guidelines for local governments
on
solid waste management
this publication (SW-17c) was developed for
the federal solid waste management program
by the national association of counties research foundation
under contract no. ph-86-67-290
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1971
-------
This publication is in the Public Health Service series as Public Health
Service Publication No. 2084. Its appearance in two government series
is the result of a publishing interface reflecting the transfer of the Fed-
eral solid waste program from the U.S. Public Health Service to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
An environmental protection publication
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, B.C. 20402- Price $1.50
Stock Number 5502-0047
-------
foreword
The public creates solid wastes, discards them, and expects
efficient, effective, economical, uncomplicated, and nuisance-free
collection and disposal. Unfortunately, enough mismanagement of
solid wastes exists in the average community to stimulate signifi-
cant negative reaction. Since solid wastes disposal is a distasteful
subject to many people, usually the general public does not com-
prehend the difficult problems involved in collection and disposal.
Public information programs are important because they can
reverse the trend, changing criticism to public support. Positive
images and impressions can replace negative ones. For example,
most people are interested in conservation of natural resources
and community improvement while they have little interest or
sympathy with the mundane procedure of collecting and disposing
of wastes. Many people can develop an empathy for the dilemma
of the sanitation engineer when introduced to contemplated im-
provements in techniques and facilities.
In other words, the public information efforts of the com-
munity should stress positive factors to counteract the negative
impressions caused by problems such as:
• poor household storage
• infrequent, annoying, or undependable collection
• open dumps
• air pollution from burning dumps or incinerators
• abandoned automobiles
• litter.
The best method of doing this is for the local government to adopt
a posture of progressive and effective operation, and to communi-
cate this attitude of success in every possible way. This guide
provides some public information methods to gain and maintain
public support and interest.
-SAMUEL HALE, JR.
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste Management
in
-------
acknowledgments
The research and working drafts for the Guidelines were pre-
pared as follows:
Patricia A. McDonough:
Bambridge Peterson:
Aliceann Fritschler:
1. Areawide Approaches
4. Organization
5. Design and Operation
8. Citizen Support
2. Legal Authority
3. Planning
6. Financing
7. Technical and Financial Assistance
9. Personnel
10. Action Plan and Bibliography
IV
-------
preface
Garbage, trash, rubbish, litter, abandoned automobiles, and the
various other discards of. civilization called "solid wastes" can
no longer be ignored or indiscriminately dumped or burned. Local
governments must act now to protect the public health and the
environment through what the professionals call "solid wastes
management," commonly called garbage collection and disposal.
The National Association of Counties Research Foundation
(NACORF), under contract to the Bureau of Solid Waste Manage-
ment of the U.S. Public Health Service, has prepared these ten
guides on Solid Waste Management to assist local elected and
appointed policy making officials. The guides are designed to
present in clear, concise form information to help local officials
and interested citizens make decisions on the planning, organiza-
tion, financing, staffing, legal aspects, and operation of compre-
hensive areawide solid wastes management systems.
The environment must be protected against pollution caused
by mismanagement of solid wastes. The air, water, and land
resources of our country must be preserved. Action is required
of every local elected official.
Bernard F. Hillenbrand, Executive Director
National Association of Counties
-------
contents
1 areawide approaches
2 introduction
3 environmental quality
three pollutions
environmental quality restoration
7 what is the areawide approach?
countrywide and multi-county programs
councils of governments
special districts and authorities
state action
14 techniques of intergovernmental cooperation
formal and informal agreements
contract, joint management, and transfer of function
16 summary
16 selected bibliography
field reports (in order of sequence)
3 environmental health program
Fresno County, California
5 city-county cooperation
Erie County, Pennsylvania
6 environmental pollution control
Los Angeles County, California
8 multi-county corporation
Southern West Virginia Regional Health Council
10 countywide approach
Broome County, New York
12 intra-county action
Lower Passaic Valley Solid Wastes Management Authority.
New Jersey
15 transfer of function
Seattle-King County, Washington
2 legal authority
18 introduction
18 legal authority for state action
22 legal authority for local action
charters
ordinances
land acquisition
regulation of private operators
other legal aspects
vn
-------
30 summary
32 selected bibliography
32 appendices
field reports (in order of sequence)
21 an inter local agreement
Maryville, Alcoa, and Blount County, Tennessee
24 using existing legal authority for planning
Chemung County, New York
26 legal control in unincorporated areas
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
28 ordinance enforcement
Santa Barbara County, California
31 solving legal problems
Montgomery County, Ohio
3 planning
38 introduction
38 who plans?
39 coordination of local with state plans
39 financing the plan
40 the planning process
data collection
new tools
evaluation and recommendations
46 implementing the plan
48 summary
48 selected bibliography
49 appendix
state solid wastes planning agencies
field reports (in order of sequence)
41 interstate planning
Tocks Island Regional Advisory Council
44 city-county planning
Genesee County and Flint, Michigan
47 multi-county planning
Tri-County Planning Commission, Michigan
4 organization
54 introduction
56 assigning operating responsibilities
58 local government functions
policy making
public information
budgeting
planning and review
drafting, adoption, and enforcement of standards
operation of the system
68 summary
68 selected bibliography
field reports (in order of sequence)
Vlll
-------
60 metro experiment
Metropolitan Government of Nashville-Davidson County,
Tennessee
62 full city operation
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
63 sanitation management information system
City of Los Angeles, California
64 organizing a refuse disposal department
San Bernardino County, California
67 road department division
Orange County, California
5 design and operation
70 introduction
70 methods of storage and collection
storage
collection
items needing special handling
77 long distance transportation systems
transfer stations
other transport systems
79 volume reduction and disposal methods
sanitary landfill
incineration
composting
the dump
feeding hogs garbage
96 summary
96 selected bibliography
field reports (in order of sequence)
72 paper sack storage system
Junction City, Kansas
771 junk automobile collection
Klamath County, Oregon
78 transfer station
Orange County, California
81 multiple functions of sanitary landfill
San Bernardino County, California
86 incineration
Montgomery County, Maryland
90 commercial composting with salvage
Metropolitan Waste Conversion Corporation
Houston, Texas
94 progress and problems in cleaning up dumps
City of Beaufort and Beaufort County, South Carolina
6 financing
98 introduction
98 financial planning
legal authority
capital improvement budgeting
financial campaigns
100 revenue sources
general revenue
bonds
loans
service charges and fees
IX
-------
107 purchasing techniques
total cost bidding for purchasing
pay-as-you-go financing
lease-purchase
leasing
use of purchasing techniques
112 financing an areawide approach
112 summary
112 selected bibliography
field reports
99 planning, financing, and building for the future
Montgomery County, Ohio
104 financing a solid wastes disposal system
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, California
110 pay-as-you-go financing through a public utility
Tacoma, Washington
7 technical and financial assistance
114 introduction
114 the federal solid wastes programs
solid waste management, U.S. environmental
protection agency
bureau of mines, department of the interior
118 other federal programs
planning funds
land acquisition funds
soil and geologic condition information
land improvement
federal lands
manpower training
grant review in metropolitan areas
123 state assistance
125 other information sources
127 summary
127 appendix
128 selected bibliography
field reports (in order of sequence)
115 demonstration grant for strip mine reclamation
Allegany County and Frostfaurg, Maryland
120 federal funds stimulate countywide planning
Cascade County and Great Falls, Montana
125 federal funds for areawide planning
Des Moines, Iowa
8 citizen support
130 actions speak louder than words
program image
handling complaints
134 going to the public for support
established organizations
delivering the message
sources of opposition
146 using the communications media
147 appendix
-------
148 summary
148 selected bibliography
field reports (in order of sequence)
131 a professional public awareness campaign
Broome County, New York
132 winning support for improved collection
Tucson, Arizona
135 mobilizing community resources to promote public acceptance
Madison County, Alabama
136 using leadership and example to win support
Waukegan, Illinois
138 the direct attack
Baltimore County, Maryland
142 overcoming opposition to a sanitary landfill site
Hamilton, Ohio
145 stimulating involvement through humor
Kennebunkport, Maine
9 personnel
150 introduction
150 personnel practice
recruitment
compensation
working conditions and safety
labor-management relations
163 training programs
local
state
federal
private
165 consultants
selection
payment
167 steps in staffing a new program
168 summary
168 selected bibliography
field reports (in order of sequence)
152 providing personnel for a growing solid wastes system
DeKalb County, Georgia
160 a continuous safety program
National Disposal Contractors, Inc.
Barrington, Illinois
162 a proposed safety and merit program
Wichita Falls, Texas
10 action plan and bibliography
170 introduction
the problem
summary of guides
local government's role
172 what should local government do?
basic steps
how to proceed
177 what should state government do?
178 what should the federal government do?
178 national solid wastes workshop participants
181 selected bibliography
XI
-------
1 areawide approaches
-------
areawide
approaches
introduction
Local elected officials have an obligation to see that all solid
wastes are managed properly. To get the job done, they must plan,
implement, and/or regulate an effective solid wastes management
system that will provide citizens the best level of service without
jeopardizing health or creating pollution now or in the future. An
adequate system requires responsible policy making, firm enforce-
ment, land-use coordination, and logical organization.
The geographical area for a comprehensive solid wastes man-
agement system must include current and anticipated sources of
solid wastes (homes, businesses, farms, and factories) and space
suitable for disposal sites for at least 20 years. As an areawide
government, the county provides economies of scale, a broader tax
base, closer ties with state government, and potentially more land
for disposal than does a municipality. The county governing body
usually is the appropriate unit of government to plan, initiate, and
regulate a comprehensive areawide system. An effective program
requires a county to work with the municipalities within it and
sometimes with neighboring cities and counties.
These ten guides are written for the local governing board
member in non-technical language to describe what constitutes
good solid wastes management and what must be done to develop
such a system. Since the organization, size, and powers of counties
vary widely across the country, not all of the approaches discussed
in these guides will be appropriate for every county. The solid
wastes problems of a large metropolitan county differ from those
of a small rural county, but the general principles for a solid wastes
management system remain the same. Each county's elected gov-
erning body must decide what kind of program is best for its own
needs.
Guide Number 1, Areawide Approaches covers the relation-
ship of solid wastes management to environmental quality control
and points out the need for an areawide approach to insure the
adequacy of a comprehensive program. Guide Number 1 also
discusses the advantages of intergovernmental cooperation. Other
guides in the series treat legal authority, planning, organization,
design and operation criteria, financing, financial and technical as-
sistance, citizen support, personnel, and an action plan.
It is important to understand that the term solid wastes in-
cludes anything thrown away, such as garbage, rubbish, trash,
litter, junk, and refuse from any source (homes, businesses, farms,
industries, or institutions]. Garbage is food waste and will decom-
pose. In these guides, garbage will mean exactly that. Rubbish
and trash include combustibles such as paper, wood, yard trim-
mings, and boxes, and noncombustibles such as metals, glass, and
-------
environmental health program
Fresno County, California
The climate and geographical
location of San Joaquin Valley
and the rapid population growth
taking place there have resulted
in increased air, water, and land
pollution. In 1968 the Univer-
sity of California at Santa Cruz
sponsored three valley-wide
conferences which were suc-
cessful in stimulating interest
and county action for pollution
control. The Fresno County
Board of Supervisors and the
Fresno County Council of Gov-
ernments then held a series of
three one-day conferences in-
volving civic leaders, junior
college faculties, businessmen,
media representatives, govern-
ment officials, and administra-
tive personnel to familiarize
them with pollution abatement
requirements and procedures, to
encourage discussion of mutual
problems, and to establish an
overall plan. The plan includes
standards for water, air, and
land pollution control as well as
an enforcement program.
In addition, specific improve-
ments are being implemented.
Each community is enforcing
regulations to prohibit open
burning. Investigation has be-
gun to find appropriate sites for
long-range disposal of solid
wastes. Plans are also being
made to test various uses of
compost made from industrial
agricultural wastes.
Members of the Board of Su-
pervisors and the council of
governments, through public ap-
pearances and statements in the
newspapers and on radio and
television, have continued to
create public awareness of the
need for pollution abatement.
dirt. Litter is any piece of discarded solid waste which is exposed
and uncontrolled. Junk refers to anything currently valueless.
Refuse includes garbage and trash as well as all other solid or
semi-solid wastes such as sewage sludge, abandoned motor ve-
hicles, dead animals, demolition rubble, and street sweepings.
All of these descriptive terms are often used imprecisely. There-
fore, to avoid confusion, in these guides solid wastes will be the
only all-inclusive term used.
environmental quality
In an address before an Environmental Solid Waste Orientation
Seminar in Kentucky, January 18, 1967, Assistant Surgeon General
Richard A. Prindle described the interrelationship of solid wastes
management, clean water, and clear air:
Our earth has only three waste repositories. They
also are reservoirs for all the essential life resources we
possess—air, water, and land. Our habit has been to
think of them as limitless. But at the rate our populations
are growing, we can begin to view with real concern the
fact that the earth has no more air, water, or land today
than when man first began to generate wastes. These
reservoirs, moreover, are interconnected. To pollute one
may mean to pollute the other two.
What we have done until very recently has been to
attack one over-all pollution problem in three sectors.
But since we have committed ourselves, as a Nation, to
-------
an all-out attack on pollution of air and water, it will not
be very long before there will be left only one repository
for wastes. This is the land.
three pollutions
environmental
quality restoration
Land Pollution. The most familiar example of community land
pollution is the open dump, which is any exposed accumulation
of solid wastes. A dump fouls the air, surface and ground water,
and the land; it attracts, feeds, and shelters disease-bearing animals
and insects. Burning at a dump site compounds the problem.
Burning provides a hot meal and a warm home for colonies of
rodents and bugs, and transforms solid wastes into air pollution.
A dump is an obvious fire hazard. Incompatible chemical
materials unintentionally combined and exposed to the air often
produce spontaneous combustion. When this happens, most dump
operators do not have the equipment to extinguish the fire nor
the ability to confine or control burning to localized areas.
Dumps attract scavengers who do not realize inherent dangers
such as disease, fire, and explosions. In Washington, D. C., where
citizens' groups were trying to have the Kenilworth dump closed,
a boy was burned to death before the dump was finally converted
to a sanitary landfill in 1968.
Water Pollution. Dumping in water causes pollution. Liquids
may seep through solid wastes on the land and leach into surface
or subsurface waters, changing their chemical characteristics.
Such liquids from solid wastes can also transport harmful bacteria
into creeks, reservoirs, rivers, and community watersheds. When
water percolates through accumulated solid wastes and into ground
water [water below the surface of the land], it can contaminate
well water and spring water used for drinking. Dumping solid
wastes into any water course is unhealthy. [See bibliography for
more on water pollution.]
Air Pollution. Evidence of solid wastes mismanagement is in
the air in many ways, as fly ash, blowing litter, and smoke. The
panorama of a city skyline or of a vast industrial river valley and
other aspects of the beauty of our land and environment are often
obscured by 125 million tons of pollutants dispersed into the
atmosphere annually.
The problem is not only one of aerial visibility but also one
of cleanliness and health. Eventually particulate matter and dirt-
laden gases lodge somewhere: on cars, in homes, in water, or in
lungs. The relationship of smoke and other air pollutants to
emphysema and bronchial distress is a matter of record. Every
person has a right to breathe clean air, but man's ability to breathe
and the right to anticipate long life are being infringed upon by the
lack of proper solid wastes management. (See bibliography for
more on air pollution.]
Effective water management programs are helping to improve
the quality of the nation's rivers and streams. Air pollution control
programs are beginning the job of cleaning the atmosphere. But
improved air and water pollution programs, because of techniques
such as outlawing open burning and open dumping, have intensi-
fied the solid wastes problem. In addition, pollution from poor
solid wastes control by government, industry, commerce, and the
individual is a significant threat to the health and well-being of
many citizens. Pollution is not, however, an insoluble problem.
-------
An old saying goes, "The best way to finish is to begin," and this
is particularly appropriate to solid wastes management.
Good solid wastes management is vital to a clean, healthy
environment. Because of increased air and water pollution con-
trols, the problem of how to process our solid wastes safely has
become more urgent.
Effective local programs begin with proper storage and fre-
quent collection to help eliminate the temptation to dump solid
wastes anywhere. Local governments must also see that solid
wastes are processed and disposed of safely. The two major ac-
ceptable systems of solid wastes disposal are incineration and
sanitary landfill, but both must be designed properly and operated
carefully and correctly. In the future recycling methods may be
perfected so that these can be considered acceptable processing
methods.
Incineration is the process of burning solid, semi-solid, or
gaseous combustible wastes to an inoffensive gas and a
residue containing little or no combustible material. By definition,
sanitary landfill requires that on the day solid wastes are deposited,
they are compacted to a minimum volume possible and completely
covered with at least six inches of compacted earth. A true sani-
tary landfill presents no problems of vectors, vermin, visual blight,
or water pollution. No burning is permitted, and solid wastes are
city-county cooperation
Erie County, Pennsylvania
Erie County is an urban
county confronted with grow-
ing pains such as water and air
pollution and rodent infestation
resulting from blight.
Recognizing that action had
to be taken by local government
to solve these problems, the
county and its municipalities
joined together in 1966 to sur-
vey existing environmental
health conditions and recom-
mend alternative solutions.
They received demonstration
grant support from the Bureau
of Solid Waste Management.
The relationship of all environ-
mental aspects was evaluated
so that a solution to one prob-
lem would not contribute to an-
other problem. The federal and
state governments provided
some assistance for the original
study.
The study committee's basic
recommendations follow:
1. The city and county should
cooperate to provide health and
environmental health services.
2. The county should seek as-
sistance to undertake a specific
countywide soh'd wastes dis-
posal study.
3. A public information pro-
gram should be developed to
explain health conditions and
create support for a community
action program to solve health
problems.
4. The appropriate local agen-
cies should provide facilities to
be used in implementing the
recommendations.
5. A metropolitan water and
sewer authority should be es-
tablished.
6. All city and county plan-
ning activities should be coor-
dinated.
One recommendation of the
study concerning solid wastes
disposal is already well under-
way: A public information pro-
gram is bringing the solid wastes
problem to the attention of all
county residents. Television,
radio, and press have been used
to help publicize the need for
an effective solid wastes dis-
posal program; public officials
and interested citizens have ap-
peared before service clubs and
organizations such as the PTA.
Even the county fair included a
display showing films and offer-
ing materials on solid wastes.
A survey indicated that more
than 90 per cent of the persons
interviewed now want the
county to take action tc solve
the problem.
By 1968, more than 40 per
cent of the original environ-
mental health study's recom-
mendations were in some stage
of implementation.
The solid wastes management
portion of the study is currently
being upgraded to insure that
all forms of pollution control
will be considered as a solid
wastes program is developed.
The next step is a detailed pre-
liminary engineering study us-
ing the report findings and addi-
tional data to recommend alter-
native disposal methods.
-------
environmental pollution control
Los Angeles County, California
Los Angeles County is an ex-
ceptionally large county with
over 4,000 square miles and an
estimated population of seven
million people living in 79 in-
corporated cities and suburban
areas. According to the county
engineer, "The people generate
approximately 750,000 tons of
solid wastes per month. Solid
wastes are now placed in sani-
tary landfills since our air pollu-
tion regulations have eliminated
incineration of these wastes."
Prior to 1947, more than
150 unregulated open burning
dumps existed. Public demand
prompted the Board of Super-
visors to amend the County
Business License Ordinance and
the Administrative Code to per-
mit the regulation of disposal
site operations within the unin-
corporated area. By 1957, the
county Air Pollution Control
District Ordinance prohibited
burning household solid wastes
in backyard burners, forcing
government to establish a
means of disposal. In addition,
open dumps were outlawed.
Nevertheless, some illegal
dumping occurs along road-
sides. To control this, the
county sheriff has assigned the
helicopter patrol to keep the
areas where dumping has oc-
curred under surveillance until
violators are apprehended.
Col ection of solid wastes in
20 cities (including the City of
Los AngelesJ is performed by
municipal collection crews. In
the remaining 59 cities, city offi-
cials award contracts to haulers
on a competitive basis or by
giving franchises with pre-set
fee limitations. The county has
responsibility in the unincor-
porated territories, where solid
wastes are collected by private
contractors under controls set
by the county health depart-
ment and the county treasurer-
tax collector.
Of the 31 disposal sites, 21
are owned piivately, five are
municipal sites, and five are
operated by the county sanita-
tion districts (see Field Report
in Guide Number 4, Organiza-
tion). Some private sites and
all sanitation district sites are
open to the p jblic and charge
a fee for disposal. The munici-
pal sites are iot open to the
public and gensrally admit only
municipally owned collection
trucks.
In the unincorporated terri-
tory, solid washes management
is shared among several county
agencies that effectively work
together:
• THE COMBINED CITY-
COUNTY HEALTH DEPART-
MENT OF LOS ANGELES
supervises the collection pro-
grams of more than 100 pri-
vate haulers. Failure by any
hauler to maintain good serv-
ice is sufficient cause to can-
cel his license. With the help
of the depariment, eight gar-
bage dispose! service areas
have been set up to serve
one-third of tie dwelling units
in the county's unincorpo-
rated areas. People within
these districts pay for the
service on tneir annual tax
bill through an ad valorem
tax.
The health department, with
a force of 200 sanitarians,
also checks landfills and
transfer stations for basic
sanitation, insects, odors,
dust, flies, and rodents. To
protect public health, the
sanitarians can enforce all
state laws, county ordinances,
and resolutions regulating
storage, collection, and ulti-
mate disposal of solid wastes.
I THE REGIONAL PLANNING
COMMISSION exercises con-
trol over solid wastes transfer
sites and disposal sites by
permitting zoning exceptions
which set conditions and limi-
tations on the operator or
owners of the site according
to recommendations sub-
mitted by health and other
departments. These condi-
tions were formulated to es-
tablish conformance with the
master plan, and the plans,
policies, and programs of the
affected community. In gen-
eral, restrictions are set on
the landfill so that other prop-
erties are not materially dam-
aged and adequate protection
for the public is secured.
I THE DEPARTMENT OF THE
COUNTY ENGINEER is re-
sponsible for the regulation of
all privately operated sanitary
landfills in the unincorporated
area and in cities where the
city council requests the
county engineer to supervise
disposal sites. An industrial
waste disposal permit, issued
by the county engineer, is
necessary to operate any dis-
posal site. To obtain a per-
mit, the site must conform to
the specifications of the Los
Angeles Regional Water Qual-
ity Control Board and the
provisions of the Industrial
Wastes Disposal Ordinance.
The 11 facilities are regularly
inspected by industrial waste
inspectors to insure compli-
ance with permit conditions
and limitations.
-------
buried promptly. All processes are explained in detail in Guide
Number 5, Design and Operation.
Canyons, pits, or strip-mined land reclaimed through sanitary
landfilling make excellent recreational or light industrial parks.
Reclaimed land can also provide permanent green space, and with
pre-planning can be contoured to shape a golf course or baseball
field. In New York, landfills have been used to help create airport
landing fields. Santa Barbara County, California, planned a double
solid wastes use for one landfill—initially to contain solid wastes,
and when filled to capacity, to be used as the general site for a
new transfer station.
A good solid wastes management system must be coordinated
with air and water pollution controls so that the environment of
the entire area will be improved. Los Angeles County, California,
has been in the forefront in solid wastes management for many
years with a total pollution abatement program for the entire
county. Its program to improve water and air quality made it nec-
essary for the county to improve solid wastes collection and dis-
posal methods so that the control of one pollution would not cause
another.
Other counties are planning comprehensive environmental
pollution abatement programs. Among them are Erie County,
Pennsylvania, and Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (see Field
Report in Guide Number 2, Legal Authority).
Local governing board members have an obligation to see that
solid wastes are managed properly by setting and enforcing stand-
ards for good operation of a collection and disposal system. Actual
operation of the collection and disposal service may be performed
by local governments or by private enterprise operating under
franchise or contract to local governments.
what is the areawide approach?
The area to be included in a comprehensive solid wastes manage-
ment system should encompass the largest feasible geographical
area of present and predicted solid wastes generation and include
disposal sites for at least 20 years. Frequently the county is the
government unit which can best meet these requirements.
Cooperation among neighboring jurisdictions will promote
uniform enforcement throughout the area and make it much easier
to obtain federal assistance. To develop an areawide program,
county government officials should meet with cities within the
county and with neighboring jurisdictions to identify similar prob-
lems which can be solved jointly.
Advantages of areawide cooperative activity are:
1) elimination of duplication in use of consultants for initial
surveys;
2) greater flexibility in locating disposal sites;
3) more easily obtained support of local media—press, radio,
and TV;
4] greater discounts for volume orders of collection and dis-
posal equipment;
5) coordination of air and water pollution abatement activi-
ties;
6) better chance for federal assistance; and
-------
7) economies of scale in such things as administrative costs,
land acquisition, and construction costs.
Local government solid wastes management functions include
policy making, public information, and budgeting; planning and
review; drafting, adoption, and enforcement of standards; and
physical operation of the service. (See Guide Number 4, Organi-
zation for a detailed discussion.) Many types of organizational
structure may be used to perform some or all of the functions of a
solid wastes management system. The elected governing body is
responsible for assigning functions to one or more of its depart-
ments. Officials must work cooperatively with other local govern-
ments and the state to assign functions to various jurisdictions (for
example, municipal collection and county disposal). Planning the
areawide solid wastes management system, deciding how it will
operate, and determining who will operate and oversee it are the
responsibility of local elected governing board members.
General purpose government must have top priority as the
unit to oversee the operation of a solid wastes management system,
but the program should be planned areawide. The term general
purpose government includes counties, cities, and states. General
purpose governments can cooperate through interlocal agreements,
informal agreements, contracts, transfers of function, or councils
multi-county corporation
Southern West Virginia Regional Health Council
Southern West Virginia is
considered one of the most de-
pressed areas of Appalachia. In
1960, per capita annual income
for the nearly 400,000 people
averaged $1,121. Seventy-six
per cent of ihe people lived in
rural non-farm areas in "ribbon
communities," lines of homes
along a road. Health is poorer
than in any other part of Ap-
palachia. The infant mortality
rate alone is more than 3.2 per
cent, compared to less than2.2
per cent nationally. Nine coun-
ties and 44 municipalities of
southern West Virginia, at the
initiative of a local physician,
united to undertake an inten-
sive study of the region's health
problems.
To make the study and to
stimulate action for a compre-
hensive health program, the
Southern West Virginia Re-
gional Health Council was in-
corporated. The organization
consists of a "council" of com-
munity leaders and local officials
in each county, and a "regional
council" of representatives from
each county's council as well as
representatives of several state-
wide groups. The regional coun-
cil makes and enforces policy
and employs a staff to admin-
ister the operation. Each coun-
ty's council has established
standing committees on public
health, mental health, training
and manpower, dental care,
medical services, extended care,
communications, and transpor-
tation. Identified needs encom-
pass extended care facilities,
hospital and clinic staff training,
communication and transporta-
tion improvements, and wastes
management.
The council contracted with
the West Virginia Institute of
Technology Department of En-
gineering to study and investi-
gate solid wastes practices in
the nine-county area. Three
students worked full time for
90 days conducting a door-to-
door survey to determine col-
-------
of governments (see appropriate sections in this guide). Subordi-
nate taxing areas within a county are another means to plan and
provide service on an areawide basis.
All of these methods ensure that the elected official will be
responsible for policy making and comprehensive planning. This
way his policy role is not transferred to certain kinds of special
purpose governments that are not responsible to the elected rep-
resentatives of general purpose units of government.
A county is an areawide government. It can provide service to
both incorporated and unincorporated areas within its boundaries.
A county cooperating with other governments, such as a city within
the county, facilitates the establishment of efficient collection
routes and broadens the area available for the selection of dis-
posal sites. The county offers a stronger base to finance a com-
prehensive areawide solid wastes management system than do
municipalities working independently within a county. (For more
information, see Guide Number 2, Legal Authority, and Guide
Number 3, Planning.)
Broome County, New York, is a good example of planning a
countywide system to take advantage of economies of scale,
broader selection of disposal sites, and a strong financial base.
Several counties can cooperate to form and operate an area-
countywide and
multi-county programs
lection and disposal practices.
The survey indicated that most
areas had private or municipal
collection service but nowhere
in the entire nine-county region
was any satisfactory disposal
system employed. It was ob-
vious that the regional approach
to disposal was an immediate
need.
Cognizant of the survey find-
ings, geographical barriers, and
population densities, but over-
looking established political
boundaries where necessary,
the council identified 12 major
solid wastes generating centers.
Although these areas contained
onfy 40 per cent of the land
area, they encompassed 70 per
cent of the region's population.
The 12 areas were then grouped
into five primary solid wastes
generating areas, each to be
served by a sanitary landfill,
which would immediately pro-
vide service to 200,000 people,
or 50 per cent of the region's
total population.
The basic criteria for select-
ing the primary areas were:
1) no collector should have
to drive more than 10 miles
to a sanitary landfill;
2) the cost to each person for
disposal should be no
greater than $1 per person
per year (see following
paragraph); and
3) each sanitary landfill
should be large enough to
accommodate at least 15,-
000 tons per year.
The project financing is from
many sources. Through the
Governor's Office and the Health
Department the State of West
Virginia has contributed a share.
One county had a bond issue
for $25,000 which may be used
to purchase regional disposal
sites. Funds are also available
under Supplemental Grants-in-
Aid for Appalachia for pro-
grams which can become self-
sufficient in a few years. The
initial survey and investigation
was financed in part by a Bu-
reau of Solid Waste Manage-
ment demonstration grant. The
regional landfills will be set up
so that each city and county
using the facility will pay 20
per cent of the operating cost.
There will also be a fee per ton
collected at the site.
To implement the program, a
three-phase action plan has
been established: first, set up
the five sanitary landfills; sec-
ond, extend collection service
to communities which do not
presently receive service and
expand disposal service to an-
other 30 per cent of the popu-
lation by establishing transfer
facilities; third, place solid
wastes receptacles at strategic
locations in remote areas, im-
prove collection procedures and
standards, and begin an aban-
doned automobile removal pro-
gram. When phase three is
implemented, the entire nine-
county area will have 100 per
cent collection and disposal
service.
Communities in Kentucky and
Virginia near the West Virginia
border will be encouraged to
use the areawide disposal sites.
When implemented, the South-
ern West Virginia Regional
Health Council program will
totally regulate solid wastes col-
lection and disposal. This serv-
ice will be fully integrated with
all other public health programs
in the region.
-------
councils of governments
wide system. As part of a comprehensive health program, nine
West Virginia counties, with the participation of 44 municipalities,
formed the Southern West Virginia Regional Health Council, which
plans to operate five sanitary landfills.
Solid wastes problems often cross jurisdictional boundaries,
particularly in metropolitan areas. Sometimes a council of govern-
ments can help coordinate areawide solid wastes management.
For example, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Govern-
ments is a voluntary organization composed of local governments
in the Washington, D. C., metropolitan area. To gain the authority
to develop a comprehensive solid wastes management system, it
has proposed the incorporation of a nonprofit Washington Metro-
politan Waste Management Agency.
This proposed agency would operate according to prescribed
Located in south central New
York, Broome County's 734
square miles contain about
222,000 people, who are gov-
erned by 25 separate govern-
ments. In the past each of these
units—16 towns, seven unin-
corporated villages, and the
City of Binghamton—made its
own arrangements for the col-
lection and disposal of solid
wastes. The result was more
than 17 disposal sites, including
everything from burning dumps
to incinerators and landfills.
In 1966, after preliminary
studies and discussion, the
Broome County Board of Super-
visors decided that a county-
wide disposal system was nec-
essary to meet the health and
economic needs of the commu-
nity. Accordingly, it proposed
an areawide (countywidej sys-
tem by which the county would
assume responsibility for the
disposal of all solid wastes and
the towns and villages would
be responsible for collection of
solid wastes within their juris-
dictions. Such a multi-jurisdic-
tional areawide approach to
solid wastes collection and dis-
posal had never before been at-
tempted by a New York county.
The county then applied to
the Bureau of Solid Waste Man-
agement for a solid waste dis-
posal demonstration project
grant. Broome County, how-
ever, did not wait for federal
response to its application to
move toward countywide dis-
posal. It had already financed
a 1965 report on solid wastes
disposal prepared by the county
Planning Board and the Health
Department and in 1966, the
county authorized $25,000 to
initiate the countywide project.
A $42,000 Bureau of Solid
Waste Management grant was
used to conduct a technical
study and an extensive public
information program to help
stimulate support for and ac-
ceptance by all 24 government
units of a countywide solid
wastes disposal program. (See
second Broome County Field
Report in Guide Number 8, Citi-
zen Support.)
In addition, county supervi-
sors, the planning director, and
the director of environmental
health services met with offi-
cials from the Jowns, villages,
and City of Binghamton to ex-
plain the need for the county-
wide disposal system. Part 19
of the New York State Sanitary
Code, which prohibits open or
burning dumps, was empha-
sized. It was apparent that
many of the 24 governmental
units could not afford adequate
countywide approach
Broome County, New York
disposal programs of their own.
These were the county's argu-
ments for a countywide system.
The arguments for sanitary land-
fill in Broome County were its
economic feasibility over incin-
eration and composting, its
health advantages over open
burning and dumping, and its
benefits in land reclamation.
Broome County officials plan to
begin the disposal system with
three landfill sites.
County officials emphasized
that they were not proposing
a county takeover of collection;
each unit of government could
continue to contract for private
collection or to use municipal
collection. County regulation of
collection would be the mini-
mum necessary to ensure a
good landfill program. Broome
County was seeking a coopera-
tive countywide system, not a
power grab, and it said so. Most
residents and officials were and
are willing to accept sanitary
landfill, with a provision—"not
in my backyard." This attitude
has been a continuing problem
in Broome County.
The county board views solid
wastes disposal as a responsi-
bility it must assume as the only
government unit large enough
to finance and operate an effi-
cient, continuing program.
10
-------
bylaws. The agency's proposed statement of principles and poli-
cies reads as follows:
The underlying concept of the Washington Metro-
politan Waste Management Agency (hereinafter called
"Agency") is to provide a vehicle for the local govern-
ments to plan, program, and administer necessary metro-
politan wide activities for the treatment, utilization, and
disposal of liquid and solid waste in the metropolitan
area.
The Agency shall carry out its planning, program-
ming, and operations in a manner which is supplementary
to the efforts of the local governments in the treatment,
utilization, and disposal of liquid and solid waste. Its
activities shall be complementary to, not competitive
with, the waste disposal activities of the local govern-
ments in the Washington Metropolitan area.
Operational activities of the Agency within the terri-
torial boundaries of any local government within the
Washington Metropolitan Area shall be carried on only
after the Agency has consulted and obtained approval for
such operations from the governing body of the local
government.
Councils of governments (COG's) can stimulate local officials
to think in broad terms of mutual problem areas, and can encourage
jurisdictions to effect a mutually complementary system for solid
wastes management. The areawide COG can also develop model
legislation and standards for the member bodies to adopt.
The term special district means an agency of government special districts
which operates outside the regular structure of government to per- attj authorities
form usually a single function and which relies for financial sup-
port primarily on special tax levies. The term public authority
means an agency of government which operates outside the regu-
lar structure of government to perform usually a single function
and which relies for financial support primarily on its own issues
of revenue bonds, which are to be amortized with interest by user
charges. Both of these types of special governments are distinct
from the county-subordinate taxing area, which is a creation of
the county government to provide specific improvements or serv-
ices within a defined area. It is responsible to the county govern-
ment and serves a portion rather than all of the county; within
that area it usually levies a tax on the assessed value of the
property to pay for such improvements or services.
Sometimes special purpose authorities are created to handle
new programs because special authorities can be set up to encom-
pass the geographical problem area and to focus on one particular
problem. Their creation requires the cooperation of the state and
the political entities already existing within the region. To imple-
ment a successful program, the special purpose authority must
continue to be responsive to local needs and to cooperate with
local jurisdictions.
Local government officials should appraise what the impact
would be if a special district or public authority were established
in their community. Local governments can seldom solve their
solid wastes problem by divesting themselves of essential re-
sponsibilities and assigning them to autonomous units operating
11
-------
intra-county action
Lower Passaic Valley Solid Wastes Management Authority,
New Jersey
In the Passaic River Valley
in the lower half of Passaic
County, the four municipalities
of Paterson, Clifton, Passaic,
and Wayne have a combined
population of nearly 350,000,
greater than half of the coun-
ty's total population. In recent
years most area solid wastes
have been put in landfills in the
Jersey lowlands, but these land-
fills are nearly full and will
soon be closed. The notice of
the closing of the disposal sites
which served the four cities
forced each city to find an al-
ternative. The municipal gov-
ernments decided to discuss to-
gether ways of disposing of
their wastes (industrial, resi-
dential, and commercial) on a
cooperative basis.
The mayors of the four cities,
serving as an ad hoc commit-
tee, developed an action pro-
gram. With federal funds, the
I960 solid wastes study for the
area was updated. The goals
the committee identified were
(immediate priority] to find a
legal pathway to permit the
four cities to operate the pro-
gram together and to develop
the most technically efficient,
least expensive method of treat-
ing and disposing of all solid
wastes generated in the region;
and (long-range goal] to show
that a quad cities' area program
could be expanded to serve all
urban areas of Passaic County.
To achieve and implement
these goals, the cities recom-
mended and the state legislature
established in 1968 the Lower
Passaic Valley Solid Wastes
Management Authority. The au-
thority, established as a taxable
unit and given power to issue
bonds, has applied for a federal
Bureau of Solid Waste Manage-
ment demonstration grant.
Some basic problems remain.
Only one site has been selected
and each of the four cities has
the right to veto any part of the
project, including site locations.
However, in anticipation of tax
revenues, city opposition is not
expected to be great. In fact, in
one city, two council members
have appeared at public hear-
ings to urge location of the dis-
posal site in their city.
across the boundaries of city and county governments. One county
official stated, "Special districts are one additional plateau re-
moved from the electorate and experience dictates that they are
less responsible and less resolute on problem solving than directly
elected entities." Responsibility for the management of solid
wastes is a logical extension of the traditional powers of general
purpose government.
In some instances, special purpose governments must be used
because of state restrictions or because no other governmental unit
is possible. In such cases, the special district is preferable to the
public authority because the district embraces a distinct constitu-
ency, not merely a group of bondholders almost all of whom live
elsewhere. If, however, there is a need to overlap state lines, the
public authority is probably the most practicable device. (See
Guide Number 3, Planning, Tocks Island Field Report, for discus-
sion of an interstate compact.)
If a special district or public authority is used, the overall
planning function of the general purpose governments can be pro-
tected by having elected county officials within which the area
falls serve as the governing body of the new unit of government.
12
-------
The following is the National Association of Counties policy
statement on special districts as presented in The American County
Platform, Section 1.8:
The growth of special districts since World War II
has been largely in response to the demands of the people
for certain types of governmental services. Despite the
fact that the special district device has often proved re-
sponsive to the needs of the people, its creation has
caused numerous problems to counties and other units
of general local government. In 1962, the Bureau of the
Census reported 18,323 special districts in the United
States, an increase of almost 50 per cent over the 1952
figure. Counties are urged to exercise their full powers
granted by state law to provide all governmental services
desired by their people in order to minimize the resort
to special districts.
NACO strongly recommends that special districts and special au-
thorities not be created unless it is totally impossible to work
cooperatively through the existing units of general purpose gov-
ernments—the counties and cities within the area. If special
districts or special authorities already exist in the area, rather than
create a new special purpose government it would be better to
work through an existing district or authority. If the elected gov-
erning bodies of existing units of general purpose government
decide to create a special authority, they should make the authority
directly responsible to themselves. (For more information see
bibliography.)
To date, the role of most states in areawide solid wastes man- state action
agement has been limited to planning and technical assistance.
No states actually operate a comprehensive statewide system,
although state departments of local government, health, highways,
and natural resources have been concerned with solid wastes in
various ways. State government is the logical unit to evaluate
current practices and stimulate local action. Local government
should take advantage of the information and assistance available
from state agencies.
The following is a list of solid wastes management activities
that states are involved in today (however, not all states are doing
all of these things]:
1) surveying existing practices;
2] determining immediate and long-range needs;
3) setting and enforcing minimum standards and establishing
guidelines;
4) coordinating air, land, and water pollution abatement pro-
grams and planning activities;
5) providing technical and financial assistance to local gov-
ernment (see Guide Number 7, Technical and Financial
Assistance);
6) encouraging local jurisdictions to cooperate within the state
and in neighboring states;
7] providing a continuing public education program on solid
wastes management;
8) providing enabling legislation (see Guide Number 2, Legal
Authority].
13
-------
techniques of intergovernmental cooperation
Various types of intergovernmental agreements and contracts are
used by cities and counties to establish areawide solid wastes pro-
grams. Three frequently used methods are contracting between
units of government, joint management, and transfer of function.
Even though early discussions between elected officials may be
on an informal basis, local governing board members should re-
quire that an intergovernmental agreement be written and agreed
to by all parties. In this discussion, contract for services refers
only to contracts between government units. Contracts between
government and private industry are discussed in Guide Number 2,
Legal Authority, and Guide Number 4, Organization.
formal and
informal agreements
Governmental agreements can be made on a formal or infor-
mal basis. An example of a county's using a formal agreement
with another government unit is Klamath County, Oregon, which
has a written agreement with the City of Chiloquin, Oregon, to
provide collection and disposal of all automobiles abandoned
within the city (see Field Report in Guide Number 5, Design and
Operation].
Informal agreements are not advisable since they can lead to
misunderstanding. In a Midwest community, a county agreed to
use a city's landfill and pay the city 20 per cent of the operating
costs. The cost was based on the percentage of solid wastes the
county contributed to the total amount placed in the disposal site.
It is now necessary to purchase a new site. The city wants the
county to pay 50 per cent of the acquisition cost of the new site.
Since the county did not contribute to the initial site purchase, it
is reluctant to contribute now. If the initial agreement had been
adequately detailed and written, this disagreement could have
been avoided.
contract,
joint management,
and transfer of function
In A Handbook for Interlocal Agreements and Contracts, the
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations states:
Agreements and contracts are without a doubt the
most widely used formal method of cooperation among
governments in the United States and present a flexible,
yet predictable and enforceable method of adaption
among governmental jurisdictions. . . . They can be used
to accommodate program needs to desirable service areas
without affecting basic structure or organization. Conse-
quently, needed services can be provided and necessary
projects undertaken without waiting for long-range gov-
ermental reorganization decisions which ultimately may
be necessary. The ideal organizational pattern may well
be politically unfeasible.
Some or all aspects of a solid wastes management system
may be performed jointly. The Southern West Virginia Regional
Health Council Field Report is an example of how local govern-
ments and community leaders are planning and implementing an
areawide solid wastes disposal program.
The use of a contract for service between cities and counties
is sometimes referred to as the Lakewood Plan. This method is not
14
-------
in widespread use for solid wastes management, but may help
local governments gain economies of scale.
A transfer of function occurs when one level of government
is delegated responsibility for a function that another level of
government or jurisdiction had. For example, in Broome County,
New York, most of the cities and towns have agreed to transfer
the function of solid wastes disposal to the county. Due to popu-
lation expansion in Montgomery County, the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania reclassified it as a third-class county, which made
the county responsible for solid wastes management in all parts
of the county. A Montgomery County solid wastes disposal sys-
tem will soon be operational.
transfer of function
Seattle-King County, Washington
In Seattle-King County, Wash-
ington, health is one of four
functions administered by a
consolidated department. In the
past, the Seattle Health Depart-
ment not only set and enforced
standards but also operated the
Seattle garbage collection and
disposal program.
As the economic expansion
of the Seattle area required
more and better government
services, garbage disposal op-
erations for the city were trans-
ferred from the health depart-
ment in the early 1940's to the
city engineering department and
in 1961 became a garbage util-
ity, a section of the Seattle En-
gineering Department. In a 1966
report, utility functions were
concisely identified:
The utility is responsible
for the collection and dis-
posal of all garbage from
all residential premises and
for the disposal of all gar-
bage, rubbish, and trash
from whatever source with-
in the city. The utility is
financed by monthly gar-
bage collection and disposal
charges to residents and
disposal charges for all
commercial dumping. The
capital investment and an-
nual operating costs of the
city's long-haul transfer
disposal system is financed
by these charges.
The city collects from private
residences for $2 per month, a
charge billed jointly with water
and sewer. Most commercial
solid wastes other than garbage
is collected by a private scaven-
ger who operated long before
the city program was initiated.
City solid wastes may be
brought to either city transfer
station for compaction and dis-
posal. Collection companies are
billed by solid wastes tonnage;
city residents in private vehi-
cles are admitted free.
About the same time city
population began to expand,
suburbanization was affecting
county development. In 1959,
the King County Department of
Sanitary Operations assumed
the solid wastes disposal func-
tion, which had previously been
under the health department.
The county initiated a program
to replace its 11 widely scat-
tered disposal sites and those
of several incorporated cities
of the county, a few of which
were open dumps, with a series
of transfer stations (it began
with three, now has seven, and
plans two more for 1969-70) and
one 920-acre disposal site for
sanitary landfill with a back-up
site of 520 acres for future use.
In addition, assisted by a Bu-
reau of Solid Waste Manage-
ment grant, the county has
sponsored the development of
new mechanical designs for
equipment especially adapted to
transfer and sanitary landfill
operations.
The county is not involved in
solid wastes collection, since
collection regulation in unincor-
porated areas is administered
by a state agency, the Wash-
ington Utilities and Transpor-
tation Commission, which has a
regional office in Seattle. Col-
lection routes are established
by the awarding of state con-
tracts to private firms.
The Seattle-King County
Health Department has ex-
panded environmental health
operations and strengthened
solid wastes management en-
forcement. Health officers reg-
ularly inspect city, county, and
private disposal sites. As part
of an aggressive vector and ver-
min abatement program, all
solid wastes producers are now
required to store solid wastes
in metal containers with tight-
fitting lids. In addition, an ac-
tive air pollution control pro-
gram is underway to eliminate
open burning; the program is
well coordinated with the solid
wastes control program.
Recently, the Seattle landfills
have become inadequate to han-
dle the increasing municipal
solid wastes, so King County
has agreed to permit landfilUng
of city solid wastes at the
county site until the city's new
site is ready for use. City trans-
fer vehicles bring solid wastes
from the station to the fill, and
county machinery is used to
compact and cover the material.
15
-------
selected
bibliography
The American County Platform, National
Association of Counties, August 3,
1967.
Community Action Program for Air Pol-
lution Control, National Association of
Counties Research Foundation, 1966.
Community Action Program for Water
Pollution Control, National Associa-
tion of Counties Research Foundation,
revised 1967.
Guide to County Organization and Man-
agement, National Association of Coun-
ties, 1968. Price: $7.
A Handbook for Interlocal Agreements
and Contracts, U.S. Advisory Com-
mission on Intergovernmental Rela-
tions, U.S. Government Printing Office,
March, 1967.
Prindle, Richard A., Address to Environ-
mental Solid Waste Orientation Semi-
nar, Kentucky, January 18, 1967.
Smith, Robert G., Public Authorities,
Special Districts and Local Govern-
ment, National Association of Coun-
ties, 1964. Price: $3.
Sorg, Thomas J., and Hickman, H. La-
nier, Jr., Sanitary Landfill Facts, U.S.
Public Health Service Solid Wastes
Program Publication Number 1792,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968.
Price: $.35.
summary
Assistant Surgeon General Richard Prindle in his speech cited
earlier summed up the problem of pollution:
In our one world of pollution, there is one overriding
need. This is the need for taking action and making
decisions now to insure that there shall be no time of
final pollution of the land by solid wastes. The open
dump, the haphazardly operated landfill, and the obsolete
incinerator must go. And we do not have to postpone
their replacement until the scientists and engineers have
completed their research and demonstrations of new
technology. Landfilling procedures and incineration tech-
niques are available now for the mass reduction of wastes
with no or negligible pollution.
Public officials have a direct responsibility to prevent pol-
lution. To do this well, a comprehensive solid wastes manage-
ment system is necessary. In determining the unit of government
best able to plan and administer a solid wastes system, two fac-
tors are important: 1) the unit of government administering the
system should have authority over the geographical solid wastes
production and disposal area; 2) it should have sufficient poli-
tical power to effect a good program. Frequently, the county is
the government unit which can meet these requirements. Where
a single county is not large enough to solve the area solid wastes
management problem, the multi-county approach may be best.
In some large metropolitan areas where solid wastes problems
cross jurisdictional boundaries, councils of governments may offer
an excellent vehicle to stimulate local officials to think in broad
terms of mutual problem areas and to encourage jurisdictions to
effect a mutually complementary system for solid wastes
management.
Sometimes special purpose governments must be used because
of state restrictions or because no other unit of government is
possible. In such cases the district is preferred to the public
authority because the district embraces a distinct constituency,
not merely a group of absentee bondholders. If a special purpose
government must be used, it is better to work through existing
special purpose governments than to create new ones. Techniques
by which jurisdictions can cooperate are contract for service,
joint solid wastes management, and transfer of function. Through
these techniques, local governments can take advantage of econo-
mies of scale to implement an areawide solid wastes management
system.
16
-------
2 legal authority
-------
introduction
legal
authority
Special regulations are usually needed
to control large, bulky items such
as the refrigerator stuffed with matting
above. The attached door makes
this item an even greater hazard for
wandering, curious children.
Because of our nation's prosperity, local governments should be
able to expand to meet the public's increasing demand for public
service. However, they have not always done so. In areas such
as sanitation, much needs to be done. Local and state officials
must require that minimum statewide sanitary levels be enforced
to protect health. Elected local officials must become increasingly
concerned with their community's discarded wastes to prevent air,
water, and land pollution.
The need for legal control of all types of pollutants, including
solid wastes, is apparent. Legal authority from state legislatures
is required to overcome present local and state inadequacies. The
director of the Bureau of Solid Waste Management, Richard
Vaughan, in a talk to the Fourth Annual Refuse Equipment Show
and Congress, 1968, sponsored by the National Solid Wastes Man-
agement Association, pointed out:
Lack of acceptance of solid wastes management as
a legitimate community function has hampered progress
in many areas. Communities which are jurisdictionally
autonomous . . . often do not cooperate or work together
for common solutions which are in the best interests of
all concerned.
legal authority for state action
Since the passage of the federal Solid Wastes Disposal Act (P.L.
89-272) in October, 1965, most states have begun statewide com-
prehensive planning for solid wastes management by surveying
local disposal practices and developing solid wastes disposal plans
(see Guide Number 3, Planning).
As of 1968, several states had enacted solid wastes statutes.
One major shortcoming of most existing state solid wastes statutes
is their fragmentation. Often, aspects of solid wastes management
such as storage, collection, transportation, processing, and disposal
are treated under various legislative headings. Frequently, author-
ity is delegated to several state regulatory agencies with no clear
indication of the responsibility of each agency.
State legislation is needed to correct existing inadequacies
and provide authority for the designated state agency or agencies
to undertake the following activities:
1) provide for the planning and regulation of solid wastes stor-
age, collection, transportation, processing, and disposal systems;
2) require each political subdivision to submit an areawide
18
-------
plan for a solid wastes management system for its jurisdictions or
in cooperation with other jurisdictions;
3) provide technical and financial assistance to political sub-
divisions;
4) require its approval before a system can go into operation;
5) impose requirements on political subdivisions;
6) adopt rules, regulations, minimum standards, and proce-
dures (such as prohibition of open burning dumps and open
dumps);
7) create a representative advisory committee; and
8) provide remedies and prescribe penalties.
Technical and financial assistance from federal, state, and
private sources is discussed in Guide Number 7, Technical and
Financial Assistance.
State enabling legislation should contain a policy statement
on solid wastes. For example, the Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS
211:703) state:
It is hereby declared to be the policy of this Com-
monwealth ... to provide for the disposal of solid wastes
in a manner that will protect the public health and wel-
fare, prevent the spread of disease and creation of nui-
sances, conserve our natural resources, and enhance the
beauty and quality of our environment.
State solid wastes enabling legislation should include broad,
carefully worded definitions. The definition of "solid wastes"
should be broad enough to include garbage, refuse, and other dis-
broad policy
necessary
Only strong regulations can prevent the
disposal of demolition materials like
those shown above through a raging fire.
States are now beginning to enact Jaws
prohibiting all open, burning dumps.
19
-------
carded solid materials, including solid wastes materials resulting
from industrial, commercial, and agricultural operations, and from
community activities. The definition should not include solids or
dissolved material in domestic sewage or other significant pol-
lutants in water resources, such as silt, dissolved or suspended
solids in industrial wastewater effluents, dissolved materials in irri-
gation return flows or other common water pollutants.
authorize
state planning
set minimum
statewide standards
Since an essential element of an effective solid wastes program
is thorough planning, the legislation should authorize the state
agency concerned to develop, prepare, and adopt a state plan for
the management of solid wastes. The agency should be authorized
to enlist the cooperation of local governments.
The state law should assure proper and effective solid wastes
management consistent with the protection of the public health.
It should also take into consideration such related factors as popu-
lation growth, urban and metropolitan development, land use
planning, the control of air and water pollution, and the economic
and technological advantages of areawide disposal programs. The
legislation should be broad enough to permit the use of new meth-
ods and technologies, including recycling.
A reasonable time limit should be set by law for the conclusion
of the survey and the formation of the state solid wastes manage-
ment plan. Procedure for adoption of the plan should be provided
by statute; the advisability of providing for public hearings as
part of this procedure should also be considered. The statute
should further provide that upon adoption of the state plan, any
disposal of solid wastes not in conformity with the plan is a viola-
tion of the law. The act should prohibit open burning of solid
wastes and the operation of open dumps. Where these methods
are in use, a brief period of transition may be permitted. Adequate
sanctions to insure compliance should be provided. In addition,
the enforcement agency should be expressly authorized to sue for
injunctive relief. The act should confer upon the agency con-
cerned the requisite administrative powers, including the right of
inspection.
The legislation which authorizes a statewide solid wastes
management program should specifically designate an agency to
be responsible for the administration of the program. The legis-
lature should direct the state agency to establish minimum state-
wide standards and require local authorities to adopt the same or
more stringent standards, consistent with the state plan. Definite
minimum statewide standards will tend to lessen conflicts between
local jurisdictions.
In 1965, Illinois passed a state solid wastes law (111. Revised
Statutes, 1967, Chap. 111.5, Sec. 471-476) requiring registration and
regulation of all disposal sites; this act is also applicable to all
local governments and private enterprises, and establishes mini-
mum standards for the location, design, construction, operation,
and maintenance of solid wastes disposal sites. If any person, as
defined by this law, fails to comply or violates state minimum solid
wastes regulations, the state attorney general can seek injunctive
relief against the offending party.
The legislature may want to authorize solid wastes manage-
20
-------
ment disposal districts, or the use of existing districts. The area-
wide approach to solving the solid wastes problems of rural and
urban areas requires cooperation among cities, counties, and states.
Therefore, these units of general purpose government should be
authorized to enter into agreements and contracts with other gov-
ernment subdivisions, whether within or outside of the state, for
the joint management of solid wastes.
Legislation should provide that every intergovernmental
agreement for solid wastes management be submitted to the state
an interlocal agreement
Maryville, Alcoa, and Blount County, Tennessee
Through its Interlocal Co-
operation Act, Tennessee per-
mits local government units to
enter into interlocal agreements
and contracts to provide serv-
ices and facilities more effi-
ciently (Tennessee Code Anno-
tated, 12-801 through 19-809}.
In July, 1951, the City of Mary-
ville and Blount County entered
an agreement to operate jointly
a sanitary landfill. The agree-
ment took place because a
county study pointed out the
great need for a sanitary dis-
posal area. In September, 1962,
the City of Alcoa joined this
cooperative landfill agreement.
Blount County, part of the
Knoxville metropolitan area,
provides disposal service to
about 42,000 residents.
The 1962 three-party agree-
ment, which with minor modi-
fications has been continued
yearly, may be terminated by
any of the parties upon six
months' written notice. (See
Advisory Commission on Inter-
governmental Relations, Inter-
local Agreements and Contracts,
1967, pp. 166-168, for the com-
plete text of the 1962 legal
agreement.)
The joint program operates
as follows:
• Maryville is in charge of
the operation of the cooperative
landfill site (under the director
of public works), furnishing all
personnel, supervision, and
other arrangements to conduct
the disposal project.
• Operational expenses are
divided among the three parties
on a 40-30-30 per cent basis
(the county pays the larger per-
centage). Maryville pays all
salaries and wages and makes
landfill site improvements, bill-
ing the other two jurisdictions
for their portion monthly.
• Operating through its high-
way department, the county
builds and constructs necessary
access roads to the disposal
site.
• None of the parties is obli-
gated to collect the garbage of
residents living outside the cor-
porate limits of the two cities,
but these citizens or their agents
may bring garbage to the site
during normal working hours
(no dump fees are charged pri-
vate citizens or local contrac-
tors).
• Parties of the agreement
are jointly responsible for the
selection of any new landfill
sites.
Maryville's public works di-
rector, the city manager of
Alcoa, and the county judge
were asked to cite advantages
of the cooperative arrangement
as it presently operates. Some
of the more important of those
named are summarized as fol-
lows :
1. Financial. Such a joint
endeavor is much more eco-
nomical than three separately
operated landfills. Excluding
original capital outlay, it is esti-
mated that individual opera-
tions would cost each govern-
ment at least one-third more.
This advantage can be greatly
enhanced if a convenient site,
within reasonable traveling dis-
tance from areas being served,
can be located and/or donated
by one of the parties to the
agreement.
2. Administrative. Operation
of a single landfill relieves three
jurisdictions of supervision
(and its commensurate prob-
lems, headaches, and com-
plaints) that one governmental
body can handle. Control
should be centralized in the
hands of one person, as it is
with the Maryville public works
director, to insure responsibility
and prevent unpleasant dis-
agreements and interference.
3. Expanded Service. It en-
ables some government juris-
dictions within a community to
provide solid wastes disposal
services which they might not
otherwise be able to provide.
4. Promotion of Cooperation.
This joint undertaking has
brought municipal and county
officials together, prompting
them to think, discuss, and
work together toward solution
of a multitude of governmental
and service problems. For ex-
ample, Maryville and Alcoa are
now seriously considering elim-
ination of their planning com-
mission and combining their
efforts with the county through
a county planning commission.
21
-------
This pleasant, shaded field has been
destroyed by a sprawling mass of abandoned
j'unJted autos. Their dispose] is a
special problem, often requiring state
legislation to enable their control.
agency for approval, conditioned upon the agency's determining
that such agreement conforms to the state plan.
The legislature may want to establish a branch within the state
agency to conduct research, demonstrate new processes, help solve
specific problems, and assist local governments. It should also
consider authorizing state financial aid to local governments for
capital investment in, and partial operating expenses of, local solid
wastes programs.
Additional areas in which the legislature may want to act
include instituting a permit system for control of waste processing
sites, and requiring community developers to establish satisfactory
arrangements for the management of solid wastes.
Where extensive solid wastes legislation has not been enacted
and is not being considered, it may be necessary, as a first step,
to enact a limited measure requiring a specific state agency to
conduct a comprehensive statewide study or survey of solid wastes
problems and practices. The findings of such a study or survey
could later provide the basis for a more comprehensive state law.
(For an example of a comprehensive state solid wastes man-
agement law, see Pennsylvania Solid Waste Management Act,
Appendix A.)
legal authority for local action
The legal basis for local governments to control solid wastes is
state enabling law. Without this enabling authority, local govern-
ments cannot acquire land, develop facilities, or spend public
funds to regulate and control solid wastes. In some states, local
governments are permitted to exercise their general police power
to protect public health by regulating storage, collection, and dis-
posal of solid wastes. To insure that local governments have the
necessary power to control solid wastes, state legislatures should
pass broad enabling legislation to allow all political subdivisions
to manage solid wastes in coordination with other environmental
protection programs.
State laws authorizing the organization of areawide solid
22
-------
wastes management systems should be permissive, not mandatory.
Local governments should have the legal authority to:
1) establish an areawide solid wastes management system;
2) adopt requirements concerning storage, transportation,
processing and disposal of solid wastes, including aban-
doned automobiles, industrial and agricultural solid wastes;
3) establish a separate department, if necessary, to regulate
and/or operate solid wastes management systems;
4) contract with counties, municipal corporations, individuals,
or private corporations; grant franchises for collection and
disposal services;
5) acquire land, by eminent domain if necessary, for solid
wastes facilities;
6) abate nuisances caused by the improper handling of solid
wastes;
7) finance a solid wastes management system by:
• collecting taxes and special charges
• issuing general obligation and revenue bonds
• refunding bonds for lower interest rates
• issuing liens against property for delinquent taxes or
charges
• increasing or eliminating debt limitations for inciner-
ators, sanitary landfills, transfer stations, and compost
plant bonds
• exempting from debt limit, revenue bonds secured by
service charges
• accepting grants-in-aid
• licensing private solid wastes operators and using the
license fees to offset the cost of operating a disposal
system
• collecting service charges against tax exempt property
• establishing a county subordinate tax area as an alterna-
tive to a special district or a public authority.
Chemung County, New York, under the New York State
County Law, established a county refuse agency involving a co-
operative approach among cities and the county.
If counties have the necessary authority to operate a solid
wastes system, then the county governing body should act to re-
quire that the county engineer, public works department, or other
department, manage the collection and disposal of solid wastes.
(For more information, see Guide Number 4, Organization.]
By early 1968, approximately 36 counties in the United States
were operating under home rule charters, but all home rule
counties and cities do not have the authority needed to operate
a solid wastes management system. In some cases, charters of
home rule jurisdictions do not mention whether or not the juris-
diction may enact local laws to regulate and operate solid wastes
systems. All local governments, including those operating under a
charter, should be permitted to manage solid wastes.
Charter counties in Maryland are expressly authorized by the
Annotated Code of Maryland, 1957 [Art. 25A, Sec. 5(T)] to enact
local laws relating to solid wastes:
To enact local laws enabling the county council to adopt
from time to time, after reasonable notice and oppor-
tunity for public hearing and/or without modifications,
Local regulation must extend to collection,
whether public or private, and even to
the containers homeowners use to set out
solid wastes. The cans shown here make
collection more costly, difficult, and
hazardous to collectors. And they hardly
add to the beautification of the community.
charters
23
-------
using existing legal authority for planning
Chemung County, New York
Chemung County is located
on the New York-Pennsylvania
state border. In 1968, its popu-
lation was approximately 105,-
000, the majority located in the
Elmira urban area.
In April, 1966, the Board of
Supervisors passed a resolu-
tion establishing a Chemung
County Re/use Agency pursu-
ant to Article 5A, Section 252
of the New York State County
Law, which reads:
The agency as empowered
by the Board of Supervisors
may assemble data relating
to the problems of the col-
lection and disposal of gar-
bage, ashes, rubbish and
other waste made within
the county and the elimina-
tion or alleviation of such
problems and the possi-
bility of developing and
utilizing existing facilities
to make them available to
the several municipalities
and other political subdi-
visions within the county.
The nine citizen members of
the refuse agency are appointed
by the Board of Supervisors
upon recommendation of its
chairman.
In 1967, the refuse agency
purchased 200 acres of poten-
tially useful land for a sanitary
landfill through the county's
1967 Capital Project and re-
ceived $100,000 from this ac-
count in 1968. In March, 1968,
the agency earmarked $10,000
for initial legal and engineer-
ing surveys. The legal survey
was made to determine whether
the existing refuse agency could
become operational. If the
refuse agency becomes opera-
tional, it is expected to be simi-
lar to the present part-county
sewer district, which is part of
the county government.
During 1968, the refuse
agency worked to establish an
effective relationship with the
ten-member Chemung County
Council of Governments. Both
groups have recommended the
areawide approach to solid
wastes management.
ordinances
ordinances and amendments thereof for the protection
and promotion of public safety, health, morals, comfort
and welfare, related to any of the following: . . . the dis-
posal of wastes. . . .
Home rule charters have assigned solid wastes functions to
the following departments: health, public works, county engineer,
or a separate solid wastes department. For example, the charter
of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson
County, Tennessee [Art. 8, Chap. 4, Sec. 2(b)], gives the Depart-
ment of Public Works responsibility for "the collection and dis-
posal of garbage and other refuse, and maintenance and operation
of facilities for the disposal of same." Collection and disposal are
conducted within an "urban service district" where services are
financed at a higher tax rate than in the "general service district."
For further information, see Guide Number 1, Areawide Ap-
proaches and the Field Report in Guide Number 4, Organization.
In many instances, ordinances have been adopted by local
governments under state nuisance or air and water pollution con-
trol laws, which are indirectly concerned with solid wastes dis-
posal. Such limited state enabling authority is generally inadequate
24
-------
for local government solid wastes management programs. More-
over, local governments can perform only those functions assigned
to them by state enabling legislation, and by long tradition, state
courts tend to interpret local powers narrowly. Local officials must
acquire specific authority from their state legislatures to enact local
ordinances, resolutions, rules, and regulations relating to the man-
agement of solid wastes.
Most local "solid wastes" or refuse ordinances are similar to
state laws; that is, they are fragmented and negative, lacking in
proper definitions of solid wastes. Far too many ordinances define
each type of solid wastes instead of providing an overall definition.
An ordinance definition of solid wastes should be similar to the
one used at the beginning of Guide Number 1.
The ordinance should be conceptual in scope and direct the
assigned local agency to work with the state agency in preparing
local procedures, rules, and regulations relating to the storage,
collection, transportation, processing, recycling, and disposal of
solid wastes. It should also prohibit open dumps and open burning
and assign a local agency the responsibility of establishing rules
and regulations. Far too many local ordinances are actually spe-
cific rules and regulations relating to one aspect of solid wastes
management. Writing specifics into solid wastes ordinances is not
encouraged because the technology of handling solid wastes is
rapidly changing and methods enshrined in ordinances may soon
become obsolete and prove costly in light of newer methods that
could be implemented. Rules, regulations, and procedures adopted
by a responsible local agency can be changed more quickly than
can local ordinances.
In short, ordinances should be conceptual in purpose, flexible
in methods, positive in direction, and prohibitive of any type of
air, water, or land pollution. In drafting a comprehensive solid
wastes ordinance, the local attorney should work with the state
solid wastes agency. A suggested outline of a comprehensive solid
wastes ordinance is given in Appendix B.
Standards, Rules, and Regulations. The ordinance must direct
the local department to incorporate the minimum state standards
but it should allow more stringent standards if these are more
appropriate to solve local problems. Rules and regulations are
generally drawn up by the local agency assigned to carry out the
intent of the local ordinance.
All the elements pertaining to solid wastes management, such
as storage, collection, transportation, processing, recycling, rec-
lamation, and final disposal should be covered by rules and regu-
lations. For example, solid wastes should be stored in closed
containers, but different container standards can be established
for residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural areas. This
could mean that the homeowner's "garbage can" should be a 30-
gallon, tapered container with two handles and a tight cover; regu-
lations should prohibit the unmanageable 55-gallon barrel drum.
Backed by a comprehensive solid wastes management ordi-
nance, the responsible local department should issue licenses and
permits to regulate private solid wastes operators in the interests
of the community. County health departments which issue permits
when regulations are met, can also revoke the permit if these
regulations are violated. The Los Angeles County engineer and
the county health officer will revoke any permit covering a private
Local rules and regulations must extend
to private collection vehicles like
the one shown above. Otherwise, open
pickups or other inadequate vehicles
may litter the county's roads.
25
-------
Special collection and disposal
arrangements need to be made for chemical
and other noxious wastes. The crude
chemical wastes being spread over other
solid wastes here could cause fire,
explosion, or gases when united with them.
disposal site or collection vehicle if the site or collection truck is
not operated according to regulations established by either de-
partment.
Regulations should restrict various undesirable practices.
Citizens should be required to remove accumulated rubble, waste,
and junk autos from their property. As an example, a Los Angeles
County Health Department sanitarian can get a court order to
compel a recalcitrant homeowner to clean up his property, or the
county will do it and send the owner a bill.
Scavenging should be restricted to prevent interference with
collection and disposal operations. Generally, individual scaveng-
ing tends to slow the overall operation of the system.
The feeding of garbage to hogs must be carefully controlled.
Most commercial and residential garbage that is fed to swine is
not adequately cooked; therefore, there is danger of transmitting
trichinosis to man.
Motor vehicle junkyards must also be regulated and legiti-
mate ways of disposing of motor vehicles established. One of the
greatest impediments to abandoned automobile disposal is the legal
requirement that title be obtained. This problem can be alleviated
by shortening the time period needed for a title search. (See Guide
legal control in unincorporated areas
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
In 1958, the Mecklenburg
County, N. C., Health Depart-
ment passed regulations gov-
erning the storage, collection,
transportation, and disposal of
"garbage and refuse" under
authority granted by Section 17,
Chapter 130 of the General Stat-
utes of North Carolina. These
regulations, applicable only to
unincorporated areas of the
county, cover four major sub-
jects: (!) the type of containers
in which garbage should be
placed; [2] sanitation standards
for equipment used in the col-
lection of garbage and other
solid wastes; (3) standards and
methods for disposal; and (4)
requirements relating to the
licensing of collectors. How-
ever, the regulations do not pro-
hibit open dumps or allow the
health department to operate
any part of a solid wastes man-
agement system.
In 1965, the health depart-
ment completed a report on
countywide environmental pol-
lution fair, water, and landj.
The report indicated there were
over 167 open dumps which
served as breeding places for
disease-transmitting flies, mos-
quitoes, cockroaches, and rats.
It cited the county's phenome-
nal population growth and pre-
dicted that by 1980 520,000
people would be discarding
some 427,000 tons of solid
wastes annually. To anticipate
future needs, the report pro-
posed a seven-point program,
the highlights of which urged
the county to establish a mini-
mum of four sanitary landfills,
located outside the City of Char-
lotte, and to discourage burning
of solid wastes on residential
premises and in open dumps.
Nevertheless, little action was
taken on environmental pollu-
tion control until 1967, when
the health department adopted
regulations providing for air
pollution control on a county-
wide basis. At this time, open
burning of leaves, garbage, con-
struction wastes, and other
debris was prohibited. This
26
-------
Number 7, Technical and Financial Assistance for sources of in-
formation on abandoned motor vehicles.)
Regulations should establish separate guidelines for disposal
of dangerous wastes such as hospital wastes, which may contain
pathogens, and noxious chemical wastes.
Control of litter and illicit roadside dumping are both a public
and an individual responsibility. Conveniently placed public waste
containers should be provided. Penalties and fines for littering and
roadside dumping should be high enough to recover collection
costs.
Enforcement. Adoption of ordinances, rules, regulations, and
standards is only the first step in controlling solid wastes. Pro-
gram effectiveness depends on strong enforcement, including
public education. If the state has adopted minimum solid wastes
management standards, the local government can often receive
state support for local enforcement.
When the City of Hamilton, Ohio, passed an ordinance re-
quiring residents to store all solid wastes in covered cans, and
directed the public works department to stop picking up cardboard
boxes and other unsuitable containers, thousands of individual
complaints swamped the city because boxes were not collected.
action pointed up the need for
proper solid wastes manage-
ment.
In May, 1967, the Charlotte
Chamber of Commerce Environ-
mental Health Committee issued
a report on the status of en-
vironmental pollution through-
out the county. The chamber
noted that the problem of solid
wastes disposal had not been
resolved in any way and that
if anything, due to population
increase, the problem had be-
come worse. This report largely
supplemented previous studies,
but in addition examined three
aspects of sanitary landfills:
(1) need, (2) suggested plan of
operation, and (3) estimated ini-
tial cost. The report empha-
sized that since 1961 Mecklen-
burg County, as well as other
specified counties, had had the
legal authority to establish and
operate a solid wastes collec-
tion and disposal system under
Section 273, Article 22, Chap-
ter 153 of the General Statutes
of North Carolina. Under this
statute, Mecklenburg County
may (1) establish and operate
collection services; (2) estab-
lish and operate disposal serv-
ices; (3] contract with any city
or town to collect or dispose of
garbage; and (4) charge fees for
the use of disposal facilities.
Because of available enabling
legislation and a public demand
for action, the Mecklenburg
County Board of Commission-
ers allocated $100,000 for fiscal
year 1968, for the Department
of Public Works and Utilities
to establish a division to oper-
ate sanitary landfills. By Feb-
ruary, 1968, 49 acres and equip-
ment had been purchased for a
sanitary landfill serving three
communities in the northern
part of the county. The depart-
ment continued looking for
three more landfill sites.
Mecklenburg County plans to
consider joint city-county sani-
tary landfill operations on an
areawide basis with adjacent
counties, including nearby coun-
ties in South Carolina.
This Charleston, N. C., Jitterbug was
sentenced to pick up papers while wearing
the sign shown instead of merely
being assessed a token fine.
27
-------
In every case, public works department procedure was to send a
man to the complaining person to explain the reasons for the new
ordinance. Then he would pick up the box that had been left,
carefully pointing out that this was the last time the city would
do so. After three months, complaints subsided and the new oper-
ation proceeded smoothly. To provide adequate manpower to
visit each complainant, the city (population 80,000) assigned three
individuals, one taken off his regular job as part of a collection
crew.
The City of Beaufort and Beaufort County, South Carolina,
work together to enforce storage regulations (established by city
ordinance] and to educate citizens. When collectors find an un-
Santa Barbara County (popu-
lation 260,000), California, lo-
cated 80 miles northwest of Los
Angeles, is bounded on one side
by Pacific beaches and on the
other by mountain foothills and
arid land. The county has a
comprehensive solid wastes
management ordinance, which
is effectively enforced.
The ordinance was adopted
by the Board of Supervisors in
July, 1960, as an "emergency
ordinance to protect the public
health, safety and welfare."
Therefore, no public hearings
were required before passage.
It superseded an ordinance
passed five months earlier
which dealt primarily with the
fees and operations of county-
run disposal areas. The county
operates transfer and disposal
sites and regulates private col-
lection.
The ordinance provides that
all private property owners
must maintain litter-free prem-
ises. If a Refuse Department
notice to remove solid wastes
is not complied with within five
days, the department can order
and pay for county removal and
disposal of the solid wastes.
The cost of this operation, plus
7 per cent accrued interest per
annum, is charged against the
property owner. (Farm or ranch
owners may bury solid wastes
on their land.J
Provisions require any haul-
ers to obtain a permit to oper-
ate in unincorporated areas.
Permit fees are based upon the
number of trucks to be used by
the applicant and permits are
issued for a five-year period.
Operators must mark each
collection truck with a registra-
tion number, clean and disinfect
each truck daily, keep whatever
records the Refuse Department
requires, and collect refuse only
within the territory assigned
them by the department. To
provide funds for the adminis-
tration and enforcement of the
ordinance, 2 per cent of each
collector's gross receipts must
be paid to the county each
month. Late payments mean a
10 per cent penalty.
Another protective provision
in the ordinance authorizes the
county to take temporary pos-
session of all facilities and
equipment of a collector in the
event of a labor dispute which
interrupts service for more than
72 hours. The collector's em-
ployees then become temporary
county employees. Gross reve-
nue collected during such a
period, less costs and expenses,
remains with the county.
Violation of any provision of
the 55-section ordinance is a
misdemeanor punishable by a
maximum $500 fine, six months
imprisonment, or both.
ordinance enforcement
Santa Barbara County, California
The ordinance and its imple-
menting regulations are strongly
enforced. One advantage to the
county is that any enforcement
officer can issue a court cita-
tion for violation of the ordi-
nance, just as a police officer
issues a traffic citation.
In one 30-day period early in
1968, 24 arrests were made,
mostly for dumping on vacant
lots and in streambeds and for
road spillage. One enforcement
officer patrols county roads
and makes inspections resulting
from complaints by collectors,
citizens, or other public agen-
cies. The rule for these inspec-
tions is friendly persuasion
based on the ordinance, fol-
lowed by warnings and finally
court action. The Refuse De-
partment cooperates closely
with fire inspectors on com-
plaints concerning individual
burning of refuse.
The director of the Refuse
Department says that the anti-
scavenging provision is difficult
to enforce because of the extra
manpower it would require.
Although the transfer station is
fenced and county personnel
are on duty every day, indi-
vidual residents who come to
deposit refuse at the transfer
station cannot be easily pre-
vented from picking up items
that attract them.
28
-------
satisfactory container in use, a red adhesive sticker is attached,
reading "This container is condemned for use of garbage and refuse
by authority of the Beaufort County Health Department." Names
and addresses of households and businesses so warned are sub-
mitted to the city manager, who sends a notice to the violating
parties that they must provide a satisfactory container. In case
of noncompliance, the notice is followed by a personal visit from
the county sanitarian to stress the need for adequate solid wastes
storage.
Zoning. Elected officials can minimize the problem of se-
lecting wastes processing sites by planning and zoning for such
sites. Planning and zoning enable local governments to set aside
land to be used for processing sites. In zoning ordinances officials
can require that processing sites be located where they will not
be detrimental to air, water, or land resources.
For example, the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Com-
mission will support proposed sanitary landfill sites only if certain
conditions in the county zoning ordinance are met:
Premises in Zone R-A may be used for land reclamation
projects [sanitary landfills] if all provisions . . . are com-
plied with and that: (a) topographical conditions are such
that the completion of the operations will be of substan-
tial benefit to the property and to the community in which
such is located, and (b) there exists a need for such fa-
cilities, the County Engineer so finds, and files with the
Commission a statement in writing that he so finds, and
(c) such use will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare nor to the property of other persons lo-
cated in the vicinity thereof.
Eminent Domain. The power of eminent domain should be
employed only when all other methods of acquiring solid wastes
processing sites have been exhausted. This technique should not
be exercised too frequently since it can cause negative public
reaction and possibly end any progress towards satisfactory ac-
quisition of alternate disposal sites. It is suggested that local
officials plan for future disposal sites and acquire the land through
purchase or leasing.
Leasing. Leasing private land is an alternative method for
obtaining disposal or processing sites. Some counties on the West
Coast have been able to lease "marginal property" from private
owners and reclaim such land for golf courses and other beneficial
uses.
If there is participation from the private sector in a solid
wastes management system, some form of direct legal control over
private operators is necessary. This is best done by contract or
the franchise device. The difference between a contract and a
franchise is mainly one of degree. A contract is a legally binding
agreement with a ,company for performance of a designated serv-
ice. It does not deny other companies the right to operate inde-
pendently in the same area. A franchise is a legal agreement with
one company giving it exclusive right to provide service in a cer-
tain area. In return for the grant of monopoly, government is in a
better position to demand exceptionally high operating and service
standards, delineated in the franchise agreement.
land acquisition
regulation of
private operators
29
-------
Franchises and contracts differ in the manner of financing.
Generally, in franchises the private operator collects charges from
the customer, while in contracts payment is provided by the local
government. A franchise is awarded to the highest bidder, whereas
contracts are awarded to the lowest qualified bidder. (For further
information on financing, see Guide Number 6.J The federal Bu-
reau of Solid Waste Management, in cooperation with the National
Solid Wastes Management Association, a trade association repre-
senting solid wastes operators, has developed a model contract for
local officials for sanitary landfill operation [see bibliography).
otber legal aspects
Liability insurance and knowledge of liability
laws are necessary to local governments
involved in solid wastes control activities.
Both employees and residents can be injured
by poor collection, storage, and disposal.
The "tote" barrel above places a great
burden on the collector and could injure him.
Other legal aspects of solid wastes management must be con-
sidered by local government officials.
Design and construction contracts must contain "guarantee of
performance" clauses. The elected governing body should require
its local attorney to see that all contracts include a separate clause
expressing a guarantee of performance for a specific period of time.
Liability insurance is needed to protect public employees and
the community in case of accidents resulting from solid wastes
handling operations. In 1967, a small child drowned in a pond of
garbage mistaken for solid gound in a Florida county's unfenced
dump. In cases of this type, a court could find a local govern-
ment responsible under the attractive nuisance doctrine for the
injury or death of a person resulting from unsafe solid wastes
management operations.
summary
In most states comprehensive state legislation is urgently needed
as an initial step to permit establishment of solid wastes manage-
ment systems. This legislation must permit state and local action.
State legislation must be broad and conceptual in scope and allow
rules, regulations, and minimum statewide standards to be drawn
up and enforced by the responsible state agency.
The legal basis for local governments to control solid wastes
is state enabling law. Without this enabling authority, local gov-
ernments cannot acquire land, develop facilities, or spend public
funds to regulate and control solid wastes. To insure that local
governments have the necessary powers, legislation should allow
political subdivisions to manage wastes in coordination with other
environmental protection programs.
Home rule cities and counties should examine their charters
closely to be sure they have the authority to plan, regulate, and
operate a solid wastes management system. Local officials should
enact a comprehensive ordinance governing the management of
solid wastes. Ordinances should not be encumbered with technical
details which are likely to be out of date in a short time. Ordi-
nances should be conceptual in scope, flexible in methods, positive
in direction, and prohibitive of any type of air, water, or land
pollution.
The ordinance should designate a local agency or agencies
to adopt and enforce standards, rules, and regulations; to plan;
and, if necessary, to operate a system. The effectiveness of the
program will depend on strong enforcement and effective public
education.
30
-------
solving legal problems
Montgomery County, Ohio
Thirteen years ago officials
in Montgomery County (popu-
lation 527,000), Ohio, decided
that incineration was the an-
swer to their solid wastes dis-
posal problem. However, there
were legal obstacles to the
establishment of a solid wastes
management system for the
county and the seven munici-
palities within its boundaries.
In 1956, the county governing
body established a solid wastes
disposal district under authority
of Section 343.01 of the Ohio
Revised Code, which states,
"Any board of county commis-
sioners may, by resolution, lay
out, establish, and maintain one
or more garbage and refuse dis-
posal districts within its respec-
tive, county, outside of munici-
pal corporations. ..." Since
the district could not include
the incorporated cities, this en-
abling legislation was not suffi-
cient for the county, which has
incorporated municipalities, in-
cluding Dayton, within its boun-
daries. To make the incinerator
project economically feasible,
the entire county had to cooper-
ate. Since the cities could not
be included in the district, the
county attempted to overcome
this difficulty by contracting
with the municipalities "where-
by each municipality agrees to
deliver or require its licensed
haulers to deliver to the incin-
erator plants all of its dispos-
able waste. . . ."
In 1965, the Ohio Code was
revised to allow for county-
wide collection and disposal
districts including municipali-
ties. The code now states, "The
boundaries of any such district
may include the entire county,
may be revised from time to
time, and may include a part or
all of the territory within a
municipal corporation when au-
thorized by ordinance of the
legislative authority of such
municipal corporation. . . ."
With jurisdiction and cus-
tomers thus assured, the county
sought to build the incinerators
and put an end to the use of
dumps. When the incinerators
in Montgomery County begin
operating, they will be the only
accredited disposal sites within
the county. The financing of
the twin incinerators, scheduled
to begin operating in 1969, is
authorized under Section 133.06
of the Ohio Revised Code. In
October, 1967, $10.4 million in
revenue bonds and notes were
delivered to purchasers and
construction was ready to begin.
Local governments should also be allowed to undertake the
following activities:
• Planning and zoning for wastes processing sites and
acquisition of sites through purchase, eminent domain, or
leasing of private property.
• Regulation of private solid wastes operators through
the issuance of permits and licenses, and the use of franchises
or contracts.
Elected officials should not overlook other important legal
aspects of a solid wastes management system, such as the need
for liability protection and "guarantee of performance" clauses in
all design and construction contracts.
Broad state enabling legislation is essential to permit and en-
courage local governments to establish comprehensive solid wastes
management systems.
31
-------
selected
bibliography
Guide to County Organization and Man-
agement, National Association of Coun-
ties, 1968. Price: $7.
A Handbook for Interlocal Agreements
and Contracts, U.S. Advisory Commis-
sion on Intergovernmental Relations,
U.S. Government Printing Office,
March, 1967.
Litter Laws, Keep America Beautiful, 99
Park Avenue, New York, New York
10016.
Model Sanitary Landfill Contract, Na-
tional Solid Wastes Management Asso-
ciation, 1022 15th Street, N.W., Wash-
ington, D. C. 20005.
Performance of Urban Functions: Local
and Areawide, U.S. Advisory Commis-
sion on Intergovernmental Relations,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Sep-
tember, 1963.
Smith, Robert G., Public Authorities, Spe-
cial Districts and Local Government,
National Association of Counties Re-
search Foundation, 1964. Price: $3.
Vaughan, Richard D.( "The Solid Wastes
Program of the U.S. Public Health
Service," A Speech Presented at the
Fourth Annual Refuse Equipment Show
and Congress, Chicago, Illinois, June
7, 1968.
appendix a: Pennsylvania state
enabling legislation
Act 241, Pennsylvania Solid Waste Management Act
Providing for the planning
and regulation of solid waste
storage, collection, transporta-
tion, processing and disposal
systems; requiring municipali-
ties to submit plans for solid
waste management systems in
their jurisdiction; authorizing
grants to municipalities; requir-
ing permits for operating proc-
essing or disposal systems; im-
posing duties on and granting
powers to municipalities; au-
thorizing the Department of
Health to adopt rules, regula-
tions, standards and proce-
dures; creating an advisory
committee; providing remedies,
prescribing penalties, and mak-
ing an appropriation.
The General Assembly of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
hereby enacts as follows:
Section 1. Short Title.—This
act shall be known and may
be Cited as the "Pennsylvania
Solid Waste Management Act."
Section 2. Legislative find-
ing; declaration of policy.—It is
hereby determined and declared
as a matter of legislative find-
ing that, since improper and in-
adequate solid waste practices
create public health hazards,
environmental pollution and
economic loss, it is the purpose
of this act to:
(1) Establish and maintain a
cooperative state and local pro-
gram of planning and technical
and financial assistance for
comprehensive solid waste
management;
(2) Utilize, wherever feasible
anil desirable, the capabilities
of private enterprise in accom-
plishing the desired objectives
of an effective solid waste man-
agement program; and
(3) Require permits for the
operation of processing and
disposal systems.
Section 3. Definitions.—The
following words and phrases
shall have the meaning ascribed
to them in this section unless
the context clearly indicates
otherwise:
(1) "Department" means the
Department of Health of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
and its authorized representa-
tives.
(2) "Secretary" means the
32
-------
Secretary of Health of the Com-
monwealth of Pennsylvania.
(3) "Solid waste" means gar-
bage, refuse and other discarded
materials including, but not
limited to, solid and liquid
waste materials resulting from
industrial, commercial, agricul-
ture and residential activities.
(4) "Solid waste management
system" means the entire proc-
ess of storage, collection, trans-
portation, processing and dis-
posal of solid wastes by any
person engaging in such process
as a business or any munici-
pality, authority, county or any
combination thereof.
(5) "Municipality" means a
city, incorporated town, town-
ship and borough.
(6) "Person" means individ-
ual, partnership, corporation,
association, institution, cooper-
ative enterprise, or legal entity.
Section 4. Advisory Commit-
tee.—(a) An Advisory Commit-
tee consisting of twenty-two
members shall be appointed by
the governor, membership of
which shall include one rep-
resentative of the Department
of Agriculture, Department of
Commerce, Department of Com-
munity Affairs, State Planning
Board, Pennsylvania State As-
sociation of Township Super-
visors, Pennsylvania State
Association of Township Com-
missioners, Pennsylvania State
Association of Boroughs, Penn-
sylvania League of Cities, Penn-
sylvania Association of County
Commissioners, Pennsylvania
Municipal Authorities Associa-
tion, Pennsylvania State Uni-
versity, Drexel Institute of
Technology, Pennsylvania State
Grange, Pennsylvania Farmers'
Association, Pennsylvania
Home Builders' Association,
Pennsylvania Canners and Food
Processors Association and
Pennsylvania Society of Profes-
sional Engineers.
(b) The Advisory Committee
may recommend to the secre-
tary the adoption, amendment
or repeal of such rules, regu-
lations, standards and proce-
dures as it deems necessary and
advisable for the implementa-
tion of the act.
(c) The members of the com-
mittee shall not receive any
compensation for their services
but shall be reimbursed for their
actual and necessary expenses
incurred in the performance of
their duties.
Section 5. Submission of
Plans.—[a] Each municipality
with a population density of
three hundred or more inhabi-
tants per square mile shall sub-
mit to the department an offi-
cially adopted plan for a solid
waste management system or
systems serving areas within its
jurisdiction within two years of
the effective date of this section,
and shall, from time to time,
submit such revisions of said
plan as it deems necessary or
as the department may require.
(b) When more than one mu-
nicipality has authority over an
existing or proposed solid
waste management system or
systems, or any part thereof,
the required plan or any revi-
sion thereof may be submitted
jointly by the municipalities
concerned or by an authority
or county or by one or more
of the municipalities with the
concurrence of the others.
(c] Every plan, and any re-
vision thereof, shall delineate
areas where solid waste man-
agement systems are in exist-
ence and areas where the solid
waste management systems are
planned to be available within
a ten-year period.
[d] Every plan shall:
(1) Provide for the orderly
extension of solid waste man-
agement systems in a manner
consistent with the needs and
plans of the whole area, and in
a manner which will not create
pollution of the waters or air of
the Commonwealth, nor con-
stitute a public nuisance and
shall otherwise provide for the
safe and sanitary disposal of
solid waste;
(2) Take into consideration
all aspects of planning, zoning,
population estimates, engineer-
ing and economics so as to de-
lineate with all practicable pre-
cision those portions of the
area which may reasonably be
expected to be served by a
solid waste management sys-
tem within the next ten years
as well as those areas where
it is not reasonably foreseeable
that a solid waste management
system will be needed after ten
years;
(3) Take into consideration
any existing plan affecting the
development, use and protec-
tion of air, water or land re-
sources;
(4] Set forth a time schedule
and proposed methods of fi-
nancing the development, con-
struction and operation of the
planned solid waste manage-
ment systems, together with the
estimated cost thereof;
(5) Include a provision for
periodic revision of the plan;
(6) Include such other infor-
mation as the department shall
require.
(e] The plan shall be re-
viewed by appropriate official
planning agencies within a mu-
nicipality including a planning
agency with area-wide jurisdic-
tion, if one exists, and the
county planning commission,
for consistency with programs
of planning for the area, and
all such reviews shall be trans-
mitted to the department with
the proposed plan.
(f) The department is hereby
authorized to approve or dis-
approve plans for solid waste
management systems submitted
in accordance with this act.
Any plan which has not been
disapproved within one year of
the date of its submission shall
be deemed an approved plan.
In case any plan is disap-
proved, a hearing shall be held
thereon before the department
within fifteen days after request
therefore is made by the munic-
ipality, municipalities, county
or authority whose plan is dis-
approved. Within seven days
following the date of such hear-
33
-------
ing, the department shall notify
all parties in writing of the de-
termination of said hearing and
the reasons therefor. Any party
aggrieved by this determination
shall have the right of appeal in
accordance with the provisions
of the act of June 4, 1945 (P.L.
1388), known as the "Adminis-
trative Agency Law."
(g) The department is author-
ized to provide technical assist-
ance to counties, municipalities
and authorities in coordinating
plans for solid waste manage-
ment systems required by this
act, including revisions of such
plans.
(h) The department may es-
tablish priorities for the time
within which plans shall be
submitted and may, in appro-
priate cases, recommend the
submission of joint plans.
(i) The department may insti-
tute an action in mandamus in
the court of common pleas of
the county in which the munic-
ipality is located to compel mu-
nicipalities to submit plans in
accordance with this act and
the rules, regulations and pro-
cedures of the department.
Section 6. Powers and Duties
of the Department.—The de-
partment shall have the power
and its duty shall be to:
(1) Administer the solid
waste management program
pursuant to the provisions of
this act.
(2) Cooperate with appropri-
ate private organizations in
carrying out its duties under
this act.
(3) Adopt such rules, regula-
tions, standards and procedures
as shall be necessary to con-
serve the air, water and land
resources of the Common-
wealth, protect the public
health, prevent public nui-
sances, and enable it to carry
out the purposes and provisions
of this act.
(4) Develop a State-wide solid
waste management plan in co-
operation with local govern-
ments, the Department of Com-
munity Affairs and the State
Planning Board. When feasible,
emphasis shall be given to area-
wide planning.
(5) Provide technical assist-
ance to municipalities, counties
and authorities including the
training of personnel.
(6) Report to the legislature
from time to time on further
assistance that will be needed
to administer the solid waste
management program.
(7) Initiate, conduct and sap-
port research, demonstration
projects, and investigations and
coordinate all State agency re-
search programs pertaining to
solid waste management sys-
tems.
(8) Establish policies for ef-
fective solid waste management
systems.
(9) Issue such permits and or-
ders and conduct inspections as
may be necessary to implement
the provisions of this act and
the rules, regulations and stand-
ards adopted pursuant to the
act.
Section 7. Applications and
Permits.—(a) It shall be unlaw-
ful for any person, municipality,
county or authority to use or
continue to use their land or
the land of any other person,
municipality, county or author-
ity as a solid waste processing
or disposal area of a solid
waste management system with-
out first obtaining a permit from
the department: Provided, how-
ever, that this section shall not
apply to farmers and they shall
not be required to obtain a per-
mit for normal farming opera-
tions: And, provided further,
that this section shall not apply
to the storage of by-products
which are utilized in the proc-
essing or manufacturing of
other products.
(b) Application for a permit
shall be in writing and shall be
made on a form prescribed, pre-
pared and furnished by the de-
partment and shall set forth
such information and be ac-
companied by such data as the
department may require.
(c) Upon approval of the ap-
plication, the department shall
issue a permit for the operation
of each solid waste processing
or disposal facility or area set
forth in the application.
(d) Plans, designs and rele-
vant data for the construction
or alterations of solid waste
processing and disposal facili-
ties and the location of solid
waste processing and disposal
areas shall be prepared by a
registered professional engineer
and shall be submitted to the
department for approval prior
to the construction, alteration
or operation of such facility or
area except when food process
wastes are used for agricultural
purposes in a manner which
will not create a public health
hazard or pollution of the air
or water.
(e) Any permit granted by
the department, as provided in
this act, shall be revocable or
subject to suspension at any
time the department shall de-
termine that the solid waste
processing or disposal facility
or area is, or has been con-
ducted in violation of this act
or the rules, regulations, or
standards adopted pursuant to
the fact, or is creating a public
nuisance.
(f) In any case where a per-
mit is required by this section
for the disposal of solid wastes
produced by a public utility or
a municipally owned facility
producing a public utility serv-
ice, the department shall not re-
fuse an application, or revoke
or suspend a permit previously
granted, unless it first obtains
from Pennsylvania Public Util-
ity Commission a certification
that such refusal, revocation or
suspension will not adversely
affect utility service to the
public.
(g) In case any permit is de-
nied, suspended or revoked, a
hearing shall be held thereon
before the department within
fifteen days after request there-
for is made by the person, mu-
nicipality, county or authority
whose permit is denied, sus-
34
-------
pended or revoked. Within
seven days following the date
of such hearing the department
shall notify all parties in writ-
ing of the determination of said
hearing and the reasons there-
for. Any party aggrieved by this
determination shall have the
right of appeal in accordance
with the provisions of the act
of June 4, 1945 (P.L. 1388],
known as the "Administrative
Agency Law."
Section 8. State Agencies.—
All State institutions and agen-
cies, including the General State
Authority and the State Public
School Buildings Authority,
shall obtain a permit from the
department under the provi-
sions of section 7 of this act
and shall also comply with all
other provisions of this act.
Section 9. Prohibited Acts.—
It shall be unlawful for any per-
son, municipality, county, or au-
thority to:
(1) Dump or deposit, or per-
mit the dumping or depositing
of any solid wastes onto the
surface of the ground or into
the waters of the Common-
wealth without having obtained
a permit as required by sec-
tion 7: Provided, that this pro-
vision shall not prohibit the use
of solid wastes in normal farm-
ing operations or in the proc-
essing or manufacturing of other
products in a manner that will
not create a public nuisance
or adversely affect the public
health: And, provided further,
that this provision shall not
prohibit individuals from dump-
ing or depositing solid wastes
resulting from their own resi-
dential activities onto the sur-
face of ground owned or leased
by them when such wastes do
not thereby create a public
nuisance or adversely affect the
public health.
(2) Construct, alter or oper-
ate a solid waste processing or
disposal facility or area of a
solid waste management sys-
tem without a permit or other
approval from the department
or in violation of the rules,
regulations, standards, or orders
of the department.
(3) Burn solid wastes except
in a manner approved by the
Air Pollution Commission or
the department.
(4) Store, collect, transport,
process or dispose of solid
waste contrary to the rules,
regulations, standards or orders
of the department or in such
a manner as to create a public
nuisance,
[5) Refuse to hinder entry
and inspection by an agent or
employe of the department after
such agent or employe identi-
fies himself and gives notice of
his purpose.
No person shall be held re-
sponsible under the provisions
of this section for the dumping
or depositing of any solid
waste on ground owned or
leased by him without his ex-
pressed or implied consent, per-
mission or knowledge.
Section 10. Powers and Du-
ties of Municipalities.—(a) Each
municipality with a population
density of three hundred or
more inhabitants per square
mile shall be responsible for
the collection, transportation,
processing and disposal of solid
wastes within its boundaries.
(b) In carrying out its re-
sponsibilities, any such munici-
pality may adopt ordinances,
regulations and standards for
the storage and collection of
solid wastes which shall be in
conformity with the rules, reg-
ulations, standards and proce-
dures adopted by the depart-
ment for the storage, collection,
transportation, processing and
disposal of solid waste.
(c) Municipalities may con-
tract with any person, other
municipality, county or author-
ity to carry out their respon-
sibilities for the collection,
transportation, processing and
disposal of solid wastes.
Section 11. Orders to Munici-
palities.—(a) If the department
finds that the storage, collec-
tion, transportation, processing
or disposal of solid waste from
a municipality subject to the
provisions of section 10 (a] is
causing pollution of the land,
air or waters of the Common-
wealth or is creating a public
nuisance, the department may
order the municipality to alter
its storage, collection or trans-
portation systems or provide
such storage, collection or
transportation systems as will
prevent pollution and public
nuisances. Such order shall
specify the length of time, after
receipt of the order, within
which the facility or area shall
be repaired, altered, constructed
or reconstructed. Any party
aggrieved by an order under
this section shall have the right
of appeal in accordance with
the provisions of the act of
June 4, 1945 (P.L. 1388), known
as the "Administrative Agency
Law."
(b) Any municipality ordered
by the department to repair,
alter, construct or reconstruct
a solid waste facility or area
shall take such steps for the
repair, alteration, construction
or reconstruction of the facility
or area as may be necessary
for the processing and disposal
of its solid waste in compliance
with this act and the rules, reg-
ulations, standards, and orders
of the department.
(c) The department may in-
stitute an action in mandamus
in the court of common pleas
of the county in which the
municipality is located to com-
pel compliance with an order
issued under subsection (a) of
this section.
Section 12. Grants Author-
ized; Appropriation.—(a) The
department is authorized to as-
sist counties, municipalities,
and authorities by administer-
ing grants to pay up to fifty
per cent of the costs of pre-
paring official plans for solid
waste management systems in
accordance with the require-
ments of this act and the
rules, regulations and standards
adopted pursuant to this act,
and for carrying out related
35
-------
studies, surveys, investigations,
inquiries, research and analyses.
(b) All grants shall be made
from funds appropriated for
this purpose by the General
Assembly.
(c) Any municipality with a
population density of less than
three hundred inhabitants per
square mile may elect to be
governed by the provisions of
this act or to establish within
such municipality waste dis-
posal districts subject to the
provisions of this act, and such
municipality shall thereby be-
come eligible for grants under
this section.
(d) The sum of fifty thousand
dollars ($50,000), or as much
thereof as may be necessary, is
hereby specifically appropri-
ated to the department for the
fiscal year July 1, 1968 to June
30, 1969.
Section 13. Restraining Vio-
lations.—In addition to any
other remedies provided in this
act, the secretary may institute
a suit in equity in the name of
the Commonwealth in the court
of common pleas of the county
where the violation or nuisance
exists for an injunction to re-
strain a violation of this act or
the rules, regulations or stand-
ards adopted thereunder and to
restrain the maintenance of a
public nuisance.
Section 14. Penalties.—(a)
Any person violating this act or
the rules, regulations or stand-
ards thereunder shall, upon con-
viction thereof in a summary
proceeding, be sentenced to pay
a fine of not more than three
hundred dollars ($300) and costs
and, in default of the payment
of such fine and costs, shall
undergo imprisonment for not
more than thirty days.
(b) Violations on separate
days shall be considered sepa-
rate and distinct offenses under
subsection (a) of this section.
(c) All fines and penalties
imposed under the provisions
of this section shall be paid
into the General Fund of the
Commonwealth.
Section 15. Severability
Clause.—The provisions of this
act are severable and if any pro-
vision or part thereof shall be
held invalid or unconstitutional
or inapplicable to any person or
circumstances, such invalidity,
unconstitutionality or inapplica-
bility shall not affect or impair
the remaining provisions of the
act.
Section 16. Saving Clause.—
Nothing in this act shall be
deemed to affect, modify, amend
or repeal any provision of any
act administered by the Depart-
ment of Health, Sanitary Water
Board, Air Pollution Commis-
sion, Department of Mines and
Mineral Industries or any other
department, board, commission
or agency of the Common-
wealth.
Section 17. Effective date.—
Section 4 shall take effect im-
mediately. Section 5 and sub-
section (a) of section 12 shall
take effect January 1, 1969. The
remainder of the act shall take
effect January 1, 1970.
APPROVED—July 31, 1968.
RAYMOND P. SHAFER
Governor
appendix b: suggested outline of a solid wastes
management ordinance
Area of Jurisdiction
A. Name of ordinance, date
adopted, citation
B. General statement
1. Finding of necessity and
declaration of policy and
intent
2. Definitions (see Solid
Waste Disposal Act of
1967, P.L. 89-272)
C. Administration
1. Agency or agencies re-
sponsible for administra-
tion of solid wastes pro-
gram
2. Functions and powers of
responsible agency or agen-
cies, e.g.:
a. Require submission of
plans
b. Issue permits
c. Adopt regulations and
standards
d. Supervise the execu-
tion of all solid wastes
laws
e. Institute proceedings
to prosecute violators
f. Operate the service
3. Appointment of an ad-
visory board (if desired)
4. Participation in pro-
grams with other commu-
nities
5. Coordination of local
program with state solid
wastes management plan
D. Scope of legislation
1. Standards and regula-
tions
2. Prohibited activities
3. Approved operations of
solid wastes facilities
E. Enforcement
1. Inspection procedure
2. Liability for violations
3. Revocation of permits,
licenses, or registrations
4. Administrative proceed-
ings
5. Penalties and fines
6. Performance bonds
7. Injunctive powers
36
-------
3 planning
-------
planning
SITE OF FUTURE
CITY OF PHOENIX
DEER VALLEY PARK
BEING PREPARED BY SANITARY LANDFILL
. v,v
JSS,'
PARKS DEPARTMENT • PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
By planning the final use of a sanitary
landfill before its completion. Phoenix, Ariz.,
was able both to make the landfill
conform to its final use and to generate
public support.
introduction
Chaos or order? Traditionally, government has not anticipated
problems but has waited until necessity demanded that elected
officials do something. Too often elected officials have ignored
solid wastes management until a crisis arose. By planning for
solid wastes collection and disposal, elected officials can meet
expected change, produce desired change, and prevent undesired
change. Within rural and urban areas solid wastes are accumu-
lating rapidly. Immediate planning and action are needed. Each
community should include in its comprehensive plan for com-
munity growth careful consideration of and recommendations for
solid wastes management. Solid wastes plans must be coordinated
with other plans, such as land use, health, and transportation.
Planning and implementation on an areawide basis are the
responsibilities of local elected officials. Careful study and evalu-
ation is necessary to ensure that wastes are collected and disposed
of in ways which will not pollute the environment. Solid wastes
planning includes land use planning for disposal sites (such as
recreation and open space); transportation planning for hauling
solid wastes; and public facilities and utilities planning for stor-
age, collection, and disposal of solid wastes. Solid wastes plan-
ning proposes feasible recommendations for regulation and opera-
tions of the present and future which can be implemented as a
continuing program by responsible elected officials.
Planning for solid wastes management (storage, collection,
transportation, processing, recycling, and disposal) must be ap-
proached systematically. To protect the environment effectively
the plan should encompass a broad solid wastes generation and
disposal area.
The solid wastes plan should include a statement of its ob-
jectives; physical description of the area; survey and inventory of
solid wastes as to quantities and characteristics; analysis of land
use and population trends; examination of state laws and local or-
dinances; evaluation of revenue sources; and proposals for action.
who plans?
Each locality must determine the agency or agencies best suited
to develop the solid wastes plan. This can be done by creating
an interagency committee of planners, engineers, attorneys, and
financial analysts who can contribute the necessary information.
The assistance of a private consulting engineering firm with plan-
ning experience in solid wastes may be needed. Local officials
will need to work closely with their consultants. The procedures
38
-------
for dealing with consultants and the problems that may arise
are thoroughly discussed in Guide Number 9, Personnel.
A survey of planning reports by the National Association of
Counties Research Foundation indicated that local planning for
solid wastes was done by planning and engineering consultants;
city or county planning departments; roads, engineering, public
works or health departments; or a combination of local depart-
ments and consultants.
Regardless of who does the solid wastes plan, it must be
accepted by the citizens before it can be effectively implemented.
While formulating the plan, public hearings should be held to
solicit the views of individuals and civic leaders. Citizen sugges-
tions may not always be objective, but the hearings themselves
may eventually help win their support for the solid wastes plan.
For further information, see Guide Number 8, Citizen Support.
coordination of local with state plans
Early in the planning process elected political leaders should seek
assistance from the designated state agency or agencies responsible
for solid wastes management. In fact, some states are now requir-
ing that local solid wastes plans be submitted to the appropriate
state agency for approval before implementation. In such cases,
local plans are reviewed by the state for adherence to minimum
state standards and guidelines. Moreover, without local-state
cooperation it is not likely that local planning will be eligible for
federal financial assistance.
Some state solid wastes agencies are preparing preliminary
solid wastes plans for local governments. For example, the Vir-
ginia plans include a map of the study area showing existing
disposal sites; background information; definitions of terms such
as storage, collection, and disposal of solid wastes; general de-
scription of the area; observations of current local collection and
disposal methods and problems; and conclusions and recom-
mendations.
The contours of the lifts shown in this
California sanitary landfill have been
designed to make the best use of the site.
financing the plan
Local officials should be prepared to pay for the entire solid
wastes plan without waiting for state and federal assistance,
which is limited.
A solid wastes plan involving several counties and cities may
be paid for by apportioning the cost among participating jurisdic-
tions. An example of this approach is the 1967 solid wastes dis-
posal study for the Washington metropolitan region, which was
financed by the Northern Virginia Regional Planning Commission,
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, the Maryland-
National Capital Park and Planning Commission, and a 701 urban
planning grant from the federal Department of Housing and Urban
Development. Funds from 701 grants must be used for compre-
hensive planning, not solely for solid wastes planning. A similar
interstate solid wastes approach to planning was taken in New
Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania through the Tocks Island
39
-------
Regional Advisory Council, which has been funded by the federal
Bureau of Solid Waste Management.
Some states may pay for all aspects of a solid wastes plan-
ning study. New York State provides for 100 per cent financial
assistance for countywide or intergovernmental comprehensive
solid wastes management planning. (See Guide Number 7, Tech-
nical and Financial Assistance for additional information on state
assistance.)
the planning process
The development of a comprehensive areawide plan is a long,
complicated process. It includes determination of specific objec-
tives, complete description of the physical area under study, ex-
amination of population statistics and trends along with land use
data, and thorough survey and analysis of present and future solid
wastes management needs. The development of a complete solid
wastes plan takes time, but necessary action should not be de-
layed until the plan is completed. Because the accumulation of
solid wastes is vast and unending, the planning for its management
must be continuous. Plans written to guide change and develop-
ment are themselves stimuli for further change. Thus, solid wastes
plans should be updated periodically to meet changing conditions.
Solid wastes planning should cover at least a 20-year time
span (which corresponds with normal lead time in comprehensive
planning]. This span is short enough to make realistic solid
wastes projections based on population estimates and long enough
to allow for acquisition of equipment and sites.
data collection Description of Physical Factors. The plan should include a
physical description of the study area including size, area of
jurisdiction(s), topography, geology, climate, and air and water
resources. The ability to meet solid wastes management needs
is related to the physical environment. For example, planners
who overlook topography, geology, and water resources might
recommend an unfeasible disposal system.
Population and Land Use. Analysis of population and land
use trends is a necessary prerequisite to solid wastes management
planning. The weight, type, and volume of solid wastes generated
are related to the population and the associated agriculture, com-
merce, and industry which support the population.
The rate of population change may offer important clues in
developing realistic projections of solid wastes generation and
feasible alternative solid wastes control programs.
Land use patterns indicate the major concentrations of resi-
dential, agricultural, commercial, and industrial development
which will have a determinative effect on the size and location
of future solid wastes facilities. Land is usually classified as
agricultural, low and medium density residential, high density
residential, commercial, industrial, park and open spaces, and
public. For solid wastes purposes, business and commercial areas
can be subdivided into food and non-food establishments. Food
establishments generate considerable organic wastes that present
a public health problem if not stored properly and collected regu-
40
-------
interstate planning
locks Island Regional Advisory Council
Located Jess than 100 miles
from both the New York City
and Philadelphia metropolitan
areas, the Tocks Island region
contains approximately 3,200
square miles, which embraces
seven counties in Pennsylvania,
New York, and New Jersey. The
seven counties, unlike in many
ways, share one great common
resource, the Upper Delaware
River.
Federal development of this
resource over the next eight
years through the construction
of the Tocks Island Dam and
the development of the Dela-
ware Water Gap National Rec-
reation Area (DWGNRA) will
have a significant impact on
all seven counties, and pos-
sibly other counties along the
periphery of the region. This
impact will stem largely from
one factor: no less than ten mil-
lion people are expected to visit
the recreation area annually
when it is in full operation.
The recreation area will be the
most heavily used facility in the
entire National Park System.
For the counties of this rec-
reation area, the question was
how to organize and plan to
handle millions of visitors on a
seasonal basis and, in addition,
prevent pollution of this beau-
tiful region.
In 1965 concerned elected
officials from the seven coun-
ties formed a council of gov-
ernments known as the Tocks
Island Regional Advisory Coun-
cil (TIRAC). The member coun-
ties are Monroe, Northampton,
and Pike in Pennsylvania; Or-
ange and Sullivan in New York;
and Sussex and Warren in New
Jersey.
The Tocks Island Regional-
Interstate Solid Waste Manage-
ment Project began its studies
June 1, 1967. The two-year
project is the first interstate
solid wastes study funded by
the federal Bureau of Solid
Waste Management. The total
cost of this study was $192,000,
two-thirds of which was feder-
ally funded ($128,000).
The purpose of this grant was
to help a long-range model in-
terstate solid wastes manage-
ment system to be implemented
by each member county. The
following were the specific ob-
jectives of the study:
1) to determine the magni-
tude of the solid wastes
disposal problem, now and
in the future;
2) to determine the present
pattern of solid wastes
services and facilities pres-
ently needed;
3J to study disposal methods
and collection procedures
applicable to the area;
4] to determine legislative re-
quirements;
5J to investigate the feasibil-
ity of developing a mathe-
matical model to formalize
the structural relationships
which exist between solid
wastes generators, dis-
posal methods, and service
areas;
6) to standardize the criteria
for the evaluation of vari-
ous solid wastes disposal
possibilities;
7) to develop alternate solid
wastes disposal plans suit-
able for meeting the needs
of the area;
8) to develop an implemen-
tation program, including
cost and financing figures;
9) to establish a continuing
solid wastes program
which TIRAC can under-
take.
As of mid-1968, three TIRAC
committees were in full opera-
tion. TIRAC staff officials were
pleased with the cooperation
given by member county gov-
ernments and states.
41
-------
larly. In most areas, land use data collected by local agencies for
other purposes is available.
Survey of Solid Wastes. A knowledge of the diversity and
kinds of solid wastes generated is essential to the planners. One
classification of solid wastes is listed in Table I. Since many
communities have no records of solid wastes quantities, installa-
tion of scales at disposal sites is necessary. Study conclusions
will not be dependable without this basic quantitative data.
To collect solid wastes data, it may be necessary to conduct
surveys in agricultural, commercial, industrial, and residential
areas. Many agencies and consultants develop questionnaires to
assist in collecting quantitative data. Mailing questionnaires to
TABLE 1
GENERAL CLASSIFICATION OF
SOLID WASTES MATERIALS
Garbage
Rubbish
Ashes
Bulky
wastes
Street
refuse
Dead
animals
Abandoned
vehicles
Construction
& demolition
wastes
Industrial
refuse
Special
wastes
Animal and
agricultural
wastes
Sewage
treatment
residues
Wastes from the preparation, cooking, and serving
of food
Market refuse, waste from the handling, storage,
and sale of produce and meats
Combustible
(primarily
organic)
Noncombustible
(primarily
inorganic)
Paper, cardboard, cartons
Wood, boxes, excelsior
Plastics
Rags, cloth, bedding
Leather, rubber
Grass, leaves, yard trimmings
Metals, tin cans, metal foils
Dirt
Stones, bricks, ceramics,
crockery
Glass, bottles
Other mineral refuse
Residue from fires used for cooking and for heat-
ing buildings, cinders
Large auto parts, tires
Stoves, refrigerators, other large appliances
Furniture, large crates
Trees, branches, palm fronds, stumps, flotage
Street sweepings, dirt
Leaves
Catch basin dirt
Contents of litter receptacles
Small animals: cats, dogs, poultry, etc.
Large animals: horses, cows, etc.
Automobiles, trucks
Lumber, roofing, and sheathing scraps
Rubble, broken concrete, plaster, etc.
Conduit, pipe, wire, insulation, etc.
Solid wastes resulting from industrial processes
and manufacturing operations, such as food-
processing wastes, boiler house cinders, wood,
plastic, and metal scraps and shavings, etc.
Hazardous wastes: pathlogical wastes, explosives,
radioactive materials
Security wastes: confidential documents, negotiable
papers, etc.
Manures, crop residues
Coarse screenings, grit, septic tank sludge, de-
watered sludge
From
households,
institutions,
and commercial
concerns such
as:
hotels,
stores,
restaurants,
markets, etc.
From
streets,
sidewalks,
alleys,
vacant lots, etc.
From
factories,
power plants,
etc.
Households,
hospitals,
institutions,
stores,
industry, etc.
Farms,
feed lots
Sewage treat-
ment plants,
septic tanks
Source: Adapted from American Public Works Association, Refuse
Collection Practice, 1966, p. 15.
42
-------
individuals is not sufficient to obtain accurate information; per-
sonal field interviews should be used to supplement them.
Existing Solid Wastes Practices. Existing collection and dis-
posal practices need to be examined. All collection and disposal
practices, public and private, should be investigated to determine
the owner, operator, location, size, hours of operation, adequacy,
and life expectancy.
An engineering consultant hired by the South Carolina State
Health Department for Richland County inventoried all unauthor-
ized and authorized dumps and surveyed services provided by
private operators and municipalities. The consultant summarized
the survey as follows:
Of all the authorized or legal disposal areas located
throughout Richland County, none could be classified as
meeting standards of operation to maintain a high level
of environmental sanitation. . . . The inventory of waste
disposal areas disclosed that 379 deposits of solid waste
were in existence throughout the unincorporated county
area. . . . Inadequate cover material, poor control of
usage by the general public, prevalence of scavengers,
breeding areas for pests, fire potential, water and air pol-
lution potential, and other conditions contribute to po-
tential health hazards. Furthermore, the limited number
of such authorized areas invited indiscriminate disposal
of solid waste along each of the county's roads.
It is equally important to determine the level of collection
services and who provides them.
Once existing collection and disposal practices have been
evaluated, planners are in a position to recommend regulations
to correct existing deficiencies and to ensure good future solid
wastes management operations.
Regulations. Whether or not local government operates any
part of the solid wastes management system, it must regulate all
aspects of the system. An important part of solid wastes planning
should be careful examination of existing state laws and local
The City of Los Angeles, Calif., carefully
operated this completed sanitary landfill so
that it would support an attractive trailer
court park.
43
-------
ordinances to determine whether they are adequate. If not, com-
prehensive state and local laws should be recommended and
actively sought.
new tools Development of a solid wastes plan is a complex problem
which can often benefit from the use of new planning tools such
as systems analysis and the Planning-Programming-Budgeting-
System (PPBS).
Systems Analysis. Systems analysis is basically a technical
tool that can be used to organize and interpret information to
help elected officials reach rational decisions. Ideally, systems
city-county planning
Genesee County and Flint, Michigan
The City of Flint, Genesee
County, Michigan, and their
industrial plants combined re-
sources to conduct a compre-
hensive study of residential,
commercial, and industrial
wastes. The need for such a
study became apparent when,
in an effort to protect dwindling
water supplies from contami-
nation and to curb air pollution
caused by open burning, the
State of Michigan enacted a
law controlling solid wastes dis-
posal. If strictly enforced, the
state law would have elimi-
nated conical burners, the most
common means of solid wastes
disposal within the county.
Realizing the severity of the
problem, a committee of rep-
resentatives from Genesee
County, Flint, and the local
manufacturers' association ap-
plied for and received a study
and investigaation grant from
the Bureau of Solid Waste Man-
agement to investigate thor-
oughly and recommend methods
of disposing of wastes for the
entire county. A consulting en-
gineering firm was retained to
conduct the study of current
solid wastes management prac-
tices, pinpoint deficiencies in
the methods, and recommend a
course of remedial action.
A survey of collection meth-
ods revealed that the Flint Pub-
lic Works Department collects
mixed solid wastes from do-
mestic and small commercial
establishments. In other parts
of the county, private collectors
perform this operation either
under contract with the gov-
ernment or by arrangement
with the individual resident or
proprietor.
To determine the quantity
and types of solid wastes gen-
erated by domestic and small
commercial enterprises, the con-
sultant analyzed solid wastes
collected in the City of Flint
for a selected period of time
and projected these findings to
the entire county. All solid
wastes collected by the city
public works department were
weighed and separated accord-
ing to type. Estimates of future
generation of each type of solid
wastes were made, based on
population projections to 1995.
Similar information on indus-
trial wastes was determined
with the complete cooperation
of industry. Material was gath-
ered from the Flint Industrial
Waste and Pollution Control
Committee.
Analysis revealed that meth-
ods of solid wastes collection,
although varying from one ju-
risdiction to another within the
county, were adequate, and that
the need to improve them was
not urgent. The primary prob-
lem facing the entire county
was establishment of satisfac-
tory disposal methods which
would meet state standards.
Of the three methods of solid
wastes disposal used in the
county, only one, the sanitary
landfill method used in Flint,
was adequate. Satisfactory dis-
posal methods had to be de-
signed for the rest of the
county. The consultant recom-
mended establishment of sani-
tary landfills because they are
relatively inexpensive to de-
velop and operate. Four poten-
tial landfill sites were located
from aerial maps and on-site
inspections. The consulting en-
gineer recommended the crea-
tion of a countywide disposal
agency to operate the sites,
which should be equipped to
dispose of all domestic, com-
mercial, industrial, and institu-
tional solid wastes. Industrial
wastes such as chemicals, oils,
paints, and sludges required
special treatment before being
transferred to the landfills.
Other wastes requiring special
treatment before disposal in-
clude dead animals, which
should be cremated before
burial, and large logs and tree
trunks affected by Dutch Elm
disease.
The consulting engineer's
study was submitted to city,
county, and industrial officials
in April, 1968. Plans to im-
plement the report are being
formulated.
44
-------
Countywide planning is evident in this map
of Madison County, Ala., showing the bulk
re/use storage and collection system
for both rural areas and Huntsville.
analysis seeks clear identification of one best program and the
most efficient way of operating it.
The systems analysis technique was used by the California
Department of Public Health, Bureau of Vector Control and Solid
Waste Management, in a study supported by the federal Bureau
of Solid Waste Management. In cooperation with private enter-
prise and selected local governments, California undertook a
study of the community, industrial, and agricultural solid wastes
management needs of central Fresno County.
The Fresno study developed a long-range conceptual man-
agement plan to meet predetermined health, aesthetic, legal, and
socio-economic goals for the urban, agricultural and industrial
communities in the rapidly urbanizing area. Because of the sophis-
tication of this study, a computer was used by the consultants to
process collected data quickly and understandably.
PPBS. The Planning-Programming-Budgeting System (PPBS)
is a tool for public decision and policy formulation. This sys-
tem is intended (1) to provide a continual review of govern-
ment objectives, (2) to establish priorities for program action, and
45
-------
I Determine the amount, char-
acter, and sources of solid
wastes, including special solid
wastes such as abandoned
motor vehicles, diseased
trees, water and waste treat-
ment sludge, dead animals,
and hazardous industrial and
chemical wastes. Identify the
proportions of wastes coming
from residential, commercial,
industrial, and agricultural
areas.
I Determine the existing solid
wastes management service
areas, seasonal variations, and
other local peculiarities of
solid wastes generation.
I Determine the quality of stor-
age practices from all solid
wastes sources and identify
practices that need improve-
ment.
I Identify and determine the
capacity, extent of service,
quality, and other attributes
of all collection systems (pub-
lic, private, and individual).
• Determine the extent, accept-
ability, number, and type of
on-site disposal and reduction
methods, including at least
residential back-yard burning,
other open burning, on-site
incineration, and garbage
grinding.
• Identify all disposal, reclama-
tion, reduction, and transfer
sites and facilities. Determine
the remaining life, cost, and
acceptability of these facili-
ties, both public and private.
• Account by weight for all
solid wastes generated, trans-
ported, and disposed within
the study area and for the
movement of solid wastes into
and out of the area.
checklist for data collection
• Identify legal rules, regula-
tions, ordinances, adminis-
trative structures, and other
local conditions that affect
solid wastes management sys-
tems.
• Determine local political, eco-
nomic, and social factors af-
fecting solid wastes manage-
ment.
• Describe and assess the exist-
ing solid wastes management
systems and summarize the
existing problem areas.
• Project future solid wastes
management needs for the
study area. For this projec-
tion, collect data on such
items as population projec-
tions, future land use, zoning,
industrial growth, recreation
development, agricultural
needs, and development of
adjacent urban areas.
evaluation
and recommendations
(3) to relate the effectiveness and cost of existing and proposed
programs to their objectives. All pertinent costs are considered:
direct, capital, non-capital, and associated support costs (such as
employee benefits and building maintenance costs). PPBS is rele-
vant to any local government project, including solid wastes
management.
Use of PPBS requires (1) identification of government objec-
tives; (2) identification of ways of carrying out the objectives;
[3] estimation of the total cost of each alternative; (4) estimation
of the expected results of each alternative; (5) presentation of the
major costs and benefits of the alternatives, along with identifica-
tion of major assumptions and uncertainties. Proper use of PPBS
can help coordinate the solid wastes system's functions and elimi-
nate duplication and mismanagement.
Before recommendations are offered, the planning process
must include a thorough discussion and evaluation of the various
public and private solid wastes system components. The con-
clusion of the plan should be concrete recommendations for regu-
lation and operation of the most efficient solid wastes manage-
ment system possible. Recommendations should reflect related
factors that will influence the solid wastes system: public attitudes,
state laws and standards, enabling legislation, local ordinances,
rules and regulations, finances, organization, and personnel.
implementing the plan
Implementation is the most important part of the planning process.
Planners should rate their recommendations by importance and
46
-------
outline a priority schedule for implementation. For example,
elected officials may be urged to acquire solid wastes disposal
sites promptly before the price becomes prohibitive or the land
is developed for another use. Implementation of plans may be
accelerated through a contract or franchise with responsible pri-
vate solid wastes operators.
Plans should encourage elected officials to establish a capital
projects fund to finance recommended solid wastes facilities. For
example, in 1965, the Los Angeles County Refuse Disposal Trust
Fund was set up to purchase future disposal facilities and to land-
scape and beautify sanitary landfills as they are completed. (See
Field Report in Guide Number 6, Financing.) Without capital
budgeting and the active support and interest of elected officials,
the solid wastes managment plan will never become a reality.
multi-county planning
Tri-County Planning Commission, Michigan
Clifton, Eaton, and Ingham
Counties, Michigan, and the 75
municipalities located within
them were prompted by the
passage of Act 87 of the 1965
Michigan legislature to evaluate
existing facilities and formulate
new methods of disposing of
solid wastes. The Michigan
law prohibits the continuation
of dumps and open burning,
and requires that operators of
solid wastes disposal sites meet
certain sanitation requirements
to be eligible for an operator's
license.
Many disposal sites operated
by private firms or small com-
munities in the tri-county area,
which includes Lansing and
Michigan State University,
could not meet the state's new
sanitation requirements. Be-
cause all three counties were
faced with the problem, the
governing boards of each asked
the Tri-County Planning Com-
mission to study the problem on
an areawide basis.
Early in 1966, the planning
commission initiated a study to
determine the present status of
solid wastes disposal; to de-
velop criteria for future dis-
posal; and to recommend future
disposal practices and financial
alternatives. It was assisted by
an advisory commission of
county representatives and a
technical subcommittee com-
posed of the county environ-
mental sanitarians and two
representatives of the state
health department.
An inventory of existing col-
lection practices and disposal
sites was undertaken. The
study of collection practices
revealed wide variations within
the 75 municipalities.
Some disposal sites in the
three counties were located by
information received from pri-
vate collectors and disposal
operators and state and county
health officials. Other sites
were located by studying land
use maps and aerial photo-
graphs. Each site was classi-
fied as a sanitary landfill, modi-
fied landfill, or open dump. The
expansion potential of the sites
was evaluated and this infor-
mation was recorded on a map.
When the survey of existing
collection practices and dis-
posal sites had been completed,
commission planners began to
project future disposal needs
and made recommendations.
Three alternate courses of ac-
tion were recommended: (1) es-
tablishment of an inter-com-
munity system; (2) assumption
of responsibility by each of
the three counties; or (3) crea-
tion of a single administrative
agency for the entire tri-county
region.
The arrangement favored by
the commission was the estab-
lishment of a disposal system
for each county under the ad-
ministration of a single agency,
preferably a road commission.
The countywide approach was
recommended because the
amount of undeveloped land
suited for refuse disposal was
diminishing and natural limita-
tions, rising costs, and restric-
tive political boundaries inhib-
ited communities from dealing
satisfactorily with disposal
problems individually. The
delegation of disposal authority
to the road commissions was
recommended because these
agencies are already equipped
with the necessary engineering
expertise, personnel, and ma-
chinery. In addition, they own
numerous abandoned gravel pits
which could be converted to
sanitary landfills.
The study of solid wastes dis-
posal was received favorably
by the three counties. Ingham
County allocated $12,000 to its
road commission for purchase
of landfill sites. The sites will
be designed to meet the needs
of the entire county for 20 to
25 years, and can be expanded
for use for 40 years. The other
two counties are also following
the planning commission's rec-
ommendations and are currently
designing disposal systems.
47
-------
selected
bibliography
Goodman, William I., (ed.), Principles and
Practices of Urban Planning, Interna-
tional City Managers' Association, 1140
Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washing-
ton, D. C. 20036. Price: $12.50.
Municipal Refuse Disposal, American
Public Works Association, 1313 East
60th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637,
1966. Price: $10.
Refuse Collection Practice, American Pub-
lic Works Association, 1313 East 60th
Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637, 1966.
Price: $10.
Sorg, Thomas J. and H. Lanier Hickman,
Jr., Sanitary Landfill Facts, U.S. Public
Health Service Solid Wastes Program
Publication Number 1792, U.S. Gov-
ernment Printing Office, 1968. Price:
$T;
.00.
Waste Management and Control, A Re-
port to the Federal Council for Science
and Technology, Publication 1400,
National Academy of Sciences, 2101
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washing-
ton, D. C., 1966.
summary
Unless elected officials begin to plan for solid wastes management,
they will not be able to meet demands for service, produce
changes, and prevent undesired effects. Each community should
include in its comprehensive plan for community growth careful
consideration of solid wastes management. Solid wastes plans
must be coordinated with other plans.
To protect the environment effectively, a solid wastes plan
should include a statement of its objectives; physical description
of the area; survey and inventory of solid wastes as to quantities
and characteristics; analysis of land use and population trends;
examination of state laws, regulations, and ordinances; evaluation
of revenue sources; and proposals for action.
Each locality must determine the agency or agencies best
suited to develop the solid wastes plan. Early in the planning
process, elected political leaders should seek assistance from the
designated state agency or agencies responsible for solid wastes
management. Officials should be prepared to pay for the entire
plan without waiting for state and federal assistance.
Before recommendations are offered, the planning process
must include a thorough discussion and evaluation of the various
public and private solid wastes systems. The conclusion of the
plan should be concrete recommendations for regulation and
operation of the most efficient management system possible.
Implementation is the most important part of the planning
process. Without capital budgeting and the active support and
interest of the elected officials, the solid wastes management plan
will never become a reality.
procedure for formulation of a
solid wastes management plan
• Consider alternative solid
wastes management systems
for the study area. Each pro-
posed system may combine
several storage, collection, and
land disposal methods.
• Consider the alternative sys-
tems in the light of public
health protection; prevention
of environmental pollution;
public sentiment; aesthetics;
political and jurisdictional ef-
fects; and anticipated growth
and shift in solid wastes gen-
eration, population, industry,
etc.
• Compare the alternative sys-
tems on an economic basis,
including the costs and bene-
fits of environmental and pub-
lic health protection.
• Select a system from among
the alternatives.
• For the recommended sys-
tem include capacities, cost,
source of revenue to operate
the system, functions, organi-
zation, general locations, op-
erating scheme, staging of
construction, and design tech-
nicalities.
I If needed to enhance facili-
ties or implement the recom-
mended system, identify and
suggest appropriate public in-
formation programs, financial
arrangements, and other de-
tails.
I Recommend needed legisla-
tion (standards, rules, and
regulations) at the local and
state levels.
I Provide for expansion and
flexibility and allow for ad-
justment of the system.
I Recommend what elected of-
ficials should implement im-
mediately.
48
-------
appendix
State Solid Waste Planning Agencies
State
Solid Waste Planning Agency and Address
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas*
California*
Colorado*
Connecticut*
Delaware*
Florida*
Georgia*
Hawaii*
*States with solid
State Department of Public Health, State Office
Building, Montgomery, Alabama 36104 (205/
269-7632)
State Department of Health and Welfare, Pouch
H, Juneau, Alaska 99801 (907/586-6311)
Division of Environmental Health, Hayden
Plaza, 4019 North 33rd Avenue, Phoenix, Ari-
zona 85017 (602/371-4642)
Arkansas Pollution Control Commission, 1100
Harrington Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202
(501/371-1701)
State Department of Public Health, 2151 Berke-
ley Way, Berkeley, California 94704 (415/843-
7900 Ex. 552)
State Department of Health, 4210 East llth Ave-
nue, Denver, Colorado 80220 (303/388-6111 Ex.
323)
State Department of Health, 79 Elm Street, Hart-
ford, Connecticut 06115 (203/566-2211)
Bureau of Environmental Health, State Board of
Health, Dover, Delaware 19901 (302/734-5711
Ex. 416)
State Department of Health and Rehabilitative
Service, P.O. Box 210, Jacksonville, Florida
32201 (904/354-3961)
State Department of Public Health, 47 Trinity
Avenue, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30334 (404/688-
4033 Ex. 281)
State Department of Health, P.O. Box 3378,
Honolulu, Hawaii 96801 (808/548-2811 Ex. 521)
waste management planning grants.
49
-------
Idaho*
Illinois
Indiana*
Iowa
Kansas*
Kentucky*
Louisiana*
Maine*
Maryland*
Massachusetts*
Michigan*
Minnesota*
Mississippi*
Missouri*
Montana*
State Department of Health, Statehouse, Boise,
Idaho 83701 [208/384-2390]
State Department of Public Health, State Office
Building, 400 South Spring Street, Springfield,
Illinois 62706 (217/525-6580]
Division of Sanitary Engineering, State Board of
Health, 1330 West Michigan Street, Indianapo-
lis, Indiana 46207 [317/633-4420]
State Department of Health, State Office Build-
ing, Des Moines, Iowa 50319 [515/281-5345]
State Department of Health, State Office Build-
ing, Topeka, Kansas 66612 [913/296-3821]
State Department of Health, 275 East Main
Street, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 [502/564-
6716)
State Department of Health, State Office Build-
ing, New Orleans, Louisiana 70160 (504/527-
5111]
State Department of Health and Welfare, State-
house, Augusta, Maine 04330 (207/622-7131 Ex.
241]
State Department of Health, 2305 N. Charles
Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21218 (301/383-
3010 Ex. 8201)
Bureau of Solid Waste Disposal, Massachusetts
Department of Public Works, 100 Nashua Street,
Boston, Massachusetts 02114 (617/727-4293)
Division of Engineering, State Department of
Public Health, Lansing, Michigan 48914 (517/
373-6620)
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 717 Dela-
ware Street, S.E., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440
(612/378-1320)
State Board of Health, P.O. Box 1700, Jackson,
Mississippi 39205 (601/354-6616)
State Department of Public Health and Welfare,
Broadway State Office Building, 221 West High
Street, Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (314/635-
4111 Ex. 245)
Division of Environmental Sanitation, State De-
partment of Health, Helena, Montana 59601
(406/449-2406)
*States with solid waste management planning grants.
50
-------
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey*
New Mexico*
New York*
North Carolina*
North Dakota*
Ohio*
Oklahoma*
Oregon*
Pennsylvania*
Rhode Island*
South Carolina*
South Dakota*
Environmental Health Services, Statehouse Sta-
tion, P.O. Box 94757, Lincoln, Nebraska 68509
(402/477-5211 Ex. 484]
State Department of Health and Welfare, 201
South Fall Street, Carson City, Nevada 89701
(702/882-7870]
State Department of Health and Welfare, State
Health Building, 61 South Spring Street, Con-
cord, New Hampshire 03301 (603/271-2747]
Bureau of Solid Waste Management, Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection, P.O. Box
1390, Trenton, New Jersey 08625 (609/292-7645]
State Health and Social Services Department,
408 Galisteo Street, Santa Fe, New Mexico
87501 (505/827-2693]
Department of Environmental Conservation,
845 Central Avenue, Albany, New York 12206
(518/457-6603)
Sanitary Engineering Division, State Board of
Health, P.O. Box 2091, Raleigh, North Carolina
27602 (919/829-3589]
State Department of Health, State Capitol Build-
ing, Bismarck, North Dakota 58501 (701/224-
2382]
State Department of Health, P.O. Box 118, Co-
lumbus, Ohio 43216 (614/469-3730
State Department of Health, 3400 North East-
ern, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 (405/427-
6561]
State Board of Health, P.O. Box 231, Portland,
Oregon 97207 (503/229-5955]
Department of Environmental Resources, P.O.
Box 90, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 (717/
787-3780 or 717/787-7599)
State Department of Health, 331 State Office
Building, Providence, Rhode Island 02903 (401/
277-2234)
Pollution Control Authority, P.O. Box 11628,
Columbia, South Carolina 29211 (803/758-2915)
State Department of Health, State Capitol,
Pierre, South Dakota 57501 (605/224-3351)
'States with solid waste management planning grants.
51
-------
Tennessee*
Texas*
Utah*
Vermont*
Virginia*
Washington*
West Virginia*
Wisconsin
Wyoming*
State Department of Public Health, 109 Capitol
Towers, 510 Gay Street, Nashville, Tennessee
37219 (615/741-2951)
State Department of Health, 1100 West 49th
Street, Austin, Texas 78756 (512/454-3781)
Department of Social Services, 44 Medical
Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah 84113 (801/328-6121)
Agency of Environmental Conservation, Mont-
pelier, Vermont 05602 (802/223-8444)
State Health Department, P.O. Box 12418, Nor-
folk, Virginia 23502 (703/420-3640)
Department of Ecology, Building #7, Olympia
Airport, Olympia, Washington 98501 (206/753-
7523)
State Department of Health, 1800 Washington
Street, East, Charleston, West Virginia 25305
(304/345-2985)
Department of Natural Resources, Box 450,
Madison, Wisconsin 53701 (608/266-0158)
Department of Health and Social Services, State
Office Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001
(307/777-7513)
*States with solid waste management planning grants.
52
-------
4 organization
-------
organization
introduction
Since solid wastes management is directly related to public health
and safety, government's minimum responsibility is to set and
enforce standards for safe solid wastes collection, treatment, and
disposal. Local government may choose not to perform all or part
of the physical operation of collection and disposal service (more
than half of the solid wastes collection and disposal in the United
States is provided by private enterprise). However, the responsi-
bility remains with local officials to insure healthful management
of municipal, industrial, commercial, agricultural, and residential
solid wastes on both a short-term and long-term basis. This
responsibility rests with all local governments, whether urban,
suburban, or rural.
In many areas, cities have provided for collection and dis-
posal of municipal and residential wastes but ignored the need to
provide for commercial, agricultural, and industrial wastes. Most
counties have not provided for any kind of solid wastes manage-
ment.
To establish an efficient, coordinated solid wastes manage-
ment system or to improve an existing system, the local elected
governing board should determine in what way government de-
partments are already associated with solid wastes management
and how well the system is working. Often efficiency can be
improved by reallocating functions so that the department which
can handle them best is assigned the responsibility. In the majority
of communities, which departments perform which functions de-
Sporadic litter control efforts will not
prevent the scenic abuse along this Southern
rural road. Organized efforts can make
headway against illegal dumping and litter.
54
-------
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE A BUREAU OF SANITATION ORGANIZATION CHART
BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS
BUREAU OF SANITATION
DIRECTOR
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
1
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
SECTION
PRINCIPAL ADMINISTRATIVE
ASSISTANT
1
RESEARCH AND PLANNINS
DIVISION
PRINCIPAL SANITARY
ENGINEER
1
REFUSE COLLECTION SEWER MAINTENANCE SEWAGE TREATMENT
AND DISPOSAL DIVISION DIVISION DIVISION
HOTSI 6ENE8AL SUPERINTENDENT "sWEIMTEIMIEHl" ENOINEER SUPERINTENDENT
Rtftst Refuse Refuse Mcttods
C
-------
FIGURE B METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF
NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ORGANIZATION CHART
Mayor
Director of Public Works
Deputy Director
Engineering Division
Director
Surveys
Design
Specifications
Construction Contracts
Inspection and Materials Testing
Records
Sanitation Division
Director
Refuse Collection
Refuse Disposal
Private Haul Regulations
Street Cleaning
Staff Services Division
Director
Personnel
Accounts
Procurement
Excavation Permits
Office Administration
Information
Street and Roads Division
Director
Maintenance
Construction
Snow and Ice Control
Equipment Division
Director
Maintenance
Repair
Supplies
Records
operated or furnished by the areawide government and what parts
by the individual jurisdiction;
4) what parts of the system will be handled by private indus-
try and by what means (contract or franchise).
Once these basic structural and functional decisions have
been made, the next steps are to investigate the alternate methods
of collection, processing, and disposal and to determine which
ones best fill local needs, desires, and abilities.
assigning operating responsibilities
The main criteria for determining what place a solid wastes pro-
gram should have in the organizational structure of a local gov-
ernment are that the system be easily identified by the public and
that it be allocated ample funds, equipment, and personnel. In a
small county, one person may be responsible for almost all func-
tions. In a large county, one or more major departments may be
necessary to do the job well. The magnitude of the solid wastes
management program will guide the elected governing board in
determining whether a separate department is needed. The fol-
56
-------
lowing is a list of the advantages and disadvantages of having
a separate department of solid wastes management:
ADVANTAGES
1. Separate budget
2. More visible to public and
governing body
3. Total attention devoted to
the problem
4. No sharing of equipment
and personnel
5. Directly responsible to the
elected governing board
6. Higher priority status
DISADVANTAGES
1. Further fragmentation of
local government
2. Solid wastes may not be
coordinated with related
programs
3. May create duplication of
some kinds of personnel,
e.g., budget, research, ac-
counting.
In most areas, a comprehensive solid wastes management
system is still in the development stage. The only system that the
National Association of Counties Research Foundation found that
includes collection and disposal of all solid wastes produced in
an area (residential, commercial, and industrial) is the City of
Tacoma, Washington, Utilities Services Division of the Depart-
ment of Public Works. The division also manages water and
sewer services. (See Field Report in Guide Number 6, Financing.]
The following examples show some of the organizational
structures possible. No one system, however, can be considered
a "model."
The Department of Public Works of Nashville-Davidson
County, Tennessee, is responsible for solid wastes collection,
landfill, and road construction.
An example of a public works department which contracts
for solid wastes collection, but operates its own incinerator and
companion sanitary landfill is Montgomery County, Maryland.
The department is also responsible for issuing collection service
FIGURE C
METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE
SANITATION DIVISION ORGANIZATION CHART
(Numbers indicate number of personnel holding position)
Superintendent of Sanitation (1)
Supervisor of Street Cleaning ID
Supervisor of Refuse Collection (1)
Senior Clerk (1)
Senior Refuse Collection Foreman (1)
Street Cleaning Foreman (1)
Street cleaning Foreman (5)
Heavy Equipment Operator (7)
Medium Equipment Operator (6)
Liglrt Equipment Operator (14)
Equipment Serviceman (1)
Security Guard (1)
Laborer II (22)
Laborer 1 (9)
Senior Account Clerk (1)
Refuse Collection Foreman (10)
Medium Equipment Operator (27)
Light Equipment Operator (90)
Sanitation Crewman (244)
Heavy Equipment Operator (17)
Light Equipment Operator (2)
Sanitation Crewman (8)
57
-------
statements to homeowners and referring complaints. (See Field
Report in Guide Number 5, Design and Operation.)
In San Bernardino County, California, a Refuse Disposal De-
partment was established after the function of solid wastes dis-
posal became so involved that it was separated from public works.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, assigns responsibility for solid
wastes management to the Sanitation Division of the Department
of Streets.
The Los Angeles, California, Board of Public Works, Refuse
Collection and Disposal Division, has organized all collection
activities on a district basis.
policy making
local government functions
The key functions of a solid wastes management system are:
Policy making
Public information
Budgeting
Planning and review
Drafting, adoption, and enforcement of standards
Operation of the system, including any or all of the follow-
ing: storage, collection, transfer, salvage, volume reduc-
tion, and disposal.
Elected governing board members have a primary responsi-
bility to make policy, inform the public, and appropriate funds
for solid wastes management. Policy making is one aspect of a
solid wastes management system which rests with the elected
governing body, but may be delegated by it to a department head
as needed. Questions of broad policy are the prerogative of the
FIGURE D
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF STREETS ORGANIZATION CHART
Street Commissioner
Engineering Projects
Coordinator
Deputy Commissiaur
Sanitation Division
Deputy Commissioner
Highway Division
Administrative services
Office
Chief Engineer
Engineering Division
Deputy Commissioner
Traffic Engineering
and Lighting Division
58
-------
FIGURE E
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
SANITATION DIVISION ORGANIZATION CHART
Deputy Commissioner
Administrative Services Officer
Field
Inspector
Chief of Sanitation Operations
elected official, while day-to-day management decisions should
be made by operating department heads.
Broad overall policy is the responsibility of the elected gov-
erning body regardless of who assists in preparing materials
which lead to the policy decision. The elected official must be
able to appoint the operating department head so that he will
have confidence in him and accept his advice. Professionals, con-
sultants, and department personnel are responsible for advising
the elected official and providing meaningful information to assist
him in making sound decisions.
Major policy decisions, such as final choice of disposal
method, means of financing, and degree of areawide cooperation,
are the responsibility of the elected governing board member.
Internal administrative decisions, such as collection crew organi-
zation and vehicle design, should reside with the operating or
service department head. Since solid wastes management in-
volves political issues, the department head should keep the
elected official up to date on department activities and anticipated
problems.
With an areawide solid wastes management program, policy
may have to be established in cooperation with other levels of
government, for example, with the municipalities within a county.
To maintain responsiveness to public needs, these policies should
be determined in cooperation with other jurisdictions. The area-
wide organization should be structured so that policy responsi-
bility rests with elected officials of general purpose governments.
The elected governing board member has the responsibility
to develop public understanding through leadership. Keeping citi-
zens aware of what constitutes good solid wastes management is
important. Information programs must be undertaken to educate
the community and to provide the climate or attitude to insure a
successful program. Ultimately, the public holds the elected gov-
public information
59
-------
budgeting
planning and review
erning board member responsible for the quality of the program;
his political future is related to it. (See Guide Number 8, Citizen
Support.]
Budgeting is a major aspect of policy making, and solid
wastes management is a necessary part of the cost of living. The
cost of providing solid wastes management should be ranked with
the cost of providing other necessities such as water, sewage col-
lection and treatment, electricity, and gas.
Solid wastes management is one of the highest budget items
of local government. However, few solid wastes management
budgets provide adequate funds for items such as competitive
salaries, safety, training, equipment maintenance, or office space.
These aspects are especially important and are frequently over-
looked. (For a more complete discussion, see Guide Number 6,
Financing, and Guide Number 9, Personnel.)
Because there are few federal and state programs which pro-
vide financial assistance to local government for solid wastes
management, the local government must be prepared to spend its
own money to do the job well. (See Guide Number 7, Technical
and Financial Assistance.)
Who does the planning depends on what kind of planning
must be done. To develop a comprehensive solid wastes man-
agement system, plans must be formulated in the following areas:
metro experiment
Metropolitan Government of Nashville-Davidson County, Tennessae
Consolidation of the govern-
ments of the City of Nashville
and Davidson County affected
every activity of the two units.
Solid wastes management was
no exception.
Under the consolidated gov-
ernment, solid wastes collec-
tion and disposal are the re-
sponsibility of the Department
of Public Works (DPW). The
DPW, one of seven depart-
ments of the metropolitan gov-
ernment, is accountable directly
to the elected chief executive,
the county mayor. Five divi-
sions make up the department;
one, the sanitation division, is
responsible for solid wastes
collection and disposal, regula-
tion of private haulers, and
street cleaning. The sanitation
division accounts for 40 per
cent of DPW personnel fsee
Figures B and C).
The new government estab-
lished an "urban service and
taxing district," and a "general
service and taxing district."
The urban district is the same
as the old City of Nashville,
where solid wastes collection
and disposal are provided by
the government. In the general
service district (the rest of the
county), collection is handled
by government-licensed collec-
tors and only the disposal sites
are a direct government func-
tion. Solid wastes collection
has been changed to a four-
day, 40-hour week arrangement
in the urban district. This pro-
vides twice-a-week collection
for all areas and daily collec-
tion in the central business dis-
trict. The licensing of private
collectors for the general dis-
trict and for certain urban dis-
trict solid wastes requires the
inspection of new equipment
and annual inspection of all
60
-------
preliminary fact-finding; study and investigation; decision and
action; and engineering. (See Guide Number 3, Planning.]
Formulating a solid wastes management system that meets
needs requires careful planning. Many local departments should
contribute to the solid wastes plan, which must be developed
within the framework of the comprehensive plans for land use
and economic development. Before ordering any study, the offi-
cial must decide what he needs to know so that the study findings
will have value.
Even after the solid wastes program is established, continuing
data collection and review of information is needed to keep the
program up to date. This data collection and review shoud be
built into the system. The City of Los Angeles expanded its infor-
mation system so that useful data would be provided automati-
cally each day to help maintain and improve high quality oper-
ating standards.
Drafting and adoption of standards for good solid wastes con-
trol is a responsibility shared by the policy makers with the
department heads. Local custom and the limitations set by char-
ter, the state legislature, or local governing body determine what
body has the power and responsibility to make whatever laws,
ordinances, and regulations are needed for solid wastes control.
(See Guide Number 2, Legal Authority.] In matters pertaining to
public health, the health department should have broad powers
drafting, adoption,
and enforcement
of standards
other equipment. Collection
charges are not regulated.
As of early 1968, the Metro
government operated seven dis-
posal sites, four in the urban
district. Three are government
owned; the remainder are leased
at no cost from private indi-
viduals. Waste at the disposal
sites is covered and has not been
the object of protest. Finished
disposal sites are currently
being used for community
development, such as industrial
and commercial warehousing.
Management personnel in the
solid wastes program have
come up through the ranks.
The same in-house approach ap-
plies to recruiting and trainees.
The DPW does its own recruit-
ing but the Metro Civil Service
Commission conducts the exam-
inations. No specific in-service
training takes place aside from
on-the-job training. Turnover
is low at the management level,
but very high in the lower
personnel classifications of the
solid wastes collection section.
Extensive attention is given
by the DPW director to the col-
lection function. Thorough rec-
ords are kept on collection
equipment, crew size, location
of refuse, pickup, and weight
as they relate to route time.
Routes, crew size, and collec-
tion equipment are adjusted to
obtain maximum use of re-
sources. As a consequence,
few complaints about refuse
collection have been received.
Work is underway to com-
puterize this data.
While the quality of collec-
tion reflects the active interest
and support of the director, the
disposal sites do not reflect an
equally intensive interest. Dis-
posal site operators receive
only on-the-job training. Equip-
ment operating personnel at the
sites seemed insufficient at the
time of field inspection. Sev-
eral landfills are located where
earth cover material is insuf-
ficient for daily cover. The ease
with which disposal sites have
been located and obtained in
the past has probably minimized
pressure for true sanitary land-
fill operation with daily com-
paction and cover. Present
sites are in or adjacent to the
urban core area, but expanding
development and rocky terrain
will force future sites to be
located well removed from the
central urban core.
Expansion of collection will
coincide with expansion of the
urban service district because
collection is considered one of
the urban services. Such a de-
cision is made by the council
based on charter criteria.
61
-------
full city operation
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
The City of Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, employs more
than 2,800 men (100 in admin-
istration, 320 in disposal, and
2,380 in collection) in municipal
collection and disposal opera-
tions. The agency is under
the Deputy Commissioner of
Streets, and includes sections
for research and planning, de-
sign, and public relations fsee
Figures D and Ej.
The 1966 Annual Report of
the Philadelphia Department of
Streets outlined the following
functions as the responsibility
of the sanitation division:
1) cleaning of public streets,
alleys, and sewer inlets or
catch basins;
2) collection of ashes, rub-
bish, and garbage from
households and retail es-
lishments;
3) disposal of all refuse re-
moved by city forces by
operation of incinerators
and landfills for residue;
also, the disposal of com-
bustible refuse collected
by private contract and
industrial establishments
and delivered to incin-
erators;
4) promotion of preventive
measures to encourage
citizen cooperation for a
cleaner city through as-
sistance, education, and
law enforcement;
5J promulgation of ordi-
nances and regulations
pertaining to municipal
sanitation; and
6J collaboration with the
highway division in snow
removal.
to set standards through administrative regulations. All standards
should be in accordance with state requirements.
Drafting, adoption, and enforcement of standards require
the coordinated action of the elected officials and many local
departments. Enforcement must be assigned primarily to a depart-
ment which will pursue the task with vigor; failure to do so will
result in pollution, public health deterioration, and ultimately
public opposition.
Generally, the health department sets and enforces standards.
In large urbanized areas, where the health department is involved
in many areas of health control, enforcement powers may be
shared with the public works department or some other operating
agency. (See Seattle-King County, Washington, Field Report in
Guide Number 1, Areawide Approaches.] These powers may be
separated so that the health department sets standards related
to environmental health and the public works department sets
standards related to technical operating efficiency. In case of
conflict, public health should take precedence.
Often the police department shares in enforcement by appre-
hending litterers and routinely patrolling known disposal sites.
In Kansas City, Kansas, police issue a special warning citation,
similar to a traffic ticket, for improper storage receptacles. Re-
peated violators are required to appear in court and may be fined
up to $100.
A recent organizational trend is the concept of a department
of environmental health which sets standards and implements
pollution abatement programs, as well as operates the collection
and disposal service. The Environmental Protection Administra-
tion (EPA] of New York City, established in March, 1968, is the
first local single agency to be responsible for control of all types
of pollution. "Organized the way we are, we can take a systematic
and comprehensive look at our environmental problems," said the
agency's first head, Dr. Merril Eisenbud, in Environmental Science
and Technology.
EPA is a super agency composed of three operating branches:
Department of Sanitation, Department of Water Resources, and
Department of Air Pollution Control. Dr. Eisenbud cautioned:
Certainly no administrative structure in itself is a pana-
cea, but we feel we're in a better position to avoid trading
off one form of pollution for another. For example, in
1951, the city started to require on-site incinerators in
new construction to help . . . with its growing problem of
refuse collection. Now we have 17,000 . . . and they're a
major contributor to our air pollution.
Although it is not yet possible to judge the effectiveness of
EPA, the consolidation of departments concerned with environ-
mental protection into a single agency offers the prospect of a
coordinated attack on pollutions, and is worth consideration by
other local governments. However, a strong system of internal
checks and balances is especially essential when a department
sets standards for its own operations.
A department of licenses and inspection may be responsible
for some aspects of enforcement, such as checking collection,
transfer, and disposal vehicles (both public and private] for com-
pliance with regulations. (See Guide Number 5, Design and Oper-
62
-------
sanitation management information system
City of Los Angeles, California
In 1963, the City of Los An-
geles Bureau of Sanitation's
Division of Research and Plan-
ning designed a basic systems
approach to gather pertinent
data to aid decision making for
the city's solid wastes manage-
ment personnel. For the previ-
ous 20 years, the city had
used a time-consuming, manu-
ally compiled data system,
which had become deficient in
three important aspects: uni-
formity, speed, and accuracy.
With increasing amounts of
solid wastes to be handled, the
manual recordkeeping system
could no longer supply detailed
information rapidly enough.
The City of Los Angeles
covers over 454 square miles
and in 1965 contained a popu-
lation of about 2,600,000. Alto-
gether 1,200,000 tons of solid
wastes are collected and dis-
posed of each year from ap-
proximately one million resi-
dential units within the city.
To do this requires 1,350
people, of whom 950 are en-
gaged in direct collection; the
balance are in equipment main-
tenance and disposal activities.
To plan the new system, de-
tailed requirements were com-
piled by the Division of Re-
search and Planning after
consultation with all of the
supervisory levels involved. To
replace the old information sys-
tem quickly, the city engaged
a systems engineering consult-
ing firm.
The new reporting system is
called "SANMIS" — Sanitation
Management Information Sys-
tem. SANMIS serves as an
organization tool because it
compiles all pertinent solid
wastes data into 27 separate
reports for the five manage-
ment levels so each level is
informed about its area of re-
sponsibility. SANMIS provides
daily, weekly, and monthly
summaries.
In 1968 SANMIS was pro-
grammed to meet the following
objectives:
1} for each supervisory level,
to provide information to
increase visibility and con-
trol of operations, facili-
tate improved decision
making, and assist in the
identification and solution
of problems;
2J to provide an historical
data base for budget
preparation and special
studies;
3) to aid processing between
acquisition of source data
and preparation of pay-
roll, personnel, and cost
accounting; and
4J to reduce substantially the
time lag between the close
of the reporting period
and the distribution of
cost and analytical re-
ports to management.
Daily information is trans-
mitted by remote control from
each of the city's six solid
wastes collection district offices
to a central control unit located
in the computer center at City
Hall.
Special analysis programs
have also been incorporated to
predict solid wastes tonnages
and workloads for work pro-
gramming and budget purposes.
Other reports are issued on
such items as preventive main-
tenance coverage, personnel
performance, and workloads.
City solid wastes management
officials believe that SANMIS
has improved the uniformity,
speed, and accuracy of the col-
lection and distribution of in-
formation required for effective
daily decision-making at all
levels of management. It has
helped especially in preparing
more accurate predictions of
program needs. SANMIS has
been in daily operation since
mid-1967.
ation and Santa Barbara County Field Report in Guide Number 2,
Legal Authority.)
Private operators should be required to post a performance
bond and secure a license or permit to operate collection vehicles
or a disposal site. Their operations should be checked fre-
quently by local government inspectors so that high standards
are maintained.
Local government has the responsibility to decide whether
solid wastes collection or disposal or both will be performed by
private industry or by government. The aspects of the operation
which must be provided for are collection and disposal operations,
street and roadside litter collection, equipment procurement, plant
design and maintenance, planning for future needs, complaint
handling, and contingency planning for natural disasters and tem-
operation of the system
63
-------
organizing a refuse disposal department
San Bernardino County, California
Prior to 1963 the involvement
of San Bernardino County, Cali-
fornia, in solid wastes manage-
ment was negligible, but in that
year the county opened its first
sanitary landfill. Between 1963
and 1967, solid wastes manage-
ment was the concern of the
county engineer and his public
works department. By 1967,
the number of sanitary landfills
had increased to seven; with
each new landfill, the organiza-
tional problems of operating an
effective program covering a
large land area grew signifi-
cantly.
San Bernardino County [pop-
ulation 503,591} is the largest
county in area in the country.
Its climate and topography are
varied. Agriculture is the main
industry, but not the only one.
On fuly 1, 1967, the San Ber-
nardino County Board of Super-
visors established the Refuse
Disposal Department as an in-
dependent department with the
authority to operate a disposal
program and regulate collec-
tion. Since manpower and
equipment are permanently as-
signed to the department, the
director does not have to wait
until men and equipment as-
signed to other public works
functions have "free time" to
get the solid wastes control
work done.
The department staff num-
bers near 60. Under the super-
vision of an experienced civil
engineer are a fiscal assistant,
scale foreman, and operations
supervisor. The fiscal assistant,
aided by two clerks, is in charge
of budgeting and revenue pro-
jections, land acquisition, and
fiscal coordination with the
county board and the budget
office.
The scale foreman and his 13
operators are responsible for
weighing solid wastes, accredit-
ing and receiving payment from
customers, and preparing by
punch card the initial billing of
the large collection operators.
Under the operations super-
visor are two operations fore-
men who direct the work of
23 heavy equipment operators,
four medium- and four light-
equipment operators, and five
regular laborers.
San Bernardino County is
currently operating eight sani-
tary landfills and 24 dumps.
The budget for this operation
is slightly over $1 million. It
is a self-sustaining program fi-
nanced by fees and charges.
porary equipment failures. (To supplement the following discus-
sion, see Guide Number 5, Design and Operation and Guide Num-
ber 9, Personnel.] No matter who operates collection and dis-
posal, all aspects of the system must be coordinated by local
government.
Government should analyze the costs and benefits of alter-
nate arrangements to decide the best system of operation. In
Seattle, Washington, collection is private, but transfer and dis-
posal are publicly operated. In other areas, just the opposite is the
case. Another combination is government collection of residential
solid wastes, and private collection of industrial, commercial, and
agricultural wastes. Disposal can also be divided. In Houston,
Texas, the city operates a municipal incinerator, but also supplies
Metropolitan Waste Conversion Corporation a certain daily ton-
nage of solid wastes for salvaging and composting (see Field Re-
port in Guide Number 5, Design and Operation]. In Los Angeles
64
-------
Organization and coordination extend aJl the
way down to the level of daily operations.
The two San Bernardino County, Calif.,
operators in the top photo are obviously
spreading and compacting landfill wastes as
a well coordinated team. The same is true
of the collection workers shown at bottom.
65
-------
This is one of the terminals of the complex
Sanitation Management Information
System (SANMIS) operated by the City of
Los Angeles for solid wastes management. S,
County, California, some sanitary landfills are government-oper-
ated, while others are privately run (see Field Report in this guide
and in Guide Number 1, Areawide Approaches].
Collection. Local officials must decide whether government
or private enterprise will provide collection service and what
extent of service will be offered. Regulatory control must always
be retained by local government.
In some urban areas the large private collection companies
may provide better service, maintain better working conditions
and safety standards, and can offer higher salaries than do gov-
ernment agencies. Government operations may be less able to
adjust to increases in cost or to design special equipment to service
new accounts. If private enterprise is available to do the job and
can do so better and more cheaply, local government should limit
its activities to regulation.
Several private companies serving the same area can cause
inconvenience to residents, traffic congestion, or excessive noise.
Local governments can minimize this by establishing separate
zones or routes for each company. However, with this procedure,
to protect the public local government should set the range of
rates that haulers may charge. In Montgomery County, Maryland,
residential solid wastes are collected under contract but the
county handles the billing.
Other necessary regulatory measures include the submission
of records, inspection and licensing of vehicles, and providing for
contingencies to avoid interruption of service. (For a discussion
of franchises and contracts as legal controls on private contrac-
tors, see Guide Number 2, Legal Authority.)
Disposal. The disposal method(s] chosen by the jurisdiction
66
-------
will influence the desirability of public or private operation.
Although there are only a few privately owned and operated
incinerators which contract with local governments to process
residential solid wastes, this possibility may be considered. How-
ever, since it is not common practice, it will not be discussed
here. [See Guide Number 5, Design and Operation.)
Private sanitary landfill operations are not unusual, and some
companies operate nationwide. Local governments should deal
only with companies which have an established record of quality
performance. To select a competent private operator, the public
official should visit operational and completed sites of potential
operators to judge their performance. The best time to inspect a
sanitary landfill is at the start or close of the day, unannounced,
so that there can be no question about how the site is left over-
night. This also applies to private operations which are not under
contract, but must be regulated.
road department division
Orange County, California
As of 1967, the Orange
County Planning Department
estimated the county's popula-
tion at 1,246,740. Proper dis-
posal of solid wastes, about
25,800 tons per week, is the
responsibility of the county's
Refuse Disposal Division, under
the overall direction of the
commissioner of the Road
Department.
The county's involvement in
solid wastes disposal dates
back to 1946. At that time dis-
posal was handled by indi-
vidual communities; open and
burning dumps were prevalent,
creating an intolerable situa-
tion. Action was taken to out-
law indiscriminate dumping and
privately operated dumps by
the Orange County Board of
Supervisors on October 29,
1946. The board adopted an
ordinance establishing and reg-
ulating the use of public dis-
posal sites, and assigned the
responsibility for properly
maintaining them to the county
Road Department, which had
the necessary equipment.
Since 1946, the growth of
the county's population and
its service needs have been
matched by a corresponding
improvement in methods of
solid wastes disposal. In No-
vember, 1959, the Board of
Supervisors adopted the Road
Commissioner's "Master Plan
of Refuse Disposal." This plan
established a system of long-
range, high-capacity disposal
sites and transfer stations stra-
tegically located.
Presently the 81 people in
the Road Department's Refuse
Disposal Division administer
the proper disposal of solid
wastes with an annual budget
of over $2 million.
The Refuse Disposal Division
has assigned personnel and
equipment to each of the five
sanitary landfill areas seven
days a week. The refuse dis-
posal engineer is responsible
for the supervision of three
public works foremen, 26 cus-
todians and laborers, and 59
equipment operators.
No charge is made for solid
wastes disposal. The current
average cost to dispose of solid
wastes in the five sanitary land-
fills is about $.60 per ton.
The county's long-range dis-
posal site supply is adequate
because of ample canyons
throughout the county.
67
-------
summary
No one organizational pattern for solid wastes management
can be said to be best. Within local government many different
organizational structures exist.
The division of operating responsibility between the public
and private sectors and the size of the job to be done influence
the assignment of the major responsibilities within a local govern-
ment. The functions which must be fulfilled are policy making;
public information; budgeting; planning and review; drafting,
adoption, and enforcement of standards; and operation of the
system. The allocation of these functions to local government
departments must be such that a coordinated, effective solid
wastes management system results. It is a system of checks and
balances, to insure that each department fulfills its role. A solid
wastes management system can work well with many organiza-
tions involved, or it can be a disastrous "buck passing" operation.
It is up to the elected governing board to see that conscientious,
qualified people are employed.
A city or county need not be densely populated to have a
good solid wastes management system. A small community will
have less solid wastes to collect and the organizational structure
needed will be less complicated, but the same functions must be
performed. Regardless of the size of the community, good organi-
zation is essential for effective solid wastes management.
selected
bibliography
Municipal Refuse Disposal, American
Public Works Association, 1313 East
60th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637,
1966. Price: $10.
Public Works Equipment Management,
American Public Works Association,
1313 East 60th Street, Chicago, Illinois,
60637, 1964. Price: $8.
Refuse Collection Practice, American
Public Works Association, 1313 East
60th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637,
1966. Price: $10.
"Reorganizing to Fight Urban Pollution,"
Environmental Science and Technol-
ogy, vol. II, no. 7, July, 1968. Ameri-
can Chemical Society, Easton, Penn-
sylvania.
Sanitary Landfills, Manual Number 39,
American Society of Civil Engineers,
345 47th Street, New York, New York
10017, 1959.
Sorg, Thomas J. and H. Lanier Hickman,
Jr., Sanitary Landfill Facts, U.S. Public
Health Service Solid Wastes Program
Publication Number 1792, U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1968. Price: $.35.
Good organization enables management systems which involve transfer
stations to make the stations a connecting JinJc between collection and
disposal, rather than a dividing point.
68
-------
5 design and operation
-------
design and
operation
introduction
This guide discusses the operation of collection, processing, and
disposal systems. It is designed to assist the elected governing
board member in selecting among the alternatives for solid wastes
management systems. It should not be used in place of a detailed
preliminary engineering study to determine local needs in devel-
oping a solid wastes management system.
The goal of a solid wastes management system is to maintain
a healthful and aesthetically pleasing environment by providing
for the regulation and operation of the best and most efficient
system.
methods of storage and collection
Storage Storing solid wastes properly while they await collection is neces-
sary so that they do not cause unsightliness or attract rats and
flies. A 1967 study in California showed that household solid
wastes containers have a high fly production rate and that twice-a-
week collection as opposed to once-a-week collection reduces the
total number of flies by more than 75 per cent. The Bureau of
Solid Waste Management of the U.S. Public Health Service
strongly urges that all solid wastes which contain garbage be
collected at least twice a week.
It is usually the homeowner's responsibility to supply enough
containers for his solid wastes and keep them in good condition.
In public areas, such as bus stops, shopping centers, and parks,
the local government must supply solid wastes receptacles. As
part of an anti-litter program in Wichita, Kansas, enclosed trash
cans purchased with the help of the Lions Club were placed at
every intersection in the city.
Local government is responsible for defining "proper storage"
and enforcing these standards. To obtain a construction permit,
a builder should be required to show in the plans that he has made
provision for solid wastes storage. In Columbia, Maryland, adver-
tised as a "totally planned new town," standard trash cans at
model homes are stored on the living room balconies. Such
placement shows that even in a planned community, solid wastes
storage often is overlooked. Tucson, Arizona, issued a booklet,
"A Confidential Talk With Architects," to remind builders to in-
clude accessible solid wastes storage areas as an integral part of
building design.
Cans {Metal and Plastic). The traditional tapered galvanized
steel can has remained the most widely used household solid
wastes can. Can size should be such that when loaded it weighs
no more than 80 pounds. This is usually a 20-gallon to 30-gallon
70
-------
container. Fifty-five gallon drums are not acceptable since they
are cumbersome and when loaded are too heavy for one man to
pick up safely. Cans should be protected by storing them on a
concrete base, or even better, by elevating them on a metal frame
about 18 inches above the ground.
Plastic containers are usually lighter, easier to clean, and rust-
proof. However, many plastic containers cannot withstand freez-
ing temperatures without cracking, and they are more susceptible
to fire damage than metal cans. Both plastic and metal containers
should have two secure handles, and tight lids without holes to
keep out insects and rainwater.
Sacks (Paper and Plastic). Disposable plastic and paper ref-
use sack systems have been developed. Most plastic bags are
designed for use as can liners, although some communities use
them instead of cans or for special wastes such as leaves, grass,
and other yard wastes. Paper sacks have many of the same ad-
vantages as plastic bags, and are somewhat less expensive.
Use of plastic and
ADVANTAGES
1. They are disposable and so
do not have to be cleaned.
2. They speed collection since
the collector does not have
to carry a container back
to the yard.
3. Spillage is lessened.
4. The number of bags set
out is easily adjusted to
immediate need.
5. They are lightweight and
easy to handle, reducing
back injuries and insurance
costs.
6. Collection is quieter than
with the can system.
paper sack systems
DISADVANTAGES
1. They are prey to attack by
animals if no metal guard
is used.
2. Arrangements are neces-
sary to make holders and
container guards available.
3. The user or local govern-
ment must, pay for a con-
tinuing supply of bags.
4. The homeowner must be
instructed in the use of
holder and the storage re-
quirements.
5. Closure of overfilled bags
is often faulty.
6. The bag is an item of solid
waste itself.
The plastic bags shown at curbside are
used for residential collection in
Mount Prospect, 111. In Rockbridge County
(Lexington), Va., sturdy, raised metal
cans are used for residental storage.
With the refuse sack system, local government may supply
homeowners with bags and racks or act as an agent selling to the
owners so that the sacks will always be conveniently available.
The City of College Park, Maryland, distributes 25 weeks'
supply (in 50-bag lots] of paper bags at a time. Residents may
request and receive up to 25 additional bags during each 25-week
period at no cost to the homeowner. Many communities use
some form of the refuse sack as the recommended storage system.
Mobile Detachable Containers. The containerized storage sys-
tem (mobile detachable unit] is best used for quantity waste pro-
ducers and for wastes which are hard to handle. In most places,
replacement of 30-gallon cans or 50-gallon drums with large
4-cubic-yard to 20-cubic-yard or even 40- to 50-cubic-yard con-
tainers has proven convenient and efficient. It especially speeds
collection of large amounts of waste from commercial and indus-
trial establishments. These containers are usually supplied by
the collector.
-*
71
-------
For the last four years some
citizens of Junction City, Kan-
sas, a town of 20,000 popula-
tion, have used paper sacks to
store solid wastes for collec-
tion. The storage system is vol-
untary; citizens may use bags
or traditional trash cans. Those
using the paper bag service are
furnished with a three months'
supply of bags based on the
use rate of two per week. Ad-
ditional bags may be purchased
for 10 cents each. The service
costs $1.75 per month.
paper sack storage system
Junction City, Kansas
Property owners using the
paper sacks are furnished a
paper bag holder and some pur-
chase a "shed" in which the bag
and holder are stored. Con-
tainers are placed at the alley
line to keep front yards attrac-
tive and litter-free. The city
provides collection twice a
week.
The use of paper bags re-
duces the possibility of back in-
juries and hernias among city
collection works. The city man-
ager of Junction City reported
that after initiation of the paper
bag system, insurance rates for
refuse collectors dropped from
$16,000 annually to $7,200.
Collectors prefer the paper
refuse sacks because they weigh
much less than the traditional
metal trash cans and are much
easier to handle. Homeowners
prefer the paper sacks because
they eliminate the unsavory
chore of cleaning garbage cans
and the need to replace cans
which have been damaged by
poor handling or rusting.
For collection, the container is mechanically lifted, emptied
into the compaction truck, and replaced. Some early designs still
in use require the container itself to be physically transported to
the disposal site, emptied, and returned to the collection point;
this wastes time and may leave the commercial establishment
without a storage unit several hours on collection day. Other
systems use large piggyback containers which fit on a flatbed
truck. When the container is full, the truck brings an empty bin
and takes the full one to the disposal site.
The containerized storage system is appropriate for commer-
cial, industrial, agricultural, and apartment solid wastes. In rural
and sparsely settled areas, containers are sometimes placed at
convenient roadside locations for wastes storage since home-to-
home collection costs may be prohibitive. [See Madison County,
Alabama, Field Report in Guide Number 8, Citizen Support.) To
conduct a successful program, enough containers must be sup-
plied. They must be cleaned regularly to minimize odor and
insect infestation, and solid wastes must be collected on a regu-
larly scheduled basis [a minimum of twice a week).
To save storage space, some bins are equipped with their
own compaction devices. The greater the compaction the fewer
the storage units required. Where air pollution control regulations
have outlawed the use of incineration in apartment buildings,
these compacting bins can often replace the burner in the same
space. In planning this kind of operation, care must be paid to
accessibility of the storage units and the servicing of the
compactor. Other systems reduce volume by shredding or pulping.
Other Storage Techniques. Some communities have back-
yard shelters or converted backyard burner shells where solid
wastes are dumped. Collection crews periodically remove the
solid wastes from the shelter. This method is inefficient and ex-
pensive; causes odors; draws rats and flies; and is a fire hazard.
One bad method is pit storage, where garbage can holders are
built into the ground. Garbage spilled in the pit is rarely cleaned
72
-------
out, causing odors and harboring flies. This method is unaccept-
able since only small cans can be lifted from below ground level;
many cans are required; and collectors must use improper posi-
tions to lift containers.
The collection system is influenced by storage method, pickup
point requirement, kind of waste, kind of equipment, labor avail-
able, and cost. The service provided influences the crew size per
truck, as does truck capacity and travel time. Any collection
system should have prescribed routes and days for collection.
Residential Collection Methods. If standard metal cans, ref-
use sacks, or plastic bags are used, there are five basic methods
collection
FIGURE A: COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL COLLECTION SERVICES
TYPE OF SERVICE
CONSIDERATIONS
Requires homeowner
cooperation:
a) to carry empty cans
b) to carry full cans
CURB
SERVICE
YES
YES
ALLEY SERVICE
OPTIONAL
OPTIONAL
SET-OUT
SET-BACK
SERVICE
NO
NO
SET-OUT
SERVICE
YES
NO
BACKYARD
CARRY SERVICE
NO
NO
Requires scheduled
service for home-
owner cooperation
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
Poor aesthetically:
a) spillage and litter
problem
b) cans visible
Attractive to
scavengers
Prone to upsets
Average crew size
required for efficiency*
HIGH
YES
YES
YES
1-3
MEN
HIGH
NO
HIGHEST
YES
1-3
MEN
LOW
NO
NO
NO
3-7
MEN
HIGH
YES
NO
YES
1-5
MEN
LOW
NO
NO
NO
3-5
MEN
Crew time*
LOW
LOW
GREAT MEDIUM MEDIUM
Collector injury rate
due to lifting and
carrying
LOW
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM HIGH
Trespassing
complaints
LOW
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
Special considerations
Requires alleys and
vehicles that can
maneuver in them;
less prone to block
traffic; high vehicle
and can deprecia-
tion rate
Requires wheeled
caddy to roll filled
barrels or the use of
burlap carry cloth
or hand carry bin;
works best with
driveway
Evaluation based on
Poor
service to home-owners; service,
cost due to crew size low
and time requirements cost
Fair service, low
cost
Good
service,
high
cost
Fair
service,
medium
cost
Good service,
medium cost
* Presumes use of standard compactor vehicle.
73
-------
In this example a/ backyard carry
collection service, the collector
first empties trash and garbage info
a burlap cloth, which he then carries
to the collection truck at curbside.
of residential waste pickup service: curb service, alley service,
set-out/set-back service, set-out service, and backyard service.
With curb service, the homeowner places his solid wastes
containers] at the curb on the scheduled day. Pickup men dump
the wastes into the collection vehicle and replace the container
at the curb. The howeowner must return the container to its
normal storage area.
With alley service, solid wastes containers are stored on the
homeowner's property at the alleyline. Pickup men empty the
containers into the collection vehicle and replace the container
in its normal storage area next to the alley.
With set-out/set-back service, "set-out" men go house to
house taking full trash cans from yard to curbline; other men stay
with the truck to empty cans; "set-back" men return the empty
cans to the owner's yard.
With set-out service, the collector brings the waste can from
the yard to curb and empties it. The homeowner carries the
empty container back to the yard's storage area.
With backyard carry service, the collector carries a tote bin
or burlap cloth to the yard, empties the can into the bin or carry-
cloth, replaces the container, and carries the solid wastes to the
collection vehicle.
There are, of course, many modifications and adaptations of
these methods to fit particular community needs, including the
use of scooters, caddies, trains, etc. The five methods listed, how-
ever, are the basic systems now in wide use. (See Figure A:
Comparison of Residential Collection Services.) For more infor-
mation, see bibliography or consult an engineering firm with
experience in designing collection systems. (See section on con-
sultants in Guide Number 9, Personnel.]
Route and crew organization patterns must be integrated
with the type and frequency of collection and with the amount
of solid wastes to be collected. For example, provision must be
made to accommodate seasonal variations. The first pickup of
the week is usually heavier than the second; thus the daily work
load may vary considerably. Since neighborhood conditions differ
greatly, routes must be planned and adjusted on an individual
basis.
Other Collection Methods. Food wastes grinders are not a
disposal method, but volume reduction devices. In addition to
residential use, they are in widespread use in restaurants, hotels,
and other food processing establishments.
Food Wastes Grinder
ADVANTAGES
1. It lowers the moisture con-
tent of solid wastes to be
collected.
2. It is convenient for home-
owner.
3. It eliminates most on-site
garbage storage. If garbage
collection has been sepa-
rate, it can be eliminated.
4. Fly and rat problems
around storage containers
can be reduced.
DISADVANTAGES
It cannot handle all food
wastes, such as large bones
and fibrous materials.
The wastewater treatment
plant or septic tank must be
large enough to accommo-
date the additional wastes.
74
-------
Mostly under development and projected for the future, other
collection systems flush wastes by water or air to a central collec-
tion point. They may be appropriate for multiple-family dwelling
units, hospitals, and office buildings. These systems are expensive
and may require a lot of maintenance. Pneumatic and flushing
systems have been used in Europe for many years, but are just
beginning to be considered in the United States.
Collection Equipment. Vehicle life depends in large measure
on routine preventive maintenance. Daily maintenance should
include cleaning inside and out. The driver should be responsible
for a daily vehicle safety check, including inspection of brakes,
windshield wipers, tail lights, back-up lights, tires, and hydraulic
system, and report any irregularities for repair! Tune-up, over-
haul, and repainting should be performed as needed during the
year. The vehicle fleet should be large enough so that no route
is short-changed when vehicles are out of service for routine
repairs.
Any equipment or process which affords greater compaction
probably brings long-range economy since more solid wastes can
be handled conveniently at one time.
Compaction vehicles are desirable for the above reason and
because they can reduce the number of trips to the disposal site.
Enclosed compactor collection vehicles should be metal and
watertight, and have low loading height, safety features, fast com-
paction cycle (to speed collection), and high compaction pressure.
Officials should include initial price and estimated annual oper-
ating and maintenance costs in making comparisons of various
vehicle designs and makes. Prices vary from $10,000 to $100,000.
Some things to investigate before purchasing collection equip-
ment are weight limits for all roads over which the vehicles will
travel; vehicle stability (loaded and unloaded]; turning radius;
loading height; and vehicle height in the unloading position to be
sure there is overhead clearance in transfer stations, service build-
ings', or incinerators.
Although not always standard equipment, vehicle safety fea- safety features
tures are essential for protection of employees and the public.
Their additional cost will be returned in lower insurance rates,
lower workmen's compensation, and lower sick leave payments.
Packer design safety features should include:
• interior and exterior rear-view mirrors since backing acci-
dents account for most vehicle damage and fatalities
• back-up lights
• four-way emergency flashers
• blade controls which can be reached by someone in danger
to halt or release the compaction cycle
• protective coverings over all external moving parts to avoid
danger of catching fingers and clothing
• a safe place for crew members to ride on short trips,
with handholds and platforms big enough to safeguard
against slipping
• first aid equipment
• fire extinguishers
• a warning indicator that can be operated from the rear of
the truck
Mechanically self-loading collection vehicles (fork-lift
75
-------
equipped trucks) are frequently used with mobile detachable con-
tainers (bins) for non-residential collection. A bin is lifted auto-
matically and emptied into the truck, which can be front, side, or
rear loading, and may or may not provide compaction. The truck
should be used with a crew of two: a driver and a helper to assist
in rounding corners and backing safely. To lessen the danger of
injuries, front-end loaders should be designed so that the lifting
arms do not pass in front of the cab doors or windows.
Local governments should not permit open vehicles for gen-
eral collection of solid wastes, but occasionally they can be used
for bulky items if wastes are covered tightly. Open trucks are
inefficient solid wastes collection vehicles. Private haulers often
build up the wastes capacity of an open truck by makeshift addi-
tions of plywood panels. Such vehicles are usually of question-
able safety, leak, and contribute to a poor public opinion of the
solid wastes management profession. Open trucks used to collect
garbage and rubbish are costly to operate due to no compaction,
and require more frequent trips to the disposal site and possibly
manual unloading.
The scooter system consists of a light-weight, motor-driven
scooter with a bin attached. In Pasadena, California, a scooter
with 1.3-cubic-yard (300 gallon) capacity bin is used for once-a-
week backyard residential collection. When the scooter bin is
full, after residential pickups, the bin is mechanically
emptied into a 50-cubic-yard compaction truck which accompa-
nies the scooters along the route. Each route is assigned two
scooter units, one tote caddy, one truck, and a crew of four.
This method is suitable for mild climates where there is level
terrain and little wind. It is especially convenient in residential
neighborhoods where long driveways are standard. Back injuries
are few since wastes are hand carried only a short distance.
In the train system, a light truck pulls a series of connected
bins on wheels, called a "train." The train system provides
efficient use of both the large compaction vehicle and crew. With
this system, continuous communication between train and com-
paction vehicle is essential. When the bins are full, the driver
contacts the packer vehicle driver by radio to tell him where to
meet the train along the route. After the bins are emptied into the
packer, it departs to meet another train or to go to the disposal
or transfer site. A disadvantage of the train system is that it is
difficult to maneuver on steep or narrow streets, and may allow
littering.
items needing special handling Some items require special storage, collection, and processing
because they are difficult to handle and slow down routine oper-
ations. Large bulky wastes cannot fit into most regular compac-
tion trucks. Certain wastes, such as tree and shrub branches, can
be processed by collection vehicles if tied in bundles light enough
to be lifted by one person and small enough to fit into the back
of the truck. Other large quantity bulky items require special
equipment for processing, such as vacuum leaf collection vehicles,
leaf mulchers, wood chippers, and power brooms. (See Guide
Number 8, Citizen Support for a discussion of special bulky item
pick up service.)
In New York City, where abandoned automobiles have been
a major problem, the mayor instituted a massive abandoned auto
collection program in 1967. He had the Sanitation Department
76
-------
junk automobile collection
Klamath County, Oregon
In 1966, Klamath County, Or-
egon, undertook a pilot program
to see what could be done
about the growing problem of
old junk automobiles. The
Board of Commissioners con-
tracted with an auto press firm,
which moved into one of the
dumps. As soon as operation
began, a news campaign was
started. All news media, espe-
cially the local paper, publi-
cized the program, and people
in the area were urged to bring
in their junk cars.
When the first community
was cleaned up, the operation
moved to another disposal site
and subsequently into the City
of Klamath Falls, where the
county road department was
used to help collect old cars.
The city also cooperated and
hauled "junkers" from lots.
The county legal counsel pre-
pared a "release and bill-of-
sale" form which was required
to be signed before the county
picked up any autos on private
property. In most cases, $3.50
was charged, but for large con-
centrations (40 cars or more]
the fee per car was smaller.
The fee did not cover the ac-
tual cost of picking up, releas-
ing, and disposing of the cars,
which ran about $10.50 per
vehicle. Klamath County paid
the difference. One county of-
ficial said, "It would be worth
twice the cost if necessary to
continue the program. The
people are all for the improve-
ment it has made in the county."
After the pilot junk auto-
mobile removal program was
successfully completed, the
county reached several conclu-
sions:
1. A countywide abandoned
automobile removal program is
feasible, possible, and practical.
2. Property values are en-
hanced.
3. Scenic values and health
conditions are improved.
4. People show more pride
in their neighborhoods when
junk cars are removed.
5. Salvage, in the long run,
may be of economic value.
To continue the program, the
county would have to:
1) provide central locations
for storing the cars;
2) press for legislation to help
defray the cost—perhaps a state
fee ($15) when the vehicle is
first registered in the state; and
3) either subsidize the freight
to scrap centers, obtain better
freight rates, or form a coopera-
tive with several counties to
purchase the necessary com-
pressing equipment to take care
of area problems.
Now during one week each
May, the county cooperates
with various Chambers of Com-
merce and conducts a county-
wide auto clean-up program.
Last year by working dump
areas and a six-mile radius of
the City of Klamath Falls, 2,515
cars were removed. This rep-
resents one car body for every
20 people in Klamath County.
pick up the vehicles after normal solid wastes collection work
had been completed each week. In 1968, the city discontinued its
own towing operation and contracted privately. Under the new
private contract system, after determination has been made that
a car is actually abandoned, it is collected and each car must be
scrapped by the contractor, who pays the city a per car fee.
Klamath County, Oregon, has also inaugurated a year-round
abandoned automobile collection and disposal program.
Sometimes special storage must be developed to fit the spe-
cific needs of the material. In some areas, liquid and semi-liquid
wastes which cannot be accepted by the sewer system (such as
chemicals and oils) are loaded directly into tanker vehicles to be
transported to a disposal site equipped to accept such wastes.
long distance transportation systems
Transfer stations may be desirable when the distance or travel
time from collection to disposal sites is great. Transfer is justified
when it saves more in collection costs than transfer itself costs.
Daily and seasonal variations in solid wastes delivery rates must
transfer stations
77
-------
Orange County officials use
three criteria in determining the
cost of transfer: flj the cost of
haul to the transfer station; [2]
the unit cost of operating, main-
taining, and amortizing the
transfer station and its facili-
ties; and f3J the unit cost of
transportation from the transfer
station to the nearest landfill.
Based on the Road Department's
1957 report, "Master Plan for
Refuse Disposal," which dis-
cussed solid wastes facility
needs, the Orange County Board
of Supervisors decided that a
series of transfer stations and
landfill operation would provide
the most economical solid
wastes disposal system.
By 1968, Orange County op-
erated three transfer stations
geographically located in urban
areas, handling about 1,700 tons
of solid wastes daily.
Each station has the same
basic design, consisting of a
ground-level unloading dock,
scale system, and fueling area.
The dock, 146 feet long and
80 feet wide, has depressed
ramps for the transfer trailers
adjacent to the unloading dock.
This area has space for four
sets (a semi-trailer and pull
trailer] of transfer trailers to be
loaded at a time. Solid wastes
from municipalities, private
contractors, and commercial op-
erators are weighed on a truck
scale as each load is brought to
the dock. Typical transfer sta-
tion equipment consists of
truck-tractors, transfer trailers,
packer-loaders, .and a power
broom. The function of the
truck and trailer unit is to trans-
port the solid wastes to one of
the five county-operated sani-
tary landfills. The packer-loader
fa grab bucket and mounted
crane] is used to distribute and
transfer station
Orange County, California
compact solid wastes in the
transfer trailer, and the power
broom fa street sweeper) is used
to pick up any solid wastes
which might be scattered dur-
ing the transfer of solid wastes
from the collection vehicles to
the transfer trailers. When
loaded, each truck pulls two
trailers carrying nearly 22 tons
of solid wastes.
Because the transfer stations
are relatively near residential
areas, each station has been
landscaped with pine trees to
make it attractive.
In 1961, the county Road De-
partment re-examined the eco-
nomics of transfer stations and
concluded that transfer had re-
mained economical even though
labor and equipment costs had
risen. Orange County considers
its three transfer stations an es-
sential part of its areawide solid
wastes disposal program.
other transport systems
be recognized in transfer system design and cost. Good engi-
neering studies will determine the economics of the best design.
There are two basic transfer station designs: those which
load solid wastes directly into the long-haul vehicle and those
which deposit wastes into a storage area before loading them
into the long-haul trailer. Efficiency is gained when solid wastes
are compacted into the transfer vehicle. Since compaction of
almost any kind increases transportation efficiency, any additional
compaction obtained at the transfer stations is probably worth the
cost. Once the trailers are loaded, they are transported to the
processing or disposal site. No solid wastes should remain at the
transfer station at the end of the working day.
If the area served is large or has established several disposal
sites, it may be helpful to have more than one transfer station
location to shorten travel by collection vehicles. The City of
Seattle has two large stations; King County has seven smaller,
strategically located stations. (See Field Report in Guide Num-
ber 4, Organization, and also see "Checklist for Good Operating
Practice for Transfer and Disposal Operations."]
Other methods of transporting solid wastes include railcars,
pipes, and barges. Rail transport is being tested by the American
Public Works Association (APWA) to determine its cost, advan-
tages, and disadvantages. Barge transport is used in some com-
munities with waterways. Experiments are also underway to
develop pneumatic and flushing systems to transport solid wastes.
78
-------
volume reduction and disposal methods
The sanitary landfill is presently the only true disposal method
and is basic to any solid wastes program. Incineration is a volume
reduction process and produces residues which should be sanitary
landfilled. Open burning and open dumping are not solutions to
the disposal problem. Feeding hogs garbage is a form of reuse.
Compost is a form of processing organic wastes, such as garbage
and paper, to form a humus-like soil conditioner. Such a recycling
process may be incorporated in the system to handle a small per-
centage of solid wastes. But local governments should not base
any solid wastes management system predominantly on a salvage
or compost program.
Sanitary landfill frequently is a versatile and economical dis-
posal method. Almost any solid wastes can be disposed of in a
sanitary landfill, and otherwise unusable land can often be re-
claimed for community use. Major elements in the sanitary land-
fill process are proper placing of refuse, effective compaction,
and adequate cover (see Figure B).
According to the American Society of Civil Engineers:
Sanitary landfill is a method of disposing of refuse on
land without creating nuisances or hazards to public
health or safety, by utilizing the principles of engineering
to confine the refuse to the smallest practical area, to
reduce it to the smallest practical volume, and to cover
it with a layer of earth at the conclusion of each day's
operation, or at such more frequent intervals as may be
necessary.
sanitary landfill
FIGURE B;
sectional view of a sanitary landfill
Horizontal Length of
Daily Cell and Cover
Horizontal Length of Working Face
79
-------
No on-site burning should ever be permitted at a sanitary
landfill. A sanitary landfill can be made operational in less time
than an incinerator or compost plant.
Determining Land and Equipment Needs. The amount of land
needed for sanitary landfill operation is based on the amount of
solid wastes to be landfilled. The amount will vary with the sea-
sons, and will be greater when local government disposes of com-
mercial, industrial, or agricultural solid wastes on a regular basis.
There are no reliable formulas to determine residential, commer-
cial, agricultural, and industrial waste amounts, so a careful study
must be made of the solid wastes generated in the area that will
be using the sanitary landfill. Weight is the most reliable basis
since volume is a relative measure.
Roughly, one acre of land with a 15-ft compacted lift of
solid wastes will accommodate a population of 10,000 for a year.
If additional lifts can be placed over the initial lift, the land area
requirement can be reduced.
Sanitary landfill equipment needs are based primarily on the
daily tonnage of wastes to be landfilled. It is best to use scales
at the landfill to provide the necessary data to determine daily
tonnage. Scales also provide an equitable basis for fees. In a
small operation, one tractor with a bucket loader (and a dump
truck if cover material must be transported) can operate very well;
a large operation may require several pieces of compacting and
earth moving equipment. (See Figure C showing equipment needs
FIGURE C: AVERAGE EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
Population
0
to
15,000
15,000
to
50,000
50,000
to
100,000
100,000
or
more
Daily
tonnage
0
to
40
40
to
130
130
to
260
260
or
more
No.
1
1
*
1
to
2
*
2
or
more
Equipment
Type
Tractor crawler or
rubber-tired
Tractor crawler or
rubber-tired
Scrapper
Dragline
Water truck
Tractor crawler or
rubber-tired
Scraper
Dragline
Water truck
Tractor crawler or
rubber-tired
Size in Its.
10,000
to
30,000
30,000
to
60,000
30,000
or
more
45,000
or
more
Accessory*
Dozer blade
Front-end loader
(1 to 2 yd)
Trash blade
Dozer blade
Front-end loader
(2 to 4 yd)
Bullclam
Trash blade
Dozer blade
Front-end loader
(2 to 5 yd)
Bullclam
Trash blade
Dozer blade
Front-end loader
Bullclam
Trash blade
Scraper
Dragline
Steel wheel compactor
Road grader
Water truck
"Optional. Dependent on individual need.
Source: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Center for
Urban and Industrial Health, Solid Wastes Program Publication Number 1792 Sanitary Landfill Facts (Wash-
ington: Government Printing Office, 1968), p. 17.
80
-------
In this sanitary landfill, solid wastes are covered continuously during the day
and then given a final cover at night. The result is that only a small u-orking
face is evident at one time.
based on tonnage of wastes to be filled and population served.
Also see total cost bidding in Guide Number 6, Financing.]
Site Suitability. Selection of a site involves consideration of
topography, population, accessibility, hauling distance, cost, time-
in-motion, pollution potential, cover material, proximity of resi-
dences, citizen reaction, and ultimate usage. Sites should be
chosen which will meet anticipated needs for at least the next
ten years, but preferably for a 20- to 30-year period. This may
mean selection of several sites, each having a life of from three to
five years. Sites worth considering for use as sanitary landfills
include gullies, ravines, eroded areas, marshlands, strip mines,
gravel pits, and flat land.
Generally, the larger the parcel of land, the greater the econo-
mies to be gained, presuming the distance to the site is not un-
reasonably difficult to travel. Where disposal sites are distant,
transfer stations may be required. Engineering consultants are
usually enlisted to find potential landfill sites, evaluate their suit-
ability, and determine whether transfer station operation would
bring economies. (See Guide Number 9, Personnel, for more on
using consultants.) If there is standing or flowing water on the
land, it must be permanently diverted before beginning the fill.
A qualified soil specialist or geologist should check the topo-
graphic, soil, and geologic conditions to insure protection of the
ground water. Subsoil should be impermeable. If not, adequate
soil must separate the bottom of the waste fill from the highest
known ground-water level. Proper surface drainage should be
provided to minimize entry of surface waters into the landfill
proper. Surface drainage must be consistent with the surrounding
area so the finished construction will neither interfere with proper
drainage on adjacent lands nor concentrate run-off water on
adjacent areas. To allow normal surface drainage and to mini-
mize erosion, the completed fill should have at least 1 per cent
slope, and be seeded to promote stabilization of the cover.
Availability of workable earth is an important factor in oper-
ating cost. If it cannot be excavated at the site, or brought in from
nearby road construction or other sources, it may have to be
purchased. Hauling and purchase can raise costs 25 to 50 per
cent or more. The cover material should compact well and be
applied thickly enough to prevent cracking and exposure of the
filled wastes. In cold climates, cover material must be excavated
multiple functions
of sanitary landfill
San Bernardino County,
California
The solid wastes disposal
program for San Bernardino
County, California, must allow
flexibility in the selection, con-
struction, and operations of its
eight sanitary landfill sites. The
county has five basic environ-
ments—low desert, high desert,
alluvial valley, foothill, and
mountain—and elevations rang-
ing from 14.494 feet above to
282 feet below sea level. Each
elevation has its own soil, wa-
ter, vegetation, and atmospheric
characteristics. When these con-
ditions are added to considera-
tions of population, location,
and transportation, the con-
struction of a sanitary landfill
becomes a complex problem.
The San Bernardino County
Refuse Disposal Department
works closely with the regional
water quality board and flood
control district. Many county
sanitary landfills fulfill a dual
function since they are part of
flood control or watershed
management projects. For flood
control projects, a dyke or bulk-
head of earth, building mate-
rials, or cement is constructed
on the edge of a river prone to
flash flooding. Behind the dyke
or bulkhead, a sanitary landfill
is operated to build the flood
lands above levels that would
otherwise be inundated. In one
instance, the landfill has been
built to a considerable height
and serves as a dyke to protect
a sewage treatment facility and
to shield the plant from a
nearby residential area.
In another operation, the
county is improving a water-
shed area by filling a sharp cut
in some foothills. By filling the
cut and diverting runoff, it is
hoped that more water can be
retained in the hills. When the
landfill has been completed, the
site will be turned into a park.
81
-------
In California and other mountainous
states, canyons and ravines are frequent)}'
used as sanitary landfill sites.
Though the ivorking faces are steep,
such areas usually provide large fill areas
and can be reclaimed for various uses.
before the ground freezes. However, freezing can be delayed by
adding a mulch covering.
Before implementing a sanitary landfill operation, it is neces-
sary to determine the final use of the land. This affects the final
contour and whether all the land will be filled. Maps should be
made of the present contour and property lines, and of the pro-
jected completed fill.
As wastes decompose, settling occurs. The more wastes
were compacted originally, the less settling. Buildings should not
be erected on filled land unless proper foundation conditions are
provided.
In Waukegan, Illinois, the city's contractor is filling swamp-
land to make it suitable for an athletic field and park. The un-
filled high ground will be used to support a school building (see
Field Report in Guide Xumber 8. Citizen Support].
One of the greatest problems in obtaining a site for a sanitary
landfill is overcoming public opposition, particularly if a previous
landfill has been improperly operated or if dumps exist. Equip-
82
-------
ment operating noise at a site is comparable to that at any excava-
tion involving heavy equipment. Gases, mostly methane and
carbon dioxide, are produced by waste decomposition. Since the
sanitary landfill encloses solid wastes in cells, the chance for
spontaneous combustion or gas explosion is reduced. If fire should
occur, it can be more easily controlled than a fire in an open
dump since the oxygen supply in the cell is limited. Moreover, the
danger of fire in a sanitary landfill is much less than in an open
dump.
Evaluation. The following is a summary of the advantages
and disadvantages of the sanitary landfill solid wastes disposal
method.
Sanitary Landfill
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
6.
7.
Where land is available,
the sanitary landfill is usu-
ally the most economical
method of acceptable
wastes disposal.
The initial investment is
low compared to that of
other disposal methods.
A sanitary landfill is a com-
plete or final disposal
method, compared to incin-
eration and composting
\vhere items such as resi-
due and unusable materials
require further disposal.
A sanitary landfill can be
put into operation within a
short period of time.
A sanitary landfill can re-
ceive most types of solid
wastes.
A sanitary landfill is flex-
ible; increased quantities of
solid wastes can be dis-
posed of with little addi-
tional personnel and equip-
ment.
Submarginal land may be
reclaimed for uses such as
parking lots, playgrounds,
golf courses, and airports.
In highly populated areas.
suitable land may not be
available within economi-
cal hauling distance.
People often confuse sani-
tary landfills with dumps.
Location of sanitary land-
fills in residential areas can
result in extreme public
opposition.
A completed landfill will
settle and require periodic
maintenance.
Special design and con-
struction must be utilized
for buildings constructed
on completed landfill be-
cause of the settlement fac-
tor.
Without proper planning.
methane, an explosive gas.
and the other gases pro-
duced from the decomposi-
tion of the wastes may be-
come a hazard or nuisance
factor and interfere with
the use of the completed
landfill.
Potential for ground-water
pollution exists if the land-
fill is not properly planned,
designed, and operated.
Sanitary landfill is the most inexpensive disposal method
known today. It is especially suitable for rural areas, mountain-
ous areas, or areas which have an air pollution problem. In com-
munities where land is limited or extremely expensive, this method
may not be suitable unless a cooperative agreement can be reached
with neighboring jurisdictions. A properly operated sanitary land-
fill produces no objectionable odors, vector problems, or blight,
83
-------
and is especially suited to the reclamation of marginal land.
A sanitary landfill is basic to any other solid wastes processing
operation since all produce some materials which must be sani-
tary landfilled.
incineration Incineration is a combustion process by which materials are
reduced primarily to carbon dioxide, other gases, and ash. By this
method, the volume of solid wastes is reduced, conserving the life
of the necessary companion sanitary landfill. Incinerators must be
designed and operated to meet stringent air pollution controls. An
incinerator is normally rated on the number of tons it has the
capacity to burn in a 24-hour period or in tons per hour.
The Plant and the Process. The basic parts of an incinerator
plant are the building, scales, storage pit. bucket and crane.
charging hopper, furnace (which includes grates, primary and sec-
FIGURE D:
basic incinerator design
Refuse & Ash
Flue Gases iiiiiiiiiui
Fly Ash II
1. Scales
2. Tipping Floor
3. Storage Bin (Pit)
4. Bridge Crane
5. Charging Hopper
6. Drying Grates
7. Burning Grates 13.
8. Primary Combustion Chamber 14.
9. Secondary Combustion Chamber 15.
10. Spray Chamber 16.
11. Breeching 17.
12. Cyclone Dust Collector 18.
Induced Draft Fan
Stack
Garage - Storage
Ash Conveyors
Forced Draft Fan
Fly Ash Settling Chamber
84
-------
A bucket and crane scoops up mounds
of solid wastes from the storage pit
of this working incinerator.
ondary combustion zones, and gas cleaning chamber), residue con-
veyor, air pollution controls, stack, and quench water controls
[see Figure D).
Most solid wastes collection is carried out five or six days a
week during daylight hours. It is usually more economical to
operate an incinerator on a 24-hour basis or at least until all
wastes are burned each day. To permit even operation of the
incinerator during the remaining hours of the plant operating day,
a solid wastes storage area or pit must be provided at the incinera-
tor plant. Thus, solid wastes can be fed into the charging hopper
as needed and vehicles can be emptied conveniently.
For good design, storage of at least 30 hours' capacity should
be provided, based on the rated full capacity of the plant. Ideally,
the plant should be operated so that the pit is completely emptied
daily, and not less than once weekly for safe operation. Plant
operating shifts and hours of furnace operation should be planned
around this schedule. If the pit is not emptied weekly, material
85
-------
Since July, 1965, Montgomery
County, Maryland, has operated
a 34,828,799 incinerator 24
hours a day, six days a u-eelf.
The plant currently has three
furnaces with a capacity of
1.050 tons of solid wastes per
day, and 5995,000 was budg-
eted for fiscal year 1968 to
add a fourth furnace, increas-
ing the capacity to 1,400 tons
per day.
County residents in the urban
service area pay S4 per month
for fwice-a-week collection. This
fee includes disposal. Other
disposal service users, non-tax-
paying government agencies
such as schools, are charged on
a per-ton basis. Two 60,000-
incineration
Montgomery County, Maryland
pound platform scales are in-
stalled at the entrance to the
unloading area.
Sixty-two men are employed
at the plant in three shifts. The
men are provided uniforms, a
lunchroom, lockers, and shower
facilities. Offices are provided
for the plant supervisor and
foremen, the scale house opera-
tion, and for the clerical staff
to issue monthly statements and
relay complaints.
The county program is oper-
ated mainly by the Bureau of
Refuse Collection and Disposal
of the Department of Public
U'orks, but the Department of
Licenses and Inspection checks
and licenses private collection
vehicles.
the importance
of temperature
on the bottom will begin to decompose, which produces odors and
increases the danger of pit fires by spontaneous combustion.
Because the percentage of garbage in refuse has decreased
markedly in recent years, the need for auxiliary fuel to fire an
incinerator is minimal or unnecessary.
The rate of combustion is directly related to the composition
of the solid wastes, the burning surface, and the amount of oxygen
supplied both over and under the fire. The temperature of com-
bustion will vary considerably because of the wide range of heat
values inherent in the mixture of wastes to be incinerated. To
burn the materials thoroughly, furnace temperatures must be
maintained between 1500° and 18003 F. Equipment is essential to
record temperatures and measure oxygen supplies. When furnace
temperature is too high (over 1800D] deposits (called clinker and
slag) adhere to grates and refractories (furnace walls and ceiling
linings]. These deposits can cause serious damage by jamming
grates and causing the refractory to wear, melt, and cave in.
Periodic maintenance is essential to remove these deposits. (For
detailed information on refractory types, see APWA Municipal
Refuse Disposal, listed in bibliography.]
After combustion, gases and particulate matter pass into an
air pollution control device (such as a baffle, wet scrubber, cyclone
collector, or electrostatic precipitator] designed to remove them.
Any remaining gas, steam, or particulate matter is drawn by
induced draft fans or natural ventilation up the refractory-lined
stack and into the atmosphere.
After combustion, residue and ash remaining in the primary
combustion zone reach the end of the grates, then fall into a
water bath to be quenched and cooled. Quench waters contain
many dissolved organics and solids, and require treatment prior
86
-------
to reuse or discharge. If not recirculated, waters should be treated
and discharged into a sanitary sewer. Residue is then taken to a
sanitary landfill.
Consultant Services. An incinerator plant is an extremely com-
plex piece of equipment. Since most local government engineering
staff members do not have the specialized knowledge to plan and
design an incinerator plant, a consulting engineer is usually re-
tained.
The design should be prepared by one engineering consultant
so that all the component parts will be coordinated. The design
consultant should be retained from the initial drawing of the plans
to the completion of the plant. This means that the consultant
should be responsible for seeing that the plant can be and is
operated for a continuous period of six months or more at design
cacapity by plant personnel trained by equipment manufacturers.
(For a detailed discussion of using consultants, see Guide Number
9, Personnel.]
Evaluation. An incinerator plant design should be simple,
functional, economical, and attractive. This includes the equip-
ment not usually housed within the main building, such as settling
and cooling ponds for recirculating water. The plant should oper-
ate well at full design capacity with as little maintenance and re-
pair as possible. It should be nuisance free, and it must have a
sanitary landfill.
A NACORF survey of cities and counties using incineration
uncovered some unacceptable shortcuts which had been "sold"
This photo shows some of the highly
sophisticated controls used to keep
the Miami County, Ohio,
incinerator operating as economically,
safely, and efficiently as possible.
87
-------
to officials. Many of these shortcuts were part of "package-deal"
incinerators offered as turnkey operations. This reinforces the
need for public officials to secure competent engineering advice
in choosing the incineration system.
Incineration is an effective volume reduction method where
land appropriate for sanitary landfill is limited, and money and
water are abundant. Incineration can handle about 80 per cent
of typical urban solid wastes and reduce weight at least 70 per
cent if the plant is operated properly. The remaining residue,
along with non-incinerable materials, must be sanitary landfilled.
With this system, much less land is needed to sanitary landfill
wastes.
The cost of incineration is high. Construction cost (including
elaborate air pollution control devices) runs about $7,000 to $12,500
per ton capacity of the plant. Operating costs run about $5 to $9
per ton plus amortization. These high costs are spread among
maintenance, power, personnel, and administration. Incineration
equipment must be replaced at least every 15 to 20 years.
Skilled operators and continued maintenance are essential.
It is foolish to invest a million or more dollars in a plant and then
fail to staff it with trained people at adequate salary.
Incineration
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
I.
2.
3.
6.
Land requirements for the
plant are small.
Operation is not depend-
ent upon weather condi-
tions.
It can be put in urban in-
dustrial areas, reducing
haul distance.
It provides volume reduc-
tion.
It reduces landfill require-
ment for solid wastes dis-
posal.
It produces a stable, odor-
free residue.
The plant is expensive to
construct and operate.
Improper operation or in-
adequate equipment pro-
duces air and land pollu-
tion.
Highly skilled personnel
are essential.
Continuing maintenance is
a necessity.
Disposal of residue must
be provided.
composting The Plant and the Process. Composting is a method of han-
dling and processing solid wastes to produce as the end product
a humus-like material which may be used as a soil conditioner.
The process requires separation of non-compostable materials
which must be disposed of by other means. Technically, com-
posting is biological degradation of organic matter under con-
trolled conditions of aeration, temperature, and moisture.
Since the organisms necessary to make compost accompany
almost all solid wastes, most materials begin to decompose within
a few hours. Garbage degrades quickly; paper, cloth, wood chips,
and leather less quickly; most plastics and rubber degrade very
slowly if at all.
Composting as generally used in discussions of commercial
and municipal processes refers primarily to aerobic decomposition
(in the presence of oxygen). However, composting of solid wastes
88
-------
FIGURE E: 1968 STATUS OF U.S. COMPOSTING OPERATIONS
Location
Altoona, Pa.
Boulder, Colo.
Elmira, N.Y.
Gainesville, Fla.
Houston, Texas
Houston, Texas
Houston, Texas
Johnson City, Tenn.
Largo, Fla.
Mobile, Ala.
Norman, Okla.
Phoenix, Ariz.
Sacramento, Calif.
St. Petersburg, Fla.
San Fernando, Calif.
Springfield, Mass.
Williamston, Mich.
Wilmington, Ohio
Company
Altoona FAM, Inc.
Fairfield Engr. Co.
Rich Land Co.
National Organic Corp.
Gainesville Metropolitan
Conversion Corp.
Biochemical Sales, Inc.
Metropolitan Waste
Conversion Corp.
National Organic Corp.
PHS-TVA Cooperative
Program
Peninsular Organics, Inc.
City of Mobile
International Disposal
Corp.
Arizona Biochemical
Company
Dano of America, Inc.
International Disposal
Corp.
International Disposal
Corp.
Springfield Organic
Fertilizer Co.
City of Williamston
Good Riddance, Inc.
Process
Fairfield-
Hardy
Windrow
Windrow
Metro
Snell
Metro
Windrow
Windrow
Metro
Briquetting
Naturizer
Dano
Dano
Naturizer
Naturizer
Frazer-Eweson
Riker
Windrow
Capacity
(Tons
per day)
45
100
100
200
300
360
300
50
50
300
35
300
40
105
70
20
4
20
Status
Operating
Closed
Construction stopped
Operating for
research purposes
Closed
Operating
Construction
delayed
Operating for
research purposes
Closed
Operating
(with windrows)
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
may take place in the absence of oxygen (anaerobicallyj. Odors
produced by the aerobic decomposition process are less objec-
tionable. The aerobic process is quicker and achieves higher tem-
peratures, thus guaranteeing a relatively germ-free product, free
of live weed seeds and insect larva. The anaerobic process is
slow, smelly, and does not achieve temperatures high enough to
destroy all pathogens. Anaerobic decomposition also produces
noxious gas by-products such as hydrogen sulfide.
In most processes, it is difficult to control the oxygen balance
throughout the wastes. Thus, it is possible to have aerobic and
anaerobic decomposition taking place simultaneously in different
parts of the wastes.
One commercial method is by windrow (pile) composting
in which the processed wastes are placed in long rows on concrete,
asphalt, or the ground. The rows are mechanically turned about
once a day for the first week, then twice a week for about
a month.
Some elaborate systems mechanically mix, agitate, and aerate
the composting material in enclosed units. This speeds the proc-
ess so that relatively inert material can be produced in as little
as five to seven days.
89
-------
commercial composting with salvage
Metropolitan Waste Conversion Corporation,
Houston, Texas
In operation since November,
1966, Metropolitan Waste Con-
version Corporation converts
solid wastes into salvageable
items and compost products.
The Metro Waste operation
consists of removing all sal-
vageable and non-compostible
materials, grinding wbat is left,
and then subjecting it to a di-
gesting process which converts
it into organic compost.
The process begins when
trucks dump waste materials
into a continuous conveyor
which moves onto a sorting sta-
tion where such non-compost-
ible materials as ceramics, rub-
ber, glass, and nonferrous
metals are removed by hand.
Ferrous metals are removed by
powerful magnets and sold as
scrap metal. Approximately 15
per cent of the material, such as
corrugated cardboard, rags, and
newsprint, is salvaged, bailed,
and sold. The remaining mate-
rial moves to two sets of grind-
ers and is then mixed with
thickened sewage sludge and
placed in a specially designed
digester for six days. It is then
reground and packaged for dis-
tribution.
Since the present market for
compost is seasonal (spring and
fall] large quantities must be
stored at the plant site, usually
outdoors. These stock piles
have a slightly musty odor that
usually cannot be detected more
than several hundred feet away.
However, some people object,
claiming that compost was "gar-
bage" when it entered the plant
so it must be "garbage" even
after processing. The plant, lo-
cated in an industrial park and
surrounded by residential com-
munities and small businesses,
has extended an open invitation
to homeowners and business-
men to visit. More than 100
persons have done so. Invari-
ably, they are impressed by its
operation and convinced that
the plant and process does not
constitute a health hazard, as is
frequently rumored.
Metro Waste is now working
with fertilizer companies to
market the product as a blend
of organics and chemicals, ex-
perimenting with the use of
compost instead of wood fibers
for hydromulching, and collab-
orating with a paper company
on the use of compost for re-
forestation programs. To deter-
mine proper application
amounts and frequency for
crops such as cotton, citrus,
soybeans, rice, and vegetables,
Metro Waste is working with
farmers, universities, and
county agricultural agents. It
also works with a biological
laboratory to insure constant
quality control and safety of
the compost material.
Metro Waste's Houston plant,
costing approximately $2 mil-
lion, has a rated capacity of 360
tons per day. The compost
product, after final grinding,
sells for about $12 per ton in
bulk with no upgrading. The
company pays rent on the land
and taxes on the building and
machinery in Houston, and is
treated as any other industry by
the city. Original plans for the
Houston plant called for a work
force of 35 persons including
the manager, but Metro Waste
found it could conduct an ef-
ficient and satisfactory opera-
tion with 29 men.
The City of Houston, Texas,
has developed a balanced sys-
tem for wastes disposal by inte-
grating the three acceptable
solid wastes processing meth-
ods— incineration, composting,
and sanitary landfill. The city
operates an incinerator and a
sanitary landfill. It also con-
tracts with the Metropolitan
Waste Conversion Corporation
to compost up to 360 tons of
solid wastes daily, for which
the city pays $3.87 per ton.
With these three processing
methods, the city has alterna-
tives available in the event that
one of the disposal sites must
be temporarily closed down.
After conversion into a brown humus-like material, further
refining may be necessary to remove undesirable particles (such
as metals, glass, ceramics, plastics, rubber, and leather), depending
on final use.
Evaluation. The promise that the compost will be sold and
thereby pay for the cost of the process is seldom realized. There
is no automatic market for compost. The rate of plant failure
speaks for itself (see Figure E).
Developing a market may not mean selling compost for profit.
It may mean finding someone who will take it free in large quan-
tities on a reliable and continuous basis. The local government
may be able to use most of it to maintain grass, trees, and shrubs
90
-------
in city and county parks and along highway median strips and
shoulders. Some local governments give it to farmers. In Houston,
experiments are underway to determine whether compost can be
used for animal feed. Failure to find a reliable end use for the
product means that government will have to foot the bill to sani-
tary landfill the compost as well as its residue.
There is a widely held misconception that compost by itself
is a fertilizer. Compost is only a conditioner used to make soil
more manageable and increase its ability to hold moisture.
Composting finds its greatest application in agricultural com-
munities. Communities should be careful to avoid the usual pit-
falls when considering the compost process. Shysters sell bottled
enzymes "to stimulate action to make solid wastes compost."
Since bacteria are already present, the action starts whether en-
zymes are added or not. Glass, metals, tin foil, and other solids
will not compost and must be removed; foreign material in the
compost will greatly affect the ability to find a use for the end
product. Since all wastes cannot be composted, something must
be done with the other (inorganic) wastes. They must either be
landfilled, sold as salvage, or given away. Sanitary landfilling this
material is the only continuously reliable method since the other
systems depend heavily on a fluctuating market demand for the
used item, and most inorganics do not incinerate well.
Few compost plants operate economically. A private experi-
mental plant in Houston has had a short-term successful record.
This plant might be described as a waste utilization plant. Much
Though the recycling and reuse of
solid waste materials is still in its
infancy, some operations are currently
in progress. Here tiny bits of metal
reclaimed from junk autos are loaded
into railroad cars for transport to
plants where they may be melted down
and used again in new products.
91
-------
of the salvage is reprocessed by sister companies and the port
provides economical access to overseas markets. The firm sells
plastics to Japan; paper for pulp, cans for copper, and glass for
reflective paints and for reuse in glassmaking.
Although recycling usable materials should be a national long-
range goal, it is unwise to base an entire solid wastes management
system on recycling wastes unless a guaranteed market is devel-
oped in advance. The payment for the recycled goods must be at
least sufficient to meet the additional costs of extra manpower
for sorting materials and extra time for transporting the material
to the user, and for sanitary landfilling the remaining solid wastes.
Local governments must consider composting as a treatment or
process prior to disposal. They must be prepared to pay a rea-
sonable price for this operation.
Composting
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
Compost can be used as a
soil conditioner.
Composting is a recycling
method.
Composting is a volume re-
duction method.
There are presently few
outlets for the compost and
the salvaged materials.
All wastes will not com-
post.
A sanitary landfill is still
needed to dispose of those
materials which are not
salvaged or will not com-
post.
checklist for transfer, processing, and
disposal operations
— All-weather access and egress roads
— Dust control measures
— Posted regulations
— Employee facilities — washrooms, lunchrooms,
lockers
— Scale house and weigh station
— Fenced grounds
— Designated place and container for wastes to be
received after hours at the gate
— Landscaping and litter control
— Employee safety program
— Fire fighting equipment available
— No open burning practiced
— Communications
— Adequate screening
— Banning of scavenging
— Efficient recordkeeping
92
-------
This dump, operated by a Michigan city, is not only an eyesore and a
health hazard, but also situated on a flood plain, thereby creating pollution.
What Constitutes a Dump? The Bureau of Solid Waste Man-
agement uses the word "dump" to describe any site where solid
wastes are left uncovered for a period of more than a day. Al-
though it is a hazardous and unsatisfactory operation, it is the
most widely used practice. A dump also is an accumulation of
wastes from one or more sources at a central disposal site under
little or no management.
Dump operation seems inexpensive; few operators are needed
and maintenance costs are low. Actually, the hidden costs of a
dump are rodent and insect infestation, poor community relations,
excessive demand on health and fire department time, stench, air
and water pollution, and land value depreciation.
Cleaning Up an Old Dump. An old dump can be transformed
into a sanitary landfill by adopting sanitary landfill operating
standards. Before bringing additional solid wastes to the disposal
site to be sanitary landfilled, several steps must be taken:
1. Thoroughly extinguish all fires.
2. Exterminate all rats and other vectors. (If this is not
done, these vectors and vermin will invade the surround-
ing community. Residents will believe the new sanitary
landfill is the cause.)
3. Compact all solid wastes, and if practical consolidate them
into limited areas.
4. Cover the dump with compacted earth.
Kenilworth disposal site in Washington, D.C., once the na-
tion's most notorious open burning dump, ceased burning opera-
tions February 15,1968. After extinguishing all fires, exterminating
all vectors, and compacting the wastes, the tons of accumulated
charred wastes were covered. By April, a sanitary landfill was
in full operation.
the dump
93
-------
progress and problems in cleaning up dumps
City of Beaufort and Beaufort County, South Carolina
"Beaufort has made more
progress in taking care of its
solid wastes than any other
county in the state. It is now
correctly disposing of about 50
per cent of it, which puts it a
giant step ahead of most coun-
ties." This assessment of the
situation in Beaufort County,
South Carolina, was made by a
representative of the Environ-
mental Sanitation Division of
the state Board of Health, which
has surveyed the status of solid
wastes management in all of
South Carolina's 46 counties.
The transition from open
dumps and burning began in
1956, largely through the efforts
of the county health depart-
ment's chief sanitarian, who
was aided by the state health
department.
Survey results and recom-
mendations were presented to
the city council, which liked the
idea of ending open dumping
and burning and instead operat-
ing a disposal site which could
eventually be used for park and
recreation purposes. Other econ-
omies of the proposal were
particularly attractive. It was
estimated that $10,000 per year
might be saved by eliminating
the 8-mile haul to the local
dump, and instead landfilling
the wastes on property within
the city limits. An ordinance
regulating the handling and col-
lection of "garbage" and "waste
matter" was adopted.
Members of the county Board
of Directors [governing board]
proved equally receptive to pro-
posals for cleaning up Beaufort
County. The board's public
service committee prepared
guidelines on "Recommended
Standards for Sanitary Land-
fills." Program direction was
assigned to the county super-
visor of roads and bridges, who
gave his full support to the use
of county equipment and per-
sonnel for the maintenance of
disposal sites.
The county now maintains
three sites, with long-range
plans calling for 11 strategically
located sites. A crawler tractor
with front-end loader, run by a
fuil-time operator, is trans-
ported between the sites to
compact wastes in trenches and
apply daily cover.
The local terrain is dotted
with natural pits and depres-
sions; owners are often anxious
to have the land improved.
Such land is usually leased to
the county for $1 per year to
be filled. During the first seven
years, two pits were reclaimed
through city-county coopera-
tion and are presently being
used for ballfields and other
recreational activities.
Beaufort County faces special
industrial waste problems: pes-
ticide container and wastes dis-
posal; liquid wastes from fer-
tilizer plants; toxic wastes from
soybean processing; culls, peels,
and seeds from canneries and
truck farms; and wastes from
local fisheries. Beaufort is cur-
rently trying new techniques to
improve disposal of these by-
products.
Though solid wastes prob-
lems in Beaufort County have
by no means been solved, the
county finds itself well ahead
of most communities its size
across the country (population
in excess of 45,000). Local of-
ficials are actively seeking
guidelines and are receptive to
suggestions which might pro-
vide solutions to their prob-
lems. Although limited by in-
adequate funds and staffing,
they are attempting to imple-
ment a satisfactory, workable
program.
94
-------
Feeding hogs uncooked garbage is prohibited by every state
and by federal law. Yet some communities continue to feed hogs
raw garbage. A 1967 U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture Report
on the Federal Meat Inspection Act cites a World Health Organi-
zation report stating that in the United States one in six persons
has trichinosis—this is the highest rate in the world.
To insure necessary and adequate protection of people and
hogs, pathogenic organisms must be destroyed. This requires that
food wastes be cooked at 212° F for 30 minutes, which is difficult
to enforce.
Although it may be convenient for the hog farmer to have a
garbage route to get swill for swine, allowing farmers to have their
own garbage routes requires the separation of garbage and refuse
(which is inconvenient for the homeowner), and in the long run
endangers health. As of July 1, 1968, Wisconsin completely out-
lawed feeding any type of public or commercial garbage to swine.
Since most places fail to prepare garbage properly, other states
and local governments must enact this prohibition.
feeding hogs garbage
This picture of hogs feeding at an open
dump in a Southern state is a situation found
in states across the country, though not
usually in such blatant form.
95
-------
summary
selected
bibliography
Automobile Disposal, A National Prob-
lem: Case Studies of Factors that In-
fluence the Accumulation of Automo-
bile Scrap, Bureau of Mines, U.S. De-
partment of the Interior.
"A Confidential Talk for Architects and
Builders About Garbage," City of Tuc-
son Department of Public Works, Ref-
use Division, February, 1964.
Ecke, Dean J., and Donald D. Linsdale,
"Fly and Economic Evaluation of Urban
Refuse Systems, Part I Control of Green
Blow Flies (phaenicia) by Improved
Methods of Residential Refuse Storage
and Collection." Vector Views. De-
partment of Public Health, Bureau of
Vector Control, 2151 Berkeley Way,
Berkeley, California, May, 1967.
Municipal Refuse Disposal, American
Public Works Association, 1313 East
60th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637,
1966. Price: $10.
Paper Bags for Household Refuse Han-
dling: A Report on Four Field Trials
Employing Disposable Paper Contain-
ers, Special Report Research Project
No. 115, American Public Works As-
sociation, 1313 East 60th Street, Chi-
cago, Illinois 60637, August, 1963.
Price: $3.
Public Works Equipment Management,
American Public Works Association,
1313 East 60th Street, Chicago, Illinois
60637, 1964. Price $8.
Refuse Collection Practice, American
Public Works Association, 1313 East
60th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637,
1966. Price $10.
Report to the Committee of the Whole
House on the Federal Meat Inspection
Act, 1967, U.S. House of Representa-
tives. Report Number 653, 90th Con-
gress, 1st Session, September 21, 1967.
Sanitary Landfills. American Society of
Civil Engineers, 345 East 47th Street,
New York, New York 10017, Manual
Number 39, 1959.
Sorg, Thomas J. and H. Lanier Hickman,
Sr., Sanitary Landfill Facts, U.S. Public
Health Service Solid Wastes Program
Publication Number 1792, U.S. Gov-
ernment Printing Office, 1968. Price:
$.35.
Every solid wastes management system must be designed to meet
the particular needs of the community to be served.
To design a collection system, it is necessary to examine
the types of storage containers and collection equipment, route
and crew organization arrangements, manpower availability, topo-
graphical conditions, degree of homeowner participation feasible,
and types and amounts of solid wastes generated.
To design a disposal system, environmental conditions (air,
water, and land), cost considerations, and public attitudes must
be evaluated to select the method or combination of methods most
appropriate. Although the community will need to rely on sani-
tary landfill for final disposal of solid wastes, incineration and/or
composting may be additional processing steps used.
Methods of processing or disposal which cause pollution,
such as dumps, open burning, flue-fed burners, and conical burners,
are not satisfactory and should not be part of a solid wastes man-
agement system. The conditions under which hogs may be fed
commercial garbage legally and safely are widely disregarded and
difficult to enforce; therefore, local government should not con-
sider feeding hogs garbage to be part of the local solid wastes
management system.
Good solid wastes management requires that collection, proc-
essing, and disposal be coordinated. In a large solid wastes man-
agement system, coordinating collection and disposal operations
through the use of transfer stations may bring economies and
increased efficiency. Coordination is also essential between public
and private operation.
Another area where coordination is necessary is that between
local government and the citizen. The citizen must know what is
expected of him to make the solid wastes management system
effective. In addition, there is a relationship among the amount
of citizen participation required, the degree of service provided,
and the cost of the service. For example, set-out/set-back
collection is more expensive than curb service because the collec-
tion crew must do more work. With curb service, the citizen must
participate by carrying his solid wastes container to the curb and
back on collection days. Another illustration of this relationship
is the difference in cost between having local government provide
pickup service as opposed to having the citizen bring bulky items
directly to the disposal site.
In the operation of a comprehensive solid wastes manage-
ment system, the management of industrial and agricultural wastes
and hard-to-handle items such as abandoned automobiles should
not take a back seat to the collection and disposal of residential
and commercial solid wastes. In addition, all services should be
performed to meet the highest standards of environmental sanita-
tion and personnel safety. Good solid wastes management is an
asset to a modern community. The development of solid wastes
technology is rapidly expanding just as the types and amounts
of solid wastes being produced are changing and increasing. There-
fore, the solid wastes management system local government selects
today must be flexible enough to adopt tomorrow's technology to
meet tomorrow's needs.
96
-------
6 financing
-------
financing
introduction
The solid wastes problem reflects years of financial neglect. Open
and burning dumps throughout the United States are ample testi-
mony of the unwillingness of local governments to finance a prop-
erly operated areawide solid wastes management system. An
areawide system involves many decisions on methods of opera-
tion; most, if not all, of them depend on financial considerations.
Funds must be found for regulation, storage, collection, transpor-
tation, processing, and disposal. Though responsibility for regu-
lating an areawide program rests with local governments, actual
operation can be handled by local government, private operators,
or both.
Ultimately the citizen pays for any program, either as a cus-
tomer being charged a fee for direct service or as a taxpayer. In
either event, financial needs depend on several factors: [I] type of
service to be provided—collection and/or disposal; (2) level of
collection service—once or twice a week, and street or backyard
pickup; (3) type of customer to be served—agricultural, residen-
tialtial, commercial, industrial; and (4] method of processing and
disposal—landfill or incineration. Even if the local government
does not provide the service directly, it must still regulate charges
made by private operators.
The purpose of this guide is to provide elected officials with
a description of financing alternatives regardless of how they
actually operate the program. Specifically, the guide contains in-
formation on financial planning and management, revenue sources,
purchasing techniques, and financing an areawide approach.
financial planning
Planning and designing a solid wastes system with functional,
efficient, and economical facilities is important. It is also impor-
tant that there be careful financial planning, and that projects be
scheduled on a priority basis.
The method chosen to finance the solid wastes management
system can have substantial impact on the local tax rate and fiscal
reserves. Elected officials can pay for the system through the
following methods: general fund, bond issues, loans, service
charges, or fees. The amount of money a local government is
willing or able to spend determines the amount or type of im-
provements that can be made and the scope of the solid wastes
program.
legal authority Before making any financial decisions regarding solid wastes,
state and local laws should be examined by officials to see what
financing methods are permitted. State statutes and local ordi-
98
-------
planning, financing, and building for the future
Montgomery County, Ohio
On October 27, 1967, Mont-
gomery County, Ohio, officials
signed 1,600 bonds with a face
value of $5,000 each. These
bonds and $3.3 miJJion in gen-
eral obligation bonds formed the
monetary base for two 600-ton
capacity county incinerators.
The incinerator revenue
bonds, $8 million in value, were
authorized under Section 343.07
of the Ohio Revised Code. This
section states in part:
The board of county
commissioners may issue
bonds of the county for
the purpose of paying a
part or the whole of the
acquisition, construction, or
repair of any improvement
provided for in Sections
343.01 to 343.08, inclusive
(concerning county garbage
and refuse disposal dis-
tricts), of the revised
code. . . .
The board shall, in the
legislation authorizing the
issuance of such bonds,
provide that they shall not
constitute general obliga-
tions of the county or be
secured by the general
credit and taxing power of
the county, but shall be
payable solely, as to prin-
cipal and interest, from the
revenues of the improve-
ment, constructed with the
proceeds of the sale of the
bonds, as derived from the
rates or charges established
for such services under
Section 343.08 of the re-
vised code, in which event
the board shall covenant to
fix rates or charges suffi-
cient to provide adequate
funds for such purpose,
after payment of the cost
of management, mainte-
nance, and operation of
such garbage and refuse
collection and disposal
plant and facilities.
On November 3, 1967, con-
tracts totaling $8.6 million were
signed and a groundbreaking
was held. Shortly thereafter
construction began.
The enabling legislation for
the incinerators and the attend-
ant financing was passed March
7, 1967, six months before the
bonds were issued. At that
time, the Board of County Com-
missioners also passed a reso-
lution on incinerator rates and
charges. The resolution estab-
lished a disposal rate of $3.50
per ton; an annual review of
rates by the Advisory Board;
and guarantees that rates would
be uniform throughout the area
and sufficient to pay the ex-
penses of operation, mainte-
nance, and the principal and
interest of the bonds.
The $11.3 million for inciner-
ator disposal facilities breaks
down as follows: $8.6 million
went for construction costs;
$560,000 to purchase land and
rights-of-way; $576,214 for en-
gineering; $725,000 for capital-
ized interest; $500,000 for the
capitalized bond fund; $138,494
for legal, fiscal, printing, and
other services; and $240,000
to discount the bonds.
Thirteen years of preparation
and $11.3 million have been in-
vested by Montgomery County
in this twin incinerator project.
The work that has been and
will be accomplished in the
near future will enable Mont-
gomery County to handle its
solid wastes problem into the
21st century.
nances often place rigid limitations and restrictions upon local
fiscal authority. Local officials should seek broad state enabling
legislation which permits local governments to finance all services,
including solid wastes collection and disposal, by the following
methods:
1) entering into intergovernmental agreements and con-
tracts to acquire facilities and operate programs jointly;
2) collecting taxes and special charges;
3) issuing bonds;
4] recalling bonds for fewer interest payments;
5) refinancing bonds for lower interest rates;
6) issuing liens against property for delinquent taxes or
charges;
7) periodically reviewing and revising debt limitations on
general obligation bonds;
8) exempting from debt limit, revenue bonds secured by
service charges (to the extent that bonds are supported
by such charges);
99
-------
capital improvement budgeting
financial campaigns
9) accepting grants-in-aid;
10) acquiring property by gift, purchase, or eminent domain;
and
11) levying and collecting service charges, including charges
from owners of tax exempt property.
Communities should have the legal authority to meet emer-
gency situations through contingency funds, supplemental appro-
priations, and refinancing.
Local government should have an overall capital improve-
ment budget which schedules the funding of all necessary solid
wastes facilities. A capital improvement budget links planning
and implementation. The capital budget, with its specific projects
arranged in order of priority, estimated project costs, and sug-
gested financing methods, enables governments to plan ahead for
major capital outlays. Essentially, capital improvement budgeting
is long-term financial planning which establishes a funding sched-
ule for a five- to ten-year period.
Typically, capital outlay funds are needed for:
1} bond service—interest on prepayment of indebtedness;
2) sanitary landfill sites;
3) incinerator plants;
4) transfer stations;
5) collection equipment;
6) disposal site equipment;
7) back up equipment;
8) office space and equipment; and
9) garage space and maintenance equipment.
Operating costs include:
1) salaries and fringe benefits;
2) utility and fuel costs;
3) uniforms;
4) insurance premiums;
5) public education programs; and
-6) facility maintenance and repair costs.
Long-range financial planning must include informing the
public of the need for a good solid wastes management system.
For example, campaigns for bond issues must begin well in ad-
vance of the referendum to gain public understanding and sup-
port. For information on how to gain and maintain citizen sup-
port, see Guide Number 8, Citizen Support.
revenue sources
The nation's urban areas spend in excess of $4.5billion annually
for solid wastes services. The federal Bureau of Solid Waste
Management estimates that $1.7 billion is spent on collection
and disposal by local governments, and approximately an equal
amount by private industry.
Local governing bodies have three general sources of money
for construction and operation of a solid wastes program: (1) gen-
eral fund (including fee and service charge revenues), (2) bond
issues, and (3) grants-in-aid. The solid wastes management sys-
100
-------
tern should be financed primarily by the first two and supple-
mented by the third. Annual operating expenses are usually met
by the general fund, services charges, or grants-in-aid, but not by
general obligation bonds. (Grant-in-aid and other financial assist-
ance programs currently available are described in Guide Num-
ber 7, Technical and Financial Assistance.]
General revenue can come from the traditional property tax
or other sources such as local income or payroll taxes. The major
advantage of general revenue financing is that the entire area
participates in financing and can benefit from complete solid
wastes management. When there are no separate service charges,
there are no problems or expenses of billing and collection. The
City of Los Angeles, California, finances its $19-million residential
collection and disposal program from the general fund.
There are disadvantages of financing solid wastes facilities
and operations from the general fund. Most cities and counties
rely on the property tax as a major source of revenue for all public
services so solid wastes programs must compete with them for
funds. Traditionally, other governmental functions have received
higher priority than the management of solid wastes.
It may be unfair to use general revenue funds to collect and
dispose of commercial and industrial solid wastes because of the
large quantities industry produces. However, a great portion of
general funds may be derived from commerce and industry. Spe-
cial charges can be made for commercial and industrial wastes or
the operation can be left to private solid wastes companies, which
is usually what occurs.
Another disadvantage of general fund financing is that tax-
exempt properties may get free solid wastes services which other
citizens must pay for in their taxes. Of course, this is true of all
public services. Finally, the amount of general revenue derived
from a particular property may have no relation to the amount
or frequency of solid wastes services required.
In a 1964 survey, the American Public Works Association
(APWA) found that 429 of 857 cities responding to a survey
financed their solid wastes collection service with funds from
the general property tax alone. These cities make no additional
charges for collection.
A few cities finance part or all of collection and disposal
service by levying separate ad valorem taxes on the same base
as the general property tax.
A common method of financing solid wastes collection is
through a special assessment tax against properties benefited.
The special assessment tax is usually based on property footage
or other evaluation and may not be equitable because it is not nec-
essarily related to the amount of solid wastes services provided.
Local income or payroll taxes are being used increasingly.
Since the first modern local income taxes were adopted by Phila-
delphia and Washington, D.C., in 1939, the roll has grown to more
than 170 municipalities (see bibliography for further information].
Income or payroll taxes are "broad based." This type of tax has
the additional advantage of yielding more revenues as the econ-
omy grows and the amount of solid wastes increases accordingly.
general revenue
The Troy-Piqua (Miami County), Ohio,
incinerator is one of the newest in the
country, having been fired-up in spring of
1968. The incinerator is not handling
all county wastes at this time, but it is
hoped that it will become the sole
county disposal site in the near future.
Bonds may enable community residents to obtain facilities bonds
101
-------
when needed. They also provide an equitable means of sharing
costs between present and future users.
Two types of bonds normally used by local governments are
general obligation and revenue bonds. Two other types of bonds,
not as frequently used, are special assessment and industrial
revenue bonds.
Bonds are generally issued in $1,000 or $5,000 denominations.
This is called the "face amount" or "par value." A majority of
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF FINANCING
CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS
ITEM
PAY-AS-YOU-GO
LEASING
SUBSIDIES/GRANTS
BORROWED FUNDS
1. EXPLANATION
1. Yearly appropriations to
finance requirements—either
by accumulating funds in ad-
vance or meeting obligations
as they occur.
1. Straight rental with no
intent to purchase or own
(actually a form of pay-as-
you-go).
1. State or federal aid
available for acquisition
and construction of facili-
ties, or for equipment ac-
quisition.
1. Long-term debt financing
—analogous to mortgage fi-
nancing. Several methods
available—see Table II for
comparison.
2. ADVANTAGES
2a. Generally, the least ex-
pensive.
b. Accumulated funds pro-
vide maximum flexibility to
meet unanticipated needs.
c. More certain than sub-
sidies or bond issues re-
quiring vote.
2a. Requires no capital in-
vestment.
b. Provides high degree
of flexibility in meeting
unexpected or changing
conditions such as loca-
tion or amount of space
required; and amount or
type of equipment.
2a. Lower the property tax
burden or reduce service
charges.
b. Represent the return
of local taxpayers' money.
c. Can reduce total costs
by permitting earlier con-
struction/acquisition or by
reducing amount of bor-
rowed funds used.
2. These are general advan-
tages applicable to all meth-
ods.
a. Reduce immediate fi-
nancing requirements.
b. Permit construction of
critical facilities or acquisi-
tion of equipment without
delay.
c. May provide some sav-
ings through earlier con-
struction/acquisition—such
as avoiding inflationary con-
struction costs or rental
costs.
d. We can expect to repay
with "cheaper dollars" if in-
flation continues.
3. DISADVANTAGES
3a. Exclusive use usually re-
sults in significant tax rate
increase.
b. Relieves future citizens
from responsibility of pay-
ing for facilities/equipment
from which they will benefit.
3a. Most expensive if used
over extended period.
b. Does not produce any
equity in facility/equip-
ment.
c. Leased facilities some-
time create operating
problems because of loca-
tion or layout: Leased
equipment may not meet
specifications we would
use for purchase of new
equipment.
3a. Regulations generally
accompany the money.
b. Some costs involved in
preparing and processing
applications.
c. Uncertainty of receipt
due to change in rules or
cutback of funds.
4. PROPOSED
GUIDELINES
4. As a general statement,
pay-as-you-go is the best
method of financing and
should be used as extensively
as possible with considera-
tion given to: a) our total
budgetary requirements and
financial resources; b) our
total construction needs; c)
the benefit of the facilities/
equipment to future resi-
dents; and d) the availability
of subsidies.
Pay-as-you-go should be
used whenever possible for
minor needs or for additions,
improvements, and modifica-
tions to existing structures/
equipment.
4. Whenever needs are well
defined, short-term renting
generally should be con-
sidered only as a temporary
solution while plans and/or
financing arrangements can
be developed for permanent
facilities/equipment.
Three- to five-year leases
should be considered when-
ever major uncertainties ex-
ist concerning the need for
space—either in terms of
scope, timing, or location.
4. The availability of sub-
sidies should not be used
as the justification for con-
structing a facility/acquir-
ing equipment. However, an
attempt should be made to
obtain subsidies on ap-
proved projects to reduce
the local property tax
burden/service charges.
Any financing plan which
anticipates subsidies should
be flexible enough to allow
for some under-collection.
3a. Interest costs are major
drawback, can vary from
30% to 50% of principal
depending on: 1) Repayment
period; 2) Schedule of prin-
cipal retirement; and 3} In-
terest rate.
b. Limits (practical and le-
gal) to amount of borrowing
that can be used.
4. Long-term debt financing
should be used if a) a pay-as-
you-go policy places too great
a burden on current sources;
and b) borrowing does not
create equally severe future
financing problems.
The borrowing method
should be evaluated in rela-
tion to the type of facility/
equipment to be acquired.
Source: Sacramento County, California, Office of the County Executive, March 6, 1968. "Refuse Collection Operation"
102
-------
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
LANDFILL DISPOSAL SITE NOJ
-800AMTO500PMMON.THRUSAT.pl nornEASTER-JULYP-THANKS-
100 PM TO 500 PM SUNDAYS ILUOLI/GIVINGX- MAS NEW YEARS
ORDINARY REFUSE *19PPERTON
CHARGES MM TO HANDLE MATERIAL *2§° PER TON
MINIMUM CHARGE $0.50 PER LOAD
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
"HELP KEEP OUR COUNTY CLEAN'
'\i\i\iv\mwm
issues are soTd in serial form, meaning that the issue has maturi-
ties scheduled annually or semi-annually over a period of years.
Other issues, known as "term" bonds, have a single maturity date
on which the full amount is payable.
General Obligation Bonds. General obligation bonds are obli-
gations backed by the full faith and credit of the local government
selling the bonds. The full resources and taxing powers of the
government are irrevocably pledged to meet debt payments. In
some states, general obligation bonds offered by local govern-
ments require a vote of the electorate before the governing body
can issue them.
General obligation bonds are payable from ad valorem taxes
levied on property situated within the jurisdiction's corporate
limits. The phrase "ad valorem" literally means "according to the
value," and in the parlance of taxation corresponds to the tax
levied according to the assessed value of the property. General
obligation bonds appeal to a broad spectrum of investors because
the interest received is exempt from all federal income tax; thus
the local government issuing the bond usually pays a lower
interest rate.
Revenue Bonds. Revenue bonds are obligations to finance
self-supporting facilities. The bonds are secured solely by the
fees, charges, and other earnings of the project. Revenue bonds
are not paid out of general tax revenues. The revenue bond can
be used to finance incinerators and sanitary landfills. Should these
earnings prove inadequate, the sole remedy for the bond holders
is a readjustment in fees and charges to improve earnings. Nor-
mally there is no bond referendum for this type of bond.
Both general obligation bonds and revenue bonds have been
used by city and county governments in financing incinerators and
sanitary landfills.
Special Assessment Bonds. Financing solid wastes programs
At the entrance to each landfill site in San
Bernardino County, Calif., is a sign
stating hours and days of operation and
the various charges for disposal.
In the county, collection is handled by
the municipalities and private contractors.
The collectors are regulated by the
county as are collection and disposal rates.
103
-------
financing a solid wastes disposal system
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, California
The Los Angeles County
Sanitation Districts were estab-
lished in 1923, originally to pro-
vide sanitary sewer systems
and treatment facilities. Cur-
rently 13 of the 25 sanitation
districts are engaged in solid
wastes disposal.
The governing body of a san-
itation district is a board of
directors of not less than three
members. The majority of the
members of a sanitation dis-
trict hoard are elected officials,
one from each city having terri-
tory within the district. In those
cases where the sanitation dis-
tricts include unincorporated
territory, at least one county
supervisor is a member of the
governing body. Each sanita-
tion district is a separate entity
and has its own board of direc-
tors. For administrative econ-
omy and convenience, all the
districts in Los Angeles County
jointly finance a single admin-
istrative and engineering fa-
cility under the terms of a joint
administrative agreement.
In October, 1950, and again
in September, 1955, the chief
engineer of the districts sub-
mitted reports to the boards of
directors of the county sanita-
tion districts outlining the sta-
tus of solid wastes manage-
ment in Los Angeles County.
In 1950, a solid wastes disposal
system was established in 13
of the 25 sanitation districts
and funded by a modest tax
through special assessment bonds is another technique used by
local governments. Basically, this method entails levying a speci-
fied rate (often per foot of frontage] and a flat sum for each type
of property. According to Preparing a Bond Offering, there are
two types of special assessment bonds: "special-special"—pay-
able only from the special assessments; and "special-general"—a
charge against the full faith and credit of the government if assess-
ments are inadequate. Special assessment bonds are often diffi-
cult to sell today, but those with the special-general feature are
the easier of the two types to sell.
Industrial Revenue Bonds. In over 40 states industrial reve-
nue bonds may be issued by cities and counties to finance the
construction or acquisition of industrial facilities. To date such
bonds have not been used for financing solid wastes activities.
The 1968 American County Platform of the National Association
of Counties has described the problem of industrial bonds as
follows:
The use of general obligation or revenue bonds by coun-
ties to finance the construction or acquisition of indus-
trial facilities is a threat to the credit of county govern-
ment, the industry thus financed, financial institutions
regularly engaged in such financing, and the whole sys-
tem of private enterprise. It may impair the ability of
county government to finance its own necessary capital
expenditures, both because of the ever-present possibility
of default and the threat to the tax exemption feature
which is involved in this kind of abuse of governmental
credit.
104
-------
levy of two cents per $100
assessed valuation for a five-
year period and one cent per
year for the following five
years.
Within four years of 1955,
ten districts actively pursued
the acquisition and implemen-
tation of five landfill sites and
one transfer station. The cost
of acquisition and implementa-
tion of the facilities was greater
than the funds accumulated
through the districts' special
tax levy. To accomplish the
planned system, the districts
initially entered into joint pow-
ers agreement for operation of
the five landfill sites with Los
Angeles County and, in the
case of Scholl Canyon landfill,
with a third party, the City of
Glendale.
The county acquired fee title
to the Palos Verdes landfill
property by paying 40 per cent
of the land purchase price. The
balance of the purchase price,
as well as the implementation
costs, came from the sanitation
districts' tax fund. The Spadra
landfill property was purchased
by the county. The sanitation
districts provided implementa-
tion funds and agreed to repay
the county's acquisition costs
at no interest with revenue de-
rived from charging a fee for
disposal. The South Gate trans-
fer station was entirely financed
by the sanitation districts'
funds. Mission Canyon and
Calbasas landfills were estab-
lished by county purchase of
the land and advancement of
"start-up" funds to the districts.
The agreements provide that
the districts make annual pay-
ments to the county to repay
completely all county costs at
no interest by the time the land-
fill capacity is depleted.
To acquire land for long-
range disposal needs and to
convert completed landfill areas
into park and recreation fa-
cilities, the districts and the
county entered agreements pro-
viding that all surplus revenue,
above the revenue acquired to
operate and maintain the sites,
be deposited in a special fund.
A separate new agreement be-
tween the county and the dis-
tricts established the Los An-
geles County Refuse Trust
Fund. The new agreement pro-
vides that the fund be admin-
istered jointly by the directors
of the districts and the county
Board of Supervisors. Expendi-
tures from the fund can be
made only for acquisition of
solid wastes disposal facilities,
and landscaping and beautify-
ing landfills as they are com-
pleted. To build up the fund,
landfill disposal rates were
raised approximately 25 per
cent in 1965.
In unusual situations, public officials can establish a non-
profit corporation under state corporation laws to issue revenue
bonds for waste management. This type of bond does not apply
against the local government's debt limits.
In 1967, the City of Omaha, Nebraska, had to comply with
a directive from the Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion to stop polluting the Missouri River. By means of a coopera-
tive venture, a corporation called the Omaha Pollution Control
Corporation was organized, pursuant to the Nebraska Non-Profit
Corporation Act (Sec. 21-1901 et seq., R.R.S. Neb. 1943]. The
corporation issued $5.5 million in revenue bonds to construct the
collector sewer system and treatment facility. The city contrib-
uted $1.2 million through the issuance of its general obligation
bonds. The corporation entered a 30-year lease-purchase agree-
ment with the city at a rental sufficient to retire its bonds. As
soon as the bonds are retired, the facility will revert free and
clear to the city.
The advantages of using a non-profit corporation were that
the lease-purchase agreement was deductible in figuring debt limi-
tation, the city avoided further erosion of its borrowing power,
and it was not required to increase its mill tax levy. In addition,
a non-profit wastes management corporation can issue revenue
bonds without voter approval.
A few counties have resorted to financing segments of their
capital development programs with local bank loans. This can
be expensive because of high interest rates. However, in Los
Angeles County, California, the sanitation districts have entered
loans
105
-------
service charges and fees
TotaJ cost bidding has been used in San
Bernardino County, Calif., for almost all
major equipment used by the Department of
Sanitary Engineering. At the site pictured
above, the county has two bulldozers of this
type, two large earthmovers, and a compactor.
into time-purchase contracts based on prearranged commitments
from local banks. According to the division engineer of the dis-
tricts, the interest rates on these transactions have not been high.
Service charges or fees for solid wastes services should be
based on the amount and kind of service required and the benefit
received by the customers. Many local governments have adopted
service charges when general fund appropriations do not cover
expenses. The use of service charges or fees to finance solid
wastes services is appealing to officials because it avoids tax
increases; an affirmative vote of the electorate is not required;
and even tax-exempt properties must pay for the services.
The following list of service charge advantages is drawn from
American Public Works Association's Refuse Collection Practices.
1. They are an additional means of revenue.
2. They do not involve revenue from the general property
tax.
3. Solid wastes producers pay in proportion to the amount
of solid wastes generated.
4. Use of service charges for collection and disposal may
result in a more accurate analysis of quantities of solid
wastes and a more equitable method of paying for the
services rendered.
The following features are two major disadvantages.
1. There are substantial costs involved in administering a
service charge system.
2. They are a departure from the ability-to-pay principle and
may be regressive in that low-income families pay a pro-
portionately higher share of their income.
Collection Charges. Collection charges have been established
using the following guidelines.
A flat or uniform charge per building is the simplest rate
structure and is often applied to residential areas. It is considered
unfair since multiple dwelling units, apartments, and commercial
and industrial establishments pay the same rate despite the large
quantities of solid wastes they generate.
A charge has been used based on number of rooms in resi-
dential areas or on floor space in commercial areas.
Rates for multiple dwelling units are often higher because of
the large quantities of wastes they generate and the need for
more frequent collection. But this does not always increase costs;
in some cases wastes are cheaper to collect because there are
more wastes in one spot.
A charge based on the number and size of containers can be
equitable if "garbage" cans are of uniform size. Additional
charges can be made for odd-sized solid wastes receptacles be-
cause of special handling and inconveniences to collection crews.
Communities which supply bulk containers for commercial
and industrial solid wastes can charge a rental fee. Tacoma,
Washington, and Tucson, Arizona, supply and maintain large
portable containers for commercial establishments and charge
for container use and services rendered according to a set rate
schedule. At disposal sites, fees can be established according to
the weight of solid wastes.
106
-------
Public officials can establish differential rates by districting
areas on the basis of topography, which affects the difficulty of
making collections. Separate charges may be made for special
services. Special rates can be established when solid wastes
customers require frequent service.
Service charges for commercial and industrial properties are
generally more complicated because of greater variation in serv-
ice. A considerable amount of equipment used for commercial
and industrial collection is specialized and very expensive. Cities
and counties that operate collection systems usually do so only
for residential solid wastes, leaving private operators to bid for
separate commercial and industrial accounts. For example, the
City of Los Angeles collects only residential solid wastes and
commercial garbage, about one third of all solid wastes produced.
The remainder is collected and disposed of by private operators.
As a public policy, elected officials should regulate all public
and private rates in their jurisdiction.
Transfer Station Charges. Public policy should be established
on who may use the transfer station; what types of wastes are
acceptable; what the basic rates will be; how much will be charged
for residential wastes and how much for bulky materials; when
the station will be open; and whether credit will be extended to
regular users.
The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts' South Gate
transfer station established a basic rate to deposit solid wastes
on a per ton basis, but rates for hard-to-handle, bulky materials
are higher.
Disposal Charges. To help establish equitable disposal serv-
ice charges each disposal site should be equipped with scales.
Service charges set on a per-ton basis are generally more equitable
than those based on per-cubic-yard basis because weight can be
more accurately determined. Many jurisdictions have adopted the
desirable practice of setting disposal rates for sanitary landfills
or incinerators high enough to recover operating and maintenance
costs.
The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts charge for use
of their five sanitary landfill sites on a per-ton charge for the net
weight. Payment is accepted in cash or credit. By posting a bond
or cash deposit equal to an anticipated month's charges, a regular
customer can be issued a credit card for each of his vehicles with
the vehicle tare [unloaded) weight imprinted on it. The weigh-
master then accepts the card from the driver, weighs the loaded
vehicle, marks the weight and charge on a printed receipt, and
returns the credit card and a copy of the receipt to the driver. The
customer is billed at the end of the month. Governmental agencies
are exempt from the bond requiremnt.
purchasing techniques
Total cost bidding for purchasing is an effective tool for making
the scarce tax dollar work efficiently. The concept of total cost
bidding is based on the fact that the purchase price is only part
of the total investment in a piece of equipment over its working
life. When officials purchase equipment they are faced with six
basic considerations:
1) equipment capability,
The City of Frostburg, Md., uses compactor
vehicles on almost all collection routes.
Though these vehicles cost more than some
other types of collection vehicles, the
advantages in cleanliness, capacity,
operating ease, and appearance far
outweigh the additional cost.
total cost bidding for purchasing
107
-------
2) purchase price,
3) operating costs,
4) repair and maintenance costs,
5) downtime, and
6] resale value.
Traditionally, many local governments have purchased equip-
ment on a "low bid basis," not considering what the total oper-
ating costs may be over a period of time in relation to more
expensive equipment.
Local governments should use performance-type specifica-
tions which take into account job requirements, newest equipment
developments, and probable maintenance and operating expenses.
Performance specifications should be drawn up by the department
or agency using the equipment in consultation with the engineer-
ing specialist and the purchasing office. Many large jurisdictions,
such as Cincinnati, Ohio, utilize an interdepartmental or agency
committee to review requests and specifications for equipment
and to make recommendations once bids have been received.
Performance specifications must consider geographical limi-
tations, warranty service, standardization, bid exceptions, alter-
nate bids, testing procedures, and the like. For example, a service
warranty for one year should provide that if broken equipment
is not repaired within 24 hours a substitute will be provided. All
equipment should be inspected upon delivery to be sure it meets
specifications.
The Orange County, California, refuse disposal engineer
recommends:
Due to the economics of the solid wastes disposal
operation, it may be a good policy to purchase more
expensive equipment because it may cost less to main-
tain and will bring higher trade-in value. Since most
local governments cannot afford standby equipment, it is
wise to purchase equipment that runs the maximum time
with the least amount of downtime.
Bidders should supply a performance bond to fulfill the terms
of the contract and the financial obligation at the time of pur-
chase. Total cost bidding requires each bidder to evaluate the
performance of his equipment in dollars and cents.
pay-as-you-go financing When local governments use pay-as-you-go financing, they
pay for facilities and equipment with available funds as they
construct or acquire them. This is done either by accumulating
funds in advance or by expending funds to meet obligations as
they occur.
The major advantage of this method on a short-term basis
is that it is generally less expensive than other methods. Also, a
pay-as-you-go policy avoids the uncertainties involved in obtain-
ing subsidies, grants-in-aid, or passing bond issues. The major
problem with pay-as-you-go is that it cannot be used on a long-
term basis without significant increases in tax rates or service
charges. During the accumulation of funds, the savings in interest
costs may be offset by inflationary increases in construction or
acquisition costs.
A Hennepin County, Minnesota, official stated:
Pay-as-you-go should not be dismissed as a lesser or
108
-------
TABLE II
COMPARISON OF METHODS OF LONG-TERM DEBT FINANCING
FOR CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS
ITEM
GENERAL OBLIGATION
BONDS
REVENUE BONDS
LEASE/LEASE BACK
LEASE PURCHASE
1. EXPLANATION
1. Are issued by a govern-
mental agency and secured
by the taxing authority of
that agency. Are the most
common long-term financ-
ing method used by govern-
ment.
1. Are similar to general ob-
ligation bonds except they
are repaid from a specific
revenue source and are not
a legal liability of the gen-
eral fund. May be used for
airports, refuse disposal fa-
cilities, hospitals, and any
revenue producing facilities.
1. Involves the sale of
municipal bonds without a
bond issue election. This
is accomplished by creat-
ing a non-profit corporation
with the power to sell
bonds, and lease the neces-
sary facilities/equipment to
the county, which acquires
ownership when the bonds
are retired.
1. An investor builds a facil-
ity or fabricates equipment
to county specifications. The
county leases the facility/
equipment for a specified pe-
riod and pays the actual cost
plus a stated rate of interest.
At the end of the period the
county owns the facility/
equipment.
2. ELECTION
REQUIREMENTS
2. Election is required. A
2/3 majority is needed for
approval.
2. Election is required. Sim-
ple majority approves.
2. No election required.
2. No election required.
3. INTEREST 3. Generally have the low-
COSTS est interest rate.
3. Generally, have a higher
interest rate than either gen-
eral obligation bonds or the
bonds sold under the lease/
lease back arrangements.
3. Next lowest interest
rate to general obligation
bonds.
3. Has the highest interest
rate.
4. INCIDENTAL
COSTS
4. Include election costs,
preparation of bond sale
brochures, and servicing of
bonds.
4. Include election costs,
preparation of bond sale bro-
chures, and servicing of
bonds. May be slightly higher
than general obligation bonds
due to brochures.
4. Has the highest inciden-
tal costs. Although there
are no election costs, out-
side legal and financial
services are required.
4. Little or no direct inci-
dental costs.
5. STATUTORY
LIMITS
5. Our total bonded in-
debtedness is limited to
5% of our assessed valua-
tion.
5. Can only be used for cer-
tain facilities which will pro-
duce revenue to retire the
bonds and pay interest costs.
They do not count as a part
of our statutory bonded in-
debtedness limitation.
5. No statutory limits.
However, there are complex
legal requirements.
5. No statutory limits on
use. However, if the retire-
ment fund is the investor, it
is jimited to investing a
maximum of 25% of the fund
for facilities only.
6. OTHER
FACTORS
6. None.
6. The users of the facility
pay for its cost. (This would
also be true if revenues were
used to pay debt retirement
costs under any of the other
methods.)
6. This is a complex meth-
od of borrowing which re-
quires time to develop.
6. This is generally the
quickest and easiest way to
"borrow" funds.
7. PROPOSED
GUIDELINES
7. General obligation bonds
should be considered as the
primary source of borrowed
funds within the overall fi-
nancing program and gen-
erally should be considered
for major projects of long-
term benefits to the total
community. They should
also be considered for reve-
nue producing activities be-
cause of lower interest
rates. The time requirement
and uncertainty in approval
of bond issues makes it
difficult for them to be con-
sidered for urgent projects.
A secondary method of fi-
nancing also should be de-
veloped in the event the
bond issue fails.
7. The use of revenue bonds
should be considered for any
revenue-producing activity.
This should not, however, pre-
clude the use of other meth-
ods of borrowed financing if
they are more advantageous,
or if the voters do not ap-
prove a revenue bond issue.
7. This method should be
considered only if a bond
issue appears to be unfeasi-
ble, or if an urgent and un-
anticipated need develops.
7. This method should be
considered only if a bond
issue appears to be unfeasi-
ble, if an urgent and unan-
ticipated need develops, or if
the costs will be willingly
paid by some other agency
than the county (sub-lessee).
The employees retirement
fund should be given prefer-
ence over private investors
if this method is used.
Souitce: Sacramento County, California, Office of the County Executive, March 6, 1968. "Refuse Collection Operation"
109
-------
lease-purchase
undesirable financial technique. Granted, it is unfair to
today's taxpayer, who will be sustaining a disproportion-
ate share of capital equipment costs, which should be a
community liability over an extended period of time.
Given the rigid financial shackles imposed by legislatures
on local governments, pay-as-you-go is a means of financ-
ing capital programs. . . . Pay-as-you-go is an effective
device when other alternatives are absent for those
political bodies who are desirous of meeting and fulfill-
ing their responsibilities.
Essentially, lease-purchase involves private construction of
public facilities. The usual method of implementation is for a
private investor to construct a building and to lease it to the
public agency for a specified number of years. At the end of
the payment period, the private investor will have received his
total investment, plus interest and profit, and the government
agency receives title to the building. The overall costs are higher
than those incurred when bonds are issued because the builder
is subject to local, state, and federal income taxes and must make
a profit.
Purchase from a non-profit corporation can be considered the
pay-as-you-go financing through a public utility
Since 1929, the City of Ta-
coma, Washington (population
162,000], has operated a solid
wastes management system on
a pay-as-you-go basis, along
with the other municipal utili-
ties of water, sewer, and light.
The Utilities Services Division
of the Department of Public
Works, although independently
financed, is an integral part of
the municipal government. The
utility provides complete city
collection of residential, com-
mercial, and industrial wastes.
There are no agricultural waste
producers.
Weekly residential wastes
pickup is provided at $1.50 per
month and is billed bi-monthly
along with other utility charges.
Special pickup service for large
accumulations of waste or
bulky items is available upon
request at an hourly charge for
men and equipment. In 1967,
residential collection revenue
amounted to $768,593.30; special
pickup revenue to $10,232.05.
The utility also sells some paper
for salvage.
An ordinance requires resi-
dential wastes to be stored in
20- to 30-gallon metal contain-
ers with tight lids. Garbage and
trash are mixed and collection
is made in alleys by crews
of three men per compaction
vehicle—a driver plus two
laborers.
For chemical and industrial
collection, the city rents 500
one-cubic-yard bins for $3 a
month each, plus a collection
charge. Users may also rent
10-cubic-yard units for $25 per
month for the first container
and $15 per month for each
additional container. The city
maintains and washes the bins
at least monthly. Revenues
from commercial and indus-
trial collections in 1967 were
$484,201.05.
The city has operated a sani-
tary landfill within the city for
over ten years. City residents
Tacoma, Washington
are permitted to bring any ma-
terial to the landfill. County
residents are charged a nomi-
nal fee.
The utility works with other
city departments for central
purchasing of equipment and
civil service competitive exami-
nations and rating of em-
ployees. Only division and de-
partment heads are not under
municipal civil service. They
are appointed by the city man-
ager. The city provides health
and life insurance and other
benefits for civil servants.
Utility employees have main-
tained a high safety record.
Employees accrue one day's
sick leave each month, and
from two- to five-weeks annual
vacation, depending on years
of service.
In 1967, the refuse utility had
a gross income of $163,233.46
and a net income of $48,578.27.
The Tacoma utility has oper-
ated at a profit for its entire
39-year history.
110
-------
* ^.^S^f^;^;".-
most favorable type of lease-purchase arrangement, although it is
more complicated. Since it involves lower interest rates, it can
be nearly as advantageous as general obligation bonds.
It may be implemented by formation of a non-profit corpora-
tion for the single purpose of constructing a building. The county
signs a long-term lease for the building, and the non-profit cor-
poration finances construction by sale of corporation bonds. These
bonds are guaranteed by the lease agreement, and interest earned
is tax-free income to bondholders. At the end of the lease period,
ownership of the building is transferred to the jurisdiction and
the corporation is dissolved.
This method permits construction to local government speci-
fications by competitive bidding. Legal and financial arrangements
are more complex for purchase from a non-profit corporation than
through standard lease-purchase. Nevertheless, it is being utilized
in a growing number of jurisdictions, especially for the construc-
tion and operation of sewage treatment facilities. (See Tables
I and II for a comparison of methods of long-term debt financing.)
The primary advantage of leasing is that it requires no capital
investment. It provides some flexibility in meeting unexpected or
changing conditions such as location or amount of space required
or the amount or type of equipment.
Over an extended period, leasing is the most expensive
method of providing facilities and equipment because the rate
of return on private capital involved* is much higher than any
borrowing rate. Rental payments do not produce any equity in
facilities or equipment. In some cases leased facilities also create
operating problems because of location or layout.
Weigh stations are Jocated at each landfill
in San Bernardino County, Calif.
Regular users have a "credit card"
arrangement with the county, and one-time
or occasional users can pay cash for
disposal. There is no guessing involved.
The loaded vehicle is weighed on the
way in, and the empty vehicle is weighed
on the way out. The difference in
weights determines the cost.
leasing
in
-------
use of purchasing techniques
selected
bibliography
Calvert, Gordon L. (ed.J, Fundamentals
of Municipal Bonds, Investment Bank-
ers Association of America, 425 13th
Street, N.W., Washington, B.C., 1967.
City Income Taxes, Tax Foundation, Inc.,
50 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, New
York 10020, 1967. Price: $1.50.
Municipal Refuse Disposal, American
Public Works Association, 1313 East
60th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637,
1966. Price: $10.
Performance of Urban Functions: Local
and Areawide, U.S. Advisory Commis-
sion on Intergovernmental Relations,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Sep-
tember, 1963.
Preparing a Bond Offering of a Local
Government for the Market, The Bond
Buyer, 67 Pearl Street, New York, New
York, 1962.
Public Works Equipment Management,
American Public Works Association,
1313 East 60th Street, Chicago, Illi-
nois 60637, 1964. Price: $8.
Refuse Collection Practice, American
Public Works Association, 1313 East
60th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637,
1966. Price: $10.
Each of the various purchasing techniques can be used in
implementing a solid wastes management system, but each tech-
nique has particular advantages in special situations.
Pay-as-you-go is used for purchasing small, everyday items
in the county budget, but on items above $5,000 a county must
determine what will be the most efficient use of its money. If a
county is going to buy a compactor for a landfill, it should deter-
mine what the service charge would be if paid in installments or
through a lease-purchase contract. If the service charge is sig-
nificantly lower than interest rates at the local bank, then the
amount can be deposited to earn interest while the county pays
the lease installments.
Lease-purchase is an effective tool for making the most
efficient use of money over the term of a contract. It is also
effective in reducing the amount of money which must be paid
out at a single time. For example, if a county did not have suf-
ficient funds to purchase a fleet of collection vehicles, or was
prevented from obtaining the money by state and local fiscal
restrictions, lease-purchase might be a useful tool.
Leasing a piece of equipment, facilities, or land is a feasible
method of financing when an item will be needed only for a short
time. For example, if a county needed a landfill site with a life
of three years, and did not intend to use the land after comple-
tion, it might lease the land for the three-year period.
financing an areawide approach
Whenever possible, solid wastes management should be handled
on an areawide basis instead of by individual jurisdictions. For
example, disposal operations can be established to serve many
jurisdictions within a large area. Through the use of interlocal
agreements and contracts, jurisdictions can benefit from econo-
mies of operation by pooling equipment, personnel, and disposal
sites. The operation can be financed equitably by charging par-
ticipating communities according to the amount and kind of
wastes generated.
summary
Solid wastes management is a necessary public service which
must be adequately financed. There are two basic financial
decisions: (1) how to finance capital requirements; and (2) how
to meet operating costs. If the local government decides to pro-
vide direct collection and disposal services, then it faces the
problem of financing capital requirements. If private industry
provides the service, local government is still responsible for
regulation.
Since the system must be financed within the constraints of
state laws and local charters, these should be thoroughly exam-
ined during the planning process. Local governments can pay
for the system through the following methods: taxes, bond issues,
loans, service charges or fees, and leases. The local capital im-
provement budget should schedule the financing of all necessary
solid wastes facilities and equipment.
If the solid wastes management system is operated on an area-
wide basis, economies of operation can benefit each jurisdiction.
112
-------
7 technical and financial assistance
-------
technical
and
financial
assistance
introduction
Technical assistance from federal, state, and private sources is
available to local officials to develop or expand their existing
solid wastes management systems. In addition, limited financial
assistance is available for investigating and demonstrating new
approaches to local solid wastes management. Local government
officials should provide adequate financing for good solid wastes
management whether or not federal or state funds are available.
This guide describes federal solid wastes activities and the
types of technical and financial assistance available. (See the
Appendix for the addresses of federal agencies listed in this
guide.) Most federal assistance is provided by the solid waste
management program. Sometimes assistance from other federal
programs can be used indirectly by local officials for solid wastes
management. Some state governments and universities are also
able to provide planning and technical assistance.
Another source of information is the private solid wastes
industry, which performs over half of the local solid wastes
management operations, and equipment manufacturers.
the federal
solid wastes programs
Until enactment of the 1965 Solid Waste Disposal Act (P.L. 89-272),
little federal technical and financial assistance was available to
local officials.
The Solid Waste Disposal Act states that its purposes are:
(1) To initiate and accelerate a national research and
development program for new and improved methods
of proper and economic solid-waste disposal, in-
cluding studies directed toward the conservation of
natural resources by reducing the amount of waste
and unsalvageable materials and by recovery and
utilization of potential resources in solid wastes; and
(2) To provide technical and financial assistance to state
and local governments and interstate agencies in the
planning, development, and conduct of solid-waste
disposal programs.
The act directs the Department of the Interior to aid in solv-
ing solid w'astes problems resulting from the extraction, process-
ing, or utilization of minerals or fossil fuels. The Department of
Health, Education and Welfare was assigned all other responsi-
bilities and these have since been reassigned to the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA), and include the following:
1) conduct and support research;
2) provide training;
3] provide technical assistance;
4) provide support for local, state, and interstate projects
demonstrating new and improved techniques;
114
-------
5) provide support to demonstrate areawide solid wastes
management planning; and
6) provide support for state and interstate surveys of solid
wastes requirements and the development of state and
interstate plans.
EPA assists states, interstate agencies, and local governments
interested in solid wastes management. The Federal solid
waste management program is concerned with the total solid
wastes problem, including storage, collection, treatment, utiliza-
tion, processing, and final disposal.
The program provides financial and technical assistance to
state and local governments through demonstration grants, study
and investigation grants, interstate planning grants, training, and
direct technical assistance. Presently no program provides con-
struction funds. Funds are limited and competition for grants
is on a national basis. Local governments that receive grants
can contribute their share in kind—personnel, equipment, and
land.
Demonstration Grants. Demonstration grants are awarded
for study and investigations, and/or demonstration of new, unique,
or improved methods of solid wastes storage, collection, proc-
essing, and disposal. They can be awarded to interstate, state,
county, and city agencies or to public and private nonprofit or-
ganizations. Some are designed to demonstrate the feasibility of
new and improved technology; others are designed to take ad-
vantage of existing knowledge that has not been fully utilized.
For example, the City of Harrington, Rhode Island, received a
$30,830 grant to demonstrate the feasibility of solid wastes collec-
tion by the paper bag system and to determine the effect of this
method on the capacity of sanitary landfills. Oklahoma County,
Oklahoma, received a $20,650 study and investigation grant to
prepare a long-range areawide plan for the collection and disposal
u. s. environmental
protection agency
demonstration grant for strip mine reclamation
Allegany County and Frostburg, Maryland
Allegany County officials
thought their abandoned strip
mines could be used for solid
wastes disposal and proposed
the idea to the Maryland De-
partment of Health. The Di-
vision of Solid Wastes of the
state health department re-
ceived a federal Bureau of Solid
Waste Management grant to de-
termine whether strip mines
could be effectively utilized for
the disposal of solid wastes.
The state health department,
the Board of Allegany County
Commissioners, and the City of
Frostburg agreed to work to-
gether on a three-year program.
A suitable site was selected
near Frostburg and in April,
1967, sanitary landfill opera-
tions began.
Federal funds cover two-
thirds of project costs, the re-
maining one-third is financed by
the City of Frostburg and Alle-
gany County. Funds are ad-
ministered by the Maryland
health department, which pro-
vides most of the technical
assistance.
General operation of the site
is directed from a mobile office
trailer. Other facilities at the
site include a portable 80,000-
pound capacity platform scale
with attached printout device;
a trip counter for motor ve-
hicles; a small bulldozer; and a
system of outside lights.
The Frostburg sanitary land-
fill is expected to last 12 years.
When completely filled, cov-
ered, and landscaped, it will
serve as a recreation area.
115
-------
k.
The large number of recreational areas in
Angeles National Forest necessitate a local
landfill operated by San Bernadino County,
Calif. This landfill, purchased from a
private citizen, is located near major
recreational centers in the forest.
of solid wastes in Oklahoma County and the adjacent populated
areas.
Funds may be used for personnel, equipment, supplies, and
design and construction of facilities specifically related to the
project.
Participants must be willing to make all information, uses,
processes, patents, and other developments resulting from ac-
tivities supported by grant funds readily available to the public.
Officials must assure the program that open dumping and open
burning will be abolished within the political jurisdiction where
the demonstration is to be conducted. Demonstration grants must
be coordinated with existing state or interstate solid wastes man-
agement plans.
Survey and Planning Grants. Survey and planning grants are
awarded to state and interstate agencies which have been desig-
nated or established as the agency responsible for solid wastes
planning. (See Guide Number 3, Planning for a list of states with
solid wastes planning grants.) Funds may be used for personnel,
equipment, travel, supplies, and related expenses.
Plans prepared with these grants must include at least the
following:
• Short- and long-term goals and program objectives relating
to legislation.
• Method of financing and staffing the state and/or interstate
agency responsible for solid wastes management.
• A data collection system to gather and evaluate informa-
tion on solid wastes problems and to devise means of deal-
ing with them.
• Recognition of the vital partnership between solid wastes
management, air and water pollution control, and urban
planning.
• Recognition of potential advantages of regional programs
of solid wastes management.
• A mechanism for state assistance to local agencies within
the state.
• Continuing programs of public information and education.
• Appropriate attention to the potential for salvage, conver-
sion, and utilization of solid wastes materials.
• The setting and enforcement of standards for the design
and operation of solid wastes management facilities and
equipment.
Training Grants. Grants are awarded by the program to schools
and universities to initiate and develop graduate-level training
programs in solid wastes management to help alleviate critical
shortages of qualified personnel. Most of the programs offer a
master's degree in engineering with emphasis on solid wastes. The
majority of programs are for engineers, but a few will also accept
sanitarians.
Institutions offering such programs are:
University of West Virginia
Morgantown, West Virginia
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida
Drexel Institute of Technology
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
116
-------
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Troy, New York
University of Texas
Austin, Texas
University of Kansas
Lawrence, Kansas
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan
University of Illinois
Champaign-Urbana, Illinois
University of Houston
Houston, Texas
Research Grants. Research grants are generally awarded to
universities and colleges. They may also be awarded to state
and local agencies which have the research facilities and capa-
bilities to develop new techniques and further solid wastes tech-
nology. Funds may be used to meet the costs of personnel, equip-
ment, and materials.
Technical Assistance. Technical assistance from the program
is available to all local governments. Technical assistance is
essentially the application of existing technology to help solve
present problems and is provided by three basic methods:
1) development and distribution of technical data and infor-
mation;
2) provision of guidelines and standards for acceptable solid
wastes management and the development of model ordinances,
codes, and legislation; and
3) provision of technical personnel for studies, surveys, and
evaluations to assist individuals, local governments, and private
organizations in solving their solid wastes management problems.
The program does not compete with private consulting engi-
neers or provide the same services. Technical assistance activities
are limited to gaining data and information on a national scale
and developing and testing new study and analytical procedures
that will be useful to local managers in the solid wastes field.
The Bureau of Mines studies the problems of solid wastes
resulting from the extraction, processing, or utilization of minerals
or fossil fuels. A primary objective of the Bureau of Mines pro-
gram is to develop economically attractive metallurgical or chemi-
cal processes for more efficient utilization of waste materials,
such as mill tailings, slags, scrap metals, and coal plant washing
wastes. Of particular importance is its research on scrap metal,
which is designed to develop processes for reclaiming millions
of tons of metal found in urban solid wastes and automobile
bodies each year.
The Bureau of Mines awards research grants and contracts
primarily to universities and colleges and non-profit research
foundations which have a demonstrated background in earth
sciences. One example is a grant awarded to the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania's Department of Mines and Mineral Industries.
This department in turn contracted with Pennsylvania State Uni-
versity to make a three-year study, "Operation Anthracite Ref-
bureau of mines,
department of
the interior
117
-------
planning funds
land acquisition funds
use." The study seeks to establish approaches and capabilities
for use and removal of refuse (mine waste) from anthracite mines.
other federal programs
Other federal departments and agencies offer limited financial and
technical assistance not primarily oriented toward solid wastes
but which can have an indirect benefit for local solid wastes man-
agement systems. Local officials should investigate and coordi-
nate all possible sources of federal assistance. Funds are avail-
able from various agencies for planning, land acquisition, land
improvement, and manpower training. Information about soil
and geologic conditions may also be obtained from appropriate
agencies. In some cases, land itself may be available.
Two agencies of the Department of Housing and Urban Devel-
opment (HUD) offer funds for planning.
701 Planning Assistance Program, Department of Housing
and Urban Development. Support for solid wastes management
planning which is part of a community's comprehensive plan
may be obtained from the 701 Planning Assistance Program. The
701 program provides grants up to two-thirds of the total cost for
comprehensive planning in urban areas and rural multi-county
areas.
In the solid wastes field, it assists state and local governments
and multi-jurisdictional regional agencies in at least the following
activities:
• Preparation of comprehensive development plans for land
use and the provision of public facilities.
• Preparation of a capital improvement program.
• Local coordination and management of development plan-
ning.
• Coordination of state, county, and municipal planning ac-
tivities.
• Preparation of regulatory and administrative measures to
implement recommendations.
As a result of recent legislation, nearly all areas are eligible
for 701 assistance. Many local government solid wastes study
plans are funded in part with monies from the 701 Program.
Public Works Planning Advances, Department of Housing
and Urban Development. Interest-free public works planning ad-
vances are made to state or local governments to assist in the
planning of specific public works or facilities, including solid
wastes disposal projects. The advances are repayable when con-
struction of the planned project starts. In 1965, St. Louis County,
Missouri, acquired an interest-free public works planning advance
to finance a disposal study.
Several federal programs offer funds for land acquisition
which may be used by local governments in acquiring lands for
solid wastes purposes.
Advance Acquisition of Land (704 Program), Department of
Housing and Urban Development. Section 704 of the Housing
and Urban Development Act of 1965 as amended authorizes
grants to assist state and local governments in acquiring land
needed in the future for any public purpose. The primary objec-
118
-------
EPA Regions
tive of this program is to save money by acquiring future sites
before land prices increase, or the land is developed for other
purposes. The grant covers the direct costs of property acquisi-
tion plus indirect costs such as condemnation proceedings, ap-
praisals, title evidence, documentary taxes, and recording fees.
The proposed use of the land must be undertaken within five
years of acquisition. These funds might be used to acquire dis-
posal sites.
Open Space Land Program, Department of Housing and
Urban Development. The Housing and Urban Development Act
of 1965 amended the Open Space Land Program to provide in-
creased aid to local governments for acquiring and developing
urban open space lands, and for creating small parks in built-up
areas. The act authorizes grants up to 50 per cent of the project
cost.
Disposal sites could be made into valuable community assets
such as parks and recreation areas. However, to receive assist-
ance under this program, local officials must state beforehand
that the end use of such sites will be open space.
Farmers Home Administration, Department of Agriculture.
The Farmers Home Administration (FHA) of the Department of
Agriculture (USDA) offers loans and grants to local governments
and nonprofit organizations for the construction of rural solid
wastes disposal sites. Grants cannot exceed 50 per cent of the
119
-------
soil and geologic
condition information
development cost. FHA financial assistance is available to com-
munities of less than 5,000 population, but this may be broadly
interpreted to include part of a metropolitan area. FHA grants or
loans may be used to purchase land and equipment, to construct
facilities, and to pay engineering and legal costs.
Economic Development Administration, Department of Com-
merce. The Public Works and Economic Development Act of
1965, administered by the Economic Development Administration
(EDA) of the Department of Commerce, offers grants and loans
in areas of high unemployment for public works; long-term, low-
interest business development loans; and technical assistance
grants for project planning and studies evaluating the needs of
such areas.
Eligible public works projects can receive direct grant assist-
ance up to 50 per cent of project costs. For example, if local
officials could show that a solid wastes management system
would be an incentive to attract industry and provide long-term
employment opportunities, the project might be eligible.
EDA also provides supplementary grants to reduce the non-
federal share required by other grant-in-aid programs.
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Department of the Interior.
The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR) of the Department of
the Interior administers the Land and Water Conservation Fund
Act, which authorizes 50 per cent matching grants to state and
local governments to acquire and develop public outdoor recrea-
tion facilities. To qualify, a project must be in accord with the
statewide outdoor recreation plan. Local officials seeking assist-
ance to convert wastes disposal sites into parks should contact
their BOR state liaison officer.
Technical information concerning soil and geologic condi-
tions is available from two federal agencies.
Soil Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture. The
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) of the Department of Agriculture
works with landowners and local governments through local soil
and water conservation districts to assure that the best possible
use is made of land and water resources.
Local SCS soil survey information reports and sometimes
Officials of Cascade County
and Great Falls, Montana,
agreed that a comprehensive
approach was required to solve
their solid wastes collection
and disposal problem. Early in
1967, a study grant of $38,000
was awarded to the county
[population 80,000) by the Bu-
reau of Solid Waste Manage-
ment to determine the most
efficient and economical meth-
ods to store, collect, and dis-
federal funds stimulate countywide planning
Cascade County and Great Falls, Montana
pose of solid wastes. The study
was conducted by an engineer-
ing firm under the supervision
of the city-county health de-
partment in cooperation with
municipalities surrounding
Great Falls. An advisory com-
mittee of county, city, and
town officials was formed to
keep everyone appraised of the
study findings and possible
recommendations.
A comprehensive solid wastes
management report was com-
pleted in September, 1968. It
recommended that eight new
sanitary landfill sites be estab-
lished for the county, with two
of them serving Great Falls;
and that the county be divided
into two or three collection
areas.
To fully implement the rec-
ommendations, additional legal
authority may have to be ob-
tained from the state legislature.
120
-------
technicians are available to help local officials select suitable dis-
posal sites. To determine whether a soil survey report has been
published for a particular county, officials should check with the
county extension agent, or local Soil Conservation Service Office.
Geological Survey, Department of the Interior. Technical
information to assist in selecting disposal sites is also available
to local governments from the Geological Survey of the Depart-
ment of the Interior. Specially requested water, mineral, and
mapping investigations are conducted in cooperation with state
or local governments and financed on a 50-50 basis.
Limited funds are available to local governments to improve
and beautify their lands.
Urban Beautification and Improvement Program Department
of Housing and Urban Development. The Urban Beautification
and Improvement Program of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development provides grants not to exceed 50 per cent
to state and local governments to improve and enhance lands in
urban areas. Elimination of unsightly disposal sites in suburban
and urban counties could be assisted under this program. Beau-
tification and improvement activities must take place on public
lands, have significant long-term benefits, and be important to the
planned development of the community.
Bureau of Public Roads, Department of Transportation. The
Bureau of Public Roads (BPR] of the Department of Transporta-
tion offers financial assistance to state highway departments for
screening or removal of junkyards adjacent to designated federal-
aid interstate and primary highway systems—more than 250,000
miles of roads.
As of mid-1968, 39 states had enacted legislation to control
existing and future junkyards and automobile graveyards. Local
officials can secure information from their respective state high-
way departments on screening, relocating, or removing junkyards.
land improvement
Many federal agencies own lands in various parts of the
country which may be available for solid wastes disposal sites.
Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. The Forest Serv-
ice of the Department of Agriculture administers over 186 million
acres and can assist local officials in locating wastes disposal sites
and access roads on these government forest lands. Local officials
should contact the district ranger or forest supervisors regarding
the details of special use permits.
Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior.
Public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) of the Department of the Interior may be available to local
governments, particularly in the western states, for solid wastes
disposal sites. Information about the amount of land which may
be leased in any one year, the conditions under which leases are
issued, and other procedures may be obtained from BLM's state
and district offices.
Office of Surplus Property Utilization, Department of Health,
Education and Welfare. The Office of Surplus Property Utiliza-
tion in HEW is authorized to transfer federal real property to
states and local governments and nonprofit institutions for use in
approved health or educational programs, including solid wastes
management. If the property is to be used primarily for health or
federal lands
121
-------
Junked autos are one of our major solid
wastes disposal problems in all areas of the
country. Federal grants have been made to
help finance projects looking into new and
more economical salvaging of junked autos,
while other grants have been made to shield
auto graveyards from the surrounding areas.
TABLE I
PROGRAM APPLICATIONS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED
TO AN AREAWIDE PLANNING AGENCY FOR REVIEW
AND COMMENT UNDER SECTION 204
OF P.L. 89-754*
* As contained in Bureau of the Budget Circular A-82 Revised,
dated December, 1967.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Open space program
Public facility loans
Public works planning
Urban planning assistance
Advance acquisition of land
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Outdoor recreation
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Highway landscaping and scenic enhancement
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE
Solid waste disposal
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Rural water and waste disposal facilities and planning
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Public works and economic development facilities
manpower training
education, it can be obtained without cost. HEW regional rep-
resentatives can determine whether suitable property is available.
Funds from the Department of Labor may be used to employ
people temporarily in local government solid wastes projects.
Local and state governments may sponsor these programs. The
federal government can pay up to 90 per cent of project costs; the
local sponsors' share may be in cash or in kind.
Neighborhood Youth Corps, Department of Labor. The Neigh-
borhood Youth Corps (NYC] program for unemployed youth 16
to 22 years old finances projects which will contribute to the
conservation, development, or management of a community's nat-
ural resources. Local and state governments or private nonprofit
organizations may sponsor NYC programs. Pride, Inc., funded
under this program, hired unemployed youths to clean up littered
streets and alleys in Washington, D.C.
Adult Work-Training Experience, Department of Labor. The
Adult Work-Training Experience program, known as "Operation
Mainstream," was established to provide work training and em-
ployment projects for adults 22 years of age or older who are
chronically unemployed and who have an annual family income
below the poverty level. A project in Allegany County, Maryland,
122
-------
used Operation Mainstream participants to provide supplemental
labor at a sanitary landfill site.
New Careers Program, Department of Labor. The New
Careers Program must be sponsored by a local community action
agency, and is designed to provide new career opportunities for
persons over 22 years old. Under a local solid wastes project,
people could be trained to fill sub-professional or semi-technical
positions. Salaries are supplemented by federal funds.
A number of grant programs administered by various federal
agencies must be reviewed by an areawide planning agency under
Section 204 of the Model Cities and Metropolitan Development
Act of 1966. This areawide planning agency, primarily composed
of, or responsible to, elected local officials in the area, reviews
these programs to determine whether they are consistent "with
comprehensive planning developed or in the process of develop-
ment. . . ." Table I lists some of the programs which require
review under Section 204.
grant review in
metropolitan areas
state assistance
Most states have a designated solid wastes management agency,
usually the state health department. Many states provide tech-
nical assistance to aid local solid wastes management plan-
123
-------
ning. The assistance ranges from consultation to actual survey
and development of a local program plan.
New York provides technical and limited financial aid for
local governments to plan for the collection, treatment, and dis-
posal of solid wastes. During 1968, the New York legislature
appropriated $250,000 for 100 per cent planning grants. Counties,
part-county areas, and regions encompassing several cities, towns,
or villages are eligible.
New York State Department of Health regulations provide for
close collaboration between the state health commissioner and
local governing bodies on the selection of engineers, study out-
line, and contracts. The studies must include broad estimates of
future needs, population growth, and construction costs; the area
to be serviced by units of an integrated system; financing require-
ments; and operating and maintenance costs. The study is not to
include detailed engineering work on any specific plants or other
units of the system.
The state health commissioner may contract to have a com-
prehensive study made for an area where, in his opinion, such
a study is needed and a cooperative venture between municipali-
ties is not advanced. In such cases, the chief executive officers
of the municipalities included within the study area constitute an
advisory committee to the commissioner for the study.
The South Carolina State Board of Health is preparing study
reports for individual counties. The local solid wastes study plan
includes a statement of purpose, an inventory of disposal areas,
existing solid wastes production and disposal practices, and rec-
ommendations for local officials. Each study plan contains a map
of the study area plus diagrams of methods of operating sanitary
landfills.
The California state agency primarily involved with solid
wastes is the Bureau of Vector Control and Solid Waste Manage-
ment in the Department of Public Health. This bureau's activities
include providing consultation and program assistance to public
and private agencies; demonstration and evaluation of improved
techniques and methods of handling solid wastes; planning; train-
STATE OF MARYLAND
STATE BOARD OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE
COMMISSIONER
For Programs
Assistant Commissioner (or
Environmental Health Services
- Water and sewerage
r Quality Control
-Solid Wastes
— Drug Control
Radiological Health
Food and Milk
General Sanitation
Bedding & Upholst
Section
124
-------
federal funds for areawide planning
Des Moines, Iowa
The two-county metropolitan
area of Des Moines, Iowa, con-
tains almost 290,000 people.
Most of the local governments
in the area individually offer
separate services for the col-
lection and disposal of garbage
and trash.
In 1967 Des Moines received
a grant from the Bureau of
Solid Waste Management of
almost $73,000 (total cost of
$109,000] to make a one-year
study of the metropolitan area's
future solid wastes collection
and disposal needs. The study
was conducted jointly by two
engineering consulting firms in.
cooperation with the area local
governments. The study in-
cluded an analysis of the
amount and type of solid
wastes generated, methods and
costs of collection and dis-
posal, existing laws, and exist-
ing administrative procedures.
The study report recom-
mended the establishment of a
regional solid wastes agency to
administer the collection and
disposal of solid wastes for the
entire metropolitan area. The
board of this agency would
consist of one elected official
from each of the 14 local gov-
ernments. A weighted voting
system was proposed which
would give one vote to each
local government plus one addi-
tional vote for each 50,000 peo-
ple represented. The City of
Des Moines would have five
votes. Although state law per-
mits joint agreements between
local governments to form re-
gional agencies, it may not be
legally possible for the regional
agency to have the power of
eminent domain. If this is true,
the report recommends that the
City of Des Moines purchase
the land and lease it back to
the agency.
Since the study findings have
been reported, elected officials
of the area governments have
been meeting and discussing
the recommended plan along
with various alternatives pro-
posed in the report. There is a
clear recognition that solid
wastes is a problem requiring
regional cooperation and it ap-
pears that there is a definite de-
sire on the part of the area gov-
ernments to solve this problem.
ing; conducting surveys and inventories to assist local agencies
in defining solid wastes problems and recommending courses of
action; and conducting special investigations of specific solid
wastes problems. In September, 1968, California presented an
interim report on the existing status of solid wastes management.
The second part of the report, including recommendations for a
comprehensive statewide program, will be presented to the state
legislature in 1969.
The Maryland solid wastes program is conducted by the
state Department of Health Bureau of Resources Protection, Divi-
sion of Solid Wastes. The objectives of the statewide solid wastes
management program are as follows:
1) improve existing solid wastes management practices;
2) prepare enabling legislation, including establishment of a
program for disposing of worn-out automobiles, farm
machinery, and other obsolescent items;
3) conduct solid wastes research, investigations, and demon-
strations (see Allegany County, Maryland, Field Report);
4) plan a training course for local solid wastes technicians;
5) plan financial assistance programs for local governments;
6) enforce recently passed statewide open burning law;
7) assist local governments in developing solid wastes plans;
and
8) prepare a statewide solid wastes plan.
other information sources
A few universities are participating in community demonstration
projects. Public officials should not overlook universities for
125
-------
Commercial salvaging of junked autos is on
the decline, but federal grant money is
being used to study new means of reclaiming
and utilizing materials in junked autos.
technical assistance when planning and implementing a solid
wastes management system.
Technical information is also available to local officials from
collection and disposal equipment manufacturers, as well as from
trade magazines or public works journals.
Organizations with information on solid wastes are:
American Public Works Association
1313 East 60th Street
Chicago, Illinois 60637
National Solid Wastes Management Association
1022 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Institute of Scrap Iron and Steel
1739 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
National Refuse Sack Council
60 East 42nd Street
New York, New York 10017
Keep America Beautiful, Inc.
99 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10016
National Clean Up, Fix Up, Paint Up Bureau
1500 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
American Society of Civil Engineers
345 47th Street
New York, New York 10017
Glass Container Manufacturers Institute
1511 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Incinerator Institute of America
60 East 42nd Street
New York, New York 10017
Institute for Solid Wastes
1755 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
-------
summary
Technical assistance from federal, state, and private sources is
available to local officials to develop or expand their solid wastes
management systems. On the federal level, the primary source
of financial and technical assistance is the Bureau of Solid Waste
Management; although the Bureau of Mines provides limited tech-
nical assistance, its main emphasis is on research. Imaginative use
of assistance from other federal agencies may provide help for
solid wastes management.
Many states are beginning to provide technical assistance,
particularly in the planning field. At present, almost no financial
assistance is available.
The solid wastes industry, universities, and private organi-
zations also can provide information and assistance.
appendix
ADDRESSES OF MAIN AND REGIONAL OFFICES OF
FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS OFFERING ASSISTANCE
IN SOLID WASTES MANAGEMENT
BUREAU OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Environmental Control Administration
Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
REGIONAL PROGRAM CHIEFS
Region I John Fitzgerald Kennedy Building, Boston, Massa-
chusetts 02203 (New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode
Island, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut]
Region II Room 8344, Federal Office Building, 26 Federal
Plaza, New York, New York 10017 (Delaware, New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania)
Region III 220 Seventh Street, N.E., Charlottesville, Virginia
22901 (District of Columbia, Kentucky, Maryland,
North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Puerto
Rico, Virgin Islands)
Region IV Room 404, 50 Seventh Street, N.E., Atlanta, Geor-
gia 30323 (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi,
South Carolina, Tennessee)
Region V Room 712, New Post Office Building, 433 West Van
Buren Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607 (Illinois, Indi-
ana, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin)
Region VI Federal Office Building, 601 East 12th Street, Kan-
sas City, Missouri 64106 (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,
Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota)
Region VII 1114 Commerce Street, Dallas, Texas 75202 (Ar-
kansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas)
Region VIII 9017 Federal Office Building, 19th & Stout Streets,
Denver, Colorado 80202 (Colorado, Idaho, Utah,
Montana, Wyoming)
Region IX Federal Office Building, 50 Fulton Street, San Fran-
cisco, California 94120 (Alaska, Arizona, Guam,
Washington, Nevada, California, Hawaii, American
Samoa, Oregon)
In Kent County, Grand Rapids, Mich., most
of the rural collection and disposal
is conducted by private operators with
little regulation by local government.
The county is seeking to establish a
countywide system of regulation for
disposal areas such as this one.
127
-------
selected
bibliography
Catalog of Federal Assistance Programs,
Office of Economic Opportunity, Ex-
ecutive Office of the President, U.S.
Government Printing Office, June, 1967.
County Development Coordination Man-
ual, National Association of Counties
Research Foundation, 1001 Connecti-
cut Avenue, N.W., Washington, B.C.
20036, 1968. Price: $2.
Demonstration Project Abstracts, Bureau
of Solid Waste Management, U.S. De-
partment of Health, Education and
Welfare, reprinted 1968.
Demonstration Project Abstracts: Sup-
plement A, Bureau of Solid Waste
Management, U.S. Department of
Health, Education and Welfare, 1967.
Grant Programs Under the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, Bureau of Solid Waste
Management, U.S. Department of
Health, Education and Welfare, 1968.
Handbook for Local Officials, Office of
the Vice President, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1967. Price $2.
Lefke, L. W., comp, Summaries of Solid
Wastes Research and Training Grants,
Public Health Service Publication
Number 1596, U.S. Government Print-
ing Office, 1968.
Solid Waste Demonstration Grants, Bu-
reau of Solid Waste Management,
U.S. Department of Health, Education
and Welfare, 1968.
Solid Waste Disposal Act, Title II of
P.L. 89-272, 89th Congress, S. 306,
October 20, 1965, Bureau of Solid
Waste Management, U.S. Department
of Health, Education and Welfare, re-
printed 1968.
Sponagle, C. E. (edj, Summaries: Solid
Wastes Demonstration Grant Projects
—1968, Public Health Service Publica-
tion Number 1821, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1968.
State/Interstate Solid Waste Planning
Grant Listing, Bureau of Solid Waste
Management, U.S. Department of
Health, Education and Welfare, 1968.
Vaughan, R. D., and R. J. Black, The
Federal Solid Wastes Program: A Prog-
ress Report, Bureau of Solid Waste
Management, U.S. Department of
Health, Education and Welfare, 1968.
REGIONAL OFFICES
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Region
Region
Region
Region
I
II
III
IV
Region V
Region VI
346 Broadway, New York, New York 10013 (Con-
necticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
New York, Rhode Island, Vermont]
630 Widener Building, Chestnut and Juniper Streets,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 (Delaware, Dis-
trict of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsyl-
vania, Virginia, West Virginia]
645 Peachtree—Seventh Building, Atlanta, Georgia
30323 (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Missis-
sippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee]
Room 1500, 360 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago,
Illinois 60601 (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South
Dakota, Wisconsin]
Federal Office Building, 819 Taylor Street, Room
13-A-01, Fort Worth, Texas, 76102 (Arkansas, Colo-
rado, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Texas]
450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California
94102 (Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Nevada,
Southern Idaho, Utah, Wyoming] Area Office: 909
First Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98014 (Alaska,
Montana, Northern Idaho, Oregon, Washington]
Region VII Ponce de Leon Avenue and Bolivia Street, P.O. Box
1105 Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00919 (Puerto Rico and
Virgin Islands]
Solid Wastes Research Program, Manager
Bureau of Mines
U.S. Department of the Interior
19th and C Streets, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20240
Farmers Home Administration (FHAJ
Forest Service
Soil Conservation Service (SCSJ
Department of Agriculture
14th and Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20202
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR]
Bureau of Land Management (BLMJ
Geological Survey
National Park Service
Department of the Interior
19th and C Streets, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20240
Neighborhood Youth Corps (NYC]
Adult Work Training Programs
New Careers Program
Director, Office of Manpower Information
Department of Labor
14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210
128
-------
8 citizen support
-------
citizen support
»UT OFFICER — I
DIDNT KNOW IT WAS
SUPPOSED TO BE
COVERED
This cartoon sign outside the entrance
of a Los Angeles County sanitary landfill
helps make solid wastes regulations more
palatable for the ordinary homeowner.
actions speak louder than words
Local government must plan a public information strategy to
achieve long- and short-range goals and select tactical steps to
achieve them. To win citizen support local government should
begin to build a visible record of accomplishment by making
improvements even while the total solid wastes management sys-
tem is still in the planning stages.
program image The image presented by solid wastes management directly
influences community attitudes. In most communities, the collec-
tor is one regular contact a resident has with local government.
130
-------
a professional public awareness campaign
Broome County, New York
"People think disposal ends
at the curb."
"The people in Broome
County just equated sanitary
landfill with dump."
These comments were made
by Broome County, New York,
supervisors after three years
of trying to educate the public
about needed solid wastes dis-
posal. So the Board of Super-
visors decided to secure the
help of a professional public
relations firm. The firm pre-
sented the county with a pro-
posed education and informa-
tion campaign which combined
the use of the news media,
public meetings with elected
and appointed county officials,
and a citizens committee.
The program has been fol-
lowed with the exception of
the citizens committee. County
officials opposed the formation
of a citizens committee at that
time for two reasons: 1) sev-
eral supervisors preferred to
have the citizens committee
chosen after landfill sites had
been selected and announced;
and 2J the director of environ-
mental health services thinks
citizens committees should not
be countywide, as the disposal
program will be, but should be
organized independently in sev-
eral localities.
About $16,500 was budgeted
for out-of-pocket expenses.
Some financial assistance was
received from the Bureau of
Solid Waste Management.
Nearly half—$7,676—of the
$16,500 budget was used to pur-
chase time and space in two
daily newspapers, three televi-
sion stations, and four radio
stations. Producing the mate-
rials for these media cost about
$2,600.
Another $2,500 was spent for
60,000 copies of an eight-page
brochure called "Cover-up,"
which picked up the key phrase
used throughout the informa-
tion campaign: "Sanitary Land-
fill... the Better Way."
Preparation of a slide show
and written commentary about
sanitary landfill cost about
$500, with another $200 going
for a projector and screen.
The public relations agency
fee for its professional services
was $1,500. It worked under
the director of environmental
health services and the plan-
ning director.
There has been some crit-
icism of the county for using
public funds to hire a public
relations firm. But the chair-
man of the board said he is
pleased with the response to
the program so far, and added,
"Where it affects public health
or safety, we are willing to
spend some money for a public
education and information pro-
gram." And since Broome
County has no information of-
ficer of its own, the only way
to obtain professional informa-
tion help is by using an outside
firm.
The folder and the slide
show were made available to
service clubs throughout the
county, to schools, and to
residents in the areas where
the county anticipated locating
landfills. In addition, members
of the Board of Supervisors,
the planning director, and the
director of environmental health
services met with residents; ap-
peared at local public hearings
to explain the countywide dis-
posal program; and discussed
the program with officials of
the towns and villages to show
them its advantages and to an-
swer objections.
There has been opposition
from nearby residents to some
of the landfill sites selected and
strenuous opposition from town
officials to one site. Even the
resulting controversy over that
site, however, has created one
plus for the county, its chair-
man believes: Many residents
discovered that an ugly open
dump already existed in their
town.
The uniform he wears, his ability to deal with people, his con-
scientiousness, and his courtesy influence public attitudes.
Collection vehicles also present an opportunity to improve
public attitude. In Philadelphia, each month the polished choco-
late enamel compactor trucks display different posters on such
131
-------
winning support for improved collection
Tucson, Arizona
Prior to 1963, Tucson, Ari-
zona, solid wastes collection
was provided by various local
haulers under district contracts
with the city. Under this sys-
tem, city residents were not
receiving adequate service and
the city could not exercise any
degree of control over the situ-
ation. In September, 3963, the
city decided to take over solid
wastes collection. To operate
an effective system of solid
wastes collection, the city had
to upgrade the existing local
ordinances for solid wastes col-
lection. Based on a study of
other local ordinances around
the country, proposed legisla-
tion provided that residents
must comply with certain stand-
ards for the storage of solid
wastes or be guilty of a mis-
demeanor. This provision in the
proposed ordinance caused con-
siderable public concern and
threatened to block passage of
the needed regulations.
The Refuse Division of the
Department of Public Works
contacted the city newspaper
to explain the inadequacies of
the existing law. The newspa-
per cooperated by giving full
support to the new ordinance.
In addition, local television sta-
tions agreed to present a pro-
gram explaining the new or-
dinance and its implications.
While the public works de-
partment had obtained the nec-
essary support for the new or-
dinance, there still remained
the task of implementing the
new system. Without the full
cooperation of residents, the
new collection system could
not succeed. Recognizing that
most residents would volun-
tarily comply with the new reg-
ulations, the Department of
Public Works developed a se-
ries of brochures to explain the
need for the new system in
laymen's language illustrated by
cartoons. Although there was
no general distribution of the
brochures, they were given in
quantity to groups such as the
Chamber of Commerce, Wel-
come Wagon, and to persons
who made complaints about the
service.
The cost of developing and
printing the brochures, as well
as the cost for all public rela-
tions for Tucson's Sanitation
Department, was minimal. The
total budget for the Sanitation
Department for 1967 was ap-
proximately $1.9 million, of
which $1,700 was spent on
public relations. The public re-
lations expenditure represents
less than 1 per cent of the total
budget, but the time it saves in
dealing with complaints repre-
sents a significant cost savings.
subjects as storage standards, traffic safety, and community
relations.
Every disposal or processing facility offers opportunity to
improve the solid wastes management image. A fenced, land-
scaped, well-designed operation makes it easier to secure a loca-
tion for another well-run operation when it becomes necessary.
Officials should not miss the opportunity to remind residents that
landfills are land reclamation projects which may result in a park,
golf course, or airstrip. This idea is a strong selling point. In
Riverside, California, one sanitary landfill site was developed to
create a scenic parklike atmosphere along the entrance road.
Signs clearly indicating regulations and hours of operation
are necessary. They should be easy to read, easy to find, and
132
-------
FIGURE A, TUCSON, ARIZONA
As a member of a City Garbage crew, I have been given very careful
instructions not to bang your garbage cans, but to treat them with render loving
care. But in order for me to follow these instructions and still empty your garbage
cans, your cooperation is needed. If you fill the cans and then stuff in some
more trash and jump on it in order to get the lid on, the garbage won't fall out
when I turn over your can to empty it.
I am not allowed to reach in the can and pull garbage out with my hands.
I can't tell when I will grab a broken bottle, old razor blades, jagged tin can lids
or other dangerous things, and if I am hurt, you have to pay for it. Industrial
accidents are expensive to taxpayers. So, please don't cram your garbage can
full; get another one if you feel you often need more room.
attractive. A facility which is difficult to locate should have
conspicuous direction signs en route.
Once an illicit roadside dump has been cleaned up, the
appearance of the area should be improved so it will not revert
to a dump. An easy way to do this is to plant grass on the clean
but barren dump site.
An excellent opportunity to improve community relations is
through the prompt, courteous, efficient handling of citizen com-
plaints. One of the most frequent complaints is failure to provide
a scheduled collection service. With contract collectors in Mont-
gomery County, Maryland, the home missed must receive service
within one day of a complaint; and the contract collector may not
handling complaints
133
-------
have more than 25 such complaints a month without being fined
or subject to contract cancellation.
National Disposal Contractors, Inc., requires collectors to
make a notation of any homes which were skipped and why—no
waste to be collected, aggressive dog, improper storage, item too
large. When the complaint is received, the company is able to
explain why service was not rendered, and tell the resident how
to remedy the situation so that it will not happen again. Then a
special pickup is made.
A record of the kind and frequency of complaints should be
kept so that continuing improvements can be made. In New York
City, with a fleet of 1,200 trucks, one repeated complaint was that
trucks were too noisy. The mayor now requires all trucks to be
provided with insulation to reduce the noise level.
established organizations
PROGRAM SALESMANSHIP BY THE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
1. BELIEVE in the program.
2. KNOW the program thoroughly.
3. PRESENT the program attractively.
a. Gear the presentation to the particular
audience to hold its interest.
b. Dp not force a decision at the first
visit, but leave the impression that the
first visit was more than a "friendli-
ness" session.
4. FOLLOW UP the initial visit.
going to the public for support
Resources in the Community. One method of achieving citizen
participation in the early stages of a program to improve solid
wastes management is the formation of a small citizens advisory
group. The role of this committee should be to help plan total
citizen support for whatever solid wastes management system is
needed.
The starting point of a public support campaign is to identify
the community assets and liabilities which may affect the solid
wastes program. To do this, the advisory committee should in-
clude both elected and non-elected community leaders. The com-
mittee should include the local government public information
officer, representatives from other local government departments,
community organizations, and private industry.
The best way to get action is to get people involved early.
Forming a broadly based committee early is vital since people may
feel they are being "used" if they are asked to go along after the
plan is made. This way, comprehensive improvements will be
those which the citizens themselves have helped develop.
A workshop is an efficient way to prepare a large group
quickly. Citizens advisory committee members should help plan
the workshop and determine what decisions and participation are
required from their organization. The committee should prepare
a composite list of private organizations, professional associations,
private industries, and agencies of local, state, and federal gov-
ernments. Working with the citizens committee, public officials
should decide which interest groups need to be reached, what
factors are important to each group, and what results are desired.
Since many organizations are committed to other goals as pri-
mary responsibilities, at first an official should select organizations
which are most likely to participate with enthusiasm. After a
record of accomplishment has been achieved, other organizations
will be eager to participate and help support the solid wastes
management program.
Existing organizations can effectively motivate interest since
they have established channels of communications and influence
with their members.
Each civic group, such as the League of Women Voters, U.S.
Jaycees, parent-teacher associations, Lions Club, and Kiwanis,
134
-------
mobilizing community resources to promote public acceptance
Madison County, Alabama
Piecemeal, sporadic efforts by
Madison County, Alabama,
commissioners to eliminate un-
sightly accumulations of trash
and garbage at roadside areas,
woodlands, and ditches within
their individual districts proved
unsuccessful. The county com-
missioners became convinced
that a coordinated countywide
program of solid wastes dis-
posal for rural areas was the
only solution.
County health officials con-
tacted equipment manufactur-
ers, visited systems in other
cities and counties, and sought
the opinions of various com-
munity leaders and organiza-
tions on the workability of
plans being formulated.
Health officials proposed that
residents of areas to be served
contribute funds to purchase
40 8-cubic-yard metal contain-
ers to be placed at principal
intersections, near rural popu-
lation concentrations along
county roads, near rural stores,
and on county school grounds.
The county would purchase a
front-end loading compaction
truck, employ the necessary
collection crew, and assume op-
erating expenses. The Hunts-
ville City Council agreed to al-
low Madison County to use its
disposal site free.
To help sell the program to
rural communities and obtain
public financial support, the
health department enlisted rural
community leaders and presi-
dents of organizations such as
home demonstration clubs, farm
bureaus, and parent-teacher as-
sociations. These key leaders
were invited to attend a briefing
about the proposed solid wastes
program where slides, maps,
flip charts, a movie about col-
lection, and other visual aids
were used. A person in each
community represented was
asked to arrange similar meet-
ings for citizens in his area.
At the first such local-level
meeting, the chairman of the
Board of Commissioners pre-
sented the proposal. A per-
manent fund-raising chairman
was elected, who immediately
appointed a committee to so-
licit contributions. Within three
days, $1,600 for three contain-
ers was collected.
Following this initial success,
the same procedure was used in
each small incorporated town
and unincorporated community.
Within two weeks over $10,000
had been received. Considering
this adequate evidence of pub-
lic approval, the commission-
ers ordered the 20-cubic-yard
packer truck.
According to the sanitarian
supervisor, a key element in
gaining public support was
working closely with the Agri-
cultural Extension Service:
It would have been impos-
sible to have put this pro-
gram across without the as-
sistance of the local county
agent and home demonstra-
tion agent. These people
can tell you more than just
how to raise a row of cot-
ton or how to prepare a
balanced meal; they know
who the leaders are in a
community and how to ob-
tain their cooperation and
support. And these agents
are available in counties
throughout the country to
help local officials in worth-
while projects of this type.
Local officials in Madison
County feel that the most im-
portant aspect of this solicita-
tion program was that every
member of each community
was contacted and encouraged
to give something, however
small. This created a sense of
pride, possession, and owner-
ship in the containers and the
cleanliness of their neighbor-
hood.
Within six years, 84 contain-
ers and two compactor trucks
were in use.
adopts one or two major projects for the year. The citizens com-
mittee should work with each organization to encourage the
adoption of solid wastes management as a project and to get the
organization to participate in the overall program. Each organi-
zation should be shown how its contribution fits into the overall
action program.
The citizens committee should enlist an organization's active
participation, not settle for a token endorsement. The organiza-
tions should show they plan to involve all their members in the
project and designate a liaison with the citizens committee. In-
volvement can itself generate enthusiasm.
Some projects which can be adopted by individual organiza-
tions are litter control, improving storage conditions (buy a new
trash can campaign), and abandoned automobile removal. The
135
-------
project should be a manageable one so that it can be accomplished
within the time allotted, and challenging enough to generate
enthusiasm, not boredom.
Another important group that should be approached for
assistance in getting the message across is the public school
system. There are local teachers' organizations virtually every-
where and through them the teachers can be reached, by getting
articles printed in their newsletters and by providing speakers at
their meetings. School boards should also be approached; with
their permission and that of school administrators, school children
themselves can be enlisted to help.
Each organization should be informed of the activities of
other groups, and should be given public recognition for its par-
ticipation through newspaper articles, citations, competitive
awards for outstanding achievement, and other methods.
using leadership and example to win support
Waukegan, Illinois
When rats from the city dump
invaded nearby prosperous res-
idential areas, the citizens vo-
ciferously demanded that a mu-
nicipal incinerator be built to
replace the dump. A $350,000
incinerator bond referendum
was approved, but public in-
terest waned when two years
passed with no action taken. In
1961, the newly elected mayor
reviewed the problem. In the
two-year span, the solid wastes
production rate had increased
and construction costs had sky-
rocketed. The bond issue was
no longer adequate to pay /or
an incinerator large enough to
meet current needs, much less
accommodate future growth,
and the city was already facing
financial strains.
To find an alternative solu-
tion, the mayor interviewed
private land disposal operators
and toured their sanitary land-
fill sites. Waukegan was sur-
veyed and soil tests were run
on the most suitable sites. On
the edge of Waukegan, a 3-acre
swamp had been a community
eyesore for many years. Tests
indicated it to be suitable for
sanitary landfill without en-
dangering surface or ground wa-
ter. Arrangements were made
to have the land donated to the
city in memory of the owner's
deceased son. National Disposal
Services, Inc., was contracted
with to operate the small pilot
sanitary landfill under strict
standards, and also to assume
the waste collection service
which, under municipal opera-
tion, had been unsatisfactory.
The public, having approved
a bond issue for incineration,
raised strong opposition, claim-
ing that the city was planning
to "replace the dump with a
dump." Court action ensued.
The mayor personally waged
a vigorous campaign defending
the selection of the sanitary
landfill method. Appearing be-
fore hostile audiences, he ar-
gued that sanitary landfill was
much less expensive than in-
cineration, that land in Wauke-
gan was available which could
benefit from reclamation, and
that the homeowner would re-
ceive more service (backyard
pickup) than before at less cost.
At one public meeting the au-
dience was so rude and agi-
tated, the mayor said, "Nothing
will convince you because you
don't want to listen. But you
elected me to do what is right
and I will establish a sanitary
landfill—not a dump—whether
you like it or not because it is
best for the city. That landfill
will be so clean and so perfect
that when it is finished I'll serve
you tea and crumpets on it. In
fact, in 18 months we will have
the biggest tea party there you
have ever seen."
The newspapers had a field
day cartooning the promised
tea party in a rat-infested dump.
When the first truckload of
trash was brought to the new
fill, citizens lined the fenced
perimeter to superintend the
operation. After a week, the
crowd thinned and opposition
was less adamant. Court in-
junctions were dropped.
Within 18 months the model
landfill was completed, sodded,
and equipped for little league
baseball. On the appointed day,
5,000 Waukegan citizens gath-
ered for the ribbon-cutting cer-
emony to celebrate the newly
completed reclamation project.
The party featured tea and
doughnuts, a brass band, and
exhibition baseball. Leading
athletes from the Chicago sports
world were honored guests.
For the next site, the school
system and the park authority
invited the city to reclaim
eroded land by sanitary landfill
for a school athletic field.
136
-------
Resources Outside the Community. In addition to the re-
sources within the community, technical and financial support is
available from universities, the federal government, private indus-
try, and national professional associations. (Details of these pro-
grams are presented in Guide Number 7, Technical and Financial
Assistance.]
An official of the National Clean-Up, Paint-Up, Fix-Up Bureau,
the oldest national nonprofit community improvement program,
commented:
The greatest obstacle to channeling enthusiasm for com-
munity betterment results because most communities do
not know what they want to accomplish and what organi-
zations are already available to help them once their
goals are identified.
To show how to channel this community energy, the bureau
offers a free kit on request and issues a monthly newsletter to
keep communities abreast of projects throughout the country. It
presents an annual national award to the community rated highest
for the degree of improvement, beautification, youth participation,
and scope of voluntary participation. For more information on
this and similar programs, see the Appendix.
Public officials should plan a careful campaign to reach the
general public. Improvements made by local government and the
support and successful projects of civic organizations will pave
the way for public support of a comprehensive solid wastes man-
agement program. All the tools of communication should be
used to reach all citizens with the reasons why improvement is
necessary.
Successfully selling a complicated proposal is most effective
if personal explanations can be given. Small informal meetings
or "coffees" where groups of citizens have a direct opportunity
to learn about and discuss the program with their neighbors are
the next best means.
Personal selling is most effective if the campaigners are well-
known, respected, and informed. Community and civic leaders
should be able to reach those who influence others at work and in
the neighborhood.
The more complicated or controversial a program, the more
personal contact is required to convince people that it is good.
Completely changing someone's mind is obviously easier if his first
opinion was not too deeply rooted. The environment, as well as
the means and tact of the presentation, is important. When public
hearings are required by law or are desirable, officials should plan
and organize the meeting so that all sides receive a fair hearing.
Speakers Bureau. A well organized speakers bureau with
effective, well-prepared speakers is important in any education
campaign which must move people to action. It is not enough
to tell members of an organization that solid wastes are being
improperly managed and that improvements are needed. Because
of the element of personal contact, which generally makes a
deeper and more permanent impression than impersonal contact
(through the printed word or over electronic waves], effective
speakers are a must in a campaign for support of a solid wastes
management program.
Speakers can be drawn from the ranks of elected and ap-
delivering the message
Broome County, New York, used this
brochure explaining why countywide
disposal and sanitary landfill were the
answers to their solid wastes problems.
137
-------
pointed officials, doctors, scientists, engineers, and knowledgeable
citizens. They shold be vitally interested in solid wastes man-
agement and knowledgeable about local conditions. Their en-
thusiasm alone can be infectious. Bolstered with facts and a pro-
posed program, they may move a majority of the audience to
acceptance of the program. Though the audience may not be
permanently motivated by one speech, its members will be far
more receptive to future discussions about solid wastes manage-
ment which reach them through the mass media. This is how
mass communication and the personal contact of small group
meetings work hand in hand.
Opportunities must be sought to expose the issues and pro-
vide information on the solid wastes management program. The
citizens advisory committee or public officials should contact
every organization to let them know that speakers are available.
Speaking engagements must be sought actively. All kinds of
women's clubs, PTA's, fraternal organizations, and church circles
can be approached. Representatives from these organizations
should be working with the citizens committee throughout the
campaign, and they should be able to arrange speaking dates.
the direct attack
Baltimore County, Maryland
Baltimore County, Maryland,
made a broadside attack on the
litterer. The county issued a
"Dirty Picture of the Week"
pointing a finger at any dump
anywhere. For example, one
caption read:
SEEING IS BELIEVING
—This horrible scene is on
Milford Mill Road just west
of Reisterstown Road near
the well-kept suburban
community of Sudbrook
Park. This photo was taken
and is released by the Of-
fice for Information and
Research for Baltimore
County to spotlight how a
nice county road can be
made unattractive by road-
side littering. Don't dump
unwanted bulky items along
the county highways, when
for such a small fee, the
Bureau of Sanitation will
pick them up. Call 823-3000,
Extension 285.
Program support was given
from every level of local gov-
ernment. The elected county ex-
ecutive instructed every county
employee to know the litter
laws. Litter bags were put into
all county vehicles, including
police cars. Use was manda-
tory. An example was to be
set.
Policemen had orders to warn
any violators seen littering high-
ways and to present offenders
a litter bag with a polite re-
minder that next time an arrest
might be in order. Appeals
were made for responsible cit-
izens to report violations
promptly, to refuse to allow a
few to raise tax burdens by
thoughtless littering. Magis-
trates were asked to assign
maximum penalties to all con-
victed violators.
Color television spots showed
piles of debris along well-
traveled roadways and streams.
Next to "No Dumping" signs,
they showed garbage, junk, and
filth which clearly implied a
lack of public pride or public
responsibility. Messages were
138
-------
More and more, solid wastes management agencies are mak-
ing speeches at all local schools. The immediate benefit from this
audience is that the children carry the talk home to their parents.
The long-range benefit is that soon an entire generation of people
will be familiar with solid wastes problems and more easily con-
vinced of the need for good management.
The speaker should make sure his talk is appropriate to his
audience. The local ladies' club will not be as interested in the
technical aspects of industrial wastes as will, say, the local chapter
of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
After initial speaking engagements have been fulfilled, the
word will begin to reach other program chairmen, who are search-
ing continually for good program material. Soon they will begin
coming to the speakers.
The Creation of Events. To use organizations effectively and
at the same time create increased public awareness through news
media, the public education program can focus attention on spe-
cial events.
The Philadelphia More Beautiful Committee received national
recognition from the National Clean-Up, Paint-Up, Fix-Up Bureau.
brief and accusing: "You're
looking at a wasteland of lit-
ter. ... Keep it up.... You won't
have to look for a dumping
ground, you'll be living in one."
Each spot ended with an in-
vitation to telephone the county
for information about disposing
of unwanted items. Three tele-
vision and 11 radio stations in
the greater Baltimore metropol-
itan area broadcast the spots.
Preparation cost of the spots
was $201.60.
Another public information
tool used was direct mail. Uti-
lizing the July mailing of tax
bills to save the substantial cost
of an additional mailing, a spe-
cial flyer was prepared and dis-
tributed as an insert. Titled
merely "Information for Tax-
payers," it summarized major
expenditures of tax monies for
the past year and featured basic
information regarding bulky
item and refuse disposal in a
"specific report." It cost less
than one-half cent per mailing
and reached 180,000 homes.
Commenting on the educa-
tional action program, the coun-
ty's sanitation bureau chief
remarked:
After agreeing to the
campaign outlined by our
county Office of Informa-
tion and Research, particu-
larly my part in opening it
with a two-fisted attack, I
half expected to be hung in
effigy, or worse, by any one
or any number of the coun-
ty's over 555,000 residents.
But the hue and cry never
began, thankfully, and aside
from a few brickbats public
reaction was highly fa-
vorable.
We found ... that many
residents were as alarmed
and upset as we were about
wholesale dumping and
were anxious to do some-
thing to help stop it.
Since this reverse psychology
was applied and the rest of the
public information program has
been in effect, record progress
has been made in removing all
kinds of debris from basements,
backyards, vacant lots, and
numerous other locations. In
the first eight months, more
than 3,800 bulky items were
collected and hauled to land-
fills for proper disposal. Tele-
phone requests for this service
came in at the rate of 400 per
week.
Another by-product of the
campaign has been better tele-
phone communication with
people who have disposal prob-
lems. Residents are more aware
that there is a solid wastes col-
lection and disposal problem
and they know it is important
to them. They accept the reg-
ulations more readily and view
them as necessary for con-
venience, health, and manage-
ment. According to the Balti-
more County information of-
fice, "We recommend this type
of direct attack program to any
local government with similar
problems and an official willing
to stick his chin out."
139
-------
• 1 11*' I
• - •••II
I* >••••.-
In many areas, local groups will help finance
the purchase of litter baskets to be placed
around the area. Such activities give them
a feeling of involvement and responsibility
for solid wastes control.
By organizing blocks and having them compete each week for a
"Cleanest Block of the Week" award, the committee has suc-
ceeded in beautifying 2,500 blocks in the oldest part of the city.
The program was closely coordinated with the Department of
Streets so that bulky items and street sweepings could be picked
up on Saturdays.
Keep America Beautiful, Inc., has been active in litter con-
trol. Its award program is an incentive to stimulate community
action, and to tie local action into a nationwide effort. San
Diego County, California, has won two Keep America Beautiful
county awards for its anti-litter activities. Various county depart-
ments, particularly the Refuse Disposal Division of the Department
of Public Works, city agencies, and a private group called the
War Against Litter Campaign, have enlisted the support of thou-
sands of residents in a continuing countywide campaign. To
encourage the program, the county allows the Director of Public
Works to waive disposal fee payment for two important instances:
1) When the garbage or refuse collected is part of an anti-
litter, clean-up, or like campaign for civic beautification
by youth or civic groups, such as the Boy or Girl Scouts;
or
2) When the refuse is generated in the course of collection
and salvage of materials donated to nonprofit charitable
organizations, such as the Salvation Army and Goodwill
Industries.
An important event for publicity and public education is a
"go-see" trip for citizens and public officials. Groups should be
taken to see a well-run incinerator, sanitary landfill in operation,
and completed and converted fills.
A major source of opposition may be due to the disposal
method "credibility gap." Most people have never seen a good
disposal operation because good ones are inconspicuous. What
they remember are sooty incinerators, rat-ridden dumps, and all
the other bad aspects of improper disposal. The voters frequently
will not believe that a sanitary landfill is different. Few people
understand the difference between a sanitary landfill and a dump.
People will argue that a dump in the neighborhood will depreciate
land values. It is important to stress what the fill will be when
completed—a baseball field, golf course, botanical garden.
Homeowner Information. Providing information sheets con-
cerning solid wastes programs and services to the homeowner is
also an effective tool in building a desired image. Using pictures,
cartoons, and a lighthearted touch makes a better impression than
hard-to-read mimeographed orders, which will probably wind up
in the waste can. The appearance of the brochure, of course, is
secondary to providing top-quality information and service.
Every residence in the community should be supplied with a
set of instructions about the schedule for collection, preparation
of garbage, trash, yard clippings, and bulky items; and a phone
number to call for more information or to register a complaint.
When Tucson, Arizona, changed its collection system, the Refuse
Division of the Department of Public Works issued a booklet
using comic figures to seek homeowner cooperation and to show
common failings (see Figure A). To inform homeowners of a
change in collection or disposal practice, Philadelphia collectors
140
-------
deliver notices door to door along the collection route (see Fig-
ure B). To reach non-English speaking residents, Philadelphia has
distributed brochures, litterbags, and signs in Spanish. Notices
can also be distributed along with other government mailings such
as school notices and utility bills.
Communications Media. Although most effective, personal
contact can reach only a few people at a time. Therefore, other
public relations tools which reach broader segments of the popu-
lation should be used simultaneously. Films on good solid wastes
management can be broadcast locally to be viewed by civic groups
meeting at several locations as well as the general public. The
film should be well publicized in the local newspapers and in civic
group newsletters. Group discussions can follow the film. Ques-
tions can be phoned to a local government office which would
stay open to answer them.
Some forms of public relations, particularly radio and tele-
vision messages, are used most successfully to reinforce existing
attitudes and to motivate people to act on their beliefs. In Balti-
more, Maryland, public officials capitalized on the goodwill gener-
ated after a successful clean streets campaign. The city used one-
minute radio announcements to tell residents what was necessary
to continue to keep streets and alleys clean, how the municipal
collection and disposal system operated, and the telephone number
available to register a complaint or obtain more information.
Since it is easier to attack a program than sell one, the "anti's" be blunt but positive
often get more news media attention. To counteract this, the
"pro" group can attack the existing situation in blunt terms while
at the same time conducting a positive program for change.
People are already aware of what they do not like about
garbage and everything associated with it, so they are likely to re-
act emotionally to anything they believe will make it worse. The
official should use to advantage those subjects which people are
already against, such as rats, blight, air and water pollution, flies,
and depreciation of land values.
People relate to things they believe are good. The public
official must show that the new system will be better than the
FIGURE B: HOMEOWNER INFORMATION
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
NOTICE
RUBBISH and ASHES will not be collected
CHRISTMAS DAY
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 25
However your trash will be collected the following day
SATURDAY, DECEMBER 26
(THIS SPECIAL COLLECTION WILL BE MADE TO HANDLE THE EXCESS
AMOUNT OF RUBBISH ACCUMULATED BECAUSE OF THE HOLIDAY)
SANITATION DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF STREETS
Ro«n 924, City Hall Anrnx
141
-------
overcoming opposition to a sanitary landfill site
Hamilton, Ohio
"The best solid wastes pub-
lic relations is good operation
of sanitary landfills in the past,"
said the Hamilton, Ohio, direc-
tor of public works. He also be-
lieves that residents who live
near proposed landfill sites are
always going to complain, so
he warns other public officials
to be prepared for such opposi-
tion.
Acting on these principles,
Hamilton's public works direc-
tor and other officials were able
to overcome intense opposition
from residents when the city
proposed opening a new land-
fill near the center of the city.
The controversial site was an
abandoned gravel pit located
on a 10-acre tract which sepa-
rates residential dwellings and
a few commercial buildings
from railroad tracks. Landfill
operations were to be conducted
adjacent to the tracks and
within 100 feet of the resi-
dences.
As soon as the site was an-
nounced, nearby residents un-
leashed a storm of protest.
They organized and vocally op-
posed the new site at city coun-
cil meetings and public hear-
ings for months. They pleaded
with the governor, state health
officials, and even federal health
agencies for support. Though
the residents received no help
from these officials, they con-
tinued their campaign. Local
newspapers, according to the
public works director, were
scrupulously fair in explaining
both sides of the issue.
City officials launched an in-
formal campaign of their own
to convince the protesting resi-
dents thaj their fears were
groundless. Their most effec-
tive tool was in arranging visits
for the public to the completed
landfill site. [That site is now
part of the Hamilton branch
campus of Miami University.]
Though some visitors were
frankly amazed at the sanitary
conditions and lack of nuis-
ances, they still feared that the
new site would not be operated
with similar care. Many re-
called an old burning dump
whicfh had existed near the first
site prior to its use as a landfill.
Residents living near the new
site also had visions of blow-
ing litter. The public works di-
rector promised it would be
controlled. In reply, the resi-
dents promised to complain
loudly every time a stray piece
of paper landed in their back-
yards. So the public works
director installed an 8-foot wire
fence around the site at a cost
of about $3,000. As further in-
surance, he added snow fenc-
ing within the site itself to catch
papers.
The city council had unani-
mously approved the gravel pit
site by this time. To quiet citi-
zen opposition, it publicly di-
rected that the new landfill be
operated according to the same
high standards as the old one.
The gravel pit area had been
a problem for fire and health
authorities for years because it
was overgrown with brush and
had been subject to indiscrimi-
nate dumping. A professional
exterminator was hired to bait
the site to prevent rat migra-
tion to surrounding residential
areas and the clean-up of brush
and refuse burial began. After
this initial job, some of the
original protestors compli-
mented the public works de-
partment on the site's "amaz-
ing improvement."
The fencing controlled access
and litter problems. To lessen
dust, a paved, all-weather road-
way was constructed the com-
plete length of the pit. A full-
time attendant directs unloading
and collects scattered refi se.
Burning, scavenging, and sal-
vaging are prohibited.
Continuing engineering super-
vision is also provided. The
new site is inspected regularly
by the local health department.
In addition, the federal Bureau
of Solid Waste Management in
nearby Cincinnati uses the site
for instruction purposes. This
regular outside evaluation is
helpful in gaining and main-
taining public acceptance.
The site is in full operation
now, with an expected life of
two to three years. The work-
ing face is extremely small; lit-
ter is practically non-existent.
It will probably be easier to
convince residents that future
sites can be long-range assets
to the community by reclaiming
land. However, warns Hamil-
ton's public works director, "It
is impossible to gain public ac-
ceptance when the public is
personally acquainted with the
nuisances and health hazards
resulting from a dump or a sub-
standard or poorly operated
landfill." In short, for sanitary
landfill operations, public ac-
ceptance depends on perform-
ance.
142
-------
current system to win support for change. For example, he can
use people's desire for clean water to stop riverside dumping.
Symbols and slogans can also be used to help people identify
with a program. Smokey the Bear was the identity used to make
the point that careful disposal of used matches and drenching
campfires are contributions a citizen can make to help prevent
forest fires. Keep America Beautiful, Inc., reminds people that
"Every Litter Bit Hurts" because it requires dollars to keep high-
ways clean.
These campaigns have been successful because the message
is short, simple, direct, and clear. The message states the problem
in familiar terms, and the required remedy. The message is de-
livered by some figure easily identified as good.
A record of accomplishment and the enlistment of many sec-
tors of the community in solid wastes management will help local
government maintain widespread support when improvements
touch politically sensitive issues such as site selection and raising
funds through service charges, bond issues, or increased taxes.
Before controversy develops, the official and the citizens
committee should study the attitude and motivation of those in
the community who are likely to oppose their project. Sources of
opposition include the following types of citizen.
• People who don't want sites near them. They are motivated
by the belief that living near a disposal facility threatens
the value of their property and lowers their status.
• People who don't want to spend money. They support a
bad system at the added expense of inconvenience, less-
ened public confidence, poor land use, and endangered
public health.
• People who believe no solution is possible. They lack infor-
mation and thus need to be informed of current technology.
• People who resist any change. They may be favorably in-
fluenced if the explanation of what is planned is presented
as an essential community improvement.
• People who are apathetic or unenlisted. They can be inter-
ested and motivated into personal involvement.
• People who have inadequate or erroneous information. They
can be influenced by complete information and thoroughly
documented facts.
• People who are politically opposed to those advocating the
program.
• People who do not think the agency can do a good job
because of past practice.
Government laxity and bad previous experience stimulate the
most forceful and persistent opposition. What a jurisdiction has
done or permitted to be done has more influence than what it says
it will do. It is especially difficult to counter arguments if a local
government has tried to hide its failure. A credibility gap develops
and citizens will not support any proposed system. No disposal
site or system lasts forever, so it is better to do a good job from
the start to avoid organized opposition when new sites and new
programs must be established.
Opposition to a disposal method may spring from rumors
that noxious gases exude from landfills, or that no incinerator can
be operated in conformance with air pollution control standards.
sources of opposition
Accumulations o/ rubbish like this one on a
downtown street strengthen the distaste
many people feel for the whole subject of
wastes control. One counteraction is to
clean up the mess and use that as a
starting point to gain support.
143
-------
FIGURE C
IDEAS FOR PUBLICITY
TOPICS FOR WRITTEN PUBLICITY
Establishment of citizens groups
Statements by public officials
List of uncontrolled dumps, sources, and
their pollution effects
Comparisons with similar communities
which have set up good systems
Meeting announcements
Hearings on establishment of a system and
site location
Setting up an agency; its organization,
powers, personnel, budget, program
Agency activities—changes effected, in-
spections, court appearances, successes,
failures
Visits from out-of-town experts
Findings and recommendations in the study
and investigation report
State and federal grants received
Periodic progress reports
Go-see trips
TOPICS FOR VISUAL PUBLICITY
Rats in a rubbish pile
Open burning at dumps, demolition sites,
individual homes
Demolition activities
Garbage collection in action
Scenes of litter, dumps and abandoned
automobiles in alleys, along highways,
in streams, and in wooded areas
Maps showing dump locations
Abandoned automobile removal
Operation of collection equipment
Activities such as picketing, meetings, in-
spection trips by officials
Smoke plumes from apartment building
incinerators
Comparison shots of good and bad stor-
age conditions, disposal sites, and
incinerators
Model of landfill site with planned future
use
Compost plant or sanitary landfill in opera-
tion
Flies on garbage
Go-see trips
Countering these arguments with facts open to inspection makes
it much more difficult for opponents to play on emotions with
half-truths. Public officials should make it clear they are striving
to create the best system possible by applying the most modern
technology, which is designed to conserve and protect air, water,
and land from pollution.
To eliminate doubt, the campaign must make clear why the
solid wastes system is absolutely necessary and why it is a bar-
gain at the price. Delay will necessitate additional costs such as
cleaning up the areas where wastes have accumulated. The cost
of purchasing property and building facilities also rises each year.
Sooner or later comprehensive solid wastes management must be
undertaken; the sooner, the more reasonable the cost.
Securing a Site. No matter which disposal method is selected,
a site is required. And unless the local government has already
established a good reputation for proper wastes management,
there will be a vociferous site fight. The results of thorough tech-
nical evaluation should be the primary consideration in site selec-
tion, but political feasibility is also essential. Until a firm decision
is made, the location under consideration should be kept confi-
dential. Premature disclosure of possible site locations can spell
disaster. One county commissioner wisely advises, "Once the site
has been designated, stick to it. If you shift a quarter of a mile,
you will shift sites forever."
Various groups, including conservationists, land developers,
and sportsmen, will be interested in site location and its effect
on the surrounding land. For example, when a sanitary landfill
site would destroy wetlands or marshlands which constitute a
wildlife habitat, a vigorous outcry can be expected. Conversely,
working with conservation groups to dispose of solid wastes in
a manner consistent with good conservation can provide a source
of citizen support.
The public hearing or town meeting can be an effective vehicle
to win support. Here the representatives of local government must
publicly face the opposition and answer objections. In this situa-
tion, public officials must show leadership. If a meeting ends
without victory, the battle is not lost. Several confrontations may
be needed, but at each meeting an impression is made. Convincing
a few people each time may bring success.
One effective technique is to establish an Office of Land
Acquisition with responsibility to purchase land for all public
facilities, such as fire stations, police stations, schools, and parks.
Advance acquisition of land, which is possible under this system,
permits early acquisition of undeveloped land, which can be
immediately identified as landfill or incinerator sites before nearby
development preempts such land uses. Subsequent zoning cases
will be held in light of this knowledge and no one will be able to
claim that a landfill or incinerator was rammed into his neigh-
borhood without notice.
Generally, a land acquisition office could purchase suitable
land as it becomes available, in advance of scheduling in the
capital improvement program. If a county is forced to wait several
years because of fund limitations, very often the most desirable
site will have been acquired for other uses and/or costs will have
become prohibitive. In Baltimore County, Maryland, such an
office was recently established and empowered to borrow up to
144
-------
stimulating involvement through humor
Kennebunkport, Maine
A newcomer to the town of
Kennebunkport wouJd have as-
sumed a Martian invasion. But
it was more like a dump explo-
sion. AJ1 streets were barri-
caded against traffic. Most of
the citizens were milling ex-
citedly at the main intersection
of town. An evangelist ap-
proached lamenting, "Repent.
Use Your Dump." Another be-
draggled follower carried a sign
reading "God Bless Our Dump."
According to the president of
the Kennebunkport Dump As-
sociation:
Each year, we sponsor a
"Miss Dumpy" contest and
a giant trash parade as the
climax of the National
Dump Week celebration.
Another feature attraction
is a dump-art exhibit in
which all items are made
of genuine junk. Through-
out the year we issue dump
users "Trash Stamps,"
bumper stickers, and auto-
mobile tags—all of abso-
lutely no value. The "Dump
Credit Card" entitles the
holder to visit any dump in
the country and is now a
national anti-litter instru-
ment.
Most of us like to go reg-
ularly to the dump to en-
gage in the lost art of
dump-viewing, even though
the town utilizes private
rubbish collection. By per-
sonally delivering expen-
sive boxes and wrappings
at an optimum time, that is,
when the dump traffic is
greatest, neighbors can sub-
tly be made aware of your
affluence without undue
boastfulness on your part.
Our dump, cluttered to
maintain a homey appear-
ance, utilizes a combination
of burning and covering. It
is designed to allow for in-
finite expansion, in the
shape of a pentagon. Al-
though we have no official
connection with the town
dump, now "America's
Number One," we use this
association to emphasize
that disposal of trash is
vital to our society.
Our association is pri-
marily an anti-litter group,
and is a nonprofit corpora-
tion under the laws of the
State of Maine for the pur-
pose of promoting interest
in dumps. Our hope should
be that a society that lives
by its obsolescence may
not perish of its own junk.
At the outskirts of Ken-
nebunkport, Burma-Shave-type
signs declare: NEVER, NEVER,
LITTER THE ROAD: BRING
OUR DUMP ANOTHER LOAD.
Beneath all this tongue-in-cheek
promotion, Kennebunkport and
the State of Maine, which de-
pends heavily on the tourist
trade, are making serious ef-
forts to attract and interest
people in the problems of dis-
posing of local and tourist trash.
This case study is presented
not to imply that dumps are
good or a proper disposal
method, but rather to emphasize
that it is possible to stimulate
community interest and enthu-
siasm in solid wastes control.
$1 million to provide funds for the advance acquisition of land
for government purposes.
Securing Financing. Acceptable solid wastes management is
absolutely necessary and improvements must be financed. The
general tendency of the public when asked to approve government
expenditures, is "when in doubt, vote no." When the law requires
the public to vote on capital expenditures, a well-coordinated,
public-support campaign is absolutely necessary.
St. Louis County, Missouri, has had several bond referenda
related to solid wastes management expenditures. In 1963 a
$104,035,000 bond issue for 12 separate projects was put to refer-
endum and defeated. Plans were begun to resubmit the three most
pressing projects. A long campaign of public education was then
completed and in May, 1965, three bond issues for $41,500,000
were passed with the active support of a citizens committee.
When collection or service fees must be raised, it is important
to provide careful explanation. In Fresno, California, the city went
from once-a-week collection to twice-a-week and doubled the fee
to the homeowner. Its successful information campaign based on
public health arguments used a combination of citizens committees,
films, TV programs, and a brochure explaining the need.
TRASH
STAMP
KENNEBVNKPORT
DUMP ASSOCIATION
145
-------
using the communications media
Newspapers, radio, and television publicity are effective means
of stimulating public interest. Officials, the citizens committee,
organizations supporting the program, and the local government
public information officer should send news releases as often as
justified. The more publicity is coordinated the better it is (see
Figure C). Weekly and daily newspapers, commercial and edu-
cational television and radio stations, and community association
newsletters should be used.
In requesting newspaper or media coverage of a particular
event, officials should remember that many other community proj-
ects are competing for attention and be prepared to justify why
their information is important and how the project affects the
majority of the audience or readers. Personal contact should be
made with the local government beat reporter or city editor.
Two types of media contacts are most useful. The executive
or top editorial staff person can plant editorial ideas which a
reporter cannot. In particular, this type of contact can provide
support in the form of editorial page commentary and "crusade"
material. On the other hand, the well-informed reporter can orient
stories properly. It is worthwhile trying to identify knowledgeable
reporters (TV or newspaper) who will appreciate the substance
of solid wastes management stories.
"It is always possible to talk to the news media, confidentially
if necessary, to ask media cooperation beforehand," recommended
a Genesee County, Michigan, official. They should be told the
advantages and disadvantages of the choices available, costs, and
sources of opposition and support; then ask their support. The
editor of a large metropolitan daily advises, "You can't hide a
public business; the news media will uncover it. Instead, give
us advance notice and easily digestible facts and information."
Without this basic data, the media may end up providing incom-
plete information or overcoverage of the "anti" groups.
Some of the public relations tools available to reach people
are publicity, advertising, printed materials, reports, publications,
films, three-dimensional models, speakers bureaus, bumper stick-
ers, meetings, workshops, billboards, radio and television an-
nouncements, and programs.
The use of these tools is designed to reach, inform, and con-
vince as many groups as possible at a time, so it is useful to direct
some materials to a general audience, and others to more specific
audiences. Since not all of the groups reached will have identical
opinions or hold them with the same intensity, it is important not
to antagonize those people who are inclined to support the program
while trying to win the support of those who are opposed.
public service Newspapers. Public officials should know what kind of mate-
announcementS rial newspapers prefer, what their deadlines are, how much ad-
vance notice they prefer, and what kind of coverage they are
equipped to provide.
The use of the standard format for press releases is essential.
The copy must be typed (double-spaced) or mimeographed, with
generous margins and at least four inches blank space at the top
of the page. The page heading should be set up:
146
-------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE or, FOR RELEASE: TUES-
DAY, APRIL 1, 9 a.m.
TOPIC: Closing of City Dump
ISSUED BY: Citizens for Clean Air
FOR MORE INFO CALL: Mrs. Filter, IK 3-2000
The opening paragraphs should cover who, what, where, when,
how, and why.
Pictures for publication should have something to say. A
picture which dramatizes a problem or shows action is more
interesting—and much more likely to be published—than one of
citizens stiffly posed.
Radio and TV. Announcements and press releases sent to
radio and television stations receive more attention if they include
more information than those sent to newspapers.
For radio news releases the heading at the top of the page
should be as follows:
GOOD FOR BROADCAST FROM: April 1 thru 10
TOPIC: "HELP CLOSE THE DUMP"
ISSUED BY: Citizens for Clean Air
FOR MORE INFORMATION CALL: Mrs. Filter, IK 3-2000
Number of Words in the Announcement 100.
Suggested Reading Time 30 seconds.
For television news release and public service announcements
use the above, plus suggested picture, for example: TO BE READ
OVER SLIDES. The page should be set up in two columns. The
left indicates what is seen; the right what is said; for example:
VIDEO AUDIO
Slide 1 of Dump VOICE: DISPOSAL OF YOUR
TRASH IS A CRISIS
IN DIRTY COUNTY.
For routine TV announcements (not fast-breaking news), the sta-
tion probably has a general public service announcement slide.
Officials should find out before having slides made, and check
to see whether the station prefers color or black and white.
Slides for television are the same as ordinary home 35mm slide
film.
Public service announcements for both radio and TV should
be supplied in triplicate. Generally, short announcements should
be 10, 20, 30, or 52 seconds in length when read aloud clearly.
Releases and slides for such spot announcements should be sent
to the station a month ahead of time if possible. Some local solid
wastes agencies may be able to prepare or have prepared TV spot
announcements. A spot which costs $1,000 to produce might
garner public service free time usage worth hundreds of thousands
of dollars.
news events
Any time an event can be turned into news, production be-
comes the responsibility of the media, thus avoiding the technical
problems inherent in preparing public service announcements.
When inviting newspaper, radio, or television to cover an
event, a data sheet of facts and figures (not opinions) should ac-
company the invitation. Radio and newspapers are more able than.
television to cover fast-breaking news.
Many stations have locally produced programs concerning
community affairs. These programs may be "talk" shows, human
appendix
sources of information on
solid wastes and methods
of citizen support
Office of Solid Waste Management
Programs
Environmental Protection Agency
5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, Maryland 20852
National Clean-Up, Paint-Up,
Fix-Up Bureau
1500 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
League of Women Voters of the
United States
1200 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
National Association of Broadcasters
1771 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Public Relations Society of
America, Inc.
845 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022
films
(numbers in parentheses are order numbers)
The following films are available from
the National Audiovisual Center (Annex),
Station K, Atlanta, Georgia, 30324, unless
followed by another address: The 3rd
Pollution (AM-1404); A Day at the Dump
(M-1600-X); The Stuff We Throw Away
(M-2048-X); Sanitary Landfill: One Part
Earth to Four Parts Refuse (M-1740-X);
Waste Away (M-2047-X); Collector's Item,
International Harvester Company, 401
North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois
60611; A Decent Burial, Advertising Di-
vision, Caterpillar Tractor Company,
Peoria, Illinois 61602.
147
-------
selected
bibliography
Anderson, Desmond L. (ed.), Meaningful
Public Relations, International City
Managers' Association, 1140 Connec-
ticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.,
1966. Price: $9.50.
Getting Something Done: Political Effec-
tiveness and Conference Techniques,
League of Women Voters of the United
States, 1200 17th Street, N.W., Wash-
ington, D.C., 1968. Price $.30.
Meaningful Meetings: The Hole of the
Resource Committee, Publication Num-
ber 319, League of Women Voters of
the United States, 1200 17th Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C., 1966 Price:
$.40.
Scandlyn, Sammie Lynn (ed.), 101 Win-
ning Ways to Better Municipal Public
Relations, National League of Cities,
1612 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.,
1967. Price: $1.25.
Tips on Reaching the Public, Publication
Number 277, League of Women Voters
of the United States, 1200 17th Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C., 1967. Price:
$1.25.
148
interest spots, news reports, or documentaries. Officials should
talk with the program director about the interesting aspects and
importance of solid wastes management which could be incor-
porated into one of these programs.
Most television programs are pre-recorded. Government of-
ficials or a citizens committee may know of a good film on solid
wastes management, which a local station will agree to broadcast.
The citizens committee can publicize the program and encourage
group discussion. It may be also possible to follow the film with
a discussion on TV.
Some appropriate films are The Third Pollution, A Day at
the Dump, A Decent Burial, Collector's Item, and Wealth of the
Wasteland. (See the appendix for addresses.)
The Third Pollution is a documentary of the status of meth-
ods of solid wastes disposal today. International Harvester Com-
pany sponsored a film called Collector's Item which discusses the
Los Angeles County collection system. It is slightly dated, but the
message still holds. Caterpillar Tractor Company offers a 12*/2-
minute color film called A Decent Burial on the proper operation
of a sanitary landfill. The problems of waste and pollution in an
affluent society are the subject of Wealth of the Wasteland, a
26V2-minute color film which is available free on short-term loan.
The Institute of Scrap Iron and Steel has two films, The Eternal
Harvest and The Endless Search, about the iron and steel indus-
try's work in recycling solid wastes materials.
Solid wastes management is so important and citizen under-
standing so inadequate, that public officials should consider ob-
taining professional public relations assistance to help improve
community identity and especially to help on campaigns for site
approval, bond issue approval, and other controversial questions.
The local government public information officer can provide con-
tinuing citizen and media information, but he will sometimes need
outside specialized public relations assistance.
summary
A sound public information program is an essential aspect of
solid wastes management. Public support is especially necessary
to implement a new solid wastes management system or to modify
substantially an existing system. The strategy of a citizen support
campaign should be formulated early in the planning stages.
Local government should establish a record of accomplish-
ment in solid wastes management. In the time it takes to complete
a detailed comprehensive solid wastes management plan, local
government can involve organizations and private industry in solid
wastes management through community improvements such as
illicit dump cleanup, litter control, improved solid wastes storage,
and abandoned automobile removal.
Local government and the citizens committee should use as
many public information tools as possible to inform citizens.
Among them are meetings at which slides and films are shown;
creation of events such as "go-see" trips; personal contact by
telephone and door-to-door canvass, speakers bureau, brochures,
and flyers; radio, television, newspaper, and newsletter coverage
and announcements; and communications media endorsement.
Local government should make full use of a public informa-
tion officer, if it has one; volunteers with experience in public
relations; and possibly professional public relations services.
-------
9 personnel
-------
introduction
personnel
The ability to attract and retain good employees in a local solid
wastes management program is essential to its success. Many
local governments have invested thousands of dollars in equip-
ment, facilities, and sites but have not "invested" in adequate
salaries, wages, training, and benefits to attract and retain com-
petent personnel. Expensive collection and disposal equipment
and plants are useless without competent, trained personnel.
Sanitary landfills become dumps; incinerators cause air pollution.
Citizens become outraged at sloppy collection.
The importance of hiring and training competent solid wastes
personnel is illustrated by the comments of Charles Williams,
deputy councilman of the City of Los Angeles:
Probably few things are closer to the attention of
our taxpayers than refuse collection. We are casually
aware of the policeman and the fireman. The average
citizen will briefly wax indignant over schools, planning,
traffic, recreation facilities. . . . However, let his trash
remain unemptied, or his street unswept, and he takes it
as a personal affront. This is a distinct service between
the citizen and the city. The taxpayer is paying for . . .
sanitation service and, by gosh, he expects to get it.
It hasn't been many years since being a dogcatcher
or a sanitation employee was the same as being at the
bottom of the ladder. Today, we recognize that sanitation
is a profession. . . . Only now we know that it takes good
technical knowledge to be able to keep down the costs
of collection and disposal and to properly utilize men and
equipment.
"Top-Side View of Refuse Collection and Disposal," Proceed-
ings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Governmental Ref-
use Collection and Disposal Association, Inc., November
10-12, 1966, pp. 12-13.
The "garbage man" has traditionally been looked down upon
by society. This prejudice has been reflected by local government
personnel practices, which need to be changed.
Careful thought should be given to new methods for attracting
and retaining employees. Solid wastes departments must not be
allowed to become dumping grounds for unqualified men. The
service is costly enough without increasing costs through ineffi-
cient performance.
personnel practice
Local elected governing board members are responsible for estab-
lishing and maintaining a personnel system. The effectiveness of
150
-------
that system will determine the performance and efficiency of the
local government, including the agency regulating or providing
solid wastes services. Although the daily operation of the per-
sonnel system is the responsibility of personnel specialists and
the department(s) responsible for solid wastes management,
elected officials should make it clear that they want to hire the
best qualified workers on an impartial basis.
Public works, sanitation, and other agencies involved in solid
wastes operations have often been staffed largely through patron-
age appointments because of the large number of unskilled jobs
involved. Public officials are beginning to recognize that proper
collection and disposal must be carefully planned and implemented
for economic, aesthetic, and health reasons; and that qualified and
well trained personnel will help that implementation.
Many elected governing board members believe that merit
systems have made life easier for them. One former county board
chairman said that before adoption of a merit system, friends
would come to him for jobs, and he either had to find jobs or lose
votes. Today he just takes them to the personnel office to be
tested. Those who fail usually leave and he doesn't see them
again; those who pass get the job they are qualified for.
Unfortunately, many local governments have not established
modern personnel systems. One reason for failure is that,
until recently, relatively few people were employed by localities
so the need for formal procedures was not evident. As the respon-
sibilities of local government expand, there is a corresponding
need for employees with higher qualifications and for a personnel
management system. This does not mean that a small organization
Uniform, covered, handled trash receptacles,
of the type shown here, make it easier on
collection crews, more sightly for the
neighborhood, and more healthful to all.
These 30 gallon containers are standard
in.many areas.
BASIC STANDARDS OF PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION
Good personnel administration requires the application of
basic standards that will result in:
1. Attracting qualified persons to the refuse disposal service
through a reputation for fair dealings, career opportunities,
able management, and as favorable working conditions as are
possible.
2. Providing remuneration that is equal at least to pay for similar
work in private industry, taking into account the fact that work
must sometimes be performed under unfavorable physical
conditions.
3. Encouraging long service on a career basis through depend-
able stable employment with opportunities for advancement
and eventual retirement.
4. Guaranteeing equal opportunities for all qualified persons to
compete for entrance and promotion under impartial and high
standard examination procedures.
5. Training employees to do their work better and easier as a
means to advancement.
6. Protecting employees from arbitrary separation from the serv-
ice for trivial or personal reasons, but providing means of
discharging incompetent and other undesirable employees
for cause.
(These principles apply equally to collection as well as
disposal.)
Source: American Public Works Association, Municipal Refuse
Disposal (Chicago: APWA, 1966), pp. 342-343.
151
-------
must establish an elaborate personnel system. However, written
policy statements and the assignment of personnel matters to one
individual will be of great assistance to the person in charge of
solid wastes management.
A centralized civil service or personnel department will not
solve all solid wastes personnel problems, but it should help
greatly. The personnel department can assist the solid wastes
agency by helping to develop position classifications, by recruiting,
testing, screening, and selecting applicants, and by assisting the
operating department in developing and administering orienta-
tion and training programs.
Whether or not a central personnel agency exists, the depart-
ment head responsible for solid wastes management (especially in
agencies where a large number of men are needed) may want a
departmental personnel officer. The departmental personnel offi-
cer can relieve the department head of such time-consuming per-
sonnel duties as training, orientation, and liaison with the central
providing personnel for a growing
solid wastes system
DeKalb County, Georgia
DeKaJb County, Georgia, en-
compassing portions of Atlanta,
has 360,000 residents. The De-
Kalb County Sanitation Depart-
ment was established in 1937,
employing one driver and three
waste collectors to serve 500
customers. Today a staff of
over 500 services 80,000 private
residents, 10,000 commercial es-
tablishments, and 4,000 apart-
ment complexes. Solid wastes
are disposed of at either the
county's incinerator or one of
two sanitary landfills. The sani-
tation department is function-
ally divided into supervison for
collection and landfill opera-
tion, and for incineration to en-
sure effective control over both
areas of operation.
To collect the residential food
waste and refuse each day (and
operate the landfill sites] re-
quires 320 laborers, 125 drivers,
15 field supervisors, and four
area supervisors, along with
secretarial and administrative
staff. Collection is carried out
separately—picking up garbage
twice weekly and rubbish once
a week. To dispose of this
waste requires 39 additional em-
ployees operating on four ro-
tating shifts seven days a week,
24 hours a day. The incinerator
processes approximately 600
tons of wastes per day.
A major reason for DeKalb
County's highly successful solid
wastes management system has
been its growing awareness and
emphasis on staffing proce-
dures. This is best expressed
in a comment by the superin-
tendent of sanitation: "We're
trying to build pride in labor
throughout the system."
To spur this pride among
employees, the sanitation de-
partment provides and main-
tains uniforms with identifying
county labels. In addition, pro-
tective clothing and equipment
is provided for those employees
working under hazardous con-
ditions. Locker room facilities
and assembly rooms are pro-
vided for the collection crews.
Like other county depart-
ments, the sanitation depart-
ment operates under a merit
system, with the exception that
laborers may choose not to par-
ticipate in the merit system. To
help ensure higher efficiency
and continuous employment by
those laborers who choose not
to work under the merit system,
an incentive plan has been set
up with bonuses for those
who maintain complete, weekly
working schedules.
All employees receive com-
petitive wages. Laborers work-
ing under the merit system also
receive fringe benefits, such as
insurance programs, vacation
and sick leave.
Recruitment and promotion
are on a competitive basis for
all employees, with physical
and mental examinations used
to qualify applicants. On-the-
job training is conducted for all
employees, and regular safety
practices are enforced to reduce
accidents. Also, the county
health department provides in-
oculation for diseases that might
be contracted by workers.
The department is aware that
adequate solid wastes manage-
ment depends on the regular
and high performance of collec-
tion and disposal crews.
152
-------
personnel office. In small agencies, an individual may handle
personnel duties in addition to other tasks.
Where a comprehensive solid wastes management system is recruitment
operated by the local government, people with a variety of skills
are needed. The central civil service or personnel department
usually recruits and screens while the solid wastes agency hires.
In a small county, responsibility for solid wastes management may
be assigned to an individual who will recruit and hire the per-
sonnel needed.
Professional personnel such as administrators and engineers
can be recruited through universities, professional journals, and
professional associations. One private collection company re-
cruits its supervisors from among junior college graduates. This
firm also recruits business management graduates and starts them
as supervisors and surveyors.
Since solid wastes programs require large numbers of truck
drivers, equipment operators, and laborers, recruitment for these
positions demands the major effort. According to the American
Public Works Association, wages and salaries account for 60 to
80 per cent of the total cost of solid wastes collection.
Qualifications and Testing. In recruiting personnel, adminis-
trators should be sure that qualifications are realistic. One ex-
ample of poor practice occurred in a northwestern city where
passage of written civil service examinations was required for
collectors. Many of the applicants could not pass the written
tests although they were well qualified to perform the physical
tasks required. In this case, rigid, unnecessary testing defeated
the purpose of examinations. There is a rational middle ground
between the extreme of hiring without testing and complicated
testing and control procedures that do not consider realistic, prac-
tical work requirements.
In some areas of short labor supply, it is difficult to recruit
men who can read and write. Since solid wastes employees are
usually required to turn in reports, localities might pay men for
attending basic education classes. Such self-improvement incen-
tives might encourage more young men to be interested in solid
wastes agencies.
An inexpensive and simple method for recruiting and employ-
ing laborers has been suggested by the International City Man-
agers' Association. Newspapers, radio, television, and personal
contact are used to attract prospective personnel. Applicants for
manual jobs come to the personnel office or solid wastes agency
to register. As workmen are needed, individuals are called in to
fill out formal applications showing their experience, training, and
other information. At this time, the applicants are questioned
about their health, strength, and physical fitness and rated as to
qualifications. Lists of those qualified are prepared and hiring
done in order of rating as to qualifications.
A more accurate rating of ability and attitude can be made
based on actual performance during a probation period. A physi-
cal examination should be given before hiring. This will help to
avoid unnecessary injury to workers and decrease the agency's
expense for medical care, workman's compensation, and sick pay.
Many solid wastes departments check with insurance companies
to be sure an individual has not made any claims for back injuries.
153
-------
JOB DESCRIPTION
COUNTY OF
ORANGE, CALIFORNIA
REFUSE DISPOSAL
ENGINEER
[DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM]
(Established March, 1964)
DEFINITION
Under general direction, to
plan and direct the county ref-
use disposal system of disposal
sites and transfer stations; and
to do other work as required.
EXAMPLES OF DUTIES
1. Makes immediate and
long-range plans for efficient
and economical operation of
the county's refuse disposal
system of disposal sites and
transfer stations; studies pro-
spective sites and arranges for
acquisitions of properties by
lease or purchase.
2. Conducts studies and pre-
pares plans showing proposed
site development and opera-
tional conformance with plans.
3. Coordinates the use and
location of operating personnel
and heavy equipment to obtain
operational efficiency at dis-
posal sites and transfer stations.
4. Appears before municipal
councils and planning commis-
sions to acquire use franchises
for disposal facilities.
5. Advises public and han-
dles complaints regarding ref-
use collection procedures.
Rather than build expensive, permanent
facilities at disposal sites with a short
life-span, some sanitation departments use
trailers to provide the necessities.
They also check with police for any criminal record. (However,
no man should be refused a job until he has had an opportunity
to explain violations.]
Truck drivers can be recruited by the same procedures, sup-
plemented by a driver's qualification and rating test. Advance-
ment to driver classification should be available to qualified
laborers. Successful completion of a driver training school course
should be recognized. Good driving records should be required of
all drivers.
Recruitment of qualified heavy equipment operators and other
specialized technicians is also important. Most agencies require
that applicants have experience. If recruitment of experienced
men is impossible, training programs can be established to teach
those applicants who seem to have an aptitude for, and an interest
in, this type of work. Some solid wastes agencies have found that
applicants who have operated farm equipment are good at han-
dling heavy equipment and generally have some knowledge about
minor maintenance procedures.
Foremen and supervisors can be recruited from among em-
ployees. Hiring from within provides incentive, but when no
existing employees can meet job qualifications, the agency should
begin outside recruiting.
In the long run, careful recruitment will save the solid wastes
agency time and money. Through systematic recruiting and care-
ful screening of applicants, competent men can be hired, and
employee turnover can be decreased.
The final selection of employees should be left to their direct
supervisors insofar as possible. This is important to a successful
personnel system since day-to-day management is the responsi-
bility of supervisors. If there is a central personnel office, it
should formulate overall recruitment policies in consultation with
154
-------
6. Reviews applications for
franchises and makes appropri-
ate recommendations concern-
ing them to the Board of Super-
visors of Orange County.
7. Corresponds with citizens
regarding illegal dumping.
8. Prepares technical reports
for departmental use and Board
of Supervisors' review regard-
ing operation methods, distri-
bution of equipment and per-
sonnel.
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS
1. Possession of a valid Cer-
tificate of Registration as a Civil
Engineer issued by the Cali-
fornia State Board of Registra-
tion for Civil and Professional
Engineers.
2. Possession of a valid Cali-
fornia Driver's License.
Education
Graduation from a recognized
college with major work in Civil
Engineering.
Experience
Three years of professional
Civil Engineering experience of
an increasingly responsible na-
ture.
Knowledge of
Principles and practices of
civil engineering.
Design principles and strength
of materials.
Land acquisition procedures.
Methods and controls regu-
lating refuse collection fran-
chises and illegal dumping.
Ability to
Plan and direct a program of
location, construction, and use
of refuse disposal sites and
transfer stations.
Review and personally pre-
pare plans and specifications.
To direct the work or inspect
and control work in progress
on site construction.
Maintain cordial relationships
with the public and representa-
tives of local government in ob-
taining disposal facilities or use
franchises for such facilities.
Prepare and control budget
requirements.
Lay out work for others and
direct them in their work.
Analyze situations accurately
and take effective action.
Dictate correspondence and
prepare comprehensive reports.
Physical Qualifications
Medical Group III—Light
Duty.
operating departments, but the operating solid wastes agency
supervisors should make the final decision on hiring.
Other Recruitment Techniques. In order to attract and hire
skilled and unskilled labor, the personnel agency must be imagi-
native. Posting notices and then waiting for applicants is usually
inadequate for solid wastes jobs because they involve rough,
dirty work 52 weeks a year in all weather.
New recruiting methods, facilitating the joining of jobs with
job-seekers, have been adopted in several areas. In the City of
Baltimore, Maryland, a single centralized agency keeps a com-
puter list of available jobs in both public and private agencies.
Each day the computer prints a list of job openings which is sent
to all agencies conducting job training or placement programs as
well as other interested agencies.
In King County, Washington, sanitary landfill operations are
conducted on a mountainous site which is scheduled to become a
park. Screened from disposal operations by trees is the county's
alcoholic treatment center. Alcoholics receiving treatment are
asked to work at the site if they desire. The men police the area,
check trucks, and perform other tasks as a supplement to the
regular workmen. Frequently solid wastes agencies can cooperate
in work-release programs.
Some television stations, following the lead of the "Oppor-
tunity Line" show on educational station WTTW in Chicago, con-
duct job information programs. WETA, in Washington, B.C., has
a one-year grant from the Social Rehabilitation Service of the De-
partment of Health, Education and Welfare for producing "Jobs
26." This program has two hosts who chat informally about
various topics, emphasizing employment information. A U.S.
Employment Service employee spends full time assembling infor-
mation about training and job opportunities in the metropolitan
155
-------
compensation
area for the program. "Jobs 26" has had many more calls from
job seekers (largely unskilled) than it has had from prospective
employers.
The use of a weekly or monthly news sheet from the solid
wastes agency to its own employees listing vacancies can also aid
recruiting. The employees will not only know about advancement
opportunities but can also pass on job information to friends and
relatives.
The most aggressive recruiting program will be useless unless
the solid wastes management agency offers adequate compensation
and incentives to employees. Failure to recognize that "you get
what you pay for" has made recruiting difficult for some solid
wastes agencies. The low priority and status given solid wastes
collection and disposal operations by many localities has been
reflected in low wages and salaries and inadequate benefits.
Compensation includes salaries or wages, and a variety of
fringe benefits which should be at least comparable to those
given for similar work in private industry and other public agen-
cies. Because of the poor image of solid wastes jobs, it may be
necessary to offer higher wages and better fringe benefits than
might be available for similar work.
Salary and Wage Plans. Local governments should periodi-
cally survey salaries and wages in their area to be sure that the
solid wastes agency and other public agencies are keeping pace
JOB DESCRIPTION
COUNTY OF
ORANGE, CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC WORKS
FOREMAN III
(Established April, 1964)
DEFINITION
Under direction, to assist in
the planning of the work of a
major public works operation
force; to coordinate, assign and
supervise public works mainte-
nance and construction opera-
tions for a large public works
maintenance operation force; to
plan, assign, and supervise the
work of refuse disposal opera-
tion; and to do other work as
required.
CLASS CHARACTERISTICS
Positions in this class coordi-
nate and supervise the over-all
maintenance and construction
work, on a countywide basis,
for a major public works main-
tenance division or coordinate
and supervise the countywide
landfill refuse disposal opera-
tions. Incumbents are respon-
sible, through the use of sched-
uling and programming for the
effective and efficient use of
personnel and equipment. Su-
pervision of maintenance, con-
struction, and refuse disposal
operations is normally through
intermediate supervisors at the
Public Works Foreman I and II
levels.
EXAMPLES OF DUTIES
1. Assists in planning the ad-
ministrative policies, programs
and procedures for a mainte-
nance operation force; assists
in planning the work of the
maintenance forces division and
the allotment of personnel and
equipment, prepares and sub-
mits cost and material esti-
mates; prepares work orders
and schedules and assigns
equipment and crews to proj-
ects and supplies technical di-
rection as required; directs the
construction activities of major
156
-------
with private companies. Salary and wage plans should provide
regular increases for efficiency and longevity and reward those
who have better skills. Good attendance and safety records may
be the bases for incentive awards.
Fringe Benefits. Fringe benefits, including retirement plan,
sick leave, paid vacation, group health and life insurance, work-
men's compensation, uniforms, and safety equipment are an im-
portant part of compensation for private and public employees.
Most of these benefits increase and improve with longevity and
provide incentives to professional, skilled, and unskilled em-
ployees to remain in solid wastes agencies. Benefits are a large
part of "real" wages, and solid wastes agencies should make it
clear to employees how much these benefits are worth.
Failure to provide adequate disability payments and retire-
ment benefits can be a serious problem in solid wastes agencies
where physical fitness is required. If the solid wastes program
is part of a sanitation or public works agency, older men from
collection crews can be transferred to street sweeping and other
less strenuous tasks. Early retirement plans have also been sug-
gested as a method for making solid wastes collection work more
attractive.
Hours of Work and Crew Organization. Collection and dis- working conditions
posal crew organization and working hours vary according to local and safety
requirements and conditions. Since conditions vary so greatly,
projects by maintenance forces
through subordinate foremen.
2. Plans, coordinates, as-
signs, and supervises the land-
fill refuse disposal operations
and the operations of refuse
disposal transfer station; con-
fers with commercial refuse col-
lection firms regarding county
policies and procedures and
complaints; inspects landfill dis-
posal sites to insure that work
is being done according to land-
fill plan; establishes basic oper-
ating schedules.
3. May direct the mainte-
nance and repair of mechanical
equipment.
4. Plans and directs the pro-
curement, storage and issuance
of equipment and supplies.
5. Directs the patrolling of
flood control channels and in-
spection of construction activi-
ties adjacent to and affecting
county flood control rights of
way.
6. Directs the operation of
pumping plants, dams, and re-
tarding basins.
7. Makes recommendations
concerning the repair or re-
placement of heavy equipment
or the purchase of new equip-
ment.
8. Inspects work progress
and completed work.
9. Investigates complaints in
connection with departmental
activities.
10. Assists in interviewing
and recommending hiring of
personnel; plans and directs the
training of employees.
11. Maintains records and
prepares progress and other
reports; assists in the prepara-
tion of the budget; acts for the
Supervisor in his absence.
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS
License Required
Possession of a valid Cali-
fornia Drivers' License.
Education
Graduation from high school
or attainment of a satisfactory
score in a G.E.D. test.
Experience
Four years of supervisory ex-
perience in public works con-
struction or maintenance work.
Knowledge of
The methods, materials and
equipment used in maintenance
and construction of roads,
bridges, and drainage structures
or pipelines, flood control chan-
nels and dams.
The operation of a landfill
refuse disposal station.
The operation and care of
equipment and tools.
Principles of effective super-
vision and organization plan-
ning.
Ability to
Determine personnel, material
and equipment needed to esti-
mate the cost of specified
projects.
Plan and direct the work of
others.
Follow complex technical di-
rections and to interpret plans
and specifications.
Establish and maintain good
public relations.
Physical Qualifications
Medical Group III—Light
Duty.
157
-------
Within the disposal area, whether it be at a
landfill or in an incinerator as here in Miami
County, Ohio, air conditioned, reinforced
cabs are necessary from both a health
and safety standpoint.
routes must be planned and adjusted for each locality and neigh-
borhood to insure good service. Supervisors should take into
account daily and seasonal fluctuations in planning work sched-
ules so that (1) adjustments can be made to insure that men can
work a set number of hours; (2] overtime pay is kept to a minimum;
and (3) collection and disposal operations run smoothly. Laborers
should have job security and regular employment. Solid wastes
agencies which provide permanent full-time jobs are less likely
than others to have high turnover and more likely to have trained
men available. For detailed information on crew organization,
see the American Public Works Association's Re/use Collection
Practice.
Appearance of Solid Wastes Personnel. Collection crews are
on the streets every day, and are seen by many citizens. Most
public and private employees who are seen daily such as police-
men, firemen, meter readers, and mailmen wear clean, neat, easily
recognizable uniforms. Unfortunately, this is not always true of
solid wastes collectors.
Several sound reasons for having solid wastes employees wear
uniforms follow.
1. Employee morale is improved—they look better, feel bet-
ter, and work better.
2. Uniforms improve public respect for solid wastes opera-
tions.
3. Properly designed uniforms will protect the health and
safety of employees—dirty clothes cause skin diseases.
Cuffs can cause tripping and loose clothes can catch in
moving equipment.
4. Employees (especially collectors) are easily identifiable—
prowler calls were reduced from 200 to two to three per
week in Hyattsville, Maryland, after collectors were uni-
formed.
Since solid wastes personnel must work in all kinds of weather,
agencies should also provide protective outer garments such as
gloves, boots, rainhats, and raincoats. Ideally, these should be
carried on the collection trucks. If this is not possible, they should
be readily available at headquarters or various area shelters. Pro-
tective gear should also be supplied to disposal personnel and
kept at the disposal site. The investment needed for such protec-
tive garments should be recovered in less sick leave cost.
Employee Facilities. Most collectors and many disposal em-
ployees work outdoors all day at manual jobs requiring physical
exertion. It is local government's responsibility to provide them
with clean and decent facilities for washing, eating, and changing
clothes. Collection crews should have clean shelters with lunch-
room, toilet, and washing facilities located throughout a large
city or county so that they have a comfortable place to eat, espe-
cially in inclement weather. Well maintained locker rooms and
showers should be provided where crews assemble and are
dismissed.
Provision of similar facilities for crews at disposal sites may
be difficult but should be done for any site. A minimum of portable
sanitary toilets, safe drinking water, and a place for eating lunch
and changing clothes is needed for short-term sanitary landfill
installations. Trailers are used for these purposes in some areas,
such as the sanitary landfill at Frostburg, Maryland. Permanent
158
-------
clean facilities should be provided at all incinerators and compost
plants. At its incinerator, Montgomery County, Maryland, provides
a clean lunchroom and locker and shower rooms for the eight
men on each shift. Clean, attractive employee facilities will pro-
tect health and improve employee morale and the public image
of solid wastes operations.
Employee Accidents. The collection of municipal solid wastes,
as practiced today, has the highest injury rate of all occupations
except logging. Collectors have an accident frequency rate nine
times higher than industrial workers, according to the National
Safety Council.
Collection and disposal personnel may contract respiratory
diseases and eye troubles because of dust and fumes. Common
skin injuries suffered by collectors, as reported in Occupational
Diseases of the Skin, include abrasions, puncture wounds, lacera-
tions, burns, frostbite, and insect and animal bites. Preventive
measures include frequent changing of dirty clothes; prompt
cleansing and treatment of skin wounds; providing and requiring
the wearing of hard hats, safety shoes, gloves, and goggles by all
collection employees, and requiring hard hats, safety shoes, and
face masks for disposal employees.
In collection operations, hazards include:
1] mounting and dismounting collection vehicles and equip-
ment;
2) lifting and emptying containers;
3) heat exhaustion, diseases such as arthritis, muscle and
tendon pulls;
4) respiratory ailments; and
5) damage to or loss of limbs from packer and collection
equipment.
Among the factors contributing to collection accidents are
old, unsuitable, or poorly maintained equipment (e.g., men must
lift containers very high to empty them into open or high trucks);
failure to enforce ordinances regarding size, weight, and handles
of containers; haste of crewmen to complete route; improper lifting
and carrying of containers; narrow streets; and vehicles backing
into men.
At disposal sites, hazards to personnel include:
1) direct injury from explosion or h're;
2) inhalation of contaminants and dust;
3) asphyxia from smoke;
4] falls from vehicles into equipment or furnaces;
5) accidents from earth-moving equipment operation;
6) accidents from attempting to repair equipment while en-
gine is operating.
Incinerator enclosures as well as compost plants should be
heated in winter to protect men from drastic temperature changes.
Sanitary landfill employees are subject to exposure, frostbite, heat
prostration, dust, and odors. Enclosed, airconditioned cabs on
heavy equipment are a good investment for both health and
safety reasons.
Accidents are expensive; the indirect costs include:
1} lost time of injured employee;
2) lost time of other employees assisting the injured;
RESPONSIBILITY &- SAFETY
INSTRUCTION
TRAINING
LEADERSHIP
LEARN £ USE
SAFE WORK
METHODS
PROGRAM
DIRECTION
1 PLANNING
OBSERVE
RULES / PROMOTE
\ / EMPLOYEE
/» / INTEREST
J? COOPERATION
Source: US. Dept of tabor
159
-------
3) lost time of supervisors helping employee, determining the
cause of the accident, and arranging for a replacement;
4) damage to equipment;
5) interference with schedules and production; and
6) increased compensation, insurance rates, and settlements.
Safety Programs. Elected city and county officials should re-
quire that solid wastes agencies conduct an aggressive, regular,
safety training program for all supervisors and employees. An
accident prevention program should be preplanned and well or-
ganized and should show the personal support of elected officials.
The program may be run on a city or countywide basis through a
committee of department heads. It should cover such things as
driver training, equipment handling, first aid, and general safety.
Special programs for solid wastes collection employees should
include careful instruction in lifting and carrying, precautions in
working around collection vehicles, and fire fighting. For example,
collection vehicle drivers must be warned that back-ups cause 80
per cent of vehicle accidents. At least one person on every route
should have completed a first aid course.
Most accidents are caused by people, not things. Human
errors are caused by poor physical condition, insufficient rest, day-
dreaming, negligence, risk-taking, and poorly designed equipment.
In developing and implementing a safety program, officials should
realize that most people already know what they should do to
minimize accidents. An adequate safety program constantly re-
minds the employee how accidents happen and how to avoid
them. The safety program should stimulate an employee's hazard
awareness.
a continuous safety program
National Disposal Contrac-
tors, Inc. (NDC), has a continu-
ous safety program based on
standards set by the National
Safety Council. The responsi-
bilities for this corporation's
safety program are shared
among top management, the ex-
ecutive safety committee, the
safety director, division execu-
tives, operating management,
and employees. The program's
purposes are to eliminate human
suffering resulting from acci-
dents; develop lower insurance
costs; reduce indirect costs of
accidents; and increase profits.
The executive safety com-
mittee is comprised of three
top management representatives
and the safety director. The
committee advises the safety
director, reviews progress of
National Disposal Contractors, Inc.
Barrington, Illinois
the safety program, determines
objectives, formulates and ap-
proves general safety policies.
The safety director devotes
full time to accident prevention
for all 11 divisions and assists
division managers with job
training programs concerning
vehicle and personnel safety.
The director also collects and
analyzes accident information;
reviews, organizes, and takes
part in each division's bi-annual
safety meeting; plans and in-
spects new company facilities
with division managers to de-
tect any deficiencies that could
lead to unsafe conditions and
practices; recommends to local
divisions the selection and pur-
chases of safety equipment and
supplies. The director also con-
ducts a continuing safety edu-
cation program on accident pre-
vention for both management
and employees, and attends
seminars on safety and train-
ing to keep aware of new de-
velopments.
The top management of NDC
considers line supervisors to be
the key men in the accident pre-
vention program because they
influence and control the be-
havior of employees. Providing
all new employees with thor-
ough job orientation and train-
ing in accident prevention is
probably the most essential
area of responsibility.
Each employee is expected to
contribute to the safety pro-
gram by constantly following
safe procedures on the job to
protect himself, fellow workers,
and company property.
160
-------
Safety programs begin with careful screening of employees
by giving initial job training and providing training manuals, and
by keeping safety records for each employee. On-the-job training
and developing hazard awareness must be a continuing process.
National Disposal Contractors, Inc., assigns its department
heads and supervisors these safety responsibilities:
1) providing employees with thorough job instruction and
training;
2) setting a good example;
3) talking to employees daily about safety;
4) enforcing all safety rules and policies;
5) maintaining good housekeeping;
6) promptly investigating, classifying, and recording all ac-
cidents;
7) insisting on participation in the safety program by all
employees;
8) distributing safety literature; and
9] observing collection vehicles in normal operation.
Safety is the responsibility of both labor and management.
Management should be able to reward or discipline employees
depending on their safety records. One of the prime responsibili-
ties of local government is to provide proper and well maintained
equipment. Enforcement of regulations which affect safety is also
necessary.
To know the effectiveness of a safety program, the keeping
of accurate records is essential. Details on recordkeeping may be
obtained from the National Safety Council.
The "garbage man" was front-page news in 1968 when strikes labor-management
by collectors' unions in Memphis, Tennessee; Baltimore, Maryland; relations
and New York City halted all residential collection in those cities.
These strikes brought to national attention the growing influence
of public employee unions. Such unions—whether they are called
associations or are affiliated with the private sector labor move-
ment—have steadily increased their numbers during the past
five years.
The influence of a union or employee association can be
worthwhile or obstructive, depending on the attitudes of both
organization leadership and local government officials. Refusing
to recognize legitimate rights of public employees to organize has
been a common failure of many public officials. Many public
employees are demanding what they consider to be their legitimate
"rights" in a free, democratic society: the right to organize; the
right to bargain collectively; the right to enter into a binding agree-
ment reached through meaningful, good-faith negotiations. They
demand to be heard when they have grievances.
The recent strikes by sanitation workers have shown that state
laws prohibiting strikes are not effective. Public employees are
willing to engage in strikes (or to use various devices as substitutes
for the direct strike) to gain bargaining rights—if necessary in vio-
lation of the law.
Thousands of agreements between various levels of govern-
ment or government agencies and their employees, negotiated with-
out strikes, furnish proof that sound labor-management relations
can exist within a framework of unionism.
Local governments should provide for receiving, evaluating,
161
-------
a proposed safety and merit program
Witchita Falls, Texas
During the past few years
Wichita Falls, Texas, like many
other cities across the nation,
has experienced economic con-
ditions that have reduced the
available work force in its sani-
tation department. Increased
competition from industry for
Jabor has resulted in numerous
resignations from the depart-
ment and qualified replacements
have been difficult to find.
Early in 1968, Wichita Falls
proposed a Safety and Merit
Program designed to reduce the
rate of resignations and in-
crease the efficiency of the em-
ployees through financial incen-
tives. The program was not
implemented by the end of 1968.
Those disposal equipment op-
erators and refuse collectors
who have successfully partici-
pated in the Safety and Merit
Program for six months will be
awarded efficiency compensa-
tion in the form of salary in-
creases. Requirements for effi-
ciency compensation are as
follows:
I. Attendance
In order for an employee
to be eligible for efficiency
compensation he may not:
1] use more than two days
sick leave annually;
2) use more than two days
emergency leave annu-
ally; and
3) use more than two days
leave without permis-
sion annually.
II. Safety
For an employee to be eli-
gible for efficiency com-
pensation, he must not:
1) be responsible for any
accident involving time
lost during a six-month
period (first-aid is not
considered time lost if
the employee returns to
work]; or
2] be responsible for any
chargeable property
damage during the six-
month period (charge-
and taking appropriate action on employee complaints and sugges-
tions. Complaints should be handled through established griev-
ance procedures. If no formal grievance and appeals procedures
exist, frustrated employees may leave the agency when an airing
of views might have led to a satisfactory solution of the problem.
Both agency management and employees must understand and
have confidence in the procedures.
In Refuse Collection Practice, the American Public Works
Association explains:
Written personnel policies are absolutely necessary to the
success of any grievance procedure in a non-organized
shop. For the employees, they set forth top management's
position on important personnel matters. For members
of management they provide a yardstick for deciding
specific questions and grievances which occur during day-
to-day operations, rather than each following his own
ideas.
Soliciting and rewarding employees for helpful suggestions
is another technique which improves morale. In large organiza-
tions, such as the New York Sanitation Department, cash awards
or certificates are made for useful suggestions. Even in a small
agency the supervisor should encourage his employees to make
suggestions orally or in writing.
A schism has developed in expert thinking on blanket strike
bans which apply to all public employees, without regard to the
critical nature of the services performed. The basic issue is to
prevent disputes from reaching the stage where economic warfare
becomes inevitable, and to develop alternatives to the strike or
methods for resolving disputes. It is imperative that fact-finding,
mediation, arbitration, "cooling off" periods, and similar techniques
be used with more frequency and greater skill. Local officials
162
-------
able property damage is
determined by the Acci-
dent Review Board].
III. Efficiency Rating System
Efficiency rating will be
used to determine employee
efficiency and is based on
the following elements:
1] dependability (work
with minimum supervi-
sion]—reporting for as-
signments; no salvaging
on city time;
2] job knowledge (suffi-
cient knowledge to op-
erate collection and
disposal equipment]—
knows routes; maintains
good relations;
3] attitude (accepts assign-
ments cheerfully]—vol-
unteers to help others;
maintains department
morale; has good per-
sonal appearance;
4] initiative—demonstrates
some leadership;
5] citizenship—takes care
of personal financial ob-
ligations; takes interest
in civic affairs; and
6] equipment upkeep —
maintains clean route
and equipment; does not
abuse equipment.
The elements for efficiency
rating are constructed to elimi-
nate, to the greatest possible
extent, subjective judgment by
the person rating employees.
Records are kept of each
employee's work performance
within the scope of his job re-
quirements. Each employee is
rated monthly on six different
elements measuring his effi-
ciency. The rating on each item
is recorded in a numerical value
from 0 to 10; at the end of each
six-month period, the number of
points earned is totaled. A total
of 360 points is possible over
a six-month period. Those em-
ployees receiving a total of 280
points or more will be awarded
efficiency compensation and
those receiving a total of less
than 100 points will be termi-
nated.
Before this type of rating sys-
tem can be adopted, a commu-
nity must be sure that all equip-
ment is as safe as possible. An
individual cannot be held re-
sponsible for accidents result-
ing from faulty or poorly main-
tained equipment.
should recognize that problems exist and take steps to furnish the
type of leadership needed.
training programs
Local solid wastes training programs are primarily job-oriented
to help individuals do their tasks safely and efficiently. But all
employees should receive a thorough explanation about employee
rights and benefits and responsibilities before beginning work.
This will assist both supervisors and employees to understand
exactly what they are entitled to and what is expected of them.
From professionals to laborers, proper orientation and training
will help them do a better job. The time needed to teach good
driving habits, proper lifting methods, and machinery operation,
and to explain sick leave and vacation policy will be well spent.
Agency management also has the responsibility for keeping em-
ployees informed about changes in personnel policies.
Collection and disposal crews should receive training from
their immediate supervisors. Collection personnel must be given
safety training in such areas as lifting and carrying, and also should
be taught how to deal with homeowners. Authorities agree that
training of operators is crucial to the success of a disposal pro-
gram whether the method is sanitary landfill, incineration, or
composting. In landfills the operators should understand why
compaction and covering are needed. Training by solid wastes
agencies will also help prepare men for promotion.
No local department or government can conduct all neces-
sary training programs. State, federal, and private training pro-
grams should be utilized. Employees at all levels should be
encouraged to attend solid wastes management meetings and cour-
ses. If at all possible, they should be permitted to attend during
local
163
-------
working hours, and be reimbursed for transportation, lodging,
and meals.
State
federal
This injury prevention Scoreboard is part of
the safety program developed by Los
Angeles, Calif. On the Scoreboard, the
various disposal districts are scored on the
fewest number of accidents.
INJURY PREVENTION SCOREBOARD
XOSIH CENTRAL
SOUTH CENTUM.
WEST WU£T
Most state solid wastes programs are in the development
stage; so formal training offered by states is limited. However,
many state health departments are able to advise local govern-
ments in setting up training.
Since 1961, in the State of New Jersey, the Solid Waste
Program of the Division of Clean Air and Water has been offering
an 11-week course open to public officials, private contractors,
supervisors, and interested citizens from any state. The course
includes lectures, discussions, visual aids, and field trips covering
all aspects of solid wastes. The cost of $60, and trainees attend
class two hours per week. In cooperation with municipal con-
tractors and the Extension Service of Rutgers University, the state
offers both a basic and an advanced solid wastes course in various
locations throughout the state.
In Oregon, the Solid Waste Section of the state Board of
Health conducts a one-day training course for sanitary landfill
equipment Operators. For convenience, the state plans to conduct
the course in four different sections of the state to be able to
concentrate on the specific problems of each area.
The New York State Department of Health, Office of Environ-
mental Health Manpower, conducts brief discussions and demon-
strations of sanitary landfill operations throughout the state to
public officials and interested citizens.
Courses in solid wastes for scientists, engineers, sanitarians,
and other professional and administrative personnel are conducted
by the Federal solid wastes management program. Training includes
consideration and appraisal of the newest developments in solid
wastes management. There is no tuition or registration fee, but
course rosters are limited and trainees must provide their own
housing, food, and transportation. (Local governments should pay
these costs for their employees.)
Although most courses are given in Cincinnati, Ohio, many
can be presented in the field on request. For example, "Environ-
mental Solid Waste Orientation," a one-day basic orientation in
solid wastes environmental problems designed for professional
administrators and public officials, is taught in the field on request.
The other solid wastes courses offered in Cincinnati are:
"Elements of Solid Waste Management" (one week)
"Incineration—Principles of Design and Operation" (one
week)
"Solid Waste Handling—Field Evaluation" (one week)
"Sanitary Landfill—Principles of Design and Operation"
(one week)
"Composting Methods" (one week)
"Solid Waste Handling—Health and Safety" (four days)
For a bulletin of courses and application forms write to:
Division of Technical Operations
Officejof Solid Waste Management Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45213
164
-------
Several universities offer graduate courses in solid wastes
management. The majority of programs are for engineers but a
few will also accept non-engineering professionals. (See Guide
Number 7, Technical and Financial Assistance for a list of uni-
versities.)
Various training courses in solid wastes management and
technology are being prepared and offered by non-government
and non-university groups. Further information may be obtained
from the local chapters of American Public Works Association
and/or the American Society of Mechanical Engineers or through
the Bureau of Solid Waste Management.
The National Safety Council offers training and correspond-
ence courses for individuals concerned with safety or interested
in establishing a safety program. For information, contact:
Public Employee Section
National Safety Council
425 North Michigan Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60611
Training should also be provided for solid wastes employees
by all equipment designers and suppliers. Localities should make
certain that equipment manufacturers give complete instruction
in the use and maintenance of all equipment a solid wastes agency
buys. Alexandria, Virginia, required the company with whom it
contracted for incinerator furnace construction to put all operating
instructions in writing and sign it. The manufacturer's representa-
tive spent one month giving on-site instruction, and the repre-
sentative and contractor were on call for six additional months for
training, advice, and troubleshooting. It is crucial that equipment
designers and suppliers not only train personnel but actually
observe employees operating the equipment.
private
consultants
In many local jurisdictions, government personnel with the proper
skills are not available, or the staff may be fully occupied with
other important duties, so consultants are needed to assist local
solid wastes agencies. The importance of using competent con-
sulting engineers both in the preliminary study phases and in
the design of facilities cannot be overemphasized. Too often,
ready-made solutions have resulted in failure or unreasonably
high costs.
Certain localities feel their needs justify the establishment
of their own engineering design department. Even then, services
of engineering specialists are used. For example, the Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, engineering staff designs incinerator and sanitary
landfill facilities necessary to serve the city's two million people,
but it also uses consulting engineers.
An elected official should be careful to choose a qualified
consultant. While the official himself will not make the study, he
will be responsible for considering the solutions offered by the
consultant and making final policy decisions. The decisions made
will reflect on the official and will have a long-term impact on the
community. Although each community's solid wastes problems
are different, a great deal may be gained by retaining a consultant
who has had experience working with many local governments
Clean, pleasant, modern facilities boost
morale and help inspire cleanliness among
sanitation workers. These facilities, locker
rooms, lunch rooms, showers, etc., are
necessary from a health standpoint.
selection
165
-------
STEPS IN CHOOSING
A CONSULTANT
1. Elected officials appoint tem-
porary selection board.
2. Firms submit qualifications.
3. Board evaluates consultants'
qualifications.
4. Board investigates consultants'
past projects.
5. Board interviews prospects.
6. Consultants are ranked in or-
der of preference.
7. Fees are negotiated.
8. Consultant is engaged.
and who is knowledgeable about the engineering of solid wastes
management.
Five national professional engineering organizations have sug-
gested that in most cases a temporary selection board for choosing
a consultant be designated by elected officials. The board should
consist of three persons, at least one of whom is an engineer,
preferably the city or county engineer. Since the local engineer
will have to work closely with the consultant, he should take part
in the consultant's selection.
This selection board investigates and interviews various en-
gineering firms. A parochial attitude toward hiring consultants
should be avoided. The best local engineering firm may not be
good enough or be experienced in solid wastes. The American
Society of Civil Engineers offers useful guidelines in Consulting
Engineering, A Guide for the Engagement of Engineering Services.
The selection board should check with officials of other local
governments which have used the consultants and the state health
department to determine the quality of the various firms' per-
formances. Local officials should also visit facilities that the con-
sultant has designed and constructed. These checks should not
be limited to clients recommended by the firm. After a complete
investigation of all candidates, three firms should be selected for
further consideration.
The firms' ratings shoud include location, reputation, experi-
ence, financial standing, size, personnel available, references, work
load that would permit prompt and efficient service, and other
factors peculiar to local needs. Of course, the firms' professional
competence and experience should be the prime consideration,
but officials must also consider the work load of the firms and
their ability to make a report or design the project within the
government's time limit. The selection board should talk with the
specific individual who would be in charge of the project and
question him thoroughly about his experience and education. The
final selection should be made by the elected officials or executive
on the basis of the board's recommendation.
A list of qualified engineering consultants can be obtained
from any state association of registered professional engineers or
from the following:
American Institute of Consulting Engineers (AICE)
345 East 47th Street
New York, New York 10017
Telephone 212—PL 2-6800
Consulting Engineers Council
1155 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, B.C. 20005
Telephone 202—296-1780
Few elected governing officials have the technical competence
to check or revise the consultant's detailed engineering drawings.
However, the local government's own engineering and legal staff
can review these drawings and specifications for adequacy, clarity,
and legality, and to be sure that the locality's purchasing policies
will be followed. The detailed plans and specifications are some-
times checked by the state agency responsible for pollution control
and by the local health department.
After the state agency and the local government's own staff
166
-------
have approved the plans, and the financial consultant has recom-
mended financing arrangements, a construction and operation
schedule must be adopted.
The courts have consistently held that engineering is a profes- payment
sion involving personal services depending upon the peculiar skill
or ability of the individual—similar to the professions of law,
medicine, teaching—to which the requirements of the states for
competitive bidding on public works contracts do not apply. Thus,
fees for consulting engineers' services are negotiated.
If an agreement on the fee cannot be reached with the firm
with the highest rating, then negotiations should be held with the
second h'rm. Payment for planning and engineering services may
be computed in several ways: percentage of estimated or actual
cost of construction; fixed lump sum; cost, plus a fixed amount;
salary cost times a factor, plus incurred expenses; and per diem.
In New York State, which pays 100 per cent of the cost of
local studies, administrative regulations require that engineers'
fees for comprehensive solid wastes studies be based on:
1) a lump sum, taking into account reasonable engineering
costs for similar studies and reports, or
2) an estimated engineering payroll cost required to perform
the work, plus a reasonable amount to cover overhead
and profit, as agreed to between the engineer and the
state health commissioner, or
3) a combination of (1) and [2].
If the fee to be charged appears unreasonable, officials should
seek advice from a recognized engineering society before signing a
contract. The American Society of Civil Engineers has published a
schedule of fees for professional engineering services; its publica-
tion "Negotiated Engineering Contracts Protect Public Interest" is
also useful. Other engineering societies may also be consulted.
The following warning was issued by American City magazine:
Be wary of the consultant who offers to deliver the
report and recommendations free, if in return, he is re-
tained to design and build the proposed project. Class him
with the physician who agrees to diagnose your ills with-
out charge if you, in advance, agree to have him remove
your appendix.
steps in staffing
a new program
Before a local government begins its planning, a competent ad-
ministrator is needed to coordinate planning efforts, work with
consultants, and direct the solid wastes management system.
This person may be a professional engineer, preferably with ex-
perience in solid wastes. By appointing the top man in advance
of operation of a system, elected officials can obtain his profes-
sional judgment during the planning process. It also enables him
to be thoroughly familiar with the problems and to offer his own
solutions.
Next, elected officials should establish a personnel system,
if one does not exist. In local governments which have established
167
-------
selected
bibliography
Bulletin of Courses, Chief, Training Pro-
gram, Environmental Control Adminis-
tration, Consumer Protection and En-
vironmental Health Service, 222 East
Central Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio
45202.
Consulting Engineering, A Guide for the
Engagement of Engineering Services,
Manual Number 45, American Society
of Civil Engineers, 345 East 47th Street,
New York, New York 10017, April,
1964.
Municipal Personnel Administration, 6th
Edition, International City Managers'
Association, 1140 Connecticut Avenue,
N.W., Washington, B.C., 1960. Price:
$8.50.
Municipal Public Works Administration,
5th Edition, International City Man-
agers' Association, 1140 Connecticut
Avenue, N.W., Washington, B.C., 1957.
Price: $9.50.
Municipal Refuse Disposal, American
Public Works Association, 1313 East
60th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637,
1966. Price: $10.
Public Works Equipment Management,
American Public Works Association,
1313 East 60th Street, Chicago, Illinois
60637, 1964. Price: $8.
Refuse Collection Practice, American
Public Works Association, 1313 East
60th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637,
1966. Price: $10.
Schwartz, L., L. Tulipan and D. J. Bir-
mingham, Occupational Diseases of the
Skin, 3rd Edition, Lea and Febiger,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1957.
merit systems, provisions should be made for incorporation of
new employees into the system, and the solid wastes director
should establish close working relations with the personnel office.
As soon as collection and disposal methods have been de-
cided, position classification can begin and personnel needs deter-
mined. A schedule should be set up to make certain that classifica-
tion, salary determination, recruiting, hiring, and training are
efficiently accomplished in advance of actual collection and dis-
posal operations.
County or city officials should see that the following are
available:
• A clear, concise statement of agency personnel policy in-
cluding employee rights and duties.
• Procedures for periodic review of salaries and fringe bene-
fits and negotiation of contracts with labor unions if they
exist.
• Adequate funds for training and obtaining published ma-
terials.
• Training programs for all employees.
• Methods for regular reporting by the solid wastes agency
to elected county or city officials of personnel information
such as turnover, absenteeism, employee evaluation, and
accident experience.
summary
The ability to attract and retain good employees is essential to
the success of a local solid wastes management system. Many
local governments have invested thousands of dollars in equip-
ment, facilities, and sites but have not invested in adequate sala-
ries, wages, training, and benefits to attract and retain competent
administrators, engineers, foremen, and manual workers. Solid
wastes services are too costly to allow risk-taking with poor-
quality personnel who get their jobs on a patronage basis.
Collection and disposal employees should be screened to make
certain they are qualified. If it is difficult to find qualified men,
a local government should try new recruiting methods and job
training. Wages must be comparable to, or better than, those paid
for similar work in private or public agencies. Fringe benefits,
including hospitalization, retirement, and uniforms, should be
provided.
All workers should be carefully trained to perform their jobs
safely and efficiently. Solid wastes collection is one of the most
hazardous occupations, and local governments are responsible for
protecting their employees.
Elected governing board members should insure that employee
complaints and suggestions are properly handled. Local officials
must also develop policies and procedures for dealing with em-
ployee unions where they exist.
In most local jurisdictions, government personnel with the
proper skills are not available, so consultants are needed to assist
solid wastes agencies. Elected officials must be careful to choose
a qualified, experienced consultant.
In setting up a new solid wastes system, the first step is to
hire a competent administrator to coordinate planning efforts
and work with consultants.
168
-------
10 action plan and bibliography
-------
introduction
action plan
the problem
This is the problem. Every year more
solid wastes accumulate—plastics, paper,
cardboard, bottJes, garbage, and more.
America is beginning to recognize that it must protect and conserve
its resources and environment through proper management of
wastes. Effective water management, air pollution control, and
solid wastes management are needed to restore the beauty and
healthfulness of man's surroundings. People are no longer willing
to accept polluted streams, smoke-filled air, and open dumps. They
are demanding safe and aesthetic management of all wastes.
What is needed is the commitment to act, to begin now to
manage solid wastes in a way which is not ugly and dangerous,
to formulate a comprehensive program for safe and aesthetic
solid wastes management. A half-way program is only a half-way
solution.
In the United States, the average person yearly discards more
than a ton of materials composed of such items as clothing, bottles,
garbage, furniture, frozen food wrappers, and yard clippings. The
wide assortment of material thrown away is referred to as solid
wastes. Solid wastes come from many sources: homes, businesses,
farms, industries, and institutions.
The annual rate at which solid wastes are generated is increas-
ing by about 5 per cent per person. In addition, the population is
growing by approximately two million persons per year. In the
"use once and throw away" age of today, over 190 million tons
of solid wastes are produced annually; by 1980 this figure will be
340 million tons or more.
Many factors have contributed to this phenomenon. More peo-
ple can afford to buy more new goods than ever before; and from
the consumer's view, convenience is often more important than
maintenance. Many items are almost as expensive to repair as to
replace (TV sets, furniture, shoes). Many used goods now have
little resale value. Rows of "white goods," old enamel washing
machines, stoves, and refrigerators, are common at most dumpsites,
lined up as tombstones of a dead market. Automobiles, which have
little "book" value after three years, are usually junked after seven.
With the high cost of labor and technological advances in steel
processing, there is no profit incentive to expend $25 worth of time
to salvage $14 worth of metal from an old car. As a result, many
of these vehicles are abandoned along public roads.
Most habits of solid wastes disposal, such as piling trash in
a heap and burning it in open dumps, are no longer adequate or
safe. In addition, new materials require the development of new
treatment and disposal processes, and more thought must be de-
voted to the reuse and recycling of materials. The supply of min-
erals, metals, and materials is not endless. Government must begin
to manage wastes in a safe, healthful way and conserve resources.
In the long run, economical recycling must be developed so that
the wealth of the nation is not squandered or depleted. The more
than $3 billion a year spent currently on solid wastes management
by government and private industry is sorely inadequate. Money
and effort are needed to convert dumps to sanitary landfills, to
170
-------
provide improved collection equipment and practices, and to de-
velop new processing and disposal methods.
Solid wastes are now a national problem because few people
have considered good solid wastes management important enough
to make it a fact. Poor solid wastes management results in water,
air, and land pollution, creating public health problems, economic
problems, aesthetic problems, and community eyesores. The public
should demand and government should provide proper solid wastes
storage, collection, processing, and disposal. Local government
must show citizens it can do the job so that the public will support
and fund effective solid wastes management programs. If all local
governments do not undertake better wastes management soon,
the monument to apathy will be a nation stymied by its own
wastes.
Local officials should begin now to plan and implement com-
prehensive systems to insure that all solid wastes are managed in
a manner that does not create pollution or threaten community
health. Although local government is primarily responsible, state
and federal governments should provide leadership, information,
and assistance.
These ten guides were prepared for local elected officials and
interested citizens who need to understand what constitutes good
solid wastes management and what must be done to provide this
essential service. Since the organization, size, and authority of
local government vary greatly across the country, not all of the
approaches discussed in these guides will be appropriate in all
cases, but the general principles of good solid wastes management
are the same. Whether in a small rural county or a multi-county
metropolitan area, elected officials and concerned citizens can
work together to properly manage all solid wastes.
The subjects of the guides are as follows:
1 Areawide Approaches—Relationship of solid wastes man-
agement to environmental quality control; need for an area-
wide approach to insure a comprehensive program; advan-
tages of intergovernmental cooperation.
2 Legal Authority—Authority needed by state and local
solid wastes management programs from state laws, local
charters, and ordinances; adoption of rules and standards;
regulation of public and private operations.
3 Planning—Who plans; coordination of local and state
planning; financing the plan; the planning process; new tools;
implementation.
4 Organization—Assigning operating responsibilities; local
government functions; types of organizational structures.
5 Design and Operation—Storage, collection, transfer, proc-
essing, and disposal methods.
6 Financing—Financial planning; revenue sources such as
taxes, bonds, loans, and service charges; purchasing tech-
niques.
7 Technical and Financial Assistance—Federal, state, and
private financial and technical assistance.
8 Citizen Support—Local government actions speak louder
than words; going to the public for support; sources of oppo-
sition; how to deal with communications media.
Tires, large metal and wooden parts,
all commonly called "demolition" material,
have been abandoned at this dump,
along with stripped old cars.
I
summary of guides
171
-------
9 Personnel—Recruitment, compensation, working condi-
tions, safety, labor-management relations, training; consul-
tants in solid wastes programs.
10 Action Plan—Recommended local, state, and federal
action.
Field reports describing particular aspects of local solid wastes
programs are used throughout the guides to give specific examples
of how various local governments are attempting to solve their
solid wastes management problems.
local government's role Local governments are responsible for the management of
solid wastes whether they conduct programs or regulate private
operations. Local elected officials should provide leadership to
their department heads and the community in maintaining a clean,
healthy environment. In many areas, this means that solid wastes
management must be coordinated on an areawide basis.
Since the county is an areawide unit of government serving
urban, suburban, and rural citizens, county officials are in an excel-
lent position to provide leadership in establishing comprehensive
areawide solid wastes management systems. In the past, some
county governments have been unwilling to accept responsibility
for solid wastes management. But today the public is demanding
proper wastes management and counties must respond by provid-
ing the operation and regulation needed.
This Action Plan for Solid Wastes Management is the culmi-
nation of a year's research and discussion with experts. It included
on-site visits with local, state, and federal solid wastes officials and
a National Solid Wastes Workshop which brought together experts
in a variety of disciplines from both government and private in-
dustry. This guide contains recommendations for action by local,
state, and federal governments and a selected bibliography for
further reading.
All levels of government must work together to implement all
phases of this Action Plan.
what should
local government do?
basic Steps Local elected officials should begin their solid wastes management
program by taking the following basic steps.
1. Determine existing practices of storage, collection, proc-
essing, and disposal of all residential, commercial, agricultural,
and industrial solid wastes in their jurisdiction.
2. Determine what state and local laws exist regarding solid
wastes.
3. Decide what should be done by local governments, area-
wide government, and private industry, and how they can coop-
erate to provide the best service to citizens.
4. Convert all unsafe, unacceptable methods of collection,
disposal, or reuse, such as the use of open collection vehicles,
open and burning dumps, and feeding of uncooked garbage to
hogs, to safe and acceptable methods.
5. Provide for safe disposal or reuse of all solid wastes, in-
cluding residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural wastes,
litter, abandoned automobiles, and other large, bulky items.
172
-------
6. Insure that methods of solid wastes management do not
result in environmental pollution.
7. See that the solid wastes management agency encompasses
the largest feasible geographical area of present and predicted
solid wastes generation and makes provision for disposal sites that
will last at least 20 years.
Frequently, the county is the areawide unit which can
meet these requirements. Where a single county is not large
enough to solve the areawide solid wastes management prob-
lem, the multi-county approach may be best. In some large
metropolitan areas where solid wastes problems cross juris-
dictional boundaries, councils of government may offer an
excellent vehicle to stimulate local officials to think, plan, and
act in broad terms of mutual problem areas and to encourage
jurisdictions to effect a mutually complementary system for
solid wastes management.
Sometimes special purpose governments must be used
because of state restrictions or because no other unit of gov-
ernment is possible. In such cases the district is preferred to
the public authority because the district embraces a distinct
constituency, not merely a group of absentee bondholders. If
a special purpose government must be used, it is better to
work through existing special purpose governments (where
possible) rather than to create new ones.
Jurisdictions can cooperate through various techniques:
by jointly performing some or all aspects of a solid wastes
management system; by contracting between cities and coun-
ties; and by transferring responsibility for a function from
one level of government to another. Through these and other
techniques, local governments can take advantage of econ-
omies of scale to implement an areawide solid wastes manage-
ment system.
8. Determine whether necessary legal authority has been
delegated by the state. If state enabling legislation is not adequate,
officials should do as much as possible within existing law and
decide what changes are needed. Then, they can work through
their state association of counties and other interested groups for
passage of comprehensive solid wastes state enabling legislation.
The legal basis for local governments to control solid
wastes management is state enabling law. Without this en-
abling authority, local governments cannot acquire land, de-
velop facilities, or spend public funds to regulate and control
solid wastes. To insure that local governments have the
necessary powers, legislation should allow political subdivi-
sions to manage wastes in coordination with other environ-
mental protection programs.
Home rule cities and counties must closely examine their
charters to be sure they have the authority to plan, regulate,
and operate a solid wastes management system.
State legislation should give local governments authority
to:
a] acquire land, buildings, and facilities by purchase,
lease, eminent domain, and donation;
bj plan and zone for solid wastes processing and disposal
sites;
how to proceed
The basketball court these boys are
using is constructed on top of a
California sanitary Jandfill, operated
with this end use already planned.
173
-------
Landscaping, road markers, and attractive,
informative signs greet incoming
vehicles at this scale entrance.
cj adopt and enforce necessary ordinances, rules, and
regulations;
dj use various sources of revenue such as bonds, taxes,
general appropriations, fees and service charges, and state
and federal assistance programs;
ej make intergovernmental agreements and contracts;
fj establish an agency to administer an areawide solid
wastes management system, if needed (the agency's duties
and responsibilities should be clearly delineated; and the
agency should be responsible to the elected officials of gen-
eral purpose units of government);
g) regulate private solid wastes operators through the
issuance of permits and licenses and the use of franchise or
contracts;
hj prohibit any type of environmental pollution.
9. Enact a comprehensive solid wastes management ordi-
nance.
Ordinances should not be encumbered with technical de-
tails which are likely to become outdated. Ordinances should
be conceptual in scope, flexible in methods, positive in direc-
tion, and prohibitive of any type of air, water, or land pol-
lution.
The ordinance should designate a local agency or agencies
to adopt and enforce standards, rules, and regulations; to
plan; and, if necessary, to operate a system. The effectiveness
of the program will depend on strong enforcement and effec-
tive public education.
10. Require that a solid wastes management plan be prepared
in coordination with the comprehensive plan for community de-
velopment.
Plans may be prepared by an interagency committee of in-
terested departments, by a single department, by a consultant,
or, by a combination of local departments and consultants.
The solid wastes management plan should include the
following:
a) statement of objectives;
b) data on population, land use, and existing storage, col-
lection, and disposal practices;
c) analysis of current and future solid wastes collection
and disposal needs, including information on the amounts,
location, and characteristics of solid wastes being generated
(the rate of solid wastes production is increasing each year
and must be considered in the plan);
d) consideration of the climate, topography, geology, and
related factors, with the technical assistance of any needed
specialists so that selected disposal facilities are not detri-
mental to the community's land, air, or water resources;
e) presentation and evaluation of feasible immediate and
long-range solutions.
11. To prepare the best possible plan and achieve imple-
mentation, elected officials should:
a) solicit cooperation on an areawide basis from city and
county planners, public works agencies, health officers, engi-
neers, other appropriate departments, and interested citizens;
174
-------
bj plan to inform the public about the need for a com-
prehensive solid wastes management program, and work to
stimulate public interest and support by building a record of
accomplishment through improvements in solid wastes man-
agement services while the long-range plan is still on the draw-
ing boards;
cj evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the pro-
posals recommended by the plan to decide which system is
best for the area;
dj provide leadership and initiative to insure acceptance
and implementation of the plan.
12. Decide what type of organization is needed and assign
operating responsibilities.
No one organizational pattern for solid wastes manage-
ment can be said to be best. Local conditions and custom will
determine whether a separate solid wastes department is
needed or whether an existing agency can be assigned re-
sponsibility for regulation, collection, processing, and disposal.
The solid wastes management agency must be responsible to
elected officials of general purpose governments. Regardless
of organization, the following functions must be performed:
policy making; public information; budgeting; planning and
review; drafting, adoption, and enforcement of standards; and
operation of the system.
The main criteria for determining what place a solid
wastes program should have in the organizational structure
of a local government are that the system be easily identified
by the public and that it be allocated ample funds, equipment,
and personnel. In a small county, one person may be re-
sponsible for almost all functions. In a large county, one or
more major departments may be necessary. The magnitude
of the solid wastes management program will guide the elected
governing board in determining whether a separate depart-
ment is needed.
13. Obtain the best objective technical advice on storage,
collection, processing, and disposal and decide which will best
meet local needs.
The following general criteria concerning operation
should be kept in mind.
• Wastes must be stored properly while they await col-
lection so they do not cause unsightliness, create odors, or
attract rats and flies.
• Collection must be organized so that it is accomplished
aesthetically, efficiently, and safely. This requires regulation
of storage containers, proper equipment, training of crews,
and proper routing, scheduling, and supervision.
• Disposal, whether by sanitary landfill alone or inciner-
ation and sanitary landfill, must be conducted according to the
highest operating standards so as not to pollute the environ-
ment and endanger public health.
• If collection and/or disposal operations are provided by
private industry, local government must still provide regula-
tion and uniformity to assure acceptable operation, good serv-
ice, and equitable treatment of private industry.
Contrast the entrance to this private
dump by Cumberland, Md., to the entrance
shown on the facing page. Is it any
wonder that residents of this area
might have negative attitudes about
solid waste and its control?
175
-------
Garbage cans line the street on
collection day in this city. As usual,
one homeowner outdoes himself for
the collection crews. Local governments
should see that regulations exist
to prevent such unsightliness.
14. Prepare a financial plan and capital budget so that both
immediate operating expenditures and long-range capital financing
needs are provided for.
Solid wastes management is an essential public service
which must be adequately financed. If the local government
decides to provide collection and disposal services, then it
faces the problem of financing the system. If private industry
provides the service, local government is still responsible for
regulating fees charged to customers.
Since the system must be financed within the constraints
of state laws and local charters, these should be thoroughly
examined during the planning process. Local governments can
finance the system through the following methods: taxes, bond
issues, loans, and/or service charges. The local capital im-
provement budget should schedule the financing of all neces-
sary solid wastes facilities and equipment.
If the solid wastes management system is operated on
an areawide basis, economies of operation will often benefit
each jurisdiction.
15. Find out what federal, state, and private technical and
financial assistance is available and take advantage of it.
Technical assistance from federal, state, and private
sources is available to local officials to develop or expand their
solid wastes management systems. On the federal level the
primary source of financial and technical assistance is the
Bureau of Solid Waste Management, Department of Health,
Education and Welfare. Imaginative use of assistance from
other federal agencies may provide help for local solid wastes
management.
Many states are beginning to provide technical assistance,
particularly in the planning field. At present only a few states
provide financial assistance.
The solid wastes industry, universities, professional so-
cieties, and private organizations also can provide information
and assistance.
16. Establish a record of accomplishment in solid wastes
management.
In solid wastes management, as in other local activities,
actions speak louder than words. Public support for good
solid wastes management should be engendered by making
immediate improvements in the existing program. During the
development of a detailed comprehensive solid wastes man-
agement plan, local government can involve organizations and
individuals through activities such as illicit dump cleanup, lit-
ter control, improved storage, and abandoned automobile re-
moval. Local officials may want to form a citizens advisory
committee.
17. Direct solid wastes management agencies to respond
quickly to all citizen complaints, and conduct a continuing educa-
tional program to inform the public about its rights and duties.
18. Use as many public information tools as possible to reach
citizens.
Among these tools are meetings at which slides and films
are shown; creation of events such as "go-see" trips; personal
176
-------
contact by telephone and door-to-door canvass; speakers bu-
reau; brochures and flyers; radio, TV, newspaper, and news-
letter coverage and announcements; and communications
media endorsement.
19. Employ a qualified administrator who can direct the solid
wastes management system from its earliest stages.
20. Establish a personnel system, if one does not exist. If
one exists, see that the personnel office works closely with the
solid wastes management agency.
The ability to attract and retain qualified employees is
essential to the success of a Jocal solid wastes management
system. Many local governments have invested thousands of
dollars in equipment, facilities, and sites but have not invested
in adequate salaries, wages, training, and benefits to attract
and retain competent administrators, engineers, foremen, and
manual workers. Solid wastes services are too costly to be
mismanaged by poor-quality personnel who get their jobs on
a patronage basis.
21. Recognize that recruitment for solid wastes jobs is diffi-
cult and take this into consideration when planning for recruitment,
training, and compensation.
Collection and disposal employees should be screened to
make certain they are qualified. Since it is difficult to find
qualified men, local governments should try new recruiting
methods and job training programs.
22. Require that all employees receive job training.
All workers should be carefully trained to perform their
jobs safely and efficiently. Solid wastes collection is one of
the most hazardous occupations, and local governments are
responsible for protecting their employees.
23. Establish procedures to review salaries, fringe benefits,
and working conditions.
Wages must be comparable to, or better than, those paid
for similar work in private or public agencies. Reasonable
fringe benefits, including hospitalization, retirement, and uni-
forms, should be provided.
24. Establish procedures to handle grievances and negotiate
contracts with labor unions or employee associations.
Elected governing board members should insure that em-
ployee complaints and suggestions are properly handled.
Local officials must also develop policies and procedures for
dealing with employee unions where they exist.
25. Choose qualified, experienced consultants.
In most local jurisdictions, government personnel with the
proper skills are not available, so consultants are needed to
assist solid wastes agencies.
what should state government do?
1. Provide comprehensive state enabling legislation to permit
counties to manage solid wastes in coordination with other en-
vironmental programs.
Water gathers in low spots of this
completed landfill because not enough pre-
planning on water and soil conditions
was done.
177
-------
Piles of junk mar the approach to this
ocean harbor, preventing it from
being the scenic and exciting delight
that many big harbors have become.
In most states comprehensive state legislation is urgently
needed as an initial step to permit establishment of solid
wastes management systems. This legislation must authorize
state and local action. State legislation must be broad and
conceptual in scope and allow rules, regulations, and mini-
mum statewide standards to be drawn up and enforced by
the responsible state agency.
2. Establish a state agency responsible for solid wastes man-
agement.
3. Prepare a statewide comprehensive solid wastes manage-
ment plan in consultation and coordination with local government.
4. Provide technical and financial assistance to local solid
wastes management programs.
5. Offer training to local government and private industry in
solid wastes management.
6. Permit and encourage cooperation among local govern-
ments in establishing areawide solid wastes management systems.
what should
the federal government do?
1. Continue financial and technical assistance to state and
local governments.
2. Conduct research on all aspects of solid wastes manage-
ment, including storage, collection, processing, recycling, and dis-
posal.
3. Promote national awareness of the necessity of maintain-
ing and improving the environment through proper solid wastes
management.
4. Encourage and publicize innovation in design and opera-
tion.
5. Provide training in solid wastes management.
6. Set an example for state and local governments by practic-
ing good solid wastes management in all federal installations.
national solid wastes
workshop participants
The participants in the National Solid Wastes Workshop held in
Williamsburg, Virginia, from September 8 through 10, 1968, were
very helpful in preparing these guides. They reviewed drafts of
the guides and suggested additions, deletions, and changes. The
following people participated in the National Solid Wastes Work-
shop.
John H. Abrahams, Jr., Manager, Environmental Pollution Control
Program, Glass Container Manufacturers Institute, Inc.,
Washington, D.C.
James H. Aldredge, Fulton County Commissioner, Atlanta, Geor-
gia; President, National Association of Counties
W. C. Anderson, Administrative Assistant, Metropolitan Inter-
County Council, St. Paul, Minnesota
Sal Armogida, Manager, Waste Disposal Services, San Mateo
County, California
178
-------
Ralph Barnes, Erie County Planning Commissioner, Buffalo, New
York
J. Howard Beard, M.D., Anne Arundel County Health Officer,
Annapolis, Maryland
Brady Black, Vice President and Editor, Cincinnati Enquirer,
Cincinnati, Ohio
R. J. Boccabella, Belmont County Engineer, St. Clarisville, Ohio;
President, National Association of County Engineers
Frank R. Bowerman, Assistant to Vice President—Development,
Aerojet-General Corporation, Environmental Systems Divi-
sion, El Monte, California
L. W. Bremser, Partner, Black and Veatch, Kansas City, Missouri
William C. Bucciarelli, Chief, Solid Wastes Program, Pennsylvania
State Department of Health, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Curtis O. Campman, Coordinator of Public Facilities, Montgomery
County, Norristown, Pennsylvania
William J. Conner, New Castle County Executive, Wilmington,
Delaware; Third Vice President, National Association of
Counties
F. Earl Corin, Placer County Treasurer, Auburn, California; Presi-
dent, National Association of County Treasurers and Finance
Officers
Evan Crossley, Washington County Commissioner, Hagerstown,
Maryland
R. W. Crozier, Executive Secretary, Committee on Solid Wastes
Management, National Academy of Sciences, Washington,
D.C.
Frank Cservenyak, Manager, Solid Wastes, Bureau of Mines, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
R. E. Dorer, Director, Bureau of Solid Wastes and Vector Control,
Virginia State Health Department, Norfolk, Virginia
Frank W. Dressier, Executive Director, Tocks Island Regional Ad-
visory Council, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania
R. W. Eldredge, Chief, Program Development, Bureau of Solid
Waste Management, U.S. Department of Health, Education
and Welfare, Cincinnati, Ohio
C. Howe Eller, M.D., St. Louis County Commissioner of Health,
Clayton, Missouri
Hayes Evans, Director, King County Sanitary Operations, Seattle,
Washington
Stuart Finley, Stuart Finley, Inc., Film Productions, Falls Church,
Virginia
William N. Gahr, Chief Engineer and Director—Engineering and
Sanitation, Colorado Department of Health, Denver, Colorado
John Garvey, Deputy Executive Director, National League of
Cities, Washington, D.C.
Harold Gershowitz, Executive Secretary, National Solid Wastes
Management Association, Washington, D.C.
John C. Gridley, Chairman, Chemung County Board of Super-
visors, Elmira, New York
Thomas H. Haga, Director-Coordinator, Genesee County Metro-
politan Planning Commission, Flint, Michigan
P. B. Hall, Director of Public Works, Alexandria, Virginia
Hill R. Healan, Executive Director, Association County Commis-
sioners of Georgia, Atlanta, Georgia
179
-------
H. Lanier Hickman, Jr., Chief, Technical Services, Bureau of Solid
Waste Management, U.S. Department of Health, Education
and Welfare, Rockville, Maryland
C. Ray Holbrook, Galveston County Judge, Galveston, Texas
Robert Janes, Chairman, Hennepin County Board of Commission-
ers, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Louis Johnston, City Manager, Petersburg, Virginia
Maurice Kamp, M.D., Director of Health, Mecklenburg County
Health Department, Charlotte, North Carolina
Fred B. Kellow, Chief, Environmental Health Planning Unit, Michi-
gan Department of Public Health, Lansing, Michigan
Donald M. Kerr, President, Eastern Land Reclamation Company,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Albert J. Klee, Chief, Operational Analysis, Bureau of Solid Waste
Management, U.S. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, Cincinnati, Ohio
Jack Lamping, Executive Vice President, New Jersey Association
of Chosen Freeholders, Trenton, New Jersey
Carol Lawson, Writer/Editor, Bureau of Solid Waste Management,
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Cincin-
nati, Ohio
Ron Linton, Chairman, Technical Assistance Committee, U.S.
Conference of City Health Officers, Washington, D.C.
Richard P. Lonergan, Chief, Demonstration Grants Activity, Bu-
reau of Solid Waste Management, U.S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, Cincinnati, Ohio
George Long, Executive Director, Virginia Association of Coun-
ties, Charlottesville, Virginia
James Martin, Assistant Director, National Governors' Conference,
Washington, D.C.
O. L. Meyer, Director of Environmental Health, DuPage County
Health Department, Wheaton, Illinois
John H. Mulroy, Onondaga County Executive, Syracuse, New
York
Clayton Nyberg, Washington County Commissioner, Hillsboro,
Oregon
William J. Phillips, Orange County Supervisor, Santa Ana, Cali-
fornia
Eugene L. Pollock, Editor and Publisher, Solid Wastes Manage-
ment, New York, New York
Marshall M. Rabins, Secretary-Treasurer, Universal By-Products,
Inc., Sun Valley, California
Boyd T. Riley, Chief, Processing Systems, Bureau of Solid Waste
Management, U.S. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, Cincinnati, Ohio
W. K. Rodman, Chief Sanitary Engineer, Federal Housing Admin-
istration, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment, Washington, D.C.
Peter A. Rogers, Chief, Solid Wastes Engineering Section, Cali-
fornia Department of Public Health, Berkeley, California
Robert St. Clair, San Mateo County Supervisor, Redwood City,
California
Robert G. Smith, Chairman, Department of Political Science, Drew
University, Madison, New Jersey
Wade Smith, Vice President, Municipal Service Division, Dun and
Bradstreet, Inc., New York, New York
180
-------
Paul M. Sullivan, Supervisory Chemical Engineer, Bureau of
Mines, U.S. Department of the Interior, College Park, Mary-
land
James Tipton, Jr., Executive Director, Tennessee County Services
Association, Nashville, Tennessee
Joseph E. Torrence, Director of Finance, Nashville-Davidson
County, Nashville, Tennessee
Leo Weaver, Manager, Institute for Solid Wastes, American Pub-
lic Works Association, Washington, D.C.
Joseph J. Weinstein, Director, Division of Environmental Services,
Maricopa County Health Department, Phoenix, Arizona
selected bibliography
Materials listed in this bibliography are recommended as additional
reading for laymen who are interested in learning more about a
particular aspect of solid wastes management or about related
subjects. Where an address is used more than once, it has been
omitted in the bibliography and placed in the section "Where to
Write for More Information."
Anderson, Desmond L. (ed.), Municipal Public Relations, Interna-
tional City Managers' Association, 1966. Price: $9.50.
The American County Platform, National Association of Counties,
August 3, 1967.
Automobile Disposal, A National Problem: Case Studies of Factors
that Influence the Accumulation of Automobile Scrap, Bureau
of Mines, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1967.
Batson, Eleanor (ed.), Municipal Personnel Administration, Sixth
Edition, International City Managers' Association, 1960. Price:
$9.50.
Bendixen, T. W., Review of the National Solid Wastes Program,
Bureau of Solid Waste Management, U.S. Department of
Health, Education and Welfare, 1967.
Black, R. J., Safe and Sanitary Home Re/use Storage, Public Health
Service Publication Number 183, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1968.
Calvert, Gordon L. (ed.), Fundamentals of Municipal Bonds, Invest-
ment Bankers Association of America, 425 13th Street, N.W..
Washington, D.C., 1967.
Carrell, Jeptha J. (ed.), Municipal Public Works Administration,
Fifth Edition, International City Managers' Association, 1957.
Price: $9.50.
Catalog of Federal Assistance Programs, Office of Economic Op-
portunity, Executive Office of the President, U.S. Government
Printing Office, June, 1967.
City Income Taxes, Tax Foundation, Inc., 50 Rockefeller Plaza,
New York, New York 10020, 1967. Price: $1.50.
Community Action Program for Air Pollution Control, National
Association of Counties Research Foundation, 1966.
Community Action Program for Water Pollution Control, National
Association of Counties Research Foundation, revised 1967.
Consulting Engineering, A Guide for the Engagement of Engineer-
ing Services, Manual Number 45, American Society of Civil
Engineers, April, 1964.
181
-------
Cummins, R. L., Effects of Land Disposal of Solid Wastes on Water
Quality, Bureau of Solid Waste Management, U.S. Department
of Health, Education and Welfare, 1968.
Demonstration Project Abstracts, Bureau of Solid Waste Manage-
ment, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, re-
printed 1968.
Demonstration Project Abstracts; Supplement A, Bureau of Solid
Waste Management, U.S. Department of Health, Education
and Welfare, 1967.
Ecke, Dean J. and Donald D. Linsdale, "Fly and Economic Evalua-
tion of Urban Refuse Systems, Part I Control of Green Blow
Flies (phaenicia) by Improved Methods of Residential Refuse
Storage and Collection," Vector Views, Department of Public
Health, Bureau of Vector Control, 2151 Berkeley Way, Berke-
ley, California, May, 1967.
Eldredge, R. W., "A Monumental Problem," Ohio's Health, 19(12):
10-15, Ohio Department of Health, Ohio Department's Build-
ing, Columbus, Ohio, December, 1967.
Experimental Composting Research and Development: Joint U.S.
Public Health Service—Tennessee Valley Authority Compost-
ing Project, Johnson City, Tennessee, Bureau of Solid Waste
Management, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Wel-
fare, 1968.
Getting Something Done: Political Effectiveness and Conferences
Techniques, League of Women Voters of the United States,
1968. Price: $.30.
[Gilbertson, W. E., R. J. Black, L. E. Crane, and P. L. Davis] Solid
Waste Handling in Metropolitan Areas, Public Health Service
Publication Number 1554, U.S. Government Printing Office,
1967.
Goodman, William I. (ed.), Principles and Practices of Urban Plan-
ning, International City Managers' Association, 1968. Price:
$12.50.
Grant Programs Under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, Bureau of
Solid Waste Management, U.S. Department of Health, Educa-
tion and Welfare, 1968.
Green/Screen, Institute of Scrap Iron and Steel, Inc.
Guide to County Organization and Management, National Associa-
tion of Counties, 1968. Price: $7.
A Handbook for Interlocal Agreements and Contracts, U.S. Ad-
visory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, U.S. Gov-
ernment Printing Office, March, 1967.
Handbook for Local Officials, Office of the Vice President, U.S.
Government Printing Office, November, 1967. Price: $2.
Hanks, T. G., Solid Waste/Disease Relationships; A Literature Sur-
vey, Public Health Service Publication Number 999-UIH-6,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967.
Hart, S. A., Solid Waste Management/Composting; European Ac-
tivity and American Potential, Public Health Service Publica-
tion Number 1596, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968.
Hart, S. A., Solid Wastes Management in Germany; Report of the
U.S. Study Team Visit, June 25—July 1967, Public Health
Service Publication Number 1812, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1968.
182
------- |