-------
                             REFERENCES

1.  Ernst & Ernst, 1968, A Rapid Cost Estimating Method for Air Pollution
    Control Equipment:  Rept. to U.S. Public Health Service,  Contract No.
    PH 86-68-37, 41  p.

2.  Engdahl, Richard B.,  1968, Stationary Combustion Sources:  Chapter 32
    in Air Pollution,  Vol.  Ill,  ed. Stern,  Arthur C., New York, Academic
    Press,  866 p.

3.  Cross,  Frank L.  , Jr., 1972,  Planning Incineration Without Air Pollution;
    Pollution Engineering 4_ (4), p. 48-49

4.  Stern,  Arthur C., 1968, Efficiency, Application and Selection of Collectors:
    in Air Pollution.  Vol.  Ill,  Ed. Stern, Arthur C., New York,  Academic Press,
    866 p.

5.  Kerbec, Matthew J. , 1971, Your Government and the  Environment,  An
    Annual Reference:  Vol.  I, Arlington,  Va.,  Output Systems Corp.

6.  Lesher, Douglas, 1972,  Personal Communication;  Unpublished data com-
    piled by Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Harrisburg

7.  Lund, Herbert F.,  1971,  Industrial Pollution Control Handbook:  New York,
    McGraw-Hill

8.  Mueller, James H., 1971, Cost Comparison for Burning Fumes and Odors;
    Pollution Engineering _3 (6), p. 18-20

9.  First,  Melvin W., 1968,  Process and System Control: in Air Pollution,
    Vol. Ill, ed.  Stern,  Arthur C. ,  New York,  Academic  Press,  866 p.
                                  -384-

-------
           SOLID WASTES HANDLING AND DISPOSAL COSTS

                        TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                Page No.

Collection and Transportation                                       387

Disposal Methods                                                   388

Open and  Covered Dumping                                         389

Sanitary Landfills                                                  389

Incineration                                                        390

Composting                                                        394

Experimental Solid Waste Disposal and Recovery Techniques         396

Pyrolysis                                                          396

Biological Fractionation                                            396

Recycling                                                          396

References                                                         398

                           LIST OF TABLES

1.  Cost of Compacted Waste Transported in Containers -
    Vermont                                                        388

2.  Principal Components of a Municipal Incinerator and
    Costs  - New York City                                          392

                           LIST OF FIGURES

1.  Sanitary Landfill Operating Costs                                391

2.  Capital Costs of Municipal Incinerators                          393

3.  Capital Costs of Compost Systems                                395

4.  Operating Costs for Compost Systems                            395
                                  -385-

-------

-------
            SOLID WASTES HANDLING AND DISPOSAL COSTS

        The primary purpose of this  section is  to analyze presently available
solid waste handling and disposal techniques and determine unit costs for each
such technique discussed.  The study is  intended to provide information neces-
sary to evaluate  the cost of solid waste management remedial programs in the
Monongahela River Basin.  Although many of the cost analyses given are de-
veloped for areas other than the Monongahela River Basin, the capital and
operating cost figures are  applicable to the region with the exception of land
acquisition requirements and labor costs which may be unique to the particular
area reported.

       Solid waste management involves the following elements:  collection and
transportation, processing and ultimate  disposal.

Collection and Transportation

       In urban and suburban areas, the most common methods of collection
include municipal collection, contract  with a private firm and private col-
lection service.  In any case,  refuse is normally collected in a compactor
truck which transports the  wastes to either the processing and disposal site
or to a central transfer station.  Toftner and Clark' ' recommend the use of
transfer stations and size reduction  techniques to reduce costs when long hauls
are necessary or when large areas are serviced.  Another study by Kramer^)
suggests the use  of transfer stations if the disposal facility is more than ten
miles  from the collection area.  Kramer lists  advantages of  transfer stations
as:  1) reduced cost of transportation;  2) more efficient use of collector  trucks;
3) modest  capital cost; and 4) reduced  vehicle requirement.  The capital costs
for such a station including one tractor and two trailers  is  given as $1, 620 per
ton per day capacity.  Estimated operating costs for a 15 mile haul using a
transfer station are given as $0. 17 to $0.27 per ton-mile while the cost  of
packer truck hauling over the same distance is estimated as  $0. 18 to $0.40
per ton-mile.

       In rural areas,  collection and disposal  are more difficult and more
costly than in urban and suburban areas.  Inadequate collection services in
rural areas lead  to unsightly dumping or open burning of  refuse.  In areas
of Pennsylvania infrequent  or nonexistant collection services have led to the
infestation of the State with over 2,600 roadside dumps and allowance of open
burning of domestic refuse in many municipalities  (Toftner and Clark^ ').
Andres and Cope'^) recommend a system of containerized storage and trans-
fer for rural areas.  The stated goal is to eliminate several  existing dumps
by promoting individual refuse disposal in 8 to 40 cubic yard containers placed
at central locations and  transfer of the containerized waste to a single cen-
trally  located sanitary landfill weekly.   The annual cost per ton including
amortization for  containers and transfer to landfills was  estimated to range
from $13. 63 to $17. 89 as compared to  a $17. 39 annual cost for operation and
maintenance of individual community modified  sanitary landfills.   A similar
                                   -387-

-------
study was conducted in Vermont (Cacioppi,  et al. ^  ').  Costs were estimated
on the basis of the number of cubic yards of compacted waste transported to
sites  various distances from the collection point in 35 cubic yard containers.
Compactor and container leasing costs were estimated at $235 per month,  and
the charge for disposal at $25 per  container.  An average of one hour travel
time for 30 miles and a time of one-half hour  for unloading was assumed.  On
the basis  of 500 pounds per cubic yard compacted,  a cost per container load
is given.  For this study  the costs  have been converted to a cost per ton of
compacted waste.  The data is reproduced in Table  1.

                                TABLE  1
Container Site
Distance from
Disposal Site
(Miles)
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
Cost/Ton
Times Per
1
10.23
10.43
10.64
10.85
11.05
11.26
11.47
11.67
11.87
12.08
@ 8.75 Ton per
Container
Week Containers Emptied
2 3
6.67
6.88
7.09
7.29
7.50
7.71
7.98
8. 11
8.32
8.53
5.64
5.88
6.05
6.26
6.48
6.67
6.88
7.08
7.29
7.49
       Source:  Solid Waste Section, Environmental Protection Division
                Agency of Environmental Conservation, State  of Vermont
                in Cacioppi et al.,  1970(4)

       The data may be extrapolated to greater distances  at a rate of $0. 07
per ton-mile.  The report states that the  containerization system is highly
suitable for rural areas and small communities and is  sanitary, flexible and
economic.

Disposal Methods

       The conventional solid waste disposal methods include  open dumping,
sanitary landfill, incineration and composting.  Some advanced disposal and
recovery  or recycling techniques are also known, such as pyrolysis, biologi-
cal fractionation,  and various separation processes; however, most of these
techniques are still in the experimental stage.
                                   -388-

-------
Open and Covered Dumping

        Open dumping is the most common method of solid waste disposal in
some areas of the United States, although it is  by far the least desirable
method.  No direct cost figures are available for open dumping;  however, the
intangible costs  of unsanitary conditions, ground and surface water pollution,
air pollution, insect and rodent problems, and  aesthetic degradation may be
associated with this method.

        Covered  dumping is similar to open dumping except that the refuse is
periodically covered with soil.  The disadvantages of covered dumping are
the same as  those mentioned for open dumping.  Vermont has estimated costs
for closing and sealing dumping sites to be $8, 000 per acre (Cacioppi, et al.' ').

Sanitary Landfills

        Sanitary  landfill techniques are the most practical and economical
methods of solid waste disposal in many areas.  Two basic methods of sani-
tary landfill exist, trench fill and area fill.  The area landfill involves the
filling of large low-lying areas with cells of refuse compacted and covered
with soil at regular intervals.  The trench method involves excavation of
trenches,  filling with refuse and recovering the trenches with soil.  The soil
cover should be  two feet deep over the refuse cells (Golueke(^)).  The refuse
layers  should not exceed five to six feet in depth and should be compacted be-
fore being covered.

        In several areas of the anthracite and bituminous coal regions  of Appa-
lachia,  abandoned strip mines are  used for sanitary landfills.  The use of
strip mines not only solves local solid waste disposal problems,  but may also
lead to  restoration of the strip mine areas.  Emrich and Landon(") investigated
five strip mine landfill sites in Western Pennsylvania.  They found little or no
ground  or  surface water pollution where care is taken to avoid permeable or
fractured rock.

        For either the area fill or trench fill method equipment requirements
range from a single crawler tractor with dozer blade  or bullclaw attachment
for smaller operations to one bulldozer, compacting equipment,  water trucks
and earth movers for  larger sanitary landfills.   One bulldozer of the 4, 700
pound gross weight size will handle 250 tons of  solid waste per day (Golueke^)).

        Sanitary landfill costs will depend on the population served, size of the
landfill, and  the  equipment required.  Initial investments are variable depend-
ing on the price of the property acquired.  The  initial land costs  may be par-
tially or completely offset by restoration of the  completed landfill for develop-
ment purposes.  Operating costs are more definable,  and several costs of
operation are given in the literature.  Kramer(^) gives  operating costs of $1.65
to $2. 10 per  ton  for a 300 acre site handling 96, 000 to 150, 000 tons per year.
In Vermont,  sanitary landfill operation costs are estimated to range from
                                   -389-

-------
$0.60 to $3.00 per ton depending on the amount of waste to be disposed (Cacioppi,
et al. v'*) Ralph Stone and Company^'' gives costs of $1.50 per ton for sanitary
landfill disposal.  Sorg and Hickman(°) have stated that wages  account for 40 to
50 percent of costs; equipment, 30 percent; and cover material,  administration
and overhead,  20 percent.  Operating costs developed by Sorg  and Hickman are
presented in Figure 1.

Incineration
       Modern incineration involves controlled burning of solid wastes in a
closed vessel at high temperatures.  The solid waste may be batch fed or con-
tinuously fed onto agitating grates where primary combustion occurs.  Ashes
and noncombustables are fed into hoppers  for disposal.  The smoke,  exhaust
gases and fly ash are directed into a secondary combustion chamber  where they
are burned at temperatures of 1,500 to  1, 800 degrees F (Flower(9)).  The gases
then flow through settling chambers for  removal of heavy particulates and then
through various gas cleaning devices to  the exhaust stack.

       Incineration reduces the volume  of waste to be disposed of to  10 to 30
percent of its original volume  (Engdahl(lO)).  ^he  residues may be landfilled
directly  or separated by mechanical and/or magnetic devices for recovery of
ferrous metals and glass. Gilbertson and Black'*M have found landfill or ash
residues to  cost approximately $1.00 per ton.

       Gouleke(S) has listed equipment  needed for incineration of municipal
solid waste.  A storage pit or  hopper holding an amount equal to 24 hours of
burning capacity  is needed for receiving and storing refuse. A bridge  crane,
a charging hopper, a feeding and drying stoker and a burning stoker are needed
for charging the incinerator.   The  incinerator should have primary and second-
ary combustion chambers lined with refractory materials and various gas clean-
ing chambers,  flues and dampers.   Ash hoppers and conveyors must be provided
for removal of residues.   Various  instrumentation for temperature measure-
ment, draft gaging and stack gas monitoring should also be provided.   Finally,
a landfill site is necessary for disposal  of the incinerator residues.

       Michaels^   ' in 1956 reported the capital costs of municipal incinerators
to range  from $3, 000 to $4, 000 per ton  of 24  hour  capacity with buildings account-
ing for 40 to 76 percent,  furnaces and auxilary equipment accounting for  18 to
24 percent and stacks  accounting for 4.5 to 11 percent of the total capital cost.
More recently, Cacioppi,  et al., 1970(4) reported capital costs to range  from
$8, 000 to $11, 000 per ton of 24 hour capacity.

       Greeley(13) listed the  capital costs  of municipal incinerators  for New
York City by component.   These unit capital costs are reproduced in Table 2.
                                   -390-

-------
                           FIGURE I

            SANITARY  LANDFILL  OPERATING  COSTS
   4.00
   3.00
o

g  2.00
CL
O
o
    1.00
      0
               100,000    200,000   300,000   400,000   500,000

                           TONS  PER YEAR
        Reproduced From "Sanitary Landfill Facts"
        Thomas J. Sorg and H. Lanier Hickman, Jr 1970
        PHS Publication No. 1792
                            -391-

-------
                                TABLE 2

              PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS OF A MUNICIPAL
                      INCINERATOR AND COSTS
                                                     Unit Cost Per Ton
                      Item                           Of Rated Capacity

Scales, roadways,  dumping rail and enclosing wall          $   100

Storage bin                                                   200

Cranes                                                       225

Flues and fly ash removal facilities                            400

Chimneys                                                     300

Furnaces                                                   1,200

Inside  Flues                                                   85

Building and enclosure                                      1,415

Miscellaneous                                              	75_

       Total                                               $4, 000
Source:  Greeley, S. A., "Background of Design Criteria for Municipal
         Incinerators - The Designer's View," JAPCA 6(3)133-9, 1956.

       Further,  Drobny, et al.(14) give  total capital costs of various sizes of
municipal incinerators  based on conventional engineering estimating factors.
A portion of their data  is reproduced in Figure 2 for construction of inciner-
ators with conventional refractory and no waste heat recovery.

       Operating costs for municipal incinerators are highly variable and
primarily related to the size capacity of the units and the percent of capacity
use per day.  Several authors have reported  operating costs for  municipal
incinerators.   Rogusv-'1-') reporting on large incinerators of approximately
1, 000 ton per day capacity in New York found costs to vary from $4.78 per
ton for older plants to $2. 39 per ton for newer design plants. Gilbertson and
Black(H) found operating costs to average $3.00 per ton in the Washington,
D.  C.  area.  The Committe on Refuse Disposal, APWA(16) reported unit costs
for municipal incineration in six major U.S.  cities to range  from $2.28 to
$6.49 per ton on a 1959 base.  A unit cost of $8.53 per ton including the cost
of disposal of ash and inerts was  estimated for incineration by the City of
                                   -392-

-------
co
cc
   8
J  7





fe  6

co


3  5
8
Q_

<

O
    0
                             FIGURE 2



            CAPITAL COSTS  OF MUNICIPAL INCINERATORS
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
                        CAPACITY-TONS PER DAY
      From Drobny, N. L et a I. Recovery and Utilization of Municipal Waste  US. EPA 1971
                               -393-

-------
Santa Clara, California (Ralph Stone and Company^'').  Golueke^  ' found incin-
eration costs to vary from $4.00 to $12.00 excluding pollution control devices
in the Oakland,  California area.  Unit costs estimated by Kramer(^) ranged
from $6.50 to $8.40 per ton for  two 300 ton per day capacity incinerators for
Clark County, Ohio.  Costs  for incineration in the  state of Vermont were esti-
mated  to range from $7. 00 to  $11. 00  per ton (Cacioppi,  et al. (4)).

Composting

       Composting, presently more common to Europe than to the United States,
is a biological digestion process whereby the organic components of refuse are
degraded  into a humus-like product.  The process  involves the screening of
refuse to  remove nonorganic materials and biological oxidation of the  remaining
organics for a period of two to five weeks.  The cured compost may be used  as
a soil conditioner,  but  because its nutrient content is low, it does not  make a
good fertilizer.

       In the United States composting has not been too attractive because it is
not economically competitive with other disposal methods and because no major
United States markets have yet developed for compost.  Additionally,  since the
bulk of solid waste is produced in large urban areas and compost would be util-
ized in rural areas, the transportation costs to move large volumes  long dis-
tances would often  be prohibitive.

       Estimated costs for composting operations  in Vermont were estimated
to average as high  as $8. 00  per  ton.  A composting demonstration plant in
Gainesville, Florida had operating costs of $6.25 per ton.  Goleuke^  ' gives
estimated operating costs for  composting of $7.00  to $8.50 per ton to  serve a
population equivalent of 100,000. Kramer'  ' estimates compost costs to range
from $7. 00 to $8. 00 per ton of solid waste. Engdahl^10) reported on pilot
studies on composting municipal garbage at San Diego, California.  Costs  of
operation excluding administration, overhead and capital amortization ranged
from $1.56 per ton where no grinding  or other preparation occurred to $20.48
per  ton where the garbage was course ground and straw was added.  The report
further states that  grinding accounted  for 30 to 60 percent of the total  cost per
ton.

       Drobny,  etal. (14) reported on the operation of six privately owned
compost operations.  Estimates of the capital and operating costs of the sys-
tems have been summarized based on operation of a 25 ton per day pilot plant
in Altoona,  Pennsylvania and  Houston, Texas.   These costs are illustrated
graphically in Figures  3 and 4 for various  capacity plants.   Operating costs
include payroll, utilities and supplies  and administration.  The reasons for
the large  range of  operating costs are not clear.

       Composting in Europe  was reported by  Hart(l?).  He found European
refuse more amenable  to composting  by virtue of its composition.  Compost-
ing costs  were reported as $2.00 per metric ton or $1.80 per short ton.
                                   -394-

-------
   CO
en
OW
             cr>      CD     r-          in      sf-


             N01 / SdVTIOd- S1SOD  DNIlVd3dO
                                                               ro
                                                                        8
                                                                      C\J
                                                                  CO


                                                                  I
                                                                   I

                                                                  h-
                                                                  u
   CO
                i
          ro
O
O
O -
                           H
                           o
                           a.
                           o
                                                                               o

                                                                               
-------
Experimental Solid Waste Disposal and Recovery Techniques

       There are a number of experimental techniques for solid waste process-
ing now in the research and pilot study stages.  Most of these processes now
under development are oriented toward the recovery of some economically use-
ful component of solid waste for reprocessing or reuse.

       A  few of the existing solid waste processes may be modified for recovery
of salvageable materials; however, the economics have not been thoroughly de-
fined at this  time.  The U.S.  Bureau of Mines has been the most active organi-
zation  in developing these recovery methods.  A Bureau of Mines pilot plant
erected in 1967  has successfully separated metallic iron, non-ferrous metal,
glass and ash tailings from incinerator residues (Davis(18)).  The plant has an
operating cost of $2.  00 per ton of residue processed and produces $10 to $12 in
recoverable  products per ton of residue, KenahanU9)  reports.  Drobny, et al.
discusses similar recovery systems applicable  to compost operations.

Pyrolysis

       Pyrolysis, or destructive  distillation, is a process of heating a material
to about 1, 500 degrees F without air to break down the organics into component
parts.  The process  was originally developed by the U.S. Bureau of Mines for
coal and coke research;  however,  the process is now finding limited applications
in the  solid waste field for the production and recovery of tars, fuel gases and
liquids, alcohols, acetic acid, charcoal ash and other organic chemicals (Sanner,
et al. '^)).   Drobny,  et al. (*-^i has estimated the net operating  costs to be about
$5.70  per ton of refuse;  however,  because of the retort residence time require-
ment of 23 hours, the process appears unprofitable on a large scale.

Biological Fractionation

       Biofractionation involves the processing of organic components of  solid
wastes in a manner similar to aerobic digestion to produce a solid residue with
nutrient value for animal feed. The system is highly experimental and costs
now average  over $40 per ton of refuse processed (Golueke'-3').

Recycling

       The ultimate  solution to solid waste disposal problems will be utilization.
Several community groups and some commercial organizations are salvaging
metals, glass,  and paper by  voluntary sorting the components of solid waste.
To date,  the majority of operations recycling municipal refuse have been  on a
very limited scale.   However, the role  of the organizations in acting as a cata-
lyst to bring about changes  in attitudes toward waste  in general has been of
great  value.
                                  -396-
-------
       Since the majority of organizations involved in recycling use volunteer
labor,  no cost estimates  are  available.  Methods of economically separating
and concentrating urban refuse must be developed before large scale applica-
tions of this method are possible.  Central storage areas must be developed
and minimum daily supplies to recovery industries must be insured (Clark'^•"•').
Conversion of solid wastes into only a few marketable products critically limits
the number of markets which can be reached and increases the possibilities of
oversupply.  Gentile(^2)  stated, "It is important to combine the element of
'separation' and 'salvage' into a complete  conversion system in order to develop
a greater variety of by-products and distribute the resultant items  and raw mat-
erial to the most diversified markets possible."

       Even though the recycling of urban refuse may be uneconomical in  itself
at the present time, it may be economically attractive when considering the total
cost to the consumer for  producing and discarding  a particular product. Not
only are the natural resources  used in the production and disposal of a product
utilized,  but  new natural resources must be developed  and utilized to replace
the discarded product. When considering  reclamation costs, possible devaluation
of affected lands and decrease in aesthetic value,  a net savings may be incurred
from recycling  of a majority  of urban refuse.  A national effort will have to be
exerted, however, before the true economic advantages of  recycling  can be fully
realized.
                                  -397-
-------
                             REFERENCES

 1.   Toftner, R. O.  and Clark, R.  M. , 1971, Intergovernmental Approaches
     to Solid Waste Management:  U.S.  Environ.  Prot.  Ag. , Solid Waste Mgt.
     Office,  Rept. No SW-47ts, 18 p.

 2.   Kramer, R. J. ,  1969, Solid Waste Survey Prepared for Clark  County -
     Springfield Regional Planning:   U.S.  Dept. Housing Urban Developm.
     Report No. P-239, 78 p.

 3.   Andres,  D.  R.  and Cope, F. W. , 1970, Solid Waste Transfer and Dis-
     posal for Rural  Areas:  California Vector Views, IT_ (7), 67-76.

 4.   Cacioppi, J.  T. , et al. , 1970,  Report of the Governor's Task Force -
     Solid Waste Management in Vermont:  State  of Vermont, 75 p.

 5.   Golueke, C. G. , 1971,  Comprehensive Studies of Solid  Waste Manage-
     ment:  3rd Ann. Rept. U. S.  Environ.  Prot.  Ag.,  Solid Waste  Mgt. Office,
     201 p.  also 1st and 2nd Ann.  Repts.,  U.S. Public Health Serv. Publ. No.
     2039 (1970), 245 p.

 6.   Emrich, G. H.  and Landon,  R. A.,  1971, Investigation of the Effects of
     Sanitary Landfills in Coal Strip Mines on Ground Water Quality:  Pa. Dept.
     Environ. Resources, Bur. Water Quality Mgt. Publ.  No.  30,  39 p.

 7.   Ralph Stone and Co. , 1968, Solid Wastes Landfill Stabilization,  An Interim
     Report:  U.S.  Dept. Health,  Educ., Welf. ,  Grant No. DO  l-UI-00018,  120 p.

 8.   Sorg, T. J. and Hickman,  H. L. ,  1970, Sanitary Landfill Facts:  U.S.
     Public Health Serv.  Publ.  No.   1792,  30 p.

 9.   Flower,  F.  B.,  1969, Combustion and Heat: Dept. Environ. Sci. , State
     of New Jersey,  15 p.

10.   Engdahl, R. B., 1969,  Solid Waste Processing, A State-of-the-Art Report
     on Unit Operations and Processes: U.S. Public Health Serv. Publ.  No.
     1856, 72 p.

11.   Gilbertson,  W.  E.  and Black,  R. J. , 1966,  A National Solid Waste Program
     is Created:  Compost Sci.  _6_  (3), 4-7.

12.   Michaels, A.,  1956,  Design Criteria for Municipal Incinerators:  Jour.  Air
     Poll. Control Assoc. _6 (3), 139-43.

13.   Greeley, S. A.,  1956, Background of Design Criteria for Municipal Incin-
     erators - The Designers View:  Jour. Air Poll. Control Assoc. 6_ (3),
     133-39.
                                   -398-
-------
14.  Drobny,  N. L. , Hull, H. E. and Testin, R. F. ,  1971,  Recovery and
     Utilization of Municipal Solid Waste:  U.S. Environ. Prot. Ag. , Solid
     Waste Mgt. Office  Publ.  No. SW-lOc, 118 p.

15.  Rogus, C. A., 1965, Sanitary Fills and Incinerators:  American City
     £0(3), 114-15.

16.  Committee on Refuse Disposal, APWA, 1966, Municipal Refuse Disposal:
     Public Administration Service, Chicago.

17.  Hart, S. A.,  1967, Solid Waste Management in Germany,  Report of the
     U.S.  Solid Waste Team Visit,  June 25 - July 8.  1967:   U.S.  Public Health
     Serv.  Publ. No.  1812,  18 p.

18.  Davis, F.  F., 1972,  A New Resource Opportunity - Urban Ore:  California
     Geology  2_5_ (5), 99-112.

19.  Kenahan, C.  B., 1971, Solid Waste,  Resources Out of  Place:  Environ.
     Sci. Tech. _5_  (7), 594-600.

20.  Sanner,  W. S. , et  al., 1970, Conversion  of Municipal and Industrial Refuse
     into Useful Materials by Pyrolysis:  U.S.  Bur. Mines Rept.  Inv. 7428, 14 p.

21.  Clark, T. D. , 1971,  Economic Realities of Reclaiming Natural Resources
     in Solid Waste:  in  Inst. Environ. Sci. Ann. Tech. Meet.  Proc., Los Angeles,
     p. 39-43.

22.  Gentile,  P.,  1964,  Resources  for the Future and Industrial Conversion:  in
     Proc., Nat.  Conf.  Solid Waste Res., Chicago, Dec. 2-4,  1963, Am. Public
     Works Assoc., p.  187-90.
                                  -399-
-------
-------
            ABANDONED AUTOMOBILE REMOVAL COSTS




                       TABLE OF CONTENTS




                                                              Page No.




Introduction                                                     403




Proposed Federal Legislation                                     403




Other Abandoned Automobile Recycling Recommendations           404




The Need for a Comprehensive Field Survey                       405




Costs of Retrieving Abandoned Automobiles                         405




References                                                      407
                                -401-
-------
-------
             ABANDONED AUTOMOBILE REMOVAL COSTS

Introduction

        According to the National Industrial Pollution Control Council^ ',
approximately 21% of the automobiles produced in the United States since
1959  are either abandoned or in automobile graveyards.  The wide use of
the basic oxygen furnace in the steel industry is the major factor respon-
sible for this accumulation of unused  automobile scrap (Dean,  et al.* ').
The oxygen furnace is limited to an initial charge of 26 percent scrap com-
pared to 48 percent in the open hearth process.  As a result, the market
value of ferrous scrap has decreased proportionately.  Although the chief
component by weight of the average automobile is steel and iron (95%),
other metals present in recoverable amounts  are lead (1%),  copper (1%),
aluminum (1%) and zinc (2%) as  reported by the Bureau of Solid Waste Man-
agement'-^  and  Dean and Sterner'**),

        Besides being a serious  waste of natural resources  (Shapiro(^)),
unused automobile scrap is responsible for health and safety problems and
environmental degradation (Dean("').  Environmental damage not only occurs
as a result  of the physical presence of an unused automobile, but also be-
cause of the increased amount of ore, coal, limestone, and  other raw mat-
erials necessary to replace the  metals discarded.  Even  though automobile pro-
duction requires 20 percent of the steel produced and imported by this country
(Javits'''),  reprocessed automobile scrap accounts for only nine  percent
of total scrap utilized (Ralph Stone and Company(°)).

        The  recycling of rubber  used in  automobile production, approxi-
mately 60 percent of the total U.S. production, has presented similar prob-
lems.  The  primary deterrent to rubber product reuse in the form of auto-
mobile tires has been storage and shipping costs (Hassell(9), Pettigrew and,
Roniger(10)).

Proposed Federal Legislation

        Proposed federal legislation that could alleviate future  problems
associated with abandoned automobiles and automobile graveyards was
recommended in 1970 by Javits^11) and Gurney(12) in Senate Bills S4204
and S4197 respectively.

       Senate Bill 4204 proposes the use of a  "disposal deposit" on all new
automobiles.  This deposit would be transferrable and refunded at the time
the automobile is  deposited at an authorized scrap center.  If the  car was
illegally abandoned, a public  agency or authorized scrap  dealer would re-
move the vehicle and collect the disposal fee.   This bill is also designed
to decrease  the  number and size of junk car lots since a dealer would not
receive the  disposal deposit until the automobile is actually sent to a re-
processing center.  Except for  initial organizational expenses, the program
                                 -403-
-------
 should be  self-financing.  This abatement method possibly could be applied to
 other  items such as  tractors, industrial equipment, refrigerators and other
 househould appliances.

        Senate Bill 4197 proposes  financial aid to states and would allot funds
 based on motor vehicle registration in the state. The additional revenues
 provided to salvage operators in the form of a "bounty payment" would be an
 incentive to scrap any unusable automobile.

        A similar system is already in operation in Maryland where licensed
 scrap processors receives $10 for each car certified as actually  reused  as
 scrap (Leib^-*)).  Another method involves  collection and accumulation of
 abandoned  automobiles by municipal agencies with aid of state funds (Karr(14))«

 Other Abandoned Automobile Recycling Recommendations

        Other recommendations designed to  make automobile  scrap recycling
 economically attractive are:

 1.   A uniform title clearance procedure which will make abandoned automobile
     reprocessing easier.

 2.   Restrictions on the importation of iron ore  and steel to encourage the use
     of scrap.

 3.   Financial incentives  to automobile reprocessors  in the form  of guaranteed
     loans and tax write-offs.

 4.   Manipulation of freight rates  to favor scrap reuse.

 5.   Federally controlled stockpiling of scrap to limit fluctuations in market
     demand and scrap availability.

 6.   Development of recycling districts with reprocessing centers.

 7.   Elimination of "built in" obsolescence in the automobile industry.

 8.   Development of more efficient methods of nonmetallic waste  separation in
     abandoned automobile reprocessing.

 9.   Acceleration and expansion of research devoted to the increased  use of
     automobile  scrap.

10.   Initiation of legislation prohibiting abandonment  of vehicles and restrictions
     on ownership of wrecked,  nonoperating or discarded vehicles as  outlined
     in the "Model Ordinance" prepared by the National Institute of Municipal
     Law Officers(15).
                                   -404-
-------
 The Need for a Comprehensive Field Survey

        A comprehensive field survey is necessary to insure the success of an
 abandoned vehicle  collection program.  Information from such a survey should
 include type of automobile,  general condition,  amount of surrounding rubble,
 and if possible, the owner of the land on which the vehicle is  located.  Location
 is probably best facilitated by assigning the vehicle a number  and marking it
 on an appropriate map.

        Many surveys have  been performed utilizing community service organi-
 zations such as the Boy Scouts of America, YMCA and other  groups.  Some-
 times  local and state agencies can be utilized in the compilation of abandoned
 automobile  data.  West Virginia used the state police to locate and obtain re-
 lease of discarded vehicles.  In some communities,  it may be possible to have
 "phone-in"  campaigns  such  as in Michigan where  citizens were informed of the
 program through the local news media as reported by General Motors  Corpor-
 ation!16).
        ChaseV !7) mentioned a bounty system where students were given a $1
reward for each automobile reported and accompanied  by a  certificate of re-
lease.  Some commonly accepted title clearance procedures must be developed
before a program such as this could be applied on a large  scale.  Another pos-
sible method that may be economically feasible  in locating abandoned automo-
biles is aerial reconnaissance.  Two people  is all that  is necessary to complete
such a survey and large areas can be viewed in  a relatively  short period of time.

Cost of Retrieving Abandoned Automobiles

       After an adequate survey has been prepared  and certificate of release or
title clearance is accomplished, actual removal  of discarded vehicles will be
possible.  In the West Virginia program, the National Guard were used to re-
trieve vehicles.  Reported costs were $40 per automobile, but it was  estimated
this  cost would be 50 percent less  if the  program was conducted when weather
conditions  were more favorable (Gandee'  ').

       In a cleanup  campaign in Columbia County, New York, the  County Health
Department  collected 12, 000 automobiles at  a unit cost of $1.67.   In programs
conducted  by the Vermont Motor Vehicle Department 13, 151 vehicles  were col-
lected at an  average  cost of $10 per  car.  Both projects used trucks to pick up
vehicles.  Automobiles were deposited in a central collection area where sal-
vage operators disposed of the accumulated scrap.

       Steen' ') reported that the  Tennessee Valley Authority has developed a
feasible method of collecting derelict vehicles in rural areas. The focal point
of this method according  to Steen'^0) is the use of a  modified truck which re-
quire only  one man to pick up, deliver, and deposit a vehicle with or without
wheels.  A summary of the results of this program based on available infor-
mation is as follows:
                                   -405-
-------
      Location

Anderson Co., N.C.
LoudonCo., Tenn.
Towns Co. , Georgia
Murphy, N. C.

TOTALS
 Number of
Automobiles
Total Expenditures   Unit Cost
   1,577
    $4,183.59
       450.00
     1,450.00
       736.36

    $6,819.95
$4.32
       The average reported unit cost of $4.32 per vehicle compares favor-
able with the estimate of $4. 50 made by the TVA during initial stages of the
program.

       Little data exists concerning the cost of vehicle retrieval labor, im-
poundment, and subcontractor cost breakdown. Rothman(^) estimates the
total cost of disposing of abandoned automobiles in New York City is $40 to
$60 per vehicle.  In areas  where impoundment is not necessary,  automobiles
may be removed by licensed processors free of charge.

       Better cost estimates will be possible when a standard format is de-
veloped for reporting results of an abandoned automobile removal program.
The  information form should include descriptions  of:

1.   Field Survey Methods
2.  Advertisement Methods
3.  Removal Techniques (including equipment, average haul distance,  con-
    dition of abandoned automobiles,  source of labor and other pertinent
    factors)
4.  Storage Facilities
5.   Final Disposition of Scrap
                                 -406-
-------
                             REFERENCES

 1.  National Industrial Pollution Control Council,  1970,  Junk Car Disposal:
     U.S.  Dept.  Comm. ,  54 p.

 2.  Dean,  K. C. , Chindgren,  C.  J.  and Valdez, E. G. ,  1972, Innovations
     in Recycling Automobile Scrap:  U.S. Bur. Mines,  1Z  p.

 3.  Bureau of Solid Waste Management,  1970,  The Automobile Cycle:  An
     Environmental and Resource Reclamation Problem:  Publ. No. SW-80,
     46 p.

 4.  Dean,  K. C. and Sterner,  J.  W. ,  1969! Dismantling a Typical Junk
     Automobile to Produce Quality Scrap:  U.S. Bur. Mines  Rept.  Inv. 7350,
     17 p.

 5.  Shapiro, I.  D., 1964, The Scrap Processor's  Role in Auto Salvage: Proc.
     Nat. Conf. Auto Salvage Inst. of Scrap Iron and Steel,  p. Dl-6

 6.  Dean,  K. C., 1967, Bureau of Mines Research for Utilizing Automobile
     Scrap:  Hearings before the Committe on Public Works,  U.S. Senate,
     416 p.

 7.  Javits, J. K. ,  1970,  Disposal of Junked and Abandoned Motor Vehicles:
     Hearings of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution before  the
     Committee on Public Works,  U.S. Senate, 416 p.

 8.  Ralph Stone and Company, 1969, Copper Content in Vehicular Scrap:
     U.S.  Bur.  Mines, 43 p.

 9.  Hassell, E. W. , 1970, The Automobile Wrecking/Dismantling Industry:
     U.S.  Dept.  Comm.,  Office Business Programs, 93  p.

10.  Pettigrew, R. J. and Roninger, R.  H. ,  1971,  Rubber Reuse and Solid
     Waste Management, Part I:  U.S.  Environ. Prot,  Ag.  , Solid Waste Mgt.
     Office Publ.  No. SW-ZZC, 1ZO p.

11.  Javits, J. K. ,  1970,  The Motor  Vehicle Disposal Act: U.S. Senate Bill
     S4204

12.  Gurney, E. J. , 1970, The Motor Vehicle  Disposal Assistance Act: U.S.
     Senate Bill S4197

13.  Leib, P.,  1971, Junk Cars -  Mines of Valuable Metal:  Appalachia _5 (2),
     1-13
                                  -407-
-------
14.   Karr, R. K. ,  1972,  Vermont Shows the Way with Junk Vehicle Program.;
     Public Works  103 (5),  104-5

15.   National Institute of  Municipal Law Officers, 1967,  Model Ordinance on
     Abandoned, Wrecked,  Dismantled or Discarded Vehicles; Wash., B.C.,
     4 p.

16.   General Motors  Corporation, 1971,  How to Harvest Abandoned Cars;
     Detroit, 19 p.

17.   Chase,  P.,  1972,  Personal Communication;  Michigan Dept. of Corrections

18.   Gandee, J. , 1972, Personal Communication:  West Virginia Dept. of High-
     ways

19.   Steen, R. J.,  1972,  Try a Tilt-Bed Truck to Solve the Junk Car Problem;
     American City 87_ (3),  123-27

20.   Steen, R. J, ,  1972,  Personal Communication: Tennessee  Valley Authority,
     Knoxville,  Tennessee-

21.   Rothman, N. , 1972, Personal Communication: New York Dept. of Sani-
     tation

22.   Management Technology,  Inc., 1970. Automobile Scrapping Processes
     and Needs for Maryland;  U.S.  Public Health Serv.  Publ. No. 2027,  64 p.
                                  -408-
-------
           EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL COSTS




                        TABLE OF CONTENTS




                                                               Page No.




Introduction                                                      411




Prevention and Control of Erosion and Sedimentation               412




Cost of Erosion and Sediment Control Structures                   414




References                                                       417




                           LIST OF TABLES




1.   Variables Affecting Erosion and Sediment Control Costs         415




2.   Summary of Sediment Collection Facility Construction Costs     416
                                 -409-
-------
-------
           EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL COSTS

Introduction

       Sediment is the greatest single pollutant of streams, lakes, ponds and
reservoirs.  Sediment lowers the quality of water for municipal and industrial
uses and for boating,  fishing, swimming, and other water based recreation; it
increases the wear on equipment,  such as turbines, pumps and sprinkler irri-
gation systems.  Sediment carries with it pesticides,  phosphates and other
chemical pollutants(1).

       Each year more than  a million acres of land in the United States are con-
verted from  agricultural use  to urban use.  Studies show that erosion on land
going into use for highways,  houses,  shopping centers and other commercial
or residential uses is about 10 times  greater than on land in cultivated row crops,
200 times greater than on land in pasture and 2, 000 times greater than on land
in timber.  The nationwide damage caused annually by sediment has been esti-
mated at more than $500 million.  Much sediment comes from agricultural land,
but the amount contributed by land undergoing urban development is high in pro-
portion to the acreage(l).

       Severe  sediment problems  occur when covering vegetation is removed
in construction areas,  when the flow regime in channels is altered by realign-
ment or  by increased  or decreased flow,  or when fill, buildings,  or bridges
obstruct the  natural flowway(^). Sediment movement  and deposition are  part
of the natural environment, but the average sediment  yield from the landscape
and the condition of stream channels tend to change with the advancing forms
of man's land-use activity. A major problem is  that the  scientist or engineer,
because  of his  relatively narrow field of investigation, cannot always completely
envision the  less desirable effects of his work and  communicate alternative sol-
utions to the  public(2).  Recent publications, Powell,  et  al. (3),  West Virginia
Department of Natural Resources^),  Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources(5), and Soil Conservation Service^/ indicate  that governmental ag-
encies are becoming  very much concerned with damages  caused to the environ-
ment by  erosion and sedimentation.

       Urbanization tends to  increase  both the flood volume and the flood peak
as pointed out by Leopold(^) in his study summarizing existing knowledge of the
effects of urbanization on hydrologic factors.  Much of the erosion occurs during
the construction period,  but areas below a construction site may erode more
after construction is  completed because of the rapid runoff from impervious
pavement, parking lots,  or compacted soil.  Increased runoff erodes  stream
banks and channels and causes flooding below the construction site.

       Surface mining activities are responsible for serious erosion and sedi-
mentation problems in some areas because  of the highly erodable nature  of
spoil banks(^) and the  usual sparseness of vegetation as  compared to "undis-
turbed" areas(8).  In other areas,  timbering operations,  with attendant logging
and haul roads  and removal of a forest canopy which causes  increased runoff,
                                  -411-
-------
can be the most damaging environmental problem,  particularly downstream of
the operation.  The  major source of sedimentation pollution in some areas is
the "right-of-way" for a powerline, pipeline or other utility.

Prevention and Control of Erosion and Sedimentation

       As with most stream pollutants, sediment can best be prevented at the
source, i.e. , control erosion and runoff at or  near the area undergoing urbani-
zation, deforestation or surface mining.  Temporary or emergency "back-up"
precautions can be employed  using sedimentation and storage collection struc-
tures. The structures must be designed to insure there is  no danger of failure
which could cause downstream damage.  On large projects,  a comprehensive
survey must be performed to evaluate  geologic, hydrologic and engineering
design considerations. This  survey is necessary to insure that the structure
will provide adequate  sediment and storage capacity and be of safe design.

       Since urbanization and other land uses tend to increase flood volume
and the flood peak, provision for flood storage  upstream will decrease flood
peaks and sedimentation yield and compensate  for the increased flow caused
by land use.  Reservoir storage installed on a  river reduces the magnitude of
peak discharge by spreading the flow over a longer time period.  Channels
themselves provide  temporary storage and act as  if they were small reser-
voirs. Overbank flooding on  the flat flood plain is a way that natural rivers
provide temporary storage and thus decrease flood peaks downstream.

       Flood storage  for urban areas can take  many forms including the fol-
lowing(°):

1.  Drop inlet boxes at street gutter inlets.
2.  Street-side swales instead of paved gutters and curbs.
3.  Check dams, ungated, built in headwater swales.
4.  Storage volumes in basements of large buildings receiving  water from
    roofs or gutters and  emptying into natural streams  or swales.
5.  Off channel storage volumes such  as  artificial ponds,  fountains or tanks.
6.  Small reservoirs in stream channels such as  those  built for farm ponds.

       The following factors  determine the amount of erosion that occurs in
an area:

1.  Soil types
2.  Slope of the  terrain
3.  Rainfall intensity
4.  Infiltration capacity of the soils
5.  Amount and  kind of vegetation
6.  Construction methods
                                   -412-
-------
       Erosion and sedimentation can be controlled effectively, and at reason-
able cost,  if certain principles are followed in the use and treatment of land.

1.  Know the soil characteristics, geology, hydrology and topography of the
    area.  Information on soils can be found in the Soil Conservation Service
    (SCS) soil survey report of the area.  If there is no report, information
    may be available  in the  "open files" of the SCS District Office or the Agri-
    cultural Extension Service.  Soil surveys describe the characteristics and
    properties  of each kind  of  soil in the area - its  texture, slope, depth,
    erodibility, permeability,  degree of wetness, presence of impervious or
    porous layers  and other information useful in construction.  The soils
    information found in these  reports,  though very useful for an understanding
    of soils problems, is general in nature.  It does not replace the need for
    professional assistance in  the design of structures where failure would
    cause  loss  of life and property damage.

2.  Have a site development plan that includes provisions for control of run-
    off,  erosion and sedimentation and reclamation of areas disturbed  by the
    land use.

3.  Do not grade or strip more land than needed for immediate use.  In this
    way,  soil is left bare for the shortest period of time.  This calls for de-
    veloping large tracts in small workable units.   In the case of strip mining
    and timbering  operations,  reclamation of disturbed areas should be per-
    formed concurrently with development.

4.  In construction projects, keep grading at  a minimum and  remove only un-
    desirable trees wherever possible.  Protect critical areas with mulch or
    temporary  cover crops  and with mechanical methods such as diversions
    and prepared outlets.

5.  Reduce velocity and control the flow of runoff by detaining runoff on the
    site  to trap sediment by constructing sediment basins.  Consideration
    should be given to offsite measures  that may be needed  to prevent dam-
    age to downstream land and property by either erosion or sediment.

6.  During  construction use soils that are suitable to  the development.

7.  Establish permanent vegetation and  install erosion control structures as
    soon as possible.
                                  -413-
-------
Cost of Erosion and Sediment Control Structures

       Normally no two erosion or sediment control structures are alike.
Each facility has to be  individually designed to suit site conditions and to
satisfy hydrological requirements.  Therefore, no standard cost  estimate
per unit of watershed or other commonly accepted method of basing cost on
unit area  is practical without first considering site conditions and hydrologi-
cal requirements.  Some of the variables that affect construction costs for
these structures are presented in  Table  1.

       Most of the reported costs  for erosion and sediment control in Penn-
sylvania and West Virginia were for structures constructed in conjunction
with highway projects.  These structures are usually designed for a limited
life and require frequent dredging  or cleaning out to maintain operating
efficiency.  The unit cost estimates  reported by the highway departments are
presented in Table 2.   The design  of these structures conforms to design re-
quirements  given in publications by West Virginia Department of  Natural
Resources^), Soil Conservation Serviced) and Pennsylvania Department of
Forests and Waters(l°).

       On small projects,  the largest  cost may be mobilization of equipment.
It may, therefore,  be advantageous to  perform reclamation on a watershed
basis so as  to reduce individual mobilization costs and possibly the number
of structures required.
                                    -414-
-------
                               TABLE 1

  VARIABLES AFFECTING EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL COSTS

I.   Type of Installation
     A.  Dams  - Embankment, rpckfill, concrete, log and pole/brush or
        other type of dam structure
     B.  Ponds -  Excavated, natural or embankment
     C,  Diversions  - Channel, ditch or other methods
     D.  Riprap for slope, shore or channel protection
     E.  Other  types of installations

2.   Size of Installation Required

3.   Hydrological Requirements - Design Flood

4.   Design Life of Installation

5.   Site Preparation
     A.  Access roads
     B.  Clearing and grubbing
     C.  Water diversion and dewatering
     D.  Other  site preparation requirements

6.   Availability and Haul Distances for Construction Materials

7.   Building Code Specifications, Inspection Fees, Performance Bond
     Requirements and Legal Requirements

8.   Post Construction Reclamation
                                  -415-
-------
                              TABLE 2

SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT COLLECTION FACILITY CONSTRUCTION COSTS

Structure  Type                                 Unit    Cost

       Excavated Dams or Ponds                C.Y.    $7 - $8
       Embankment Dams                      C.Y.    $4 - $6
       Stone Check Dams                       Ft.2    $10 - $30
       Log and Pole/Brush Dams               Dam    $150
       Riprap
           Dumped                            C.Y.    $5.50 -$6.75
           Placed                             C.Y.    $12 - $16
       Diversion Ditches (2' Deep x 6' Wide)     L.F.    $l-$2.75
       Sand Bags                              Bag     $2.50

Maintenance

       Sediment Dredging                      C.Y.    $5 - $7
       Hauling  ....  First Mile              C.Y.    $.55 -$.70
               ....  Each Additional  Mile     C.Y.    $.20-$. 25
                                 -416-
-------
                             REFERENCES

 1.  Soil Conservation Service, 1970, Controlling Erosion on Construction
     Sites:  Agriculture Information Bull.  347, 32 p.

 2.  Guy, Harold P. ,  1970, Sediment Problems in Urban Areas:  U.S. Geol.
     Survey Circ. 601-E,  8 p.

 3.  Powell, M.  D.,  Winter,  W. C.  and Bodwitch,  W. P., 1970, Community
     Action Guidebook for  Soil Erosion and Sediment Control:  Nat. Assoc.
     Counties Res. Foundation, Wash., D. C. ,  64 p.

 4.  West Virginia Department of Natural  Resources, 1972,  Drainage Handbook
     for Surface  Mining; Div.  Reclamation,  prepared by Div.  Planning and
     Development in cooperation with Soil  Conservation Service, 65 p.

 5.  Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources,  1972,  Implemen-
     tation Plan and Regulations Dealing With Erosion and Sedimentation Con-
     trol: Adopted by the Environmental Quality Board,  September 21, 1972,
     7 p.

 6.  Leopold, Luna B. ,  1968,  Hydrology for Urban Land Planning  - A Guidebook
     on the Hydrologic Effects of Urban Land Use:  U.S. Geol. Surv. Circ. 554,
     18 p.

 7.  Adams, L.  M. ,  Capp, J. P. and Eisentrout, E. , 1971, Reclamation of
     Acidic Coal -  Mine Spoil with Fly Ash:  U.  S.  Bur.  Mines Rept. Inv.  7504,
     29 p.

 8.  Bramble,  W.  C. and  Ashley, R.  H. ,  1955, Natural Revegetation of Spoil
     Banks in Central Pennsylvania:  Ecology _36.(3), p. 417-23.

 9.  Soil Conservation Service, 1969,  Engineering Standard - Debris Basin:
     Technical Guide No. 350, 11 p.

10.  Pennsylvania Department of Forest and Waters, 1968, Bridges. Walls,
     Fills, Channel Changes.  Etc.:  Water and Power Resources Board,
     Form FWWR-23, 23 p.
                                   -417-
-------
-------
             INDUSTRIAL WASTES "ORPHAN" AND OTHER
        ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

                        TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                Page No.

Introduction                                                       421

Types  of Solid Wastes                                             421

Cost Analysis and Methods of Disposal                             422

References                                                        425

                           LIST OF TABLES

1.  Ash Collection and Utilization in the United States -  1971         423
                                -419-
-------
-------
             INDUSTRIAL WASTES "ORPHAN" AND  OTHER
        ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

Introduction

       This section is concerned with accumulations  of solid wastes other than
municipal,  abandoned automobiles, and earth materials from the  coal mining
industry.  Further, the solid wastes  are abandoned and are now a public re-
sponsibility; they may be more a public nuisance than a source of air or water
pollution; and one can reasonably expect to find these wastes in the  Monongahela
River Basin. The solid waste accumulations are from manufacturing,  mining,
timbering,  transportation and other abandoned activities of man in the Monon-
gahela River Basin.

       Many of the wastes have littered the landscape and stream beds  for
a long  period of time, a hundred years or more, although, the volume of  solid
waste has increased  rapidly in the last 50 years.   The solid  wastes  fall  into
three main  categories of materials:

1.   Materials of metal manufacture which can be classified  as scrap metal.

2.   Wood product materials including timbering and manufacture.

3.   Soil and rock type materials including brick, coke breeze, fly ash,  slag
     and  other materials  resulting from production and manufacture.

Types  of Solid Wastes

       Other than coal mine refuse,  abandoned automobiles  and municipal
wastes,  there is very little information on the types,  characteristics and
quantities of abandoned industrial and other  solid wastes that can  be found in
the Monongahela River Basin.  The following list is based  on a knowledge of
the history  of industrial development within  the area and, for each industry or
activity the type or solid wastes that  can be  expected  are given.

1.   Coke Making Industry  - Coke breeze, beehive ovens,  abandoned buildings,
     track and other metal  equipment associated with  coke  manufacture.

2.   Coal Fired Power Plants  - Fly ash,  bottom ash,  boiler  slag,  abandoned
     buildings and metal plant  equipment.

3.   Coal Processing Plants and Other  Mining Equipment - Tipples,  hoists,
     engines,  pumps,  track, mine cars, scales, abandoned buildings and other
     wood and metal equipment.

4.   Railroad Industry - Abandoned track, ties, signalling  equipment, water
     towers, bridges  and other wood and metal equipment.

5.   Glass Industry - Slag,  cullet,  buildings  and equipment.
                                  -421-
-------
 6.   Pottery and Stoneware Manufacture - Broken crockery, refractories,
     platermolds,  abandoned buildings and equipment.

 7.   Brick Manufacture - Broken brick, molds,  ovens, plant and equipment.

 8.   Foundries - Stone furnaces,  refractories, waste products and metal
     working  equipment.

 9.   Chemical Industry - Plant wastes, abandoned buildings and equipment.

10.   Forest Products Industry - Slashings and bark from timbering operations,
     and sawdust,  sawmill slabs and scrap wood from  sawmill operations.

11.   Petroleum Industry -  Abandoned pumps, feeder lines,  pipe, derricks
     and other equipment from oil and gas production.  Wastes, trash, spent
     catalysts,  scrap lumber  and dense sludges from refinery operations.

12.   River Navigation  - Abandoned piers, wharfs, buildings, barges,  boats
   •  and other wood  and metal equipment.

13.   Metal Smelting  and Refining -  Slag, obsolete or abandoned plant and equip-
     ment,  residues  from  refining  iron, lead, zinc,  aluminum and other metals.

14.   Demolition Contractors - Refuse,  concrete, brick,  lumber and scrap
     metal usually in piles.

 Cost Analysis and Methods of Disposal

        An in depth survey has not been made on location and quantities of solid
 wastes discussed  in this section,  but it appears, that  for many of these wastes,
 the methods  of disposal and costs discussed in the section "Solid Wastes Hand-
 ling and Disposal  Costs" could be used for estimating  purposes.

        Most of the scrap metal would be iron and steel  and could have salvage
 value, the value depending on tonnage and size of pieces at a  specific location.
 Scrap metal  dealers may be willing to  salvage  this material if permission is
 granted by property owners.

          There is no information  on abandoned chemical wastes in the Monon-
 gahela River Basin.  It may be hazardous to disturb chemical wastes and each
 occurrance  of  this type material will have to be investigated prior to  disposal
 to prevent water pollution and handling problems.

        Fly ash, bottom ash and boiler slag does have limited  use and old dis-
 posal areas are being worked for construction materials and  other uses. Table
 1 based on a publication by Sikes  and Kolbeck^) tabulates ash collection and
 utilization in the United States in 1971.  The percent of  ash utilization has  risen
 from 12. 1 in 1966 to 20. 1 in  1971.
                                   -422-
-------
                 f—

       11     «
         .  G     o
       "(rt        °°
       O —
       H        2
                                                              vO
                                                              o
                                                              CO
                                                              (M
                                                                     in
                                                                     GO
                                                                               rH     00
                                                                               •*     m
                                                                                     04     00
                                                                                     ro     00
                                                                                     O-     1-1
                                                                               r*j    in
                                                                               o^    (\j
                                                                               ~i    in
                                                                                                                                       vQ

                                                                                                                                       oo"
w
H

H
to
P
W
H
       H
       ffi
       H
 h  a
 tu  o
'o —
m
*
-o
00
r-

o"
IV
          r-
          vO
              S  H
                                                        m

                                                        t-
                                                                                     vO
                                                                                     in
                                                                                     o
                                                                                     00
                                                                                     00
                                                                                            in
                                                                                            oo
                                                                                            oo
                                                                                            00
                                                                                            sO
                                                                                            O
                                                                                            r-
                                                                                                                oo
                                                                                                                M
                                                                                         iv

                                                                                         •*
                                                                                                                      t-

                                                                                                                      o
                                                                                                                                oo
                                                                                                                                ro
                                                                                                                                       oo
                                                                                                                                       00
                                                                                                                                o
                                                                                                                                       o
                                                                                                                                (M
                                                                                                                                i-l     vO
                                                                                                                                vO     rH
W
J
K
       N
       rH

       1-1
          in
   ^     °.

    0     in
   H     r-

          i"
                                                                                     co     en     r-
                                                                                     r*-     so     -^
                                                                                     I-H     ro     i—<
                                                                                                                tsi
                                                                                                                o
                                                                                                                00
                                                                                                                         OO
                                                                                                                         N
                                                                                                                         f-
                                                                                                                                t-
                                                                                                                                00
                                                                                                                m
                                                                                                                in
                                                                                                                N
                                                                                                                to"
       O
       n
       H
       O
       H

C
a
a
U
0,
I_(

|7
ollected
U
_g
CO
<
tilized
p
jf
CO
<;
^ cr-
C m
•O ^
4) H
3$
B
i— (


C5
4i
J3
^_,
.2

a
>
<4
43
Mixed wit
f
PJ




h
01

u
(5

V
forming e




n
u
**H
O

ment
w
o
"a.
Partial r<

ro




CO
4-1
U
•o
o
rl
(X

0)
oner
o
rH
a
rl
u
e
js






r,

0
o

a
o




                                                                                     w

                                                                                     ^l<
                                                                                            nt
                                                                                            oo
                                                                                            M
                                                                                            ni
                                                                                            &0

                                                                                            3





rH
rt
Fill mater

vO





X
1
rt
O.
(n
Filler in a

r-






co
3
O
Miscellane

00


ra
.*_>
t/5
4J
a
3
a,
00
o

to
 4J
O to
a °
C tj
ID
d o
C
'J3 ^

<) i

m
<
t)
N
.rH
rH
s
T3
N
P
(O

m
o
E-i
to
nj
O
H
0
QJ
O

0,
a
0
0
w
a
0
separated i
•*H
#


2
_.;
u
Q)
"o
T3
C
nj
CA
V
Source: Sit




                                                                            -423-
-------
       Disposal of much of the solid waste can best be handled at the local
level.  A community action program designed to clean up the local  environ-
ment would remove many of these public nuisances.  If approached, scrap
dealers and property owners may be more than willing to cooperate in dis-
posing of solid wastes littering the landscape.  Clean up  programs  similar
to those initiated for removal of abandoned automobiles may be effective.
Most of the solid wastes are not sources of air and water pollution,  there-
fore, the part played by the Appalachian Regional Commission should be to
encourage  community  action programs.
                                  -424-
-------
                            REFERENCES

1.  Sikes, P. G. and Kilbeck,  H. J. ,  1972,  Disposal and Utilization of Power
    Plant Ash in a Metropolitan Environment:  Am.  Soc. Civil Eng. Ann. and
    Nat. Environ. Eng.  Meet., Oct.  16-22,  Meeting Preprint 1849,  30 p.

2.  Gibbs & Hill, 1972,  Preliminary Tabulation of Collected Data: prepared
    for Appalachian Regional Commission as part of study "Development of
    an Overall Economic /Environmental Plan for the Monongahela River
    Basin"
                                 -425-
-------
-------
ADDENDUM
   -427-
-------
-------
                              ADDENDUM





                         TABLE OF CONTENTS





                                                                 Page No.





Air Pollution Control and Wastewater Treatment                    431





Erosion and Sedimentation Control                                  433





Strip Mine and Refuse Bank Reclamation                            434





References                                                        436
                                  -429-
-------
-------
                              ADDENDUM

Air Pollution Control and Wastewater Treatment

       Because of increasingly stringent SO2 emission regulations and a limited
reserve  of low cost,  low sulfur fuels,  a SOX removal process operated in an
efficient and economic  manner is urgently needed.  A new process designed to
control atmospheric  pollution in industries with the recovery of useful products
has been developed by Lin(l) in the laboratory.

       The new SO  removal system is described briefly as follows:
       The combustion gases from the  furnace  containing SC>2i SO^ and suspend-
ed solid particles are passed through a dust collector for removal of fly ash.
The flue gas containing SO  is then passed.through a catalytic oxidation converter
                          X
to oxidize SO2 into 803.  The flue gas then goes to a lime reactor where lime  is
purposely fed in excess  of the amount required  for complete  conversion of 803 to
CaSO4.  Since the flue gas  from the catalytic oxidation converter contains mois-
ture,  the following reactions take place:

       S03 (g) + H20 (g) 	^H2S04 (g)

       H2S04 (g) + CaO (s) 	^CaS04 (s) + H2O (g)

       803 is a very  reactive gas and may also combine directly with CaO to
form CaSO4:

       SO3 (g) + CaO (s)	5==CaSO4 (s)

       Dust particles in the gas discharged from  the lime reactor are  further
separated by a dust collector and the effluent will be substantially free  from dust
and SOX.  Nearly 100 percent SO3removal has been achieved in the laboratory.
The reacted lime particles are discharged from the lime reactor into a powder
processing  unit. After treatment,  a new product  is released from the  unit which
has been named "Linfans. "

       The important feature of this process is that the reactions in the lime
reactor are between gaseous and solid reactants, accompanied by a molecular
diffusion in the  solid reactant.  Since the reactant (CaO) added to the system is
in a solid form,  the rate  of application  needed may not be high and can  easily
be controlled.

       Laboratory investigation has shown the solid product,  Linfans,  contain-
ing anhydrous CaSO4 and unspent lime has the following uses:

1.  It can  be  combined with fly ash for production of construction materials.

2.  Used for  flooring plaster and hard  finish plaster.
                                  -431-
-------
3.  Used in wastewater treatment for acid neutralization and for phosphate
    and turbidity removal.

       A  series  of laboratory experiments were performed to compare Lin-
fans produced from different SOX removal systems with high calcium lime in
regard to sludge volume produced in neutralization of acid solutions.   The
tests were conducted on one percent (1%)  by volume sulfuric acid solutions.
In all cases,  Linfans produced the least sludge volume.  The  percentage of
sludge volume produced from neutralization was dependent on the percent of
unspent lime in  Linfans.  The percent of unspent lime should  be neither ex-
tremely high or low.

       The sludges from neutralization of acid solutions by high calcium lime
have poor compaction characteristics which are attributed to  the typical acic-
ular shape of the crystals that are formed.  By contrast, the  CaSC>4 crystals
from neutralization by unspent lime in Linfans are in rhombic form.  It is
believed the insoluble anhydrous CaSC^ in Linfans serves as nuclei for accel-
erated growth of CaSO^ particles.  This  results in higher  settling  velocities,
a considerable reduction in sludge volume and a shorter retention  time in a
sedimentation tank.  Therefore, it is indicated that sludge handling and dis-
posal problems  can be greatly minimized if Linfans is used.

       It  must be emphasized the information given in the publication by Lin(l)
indicates  a limited amount of laboratory  testing has been performed.  It appears
a great deal more laboratory testing will  have to be accomplished  before pilot
studies can be considered.

       Linfans possibly can be used in treatment  of wastewater from pickling
processes used  in basic steel making, metal working and plating.  It is not
known whether Linfans would be suitable for treatment of acid mine drainage.
The laboratory experiments were performed using strong  sulfuric acid solu-
tions (over 18, 000 mg/1 of H^SO,^) and there were no interfering metallic  ions.
This sulfate concentration exceeds that of most mine drainage discharges.
Calcium sulfate (CaSO4) is not normally  a precipitate in sludge from mine
drainage treatment because  sulfate ions are removed only when the solubility
product of calcium sulfate is reached (about ZOOO  mg/1 CaSO^).  It appears
Linfans would add additional hardness to the mine drainage effluent and cause
gypsum scale  on plant equipment and  possibly in the  effluent.   The possibility
of seeding high sulfate mine drainage to promote larger crystal growth and
therefore dense sludge should be investigated.

       Quicklime (CaO) does not react rapidly and efficiently with acids to
neutralize them.  It must first hydrate (convert to Ca(OH)2) before it reacts
readily and efficiently.  There are hazards connected with the use of quick-
lime.  It is a very caustic irritant to  human skin, eyes and mucuous mem-
branes.  A quantity of quicklime suddenly dumped into an influent can cause
a steam explosion.
                                  -432-
-------
Erosion and Sedimentation Control

        Two recent publications, one by Thronson(2) and the other by Becker
and Mills(3) contain a wealth of information on erosion and sedimentation con-
trol.

        Thronson comes to the conclusion the cost of effective erosion and sedi-
ment control is probably minimal and that the principal problem lies in achiev-
ing effective administrative control and enforcement by concerned agencies
involved in erosion and sediment control programs.  It is  extremely difficult
to obtain reliable information regarding the cost of temporary erosion and
sediment control used only during construction.  Normally the costs are hidden
in unit costs for excavation and compaction, pipe and other equipment.  It is
difficult to define the temporary and permanent portion of  a facility.  Tempor-
ary erosion and sediment control for highways  with average construction costs
of $1, 000,  000 per mile were estimated at $10,  000 to $15, 000 per mile.  The
cost for control in housing developments was given as $40  per lot by engineer-
ing and geologic consultants and $100 per lot by developers.

       A basin-wide task force, which includes representatives  from all con-
cerned  organizations within the basin,  probably has the best chance of develop-
ing and carrying out a successful control program.  Trained manpower can  be
made available by utilizing specific qualified personnel such as geologists,
hydrologists,  agronomists,  engineers, planners, lawyers  and managers from
the various participating groups within the task force.  The crucial  element of
a sedimentation control program is  the enforcement of adopted standards.

       The publication by Becker and Mills presents  a comprehensive  approach
to the problem of erosion and sediment control from beginning of project plan-
ning to completion of construction.  The  "Guidelines"  is designed and intended
for use by  both technical and lay personnel.  It provides:

1.  A description of how a preliminary site evaluation determines what poten-
    tial sediment and erosion control problems exist at a  site being considered
    for development.

2.  Guidance for the planning of an effective sediment and erosion control
    plan.

3.  Procedures for the  implementation of that  plan during operations.

       Technical information on 42  sediment and erosion control products,
practices,  and techniques is contained in four appendices.
                                  -433-
-------
Strip Mine and Refuse Bank Reclamation

       Heine and Nickeson(4) recommend the use of substantially increased
quantities of limestone in reclaiming old strip mines in alkalinity-poor water-
sheds.  The cost of limestone is essentially defrayed by limiting backfilling
to the degree necessary to improve surface runoff and  reduce erosion.

       Studies have shown there is less probability of success  in backfilling
and planting old strip mines than in reclamation of current active operations.
This is  principally due to the mixture of acid materials and tops oil in the spoil.
The  problem is further complicated  by the stony nature of old spoils.  Spoil
segregation and burial of acid materials are no longer  possible and there are
no concentrations of "soil type" material.   The stony material forming the  top
layer after reclamation  of an old strip mine will be of the same general chemi-
cal composition as the old surface and be as permeable (to both air and water)
as it was prior to grading.  Since there is  little soil type material in the top
layer, it is difficult to establish a dense ground cover.  Trees  are the only
vegetation that can be readily established and they do not rapidly form a soil
profile.  The surface of many reforested strip mines planted with trees  as
long as  30 years ago are almost as stony as the surface of a new unreclaimed
strip mine.

       Many old strip mines have developed excellent tree growths on some
portions of the disturbed areas while other  portions remain "hot" and devoid
of vegetation.  An important practical advantage to "limestone  reclamation"
is that areas with well established tree  growth can be left undisturbed except
for application of lime,  fertilizer and seed  to accelerate vegetation growth.

       In the Alder Run and Muddy Run watersheds, Clearfield County,  Penn-
sylvania,  Heine and Nickeson recommended the use of  quarry limestone (Class
2RC).  It is an aggregate of particle sizes  ranging from dust to 3/4 inch.  They
recommend an average layer of one  inch thickness be spread over the entire
strip mine (approximately 200 tons per acre).  In practice the limestone will
not be evenly distributed, but will be spread thicker in areas of thick spoil and
maximum recharge. The limestone is spread at the completion of grading  and
disked into the top layer of the  spoil.

       The presence of  this relatively fine  grained material will decrease  the
stoniness of the top layer, making it more acceptable for grass growth.  The
top layer will be alkaline for many years,  allowing grasses to become well
established and a soil profile to develop.

       The cost of quarry limestone (Class 2RC) was given as  $1. 15 per ton
by bulk,  $2.80 delivered, for the Alder Run and Muddy Run projects.

       The U. S. Bureau of Mines(^» °) has demonstrated the use of fly ash in
strip mine and refuse bank reclamation.  The addition  of large quantities of fly
ash  (150 to 800 tons per acre) will not only  dilute the surface materials and
                                   -434-
-------
neutralize acids,  but produce physical changes in the material that will en-
hance plant survival and growth.  The bulk density of the mixture is decreased,
thereby increasing pore volume,  moisture availability,  and air capacity, hence
improving conditions for root penetration and growth.

       Fly ash resembles soil  in certain physical and chemical properties and
it is mostly in the silt size range.  Beside often being alkaline, it contains plant
nutrients  and possesses moisture-retaining and soil conditioning  capabilities.
Analyses  indicate fly ash contains many trace elements  essential to plant growth.

       The use of fly ash in reclamation of strip mine and refuse banks  helps
solve the  fly ash disposal problem.  According to Sikes  and Kolbeckl') more
than 27, 000, 000 tons of fly ash were produced in 1971 by power plants and less
than 12 percent was utilized. Fly ash can be  obtained from power plants at no
cost in many areas.  The only costs attributed to using fly ash would be  hauling
the  fly ash from the power plant site to the reclamation  area and  those associ-
ated with  spreading and disking.
                                  -435-
-------
                            REFERENCES

1.  Lin, Ping-Wha,  1972, Air Pollution Control and Wastewater Treatment
    in One Unique Process:  ASCE Ann.  and Nat. Environ.  Eng. Meet. ,
    Oct. 16-22, Preprint 1786, 23 p.

2.  Thronson, R. E. ,  1972,  Control of Erosion and Sediment Deposition from
    Construction of Highways and Land Development:  U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency,  Office of Water Programs, 50 p.

3.  Becker,  B. C.  and Mills, T. R. ,  1972, Guidelines for Erosion and Sedi-
    ment Control Planning and Implementation:  U.S. Environmental Protec-
    tion Agency, Office of Research and Monitoring, EPA-R2-72-015,  prepared
    by Hittman Assoc. , Inc.  for Maryland Department of Water Resources, 228 p.

4.  Heine, W. N. and Nickeson, T.  L. , 1971, Concept Paper  on the Proposed
    Use of Limestone in Strip Mine Reclamation:  p. 227-36 in Skelly and Loy,
    Muddy Run Mine Drainage Pollution Abatement Project, Operation Scarlift
    SL 155:  Rept.  to Pa. Dept. Environ. Resources,  239 p.

5.  Adams,  L. M. ,  Capp,  J. P.  and Gillmore, D. W. ,  1972,  Coal Mine Spoil
    and Refuse Bank Reclamation with Powerplant Fly Ash:  Third Mineral
    Waste  Utilization Symposium,  March 14-16,  Chicago, 7 p.

6.  Adams,  L. M. ,  Capp,  J. P.  and Eisentrout, E. ,  1971, Reclamation of
    Acidic Coal-Mine Spoil with Fly Ash: U.S. Bur. Mines Rept. Inv. 7504,
    29 p.

7.  Sikes,  P. G. and Kolbeck, H.  J. ,  1972,  Disposal and Utilization of Power
    Plant Ash in a  Metropolitan Environment:  ASCE Ann. and Nat.  Environ.
    Eng. Meet., Oct. 16-22, Preprint 1849,  30 p.
                                  -436-
-------
                                ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

  The purpose of this publication is to provide data •which will enable the
  Appalachian Regional Commission to estimate costs of pollution abatement
  in the Monongahela River Basin.  In order to perform this function, the
  Appalachian Regional Commission needed an effective, workable handbook on
  pollution control costs and factors effecting these costs.

  This study was performed by Michael Baker, Jr.,  Inc., for the Appalachian
  Regional Commission under ARC Contract No. 72-87/RPC-713 titled "Analysis
  of Pollution Control Costs."  Support came from the U.S. Environmental
  Protection Agency under Grant 1^010 HQC.

  The cooperation of many individuals in government and in private industry
  in supplying information used in the study is gratefully acknowledged.
  Special credit must be given to James F.  Boyer and Virginia E. Gleason of
  Bituminous Coal Research,  Inc.; Ronald D. Hill and Elmore C.  Grim of the
  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency; Clifford H.  McConnell,  Fred S.  Oldham,
  Alexander E.  Molinski, Michael D.  Yaccino, Willis R. Devens,  Robert Buhrman
  and Donald Fowler of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources;
  Dr.  H.  B.  Charmbury and Dr.  Harold L. Lovell of Pennsylvania State University;
  Benjamin C.  Green of the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources;
  Malcolm 0.  Magnuson, Edward A.  Mihok and  Robert  J.  Evans of the U.S.  Bureau
  of Mines:  Dr.  Gerald L.  Barthauer and Jerry L. Lombardo of Consolidation
  Coal Co.,  Herbert E. Steinman of Jones £  Laughlin Steel Corp.; John C.  Draper
  of Duquesne Light Co.; John W.  Foreman of Gwin,  Dobson and Foreman, Inc.;
  Franklin H.  Mohney of Pennsylvania Coal Mining Association;  and Stephen
  McCann of Western Pennsylvania Coal Operators Association.

  The study was  performed by the Geotechnical Engineering Department and
  Bionomics Studies Group of Michael Baker, Jr., Inc.
4U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1974 546-317/32Z  1-3    14-37
-------
-------
SELECTED WATER
RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
                                            1, Report No.
                                                               w
                                                                S. Report Daw Feb. ,  197^
                                                                6.
                                                                8, Performing Organization

                                                              BAKER-ARK- 73-04
          Analysis of Pollution Control Costs
          Frank J.  Doyle, Harasiddhiprasad G. Bhatt,
  and John R.  Rapp
  Michael Baker, Jr. ,  Inc.
  4301 Dutch Ridge Road
  Beaver, Pennsylvania  15009

12. sp-y -w<,g organisation  Appalachian Regional Conwaitsion and U.S.
      -.._,' -i •<-   Environmental Protection Agency Report
                 Number EPA-6?0/2-7^-009, February
                                                                 1^010 HQC
                                                                72-87/RPC-713
                                                                   , ;.•„ df Report su
                                                                            Proteebion
                                                                                Agency
        In August,  1971,  the Environmental Protection Agency convened the Mononga-
hela Enforcement Conference in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  At this meeting the
Appalachian Regional Commission was assigned the task of developing a comprehen-
sive environmental improvement program for the Monongahela River Basin.  The
study is one of several performed for the Commission as part of this assignment and
provides data which will enable it to estimate  costs  of pollution abatement in the
Monongahela River Basin.
        The report fulfills requirements for an effective, workable handbook on pol-
lution control costs and factors effecting these costs.  The information in the report
is based on the latest technological developments and cost analyses of recent reclama-
tion projects.
        Although the report  was developed for  the Monongahela River Basin study,
the cost estimates and supporting data should  prove useful for all of Appalachia and
other areas  with similar topography, mine drainage pollution problems and mining
history.
        *Coal mine drainage abatement and treatment, *Refuse bank and mine fires,
 *Mine subsidence control, *Abatement of pollution from sources other than coal
 mining, surface mines,  coal refuse banks, mine sealing,  mine drainage treatment,
 air pollution,  solid waste, erosion and sedimentation control, abandoned automobiles

        # Pollution control costs, *Monongahela River Basin (Pennsylvania,
 West Virginia and Maryland)
                        19, Security Class.
                          (Report)
                        .'0, Secunty Ct .>,
                                        21. No, of
                                       vii,p«6
                                        22. Price
Send To:

WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINQTON, O.C. 20240
        Frank J. Doyle
                                             Michael Baker,  Jr. ,  Inc.
-------
-------