by three railroads and the Potomac River. In addition, there are many highways leading in and out of the area. A 25-mile subway system costing some $431 million is planned for the metropolitan area. It is conceivable that it could be used during the night-time hours as part of a waste transportation system. The existing in- cinerators and landfills might also provide readymade locations for transfer stations. The existing mass transportation system of railroads and rivers serving the Capital connects the area effectively with the outlying regions in which the ultimate disposal of wastes might take place. This could conceivably be accomplished on a long-range basis by all-round desirable and advantageous methods. The present Washington transportation system, with its highways, railroads and the Potomac River, thus allows the waste removal planner a wide range of alternatives for system development in terms of both the mode of transportation and the ultimate destination. This view is based on the belief that: (a) wastes can ultimately be disposed of in an unobjectionable manner; (b) wastes can often be used to increase the value of marginal land; and, (c) since there is widespread public opposition and fear to the mere thought of living near a waste disposal facility — as if it were an ammunition dump — they should be located as far away from high-density population centers as is economically feasible. (5) The fifth and final set of major questions concerns the system partici- pants. It must determine who is to operate which part of the system, who is responsible in what way for total system performance, how the burden of Panel B TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 81 cost is to be distributed, who might provide the waste inputs, for example, private collectors, municipal forces, and/or self-disposers such as a private citizen coming with his station wagon and a can of grass clippings on a Sunday afternoon. Last but not least, it must be determined how the wastes must be delivered to conform to specific system requirements, for example: should the wastes be packaged, baled, or pre-containerized. Should they be put in paper sacks or metal and/or plastic cans, etc.? This involves the regulation of human behavior so the system can function with a reasonable degree of efficiency. It is obvious that answers to the above questions and subquestions do have considerable systematic implications regardless of what transport and material handling system one uses. It is also obvious that the selection and development of any system will materially affect the livability of any given area. Every community repre- sents, however imperfectly, a system for living and simultaneously an engi- neering system. Only the interaction of both systems make the parameters of community life and growth. Furthermore, it 1s obvious from the presentation thus far that refuse- removal-material handling and/or transport systems are very complex and have numerous ramifications. The transport system begins with the on-site storage of wastes at the point of origin. The refuse originator is part of the transportation system if he has to bring his garbage can to the curbside at a predetermined time. In view of the many system elements and the potentially large number of system performance factors, it is impossible for me to cover the subject in great detail. Time limitations suggest that this presentation’s primary purpose is to discuss the subject in terms of current knowledge and suggest promising areas for imaginative research. Only system development work, including techno-economic and socio-economic as well as management analyses, will produce results which will make this area’s waste removal a showcase for the nation and for the world as well. In looking, then, at specific transportation systems with respect to waste removal operations, it must be recognized that basically three system de- velopment approaches are involved: (a) The transfer of existing tech- nologies “‘as is” into the waste removal field. Such technologies might come from other fields of commercial/industrial endeavor or the vast U.S. Government research and development efforts including, in particular, Public Health, nasa, and Department of Defense projects; (b) The develop- 82 BUGHER Proceedings ment of these technologies in terms of specifically tailor-made waste removal applications; and, (c) The long-term development of perhaps completely new technologies which would turn the current nuisance of wastes into a useful national resource. It does no harm to apply visionary thinking and objectives to a mundane problem such as refuse removal. We must have the courage to direct the promise of research wholeheartedly toward the solution of our everyday problems, and we also must have the stamina to back up our courage through generous action. It is a sorry situation and a poor reflection on our sense of values that we stand on the threshold of putting a man on the moon but still handle the wastes we produce using methods developed during the horse-and-buggy era. The state-of-the-art has not yet advanced to the point where it can be regarded as a sophisticated waste disposal management science. But with the impact of the Solid Wastes Program things have begun to move and significant progress is being made to employ the opportunities modern science and technology do offer. The success of research in other areas, given only firm and urgent objectives, most certainly justifies any conviction or hope we might dare to have. Specific existing material handling and transportation system can, of course, cover a potentially wide area and only some selected highlights can be given here. There are pipelines, for example, and piping systems could, considering the community as an engineering system, originate right in the housewife’s kitchen. Existing technology in the field is highly developed. Even solids in the state of slurries are moved with success. However, initial capital costs are high and efforts toward the acquisition of right-of-ways may be frustrating. On the other hand, operating costs are quite low, amounting to roughly pennies per ton/mile for all kinds of materials moved. Piping systems can be operated pneumatically or hydraulically. The Federal government, through the Public Health Service Solid Waste Program, currently is sponsoring research which considers a water/sewage borne system and a 30 to 40 percent solid slurry for center city applications and a pneumatic system for the outskirts of settlements. The systems, of course, must operate under pressure since refuse loading changes water and _ sewage into a very complex fluid. In principle, materials can be piped over unlimited distances and it has to be determined where economics require cutoff points. Pipelines are used or considered for all kinds of materials which are transported in large volumes. Coal, for example, is moved 110 miles by pipe into the Cleveland area. Today, there are about 20 phosphate rock Panel B TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 83 pipelines in the U.S. handling over 30 million tons of rock per year. These lines are 14 to 16 inches in diameter and range in length up to 5 miles. Solids lines have also been built to move gilsonite, limestone and borax. According to present technology, however, it is required. that the solids do not undergo any undesirable change, including flow characteristics, as a result of the mixing of the solids and liquids or of the transportation process itself. Pneumatic systems have been tested in Sweden. A system has been recently established in a large housing project which will ultimately in- clude 2,600 dwellings. This system moves refuse, by suction, at a speed of about 90 feet per second in pipes of about 2 feet in diameter. The vacuum in the system is created by electrically-driven turbines. It moves the refuse from selected system channels at predetermined times and one vacuum unit thus can serve a great number of channels depending, of course, upon the rate of channel loading. Pipe systems extending a distance of up to about 2,500 yards are currently visualized. This concept is currently being considered for installation in a large housing project in Westminster, England. The capital cost per flat (apartment unit) is calculated to run about $310, while the annual operating costs are estimated to range from $12 to $15 per unit. The advantages of pipe systems for local collection activity are numerous despite the heavy original investment requirements. Pipe systems require little labor, they can move the wastes to storage areas which are conveni- ently accessible through a 24-hour day including weekends, and there is no spillage, smell or noise. Although pipe systems may not be economical today if compared with other more conventional collection systems, the picture may change in the near future as refuse quantities and collection cost con- tinue to increase. In waste disposal transportation systems we deal with service life spans of 5 to 8 years for refuse trucks and 20 to 30 years for incinerators. I might also point out, in passing, that other factors besides cost alone should be considered in determining the type of waste disposal system that would serve the best interests of the community. For example, the pneu- matic pipes referred to above could conceivably be installed in utiladors which would contain water mains, electric power lines, telephone lines, sewers and drains as well as postal tubes. They could be designed for easy access by covering them with prefabricated slabs which could serve as side- walks. This would eliminate the need to inconvenience the motorist by noisy road opening operations when it becomes necessary to repair utility lines 84 BUGHER Proceedings and also eliminate the garbage container and the noisy refuse collection operations. This concept, it seems to me, should be tried out at an early date in a high density urban area under the Model Cities Act. Another means of moving wastes from high density and highly congested areas may be cargo helicopters. Helicopters capable of conveying payloads of several tons are available. Their operating costs range around $3 to $5 per aircraft per mile depending, of course, upon the total amount of miles flown. Cost per ton per mile may amount to only $1.50 to $2.00 and per- haps even less, if helicopter advances developed for use in Viet Nam reach the civilian market. Helicopter transport already is employed successfully and profitably for industrial applications in the building of power trans- mission lines. However, the purchase price of helicopters is rather high. Many heli- copters are still made to order. Helicopters which are most commonly used by the Marine Corps in Viet Nam and by the Viet Air Corps cost about $225,000 per unit in civilian markets. By contrast, crane-type heli- copters which are not yet commercially available and which are capable of carrying 50 people or a 10-ton payload may cost up to $2 million per unit. Twin-turbine helicopters capable of flying 25 people and already in com- mercial use cost about $600,000 to $800,000. Thus, helicopters may be utilized in only specific operating conditions where, for example, traffic density and congestion does not permit the operation of collection vehicles at an acceptable pick-up and transport performance level. The long-distance transportation of bulk materials is primarily the domain of railroads and barges. Comparing in turn the spatial service restraints of barges and railroads one finds that railroads are more ubiquitous. Thus railroads offer more options in terms of both the communities and people to be served directly and the selection of diverse disposal sites. Railroads are also capable of moving large tonnages, generally up to 150 tons per vehicle, and thousands of tons per train, at high speeds. However, the District is situated along the Anacostia and Potomac rivers. Depending upon land reclamation opportunities along the river or the advancement of ocean disposal techniques, barges might provide waste removal service, perhaps for a selected part of the materials such as demolition wastes. To give an order of magnitude for the ton-mile cost of barging, it may. be stated that depending upon the number of barges being towed, speed, upstream or downstream transport of wastes, the ton-mile cost may range from $0.005 to $0.025. Panel B TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 85 Barges cost about $90 per ton of carrying capacity. The most commonly used barge is about 195 feet long and 35 feet wide and has about a 3-foot draft. However, there are also jumbo barges which are considered most efficient for large-scale operations because they have a carrying capacity from 1,000 to 1,500 tons. In evaluating barge cost as well as highway and air transport cost, one must recognize of course, that a significant share of the actual transportation cost is borne by the national investment in each form of transportation. Railroads, of course, have a varied experience in the mass transport of materials and the corresponding loading and unloading of cars. Goods are handled through roll-on/roll-off, lift-on/lift-off containers through unitiz- ing or the stacking of containers, through gravity loading or unloading, and through hydraulic or pneumatic pressure. Railroads are characterized by a high fixed investment in trackage while the rolling stock needed for the handling of refuse might be relatively inexpensive. A covered hopper car capable of carrying a payload of about 80 tons costs about $25,000. Rail transportation costs depend, of course, to a large degree, upon the tonnage hauled. Recent proposals made for the hauling of refuse over a distance of 80 to 100 miles quote a rail rate of $2.75 per ton at the rate of 1,000 tons per day and $2.15 at 3,000 tons per day. The latter is based on the use of three transfer stations, but excludes the transfer and disposal costs. Transfer stations appear to be the key to the “long-distance” transport of refuse since the loading operations start the long-distance section of a transport system. Transfer stations can be designed as stationery or mobil units and they might utilize a variety of ‘material handling techniques such as conveyors, presses and rams, pumps, air power systems, vibrators, con- tainers including the corresponding loading and unloading devices, the air-cushion handling of unitized loads, automated storage and retrieval of containers including dockside prepositioning devices and the necessary instrumentation such as weighing and identification devices to aid manage- ment in running the system at peak efficiency. Depending upon the equip- ment used and the amount of refuse to be handled transfer stations may require investments from $80,000 up to $1 million excluding land cost. Operating cost, of course, vary with the volume. A recent railroad proposal estimated the transfer station cost at $0.42 per ton at a handling volume of 500 tons daily and at $0.22 per ton at a 1,500-ton daily volume. Finally, almost everyone is familiar with the U.S. truck and trailer systems. The existing state of technology offers vehicles capable of carrying 120,000-lb payloads. But few states permit. these .60-ton payload rigs on their roads, 86 BUGHER Proceedings and highways designed to carry heavier loads will be required if greater loads are to be carried by this mode of transportation. Gross operating cost per vehicle mile for gasoline and diesel engine powered trailer combinations range from about $0.35 at a loaded gross weight of about 22,000 pounds to about $0.65 at 120,000 pounds and $0.90 at 180,000 pounds. The average payload for a 22,000-pound trailer combination is about 7 tons; for 120,000 pounds loaded gross weight, about 40 tons; and for 180,000 pounds, about 60 tons. The cost per ton-mile for freight-hauling trailer combinations, traveling at a minimum average speed of 50 mph, range from about $0.05 to about $0.015 if the trailers are fully loaded. Trailer combinations, of course, are a means for long distance hauling and total transport system cost must include the transfer station cost as well as the local collection cost. The transportation cost, excluding depreciation of equipment, of a typical 18- to 22-cubic-yard packer truck carrying from 3 to 4 tons of compacted refuse, is estimated at $0.35 to $0.40 per mile. The available basic means of transportation offer a large number of appli- cation alternatives for refuse material handling and transport systems. Local waste piping systems, for example, might be integrated with railroad tank cars. Helicopters may be used in conjunction with railroad or highway vehicles. Each system, of course, can be operated independent of the other. The coordinated management of transportation systems might lead to salvage ‘opportunities which will not exist if wastes continue to be handled by a multiplicity of small-scale operations. In the end, of course, every solution will be a local solution. Today’s existing and potential available technology offers many alternatives for imaginative applications. Not all solutions will cost out the same, and economics must play an important role in system acceptability. But cost and objectives are relative and vary from locale to locale. What may be prohibitive for one area might provide the very remedy for another area. In conclusion, I would like to commend the equipment manufacturers for the ingenuity they have displayed in developing new and improved products to serve this important field of activity. The Solid Wastes Act of 1965 has helped to generate the kind of constructive thinking that will, I am sure, lead to some significant breakthroughs in the development of new concepts, as well as, the application of technology used in other fields to the age-old problem of handling and disposing of solid wastes. LAND RECLAMATION Frank R. Bowerman * THANK YOU, MR. GHAIRMAN. Ladies and gentlemen: I would like to direct my comments this morning toward the theme that has grasped me with increasing conviction during these past 20 years of fairly close familiar- ity with solid wastes problems. That theme is that solid wastes can be considered an asset, rather than a liability if we will only release our thinking from older stereotyped patterns. A profound change occurs in our con- sideration of solid wastes when we turn from an assessment of the problems attendant upon routine collection and disposal, and start thinking about the potential solutions that can be found in the imaginative and construc- tive use of solid wastes. Some of these potential solutions lie in sanitary landfilling. That is the focus of my discussion this morning. But that is not to say that we cannot find plus values for solid wastes in other areas of disposal: For example, the recovery of waste heat from incineration; the obtaining of useful humus for soil building through composting; and the salvage and recovery for further use of metals, glass, rags, and other dis- cards from our affluent society. Note how different our approach becomes when we start to consider the possibilities that lie in such planning. I would very much hope that the theme of this conference becomes much more than a consideration of the problems and solutions for solid wastes manage- ment in the District of Columbia; rather, that the conference direct its attention toward the optimization of solid wastes management here and in the region surrounding the District, so that this area becomes the national showcase for solid wastes management and points the way for the rest of our nation. Is this an impossible dream? I don’t think so. We dreamed a dream in Los Angeles County in 1949 and by 1956, some seven years later, we had converted that dream into a reality. You see, dreams only provide the challenge; it is hard work and perseverance that provide the reality. But dreams can become real, and I’d like to show you by way of some slides the simple but effective techniques that I helped develop in using sanitary landfilling for the construction of parks, golf courses, and botanic gardens in Southern California. One of our prime criteria was that the sanitary landfills would be operated just as though they were a private business. Governmental agencies can * Assistant to the Vice-President — Development. Aerojet-General Corporation. Mr. Bowerman’s entire presentation was made while using slides for illustration. * 87 88 BOWERMAN Proceedings do this if they set their minds to it. In our case, each of the sites became self-sufficient through the charging of prices for disposal. The hours were established just as with any business establishment. In the interest of the people around the various landfills we closed on Sundays, so that there would not be any activity on those weekend days when most refuse collection activities have ceased. The hours of opening were such as to protect the people during the evening and early morning hours against the noise that comes from a sanitary landfill. Each site has its own weigh-scale facilities, so that the charges are assessed directly on a tonnage basis. A distinction was made between “difficult-to-handle” materials, such as tree trunks, re- frigerators and the like; the price for that is double the normal price. Currently in Los Angeles County the cost for refuse disposal is $1.25 per ton — that’s the charge, not the cost; most of the large landfills in Los Angeles County are operating at costs of around 60 to 70 cents per ton, including overhead and all charges. So these are actually making money; government makes a profit. But the Sanitation Districts commit that profit back to a useful public purpose and the moneys which are surplus to the needs of the operation are being put into a reserve fund for buying more land as the existing landfills are used up. At the larger landfills there are two, and in one case at a very large landfill, three, weigh-scales, since if the customer is to be well served he must be provided with the means for prompt weighing. We cannot have costly collection vehicles and drivers standing in long lines of traffic waiting to be served. The L. A. County Sanitation Districts have specially designed transfer- trailer rigs for use at their transfer station. A diesel tractor pulls a semi- trailer which in turn pulls a full trailer. The two trailers are identical, the second one being converted from a semi- to full trailer by the use of a dolly. These units can carry up to 24 tons per trip, and the present state of eco- nomics in Los Angeles, and I would guess that it’s not far different in the Washington area, is that by the use of this transfer equipment, remote landfill sites up to 50 miles distant from the transfer station, can be used economically as compared with costs for incineration. By that I mean a 50- mile trip out and a 50-mile trip back is about the breakpoint in Southern _ California for comparing the costs for transfer and landfill with the current costs for incineration. You see this extends the possibility for sanitary land- filling to a very large area. The basic operation at Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts’ Landfills calls for the dumping of the solid wastes at the base of the hill; the hill is created artificially at the commencement of the operation. By pushing the - material upward, the bulldozer tracks grind, pulverize and compact the Panel B LAND RECLAMATION 89 material much more effectively than if the material is placed on the top and the bulldozer simply runs over the larger, deeper mass. Good landfilling practice requires each day’s operation to be sealed tightly with an earth cover of at least one-foot thickness. For areas that are to be left for a year or more between filling, two feet of earth cover are placed and for a final cover, where the operation is to be terminated with a golf course or a park or arboretum, three feet of earth are placed. as final cover. The piece of equipment that is standard on the Districts’ sanitary land- fills is the Caterpillar D-8 bulldozer or its equivalent. The operator is fur- nished an air-conditioned helmet. This has a small cooling and heating unit attached to a flexible piece of hose that leads into-a helmet which serves as a safeguard as well as to prevent the breathing of dusty air. It has been a very important factor in the operation and has protected the men against a number of otherwise bad injuries. At the larger sites, a number of bulldozers, which weigh about 25 tons apiece, are used, and the operators become very skilled in their performance. It is necessary to go through a training period to show the men how to operate the equipment in this type of environment. It is different than the normal type of earthmoving. Many different types of vehicles are serviced at sanitation district landfills. Los Angeles County sites may be a little more difficult to operate than most of the municipal operations because they are open to the general public. When Jane and John Doe come in with a trailer load of material, they may occupy the dumping space for quite a bit of time while they push the wastes off with a shovel; special provisions must be made at a public site, which is open to everyone, as compared to municipal sites where the truckloads arrive in 3- to 5-ton lots. The Mission Canyon Landfill site is in one of the finest residential areas in that part of Los Angeles. Homes have been constructed on undisturbed land and the fill is being carried on in the immediately adjacent area. It is interesting that the landfill was in operation before any nearby homes came into existence. When this site was planned, ridges of land were deliberately left in the hands of the private subdividers, because they were far too ex- pensive for the Districts’ purposes and earth was not needed for cover. When these pieces of land were subdivided, the question arose as to whether they would be readily saleable. The answer is that the subdividers sold most of those parcels of land at prices upwards of $35,000 per lot, averaging about three lots per acre, and the homes that have been constructed on these lots are in the $75,000- to $125,000-class. These homes immediately over- look a sanitary landfill. It sounds incredible but homeowners are well aware 90 BOWERMAN Proceedings of the fact that the planned use for this site — and the plan is actually in the form of a legal document which cannot be revoked — is the finished landfill will become a golf course, and the residents will have a beautiful view lot overlooking the golf course. The golf course will be terraced and interesting terrain will be provided so that the golfer won’t have an easy go of it; that will be done after the plans are finished for the ultimate golf course configuration. There are probably about 35 different cities using this sanitation dis- trict’s sites at present. In order to make use of some canyon sites, access roads have to be built and they should be well maintained. Pipelines with high pressure water supply are essential for keeping down the dust and for fire protection. A basic earth mover is a twin-powered scraper — these are rubber-tired so that they can move rapidly and can carry a lot of dirt with just one driver. A water-wagon (6,000-gallon capacity) with a nozzle on the front and sprinklers on the front and rear is used for keeping down the dust, for fire prevention and for keeping papers from blowing around. It is very important that rainfall drainage be provided. Completed portions of the fill should have adequate surface drainage to keep the rainfall from percolating down through the rubbish and maintain it in a drier condition. One of the Sanitation Districts’ finished landfills is now called the South Coast Botanic Garden. Before the commencement of the fill the bottom of the mined-out pit was actually 100 feet below street level. The plan called for the reestablishing of an original ridge line, and there is now a total of about 140 feet of fill. Homes were on one side of the street at the time that the landfill started; there were vociferous protests, but those same people are now very good friends of the Sanitation Districts and happy to have a botanic garden across the street instead of an old mined-out pit. One of the “bonuses” built at one of the more remote sites was an overnight camping facility along the side of the road. When you give people proof of a plus benefit, it rather sugarcoats the entire proposal. In this case there was an approximate 10-acre roadside rest camp provided to show the people in the area that the District had good intentions and that the ultimate use of the landfill would be for park purposes. People don’t want to wait until the land- filling is all done before they get some use of the property. Many people don’t trust government anyhow, thus it’s just as well that you show them right at the beginning that you’re honest! At another site two “little league” ball diamonds have been constructed on a landfill in the center of a large canyon; only a portion of the canyon had been filled at the time and the ballparks were built in order to get that area under use without waiting for the entire canyon to be filled, since the complete filling of that very large Panel B LAND RECLAMATION 91 canyon was estimated to take another fifteen years. When the fill is com- pleted the ball diamonds will have been covered up and no longer useable, but two 18-hole golf courses will be provided on the final surface. Since the city of Glendale owned the canyon site, the Districts worked out an arrangement whereby they leased the property at a 25 cents-per-ton charge. During the life of the operation of the sanitary Jandfill at this site, the City of Glendale will net 3.75 million dollars from their part of the charges for disposal. The city has been willing to commit, in writing, those funds to the construction of the future regional park to be built at the location. As part of the public relations efforts, the Districts conducted Rotary and Kiwanis Club luncheons, right on the surface of the fill with the operation being conducted in the background. The men enjoyed it and were com- pletely convinced that the operation was innocuous. These men went back into their community and convinced other people that the operation was just as had been promised. On one of the hills in Los Angeles County a landslide occurred and three homes were destroyed. The lots on which those homes rested slid down into the bottom of the small canyon. The people further up the canyon were worried that the same thing would happen to their homes. As a result, the City staff and District engineers obtained from these people free access rights to their backyards for sanitary fill purposes. By landfilling the canyon, the people obtained security against further landslides, as well as usable backyards. The only thing that the property owners contributed other than the use of their property was that they each chipped in about $100 per lot to buy the drainage pipe that was installed for draining rainwater through the canyon. It’s an area with a good many horse lovers, and so a good number of the backyards were converted into corrals. There are many many instances where such things can be done, and once you have done one or two, then the invitations start rolling in asking you to assist in other such operations. It’s a good partnership between government and citizens. In order to make sure that the landfills did not contaminate the ground water, the State Water Quality Control Board in cooperation with a local sanitary engineering firm conducted a study on gases and percolating effluents. A full-scale test was made using various materials to “seal off” simulated disposal sites. In going from laboratory to full scale, a pit was dug in the ground, lined with burlap and then lined with polyvinyl chloride plastic sheets. Gas probes were placed down through the polyvinyl into the 283-399 O-67—7 92 BOWERMAN Proceedings outer area; also gas probes were placed inside so that a check could be made on the difference in the concentrations of gas. The pit was then filled with refuse in a normal compaction procedure; that test was a failure. When we dug down to find out why the gas concentration was as high outside as inside, we found that one thing that had been overlooked was that as the material settled, it stretched the polyvinyl, scratching the sidewalls and perforating the plastic. So, back to the drawing boards and the next attempt produced much better results with an asphaltic material. I confidently pre- dict that with more development we will come up with ways and means of making sanitary landfills secure in almost any type of a ground water environment. In conclusion, may I respectfully suggest that the technologies that are available today are ever so much better than in 1949 when we set out to develop a countywide program in Los Angeles County. Then we had to cut and fit as we went along; today, a wealth of know-how exists, ready and waiting to be applied. Can we not dream another dream? Is it possible that from the fires and ashes of Kenilworth will rise, like the phoenix bird, a system for solid wastes management that will be the pride and not the disgrace of our beautiful capital city? REFUSE REDUCTION PROCESSES Elmer R. Kaiser * THE SOLID WASTES of our society comprise two basic types, which can be distinguished at the outset. The first, which we call refuse is the household, trade, and industrial waste which contains organic combustible matter and usually a lesser but important fraction of noncombustibles, such as glass, ceramics, metals and mineral matter (ash). This paper relates to the reduc- tion in volume and weight of such material. A second ... . important type that will be excluded from discussion, but which is nevertheless an associ- ated municipal problem, we call rubble, such as broken pavement, concrete, stone, bricks and excavation materials. Such material is sufficiently devoid of organic or putrescible matter as not to require processing beyond trans- portation and compaction at suitable sites. A third type, excluded for the present purpose, is the metal scrap that normally moves to scrap processors for recycling in the metal trades. The refuse of a metropolitan area of the size and population of the Dis- trict of Columbia is so voluminous that reduction in volume is basic to any practical method of disposal. “Reduction in weight is secondary. Reduction in both volume and weight is ideal. This paper treats the subject without special reference to any specific urban area. A community’s refuse varies daily, weekly, and seasonally within important limits, and should be investigated for specific areas. However, much can be learned from a near-average mixture, as the principles of waste reduction apply broadly and can be adapted to given situations. The composition of a municipal refuse, which represents average condi- tions, at least for an East Coast area, is presented in Table I. The data were obtained by hand sorting of 4 lots of 1,500 to 2,000 Ib each, taken at different times of the year from an incinerator plant bunker. They have been found to compare closely with data from other US. sources. The daily solid wastes collected from residences, parks, trade and in- dustrial establishments may be considered to weigh 150 Ib per cubic yard (5.5 Ib per cu ft) in receptacles or piles, prior to loading into vehicles. This is a good base point to begin a discussion of reduction processes, be- cause it is from this point on that the refuse leaves the public or customers to be served. * Senior Research Scientist, Department of Chemical Engineering, New York Uni- versity, Bronx, New York. 93 94 . KAISER Proceedings Taste I EXAMPLE REFUSE COMPOSITION IN WEIGHT PERCENT Cardboard 7 Newspaper 14 Miscellaneous paper 25 Plastic film 2 Leather, molded plastics, rubber (2 Garbage 12 Grass and dirt 10 Textiles 3 Wood 7 Glass, ceramics, stones 10 Metallics 8 Total 100 Assuming 4.5 Ib waste per capita day, a generally accepted figure, the volume at the source of such-waste from a community of one million per- sons is 30,000 cubic yd per day. Compaction-type vehicles will temporarily reduce the volume depending on the pressures produced, because the air voids in the refuse charged to the vehicles are about 95 percent of the space occupied. Compaction in the vehicles is ordinarily not over a factor of 2 or 3 because of the forces re- quired. The vehicles then deliver the refuse to reduction sites or plants, where partial restoration to the initial volume results from unloading. REDUCTION PROCESSES Refuse reduction is practiced by several processes: (1) Open burning at dump sites; (2) Burning in conical metal chambers; (3) Landfilling, sani- tary or otherwise; (4) Composting, with sale of compost; (5) Inciner- ation without heat recovery; (6) Incineration with heat recovery. On a pilot scale, at least one municipal plant in Demark is pyrolyzing the refuse by destructive distillation to reduce it and to produce useful products. To the extent that salvaging of solids is practiced in conjunction with each of these processes, or the conversion of the solid residue of burning to useful products, the reduction of refuse is enhanced. In each case, solid matter is left for disposal by burial. Open Burning at Dump Sites The reduction of refuse volume and weight by open burning is practiced today where public and private funds have not been provided for more acceptable methods. The objections are numerous. The practice results in Panel B REFUSE REDUCTION PROCESSES 95 serious air pollution from smoke, fly ash, noxious gases and vapors, and odors: The combustion of organics in the residue is not complete, leaving putrescible matter for decay, as food for vermin, rodents and birds. The fires are influenced by wind and rain; they smoulder for long periods, if not continually, depending on how well they are managed and on restric- tions as to the type of material burned. Because of the lack of complete burnout of the solids, incomplete decrepi- tation of glass bottles, little or no melting of aluminum articles, etc. the resulting residue would probably be 35 percent of the weight of the example refuse. The reduction in volume is hence not so complete as might other- wise be possible. Variations of open burning are in use, such as in dish-shaped excavations, and even in refractory-lined pits, the latter with a system of overfire air nozzles. Modern air pollution criteria cannot be met by such methods as fundamental laws of combustion, heat transfer, and fluid mechanics are violated. Open burning of refuse has been outlawed by six states and should be replaced by sanitary procedures. Burning in Conical Metal Chambers A number of conical metal burners have been installed in the United States to burn sawmill wastes, industrial and municpal rubbish. These burners are low in first cost and are an improvement over open burning because they confine the burning zone and prevent paper from blowing around the site.” A high excess of air is introduced into the chambers to prevent temper- atures that would be destructive to the metal shell and liner, and to the screen at the top where the combustion gases are emitted to the atmosphere. Forced air is supplied under the burning pile in the chamber, when the units are so equipped. Because of the limited temperatures, and the direct path of the gases and entrained particles to the outside, the result is more smoke and fly ash than can be tolerated in populated areas. The reduction in refuse weight and volume can be greater than by open burning, depending on the care exercised in managing the fire. However, where the noncombustibles are allowed to accumulate and choke the porosity of the burning pile, and where quenching with water is used to expedite removal of the residue, some combustibles will be present. 96 KAISER Proceedings Recently, one or more conical burners have been equipped with gas washers to trap fly ash from the gases. This is a step in the right direction, the evaluation of which will be of interest. Sanitary Landfilling The deposition of refuse in or on an engineered site, followed by com- paction with tractors, and later by soil cover, results in a density of 750 to 900 Ib per cubic yard. The densities vary, as would be expected, with the amount of bulky refuse with a high void content. Assuming 900 Ib per cubic yard, the daily refuse from one million inhabitants would occupy a volume of 5,000 cubic yards or 3.1 acre feet. The refuse volume in landfill is thus one- sixth of the volume it had when it left the generating source, while the weight remains essentially the same. The total for the year would be a volume of 1,130 acre-feet or a 45-acre plot filled 25 feet deep. Of course, it is possible to build a hill with sides sloped to 20 to 25 de- grees, as is being done near Frankfurt, Germany, with trees planted on the slopes, and with a restaurant and viewing area at the top. The 15-year accumulation of refuse from one million inhabitants would build such a hill in the shape of a 150-foot truncated cone, with top 404 feet in diameter and base of 1,130 feet in diameter. Cover material would be extra, but would probably be excavated at the site. This example is offered to illustrate the magnitude of waste accumulation, and not as a proved solution to the problem. Com posting The degradation of the organic fraction of municipal refuse by bacterial action may be classed as a reduction process. The weight loss of organic solids is about 40 percent through its partial conversion to carbon dioxide and water vapor, which diffuse harmlessly into the atmosphere.** Wood, rubber, plastics, oily rags, metals, glass, stones, and minerals are not altered and are removed, more or less, from the material to be composed or from the final product. The process depends for economics upon a market for the compost as a soil conditioner or humus. Composted refuse is not fertilizer because of its ‘ low nitrogen content, but it is useful in farming and horticulture. The experience to date here and abroad is that the market will accept limited tonnages, but not nearly as much as can be produced from the refuse of a large metropolitan area. As a reduction process, composting is in a special category. Magnetic devices, picking belts and products sieves remove noncompostable reject Panel B REFUSE REDUCTION PROCESSES 97 materials which are disposable in landfill sites. Depending on the process, more or less of the sand, ash, glass and plastics appear in the final product in shredded or ground material. The volume occupied by the uncomposted residue depends on the weight, degree of shredding, and compaction. The volume will be at least as much as from a good refuse combustion process, both considered on the same basis of no salvage. Incineration Incineration is a refuse reduction process, the objective of which is to convert refuse moisture and organics to normal components of the atmos- phere by enclosed and controlled combustion. The primary products are chimney gases consisting of carbon dioxide (CO,), water vapor (H,O), and nitrogen (N), and a solid residue of glass, ceramics, metals and mineral ash. Excess air supplied for complete combustion, consisting of nitrogen, oxygen and water vapor, passes through the incinerator and exits with the gaseous products of combustion. The carbon dioxide and water vapor from the combustion of the cellulose and other organic matter thus return to the ecological cycle from which they came. It should be remembered that plants are the source of wood, paper, food, textiles and organic matter, and that plants require atmospheric carbon dioxide and rain water for growth. Whether by combustion or natural decay, essentially the same amount of CO, and H,O are recycled to nature. The chemical and thermal processes by which reduction is achieved through combustion is readily explained by a few simple tabulations. The refuse composition of Table I becomes the refuse analysis of Table IT below: TABLE I TYPICAL REFUSE ANALYSIS Weight, Lb per ton percent of refuse Moisture 28.0 560 Carbon 25.0 500 Hydrogen 3.3 66 Oxygen 21.1 422 Nitrogen 0.5 10 Sulfur 0.1 2 Glass, ceramics, ete. _ 93 186 Metals 7.2 144 Ash, other inerts 5.5 110 100.0 2,000 The calorific valve (HHV) : 4500 British thermal units (BTU) per pound. 98 KAISER Proceedings In a well designed and operated U.S. incinerator, the refuse is burned on moving grates in refractory-lined furnaces with ample air supplies both through and over the burning bed of refuse. Furnace temperatures are controlled in the 1,400 to 1,800 F range, with temperatures in the bed of up to 2,500 F. The ingredients that join in the combustion process include refuse, stoichiometric air, 200 percent excess air, and air moisture, in the amounts shown in Table III. Part of the excess air enters the system after the primary combustion chamber. TaBLe III INPUT FOR COMBUSTION AT 200 PERCENT EXCESS AIR Lb. per ton refuse Refuse, mixed 2,000 Dry air 18,930 Air moisture 250 Total |b 21,180 The refuse moisture is evaporated during the initial stage, after which ignition proceeds through the charge. Combustion and distillation occur in the burning layer, with over 96 percent completion of combustion in the gas space above and beyond. Even the metals present are partly oxidized, with corresponding gain in weight. The resulting products, including pri- mary products, air contaminants and unburned carbon, are listed in Table IV below: TABLE IV PRODUCTS OF INCINERATION Stack Gases Lb/ton Volume, cf Dry vol, % Carbon dioxide = 1,738 14,856 6.05 Sulfur dioxide = 1 6 (22 ppm) Carbon monoxide = 10 135 0.06 Oxygen = 2,980 35,209 14.32 Nitrogen oxides = 3 23 (93 ppm) Nitrogen = 14,557 _195,690 _79.57 Total dry gas 19,289 245,919 100.00 Water vapor 1,400 29,424 Total 20,689 275,343 Solids, dry basis Grate residue 471 Collected fly ash 17 Emitted fly ash 3 Grand total, lb per ton ‘of refuse 21,180 Panel B REFUSE REDUCTION PROCESSES 99 Hence, the 2,000 lb of refuse is reduced to 488 lb, of which 21 Ib or 4.3 percent is carbonaceous char and other combustibles. Putrescible matter should be under one percent of the residue. Volume Reduction by Incineration The ton of refuse had a volume of 13.3 cubic yard (150 Ib/cubic yd) at the generating source. As the result of compaction in the collection trucks, and later when loaded into the 25- to 30-foot deep bunkers of the municipal incinerator, the refuse volume decreased to 5.7 cubic yards (350 Ib/cu yd). The loose incinerator residue of 488 Ib (dry basis) leaving the furnaces occupies about 1.0 cubic yard, of which 75 percent is the volume of the tin cans, wire and metallic items. The residue is saturated with water from quenching, which merely adds weight but not volume. When the residue is deposited in landfill, compacted by tractor in the usual manner and left for a year, the tin cans disintegrate to rust. The final bulk density is 2,700 lb per cubic yard of dry matter.® Allowing for the gain in weight of the metal converted to oxide, the residue from the original ton of refuse occupies 523/2,700 _ 0.194 cubic yard. The material contains voids because of the granular nature of glass shards, fused clinker, loose ash with a minor amount of combustibles. The volume reduction by incineration is indeed impressive. Starting with 2,000 Ib of refuse, the comparable volumes are indicated below: As collected Raw refuse Incinerated and at source landfilled residue landfilled Cu vd 13.3 2.22 0.194 Vol ratio 68.5 11.5 1.0 Where incineration leaves more unburned matter in the residue than the 4.3 percent allowed for in this example, the residue volume is greater and the volume ratios less favorable. The ratio is also influenced directly by the proportion of inerts in the refuse. Metals salvaging from the incinerator residue is practiced at some in- cinerators, with shipments of the shredded tin cans to the copper industry. In France and Germany, the steel is baled and sold to the blast furnaces, where it is converted to molten pig iron. The residual tin content has discouraged the U.S. steel industry from purchasing such scrap. The nonmetallic fraction of the residue can be sintered into concrete aggregate, as is done in Berlin-Ruhleben, but such material must ordinarily 100 KAISER Proceedings compete with stone and sand. A sized fraction of the residue grit would also be useful for sanding streets during icy weather. Attention is called to the demonstrated possibility of oxidizing and melting the incinerator residue. The glass component is liquid at 1,800 F and most of the ash is molten at 2,350 F. The mutual solution of the oxide assists the melting process. The molten magma can be flowed into simple molds to harden into large pieces with a density of 2.40. When the slag stream is run into water, a coarse black glassy sand is produced, which would have use as a road or concrete aggregate. The bulk density of this glassy sand is 1.47 Ib per cubic foot (2,500 Ib per cu yd). The bulk density of a 50-50 weight mixture of larger and smaller aggregates is about 102 lb per cubic foot (2,760 lb per cu yd) uncompacted. We thus have the technical possibilities for reducing to nil the volume of land required for incinerator residue. Economic factors will control the ultimate solution in any area. Air Pollution Control of Large Inctnerators Incinerators of over one ton per hour input employ forced underfire air to develop economical rates of operation and effective operating temper- atures. As the material burns the minerals are released as ash. Particles of _ dust and bits of paper are carried upward and out of the primary combustion chamber in amounts ranging from 10 to 40 lb per ton of refuse. About half of the weight of these entrained solids is carbon, which largely burns to carbon dioxide in secondary combustion zones and refractory-lined flues; the remainder stays in suspension or is trapped. The “filtering” of the solid particles from the final combustion gases is usually preceded or accompanied by a gas cooling stage employing water sprays, the addition of air, or both. The gases may take an irregular path through sets of wetted baffles which trap dust. The gases may also be swirled intensively in cyclonic dust collectors which remove solids from the gases by centrifugal force. Gas scrubbing by intimate contact and turbulent mixing with water is another method for efficient dust removal. In the United States tests have been run in recent years with electrostatic precipita- tors and bag filters, both highly effective in industrial applications. Electro- ‘static precipitators of 98 to 99.57 percent efficiency are used in many large new incinerators in Europe. In other words, the means are available for reducing incinerator dust emissions to meet the new dust-emission standards. Referring again to our example refuse and incineration process, we indicated a dust emission of 3 pounds per ton of refuse. Such determina- Panel B REFUSE REDUCTION PROCESSES 101 tions are made by actually sampling the flue gas in a scientific manner, filtering the dust from the sampling stream, drying and weighing the dust, and comparing the dust weight with the weight or volume of gas flowing. Correction is made to a constant excess air content of the stack gases, so that the comparison with a standard or results from other plants would be on the same basis and thus meaningful. For this purpose the flue gas is analyzed for the volumetric proportions of the principal gases. The example dust loading may be expressed in several equivalent ways: Lb per ton of refuse charged = 3.0 Ib Lb per 1,000 Ib actual flue gas corrected to 50% excess air = 0.270 Grains per cu ft of actual flue gas at 50% excess air, 68 F, 29.92 in. Hg = 0.139 Milligrams per cubic meter at 0 deg C, 760 mm Hg and 7.0 percent COs = 2i1 US. dust emissions standards range from 0.85 to 0.20 lb per 1,000 Ib of flue gas at 50 percent excess air. The standard applicable throughout West Germany is 150 mg per standard cubic meter, which is equivalent to 0.192 lb per 1,000 Ib of flue gas at 50 percent excess air, or 0.099 grains per cubic foot. To meet the West German standard, the example incinerator would have to have a dust emission of 2.13 lb per ton of refuse. The more restrictive new U.S. and European standards can be met by the use of electrostatic precipitators, gas scrubbers, and bag filters of high efficiency. Such equipment has been in industrial use for years. Gas scrubbers have been applied to several large incinerators. It is expected that electrostatic precipitators will soon be installed on incinerators in this country. European Incinerator Art In Europe under conditions of high fuels costs, lower labor costs, and a high technological level of construction and plant operation, as well as the desire to conserve land area, the incinerator art has flourished since 1962. The objective of reducing refuse to minimum volume has been combined with the desires for heat economy and low air pollution. The combination is mutually assisting. As a member of the USS. Study Team of June-July, 1967, led by Mr. Leo Weaver, Chief of the Solid Wastes Program, Public Health Service, it was my privilege to see several of these plants. Descrip- 102 KAISER Proceedings tions and technical information are also available in several excellent papers published by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers in the proceed- ings of the 1964 and. 1966 National Incinerator Conferences. These new-type refuse reduction plants consist of refuse receiving pits, cranes with grapples to elevate the refuse to hoppers, stoker-fired boilers, electrostatic precipitators to trap the flue dust, and chimneys 260 to 390 feet high. , Because of the water-tubed furnaces, the refuse can be burned with 1.6 times the stoichiometric air, instead of 3 times as in U.S. practice; the weight and volume of flue gas to be cleaned is reduced considerably. The cooling of the gases to 500 to 600 F in the boiler-superheater-economizer contracts the gas volume without the addition of spray water. The electrostatic pre- cipitators, although large, are half the volume that would be required without the boiler. The precipitators are guaranteed at 98 to 99 percent collection efficiency, with test results exceeding guarantees. Finally, the gases are dispersed from high chimneys. The steam generated is used for the production of electric power and for district heating, in conjunction with the local electric utility. For district heating, high-pressure hot water can also be produced for circulation through mains. U.S. refuse is lower in moisture and ash, higher in calorific value, and hence capable of generating more steam per ton of refuse. American Incinerator Art The U.S. incinerator art is on the threshold of a rapid evolution to meet rising requirements for capacity to consume refuse, better plant appearance, low emission of odor and air pollutants, minimum putrescibles in the residue, and less effluent water. The possibilities for steam and power generation from refuse are being restudied. The disposal of incinerator residue, salvage of metals, and utilization of residue are also under investigation. The plants will be more highly engincered, and will require better control and operating personnel] to match. Close engineering ties are maintained with European progress. The burning of oversized burnable waste with or without prior shredding is being developed. Trees, furniture, pallets, mattresses, truck and auto tires, and demolition lumber reduce to even less final residue volume than does the equivalent weight of normal refuse. A major stimulation is the Solid Wastes Program of the Public Health Service. Through research and demonstration grants, conferences, educa- Panel B REFUSE REDUCTION PROCESSES 103 tional and field efforts, and allied activities, new advances and trained personnel are resulting. As public officials and the general public become aware of the long-range implications and opportunities of waste management programs, larger capital investments will become available for incineration plants and allied facilities. The regional approach to waste disposal will lead to larger and better in- cinerators. Engineers look forward to the opportunity to design plants which are in the long-range interest of the public, rather than to satisfy minimum first cost. The total annual cost of refuse incineration will thereby not exceed about $6 per inhabitant served. Destructive Distillation and Gasification of Refuse Experimentation here and abroad indicates that the organic matter in municipal refuse can be converted to gaseous, liquid and solid products by heating to 1,300 to 1,500 F out of contact with air. After the distillation of the moisture, the organic matter is converted to roughly equal weight per- centages of water vapor, gases, liquids and char. In descending order of volumes, the fixed gases are mainly CcO,, CO, CH, plus higher hydrocarbons, hydrogen, and nitrogen. The liquids range from alcohols to tars. The char is primarily carbon and ash.? Refuse can also be gasified in a deep bed gas producer supplied by air at less than half the stoichiometric combustion requirement. Pilot-scale work is in progress to determine yields and costs. It is too carly for predictions of the outcome. However, as a method of reducing waste, the residue would require the same landfill space as the residue from incineration. ACKNOWLEDGMENT This paper is a result of investigations conducted at New York University under research grant support of the Solid Wastes Program of the National Center for Urban and Industrial Health of the U.S. Public Health Service, Grant Nos. $W00027, SW00035 and $W00043. The Leonard S$. Wegman engineering firm of New York City kindly provided incinerator illustrations used in the presentation of the paper. The American Design and Development Corporation of Whitman, Mass., supplied slag samples for density determinations. REFERENCES 1. Gerstle, R. W., and D. A. Kemnitz. Atmospheric emissions from open burning. Paper 67-135. Presented by Air Pollution Control Association, Cleveland, June 16, 1967. to Kaiser, E. R., and J. Tolciss. Incincration of automobile bodies and bulky waste materials. Jz American Public Works Association Yearbook. Chicago, American Public Works Association, 1960. p. 178-192. 104 KAISER Proceedings Wiley, J. S., and O. W. Kochtitzky. Composting developments in the United States. Compost Science, 6(2) :5-9, Summer 1965. Wiley, J. S. A discussion of composting of refuse with sewage sludge. In Amer-. ican Public Works Association Yearbook. Chicago, American Public Works Asso- ciation, 1966. p. 198-201. Kaiser, E.R. Combustion and heat calculations for incinerators. In Proceedings, National Incinerator Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1964, New York. p. 81-89. Requardt, G. J., and W. M. Harrington, Jr. Utilization of incinerator ash as landfill cover material. I” American Public Works Association Yearbook. Chicago. American Public Works Association, 1962. p. 216-225. Bump, R. L. The use of electrostatic precipitators for incinerator gas cleaning in Europe. In Proceedings, National Incinerator Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1966. New York. p. 161-166. Kaiser, E. R. Prospects for reducing particulate emissions from large incinerators. Combustion, 38(2) :27-29, Aug. 1966. : Kaiser, E. R., and S. B. Friedman. The pyrolysis of refuse components. Paper to be presented at 60th Meeting, American Institute of Chemical Engineers. New York, Nov. 26-30, 1967. RECYCLING AND UTILIZATION C. I. Harding * Most RECYCLING and utilization schemes involve some type of salvage and composting. A working definition of refuse composting is “the aerobic, thermophilic degradation of putrescible material in refuse by micro-organ- isms.” There is no clear definition at this time of when a material becomes “compost” nor is there any general agreement upon the composition of the material which is referred to as compost. Operationally, the stabilized refuse or compost should not go anaerobic during storage either in bags or in bulk. With this crude criterion for what constitutes refuse compost we can examine the bases for the various composting systems available today. Anaerobic decomposition of waste materials has been practiced to produce soil additives in Asia for centuries. Aerobic composting has been practiced in Europe since the 1920’s and 1930’s but the European practices are not directly applicable to refuse composting in the United States because of the difference of refuse composition in the two areas.1 Studies by Wiley? and Schultze ? showed that the majority of putrescible material in USS. refuse can be stabilized in five to seven days with aerated bin processes. This work and subsequent commercial developments served as a basis for the selecting of five to six days as the average decomposition time for the ground refuse ‘n U.S. mechanical composting processes. Windrow systems require a much longer composting period. From two weeks to three months are required for adequate stabilization of refuse in a windrow operation. The temperature achieved during composting should exceed 140° F for 4 minimum of four days to insure adequate stabilization. The refuse should be ground to a particle size less than one inch, the moisture content of the ground refuse should be increased to about 55 percent (based on total weight) and the carbon-to-nitrogen ratio should be adjusted to approxi- mately 40 for most rapid stabilization. Mixed refuse has a very high paper content. The carbon-to-nitrogen ratio of this material can be expected to exceed 70 most of the time. This requires the addition of either sewage solids or nitrogen solutions to adjust the carbon-to-nitrogen ratio prior to digestion. Mixed refuse has a wide variation in chemical and physical composition. Data on composition are found in the book entitled Municipal Refuse * Dr. Harding is Assistant Professor of Environmental Engineering at the Uni- versity of Florida in Gainesville, Florida. 105 106 HARDING Proceedings Disposal prepared jointly at APWA and APHA.* Recently contracts have been let by the Public Health Service for development of current data on refuse composition and quantities. The composition data presented in Table I is of primary interest to designers and operators of compost plants. TABLE I COMPOSITION OF MIXED REFUSE RECEIVED AT TWO MECHANICAL COMPOSTING PLANTS (TABLE ENTRIES ARE \VEIGHT PERCENTAGE ) Metrowaste plant ° IDC plant ° Component Houston, Texas St. Petersburg, Florida Newsprint . 1.7 Not separated Corrigated cardboard 0.5 Not separated Ferrous metal, total 10 Ferrous metal, cans 7A — Ferrous metal, tramp 1.8 —_— Rags 0.2 Not separated Noncompostable (tailings) 2.1 10 Compostable 86.6 80 U.S. ComposTING SYSTEMS All composting operations can be broken into three basic steps: refuse preparation; stabilization; and product upgrading. The preparation includes receiving, sorting and salvaging operations, grinding, and the addition of moisture and nitrogen. Stability or aerobic digestion can be accomplished either in windrows in the open or in mechanical plants. Product upgrading consists of grinding, enrichment, granulation, shipment, and marketing. The details of refuse preparation, product upgrading and the composting systems available will be discussed separately. Refuse Preparation Some degree of hand and mechanical sorting of the incoming refuse is required in any of the composting operations in use in the United States. This sorting is required to remove noncompostable material, bulky items, and items which may have some salvage value. Most U.S. systems use hand picking from a slowly moving belt and magnetic separation of ferrous metals. Some systems include inertial separation in an attempt to further separate noncompostable items from the organic matter. Grinding is required for efficient composting. This can be accomplished in either hammermills, chainmills, a rasp type grinder, or with wet pulping followed by screw-press dewatering. This latter method of grinding would be successful with only one of the four types of composting systems in use in the U.S. today. The power required to operate the grinders varies from Panel B RECYCLING AND UTILIZATION 107 to about 30 hp. per ton per hour grinder capacity. In most plants now being constructed, grinders are sized large enough to permit all grinding to be accomplished on a one-shift operating basis. Thus the capacity of the plant could be tripled by simply adding additional digester capacity and operating the pre-and post-treatment units on a three-shift basis. Figure 1 shows the inertial separation phase planned for the Gainesville Compost Plant. The primary grinder is a Centriblast unit which does impart a certain trajectory to the materials leaving the unit. A secondary, inertial separation is imparted by the jet slinger located on the Centriblast exit. The material leaving the Centriblast will then pass through magnetic separation. Two stages of grinding are usually used. The first stage or coarse grinding reduces particle size to about 2 to 3. inches. The second stage grinding usually produces particle size of approximately 0.25 to 1 inch. After grind- ing, the material is moistened with either sewage sludge, water or dilute ammonium nitrate solution, then conveyed to the digestion phase. Product, Upgrading The upgrading operations which follow digestion consist of some or all of the following: curing, grinding, screening, pelletizing or granulating, drying, magnetic separation, and bagging. Storage of refuse which has been stabilized to compost by high temperature for 5 to 7 days results in a slow curing or maturing process. This has the net result of producing a darker color material with a shorter fiber length, both changes make the material esthetically more desirable. Curing can be omitted in some plants providing the carbon-to-nitrogen ratio is adjusted to insure that a minimum of 1.5 to 2 percent nitrogen will be in the material when it is used for agricultural purposes. Most plants cure from 10 days to 2 months. When properly stabilized by high-temperature composting the material can be piled 15 to 20 feet high and left without turning for up to six months without going anaerobic. During this curing the temperature in the pile will remain near 140° F. The material removed from this type of pile will be very dark brown in color and should serve as an excellent soil conditioner or fertilizer filler. Granulation can be accomplished by use of a short granulator followed by a dryer. The best example of an operating system of this type is found in the Altoona, Pennsylvania, plant where an attractive granular product is produced. The moisture content of the material as shipped in granular form averages about 10 percent versus the 40 to 50 percent moisture which 's found in the run-of-the-plant compost produced in most other systems. 283-399 O-67—8 HEAD PULLEY ACKING BELT DOC] PRIMARY BALLISTIC REJECT 5 CAN CONVEYOR aX ; GRINDER CONVEYOR Nj oy - N Ky Ty «BALLISTIC a NO? SEPARATOR 1 i Lf O cD SEN, SEC. GRINDER a= FEED CONVEYOR JET SLINGERSOW IN peeping Pers ET PENT eT PE DYES ET Te DpAL S PEN Sd a a na S OPa d ena Lge E AS ON te ae de Ficure 1 Section through the grinders and ballistic separator at the Gainesville, Florida, Metrowastc plant. SECONDARY GRINDER 801 ONIGUVH S¥uspaar0sg Panel B RECYCLING AND UTILIZATION 109 Windrow Composting The new TVA-PHS Demonstration Compost Plant at Johnson City, Ten- nessee, is of the windrow type. Refuse is brought into the plant, hand sorted, ground in either a Williams hammermill or a Dorr Oliver rasping machine, then is moistened and conveyed to the outdoor decomposition area where it is placed in windrows. The windrows are turned 5 to 10 times with a Cobey-Windrow turner during about 5 weeks of composting. After composting, the material is cured for 2 to 4 weeks. Windrow composting of this type has been practiced successfully in many locations. This process requires a moderately large area since the windrows are outside and the material is retained on-site in discrete windrows from one to two months. Calculations contained in Appendix A indicate that about 30 acres will be required for a windrow plant to serve a city of 100,000 population. This type of compost operation should be best suited for smaller cities with adequate land available and around which there exists a strong market for the compost produced. Mechanical Composting Systems Three mechanical systems have proved successful in composting U-S. refuse. They are: the Fairfield system; the Internation] Disposal Corpora- tion (IDC) system (formerly known as the Naturizer system); and the Mcetrowaste system. The land required for these plants is much less than that required for windrow plants of ‘comparable capacity. A 5-acre site should serve a city of 100,000 population. The Fairfield System A pilot plant which receives approximately 25 tons of segregated refuse from the city of Altoona, Pennsylvania, has been operating using this type of digestion equipment for several years. A schematic diagram of the process is shown in Figure 2. A Williams hammermill is used as a primary grinder with no prior hand sorting since trash and rubbish are supposedly collected separately. The secondary grinding is done in a wet pulper or hydro pulper. In this unit, sewage solids can be added as the moistening agent and the filtrate from the screw press which follows the hydro pulper can be re- turned to the sewage plant. A bar screen is located between the hydro pulper and the screw press to remove film plastics, tin cans, and other non- compostable items. The wet pulp at 55 percent moisture is fed into a circular digester. This digester is the only one of the three mechanical digesters mentioned in this paper which is a continuous process unit. Air is blown through the perforated bottom to keep the mixture aerobic. Differ- ing amounts of air are fed to various sections of the digester to provide any 4 io d 0 " RECEIVING NON ORGANIG MATERIAL TO SALVAGE OR LANOFILL, METAL WASHER AND MAGNETIC I SEPARATION \ j SEPARATOR | WET PULPING Ys 48 LO CONTROL PANEL FAIRFIELD-HAROY OIGESTER PELLETIZER BAGGING Ficure 2 Typical design for Fairfield Hardy Digester installation. and related equipment. 4 TO STORAGE CURING PELLETIZING BAGGING Ort ONIGUVH SSurpaas04g Panel B RECYCLING AND UTILIZATION 111 desired temperature profile. The augers which operate on a revolving arm, continuously mix the material and immediately integrate the wet pulp into the composting mixture. Only this digester arrangement is suited for the acceptance of ground refuse from the hydro pulper. After a nominal 5-day detention time in the digester the material is removed and cured in windrows for about three weeks. The cured material is moistened with a starch suspension, granulated, and dried to provide an excellent quality granular product. For much larger installations it is anticipated that a picking belt will be installed as an integral part of the pre-treatment operations. The horsepower requirements for this type of digester are relatively high as are the operating costs since the agitation operates continuously. Expansion of capacity would require the construction of a complete new digester since the through-put of a digester is limited. The International Disposal Corporation System A 105-ton-per-day IDC plant has been in operation for approximately one year in St. Petersburg, Florida. Incoming refuse is sorted to remove large noncompostable items, then is run through a magnetic separator to remove ferrous metals and cans. The next unit, as shown in Figure 3, is a rotary mixer called a pulveriator into which is fed the refuse and a moisten- ing agent, ammonium nitrate solution. The refuse leaving the pulveriator enters a patented flail mill grinder which shreds the refuse effectively but does not remove or shred rags and plastic items which enter the composting process almost intact. The plug flow digester is housed in a vertical building with horizontal, moving belts on which the ground refuse composts. Air is blown into the pile just above the belt to provide adequate aeration. Tem- peratures are in the thermophilic range. The material is reground after 2 day of the process. Then, at the end of 5 days detention time the material is removed, passed through a pentagonal trommel screen with 0.75-inch openings. This screen provides an excellent separation of noncompostable materials such as rags and plastics from the compost which is then ground and conveyed to outdoor curing piles. The material is cured for approxi- mately ten days. It is then sold in bulk or enriched for bag sale. Expansion of digester capacity will require construction of a complete new digestion unit ‘or the reduction of detention time in the digestion units which may result in improperly stabilized refuse if the time is cut too short. The Metrowaste System A 350-ton-per-day plant of this design has been in operation for approxi- mately seven months at Houston, Texas. A 150-ton-per-day Metrowaste plant is under construction in Gainesville, Florida, scheduled to begin 112 HARDING Proceedings FINISHING | | H A] BAGGING RSS MACHINE TSS8$s Ss SV BULK STORAGE DIGESTER CELLS SSS HOPPERS DIGESTION {7} GRINDER PULVERATOR axe. RETURN TO macneric USI, IN RECEIVING AREA SEPARATORS By gi” 2D " PREPARATION if PAPER cf g SHREDDERS SXA Ke y 53 , 7 fet BE et SQM P METERING o GATES 8 SALVAGE BALER Ficure 3 Schematic diagram of the Naturizer System. Panel B RECYCLING AND UTILIZATION 113 operation October 1967. In this process, shown schematically in Figure 4, the incoming refuse is hand sorted, ground in either a hammermill or a oy Centriblast unit which provides inertial separation, passed through a magnetic separator, a secondary grinder, and is moistened with sewage solids or nitrogen solution prior to composting. The batch digesters used in this process are horizontal tanks with perforated bottoms. The ground refuse is kept in the tanks for 4 to 6 days depending on plant operating conditions. Air can be blown through the bottom either on a periodic cycle or con- tinuously. A special agitator-unloader is used to mix the material or to unload it at the completion of the composting period. These tanks are usually built in pairs with a center belt serving for both feed and take off from each pair. One agitator can be used for the two tanks with a transfer table to shift from one tank to the other. Experiments conducted with the use of oxygen enrichment during the first 12 to 24 hours of composting with this system have shown that en- richment materially reduces the time required to reach thermophilic tem- perature ranges. The oxygen content of the inlet air is increased to about 30 volume percent. This reduces the necessary detention time in the digester by one to two days. Expansion of digestion capacity can be accomplished by adding addi- tional digester length and still using the same agitator for the tank. This provides the cheapest additional capacity of any of the three mechanical systems. Upon completion of composting in the Metrowaste system the material is passed through secondary grinders, screened and either cured or granulated for sale. A process utilized in the Metrowaste system which is not being utilized currently by other compost operators, is the use of air suction on the dis- charge side of the primary grinders to remove film plastics. Some quantities _of the dryer paper and many glass fragments are removed also by this suc- tion. These materials are burned in a suspension dryer to provide heat for burning out cans and drying of the material after curing and/or granulating. The manpower required for operation of compost plants can vary between 1 man per each 6 tons of refuse processed per day to | man for each 15 tons of refuse processed per day. Capital costs, energy and labor require- ments for the three mechanical systems are compared in Table II. A major operating cost which is not well documented at this time is the cost of hammerwear for grinding operations. This is reported to vary from 65 cents to $1.25 per ton of refuse processed.® ” All three of the mechanical systems use forced aeration. The aeration requirements vary between 0.2 and 2 cfm per cubic foot of digester capacity. TRUCK UNLOADING PLATFORM RECEIVING CONVEYOR SORTING AREA PLATFORM SALVAGE COLLECTOR CONVEYOR VIBRATOR STORAGE HOPPER SEWAGE SLUDGE THICKENER MIXING SCREW CONVEYOR TRIPPER CONVEYOR AGITATOR UNLOADING CONVEYOR SORTING CONVEYOR VIBRATOR PRIMARY GRINDER SECONDARY GRINDER BLOWER OPEN BULK STORAGE —~-f . % COVERED BULK STORAGE Ficure 4 Compost plant schematic flow diagram, Gainesville Municipal Waste Conversion Authority Incorporated. FIT SNIGUVH S8uipeasosg Panel B RECYCLING AND UTILIZATION 115 TABLE II COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS ® ENERGY AND MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS FOR MECHANICAL COMPOST PLANTS Capacity (t/d) Fairfield ® Metrowaste 7 IDC ° $x 10° HP Labor $x10° HP Labor $x 10° HP Labor 100 1.4b 900 gb 0.9 1,250 12 1.4 600 20 200 2.15 1,400 115 1.2 1,700 17 2.10 800> 28> 300 2.5 1,700 14 15 1,900 25 2.7> $50 36> 400 3.2 2,900 20 1.6 2,000 30 3.2b5 1,100 45> ® Exclusive of cost or land and special foundation problems. (fill and/or piling). b Author's estimate based on chemical engineering estimating procedures. SALVAGE RECOVERY AND MARKETING Most salvage is accomplished by hand ‘sortings and magnetic separation. The items which have salvage value are newsprint, corrugated cardboard, certain classes of rags, ferrous metal, cans, nonferrous metal (when sepa- rated) and glass. The market for any and all of these items is subject to wide variation from time to time and from location to location. Whenever salvage is being considered, it is best to contact the Executive Director of the National Association of Secondary Material Industries, Inc., whose address is 330 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017, and request the name of salvage dealers in the vicinity under consideration. The salvage market is old and reasonably well established so nearly all salvaged material is sold through salvage brokers. At this time the sale of paper salvaged from compost plants is meeting resistance because of “psychological warfare” being waged by long-time suppliers of salvaged paper through implication that the paper is somehow unsatisfactory.” Only dry, clean paper should be sorted and recovered for salvage purposes. It has been successfully used in food containers and other applications. The instability of the paper market and the psychological factor are the only drawbacks on the salvage of paper goods. The paper market is depressed at this time so the prices quoted are nominal only. Baled newsprint may sell for $12 to $15 per ton and baled corrugated boxes from $7 to $12 per ton.?° Mixed rags are now at their lowest value in years.1? Prices vary from $2 to $30 per ton." 1? Wiping rags, which in general are large garments of absorbant characteristics such as cotton, have a much higher value which can vary between $40 to $200 per ton. Assistance of a local textile salvage dealer should be sought in training personnel to pick only the proper types of rags for wiping purposes. 116 HARDING Proceedings Glass or cullet can be sold in special circumstanctes to glass plants. Since glass is a supercooled liquid rather than a crystalline material, it melts at a much lower temperature than does silica (sand); hence some glass is recycled in glass manufacture to reduce the heat necessary to melt the sand. Again specific details should be worked out with ‘a purchaser of the glass concerning the color and characteristics desired prior to attempting any salvage of glass at a compost plant. Usually glass is left in the compost and is abraided sufficiently during the process to be reasonably safe in the final product. The only domestic market for tin cans is in the copper smelting industry _ located in the Western States. Unless there are special circumstances or special needs close by, it is impractical to consider salvaging of cans any- where east of a north-south line passing through Chicago.!? The closer the cans are to the mines in Arizona and New Mexico, the higher the price they will bring. Cans must be burned out and shredded prior to use in copper smelting. Much of this work is usually done by a salvage broker. Shredded, burned and baled cans may be suitable for export buyers at East Coast ports. This requires the seller to seek out possible markets. Routine scrap ferrous metals, known as tramp metal, can be sold in bales through normal scrap dealers located all over the country. Prices for properly baled material can reach $25 per ton.?® Periodic prices can be found for all salvage material in the journal published by the National Association of Secondary Material Industries, Inc., published by Market News Publishing Corp., 156 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10010. Some hand sorting to remove noncompostable items is mandatory in most composting plants. The use of extended hand sorting should be weighed against the probable market for the materials separated by this process. Decisions to enter extensive sorting should be made only on the basis of firm contractual commitments for purchase of the products produced. Compost Production and Marketing From one-third to one-half of the materials entering a compost plant will become compost. Over three-fourths of the material entering the plant will enter the digester and a certain portion of this will be lost through biological activity. The length of curing, the type of upgrading operations, and the moisture content of the material as shipped determine what the ratio of — final product to incoming refuse might be. At the present time, undried - compost is being sold by Metrowaste and by International Disposal Corp. for approximately $16 per ton F.o.8. plant site.“’ The Altoona-FAM Co. Panel B. RECYCLING AND UTILIZATION 117 markets their granular compost at 10 percent moisture for approximately $16 per ton F.O.B. the plant.? Bag sales have not proved successful at the three plants now successfully composting municipal refuse in the U.S. The best potential bulk market for compost is as a building material in the fertilizer industry. The increasing popularity of organic fillers in fertilizers should provide an ample developmental market for compost. Some manu- facturers of compost consider enrichment as the most desirable method to follow. The enriched compost can then compete directly with the fertilizer compound. Once enrichment is undertaken and a labeled material is being produced, fertilizer laws must be followed in the production of the material. The marketing work necessary for a large plant to move compost success- fully is extensive. This is beyond the scope of most municipalities. A large private company would appear to have a potential advantage to providing adequate marketing services to move the final product. Recently some rail carriers have established a new classification for com- post materials.’ The classification, “waste products,” carries a 30 percent lower freight rate than fertilizer products. There still remains room for im- provement since earth or stone can be moved by rail 60 percent cheaper than fertilizer products. If lower rates could be provided by rail carriers to compost producers this would make possible distribution of compost to a much larger area. At the fertilizer shipping rates the compost must be distributed within 50 to 100 miles of its point of production. With the reduced freight rates the radius of distribution can be extended considerably and still the product can be marketed profitably. Financing Composting Plants Financial personnel and engineers have worked together to develop a concept on which most of the current compost plant financing is based.** Since composting is a municipal refuse disposal function it should be under- written by adequate dumping fees. These fees should cover the disposal phase of the operation which includes amortization of all capital outlays, a sinking or equipment replacement fund, all operating costs including the cost of transporting the compost to an ultimate disposal site for at least two years while market development is progressing, and a safety factor to pro- vide for adequate charges for an alternate method of disposal during com- post plant downtime. The alternate method may be landfill or incineration and would have to be conducted by contract or at standby facilities. All of these items should be covered by a guaranteed minimum dumping fee for the contract’s period. A realistic escalation clause should be included in the contract to cover increase in labor and operating costs. The materials and 118 HARDING Proceedings the plant can be amortized over as much as a 30-year period if engineering data can substantiate the successful operation of the equipment for that length of time. In financing the plants no credit is given for sale of salvage material and an incineration cost should be included in the disposal phase to handle the disposal of plastics and other noncompostable but combustible items which are undesirable in the final product. . The second phase of the financing operation is the by-product phase. This includes final grinding, upgrading, marketing, granulating, etc., and should be financed by revenue received from the sale of the compost. Should this venture be undertaken by a private concern, the sale of the product would also serve to provide the profit for the operation. By separating the financing of composting into two phases — disposal phase underwritten by dumping fees and by-product phase paid for by compost sales, a realistic approach to financing composting plants can be taken. _ For moderate-to-large size communities where space is a problem and pollution is a problem, composting can compete effectively with incineration particularly if the operators of the compost system have initiative and ingenuity in developing markets for the compost and salvageable items. The most advantageous situation for refuse composting is when it can be com- bined with sewage treatment. A city can save about 30 percent of the cost of sewage treatment by pumping raw sludge to a compost plant for use as a-moistening agent and a source of nitrogen in the compost. When the savings in sewage treatment cost are taken as a credit against the cost of refuse composting, the economics of composting become attractive. This is particularly true when the process also eliminates a potential air pollution problem. . REFERENCES 1. Reclamation of municipal refuse by composting. Technical Bulletin No. 9. Sanitary Engineering Research Projects, University of California. Richmond, California, 1953. 89 p. 2. Wiley, J. S., and G. W. Pearce. A preliminary study of high-rate composting. Paper 846. In Transactions, American Society of Civil Engineers, v. 81, Dec. 1955. 3. Schulze, K. L. Continuous thermophilic composting. Applied Microbiology, * 10(2) :108-122, Mar. 1962. 4. Committee on Solid Wastes, American Public Works Association. Municipal refuse disposal. Chicago, Public Administration Service, 1961. 506 p. 5. Vaughn, G. Plant Manager, Metrowaste, Houston, Texas. Personal communi- cation, July 13, 1967. - 6. Lynn, R. A. Plant Manager, International Disposal Corporation, St. Petersburg, Florida. Personal communication, June 21, 1967. Panel B RECYCLING AND UTILIZATION 119 Brown, V. President, Metropolitan Waste Conversion Corporation, Wheaton, Illinois. Personal communication, July 13, 1967. ~t 8. Coulson, J. S. Sales Manager, Digester Division, Fairfield Engineering Company, Marion, Ohio. Personal communication, June 15, 1967. g, Williams, L. Container Corporation of America, Chicago, Illinois. Personal communication, July 10, 1967. 1, Market reviews and prices. Secondary Raw Materials, 5(4) :38-43, Apr. 1967. t1. Schapiro, D. Schapiro and Whitehouse, Inc., Baltimore, Maryland. Personal communication, July 11, 1967. 12. Proler, S. President, Proler Steel Company, Houston, Texas. Personal communi- cation, July 3, 1967. 13. McCall, J. H. Goodbody and Company, Chicago, Illinois. Personal communi- cation, July 14, 1967. APPENDIX. Calculation of Area Required for a Windrow Com posting Plant To Serve a Population of 100,000 (4 Ib/c/d) (100,000) (2,000 Ib/ton) Compostable quantity (80% from Table 1) = (200 t/d) (0.8) = 160 t/d if density = 400 Ib/yd* _ (160 t/d) (2,000 Ib/ton) : Volume = (400 Ib/ya") == 800 yd*/d = 200 t/d Quantity of refuse = With a windrow 5.5’ high, 10’ wide at the base and 6’ wide at the top, the cross- sectional area = 5 yd? 800 yd*/d _ Sy 160 yd/d = 480 ft/d Daily length of windrow = Assume: 60-day composting period 20’-gap between piles 15’-driveway between windrows Total daily length = 480’ + 20° = 500’ Total length on plant site —- (60 days) (500 ft/day) = 30,000 ft Area per foot or windrow = (10 + 15) (1) = 25 fe?/ft (25 ft?/ft) (30,000 ft) Total windrow area = SoD EL Ooze (43,560 ft?/acre) 17.2 acres Add a 60% safety factor — 10.2 acres == 10.2 acres Add area for buildings, etc. = 2.5 acres Total area required 30.0 acres OPEN DISCUSSION: PANEL B Abraham Michaels,* Panel Chairman Mir. R. R. Darront: What do you know about tepee burners with afterburners? Mr. ELMER R. Kaiser: I had a paper in the American Public Works As- sociation Yearbook of 1960 in which that point was discussed. I made calculations at that time and as I remember it takes about 125 or so gallons of oil to heat the flue gas from a ton of refuse burned in the tepee unit to 1.500° F for the afterburning effect. Now, that’s entirely too much oil. The reason there is such a high excess of air, 400 or more percent is to protect the tepee and not burn out the screen at the top. An afterburner is only useful when you can keep the excess air quantities in a low range. And then, I dare say, if you do that, you would need a refractory furnace, and you would get enough temperature automatically without the afterburner. There- fore, they have had to go to the scrubber concept in order to clean up the flue gas. Mr. W. Harrincton${: What percentage of the total refuse quantity as delivered is finally converted to compost? Dr. Cuarzes I. Harpinc: Let’s take that on dry solids basis, because I think we are going to have to ultimately get to that. If you take refuse received in a plant, it is about 25 percent moisture. Then about 80 percent of this material (possibly with good film plastic and artifacts removal, 65 percent) will go to the digester. ‘There is about one-third loss in the digester of the material going in. Thus, on a dry solids basis you would come out with about 30 percent of the dry solids delivered to the plant as product. If you sell it at 100 percent moisture on a dry solids basis, then you are going to have about 60 percent of the material delivered to the plant which would be product by weight. By volume it would be much smaller; the density received from packer trucks is somewhere around a low of 10 to a high of 20 pounds per cubic foot and the compost is sold from 32 to 40 pounds per cubic foot. So there is a marked volume reduction in the material. * Consulting Engineer, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. t Russell R, Dalton, Alexandria Health Department, Virginia. t William M. Harrington, Whitman, Requardt and Associates, Baltimore, Maryland. 121 122 PANEL B Proceedings Mr. Harrincton: I am quite interested in the percentage as de- livered that actually gets converted. I don’t care what the end product is. But if you get 5 tons, how much of that on a dry solids basis, or however you want to put it, how much of that do you actually compost? Because you are salvaging, you are getting rid of your plastic and some of your paper. Dr. Harpinc: Of the material that enters the composting process? About two-thirds. Dr. G. C. Szeco*: How about burning by using natural gas jets buried by the rubbish being combusted? Mr. Bowerman: This is a process that comes up for consideration from time to time because “in-place” burning sounds as though it might be really cheap, and maybe an efficient way of getting volume reduction. The one attempt that I am personally familiar with was done in the San Francisco area on buried demolition wastes with an earth cover. An attempt was made to control the combustion process, but frankly, the manner in which you can control an underground burning operation is rather limited. You don’t have many controls, once you ignite the solid wastes. You're pretty well at the whim of the way it was put together, and if that wasn’t quite right, then there’s nothing much you can do about it. In this one instance, the operation seemed to start off fairly well. Then it started smoking, and the smoke brought the fire department; the fire department hosed down the earth cover and made holes in it. The whole thing then went up in one grand debacle. A controlled burning operation was tried on a much smaller scale at one of the Los Angeles District sanitary landfills. We built a pyramid, about 20 feet high and provided open space on the bottom by putting in a bunch of palm-tree logs, crisscrossed. The rubbish pile was placed on top of that, and an earth cover placed on top to create a virtual Vesuvius. A hole was left in the top for a chimney, and the material was allowed to decompose aerobically. Eventually it spontaneously combusted and burned so well that it was still burning about three months later. It just doesn’t appear that under these field conditions you can hope to get the type of combustion _ that’s going to meet air pollution control standards. . Mr.. T. W. BENpDIxENt: What will incineration do to reduce oxides of nitrogen, when air pollution control authorities require control of nitrogen. oxide? *.Dr. G. C. Szego, Inter Technology Corporation, Warrenton, Virginia. + Thomas W. Bendixen, U.S. Public Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio. Second Session OPEN DISCUSSION 123 Mr. Kaiser: In the example I gave you, the nitrogen oxides were 93 parts per million. We get less nitrogen oxides in incineration than they do in the burning of coal or oil in power boilers. The reason is that we operate at lower temperatures. In the first place, our fuel has more moisture and inerts, which take up heat; secondly, we try to stay below 1,800° F in the refractory line units, in order not to have the ash form slag on the walls. And that is a big help in holding down the nitrogen oxides. What to do about them to get a further reduction, I certainly don’t know. Whether the water spray treatment that we often give the gases afterwards will take some of it out, I am not sure either. But certainly with stacks that extend 200 to 300 feet high, the dispersion of that little nitrogen oxide is not going to be any problem. That subject is being researched in connection with the big oil- and coal-fired power boilers, and after they work it out, perhaps we can adopt something if that is still necessary. Mr. Warp BarsTow*: How does the quality and quantity of refuse in Europe differ from that in the United States? Mr. Rosert D. Bucuer: It’s difficult to generalize on that kind of a question. I can say this: Last month Abe and I had the pleasure of attending the Ninth International ‘Public Cleansing Association meeting in Paris. James Sumner of Great Britain presented a paper which summarized the characteristics of waste in different countries. As I recall it indicated that the percentage of organics in the-northern countries was in the neigh- borhood of 20 to 30 percent, but one of the striking things that I recall was that some southern countries, particularly Israel, reported that their per- centage of organics was as high as 70 percent. The percentage of paper obviously is much greater here in this country. They are much more thrifty in Europe and do not produce as much waste. I asked this question of one gentleman from England and he told me that their refuse is becoming more like ours — they are getting a lot more paper. He also indicated that the quantity and quality of their wastes is similar to what ours was about 20 to 30 years ago. Incidently, if you want more specific information on this question we will be glad to make it available. From AvupieNnce: I'd just like to ask if you don’t consider paper as organic; it composts perfectly well. Mr. BucHEr: When I use the term organics, I mean mostly vegetable wastes, i.e., putrescible organics. From Aupience: I think the paper and the organics would be con- * Ward Barstow, State Department of Health, Baltimore, Maryland. 283-399 O-67—9 124 PANEL B Proceedings sidered one, don’t you, along with leather and anything else which is organic, anything which wil] compost? Mr. Micuaets: Yes, it’s true. The amount of paper certainly affects the carbon:nitrogen ratio which affects the quality of the compost. The numbers (paper percentages) that I remember that are significant are that in Europe about 30 percent of the refuse was paper, whereas in the United States paper or paper products are over 50 percent. I think this represents the significant difference between the two types of refuse. Mr. Wisman: Why, if you believe in recycling metals back to in- dustry, do you not believe in recycling organics back to the soil which feeds us and which we are depleting? Mr. Kaiser: Personally, I intend to remain objective about such matters. If the compost people can develop their processes and a market for the product, more power to them. Refuse not disposed of as compost will be incinerated and landfilled. I happen to specialize in incineration, ' which takes all of my time, which means-I can only try to encompass that much of the field. If there is also a place for compost, the judgment as to its future must be made in the marketplace. Dr. Harpinc: We have been working with some pretty sharp agri- cultural people and they tell me (although I’m not a farmer and I couldn’t grow anything if I had to) that if you want to show a net increase in organic content particularly in a sandy soil, you’d have to put into the top two inches of the sandy soil each year a six-inch layer of compost. So this is somewhat of a myth — that you’re going to increase the organic content of the soil by adding compost to it. It sounds good, and that’s what I referred to at the very beginning — it’s a romantic idea that really ap- peals to people. I don’t want to play it down, but I want to be realistic about it. We aren’t going to increase the organic content of our soils which we are depleting, materially in this way. In my opinion, the way composting has a reasonable chance of success is by courtship and marriage with the fertilizer industry. There is now a big move to use organic fillers in ferti- lizers. Compost has rather low nitrogen and so it doesn’t compete very well with waste-activated sludge; but I think the future of composting on a ‘bulk, large-scale basis, is intimately involved with the future of the fertilizer business. In that way I think there will be some recycling. Mp. S. Euruicut: When do you expect the slag-tap process, which you, touched on, to become commercial? Could you briefly give us more details? * Shelton Ehrlich, Pope, Evans and Robbins, Alexandria, Virginia. Second Session OPEN DISCUSSION 125 Mr. Kaiser: ‘Taking up a few details first — the slag has a density of about 2.4, which is about the same as glass. I have measured the density of this material — if you could cast large chunks of it and bury those, you would get up to this 3,000 to 3,800 pounds per cubic yard. However, if it is run into water it breaks up into a black, glassy sand. So ‘there are voids. The slag sand would have a density of approximately 2,500 pounds per cubic yard. If you have a mixture of chunks and fines you will have an intermediate density. When will this become commercial? I can’t predict that. More demonstration work must be done on it and studies made of it. In Europe at the Volkswagen Works they have had a slag-tap operation for quite some time. In regard to the Melt-Zit process in Massachusetts, there will be some tests a little later this year. , Anonymous: What progress can be reported in the problem of making beer (and other disposable) cans from early-deteriorating materials? Mr. BowERMAN: Well, my good friend, Dr. McGauhey of the Univer- sity of California, Berkeley, says that the ideal container is the ice cream cone. Maybe someday somebody is. going to come up with a container for beer that’s edible, but I think that in the meantime the transition will be from a metal to a fiber; I think we’ll find that we cannot afford to use our mineral reserves in a non-conservative manner, and go over to fibers where we can grow and regrow and continue to grow new resources in- definitely. Thus, I think that we'll see more fiber containers and less metal. Mr. Micwaets: Actually the container industry is probably the one industry that is more responsible for the predicament we are in today than any other industry. All reports that I have heard are that they have no intention at the present time of concerning themselves with the waste disposal problem; that, in fact, their job is to sell more and more containers. Hopefully, they will come up with something that will be degradable but as of now I don’t think there is any indication that the industry contem- plates changes that will significantly reduce the refuse disposal problem. ANonyMous: Why are not private utilities, that is, electric and gas and particularly electric, regulated as closely as other industrial entities on waste disposal? Mr. Micwaets: I don’t know that this is so, necessarily. Certainly, recent legislation in New York City and legislation in other major com- munities which set limits on air pollution emissions, indicates, considerable control of public utilities; I don’t know whether anybody else in the Panel or in the audience has any comments to make on this . . . I’m inclined to feel the premise is not a correct one. Any comments at all? 126 PANEL B Proceedings Mr. Kaiser: In New York City we have a large enough area, and burn so much fuel of rather high sulfur content — heavy oil and coal, 2 to 3 percent sulfur — that sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere is a definite problem. We are said to be the nation’s worst in that respect. And so legislation has gone in to reduce the sulfur content of these fuels. Now, it’s hard to get that kind of fuel, and it will be at a higher price, of course. You notice from the analyses that refuse is extremely low in sulfur. In fact, I say without hesitation, that we have in refuse “the sweetest fuel this side of natural gas.” That’s true! So, if we would burn refuse and generate power there, we would need that much less of the higher-sulfur fuels, and thus, in a sense, help ourselves to a degree, only because of the tonnages involved, in reducing the content of SO, in the atmosphere. On the matter of fly ash, I think we can reduce our dustloadings as low as is done with the coal fire boilers. There is a move underway, therefore, to build a big refuse burning plant in the old Brooklyn Navy Yard. It would generate steam, send that steam to Con Edison, a big electric utility, which has distribution mains in the streets for district steam. Con Edison says that refuse could be used to generate steam for district heating — as, of course, is done in Europe. And, I think behind that question, is the thought that a marriage there could help the community. Instead of everybody going his own independent way, if we can work at these things together, again as they do abroad, it should help the ‘overall picture. Mr. Micwaets: Thank you. I would like to make one observation with respect to the use of refuse as a fuel. One of the things that I did when I was in Paris was to present a paper on incineration without waste heat utilization. I had occasion to determine the relative heat value available in refuse throughout the United States, and compare it to the heat value of the fuels currently used for power generation, or for all energy, as a matter of fact. As I recall, if all of the refuse were converted to power, to energy, we would provide somewhere on the order of 2 percent of the energy that the nation is currently using. If we took the energy that goes into automobiles and other modes of transportation using self-powered vehicles, this would pro- vide somewhere on the order of 5 or 6 percent of the heat value required. So, even if all of our refuse were converted to energy, the best we could do is reduce the air pollution effect by this 5 or 6 percent. Which, of course, is the approach that we take; that is, that we nibble away at these problems; we don’t attack them and solve them by changing our way of living overnight. Mr. Kaiser: Because the quantities are so great, even that percentage is quite substantial. Second Session OPEN DISCUSSION 127 Mr. Micuaets: Well, that’s the point. From Aupience: Did you figure what percent of energy coal supplies at the present? Mr. Micuaets: The total energy output in the United States was con- sidered in this study. This includes, coal, fuel oil, natural gas and even the small amount of atomic energy that’s currently used. Dr. Harvinc: I think that the argument, if you want to use an argu- ment for combined power generation and refuse disposal, is this. As was pointed out very efficiently by the luncheon speaker yesterday, cities, most municipalities, do not give adequate attention to incineration operations. In my opinion, electrical generation facilities are some of the best-run operations in the country. If we then have a combined refuse disposal and electrical generation system under the control of the utilities system, I would think that we would have much more efficient combustion and much better disposal of refuse. Mr. MicuaeLts: That’s a very sound observation; I agree completely. Mr. Hatt: Is there any hope of early solution to incineration and reduction of scrap and junk automobiles? My particular interest is the elimination of open burning of vehicles in volumes up to 40 to 50,000 cars per year. Mr. Karser: