EPA/530/SW/150
MAY 1975
-------
An environmental protection publication in the solid waste management
series (SW-150). Mention of commercial products does not constitute
endorsement by the U.S. Government. Editing and technical content of
this report were accomplished by the Systems Management Division of the
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs.
Single copies of this publication are available from Solid Waste
Management Information Materials Distribution, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268.
-------
THE RELATIONSHIP OF SOLID WASTE STORAGE PRACTICES IN THE
INNER CITY TO THE INCIDENCE OF RAT INFESTATION
AND FIRES
by Robert M. Wolcott and Burnell W. Vincent*
Municipal solid waste occurs in such great volume and with such
objectionable qualities that it would be considered a major problem in
cities even if it were harmless to health and safety. But it often
is not. Unless solid waste is managed properly in an urban environ-
ment, rats, flies, and other vectors will multiply by feeding on it.
Improperly stored wastes invite fires and provide harborage for vermin.
Poisonous or toxic substances, broken glass, and flammable solvents
present daily threats to the lives of inner-city children.
While intuitively apparent, the relationship between solid waste
and many of these problems is not well documented. There is, however,
sufficient information to indicate the general extent of the relationship
between solid waste and the incidence of rat infestation and fires in
the inner city.
The Solid Waste-Fire Relationship
The storage of solid waste is afforded a relatively low priority
in domestic space allocation. In crowded inner-city situations, pro-
visions for storage are especially constrained, and all too frequently
the solid waste storage areas and facilities are little more than open
dumps. According to the District of Columbia fire department, solid
waste has been the cause or major contributing factor in roughly 50
percent of the fires reported in Washington (Table 1). After-action
reports filled out by the New York City firemen indicate that in both
residential and commercial premises, solid waste was significantly
contributory in 30 percent of the structural fires (Table 2) and
50 percent of all fires. Between 1970 and 1973, Cincinnati, Ohio,reduced
*Both authors serve with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Mr. Wolcott is an economist in EPA's Region IX, and Mr. Vincent is a
civil engineer with the Systems Management Division of EPA's Office
of Solid Waste Management Programs, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Envirrn^-nt-l Protection AgencSJJ
Region V, ; . '
230 Sout < : t
Chicago, lu.
-------
by 50 percent the number of fires recorded as originating in solid waste.
The fire departments have attributed this reduction to measures taken
as a result of a program of inspection and public education conducted
by fire prevention specialists.^
TABLE 1
SOLID WASTE-RELATED FIRES IN
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA*
Year Total fires Number % SW-related
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
10,925
10,786
10,403
9,168
9,705
5,288
5,321
5,139
4,294
4,850
48.4
49.3
49.4
46.8
50.0
*Annual reports. Washington, District of Columbia Fire Department,
1969 and following years.
During the Spring of 1973, the District of Columbia Fire Department
surveyed 4,674 properties within an inner-city corridor and found fire
hazards in 958 situations; two-thirds of the hazards concerned solid
waste accumulations and storage. A major problem noted in the survey
was the prevalence of abandoned buildings, many of which serve as
promiscuous dumps. The buildings in many cases are beyond refurbishing
and are in themselves "solid waste" requiring disposal. They are major
fire hazards, and the fires that start in them are especially dangerous
to fire fighters because of insecure steps, floors, and landings.
Environment,:,!
-------
TABLE 2*
STRUCTURAL FIRES AND PERCENT RUBBISH-RELATED,
NYC, 1972+
Borough
Building type
Manhattan
Total
Rub.Rel.
Percent
Bronx
Total
Rub.Rel.
Percent
Richmond
Total
Rub.Rel.
Percent
Brooklyn
Total
Rub.Rel.
Percent
Queens
Total
Rub.Rel.
Percent
New York City
Total
Rub.Rel.
Percent
Public
655
187
29
322
117
36
87
9
10
683
262
38
307
63
21
2054
638
31
Commercial
1581
520
33
910
364
40
224
36
25
2209
891
40
1207
312
26
6131
2143
35
Residential
10260
2934
29
9788
3396
35
825
157
19
11683
3388
30
4233
685
16
36789
10560
29
Total
12496
3641
29
11020
3877
35
1136
222
20
14575
4541
31
5757
1060
18
44974
13341
30
*In reporting on the contributory role of rubbish in each fire,
inspectors noted whether it was "significant," "not significant,"
or "unknown." The 6 percent of cases reported as unknown are excluded
from this table.
+Annual statistics, New York, Fire Department of the City of New York.
3
-------
Solid waste is flammable and therefore potentially hazardous.
Yet its storage is typically a function of the availability of marginal
and low-priority space. The inner city is, of its nature, poor in
spatial resources. The high population density is accommodated by
subdividing the dwelling units, but the space for refuse storage
is seldom multiplied in proportion. Comparisons among the five boroughs
of New York" illustrate this point (Table 2). The population densities which
exist in dwelling-unit structures in Staten Island and Queens are
closer to the densities which the buildings were originally designed
to accommodate. Under the conditions of superimposed densities in the
older boroughs, one in three structural fires are caused or appreciably
spread by stored solid waste, while the ratio is "only" one in five
fires in Queens or Staten Island.
Table 3, which also applies to New York City, shows the total number
of fires and the number of fires in three solid waste-related categories.
The nonstructural rubbish fires in Table 3 and the structural, rubbish-
related fires of Table 2 are additive, but vacant buildings in Table 3
are included in Table 2.
TABLE 3
NONSTRUCTURAL, RUBBISH-RELATED
FIRES, NEW YORK CITY, 1965-1972*
Total
Year fires
1965 85,592
1966 90,290
1967 91,161
1968 127,826
1969 126,204
1970 127,249
1971 125,306
1972 119,297
Nonstructural
(number)
25,148
28,178
30,821
51,350
47,006
48,669
45,669
40,740
Rubbish
(%)
29.3
31.2
33.8
40.1
27.3
38.2
36.4
34.1
Vacant or
fires Abandoned abandoned
automobiles buildings
2525
3107
3612
6027
6320
6712
6664
5945
*Annual statistics.
New York.
New York, Fire Department of the City of
-------
Each year, a million building fires occur in the United States,
resulting in 12,000 deaths.^ Data on fire-caused injuries or amount
of property loss are not available for inner-city areas; but according
to the National Commission on Fire Protection and Control, fires
cause $3.7 billion in direct property losses each year for the nation
as a whole. The total annual fire bill is $12.4 billion, including
a $2.5 billion fire-fighting budget, $1 billion for burn injury treatment,
$3.3 billion in productivity losses and $1.9 billion for fire insurance
costs. This figure does not include such costs as those for the over-
sizing of water mains by a factor of six or seven, or for fire design
in buildings. Fires consume enormous amounts of clean water, and it is
estimated that 37 million gallons of fuel are used each year in fighting
urban fires. If one in three inner-city structural fires is of solid
waste origin, and this seems a reasonable calculation based on the data
from the District of Columbia and New York City fire departments, then
it can be estimated that poor solid waste storage practices could
conceivably be responsible for the loss of approximately $500 million in
personal property and as many as 3,500 lives annually.
The Solid Haste-Rat Relationship
The supportable population of rats is limited only by the availability
of food, harborage, and water. The average female, during her first
year of life, will raise four to seven litters of eight to 12 rats.
Twenty of these ordinarily live to be weaned. The biological potential
for reaching saturation levels is so great that poisoning, trapping,
and other extermination measures seldom depress populations for more than
six months in urban settings. Lack of adequate water supply is a
limiting factor for rats only in the most arid climates. Availability
of harborage is seldom a limiting factor in inner cities, unless it is
conscientiously eliminated. Food, then, remains a primary determinant
of the supportable population. One ounce of food (dry weight) and
1 ounce of water make up the rat's daily requirements.°
The primary inner-city locations of food supplies include solid
waste storage and collection points, vacant lots and abandoned buildings
with accumulated debris, sanitary sewers, and domestic and commercial
food storage. Fach of these supplies is much more readily available in
the inner city. Three factors influencing the accessibility of solid waste
are population densities, per capita generation increases, and a
"trickle down" theory applicable to appliances and furniture. As noted
in the discussion on fires, the population densities prevalent in inner-
city situations are higher than original building design capacities.
These high densities have been accommodated by subdivision of living
quarters, with concomitant, increased burdens on such utility spaces as
solid waste storage areas. Per capita solid waste generation rate
increases, particularly since the 1950's, have compounded this situation.
-------
The nature of inner-city wastes is influenced by the fact that low
income consumers are typically the last users of furniture and appliances,
that many of these items therefore end up abandoned, and that a dis-
proportionately larger number of bulky items are available for rodent
harborage.
Large metropolitan areas consistently report about 10 rat bites
per 1,000,000 persons. Unreported bites are generally considered to
occur at two to three times that rate.9 Typically, bites are incurred
by the very young and the very old and are most likely to occur when
the rat population is at saturation levels and food is the controlling
factor.10 Of the estimated 45,000 cases of rat bite that occur each
•y>
ity
year in this country, approximately one-third are suffered by the
30 million inner-city Americans.^
Destruction of food by rats has been roughly estimated to cost
$1 billion per year (a figure often quoted, but of obscure derivation)
or between $1 and $10 per rat per year. The amount of rat-contaminated
food we unknowingly consume, with concomitant disease exposure, is
estimated to be much greater than the amounts destroyed.
Much of the damage is agricultural, of course, but there is also
considerable damage to stored food supplies of inner-city residents.
Rats are extremely agile and can gain entrance through openings as
small as one-half inch wide. They can jump 4 feet horizontally, 3
feet up, and 50 feet down." They can gnaw through wood (in fact, they
must do some gnawing each day in order to keep their teeth short enough
to use). Thus it requires extremely rigorous application of control
measures to prevent rat entry even in well maintained structures. Grain,
cereal, and bread in paper or cardboard packaging are particularly
attractive, and in rat infested areas it is not uncommon for families
to experience damages amounting to $1 to $3 per week, or $1-50 per year.12
Restaurants and grocery stores are similarly plagued. In Cincinnati
alone, the annual economic loss due to destruction of food was set at
$4 million following a rat population explosion in 1950.. when the
number of rats was estimated, to be well over a million.
Many of the diseases which have historically been transmitted to
humans by rats and their parasites have been effectively controlled
through medical technology.14 However, leptospirosis, rat bite fever,
salmonellosis and murine typhus still occur, in the aggregate, at a
rate of about 6,000 cases per year in the United States.'3 Leptospiral
infection may be considered an almost normal condition in the urban
rat; most are carriers but suffer no observable ill effect from the
disease. Rat bite fever and salmonellosis likewise are commonly
harbored in rats, which are efficient vectors of both diseases
because of their proximity to man and his food.'^ Plague and murine
typhus are also carried by rats, but the vectors are their ectoparasites--
mites, fleas, and lice. Some cases of dermatitis may also be attributed
to the ectoparasites of rats.
-------
Rat population estimates vary widely, but the literature commonly
suggests that assuming one rat per person gives a fair indication of the
rat population in the United States. '° For the 30 million Americans
residing in the inner cities, however, there are an estimated 50 million
rats. 1' Ratios as high as 10 rats per person have been reported. '3
Two indicators of infestation that seem more meaningful are the percentage
of premises with active exterior rat signs and, citywide, the percentage
of blocks with rat infestation.
Urban rats seem to prefer a commuting distance of less than 100
to 150 feet to food sources. This being so, reductions in local access
to food or harborage will tend to cause migration from the immediate
area. Older sewerage and combined storm-sanitary sewerage provide
harborage, pathway, and food supply which will affect the impact of
rat programs which rely on upgrading solid waste storage practices.
Undoubtedly such unseen factors contribute to the wide variations in
the effect that improvement of storage practices has on rat infestation
levels (Table 4).
The Urban Rat Control Program, now administered by the Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare's Community Environmental Management
Activities in the Bureau of State Services, Center for Disease Control
(CDC), does attempt, as part of its comprehensive rat program, to reduce
food access by upgrading inner-city solid waste storage practices.
Data from this program indicate that population suppression is generally
associated with upgrading storage practices (Table 4), but that the
relationship is not clear and simple. Besides garbage and sewage, rats
are supported by domestic and commercial storage areas and by kitchens
and food preparation areas. Still, improperly stored wastes seem to
be the primary source of food for rats in the inner city. According
to the U.S. Public Health Service Reports, an estimated 65 percent of the
job of community rat control can be accomplished through improving
solid waste storage practices. ia
The HEW data were collected by CDC personnel from twenty locally
directed, Federally aided projects. More than 4.3 million persons live
in the target areas of the programs; 13,000 premises were surveyed.
Annual program funding included about $15 million in Federal grants
plus $5 million in local funds. '"
The Washington, D.C., War on Rats Program, a CDC grantee, also
surveyed 500 randomly selected blocks outside their target area in
1971; of these, 59 percent were found to be infected. 2C) Of the 355
blocks found to have few or no sanitation problems, only 19 percent
had rat infestations; of the 145 blocks that had a moderate or large
number of sanitation problems, 88 percent had rat infestations.
-------
TABLE 4
URBAN RAT CONTROL PROGRAM DATA
City
Premises with Active
Exterior Rat Signs (%)
Premises with Unapproved
Refuse Storage (%)
Atlanta
Baltimore
Buffalo
Charlotte
Chicago
Cleveland
Hoboken
Milwaukee
Nashville
Newark
New York
Norfolk
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Poughkeepsie
Rochester
St. Louis
Seattle
Trenton
Washington
Pride Inc.
War on Rats
1969
26
20
18
23
11
41
5
13
22
19
8
5
19
11
9
30
19
18
1.3
27
48
1970
25
13
5
8
13
22
2
5
12
12
18
1
4
7
3
12
14
4
0.6
32
18
1971
16
18
4
8
13
25
6
1
14
14
8
0.5
3
5
0.5
7
4
3
0.5
12
12
1972
17
12
2
0.1
13
31
0.7
0.1
12
6
8
0.2
4
4
3
11
13
3
0.6
17
9
1969
66
64
56
70
88
67
44
53
58
63
70
63
67
56
46
59
62
47
64
54
80
1970
68
51
48
58
93
55
42
72
44
65
73
36
31
78
57
55
61
41
47
65
67
1971
45
42
47
53
87
62
32
33
31
75
50
31
39
76
41
53
47
41
33
43
50
1972
48
33
39
32
87
55
44
33
30
57
44
18
34
79
34
63
55
41
28
54
56
The percentage of residential blocks infested was triple the percentages of
predominantly commercial or predominantly vacant blocks infested. In the
1971 survey, 72 percent of the blocks defined by the program as inner city
were infested while only 22 percent of the remaining blocks were infested.
The 1973 survey indicates that infestation of the inner-city blocks had
been reduced to 42 percent. The administrators of the program say that they
feel this reduction has been achieved principally through improved solid
waste management practices and public education. The use?of plastic bags
was considered to be a major contribution to the program.
-------
In New York City, a rat control program initiated in 1969 has
dramatically reduced the incidence of rat bites in five selected
ghetto areas (Table 5).
TABLE 5
REPORTED RAT BITES, SELECTED
INNER-CITY AREAS OF NEW YORK CITY*
Year Frequency
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
401
364
301
246
186
*Department of Rodent Control, City of New York. Unpublished
data.
The program included poisoning, sealing of potential harborage as
well as improving refuse storage practices, and educating the public.
The use of plastic bags has been encouraged and found to reduce
accessibility. Four of the areas were provided five-day-a-week
refuse collection; the director of the rat control program reports
that this policy has been the crucial factor in dramatically reducing
infestation.
The City of Milwaukee has installed a computerized system by which
the field staff note the location of abandoned autos and appliances
on survey sheets which are then fed into the computer. The infor-
mation rs passed on to the appropriate city agencies responsible for
removing the items. This program has removed potential harborage and
reduced rat infestations by up to 50 percent. '^
Since upgrading of solid waste storage practices should have the
concomitant effects of reduced rat infestation and reduced fire
incidence, attempts were made to locate data for a particular area by
relating fire department statistics with rat program efforts and vice
-------
versa. Incompatible time intervals or geographic boundaries frustrated many
attempts, but in Seattle's Eighth Census Tract, fire data are available
for the period in which a rat control program was conducted (Table 6).
The program was begun in late 1969, and, after an intensive "clean
sweep" in early 1970, the area has been consistently maintained. The
program includes removal of abandoned sheds, cleanup of vacant lots,
block cleanup campaigns, etc. (The precipitous decline in the number
of fires from 1969 to 1970 may have been exaggerated by a period of
racial violence in Seattle in 1969; the summer of 1973 was a period of
drought, contributing to the increase in nonstructural fires for that
year.) No other inter-program correlations were readily available as
of this writing, but the attempt would be worthwhile for any city
interested in evaluating the potential to reduce both rat and fire
problems.
TABLE 6
THE INCIDENCE OF FIRE IN CENSUS TRACT 8, SEATTLE
DURING PERIOD OF RAT CONTROL PROGRAM
Number of Number of Non-
Year Structural Fires structural Fires
1968 45 43
1969 62 49
1970 31 32
1971 31 19
1973 27 42
Conclusion
Among the benefits that improved solid waste storage can have in the
inner cities are significant reductions in the high rates of rat infesta-
tion and fires. Some of the problems that often interfere with such
improvement are quite difficult to solve since they are aspects of
poverty, the economics of housing, or a lack of awareness among tenants
and landlords. Concerted action by several of a city's departments on a
three-point program is needed to achieve lasting effects: (1) improvements
10
-------
in waste collection, including increased collection frequencies; (2)
improved provisions for storage, whether by enforcement tactics or by
municipally supplying the containers; (3) an active public education
program with special measures for the special needs of the residents.
In any case, as cities examine their range of problems in the course
of program planning, the effects that poor waste storage may be causing
in their inner-city areas clearly deserve consideration.
11
-------
References
1. Annual report, 1973. Cincinnati., Cincinnati Fire
Division, 1974.
2. Personal communication. B. A. Lugananni, Cincinnati
Fire Division, to B. W. Vincent, Office of
Solid Waste Management Programs, March 29, 1974.
3. District of Columbia Fire Department. Unpublished
data, 1973.
4. Personal communication. J. Ottoson, National
Fire Protection Association, to B. W. Vincent,
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs,
March 20, 1974.
5. National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control.
America burning; the report of the National
Commission on Fire Prevention and Control.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office,
[1973]. 177 p.
6. Bjornson, B. F., H. D. Pratt, and K. S. Littig.
Control of domestic rats & mice. Public Health
Service Publication No. 563. Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1970. 41 p. (Rodent
control series.)
7. Urban rat control. Public Works, 100(3):93-95,
Mar. 1969.
8. Calhoun, J. B. The ecology and sociology of the
Norway rat. [Public Health Service Publication
No. 1008. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1963]. 288 p.
9. Clinton, J. M. Rats in urban America. Public
Health Reports, 84(l):l-7, Jan. 1969.
10. Holland, W. More than killing rats. HSMHS
[Health Services & Mental Health Administration]
World, 7(2):8-9, Mar.-Apr. 1972.
11. Clinton, J. M. Rat bite. Atlanta, Ga., U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
1969. (Unpublished report.)
12
-------
12. Personal communication. H. F. Davis, Jr., Center
for Disease Control, Atlanta, Ga., Mar. 19, 1974.
13. Silverman, J. America's war on rats. Journal of
Hous_ut£, 29(7):328-334, Aug. 1972.
14. Scott, H. G. Rodent-borne disease control through rodent
stoppage. Pest Control, 31(8):30-46, Aug. 1963;
31(9):18-28, Sept. 1963
15. Hobson, W. D., Jr. Solid waste practices in low-income
areas. M.S. Thesis, University of Cincinnati,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1967.
16. Scott, H. G. Rat bite; epidemiology and control.
Journal of Environmental Health, 27, (6):900-902,
May-June 1965.
17. Urban rat control; 1969-1971 status report.
[Rockville, Md.], U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, [1972]. 28 p.
18. Johnson, W. H. Sanitation in the control of
insect and rodents of public health importance.
[Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Publication no. 72-8138]. Atlanta, Ga., U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
1959. 45 p.
19. Brown, R. Z. Biological factors in domestic
rodent control. [Public Health Service Publication
No. 773. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office], 1960. 32 p. (Rodent Control Series:
Part II).
20. War on rats; 1972 progress report. Washington,
District of Columbia Government, 1972. 23 p.
21. Personal communication. W. Childress, District
of Columbia Government War on Rats Program,
to B. R. Weddle, Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs, Dec. 11, 1973.
22. Personal communication. R. Dupree, Director,
Bureau of Pest Control, New York City, to
R. Wolcott, Jan. 16, 1974.
13
-------
23. Personal communications. T. L. Hughes, Seattle
Fire Department, and W. Swofford, Project
Coordinator, Seattle-King County Health
Department, to B. W. Vincent, Office of
Solid Waste Management Programs, Mar. 14, 1974.
yo!099b
14
------- |